Explanations for offending behaviours

Biological

Offending behaviour is an innate tendency that the criminal cannot help (no free will) and so should not be blamed.

Atavistic form

A historial approach which suggests that offenders have inherited ancient genes, described as throwbacks to premitive subspecies, which makes them ill-suited to livig in modern soiety. These indicuals are distingusihed by certain charcetritictics.

Facial and Cranial features

Narrow, sloping brow; strong prominent jaw; high cheekbones; facial asymmetry.

Extra toes, nipples or fingers; insensitivity to pain, use of criminal slang, tattoos, unemployment.

 

Murderers: bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears

Sexual deviants: glinting eyes, fleshy lips, projecting ears

Fraudsters: thin lips

Evaluation

• Evidence from Lombroso - He studied 4000+ skulls of offenders and found that 40% of them accounted for atavistic features

• Method - He didn’t use a control group to make comparisons & risk of confounding variables such as many of them having psychological issues

• Counter - replicated study by Goring comparing 3000 offender vs 3000 non-criminal skulls found no consistent evidence 

• Issues - Scientific racism as some atavistic criminal features are more common for African descendants

Genetic

• Inherited candidate genes could increase vulnerability to offending

• MOMA gene - responsible for regulating serotonin & dopamine

• Low activity means they lack enzyme to breakdown serotonin → imbalances lead to aggression & impulsive behaviors

• CDH13 - linked with substance abuse & violence

Strengths

• Christiansen’s Twin study - 3500 twin pairs from Denmark found that MZ (identical boys) had concordance of 35% for criminal records vs 17% for IZ. Extra shared DNA = more offending

• Mednicke’s adoption study - 13,000 adoptees from Denmark. Both parents had convictions = 24.5 % Bio parents had convictions = 20%. Genetics contribute more towards offending.

• Genome analysis: MAOA and CDH13 gene variants account for 5-10% of violent crime.

Limitations

• Twin study is not 100% concordance so other factors must contribute such as the environment, cognitive processes & drug abuse. (Stress-diathesis) Also could be due to being raised similarly.

• Issues - Free will vs determinism. Are criminals fully responsible for their actions if they had a genetic risk?

Neural

• APD and violence is associated with dysfunctional brain structures and abnormal neural activity.

• APD is a mental condition characterised by repeated patterns of disruptive behaviours

• Offenders we APD have altered activity levels & grey matter in the prefrontal cortex - responsible for impulse control & decisions

• Mirror neurons are special cells involved in social cognition which helps us interpret other people’s emotions and intensions. This is not automatically activated for those with APD (more effort) 

Strengths

• Raine et al - PET brain scans found that community volunteer group had 11% reduction in grey matter at he prefrontal cortex compared to non-criminal control group. Also found reduced autonomic nervous response during a stressful task.

• Freed - Those displaying antisocial behaviour had damage to their frontal lobe (planning), emotional instability

Limitations

• Neural correlates do not show a clear cause & effect - third factor issue or APD results in altered neurons (quasi-experiment)

• Not only offenders have APD

Eyesenk’s - Cognitive 

• Personality is inherited and measured across 3 dimensions

• Offender have: high levels of extraversion (low cortisol = sensation-seeking & risk-taking), high neuroticism (active parasympathetic nervous system = anxious & unstable), high psychoticism (high testosterone = aggressive & insensitive)

• Neurotic-extraverts do not condition easily so don't learn to respond to antisocial behaviour by becoming anxious.

Strength

• Eysenck - Compared questionaire from 2070 prisoners with 2400 non-offending controls. Found that offenders had higher average scores across all 3 dimensions (all age groups)

• Bartol - Found that Hispanic & African American offenders had lower extraversion (imposed-etic)

• Personality is fluid/not a stable measure - influenced by the situation 9over simplistic as not everyone fits the 3)

• Self-report creates risk of bias and demand characteristics

Kohlberg - Cognitive

• Moral reasoning involves deciding what is right and wrong. It develops in a sequential order

• Level 1 = personal gains & follow rules to avoid punishment, Level 2 = follow rules to maintain social order & avoid disapproval Level 3 = emphasis on individual rights & personal principles developed 

