Discussion

Chapter3.pptx

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Discussion

C J 2019

First Edition

Chapter 3

Crime: The Search for Understanding

If this PowerPoint presentation contains mathematical equations, you may need to check that your computer has the following installed:

1) Math Type Plugin

2) Math Player (free versions available)

3) NVDA Reader (free versions available)

The Development of Criminological Theory (1 of 2)

During medieval times, deviance was attributed to supernatural forces, including demonic possession and use of sorcery

Belief that entire class of “dangerous persons” is inherently criminal and has to be removed from society persists

Indicates structural stigma and racism are pervasive in criminal justice system1

Study of offender and offending is referred to as criminology

Criminology defined

Goal of criminology

¹ Scott H. Decker et al., “Criminal Stigma, Race, Gender and Employment: An Expanded Assessment of the Consequences of Imprisonment for Employment,” January 2014. Web posted at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/244756.pdf.

The causes Development of Criminological Theory

Early criminological theories

Tended to be simplistic

Based upon assumptions and logic rather than scientific method

Focused primarily upon single cause or few thought that were to explain behavior

Contemporary theories

Complex and multifaceted

Based upon assumption that knowledge from various fields of science may contribute to understanding of criminal behavior and risk of victimization

The Development of Criminological Theory (2 of 2)

Criminology

Attempts to answer many important questions

Plays important role in criminal justice system

Theories produced often used to:

Implement laws

Construct prevention programs

Enact sentencing strategies

No single theory explains criminal behavior

Many claim to explain crime, but none of them are comprehensive enough to explain all criminal behavior

Diversity of Explanations of Criminal Behavior (1 of 2)

Explanations as to causes of criminality are numerous and diverse

Theories may even be contradictory

Some may appear rather bizarre

Some have become more accepted by the criminal justice system than others

Basis of those most incorporated

People who explore causes of crime interested in both formal and informal systems for control of behavior

What they are interested in

Diversity of Explanations of Criminal Behavior (2 of 2)

Theory defined

Can be based on observations or inferences

Tested by formulating hypothesis that allows for empirical testing of relationship between variables

Purpose of theory

Not to predict what specific individuals will do in specific cases

Attempt to define general principles that apply in number of similar cases, but not necessarily all

Attempt to define and explain how factors interrelate

Major Theoretical Perspectives

Explanations for criminal behavior based on different standards of reliable knowledge

Some are merely commonly held beliefs by the public

Often based on prejudice, stereotyping, and limited data

Some may prescribe criminal attributes to entire groups of people

Others based on belief in supernatural forces

Some beliefs may be based on authority

Strength to which they are held does not make them accurate or reliable

The Path from Early to Modern Theories of Crime Causation (1 of 3)

Early nonscientific theories (pre-1700s)

Emphasized moral weakness and evil spirits as cause of criminal behavior

Deviant and criminal behavior derived primarily from nonscientific methodologies

Often based on social and religious morals

Believed deviant and criminal behaviors were caused by evil spirits, sin, agreements with evil spirits, or magic

Even thought that abnormal physical appearances were signs indicating that the person was marked by evil spirit

The Path from Early to Modern Theories of Crime Causation (2 of 3)

Modern theories of crime causation

Recognize interaction of many variables as being necessary and sufficient in explaining criminal behavior

Based on scientific inquiry

Various theories of crime causation since 1700s can be divided into three groups based on primary beliefs in the cause of criminality

Groups called schools

Each has central premise as to the cause of criminal behavior

The Path from Early to Modern Theories of Crime Causation (3 of 3)

Classical School

Crime is free-will choice

Positivist School (Positivism)

Crime caused by biological, psychological, or social influence over which offender has little or no control

Relates behavior to determinism

Chicago School

Crime caused by socioeconomic conditions and social interactions and values

If social and environmental conditions change, human behavior will also change

Classical and Neoclassical Theories (1 of 2)

Emerged in mid-1700s

Bridged transition from early nonscientific theories to modern scientific theories of crime

