The results showed that detachment from the crime was the biggest commonality. It was discovered that although the type property crime committed varied, all offenders still found ways to dehumanize their particular situation. In most cases this allowed them to justify their actions, see the crime as victimless or reduce the overall effect of their wrongdoing. For instance, a majority of shoplifters and corporate criminals both employ justification and neutralization techniques (Bartol & Bartol, 2014). The results also proved that using the behavioral approach we can see how people learn new behavior like property crime or modify exciting ones based on punishments or rewards. For instance, most violators of property crime tend to halt their criminal activities as they mature, usually by the age of 18. Bartol & Bartol (2014, p.424) state that it could be due to the crystallization of moral development and because the punishment now out weighs the rewards, criminals 18 years of age are tried as adults in criminal court and in most cases …show more content…
The authors explain what property crime is, property cues, motivation, prevalence, demographics, cognitive process, and the psychological it has on its victims. They provided throughout the chapter lots of empirical data from the UCR, a number of useful tables, and results from other theorists. Nevertheless I think three very important aspects of property crime that should have been mentioned are strain theory, self-control theory and social learning theory. No one is actually born good or bad it is through these various systems that we adopted our behavior. General strain theory states that we commit crime because we experience a gap between our aspirations and opportunity. Social learning theory, says deviant behavior is learned through one’s interaction with others. Self-control theory explains why some people commit property crimes while other in the same situation
As a social process theory, drift and Neutralization sees a crime to be a part of wider social interactions. It views social order as non objective and non consensual and posits that there is not a single fundamental social goal that is held by all social groups; rather there are many different overlapping social values within a society, both conventional and delinquent: legitimate and illegitimate. Drift and Neutralization Theory posits that individuals learn values and delinquent behaviours through their exposure to sub-cultural values. “Deviant or delinquent (or criminal) subcultures do not reject ‘dominant’ values and beliefs. Instead, there is tension between inclinations to adhere to mainstream values and beliefs.” This sees that criminals can drift between deviant and conventional behaviours and how to use various techniques of neutralisation to rationalise their criminal activity. In analysing McVeigh’s motives, his learned sub cultural values can be examined to demonstrate how he was able to rationalise his violations of the law and how he came to drift from non delinquent to delinquent actions. The techniques of neutralisation; denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of
Criminals are mistakenly seen as “people with stunted psychological development or…[a] consequence of moral failure…or people with genetic predispositions for crime.” (Gladwell 156) That is not true. They are simply byproducts of the environment around them. Change the environment; change the behavior. Gladwell explains how context and environmental cues affects behavior, but it goes further. Powerful forces that change environments change what those inside them experience. Sometimes those changes are purposeful, with the intention to reduce crime, sell drugs, or recruit students. It is self evident that cultural expectations are dependent on the experiences individuals have together. Gladwell, combined with Watter and Ho’s analysis, explicitly shows that the environment changes those
High crime rates are an ongoing issue through the United States, however the motivation and the cause of crime has yet to be entirely identified. Ronald Akers would say that criminality is a behavior that is learned based on what an individual sees and observes others doing. When an individual commits a crime, he or she is acting on impulse based on actions that they have seen others engage in. Initially during childhood, individuals learn actions and behavior by watching and listening to others, and out of impulse they mimic the behavior that is observed. Theorist Ronald Akers extended Sutherland’s differential association theory with a modern viewpoint known as the social learning theory. The social learning theory states that individuals commit crime through their association with or exposure to others. According to Akers, people learn how to be offenders based on their observations around them and their association with peers. Theorist Akers states that for one, “people can become involved in crime through imitation—that is by modeling criminal conduct. Second, and most significant, Akers contended that definition and imitation are most instrumental in determining initial forays into crime” (Lilly, Cullen, and Ball 2011:57). Although Akers’ theory has been linked to juvenile delinquency in the past, it has also been tested as a possible cause of crime overall. Individuals learn from observation that criminal behavior is justifiable in certain circumstances. In connection with juvenile delinquency and crime, peers and intimate groups have the most effect on individuals when associated with criminal behavior. One is more likely to mimic the behavior of someone who they have close ties with, whether the behavior is justifiable or...
In this paper I will discuss six major principles of psychological perspective as they relate to criminal behavior. The first principle is that the individual is the object of interest to be analyzed. Another major motivational perspective is personality, which points to the motives of the individual. The third perspective says that crimes are a result of a dysfunctional mental processes within an individual’s personality. Also, individuals may have a purpose for criminal behavior to fulfill certain needs. This behavior is considered inappropriate only when compared to social norms. The fifth perspective describes normality, what is accepted by society as as being normal. The last perspective is that defective or abnormal mental process may
While this may help adults desist from crime, it may not be as effective in helping juveniles. Most delinquency occurs during young adulthood and then the individual ages out of crime. When looking at juvenile desistance other explanations exist as to why some juveniles continue a life of crime and others desist. One idea places responsibility on the ability to make conscious decisions. A study, by Haigh, of desistance among juveniles and their transitional period to a law abiding life suggest that most juvenile offenders simply make the decision to stop committing crime. Haigh conducted the study using one on one interviews in order to capture the former offender’s interpretation as to why they stopped committing crime. Through the interviews she found that most juveniles held this preconceived idea that they had to commit crime based on where they lived. Crime was a part of a regular daily routine for many. Participants state things such as, “you have to do crime, if you don’t you get stomped on” or “we didn’t think it as dangerous, we got off on the buzz of doing it” (Haigh, 2009). Some did not have reasons as to why they made the decision to stop committing crime. Others stated that they wanted to stop committing crime because of new found relationships, making their parents happy, or from fear of being sent to jail. For this set of juveniles in the study it can be said that as they
One of the biggest issues in America today is crime. It is a large problem that continues to erode our country economically as well as morally. Because of the vastness of the problem, many have speculated what the cause for crime may be in hopes that a solution will be found. Many believe that a bad family life, location of residence, and poverty hold a few of the answers to why an individual becomes involved in criminal activity.
