a crime is any act which is in violation of the law which results
in punishment by the state after conviction by a court. it is an
act that is harmful to an individual, group or society as a whole.
problems with defining crime
Historical issues in defining crime - definitions of
crime change over time because attitudes
change according to historical context e.g.
smacking children, homosexuality.
Cultural issues in defining crime - what is considered
a crime in one culture may not be judged as such in
another i.e. crime is culturally relative because
social attitudes differ between cultures e.g. bigamy,
forced marriage, alcohol consumption.
Issues with punishment – not all acts that
break the law are punished but may still
cause harm e.g. breaches of contract.
Issues of age and intention – the same behaviour
can be seen as criminal in one case but not
another based on the age of the offender and if
the offender is of ‘sound mind.’
measuring crime
official statistics. These are government records of the total number of
crimes reported to the police (or when the police observe or discover an
offence) and recorded in the official figures. They are published by the
Home Office on an annual basis and are a useful ‘snapshot’ of the
number of crimes occurring across the country and in specific regions.
They allow the government to develop crime prevention strategies and
policing initiatives, as well as direct resources to those areas most in
need.
victim surveys. These record people’s experience of crime
over a specific period. It is a questionnaire that asks a
random sample of 50,000 households (aged 16+; the
sample comes from the Royal Mail’s list of addresses)
which crimes have been committed against them over a
fixed period of time (usually a year) and whether or not
they reported them to the police. In 2009, a separate
survey was introduced for people aged 10-15. Both are
published on an annual basis.
offender surveys. These are a self-report measure that involve
individuals volunteering details of the number and types of crimes
they have committed over a specific time period. They tend to target
groups of likely offenders based on ‘risk’ factors e.g. previous
connections, age, social background etc. They also look at indicators
of repeat offending, trends in the prevalence of offending, drug and
alcohol use, the role of co-offenders and the relationship between
perpetrators and victims.
offender profiling
top-down approach
profilers use evidence from a crime scene to fit into pre-existing
conceptual categories to classify the offender as organised or
disorganised offenders. a profile is then created, including a
hypothesis on their demographic background, habits, physical
characteristics and beliefs, which is then used as a base strategy to
catch the offender.
Organised: plans offences, offender seems to have a ‘type’', in a
professional occupation, high degree of control during the crime Tries
to conceal evidence, uses restraints on victims, usually married, follow
their crimes in the media, socially and sexually competent, average to
high intelligence, have a car in good working order, body is usually
transported from the scene, weapon is usually hidden
Disorganised: little planning – offence may have been a spontaneous,
victim is likely to be random, unskilled work or unemployed, minimal
control, messy and makes no effort to conceal incriminating evidence,
minimal use of restraints/leaves body on display, tend to live alone
and relatively close to where the offence took place, socially
incompetent, history of sexual dysfunction and failed relationships,
offender is likely to engage very little with the victim and perform
sexual acts post-mortem, below average intelligence
was developed by the FBI's BSU, who interviewed 36 sexually motivated serial killers.
bottom-up approach
david canter- a profile is generated
by using inferences from crime
scene evidence, statistical analysis
and psychological theories. it is a
data driven approach
investigative psychology: Interpersonal coherence – the way an offender behaves at the
scene, including their interactions with the victim may reflect their behaviour in more
everyday situations as people are consistent in their behaviour. E.g. some rapists seek
maximum control and humiliate their victims whilst others are more apologetic. This
may tell the police something about how they relate to women more generally.
Significance of time and place – these may give indications about where the offender
lives. Forensic awareness – this focuses on individuals who may have been the subject of
police interrogation before; their behaviour may denote how mindful they are of
‘covering their tracks.’ E.g. if they have cleaned up the crime scene this might suggest
that they have committed a crime before and been through the criminal justice system.
statistical databases are then searched to look at patterns and are matched to possible
offenders. david canter's profile helped catch john duffy
rossomo: based on the principle of spatial consistency – that an offender’s
operational base and possible future offences are revealed by the
geographical location of their previous crimes. spread of similar crimes
are used to make inferences about the likely home or operational base,
workplace and serial killers often work in areas they are familiar with, so
it helps to find their base.
Circle theory proposes two models of offender
behaviour. People operate within a limited spatial
mind set that creates imagined boundaries in
which crimes are likely to be committed (usually
forming a circle). The Marauder: the offender
operates in close proximity to their home base.