First theories to propose that crime is matter of free choice, criminals should have rights in criminal justice system, and prevention of crime should be based on altering factors that caused crime

Explanation for crime based on assumption criminal behavior is matter of choice

Offender’s choice is rational

Classical and Neoclassical Theories (2 of 2)

Neoclassical theories emerged after first classical theories

Difference between two types

Two theorists represent classical and neoclassical theories

Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)

Considered founders of classical and neoclassical criminology

Theories were radical departure from contemporary thought of their time

Cesare Beccaria: Pain–Pleasure Principle (1 of 2)

Known as father of classical criminology

Dissatisfied with justice system of his time and attempted to bring about change

Based his theory on pain–pleasure principle

Pain–pleasure principle defined

Ideas on cause of criminal behavior based on philosophical axiom that people are rational

Reasoned people seek to do that which brings them pleasure and avoid that which causes them pain

Cesare Beccaria: Pain–Pleasure Principle (2 of 2)

Assumed members of society responsible for own actions

No mitigating circumstances or excuses

Same standard of behavior should be applied to all

Advocated certain swift punishment of appropriate intensity and duration for offense committed

Opposed death penalty

Argued that state did not have right to take person’s life

Argued even minor punishments would be more effective if they were swift and certain

Concepts are basic premise of classical school

Pain–Pleasure Principle

Bentham and Neoclassical Theory (1 of 2)

Credited with formation of Neoclassical School

Theories similar to Classical School in basic foundation

Major difference

Believed in mitigating circumstances

Like Beccaria, he reasoned that people are calculating humans who logically evaluate pleasure to be gained by act versus punishment to be suffered for it

Argued harsher prohibitions and punishments were both unnecessary and inefficient

Bentham and Neoclassical Theory (2 of 2)

Theory regarding balancing of pain and pleasure as means to discourage criminal behavior known as fellcitic calculus—pain versus pleasure principle

Utilitarianism

A rational system of jurisprudence provides for greatest happiness for greatest number of people

Neoclassical philosophy became foundation of English jurisprudence system, and hence American jurisprudence system

Classical and Neoclassical Criminology and the Contemporary Criminal Justice System

Contemporary criminal justice system is based on principles of classical and neoclassical criminology to a great deal

Beccaria’s ideas can be found in many rights defendant’s have today

Concept that crime if free-will choice is central to punishment

Those proving crime was not result of free will may be found not guilty or receive reduced punishment

Bentham’s ideas became foundation of jurisprudence in both England and America

The Positivist School of Criminology (1 of 3)

Twentieth century ushered in new era of scientific inquiry

Scholars quickly adopted new knowledge to explain criminal behavior

Often validity of new explanations was tested through criminal justice system

Common to new theories was emphasis on use of scientific method to gather reliable data about cases of criminal behavior

Scientific method defined

More of a philosophy than single methodology for testing hypotheses

The Positivist School of Criminology (2 of 3)

Scientific method

Assumption underlying method

Advantage of methodology

Emphasizes that knowledge should be gathered using tools

Includes most modern theories of criminology

Can be divided into three major schools of thought

Based on emphasis of primary cause of crime

Biology, psychology, and sociology

The Positivist School of Criminology (3 of 3)

Many modern theories based on premise people commit crimes because of external or internal factors

Factors can be observed and measured

Factors may be unknown to person

Factors may be so strong and powerful that they influence behavior beyond control of individual

Scholars known as determinists

Determinists defined

The Foundations of Biological Explanations (1 of 2)

Darwin’s Origins of Species (1859) provided important portal for development of new positivistic criminological theories

Early nineteenth-century biological theories emphasized person’s criminal nature was an inherited characteristic

Original cause assumed to be failure of genealogical line to fully “evolve”

Some humans not fully “civilized,” but are defective offshoots that lack certain moral and intellectual qualities, resulting in predisposition toward crime

The Foundations of Biological Explanations (2 of 2)

Two early studies attempted to apply heredity model to analysis of criminal behavior

Richard Dugdale (184–1883)

