Criminal_Justice_Causation_of_Crime__in_Theory

For as long as there has been crime there have been people trying to figure out reasons why some individuals have good morals and live life without incident and others are seem to be prone to doing the immoral things in life. When we were in grade school our teachers would refer to those individuals as “bad apples” and remind us to not let them “ruin the barrel” however it is seldom, if ever, that simple. There are currently three primary theories as to the causation of crime; Biological, Sociological, and Psychological. While each of these theories holds water on their own, and can often times be seen as a solitary cause to an individual’s behavior, they can and do function in tandem with each other, manifesting different types of criminals dependent upon that individual’s particular background. The biological theory consists of the idea that individuals commit crime because of biochemical deficiencies, genetic “malfunctions” or neurological disorders. There are several assumptions we have to consider when looking at the biological theory which without meeting the entire theory falls apart at the seams. * The Brain is the organ of the mind, and is the origination point of an individual’s personality. Due to this we must consider neurochemistry and neurological composition along with their ramifications on how the mind functions. * A person’s demeanor is at least in part caused by genetics. * Variances in crime that we see along race or gender lines may be associated with the genetic differences between the genders and races. * A predisposition for criminal activity can be passed from generation to generation, similar to the traits for blue eyes or freckles. * A human’s biological past and nature has become progressively masked with the advancement of civilization. What these assumptions lead us to conclude is that in the past there was a reproductive advantage to crime; a person who stole would have more resources to survive and take care of offspring, a person who murdered would reduce the amount of competition for mates, etc.. Based on what we currently know about genetics these traits will never entirely leave the human race, they have simply become buried under other traits similar to the trait for blue or green eyes. When two individuals whom both possess a now recessive, vestigial trait they can potentially produce an offspring whom will express that given phenotype, in this case criminal behavior. That individual is then more likely to pass the trait on to their offspring. It has been noted on many accounts the differences in criminal tendencies between the genders, and a disputable difference between the races depending upon which study you are currently reading. These differences in crime could potentially be explained by the reaction of the criminal genotype with the various chromosomes which determine race and gender in a person. As there are visible and observable differences between the genders and races, there may be a cause and effect type of relationship between the genotypes and phenotypes based along those lines. There are several specific areas being looked into by scientists to find a link between genetics and crime, the most notable of which is the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene. While this gene does not function on its own, it has been found that children who possess the gene and are subject to maltreatment are more likely to develop violent and criminal behavior as they age. The Sociological theory of crime causality very simply put states that an individual turns to crime because of the external forces of society pushing them in the wrong direction. There can be several types of crime linked to sociological events- a man robbing a convenient store for money after losing his job, a young child turned gang member because he would have been killed if he didn’t, a teenage drug user because the peer pressure from his/her friends. What each of these examples has in common is that until an outside stressor was introduced an individual upheld the high morals and values of “everyday” society. It was the presence of an outside event that led to that individual to crime. As with the Biological Theory of Crime Causation there are certain assumptions that must be made for us to apply the Sociological theories. * The nature of social realism is one of constant flux. To that end, the reality of society is a human manifestation of the interactions between the many elements of society, and as those interactions change so does the perceived reality for all elements contained therein. * Information, including experiences, rewards, and consequences travel between individuals, increasing a group’s knowledge base exponentially. * Criminals will accept other criminals easier than “normal” society will, which can then help lead to repeat offenders caused by a continuing circle of intimidation, peer pressure and the like. This, more so than the other two theories, can be controlled and used as an influence in either direction. An individual who is surrounded by negative role models will tend to follow in their footsteps; due to the societal pressures that individual would have to overcome in order to continue resisting the negative behavior. On the contrary an individual surrounded with positive role models and influences will be more likely to evade the temptation to falter, again due to the peer pressure pushing that individual in the “normal” path. The third of the major theories of crime causation is psychological. This theory takes the approach that personality defects gained early in life lead an individual to commit crime. This theory is closely related to the sociological theory in the manner that outside forces cause the individual to commit crime, however the difference is the stage in life when the external factor is present and the extent of the damage done to the individual in question. For sociological theory the factor is applied very near the first onset of criminal behavior whereas for psychological theory the trigger is most likely seen while the individual was still young enough to be forming morals and beliefs, permanently corrupting their personality- potentially leaving the individual incapable of feeling remorse, empathy or guilt. This lack of caring for others can then in turn lead to violence, theft, drug and alcohol addiction or a multitude of other criminal behaviors. As with the preceding two theories there are assumptions that must be made in order for us to apply the psychological theory to a situation. * A person’s primary motivation comes from their personality. * While the governing body of “normal” society may object to the behavior and consider it criminal, for someone suffering from a psychological disorder the act is necessary and fulfills a purpose in their life When we consider any individual’s outcome in life there are two primary arguments that are discussed- the nature vs. nurture debate. The psychological theory of crime causation rests in the nurture side of the argument, developing its strength from the argument that a child learns most of their morals and beliefs while at an early stage and that those morals will hold fast throughout most of the child’s life- eventually manifesting themselves into the actions we portray as adults. It is my belief that these three theories work with each other, instead of against each other. Someone may be born with a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior, however compliments to a loving home growing up the child turns out to be a positive contribution to society instead of a murderer. On the other hand a person may have no genetic conditions, and turn to selling drugs in order to achieve the quick cash flow which is often epitomized in music, movies and within circles of friends, or an individual may be subject to abuse, neglect and witness petty crime on a daily basis and develop a void in their personality where the majority of us hold our morals and turn to crime because it is the only life that they have experienced. The possibilities for combinations of events and root causes are endless and each case must be looked at individually from any others because there are never two that are exactly the same. References Anonymous. (2011). Class of 1. Retrieved August 10, 2012, from Biological Theory of Crime Causation: http://classof1.com/homework_answers/social_work/biological_theory_of_crime_causation/ Anonymous. (2011). Class of 1. Retrieved August 11, 2012, from Psychological Theory of Crime Causation: http://classof1.com/homework_answers/social_work/psychological_theory_of_crime_causation/ Anonymous. (2011). Class of 1. Retrieved August 10, 2012, from Sociological Theory of Crime Causation: http://classof1.com/homework_answers/social_work/sociological_theory_of_crime_causation/ Bernet, W. M., Vnencak-Jones, C. L., Farahany, N. J., & Montgomery, S. A. (2007). Bad Nature, Bad Nurture and Testimony Regarding MAOA and SCL6A4 Genotyping at Murder Trials. Journal of forensic Sciences, 1362-1371. Rawlins, L. C. (2005, September). Theories of Crime Causation. The VonFrederick Group. Rock, P. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. In P. e. Rock, The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 51-82). Oxford.