Looking at both perspectives it is easy to see the problems they both have in explaining crime and where they seem to make perfect sense. Both concepts were interesting and provided thought and the pioneers of both set precedence and have long since been adapted by others. Hirschi seemed a little too vague in his explanations with very little backup in his theories and his model of four elements seemed flawed. How could he say that a law-abiding person isn't likely to offend and he offers no proof to support his suggestion? He also states that a businessperson would be too involved in business matters not to commit a crime, Marxist would totally disagree, and they would say that he is more likely to be deviant within a corporate structure although should it occur it is highly unlikely the public would be made aware of it. However the question of mental state of an individual hasn't even been raised by any of the sociologists to explain why a person may offend. Merton seemed to make a lot of sense but there seemed to be something missing in his explanations on why crime exists why some commit and others don't, perhaps the reality is there is no definite answer on why it exists.…
