KOHLBERG - LEVEL OF MORAL REASONING (1968)

→ Crimes are committed by individuals who have lower levels of moral reasoning than non-criminals

~Level Of Moral Reasoning~

→ Peoples decisions and judgments on issues of right and wrong can be summarised in a stage theory of moral development - the higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasonings

→ It is suggested that criminals show lower level of moral reasoning than non-criminals

→ Kohlberg used his moral dilemma technique and found that violent youths were lower in moral development than non-violent youths

KOHLBERG’S MODEL

~LEVEL 1 - Preconventional Morality~

Stage 1:

  • Punishment orientation, rules are obeyed to avoid punishment

Stage 2:

  • Instrumental orientation or personal gain, rules are obeyed for personal gain

~LEVEL 2 - Conventional Morality~

Stage 3:

  • Good boy or good girl orientation, rules are obeyed for approval

Stage 4:

  • Maintenance of the social order, rules are obeyed to maintain the social order

~LEVEL 3 - Postconventional Morality~

Stage 5:

  • Morality of contract and individual rights, rules are obeyed if they are impartial; demon ratio rules are challenged if they infringe on the rights of others

Stage 6:

  • Morality of conscience. The individual establishes his or her own rules in accordance with a personal set of ethical principles

    Conclusion:

  • Criminals are likely to be classified at the preconventional level

  • This level is characterised by a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards

  • Adults at this level may commit crime if they can get away with it or gain financial rewards and respect

  • Non criminals have generally progressed to the conventional level 2 and beyond

EVALUATION

Research Support:

→ RESEARCH SUPPORT

  • One strength is evidence for the link between level of moral reasoning and crime.

  • Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the Socio Moral Reflection Measure Short Form (SRM-SF) which contains 11 moral dilema-related questions such as not taking things that belong to others, and keeping a promise to a friend.

  • The offender group showed less mature moral reasoning and the non-offender group.

  • This is consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions.

→ THINKING VERSUS BEHAVIOUR

  • Kohlbergs theory is useful in that it provides insight into the mechanics of the criminal mind - that offenders may be more childlike and egocentric when it comes to making moral judgements than the law-abiding majority.

  • However, moral thinking is not the same as moral behaviour.

  • Moral reasoning of the kind Kohlberg was interested in is more likely used to justify behaviour after it has happened.

Conflicting Evidence:

→ TYPE OF OFFENCE

  • One limitation is that level of moral reasoning may depend on the offence.

  • Thornton et Reid (1982) found that people who committed crimes for financial gain (e.g. robbery) were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes (e.g. assault).

  • Pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crimes in which offenders believe they have a good chance of evading punishment.

  • This suggests that Kohlberg’s theory may not apply to all forms of crime.