Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Psychological factors in criminal behavior
Mental illnesses with crime
Trait theory strengths and weaknesses
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Psychological factors in criminal behavior
What makes one person more likely to commit crime than another? Many people have worked throughout the years to try and answer this question in an attempt to really get to the root cause of crime so that things can be done to better prevent it. One major school of thought centering around this question is based on trait theory. This theory focuses on the hypothesis that some people have certain personality traits or genetic predispositions that make them more likely to commit crime than someone without these factors. Other things that may come into play regarding trait theory and predisposition to crime are the individual's parents and the environment they were raised in.
In the 1990's, a man named David Rowe took a big step in making biological theories take on a bigger role
…show more content…
Almost all people are or were adolescent limited offenders, but there are certain factors that make some people carry on that behavior throughout their life. There are certainly things, such as drug addiction, that can lead someone to a life of crime, but some people contain traits that may make them naturally predisposed to committing crime throughout their life. According to Moffit's studies, life course persistent offenders are display anti-social behavior from an early age. It is believed that in these individuals, brain development is disrupted by an outside factor. This can happen either in the womb or after birth. Things that may disrupt brain development include poor nutrition, exposure to drugs, or toxins. Other things commonly found in life course persistent offenders are problems in the central nervous system and neuropsychological defects, both of which can lead to behavioral problems and an inability to socialize properly. Life course persistent offenders often work alone, but become role models for adolescent limited
Nature vs. nurture has been one of the oldest and most debated topics among psychologists over the years. This concept discusses whether a child is born into this world with their developmental work cut out for them or if a child is a “blank slate” and their experiences are what shape them into who they are. Over the years and plenty of research, psychologists have all mostly come to agree that it’s a little bit of both. Children are both born with some genetic predispositions while other aspects of the child’s development are strongly influenced by their surrounding environment. This plays into the criminal justice system when discussing where criminal behavior stems from. Is a criminal’s anti-social behavior just part of their DNA or is it a result of their upbringing? The answer to this question is not definite. Looking at research a strong argument can be made that criminals developed their anti-social patterns through the atmosphere in which they were raise, not their DNA.
1. Cesare Lombroso applied the methods of natural science (observation, measurement, experimentation, statistical analysis) to the study of criminal behavior. Lombroso rejected the classical theory of crime, associated with Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, which explained criminal activity as freely chosen behavior based on the rational calculation of benefit and loss, pleasure and pain. Critically analyze both schools of thought and provide an opinion as to what theory you believe is more relevant.
People are uniquely different and because of this reason, they do have different behaviors. Crime is one kind of behavior that an individual can engage in. They are punishable by the law and may be prosecuted by the state (Helfgott, 2008). There are different theories existing that try to explain the actions of criminals. They deeply explain what causes an individual to commit a criminal activity. This paper discusses some examples of the biological theories, social theories and psychological theories of crime.
Criminal behavior can mostly be explained by the Biosocial Branch of Trait Theory. Individual traits by themselves cannot determine criminality. Outside factors such as the environment along with certain personality traits is what causes criminal behavior.
Criminals are not born; they are created or molded into individuals who participate in criminal behaviors. There are several factors that influence deviance beginning with social structures, generational values and attitudes and social bonding. The concepts of all five theories briefly clarify why criminals partake in deviant activities; however, I believe three learning theories - Social Disorganization, Differential Association and Hirschi’s Social Bonding - best explain how social structures and interactions correlate with the cultivation of criminals.
In the news today there is an article about a high-school boy who brought guns to school and shot several students. The parents of the victims are suing various computer game companies saying that the violent games present shooting and killing people as pleasurable and fail to portray realistic consequences. A representative of one of the companies released a statement saying that this is another example of individuals seeking to elude responsibility that has become so common in our society. This case is not about software. What is on trial is the age-old debate between nature and nurture, which also lies at the center of Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.
A persons’ personality is made up of different characteristics such as, being humorous, compassionate, self-obsessive, outgoing, shy, aggressive etc… These are things that influence our behaviour in predicable ways. An increase of certain personality traits like, being aggressive, impulsive, easily influenced, no fear/understanding of consequences, make people more disposed to crime. People with personality disorders are even more disposed to crime. Personality disorders are mental health illnesses that affect how people cope with their feelings and how they communicate with other people. They usually develop in late adolescence and early childhood.
