Theoretical Criminological Explanation of Teen Shooting - Case Study Example

Theoretical Criminological explanation of teen shooting Introduction: The notion that a culture of gun and gang violence is now prevalent in the UK was recently substantiated when a seventeen year old teen was recently charged in the crime of shooting a young eleven year old boy, Rhys Jones. The basic issue that arises in the case of such crimes is the role of punishment in functioning as a deterrent to crime. The young boy was caught in the cross fire between rival teen gangs, which caused the tragic death. Various criminological theories offer differing explanations for the behavior of the teen, and suggest different modes of punishment as further detailed below. The Due Process versus Crime Control Model: Packer has proposed two major criminal justice paradigms – the due process model and the crime control model. The “proponents of both models [due process and crime control] embrace constitutional values”(Packer, 1968:12), but in the case of the teen who committed the crime, the due process model appears to be applicable, because its focus is upon individual privacy rather than severe punishment of the crime. Article 6 of the Human Rights Act of 1998, which came into force in 2000 in the U.K, establishes the right of every individual to a fair trial, in order to ensure that an individual’s civil liberties are protected and that every person who is charged with a criminal offense in particular, shall be presumed innocent unless proved guilty according to law.1 Therefore, applying the due process model in the case of Rhys Jones’ killer, there are limits on the powers or abilities of Government when investigating a crime or a person (Packer, 1968:13). The Government cannot extend its powers to the extent of interfering with the individual’s right to privacy and freedoms that are guaranteed under the law. While the repression of crime is important, the police will not always be assumed to be correct in their fact finding. This model moves the accused person through the criminal justice system with support extended to the individual. The finality is low in the due process model and there is room for appeals that may be made, because the due process model aims to ensure that no innocent person is convicted. This may be noted for example, in the fact that police powers in relation to this crime have been limited to the collection of facts and these facts and police information will not automatically be assumed to be correct, they must await the trial process sand discovery in the Courts before they will actually become actionable. In the words of Assistant Chief Constable, Patricia Gallan, “It’s now a matter for the courts and we will await the outcome of future trials.”(Associated Press, 2008). The anonymity and privacy of the teenager convicted in the shooting, as well as other teens who assisted him, is being preserved and after the recent hearings, they were remanded into custody (Sky News, 2008). The basic premise of the Crime Control Model is set out as follows: “the repression of criminal conduct is by far the most important function to be performed by the criminal process”(Packer, 1968:13). While the violent crime committed by a teenager has shocked the entire country and the publicity supports the belief that the accused person is guilty, he will not necessarily be considered to be guilty when he steps into Court. If the Crime Control Model had been applied in this case, it would have moved the alleged criminal through the criminal justice system as if he/she is guilty, unless proven otherwise. The focus would be upon the guilt as established by the facts and limit the extent of plea bargaining and appeals that are allowed within the system. However, it appears likely that in this case, support will be available for the criminal until his guilt is conclusively established. During the course of the findings, the extent and duration of his punishment may also be limited by the extent of responsibility for the crime which will be attributed to him after the trial, since the involvement of several other individuals has already been established. The current system that exists does have provision for judges to exercise their discretion in determining sentencing for murder. Baroness Scotland has stated the existing position on the determination of punishment for crimes as follows: “the Courts retain full flexibility to deal with the wide variation in individual cases” (www.politics.co.uk). Classical Crime Theory: Where the classical theory of crime is concerned, the basic premise is that the extent of punishment should be determined by the crime and no other factors should be taken into consideration. Irrespective of the differences between people who may commit the same crime, they should all receive the same punishment. Applying Beccaria’s classical crime theory to this situation, the basic premise to be taken into consideration would be that criminals choose to commit crime; therefore it can be controlled by administering strict punishment (Seigel, 2006:98). The killer of Rhys Jones will thus have free will and the murder is a result of his free will choice to commit the act. Secondly, Beccaria’s theory applied in this case will also hold that the killer of Rhys Jones has rationally looked out for his own best interest. Applying this view, the reason for the murdering teen’s actions would lie in the choice of his action on the basis of whether it produced pain or pleasure for him (Bentham, 1748). The act of murder is the result of his rational choice in the matter. However, there is a conflict that is created between the individual looking out for