Theoretical Dimensions Involving Criminal Behavior - Research Paper Example

Theoretical Dimensions Involving Criminal Behavior The US Federal Bureau of Investigation reports in 2003 that one violent crime is committed every 22.8 seconds, specified as one murder every 31.8 minutes, one forcible rape every 5.6 minutes, one robbery every 1.3 minutes, and one aggravated assault every 36.8 seconds; whereas one property crime is committed every 3.0 seconds, specified as one burglary every 14.6 seconds, one larceny-theft every 4.5 seconds, and one motor vehicle theft every 25.0 seconds (as cited in Cassel & Bernstein, 2007, p. 10). These data maybe shocking, yet the US Uniform Crime Report showed that between 1994 and 2003 violent crimes in the US decreased by 34.4%, with robbery registering the greatest decrease at 40.2% (as cited in Hirschel, Wakefield and Sasse, 2008, p. 76). However, these data speak show only reported cases of criminality and therefore do not reflect the whole picture because of unreported cases. If this is the case in most industrialized countries with the most sophisticated technology and forces to document crimes, then the picture of criminality in other parts of the world, especially in the least developed areas, could be worse. However, regardless of time and space, regardless of the magnitude and degree, the persistence of crime always triggers the question of causality – the driving force of every criminal act. Crime is apparent in all cultures of the world transcending all social classes; it is as old as human society. Though it evolves with time, its essential nature remains. For example, although cybercrime emerges only in this era of the Internet, the nature of crimes committed is as old as our civilization: murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, defamation, prostitution, human trafficking, fraud, and others (Newman, 2009, p. 571). Crime will remain with society “like death and taxes”, as Tonry (2009, p. 1) describes. But unlike these two, understanding crime, especially criminal behavior, remains a complex matter that keeps society mystified until today. Understanding the causality of crime is the most pursued area of criminology, producing various theories from different scientific fields and from both experts and ordinary people (Gibbons, 2000, p. xvii). Yet unsurprisingly, no single theory can fully explain criminal behavior – perhaps, because the nature of man and society is too complex to fully fathom and explain. Thus, Buikhuisen and Mednick (1988) acknowledge that “the application of insights from other scientific areas to help understand criminal behavior is an important theme in the development of criminology theory” (p. 3). Criminal behavior can be understood at the individual and societal level, and Schamalleger (2007) divides into eight categories: classical, biological, psychobiological, psychological, sociological, social process, conflict, and emergent (p. 83). Essentially, though, these categories can be explained within the two major scientific schools of thought: the Classical and the Positivist school, the difference between which can be ascribed to the consciousness of individuals to commit or not to commit a crime. Classical theories (also known as utilitarian theories), like the rational choice theory and routine activities theory, generally perceive free will and reason as the bases of crime. Classical theorists led by Beccaria (1738-1794) argued that crime is a rational choice which suits the interest of the criminal. This belief is based on the assumption that humans are rational; they tend to weigh the consequences of their behavior before taking actions; thus, punishment should outweigh the perceived benefit of the crime. In furtherance, Bentham (1748-1832) asserted his hedonistic calculus, which explains that what determines individuals’ choice is what would benefit them the most. (Vold et al., 2002, as cited in Samaha, 2006, p. 71; Schamalleger, 2007, p. 86; Vito & Maahs, 2012, p. 13-14) In short, “crime is a behavioral human characteristic and a choice” (Criminological theories and crime causation, 2010, p. 1). On the contrary, positivist theories, like the biological and psychological theories of crime, and the sociological theories of crime, perceive determinism as the basis of crime. Meaning, crime is a product of internal and external factors that are beyond the control of criminals. (Vold et al., 2002, as cited in Samaha, 2006, p. 71) Both biological and psychological theories of crime operate from the point of view of internal determinism. Specifically, biological theories believe that the abnormal biological make-up of individuals (e.g., internal genetic or chromosomal abnormalities, brain chemistry malfunction, metabolic or hormonal