Module 3
Rational Choice Theory and Trait Theory
A. Development and Concepts of Rational Choice Theory
The Wymer case clearly illustrates that the decision to commit crimes involves
rational actions and planned decision making, designed to maximize profits and avoid
detection. Rather than being unthinking and spontaneous, most crimes involve thought
and planning designed to maximize personal gain and avoid capture and punishment.1
Some criminologists go as far as suggesting that the source of all criminal violations—
even those involving drug abuse, vandalism, and violence—are a function of rational
decision making. The decision to violate the law is made only after the potential offender
carefully weighs the potential benefits and consequences of the planned action and
decides that the benefits of crime are greater than its consequences. Criminals may be
motivated by a variety of human traits and emotions: greed, revenge, need, anger, lust,
jealousy, thrill seeking, or vanity. Regardless of the motive, criminal offenders are people
who make the decision to put their own needs ahead of the rest of us, even though there
may be serious consequences for their actions. Why? Because after reviewing all
available information they believe that the rewards of crime outweigh its risks. This view
of crime causation is referred to here as rational choice theory (choice theory).
Rational choice theory has its roots in the classical criminology developed by the
Italian social thinker Cesare Beccaria, whose utilitarian approach powerfully influenced
the criminal justice system and was widely accepted throughout Europe and the United
States (see Chapter 1). Although the classical approach was influential for more than 100
years, by the end of the nineteenth century its popularity among criminologists declined,
being replaced by positivist views that focused on social and personal factors rather than
personal choice and decision making. The prevailing view was that crime was not a
matter of choice but the by-product of destructive personal and social conditions and
influences. Rather than controlling their behavior, people were at the mercy of their
upbringing and environment.
Beginning in the late 1960s, criminologists once again began to embrace classical
ideas, producing books and monographs expounding on the theme that criminals are
rational actors who plan their crimes, who can be controlled by the fear of punishment,
and who deserve to be penalized for their misdeeds. In the 1960s, Nobel Prize– winning
economist Gary Becker applied his views on rational behavior and human capital (that is,
human competence and the consequences of investments in human competence) to
criminal activity. Becker argued that except for a few mentally ill people, criminals
behave in a predictable or rational way when deciding to commit crime. Engaging in a
cost-benefit analysis of crime, they weigh what they expect to gain against the risks they
must undergo and the costs they may incur, such as going to prison.2 Instead of regarding
criminal activity as irrational behavior, Becker viewed criminality as rational behavior
that might be controlled by increasing the costs of crime and reducing the potential for
gain.
According to contemporary rational choice theory, law-violating behavior is the
product of careful thought and planning. It assumes that people are self-interested and
will be willing to violate the law after considering both personal factors (such as money,
revenge, thrills, and entertainment) and situational factors (such as target availability,
security measures, and police presence). Anyone is a potential criminal if they calculate
that the profits are great and the risks are small. Below, some of the decisions made by
potential criminals are set out and discussed.
Before deciding to commit a crime, the reasoning criminal evaluates the risk of
apprehension, the seriousness of expected punishment, the potential value or benefit of
the criminal enterprise, her ability to succeed, and the need for criminal gain. People who
believe that the risks of crime outweigh the rewards may decide to “go straight.” Those
who find the risks acceptable are more willing to take a gamble on crime. Burglars seem
to choose targets on the basis of their value, novelty, and resale potential. A piece of
electronic gear that has not yet saturated the market and still retains high value, such as a
new generation iPhone, may be a prime target.6 The decision
Rational choice theorists view crime as both offense-specific and offender-
specific. 11 Crime is said to be offense-specific because offenders react selectively to the
immediate characteristics of a specific criminal act. Crime is also said to be offender-
specific because criminals are not simply robots or automatons who engage in unthinking
and unplanned acts of antisocial behavior. Before deciding to commit crime, individuals
must decide whether they have the personal needs, skills, and prerequisites to commit a
successful criminal act.
Because crime is offender-specific, a number of personal factors and conditions
must be evaluated before someone decides to choose criminality. Though young people
are believed to be more crime prone than adults, effective monitoring by parents reduces
the likelihood kids will commit crime; in contrast, unsupervised activities increase the
risk.13 Kids are more likely to choose crime when they are out at night without adult
supervision, partying and drinking with their buddies.14 Gender differences in crime may
be explained by levels of guardianship and peer influence. Because adolescent girls are
more likely to experience parental supervision than their brothers, they are more likely to
socialize at home or at a friend’s home with parents present. Adolescent boys are given
more freedom to socialize away from home as they wish, thereby increasing the
opportunity to engage in antisocial behaviors.15 When girls do go out, they tend to gather
in places like shopping malls, where there are security guards and cameras that monitor
behavior and limit criminal choice.
People may engage in illegal behavior because they love the excitement and the
buzz that crime can provide. For some, crimes such as vandalism and shoplifting are
alluring simply because they are stimulating and allow people to get what sociologist
Jack Katz calls “sneaky thrills”; profit is not the primary motive.16 The need for
excitement may counter fear of apprehension: the riskier the act, the more attractive it
becomes. Clearly, one important decision that people make before they embark on a life
of crime is whether they need the money! The need to commit economic crimes
diminishes when people are able to obtain needed funds in a legitimate fashion, either
through jobs or government assistance. Other potential offenders simply may have money
problems: they are in debt; their creditors are hounding them; they have nowhere else to
turn.
Personal experience and expertise may be an important element in structuring
criminality.25 One reason is that the risk of detection, arrest, and punishment diminishes
as burglars, robbers, and auto thieves become more competent at their craft. Compared to
unskilled beginners, experienced criminals profit more per each crime they commit. They
therefore can perpetrate fewer crimes, leaving them less exposed to detection and
arrest.26 While criminals may learn when to commit crimes, they also become aware of
when to quit. No matter how successful, a criminal’s physical strength and emotional
toughness eventually begin to wane, and some get the message that it may be time to turn
from a risky criminal way of life to a lower-paying, safer conventional lifestyle.
According to the rational choice approach, the decision to commit crime,
regardless of its substance, is structured by (a) where it occurs and (b) the characteristics
of the target. iminals seem to carefully choose where they will commit their crime. Crack
cocaine street dealers evaluate the desirability of their sales area before setting up shop.28
Dealers consider the middle of a long block the best choice because they can see
everything in both directions; police raids can be spotted before they occur.29 Another
tactic is to entice new buyers into spaces between apartment buildings or into back lots.
Although the dealers may lose the tactical edge of being on a public street, they gain a
measure of protection because their colleagues can watch over the operation and come to
the rescue if the buyer tries to “pull something.”
Criminals choose targets in familiar places, where they know their way around
and won’t get lost or trapped. One interesting study by Barbara Menting and her
colleagues discovered that offenders not only commit crimes near their home or former
home but also are more likely to target the residential areas of family members— parents,
siblings, and their own children. As visitors, criminals are familiar with their families’
neighborhoods, and this familiarity increases the risk of the area becoming a target.
Evidence of rational choice may also be found in the way criminals locate their
targets. Market forces can shape decision making. Targets that decline in value due to
oversupply or obsolescence are avoided; materials such as metal parts and wire may
become coveted when undersupply causes their value to skyrocket.32 Robbers may seek
targets with a great deal of cash on hand; why bother with a place that only takes credit
cards? Research by Christopher Contreras found that neighborhoods with medical
marijuana dispensaries have a high risk of armed robbery and resulting murders when
things go awry. High crime rates, Contreras concludes, may be tied to dispensaries’ lack
of banking access and regulation, necessarily making them a cash economy and possibly
inviting a criminal element to the areas hosting these facilities.
