Even though a research study found a significant positive correlation between taking vitamins and crime rates, the newspaper article titled, “Vitamins cause crime” is incorrect. The authors of the article have made the mistake of confusing correlation with causation. Even if things are highly correlated, one must not make the mistake of assuming that one thing causes the other because there could be confounding variable that are effecting both of the variables.
The best way to find out whether or not taking vitamins causes increased crime rates would be to perform an experiment. The experiment should be a double-blind research study. The subjects should be randomly assigned to an experimental group or a control group. The experimental group
The headline, “Recession Causes Increase in Teen Dating Violence”, clearly affirms a causal relationship between the economic recession, and the increase in teen relationship violence. Specifically, causation can be described as one event causing an effect within a specific scenario. As you see in the headline title, a recession assumes the responsibility for an increase in teen date violence. Hence, with this headline we observe a cause and effect relationship.
...& Snipes, J. (2010). Biological Factors and Criminal Behavior.Vold's theoretical criminology (6th Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Location is a significant factor that contributes to where the pattern of homicides occur in Chicago. This is because overtime particular areas have been developed due to gentrification in city areas including the Northern and Central sides, these changes occur due to influx of wealth. This leaves the Southern and Western sides to deteriorate as the houses and the areas aren’t well looked after due to affluent people leaving it that way causing a ‘slum-like lifestyle’ and low rent for those with low income. Therefore, a higher pattern of homicides in the Southern and Western sides of Chicago occur because those in lower classes tend to resort to violence and crime.
Wilson, James and Herrnstein, Richard. "Crime & Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime" New York: Free Press, 1998.
If we studied through the history of criminal theory, spiritual and natural theories are taken as major theories of causation of crime. During medieval period, spiritual explanations were taken as punishment given by god for doing wrong things and any natural disasters like flood, fires, etc were evaluated as curse of high power. In modern period, the basic theories of causation of crime are classical theory, biological theory, psychological theory, cultural theory and conflict theory. The classical theory explains that free will acts as center of crime giving example of free will of children that may commit crime which cannot be paid once it committed. In the 19th century, the biological theory got public attention when Cesare Lombrose suggested that criminals cannot be identified by examining their body structures, number of toes, etc giving the research data that determined that ordinary people are mostly involved in crime than militants. Now, this theory is followed by Modern biological theory which signifies that chemical imbalance in brain results violence activities. It supports remarkable example of violence occurred due to lower portion of serotonin chemical and abuse of drugs alcohol (Fishbein 1990). Fishbein(2000) mentioned the relation of the damage of frontal lobe of brain and antisocial behavior. Similarly, psychological theory explains that mental illness of person convicts crime and is supported by Freud’s concept of id, ego and superego. Freud mentioned that any emotional trauma in children of 5 yrs age or above may result long –lasting negative influence. Likewise, the most common but important theory is sociological theory that deals with the conviction of crime ...
Crime has been measured in different ways since the earliest days of advanced civilization. Within those attempts to measure crime many people have tried to explain why crime happens, and how criminality has come to be. Today, I will be briefly explaining some of the theories used to study crime and criminality. What I will be evaluating these theories against will be small scale property crime such as theft.
In today’s society there is a high fear of crime by society. Society actions show that there is anxiety and fear about crime. Therefore, anxiety and fear about crime has placid our cities and communities. Society express fear of being victimized by crimes, criminal activities, and behaviors. Therefore, according to, (Crime, 1999) states that “ the level of fear that a person holds depends on many factors, including but, not limited to: “ gender, age, any past experiences with crime that a person may have, where one lives, and one’s ethnicity.” All of those factors have a huge impact on one’s fear level.
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.
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.
stronger and more profound so to do women in crime. In terms of race and crime, crime will continue among minorities until an equilibrium in social class and job ranking is met. The question of economics as a cause of crime finds that people are not forced into crime because they are poor, but because they are not capable of getting the luxuries that they have deemed necessities. They have gone from being in a comfortable,
There are various theories within the biological explanation as to why individuals commit criminal behaviour, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory, psychosis and brain injury theory. In the next few paragraphs examples of each will be shown.
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.
Different schools of thought propose varying theoretical models of criminality. It is agreeable that criminal behaviour is deep rooted in societies and screams for attention. Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.
To sum it up, I still hold that the increasing crimes in the society have been due to the conditions of poverty in various parts of the country. From the statistics, it is evident that it is in the poor neighborhoods that many types of crimes are realized to have occurred in large numbers. Poverty is mainly as a result of many factors and all these have to find a way for survival through committing crimes (Crowther & Campling, 2000). Therefore, some of the factors that can aid in reducing crime would be to advocate for better education in order to do away with ignorance in individuals.