Biological, Sociological and Psychological Theories of Crime - Research Paper Example

? Criminological Theory What are the central assumptions of biological theories of crime? How do the assumptions differ from the assumptions in psychological and sociological explanations of criminal behavior? Introduction Similar to the study of various doctrines, criminology has also undergone massive changes since the past centuries. In the due course, various theories, assumptions and judgmental frameworks have been developed to obtain a rational and an in-depth understanding to the factors which fundamentally drive criminal activities within a society. No wonder, the assumptions of one particular theoretical framework differ significantly from the other when demonstrating the causes underlying the criminal offences. The best explanation to this particular thought can be derived by comparing and contrasting the three most applied dimensional theories in criminology, i.e. the biological theories of crime, the psychological theories of crime and the sociological theories of crime. The most apparent dissimilarities of the explanations rendered by these theories concerning crime are inherent in their diverse and often, countering assumptions. For instance, the biological theories assume that individuals commit criminal offences particularly due to physical characteristics, which are gifted by the parents to their children, or are inherited through ancestry. Therefore, the biological explanation to the causes of crime focuses largely on genetic, anatomical and psychological irregularities. On the other hand, psychological and sociological explanations advocate that social factors and economic difficulties cause significant psychological pressures on individuals. These pressures further result in stress within individuals, persuading them to commit crime. Notably, the biological theories, with its given assumptions, indirectly tend to counter the notion or approach taken by the modern governments concerning correctional policies for criminals. However, rationalizing the same, psychological and sociological theories explain that by bringing certain changes in social and economic structure of a particular region, the government can control crime rates. Based on these predicaments, guided by the assumptions of the biological, sociological and psychological theories of crime, this study will aim at comparing and contrasting the central idea of these concepts, taking into account the historic developments in criminology since ages. Defining Criminology Edwin H. Sutherland had once affirmed that criminology is a form of knowledge which considers crime as a social trend. It principally included the cycle of creating laws to restrict crime, violating laws by criminals conducting offences and then reacting towards the contravention of the laws to further discourage any repeat occurrence of similar incidents. As can be inferred from the statement, criminology, in respect of criminal laws, is a cyclical process which aims to obtain a structured and definitive policy framework to restrict repeat occurrences of crime. Since ages, criminologists have adopted research methods from a variety of societal and behavioral sciences to postulate a particular guideline that can aid in further development of the laws by measuring the kind of offences, criminals’ behavioral traits as well as influences and victims’ characteristics, using different procedures (DeMelo, 1999). Brief Description of the Criminal Law Significance of the criminal law has been a priority to governmental bodies since centuries, to maintain a healthy and sustainable societal development process. In the medieval ages, though, criminal laws were designed to reward greater control of socio-cultural and geo-political structure to the authoritative bodies. Reportedly, the initiation of criminology theories dates back to over 3500 years before in the history of human civilization, around 1792 BC with the establishment of the code of Hammurabi. The code was adopted from Babylonian and Hebrew laws that were in practice during the early 2000 BC (Vito & Maahs, 2011). With the passing phase of time, in the modern century, the enforced criminal laws have become more transparent. Also, the common people decipher greater concern about their security without being bound by the monarchy system of governmental structure, as was in the medieval period. Additionally, with the increasing complexities in the socio-economic dynamics of the modern world, and technological interventions, crime has found new ways which in turn has also been giving rise to substantial costs in managing such issues. Illustratively, in the US, by the end of 2008, the number of prisoners sentenced beneath the authority of the state and the central corrections authorities stood at 1.6 million. In recent years, there has however been a drop in the imprisonment trend. Thus, from 2000 to 2008, the prison populace had augmented on a standard of 1.8 percent annually, which was less than a third of the typical annual rates during the 1990s. These figures indicated that crime has been a crucial social problem (DeMelo, 1999). Central Assumptions of Biological Theories of Crime Five interconnected analytical categories or dimensions are considered to be central to the assumptions biological theories to crime. The proportions considered are gathered in relation to a number of core questions, which are as follows: 1. Human Behavior and Nature: The dimension of human nature and behavior refers to the criminologists’ assumptions about human autonomy and also the constraints as to whether people choose their actions and whether the actions are governed by the internal or the external forces. It also takes into account whether humans differ naturally, or whether people are secluded individuals, or if they are socially unified beings as well as whether they are same as or virtually different from other species. Moreover, in relation to human behavior as per biological theories of crime, bio-criminologist, Clarence Ray Jeffery affirmed that brain can be regarded as the organ corresponding to exemplify human behavior. It can have a major role to play in shaping human personality which in turn can have a substantial impact on the causation of crime. It is further determined that human criminal tendencies are genetically or constitutionally based. Criminality might get transcended from one generation to the other. Instinctive behavioral responses also play a fundamental role in ascertaining human criminal behavior. Therefore, in precise, it can be determined that the biological theories of crime, fundamentally consider social environment factors, biological inheritance along with ancestry related considerations as amid the crucial nexus for the act of crime amid human beings (Pearson Education, Inc, 2010). 