Criminology - Positivism, Biological & Psychological Positivism & Contemporary Classicism PDF

Preview

Summary

These are comprehensive, well-structured Introduction to Criminology Notes that cover the concepts, theories, quotes and research evidences extracted from a plethora of books. Topics included are Positivism, Biological Positivism, Psychological Positivism & Contemporary Classicism. These notes have ...

Description

Positivism • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

Mission of positivism was the reduction/even elimination of crime. Early biological theories of criminality focused on physical attributes & appearance. Criminality was associated with abnormality/defectiveness. Biologically inferior – most likely to become involved in deviant activities. Physiognomy – facial features Phrenology – external shape of skull was indicative of size, shape & nature of brain Joseph Gall – size & nature of brain, contours of skull; ‘murder organ’ – murderers’ brain, ‘theft organ’ – convicted thieves Cesare Lombroso – father of modern criminology, ‘The Criminal Man’, ‘The Female Offender’ Criminal was almost a separate species exhibiting a variety of mental & physical characteristics setting them apart. Criminals were born, not made. Epileptic criminal, insane criminal, born criminal, occasional criminal (pseudo criminal, criminaloids, habitual criminal). Emerged in late nineteenth & early twentieth centuries – criminal anthropology & eugenics movement. Ferri – Much greater attention is paid to, & influence attributed to, social & environmental factors in explanation of criminality found in Lombroso’s studies. Somatyping – William Sheldon (body shape to behaviour) - Endomorph, Mesomorph, Ectomorph (Somatypes/ Body types) - Viscerotonic, Somotonic, Cerebrotonic (Temperaments/ Personalities) Criminal career research & developmental criminology – Gluecks’ Impact of positivism – Determinism, Differentiation, Pathology Classicism – Offence; Free-willed, rational, calculating, normal; Punishment – proportionate Positivism – Offender; Determined, driven by biological, psychological/other influences, pathological; Treatment, indeterminate – depends on individual circumstances

1

Biological Positivism [Genetic factors] • • •

‘No question that genetic influences are important to criminal & other forms of antisocial behaviour’ – Baker et al., 2010: 34 James Q. Wilson & Richard Hernnstein’s (1985) work - Crime & Human Nature Hollin (1992: 30) quotes Plomin (1990).

[Eugenics & ‘feeble-mindedness’] • • • • • • • • • •

•

Eugenics, linked physiological inadequacy of some form to criminality. ‘Social Darwinists’ believed that a process akin to natural selection, if left largely undisturbed, would result in an increasingly healthy society. Eugenic = ‘well-born’ – Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin) Eugenics sought to explain human behaviour through genetics. Traits that led either to success/to failure in life were believed to be transmitted from generation to generation. Katz & Abel (1984) suggest that the primary characteristic identified with individual failure was ‘feeble-mindedness’ – linked with pauperism, promiscuity & criminality. Positive eugenics focused its policy prescriptions on attempts to improve the gene pool, essentially through encouraging the genetically well endowed to reproduce mire frequently. Negative eugenics – greatest controversy. 4 main policy initiatives (permanent segregation, sterilization, restrictive marriage policies, restrictive immigration policies). Advances in intelligence testing made it increasingly problematic to define individuals as ‘feeble-minded’ & developments in genetics undermined the geneticists’ views of heredity. A study by Osborn & West in 1970s – Criminal conduct tends to run in families may be an indicator of the influence of heredity, but might equally be an indicator of the influence of environmental factors such as socialisation & peer group. Moffitt (2005) – Studies of genetic influence on anti-social behaviour ‘conclude that genes influence 40% to 50% of population variation in anti-social behaviour’ - Clearest ways of testing is to see whether family members are more similar in behaviour than would be explained by genetic make-up or, alternatively, are less similar in behaviour. - Looking at identical/non- identical twins/ children adopted at birth.

