Criminal Behaviours

All describe, evaluate and modification questions

Definition of Crime

any act or lack of acting that violates law and results in punishment by the state.

Describe the inherited criminality explanation of criminal behaviours. (Paragraph 1)

The criminal gene - MAOA
gene encodes enzyme, enzyme degrades NTs, mutation in gene \= enzyme deficiency, too much serotonin (regulation of sleep appetite and mood) in blood stream/brain + too much serotonin \= aggression and violence.

Describe the inherited criminality explanation of criminal behaviours. (Paragraph 2)

Differences in criminal brains
Prefrontal cortex - damage \= personality change (irresponsible, impulsive and socially inept) \= crime
Parietal cortex - verbal ability, damage \= perform bad at school \= crime
Limbic system - fear - underactive \= less fearful \= crime (don't fear consequences)

Phineas Gage

severe brain injury changed his personality and behavior \= more agressive.

Brunner

Family in Netherlands, aggressive males involved in crime (aggression, arson and attempted rape) shared MAOA enzyme.

Raine et al (1997) Methodology

41 - 39 men 2 women - PET scan

Raine et al (1997) results

lower activity in prefrontal, parietal cortex + corpus collosum
reduced glucose metabolism in same
lower activity in limbic system

Describe the role of the amygdala explanation of criminal behaviours. (Paragraph 1)

How it works -
amygdala interpret senses, detect threat, distress signal to hypothalamus, hormones to ANS to arouse SNS \= trigger fight or flight, damage \= don't perceive threats

Describe the role of the amygdala explanation of criminal behaviours. (Paragraph 2)

fearlessness theory -
resting state \= mildly stressful, low RHR \= lack of anticipated fear \= increased chance of crime (personal risk and adverse consequences)
less fear \= lower autonomic arousal in unfamiliar situations

Describe the role of the amygdala explanation of criminal behaviours. (Paragraph 3)

Stimulation seeking theory -
low autonomic arousal (PNS) \= unpleasant physical state. engage in activities (crime) elevate arousal to optimal levels and relieve physical discomfort. need to seek stimulation to alter state

Charles Whitman (1966)

killed 16 people in Austin Texas, autopsy - tumour pressing onto amygdala (impair functioning)

Egger and Flynn (1963) - Methodology

electrodes to stimulate amygdala in a cat

Egger and Flynn (1963) - Results

rat in cats cage - ignored each other
stimulate cat's amygdala - cat attack and kill rat
stimulate different part of amygdala - cat ignore rat and attack experimenter

Pardini et al (2014) - methodology

longitudinal - 56 men recruited and analysed then and after 3 years

Pardini et al (2014) - Results

men with lower amygdala volume \= increased levels of aggression and psychopathic features (child to adult)
lower amygdala volume - aggression violence and psychopathic traits at 3 year follow up

Describe Eysenck's theory of criminal personality (paragraph 1)

Neuroticism - anxious, depressed and react strongly
determined by overall level of lability in CNS
high n \= unstable, low n \= stable and unreactive CNS
overreact to perceived threat -\> crime
Extraversion - sociable, lively and sensation seeking, determined by overall level of arousal in CNS -\> stimulation from environment \= more arousal \= engage in more danger
psychoticism - aggressive, antisocial and egocentric (unsure on how it relates to NS, linked to higher levels of T \= lack of empathy and increased aggression

Describe Eysenck's theory of criminal personality (paragraph 2)

impact of arousal in CNS on child's ability to be socialized
E,N+P determined largely by genetics and each trait normally distributed in population
criminal behaviour \= developmentally immature, selfish and concerned with immediate gratification
High E + N NS harder to condition and socialize (delay gratification and be more social - punished for immaturity)
Eysenck - high P+N harder to condition - don't learn to avoid antisocial behaviours

Raine and Williams (1990) - methodology

psychophysiological measures, taken at age 15 related to criminal status at age 24

Raine and Williams (1990) - Results

criminal behaviour due to under arousal of ANS+CNS
criminals - low RHR, less likely to sweat, more slow frequency EEG activity
although arousal correctly ID 74.7%, alone cannot fully account for crime and don't negate potential role of society

Dunlop et al (2012)

snowball sampling, participants (15-75 yrs old) E,N+P \= good predictors of delinquency

