Can Everyone Become a Criminal - Essay Example

Can everyone become a criminal? A theoretical discussion (Name) (Institution) (Course name) (Course code) (Module) (Instructor’s Name) Date of submission Introduction The study of criminal behaviour is a large branch of social science and forensic psychology. It basically seeks to understand the thoughts of criminal and the influences of committing crime through research and observation. Consequently, a number of theories have been developed by different researchers and scholars in this field. In the 1960’s the use of psychologists in making predictions of dangerousness and criminal behaviour and verifying pleas of insanity in criminal court cases gained prominence and added weight to this branch of social science that saw the discipline widely acknowledged in legal studies and increased acceptance of theories. Despite these theories, the rate of crime globally remains high. The types of crimes have widened and so have the number and diversity of criminals. The question that arises is could anyone become a criminal? This paper discusses this question from a theoretical point of view drawing support from major theories such as the rational choice theory and its derivatives and Eysenck’s theory of personality and crime. Discussion The rational choice theory is the most widely recognized theory in criminal behaviour studies. Developed by one Dr. William Glasser, this theory was actually an advancement of earlier works of Cesare Beccaria who said that “people have freewill to choose criminal of conventional behaviours” (Siegel 2005, 74). Glasser built on these earlier works to develop his theory whose main argument is that the offender is rationally aware of his decision to commit a crime. By being rational, the offender is able to weigh the benefits and detriments of his intended action (Fagan & Piquero 2007). The motivations for doing so vary a lot. The most cited reasons for committing crime according to this theory are greed, revenge, need, thrills, lust jealousy and vanity. There are three major variants or models of the rational choice theory namely; rational actor, predestine actor and victimized actor (Siegel 2005; Marsh & Melville 2006). The rational actor model stipulates that an individual rationally chooses to or not to commit a crime. There are no predisposing elements mentioned here. This theory basically assumes that criminals are ordinary people who actively choose to commit crime under the motivation of the aforementioned reasons (Siegel 2005; Siegel & Senna 2008). This makes every individual in the society a potential criminal as long as he or she is a rational thinker. Therefore, the remedy to averting crime is based in discouraging criminal behaviour through harsh penalties (Sterzer 2010). The fear of these penalties will discourage individuals from choosing to participate in criminal behaviour and activities. The predestined actor model takes a different approach and argues that criminals are biologically wired to commit crime and the urge to do so is beyond their control (Siegel 2005). In this case, criminals are born and not made. This model is supported by the existence of criminal families which over the years that have produced generations of criminals. This could hint that criminal traits are genetically transferable. Advances in neuro-imaging and molecular genetics support this claim that individual criminal behaviour has something to do with their biological composition (Sterzer 2010). However, research has been poor in connecting the specific role of genetics in predisposing one to crime but indirectly doing so through social conditioning. A research by Gao et al (cited in Sterzer 2010) shows poor fear conditioning in the early development stages predisposes one to crime though poor response to stimuli. This is accomplished by associating fear with a previously neutral stimulus. Alertness and speed of responding to stimuli in fear conditioning is what essentially predisposes an individual to crime if his biological mechanism is slow to respond to stimuli. Some researchers acknowledge that criminal behaviour arise from interplay of actor and context or environment. Delisi and Piquero (2011) carry out an extensive literature review on career criminals and deduce that there numerous issues come into play in shaping criminal behaviour. Nonetheless, they support the proposition of genetic in criminal behaviour by noting that 50% of variance in antisocial behaviour is genetically determined. To ascertain this, Delisi and Piquero (2011) cite an intensive study on polymorphisms found in the gene that encodes the nueotransmitter- metabolizing enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) by Caspi et al (2002). The study sought to examine the MAOA levels in childhood maltreatment in four antisocial behaviours disposition towards criminal behaviour, violence being one of them. Results indicate close association between MAOA and criminal behaviour. Of the total cohort, 44% of the respondents showed evidence of violent crime. The tendency towards criminal behaviour increased with facilitating environmental factors to 85% (Delisi & Piquero 2011). This confirms the assertion that the interaction of environment and genetics has a more valid case in influencing criminal behaviour (Siegel & Senna 2008; Marsh & Melville 2006). Apart from MAOA, a number of other genes such as DRD2 and DAT1 have been identified. The DRD2 gene shows that having a criminal father predisposes a child to develop criminal tendencies both in childhood and adulthood unless preventative steps are taken (Delisi & Piquero 2011). Plomin (2011) supports the concept of interplay of genetics and environment by noting that children sharing a common genetic ancestry develop differently when exposed to different environments. The victimised actor model, still under the rational actor theory proposes that criminal behaviour is a product of social inequality. The proponents of this theory point to many socioeconomic elements that have a direct influence on criminal behaviour. In fact communities and ethnic groups that have lower than average socioeconomic standing report higher crime levels in their neighbourhoods than other average neighbourhoods. Narayan and Smyth (2010) conducted Gruger casualty tests