[Twin Studies] •

Twins share a genetic make-up, but may differ in their wider social experiences (monozygotic, dizygotic). 2

• • •

•

•

• •

Identical twins, separated at birth, should display similar offending patterns if it’s inherited traits that are more important in explaining behaviour. Christiansen (1977) – high rate of criminal concordance; impossible to separate heredity from other factors, some concordance found might be product of shared environments. Dalgaard & Kringlen (1976) – identical twins shared a particularly close psychological bond & that it was this rather than their genetic make-up which explained the apparent similarity in behaviour. Ohio twin study, by Rowe & Rogers – genetic influences partly affected the behaviour of both same -sex & monozygotic twins, but accepted that the similarities were mediated by social & psychological factors. - overall finding was of a relatively high level of concordance among identical wins (Raine (1993) Limitations: 1. Methological limitations. 2. Level of concordance is relatively low. 3. Gender imbalance, labelling caused mistaken identity, wrong data. 4. Concordance doesn’t demonstrate genetic impact, may be because of broader environmental factors, e.g.: similarities in socialization (grow up in same household, particularly close, treated similarly by parents) – impossible to separate out environmental & genetic influences. Some studies explore impact of genetics whilst attempting to control environmental factors (e.g.: siblings who don’t grow up together). Nature vs nurture debate (physical/psychological make-up or social context).

[Adoption] • • •

•

•

Hutchings & Mednick (1977) – adoptees with criminal record had a higher proportion of biological mothers & fathers with criminal records than adoptees with no criminal record. Crowe (1974) – adopted children whose biological mothers had criminal records had higher offending rates than those whose mothers had no records. Bohman (1995) – in cases where biological & adoptive parents had criminal records there was a 40% chance the child would develop a criminal record compared with 12% chance where adoptive parents had no criminal record. Gottfredson & Hirschi – true genetic effect on the likelihood of criminal behaviour is somewhere between 0 & the results finally reported by Mednick. We suspect that the magnitude of this effect if minimal. Limitations: 1. Children who are adopted are placed in environments that resemble those fromwhich they were taken in some important respects.

3

2. By no means the case that children are always adopted immediately after birth (potential for early formative influences to take place & affect later behaviour patterns). 3. Mis-classification of ‘twins’. 4. Nature of data, official records rather than self-report measures are used. [Chromosomal anomalies] • • •

XYY hypermasculine offender, labelled ‘supermale syndrome’, especially aggressive & somewhat lacking in intelligence. Association between extra Y chromosome & offending behaviour, but not violent crime. Genetic influence was indirect/ non-specific.

[Genetics & offending] • • • • • •

Interaction between biology & environment that’s important in explaining human behaviour. Bohman (1978) – genetic predisposition to alcoholism increases the likelihood of criminal behaviour. Sherman et al (1997) – genetic basis for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) & impulsivity. ‘Poor heredity’ may exacerbate difficulties encountered in particular social circumstances, thereby increasing the likelihood of offending. Genetic make-up provides individuals with particular predispositions, but these only become realities under particular social/environmental circumstances. Ainsworth (2000: 72) – If there’s a link between genetics & criminal behaviour it’s perhaps that some aspects of personality have a genetic component. Thus, what’s inherited is not a tendency to commit criminal acts as such, but rather a predisposition to develop certain aspects of personality, some of which may be linked to criminal behaviour.

[Biochemical factors] {Central nervous system} •

• •

Research in prisons has found higher levels – Gunn & Bonn (1971) found a prevalence rate of 0.71%, while research in America found over 2% of prisoners had a history of seizures. (Whitman et al., 1984) 1. Automatism – offences are committed without the perpetrator being aware of it. 2. Possibility that certain forms of epilepsy are linked with increased aggression & violence. Hollin (1992: 37) concludes that there’s ‘no compelling reason to believe that epilepsy & abnormal EEGs are major determinants of juvenile delinquency’.

