theories of crime

Edwin Sutherland’s theory of Differential Association theory is about an individual learning criminal behaviour through interaction with intimate groups. His theory includes four modalities, which are frequency, duration priority and intensity. Sutherland’s theory is seen

Sutherland was mindful of another theory called Social Disorganization, but he was more involved with how the learning process of these criminal activities take a toll on an individuals behaviors to engage or not engage. Within his explanation of his theory, Kontos and Brotherton (2008) explain that Sutherland declares nine basic principles that better describe his thought process and how he portrays the youth mind to function (p. 47). Sutherland starts with the illicit behaviors committed by youths are a learned process, these behaviors are learned through the interface and communication, the learning process for this illicit behavior takes place throughout close net groups, the method to committing these behaviors are learned, reasonings and impulses are learned by what the law defines, these crimes committed by youth occur when the definitions of breaking the law are superior than those definitions to following the law, associates have different processes on specific detail as to how a crime should be committed, all forms of learning are the same whether it be conformity or delinquency, and the reasonings for youths illicit behavior cannot be similar to other youths behavior who follow the law. Sutherland’s biggest speculation is that youths will witness certain antics by other youth

Sutherland’s theory piggyback on Social Disorganization theory by answering some of the critic’s questions about why only some people in crime-prone neighbors commit crime while many others do not. While Aker’s theory pick up where Sutherland

There is no perfect formula to accurately predict crime or to understand the criminal elements of the human mind, but there have been many theories that have attempted to explain crime for better or for worse. The 5th edition Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences covers the both the most famous and infamous of criminal theories. Although some ideas are convincing at first they tend to fall flat when new evidence surfaces, so when reading, researching, or just watching the news in general it is important to remain vigilant and impartial as everybody else is entitled to their opinions. Unfortunately societies tend to spread false information quickly, but it is not like it is difficult to change someone’s opinions, however the amount of people with the wrong idea grows into quite a substantial number.

Biological Theories have been related to crime for a long time. The Biological Theory talks about how one’s brain has an impact on committing crime or not. Dr. Jim Fallon, a neuroscientist from California talks about the biological influences in a brain. He believes that the combination of three major aspects can determine whether someone is psychopathic or not. Fallon states a combination of genes, damage to the person 's brain and the environment surrounding the individual will have the biggest impact on a person (Fallon, 2009). A real world example of the biological theory in full effect was the crimes of David Berkowitz, aka “Son of Sam. Berkowitz was accused and found guilty of killing over 6 people in New York City. After being convicted and locked up for a few years, studies had shown that Berkowitz had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Berkowitz also claimed that his neighbor’s dog, Sam had told him to do the killings as well (Biography). Comparing the Biological theory to my own life was pretty simple because there is a genetic factor that runs in my dad’s side and that is tempers. Tempers tend to flare fairly easy, and luckily so far there has no issues with the law, however like Fallon had said, with the right combination, anyone is possible to commit a crime at any time. I feel like in a biological theory, this would have a major impact on my life

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

Akers & Sellers (2013) noted that there are various common theories that are pertinent to the study of crime as the extents of crime explanations range from the genetic/biological through to the economic and social perspective. Howitt (2012) divided these theories into four categories: macro-level or societal theories; locality or community level theories; group and socialisation influence theories; and individual level theories. This essay first describes the major theories of crime in the discussion section, which also discusses the impacts of crime at the individual and societal level, followed by conclusion based on the previous discussion.

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 addition, Akers’ (1996) identifies two weaknesses within the theory, while simultaneously offering support by attacking criticism associated with viewing differential association as a cultural deviance theory.

Firstly, they provide evidence that deviant behaviour can be explained through the ecological theory of crime. Each aspect and moral order response offers a unique explanation for why crime and deviance continues to be a pervasive force in certain neighbourhoods. In addition, the interrelatedness of each aspect allows for a logical flow between propositions that explains why deviance is so widespread. For example, the proposition, “Stigmatized neighbourhoods will suffer from more lenient law enforcement,” is essential in establishing the importance of the proposition, “More lenient law enforcement increases the incidence of crime and deviance” (Stark 1987: 172). Secondly, the author’s argument is furthering the ecology of crime, meaning that one cannot simply examine environmental factors of crime and deviance but also identify and analyze the types of responses that individuals have in relation to these factors. As previously mentioned, the four responses are moral cynicism, increased opportunities for crime, increased motivation to deviate, and diminished social control (Stark: 1987). Identifying these four responses is important to the author’s argument because neighbourhoods are not static and abstract entities but spaces that are continuously acted upon by social actors and forces. To just examine structural or environmental factors is to ignore how humans living in these

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).

A theory is an explanation of why or how things are related to each other (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Additionally, a theory is defined as a plausible or scientifically acceptable principle, or a body of principles, offered to explain phenomena (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2017). Furthermore, crime theories examine and attempt to identify relationships among humans, criminal behavior, and specific factors such as biological factors, psychological factors, sociological factors, and economic factors (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Since we have defined a theory, let us further discuss how theories are created beginning with the components of a theory.

The limitation of the differential association theory lay in the question: if deviant behaviour is learned and is indeed "contagious", then why do so many in high crime areas, including criminals own siblings not become criminals? . Sociological conceptions, which regard an individual as a hapless victim of pernicious influences, are limited in providing a critical explanation of deviance, as they ignore the role of personal choice .

Keywords: crime, Differential Association Theory, Strain Theory, deviance, delinquency, media, society, copycat crime, external factors, criminal behavior

What makes a criminal a criminal? Can anyone become a criminal? Answering and understanding these questions is the core work of criminologists as most criminologists attempt to make sense of why people do certain things (Garland, Sparks 2000). This essay will consider the notion that any person could become a criminal and in so doing consider the initial question. This essay will outline a range of theories that attempt to describe human behavior in relation to criminal behavior given the complexities of behaviour. Several theories will be considered as no single theory of behavior can account fully for the complexities and range in criminal behaviour. The theories range from social-control, to classical, to biological, to personality