The Capacity Of Two Theories

An abundance of research has been conducted on how Robert Agnew’s strain theory can help better understand why crime is committed. However, limitations to this to theory have come to the surface. Some suggest that

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

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.

Genetics and behavior relations has been a controversial topic for several years, however, as time has passed so has the demand for proof or disproof of the relationship. One of the most important reasons for the need to define this relationship is to uncover the truths behind violent or delinquent behavior. Also, it is important that we can weed out people who make false claims that their genes are responsible for their actions in order for us to appropriately distribute penalties or treatment. Another reason is that if we do find truths to these claims we can find ways to treat these behaviors for better outcomes. Though many studies have been conducted to reveal associations, more research is yet to be done that explores all connections and detailed backgrounds of those involved in the studies. To begin validating our theories, we must use genotyping, which is the comparison of an individual’s genetic make-up through exploration of their DNA sequence then comparing it to the DNA sequence of another individual or a reference sample. Utilizing genotyping, we are able to view the alleles an individual inherited from their parents (slide 4).

Causes of crime are arguably criminology’s most important and largest research topic. In this process of research, criminologists and academics have used numerous theories in attempts to explain how and why people resort to crime (Ellis, Beaver, Wright, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to examine a case study first with the use of strain theories (ST), followed by social learning theory (SLT). The first section will involve a summary of the case of R v Mark Andrew HUGHES (2009) NSWDC 404 involving an outline of the offender’s personal life, of his crimes, and his punishment handed down by

What causes people to commit crime? This million dollar questions has place many criminologists and researchers searching for answers. In the past decades, people have tried to explain crime by referring to the earliest literature of criminal’s atavistic features to human biology. Recent studies have shows that crime is described in the social environment. While, no one theory can prove the causes of crime, strain theory has gain support in academic research for its five mode of adaptation.

No one can be certain whether nature or nurture is the cause for criminal behavior. However, research has stated that it is more often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior (Jones, 2005). Through a biological perspective, it is determined that criminal behavior is due to genetics and/or neurological conducts. It concludes that criminals are born due to their criminal traits being passed down through genetic or chromosomal mutation. Another explanation of criminal behavior within the biological perspective are the neurochemicals within our brains and body. There many regulated chemicals in the brain that determines thought process, perception and action. Like the arguments for genetic and chromosomal mutation, any abnormal anomalies or chemical imbalance can heavily impact behavior (Schram, 2018). This goes for any damages to some parts of the brain that controls emotions, reason and logic. Problems with the biological perspective are the following: 1. It provide little explanations for a small of minority of offenders with specific conditions (Levitt, 2013). 2. Disregard the effect of environmental influences and life experiences that also impact behavior. 3. Since criminality is based on biology, it is unchangeable, therefore, no one is to be blamed for their actions. Lastly, 4. Famous studies on biological factors of criminality (ex: the twin, family and adoption studies) maintained an intertwined relationship with social

Classical criminological theory was introduced in 1764. The tenants of this theory became the backbone for the development of all criminological theories to come. After over 200 years have passed since its conception, is classical criminological theory still relevant to today’s society in explaining the causes of crime? This essay will address this question by discussing the major components of classical criminological theory while highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. The essay will also examine a more modern criminological theory, Merton’s anomie/strain theory, and decipher major differences between the two theories. This essay will also explain the aspects of classical criminological theory that are applicable or outdated in their

The biological theories are essential to the criminal justice profession so that they won't assume that a person's genetic characteristics cause a person to commit a crime. However, there are born criminals and “these types of criminals are the most dangerous, and can be identified through his or her stigmata or identifying characteristics” (Akers, Sellers, See, & Kieser, 2013, p. 10). Biological theories are the bases for severe criminal behavior mostly found among people who are born with an innate impulse to commit a

First, psychological theory suggests that a person’s environment and past can influence their ability and desire to commit crime while biological theory suggest a person’s DNA makeup could influence their ability to commit crime. “Biological theories within the field of criminology attempt to explain behaviors contrary to societal expectations through examination of

When looking at criminal activity and the direct connection to the criminal behavior we see that there have been many research trials that have taken place over the history of humankind (Mishra & Lalumiere, 2008). Two of these research areas that have been developed to attempt to understand the causes of criminal behavior are known as biological and psychological perspectives of crime causation. These two sectors have their principles that are held in their theories as a standard scientific understanding of the basics that each evaluation of criminal behavior is built on (Dretske, 2004).

However, while the overstimulation of the Id and the failure to acquire and develop the the Ego and SuperEgo leads to criminal tendencies, while aggression may be out of adaptive values, and while genetic studies have pointed towards the influence of genes and criminal behaviour, these theories alone are insufficient to account for crime. Evolutionary theory does not explain or predict for the extreme degrees of aggression in individuals nor has the genetic theory proven for 100% heritability; which raises the need for us to examine the Nurture camp of crime theories as well.

Researchers have also looked at criminal behavior from a genetic aspect. In fact, "behavioral genetic research has show that genes influence individual differences in a wide range of human behaviors -cognition, academic achievement, personality and temperament (including such traits as aggression and hostility), psychopathology, and even vocational interests and social attitudes" (Meadows, 2010, P.16). There may in fact be a connection between how an individual is wired and the behavior that results. This does not necessarily mean that some individuals are inevitably going to become a criminal. However, some individuals may simply have a greater tendency "to be more aggressive and thus less likely to control emotions absent some type of positive interventions" (Meadows, 2010, P. 16). Furthermore, genetic research looks at the heritability of certain disorders and specific genes that

One factor that influences the likelihood of criminal behavior involves a person’s genetics. Certain inherited behaviors can lead people to be more likely to have criminal behaviors. Stated in the article "The Criminal Mind,” Arian Raine explains, “More than 100 studies of twins and adopted children have confirmed that about half of the variance in aggressive and antisocial behavior can be attributed to genetics.” (Raine). Aggressive and antisocial behaviors are found in many criminals. Research proves that these behaviors can be due to genetics, and this makes these behaviors a genetic influence to criminal behavior. Additionally, anybody can be a criminal, but gender plays a role in their chances as well. In the article “Born

The research findings of Herrnstein & Wilson are not only conclusive to the claims of Lombroso, but also correlate with Sheldon's (1949) declaration of somatotypes relating to criminality. In an attempt to authenticate the notion of hereditary criminal predisposition, Lange's (1931) study of twins concluded identical twins share innate criminal tendencies, however; the results were less conclusive with fraternal twins; whereby evidencing the possibility of hereditary criminality.