• Proposes that offenders often do not mature past pre-conventional level - childish and egotistic moral reasoning

Evaluation

• Kohlberg longitudinal study over 12yrs - 75 young American male offenders given hypothetical moral dilemmas. Found that they did not mature past Level 1 and had much lower development than non-violent youths

• Reduces individual differences and collects rich qualitative data over time

• Based on hypothetical - may respond differently in real life (low eco vality)

• Androcentric and ethnocentric = unrepresentative sample

• Researcher’s interpretations are subjective and influenced by demand characteristics

Cognitive distortions

• faulty/biased though processing leads to inaccurate perceptions and responses

• Hostile Attribution Bias: Perceive neutral or ambiguous behavior or expressions as threatening

• Minimalisation: Form of self-denial as crimes are downplayed to reduce guilt

Strengths

• Evidence for minimalisation: Barbree found that among 26 rapists, 54% denied their actions and 44% downplayed harm caused on victim.

• Evidence for HAB: Showed neutral facial expressions to 55 violet offender - they were much more likely to view the images as aggressive than matched control group

• Application: development of special CBT which helps patients develop more reasltic perceptions and accept their actions

Limitations

• Small sample for both - low geneisability & reliability

• Level of cognitive distortions may depend on the type of offence - found that non-contact sex offenders more likely to minimalise

• HAB is only for impulsive acts and cannot explained planned aggression which challenges the full explain/applicability.

• Provides a proximal cause (what triggered offending) but not how cognitive distortions develop in the first place

• Non-experimental data which reduces objectivity

Differential Association

• Sutherland proposes that attitudes, techniques and motives of offending behaviors are adopted from interactions with others.

• Learning is directional

• Associations with personal groups such as friends & family

• Socialisation w pro-crime attitudes will lead to offending

• Associations vary for each individual - based on frequnecy and intensity

• General need for money is no accepted as not everyone goes onto offend

Farrington et al - Longitudinal study on the development of offending

• Sample: 411 males from deprived areas in london studied from 8-50yrs

• Findings: 41% had committed a crime between ages 10-50, 7% were chronic offenders (accounted for over half of all). Key risk factors: family criminality, poverty, poor parenting, low school achievement and risk taking.

Therefore, supporting idea that socialisation of young males with poor role models & reward systems lead to offending. 

Collected large amounts of data overtime of same ppt → in-depth & reliable → less individual differences

Poor operationalization → lack of control and hard to measure all interactions. Also ignores confounding variables.

 

More AO3

• Wide application as it can account for various environments/communities, both working class and 'white collar crime' financially stable

• Nature or nurture: is history of crime in the family due to DAT or inherited candidate gene

Psychodynamic - Freudian

• Proposes that inadequate development of the superego during the phallic stage can lead to offending. These indiduals moral behavior is then guided by the primitive, irrational Id.

• WEAK : Failure to identify or internalise values of same-sex parent → no conscience so more likely to commit crime.

• DEVIANT : Internalises immoral code from criminal same-sex parent → offending is considered a norm, and they don’t feel guilty

• OVER-HARSH: Identifies with harsh/strict same-sex parent → feels intense guilt & anxiety → commits crimes to satisfy need for punishment

• Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation: Prolonged absence or separation of mother during infant’s critical period leads to long-term issues like poor intellectual development, deviance & affectionless psychopathy.

Strengths

Inadequate superego: evidence from Goreta who analyses 10 offenders referred to psychiatric treatment. they all expiernced unconscious guilty, suggesting signs of Over-harsh / disturbances in superego development. (limited sample)

Maternal deprivation: evidence from Bowlby’s study on 44 juvenile thieves. Measures/tests showed 14 of them had Affectionless psychopathy, 12/14 experiences maternal deprivation in early childhood. (no causation)

Limitations

• Most offenders try not to get caught (avoid punishment) meaning the over-harsh superego is an implausible explanation.

• Gender bias: According to theory, girls have less pressure to identify with their mothers as there don’t expienrce as much anxiety from castration. This means that they should have weaker superegos and more likely to offend.  But in reality, there are more males in prison.

• Children raised without same-sex parent are not less law-abiding meaning the weak superego is an implausible explanation.