4

{ADHD & brain dysfunction} • •

• • • •

• •

• •

•

•

• •

‘Minimal brain dysfunction’ – associated with children & adolescents that consists of a group of factors associated with abnormal/inappropriate behaviour & cognition. ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) - impulsivity (acting without thinking through the consequences) - hyperactivity (excessive activity) - inattentiveness (failure to concentrate) Children with ADHD find interacting with others problematic ⇒ problems & frustrations ⇒ aggression & violence ADHD – associated with biological causes such as genetic predisposition, brain damage & neurological immaturity. (Wender, 2002) Farrington et al. (1980) – connection between typical ADHD measures of conduct problems & offending patterns. (Unnever, 2003) Low cognitive abilities & low IQ & in young men coming from large families with parents likely to have criminal history & who were most likely to progress to lengthy & chaotic criminal careers. Young men who had more mundane criminal behaviour as adolescents, but progressed later to persistent adult offending. Limitations: 1. Focused on males, little about female behaviour & offending. 2. May be some link between brain dysfunction & certain behaviours, no exclusion of social factors. Possibility that tissue damage resulting from some form of physical injury may have an impact on later behaviour. Kandel & Mednick (1991) – complications in pregnancy not linked to later offending, whereas complications in delivery (ruptured perineum/ uterus) appear to be linked, though only when combined with other factors. Raine & colleagues (1997) – combination of delivery complications & maternal rejection in first year of life was connected with heightened risk of involvement in serious violent crime at age of 18. Terri Moffitt – ‘life-course persistent offenders’, associated with drug use & poor nutrition during pregnancy, birth complication resulting in minor brain damage, deprivation of affection/ abuse in early childhood. Miller (1996) – offenders more likely to have suffered such damage than offenders, though whether injury ⇒ offending or offending ⇒ injury remains unclear. Raine & colleagues (1994) – violent behaviour probably involves disruption of a network of multiply interacting brain mechanisms that predispose to violence in the presence of other social, environmental & psychological predispositions.

5

•

Methological difficulties: 1. People who are violent & get into fights are more likely to suffer brain damage. 2. Based on samples with higher than average levels of disadvantages (disproportionate levels of offending). 3. Pre-/post- injury studies tend to be based on most seriously injured people (unrepresentative).

{Neurotransmitters} • •

•

Serotonin – reduce aggressiveness by inhibiting responses to external emotional stimuli Dopamine & norepinephrine – counteract the inhibitory impact of serotonin. Raine (1993) – Meta-analysis suggests that studies consistently find lower levels of serotonin in people described as ‘anti-social’, though findings in relation to the other 2 neurotransmitters were less clear out. Limitations: 1. Alcohol in sufficient quantities – affect neurotransmitter levels & aggressiveness.. 2. Diet. 3. Not at all clear, what measures of aggressiveness/violence are being used, & whether these are used consistently between experimental & control groups.

{Laterality} • • • •

Early studies – linkage between left-sidedness & delinquency, though much of this may simply have reflected social responses & other environmental factors .. Stigma & labelling had other adverse consequences, including some delinquent behaviour. Association between certain cognitive & personality factors & predominance of 1 hemisphere over the other. Left-handed ⇒ right-hemisphere dominant ⇒ less verbally able ⇒ linked with levels of selfcontrol ⇒ linked to anti-social conduct.

{Autonomic nervous system} • • •

ANS measurement – lie detectors (via sweat glands in the hands ⇒ degree of arousal). Slow responsiveness = Individuals require strong stimuli to arouse them, linked to poor learning skills, in relation to aversion; Characteristics of offender groups. Raine (1996) – evidences to suggest that anti-social individuals are characterized by underarousal & that aggressive children may be stimulation seekers who are relatively fearless.

6

{Hormones/Testosterone} • • • • • • • •

Raine (1993) – evidence from research on animals that testosterone is an important factor in aggressiveness. Hollin (1992) – Delinquency & aggressiveness tend to be pronounced during & just after puberty. Thus may be changes in hormonal activity that explain such changes in behaviour. Persky et al. (1971) – correlation between rate of production & level of testosterone & measures of hostility in males. Booth & Osgood (1993) – Link between testosterone levels & adult offending. Controlled for ‘social integration’ lessened the link. Limited research on impact of hormone levels on women’s behaviour & the role they play in menstrual cycle & potential psychological & behavioural consequences that result. Herbert & Tennent (1974) – Disturbed women in a security hospital were more likely to be confined as a result of behavioural problems during the pre-menstrual week. Allen (1984) – Idea of premenstrual tension (PMT) has been used successfully in mitigation in criminal trials. Difficulties: 1. Increased hormone levels -> Increased aggressiveness or Heightened aggressiveness increase hormone levels (both directions). 2. Situational factors -> Increased hormone levels -> Heightened aggression.

