criminology unit 2

criminal behaviour legal definition

action forbidden by the criminal law. have to be actus reus and mens rea

Actus Reus

a guilty act (action)

mens rea

a guilty mind

social definition of criminal behaviour

mower- an anti-social act

summary offences

less serious offences eg speeding dealt by a magistrates court

indictable offences

more severe offences that are heard and sentenced by a judge in a crown count tried with a judge and jury eg murder

formal sanction custodial sentences

imprisonment

community service ( formal sanction)

'umbrella' term to describe a range of formal sanctions that does not include prison eg fines, probation

police sanction (formal sanction)

sanctions made by the police avoid conviction by paying a fine eg shoplifting

other punishments (formal sanctions£

being on the sex offender register

deviance

behaviours that goes against social norms

three forms of deviance

1. behaviour that is good & unusual

2. unusual & bizarre

3. unusual & disapproved

values

set of principles/ beliefs

norms

behaviour that are socially accepted

moral codes

A set of basic rules, values and principles held by an individual, group, organisation or society as a whole.

informal sanctions

encourage conformity eg ignoring, labelling, laughing

Lombroso (physiological theory)

atavistic form- based on biological factors

- primitive throwbacks

- based on research that examined the features & measurements of 4,000 criminals as well as skulls of 400 dead criminals

- concluded that 40% of criminals acts could by accounted for by atavistic characteristics

- innate

- sloping brow, long arms, high cheekbones

- savages

Evaluation of Lombroso - support

☑️ supported by research in china ➡️ Shanghai university can identify criminals from their facial features - ID photos of 1856 chinese me, half had criminal convictions - AI correctly identified 83% of the time ➡️ more scientific methods to support this

Evaluation of Lombroso - policy development

✅ policy development ➡️ first person to study crime scientifically rather than believing religion - concluded that criminality was biologically determined ➡️ focus on preventing offending behaviour

Evaluation of Lombroso - oversimplifies

❌ oversimplifies ➡️ ignores the wider social impact - backers labelling theory- stereotypes young working class males- creates a self fulfilling prophecy ➡️ may be rooted in the labels applied within society

Evaluation of Lombroso - nurture

❌ not all criminals have these physiological features ➡️ criminality can take many forms eg fraud ➡️ nurture plays a role not just nature

brain abnormality - amygdala

amygdala helps coordinate behaviours that satisfy motivational & emotional urges eg aggression & fear → fight/ flight response

- if it is damaged then individuals can't control their behaviour

evaluation of brain abnormality - support

✔︎ supported by research → PARDINI did MRI scans & found a lower amygdala volume lessens the ability in Evaluating emotional responses & so makes a violent response more likely → scientific evidence showed that amygdala does play a role

evaluation of brain abnormality - support by case study

✔︎ supported by a case study → WHITMAN was a mass murderer (Texas Tower sniper) killed 17 people & left a note asking his Brain to be examined because he can't control his behaviour → found that he had a damaged amygdala

evaluation of brain abnormality - no cause & effect

✘ research into it is only carried out after the behaviour → argued that brain structure can be influenced by our interaction with the environment → can't establish a cause & effect

Jacob's XYY study (genetic)

1 in 1000 males have an extra Y chromosome so more testosterone makes them more aggressive → called super males

Evaluation of Jacob's study - support

✔︎ research from within the prison system → 15 in 1000 prisoners with XYY compared to 1 in 1000 men in the general population → bigger figure providing credibility

Evaluation of Jacob's study - not reliable

✘ no link between XYY genotype & aggression → THEILGAARD can increase height but not aggression → easier to find → not reliable

Evaluation of Jacob's study - lower iq

✘ linked to lower IQ → not due to them being criminal but rather they are more likely to get caught → other factors can explain the higher prison population

individual theories- learning theories- operant conditioning-skinner

shaped by reinforcement & punishment

✰ reinforcement - increases chances of behaviour being repeated

❀ positive reinforcement- reward for repeating

❀ negative reinforcement - removal of something unpleasant eg heroin

punishment- decreases chances of it being repeated

evaluation of operant conditioning - support

✔︎ supported by JEFFREY'S differential reinforcement theory → rewarding consequences than punishing ones for an individual will be more Likely to engage in criminal behaviour → reinforcement does a play a key role

evaluation of operant conditioning - practical application

✔︎ practical application → use token economies → prisoners are rewarded for good behaviour & can be swapped for treats → reinforcement can reduce anti-social behaviour in the prison system

evaluation of operant conditioning - oversimplifies

✘ oversimplifies the complexity of criminality → BECKER'S labelling theory stereotyping young working class males → police focuses on them → more likely to catch them & create a self fulfilling prophecy → rooted in society

evaluation of operant conditioning - nature

✘ relies on nurture → there is biological evidence that it can be inherited via genes → eg the amygdala - if damaged it individuals can't control their behaviour → nature plays a role as well

individual theories- learning theories- social learning theory

BANDURA:

