The controversial debate of whether or not humans are innately evil has been endlessly debated especially when offensive behaviour is exhibited (Bernet et al. 2007). It has generally been agreed upon that distressing experiences during a persons’ childhood will cause them to commit a spectrum of heinous crimes (Jaffee et al. 2005). Such childhood experiences could be drug, domestic violence or education related (Krohn et al. 2001). However, it is also argued that even from young ages children will steal items of their desire as humans are born with a craving for possessions (Dyl & Wapner, 1996). Such desires may have been a contributory factor as to why thousands of children every year initiate offensive behaviour and as such come in contact …show more content…
This theory is inductive as its understandings, categories and theories are developed as a result of the data rather than approaching the study with a constructed hypothesis to test (Murray & Chamberlain, 1999). Thus, the grounded theory is a useful technique for analysing adolescent delinquent behaviour. Moffitt et al. (1996) proposed that persistent offenders have neurological impairments predisposing them to information-processing problems that may explain their criminal behaviour. With Moffitt et al. theory in mind, Lopez and Emmer (2000) adopted the grounded theory methodology and examined the viewpoint from which offenders interpret the criminal situations they have been in and assign meaning to their behaviour. In total, 24 male adolescents were interviewed regarding their experiences as to why they became a juvenile delinquent. The grounded methods uses simultaneous data collection and analysis in order to create a set of categories (Strauss and Corbin). The categories from Lopez and Emmer’s research included rationale for choice of victim, the inner conflicts between beliefs and behaviours and perceived sanctions. After establishing categories, crime type and motives for crime, it was found that emotion-driven behaviour was a casual condition for delinquent behaviour. Therefore, this study concluded that criminal behaviour may be caused by information processing and cognitive activity rather than childhood experiences. Using the grounded method, these researchers were able to analyse and develop theoretical categories, as opposed to focusing solely on the results of inquiry (Glaser & Strauss,
The study of Juvenile delinquency and the theories pertaining to it are vital for several reasons. In order to more effectively engage with youths and foster positive behavior and schemas, the individuals must first be understood. The study of theory provides a means of understanding adolescents and the factors that lead to or detract from delinquent behavior. In the case of juvenile delinquent, Jordan Brown, theory helps to provide insight into why an eleven-year-old boy murdered his stepmother.
In addition to this overview Sutherland outlines nine specific factors which may enhance one’s ability to learn the criminal behaviors but for the purposes of this paper, three of the nine will be analyzed closely;
Bartol, C. R. (2002). Criminal behavior: A psychosocial approach. (6 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Theories have often been developed to explain how delinquents violate social norms and still manage to maintain positive self images of themselves. Neutralization theory, developed by Gresham Sykes and David Matza in 1957 set out to do just this. Critics, however, have claims that the theory, on it’s own, is not a sufficient explanation for adolescent’s participation in crime in delinquency. It has also been claimed by critics that neutralization theory is best viewed as a components of larger theory of crime and can be incorporated into other theories such as social bond theory.
A good formal theory ought to be at least the equivalent ought of a ton of ethnographies and perhaps half a gross of substantive theories (Strauss 1987, p.248). A substantive grounded theory is a tailor-made theory while a formal grounded theory is a ready-made theory (Kearney 1998). Substantive theory may limit its application to other contexts if a constant comparative method of modifying a theory is neglected. Nevertheless, it may have important general implications and relevance to other areas. It is for this imperative that, the emergent substantive grounded theory generated from data, is moved to a formal theory. Formal theory allows more generalization, and transferability of research results, which may be adapted to other different scenarios.
The main aim of this essay is to describe two general theories of offending and then consider the extent to which they explain youth offending. This essay will firstly outline the context of the labelling theory then go on to discuss the way in which a label becomes a person’s master status in life. The essay will then compare the differences with primary and secondary deviance and define the term self fulfilling prophecy. The second stage of the essay will describe the learning theory, explaining the background including all the terms, classical conditioning, operant conditioning and social learning theory. Furthermore, it will then go on to explore the research and describe the extent to which both theories explain youth offending. Finally, the essay will compare and contrast the two theories and evaluate any of the assets or implications.
Thompson, W. E. and Bynum J. E. (2010). Juvenile Delinquency: A sociological Approach Eighth Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
In order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the criminal behavior theories, the word theory needs to be defined. “A theory is an explanation. It tells why or how things are related to each other. A theory of crime explains why or how a certain thing or certain things are related to criminal behavior.” (Bohn and Vogel)
“Children are a product of their environment”, is something I constantly hear when a either a young person is acting out or a young person doesn’t look “socially acceptable”. Delinquency and children’s behavior was something I have grown to become interested in during our class; thus leading me to analyze different theories on youth and the factors that prompted the onset of delinquent and how they continue to sustain their negative behavior. I personally do not completely agree with any one theory that applies to youth and child delinquency, yet there are points within each theory that I can agree with. In the following pages I will describe theories such as Choice Theory, Biosocial Theory, and Differential Association Theory.
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.
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.
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.
Researchers show that a good percentage of adult criminals committed their first offence in their childhood, long before their first conviction. They could manage to escape notice by committing the first offence, which encouraged them to commit further offences till they were apprehended, tried and convicted. However not until we know the causes of delinquency, can measures for its prevention be suggested.
Loeber, R and Farrington, D (2000). Young children who commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications. Development and Psychopathology, , pp 737-762.
I now know that criminology prefer to highlight the correlations between crimes’ social climates and criminals’ psychological states of mind. While some argues that criminal behavior is a result of individuals’ association with criminal peers, other claims that crime is a reflection of an individual’s genetic disadvantages. I have come to learn that there are no universally agreed formulas on decoding crimes and criminal behaviors. What we have, however, is a manual full of academic opinions and subjective views that have emerged alongside of the development of criminology. At the same time, the volume of conflicting perspectives that I have stumble upon in studying criminology reminded me again that the success of our current assessment models has yet to be determined. Thus, the study of criminology is an appropriate practice that will further prepare me to conduct meaningful research on legal studies and to provide accurate and in-depth findings in the near