Definition of Crime: Crime is classified as any illegal act that is punishable by incarceration or another form of punishment, following legal proceedings involving a judge and jury.
Historical Issues: There are historical variations in the definition of crime; actions viewed as criminal in the past may not be considered so today.
Example: Homosexuality was criminalized in the UK until the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, which decriminalized consensual same-sex relationships.
Cultural Issues: Cultural contexts also influence the perception of crime.
Example: Physical discipline like smacking a child might be culturally accepted as ‘tough love’ in some societies, while in the UK, it is legally punishable under the 2004 Child Protection Act.
Measuring Crime: There are three primary methods for measuring crime:
Official Statistics: These reflect the number of crimes reported to or recorded by police, compiled and published annually by the Home Office.
Victim Surveys: These surveys involve around 50,000 randomly selected households that self-report crimes experienced in the past year, published annually by the Crime Survey for England and Wales.
Offender Surveys: These surveys collect data from a random sample of offenders who report the types and frequencies of crimes committed over a defined time frame (e.g., the last year).
Utility of Surveys:
Victim Surveys: Help reduce the 'dark figure of crime', which suggests that a significant amount (approximately 75%) of crime remains unreported.
Example: Farrington & Dowds (1985) demonstrated that changes in police reporting practices could artificially inflate crime statistics, e.g., the reporting of thefts below a certain monetary threshold.
Offender Surveys: Useful for understanding crime patterns and risk factors, informing prevention and management strategies.
Limitations of Methods:
Official Statistics: Inaccurate due to underreporting and inconsistencies in police recording practices.
Victim Surveys: May face methodological issues, such as ‘telescoping’, where victims misremember the timing of events due to trauma, potentially leading to skewed data.
Offender Surveys: Data reliability may be compromised as offenders might exaggerate or minimize their criminal behavior.
Part 2: Offender Profiling: The Top-Down Approach
Overview of the Top-Down Approach: Utilizes a predefined categorization method developed by the FBI to classify offenders into two categories: organized and disorganized.
Profile Generation Steps:
Crime scene classification
Crime reconstruction
Data assimilation
Profile generation
Characteristics:
Organized Offenders:
Traits include social and sexual competence, meticulous planning, and less likelihood of leaving evidence at the crime scene.
Examples include serial killers like Ted Bundy, who exhibit well-thought-out attack strategies.
Disorganized Offenders:
Exhibit impulsive behavior, lack of planning, and often leave significant evidence at crime scenes.
Acts may appear random and often occur close to the offender's residence, categorized as ‘marauders’.
Limitations of the Top-Down Approach:
Applicable mainly to violent crimes with clear characteristics (e.g., rape, murder), but less effective for property crimes or financial fraud.
The binary classification may oversimplify the diversity of criminal behavior, overlooking motives that differentiate offenders.
Evidence supporting organized profiles is more substantial than that for disorganized offenders, leading to concerns regarding the validity of the classification.
Example: Canter et al. (2004) conducted a study analyzing 100 murders and found disorganized offenders did not consistently present distinct characteristics.
Part 3: Offender Profiling: The Bottom-Up Approach
Overview of the Bottom-Up Approach: This methodology does not utilize preset categories but develops profiles by analyzing crime scenes and eyewitness testimonies increasingly.
Key Components:
Investigative Psychology: Analyzes each crime systematically through data matching using databases to derive psychological profiles.
Emphasizes the significance of time and place related to criminal behavior.
Interpersonal Coherence: Suggests that how an offender treats victims reflects their real-life personality and social functioning.
Geographical Profiling: Assumes offenders have operational bases inferred by mapping previous crime locations, forming a circular pattern around their area of activity.
Classifications include ‘marauders’ who commit crimes near their base and ‘commuters’ who operate further away.
Evidence Supporting the Bottom-Up Approach:
Lundrigan and Canter (2001) showed geographic profiling through smallest space analysis to identify spatial behavior patterns in offenders.
Despite its usefulness, it does not guarantee correct offender identification, being merely a tool for narrowing investigative focus.
Copson (1995) found that profiles led to successful offender identification in merely 3% of cases but were helpful in 83% of the time.
Part 4: Biological Explanations: Atavistic Form
Foundational Theory: Lombroso proposed the concept of criminals as "genetic throwbacks" with atavistic physical features indicative of their criminality.
Identifying Characteristics:
Suggested traits include long ears, dark skin, extra nipples, curly hair, etc.
Specific traits were associated with particular crimes; Example: murderers had bloodshot eyes, sexual deviants had glinting eyes.
Methodology: Lombroso based his conclusions on the analysis of 3,839 living and 383 dead criminals, asserting that about 40% of criminal behavior can be attributed to these atavistic characteristics.
