Some Issues of Theoretical Criminology - Assignment Example

Theoretical Criminology 28th January Theoretical Criminology Spiritual and natural explanations have always been important in the criminal justice system. Discuss each and the role they play. Give 2 examples of each. The explanations of crime in many traditional settings were founded on laws of nature or spiritual powers and sometimes on supernatural powers. Spiritual explanations for crime were founded on superstitions and religious beliefs of the people (Tierney, 2006). The innocence or guilt of a crime was believed to be determined by divine intervention, the same way divine intervention was believed to decide defeat or victory in disputes or battles. Natural explanations for crime were founded ideas that people believed about the physical world and its natural reality. It is, however, worth noting that these ideas about natural reality were not scientific, but rather based on mere observation of nature (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). Good and evil were thought to exist in the natural world. It is worth noting that the developments of legal definitions as well as the treatments of crime are founded on the attempts to understand the natural explanations for crime in the physical world. Under the spiritual explanations of crime, the feudal lords in Europe during the middle age designed ways, which they thought the guilt or innocence of an individual could be indicated. One of such methods included trial by battle. In this method, the victim or a family member of the victim would fight with the offender or a family member of the offender. It was believed that God gave victory to the innocent party. Trial by ordeal was introduced in which the accused person was subjected to a painful and difficult situation (Tierney, 2006). The guilty party would die with pain and agony while (through God’s protection) the innocent party would go through such an ordeal unharmed. The aforementioned method was replaced by compurgation a method that involved the accused calling twelve individuals who were reputable in the society who would then swear that the accused person is not guilty. The idea of prison today emerged from the earlier concept of isolating the criminals in cells where some were subjected to manual labor while others were given the bible to read (Tierney, 2006). The natural explanations for crime generally use events as well as objects found in the world for purposes of explanation what ensues. The divine sanction of the law in the traditional society provided a justification of natural explanations for crime. It is due to this that the rule of kings became natural law, as it was considered to be by divine right. The material and physical world are still used by social scientists in the modern society to seek natural explanations of crime in the natural world (Tierney, 2006). 2. What is the difference between general and specific deterrence? What would you expect to be the general deterrent effect of the death penalty and three strikes laws? The existence of law and enforcement of such laws as the traffic law for instance influences the behavior of an individual in two ways those are general and specific deterrence. General deterrence can be described as an impact of the legal punishment or consequence designed for purposes of preventing crime in the society. This means that the choice of an individual to commit a crime can be restricted by the existence of punishment, which acts as a threat. General deterrence is more effective in instances where a person who commits a crime receives the most severe punishment. This serves as an example to others not to commit the same delinquent acts. Specific deterrence, on the other hand, is the impact of the actual legal consequences on individual offender and it is meant to deter such individual from committing that crime again (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). The punishment of offenders by the state serves as an example as well as a warning to the public the consequences of taking part in a criminal offence. The application of corporal punishment and death penalty for example serves as deterrence to the members of the public and prevent them from committing a crime because of the fear of such punishment. Therefore, general deterrence is meant for those members of the public who witness the offenders being punished for their crimes. For example, the punishment for consuming alcohol in an Islamic country such as Iran is canning. Some proponents of general deterrence argue that televising executions or other corporal punishments being inflicted on the offender would serve the purpose for general deterrence. Specific deterrence according to its proponents ensures that offenders are unwilling to commit the same offence again because of the severe punishments they are given. For example, a death penalty for a murderer would permanently deter such a person from committing such an offence (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). The general deterrence effect of death penalty and three strikes laws is that the public in general will be cautious to participate in offences that carry death penalty because of the fear that in the event they commit such a crime, their punishment is death. Where a person is a habitual offender the three strikes law ensures that such an individual is incarcerated for long and kept away from the public (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). The general deterrent effect of the three strikes law would be that the members of the public and indeed those who have been convicted once or twice would be more careful and cautious and avoid committing a crime or repeating an offence for those who have previous criminal record. 3. What body types have been found to be more associated with crime? What do you believe is causing this to happen? A research about criminal behavior of an individual have for a long time relied on the assumption that in every society, there are specific acts that can be classified that can be categorized as delinquency. In an effort to identify traits of an individual who exhibit criminal behavior criminologists, formulated theories that attempt to explain why individuals with specific body types are more likely to commit crime compared to others. For a long time, there has been an unending debate on criminological research with regard to the relation between genetic traits and criminal behavior. Sheldon developed a genetic theory that attempt to explain criminal behavior in particular body types. The body types were divided into three with distinct characteristics and they include; mesomorphic, ectomorphic body type and endomorphic body types. Persons with mesomorphic’ body types have an aggressive personality, competitive, and masculine. The ectomorphic body types are the opposite of mesomorphic body with an introvert personality and fragile. Finally, those with Endomorphic body types have a sociable personality and soft (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). The theory on criminal personality indicates that individuals with mesomorphic body types are more likely to commit crimes compared to those with other body types because they have an aggressive personality. Individuals with ectomorphic body types are less likely to commit crimes because of the fact that they have a restrained personality and they are not bold enough to get involved in criminal activities. Similarly, persons with Endomorphic body type are less likely to commit crime because they have an outgoing personality and very