Theories of Criminal Behavior - Essay Example

In what ways is Merton’s argument structural and in what ways is it cultural? Firstly, it can be understood that merchants argument is structural in the fact that it refers to processes at societal levels that are ultimately able to impact upon how the individual understands his or her needs. In such a manner, in a situation in which inability or inadequacy for opportunities exists, Merton presents a highly structural interpretation of the manner through which the individual is impacted. However, by much the same token, the realities that merchant discusses are ultimately cultural. Effectively, even though structural constraints necessarily define and confine the manner through which an individual will be able to integrate with the society, many of these inadequacies and inabilities are ultimately cultural and origin as well. Although this duality creates an interesting dynamic through which Merton can be understood, the fact of the matter is that neither the structural multicultural approach to Merton’s arguments takes away from the overall merit and understanding that they help to represent. Merton himself defines his theory as both structural an individual; choosing to leave out the cultural aspect – probably due to the fact that it creates an unnecessary level of confusion for the reader. However, with regards to the individual aspect of this particular approach, Merton references the fact that key frictions, pains, hardships, and realities of an individual’s needs matrix are ultimately able to impact upon the goals and significance of these goals that the individual places (Wada et al., 2012). Interestingly, the closest aspect of this cultural interpretation that merchant expresses within the individual aspect has to do with the fact that if the goals of society are able to become significant enough to an individual, the overall likelihood of these being enacted and effected in the person’s life increased precipitously. By means of extension, an individualist approach, that is thus far been described, is not in fact individualist at all; rather, it encompasses aspects of the culture and society as a means of understanding the way in which reality, and an understanding of this reality, impacts upon the individual. What are the main characteristics of a delinquent subculture? It is without question that the delinquent subcultures exist within the world. Moreover, more often than not, these illiquid subcultures are often primary elements of what can encourage certain use to behave in a criminal manner. Ultimately, there are many main characteristics of the delinquent subculture; however, all of them are predicated upon the belief that this particular subculture is somehow irrefutably different and separate from culture elsewhere within society. Core compliments of this delinquent subculture can be defined with regards to the belief that these individuals are somehow unable to acquire the benefits or norms of middle-class society. Furthermore, this belief is compounded with an understanding that the ability to succeed in and of itself is also restricted (Gunnison, 2013). Finally, a belief and expectation, as it exists within Italy subculture, is one that is inherently altered from the expectation that exists elsewhere in society. However, although all of these are explicate or’s of the way in which the delinquent subculture exists and self identifies, trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fate, and autonomy are perhaps the most effective words through which a delinquent subculture can be defined. With regards to trouble, individuals within a delinquent subculture often find themselves engaged in trouble due to the fact that the other compliments of their worldview inherently lend them to be rebellious against the structure of society. Similarly, toughness is something that is also inherent due to the fact that an individual must be tough to survive in an environment that does not have the same level of resources that middle or upper class society has. The other explicate or’s other delinquent society naturally fall in line with an understanding of the core personality traits that are required for an individual to live within a situation in which alternative approach is required as a means of survival. What are the main criticisms of labeling theory and how valid are they? As the name implies, the labeling theory is one that is used to determine self identity or behavior characteristics of individuals as a function of attempting to classify them. Naturally, such a process is useful with regards to research into the topic of differentials and causal relationships that can encourage an individual to a type of action in the future. However, by the same measurement, an inherent level of stereotyping is represented with regards to labeling theory. Not surprisingly, one of the bitterest criticisms with regards to the ineffective level of labeling theory had to do with the fact that biological, genetic, and personal responsibility is oftentimes reduced in favor of defining the world in a simplistic or otherwise stereotypical manner. The criticism of stereoptyping or overly simplifying relationships between individuals based upon perceived characteristics is at least partially true. Scholarship over the past several decades has proven that labels are oftentimes incorrect and untrue. Moreover, with the increased levels of cultural mixture that have been exhibited throughout the world within the recent past, the degree and extent to which a given socio-economic group or even a group that engenders a given set of personality characteristics can be generalized is minimal to say the very least. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the theory is predicated upon whether or not the validity of its approach is the more salient issue that can be analyzed. With any theory, the danger is that a level of high specificity will cause individuals who might seek to utilize the theory to effect a situation in which the focus of the approach is so narrow that other approaches would be better in addressing the problem at hand. This is very much the case with regards to labeling theory; as it ignores many of the most rational explanations of differentials; while at the same time putting forward an approach that is riddled with logical inconsistencies. What are the main assumptions in a Marxist view of crime and the criminal law? As the name implies, a Marxist interpretation of crime and/or criminal law is predicated upon the understanding that crime is the result of inequalities of an economic realm. Furthermore, criminal law, within the Marxist interpretation, is an approach that seeks to disproportionately punish those that are of the lower working classes. Evidence of this can of course be seen with regards to the way in which individuals of more wealthy socioeconomic strata are able to hire advocates and avoid the repercussions of many legal entanglements. By