Strength of Eysenck's theory of criminal personality (Methodology of supporting studies)

longitudinal - Raine and Williams (1990), large sample - self report - Bourke (2013)

Weakness of Eysenck's theory of criminal personality (Methodology of supporting studies)

self-report = bias, androcentric, confounding variables

Weakness of Eysenck's theory of criminal personality (Refuting Research)

Bourke (2013)

Bourke (2013) - Methodology

179 male non violent offenders, self report measures of attitudes, associates, social ID + personality traits, likelihood to reoffend assessed through frequency of imprisonment

Bourke (2013) - Results

criminal thinking moderated by personality in prediction of reoffending
Supports - High P, refutes - Low E+N \= positive association between criminal thinking styles and reoffending

Strength of Eysenck's theory of criminal personality (Real world application)

Early ID = intervention

Weakness of Eysenck's theory of criminal personality (Real world application)

Personality test = unreliable, pre-emptive strike

Strength of Eysenck's theory of criminal personality (Other)

Reductionist - targets one factor in society, deterministic - biological

Weakness of Eysenck's theory of criminal personality (Other)

Reductionist - doesn't account for all factors, because personality changes, no criminal personality

Describe the cognitive factors explanation of criminal behaviour (paragraph 1)

Cognitive distortions \= maladaptive thinking patterns -\> unhelpful perception of reality
Hostile attribution bias - interpretation bias - more likely to interpret ambiguous situation as more hostile than not \= aggressive behaviour and violent crime
Minimalization - tendency to down play events to oneself or others as insignificant or unimportant - be unclear or nonspecific so others don't have full picture \= inaccurate conclusion, crime - down play consequences

Evidence for Cognitive distortions

Kennedy and Grublin (1992)

Kennedy and Grublin (1992)

102 male sex offenders - interviewed and categorized
18 rationalizers - admitted crime but denied harm - offences against children and most likely to reoffend \= minimalization

Describe the cognitive factors explanation of criminal behaviour (paragraph 2)

Kohlberg's moral stages
Preconventional - Punishment and obedience, Instrumental - relativist (reward)
Conventional - pleasing others, law and order
Postconventional - personal values and universal ethical principle

Evidence for Moral Stages

Palmer and Hollin (1998)

Palmer and Hollin (1998) - methodology

comparison of moral reasoning, 210 female non, 122 male non, 126 male convicts

Palmer and Hollin (1998)- Results

Male delinquents - poorer moral reasoning on 10/11 questions than male non
female non - higher moral judgement on 7 questions than male non \= delinquents morally less mature

Strength of the cognitive factors explanation of criminal behaviour (Methodology of supporting studies)

Large sample, standardized

Weakness of the cognitive factors explanation of criminal behaviour (Methodology of supporting studies)

Self report

Weakness of the cognitive factors explanation of criminal behaviour (Refuting research)

Palmer and Hollin - moral stages don't apply to women

Strength of the cognitive factors explanation of criminal behaviour (Real world application)

Interventions - changing way criminals think to prevent reoffending

Strength of the cognitive factors explanation of criminal behaviour (Other)

Reductionist, Both free will and determinism- thinking patterns pre determined by stages but can be changed

Weakness of the cognitive factors explanation of criminal behaviour (Other)

Stage theory = androcentric cannot be applied to women

Describe the gender socialisation explanation of criminal behaviour (Paragraph 1)

Boys and girls socialised differently, boys more delinquent
Sunderland (1949) - girls supervised and controlled more, boys encouraged to take more risks, be tough and aggressive so more opportunity and inclination to commit criminal behaviours
Girls also socialised away from crime (social control)
Heidensohn (1985) - Feminine roles - mother - more time taken up caring than crime, 'glass ceiling' prevents senior positions \= no white collard crime, media portrayal of crime against women - stay at home
Carlsen (1990) - crimes committed by women \= crimes of powerlessness/rational alternative

Osborn and West (1979)

Survey - 383

40% of sons with 'criminal fathers' also had convictions compared to 13% of sons with 'non criminal' fathers.

