ipl-logo

Theories Of Criminal Behavior

1331 Words6 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Necessity of ethics in the criminal justice system

Theories help answer two very important questions; how and why. The purpose of a theory is to explain how and why certain things and/or events are connected to other things and/or events. Everything done in the criminal justice field is based on theory. In criminology, theories answer questions about criminal behavior that would have otherwise not been answered. Theories give clues to how and why people commit criminal acts. By providing the motives behind criminal activity, theories give criminologists a better understanding of crime (Bohm & Vogel, 2015). Theories of criminal behavior can relate to human nature, biological issues, psychological issues, sociological issues, economic issues, or a collaboration of two or more of these factors. …show more content…

All theories share one thing in common; they rely a lot on philosophical assumptions. Philosophical assumptions are ideas that cannot be tested empirically or scientifically. This means that they cannot be proved or disproved. Instead, philosophical assumptions give philosophical insight on criminal behavior (Bohm & Vogel, 2015). Philosophical Assumptions are especially important because scientific research rarely offers conclusive results in regards to which theory should be used in a particular case. Philosophical assumptions are a driving force in whether a person accepts or rejects a theory. To better understand the role philosophical assumptions play in understanding criminal behavior, one must be aware of the different types of philosophical assumptions (Bohm & Vogel, 2015).
One of the major philosophical assumptions seen in all theories is ethical assumptions. Ethical assumptions, also known as normative implications, give insight on what is right and wrong, good, and bad, and what should be done in situations. Thus, criminal theories contain certain value judgments and policy implications. Value judgments evaluate the behavior, while policy implications describe a solution or what should be done in a particular situation (Bohm & Vogel, …show more content…

Unlike philosophical assumptions, scientific theories can be tested scientifically or empirically. Scientific theories are tested through the process of verification and falsification. Verification occurs through observation and is the confirmation of proposition. Falsification also involves observation. However, falsification involves disproving a proposition. Most scientists believe that falsification is more powerful than verification. This has been widely accepted because is impossible to prove that a theory is true since there is always a possibility that the relationship that has been observed may play a role in some unconsidered factor. However, theories can be proven as false (Bohm & Vogel,

Show More
Related
689 Words | 3 Pages

For example Niel Bohr's development of the quantum model was incorrect how do we know for sure that there are false established discoveries made within the Quantum

Read More
417 Words | 2 Pages

Theological theories discuss things such as God and Demons and how they have an influence on criminal behavior. Each theory takes a completely different stance and viewpoint. They each offer their own unique theories in

Read More
924 Words | 4 Pages

The demarcation criteria are the set of requirements that determine whether or not a theory is considered scientific. Just as the theory can only be accepted using the current employed methods, the theory must also comply with the current explication of the demarcation criteria, which is that the theory must explain the generally known facts of its domain and be fundamentally falsifiable. This latter is explained using the concept of confirmation and disconfirmation reasoning, which in both cases, bases its predictions on theories. With that, in confirmation reasoning, when the prediction is proven to be correct, the theory is thus correct. Disconfirmation reasoning is when the prediction turns out to be wrong, then that is evidence against that theory.

Read More
507 Words | 3 Pages

According to Bohm & Vogel (2011), a theory is an explanation. It tells who or how things are related to each other. A theory of crime explains why or how a certain thing or certain things are related to criminal behavior. The objective of a theory is to explain the interrelationship of concepts. A theory is comprised of three things which are concepts, definitions of concepts, and propositions.

Read More
448 Words | 2 Pages

However, the issue with this is explanations for why something is false may be looked over, Dunhem problem within physics as it is impossible to test a hypothesis in isolation as many factors are controlled and there is always auxiliary hypothesises to the one that is being tested the bold conjecture. Thus falsifying a theory in this way can lead to inaccurate conclusion of the bold

Read More
1058 Words | 5 Pages

The classical theory of crime says that people make rational choices when they commit crimes. “Individuals have the will and rationality to act according to their own will and desires. Individuals will calculate the rationality of the crime based on the benefits of the crime versus the consequences of the crime” (Robinson, 2014). This theory discuses that how people think about the negative and positive outcomes before they commit crime. Even though they realize it is not right, they still continue to commit illegal offence because they believe that what they are doing is for the greater

Read More
1027 Words | 5 Pages

In the criminal justice system, perhaps one of the most well-known are deterrence and labeling theory. It is clear that these theories contradict the positions of effects on formal punishment in the US justice system. Which one most accurately represents the effect of legal punishment? I would argue that the constant shift of politics and legislation change the effects of legal punishment from these theories. Deterrence works better in some neighborhoods rather than others based on what people actually view is deviant.

Read More
1141 Words | 5 Pages

Lakatos believes that one counterexample falsifies the whole theory is too naïve and that a scientific theory is a program rather than an individual claim3. Lakatos subsequently proposed “progressive research programme”3 to address these issues. To handle counterexamples, he prescribed the “sophisticated falsificationism”, which is used in developing the ESS theory as mentioned above. Nevertheless, there is a consensus that falsifiability is a desirable characteristic of science, for it ensures that science is grounded on evidence rather than

Read More
570 Words | 3 Pages

Beliefs are culminations of inputs of external data, processed in such a way that allows the vessel a conceived perception of choice between said stimuli. An assumption is a fault of the human mind. Evolutionarily speaking, assumptions are actually pretty helpful on the path to survival, considering that a second could mean the difference between life and death. Assumptions protect the person from staring at a bush for a moment too long, pondering if that scruff of tan is a lion or a flower. These elements of vision, Belief, and assumption do pertain to my life, as the ultimate goal is to be as productive and bountiful as possible and these elements propel my path to the

Read More
255 Words | 2 Pages

Since there are so many theories, scientists are greatly divided on what theory or theories can be proven. However, technological and scientific advancements could lead to proving or eliminating theories. New technology can lead to more accurate

Read More
1410 Words | 6 Pages

A number of basic standards for determining a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice are widely agreed upon by scientists. One of the basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible, and able to be verified by other individuals.[13] This standard aim to ensure experiments can be measurably reproduced under the same conditions, allowing further investigation to characterize whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is valid and reliable. Philosopher Karl Popper (?) in one of his project attempted to draw the line between science and pseudo-science.

Read More
1245 Words | 5 Pages

Karl Popper was a twentieth-century philosopher that had a dissatisfaction with the definition of what could be considered a “science.” The claim of falsification, being able to equally be observed false, made Popper’s argument of demarcation appealing to those with the same inquiries about the method of scientific progress. Popper said to be defined as a real science, one needs to make risky, bold predictions that could easily be refuted by observation. I will argue that the construction of Popper’s scientific progress is flawed due to the refutations of infinite hypotheses and observational unreliability.

Read More
894 Words | 4 Pages

” There are many types of assumptions. They are Implicit and

Read More
1400 Words | 6 Pages

A theory could only be falsifiable or non-falsifiable and falsified or non-falsified. There is no scientific reason to prefer a unfalsified tested theory above another untested theory. There does not exist “more likely to be true”, it can only be falsified or non-falsified. A theory that has never been tested at all is just as non-falsified as a theory that has been tested many times. Popper does not allow us to prefer one non-falsified theory above another on scientific ground which causes

Read More
1368 Words | 6 Pages

This confirms that science commences with a problem and observation is used to falsify theories. These two theories, however, can be said to be commensurable because they have the same foundation which is epistemology and ontology, believing that observation yields empirical

Read More

More about Theories Of Criminal Behavior

Related Topics

Open Document