Forensic Psychology - Turning to Crime

What makes a criminal? Why do you think some people turn to crime? Some examples; Money Revenge Attention seeking Family involved in crime Wish to be better than others; greed Faulty genes Chemical imbalances Power Hatred To survive Boredom Fear Peer pressure Anger Jealousy Learning from others e.g. Pavlov, Skinner, Bandura and Differential Association Theory (Sutherland, 1939) Consider the scity four million dollar question in light of the following psychological issues; Nature / Nurture - ‘nativists’ criminal behaviour is caused by innate factors; inherited characteristics, ‘empiricists’ criminal behaviour is caused by learning in the environment Free Will vs Determinism - free will is that we can do as we want as we can make choices whereas determinism is that we don’t have control over our actions but instead are controlled by other factors such as our physiological make up Reductionism vs Holism - reductionism explains criminal behaviour by referring to only one factor such as faulty levels of serotonin whereas holism refers to any approach that stresses the whole rather than the sum of the parts so including all aspects that could cause criminal behaviour such as faulty genes, thinking patterns, family influences, etc The sixty four million dollar question...If you dad is a villain, will you be a criminal... It would be reductionist to say you will be a criminal as only looking at one cause of crime and it would also be deterministic as this could suggest being outside the control of the person and this should also be avoided. Upbringing, biology and cognition may all explain why an individual turns to crime but they may not cause the person to turn to crime; individual differences play a significant role too. Some people turn to crime who aren’t from a criminal family and those that are from a criminal family don’t necessarily become criminals. It is much more complex than that and free will dictates that everyone has a choice to commit a crime or not. Is it possible to be born a criminal? (nature) or is it likely that criminal behaviour is learnt? (nurture). Let’s see what we can find out. Learning from others focuses upon the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate and explores situational factors that may determine how an individual develops. This could have a positive knock on effect. What do you think that could be? The positive knock on effect of discovering that situational factors play a role in a person becoming a criminal is intervention; environments could be changed and learning processes could be implemented to prevent a young person from becoming a criminal. Classical Conditioning (Pavlov, 1927) Operant Conditioning (Skinner, 1953) Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) Describe learning theory Pavlov made dogs salivate on command; they associated the sound of a bell with presentation of their food. This is association of a neutral stimulus with a stimulus to create a conditioned response. Natural reinforcement Skinner (using rats and a ‘Skinner box’) focused on a reward system with positive and negative reinforcement which shapes behaviour; the use of consequences to modify behaviour Bandura’s social learning theory emerges from learning through modelling/imitating someone else Apply to criminal behaviour Associations may occur for example; a thrill when shoplifting or a feeling of power with violence Some crime is rewarding such as stealing can produce monetary rewards and for some criminals, they gain emotionally from their crimes Modelling may occur when a person watches a peer commit a crime and then copies, such as shoplifting or burglary Evaluate Does not explain more complex crimes that involve more thinking such as white collar crime and organised crime. Reductionist. Complicated crimes can be explained but not all criminal behaviour is rewarding and punishment plays a role yet the criminal may persist in their criminal activity Explains the learning of complicated behaviour and parents may reinforce ‘bad’ behaviour. Children can have unsuitable role models. If learn through copying, what about the first crime? It is a reductionist approach that doesn’t value the thinking patterns of criminals Differential Association Theory (Sutherland, 1939) Sutherland believes an individual can not only learn behaviours, but also attitudes and certain criminal thinking from people they associate with. This goes further than the Social Learning Theory which tends to demonstrate copying another without thinking, it emphasises the significance of certain values and morals that may be found in a group of criminals (consider gangster movies). So therefore, according to Sutherland, a young person is more likely to become delinquent when they associate with people with deviant ideas and attitudes then if they mix with those who believe in adhering to rules. Sutherland’s theory is based on 9 principles that he developed which are; 1. Criminal behaviour is learnt. 2. Criminal behaviour is learned through an interaction and observation process 3. The most significant part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal groups. 4. When criminal behaviour is learned through techniques, possessing the motivation and justifying the criminal activity 5. Laws are considered as either positive or negative. 