Henry Goddard (1866–1957)

Studies supported the conclusion that criminality is an inherited trait

Methodology was flawed and conclusions were faulty

Despite defects in scholarship, studies such as these set stage for developments in Positive School

Cesare Lombroso’s theory of the “criminal man” was first important positivistic theory to emerge

Lombroso, Father of Modern Criminology (1 of 3)

Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909)

Particularly influenced by previous scholars whose writings suggested that criminality was inherited

Assumed criminals were throwbacks to earlier stage of evolution

Criminals could be clearly differentiated from noncriminals on basis of distinctive physical features

Characteristics reminiscent of apes

Criminals were cases of atavism

Atavism defined

Lombroso, Father of Modern Criminology (2 of 3)

Two distinct species of humans:

Noncriminal and criminal man (“born criminal”)

Criminal man defined

Little could be done to prevent them from engaging in criminal acts or to rehabilitate them

Made extensive measurements to define “criminal man”

Study of physical traits called atavistic stigmata

There were other types of criminals besides “criminal man” or “born criminal”

Known as father of scientific criminology

Lombroso, Father of Modern Criminology (3 of 3)

Theories further developed by Raffaele Garofalo (1851–1934) and Enrico Ferri (1856–1929)

Theories contained significant deviations but central theme was similar

Positivist School argued concept of free will is fiction

Lombroso suggested preventive actions would have little or no impact on prevention

Ferri was more hopeful that preventive measures could overcome congenital tendencies

Garofalo focused more on psychic anomalies and reform of Italy’s judicial system

Lombroso and the Contemporary Criminal Justice System

Lombroso’s theory continues to be influential

Influenced way in which convicted people were treated in prisons in nineteenth and early twentieth centuries

Emphasis on moral correction through religious instruction replaced by emphasis on identification, isolation, and extermination

Focus of corrections was to prevent spread of further criminality rather than rehabilitation

“Medical model” was embraced

Modern Biological Explanations

Modern theories posit organic factors may exert influences leading to criminal behavior

Proponents of biological perspective argue that some born with biological predisposition to be antisocial

Concede environmental factors can inhibit or stimulate hereditary predispositions for criminality

Biocriminology defined

Modern biology-based theories identify diverse number of biological, chemical, genetic, and neurological variables suspected of contributing to criminal behavior

Biological Theories and the Contemporary Criminal Justice System

Biological theories have not been integrated into criminal justice system

Wide acceptance of such theories would require extensive reform of criminal justice system

Criminal justice system based on assumption that crime is free-will choice

If it is not, it would change concept of guilt and eliminate basis for punishment by imprisonment

The Foundations of Psychological Explanations (1 of 2)

Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory

Underlying assumptions

Human thoughts and actions controlled by three components of unconscious mind:

Ego

Superego

Motive for behaviors may not be conscious to the person

Behavior could only be understood through years of psychoanalytic therapy

The Foundations of Psychological Explanations (2 of 2)

Freud did not focus on study of criminal behavior

Theory applied extensively to study of criminals

Crime is symptom of person’s unresolved psychological conflict

Causes of conflict

How offender alleviates conflict

Becomes dysfunctional cycle

Main criticism of the theory

Psychological Theories and the Contemporary Criminal Justice System

Theories have been used in some areas of criminal justice system

Insanity plea involves use of psychologists and psychiatrists

Psychology and psychiatry are foundation of criminal profiling

Many theories suggest certain crimes rooted in psychological conflicts and subconscious drives

Experts construct psychological profiles

Theories commonly used in rehabilitation

Use of psychoanalytic therapy

The Foundations of Sociological Explanations

Theories based on idea that forces within society are the causes of criminal behavior reflect a philosophy called social determinism

Social determinism defined

Not restricted to theories of criminal behavior

Often based in academic discipline of sociology

Emerged at beginning of twentieth century

University of Chicago established one of the first departments

Theories fall under Chicago School of Criminology

The Chicago School of Criminology

Most theories in Chicago School are micro-level theories

Each emphasizes different element of society as primary influence(s)

Some approaches share commonalities

Can be divided into three major categories:

Social structure

Social control

Social interactionism

Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory

Basic Assumptions1

Urban social structure exerted powerful influences on behavior independent of ethnicity of people living in various territorial patterns2

Population within each territorial unit had distinctive ecological niches and factors that exerted influences on propensity for criminal behavior

Environment-based theory of urban interaction became known as the concentric zone model

¹ Robert E. Park, Ernest Burgess, and Roderick McKenzie, The City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925).

