More handpicked essays just for you.
Biological and psychological theories of crime essay
Biological and psychological theories of crime essay
Psychological factors underlying criminal behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Our modern society fosters many reasons for which people commit crimes. Psychological differences, personality disorders or even a predisposition to crime and violence can cause someone to commit a crime. No matter what the reasoning behind someone choosing to commit a crime, there is no one single cause. However, there are several theories about human behavior that can help us understand why certain people are drawn to committing crimes, and others are not.
Classical Theory, which dominated common criminological thought in the time between the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, summarized the advance in criminalogical studies as a vast improvement from the superstitious and often desperately formed theories of the previous era. Some classical theories of crime causation make certain assumptions about crime being caused by the individual exercise of free will, or the element of pleasure gained from criminal activities. Another assumption is that crime prevention is possible through swift and certain punishments in an attempt to deter further crimes.
Rationality and Congition play a far greater role in the Neoclassical perspectives, taking far stride from the more dated theories of pleasure and pain as motivators for criminal acts. Many believe that these theories have
…show more content…
They state that all human behaviors are based on genetic information passed into any individual, including the predisposition to commit crimes.While having some modern resurgence, many criminological theorists have spent the past few decades leaning away from this theory. “Until recently, the majority of criminological research focused solely on social contributors, either minimizing or negating the importance of genetic and biological influences on criminal behavior”
Nature versus nurture has been argued in attempt to understand how criminals behave. The theory of what influences psychopath and serial killers’ violent and destructive pathways has not been agreed on till this day. Criminals such as psychopaths and serial killers have been researched for the past two decades. Scientists have found that genetics is a determining factor of who becomes a serial killer. It is important to understand the determinants involved within a serial killer, because if these social and environmental causes are discovered, they can be altered and controlled to reduce crime (Lykken, 1993). With more studies, we would therefore prevent mass murders and could assist in significant reductions of crime within society.
The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain, (5) Choice, with all other conditions equal, will be directed towards the maximization of individual pleasure, (6) Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in violation of the social good, the social contract, (7) The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws (this system is the embodiment of the social contract), (8) The Swiftness, Severity, and Certainty of punishment are the key elements in understanding a law's ability to control human behavior. Classical theory, however, dominated thinking about deviance for only a short time. Positivist research on the external (social, psychological, and biological) "causes" of crime focused attention on the factors that... ... middle of paper ... ...
Crime causation is looking at why people commit crimes. There are many theories that have been developed to explain this. The theories can be grouped into eight general categories of which one is the Classical theory (Schmallegar, 2011, p. 79). A subset of this theory, rational choice theory, will be specifically looked at to explain the crime of burglary. Just as no one causation theory explains all crimes committed, the rational choice theory itself does not completely explain why all burglars commit their crimes. Therefore, the pros and cons of the rational choice theory will be discussed in relation to the crime topic of burglary.
Despite much controversy surrounding the notion of inherited criminal tendencies, there is much evidence to support such theories. Although Lombroso may have employed his theoretic atavisms in an attempt to provide a biologically deterministic method of reducing or preventing crime, they have ultimately lead to an abandonment of gravitas concerning such a notion. However, as myopic as Lombroso's theories of criminality being a hereditary trait appears (Mannheim, 1965) research has shown shared physical characteristics to be commonplace in explicating the argument of genetic criminal behaviour. Although Lombroso presented...
The classical school is not concerned with why criminals are criminals, but seeks to reduce crime by using punishment as a means of deterrent, on the basis that individuals will choose to exercise their own free will and will employ rational decision making. By contrast, Ceasare Lombrosso (1835 – 1909) and the positivist school dismissed such ideas and theorised that criminality is a personality trait that one is born with and can be diagnosed by certain physical appearances, and is thus a more scientific method of establishing the reasons for criminal behaviour. However, this essay will concentrate on the strengths and weaknesses of the classical school.
I also see that the scholars “underestimate the resiliency of the criminal justice system,” and that this evidence cannot be completely denied. Since I cannot effectively argue properly researched science I would have to stay that some are possibly prone to criminal behavior for genetic reasons but on a minority. From my standpoint I would have to agree with Jones’s conclusion that the criminal justice system will neither crumble from nor ignore the new genetic research but rather integrate it on some level in its
Trait theory views criminality as a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. It is based on a mix between biological factors and environmental factors. Certain traits alone cannot determine criminality. We are born with certain traits and these traits along with certain environmental factors can cause criminality (Siegel, 2013). According to (Siegel, 2013), the study of sociobiology sparked interest in biological or genetic makeup as an explanation for crime and delinquency. The thought is that biological or genetic makeup controls human behavior, and if this is true, then it should also be responsible for determining whether a person chooses crime or conventional behavior. This theory is referred to as trait theory (Siegel, 2013). According to Siegel (2013), due to the fact that offenders are different, one cannot pinpoint causality to crime to just a single biological or psychological attribute. Trait theorist looks at personal traits like intelligence, personality, and chemical and genetic makeup; and environmental factors, such as family life, educational attainment, economic factors, and neighborhood conditions (Siegel, 2013). There are the Biosocial Trait theories an...
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 ...
In criminology, examining why people commit crime is very important in the ongoing debate of how crime should be handled and prevented. Many theories have emerged over the years, and they continue to be explored, individually and in combination, as criminologists seek the best solutions in ultimately explaining what makes a person act the way they do and the causes for these actions. In addressing the social learning theory and the trait theory, we explore the similarities and the differences and where to look for on improvement.
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.
Along with society’s natural progressive focus on humane, useful and educated responses to criminal behavior was a fear of crime that has been developing and also helps to explain the changes in punishment throughout history.
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].
There are many theories why a young individual will commit criminal acts, but many reasons they will or might commit crimes is economic status and family interaction. At risk factors that will influence juveniles to commit crimes at young age is the family environment they are raised and grown into. Young individuals that notice aggressive behavior in the household wills sometimes grow up to be a criminal because of the family interaction around them. Once they have learned or seen crime being engaged they soon are reinforced for crime and will later create a desire to commit crimes. From my belief less fortunate individuals that do not receive the best parenting skills are more likely to commit criminal acts because they don’t receive the social interactions they need to move forward in life. When a parent is not present to teach their young from right from wrong the kid will more likely not get the discipline that is needed.
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.
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