2. Social and Social Order: The criminological views are considered in this category of biological theory of crime. This investigation is extended to consider whether the society is merely a division of the global world order given that prevailing influences are filtered through particular societies. However, the related interest lies in whether theory takes a macro, meso or a micro analytical approach in its essentially illuminating thrust, demonstrating whether the society takes a dynamic shaping of those performances and institutions included in it (Jones, 2013). 3. Role of the Law, Meaning of Crime and Image of the Criminals: In this particular theory, the view of the criminologists, postulates about the character of criminal law and its functions in defining the subject of criminology are considered to be the most important focus in the theoretical explanation. The theorists thus express the kind of images of the sort of person inclusively who possess the high probability of committing offensive actions. The issue cannot be considered as a subcategory of the theorists’ views of human nature, since the thought about a person being a criminal follows decisions about what is an unpleasant behavior (Jones, 2013). 4. Causal Logic: Most of the criminological theories include propositions or considerations and hypotheses related to the root of the offence. Correspondingly, the biological theories deal with a wide variety of questions such as whether crimes and deviances stem from the selection of persons making it vary in socially controlled contexts. It also seeks to determine whether some individuals would emerge as a law breaker in certain contexts or criminal behaviors are viewed as being determined by the external or the internal forces over which actors have little control. Moreover, whether crimes function independently or interactively and whether the search for the courses relating to criminology is a part of the elucidation or not (Jones, 2013). 5. Criminal Justice Implications: This dimension of biological theories focuses specifically on the rules for shaping responsibility and administering integrity and the intrusion techniques followed to convey it. The related concerns include not just the theories of social control but also the models of criminal justice inferred by and reasonably reliable with particular biological theories of crime. The criminological theories may support systems of justice and control constituted by practitioners, politicians, lawmakers or they may even recommend the use of their own techniques (Jones, 2013). Another related assumption in the biological theories of criminology lies in the amount to which human beings are assumed free to act towards others or if they can be derived by internal or external sources. It is evident that a few of the facts of essence of human beings to facilitate what is “human” is open to many interpretations. The criminologists rely on wide variety of the assumptions or models of humans in constructing their theories of crime. It is further required to establish what combinations of the essentials have been assumed or even settled audaciously (Jones, 2013). Precisely, there are three different aspects that come out from the diverse evolutionary theories as they link to crime: 1. Dishonesty and fraud may be considered to be a scheme that a few of the individuals may be generally charged for. Self-centered selfishness may help to improve an individual’s reproductive accomplishment. To be precise, individuals who are selfish and who take resources for themselves may enlarge the probability of their offspring survival (Jones, 2013). 2. Specific types of crimes may be explainable in evolutionary provisions as well (Jones, 2013). 3. There are also factors presented about the evolved roles of men and women that define crimes. In a study conducted, boys and girls aged 37 to 69 months were exposed to either a man or a woman who was verbally destructive to a big plastic doll. Later on, it was found that the children who were exposed were much more vigorous than a control group of children in common who were uncovered to the non-aggressively behaving adults (Jones, 2013). Sociological Explanations of Criminal Behavior Society and Social Order The views inferred by the criminologists need to be evaluated based on their assumptions in order to make proper classification of crime. The political and the legal institutions of the social order are based on the particular assumptions regarding the society. On a broader point of view, society refers to the relationships prevailing among the people as a whole which may return as a discrete prototype of instruction and cultures as well. The sociologists may believe the society to be more than the computation total of the individuals who constitute it. The social learning theories apparently possess more links to works that are more socially oriented (Einstadter & Henry, 2006). Overview of the Social Control Theories The social control theories are engrossed in learning as to why people conform to norms. They also interrogate why the people conform to the strategies along with the techniques which help to legalize human behavior thereby leading to conventionality and conformity of the rules of the society including the influences of the families, schools, ethics, values and ideas among others. The social control theorists argue that the more implicated and dedicated a person is to conservative activities, the greater will be the connection to others such as family and friends, the less likely a person would be to breach the convention of the society. Social power has it’s ancestry in the early part of the century in the exertion of the sociologists. According to E. A. Ross, it is the belief system and not the specific laws which direct the individuals as to what they should do and this may serve to manage the behavior regardless of what the shape or faith may take place. Social control may be viewed as a wide depiction of regulated device sited upon the members of the society. The theory of social control may be viewed from two perspectives comprising the macro social perspective and the micro social perspective of the society. The macro social perspective explores the authorized control scheme for the supremacy of the group including the authorized systems such as laws, law enforcements and commanding groups in the society who can help to weight the norms and also the monetary and social