I think that I agree with the Left-Realism theory the most because this theory believes that the poor and disenfranchised are preyed on. This can be shown by the increased number of crimes against disabled and homeless individuals. In the book, it says that one of the crises is "lack of job creation" (Siegel, 2015, pg 211). The lack of jobs means the lack of money going back to the people, so if someone is living on the streets or becomes disabled from lack of money for a doctor's appointment, they are at an increased risk to be victimized because they are less likely to fight back. In the book it talks about how as the wealth gap increases, so does crime. I agree with this because some individuals resort to crime as a way to make money since
Biological Theories have been related to crime for a long time. The Biological Theory talks about how one’s brain has an impact on committing crime or not. Dr. Jim Fallon, a neuroscientist from California talks about the biological influences in a brain. He believes that the combination of three major aspects can determine whether someone is psychopathic or not. Fallon states a combination of genes, damage to the person 's brain and the environment surrounding the individual will have the biggest impact on a person (Fallon, 2009). A real world example of the biological theory in full effect was the crimes of David Berkowitz, aka “Son of Sam. Berkowitz was accused and found guilty of killing over 6 people in New York City. After being convicted and locked up for a few years, studies had shown that Berkowitz had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Berkowitz also claimed that his neighbor’s dog, Sam had told him to do the killings as well (Biography). Comparing the Biological theory to my own life was pretty simple because there is a genetic factor that runs in my dad’s side and that is tempers. Tempers tend to flare fairly easy, and luckily so far there has no issues with the law, however like Fallon had said, with the right combination, anyone is possible to commit a crime at any time. I feel like in a biological theory, this would have a major impact on my life
Sin and legalistic views differ due to the divine power and the state power. The natural laws are said to be given by God. He created the natural laws to govern the early humans. To the Romans, it meant a body of ideal principles that people could understand rationally and that included the perfect standards of right conduct and justice (pg. 27-28.) The legalistic view of crime is the violation of a generally accepted set of rules that are backed by the state(pg27). Any legal law or rule that is made by the national, state, or local government falls under the legalistic view. Today, as the government continues to make the various laws about how one must live, care for themselves, and how to deal with how one identifies themselves it will start
This essay will outline how crime theories are able to assist in recognizing the causes of criminal activity, as well as demonstrating two criminological theories to two particular crimes. Overviews of trends, dimensions and victim/offenders characteristics of both crime groups will be specified. The two particular crimes that will be demonstrated throughout this essay are; Violent Crime (focusing on Assault) being linked with social learning theory and White Collar crime (focusing on terrorism) being linked to General Strain theory. In criminology, determining the motive of why people commit crimes is crucial. Over the years, many theories have been developed and they continue to be studied as criminologists pursue the best answers in eventually diminishing certain types of crime including assaults and terrorism, which will be focused on.
This video mirrored Conflict theories in several ways. I saw a few prime examples pertaining exactly to what their theory stands for. The first being that the cause of crime deviates from the failure of our collective society’s ability to offer the same opportunity for everyone. Meaning that crime happens because our laws and policies have been created to enable the rich and powerful while keeping the regular citizens from achieving the same opportunities and financial gains. I feel that this directly correlates with the crash of the housing market in 2008. The banks were distributing loans to people who did not qualify for them. They knew that these loans would fall through and they would reap the benefits. When a waitress or low-income worker finds the opportunity to receive a loan for a lavish home, they believe that they are receiving these with knowledge and trust in that the government and the bankers are not lying to them. When these loopholes and laws are not considered to be fraudulent, all because these bankers and wall-street workers had power and money, it makes you wonder why these laws are written when they aren’t even exercised by the rich and powerful.
Each of these three contemporary sociological theories of crime are similar in that they focus mainly on crime in poor or disadvantaged areas. This focus is obvious with social conflict theory and social disorganization theory but not as much with rational choice theory although it is there. With rational choice theory the concept of what is to be gained
There are numerous Marxist theories that help us to understand crime and deviance in different ways, however they are all based around the same ideas. They believe capitalism causes crime in three different ways including, selective law enforcement, criminogenic capitalism and ideological nature of the law.
Within this essay there will be a clear understanding of the contrast and comparison between left and right realism, supported by accurate evidence that will support and differentiate the two wings of realism.
Marxist and neo-Marxist approaches and explanations of crime are arguably some of the most controversial, for the reason that they state that it is the ruling class that is responsible for criminalising the working classes, which goes directly against what official statistics and Functionalists believe. However, Marxism and Functionalism do share a similarity in that both believe structures and institutions of society play a very important role in determining how people behave, criminally or otherwise.
One way that Marxism isn’t a useful theory is that the left realists believe that most working class crime is committed against the working class. This means that it’s not because of laws that the working class are going out to commit crimes. This means that more working class people are going to get into fights with one another over conflict of interests. This analysis shows that Marxism isn’t useful as it can be showed that crime is about conflicts of interests.
a. Imagine asking 100 strangers to describe a criminal. Predict whether those descriptions would be likely to focus on street criminals, or the variety of topics covered in this video.
A theory is an explanation of why or how things are related to each other (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Additionally, a theory is defined as a plausible or scientifically acceptable principle, or a body of principles, offered to explain phenomena (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2017). Furthermore, crime theories examine and attempt to identify relationships among humans, criminal behavior, and specific factors such as biological factors, psychological factors, sociological factors, and economic factors (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Since we have defined a theory, let us further discuss how theories are created beginning with the components of a theory.
Every theory of crime has at least 2-3 meta-theoretical levels above it. The fundamental issues are usually addressed at the approach level, and are often called the assumptions, or starting points, of a theory, although the term "assumptions" more strictly refers to the background or domain boundaries one can draw generalizations about. Above the approach level is the Perspective level, the largest unit of agreement within a scientific community, and in fact, the names for the scientific disciplines. Perspectives are sometimes called paradigms or viewpoints, although some people use the term paradigm to refer to untestable ideologies such as: (1) rational choice; (2) pathogenesis; (3) labeling;
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.
Many people have different theories as to why crime exists. Some believe crime happens because of the individual’s culture, education (or lack there of), or even their race. Others believe crime is associated with whom we surround ourselves with. There are three sociological theories that suggest why crime happens in society; they are social learning theory, social control theory, and social reaction (labeling) theory. These theories suggest it is our relationships and social interactions that influence our behavior.
Biological theory states that the individual will have certain traits will be transmitted from parent to children through genetics and not from social learning. Along with the juvenile having similar facial characteristics, which some believe also predisposes them to criminal behavior (Palmerin, 2012).