Psychological and Biological Influences of a Crime - Essay Example

Law Crime is not a product of individual decision-making and cannot be understood in terms of rational choice and self control due to since psychological and biological influences Introduction Crime is not solely a product of individual decision-making and can therefore not be understood in terms of rational choice and self-control since psychological or biological influences contribute to the likelihood of committing a crime. Various criminological theories have been advanced to explain the causes of criminal behavior, but modern criminologists combine aspects of psychology, sociology, biological theories and anthropology to advance their explanation on the causes of crime (Siegel 2006). Rational choice theory outlines that individual offenders make an autonomous rational choice to engage in crime after considering the cost and benefits associated with the crime (Grant and Valier 2002). The theory assumes that human beings are rational actors and people make choices on either conforming or deviant behavior according to their rational calculations. Accordingly, rational choice theory outlines that people act in their self-interest and make rational decisions to commit crime after weighing the potential adverse effects of being caught and punished against the rewards of crime. Siegel (2006) points out that the choice is directed at maximization of pleasure and deviant choice can be controlled through understanding or perceptions of the potential punishment that follows after an act is judged to be in violation of the established social good. In this case, the state should maintain order through severe, certain and swift punishment that is essential in controlling human behavior (Stucky & Krohn 2009). However, I argue that offenders do not make rational choices since biological and psychological factors influence their decision-making on whether to engage in crime or abstain from crime depending on the internal and external factors that influence their decision-making. The rational choice theory outlines that offenders are autonomous decision-makers and thus crime is purely a product of rational choice. According to Stucky and Krohn (2009), this theory focuses on individual behavior and assumes that individuals maximize their goals and self-interest. According to this explanation, the criminals carefully select their targets and victims based on vulnerability issues such as unguarded premises or lack of police patrols since they make in to consideration the risk of being caught and the risks of subsequent punishment (Siegel 2006). A clear example of the rational choice is the sale of tobacco products to underage teenagers despite the existence of legislation that bars the sale of such products to certain groups of people in the society. The merchants of the tobacco who break the law by selling the tobacco products to minors usually perceive a low risk of being caught and high economic benefits associated with the crime (Marsh 2007). The theory is based on utilitarian philosophies of Cesare Beccaria that was popularized by Jeremy Bentham by arguing that severe and swift punishments minimize the rewards of crime. George Stigler argued that criminals conduct a cost-benefit analysis in economic terms and minimize the risks associated with crime through considering he place, time and situational factors that exist in the crime scene (Stucky & Krohn 2009). According to Gary Becker, many individuals have high ethical and moral values, but offenders perceive the benefits of crime to outweigh the costs that include the probability of apprehension and punishment. An example of this reasoning is the corporate offending rationality since corporate executives commit crimes such as bribery without any emotion or spontaneous events (Marsh 2007). According to the rational choice argument, the law enforcement agencies can reduce the crime levels through target hardening, and increasing the risk associated with a crime such as additional surveillance and street lighting. The findings of this theory collaborate the deterrence and social learning theories since the threat of legal punishment is a major deterrence to crime in the society according to the rational choice theory (Barlow & Kauzlarich 2010). Accordingly, social learning theory outlines that individuals develop the motive and tactics to commit crimes through association with others. This theory incorporates both informal social punishments and rewards that ensure people do not violate norms and conforming behavior is shaped through socialization (Grant &Valier 2002). The social control theory outlines that individuals generally commit a crime in the absence of control such as institutions like churches, families, schools and institutions. Barlow and Kauzlarich (2010) outlines that the failure of social institutions such as family and religious institutions in imparting good moral values increases the tendencies of the people to engage in deviant behaviors. In this case, individuals who have aspirations of meeting the societal expectations through legitimate means such as hard work may perceive delayed gratification thus will tend to commit crimes to achieve