Criminal Theories Essay

An in-depth association of theories is non required at this level, rather demonstration of knowledge of two of the biological, sociological and psychical explanations for cruel conduct and how featureors much(prenominal) asnegative family influences, leave extinct of education, privation and unemployment may impact on the demeanor of the wrongdoer and how orders views of vicious doings have changed over time.I confirm that the work that I am submitting is enti assert my own, and I have non copied from any former(a) student or source, un little referenced.P3 Describe two theories of brutal behaviour and the factors that contri thoe to themWhen looking at shame, it is es directial that we explore the definitions of wickedness and the theories that rationalize why aversion happens and how this affects both various(prenominal)s and communities. The discover of horror is comm to a greater extent thanover known as Criminology. Criminology originated from many other(a) discip inventorys much(prenominal) as sociology, psychology, biology, geography, constabulary and anthropology. It is gener wholey pass judgment that at that direct atomic number 18 triad main(prenominal) categories that argon used to explain why crime happens.To dive deeper into the theories surrounding immoral behaviour we substructureanalyse the three main and biggest theories behind a Criminal and their doings A) intellectual models B) sociological models and C) biological models. exclusively infer different methods of hold and actions. Its actually difficult to separate the three categories completely as it is generally accepted that all three theories contri juste king-size factors that play a role in the expression of behaviour. Moreover, mental science consists of several(prenominal) disciplines including biological psychology and neighborly psychology, so psychological principles could be utilise across all three domains. However, on that poin t argon slightly general principles associated with each of the to a higher place three paradigms that would be associated with some specialized crime manipuformer(a) policies. This imparts in true narrow definition for each of the categories but it does simplify the discussion herein.Psychological Approachest run acrossher a many different psychological models of immoral behaviour ranging from early Freudian nonions to later cognitive and amicable psychological models. I squeeze outnot review them all. Instead, there ar several fundamental assumptions of psychological theories of vice (and human behaviour in general) that follow. These atomic number 181. The individual is the primary unit of digest in psychological theories.2. record is the conceive motivational and influencial element that drives behaviour and their actions in spite of find out of the clo moldance individuals.3. Normality is generally defined by social consensus.4. Crimes then would result fr om abnormal, disfunctional, or conflicting mental processes at bottom the temperament of the individual.5. Criminal behaviour may be purposeful for the individual insofar as it addresses true felt needs.6. Defective, or abnormal, mental processes may have a intermixture of causes, i.e., a diseased mind, in permit acquire or incorrect conditioning, the emulation of inappropriate role models, and adjustment to inner conflicts. inclined these six principles to establish psychological explanations of criminal behaviour we championship suggest starting line that traditional imprisonment, fines, and other courtroom sanctions argon base on operant acquirement models of behaviour for crime concord. Operant education models argon establish onthe utilitarian c at one timepts that all large number wish to maximise pleasure and minimize pain or discomfort. skinnerian establish social psychological theories of backing and punishment atomic number 18 influential in this model of criminal insure although the idea of punishment for crime has a much doggeder history (Jeffery, 1990). technically speaking, punishments ar any sanctions designed to change magnitude a specific behaviour thus, fines, immure sentences, etc. be all forms of punishment.However, Skinner himself recognise that punishment was generally useless in behaviour modification and that reinforcement worked let out (e.g., Skinner, 1966). Actually, a caveat should be utilise here. Punishment is effective if utilise decently, but unfortunately it seldom is applied right. Punishment needs to be spry (or as close to the time the offence occurred as possible), inescapable, and sufficiently unpleasant (in fact the much it is subjectively perceived as acrid the better). Given the discriminative organisation in the U.S. it would be hard to observe punishment to its maximal effectiveness, thus it is not an effective deterrent as waitn in the stable homicide rates of states that ca rry the close penalty. N maventheless, punishments and sanctions for criminal behaviour are based on behavioural psychological principles.Because harsh forms of punishment do not come in to world-shakingly decrease recidivism rates, other psychological principles have been applied. In terms of cognitive portal psychological principles, rehabilitation and relearning, retraining, or educational weapons platforms for offenders are forms of psychologically based methods to control crime. These methods are based on the cognitive behavioural methods of teaching an choice functional response in place of a formally dysfunctional one as opposed to frank punishment. These programs can take place in prisons or outside of the prison and have long been demonstrated to be successful (e.g., Mathias, 1995). So any form of retraining, re-education, or re-en adjudicate program is based on psychological principles of wrong-doing and reform. Rehabilitation programs are often rarely implemented i n jail or prison however.Many of these programs appear to be especially beneficial for drug and intoxicant offenders. Likewise, any form education much(prenominal)(prenominal) as the DARE program and modern political campaigns to curb bullying in schools are based on these methods. In line with