What are theories of crime? Why are they important? In this paper, will discuss two crime theories. Social learning theory and the labeling theory. We will compare both crime theories. It will also explain how these theories are related to specific crimes. The two theories discussed will also explain the policy implications. Finally, we will address what types of programs can be created to mitigate specific crimes related to the causation theories.
Crime may be defined as any behavior committed or omitted in violation of a law and for which punishment or sanction is imposed (National center for Victims of Crime, 2008). There are mainly two categories of explanations of criminal behaviors, which are individual explanations that include classical, biological, and psychological and so on; and social explanations which include ecological, social learning and strain. It would be unfair to say that one is more convincing than the other as each respective category are distinctive in their own nature. However it is important to realize that to philosophically understand a crime, one must utilize one of the categories of the abovementioned explanations in order to reach an objective, and it depends on the circumstances. To access to an individual theory of crime, this essay will focus in psychological positivism with an explicitly focus on personality and crime, for social theory of crime; it will focus on the ecological theory. Three case studies would be used as evidences to support the arguments mentioned above.
In today’s society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing a person to the point at which they are lead to committing a criminal act. Often, someone who has committed a violent crime shows evidence of a poorly developed childhood, or the unsuitable current conditions in which the subject lives. In addition if one studies victimology which is the role that the victim plays in the crime, it is apparent that there are many different causes for criminal behavior. Through the examination of biological factors, in addition to the social and environmental factors which make up a criminal mind, one can conclude that a criminal often is born with traits common to those of criminals, it is the environment that exist around them that brings out the criminal within them to commit indecent acts of crime.
Criminology is the study of why individuals engage or commit crimes and the reasons as to why they behave in certain ways in different situations (Hagan, 2010). Through understanding the reasons or why an individual commits a crime, one can come up with ways to prevent and control crime or rehabilitate criminals. There exist a large number of criminology theories, some link crime to an individual or person; they believe a person weighs the cons and pros and makes a conscious decision on whether to commit or not commit a felony. Others see the society as having a duty to make sure that its members do not engage in criminal acts by providing a secure and safe living place. Some claim that some people have hidden or dormant characteristics that determine their reaction or behavior when confronted or put in particular negative conditions (Akers & Sellers, 2012). By understanding and studying these theories, together with applying them to people, psychologists and authorities can prevent criminals from committing or repeating crimes and aid in their rehabilitation. As many theories have emerged over time, they continue to be surveyed and explored, both individually and in combination in order for criminologists to develop solutions and eventually reduce the levels and types of crime. The most popular criminology theories emphasize on the individual, positivist and classical traits. This paper will explore the classical theory, which is among the earliest theories in criminology.
This study includes the social and emotional setting of the criminal from a young age to their adult life. This also involves the examination of their ecological influences such as their economic status, heredities, family structure, and learning disabilities. In addition, criminal psychologists establish the mental state in which the criminal was in at the time which the delinquency occurred. This is important because understanding their mental state can help psychologists understand the person’s motives for committing this crime or precise act. Criminal psychology is vital in determining whether the person was in control of their mental abilities during the act of the crime, which is important in cases where senselessness is a defense from responsibility for their unlawful
Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment.
Much more important are human behaviors, those behaviors emitted in the presence of given incentive conditions and maintained by their consequences, that is, the changes they produce in the environment. The incentive follows the response. For examples human behavior include verbal behavior, sexual behavior, driving a car, writing an article, wearing clothing, or living in a house. The concept of human behavior is important to sociologists because the most social behavior is of a human nature. Social cooperation is kept up by the impact it has on other individuals.
The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century, slum poverty was blamed; in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millennium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.
Human antisocial behaviour is complex and trying to understand it has always proven to be a daunting intelligent task, especially in modern culturally diverse societies. Crime, broadly defined as behaviour through which individuals obtain resources for others through uncouth means, presents as one of the most refractory internal social dilemmas. Understanding individual criminal acts such a murder, rape or motives behind them is intricate, rather their behavioral definitions and causes offers a more clear platform for argumentative reasoning. Criminal behaviour, regardless of manner, involves use of barbaric methodologies to obtain symbolic or material resources. Criminal behavior results from methodical processes that involve intricate interactions among isolated, societal, and environmental factors in people’s lives.