means of comparison and contrast, those individuals of less socioeconomic means are not able to engage with the legal system in the same manner; thereby falling through the cracks and oftentimes garnering harsher punishments as compared to their more wealthy counterparts. Naturally, as one of the older sociological approaches for the way in which society integrates with itself, the Marxist approach has had a profound impact with regards to the way in which other subsequent theories have developed. At its core, the Marxist interpretation assumes that class inequality is not only responsible for the disparity in education, social rank, and/or salary, this social inequality has caused the criminal justice system to become patently unfair with regards to the way in which it addresses the needs of the citizens within a particular society (Watts, 2013). Further, a Marxist interpretation of crime assumes that those individuals who turn to crime are only doing so because the social dynamics of their lives have become so constrained and so hopeless that they are left with few other options in order to claim a portion of the vast wealth that society holds. Although many aspects of the Marxist approach have been conclusively proven to be false, there are strong elements of truth that continue to be reflected with regards to the way that crime exists and is dealt with. How are Hirsch’s social control theory and Reckless’ containment theory similar and how do they differ? Hirsch’s social control theory promotes the understanding that direct punishment is a threat that can help to change behavior of individuals and force them into a type of compliance; both from the perspective of authority figures, family members, or friends. Furthermore, there is an internal aspect of this theory as well; relating to the fact that an individual refrains from a particular behavior that is deemed as “delinquent” due to the fact that a superego or “conscience” drives them from such an action. Further, indirect level so of influence are able to be impacted upon an individual with regards to the belief that engaging in a particular delinquent action could result in the disappointment of friends/authority figures/or family members (Boduszek et al., 2012). Finally, Hirsch promotes what is known as “control through needs satisfaction”. In such a manner, the control through needs satisfaction approach engages an individual with the understanding that not only can their needs be promoted by behaving in a non-delinquent manner; the needs of all individuals within society can best be promoted through this approach. By means of contrast in comparison, many individuals have assumed that the social control theory is somehow synonymous and one in the same as Reckless’ “containment theory”. However, even though these two theories are somewhat similar, there remain key levels of differential that help to separate them. Within Reckless’ interpretation, all individuals are subjected to criminal behavior at least at some point in life. However, individuals are able to resist the allure that it has based upon 2 “buffers” that Reckless refers to as an “inner and an outer containment”. Much as with social control theory, Reckless understands that the aversion to criminal behavior is a social response; congealed by friends, family, and authority figures. However, rather than going into an in depth explanation for why punishment concepts or ideas concerning the manner through which societal utility can be maximized, Reckless allows the theory to rest upon its inherent simplicity; something that Hirsch is not content with. Ultimately, although both theories mirror each other in some aspects, the differential that exists between them is stark enough to allow the reader/analyst to infer a key level of dissimilarity. Is situational crime prevention a theory or simply a set of practical tools for manipulating the environment? In seeking to answer the question of whether or not situational crime prevention is a theory or simply a set of practical tools for manipulating the environment, it is invariably the view of this particular author that the answer to this denotes that situational crime prevention is indeed a theory. One of the core reasons for this has to do with the fact that situational crime prevention theory is one that is deeply rooted in other theories; to include rational choice theory, routine activity theory, crime pattern theory, and a litany of different others. Accordingly, the approach that crime prevention theory denotes is one in which situational crime is defined in a different category than that of a mere set of practical tools that can be used for manipulating the environment. Whereas it is true that other aspects of criminal theory and legal engagement have been used to a greater extent over the past several decades as compared to situation crime prevention theory, it nonetheless has a bearing with regards to the way in which humans behave given a certain set of key determinants. By analyzing the theory through the lens of those crimes that an individual is prompted to commit situationally as compared to those actions they are prompted to take as a result of their environment or even heredity, this particular approach offers far more than a set of tools that can be applied towards manipulating environments in order to reduce situational crime. Instead, it provides a framework through which the stakeholder can understand the causal mechanisms of human action; and whether or not these are the result of an innate compunction or a sudden or momentary opportunity. Bibliography Boduszek, D, Hyland, P, Pedziszczak, J, & Kielkiewicz, K 2012, Criminal Attitudes, Recidivistic Behaviour, and the Mediating Role of Associations with Criminal Friends: An Empirical Investigation within a Prison Sample of Violent Offenders, Europes Journal Of Psychology, 8, 1, pp. 18-31, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 January 2014. Gunnison, E 2013, Psychological theories and research on criminal behavior, Criminal psychology, Vol 1: Theory and research, Vol 2: Typologies, mental disorders, and profiles, Vol 3: Implications for forensic assessment, policing, and the courts, Vol 4: Implications for juvenile justice, corrections, and reentry pp. 261-297 Santa Barbara, CA US: Praeger/ABC-CLIO PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 January 2014. Wada, F, Longe, O, & Danquah, P 2012, ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS - UNDERSTANDING CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR USING CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES, Journal Of Internet Banking & Commerce, 17, 1, pp. 1-12, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 January 2014. Watts, S, & McNulty, T 2013, Childhood Abuse and Criminal Behavior: Testing Theory, Journal Of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 15, pp. 3023-3040, CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 January 2014. Read More