orders of the administration of the confidential organizations. The control of macro social perspective may be positive or negative. On the other hand, the micro social perspective focuses on the unofficial control systems illuminating the reasons why the individuals adhere to such norms. It also assumes the sources of power to exist in the outer world (Warr, 2002). Psychological Explanations of Criminal Behavior Psychology’s focal point on the individual frequently materialize to be consist of a spherical exercise of putting a blame on the criminals for their own criminal propensities. There are indeed a few psychologists who connect with the criminological hypothesis and the order of psychology was generally subjugated by the procedural anxiety to imitate the achievement of the natural sciences and the learning of the inhabitants by investigational methods. Evaluation of the development of the sociological approaches and techniques made it clear that the approaches contained ambivalence. By the end of the twentieth century, the concern of the psychological issues was becoming more critical. Moreover, the psychological aspects of the crime had emerged in separation from the criminological theories. Irrespective of the fact whether the methods of labeling, strain, control or sensual pleasure are contemplated or not, the implications of the individual factors are under-developed and continue to emerge (Jones, 2013). Relationship of Psychology and Sociology in the Study of Crime The study of the immoral conduct has suffered a split in the human sciences mainly flanked by sociological and psychological perspectives. In spite of the youth rising as a subject area, the history of the criminology is divisive. Despite the fact that criminology emerged as a full-fledged regulation during the last half of the twentieth century, it acknowledged itself as being fundamentally informed by sociological perspectives standing in conflict to the psychological theories. In a few of the aspects, it will not be convenient because those who can now be seen as laying the basics of criminology consistently took unique psychological clinical perspectives frequently working as a psychiatrist, for instance in the field of treatment and therapy. There are two main factors that led to the separation of the behavior between criminology and psychology. It reportedly began in the first half of the twentieth century. It resulted in a split-up in the latter half of the century. Firstly, the post war sociological twirl of the emerging criminology was heavily prejudiced by the rejection of positivism and associated procedural techniques that pivoted on the thought that the human world may be implicit in parallel terms as that of the substantial one. Secondly, the expulsion of the thinking that social difficulties may be addressed by option to individualistic explanations also plays a vital role in this regard (Jones, 2013). Positivisms of the Nineteenth Century With the increase of the illumination principles all over the western world, there were many people who had become concerned in the thought that there might be a set of primary forces that would drive masses and people to do something in certain definite ways. As the movement of the planets or the apples falling from the trees could possibly be understood in terms of underlying forces such as gravity, similarly there were many key forces that could cause an offense. Specifically, the most important distinctive attribute of the diverse schools of positivism was that they put less stress than the classical school on the free consent of the persons as they were engrossed in the fundamental forces that may compel and drive people to criminality. In general, there were two separate versions of positivism that had distinct opinions of location of the forces. The first reason was that there were more sociological schools that focused on the social forces that compelled people towards criminality. The second reason was that there were schools of thoughts that took a more unusual or rather a psychological perspective in considering that the seeds of criminality could originate in the framework of the individuals. Certain people were also of the opinion that physical and psychological characteristics were rather innate in them which made crime more obvious (Jones, 2013). Conclusion It is irrelevant to argue that that there is a new anxiety among criminologists, some, if not all, about the manner in which their conventional field of study is being reconfigured presently. Meanwhile, the inconceivable speed of changes that describe this field with its endlessly elaborating rigid regimes combines to make circumstances that can easily flee or remove the conceptual language and make the long conventional research plan to seek out-dated and irrelevant (Garland & Sparks,2000). The existing questions of crime and crime control can present one measure of the significance and strength of the social theories. Perhaps, criminology can also refill its intellectual funds by combining with the hypothetical work of modern social theory. References Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (n.d.). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, application, 5th edition. Retrieved from http://www.jura.unituebingen.de/einrichtungen/ifk/homepages/ehret/justice-studies/Akers_Study_Guide.pdf DeMelo, D. M. (1999). Criminological theory. Retrieved from http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/Diane_Demelo/diane.pdf Einstadter, W. J. & Henry, S. (2006). Criminological theory: An analysis of its underlying assumptions. United States: Rowman & Littlefield. Feldman, M. P. (1997).Criminal behavior: A psychological analysis. United States: Wiley. Garland, D. & Sparks, R. (2000). Criminology, Social theory and the challenge of our times. Brit. J. Criminology 40, pp. 189-204. Jones, D. W. (2013). Understanding criminal behavior: psychosocial approaches to criminality. London: Routledge. Pearson Education, Inc. (2010). Biological roots of criminal behavior. Retrieved from http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_schmalleger_crimtoday_3/13/3544/907274.cw/ Soto, D. (2013). Criminological theory. Retrieved from http://www.gobookee.net/get_book.php?u=aHR0cDovL2NvbGEuc2l1LmVkdS9jY2ovX2NvbW1vbi9kb2N1bWVudHMvc3lsbGFiaS1zcC0xMy9DQ0olMjA1MDQtMDAxLnBkZgpDQ0ogNTA0OiBDcmltaW5vbG9naWNhbCBUaGVvcnk= Vito, G., & Maahs, J. (2011). Criminology: Theory, research, and policy. United States: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct Cambridge studies in criminology Cambridge studies in philosophy and public policy. England: Cambridge University Press. Read More