Criminal Theories: Similarities and Differences - Essay Example

Criminal Theories: Similarities and Differences Why do people commit crimes? Many theorists have attempted to answer this question. Some have postulated that criminal behavior is biological in nature, others that the reasoning’s 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 deviant behavior as society has determined it their lot in life so they conform to this perception. Still others blame criminal behavior 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 criminal behavior. The answer could be one or a combination of these theories. All economically deprived persons aren’t criminals and those that believe life has treated them unfairly or has grown-up around crime as a way of life, though they may be pre-disposed, do not necessarily resort to crime. This discussion briefly explains these theories for criminal behaviors in an attempt to display their similarities and differences and concludes with thoughts regarding how they may intertwine supplementing each other as an explanation. 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 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 was 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. One of the early theories, the Chicago theory, was presented in the 1930’s. The Chicago theory did not take biological reasons into consideration as the science itself was in its infancy at the time, nor did it consider personal characteristics. It proposed that a dysfunctional social environment was the reason for criminal behavior. The communal surroundings within which one develops presents distorted values that determine behavior. Urbanization and poverty had resulted in the breakdown fundamental family and social institutions. As personal values and standards became disjointed, definitions regarding appropriate behaviors become distorted leading to misbehavior. “Disorganization is more prevalent in the center of the urbanized city, and decreases with distance thus, crime developed through frequent contact with criminal traditions, goals and values that have developed over a period of time in disorganized areas of the city” (Shaw, 1931). During the past couple of decades, there has been a resurgence of attention focused on what is now referred to as social disorganization theories. This ‘contextual movement’ endeavors to establish a link between what affects a negative physical social setting and what motivates deviant actions. One of such theories involves the relationship between crime and the social process. 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. Differential Association, one of the most prominent of the socialization theories, maintains that deviant behaviour is learned as are compliant behaviours. According to the theory, “each person is surrounded by people, definitions, norms, and behavior patterns that differ in that some are favorable to law violation while others are not. Whether or not a person becomes deviant will be a function of the relative mixture of these pro-criminal and anti-criminal experiences” (Petee, 1987). The Labeling theory is similar to the Socialisation Theory in that it emphasizes that deviance originates from interactions and relationships between people in society. Being labeled a ‘criminal’ becomes an individual’s public and self identity.  They are characterised first as criminal then an employee, spouse or parent, etc.  This identity invites public scrutinisation which could seem to cause the person to be shamed into obeying the law. However, it is likely that this label will have the opposite effect. People who are labeled in this manner eventually normally abandon hope of ever fitting back into society.  “An identity change takes place where the person’s self-concept loses any further stake in conformity, and because a deviant self-image is now in place, there’s pressure to behave consistently as deviant” (Silver, 1974). Moreover, individuals labeled as deviants are inclined to begin to associate with others labeled as criminals and, at the same time, stop associating with their law-abiding acquaintances. Many labeling theorists consider that the justice system exhibits a lower-class bias when prosecuting offenders. While normally associated with ‘street crimes,’ labeling may affect a white collar criminal after the fact but is not the genesis of that specific behaviour. The Cultural Deviantisation Theory, in association with social disorganization theories, argues that class distinctions and economic circumstances affect deviant behavioural patterns within societies. The interpretation of deviant behaviour, of course, differs from one social structure to another and from one period of time to another. For example, what may have been viewed as deviant actions in colonial times may not be today and accepted social behavior in the U.S. may not be accepted in, for example, a middle eastern country. In addition, socially permissible actions in one economic class quite possibly would not be in another. Cultural deviantisation therefore must be viewed as culture, region and class specific. This theory describes is an instrument utilized by the most influential and powerful of society’s factions. The laws were written by the upper class which determined what constituted illegal actions so as to protect their specific interests. Criminal law has been described as “a coercive weapon of the state’s dominant class” (Petee, 1987). No better example of this statement is the state’s disproportionate method for aggressively prosecuting and incarcerating indigent petty thieves in comparison to the lack of detection efforts or sentencing regulations regarding corporate crime. “These offenses were generally more costly and injurious to public safety and street crime, but these offenses seldom received heavy criminal sanctions – or often any criminal sanctions at all” (Petee, 1987). The Cultural Deviantisation Theory provides some reasoning’s for other criminal actions generally related to the poorer sectors such as robbery and vandalism but does not explain the motivations or causations for white collar crime. Sociological and social structure crime theories such as the General Strain Theory, however, provide insight to reasoning’s for multiple types of criminal behaviors. According to Robert Agnew’s research which expanded the general strain theory, employees may seek retribution when they are treated poorly, a possible motive for corporate crime (Agnew, 1985, p. 152). According to Agnew, people strive for three main goals through their employment. The first, not surprisingly, is monetary gain. Money, or the lack of, causes strain which leads to delinquent behaviour in otherwise law abiding citizens. The second is a need for respect and a feeling of status, a factor especially present in males. Personality characteristics which are often associated with masculine traits are frequently exhibited through delinquent behavior. If an individual cannot achieve this perceived status legitimately, they may resort to criminal activities. The third goal is autonomy which refers to individual empowerment, a valued asset within any society. Although strain generated by a perceived lack of autonomy has been shown to mainly affect the lower classes and adolescents, because this is a perception of position in a society or corporation, it is also linked to white collar crime as well. Agnew suggests that “the need for autonomy can result in delinquency and crime, as the individual tried to assert autonomy, achieve autonomy, and relieve frustration against those who have denied the individual autonomy” (Agnew, 1994). The opportunity to commit crimes is enveloped with a theory unto itself and it crosses the lines of all manners of criminal 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, it becomes more likely this person will commit a crime. “People who do not progress through the stages may become arrested in their moral development, and consequently become delinquents” (Kohlberg, 1976). 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 and 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 another. Theorists continue to expand upon previous ideas as a way to further define causations of crime. It appears that all are viable explanations to a complex issue and can be utilized separately or together depending on each unique situation. References Agnew, Robert. (1985). “A Revised Strain Theory of Delinquency.” Social Forces. Vol. 64, N. 1, pp. 151-167. Agnew, Robert. (1994). “Delinquency and the Desire for Money.” Justice Quarterly. Vol. 11, N. 4, pp. 411-427. Freud, S. (1961). The Complete Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 19. London: Hogarth 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. Petee. (1987). “Sociology 530 Paper.” Handbook of Social Psychology; Handbook of Sociology. Retrieved September 13, 2006 from Robinson, Matthew B. (2004). Why Crime? An Integrated Systems Theory of Antisocial Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Retrieved September 13, 2006 from Shaw, Clifford R. (1931). The Natural History of a Delinquency Career. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Silver, I. (Ed.). (1974). The Crime Control Establishment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Vinces, Marcelo. (1996). “Behavioral Genetics.” SciTech. Ithaca: Cornell University. Retrieved September 13, 2006 from Read More