There Is A Plethora Of Theories That Can Be Employed To

(M1)-The perception that crime has become one of the most serious problems facing society has led to determined efforts by many researchers to find the causes of criminal behavior. Researchers have focused on biological causes, believing that a biological basis of criminality exists and that an understanding of the biology will be useful in predicting which people are predisposed to become criminals. Judging the case of Jonathan Tregar, we can use the Lombroso theory to determine his case accordingly. This theory assumes that criminal behavior is inborn, associated with physical body features, and that criminals have body features which are different from non-criminals. Among the many

I believe the theory that best explains why crime happens is the psychoanalytic perspective. I believe this is the best theory because it focuses more on the wants and acts of the criminal rather an their personality or lack of control. The psychoanalytic perspective more accurately describes a reason to why people commit crimes. Not all individuals could be identified from a personality trait or low levels of self control. Therefore, the psychoanalytic perspective would give the best explanation to why crime happens.

What Starts Criminal Behavior? History shows that through life violence is a cycle within itself. Criminology shows different views on how and why criminal behavior happens. By watching the movie “Boyz in The Hood” we see the crimes take place and show why these events happened. Based off the information from class and from past theories I formulate my own theories of why crime happens.

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

Crime is something that happens every day. Many people fear it, but it is a factor that people cannot escape. In places, like Detroit, people are surrounded by violent crime. Either they are the victims of it, or the committers, but it was not always like this. During the sixties, Detroit was one of the most lucrative cities in the country. Many people moved there to seek jobs in the automotive factories which increased the population to 1.85 million. (Padnani, 2013) However, this is not the case now. Many of the factories have moved, putting people and their families at a disadvantage. A numerous amount of workers relied on these jobs to feed their families. Since then, Detroit has faced a significant amount of hardships that has caused the city to deteriorate effecting education, employment, and the crime rate each factor acts as a chain reaction. The lack of diversity in the city can be a factor of the crime rate as well because Detroit is filled with a large population of minorities. Many politicians have looked for ways to solve the problem, but nothing has been proven to work.

Poverty fosters large crime rates. Where you find poverty, you often find crime. Urban areas are commonly known to be densely populated. High population along with the close proximity of businesses provide criminals with larger amounts of potential targets. For many impoverished people, the potential benefits of crime outweigh the risks of being caught. The pressing need for material goods, such as food, can steer people to commit crimes. Often threats and violence produce larger quantities of goods, which provokes people to commit even more violent acts. These acts are carried out primarily by people from poorer segments of the population and who are more likely to live in urban areas.

The assumption with this theory is that those neighborhoods that are disorganized and messy will have higher crime rates than neighborhoods that are clean and orderly. In neighborhoods that are messy and disorganized, it starts to become the norm, and there starts to become less control that leads to disorder and crime.

So far, both theories are able to explain the crime inequality observed insides neighbourhoods; however, when it comes to explaining the difference in crime rates between neighbourhoods with similarly low levels of poverty, social disorganization theory is not able to fully explain why such difference may occur, as it places a greater focus on the internal dynamics of the neighbourhoods than on the external contingencies (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 92). Based on Table 4.5 of Divergent Social Worlds: Neighborhood Crime and the Racial-Spatial DivideI, minority low-poverty areas have roughly two and a half times more violence than their white counterparts (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 88). Social disorganization theory insists that residential instability (percent of those who owns and percent of those who rent) , population heterogeneity (internal differences, including ethno-racial differences), poverty (percent of those who live in poverty), income, deteriorating neighbourhood, and population loss (percent of those who leave due to deterioration) are mechanisms that leads to the absence of informal social control and increases social disorganization, causing the loss of control over youths who then hang out at spontaneous playgrounds and form gangs with delinquent traditions that get passed down through cultural transmission. If such was the case, then one would expect neighbourhoods with similar and comparable local conditions to have similar average rates of crimes. However,

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

Trait theories posit that crime is caused by certain traits, biological or psychological, among individuals which predispose them to crime. These traits control the individual's coping strategies and ultimately result in criminal behavior. Social philosopher Cesare Lombroso, working in the early 1900's, theorized that there were common physical traits shared by criminals. (Glaser, 205-6). These included distinct characteristics in the jaw line, teeth, and nose as cranium of offenders. As a result, public law enforcement viewed offenders as either incapable of reason or as unable to control their animal impulses. (Glaser, 206).

The second theory I would like to discuss is the Strain theory. The strain theory basically states that crime breeds in the gap, imbalance, or disjunction between culturally induced aspirations for economic success and structurally distributed possibilities of achievement. The theory assumes fairly uniform economic success aspirations across social class and the theory attempts to explain why crime is concentrated among the lower classes that have the least legitimate opportunities for achievement. It is the combination of the cultural emphasis and the social structure which produces intense pressure for

88-89). The conclusion that Lombroso came up with was that there is a "born criminal type" (Thompson and Bynum, 2010, P. 89). This concept of physical characteristics was used in other fields, like Anthropology to see if people of a certain race were more primitive then others. It is not all that surprising that it was used to try and establish if criminals could be distinguished in the same manner. The concept of individuals being born as a criminal type is still unclear. Of course this concept has been expanded well beyond just looking at physical traits.

All the biological theories are based on the notion that biological markers foreordain criminal behavior. The core of all these theories is that genetic factors or any abnormalities which are inherited or acquired throughout the life, predispose individuals to the criminal behavior. Lombroso’s theory gave life to probably almost every single biological theory that appeared afterward.

I believe a weakness of this theory is that it does not explain why everyone commits crime. It also shifts the blame from the individual who committed the crime to the factors that may have caused the crime to take place. An example would be instead of the person who steals being blamed for the crime, the blame is then on the environment because it is a low

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.