Criminal and Deviant Behaviour in Relation to Sex Crime - Article Example

Sex Crime Why do people commit sex-related crimes? Many theorists have attempted to answer this question. Some have postulated that sexually deviant criminal behaviour is biological in nature, others that the reasons are related to social and physical environmental situations. These can include a person’s learned responses that come from growing up in a high crime area, feelings of inadequacy and/or that they have been cheated from having a better life. A person may think they cannot break the cycle of sexually deviant behavior as society has determined it their lot in life so they conform to this perception. Still others blame crime in general on the hierarchal make-up of society; that laws are specifically made by the aristocracy to rule over those in the lower social classes. Psychological factors and cognitive development also have been theorized to play a role in sexually deviant behavior. The answer could be contained within one or a combination of these theories. Among the biological and physiological explanations for crime is the Behaviour Genetics Theory which postulates a biological explanation for crime. While the genetic make-up of an individual does not induce any specific actions, anti-social behaviour can be facilitated by neurotransmitters in the brain and hormonal imbalances which generate tendencies to act in a particular way. “Low self-control is strongly and inversely related to the neurotransmitter/neuromodulator serotonin, and that serotonin level is heritable” (Robinson, 2004). Abnormal serotonin levels have been shown to be an origin of criminal behaviours of all types of crime including and possibly especially including rape because an individual lacks the natural ability to control their impulsive thoughts thereby acting upon them. Everyone has thoughts they would never act upon. Those with this abnormality tend to act first and think later. Evidence compiled from studies has supported another link between a particular inherited mutant gene and criminal behavior. Instead of high serotonin levels, the neurotransmitters in the brain, because of genetic abnormalities, may produce low levels of an enzyme which causes interruptions in signals within the nervous system and the brain. “Urinalysis of subjects in the Dutch study, all of whom were related and demonstrated aggressive and antisocial behavior, showed abnormal levels of metabolic products associated with the enzyme” (Vinces, 1996). These persons did not have the ability to produce this enzyme. This genetic defect may be at least a contributing factor leading to deviant behaviors. When presented with an open opportunity to make a gain, people, depending on their social make-up, decide on whether to commit a crime. Much, of course, depends on the social make-up. Are they also genetically predisposed, were they taught through experience that crime is acceptable or are they seeking retribution or wish to artificially empower themselves because of perceived deficiencies within their lives? According to Sigmund Freud, “all humans have natural drives and urges repressed in the unconscious. Furthermore, all humans have criminal tendencies” (Freud, 1961). Moral reasoning is a psychological approach that is connected with sociological as well as reasoned causes for crime described in the strain theory. It may also act in concert with biological factors in that abnormal brain functions may lead to a lack of normal cognitive development. The Cognitive Development Theory argues that criminal behavior results from the method by which individuals develop their judgments regarding the law and moral reasoning in general. Children progress through stages of morals development and if this progress is stifled, the more likely this person is to commit a crime. “People who do not progress through the stages may become arrested in their moral development, and consequently become delinquents” (Kohlberg, 1976). The theory of low self-control endeavors to explain the various reasons for crime. The majority of studies involving the Low Self Control (LSC) theory are effectively studies based on the social control theory. This theory includes dynamics such as commitment, attachment, belief and involvement with personality variables incorporated (Wilson & Herrstein, 1985). The LSC theory is dependent on formulating distinctive causal arguments, that all criminal acts are behavioural and are the product of distinguishing individual aspects such as enduring personality traits and characteristics.  People have three kinds of traits. One trait comprises low self-control; another trait predicts a person’s involvement in crime and the third includes other traits resulting from the lack of proper socialization. Low self control has its genesis in the early part of childhood and is essentially an unchangeable trait by the age of eight. This includes only aspects affecting the estimation regarding the consequences of an individual’s actions. The second group of traits includes a heightened activity level, a low level of intelligence and physical strength in addition to ‘adventuresomeness.’ The third group of traits includes insensitivity, impulsivity and, important to note in the case of crimes of a sexual nature, the inability to postpone or ignore the need for self-gratification.  An individual’s need for instant gratification is a condition related to a psychopathic condition and describes a complete immersion into selfish sexual desires which continually and intensely require satisfaction. “LSC theory treats it as an individual decision process. There is some support for this in the work of who equates self-control with self-regulation during the waiting period when rewards are delayed. The ability to keep one-self occupied and to tolerate frustration are the skills that self-control demands” (Wiatrowski et al, 1981). The lack of culpability and insensitivity describes traits allied with a psychopathic diagnosis and are measurable with regards to the ability to exercise control in a social situation. Simply put, feelings of guilt are troublesome but the lack of guilt feelings is a pleasurable experience. “The modified hedonism in LSC theory is consistent with control theories in general which assume that pleasures are constant and motivation unproblematic” (Messerschmidt, 1994). People that can be defined in this way fail to recognize or tend to miscalculate their feelings of guilt. This is a condition that originates from very early