his own interest and society, which in looking out to preserve the social contract, will try and prevent deviant acts. As Beccaria puts it, the establishment of the social contract is not enough, it must also be protected, so that individuals do not usurp for themselves the share that belongs to others (Beccaria, 1764). As a result, the function of the criminal justice system will be to control all the deviant acts that an individual with free will and rational thought might set out to do, for his own satisfaction and pleasure. The major deterrent in this instance, which would prevent him from further pursuing deviant acts, would be the punishment that is served upon him. Since the theory argues that the punishment should be fitting for the crime, therefore where the crime of killing Rhys Jones is concerned, the age of the killer will not be a factor in determining the punishment. The crime is murder; therefore the nature of the punishment would fit the crime. Moreover, applying Beccaria’s theory, if the punishment is to function as an effective deterrent, then the pain it inflicts must exceed the perceived advantages that may be derived from the crime and the punishment must be inflicted promptly (Beccaria, 1764). The death penalty would not have been advocated by Beccaria in this case, a long jail term and imprisonment would be likely to be a harsher punishment for the killer of Rhys Jones. The basic principles of the classical crime theory are also applied in the Rational Choice Theory, according to which “crime is best understood as rational action performed by fairly ordinary people acting under particular pressure and exposed to specific opportunities and situational inducements”(Clarke and Mayhew, 1980). This explanation applies very well in the case of the killer of Rhys Jones, since the killing has occurred largely as a result of the exposure to a specific opportunity, i.e, the rivalry between gangs which has produced the incentive and motivation to carry guns and engage in shooting. The death of Rhys Jones also fits the mold of situational inducement, because it has occurred largely as a result of Rhys Jones being trapped in the crossfire. The murder occurred as a result of the circumstances and the situation, where the victim was accidentally trapped in a violence prone zone. It was not an intentional criminal act, but one that occurred due to the killer acting under pressure, albeit it may have been a rational decision. The Positivist Theory of Crime: Applying the Positivist theory to the teen shooting, the principle that the criminal act was a free will choice will be rejected. The basic notion that anyone can commit a crime will be rejected under this theory. On the contrary, the teen killer will be held to have committed the crime because he is an inferior species of human being that has not evolved fully. This theory, propounded by Caesare Lombroso, would hold that this particular teen is primitive and may also possess physical or mental defects, as a result of which he is unable to function as a responsible and moral human being (www.crimetheory.com). The crime will thus be the result of certain internal and external factors acting upon individuals, who resort to criminal behavior patterns because they are inherently defective. This theory places the responsibility for the criminal act solely upon inherent behavioral defects in the teen killer. It strongly rejects the basis of free will choice of the individual in committing the crime. However, despite the differences in attribution of the reason for the criminal behavior, the kind of punishment suggested under this approach would also be similar to the classical theory, in that it would advocate harsh punishment for criminal behavior. The Differential Association Theory: In applying this theory, the social context within which the killer operated will assume importance and this theory may be especially relevant in the case of Rhys Jones’ killer, who may be a delinquent. The theory holds that a young person may become delinquent due to “an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.”(Sutherland, 1947). The criminal behavior of Rhys Jones’ killer is thus the direct result of the company he may have been moving around in and his exposure to a greater level of unsocial messages as compared to pro-social messages. The criminal behavior of Rhys Jones’ killer cannot be explained on the basis of general needs and values which may have served to propel such behavior. Thus, there is no need or value possessed by the killer which can be identified as being a factor propelling him towards committing such a crime, and attempting to differentiate the criminal behavior on such a basis would be futile (Sutherland, 1947:75-76). The explanation for the criminal behavior of the teen which would be suggested by the differential association theory is that a person can become a criminal only if he is trained by others who are already criminals.