sociable (Tierney, 2006). One of the reasons individuals with mesomorphic body types are prone to delinquency may be because such individuals may use their aggressive personality and masculinity to get whatever they want right from their early years. Ultimately, they may continue with such behaviors even in their later life and such individuals may join criminal gangs and thrive in crime. Such individuals are also very adventurous and they like taking risks. It is worth noting that individuals with Mesomorphic body type are generally ruthless and indifferent to pain. The role of body type along cannot however, justify the criminal personality of an individual. Other factors like the environment may play a significant role in creating a criminal mind. In instances where an individual with mesomorphic body types is brought up with the mentality that he can get away with whatever he wants through then such a person is very likely to advance his aggression to crime. However, where such traits are discouraged at an early age then the possibilities of engaging in criminal activities are minimal (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). 4. Discuss Merton’s five modes of adaption and give an example of each. Robert Merton like other criminologists attempted to explain the cause of social deviance in the society. Unlike other theorist who believed that deviance and crime were rooted in individual causes, Merton postulated that criminal behavior arose from social situations. He developed his theory based on five adaption sometimes referred to as the strain theory. These personal adaptations include conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). One of the personal adaptations to anomie is conformity, which means and individual accepts the defined goals of his culture as well as the limited means of attaining such goals in the society. Those individuals that are conformists struggle for instance to succeed in life through accepted avenues in the society that is educational advancement or advancement in their careers. Those individuals are not able to attain their goals through the socially accepted ways continue to comply with the social rules as legitimate and without any form of protest (Tierney, 2006). Innovation is the second adaptation to anomie. The proponent of the strain theory argues that innovative individuals are more likely to have criminal behaviors. Innovators are individuals who believe that they must achieve their material and monetary goals through all means possible. When such an individual fails to attain his goals through the socially accepted means because of the limitations he or she turns to crime. An example of an innovator is a drug dealer who desire to achieve social status and wealth through an illegal means. It is however worth noting that most innovators are not serious offenders or violent (Tierney, 2006). Another reaction to anomie is ritualism. Individuals with this kind of adaptation lower their aspirations to a level that is practically achievable. Such individuals accept their status in the society and conform to whatever they are required. In addition, such individuals avoid taking risks. They are confined within their usual routines and they are contented with such life. An example of ritualism can be observed in a telemarketer who believes that attaining social status and wealth is impossible however; he can set his attainable goals such working hard to get more commission (Tierney, 2006). The fourth personal adaptation is retreatism. This involves dramatic responses by an individual such as giving up because of the social expectations of attaining social prestige and wealth. The individual ultimately renounces the socially accepted means of attaining wealth and disregards cultural goals. Committing suicide can be a good example of an individual with the aforementioned adaptation (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). The last type of adaptation is rebellion. This kind of reaction can be described as the most dangerous and threatening reaction of the other four. A rebellious individual does not only reject and disapproves the legitimate means and structures, but he attempts an overthrow (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). A good example of rebellion include the radical terrorists who believe that holy wars and suicide bombing is a new means of attaining material wealth. 5. What functions do crime and punishment serve for Durkheim? Give specific current examples in which crime and punishment serve social functions. Durkheim unlike other criminologists and sociologists postulates that crime a departure from the traditional notion rather than a social evil. The only common trait of crime according to Durkheim is that they universally proscribed and punished by the society. Crime and punishment are universal features found in every society (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). Crime serves as an important role in the society in the sense that when an offender is punished for committing a crime, the community moral boundaries are clearly spelt out to all the members of the community. In Durkheim’s view, retribution, rehabilitation, or even deterrence are not the purposes of punishment but rather a means to strengthen social solidarity. This is achieved through witnessing the affliction of the offender, which reaffirms among the abiding population their moral commitment (Tierney, 2006). In the process of social evolution, Durkheim postulates that crime can play a positive role, which can be very beneficial to the society. For instance, there are individuals in the society who may propose changes in the social morality. Such individual may be considered as criminals during the initial stages. For this reason, crime serves as a proof and a precondition of flexibility in a given society particularly when necessary adjustments need to be done. In his view, the conventional perception of crime as a social evil must be changed and embrace the notion that crime is phenomenon, which is inescapable, and can play a vital role in facilitating evolution in the society (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). In the society today crime and punishment serve social functions in an number of ways for example when an individual commit a crime of murder and he is punished by death, this acts as a deterrence and an example to other members of the society to avoid the crime. As such, this has reduced the number of murder cases. Rebel groups taking arms against a legitimate government amount to treason, which is punishable by death. Even though such an act amounts to a crime, some countries such as South Sudan took arms against the government of Sudan and recently they achieved their independence (Tierney, 2006). To this end, even though it was a crime to take arms against a government the south Sudanese achieved their self-determination, which is indeed social progress. Further punishment servers as a form of retribution. This means that punishment removes the unfair advantage that an offender has against the victim. Criminal law prohibits delinquent acts in the society. For this reason, an individual who disregards such prohibitions gains an unfair advantage over that individual who is law-abiding. By punishing the offender, the law restores the balance of burdens as well as benefits of abiding by such laws (Tierney, 2006). References Cullen, F. & Agnew, R. (2006). Criminological Theory: Past to Present. Los Angeles: Roxbury Company. Tierney, J. (2006). Criminology: Theory and Context. 2nd ed. Essex: Longman Read More