Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nature vs nurture
An attribute of society that has been constant throughout history is criminality, and due to the continuing effort to understand crime, this has resulted in the emergence of many schools of thought. In the 21st century, the world is continuing to see petrifying and outrageous murder cases, a recent one being the case of Canadian citizen Luka Magnotta, who murdered Lin Jun and recorded himself stabbing, dismembering, and performing acts of necrophilia on Jun, mailing his body parts to multiple places in Canada, including to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. After an analysis of the case of Luka Magnotta, when considering a psychological explanation, Magnotta’s criminality can be sufficiently explained through Eysenck’s theory of crime and personality,
Within the past couple of decades, criminologists have developed different criminological theories that apply to the social behaviors and decisions of criminals. One of the earliest theories developed regarding criminality is the rational choice theory, in which describes the rationalization of determining if the rewards from committing the crime outweigh the consequences. In Scarver’s case, his decision to engage in criminal activities outweighed the potential consequences, or the other alternatives if he did not engage in such criminal activities. In addition to the rational choice theory, Scarver’s criminality can be related to the social disorganization theory, which describes the influence of one’s social and physical environment on one’s decision to commit a crime. Lastly, the strain theory can be related to Scarver’s criminality as well, as it is used to describe an individual who lacks the means to obtain such goals, and aspirations, so therefore, he or she engages in criminal activities to acquire the goals.
Between the mid-late 1970s and the early 1980s, Dennis Nilsen began mass murdering young men in Great Britain that had at least 15 men through strangulation (Crime Investigation, 2014). In analyzing his life, many of contributions throughout his life could have influenced his criminal behaviour when committing his crimes. Many theories such as broken home hypothesis and schema therapy theory use psychological explanations that determine how the individual resulted into committing their crimes. With schema therapy theory, not only does it discuss the justification for criminal behaviour, but suggests how to reduce the relapse of criminal acts by identifying the cause or the trigger of the individual’s criminal behaviour (Vos et al., 2016). In Dennis Nilsen’s life, there are several indications such as the abandonment of his family members, the termination of a past relationship, and the reclusiveness from society that could have resulted
This theory clearly rules out the effect of inherited or innate factors, and the last is the cognitive theory, which is based on how the perception of an individual is manifested into affecting his or her potential and capability to commit a crime. (Psychological theories of crime) Relating these theories to the case under study, it’s clear that the behaviour can be traced most times to faulty relationships in the family during the first years of
In her essay, “The Irrationality of Life Sentences”, Jennifer Lackey shares that there are biological factors that contribute to a child’s differing thought processes. She says that “the prefrontal cortex of the brains of adolescents is still developing, and so they are more likely than adults to act on impulse, engage in dangerous or risky behavior, and misread social cues and emotions” (Lackey 1089). These biological differences, and the childhood lack of brain development, are causes for children to commit crime. Though they do not excuse the behavior, they should be taken into account empathetically. If these aspects were to be taken into further consideration in the future,
Laws are the one of the most important parts of the country. Country stays stabilized because of laws. Every person who not only lives in the country, but also visits it must follow the laws that country has. We can divide people into two categories. The first one consists of “good” people and second one consists of “bad” people.
Most was derived from the assumption that behaviors such as; criminal and otherwise, are inherited. Which means that criminals are biologically different than non-criminals. One of the earliest explanations was known as Phrenology which was in the mid-1700’s to mid-1800’s, which viewed the shape and size of the brain and skull as determinants of criminal tendencies. The next early positivist explanation for deviance was in 1876, Cesare Lombroso’s theory of “Atavism” and “The Born Criminal” This was the 1st Major Application of this new science to the study of criminals and deviance.
What impact has the social construction of crime had on fear of crime, our view of victims and offenders and resulting criminal justice policy? The media has been influential in shaping the way society thinks about certain issues, including crime. This essay argues that social construction has a negative impact on society’s view of the fear of crime, victims, and offenders. It’ll also study how social construction affects government policy.
Edwin Sutherland Aaron Walker Georgia Gwinnett College Sutherland considered differential association to be a general sociological theory of criminal behavior. Sutherland became suspicious of theories that related poverty to crime, believing that police statistics were biased when they showed that most crimes occurred in poor and lower-class neighborhoods in the city. After 20 years of grueling research, Sutherland finally completed a book reporting his findings. The finalized version of White Collar Crime appeared in 1949; a restored edition was not published until 1983. Sutherland came to believe that numerous factors like race, age, and gender cannot in themselves explain criminal behavior.
Today, there are proven facts that people who have parents that are criminals have a high chance of becoming criminals themselves. Not only can people become criminals because of their family but they can also become criminals because of the environment that they surround themselves in. This is where nature versus nurture comes into play. A person’s nature is their genetic makeup, basically meaning that a person’s nature is the genes they get from their parents. Also, a person’s genotype, one’s genetic makeup based on the sequencing of the nucleotides we term, provides them with physical traits that set the stage for certain behaviors (56).
My paper aims to discuss the three different factors of criminal behaviour, what causes it and why. My essay will examine and focus mainly on the genetic makeup of a person, the environment in which they are raised in and gender differences.
Furthermore, the psychology of criminal behavior, psychology, and criminology all have a primary objective of achieving an understanding of the variation in the criminal behavior of individuals (Andrews and Bonta , 2010). Empirically, the study of variation in criminal behavior is done by the studying of covariates (Andrews and Bonta , 2010). The primary covariates that PCC studies are biological, social, and psychological (Andrews and Bonta , 2010). Although, criminology tends to assess criminality at an aggregate level, in comparison to the psychology of criminal conduct’s focus on an individual level. Additionally, a psychology of criminal conduct involves applying what is learned by the studying of psychological information and methods to the predicting and influencing the propensity of criminal behavior on an individual
Based on the assumption that humans are inherently social, crime would have been traced to an unfavorable environment that distorted human nature (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2015). These unfavorable environments were to product of capitalism, in that it created clear distinctions between the rulers and the ruled that created much tension. Bonger believed that human nature was distorted in unfavorable environments by “egoism” that made people more capable of engaging in crimes against others (Lilly, 2015). It was believed that this idea of egoism could not be reduced by social controls that bonded individuals to society, because a society under capitalism was the source of egoism (Lilly, 2015). Bonger found that much crime was the result of poverty generated by capitalism, while noting that those in power also engaged in criminal behavior (Lilly, 2015).
There are many phenomena that could cause or correlate with crime. In addition to this, there are many characteristics to these phenomena that cause/correlate with criminal behavior. Furthermore, these characteristics can be individual, sociological, or both that could have an effect on criminal behavior. This paper will take the educational avenue on crime.
This essay will discuss crime as both a social problem and a sociological problem. Crime is seen as a typical function of society. Crime doesn’t happen without society. It is created and determined by the surrounding society. According to the CSO, the number of dangerous and negligent acts committed between the years of 2008 and 2012 rose from 238’000 in 2008 to 257’000 in 2012.