Why People Commit Crime? Essay

Crime is often described as socially constructed, which influences our understanding of who commits a crime. Firstly, labelling theorists argue that crime is a social construction based on the powerful’s reaction to certain behaviour, those who are deviant are people that have been labelled as such. Marxists claim the bourgeoise construct crime in order to criminalise the proletariat, get away with their own deviance and maintain their own dominance. Neo-marxists look at how moral panics create a social construction of crime and can criminalise certain groups. Finally, feminists, argue crime is constructed in a patriarchal way and that the criminal justice system is harsher to female offenders. Whereas others criticise these theories for

In criminology, is very important to study why people commit crime when deciding how crime should be handled and prevented. This type of study is known as criminal profiling. Many theories have developed over the years, and they continue to be researched, alone and in combination, as criminologists seek the best solutions in reducing specific types and levels of crime. While all crime theories are designed to try to explain and understand criminal activity and the people that commit them, it is an ongoing science. No one theory can define all crime. However, it can be used usefully to help us understand crime a little better and help criminologists find new ways to deal with and eliminate criminal behavior. I am going to discuss one

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

It is unfortunate that crime exists in our daily lives. There really is no way to stopping crime completely, no matter how many laws or punishment are present, people will continue to keep breaking rules. There are many theories of why that may be the case, for example, Caesar Lombroso and his “atavistic” theory with the Positivist School theory and how people were “born criminals”, or the Rational Choice Theory, devised by Cornish and Clarke, described that people could think rationally and how people will naturally avoid pain and seek pleasure referred to as “hedonism” (Cartwright, 2017, lecture 4). Since it is apparent that crime will continue to exist, it is not only important to understand the study of crime and the feedbacks to it,

Crime is a social construction, and behaviour defined as criminal varies across time and place. Crime is an act that violate moral behaviour, but why is that not all behaviours that violate moral behaviour are labelled as crime? This is because crime is defined differently across different societies and different times. Neutralisation and drift theory helps us to explain why people abuse children by showing us how perpetrators rationalise their guilt for these actions before they physically, sexually, emotionally abuse or neglect children. They do this by blaming their actions on other people, higher forces or believing their acts are harmless. In this essay I will begin by talking about crime as a social construction then touch on child abuse in New Zealand followed by a discussion of how my social contract theory helps us to explain this crime.

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).

The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century, slum poverty was blamed; in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millennium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.

The government-federal state has a lot of monitoring to do because this state has the most people in prison. This is ironic because this country is called the free country. Over 25% of the population in prison are in the United States. This means that we need to set a boundary about what to do and how to help these people not to commit crime. Maybe America is America because of all the slaves that were kept captive. Maybe they just were in a bad position to do anything and gave up so they resorted to committing crimes. We the people must help these group of people get better and not commit anymore crime. Criminals may happen sometime but having 25% of the prisoners in the US is too much for a country let alone a "free country." Another thing

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;

In classical theory, the main objective of study is the offence and the nature of the offender is a rational, free-willed, calculating and normal individual (Aker, 2012). However, it became apparent that some were more motivated to commit crime than others, regardless of deterrence. Therefore, the classical doctrine cannot account for re-offending. Based on empirical research done on convicted offenders, the notion of deterrence was rarely given thought of (Burke, 2013). Initially, most offenders give a lot of thought to the notion of punishment; however, in the process of committing the offence, offenders give little consideration to deterrence and consequences. As a result, this defies whether the purpose of deterrence is, in fact, achieving what it is meant to (Burke, 2013). The model is idealistic, that individuals could be controlled by the threat of punishment- by the likelihood of arrest, prosecution and

Despite having had punishment, an increasing number of criminals are likely to recommit crimes. The underlying reason for this problem will be discussed in this essay, along with several measurements to arrest this issue.

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.

Many theories of crime are macro theories, which are used to explain crime based on a large group of people or society. While macro theories are the predominant type of theory used to explain crime, there are also a variety of “individual”, or micro, factors which are equally important. Two such individual factors s are maternal cigarette smoking (MCS) and cognitive ability, or Intelligence Quotient (IQ).

Biological theory states that the individual will have certain traits will be transmitted from parent to children through genetics and not from social learning. Along with the juvenile having similar facial characteristics, which some believe also predisposes them to criminal behavior (Palmerin, 2012).

Crime has diverse effects on society in various ways, shapes or form. These criminal effects are impacted either on an individual basis or a continual basis in our everyday lives. These effects or outcomes, if you will, are prevalent on our streets we live on, the neighborhoods we are in, and even the states that we live in. The end result of crimes in our society has many different physical, financial, and emotional impacts. Among those influenced are the public, the victim, and the Police/Law Enforcement.