❀ aggression is learn through a role model

❀ if aggression by the role model is rewarded - called vicarious reinforcement

❀ the observation makes a mental representation → weigh up the likelihood of being rewarded - if so they will carry out the act

❀ develop self efficacy (confidence) in behaving aggressively in the future

evaluation of social learning theory - support

✔︎ supported by Bandura → children saw a role model attacking a Bobo doll & being rewarded with praise. 2nd contain the role model was punished & in the 3rd they weren't punished/ praised → found that the group who saw the role model being rewarded are more likely to attack bobo doll, imitating moves → aggression is learnt

evaluation of social learning theory - practical application

✔︎ practical application → work release programme → concluded that high crime rates are more likely to act violently & prisons are full of role models → LISTWAN → need to place ex-inmates in communities where legal work is the norm & not back into their original communities

evaluation of social learning theory- sociological theories

✘ doesn't explain criminal acts that have not been observed → eg London riots involved 15,000 people spontaneously looting shops. it is not possible that al these people had witnessed such acts being carried out by a role model → so there are more effective explanations that can be offered by sociological theories

evaluation of social learning theory - nature

✘ relies on nurture → there are biological explanations that show it is inherited eg adoption studies → Hutchings & mednick found that adoptees with criminal records were more likely to have biological parents with criminal records → nature plays a role

meaning of psychodynamic

✰ unconscious conflict rooted in early childhood drive future criminal behaviour

Frueds tripartite personality -psychodynamic (individualists theories)

ID:

➣ present from birth. the pleasure principle- the selfish & primitive element of our personality

EGO:

➢ 2-3 yrs old. the reality principle- balances out the ID & superego

SUPEREGO:

➢ develops water the phallic stage (5yrs)

➣ the morality principle- our sense of right & wrong

what happens of the ID, Ego & superego is not balanced

▪︎ if The ID dominates - we may be impulsive & irresponsible leading to crime

▪︎ if superego dominates we could be over moralistic & judgemental

how does childhood experiences link to Frueds theory

☘︎ child identifies with the same sex parents

according to BLACKBURN it can lead to:

❄︎ weak superego-

when same sex parent is absent during phasic stage- no one to identify with & no morality to internalise

❄︎ deviant superego-

child identifies with the same sex parent BUT the parent is a criminal

❄︎ overharsh superego-

strong identification with strict parents so feels a lot of guilt- commits crime to punish themselves

evaluation of Frueds tripartite personality - support

✔︎ supported by MEGARGEE → cases of violence carried out by people who were 'harmless' → eventually explode & release al their anger & aggression at once → ego & superego can lose control of the ID

evaluation of Frueds tripartite personality - practical application

✔︎ practical application → focused on the importance of childhood → society is now a child centred society →social services intervening in families

evaluation of Frueds tripartite personality - amygdala

✘ no scientific evidence of the tripartite personality → subjective → can't prove is accurately explains criminality → other explanations with scientific proof EG biological explanations

evaluation of Frueds tripartite personality -gender biased

✘ gender biased → only boys identify with their father & develop a superego → women don't have a morality so women should be committing more crimes → however mainly men commit crime ( 22 times more likely to be imprisoned)→ fails to explain the gender difference

Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory (individualist theory)- psychodynamic

✰ if the bond between a child & caregiver is broken during the critical period than there will be permanent & irreversible negative effects-lead to affectionless psychopathy

evaluation of Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory-support

✔︎ supported by BOWLBY → studied 44 thieves & interviewed them →found that 14 out of 44 has affectionelss psychopathy & 12 suffered from deprivation → consequences were the inability to form attachments, affectionless psychopathy, delinquency, problems with cognitive development

evaluation of Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory - practical application

✔︎ practical application → mother & baby unit→ highlighted the importance of the bond not being broken

evaluation of Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory- affectionless psychopathy

✘ made up affectionless psychopathy → no agreement between mental healthy professionals → questions of whether it is a real disorder which leads to criminality

evaluation of Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory -other factors

✘ other factors → like divorce & could be living in crowded accommodation & experiencing poverty → sociological explanations may be better to explain this