(Sutherland, 1937:3-26). Therefore, the role of other individuals who have also been charged in the crime, i.e, the members of the rival gangs, would assume importance when applying this approach. The killer engaged in such an act because he had been trained and encouraged to use his gun in rivalry with members of other gangs. His association with these bad elements and his training into the gun and gang culture by the deviant elements he has been moving around with is the factor solely responsible for his committing of the crime of murder. Since the Differential Association Theory especially applies in the case of teenagers who are subject to such peer influences, due to their growing stage, it may be especially relevant in the case of the killer of Rhys Jones who is also a teenage boy, highly impressionable and susceptible to peer influence. His criminal act would be acceptable to him because those in his peer group are also engaging in them. Since the teen killer was a member of a gang and was involved in rivalry with another gang, the possession of guns and shooting behavior would have been deemed to be acceptable. The underlying principles of the Differential Association Theory also apply in the Routine Activities Theory, which requires the following three elements (a) a motivated offender (b) a potential victim/target and (c) the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen and Felson, 1979). In this case, the value of committing of the crime is calculated from the perspective of the offender. Applying this in the case of Rhys Jones’ killer, the motivation existing for the crime was the hostility existing between rival gangs, which led to the eruption of violence and the shooting. According to this theory, the visibility and accessibility of the victim also increases the chances for an attack. This is precisely what has happened in the case of Rhys Jones, since he was present in an area where he was accessible and therefore became a victim of the attack. The most notable application of the Differential Association Theory as expressed in the principles of the Routine Activities Theory is in the absence of a capable guardian. Peer influence is assumed to play a vital role in criminal activity among young people and the Routine Activities Theory also points to the absence of a capable guardian as being one of the precipitating factors for the commission of a crime. This specifically applies in the case of the teen killer of Rhys Jones, since it is the absence of adequate adult supervision and guidance that may have caused the affiliation to criminal gangs. Psychological theories of crime: Applying these theories, the criminal behavior of the teen killer can be explained on the basis of behavioral urges and the development of the moral reasoning process. All human beings may have criminal tendencies, thus it is not unusual for the teen to possess those tendencies, but the process of socialization would have curbed this behavior through the development of internal controls (Freud,1961). There are three different levels of moral reasoning which the young teen would have been subject to. He would have gone through the preconventional level in early childhood, based on obedience and the avoiding of punishment. By the end of middle childhood, he would have reached the conventional level of moral development based upon the expectations that their family has for them. However, it is at the post conventional level of moral development, reached during adolescence, where the teen would have developed the ability to go beyond social conventions (Kohlberg, 1976). Applying this theory, the teen’s moral development is flawed and this has resulted in the delinquent behavior. A comparison of the various theories: In the case of the teen shooting of Rhys Jones, the approaches of the various criminological theories may be different. The due process model would focus upon allowing the killer a fair trial and respecting his individual rights first and foremost. The Crime control model however would be more in accord with the classical theory and advocate a stiff punishment that matches the heinous nature of the crime, since a young child lost his life due to the killer’s actions. The theory would advocate a swift and hard punishment, albeit it would not be the death penalty. In determining the reasons for the criminal act, according to the classical theory, the killer of Rhys Jones would have acted of his own free will, based upon his rational choice and would therefore merit an equally harsh punishment because in doing so, he has encroached upon the rights of other in a free society. The theory would not take into consideration the young age of the defendant or the role that may have been played by others in influencing him into committing the act. The Rational Choice theory would also hold the crime to be the result of a rational choice made by the individual, based upon the circumstances and situation existing at the time. The Differential Association theory however, would accord a high level of significance to peer influences in conditioning the behavior of an individual. Criminal behavior would in essence be learned behavior under this theory, and it may serve to provide the best explanation of the behavior of the young teen. Since the teen was a member of a gang and has learnt to use guns as a result of his association, the catalyst for the act was the rivalry with other gangs, which provoked the aggressive behavior where the young Rhys Jones was caught in the middle and died. The Routine Activities Theory would also attribute the causal factors for committing the crime to be due to the absence of a capable guardian in the young teen’s life. The Positivist theory would attribute the criminal behavior to an inherent defect of human nature that rendered the killer an animalistic, primitive being incapable of functioning in a socially responsible manner. While it is true that the person’s young age and susceptibility to peer influences may have reduced his capacity to function in a socially responsible manner, this may not necessarily be due to a primitive nature. It appears likely that environmental and behavioral factors may have contributed to the criminal behavior. The behavioral theories may provide a better explanation of the criminal behavior. The inadequate level of moral development coupled with the strong influence of delinquent peers may have