Finding strong evidence surrounding this topic could be significant to reducing crime rates and addressing the public health issue. What I have learn from research-based evidence and analyzing social and cultural theories, is that criminal behavior is multifaceted and is influenced by a range of determinants in which surrounds the nature versus nurture debate. I believe that nature and nurture both play significant roles to the making of a criminal.
“Criminality is learned in the same manner as any other learned behavior” (Siegel). People, and criminals, learn motives, values and techniques from interactions and experiences with other people. This can be with parents and family members or peers in someone 's life. The theory says that the criminal need someone to teach them the criminal acts before they commit the act themselves. This theory “affirm[s] the importance of criminal contact as a means for learning how to offend” (McCarthy). Most people do not wake up one day and decide to start being criminals. Most of the time, that person has friends and acquaintances around them already doing criminal acts. That person might think that the acts are criminal and bad but, after a while of hanging around them, especially if they never get in trouble, the deviant acts will look more normal. People become “delinquents because of an excess of definition favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law”
They also explore the myths about the connection between genetic factors and criminal behavior. The first myth they looked at was “Identifying the Role of Genetics in Criminal Behavior Implies That There Is a “Crime Gene.”” This myth is dismissed because of the unlikelihood that that a single gene is responsible for criminal behavior. The second myth they look at is “Attributing Crime to Genetic Factors is Deterministic.” This myth is also easily dismissed because of the fact that just because someone has a predisposition to a certain behavior doesn’t mean that the person will take on that behavior.
Strain theories of criminal behaviour have been amongst the most important and influential in the field of criminology. Taking a societal approach, strain theories have sought to explain deficiencies in social structure that lead individuals to commit crime (Williams and McShane 2010). Strain theories operate under the premise that there is a societal consensus of values, beliefs, and goals with legitimate methods for achieving success. When individuals are denied access to legitimate methods for achieving success, the result is anomie or social strain. This often leads an individual to resort to deviant or criminal means to obtain the level of success that they are socialized to pursue. This is the basic premise of strain theory. This paper will explore the evolution of strain theories by first examining their intellectual foundations which laid the foundation for Robert Merton’s theories of anomie and strain. Merton’s strain theory will be discussed in detail including the modes of adaptation that people use when faced with societal strain. Finally, the paper will conclude with the strengths and weaknesses of Merton’s strain theory and an examination of the criminological theories and social policies it has influenced.
Theories that are based on biological Factors and criminal behavior have always been slightly ludicrous to me. Biological theories place an excessive emphasis on the idea that individuals are “born badly” with little regard to the many other factors that play a part in this behavior. Criminal behavior may be learned throughout one’s life, but there is not sufficient evidence that proves crime is an inherited trait. In the Born to Be Bad article, Lanier describes the early belief of biological theories as distinctive predispositions that under particular conditions will cause an individual to commit criminal acts. (Lanier, p. 92) Biological criminologists are expected to study the “criminal” rather than the act itself. This goes as far as studying physical features, such as body type, eyes, and the shape or size of one’s head. “Since criminals were less developed, Lombroso felt they could be identified by physical stigmata, or visible physical abnormalities…characteristics as asymmetry of the face; supernumerary nipples, toes, or fingers; enormous jaws; handle-shaped or sensible ears; insensibility to pain; acute sight; and so on.” (Lanier. P. 94). It baffles me that physical features were ever considered a reliable explanation to criminal behavior. To compare one’s features to criminal behavior is not only stereotypical, but also highly unreliable.
Some persons commit crime despite their life situation; for others, it is the reverse, but multiple factors generate crime. Individuals are less likely to offend repetitively when their early childhood is dominated by consistent and caring parenting and troublesome behavior when found school, is met with solutions. Crime tends to be lower in countries where there are more social benefits and fewer children in relative poverty; Crime tends to be higher because of opportunities such as those created by persons being away from their residences, having desirable objects that others do not
TANNENBAUN, B, (2007),Profs link criminal behaviour to genetics [online] , Available at: http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2007/11/profs_link_criminal_behavior_to_genetics [accessed 16th October 2011].
Though inconclusive, there are numerous other socio-biological factors that present individual risks to criminality. These include gang related peer influence, low IQ levels and hormones; especially cortisol and testosterone.