gratification (Siegel 2006). The rational choice theory is not the sole explanation of causes of crime since Gibbs insists that rationality and free will versus determinism are not relevant in deterring crime. In this case, social disorganization theory articulates that the surrounding physical and social environment is responsible for the behavioral choices that an offender makes before committing a crime. The neighborhoods that have high unemployment, poor social structures, and extreme poverty usually experience high crime rates (Grant and Valier 2002). According to Justice Department statistics, youth and gang violence increased substantially in the 1980s due to the existing social factors and this contributed to an increase in other crimes such as murders and street violence. The gang violence is mainly reported in neighborhoods with high social disorganization due to the adverse social and economic conditions that create a conflict that arises as people try to attain their goals (Barlow & Kauzlarich 2010). According to the psychodynamic trait theory, offenders have damaged egos that make them lose control thus leading to crime. A survey of past offenders shows that criminals lack social skills and their damaged ego makes their id govern their behaviors (Barlow & Kauzlarich 2010). However, there are no exhaustive studies on the traditional biological trait theories to conclude that inherited traits and blood-chemistry disorders are the leading causes of crime, but is it good to point out that neurological problems are attributable to certain crimes such as suicide. Accordingly, there is scientific prove that mental illness and poor diet enhance aggressive criminal conduct while drug abuse enhances the likelihood of engaging in violent crimes (Barlow & Kauzlarich 2010). According to labeling theory, offenders engage in crime in order to conform to their labeling as criminals by the society (Grant & Valier 2002). Labeling hinders the opportunity to refrain from crime since individuals who exhibit small deviant behaviors are labeled as criminals thus making the commit more criminal acts in order to conform to their labels. In this case, the individual is not capable of making a rational choice since his or her criminal behavior is influenced by the psychological labeling as a criminal (Siegel 2006). The individuals who participate in ‘routine activities’ in their daily lives are at higher risks of being victimized, but there is a shortcoming in this theory since children and women mainly stay at home yet they are they are more vulnerable to crimes at their homes (Grant & Valier 2002). The rational choice theory faces many shortcomings since it does not explain the cause and effect scenario that makes people commit crimes since law enforcement agencies often look for the causes of the crime (Grant & Valier 2002). Conclusion An offender is seen as rational but is influenced by external and internal forces that result from the existing social and psychological influences. The rational choice theory assumes that offenders are rational and autonomous decision makers who commit crime after considering the perceived costs and benefits associated with the criminal act. Although the offenders may make reasoned judgments after taking into consideration the risks and benefits, there are psychological influences that result from the internal and external environment that drive the offender to commit the crime. The background factors that include both the psychological and social environment factors influence the rational choice of the offender. The psychological factors that are internal include the cognitive style, intelligence, and temperament while social factors such as neighborhood and social class determine the likelihood of committing criminal acts. In this case, social disorganization leads to broken families, domestic violence, and poverty that may drive an individual to seek generalized needs such as money and excitement through participating in a crime. However, the rational choice theory is essential in explaining the criminal behavior process since offenders evaluate the degree of effort, the severity of punishment, the rewards and moral costs involved in the crime. Alternatively, the rational offender will evaluate the available solutions to attaining their goals such as the legitimate work or illegitimate means such as burglary and their decision is guided by the costs and benefits associated with the crime. Accordingly, the environment is critical in the decision-making since many burglaries occur in homes that are easily accessible and in neighborhoods that have limited police surveillance since the risks such as risk of injuries or apprehension is minimal in committing the crime. Reference List: Stucky, T.D and Krohn, M.D. 2009. Researching Theories of Crime and Deviance. Oxford University Press, Oxford: Grant, C and Valier, C. 2002. Theories of Crime and Punishment. Longman, London. Marsh, I. 2007. Theories of Crime,Routledge, New York. Barlow, H.D and Kauzlarich, D. 2010. Explaining Crime: A Premier in Criminological Theory. Rowman & Littlefield, London. Siegel, L. 2006. Criminology: Theories, Patterns and Typologies. Cengage Learning, New York. Read More