Because they fear apprehension, professional criminals lay out an escape route
before they commit crime. Having an effective exit strategy is just as important as
planning the initial crime. Bruce Jacobs and Mark Cherbonneau found that savvy auto
thieves rely on what they refer to as “normalcy illusions,” a patchwork of tactics designed
to prevent authorities from becoming wise to the fact that the thieves are driving a stolen
vehicle. One instant precaution is affixing a fresh license plate to the stolen vehicle as
quickly as possible after it is taken. Some thieves go to a local junkyard and take plates
off abandoned cars.40 Another ploy: find an innocent-looking driver to shield them from
police attention. A number of male offenders interviewed by Jacobs and Cherbonneau
asked females to drive the stolen vehicles because police do not generally suspect women
of being auto thieves.
It is relatively easy to show that some crimes are the product of rational, objective
thought, especially when they involve an ongoing criminal conspiracy centered on
economic gain (such as the chop shop scheme discussed in the opening vignette). When
prominent bankers and financial analysts such as Bernie Madoff are indicted for criminal
fraud, their elaborate schemes not only show signs of rationality but also exhibit brilliant,
though flawed, financial expertise.42 But what about street crimes? Do these also show
elements of rational choice? Burglars, for example, like to target residences close to
where they live so they know the territory and have access to escape routes. Because they
have access to cars and vans, adult burglars are willing to travel farther than juveniles.
Did Oscar-winning actor Philip Seymour Hoffman make an objective, rational
choice to overdose on heroin? Did Prince choose to overdose on the opioid fentanyl? Did
rising young star Heath Ledger make a rational choice when he abused prescription drugs
to the point that it killed him? And what about British singer Amy Winehouse—did she
choose to drink herself to death? Or the King of Pop, Michael Jackson, who died of acute
propofol and benzodiazepine intoxication? Is it possible that these and other drug users, a
group not usually associated with clear thinking, make rational choices? Research does in
fact show that at its onset, drug use is controlled by rational decision making. Users
report that they begin taking drugs when they believe the benefits of substance abuse
outweigh its costs. That is, they believe drugs will provide a fun, exciting, thrilling
experience. They choose what they consider safe sites to buy and sell drugs.46 Their
entry into substance abuse is facilitated by their perception that valued friends and family
members endorse and encourage drug use and that these individuals abuse substances
themselves.
Drug dealers approach their profession in a businesslike fashion. Traffickers and
dealers face many of the same problems as legitimate retailers.48 If they are too
successful in one location, rivals will be attracted to the area, and stiff competition may
drive down prices and undermine profits. The dealer can fight back against competitors
by discounting the price of drugs or increasing quality, as long as this doesn’t reduce
profit margins.49 If these “business tactics” are not working, dealers can always turn to
violence. They may start drug wars on their rivals’ turf and then convince customers to
stay away from such a dangerous area; in retaliation, rivals may cut prices to lure
customers back.
Is it possible that violent acts are the product of reasoned decision making?
Evidence confirms that violent criminals, even serial killers, select suitable targets by
picking people who are vulnerable and lack adequate defenses.52 Street robbers use a
considerable amount of rational thought before choosing a robbery, which may involve
violence, over a burglary, which involves stealth and cunning.53 Robbers generally
choose targets close to their homes or in areas to which they routinely travel. Familiarity
with the area gives them ready knowledge of escape routes; this is referred to as their
“awareness space.”54 Robbers may be wary of people who are watching the community
for signs of trouble; robbery levels are relatively low in neighborhoods where residents
keep a watchful eye out for trouble and are quick to take notice of a stranger in their
midst.
Can hate crimes possibly be rational? Hard to believe, but when Ryan King and
Gretchen Sutto examined the characteristics of an outbreak of hate crimes they found that
three factors seem to trigger these events: an incident that leaves one group with a
grievance against another, a definable target group held responsible for the deed, and
publicity sufficient to make the event known to a broad public. All these are signs of
rationality.58 Hate crimes, then, are not merely the product of a disturbed mind, but
rather a calculated response to a concrete event whose impact is often fanned and
inflamed by the media.
Are men who solicit sex workers (johns) rational decision makers? Recent
research by Thomas Holt and his colleagues found that not only did johns make careful
and rational decisions when engaging prostitutes, they shared their knowledge and
expertise in Internet chat rooms and web forums. Topics ranged from what kind of car to
drive and how to avoid police stops to how to spot undercover policewomen posing as
street workers, with some johns suggesting that policewomen look more attractive and
healthier than the average sex worker. In addition to avoiding law enforcement, johns
shared information on how to protect themselves from becoming crime victims, such as
finding spots for their sexual encounters that minimized the likelihood of detection or
violence. After hearing horror stories like “I was robbed by a pimp,” they learned to
avoid motels recommended by prostitutes, as the risk of robbery or assault was too high.
Homes were off limits because johns feared having their property taken; the preferred
rendezvous points were alleyways, empty parking lots, and trusted hourly motels.
In sum, according to the rational choice approach, crime is not a random event but
the product of calculation and planning, designed to provide the would-be criminal with
an overall benefit, whether it be monetary profit or an emotional thrill. To accept this
rational choice view, you must believe that criminals are decision makers who spend time
calculating profit and risk. They are selfish, self-absorbed individuals who care nothing
about others. If they believe they can get away with llegal and/or immoral behavior, they
will try. What holds them back: fear of apprehension and punishment.
Research shows this image of the calculating criminal can be found across all
forms of illegal activities. Even those who would seem to be spontaneous in their actions
—adolescents with a history of serious criminal offending, drug offenders, violent
offenders—act after considering the anticipated rewards and costs of offending. If they
believe they can increase rewards by taking precautions or working with co-offenders,
they will chance criminal activities. As the expectations of benefits change, so does
criminal involvement. Criminal propensity is neither static nor invariable but subject to
the perceived availability of benefits and the absence of penalties.
B. Situational Crime Prevention
Desperate people may contemplate crime, but only the truly irrational would
attack a well-defended, inaccessible target and risk strict punishment. Law violators of all
stripes seek out targets that are attractive yet vulnerable.60 Criminals are ready and
willing to pounce if (a) there are valuable items, (such as cash), that (b) can be taken
easily because victims do not take adequate precautions (they go alone to a ATM at
night) without anyone around to guard or protect them (the bank is closed, the guards are
gone).
It follows that crime prevention can be achieved by convincing would-be
criminals that a particular target is not worth the effort; “it’s too hard a nut to crack.” This
approach is referred to as situational crime prevention; because crime is rational and
criminals calculating, effective crime prevention strategies must be aimed at reducing
immediate and particular criminal opportunities, making it more difficult to engage in
successful criminal enterprise. Strategies such as target hardening and improving
surveillance are designed to convince would-be criminals that, even if they believe crime
pays, it does not pay to commit it here and it pays more to go elsewhere.62 Criminal acts
can be prevented if (a) potential targets are carefully guarded, (b) the means to commit
crime are controlled, and (c) potential offenders are carefully monitored. Desperate
people may contemplate crime, but only the truly irrational will attack a well-defended,
inaccessible target and risk strict punishment.
