Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Psychological theories for criminal behaviour
Biological causes of criminal behavior
Biological causes of criminal behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Psychological theories for criminal behaviour
Perspectives of Criminal Behavior
Mary Huston
Baker College
CRJ 141- Criminology
Instructor Kevin Lindsey
4-17-16
Perspectives of Criminal Behavior
Sociological, biological, and psychological. Each of these have different effects on criminals and their outcome of their behavior.
Sociological. Society and surrounding have different effects on people. What is normal for one person can be completely insulting to another. Criminals are created because they were exposed to that type of environment which for them was normal. Some people are never exposed to violence and crimes and are morally taught not to do wrong but they seek the thrill and or enjoy being defiant. Social control theory, developed by Travis Hirschi, is a type of
…show more content…
Biologically, people who have had ancestors or relatives that had committed a crime or are a repetitive criminal, have a higher rate of following in the family footsteps. Genetically we inherit genes from our parents and we can receive the same mold of criminal behaviors from our ancestors. For example, if alcoholism runs in your family, you have a higher percentage to become an alcoholic from genetics. The framework for the research was based on the developmental taxonomy of anti-social behavior, a theory derived by Dr. Terri Moffitt, who identified three groups, or pathways, found in the population: life-course persistent offenders, adolescent-limited offenders and abstainers. Moffitt suggested that environmental, biological and, perhaps, genetic factors could cause a person to fall into one of the paths. “That was the motivation for this paper. No one had actually considered the possibility that genetic factors could be a strong predictor of which path you end up on,” said Barnes, who is an assistant professor of criminology in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at UT Dallas. “In her (Moffitt’s) theory, she seems to highlight and suggest that genetic factors will play a larger role for the life-course persistent offender pathway as compared to the adolescence-limited pathway (Alanis, …show more content…
Psychologically, people who commit crimes do so because of some type of mental illness. Bandura maintains that individuals are not born with an innate ability to act violently. He suggested that, in contrast, violence and aggression are learned through a process of behavior modeling In other words, children learn violence through the observation of others. Aggressive acts are modeled after three primary sources: family interaction, environmental experiences, and the mass media. Research on family interaction demonstrates that children who are aggressive are more likely to have been brought up by parents or caretakers who are aggressive (Criminal Justice , n.d.). For example, if a child is brought up in an environment where they are constantly told negative things about themselves, they will consciously start to believe in the negatives. Children begin to pick up on things and they absorb all behaviors because that’s what seems normal to them. Same goes with adolescences and adults. You can have someone psychically, mentally, and emotionally wear you down and you will begin to think that the behavior is
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.
Laub and Sampson (2003) discuss the prominent theories of crime over the life course with an emphasis on the work of Terrie Moffitt. Moffitt (1993) attempted to explain life course persistence and some discontinuity. According to Moffitt (1993), there are two distinct categories of offenders concealed by early offending: adolescent-limited offenders and life-course persistent offenders. In this taxonomy, adolescent-limited offenders are those who offend temporarily and discontinue use while life-course persistent offenders are those who offend continuously, with an earlier beginning in delinquency (Moffitt 1993). Adolescent limited offenders only participate in antisocial behavior during adolescence while life-course persistent offenders participate in anti-social behavior throughout the life course beginning in early childhood and into adulthood (Moffitt 1993). Moffitt’s theory (1993) all...
Trait Theory suggests that the criminal behavior that one may partake in is related to personality traits inherited at birth. “Psychological traits are stable personality patterns that tend to endure throughout the life course and across social and cultural contexts.” (Schmalleger, 2016) This theory also suggests that these traits give criminals “predispositions to respond to a given situation in
There are many theories that can be applied to different cases that have occurs in Americas history. The two theories that are choses for this paper are the trait theory and under the trait theory is psychological which is “abnormal personality and psychological traits are the key to determinant of anti-social behavior. There is a link between mental illness, personality disorders and crime (Siegel, 2014). The second theory is the Choice theory which “criminals weigh the cost and benefits and make a conscious, rational choice to commit crime” (Siegel, 2014). This paper will show how a theory can be applied to a person and a crime. Some of the cases that are being presented some will not agree but up us all about the person perspective.
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.
As Laub and Sampson (2003) analyze crime over the life course, they highlight Terrie Moffitt’s theory and discuss the limitations of her developmental explanation. In Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy, she acknowledges two categories of offenders...
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.
One of the most researched topics in the history of psychology is aggression. One goal of social scientists has been to define aggression. Some believe that aggression is biologically preprogrammed, others look toward situational factors and this study suggests that aggression is learned. This study was conducted by Albert Bandura and his associates in 1961 at Stanford University. The researchers proposed that the children be exposed to adult models with either aggressive or nonaggressive ways, they would then be tested without the models present to determine if they would imitate that aggression they observed in the adult.
Siegel, L. J. (2013). Trait theories. Criminology: theories, patterns, and typologies (11th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
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.
(Review of the Roots of Youth Violence). This is in turn brought about the biosocial perspective of criminality. Instead of viewing criminals as people governed by their biological instincts to be innate criminals, biosocial theorists believe that physical, environmental, and social conditions interact in many different and complex ways to produce human behaviors. This then began the Nature vs Nurture debate.
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.
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