Theories of Crime
- Describe the relationship between socialization and crime. What prominent elements of socialization contribute to a criminal career?
Socialization is a continuous phase in which we know about societal norms and how to communicate with others. For all activities that we find to be ‘human instinct’ is generally acquired by socialization. And it’s during socialization that we learn how to walk, talk, and feed ourselves, about norms that help us blend into our community, and so much more. The proponents of this theory believe that the environment setting plays a crucial role in determining the level of deviant behaviour. Specifically, individuals within a specific reference group have benchmarks of consistency and deviance, and thus have a strong influence on how other people look at the environment, including how they respond. Individuals also learn criminal behaviour from different socializing agents (Bonta & Andrews, 2016). The agents might be parents, colleagues, peers or the press. Generally, people learn about criminal behaviour, like other habits, through their encounters with others, particularly in interpersonal groups.
The primary element group is the nuclear family which provides an environment where the person grows. It is assumed that the experiences and lessons learned to give a person with an awareness of social expectations and values. It is also believed that, because a person is able to understand what is socially acceptable, they are still unable to know what is considered inappropriate. A person’s behaviour is mainly determined by their relatives, as this is the first social contact they get. Also, the conduct of the adult is impacted by their age group ant their interaction with other people who are close to them.
- Neutralization theory holds that offenders master techniques that enable them to neutralize conventional values. Identify the theorist(s) associated with methods of neutralization. Then, identify two techniques of neutralization and provide an example of each.
Neutralization theory tries to explain how criminal offenders participate in law-breaking behaviours at the same time refusing or denouncing their guilt. This concept was proposed in 1957 by the Gresham Sykes and David Matza, who argued that offenders are generally moving between upright and criminal conduct (Whyte, 2016). Whatever this implies is there is a presumption in place that young offenders understand the difference between upright and unlawful conduct and that they recognize that criminal behaviour is wrong. Irrespective of that, the delinquent behaviour and their attitudes of these young offenders diverge between the two. Gresham Sykes and David Matza concluded that offenders are inevitably conscious of traditional ideals because their environment is rooted in a broader cultural one (emphasis on subculture). As a result, they try to understand many of the societal norms correlated with modern society as they break the law. Since they know that their behaviour is unacceptable, they are required to use neutralizations before perpetrating crimes in order to rationalize their criminal behaviour with their ideal personality-image.
Denial of injury is one of the techniques used in neutralization theory. This happens when the victim is not injured by a criminal act. Crimes are known to be deviant in terms of whether or not someone has been harmed. Using this strategy, criminal perceptions of theft as pure leveraging and perceive gang war as a confidential conflict between consenting and participating participants (Whyte, 2016). The use of this tactic is asserted in the perceptions of these teenagers as the community does not consider such acts, such as skipping school or playing pranks, as illegal, but instead recognizes them as innocent action. Another technique used is a denial of responsibility. This is a tactic employed where a deviant behaviour was triggered by an outside entity. This approach goes past, focusing on criminal behaviour as a mistake. The victim believes they are pulled into the scenario, gradually feeling powerless. They think that their dysfunctional backgrounds, their deprived environments and their delinquent cohorts desensitize them to violent actions. The phrase used, “It wasn’t my fault.”
- Explain the difference between instrumental and structural views of critical criminology
The instrumental essential view of criminology views criminal law and the criminal justice system as patriarchal mechanisms for regulating the lower class. Marxist sees the judicial system as a tool that can be exploited almost at will by the ruling class as a whole or, in some cases, by specific divisions of the ruling class. This view was advantageous as it exposed the social fictions advocated by ideologies such as ‘the rule of law,’ ‘equity before the law,’ and ‘the division of powers.’ Structural views on the other side are views criminal law and the criminal justice system are a way of protecting and maintaining the patriarchal structure of social strife and critical criminology (Ugwudike, 2015). It argues that our lives are driven by social systems that are relatively consistent forms of social activity. Social networks give way to our lives-for example, in communities, in the society and by religious organizations. And other practices, such as handshakes or intricate religious ceremonies, add meaning to our daily lives. Increasing social system has specific roles or implications for the functioning of society as a whole.
- Using the general theory of crime, explain how impulsivity, poor self-control, and delinquency are associated. Identify the theorist(s) related to this theory.