The Commuters: the offender is likely to have
travelled a distance away from their usual
residence.
biological explanations of
offending behaviour
atavistic form
atavism: a tendency to revert to something
ancient or ancestral, recurrence of traits of an
ancestor in a subsequent generation.
lombroso: Atavistic form saw offenders as ‘genetic throwbacks’ or ‘primitive
sub-species’ who were biologically different from non-criminals. They lack evolutionary
development – their savage and untamed nature meant that they would find it
impossible to adjust to the demands of civilised society and would inevitably turn to
crime. They are distinguishable by particular facial features and cranial characteristics.
facial and cranial features – narrow, sloping brow, strong
prominent jaw, high cheekbones and facial asymmetry. Bodily
features – dark skin, extra toes, nipples or fingers. Other
characteristics – insensitivity to pain, use of slang, tattoos and
unemployment. Lombroso even categorised particular types of
criminal in terms of their physical and facial characteristics:
Murderers: bloodshot eyes, curly hair and long ears Sexual
deviants: Glinting eyes, Swollen, fleshy lips Fraudsters: Thin and
reedy lips
examined the facial and cranial features of hundreds of Italian
convicts, both living and dead. He examined the skulls of 383
dead criminals and 3839 living ones, and concluded that 40% of
criminal acts could be accounted for by atavistic characteristics
evaluation:
strength: shifted the emphasis on offenders being judged as evil
towards a more scientific theory, including evolutionary and genetic
influences. Also introduced idea of criminal profiling by assuming
that people with particular physical characteristics are more likely to
commit certain types of crime
weaknesses: socially sensitive, racist undertones
supporting eugenics, lack of control group.
genetic explanations: The activity of two particular
genes (MAOA and CDH13) have been implicated in
offending behaviour. Tiihonen et al (2014) – Finnish
prisoners – MAOA and CDH13 are associated with
extremely violent behaviour – 13 times more likely to
have a history of violent behaviour
Lange (1930) investigated 13 MZ twins and 17 DZ twins where one of the
twins in each pair had served time in prison. Lange found that 10 of the
MZ twins and 2 of the DZ twins had a co-twin who was also in prison.
Christiansen (1977) studied 87 MZ and 147 DZ twins and found a
concordance of 33% for MZ twins and 12% for DZ twins.
neural explanations: Raine et al (2000) – Reduced activity in
pre-frontal cortex 11% reduction in volume of grey matter
compared to controls
Offending behaviour is argued to be the result of both
an underlying (genetic) predisposition (diathesis) and an
environmental trigger (stress – e.g. being raised in a
dysfunctional environment or having criminal role
models).
evaluation: determinism – biological versus environmental
determinism; reductionism; relative ability to explain certain
types of crime better than others; role of parents and wider
society; implications eg blame and opportunities for reform;
psychological explanations
of offending
eysenck's theory of the criminal personality 1947
Eysenck proposed that offending behaviour is caused by
having a criminal personality (psychological). However, he
argued that the criminal personality type is biological in origin
(i.e. has an innate, biological basis) and comes about through
the type of nervous system we inherit.
Eysenck suggested that the criminal personality type is the
neurotic-extravert i.e. they score highly on measures of neuroticism
(unstable and overly anxious and nervous) and extraversion
(sensation-seeking and outgoing). Additionally, offenders will score
highly on measures of psychoticism – cold and unfeeling and prone
to aggression. This is measured using the Eysenck Personality
Inventory (EPI). A later scale was introduced to measure
psychoticism.
Extraverts have a chronically under-aroused nervous system, meaning they
constantly seek excitement, stimulation and are likely to engage in
risk-taking and dangerous behaviours, which may explain some offending
behaviour. Neurotic individuals have more reactive sympathetic nervous
systems (i.e. greater responses to threat). They are unstable and so react
easily and get upset quickly. They may therefore overreact to situations of
threat, explaining some offending behaviour. Psychotics can easily be linked
to offending behaviour as they are aggressive and lack empathy.
children are taught to become more able to delay gratification
and become more socially oriented through conditioning – they
are punished for anti-social behaviours and so even thinking
about them creates anxiety. Eysenck viewed offending
behaviour as developmentally immature, in that it is selfish
and concerned with immediate gratification. He suggested that
people with high extraversion and neuroticism had nervous
systems that made them difficult to condition.
research evidence
- Farrington et al. (1982) reviewed several studies and
found that offenders tended to score high on
psychoticism measures, but not for extraversion or
neuroticism. They also found little evidence of consistent
evidence in EEG measures (used to measure cortical
arousal) between extraverts and introverts.
+ Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) compared 2070 male prisoners’
scores on the EPI with 2422 male controls. On measures of
psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism (across age
groups), prisoners recorded higher scores than controls.
evaluation
strengths
LINKS NICELY WITH THE DIATHESIS-STRESS MODEL of behaviour which
argues for a biological predisposition combining with an
environmental trigger for a particular behaviour.
IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT BOTH NATURE AND NUTURE. Eysenck’s
theory argues strongly that biological predispositions towards certain
personality traits combined with conditioning and socialization during
childhood in order to create our personality.This interactionist
approach may, therefore, be much more valid than either a biological
or environmental theory alone.
weaknesses
Personality may not be consistent - any theory based on
personality assumes that it is consistent. The notion of a
criminal personality is flawed as PEOPLE DO NOT SIMPLY
HAVE 'ONE' PERSONALITY. For example, someone may be
neurotic at work but calm and relaxed at home.