Describe the gender socialisation explanation of criminal behaviour (Paragraph 2)

Role models - Bandura (1977) - learn behaviour by observing and imitating role models, more likely to be observed if share characteristics (age or older, likeable and gender) so children learn behaviour from same sex parents
Parsons - girls have easily accessible role models (mother), boys role model (father) absent during formative years so reject feminine influence and pursue masculine identity, embrace toughness and aggression \= delinquency and crime
Albert Cohen (1955) - if boys don't have role model, socialisation \= difficult, turn to all male peer groups or gangs due to anxiety where masculinity rewarded

Bandura (1961)

72 children
1) Boys more likely to imitate same sex models than girls, evidence for girls not strong
2) Boys imitated more physically aggressive acts, little difference in verbal aggression

Strength of the gender socialization explanation (Methodology of supporting studies)

large sample (Osborn and West), scientific (controlled)

Weakness of the gender socialization explanation (Methodology of supporting studies)

Self report, androcentric, people only charged and convicted

Weakness of the gender socialisation explanation (Refuting research 1)

James Dabbs et al (1987)

James Dabbs et al (1987)

9/11 male inmates with lowest \[T\] = non violent crimes 10/11 male inmates with highest \[T\] = violent crimes (increased aggression)

Weakness of the gender socialisation explanation (Refuting research 2)

Hormones in females

Promote social behaviours, oestradiol higher in females than males - associated with higher levels of empathy (lacks in criminals)

Strength of the gender socialisation explanation (Real world application)

Implications for schools and parents - control over exposure

Weakness of the gender socialisation explanation (Real world application)

potential stressor for parenting, outdated and chivalry hypothesis (men in justice system - Otto Pollak)

Otto Pollak (1950)

Men in CJS tend to have protective attitude (socialised) towards women so women less likely to be arrested, charged, prosecuted or convicted

Strength of the gender socialisation explanation (Other)

deterministic - no control over childhood

Weakness of the gender socialisation explanation (Other)

lack of historical validity, hormones = no cause and effect, crime stats not representative of women (Otto Pollak)

Describe the disrupted families explanation of criminal behaviours (paragraph 1)

John Bowlby - disrupted family \= single parent, broken home \= delinquency. Mother love as important for MH as vitamins and proteins for PH. Warm loving continuous relationship \= secure attachment.prolonged period of deprivation \= irreversible negative effects.

Bowlby (1944) - methodology

1936 to 1939
Case study, 88 children from clinic in London where he works

Bowlby (1944) results

More than half of thieves - maternal separation for more than 6 months in first 5 years- 2 in control group
-\> upbringing is important, had it not been for factors inhibiting development \= not turn to crime

Describe the disrupted families explanation of criminal behaviours (paragraph 2)

Judy and Farrington (2001) - three theories that explains relationship between disrupted families and delinquency
Trauma theory- loss of parent \= loss of basic trust in attachment, reduce inhibitions about crimes against others, leave trauma victim in constant state of alert \= hostile \= impaired social competence and aggression
Life course theory - separation \= long process and includes many stressors (parental loss, conflict and lower standard of living), more disrupting life events \= more stress + damaging effects \= crime
Selection theory - disrupted family \= high conflict and disharmony \= crime as method of escape

Farrington et al (1996) - methodology

Prospective longitudinal study- 411 males 1961-62, South London, age 8-9 7% from disrupted family (6% no father, 1% no mother)

Farrington et al (1996) results

29% of boys from disrupted families convicted as juveniles, 18% of boys from intact families

Strength of the disrupted families explanation (methodology of supporting studies)

longitudinal, multiple data collection methods

Weakness of the disrupted families explanation (methodology of supporting studies)

androcentric, bias, unrepresentative, not replicable

Strength of the disrupted families explanation (Real world application)

importance of maternal care/ stable family, support provided through programmes - up-skill parents (flying start)

Weakness of the disrupted families explanation (Real world application)

pressure on mother, postcode lottery - bigger gap between rich and poor, support gaps can't access home

Strength of the disrupted families explanation (Other)

deterministic, reductionist

Weakness of the disrupted families explanation (Other)

no cause and effect, deterministic - lack of responsibility

Methods of Modification Restorative justice

Communication with victim or family of victim, may be face to face or letter or payment, meeting/ letter allow victim to explain impact of crime and encourage offender to take responsibility

Three aims of Restorative Justice

1) Provide opportunity for offender to atone for crime
2) Provide opportunity for offender to take responsibility and learn about impact on others - reduce likelihood of recidivism
3) Provide victims input into process

Neuroplasticity

Human mind is characterised by plasticity and malleability and so undergoes continuous biological changes

Self control

Low self control \= predictor for criminal behaviour but engaging in activities that practice self control (RJ) allow modification of neurological synapses and implements model of corrective justice.

