The Theory Of Criminal Behavior

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

Biological Theories are vastly growing with fascinating research. The main stump is concretely linking it to criminal behavior, because some theories are more relatable than others. Theories involving temperament and hormones give real life biological explanations, while others like extrovert and introvert behaviors, and neuroticism explain a weaker link to crime. However, all theories are valuable in exploring the root of crime.

There are several theories that are used to explain why people commit crimes. These theories cover a range of scientific studies that still continue to be used in crime studies today. By using these theories and information gathered, an explanation of the criminal behaviours will be examined and explained relating to each supporting theories. The traditional explanations for crime are nature vs. nurture debate and the ideas relating to any possible biological reasons that turns someone into a criminal. Are some people really just ‘born bad?’ or are there other, social reasons for criminal behaviour? In this essay I will look at both sides of the argument, and offer an insight into the reasons behind such criminal behaviours. The Classical

In this essay, two theories specifically focusing on sexual offending against children are compared and critical evaluated. Finkelhor’s (1984) Precondition model integrates four underlying factors that might explain the occurrence of child sexual abuse and categorizes them into four preconditions: motivation to offend, overcoming internal inhibitors, overcoming external inhibitors and overcoming child’s resistance that occur in a temporal sequence where each is necessary for the other to develop. The Precondition model provides a framework for assessment of child molesters but is criticized for a lack of aetiological explanations and for paying to little attention to cognitive factors. Ward’s (2003) Pathways model suggest that clinical

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.

There are different perspectives on explanations of criminal behavior such as Biological and Psychological explaining crime. The two perspectives have been considered exterior in criminology since majority perspective come from sociology. Sociology focuses on how law-abiding citizens become criminals and conventional lack of opportunity. Therefore the two perspectives had to take a back seat in history because they were seen as naive and not take serious. “Sociological theories cannot explain how one person can be born in a slum, be exposed to family discord and abuse, never attend school, have friends who are delinquents and yet resist opportunities for crime, while another person can grow up in an affluent suburban neighborhood in a two-parent home, attend the finest schools, have every financial need met, and end up firing a gun at a president” ” (Adler, Muller & Laufer, 1991).

Criminological theories (also known as theoretical criminology), according to Schmalleger (2015), is the “subfield of general criminology that posits explanations of criminal behavior.” (p. 13) There are many theories under this subfield that exist to help people have a better understanding of a criminal 's actions as well as put some justification behind them. There are six different schools that fall under criminological theories. These schools are: Classical School, Biological/Biosocial Theories, Psychological/Psychiatric Theories, Social Structions Approaches, Social Process & Social Development Theories, and Social Conflict Theories.

Theories Biological Theory Biological theories of criminality claim that criminal behavior is the result of some flaw in the biological makeup of the individual. This physical flaw could be due to: • Heredity • Neurotransmitter dysfunction • Brain abnormalities that were caused by either of the above, improper development, or trauma (Raine, 2002) The issue for the community is how to recognize a significant biological contribution to criminal behavior since genetic testing is unreliable and there are no other physical markers of criminality.

What drives individual human behavior? Personality that’s what. Not one person is the same. We all have a personality that is different from each other. To help with this process we turn to biological theory. Biological Theory of crime seems to focus on the genetic factors; genetic factors tend to influence criminal behavior. When people think of the word biological they tend to think of genetics they think they are one and the same. There are however people who just assume that people are born bad. In fact, biological factors are more inclusive, consisting of physiological, biochemical, neurological, and genetic factors. Genetic factors refer to biological factors that are inherited (Tehrani, Jasmine A & Mednick, Sarnoff

Criminologists find biological theories alone to be unreliable because besides biological conditions being associated with an increased risk of criminality other factors such as poverty could have an impact on crime which is influenced by the condition in which some people lived. Criminologist do not totally agree that a person’s criminal tendencies are associated with behavioral genetics that individuals are exposed to. It is believed that genetics have little to no effect on criminal behavior, but have more to do with the lack of self-control as the potential for criminal behavior. The criminologist is not able to tell if a person will commit illegal acts from the time of their birth or to become one later in life. It is determined that a

There has always been a fascination with trying to determine what causes an individual to become a criminal? Of course a large part of that fascination has to do with the want to reduce crime, and to determine if there is a way to detect and prevent individuals from committing crime. Determining what causes criminality is still not perfectly clear and likewise, there is still debate as to whether crime is caused biologically, environmentally, or socially. Furthermore, the debate is directly correlated to the notion of 'nurture vs nature'. Over time many researchers have presented various theories pertaining to what causes criminal behavior. There are many theories that either support or oppose the concept of crime being biological rather

As an audience viewing the issue of genetics and environmental influences on criminal behavior it is important for us to view adoption studies since they break the idea of the "Nature and Nurture". The long-running debate of nature versus nurture is a constant and is one of the oldest argued about issues within psychology. To fully understand the beginnings

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

Proponents of the nature theory believe that a person’s innate qualities are solely responsible for determining their characteristics and behavioral traits. It is a known fact that physical characteristics such as a person’s eye color, hair texture, skin pigmentation and predisposition to certain chronic diseases such as hemophilia, sickle -cell disease and Turner syndrome are all linked to inherited genes. The aforementioned facts have resulted in the belief that other human characteristics such as personality attributes and behavioral patterns are engrained in our genetic makeup. In other words, an individual is born with the propensity to engage in deviant acts or to act in

For decades, criminological theories have been dominated by sociological and political perspectives to explain crime than biological and genetic factors. Not to state that all sociological and political perspectives are flawed, but these perspectives within traditional criminology are not complete and do not offer a full assessment of all the contributions of criminal behavior. This paper aims to offer why traditional Criminology avoids biological explanations, what traditional Criminology attempts to explain criminal behavior, and how Criminology has traditionally overlooked biology and genetics and what the potential consequences may be.