Impulsivity is linked to some of the internal instability of the human community, including anti-social behaviour, aggression and abuse. New studies have found that impulsivity is one of the key contributing factors in the criminal personality system. Impulse behaviour is characterized as impulses and cravings to respond in response to a particular outside or contextual sensation. Eysenck, 1977 and Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985 who are proponents of impulsivity, believes that to comprehend crime, it is essential to learn more about brain mechanisms, particularly neurocognitive mechanisms, and their connection to impulsivity, which is a critical factor in violent attitudes, anti-social tendencies, and delinquent behaviours (Higgins et al., 2013). Despite the essence of criminal conduct, people who have low self-control may be risk-taking, reckless, impulsive, and disrespectful to others. Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990 claim that lack of self-control is not only the trigger of violence ( Burt, 2014). however, that low of restraint often triggers certain “comparable” activities. Because individuals who low self-control are disrespectful to others and danger-taking, they are also more likely to encounter difficulties in social interactions.
- What are the two types of offenders, according to Terrie Moffitt? What are the differences in offence patterns for these two groups?
Moffitt’s theory of criminal behaviour indicates that juveniles can be classified into two parts, the teen-restricted category and the career-line determined group (Leaw et al., 2015). The first and more comprehensive sample of teenagers displayed the typical degree of developmental abnormalities in puberty. The deviant behaviour of participants in this category was limited to a brief amount of time in adolescence. The researchers, therefore, identified this category as an adolescent-specific criminal. However, the second and slightly smaller group demonstrates behavioural abnormalities and criminal behaviour from childhood and throughout life. During puberty, these developmental anomalies act as mentors for minimal puberty criminal and cause criminal behaviour (Leaw et al., 2015). Social scientists call this category of lifetime frequent offenders a recurrent life-course inmate. Moffitt relates the mental symptoms in the chronic criminal community to cognitive disorders. However, there are no cognitive disorders in the adolescence-limited category of offenders; their unsociable activity is triggered by communication with juvenile peers.
- Briefly describe arguments for and against the legalization of drugs
Drugs should not be legalized because the boundary that separates what is permissible and what is not legitimate. Alcohol, another brain-altering drug, is known to be a determinant in a lot of violent offences and traffic deaths, yet it is still permissible. Tobacco kills far more people than liquor and opioids combined, and it is always safe. We equate opioids with violence and crime, but that is because they are prohibited. Drug addicts themselves are seldom aggressive, and imprisonment rates have a significant negative impact on minorities.
Drugs should be legalized in the United States because where drugs are illegal, the authority is unable to follow requirements of consistency, effectiveness or toxicity. As a result, illicit drugs are sometimes toxic or orally ingested, causing sickness and even death of those who use them. Legalizing drugs is not going to curb the abuse. Lawbreakers will never stop being delinquents, drug traffickers and dealers will just switch to other sources to earn money. But if we legalize drugs, there will already be a black market. Marketing to children would undoubtedly be unlawful and controlled rates would be reduced.
- Describe the two different types of shoplifting offenders. What are their motivations for stealing? Describe two ways retailers can reduce and/or prevent shoplifting.
The juvenile steals mostly for fun or to achieve popularity in a peer group. The bulk of the robbers are children. They usually work in clubs, but not always in criminal gangs. The kleptomaniac steals impulsively anytime he gets the desire; there are very few real kleptomaniacs (Lasky & Fisher, 2015). Usually, the kleptomaniac becomes anxious and timid.
One way the retailers can reduce shoplifting is by Serve our clients as efficiently and effectively as necessary. Clients who are directly greeted will enjoy the service and Shoplifters will recognize this is not the time or place to try stealing. Another way is by locking up luxury items that are tempting to shoplifters. A show featuring these products should be put in a spot in which more than one salesperson can see them.
References
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2016). The psychology of criminal conduct. Taylor & Francis.
Whyte, D. (2016). It’s common sense, stupid! Corporate crime and techniques of neutralization in the automobile industry. Crime, Law and Social Change, 66(2), 165-181.
Ugwudike, P. (2015). An introduction to critical criminology. Policy Press.
Higgins, G. E., Kirchner, E. E., Ricketts, M. L., & Marcum, C. D. (2013). Impulsivity and offending from childhood to young adulthood in the United States: a developmental trajectory analysis. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 8(2).
Burt, C. H. (2014). Self-control and crime: A sociological perspective. The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology.
Leaw, J. N., Ang, R. P., Huan, V. S., Chan, W. T., & Cheong, S. A. (2015). Re-examining of Moffitt’s theory of delinquency through agent-based modelling. PLoS One, 10(6).
Lasky, N. V., & Fisher, B. S. (2015). Shoplifting. The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, 1-4.