² Clifford R. Shaw, Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942).

Social Structure Theories: Concentric Zone Theory

Social environments based on status disadvantages are powerful forces that influence human interactions

Theory divided Chicago into distinctive zones with common characteristics influential upon human interaction and behavior

Divided into five zones or urban areas

As one traveled outward from center, urban environment improved and deviant behavior decreased1

Studies showed highest rates of delinquency persisted in same neighborhoods even though ethnic composition changed2

¹ Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie, The City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925).

² Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, “Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency,” in Volume II of the Report on the Causes of Crime, National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, Report No. 13 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931).

Figure 3.4: Burgess Model

The Burgess concentric zone theory posited that crime was caused by the socioeconomic and physical environments of the city. Zone theory suggested that if the physical and economic environments could be improved, the crime rate would drop. According to the Burgess model, people committed crime because of external influences, not because they were “bad” or morally “defective.” This perspective has been influential in modern crime-prevention programs that emphasize improving schools, housing, the environment, and employment opportunities.

Social Structure Theories: Anomie/Strain Theories (1 of 3)

Based on Emile Durkheim’s theory of anomie

Anomie defined

People with anomie

Basic assumptions1

People are motivated to achieve comforts and security of middle-class lifestyle

Some find they cannot achieve this through traditional, socially acceptable means

¹ Robert Merton, “Social Structure and Anomie,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 3 (1938), pp. 672–682.

Social Structure Theories: Anomie/Strain Theories (2 of 3)

Persons attitude toward goal and means of achieving goal will result in four modes of adaptation

Conformity

Innovation

Ritualism

Retreatism

Theory’s definition of deviant or criminal

Demonstrate innovation

One other mode of adaptation

Rebellion

Social Structure Theories: Anomie/Strain Theories (3 of 3)

Social conditions are powerful factors in determining adaptations that individuals make

“Self-fulfilling prophesy” defined

Theory predicted greatest proportion of crime would be found in lower classes

Have least opportunity to reach middle-class goals legitimately

Programs supported by theory

Problems with theory

Social Control Theories

Social and cultural values exert control over individual’s behavior and social institutions enforce those values

Social institutions that contribute to formation of values also exert control both informally and formally

Influence makes people law abiding to extent they identify with and conform to social expectations1

Studies focus on the reasons people conform to norms

Attempt to answer question of why people do not commit crime

Environmental variables and individual self-control are influential in prevention or suppression of criminal behavior2

¹ Francis T. Cullen, Rethinking Crime and Deviance Theory (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1969).

² Ibid.

Social Control Theories: Neutralization Theory

Basic assumptions

Deviant and criminal behavior produces a sense of guilt and pains of conscience sufficient to keep most from engaging in extensive and extended criminality1

Necessary for criminals to learn neutralization techniques

Allows them to avoid being guilt-ridden as they continue criminality

Do so through:

Rationalization

Denial

Appeal to higher loyalties

¹ Gresham Sykes and David Matza, “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 22 (1957), pp. 664–670.

Social Control Theories: Social Bonds Theory

Basic assumptions

Four elements of the social bond

Attachment

Commitment

Involvement

Belief1

Bonds are interconnected factors

If any one is weakened or broken, individual may offend

One of the most frequently tested theories

¹ Craig, Jessica M. et al., “Do Social Bonds Buffer the Impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences on Reoffending?” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2017), pp. 3–20.