One way of preventing crime, then, is to reduce the opportunities people have to
commit particular crimes. This approach was popularized in the United States in the early
1970s by Oscar Newman, who coined the term defensible space. The idea is that crime
can be prevented or displaced through the use of residential designs that reduce criminal
opportunity, such as well-lit housing projects that maximize surveillance. Another
approach, suggested by Ron Clarke, is the CRAVED model, which identifies the factors
that make theft-related crimes attractive to potential thieves so that steps can be taken to
thwart their criminal ambitions. The CRAVED model is set out in Exhibit 4.1. Recently,
Clarke along with colleague Brian Smith tested the CRAVED model in a rather unique
way. They hypothesized that over-the-counter drugs, sold in supermarkets and other
stores, can produce a “high” similar to illegal drugs. According to the CRAVED model,
these items should be shoplifted at higher rates than other products because they are
readily available, enjoyable to use, easily removed, and so on. Using data from more than
200 supermarkets, Smith and Clarke found that products with an appeal to drug users
were in fact stolen at significantly higher theft rates than products that were not drug
related.
Situational crime prevention strategies involve developing tactics to reduce or
eliminate a specific crime problem (such as shoplifting in an urban mall or street-level
drug dealing). These efforts may be divided into the six strategies described in the
following paragraphs. Tactics to increase effort include target-hardening techniques such
as putting unbreakable glass on storefronts, locking gates, and fencing yards. Does it
work? Removing signs from store windows to increase interior visibility, installing
brighter lights, and instituting a pay-first policy have helped reduce thefts from gas
stations and convenience stores.66 Research by Lynn Addington and Callie Marie
Rennison shows that living in a gated community reduces the risk of being targeted by
burglars.
If the risk of getting caught can be increased, rational offenders are less likely to
commit crime. Marcus Felson argues that the risk of crime may be increased by
improving the effectiveness of crime discouragers: people who serve as guardians of
property or people and who can help control would-be criminals.68 Discouragers can be
grouped into three categories: “guardians,” who monitor potential targets (such as police
and store security guards), “handlers,” who monitor potential offenders (such as parole
officers and parents), and ”managers,” who monitor places (such as homeowners and
garage attendants). If the discouragers do their jobs correctly, the potential criminal will
be convinced that the risk of crime outweighs any potential gains.69 Even if discouragers
cannot prevent crime, their presence may convince offenders to limit the severity of
offending since they know a guardian will intervene if they injure victims.
Target reduction strategies are designed to reduce the value of crime to the
potential criminal. Jewelry stores display expensive rings with fake diamonds (cubic
zirconia), while keeping the real stones under lock and key. Retail establishments put
small but valuable items in tamper-proof hard plastic cases that emit electronic signals to
trigger alarms if they are taken from the store; they can only be opened by store
employees. Bike owners can put an indelible identification mark on their bicycle such as
a serial number; thieves are less likely to steal a bicycle that can be positively identified.
Crime may be reduced or prevented if we can communicate to people the
wrongfulness of their behavior and how harmful it is to society. We may tell them to “say
no to drugs” or that “users are losers.” By making people aware of the shamefulness of
their actions, we hope to prevent their criminal activities, even if the chances that they
will be detected and punished are slight. Sometimes punishment is designed to make
people ashamed and embarrass them so that they will not repeat their criminal acts. In
one incident a judge in Hudson, Kansas, ordered a man who admitted molesting an 11-
year-old boy to post signs reading “A Sex Offender Lives Here” on all four sides of his
home and to display the warning “Sex Offender in This Car” in bold yellow lettering on
both sides of his automobile.
Some crimes are the result of extreme provocation—for example, road rage. It
might be possible to reduce provocation by creating programs that reduce conflict. As
Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig point out, alcohol is a significant factor in various kinds of
crime, including rape and assaults. One way to reduce this sort of crime is to raise the
price of beer, wine, and hard liquor. They suggest that raising the tax by 55 cents would
reduce beer consumption by around 6 percent. And there would be significant fringe
benefits, including fewer auto accidents and more money for state treasuries.76 Another
approach: mandating an early closing time in local bars and pubs might limit assaults that
result from late-night drinking and conflicts at closing time.
Crime may be reduced by making it difficult for people to excuse their criminal
behavior by saying things like “I didn’t know that was illegal” or “I had no choice.”
Municipalities have set up roadside displays that electronically flash a car’s speed as it
passes, eliminating the driver’s excuse that she did not know how fast she was going
when stopped by police. Trash containers, brightly displayed, can eliminate the claim that
“I just didn’t know where to throw my trash.” Reducing or eliminating excuses in this
way also makes it physically easy for people to comply with laws and regulations,
thereby reducing the likelihood that they will choose crime.
Situational crime prevention efforts bring with them certain hidden costs and
benefits that can either undermine their success or increase their effectiveness. What are
these costs and benefits, and what do they tell us about the effectiveness and efficiency of
situational crime prevention? When efforts to prevent one crime unintentionally prevent
another, it is known as diffusion. 77 Video cameras set up in a mall to reduce shoplifting
can also reduce property damage, because would-be vandals fear they are being caught
on camera. Police surveillance set up to reduce drug trafficking may unintentionally
reduce the incidence of prostitution and other public order crimes by scaring off would-
be clients.78 Intensive police patrols designed to target specifically highcrime areas (hot
spots) reduce crime in neighboring areas as well.
Discouragement occurs when crime control efforts targeting a particular locale
help reduce crime in surrounding areas and populations. Programs designed to control
drug dealing in a particular area of the city have been found to decrease drug sales not
only in targeted areas but also in adjacent areas. The message that drug dealing would not
be tolerated in a particular neighborhood had a spillover effect, decreasing the total
number of people involved in drug activity, even though they did not operate in the
targeted areas.
C. General and Specific Deterrence
According to the rational choice view, because human beings are self-interested,
rational, and reasoning, they will violate the law if they do not fear the consequences of
their crimes. After all, crime left unchecked can bring profit and pleasure. It stands to
reason, then, that crime can be controlled by increasing the real or perceived threat of
criminal punishment; this is the concept of general deterrence. Based on Beccaria’s
famous equation, the greater the severity, certainty, and speed of legal sanctions, the less
inclined people will be to commit crime and, consequently, the lower the crime rate.
General deterrence would be achieved if (a) the police are effective in detecting crime
and apprehending criminals, (b) judges and juries were sure to convict the guilty, who
would then (c) endure harsh criminal punishments.
According to deterrence theory, not only does the actual chance of punishment
but so, too, does the perception that punishment will almost certainly be forthcoming if
they dare commit crimes.85 A central theme of deterrence theory is that people who
believe or imagine that they will be punished for crimes in the future will avoid doing
those crimes in the present.86 Even the most committed offenders (e.g., gang members,
terrorists) will forgo criminal activities if they fear legal punishments.87 Conversely, the
likelihood of being arrested or imprisoned will have little effect on crime rates if
criminals believe that they have only a small chance of suffering apprehension and
punishment.88 Because criminals are rational decision makers, if they can be convinced
that crime will lead to punishment, then they will be deterred.
In some instances deterrence strategies can lead to less than perfect results. Rather
than entirely eliminating crime, they may reduce its frequency, duration, and severity.