It is a REDUCTIONIST explanation. It tells us for example that
criminals are neurotic and extravert, but it does not tell us why
they are criminals. It is therefore limited in its explanation.
Cognitive distortions are faulty, biased and irrational ways of
thinking that mean we perceive ourselves, other people and/or the
world in a way that does not match reality and is usually negative.
Therefore, a person’s perception of events is wrong, but they think it
is accurate.
Hostile attribution bias is the tendency to misinterpret or misread
other people’s actions, words and/or expressions as aggressive,
provocative and/or threatening when in reality they are not. Offenders
may misread non-aggressive cues, e.g. being ‘looked at’, which may
trigger a disproportionate and often violent response (e.g. assault).
This allows offenders to rationalise their offending behaviour by
blaming other factors for it e.g. blaming the victim.
Minimalisation is the attempt to downplay the
seriousness (or trivialising the importance) of one’s own
offence to explain the consequences as less significant or
damaging than they really are. This helps the individual to
accept the consequences of their own offences and
reduce the negative emotions such as guilt associated
with their crimes.
Kohlberg suggested that people’s decisions and judgements on
issues of right or wrong can be summarised in a stage theory of
moral development – the higher the stage, the more
sophisticated the moral reasoning, which results in a more
logically consistent and morally mature form of understanding.
People progress through the stages as a consequence of
biological maturity and by having opportunities to discuss and
develop their thinking
conventional morality: good boy or girl/
social order orientation
post-conventional morality: social
contract/conscience orientation
Criminal offenders are more likely to be classified at
the pre-conventional level whereas non-criminals
are more likely to have progressed to the
conventional level and beyond.
Differential association theory is a social learning theory of crime proposed by Sutherland
(1939). It suggests that individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for
criminal behaviour through association and interaction with others who have more or less
favourable attitudes towards crimes. These attitudes then influence their own criminal
attitudes and behaviour., depending on the norms/values of the social group.
learning attitudes towards crime
(theoretical)
When a person is socialised into a group, they
will be exposed to the values and attitudes
towards the law – some may be pro-criminal
attitudes and others may be anti-criminal.
Sutherland argues that if the number of
pro-criminal attitudes outweighs the number of
anti-criminal attitudes that the person acquires,
they will go on to offend.
learning of specific
criminal acts (practical)
It is likely that the learning occurs through direct and indirect
reinforcement through direct tuition from criminal peers and
observational learning.
Role models may provide opportunities to model deviant behaviours, and
if the role models are successful themselves in these criminal activities,
this would provide vicarious reinforcement, making the individual more
likely to offend in order to achieve the same reward.
evaluation
The theory does not account for the biological or genetic factors that may contribute to criminal
behavior. It places too much emphasis on the role of socialization and ignores other factors such as
individual choice and free will. It does not explain why some individuals who are exposed to criminal
behavior do not become criminals themselves.
psychodynamic explanation
of crime
Psychodynamic explanations are a group of theories influenced by the work of Freud
which share the belief that unconscious conflicts (innate drives), rooted in early
childhood and determined by interactions with parents drive future offending
behaviour.
inadequate superego
Blackburn (1993) argued that if the superego is somehow deficient or
inadequate then offending behaviour is inevitable because the id is
given ‘free rein’ and isn’t properly controlled.
Three types of inadequate superego have been proposed: The weak/underdeveloped superego The
deviant superego The over-harsh/overdeveloped superego
weak: if the same-sex parent is absent during
the phallic stage, the child cannot internalise
a fully-formed superego, meaning they have
little control over anti-social behaviour and
act on id impulses.
deviant: If the superego that the child
internalises has immoral or deviant
values (e.g. a child with a criminal
parent), this would lead to offending
behaviour because the child may not
associate wrongdoing with guilt.
over-harsh: A child may internalise the superego of a very strict same-sex parent. This
means that the individual is crippled by guilt and anxiety most of the time because any
time the person acts on their id impulses, they would feel bad. This may (unconsciously)
drive the individual to offend with a wish to be caught in order to satisfy the superego’s
overwhelming need for punishment and reduce their feelings of guilt.
evaluation:
considers importance of
emotion.
children without a same-sex parent aren't less law
abiding, nor do they fail to develop a conscience.
not able to establish cause and effect. lacks
falsifiability as conscience cannot be tested.
maternal deprivation
Bowlby (1944) argued that the ability to form meaningful adult relationships in
adulthood was dependent upon the child forming a warm, continuous
relationship with a mother-figure. This relationship was seen as having special
importance to the child’s well-being and emotional development (monotropy).
If maternal deprivation (long-term separation or loss of emotional care from
the mother or mother-substitute) occurs during the critical period (around 2 ½
years), then the child will experience a number of damaging and irreversible
long-term consequences later in life. One of these is the development of the
affectionless psychopathy personality type, which is characterised by a lack of
guilt, empathy or strong emotion for others and responsibility. Such individuals
are likely to offend and cannot develop close relationships with others as they
lack the necessary early experience to do so. Bowlby's 44 thieves study.