The Theory Of Criminal Behavior

No, I don’t believe that all delinquents are psychologically abnormal. Many theories relate to delinquent acts such as Choice Theory and Trait Theory. The trait theory suggest that delinquent acts come from personal problems and conditions. Choice theory believes that juvenile offenders are rational decision makers. The decision to violate the law comes after weighing of the benefits and cost of criminal behavior. These two theories suggest that a person reacts to environmental and social circumstances in a unique fashion. For example, a youth that lives in a poor neighborhood would sell illegal drugs to make money. Another might do great in school to get away from their environment.

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.

Criminality or criminal behaviour has long been the subject of great interest within psychology, captivating the interest of psychologists from all different perspectives (Hollin, 2013; Putwain & Sammons, 2013). Due to this, there are many approaches to criminality and theories of criminal behaviour that have been supported by empirical evidence, which provide insightful, but different explanations of this psychology phenomenon (Eysenck, 2013; Hollin, 2013; Putwain & Sammons, 2013). In spite of this, there are criticisms and weaknesses to these approaches and theories as well as methodological limitations to the supporting research, which brings into question the reliability, validity and usefulness of these approaches in the explanation of criminality and criminal behaviour (Hollin, 2013; Putwain & Sammons, 2013). As a consequence of this, this essay will critically discuss the phrase ‘once a criminal, always a criminal’ in relation to the biological/evolutionary and psychoanalytic approaches as well as social learning theory, the social and cognitive approaches.

Crime is a serious issue in the United States. Research shows that crime is running rampant and its effects are felt in all socioeconomic levels. Each economic class has its own crime rates and types of crime. It is a mistake to think of crime as a lower class problem. Crime is a problem for all people. The lower classes commit crime for survival while the upper class commits crime to supplement capital and maintain control.

Humans are complicated creatures. I proclaim that we are innately curious about everything. What, why, how, when are questions that constantly circulate in our minds. These questions then encourage us, naturally, to search for the answers. This is true in the area of crime and criminal behavior as well. Criminological theory attempts to describe why and how crime transpires by studying the countless social factors that influence someone to commit crimes. These theories are then supposed to explain both the understandings and roots of crime. Abstract outlooks offer an image of what something is and the best way of addressing that particular subject. In this section of the course we have explored different author’s sociological perspectives in the realm of theory. Each aim to explain why people engage in crime, but I will focus my attention on anomie/strain theories. First, I will provide a short summary of Merton’s anomie theory, Messner and Rosenfeld’s institutional-anomie theory and Agnew’s general strain theory. Next, I will take some time to highlight the strength or usefulness of the theories, with some critique, but mostly focusing on the positive value. Lastly, I will use the biological example of William Freeman and explain how the strain theory is directly relational.

This theory focuses strictly on social influences on behavior, however it fails to take into account the biological factors which might lead to criminal behaviors. Biology can cause mental illness, learning disabilities, and impulsiveness, any of which could cause an otherwise law abiding person to commit a crime. So when testing this theory, social learning theorists would fail to account for biological factors, which could cause spuriousness in the results.

The readings in module five covered different perspectives on why crime does or does not occur. It covers differential association theory, learning theories, and control theories. Many of these theories play off each other when trying to explain why there is criminal behavior.

The use of theory in the field of criminal justice can assist with deterring criminal activity as well as predicting the actions of individuals (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). This is one of the main reason the Federal Bureau of Investigations tracks crimes, moreover, the reason the Department of Justice conducts the victimization survey. The information is used to form theories about criminal activity current plaguing an area. These theories can be utilized to predict future criminal activities allowing law enforcement officers an opportunity to be proactive, moreover, the information could assist society with reforming.

“Criminological theories are tentative answers to questions about criminal behaviour and the criminal justice system” (Akers 2012, p.1). In simple terms, a theory is typically a framework that explains how and why crime exists and then makes future predictions of how to reduce crime and criminal behaviour (Burke, 2014). A theory is generated by empirical study and secondary research using inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive is new research and observation whilst deductive tests an old theory.

Ever since the young age of five, Todd Christopher Kohlhepp has been full of anger. It was a type of uncontrollable anger that drove him to destroy classmates' preschool projects, torture pets, and destroy his room with a hammer (Kohlhepp driven by anger). Kohlhepp’s troubled childhood is a result of his parent’s divorce. His mother remarried when he was five years old and left him with a stepfather he never got along with. As a child, he showed aggressive, antisocial, and hostile behaviors that eventually led to the start of sessions with a mental health professional. During his therapy sessions in Georgia, Kohlhepp "was very open about his hostility toward his stepfather" and "was preoccupied with sexual content” (Face of Fear). As Todd continued to grow up, his impulsive acts of aggression intensified greatly. Now, authorities say, the 45-year-old real estate agent is a serial killer.

Criminal behavior is influenced by abuse or neglect in their childhood. Children can have bad luck, consider abused children. Bad luck it is when young children are the unfortunate victims of poor supervision and treatment conditions which contributes towards detrimental behaviour. However what causes them to become abusers themselves can be explained through the Social Learning Theory.

The modern biosocial perspective of criminal behavior covers many different areas of studies. The aspects this paper will be focusing on are familial studies, brain injuries, and cytogenetic studies. It should be taken into consideration that every situation and person is different; therefore, the results from the studies will most likely vary significantly. This theory discusses the thinking that instead of a nature versus nurture point of view, criminology should be studied from a viewpoint of nature and nurture working in tandem. This is pointed out in many areas, but it most noticeable in the areas mentioned above. Not only is this theory looking into the genetics side of the argument, but it is also taking into account the

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.

Moore starts with the definition of criminology and then proceeds to discuss five categories of psychological theories related to understanding criminality and delinquency (Moore, 2011). The methods used by Moore include a database search using keywords, and consultation with an expert in the field. The problem with the method Moore used is the limited categories of psychological theories in her article. Since there are so many different theories attempting to explain criminality and delinquency, Moore excluded those theories addressing crime and delinquency from a sociological perspective, and focused on the psychological theories because the “psychological theories tend to address crime and delinquency at the individual level, primarily identifying individual differences that lead to criminal behavior” (Moore, 2011, p. 228). The psychological theories Moore discusses are Learning Theories, Intelligence Theories, Personality Trait Theories, Theories of Psychopathy, and Cognitive and Social Development