childhood and was founded by their lack of an adequate upbringing. Parenting skills or rather the lack of those skills, play an essential role in establishing the feelings of guilt a child possesses. Of course, both extremes can be instilled by the parent. Impulsivity can be described as when a person acts on impulsive thoughts instead of thinking of the consequences of acting upon those thoughts. Impulsiveness describes irrational behaviour and the inability to learn from negative experiences (Messerschmidt, 1994). The vast majority of sex crimes are committed by males. Critical theories of masculinity raise queries regarding the method by which males create their idea of masculinity and the part that sex-related crime plays in the accomplishment and construction of those imagined gender roles. Therefore, rather than the types of crimes such as rape that males commit being dismissed simply as a known, theories of masculinity spotlight how males attain their idea of masculinity and the method by which gender identity is constructed on a social basis in order to predispose males to commit crime. “Critical theorists ask what role does society play in socially constructing a model of masculinity which lends itself to criminal activity and what relationship is there between age, class, gender, and crime” (Jefferson, 1997). Studies of this area have illuminated the role that gender plays in a various crimes extending from the delinquent youth activities to spousal abuse, sex offences and sadistic rapes. The Labeling criminological theory describes many types of criminal activity including sexual misconduct within prison walls. The subculture found in prisons consists of attitudes and beliefs that not only condone but encourage rape in prisons. For the prison rape victim, recourse from this heinous victimization is significantly restricted because of the subculture found in this environment. The inmate hierarchal system is enjoined with the process of labeling alongside a culture of inmate norms which encourages the probability of prison rape.  In prison, an inmate is either labeled as someone that is dominant or one that is submissive. Labeling has been associated with the Social Disorganization Theory, or Socialisation Theory, during the last two decades. This ‘contextual movement’ attempts to establish a connection between a negative social environment and the motivations of abnormal, anti-social actions. The Labeling theory is similar to the Socialisation Theory in that it emphasizes that deviance originates from interactions and relationships between people in society. “According to labeling theory, group reactions are imperative when trying to understand the events that lead to antisocial behavior. Labeling theory essentially asks why some acts are labeled deviant when others are not” (Akers, 2000). Being labeled a ‘criminal’ becomes an individual’s public and self identity.  The Socialization Theory dictates that criminal behaviour is a learned response because of long-term associations with groups or persons who habitually practice criminal activities. This theory is normally more suitable to forms of deviant crimes such as drug use and prostitution (Petee, 1987). The theory asserts that social group reactions serve to make certain behaviors deviant, regardless of the individual context in which they occur. The definition of masculine in prison is unlike that found within society outside the walls. In prison, this meaning is reinforced because male prisoners act to assert their manliness in the narrow methods available which results in “a modified form of ‘hegemonic masculinity,’ which emphasizes negative attitudes toward authority, control over others, aggressiveness, and social reinforcement for violent acts” (Messerschmidt, 1999). Traditional sexual roles and social norms of masculinity that are applicable in society are altered and modified within the prison so male inmates do not forfeit their traditional position of control and dominance. Sexual assaults in prison are, in essence, a declaration of the status, power and control as a substitution of the situation that they were accustomed to in the outside world. Failure to assert this dominance in prison relegates a man to being labeled as the ‘woman’ (Messerschmidt, 1999). Biological, learned and many types of social considerations must be taken into account when theorizing why a particular person committed a crime. Whether or not a person is genetically predisposed to commit crime, what type of social and psychological developmental factors are present which encourage deviance must be all be examined on an in-depth, case-by-case basis to determine the reasoning. One or all theories discussed may play a role, individually or in concert with others. Theorists continue to expand upon previous ideas as a way to further define causations of sex crimes. It appears that all are viable explanations to a complex issue and can be utilized separately or together depending on each unique situation. References Akers, R.A. (2000). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application.  Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Freud, Sigmund. (1961). The Complete Works of Sigmund Freud. (Vol. 19). London: Hogarth. Jefferson, T. (1997). “Masculinities and Crimes.” The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. M. Maguire et al. (Eds.). London: Clarendon Press. Kohlberg, L. (1976). “Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Socialization.” Moral Development Behavior: Theory, Research, and Social Issues. J. Lickona (Ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Messerschmidt, J. (1994). “Schooling, Masculinities and Youth Crime by White Boys.” Men, Masculinities and Crime: Just Boys Doing Business. T. Newburn & E. Stanko (Eds). London: Routeledge. Messerschmidt, J. A. (1999). “Masculinities and Crime.” Criminological Theory: Past to Present. F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. Petee, T. (1987). “Sociology 530 paper.” Handbook of Social Psychology. Accessed 25 January 2007 from Robinson, Matthew B. (2004). Why Crime? An Integrated Systems Theory of Antisocial Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Vinces, Marcelo. (1996). “Behavioral Genetics.” Scitech Archives. Cornell University. Accessed 25 January 2007 from Wiatrowski, M.; Griswold, D. & Roberts, M. (1981). “Social Control Theory and Delinquency.” American Sociology Review. Vol. 46, pp. 525-541. Wilson, J. & Herrstein, R. (1985). Crime and Human Nature. New York: Touchstone. Read More