this, changing the environment of the offender such as providing more opportunities would be a psychological behavioural principle designed to cutcrime. In line with other psychological methods are policies aimed at maintaining a visible presence of law enforcement and methods to maintain self-awareness of slew in tempting situations. such(prenominal) methods are preventative. For instance, it has been a well-known social psychological principle that situations that diminish inquietude and self-awareness lead individuals to be less restrained, less self-regulated, and more likely to act without considering the consequences of their actions (e.g., Diener, 1979).The simple act of placing mirrors in stores can maturation self-awareness and decrease shop-lifting. Likewise, the presence of visible law-enforcement can cut down on intimately crime. Making sanctions and the consequences for crime well- overtized and available to the public is another psychological method to control crime in this vein. Various forms of criminal profiling are based to a great extent on psychological principles and represent an effort to either apprehend existing criminals or to identify persons at risk for indis contriveable behaviour (Holmes & Holmes, 2008). More recently there have been efforts to develop methods to identify individuals at risk for certain forms of deviant behaviour including criminal activities based on disposition and social variables. Sociological ApproachesSociological principles and psychological principles of evil are intertwined and technically not independent. As with psychological theories there are numerous sociological formulations of the cause and contr ol of criminality. For purposes of this paper we forget define sociological notions of criminality as 1. Attempting to connect the show ups of the individuals criminality with the broader social structures and ethnical values of public, social, familial, or peer gathering. 2. How the contradictions of all of these interacting groups contribute to criminality. 3. The ways these structures ,cultures and contradictions have historically developed and evolved. 4. The current processes of change that these groups are undergoing. 5. Criminality is viewed from the point of view of the social make up and construction of criminality and its social causes.Traditional sociological theories proposed that crimes was a result of anomie, a term pith normlessness or a feeling of a pretermit of social norms, and feeling leave from a social peer group or departed a lack of organism connected to indian lodge. The term was make popular by mile Durkheim (1897). Durkheim primitively used the term to explain suicide, but later sociologists used the term to draw the dissociation of the individual from the collective moral sense or the criminality resulting from a lack of opportunity to achieve aspirations or by the learning of criminal values and behaviours. consequently criminality results by the failure to properly socialize individuals and by unequal opportunities amid groups. Durkheim believed that crime was an inescapable fact of society and advocated maintaining crime within reasonable boundaries.A feature of sociological theories is that society constructs criminality. Thus, certain types of human activity are insidious and are judged so by society as a whole. But it is excessively true that there are other behaviors recognized by society as criminal that do not result in harm to others and are therefrom criminalized without sufficient ground, these are the so-called victimless crimes. These take on drug use, prostitution, etc. Therefore tally to this view if c arried to its extreme 100% of the members of a society are lawbreakers at some point. One of the sociological policy methods of crime control would be to advocate for decriminalisation of these victimless crimes or at least a vast reduction in their penalties (Schur, 1965). companionable programs aimed at socializing children properly and providing encourage for single family homes are besides examples of sociological methods to control crime. There are a number of these programs including go academies (small learning communities in low-income high schools, offering academic and career/technical courses as well as workplace opportunities).Finally, sociological policies to control crime would enable stronger and harsher penalties to be enforced when regarding effective crimes such as murder, flub, are more effective law enforcement. Again, sociologists accept the realness that crime is a social phenomenon that leave alone not disappear no motion how many interventions are enacted to control it. Sociologists promissory note that of e precise 100 crimes committed within the United States, only one is sent to prison. A vast number are unreported and of those that are reported only a small portion goes to examination as a result of the victim being too scared to come forward and fear for their social morbidity. If a justice clay is to work properly it must be able to rely on its law enforcement system and judicial system to bring to justice and follow up on serious offenders. The purposes ofimprisonment include punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence, and discriminating confinement. All of these should be utilized where appropriate for the individual (Hester & Eglin, 1992). Biological ApproachesBiological theories of criminality basically purport that criminal behavior is the result of some blemish in the biological makeup of the individual. This material flaw could be due to (Raine, 2002) (1) Heredity(2) Neurotransmitter dysfunction(3) thought ab normalities that were caused by either of the above, improper development, or trauma. Biological theorists would also gage a harder penalty and better law enforcement techniques for crime control, but there are several methods of crime control that are specific to the biological theories of criminality. I will discuss these briefly here. Psychooperating room Brain surgery to control behaviour has rarely been applied to criminal behaviour. Certainly much more common between the 1930s to the late 1970s there were over 40,000 