Marginal deterrence refers to the relative effectiveness of punishments. Let’s say when
police are called to the scene of a domestic violence disturbance they choose to arrest
some offenders and let others go with a warning. If getting arrested reduces the chance of
repeat offending when compared to a warning, arrest is said to produce a higher marginal
deterrent effect. Arresting someone for domestic violence may not eliminate future
offending completely, but it provides a better outcome than merely warning the abuser.
Restrictive deterrence (sometimes called partial deterrence) refers to situations in which
the threat of punishment can reduce but not eliminate the frequency, severity, and
duration of a crime. Restrictive deterrence would be achieved if creating a steep fine for
going 20 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit resulted in the average
motorist exceeding the speed limit by only 10 miles per hour.
According to general deterrence theory, if the certainty, severity, and celerity or
speed of arrest, conviction, and sanctioning increase, crime rates should decline. Crime
will persist, however, if people believe they will get away with crime and even if they are
caught, they will have a good chance of escaping punishment.92 If people believe that
their criminal transgressions will almost certainly result in punishment, then only the
truly irrational will commit crime.93 The sections below examine each of these
associations in some detail.
Proactive, aggressive law enforcement seems more effective than routine patrol.
Would-be criminals are deterred when police concentrate their forces and focus on so-
called “hot spots” of crime, convincing them that these areas are now unsafe and off
limits to criminal activity.97 Improving response time and increasing the number of
patrol cars that respond per crime may increase police efficiency and deter people from
committing crime.98 There is still debate whether increasing the size of the local police
force can actually reduce crime rates. When Steven Durlauf and Daniel Nagin carefully
reviewed the existing scientific literature, they found that jurisdictions that increased the
visibility of the police, hired more officers, and used patrol officers in ways that increased
the perceived risk of apprehension did enjoy deterrent effects and lower crime rates.
According to deterrence theory, people who believe they will be punished
severely for a crime will forgo committing criminal acts.100 Nonetheless, there is little
consensus that strict punishments alone can reduce criminal activities, and most
criminologists believe that the certainty of punishment, rather than its severity, is the key
to deterring criminal behaviors.101 One reason for this skepticism is the alleged failure of
the death penalty to deter murder. Because this topic is so important, it is discussed in the
accompanying Policies and Issues in Criminology feature.
Some experts believe that the purpose of the law and justice system is to create a
“threat system.”103 The threat of legal punishment should, on the face of it, deter
lawbreakers through fear. Nonetheless, crime rates and deterrent measures are much less
closely related than choice theorists might expect. Despite efforts to punish criminals and
make them fear crime, there is little evidence that the fear of apprehension and
punishment alone can reduce crime rates. How can this discrepancy be explained?
Deterrence theory assumes a rational offender who weighs the costs and benefits
of a criminal act before deciding on a course of action. Criminals may be desperate
people who choose crime because they believe there is no reasonable alternative. Some
may suffer from personality disorders that impair their judgment and render them
incapable of making truly rational decisions. Psychologists believe that chronic offenders
suffer from an emotional state that renders them both incapable of fearing punishment
and less likely to appreciate the consequences of crime.104 Research on repeat sex
offenders finds that they suffer from an elevated emotional state that negates the deterrent
effect of the law.105 There is also evidence that drinking alcohol impedes a person’s
ability to reasonably assess the costs and benefits of crime.106 If the benefits of crime are
exaggerated, the law’s deterrent effect may be deflated.
As Beccaria’s famous equation tells us, the threat of punishment involves not only
its severity but also its certainty and speed. The American legal system is not very
effective. About half of all crimes are reported to police, and police make arrests in only
about 20 percent of reported crimes. Even when offenders are detected, police officers
may choose to warn rather than arrest.110 The odds of receiving a prison term are less
than 20 per 1,000 crimes committed. As a result, some offenders believe they will not be
severely punished for their acts, and they consequently have little regard for the law’s
deterrent power. Even those accused of murder are often convicted of lesser offenses and
spend relatively short amounts of time behind bars.111 In making their “rational choice,”
offenders may be aware that the deterrent effect of the law is minimal.
The theory of specific deterrence(also called special or particular deterrence)
holds that criminal sanctions should be so powerful that known criminals will never
repeat their criminal acts. According to this view, the drunk driver whose sentence is a
substantial fine and a week in the county jail should be convinced that the price to be paid
for drinking and driving is too great to consider future violations. Similarly, burglars who
spend five years in a tough, maximum-security prison should find their enthusiasm for
theft dampened.118 In principle, punishment works when a connection can be established
between the planned action and memories of its consequence; if these recollections are
adequately intense, the action is unlikely to occur again.119 The theory supposes that
people can “learn from their mistakes” and that those who are caught and punished will
perceive greater risk than those who have escaped detection.120 As the perceived
benefits of crime decline, so too should recidivism.
It’s possible that a specific deterrent can be achieved if the severity of punishment
is increased and type of punishment is amplified. Research by Benjamin Meade and his
associates found that inmates serving long sentences (five years or more) are less likely to
recidivate once released than those serving shorter sentences.124 However, other
research finds that former inmates who report that their incarceration conditions were
particularly severe do not report any less criminal activity upon release than those who
had a better prison experience; the severity of punishment did not have the desired effect.
Even if severe punishments cannot effectively turn criminals away from crime, it
stands to reason that if more criminals are sent to prison, the crime rate should go down.
Because most people age out of crime, the duration of a criminal career is limited.
Placing offenders behind bars during their prime crime years should reduce their lifetime
opportunity to commit crime. The shorter the span of opportunity, the fewer offenses they
can commit during their lives; hence, crime is reduced. This theory, which is known as
the incapacitation effect, seems logical, but does it work? Today, more than one in every
hundred US adults is behind bars (about 2.3 million people).129 Advocates of
incapacitation suggest that this growth in the prison/jail population is directly responsible
for the decade-long decline in the crime rate. Putting dangerous felons under lock and
key for longer periods of time significantly reduces the opportunity they have to commit
crime, so the crime rate declines as well.
D. Criminal Justice and Rational Choice Theory
From the origins of classical theory to the development of modern rational choice
views, the belief that criminals choose to commit crime has influenced the relationships
among law, punishment, and crime. Although research on the core principles of choice
theory and deterrence theories produces mixed results, these models have had an
important impact on criminal justice system crime prevention strategies.
While adding cops seems a logical way of deterring crime, this assumption has
been questioned ever since the classic Kansas City patrol study found that crime rates
were unaffected by merely increasing (or decreasing) the number of police on patrol.
Nonetheless, some recent evidence indicates that adding to police patrol forces does in
fact help reduce crime rates and that police are a more effective deterrent than toughening
sentences or putting people in prison.138 The Kansas City study was conducted in the
1970s, so it is possible that newer technologies, such as computers in police cars, have
made patrol more effective.
The deterrent effect of police may depend on crime control tactics. Focused
crimefighting initiatives, targeting specific crimes such as murder or robbery, are more
effective than routine patrol. Some police departments have instituted crackdowns,
sudden changes in police activity designed to increase the communicated threat or actual
certainty of punishment. Another aggressive patrol approach, instituted in New York
City, was the highly controversial stop, question, and frisk (SQF) policy in which officers
stopped people they considered suspicious, armed, or dangerous, and patted them down
(i.e., frisked the outer clothing), without any real evidence or probable cause. Legal
challenges were filed because the SQFs were far more frequent in minority communities
and because blacks and Hispanics were disproportionately stopped under the policy. A
federal court ordered changes to SQF and the number of police stops under the program
has been dramatically reduced. Recent research by Richard Rosenfeld and Robert
Fornango shows that though legally troubled, the SQF policy did have a deterrent effect
on crime in the New York City neighborhoods where it was employed.