Eysenck's Theory individualistic (psychological) - extroverts

✭ underachieve nervous system

✭ outgoing need stimulation

✭ commit crime eg vandalism, stealing

Eysenck's Theory individualistic (psychological) - introverts

✭ overactive nervous system

✭ cautious & less sociable

✭ don't commit crime

Eysenck's Theory individualistic (psychological) - neuroticism

✭ overactive fight/flight response

✭ over the edge, angry prone to over react

✭ commit crime eg murder, GBH

Eysenck's Theory individualistic (psychological) - stability

✭ calm, even tempered

✭ don't commit crime

Eysenck's Theory individualistic (psychological) - psychoticism

✭ egocentric, aggressive, impulsive, lacks empathy

✭ misfits in society

✭ higher levels of testosterone

✭ commit crimes eg murder

Evaluation of Eysenck's theory- research to support

✔︎ supported by research → compared over 2000 male prisoners scores on EPI with over 2000 male controls → found that prisoners recorded higher scores in extraversion, neuroticism & psychoticism than controls → increases scientific credibility

Evaluation of Eysenck's theory- practical application

✔︎ practical application → the underlying biological tendencies that eventually make them criminals are detectable in childhood → early interventions based on parenting/ early treatment for delinquency → reduce criminal behaviour

Evaluation of Eysenck's theory - not all crimes

✘ based on convicted offenders → doesn't reflect all offenders → less impulsive offenders are likely to avoid getting caught eg hitman → can't explain all criminal acts

Evaluation of Eysenck's theory- validity

✘ on self-report → does not produce valid results as people may lie, especially if they are engaging in criminal b behaviour and they don't want to get caught → not got scientific validity

becker's labelling theory (sociological theory) interactionist

- based on shared meanings/ labels

- crime and criminals are social constructs - we create the meaning eg smoking

- PILIAVIN & BRIAR found police arrest base on stereotypical ideas eg young working class males

- LAMERT says that labelling is a cause of crime

- Primary deviance - trivial acts that go untaught eg going on public transport without paying

- secondary deviance- result from labelling- treat the offender differently - criminality becomes his master status - being a criminal overrides his other identity

how do interventionists view crime statistics

reject the use of crime statistics compiled by police

- statistics measure what the police rather than what criminals do eg stereotype working class males so they will spend more time pursuing them

- as a result statistics will be full of working class males due to police stereotypes

statistics are not valid & are just a social construct

evaluation of interactionism - research

✅ supported by PILIAVIN & BRIAR - found that police decisions to arrest based on stereotypical ideas eg young males stopped late at night in a high crime area are more likely to get arrested

evaluation of interactionism - practical application

✅ practical application - THE MACPHERSON REPORT after the murder of stephen lawrence found that the metropolitan police were institutionally racist- had stereotypical viewed of young black males which disrupted their investigation - had race awareness training

evaluation of interactionism - deterministic

❌ deterministic - implies that once someone is labelled a deviant career is inevitable- fails to explain why people commit primary deviance in the first place unlike the social learning theory

evaluation of interactionism - marxists criticism

❌ marxists would critics the labelling theory because it fails to explain why labels are applied to certain groups eg working class - would say that poverty and frustrations would be a factor in explaining why working class groups are labelled

durkheim's theory ( functionalism)

- see society as a stable social structure based on shared norms & valued - value consensus - binds people together & creates social solidarity

how do functionalists explain the causes of criminality ( durkheim)

crime is inevitable because it is caused by people being inadequately socialised & deviate from norma's & values

- causes subculture groups

- sharer norms are weakened causes anomie

- benefits society

functions of crime (derkheim)

- boundary maintenance - reaffirmed the norms and values

- Adaptation & change - change the laws eg suffragettes

- safety valve- crime prevent wise crime so benefits society eg prostitution

- warning sign - something in society is not functioning properly eg knife crime so problem with education

evaluation of durkheim - support

✅ supported by KINGSLEY DAVIS - prostitution support monogamous relationship by providing an unemotional l, impersonal & unthreatening release for sexual energy - 80,000 prostitutes operating so it continues frequently

evaluation of durkheim - change

✅ lead to changes in legislation eg suffragettes- shows that leads to change in women

evaluation of durkheim - overemphasis

❌ overemphasis the concept of social consensus- not all groups share the same values - complicate the selective agreement on norms & values

evaluation of durkheim - individuals

❌ doesn't take into account that crime is not functional for victims - downplays the individuals fear and the consequences of high crime rates - not all crimes contribute to social solidarity

mertons strain theory - functionalist

socialise to achieve the american dream do sets about means to achieve goals

- there are inequalities which causes a strain so we do not accept goals/ means - leads to crime

explanations for crime according to merton

- conformity - accept goals & means

- innovation - accept goals not means so lead to crime et robberies

- ritualism - don't accept goals but accept means - work in dead end jobs

- retreatism- don't accept goals & means eg homeless

- rebellion - reject goals & means aim to change society eg terrorism

evaluation of merton - support

✅ supported by statistics - 40% more crimes in most income deprived areas compared to least income deprived - means to achieve goals can be blocked

evaluation of merton - explains society

✅ explains how society's expectations can impact on us differently - addresses different forms of criminality - offer a wider understanding of the complexity of behaviour

evaluation of merton - individual responses

❌ focused on individuals response - ignores highly organised gangs - so ignored it globally

evaluation of merton - financial

❌ focuses on financial gain - ignored crimes with no economic motive eg vandalism

marxists theory of criminality (sociological)

the unequal structure of a capitalist society shapes poeple's behaviour

▪︎ marxists believe that capitalism is criminogenic (inevitable)