Critique of Lombroso’s Theory:
Considered racist due to racial profiling of traits that may erroneously suggest biological predisposition to crime informs social prejudices.
Methodological flaws include lack of control groups and reliance on single cultural samples (Italian).
Lombroso’s Legacy: Often termed the ‘father of criminology’, his theories laid the groundwork for future criminal profiling concepts despite their scientific shortcomings.
Part 5: Biological Explanations: Genetic and Neural Explanations
Genetic Factors: Emphasis on the heritability of criminal behavior and candidate genes linked to criminality.
Christiansen et al. (1977) reported higher concordance rates (33%) in identical twins compared to non-identical twins (12%), suggesting a genetic influence.
MZ twins share 100% of genetic material, while DZ twins share about 50%.
Gene Interaction:
Diathesis-stress model explaining criminal behavior involves genetic predisposition interacting with environmental factors.
Tiihonen et al. (2014) identified abnormalities in MAOA and CDH-13 genes, linked to neurotransmitter regulation, increasing criminality likelihood by 13-fold.
Neural Explanations:
Raine et al. (2000) identified lower prefrontal cortex activity (11% reduction) in criminals, suggesting impaired decision-making.
Keysers et al. (2011) illustrated a neural mechanism allowing criminals to modulate empathy, explaining their lack of concern for victims.
Methodological Issues:
Twin studies assume genetic differences as the sole differentiating factor, neglecting shared environmental factors influencing outcomes.
The interactionist perspective provides a more nuanced understanding of the nature-nurture interplay.
Example: Mednick et al. (1984) analyzed court records of adoptees, finding concordance for convictions influenced by shared genetic factors in biological parents.
Part 6: Psychological Explanations: Eysenck’s Theory
Criminal Personality: Eysenck suggested that a specific criminal personality (neurotic-extravert) correlates with nervous system activity.
Dimensions included in his theory:
Neurotic-Stable
Extravert-Introvert
Psychoticism (added later)
Nervous System Influence: Extraverts possess underactive nervous systems, seeking stimulation that can lead to impulsive and risk-seeking behaviors.
Socialization: Criminal personalities are less susceptible to socialization process during childhood leading to perceived antisocial behaviors as normative.
Assessment Tool: Personality can be measured through Eysenck's Personality Inventory (EPI).
Critiques:
Reductionist approach may overlook the complexity of personality traits, often influenced by situational factors.
Cultural bias noted in data sampled predominantly from Western cultures, limiting generalizability.
Alternative classification systems propose more comprehensive models (e.g., Digman’s Five Factor Model).
Part 7: Cognitive Explanations for Offending Behaviour
Moral Development: Kohlberg proposed three levels of moral reasoning:
Pre-Conventional (focus on punishment)
Conventional (maintains social order)
Post-Conventional (moral contracts and rights)
Criminal Reasoning: Criminals often function at the pre-conventional level, lacking empathy and societal awareness compared to law-abiding individuals.
Cognitive Distortions: Key characteristic in criminal thinking, involving dysfunctional thought processes, primarily seen through:
Hostile Attribution Bias: Offenders interpret ambiguous situations as hostile.
Example: Schönenberg & Justye (2014) demonstrated that violent offenders perceive neutral facial expressions as aggressive.
Minimalization: Common among sex offenders to downplay the severity of their actions.
Example: Pollock & Hasmall (1991) found that many child molesters justified their actions as showing affection.
Limitations of Cognitive Theories: Cannot universally explain all criminal behavior. Impulsive crimes may lack reasoning and overemphasis rationale for crimes motivated by financial gain.
Alternative Views: Intelligence offered as a more quantifiable predictor of criminality compared to moral reasoning levels.
Kohlberg’s Revision: Gibbs (1979) proposed a two-level system of reasoning that aligns with Kohlberg without cultural bias, enhancing validity.
Practical Application: Cognitive therapy such as CBT could address cognitive distortions and are more effective in reducing recidivism.
Part 8: Psychological Explanations: Differential Association Theory
Theory Overview: Sutherland's Differential Association Theory posits that crime is a learned behavior through social contexts and interactions with criminal peers.
Learning Process: Observers absorb attitudes and skills associated with criminal behaviors from relationships with pro-criminal influences.
Predictions: The likelihood of criminality increases if exposure to pro-criminal attitudes outweighs anti-criminal influence, using concepts of frequency and intensity.
Limitations:
Measurement challenges regarding exposure intensity and frequency undermine predictive validity.
Deterministic views could lead to self-fulfilling prophecies or reinforce societal discrimination against individuals with criminal backgrounds.