Another recent approach known as “pulling levers policing” or focused deterrence
is about activating or pulling every deterrent “lever” available to reduce the targeted
problem. If it is juvenile gang violence, responses may include shutting down drug
markets, serving warrants, enforcing probation restrictions, and making disorder arrests.
A major component to this approach is communicating direct and explicit messages to
offenders about the responses they can expect if this behavior is not stopped. Careful
evaluations using sophisticated matching group comparisons finds that the program was
an effective deterrent to gang crime.
The fact that punishment may deter criminals from committing crime has shaped
sentencing policy. A number of states have adopted draconian sentencing policies that
require mandatory prison terms for specific crimes such as drug trafficking or the use of a
firearm while committing crime. Another deterrence strategy is the “three strikes and
you’re out” laws, which require the state courts to hand down mandatory periods of
incarceration of up to life in prison to persons who have been convicted of a serious
criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. While a policy of placing people
convicted of a third felony behind bars for life is politically compelling, many
criminologists believe these laws are ineffective and will create a growing population of
expensive to maintain elderly inmates who committed relatively minor crimes.
There are a number of choice theory–based correctional policies designed to
convince convicted criminals that crime does not pay and they would be better off
pursuing more legitimate alternatives. Some states are now employing high-security
supermax prisons that apply a bare minimum of treatment and impose lockdown 23 hours
a day. Take for instance the federal facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado. This prison has
the most sophisticated security measures in the United States, including hundreds of
video cameras and electronically controlled gates. Inside the cells, all furniture is
immovable; the bed, the desk, and TV stand are made of cement. All potential weapons,
including toilet seats, toilet handles, and soap dishes, have been removed. The cement
walls are 5,000-pound quality, and steel bars are placed so they crisscross every eight
inches inside the institution. Cells are angled so that prisoners can see neither each other
nor the outside scenery. This cuts down on communication and denies inmates a sense of
location, to prevent escapes. The newer prisons have totally automated the traditional
tasks of correction officers such as opening cell doors and surveillance. Inmates are
escorted by a minimum of three officers for their five hours of private recreation per
week.
Certainly, such a harsh regimen should discourage future criminality. However,
studies that compare supermax prisoners with inmates from more traditional prisons on a
one-to-one basis show that upon release supermax prisoners had significantly higher
felony recidivism rates than controls from less restrictive prisons. Those released directly
into the community from a supermax prison commit new offenses sooner than supermax
prisoners who were first sent to traditional institutions three months or more before their
release.142 Creating tougher prisons, then, may not produce the desired deterrent effect.
E. Contemporary Trait Theory
Simply put, sociobiology assumes that while social behavior is genetically
transmitted, it adapts to and is shaped by existing environmental conditions. This view
revived interest in finding a biological or psychological basis for crime and delinquency.
It prompted some criminologists to conclude that personal traits must be what separates
the deviant members of society from the nondeviant. Possessing these traits may help
explain why, when faced with the same life situation, one person commits crime whereas
another obeys the law. Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood will not cause a well-
adjusted person to commit crime, and living in an affluent area will not stop a maladapted
person from offending.4 All people may be aware of and even fear the sanctioning power
of the law, but their behavior is controlled by traits that are present at birth or developed
soon afterwards. Possession of these traits does not guarantee that their bearer will
commit crime, but given equivalent environmental conditions those who possess the
suspect traits will be more likely to employ deviant or outlawed behaviors to attain their
life goals and desires.
For years many criminologists ignored any linkage made between traits and
crime. To suggest so would mean that personal differences and not social factors such as
poverty and racism were responsible for antisocial behavior. Today that view is
softening, and trait theory has entered the criminological mainstream. Unlike their
forebears, these contemporary trait theorists do not suggest that a single biological or
psychological attribute adequately explains all criminality. Rather, each offender is
considered physically and mentally unique, so there must be different explanations for
each person’s behavior. Some may have inherited criminal tendencies; others may be
suffering from neurological problems; still others may have blood chemistry disorders
that heighten their antisocial activity. What often appears as an effect of environment and
socialization may actually be linked to genetically determined physical and/or mental
traits. Personal traits and biological conditions, not parenting or social environment, best
explain behavioral choices.
Trait theorists today recognize that crime-producing interactions involve both
personal traits (such as defective intelligence, impulsive personality, and abnormal brain
chemistry) and environmental factors (such as family life, educational attainment,
socioeconomic status, and neighborhood conditions). People living in a disadvantaged
community may be especially at risk to crime, but that risk is significantly increased if
they also bear a genetic makeup that makes them vulnerable to the crime-producing
influences in their environment
There are actually two views on how this interaction unfolds. The individual
vulnerability model supposes a direct link between traits and crime: some people develop
physical or mental conditions at birth, or soon thereafter, that affect their social
functioning no matter where they live or how they are raised.8 In contrast, the differential
susceptibility model suggests that there is an indirect association between traits and
crime: some people possess physical or mental traits that make them vulnerable to
adverse environmental influences. While a positive environment provides benefits, those
people whose genetic makeup makes them predisposed to violence manifest more
aggression when their surroundings become troubled. Someone like this may benefit
from a supportive, therapeutic environment, but a more adverse one may trigger a violent
response.
One branch of contemporary trait theory focuses on the biological conditions that
control human behavior (see Figure 5.1). Criminologists who work in this area typically
refer to themselves as biocriminologists, biosocial criminologists, or biologically oriented
criminologists; the terms are used here interchangeably. The following sections examine
some important subareas within biological criminology. First we review the biochemical
factors that are believed to affect how proper behavior patterns are learned. Then we
consider the relationship between brain function and crime. Next we analyze current
ideas about the association between genetic factors and crime. Finally, we evaluate
evolutionary views of crime causation.
In 1978, the biology of crime began to receive national attention when Dan
White, the confessed killer of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and city
councilman Harvey Milk, claimed that his behavior was precipitated by an addiction to
sugarladen junk foods.9 White’s successful “Twinkie defense” prompted a California
jury to find him guilty of the lesser offense of diminished-capacity manslaughter rather
than first-degree murder. (In 1985, White committed suicide after serving his prison
sentence; 24 years later he was played by Josh Brolin in the film Milk, for which Sean
Penn won an Oscar for his portrayal of Harvey Milk.)
Biocriminologists maintain that a healthful diet can provide minimal levels of
minerals and chemicals needed for normal brain functioning and growth, especially in the
early years of life. An improper diet can cause chemical and mineral imbalance and can
lead to cognitive and learning deficits and problems, and these factors in turn are
associated with antisocial behaviors.13 Research conducted over the past decade shows
that an oversupply or undersupply of certain chemicals and minerals (including caffeine,
sodium, mercury, potassium, calcium, amino acids, and iron) can lead to depression,
hyperactivity, cognitive problems, memory loss, or abnormal sexual activity.14 Either
eliminating harmful substances or introducing beneficial ones into the diet can reduce the
threat of antisocial behaviors.