[Nutrition] •

•

• • •

•

Tuormaa (1994) – Low blood sugar/hypoglycaemia has been associated with a number of behavioural problems (violence, alcoholism, hyperactivity, learning difficulties). Food allergies & food additives with hyperactivity & attention-deficit disorder. Gesch et al. (2002) – Vitamin &/or mineral deficiencies/excesses linked with criminality/anti-social behaviour. - Excess levels of lead in bloodstream linked with slow learning ability, hyperactivity & low intelligence. - Deficiency of vitamin B complex, linked with aggression & erratic behaviour. Schoenthaler (1983) – changes in diet lead to substantial decline in reported incidents of violence. Poor scientific design – not using control groups & failing clearly to quantify changes in sugar intake. Gesch & colleagues (2002:26) – ‘Supplementing prisoners’ diets with physiological dosages of vitamins, minerals & essential fatty acids caused a reduction in anti-social behaviour to a remarkable degree’. May have been other factors, e.g. nature of prison life (mediating effect on behaviour).

7

•

4 overlapping theoretical obstacles: 1. Nihilistic relativism = Crude rejections of positivism, deny the existence of a reality that is ‘out there’ & which might be studied & about which claims might be made. 2. Oversocialized gaze = Views that in focusing on the environmental influences on behaviour tend to ignore/deny the role of biology altogether. 3. Genetic fatalism = Tendency to interpret any mention of the role of genetics as implying inevitability rather than influence (i.e. to assume that to talk of biological influence is to be deterministic). 4. Bio-phobia = Something close to an automatic hostility to any suggestion that biology could have much, to offer in terms of explaining human social behaviour.

[Summary] 1. Biological factors almost certainly have some role in the determination of criminal conduct. 2. The extent of this role is generally very small. 3. Such effects are heavily mediated by, or only occur in interaction with broader social/environmental factors.

8

Psychological Positivism [Psychoanalysis & crime] •

• •

•

Freud’s psychoanalytical theories: 1. Id = Aspect of personality that is unconscious, includes primitive & instinctual behaviours & is the primary component of personality. Driven by pleasure principle & seeks immediate gratification of desires. 2. Ego = Element of personality which enables id to function in socially acceptable ways, based around reality principle. Ego helps to discharge tensions created through unmet desires. 3. Superego = Part of the unconscious mind. Contains all the internalized moral & social standards which guide behaviour. 2 parts: i. Ego ideal – containing all those socially approved standards ii. Conscience – includes info about negative views of particular behaviours. Source of guilt. Freud view humans as inherently anti-social. It’s the regulation/control of their pleasureseeking impulses that makes them social & able to survive. 1. Id is opposed by functioning of ego guided by reality principle. 2. Ego itself is guided by superego as part of the process of regulating id. Contemporary psychonalytic theory: superego is partly conceived of as a conscience which works to neutralize impulses that run contrary to internalized moral results. ⇓ Superego represents the internalization of group norms. ⇓ Inadequate formation/functioning of superego leading to psychoanalytic account of crime

•

1. Harsh superego - Existence -> Extreme guilt -> Acting-out the behaviour that subconsciously invites punishment. - Similar to neuroses & in version such criminality is a product of unconscious guilt over infantile desires. - Represent substitute for security/for status needs don’t met elsewhere. 2. Weak superego - Associated with self-centredness, impulsivity & psychopathy. - Individuals are portrayed as egocentric & lacking in guilt.

9

-

•

Primitive & instinctual needs displayed by id are subjected to insufficient regulation by superego. John Bowlby – ‘maternal deprivation’ linked to juvenile delinquency; individuals showing ‘affectionless character’.

3. Deviant superego - Superego standards develop normally, but deviant. - Maybe a result of close attachment between child & criminal parent -> absence of guilt about particular behaviours. Blackburn (1993) – psychodynamic theories rest on 3 major claims: 1. Socialisation depends on the internalization of society’s rules during early childhood. 2. Impaired parent-infant relationships are casually related to later criminal behaviour. 3. Unconscious conflicts arising from disturbed family relationships at different stages of development (particularly oedipal stage) are causes of some criminal acts. ⇓ Psychoanalysis fails to account, in particular age distribution of offending. Not able to explain the generalized desistance from delinquency that occurs in late adolescence.

[Bowlby & ‘Maternal deprivation’] • • • • •

•

•

Children require consistent & continuous care from a primary care-giver until the age of 5. Disruption to this relationship -> child may have difficulty later in establishing relationships. Role of ‘broken homes’ & ‘latchkey children’ in delinquency, & about family dysfunction more generally. Link problems within the family to delinquency in children. Criticised: 1. N...