Social and Biological Reasoning Behind Crime

This can be applied to the behaviors of criminals. According to Fishbein (1990, pg.37), “behavior [is] primarily attributed to inherited predispositions and genetic influences.” Nurture is the environmental influence that shape human behavior (Fishbein, 1990, pg.37). Human genetics and environmental factors contribute to the uniqueness to a person’s behavior. However, there are underlying qualities in a criminal’s historical background. Aspects of the nature and nurturing of a criminal behavior includes some problems with earlier biological explanations and some recent biological explanations which have overcome the weaknesses of

This week reading discuss social disorganization and collective efficacy. Higgins (2010) stated that the social disorganization theory where a person live is important in deciding if their is weakness to commit crime. In both text, it stated that social disorganization theory came from the Chicago School's social ecology movement. The theory stated that many factors such as "geography, population movement, and physical environment" and the combination of these factors can cause criminal behavior (Higgins, 2010, p. 30). In explain social disorganization theory, it is broken into zones. The concentric zones explain crime because these are the zones where individuals worked and lived. By having this view it can tell that crime is probably

The studies of biological behaviors have shown that criminals with a passion for their crime tend to have a genetic or physiological issue that plays a major part in their criminal activities. Gary Ridgway and John Hinckley Jr. portrayed significant degrees of physiological issues that may have contributed to the crimes they committed. Lack of education, moral support, love, and self-accomplishments may have also provided behaviors out of the norm. Criminal activities in any setting lead to the perpetrator acquiring feelings of self-gratification. Though studies are continuously, biological factors play major roles in the physiological outcomes for criminals.

Biological factors alone are not a sufficient reason why crime occurs. An example would be looking at testosterone and adult deviance. Most studies have shown no correlation with circulating testosterone and behavior. However, there is significance to examining biological factors. The answer lies in the fact that biological explanations of crime understate the important role of social conditions. (Conklin, p 93). When looking at biological and social combined, there is a moderately strong relationship between testosterone and social integration while growing up. Social integration can be fragmented due to less social opportunities by being in lower-class status, unmarried, and an unstable work history. (Conklin, p 96).

Sociological theories of crime contain a great deal of useful information in the understanding of criminal behavior. Sociological theories are very useful in the study of criminal behavior because unlike psychological and biological theories they are mostly macro level theories which attempt to explain rates of crime for a group or an area rather than explaining why an individual committed a crime. (Kubrin, 2012). There is however some micro level sociological theories of crime that attempts to explain the individual’s motivation for criminal behavior (Kubrin, 2012). Of the contemporary

However, this generation of social disorganization theory did not define what “social disorganization” was, which was nearly unacceptable. Moreover, they only used official data of delinquency in their research, which had obvious middleclass bias, and overlooked social stratification. Besides these, this generation of social disorganization theory could not explain why many people in the Zone II did not commit crime and only a small fraction of whom committed most of the crimes, aka “good boy in the bad neighborhood” problem.

If a person has a bad relationship with his or her parents, they don't have a commitment to something positive, they think negative of authorities, and they are involved in negative activities, then the person will have a greater chance of becoming a criminal. Essentially what this theory is trying

Social disorganization theory explains the ecological difference in levels of crime, simply based on cultural and structural factors that influence the social order in a given community. Social disorganization is triggered by poverty, social stability, ethnic heterogeneity, and a few key elements. Although Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay (1942), were known for social disorganization theory, in 1947 Edwin Sutherland introduced the notion of a ecological differences in crime that is the result of differential social organization. Despite similar arguments on social organization, Shaw and Mckay argued that the cultural integration explained the ecological variation in crime rates as a result of the negative impact on the community. Also elaborating on structural socioeconomic factors shaping informal control like poverty, heterogeneity, and residential mobility. Later Robert Sampson and Byron Groves (1989), refined the work of Shaw and Mckay by highlighting on the importance of social ties and new measures of social disorganization.

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.

The social disorganization theory is directed towards social conditions. This theory argues that crime is due to social conflicts, change, and lack of consensus in the group.

The aim of this essay is to compare, contrast and evaluate two sociological theories of crime causation and two psychological theories of crime causation.

Psychology is important to me, as it is my favourite out of my current A level subjects, and is a subject I regard as important as it can lead to direct improvements to our society, such as reducing crime rates. In particular, the nature verses nurture debate holds great interest to myself, as reading through different biological and social explanations of criminal behaviour highlights the value this debate has in our society. Although psychology is part of everyday life, I find this particular debate important as it attempts to determine whether or not a particular behaviour is a result of our environment or genetics. Through studying psychology, I came to the conclusion that both behaviours nurtured by the environment, and those created by DNA have equal significance.

The principles of the biological theories allow us the understanding that all biological theories should evaluate common factors that relate to each other from one biological theory to the other (Schmalleger, 2012). The first parts of the biological theory assess the importance for the theories to make a connection between criminal behavior and the human brain and a person’s personality and the studies of neurology and neurochemistry. This meaning that a person’s ability to control antisocial behavior stems from their environment and the and family genes gives the person directly into right and wrong. There is also a standard that should evaluate the connection between different groups such a sex and racial makeup that that of criminal behavior as well as human instinctive behavior (Dretske, 2014). The link between the evolutionary development of a person criminal behavior or ability to

For the most part, biological theories of crime and deviance have had an unsuccessful and undistinguished career among sociologists. The Italian physician Cesare Lombroso suggested that someone who is born criminal possesses atavism or primitive evolutionary characteristics that produced violent, savage, and apelike tendencies in humans (Goode, p. 27). In addition, biological theories of deviance see crime and deviant behavior as a form of illness due to pathological factors to certain individuals. The biological theory is another example of Charles Whitman actions. Smart, strong, and talented, Charles Whitman seemed like a perfect all-American boy stereotype.

The social learning theory states that criminal behavior is learned. Criminals learn their bad behaviors from close relationships they may have with criminal peers (Siegel & Worrall, 2016). Children look up to their parents; they want to be just like them. So, if children grow up surround by crime, they think that it is both normal and acceptable, and it is likely that they will participate in criminal behavior when they are older. As a result of learning this behavior, it is passed down through generations and is never broken. This can also be learned from friendships people may have with negative influences. Young adults and children want to fit in with their peers, so if they are surrounded with those who commit crimes, they are probably going to do the same because “everyone is doing it”.