One area of diet that has received a great deal of attention is the association
between high intake of both sugar and high fructose corn syrup and antisocial/ aggressive
behavior. Experiments have been conducted in which children’s diets were altered so that
sweet drinks were replaced with fruit juices, table sugar with honey, molasses substituted
for sugar in cooking, and so on; results indicate that aggression levels are associated with
sugar intake.17 A British study of the long-term effects of childhood diet on adult
violence found that kids aged 10 who engaged in excessive consumption of confectionary
(food items that are rich in sugar such as candy and soda) were the ones most likely to be
convicted for violence in adulthood.18 More recently, a study conducted in Boston with
high school students found that adolescents who drank more than five cans of soft drinks
per week were significantly more likely to carry weapons and to engage in violence with
peers, family members and intimate partners.
When blood glucose (sugar) falls below levels necessary for normal and efficient
brain functioning, a condition called hypoglycemia occurs. Symptoms of hypoglycemia
include irritability, anxiety, depression, crying spells, headaches, and confusion. Research
studies have linked hypoglycemia to outbursts of antisocial behavior and violence.21
High levels of reactive hypoglycemia have been found in groups of habitually violent and
impulsive offenders.
A number of biosocial theorists are now evaluating the association between
criminal activities ranging from fraud to violent behavior episodes and hormone levels.23
Biosocial research has found that abnormal levels of male sex hormones (androgens) can
produce aggressive behavior.24 Other androgen-related male traits include sensation
seeking, impulsivity, dominance, and reduced verbal skills; all of these traits are related
to antisocial behavior.25 A growing body of evidence suggests that hormonal changes are
also related to mood and behavior. Adolescents experience more intense mood swings,
anxiety, and restlessness than their elders, explaining in part the high violence rates found
among teenage males.
Testosterone, the most abundant androgen, which controls secondary sex
characteristics such as facial hair and voice timbre, has been linked to criminality and
violence.27 Research conducted on both human and animal subjects has found that
prenatal exposure to unnaturally high levels of testosterone permanently alters behavior.
Girls who were unintentionally exposed to elevated amounts of testosterone during their
fetal development display a marked, long-term tendency toward aggression.28
Conversely, boys who were prenatally exposed to steroids that decrease testosterone
levels display decreased aggressiveness.29 Gender differences in the crime rate,
therefore, may be explained by the relative difference in testosterone and other androgens
between the two sexes. Females may be biologically protected from deviant behavior in
the same way that they enjoy immunity from some diseases that strike males.30 Hormone
levels also help explain the aging-out process: levels of testosterone decline during the
life cycle, and so do violence rates. They have also been linked to specific crime patterns
such as intimate partner violence.
The suspicion has long existed that the onset of the menstrual cycle triggers
excessive amounts of the female sex hormones, which stimulate antisocial, aggressive
behavior. This condition is commonly referred to as premenstrual syndrome (PMS). 33
The link between PMS and delinquency was first popularized more than 40 years ago by
Katharina Dalton, whose studies of English women indicated that females are more likely
to commit suicide and to be aggressive and otherwise antisocial just before or during
menstruation.
Exposure to lead has been linked to emotional and behavioral disorders.36 This
association is especially important because so many children suffer harmful levels of lead
exposure. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, even low levels
of lead in the blood have been shown to affect IQ, ability to pay attention, and academic
achievement. And effects of lead exposure cannot be corrected. Experts now use a
reference level of 5 micrograms per deciliter (of blood) to identify children with blood
lead levels that are much higher than most children’s levels. That means that about 2
million kids 18 and under have dangerously high lead levels according to CDC standards.
Research has linked prenatal exposure to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) to
lower IQs and attention problems, both considered risk factors for serious behavioral and
learning problems.43 Similarly, exposure to severe air pollution has been found to cause
cognitive deficits and changes in the brain structure of otherwise healthy children. These
destructive changes affect intelligence, influence cognitive control, and produce other
neurological deficits that have been associated with school failure; educational
underachievement is a condition that has long been associated with delinquency and adult
criminality.44 In addition, PCBs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and inorganic gases such as chlorine and nitrogen
dioxide can cause severe illness or death. These environmental contaminants can be
especially harmful to the brains of babies and small children because they may affect
their developing nervous systems; they can be exposed to harmful chemicals even before
they are born.
Some researchers focus their attention on neurophysiology, the study of brain
activity. Using brain-scanning techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
positron emission tomography (PET), brain electrical activity mapping (BEAM), and the
superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID), they assess areas of the brain
that are directly linked to antisocial behavior. Studies carried out in the United States and
elsewhere have shown that both violent criminals and substance abusers have impairment
in the prefrontal lobes, thalamus, medial temporal lobe, and superior parietal and left
angular gyrus areas of the brain.47 Adolescent boys with antisocial substance disorder
(ASD) repeatedly engage in risky antisocial and drug-using behaviors. Research has
linked this behavior with misfiring in particular areas of the brain and suppressed neural
activity.
Research psychiatrist Guido Frank finds that aggressive teen behavior may be
linked to the amygdala, an area of the brain that processes information regarding threats
and fear, and to a lessening of activity in the frontal lobe, a brain region linked to
decision making and impulse control. Frank investigated why some teenagers are more
prone than others to “reactive” aggression—that is, unpremeditated aggression in
response to a trigger (for instance, an accidental bump from a passerby). He found that
reactively aggressive adolescents—most commonly boys—frequently misinterpret their
surroundings, feel threatened, and act inappropriately aggressive. They tend to strike back
when being teased, blame others when getting into a fight, and overreact to accidents.
Their behavior is emotionally “hot,” defensive, and impulsive; teens with this behavior
are at high risk for lifelong social, career, or legal problems.
Many parents have noticed that their children do not pay attention to them—they
run around and do things in their own way. Sometimes this inattention is a function of
age; in other instances it is a symptom of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), in which a child shows a developmentally inappropriate lack of attention, along
with impulsivity and hyperactivity. Some of the various symptoms of ADHD include
easy distraction, acting without thinking, and inability to sit still. About 3 percent of
American children, most often boys, are believed to suffer from this disorder, and it is the
most common reason why children are referred to mental health clinics. The condition
has been associated with poor school performance, retention for another year in the same
grade, placement in classes for those with special needs, bullying, stubbornness, and lack
of response to discipline.
Chemical compounds called neurotransmitters influence or activate brain
functions. Those studied in relation to aggression and other antisocial behaviors include
dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, monoamine oxidase (MAO), and gamma-
aminobutyric acid (GABA).63 Evidence exists that abnormal levels of these chemicals
are associated with aggression. Research efforts have linked low levels of MAO to high
levels of violence and property crime, as well as defiance of punishment, impulsivity,
hyperactivity, poor academic performance, sensation seeking and risk taking, and
recreational drug use.65 Abnormal MAO levels may explain both individual and group
differences in the crime rate. Females naturally have higher MAO levels than males,
which may contribute to gender differences in the crime rate.66 The effect of MAO on
crime persists throughout the life span: delinquent youth with low levels of MAO have
been found to have a greater likelihood of engaging in physical aggression later in
adulthood than those with normal or higher levels.
According to arousal theory, for a variety of genetic and environmental reasons,
people’s brains function differently in response to environmental stimuli. All of us seek
to maintain a preferred or optimal level of arousal: too much stimulation leaves us
anxious and stressed, whereas too little makes us feel bored and weary. However, people
vary in the way their brains process sensory input. Some nearly always feel comfortable
with little stimulation, whereas others require a high degree of environmental input to feel
comfortable. The latter group of “sensation seekers” looks for stimulating activities,
which may include aggressive, violent behavior patterns.