changes) or their internal biological conditions (e.g., dietary practices, drug or substance ingestion) cause them to commit a crime (Einstadter & Henry, 2006, p. 15); in short, crime is hereditary and criminals are born, not made (Criminological theories and crime causation, 2010, p. 1). Whereas, psychological theories believe that crime is a product of individuals’ mental or emotional abnormalities, lack of empathy, unfulfilled desires, or lack of satisfaction of their basic needs (Bohm & Haley, 2007); in short, crime is the product of a sick mind (Schamalleger, 2007, p. 84). On the contrary, sociological theories operate from the point of view of external determinism. These theories argue that what pushes individuals to commit a crime is their social environment. As Lacassagne famously stated in rebuttal against Lombroso’s atavism, “[s]ocieties have the criminals they deserve” (Buikhuisen & Mednick, 1988, p. 4); in short, crime is a social disease and criminals are made, not born. This is the classical debate between nature and nurture. Understanding criminal behavior helps determine the culpability, the administration of justice, and the institution of social order. For example, classical theorists find criminals fully liable for their actions, thus they must be punished. Their punishment should be greater than the benefit they could gain from committing the crime to deter them from repeating the crime or to preempt others from doing the same. So to institute social order, tougher laws and a strong police force are needed. On the other hand, positivist theorists find criminals unwilling actors to the crime they committed; thus, they should be rehabilitated to act accordingly. So to institute social order, the biological deficiency and the psychosocial needs of criminal offenders must be addressed. However, Siegel (2011) explains that criminologists choose their theoretical perspective depending on their concept of a crime, commonly identified as the consensus view, the conflict view, and the interactionist view of crime. The consensus view reflects the general agreement of the society that should dictate which models of behavior are to be outlawed. Thus criminal behavior is anything that violates the criminal law, so unless it is not prohibited by law, the act is not criminal. On the other hand, the conflict view regards society as a gathering of diverse groups with diverse and conflicting interests, wherein the powerful and mighty have all the economic and political means to exploit to its advantage the law and the criminal justice system. Thus, criminal laws are perceived to protect the wealthy and powerful from the poor and powerless, and the interactionist view essentially views crime to be subjective and relative as defined by moral entrepreneurs. Thus, what makes an act illegal is no other than the society. The definition of crime changes following the moral standards of the ruling elite. For example, a dictatorial government may outlaw freedom of expression and the right to assembly, but a democratic government with liberal leaders will do the opposite (pp. 12-14). References Bohm, R. M. & Haley, K. N. (2007). Introduction to criminal justice (4th ed.). US: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Retrieved from http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072972092/student_view0/chapter3/chapter_summary.html Buikhuisen, W. & Mednick, S. A. (Eds.). (1988). The need for an integrative approach in criminology. In Explaining criminal behavior (pp. 3-7). The Netherlands: E.J. Brill. Cassel, E. & Bernstein, D. A. (2007). Criminal behavior (2nd ed.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Criminological theories and crime causation. (2010). Theoretical Criminology. Retrieved from http://crime-study.blogspot.com/2010/03/criminological-theories-and-crime.html Einstadter, W. J. & Henry, S. (2006). Criminological theory: An analysis of its underlying assumptions (2nd ed). US: First Rowman & Littlefield. Hirschel, D. J., Wakefield, W. O. & Sasse, S. (2008). Criminal justice in England and the United States (2nd ed.). Massachusetts, Ontario & UK: Jones and Bartlett. Newman, G. R. (2009). Cybercrime. In M. D. Krohn, A. J. Lizotte & G. P. Hall (Eds.). Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 551-584). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London & New York: Springer. Siegel, L. J. 2011. Criminology: Theories, patterns and typologies. 11th ed. CA: Wadsworth. Tonry, M.. (Ed.). (2009). Crime and public policy. In The Oxford handbooks in criminology and criminal justice (pp. 3-21). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vito, G. F. & Maahs, J. R. (2012). Criminology: Theory, research and policy. MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Read More