Social Interactionism Theories: Learning Theories—Differential Association Theory

Basic assumptions1

Emphasizes criminal or deviant behavior is simply learned behavior

Can explain many different types of crime

One of the most used theories in the criminal justice system

Uses and reasons for popularity

Learning occurs in peer-to-peer intimate contacts

Others argue learning can occur through media

Problems with learning theories

¹ Edwin H. Sutherland, Principles of Criminology, 6th ed. (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1966).

Social Interactionism Theories: Cultural Deviance (Subculture) Theories (1 of 2)

Basic assumptions

Where influences can be observed

In groups, values embraced by subgroup exert strong pressure on members to conform to values

Even if they are conflict with larger societal values

There are deviant subcultural groups

Theories focus on differences in values and norms between mainstream society and subcultural groups

Early cultural deviance theories

Social Interactionism Theories: Cultural Deviance (Subculture) Theories (2 of 2)

Albert Cohen

Studies different values between social classes

Defined distinct subcultures in terms of variables such as parental aspirations, child-rearing practices, and classroom standards

Reaction formation

Used to describe how lower-class youths reject middle-class values and therefore create unique countercultures

Would embrace values of new culture1

¹ Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1958).

Social Interactionism Theories: Cultural Diversity as the Cause of Crime (1 of 2)

Thorsten Sellin (1938)

Advocated that crime was not necessarily a case of bad people engaging in deliberate or negligent harm to others

Cultural diversity could be the cause of crime

Homogenous versus heterogeneous societies

Criminal laws of society reflect normative values of dominant culture or ethnic group

Deviant behavior as seen by dominant group¹

Proposed two types of culture conflict

Primary conflict

Secondary conflict

¹ Thorsten Sellin, Culture and Conflict in Crime (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1938).

Social Interactionism Theories: Cultural Diversity as the Cause of Crime (2 of 2)

Today’s modern “global village” provides numerous examples in which cultural diversity is considered criminal

In contemporary society, serious concern is the cultural conflict reflected in the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (F G M)

Practice declining in countries where it was historically most common but cases have more than tripled in the United States

Federal and state laws have been enacted to ban practice in the United States but process is slow

As other cultures populate the United States, likely to be more conflicts with values and mores of new subcultures

Theoretical Developments from the Sociological Perspective

Criminologists continue to develop new theories of crime causation

Often these theories based on principles proposed by earlier theories

Two primary examples:

Labeling theory

Conflict-based theories

Include theories grounded in feminist criminology

Labeling Theory

Basic assumptions

Argues everyone commits crime

It is society’s reaction and internalization of that reaction that create criminals

Those who internalize society’s condemnation see themselves as “criminal”

This will affect behavior and social interactions

Single best example of theory

Conflict Theories

Basic assumptions

Have roots in social criticisms of Marx and Engels1

Present-day conflict theorists suggest reducing social inequity is only or best way to reduce criminal behavior2

Richard Quinney (1960)3

Theorists have strongly criticized mainstream criminology and criminal justice system for ignoring class conflict and inequality

Called radical criminologists

Point to institutional discrimination

William Chambliss4

¹ Michael J. Lynch and W. Byron Graves, A Primer in Radical Criminology, 2nd ed. (Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston, 1989).

² Richard Quinney, The Social Reality of Crime (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970).

³ Ivan Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young, The New Criminology (New York: Harper & Row, 1973). and Richard Quinney, The Crime Problem (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1970).

⁴ Gwynn Nettler, Explaining Crime, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978).

Feminist Criminology

Basic assumptions

Advocates argue inequalities are root cause of female criminality

Freda Adler (1975)

Masculinization theory

Increased economic opportunist attributed to increasing number of female offenders in system1

Also referred to liberation hypothesis

Other theories using gender-based perspective

¹ M. J. Islam, S. Banarjee, and N. Khatun, “Theories of Female Criminality: A Criminological Analysis,” International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2014), pp. 1–8.

