Theories of Crime - Essay Example

Running Head: Theories of Crime Theories of Crime Inserts His/her Introduction Criminologists give many kinds of explanations for deviant behavior in the society. Some argue that there is a biological basis of criminal behavior while others believe that psychology can explain the actions of criminals. Researchers have been interested for a long time in finding out why people commit crimes. They want to find out exactly what forces people to break the laws of the society. In order to explain deviant behavior criminologists use two broad theories; psychological theories and biological theories. These are the two broad schools of thoughts that attempt to explain why people commit crime. Psychological theories of crime talk about individual cognition and development, while biological theories focus on the internal human biology and its link to criminal behavior. In this paper we will discuss the Eysenck theory of crime (biological theory) and the learning theory (psychological theory) of crime in detail. We will differentiate between the two and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of both the theories. Eysenck theory of Crime Biological theories of crime center their attention on biological factors and how they influence criminal behavior. They take into account the role of genes and brain, and attempt to explain how biology can help explaining criminal behavior. Biological theories assume that criminal behavior is due to the certain biological flaws in human beings like heredity, neurotransmitter dysfunction, and brain problems (Raine, 2002). The focus is also on personality types of people and how certain types are more prone to criminal behavior. In short biological theories of crime argue that deviant behavior has a biological rooting. Eysenck’s theory of crime attempts to explain criminal behavior through the lens of biology. He argues that there are certain biological traits neuroticism and extraversion, and the extremes of these two biological functions can cause criminal behavior. In short he attempts to explain criminal behavior using neurobiology. According to the theory people who are highly extroverts are social and highly active. These people are also not aroused very easily and therefore they seek ways to stimulate themselves that are not normal to average people (Bartol, 1999). The people who have high levels of neuroticism are usually depressed and anxious. Eysenck’s theory argues that people who have both extremely high extroversion and neuroticism are prone to criminal behavior. The roots of extroversion and neuroticism are biological in nature, and can be unearthed through neurobiology. Therefore, people who have a biological tendency to be highly extrovert and neurotic are more likely to indulge in criminal activity according to the theory. Learning theory of Crime Psychological theories of crime focus on the individual thoughts and cognitions, and on human interaction with environmental factors like family, friends, and society. The main difference between biological theories and psychological theories of crime is that biological theories focus on innate elements while psychological theories focus on human development and cognition. Psychological theories also argue that human personality has a lot to do with criminal behavior. The learning theory of crime focuses on behavior of the person. It finds its roots in behavior psychology. The main argument of the theory is that criminal behavior is learned because of the reward consequence of the behavior. This means that criminals learn to commit crimes as they learn that the consequences of their actions will yield rewards. These rewards serve as reinforcements for criminal behavior. Learning theory of crime suggest that crimes can be controlled by eradicating the reward for criminal behavior (Bandura, 1973). It is important to understand that the learning theory focuses on the individual only. The role of social factors is only to the extent of influencing an individual’s behavior. The main unit of analysis is the individual here. Social factors play a role in making a person learn to commit crimes. Learning theory also suggests that learning of criminal behavior is through observing and hearing other people in the society (Bartol, 1999). It is not only the obvious monetary motivations that can lure people to commit crime but personal satisfaction, narcissism, or any personal intrinsic reward might also make people commit crime, according to the learning theory. Differences between the two theories The main difference between Eysenck’s theory and learning theory is that the former puts the burden of criminal behavior on innate biological factors while the latter talks about individual’s thoughts process and behavior in relation to criminal behavior. Advantage of the Eysenck’ theory is that it can be proved very easily. By taking neurotic scores and extroversion scores of criminals, one can know the validity of Eysenck’s theory. The theory in short gives us a hypothesis which can be tested and measured. This probably is the biggest advantage of the Eysenck’s theory. Another advantage of the theory is that the theory basis its argument on neurobiology. This makes the theory ever more credible since it is based on a valid science. The disadvantage of Eysenck theory is that it fails to give a corrective method of curbing criminal behavior. If we were to believe in the theory then criminal behavior could be explained through neurobiology. This means that a person commits a crime because of his neurobiological composition. This would give society a narrow list of options as to how to treat criminals. Also curing a criminal remains a question if the main points of the theory are accepted. The theory therefore gives the criminal very little options to come back in the society after curative treatment. The advantages of the learning theory are many. The theory gives a logical argument to explain criminal behavior. It takes its roots from behavioral psychology which is a developed field itself. The criminal behavior of people seems to be learnt, at least sometimes when we see copycat criminals in our society. The fact that rewards can motivate us and can reinforce certain kind of behaviors also seems logical. It also offers ways to stop criminal behavior and assumes that criminal behavior can be curbed (Bandura, 1962). The most important thing is that the theory comes up with a simple explanation of deviant behavior. There is also a great amount of empirical evidence for the learning theory of crime. The disadvantage of the theory is that it fails to explain criminal behaviors that are one of a kind. We often see criminal behavior that is first of its kind. This goes against the learning theory of crime. Also this theory fails to take into account the mentally disable criminals. People who are mentally ill might not need to learn criminal behaviors from others nor will they think about the consequences of their actions. This theory therefore fails to explain the criminal behavior of the criminally insane. It is also difficult to prove social learning theory unlike the Eysenck’s theory. The differences in the two theories are based on the unit of analysis, causes, and corrective measures of criminal behavior. The two theories differ from each other in all these regards. Eysenck’s theory focuses on biological causes while learning theory talks about more personal causes of criminal behavior. Both the theories fail to explain some criminal behaviors in the society. Conclusion Criminologists have attempted to explain criminal behavior in the society through many theories. Mainly there are two kinds of theories; psychological theories of crime and biological theories of crime. Psychological theories talk about the individual and personal development and cognition. While biological theories blame the biological makeup of a criminal to be the reason behind his or her criminal behavior. The two theories have certain pros and cons as they attempt to explain and understand deviant behavior in the society. References Akers, Ronald L. & Gary F. Jensen. 2006. Empirical Status of Social Learning Theory: Past, Present, and Future. In Frances T. Cullen, John Paul Wright, & Kristie R. Blevins (Eds.) Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory. New Jersey: Transaction Publishing Bandura, Albert. (1962). Social Learning through Imitation. New York: University of Nebraska Press Bandura, Albert. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Bartol, C. R. (1999). Criminal Behaviour: a psychosocial approach. New York: Prentice Hall Raine, A. (2002). The biological basis of crime. In J.Q Wilson & J. Petrsilia (Eds.) Crime: Public policies for crime control. Oakland: ICS Press Read More