Another biosocial theme is that the human traits associated with criminality have
a genetic basis.73 Over the course of human history, the most aggressive violent people
have gained reproductive advantages that ensure survival of their genetics and have
created a population of aggressive young males. The genes that produce aggression are
still present in the population and those that inherit them are responsible for violent
crimes.74 The genes–crime association may be direct: (1) antisocial behavior is inherited,
(2) the genetic makeup of parents is passed on to children, and (3) genetic abnormality is
directly linked to a variety of antisocial behaviors.
If criminal tendencies are inherited, children of criminal parents should be more
likely to become law violators than the offspring of conventional parents. A number of
studies have found that growing up in a family with criminal or otherwise troubled
parents has a powerful influence on criminal behavior.79 The Cambridge Youth Survey,
a longitudinal cohort study conducted in England, indicates that a significant number of
delinquent youths have criminal fathers.80 David Farrington found that one type of
parental deviance—schoolyard aggression, or bullying—may be both inter- and
intragenerational. Bullies have children who bully others, and these second-generation
bullies grow up to father children who are also bullies, in a never-ending cycle.
Several studies indicate that some relationship exists between biological parents’
behavior and the behavior of their children, even when they have been adopted at birth
and had no contact.82 Studies of adopted youths have found that the biological father’s
criminality strongly predicted the child’s criminal behavior even if the adopting parent
was noncriminal.83 When the biological father and the adoptive father were both
criminal, the probability that the youth would engage in criminal behavior greatly
increased.
If, in fact, inherited traits cause criminal behavior, we might expect that twins
would be quite similar in their antisocial activities. And as predicted, research efforts
confirm a significant correspondence of twin behavior in activities ranging from
frequency of sexual activity to crime.84 However, because twins are usually brought up
in the same household and exposed to the same social conditions, determining whether
their similar behavior is a result of similar biological, sociological, or psychological
conditions is difficult. To control for environmental factors, criminologists have
compared identical, monozygotic (MZ) twins with fraternal, dizygotic (DZ) twins.
The theoretical association between crime and genes is by no means certain.
There has been and continues to be serious debate over the heritability of human
behavior. Some critics, such as Callie Burt and Ronald Simons, believe the social
environment plays a more critical role in shaping behavior than genes and heredity,
especially during the critical periods of childhood and adolescence. The environment,
they argue, shapes biological processes and enables people to function and survive in
existing social conditions; human biological makeup helps people respond to the
everyday situations and events they face in their social world. As environmental
conditions change, so do the brain and nervous system. Adverse, dangerous, and negative
environments sculpt or change an individual’s brain functioning, causing them to respond
to environmental events with aggression, violence, and coercion.89 However, when Burt
and Simons called for an end to gene-based research they were challenged by groups of
criminologists who found fault with their assumptions and who believe that a great deal
of human behavior is shaped by inherited rather than learned traits.90 Needless to say, the
debate over the heritability of criminal tendencies remains an open issue among
criminologists.
F. Psychological Trait View
The second branch of trait theory focuses on the psychological aspects of crime,
including the associations among intelligence, personality, learning, and criminal
behavior. This view has a long history, and psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental
health professionals have long played an active role in formulating criminological theory.
Among nineteenth-century pioneers in this area were Charles Goring (1870–1919) and
Gabriel Tarde (1843–1904). Goring studied 3,000 English convicts and found little
difference in the physical characteristics of criminals and noncriminals. However, he
uncovered a significant relationship between crime and a condition he referred to as
“defective intelligence,” which involved such traits as feeblemindedness, epilepsy,
insanity, and defective social instinct.96 Tarde was the forerunner of modern learning
theorists, who hold that people learn from one another through imitation.
Psychodynamic (or psychoanalytic) psychology was originated by Viennese
psychiatrist Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) and has remained a prominent segment of
psychological theory ever since.98 Freud believed that we all carry with us the residue of
the most significant emotional attachments of our childhood, which then guides our
future interpersonal relationships. According to psychodynamic theory, the human
personality has a three-part structure. The id is the primitive part of people’s mental
makeup, is present at birth, and represents unconscious biological drives for food, sex,
and other life-sustaining necessities. The id seeks instant gratification without concern for
the rights of others. The ego develops early in life, when a child begins to learn that his or
her wishes cannot be instantly gratified. The ego is the part of the personality that
compensates for the demands of the id by helping the individual keep his or her actions
within the boundaries of social convention. The superego develops as a result of
incorporating within the personality the moral standards and values of parents,
community, and significant others. It is the moral aspect of people’s personalities; it
judges their own behavior.
The psychodynamic model of the criminal offender depicts an aggressive,
frustrated person dominated by events that occurred early in childhood. Because they had
unhappy experiences in childhood or had families that could not provide proper love and
care, criminals suffer from weak or damaged egos that make them unable to cope with
conventional society. Weak egos are associated with immaturity, poor social skills, and
excessive dependence on others. People with weak egos may be easily led into crime by
antisocial peers and drug abuse. Some have underdeveloped superegos and consequently
lack internalized representations of those behaviors that are punished in conventional
society. They commit crimes because they have difficulty understanding the
consequences of their actions.
According to psychologist John Bowlby’s attachment theory, the ability to form
an emotional bond to another person has important psychological implications that follow
people across the life span.100 Attachments are formed soon after birth, when infants
bond with their mothers. Babies will become frantic, crying and clinging, to prevent
separation or to reestablish contact with a missing parent. Attachment figures, especially
the mother, must provide support and care, and without attachment an infant would be
helpless and could not survive.
One area of psychology that has received increasing recognition in recent years is
cognitive theory. Psychologists with a cognitive perspective focus on mental processes—
how people perceive and mentally represent the world around them and solve problems.
The pioneers of this school were Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920), Edward Titchener (1867–
1927), and William James (1842–1920). Today the cognitive area includes several
subdisciplines. The moral development branch is concerned with how people morally
represent and reason about the world. Humanistic psychology stresses self-awareness and
getting in touch with feelings. Information-processing theory focuses on how people
process, store, encode, retrieve, and manipulate information to make decisions and solve
problems.
G. Personality and Crime
Personality can be defined as the reasonably stable patterns of behavior, including
thoughts and emotions, that distinguish one person from another.116 One’s personality
reflects a characteristic way of adapting to life’s demands and problems. The way we
behave is a function of how our personality enables us to interpret life events and make
appropriate behavioral choices. Can the cause of crime be linked to personality? Several
research efforts have attempted to identify criminal personality traits. Surveys show that
traits such as impulsivity, hostility, narcissism, hedonism, and aggression are highly
correlated with criminal and antisocial behaviors.
Some people lack affect, cannot empathize with others, and are short-sighted and
hedonistic. These traits make them prone to problems ranging from psychopathology to
drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and violence.122 As a group, people who share these
traits are believed to have a character defect referred to as sociopathic, psychopathic, or
antisocial personality. Although these terms are often used interchangeably, some
psychologists distinguish between sociopaths and psychopaths by suggesting that the
former are a product of a destructive home environment, whereas the latter are a product
of a defect or aberration within themselves.123 Today antisocial personality is the more
accepted term.