Chicago School of Criminology and the Contemporary Criminal Justice System

Been hard, if not impossible to replicate studies done in Chicago in 1930s

Regardless, social disorganization and especially concentric zone theory still have strong influence on crime-prevention efforts

Many government sponsored programs have attempted to fight crime by addressing assumptions

Crime prevention through experimental design (C P T E D)

Broken window theory1

¹ Mark H. Moore, Robert C. Trojanowicz, and George L. Kelling, Crime and Policing (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, June 1988).

Challenges to Explaining Crime (1 of 2)

No single theory can explain crime

Not easy to explain crime

Complex nature and many variables

Ethical standards of behavior

Defined

Prohibit experimentation in many ways

Often difficult for researchers to differentiate between causal variables and correlation

Causal variables defined

Correlation defined

Challenges to Explaining Crime (2 of 2)

Most modern criminologists have abandoned the belief that criminals are completely different from noncriminals

Focus of criminology

Presently, sociological explanations are most popular for use by scholars and criminal justice system

Many programs in system based on premises hypothesized by sociological theories

Theory must underly various programs

Without underlying theoretical foundation, various attempts to reduce crime and rehabilitate offenders are nothing more than guesses

The Other Side of Crime: Victimization—Victimology

Victimology defined

Question from perspective

National data support observation that crime victimization is not random

What factors influence victimization?

Theoretical developments in area closely resemble neoclassical criminology

Assumptions of victimization theories

Two most prominent theories

Victimology: Victim Precipitation Theories

Basic assumptions

Victim is not simply object acted upon by criminal or is selected at random

Three facets of victim precipitation

Theories focus on explaining violent victimization

Assume intentional interaction between offender and victim

Thus have limited explanation value

Other critiques of theories

Victimology: Lifestyle Theories of Victimization

Basic assumptions

Explain why victimization can differ in quantity but remain same in quality

Focus on situational factors surrounding victimizations and characteristics of people involved

Both offenders and victims

Factors that must be met for personal victimization to occur

Factors based largely on victim’s lifestyle

Lifestyle stands as centerpiece of theory

Victimology: Routine Activities Theory (1 of 2)

Basic assumptions1

Approach limited to explanation for predatory crime

Predatory crime defined2

Objects included as well as people in definition

Predatory victimization depends on interaction of three variables in social situation

Presence of at least one likely offender

Presence of at least one suitable target

Absence of capable guardians

¹ L. E. Cohen and M. Felson, “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 44, No. 4 (1979), pp. 588–608.

² Ibid.

Victimology: Routine Activities Theory (2 of 2)

Unconcerned with the role victim plays

Treats offender as active and victim as passive

Offenders seen as making calculated decisions to commit crime

Based on perceptions

Explanations for victimization call attention to issues of social change that have affected guardianship

Figure 3.6 Interaction in Routine Activities Theory

Cohen and Felson’s routine activities theory emphasizes that crime does not occur in a vacuum. In other words, crime requires the interaction of an offender and a victim at a particular time and place. Thus, the lifestyle choices of a victim play an important role in whether a crime occurs. Also, the presence of a capable guardian may prevent a crime from occurring. In modern society, many believe that video surveillance cameras act as a “guardian” to deter crime. As a result, video surveillance of entire metropolitan areas is common.

Victimology: Rational Choice Theories of Victimization

Key assumption of routine activities theory is crime motivated through rational choice

Fundamental belief of theory

If correct, altering balance of costs and benefits for likely offenders can reduce victimization

One way to do this is targethardening

Foundation for many popular crime-reduction programs

Examples of targethardening

One of the key components of defense against terrorist attacks in United States

This work is protected by United States copyright laws and is provided solely for the use of instructors in teaching their courses and assessing student learning. Dissemination or sale of any part of this work (including on the World Wide Web) will destroy the integrity of the work and is not permitted. The work and materials from it should never be made available to students except by instructors using the accompanying text in their classes. All recipients of this work are expected to abide by these restrictions and to honor the intended pedagogical purposes and the needs of other instructors who rely on these materials.

.MsftOfcThm_Text1_Fill { fill:#000000; } .MsftOfcThm_MainDark1_Stroke { stroke:#000000; }