Cognitive Theory In The Positive School And The Anomie Theory

In the video “The Lost Children of Rockdale County” produced by Dretzin and Goodman in 1999, portrays the life of teenagers engaging in peer delinquency, sexual behavior, and drugs and alcohol consumption. The video portrays the life of Nicole a 14 year old female who had engaged in sexual behavior, delinquent activity and lived under lack pf parental supervision. The General Theory of Crime and Delinquency is defined as “Motivations for crime include reinforcements for criminal activity, exposure to successful criminal models, learnijng beliefs favorable to crime” (Frailing & Harper, 2013. p.156). Robert Agnew’s theory can be related into Nicole’s life, because the environment in which she grew clearly affected the five domains explained in the theory. The family domain was affected because Cindy’s (Nicole’s mother) lack of parental attachment during Nicole’s infancy affected the relationship. Nicole argues that she started to engage in a risky behavior because she wanted to obtain her mother’s attention because her mother worked full time and didn’t had time to monitor her behavior.

The Classical school of criminology can be known as the free will to act at one’s own discretion, where an individual chooses to break the law upon a desirable choice. The Classical emphasizes how the system was organized, punishments for crime, and how authorities should react to crime. On the other hand, positivist school was created to see what influences an individual to break the laws, based on human beings’ behavior. Positivist school is simply trying to analyze who, what, and how crime is initiated. This study will identify the schools’ argument, and if they complement each other, the advantages and disadvantages, and the different approaches or points of view from multiple criminologist regarding the schools and theories.

This paper will cover two criminological theories and they will be applied to two types of criminality. The two theories chosen for the paper were developmental theory and rational choice theory. The two types of crimes that were chosen were organized crime, specifically focusing on gangs, and terrorism. Then the crimes will be compared and contrasted. Finally, the developmental theory will be applied to organized crime to explain why and how it happens. The rational choice theory will be applied to terrorism to explain what compels individuals to attempt this form of criminality.

It allows us to examine what makes crime acceptable and desirable in the minds of potential criminals, and it gives us the tools necessary to use a proactive rather than reactive approach to crime control. To look at crime from a psychological point of view is nothing new. However, use of this technique may lead to better methods of deterrence. To begin, we must understand what the concepts are that have shaped the average person’s mind. In general the average person is faced with the concepts of determinism, free will, and social identity as they mature into adulthood.

In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting the Rational Choice Theory(s) and the Trait Theory(s). We will start with the history of the two theories and progress toward some of the individual principles in the theories. Next step will be explaining how each theory contributes to criminal behavior. My closing paragraph will conclude the essay as well as give detailed information on how society punishes the crimes committed.

Why some people cannot escape from criminal activities while others never have any problems has been examined for decades. The study of criminology targets why individuals commit crimes and why criminals behave in certain situations. This criminology research helps to break down a true story on the film “Blow” which tells the story of George Jung, one of the most significant drug traffickers in the United States in the 1970’s. The film depicts several criminal theories on why George lived his life the way he did. This paper will explain the theories best noted in the film Blow about General Strain theory, Differential Association theory and Social Bond theory. These three theories help possibly explain why George became a criminal.

There are many perspectives in which one can analyze and understand why a person decides to commit a crime. Some perspectives are social learning theory, strain theory, classical and rational choice theory, deterrence theory, biological and psychological positivist theories, among others. However, for the purposes of this paper, the biological and psychological theories will be discussed.

Based on Ronald Akers ideology of social learning theory, many people commit crimes based on the observations they encounter. These observations can come from a number of sources such as, media, family, and peers. Family and friends as well as the social norms of a neighborhood can be influential to an individual because of acceptance. This theory also says that based on positive or negative reinforcements an individual’s behavior will be based on the rewards or punishments that are given. If given an opportunity to change the violence that occurs among neighborhoods there are many who choose to do so (Akers, 1990).

Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment.

The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century, slum poverty was blamed; in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millennium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.

Crime has existed in societies across the world for centuries, and is defined as any offense harmful against the public. However, the true nature of crime is more complex as there are many different motives and causes behind a criminal act, which cannot be contributed to a single factor (Barlow & Decker, 2010). Within the field of criminology, a number of theories exist that attempt to explain why some individuals commit crime, while others abstain from it. Some theories attribute crime to the specific environment; they believe that an individual commits crime when certain ecological conditions are met (Felson, 2001). Others argue that crime is caused by the individual themselves; that criminals are the result of unrestrained thoughts and low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). This paper will analyze aspects of a real world scenario using both routine activity theory and low self-control theory, for the purpose of better understanding and evaluating certain criminal behavior.

As the nineties began, the general theory of crime became the most prominent criminological theory ever proposed; furthermore, it is empirically recognized as the primary determinant in deviant and criminal behaviors. Known also as the self-control theory, the general theory of crime can most simply be defined as the absence or lack of self-control that an individual possesses, which in turn may lead them to commit unusual and or unlawful deeds. Authored by educator Michael R. Gottfredson and sociologist Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (1990) essentially “dumbed down” every theory of crime into two words, self-control. The widely accepted book holds that low self-control is the main reason that a person initiates all crimes, ranging from murder and rape to burglary and embezzlement. Gottfredson and Hirschi also highlighted, in A General Theory of Crime (1990), that low self-control correlates with personal impulsivity. This impulsive attitude leads individuals to become insensitive to deviant behaviors such as smoking, drinking, illicit sex, and gambling (p. 90). The extreme simplicity, yet accuracy, of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime (self-control theory), make it the most empirically supported theory of criminal conduct, as well as deviant acts.

Criminologists and sociologist have long been in debate for century's to explain criminal behaviour. The two main paradigms of thought are between 'nature' and 'nurture'. Nature is in reference to a learnt behaviour where a multitude of characteristics, in society influence whether a person becomes deviant such as poverty, physical abuse or neglect. Nurture defines biological features which could inevitability lead to a individuals deviant or criminal behaviour, because criminality is believed by biological positivist to be inherited from a persons parents. However, I believe that criminal behaviour is a mixture of characteristics that lead to deviant acts such as psychological illness & Environmental factors. Therefore, this essay

Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behavior. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment. There are various theories within the biological explanation as to why individuals commit criminal behavior, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory,.

Lifestyle theory shows victims’ exposure to their own lifestyle choices. This exposure can lead them to the criminal attacker and situations with their own choices. Examples of such actions are as follows: going out at night alone, living in a bad part of town, associate with known felons, promiscuous, excessive alcohol use, doing drugs, going down a dark alley, etc. Crimes taken place are not random, but a part of the lifestyle choices the victim has portrayed. This impulsive behavior or low self-control comes at a high risk for victimization. (2006) This style of life offers more opportunities for the crime to occur.