There are different types of psychopaths/sociopaths who fall along a continuum of
critical behavior and personality traits, such as instability, inhibition, and attachment.125
Most but not all are risk-takers and sensation seekers who are constantly involved in a
wide variety of antisocial behaviors. There are also differences in the need for
stimulation: Some may become almost addicted to thrill seeking, resulting in repeated
and dangerous risky behaviors. Others can be described as grandiose, egocentric,
manipulative, forceful, and cold-hearted, with shallow emotions and the inability to feel
remorse, empathy with others, or anxiety over their misdeeds. When they commit
antisocial acts, they are less likely to feel shame or empathize with their victims.
Considering these personality traits, it is not surprising that research studies show that
antisocials tend to continue their criminal careers long after other offenders burn out or
age out of crime.
There is still disagreement on the cause of antisocial personality disorder. Some
explanations reflect sociopathy and focus on family experiences. According to this view,
a sociopathic personality may be formed by experiencing an unstable parent, parental
rejection, lack of love during childhood, and inconsistent discipline. Children who lack
the opportunity to form an attachment to a mother figure in the first three years of life,
who suffer sudden separation from the mother figure, or who see changes in the mother
figure are most likely to develop psychopathic personalities. According to this view, the
path runs from antisocial parenting to sociopathy to criminality.
H. Intelligence and Criminality
Early criminologists maintained that many delinquents and criminals have
belowaverage intelligence and that low IQ causes their criminality. However, there was
disagreement over the development of intellectual ability. Some believed that law
violators had inherently substandard intelligence and thus were naturally inclined to
commit crimes. These proponents of nature theory argued that intelligence is largely
determined genetically, that ancestry determines IQ, and that low intelligence, as
demonstrated by low IQ, is linked to criminal behavior. In contrast, proponents of nurture
theory argued that environmental stimulation from parents, relatives, social contacts,
schools, peer groups, and innumerable others accounts for a child’s IQ level and that low
IQs may result from an environment that also encourages delinquent and criminal
behavior. Thus, if low IQ scores are recorded among criminals, these scores may reflect
the criminals’ cultural background, not their inherited mental ability.
The IQ–crime link controversy was reignited nearly 40 years ago, when the
influential criminologists Travis Hirschi and Michael Hindelang suggested a link existed
between intelligence and crime. Youths with low IQs, they found, do poorly in school,
and school failure and academic incompetence are highly related to delinquency and later
to adult criminality.132 Their findings were supported by James Q. Wilson and Richard
Herrnstein in their influential albeit controversial book Crime and Human Nature, which
also concluded that low intelligence leads to poor school performance, which enhances
the chances of criminality.133 In another widely read and equally controversial book,
The Bell Curve, Herrnstein with Charles Murray claimed that adolescents with low IQs
are more likely to commit crime, get caught, and be sent to prison. Conversely, at-risk
kids with higher IQs seem to be protected from becoming criminals by their superior
ability to succeed in school and in social relationships.
The IQ–criminality debate is unlikely to be settled soon. Measurement is beset by
many methodological problems and charges that IQ tests are biased against members of
racial minority groups. Even if it can be shown that known offenders have lower IQs than
the general population, it is difficult to reconcile the effect of intelligence with some
important correlates of crime: Why do crime rates vary by time of year and even weather
patterns? Why does aging out occur? IQs do not rise with age or fall with temperature
and season, so why should these factors affect crime rates?
I. Mental Disorders and Crime
Psychologists and psychiatrists have long debated the origin of mental disorders
and mental illness, linking it to a variety of sources such as genetic predisposition,
traumatic family and upbringing, brain trauma, and substance abuse. Cognitive theories
link learning to development of mental disorders. Children growing up in an abusive
home may be “rewarded” by not getting beaten if they learn to be quiet, introverted, and
withdrawn, a condition that often leads to clinical depression in adulthood.139
Regardless of its source, criminologists have connected antisocial behavior to mental
instability and turmoil. Offenders may suffer from a wide variety of mood and/or
behavior disorders rendering them histrionic, depressed, antisocial, or narcissistic.
Some have been diagnosed with some form of mood disorder characterized by
disturbance in expressed emotions. Children with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD),
for example, experience an ongoing pattern of uncooperative, defiant, and hostile
behavior toward authority figures that seriously interferes with day-to-day functioning.
Symptoms of ODD may include frequent loss of temper, constant arguing with adults,
defying adults or refusing adult requests or rules, deliberately annoying others, blaming
others for mistakes or misbehavior, being angry and resentful, being spiteful or
vindictive, swearing or using obscene language, or having a low opinion of oneself.
The most serious forms of mental illness are psychotic disorders, such as
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (manic-depression), which affect the mind and alter a
person’s ability to understand reality, think clearly, respond emotionally, communicate
effectively, and behave appropriately. People with psychotic disorders may hear
nonexistent voices, hallucinate, and make inappropriate behavioral responses. Others
exhibit illogical and incoherent thought processes and a lack of insight into their own
behavior. They may see themselves as agents of the devil, avenging angels, or the
recipients of messages from animals and plants.
Mental illness dogs offenders across the life course. Delinquent adolescents have
higher rates of clinical mental disorders than adolescents in the general population.148
As adult criminals, people who have been arrested for multiple crimes are more likely to
suffer from a psychiatric disorder, particularly a psychotic disorder, than nonchronic
offenders.149 Even if apprehended, the mentally ill are much more likely to experience
repeated incarcerations if they continue to suffer from major psychiatric disorders (such
as depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and nonschizophrenic psychotic
disorders).150 In sum, there is a body of research showing that people who suffer from
severe mental illness and distress seem to be more antisocial than members of the general
population and that punishment may do little to reduce their criminal offending.
J. Social Policy and Trait Theory
For quite some time, biological and psychological views of criminality have
influenced crime control and prevention policy. The result has been primary prevention
programs that seek to treat personal problems before they manifest themselves as crime.
To this end, thousands of family therapy organizations, substance abuse clinics, and
mental health associations operate throughout the United States. Teachers, employers,
courts, welfare agencies, and others make referrals to these facilities.
These services are based on the premise that if a person’s problems can be treated
before they become overwhelming, some future crimes will be prevented. Secondary
prevention programs provide treatment such as psychological counseling to youths and
adults after they have violated the law. Attendance at such programs may be a
requirement of a probation order, part of a diversionary sentence, or aftercare at the end
of a prison sentence.
Biologically oriented therapy is also being used in the criminal justice system.
Programs have altered diets, changed lighting, compensated for learning disabilities,
treated allergies, and so on.159 More controversial has been the use of mood-altering
chemicals, such as lithium, pemoline, imipramine, phenytoin, and benzodiazepines, to
control behavior. Another practice that has elicited concern is the use of psychosurgery
(brain surgery) to control antisocial behavior. Surgical procedures have been used to alter
the brain structure of convicted sex offenders in an effort to eliminate or control their sex
drives.
The numerous psychologically based treatments that are available range from
individual counseling to behavior modification. Treatment based on how people process
information takes into account that people are more likely to respond aggressively to
provocation if their thoughts intensify the insult or otherwise stir feelings of anger.
Cognitive therapists attempt to teach explosive people to control aggressive impulses by
viewing social provocations as problems demanding a solution rather than retaliation.
Programs are aimed at teaching problem-solving skills such as self-disclosure, role
playing, listening, following instructions, joining in, and using self-control.