Amygdala in restorative justice

Deficit in amygdala (empathy) in murderers, new brain cells develop (even in adults), isolation + stress \= limit growth, human interaction, relationships stimulate brain.
RJ - embrace victim's feelings and produce empathy

Victim Satisfaction

Satisfaction influence by feedback from offenders after punishment, more satisfied when feedback acknowledges victims intent to punish and positive moral change in offender's attitude.

Sherman and Strang (2007) - methodology

Review of research comparing restorative justice and criminal justice system

Sherman and Strang (2007) - results

1) RJ substantially reduced recidivism for some
2) RJ reduced victims PTS symptoms and related costs
3) RJ provided both victim + offender with more satisfaction with justice
4) RJ reduced victim's desire for violent revenge
5) RJ reduced costs of CJ when used as diversion from CJ

Study reviewed by Sherman and Strang (2007)

Case study 142 males matched with control group (prison) underwent RJ
11% reoffended in RJ, 37% in CJ (face to face RJ)

Strength of restorative justice (Methodology of supporting studies)

range of methodology, matched pairs

Weakness of restorative justice (Methodology of supporting studies)

androcentric, participant differences (reaction to RJ), lack of control

Strength of restorative justice (Effectiveness)

reduced recidivism - Sherman and Strang, increased victim satisfaction

Weakness of restorative justice (Effectiveness)

limited access, doesn't work for everyone (DV - women's aid and s+s)

Strength of restorative justice (Ethical implications)

consent from both, screening before (prevent harm and ensures both are ready)

Weakness of restorative justice (Ethical implications)

Exposure to someone who's harmed them, not taken seriously

\
Strength of restorative justice (Social implications)

Benefits CJS + wider society - give money back to economy (£8 saved for every £1 spent)

Weakness of restorative justice (Social implications)

not available to everyone, has to be balanced with effective mediator

Methods of Modification - Anger Management - Novaco (1975)

violent offence due to lack of ability to deal with anger - express in antisocial ways and displacement

Methods of Modification - Anger Management - Three key aims

1) cognitive restructuring - promote greater self-awareness + control over cognitive dimensions of anger
2) regulation of arousal - physiological signs and techniques
3) Behavioural strategies - problem-solving and assertiveness skills
assessed before and after with questionnaires (Novaco anger inventory)

Methods of Modification - Anger Management - Ainsworth (2000)

Stage 1: cognitive preparation - patterns of anger, situations and thinking processes that lead to anger
Stage 2: skills acquisition - learn skills to help manage anger
Stage 3: application practice - practice skills in a controlled and non-threatening environment

Methods of Modification - Anger Management - CALM

Controlling anger and learning to manage it
24 sessions deal with anger and other negative emotions (jealousy)

Ireland (2004) - Methodology

87 prisoners, 50 (AM), 37 control
Self-report anger questionnaire prior and after 8 weeks
12 x 1 hour over 3 days

Ireland (2004) Results

Improvements in AM, no change in control
92% improved in one or more angry behaviour
8% deteriorated

Howells et al (2005) - Methodology

418 Australian male offenders (18-62) - controls and AM
6 questionnaires before and after
10 x 2 hours session

Howells et al (2005) - Results

No significant difference in anger levels between control and AM, motivated to change - improved most

Dobash et al (1996)

In DV cases, 33% in AM reoffended in 12 months after, 75% in control

Loza and Fanous (1999)

no difference in anger between 300 males in violent and non violent crimes

Strength of Anger Management (Methodology of supporting studies)

large sample, longitudinal

Strength of Anger Management (Methodology of supporting studies)

Androcentric, self report, questions difficult to relate to (NOVACO)

Strength of Anger Management (Effectiveness)

Dobash - lower recidivism rate, Ireland - 92% improved

Weakness of Anger Management (Effectiveness)

Howells et al - motivation, Ireland - 8% deteriorated, treats symptoms not cause

Strength of Anger Management (Ethical implications)

consent, no deception, RTW, less harm than other methods