Advantages: Shifts blame from the individual to the environment, offering a more humane view of crime and potential reforming strategies through environmental changes.
Part 9: Psychological Explanations: Psychodynamic Explanations
Inadequate Superegos: Blackburn (1993) described three types linked to criminality:
Deviant superego: Exhibiting distorted morals as learned from criminal parents.
Weak superego: Arises from inadequate identification with the same-sex parent during the phallic stage.
Over-harsh superego: Craves punishment due to harsh parenting experiences.
Consequences: Dysfunctional superegos facilitate impulsive and selfish behavior, aligning with Bowlby's idea of maternal deprivation leading to affectionless psychopathy.
Evidence Against: Lewis (1959) asserted that maternal deprivation does not reliably predict future criminality or relational difficulties.
Gender Bias: Suggestions from Hoffman (1975) that girls face different risks in becoming criminal do not align with statistical evidence showing girls exhibit more delayed gratification than boys.
Scientific Validity: Conceptual issues arise from the superego being part of the unconscious mind, leaving it unfalsifiable and pseudoscientific in nature.
Part 10: Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Custodial Sentencing
Goals of Custodial Sentencing:
Deterrence: Discouraging crime through punishment.
Incapacitation: Protecting society from offenders.
Retribution: Ensuring punishment fits the crime.
Rehabilitation: Offering training and treatment to reduce recidivism.
Negative Effects: Could involve stress, depression, institutionalization (impairing adaptation to life after release), and heightened recidivism (57% will reoffend within a year in the UK).
Comparisons: Norway boasts lower recidivism due to greater focus on rehabilitation compared to the punitive focus in the UK.
Individual Differences: Efficacy varies based on personal disposition, sentence length, past prison exposure, and treatment type, emphasizing individual responses to custodial environments.
Learning Opportunities: Rehabilitative programs (e.g., CBT for sex offenders, anger management) may prove beneficial, suggesting that custodial settings can have positive outcomes when well-structured.
Political Influence: Public sentiment often favors punitive measures, potentially skewing policy decisions. Political motives could maintain tough sentencing as a means to gain voter support.
Part 11: Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Behaviour Modification in Custody
Token Economies: Utilizes operant conditioning principles to reinforce desirable behaviors among offenders.
Reinforcement: Increases the likelihood of behavior repetition through rewards contingent upon displaying desired behaviors.
Mechanism: Offenders earn tokens, a secondary reinforcer, which can be exchanged for privileges (primary reinforcers).
Evidence of Effectiveness: Hobbs and Holt (1976) found significant increases in positive behaviors among juvenile offenders in token economies over 14 months, highlighting improved prison environments.
Comparative Approaches: Behaviour modification only addresses surface-level issues compared to anger management's work on underlying causes of anger and offending behavior.
Ethical Considerations: Compulsory participation can lead to denial of essential rights, necessitating ethical scrutiny over the application of such systems in custodial settings.
Flexibility of Implementation: Behaviour management systems can be tailored to diverse institutional needs, allowing for adaptation to various settings while ensuring consistent application enhances efficacy.
Part 12: Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Anger Management
Approach to Anger Management: Focuses on recognizing and addressing root emotions preceding anger rather than suppressing anger itself.
Stages Involved: Incorporates cognitive and behavioral strategies:
Cognitive Preparation: Identifying and analyzing emotional triggers.
Skills Acquisition: Teaching specific techniques (e.g., breathing exercises, meditation) to manage anger.
Application Practice: Real-life role-playing scenarios to practice skills, reinforced positively by therapists.
Effectiveness: Keen et al (2000) found significant improvements in anger control among participants of anger management programs compared to pre-therapy levels.
Critiques: Anger management may inaccurately assume that all violent behaviors stem from anger mismanagement and may vary among different offender categories without true effectiveness in real life once off therapy.
Strength: Combines varied psychological approaches, recognizing the complexity of aggression triggers without oversimplifying causes.
Part 13: Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Restorative Justice
Concept of Restorative Justice (RJ): Advocates for a dialogue between offenders and victims, emphasizing accountability and understanding emotional consequences of offenses.
Practical Implementation: Offers apologies and compensation for damages, framed by guidelines from the Restorative Justice Council.
Research on Effectiveness: Latimer et al (2005) found RJ methods significantly enhance victim and offender satisfaction, compliance in restitution efforts, and reduce recidivism rates compared to traditional punitive methods.
Criticism: Assumes offender remorse and may not account for situations where the survivor desires retribution, which can lead to inappropriate power dynamics, especially in cases of domestic violence.
Flexible Application: RJ methods are adaptable for various contexts (schools, prisons), promoting conflict resolution alternatives to violence and aggression while holding offenders accountable.