in Australia from 1964 to 2001. One of the major findings in their study was that male youth unemployment and real male average weekly earnings were strongly correlated with fraud, homicide and motor vehicle theft. Another research involving 400 homeless youths around Australian cities by Baron confirms these findings. Baron’s (2008) study showed that unemployment is conditioned by casual factors that breed anger over unemployment that lead to criminal behaviour and antisocial tendencies. The Eysenck’s Theory of Personality and Crime offers uses the same perspective. This theory developed by one British psychologist, Hans Eysenck postulates that criminal behaviour is a result of the interaction between certain social environmental conditions and nervous system. This implies that, not everyone exposed to such environments can be induced into taking up criminal tendencies. Dechant (n.d.) cites Eysenck who wrote that It is not itself, or criminality that is innate; it is certain peculiarities of the central and autonomic nervous system that react with the environment, with upbringing, and many other environmental factors to increase the probability that a given person would act in a certain antisocial manner (Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989, p. 7). This can be translated to mean that some individuals are born with inactive or repressed criminal genes but the criminal genes can be activated by the right environment. Such social environment conditions include poor parenting, unemployment, poverty, peer pressure and poor upbringing among others. Once an individual with inbuilt criminal biological traits is exposed to conducive environment, then criminal behaviour becomes inherent. There is an opposing view to this discussion. It opposes the proposal that criminals are born and claims that criminals are made. The social structure theory is a leader in this school of thought. However, one must note that this theory does not explicitly deny the role of biological factors in creating criminal behaviour but simply elevates the role of social environment as the main contributor and ignores the role of genetics. This social theory has three mini theories namely social disorganization theory, strain theory and the cultural deviance theory (Siegel 2005). The social disorganisation theory draws its support from empirical observations around major cities focusing on stratified societies. In the lower social classes, social institutions that control the masses are most likely to be dysfunctional or broken down. Such institutions could be schools, religious centres, social support, government funding, employment etch. Such a scenario is most common in high poverty neighbourhoods in cities around the world. The same neighbourhoods report relatively high incidences of crime and produce relatively more criminals going by legal conviction records. The second derivation of this theory is strain theory. This one proposes that crime is a function of conflict resulting from divergence in goals and means to attain them amongst members of a given society. Ordinarily, persons in the same socioeconomic class have the same goals, the manner and method of attaining them differs hence brewing conflict which results to crime. The third minitheory, cultural deviance is a combination of the strain and social disorganisation theories. It argues that crime is an accepted culture amongst people in the lowest social economic groups (Baron 2008; Siegel, 2005). Theoretically, this implies that all poor people such as the homeless and street people are basically criminals by virtue of their social economic status regardless of other predisposing factors. Nonetheless, this proposition has been hotly contested. Empirical evidence shows that some world famous upright individuals such as mother Teresa were brought up in poverty stricken neighbourhoods of very low socioeconomic status yet they remained upright in their adult life. Conclusion It is apparent that one’s genetic predisposition to crime can remain concealed from childhood to adulthood if it is not exposed to a social environment that encourages crime. Therefore, according to the rational choice theory, it can be assumed that an infinite number of people globally possess the biological capacity to commit crime but have been denied an enabling environment. The social disorganisation theory argues that biological factors are irrelevant and a socially disorganised community is all that is needed to create a criminal. The Eysenck’s theory draws from the other two theories and claims that biological factors and enabling environment are all it takes to create a criminal. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is proper to assume that anyone can be a criminal theoretically. References Baron, S. 2008). “Street youth unemployment, and crime: is it that simple? Using general strain theory to untangle the relationship.” Canadian Journal of criminology and criminal justice. 50(4), 234-249 Delisi, M. & Piquero, A. (2011). “New frontiers in criminal careers research, 2000–2011: A state-of-the-art review.” Journal of criminal justice. 39(4), 289-301 Dechant, A. (n.d.) The Psychology of Criminal Behavior: Theories from Past to Present. Retrieved online from, http://coastline.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/theories-of-criminal-behavior.pdf Fagan, J. & Piquero, A. (2007). “Rational choice and developmental influences on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders.” Journal of empirical legal studies. 4 (4), 715-748. Marsh, I & Melville, G. (2006). Theories of crime. Brisbane: Taylor & Francis Narayan, P. & Smyth, R. (2004). “Crime rates, male youth unemployment and real income in Australia: evidence from Granger causality tests.” Applied economics. 36(18), 2079-2095 Plomin, R. (2011). “Commentary: Why are children in the same family so different? Non- shared environment three decades later” International journal of epidemiology. 40(3), 582-592 Siegel, L. (2005). Criminology. Los Angeles: Thomson Wadsworth Siegel, L. & Senna, J. (2008). Introduction to criminal justice. Los Angeles: Thomson Wadsworth Sterzer, P. (2010). “Born to Be Criminal? What to Make of Early Biological Risk Factors for Criminal Behavior” American journal of psychiatry. 167(1), 1067-1074 Read More