More handpicked essays just for you.
Biological and psychological perspectives of crime
Biological and psychological perspectives of crime
Psychological factors underlying criminal behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Biological and psychological perspectives of crime
There are several ways for measuring crime rates. “The three major types of statistics used to measure crime are official statistics, victimization surveys, and self-report offender surveys” (Mooney p112). While some find these sources useful and reliable, many do not. Particularly, official statistics have several shortcomings.
Official statistics are based on information collected by police departments on the number of reported crimes and arrests that are voluntarily reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Many crime reports go unreported and sometimes even when a crime is reported, the police may or may not take record of it. Rates may also be exaggerated and there are also various views of exactly what defines crime and what holds validity.
…show more content…
One of the many reasons for this particular issue is the bias views on exactly what is crime. A crime is said to be “an act, or the omission of an act, that is a violation of a federal, state, or local criminal law for which the state can apply sanctions” (Mooney p112). Particularly, “the offender must have acted voluntarily and with intent and have no legally acceptable excuse or justification for their behavior” (Mooney p112). “Some explanations of crime focus on psychology aspects of the offenders, such as psychopathic personalities, unhealthy relationships with parents, and mental illness. Other crime theories focus on the role of biological variables, such as central nervous system malnutrition, stress hormones, vitamin or mineral deficiencies, chromosomal abnormalities, and a genetic predisposition toward aggression” (Mooney
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is information that is gathered by the U.S Census Bureau. Unlike UCR this information is not given by law enforcement officials, but by a household survey that is conducted about twice a year. When the survey is being commenced they place the crimes into two different categories; person crimes and property crimes. NCVS has four objectives when obtaining information; “(1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to the police, (3) to provide uniform measures of selected typed of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas.” (NACJD)
In contemporary society, there are various methodologies for collecting data (Linden 2012). That being said, there are pros and cons to each that are based on reliability and validity; where reliability is consistency of the statistics, and validity is a measure of how accurate the results are in accordance with the research topic. This ties in with how this paper will explore the Uniform Crime Report system (UCR); a measure of crime that is used the most. UCR statistics reflect the crimes that are reported to the police throughout the country. victimization and self-report surveys, which are statistics that reinforce the findings revealed by the UCR, will also be explored. Lastly, the issue of media coverage of crime news will be examined.
UCR takes note of all crimes in the Criminal Code annually recorded by the ‘dark figure’ of policing, whereas GSS on Victimization only sources eight types of offences self-reported via phone interviews quinquennial for the past year. The loose ends of both surveys tie together to provide an accurate overall trend of crime rates in Canada. UCR and GSS on Victimization are equally important to the study of crime. They are able to compare crime rates by geographical regions, crime severity, and characteristics of victimization. Criminologists require this information obtained from the surveys to study the causes, effects, and social impact of crime and victimization, in order to determine how to predict, deter, and prohibit criminal activity. They provide a more robust measure of the extent and impact of criminal activity in Canadian society. Together they provide an accurate measurement of crime through police reports and self-reporting of broad social surveys, rather than alone since both are lacking in their own ways. As a difference in timing is a key characteristic in the differences in the polls. UCR is annually conducted, whereas GSS on Victimization is processed every five years for the forgoing 12
The two systems are a good representation of crime through statistics of race and the actual crime. Through NCVS, the FBI crime system NIBRS can conduct a trend analysis for the crimes and the victims that are affected by the crimes. This can also serve as a tool to higher more police to the areas that are affected more with crime. The article; The Relationship Between Crime Reporting and Police: Implications for the Use of Uniform Crime Reports, Steven Levit, discusses the problem with police reporting and how there is no standard for the reporting across the nation. Therefore people believe that the reports are not accurate due to how different police organizations conduct their investigations. In this article, the author discusses estimates for crime versus city. The author is working with Craig who introduced this way of thought and idea in 1987.
think that people in society do not feel they can trust or rely on the
For decades, researchers have tried to determine why crime rates are stronger and why different crimes occur more often in different locations. Certain crimes are more prevalent in urban areas for several reasons (Steven D. Levitt, 1998, 61). Population, ethnicity, and inequality all contribute to the more popular urban. Determining why certain crimes occur more often than others is important in Criminal Justice so researchers can find a trend and the police can find a solution (Rodrigo R. Soares, 2004, 851). The Uniform Crime Reports are a method in which the government collects data, and monitors criminal activity in the United States (Rodrigo R. Soares, 2004, 851). They have both positive and negative attributes that have influenced
The Uniform Crime Report, which was developed in the 1930s, is commonly used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a record of crimes committed all across the United States. These crimes, which fall under two categories, Part I and Part II offenses, are reported by local police to the Federal Bureau of Investigation each year. Part I offenses are considered to be the more serious of crimes recognized by society. Such examples of this are homicide, forcible rape, robbery, arson, motor vehicle theft, etc. Part II offenses are those that are considered less serious, such as fraud, simple assault, drug abuse, gambling, stolen property, embezzlement, etc. Part I crimes can also be subdivided into what are known as violent crimes and property crimes. (Barkan, 2012). However, there are both some positive and negative aspects of this type of crime measurement. The following paper will explore the small amount of pros and numerous cons associated with the Uniform Crime Report.
Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2002). Reflections on the crime decline: Lessons for the future. Proceedings from the Urban Institute Crime Decline Forum (pp. 1-38). Washington, D. C.: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
According to O’Brien (1985) The Uniform Crime Reporting system (UCR) was developed in the 1920’s in order to create a system that would report crime uniformly across the many different jurisdictions in the United States. For the purpose of this paper I am going to discuss the debate between the relationships of the overrepresentation of minorities in crime statics and if the results are biased based on race. There is a debate regarding the accuracy of the statistics provided by official data resources such as UCR and NIBRS in regards to racial disparities. The fact that racial or social class bias does have an impact on what crimes are reported and the neighborhoods that have the highest police presence does lead inevitably to an overrepresentation of minorities when viewing crime statics as quantitative data points. Official data leads you to believe that a criminal in the United States can be described as being urban, lower class, African American male between the ages of 13 and 20 years old (Feldmeyer, Lecture 1/15/2014). Why is this information important? I believe it leads to bias in the way neighborhoods are policed, the way police stop and search vehicles, the people that police view as being “suspects” and are subjugated to stop and frisk. I also believe that this stereotype plays a part into the sort of people that are reported for being or acting “suspicious”. This can impact that perceived description of the offender when a victim is filling out a police report. All factors help lead to establish some sort of bias that inevitably can lead to disproportionate representation of minorities in UCR statistical data.
In the criminal justice field, there has been created a number of methods for measuring crime, and with those different methods come different forms of data. In the United States, there are three methods that are available to be utilized: the Uniform Crime Report (Referred to as the UCR), the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).
Biological crime theory describes that an individual is born with the desire to commit a certain crime. Evolutionary factors influence an individual’s involvement in criminal behavior. “Biological theories focus on aspects of the physical body, such as inherited genes, evolutionary factors, brain structures, or the role of hormones in influencing behavior” (Marsh, I, 2006, 3). Murderers that are innate to kill are born with factors such as mental illnesses that are the driving force as to why one may kill. Because of the biological crime theory, some individuals, though rare, are able to plead insanity. This is because the actions of the individual are said to be beyond their control (Ministry of Justice, 2006, 3).
The foundation of our legal system rest upon the single philosophy that humans hold their own fate. Even though, we perceive in our daily lives the persistence of causation and effect. Even children understand the simplistic principle that every action will have a reaction. Despite this obvious knowledge, we as a society still implanted the belief that our actions are purely our own. Yet, with the comprehension of force that environmental factors impact our development, we continue to sentence people for crimes committed. Moreover, uncontrollable environmental influences are not the only deterministic factors we ignore in our societal view of crime. One’s biological composition can work against any moral motives that they
There has always been a fascination with trying to determine what causes an individual to become a criminal? Of course a large part of that fascination has to do with the want to reduce crime, and to determine if there is a way to detect and prevent individuals from committing crime. Determining what causes criminality is still not perfectly clear and likewise, there is still debate as to whether crime is caused biologically, environmentally, or socially. Furthermore, the debate is directly correlated to the notion of 'nurture vs nature'. Over time many researchers have presented various theories pertaining to what causes criminal behavior. There are many theories that either support or oppose the concept of crime being biological rather than a learned 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.
The U.S. Department of Labor (2011) reported the national average of unemployment for 2008 was 5.8 percent. The rate dramatically increased in 2009 with an average of 9.3 percent and 9.6 percent for 2010. While unemployment rates have increased, the FBI’s preliminary reports for 2010 show that law enforcement agencies across the U.S. have reported a decrease of 6.2 percent in the number of violent crimes for the first 6 months of 2010 when compared to figures reported for the same time in 2009. The violent crime category includes rape, murder, robbery, and aggravated result. The number of property crimes also decreased 2.8 percent when compared to the same time last year. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson decreased 14.6 percent when compared to the same time periods of 2009 (FBI, 2011).