6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions encouraging to violation of law over definitions discouraging to violation of law. Therefore an excess of criminal definitions 7. Differential associations which are the number of contacts with criminals over non-criminals may vary in frequency, duration and importance 8. Behaviourism underpins the learning of criminal behaviour 9. The same needs attempt to be addressed with criminal behaviour as with non-criminal activity What problems do you see with these 9 laws? Sutherland’s theory seems deterministic; can people not exercise free will when they come into contact with deviant individuals? The theory appears applicable to certain types of violent crime but what about solitary crime? Sutherland refers to an individual being confronted with an excess of deviant attitudes and this assisting with them becoming a criminal themselves but how can these definitions be measured? How many definitions equal an overload of definitions? The theory does not allow for the influence of the media and is quite antiquated The theory has ideas contained within it that are quite vague and thus may lack validity Disrupted Families The sixty four million dollar question...If your mum and dad split up and you live with your mum now, will you become a delinquent? Though politicians often blame crime to one parent families it may be more so due to the consequences of the breakdown of the relationship such as loss of income, disruption in schooling, moving home, psychological distress, etc. There may be many factors involved as to why a young person turns to crime and a disrupted family unit could be one of them. Background Information Freud (1923) refers to the id, which creates irrational desires. The Ego attempts to gratify these demands. The super-ego is the Conscience. Therefore, if the super-ego isn’t strong then people will be more likely to turn to Crime. Freud emphasises the need for parents to show their children unconditional love and for them to accept them for what they are in order for them to develop into healthy adults. Freud tends to favour both parents being at home to help the child develop healthily Bowlby (1944) suggests the most important relationship a child can have is with its Mother during the first few years. If the attachment is broken, the child will suffer from maternal deprivation a child may turn to crime as a result. He tested this theory on juvenile thieves and found many who had been separated from their mothers to suffer from affectionless Psychopathy. Bowlby does not favour families breaking up or a mother returning to work in the first few years of a child’s life Nye (1958) proposed Control theory. He believed that parents socialise their children through rewards and punishments. This means that parents could instil attitudes into their children so they won’t break rules and laws. Nye thinks families that promote a conscience in their children will not break the law Hirschi (1969) emphasised social bonds make us law abiding such as .belief in the law so that we feel shame if we break it and attachment to other people who would be likely to turn against us if we commit a crime Hirschi offers plenty of reasons for people to not commit crimes The Cambridge Study. Farrington (1961-1981) Longitudinal study of 411 boys and found predictors of delinquent and criminal behaviour such as; Poverty Big families Parents who have committed crimes Poor parenting techniques Farrington said that problem families produce problem children; crime follows from one generation to the next but on a more positive note, his big study did discover that many offenders eventually grew out of committing crimes! Look at the following prescription script and see what advice has been given to stop this vicious circle? Patient; Problem Families Prescription for.... New benefits to help families who are suffering from poverty and to put them in touch with charities that may help Teaching and education to help children not to turn to crime Parenting classes Organisations to provide activities for teenagers to prevent them from turning to crime Education for parents; adult classes Goals for families to achieve that aren’t crime orientated Therapy such as CBT to help encourage positive thinking and to tackle any mental health problems Addictions counselling Apply all day for maximum results Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods Look at the following questions and build up a picture of each theory for revision purposes Merton’s Strain theory (1938) suggests that criminals have the same goals as those who don’t commit crimes - TRUE Offenders are innovators - TRUE Society, according to the Strain theory, shares out opportunities equally amongst people - FALSE People from disadvantaged backgrounds have to innovate to achieve the same as conformists - TRUE Head Start (US) in 1964 identified families at risk - TRUE Datta (1976) claims that Head Start increases young people’s IQ and lowers their chance of committing a crime - TRUE Sure Start (1998) is the UK programme but it hasn’t shown any improvements for disadvantaged families - FALSE Wikstrom (2002-2012) is directing the Peterborough Youth Study which is trying to ascertain why young people offend - TRUE The professor adopts an interactionist approach which focuses on the environment that young people grow up in and dispositions of the young people and the affect one has on the other - TRUE Young people who spend time in crimogenic areas tend not to commit crimes - FALSE Further results suggest family income to affect offending - FALSE Offending is linked to drug and alcohol abuse, truanting from school and low moral codes - TRUE There are three groups of offenders, those who are likely to offend due to weak social bonds and lack of morals, those who have high risk lifestyles and those affected by the situation they find themselves in - TRUE Wilson and Kelling (1982) suggest that people offend when their environment is disordered and vandalised - TRUE Zimbardo (1969) showed this with an experiment of a damaged car in a prosperous area which soon became vandalised when people realised it wasn’t cared for - TRUE Quick revise Upbringing