▪︎ poverty means that crime exists in working class so people can pay for materialistic goods due to consumerism eg theft, drug dealing

▪︎ the lack of control makes them angry so they become aggressive causes crime like GBH, murder

▪︎ white collar crime is due to greed

how do marxists explain law & punishment

the ruling class controls the political system, the criminal justice system & the legal system

❀ CHAMBLISS laws are created yo protect the interests of the ruling class not made to protect working class

❀ poor people are more likely to get arrested & receive harsher sentences

❀ media focuses on the crimes made bye the poor & ignores the crimes of the powerful - adds to the illusion that the ruling class deserve their power eg knife crime, gang

evaluation of marxist - support

✔︎ supported by statistics → selective law enforcement means that crime appears to only be working class problem reflected in the official statistics

evaluation of marxist - explains all crime levels

✔︎ explains how capitalism causes crime at all levels → shows how poverty & inequality cause working call crime & how capitalism encourages greed & white collar crime

evaluation of marxist - other inequalities

✘ focuses on class so ignores other inequalities eg gende, ethnicity

evaluation of marxist - over-predicts working class

✘ over-predicts the amount working class crime → not all people turn to crime → not all capitalists societies have high crime rates eg Japans homicide rate is 1/5 of the USA → not the root

right realism cause o9f crime (sociological)

MURRAY claims that inadequate socialisation is the cause of crime → moral breakdown in society - parents not socialising their children effectively & not living in a nuclear family

✺ growing underclass → young boys lack a male role model → turning delinquent & communities are deteriorating - causes more crime (broken window theory)

hirschi rational choice theory

people have free will & the decision to commit crime is a rational choice based on consequences

❀ if rewards are greater than costs then the individual will continue

❄︎ more likely to offend

evaluation of right realism - support

✔︎ in 1994, the mayor of New York added a zero tolerance policy where small acts eg dropping litter was punished → crime dropped dramatically → no longer a rational choice

evaluation of right realism - practical application

✔︎ target hardening → making it difficult to commit a crime eg putting up high fencing, barbed wire are used to protect properties so that the effort to commit costs more

evaluation of right realism - not committed rationally

✘ doesn't consider crimes not committed rationally → eg manslaughter, GBH doesn't occur as a result of rational reasoning → fails to account for a wide range of different criminal offences

evaluation of right realism - left realism

✘ ignores structural causes eg poverty → commit due to desperation - left realism would better explain this

left realism -causes of crime (sociological)

LEA & YOUNG believe there has been a rise in working classs crime (most offenders come from the same social background as their victims)

✭ working class people commit crime due to relative deprivation - see themselves as being deprived in comparison to others in the same social/ethnic group eg branded clothes

✭ marginalisation - feel they have no power to change their situation & excluded from opportunities- negative reattempt form police cause more confrontation with police → cause subcultures & react by doing crime eg drug dealing

evaluation of left realism - support

✔︎supported by evidence →supported by crimes during London riots in 2011 → ransacked shops → response to their marginalised position & frustration of living in relative deprivation → supports relative deprivation & marginalisation

evaluation of left realism - practical application

✔︎ reduce crimes → increasing number of community police on the beat so they can work with marginalised individuals → build relations so they don't feel victimised

evaluation of left realism - white collar crimes

✘ neglects crimes committed by the wealthy → complex fraud are carried out by white collar criminals & corporations cost society more than working class crimes → no explanations for why the wealthy would carry out crime

evaluation of left realism - can't generalise

✘ doesn't explain why everyone who face deprivation & marginalisation do not resort to crime → most people still obey the law even in most desperate situations → show that right realism have a point that crime is a rational decision

How do laws change from CULTURE to culture? - POLYGAMY where is it legal

✦ having more than 1 wife / husband at the same time

✦ legal in 58 countries mainly muslim countries eg South Arabia

✦ illegal in most countries including uk → committing a crime of BIGAMY

reasons why laws change from CULTURE to culture - POLYGAMY

✦ RELIGION - the Qur'an permits muslim men to take up to 4 wives & is reflected in laws

✦ TRADITION - socially accepted & has been traditionally practiced in some African societies though has sharply declined

How do laws change from CULTURE to culture? - ADULTERY where is it legal

✦ legal in most countries including uk

✦ illegal in muslim-majority countries though several christian majority counties in Africa makes it illegal

✦ can be pun shed by being stoned to death, caning, fining