resulted in the criminal act. Conclusions: In examining the criminal behavior of the teen, one of the important factors to bear in mind is the fact that such behavior was not so common in earlier decades. Therefore, environmental factors and peer group influences may provide a better explanation of the criminal behavior. It may be the lack of effective moral development which may be a cause, because such teens do not have effective parental supervision and discipline and this may contribute to their development of anti social, disruptive behavioral patterns. As the differential Association Theory suggests, such criminal behavior is not naturally acquired, it is learned behavior. The adolescent stage of development is such that teens are especially vulnerable and susceptible to peer influences, therefore the teen could have engaging in behavioral patterns that were favored and advocated within his group. In reference to the punishments that are suggested by the different theories, it may be noted that harsh punishment is recommended under the Classical and Positivist Theories, as well as the Crime Control models. These incorporate a belief in harsh punishment serving as an effective deterrent. However the applicability of these theories in the case of the teen may be limited, in view of his young age. Harsh punishment in this instance may only serve to make him a more hardened criminal. Yet, the teen is almost eighteen years old and therefore may need to be punished on the level of an adult, because the nature of his crime is also heinous. There are also other individuals who have been implicated and charged for the crime and unless strict action is taken, the punishment is not likely to serve as a deterrent. Applying all the theories in the case of the teen killer, it may be seen that no single theory appears to provide an adequate reason for his behavior. Rather, it is the combination of the Differential Association Theory and behavioral theories, where improper moral development as well as the influence of peers in causing criminal acts to be learned behavior, may be the causal factor that has led to this crime. It appears likely that it is a combination of factors that may be responsible rather than one single factor. There is also the issue of conflict that arises where the question of human rights are concerned. The teen killer’s rights have to be respected in the light of the provisions of the Human Rights Act of 1998, which has incorporated the rights of individuals framed under the European Convention of Human Rights, into UK law. The Crime Control model could constitute an interference with individual rights because it is based on a presumption that the individual is guilty and it allows more power to the police forces and their assessment of the situation. On the other hand, the Due Process model allows for adequate protection of individual rights, so that the individual’s guilt is not automatically presumed, rather it has to be proved in a court of law. The nature of the punishment may need to be in accordance with the heinous nature of the crime, however there may also be a need to take into consideration, the young age of the defendant and the fact that the murder was not a pre meditated act, for which mens rea can be established. It may have been more in the nature of an accident that was not intended to happen but had tragic consequences and this factor may need to be taken into account in administering the punishment. Hence the due process model may work best in this instance. Prevention of the crime: Could this crime have been prevented? According to the situational crime prevention approach, decreasing the opportunities for committing a crime by engaging in measures such as gun control and increase in security measures may be helpful in ensuring that the situational opportunities for committing the crime are removed. In this instance, the introduction of such situational crime prevention measures could have been very useful. For example, removing the means, i.e, the gun, would have meant that the crime may never have occurred. Increasing the local security in the area through police or neighborhood patrolling to disburse rowdy gangs could have also served as a measure to defuse the tensions arising out of the conflict between rival gangs which erupted in violence. If there had been effective supervision of the teens involved in the violence, by responsible adults, this could also have defused the criminal activity. Situational crime prevention may have worked very well in this instance and the murder of Rhys Jones by the teen might never have occurred. References: * Beccaria, Ceasere., 1764. “On Crimes and Punishments” * Bentham, J., 1748-1832. “An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation.” * Clarke, R & Mayhew, P, 1980. “Designing out crime”, HMSO: London * Cohen, L. & Felson, M., 1979. ”Social Inequality and Predatory Criminal Victimization: An Exposition and Test of a Formal Theory”, American Sociological Review, 44:588-608. * Packer, Herbert., 1968. “The limits of the Criminal Sanction”, Stanford University Press. * Seigel, Larry J, 2006. “Criminology”, Thomson Wadsworth * Sky News, 2008. “Rhys Murder: Seventh person charged”, (Internet) April 18, 2008. Available at: >; (accessed April 25, 2008). * Sutherland, Edwin, 1947. “Criminology” , J.B. Lippincot Company * Sutherland, Edwin, 1937. “The Professional Thief,” The University of Chicago Press * “Overview: The positivist school of criminology”, (Internet) Available at: ; (accessed April 25, 2008) * “UK teen charged in boy’s shooting death”, Associated Press, (Internet), April 16, 2008. Available at: ; (accessed Apr 25,2008) Read More