Through the perspectives of sociological criminology and psychiatric criminology, Andrea Yates crimes will be thoroughly explained. In 2002, she was initially charged and found guilty in the death of three her children; the crown did not try her on all five counts (Lezon, 2006, para. 3). In 2006, a jury in an appellate court the initial decision was reversed and Yates was not guilty by reason of insanity (CNN Library, 2016, para 1). Sociological criminology analyzes factors that include: race, gender, age, socio-economic status, and religion (Bartol, Bartol, 2016, p.7). This paper will specifically explain Yates crimes through a sociological lens accounting for various factors. Also, when analyzing her crime, the perspective of psychiatric …show more content…
Social control theory, and Agnew’s version of strain theory both explain her behaviour in relation to her crime. Social control theory states that humans are innately rule-breakers (O’Grady, 2014, p. 96). If humans have strong bonds to society they won’t commit crime, or deviant behaviour, but if their bonds are non-existent or weak, then they will engage in their impulses, of committing crime (p. 97). In social control theory there are four types of bonds, broken down into two categories: inner controls and outer controls (p. 97). The inner controls are commitments and beliefs; ‘commitment’ refers to the investment an individual has in a conformity-oriented activity, and ‘belief’ refers to a positively oriented belief system, generally accepted by the majority of society (p. 97). The outer controls consist of involvement and attachment; when an individual is attached to other positive individuals in their life, they would not want to break a social norm, in fear of shame and guilt that will be reflected on those individuals in ones life (p. 97). Also, when somebody is involved with a positive activity, they are less likely to lead a criminal path because they don’t have the free time since they are busy with positively valued task or duties (p.