For this research paper I will show that pretty much anyone can be labeled or become a criminal. With this being said, I will go into detail as to “what makes a criminal a criminal?” First off, criminal behavior refers to conduct that is being committed which can lead to an unlawful act. There’s a wide variety of behaviors that can be from just tasting something at the flea market, to driving faster than the posted speed limit, to cursing at players at a game in disappointment. We as a society and individuals play a major part in defining and contributing to those who engage in criminal behavior. There are a scope of theories that endeavor to portray human conduct mirroring the complexities of human behavior. Given the scope of theories for behavior, there is not one theory that can completely clarify criminal conduct given the many-sided qualities of the behavior. There are additionally a numerous of variables affecting an individual’s behavior including criminal behavior. These incorporate family circumstances, their identity, and psychological wellness issues. A percentage of the speculations that this research paper will consider comprises of the social-control theory, cognitive theory, biological theory, personality theory, classical theory, and impulse theory. Theories endeavor to clarify behavior including criminal behavior (Hayes, Prenzler). For every situation when we connect a theory to a behavior there must be a clarification for it and it must be testable as
How can theories help us to understand criminal behavior and to design strategies intended to control such behavior?
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
It allows us to examine what makes crime acceptable and desirable in the minds of potential criminals, and it gives us the tools necessary to use a proactive rather than reactive approach to crime control. To look at crime from a psychological point of view is nothing new. However, use of this technique may lead to better methods of deterrence. To begin, we must understand what the concepts are that have shaped the average person’s mind. In general the average person is faced with the concepts of determinism, free will, and social identity as they mature into adulthood.
A number of factors take place regarding incidents of crimes and why they may have been committed that might explain the difference between the two. In determining these factors, theories of crime must be considered since there is more than one factor present when one commits a crime. These theories include learning theory, labeling theory, social disorganization, trait theory, social conflict, choice theory, and life course theory.
Initially, the main belief was that criminal behavior was based on rational choice or thought, where criminals were believed to be intelligent beings and weighed the pros and cons before deciding to commit a crime; classicists Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham introduced this view. Essentially, these criminals would compare the risks of committing the crime, such as getting caught, jail or prison time, being disowned by family and friends, and so forth; and the rewards, such as money and new possessions. After making comparisons, the person would make a decision based on whether the risk was greater than the reward. This is like what is presented in an article on Regis University Criminology Program’s website, which states that a criminal “operates based on free will and rational thought when choosing what and what not to do. But that simplistic view has given way to far more complicated theories” (“Biological Theories Primer”). Nowadays, biological theories make attempts in explaining criminal behavior in terms of factors that are primarily outside of the control of the individual.
The psychological theories of criminal behavior focus on the lack of socialization, incomplete cognitive development, and bad childhood experiences. Those who study psychological theories believe that failures in cognitive development can be a major factor in malfunctioning behavior. These criminals have difficulty controlling anger and containing violence, which causes them to lash out. The results of these episodes are murder, rape, robbery, assault, and battery. Many more crimes can come about from such behavior, especially when the criminal falls into a negative cycle. Their behavior spirals out of their control, as they try to solve each of their crimes by committing another, to try and right the situation.
Theories of crime causation get to the fundamental characteristics of human nature. Theories of crime causation can be separated into trait theories and choice theories. Both types of theories make valid points about the causes of crime, yet they are have different implications for preventing the causes of crime. Thesis: Trait theories and choice theories both assume that humans are self-interested, but their conceptions of self-interest limit the applicability of each to certain types of crime. Trait theories appear more suited for explaining the causes of violent crime, whereas choice theories are more appropriate to property crimes or economic crimes.
The basic definition of the word criminal is someone who commits offending behaviour within society (Harrower, 2001). The crime may range from petty theft to murder.
Three broad models of criminal behaviors are the following: psychological, sociological and biological models. Actually, it is difficult to completely separate them and it is generally accepted, that all of them play a role in the interpretation of behavior. Though psychological principles can be applied across all the three models, they all have some specific ones, which would help in implementing across different crime control policies.
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).
What determines criminal behavior? Are they born to be a natural born killer, is it in their genes, or is it a learned behavior? There are multiple factors resulting in criminal behavior, from genes to environmental factors. Although it is said and believed that criminal behavior is biologically determined there are even more learned or environmental factors that play a role in criminal behavior.
Crime has existed in societies across the world for centuries, and is defined as any offense harmful against the public. However, the true nature of crime is more complex as there are many different motives and causes behind a criminal act, which cannot be contributed to a single factor (Barlow & Decker, 2010). Within the field of criminology, a number of theories exist that attempt to explain why some individuals commit crime, while others abstain from it. Some theories attribute crime to the specific environment; they believe that an individual commits crime when certain ecological conditions are met (Felson, 2001). Others argue that crime is caused by the individual themselves; that criminals are the result of unrestrained thoughts and low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). This paper will analyze aspects of a real world scenario using both routine activity theory and low self-control theory, for the purpose of better understanding and evaluating certain criminal behavior.
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.
Criminals are born not made. The basic definition of the word criminal is someone who commits offending behavior within society (Harrower, 2001). The crime may range from petty theft to murder.
Figuring out why people commit crimes is one of the central concerns of criminology. Do most criminals act rationally after weighing the costs of crime? Is society ever to blame for an individual to commit a crime? Do mental diseases or even genetics factor into whether a person will live a life of crime. Over the years, many people have developed theories to try to answer these questions. In fact, the number of theories of why people commit crimes sometimes seems to equal the number of criminologists. I explore these questions and much more in the paper that follow.