facade lobotomies performed. Lobotomies were used to treat a capacious range of problems from depression, to schizophrenia.However, while widely discussed as a potential interposition for criminal behaviour a perusal of the literature could not find a court ordered case for a leukotomy as a sentence for a convicted criminal Lobotomies were also used for people who were considered an annoyance because the demonstrated behaviours characterized as glowering or they were children who were defiant with authority figures such as teachers. The pre facade leucotomy involves separating the prefrontal cerebral mantle from the rest of the genius either surgically or in the case of the transorbital lobotomy with a sharp ice-pick like dick that was inserted in the eye socket between the fastness eyelid and the eye. In this method the unhurried was not anesthetized, not even children. The psychiatrists hit the end of the instrument with a hammering to disconnect the nerves in the frontal lobe of the brain. Afterwards behaviours were changed, but at a high price as you can imagine. Today the lobotomy has fallen out of favour due musics used to control behaviour, although some view the use of medications as equivalent to a lobotomy (e.g., see Breggin, 2008).Psychosurgery appears to be an option that will nigh likely not be put into use due to the stigma associated with it. chemical substance methods of control Theuse of pharmacological trea tments to try to control crime has been ongoing in two major areas chemical emasculation for sex offenders and pharmacological interventions for drug or alcohol addicts. However, addicts can stop the medication and return to use. Sex offenders are intimately monitored and there is some evidence that this policy has been efficacious. Sometimes mentally ill people in the criminal justice system been ordered to take medications to treat their mental illness. Other pharmacological interventions to control crime seem plausible and are being investigated, but do not appear to have been widely used.Others Deep brain stimulation is used for some disorders such as Parkinsons disease, but has til now been investigated for criminal behaviour. Biological theorists have advocated changes in diet to deal with criminality (Burton, 2002) and better relations between parents. There is also the famous inherited XYY combination that was once thought to be a sucker for a criminal type, but as it tu rned out these individuals were found to be less intelligent or more likely to have learning difficulties as opposed to being criminal types. term there are many studies indicating a connection between antisocial temperament disorder or criminal behavioural and heredity, there are no policies being implemented to advocate for selective breeding, genetic testing etc. for criminals. I do not yet envision a policy of genetic testing for criminals as the variables are not stable comely in order to predict with set of gene combinations are predictive of a biological criminal type (Rutter, 2006) although this is surely a possibility.If the biological model of criminality has any significant effect on policy outside the use of chemical castration for sex offenders, it would be the policy that certain forms of criminal behaviour or certain individuals may not be rehabilitated and the advocacy for harsher and stricter imprisonments or even executions are viable methods of control in thes e instances. The issue for the community is how to recognize a significant biological contribution to criminal behaviour since genetic testing is unreliable and there are no other physical markers of criminality. It seems that currently in the absence of very harsh crimes like murder and rape one must be recognized as a repeat offender before we can acknowledge a possible innate tendency towards criminality.By that time the damage, which is often irreparable, is done. Perhaps the resolvent lies in stricter probation and parole practices for first-time offenders. However,this policy is costly and tax payers may not support it. The policy mandating convicted sex offenders to be monitored over their lifetime and certain restrictions placed on them is a result of the acknowledgment of a biological predisposition to engage in this crime and therefore traditional forms of treatment or remediation do not appear to be effective. Similar policies office follow with habitual criminal offen ders based on the biological theories of criminality.Reference contestationAmerican Psychiatric Association (APA, 2002). symptomatic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th Ed.). Arlington, VA Author. Breggin, P.A. (2008). Brain disabling treatments in psychiatry Drugs, electroshock, and the psychopharmaceutical complex. (2nd Edition) in the altogether York Springer University Press. Burton, R. (2002). The Irish institute of alimentation and health. In Diet and criminality. Retrieved June 17, 2011, from http//www.iinh.net/health_and_nutrition_articles/diet_and_criminality.htm. Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and hearty Psychology, 37(7), 1160-1171. Durkheim, Emile (1897) 1951. Suicide A study in sociology. clean York The Free Press. Hester, S. & Eglin, P. (1992). A sociology of crime. London Routledge. Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2008). Profiling violent crimes An fact-finding tool (Fourth Edition). Thou sand Oaks Sage worldations, Inc. Jeffery, R. C. (1990). Criminology An interdisciplinary approach. New Jersey Prentice Hall. Mathias, R. (1995). punitory treatment helps offenders stay drug and beat free. NIDA notes, 10 (4). Merton, Robert K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York Free Press. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York Wiley. Raine, A. (2002). The biological basis of crime. In J.Q Wilson & J. Petrsilia (Eds.)CrimePublic policies for crime control. Oakland ICS Press. Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and Behavior Nature-Nurture Interplay Explained.Boston Blackwell. Schur E. (1965) Crime without victims. Englewood Cliffs.Skinner, B. F. (1966). The evolution and ontogeny of behavior. Science, 153, 1204 1213.