Criminology 2017 - notes PDF

Preview

Summary

notes...

Description

Mednick et al (1987) Mednicks research method was an adoption study (retrospective correlational) with an aim to find out whether criminal behaviour is largely genetic (inherited). The participants were 14000 adopted Danish men born between 1924-1947. He compared the men’s criminal records with those of their biological parents and their adopted parents. Mednicks results where that the men whose biological parents were criminals were nearly twice as likely to become criminals as those whose biological parents were not criminals and that those whose biological parents were criminals were more likely to become criminals than those whose adoptive parents were criminals. There was also a strong correlation between biological parents and their sons for theft and that related brothers raised in different families were more likely to both be criminals than unrelated brothers raised in the same family. He came to a conclusion that genes play a large role in criminal behaviour, though environment also has an effect. 1There were limitations to his theory though because some criminal records might not be reliable as some offenders may not have been caught or might have been convicted wrongly. Also most of the adoptees spent some time with their biological parents before moving to adoptive parents, which might have had an effect even at a young age known as contamination effect. The sample was biased – the participants were all male, so the findings cannot be generalised to females.2

1 Dorothy Stringer, ‘Criminal Behaviour’ (Dorothy Stringer) Accessed 20 February 2017 2 Hodder, ‘Criminal Behaviour’ (Hodder Plus ) Accessed 20 February 2017

Hans Eysenck (1959-1975) was a theorist who focused on personality traits as broad behavioural elements that define who you are, like calm or easily excited. Eysenck described ones personality as a hierarchy of traits. According to him personality traits are genetically inherited. Eysenck’s theory of personality focused on two dimensions of higher-order traits, extraversion vs introversion and emotional stability vs neuroticism or emotional instability. Extroverts are commonly known as being loud and outgoing while introverts are often thought as quiet and reserved. Eysenck described extraversion and introversion differently, looking at their natural states of arousal. He said that introverts have a higher natural base level of excitation and therefore do no need to seek out stimulating environments. Extroverts have a lower base arousal and choose enviroments that provide more stimulation. Eysenck viewed offending as natural and even rational, on the assumption that human beings were hedonistic, sought pleasure and avoided pain. He assumed that delinquent acts such as theft, violence and vandalism were essentially pleasurable or beneficial to the offender. In order to explain why everyone was not a criminal, Eysenck suggested that the hedonistic tendency to commit crimes was opposed by the conscience which he viewed as a conditioned fear response. Eysenck later added psychoticism as the third factor. He stated that a person will exhibit some qualities commonly among psychotics and that they may be more susceptible, given certain enviroments to become psychotic. Many proposals have been given lining Eysenck’s theory of psychoticism scale to the level of creativity in people. More creative people generally have higher psychoticism scores than people with lower creativity.3 One weakness of Eysenck’s theory is that it has been criticised due to its failure to produce evidence that introverts and extroverts’ condition differently and one strength is that it offers a strong experimental approach to the study of personality, which means it is a testable theory and as a result of this it has served as a good role model to many other personality theories.4

3 Saul McLeod, ‘Theories of personality’ (Simply Psychology, 2014) Accessed 20 February 2017 4 psue4a, ‘Eysenck three personality trait theory’(Slide share, Mar 12, 2013) Accessed 20 February 2017

Robert K Merton (1938) was an American sociologist who developed strain theory in the 1940s. Structural strain theory explains deviant behaviour as an inevitable outcome of the strain individuals experience when society does not provide adequate and approved means to achieve culturally valued goals Merton's main concern was that societies, such as the United States, do not provide the means to achieve cultural goals. For example, for citizens to achieve the American Dream, society needs to provide access to education, employment, etc., and Merton felt that the United States wasn't doing a good enough job. When individuals are faced with a gap between 'what ought to be' and 'what is,' they will feel strained and have a choice between five modes of adaptation. 5 These are: Conformity: Those who conform choose not to deviate. They pursue their goals to the extent that they can through socially accepted means. Innovation: Those who innovate pursue goals they cannot reach through legitimate means by instead using criminal or deviant means. Ritualism: People who ritualize lower their goals until they can reach them through socially acceptable ways. These members of society focus on conformity rather than attaining a distant dream. Retreatism: Others retreat and reject society’s goals and means. Some beggars and street people have withdrawn from society’s goal of financial success and lastly rebellion: A handful of people rebel, replacing a society’s goals and means with their own. Terrorists or freedom fighters look to overthrow a society’s goals through socially unacceptable means.6 Using this theory, the high levels economic inequality experienced by minorities, together with continuing discrimination based on race and ethnicity mean that minorities are far less likely to be able to achieve approved social goals through conventional means. The strengths of this theory were that it explains how normal and deviant individuals can arise even whilst sharing the same goals (conformity and innovation) and the reasons for crime and deviance as a result of social strain it also explains why working class crime rates may be higher and how different individuals of different positions in the social structure resort to different adaptations.

5 Ashley Crossman, ‘Understanding Structural Strain Theory’ (Sociology, February 2017) Accessed February 2017 6 ‘Émile Durkheim: The Essential Nature of Deviance’ (Archive) Accessed February 2017

Carol Smart (1977) put forward a number of reasons why research on women and crime has been limited. Women tend to commit fewer crimes than men, so female offenders are seen as less of a problem for society. Most crimes committed by women seem to be of a comparatively trivial nature. There are three major approaches to explaining the relationship between women and offending: biological & Physiological explanations, sex-role theory and transgression7. Carol Smart introduced the idea of transgressive criminology. By this, Smart was suggesting that criminology itself as a discipline was tied to male questions and concerns and that it could never offer answers to feminist questions. Transgression in the feminist sense of the word is used to describe going beyond the boundaries of criminology. Transgression is a good example of postmodern influence in sociology. It was in response to the need for a feminist version of criminology, i.e. one that answered the concerns of women, that Carol Smart introduced the idea of a transgressive criminology. By this, Smart was suggesting that criminology itself as a discipline was tied to male -questions and concerns and that it could never offer answers to feminist questions. Instead of trying to produce a feminist criminology by asking the question, 'What can feminism offer criminology?', feminists should be arguing, 'What can criminology offer feminists?' The answer to this question lay in looking at a whole range of activities (both legal and illegal) that actually harm women, and asking how these came about and how they could be changed. The term 'transgression', in this context then, meant to go beyond the boundaries of criminology. This did lead to feminists (and sympathetic male sociologists) looking more closely at things such as: the way women stayed in at night for fear of becoming victims, domestic violence and how women were treated by the law in issues of rape and harassment.8

7 C N Trueman, ‘who commits crime?’ (History Learning, 25 May 2015) Accessed 20 February 2017 8 William Little, ‘Chapter 7. Deviance, Crime, and Social Control’ (open text)

Accessed 20 February 2017

Bibliography Dorothy Stringer, ‘Criminal Behaviour’ (Dorothy Stringer)...