Pre-Destined Actor Model - Biological PDF

Preview

Summary

Pre-destined actor model biological...

Description

Pre-destined Actor Model: Biological Positivism What is the Pre-destined Actor Model? Complete opposite of classicism PAM is a family of theories which all agree that: - Criminal behaviour is pre-determined (not free will or voluntary) - Human beings are NOT rational actors - Crime is best understood by studying the offender not the offence

Classism VS Positivism Classism - Criminal was rational with free will - Social control - Concerned with what ought to be - Crimes should be punished to deter crime - Equal punishment for equal crimes Positivism - Criminal behaviour was determined - Concerned with what is - Criminal behaviour should be normalised through treatment - Less emphasis on the law - The punishment should fit the criminal, not the offence What is individual positivism? Both biological and psychological positivism assume that - Factors that govern criminal behaviour are internal - Criminals are born with these factors – innate - Though some say internal factors might be acquired (TBI) And both agree that - Criminals are fundamentally different to law abiding citizens - Possible to differentiate criminals from non-criminals – criminals are abnormal - Studying individual differences is a key to explaining crime Biological positivism Causes of crime lie within biology or physiology of the offender e.g. - Evolution and atavism - Inherited traits (chromosomes) - Genetics – criminal gene - Brain abnormalities (structure and functioning) - Biochemicals (hormones, neurotransmitters)

Early influences – Evolution Charles Darwin (1809-1892) Ø Importantly, broke Classicist view that humanity is a separate life form to other animals (and therefore only humans have free-will) Ø Animal species (inc. humans) evolve through a process of natural selection – adapt to changing environment or life pressures Ø Argued that animal & human behaviour is a scientific issue and so should be studied scientifically (i.e. like natural sciences) Foundation of Biological Positivism Lombroso 1835-1909 Ø Founder of the Italian Positivist School = Ø Argued criminals were biological throwbacks to a more primitive stage of human evolution - “atavists” Ø Naturally find it more difficult to behave in a civilised manner Ø “Atavism” also manifests in physical appearance Ø If we learn to identify the physical characteristics of atavism, we can spot a “born criminal” before they commit crime Science Ø The search for “scientific truths” – concerned with developing factual knowledge of criminals Ø Emphasis on objectivity (separate from values, beliefs, philosophy and theorising) Ø Generating and testing research hypotheses (inductive approach) Ø Based on observation and systematic collection of data Ø Rigorous and robust analysis of empirical evidence Observations Ø Early work from autopsies on male criminals, but later examined living men Ø L’Uomo Delinquente (1876) - “On Criminal Man” Ø “At the sight of the skull, I seemed to see all of a sudden…the problem of the nature of the criminal – an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals.” (Lombroso quoted by Wolfgang in Mannheim 1972: p248)

Atavistic Characteristics Ø Receding hairline Ø Forehead wrinkles Ø Bumpy face Ø Broad nose Ø Hawk-like nose Ø Fleshy lips Ø Jug ears Ø Sparse beards Ø Taller than average

Ø Thick hair Ø Protruding chins Ø Beady eyes Ø Murderers = cold glassy bloodshot eyes, abundant curly hair, strong jaws, long ears, thin lips Sex offenders = slanting eyes, strong jaws, thick lips, projecting The born criminal Ø Males with five or more of these characteristics could be marked as born criminals. Ø For women, only three of these characteristics marked them as a born criminal. Enrico Ferri (1856-1929) – Critique of Lombroso Ø Criminal lawyer interested in the causes of criminality Ø Worked with Lombroso in a critique of classicism Ø Psychological conditions cause crime Ø How can you still believe in the existence of free will, when modern psychology, armed with all the instruments of positive modern research denies that there is any free will. (Ferri 1917:54) Ø Dismissed Lombroso's physical traits models Ø “In the first place, all criminals are in one sense born criminals… All criminals possess a predisposition to crime, which is not the effect of external circumstances, but of something residing in the individual moral organisation, in his manner of feeling and thinking. And if he is without a predisposition to crime, he will it, whatever be the occasion (Garofalo,1882). Raffaele Garofalo (1852-1934) - Critique of Lombroso Influenced by Darwinism - Social Darwinism was the social progress of mankind - Survival of the fittest - Criminals lack moral concern for others 4 classes of criminals - Murders: lacks any altruism (humanity) - Violent criminal: lacks pity - Thieves: lack probity - Sexual offenders: deficient moral perceptions Lombroso- critique - Ignored women - Believed women are more primitive but more passive so rarely commit crime - Crimes limits to prostitution and abortion – viewed women as more impure than criminals - When women do commit serious crimes, they are ‘doubly deviant’ - Crime varies from place to place and also in time

-

Ferrero (Lombroso’s successor) placed more emphasis on environmental (geography, temperature etc) and social (religion, culture, etc) factors Developed a typology that included ‘socially produced criminals - born criminal - insane criminal - occasional criminal - criminal of passion

Lombroso – moving forward... Application of scientific enquiry highly influential in criminology Application of scientific enquiry highly influential in criminology Acknowledged that we probably cannot explain all crimes in the same way Recognised we need multi-factor theories of crime that incorporate biological, psychological and social factors Modern Advances: Sheldon (1949) - Three body types or ‘somatotypes’ - - endomorph – soft and round, short tapering limbs, velvety skin - - mesomorph- muscular, large trunk, heavy chest, large wrists and hands - - ectomorph- lean, fragile, delicate body, droopy shoulders -

Observed that delinquent males (60%) more often mesomorphic than nondelinquent males (31%) social selection of body types - biology + social environment = bio-social approach Recent evidence – link between diet and criminal behaviour

Modern advances: inheritance Basic premise = biological traits that lead to criminal behaviour transmitted from generation to generation Many empirical studies claimed to support such ideas including… Ø Criminal family studies (e.g. Dugdale, 1877; Goring, 1913) Ø Twin studies (e.g. Lange, 1930; Christiansen, 1974) Ø Adoption Studies (e.g. Hutchings & Mednick, 1977) Twin studies - Monozygotic (MZ) = identical twins - Dizygotic (DZ)= non-identical twins - Concordance = presence of same traits/behaviour in both twins - Lange (1930) – 13 MZ twins (77% concordance) and 17 DZ twins (12% concordance) - Christiansen (1974) – 6,000 twin pairs between 1881-1910 – MZ twins 38% concordance vs. DZ twins 12% concordance Problems with twin studies: Ø Methodological problems: Ø Some twins could not be traced

Ø Crime data – self-report unreliable, and not all crime recorded Ø All types of criminal behaviour taken as evidence for inheritance Ø Grown up in same environment (nature-nurture debate) Ø MZ twins treated more similarly (esp. as always same gender) Ø Strength of bond between MZ twins might account for similarity in behaviour

Adoption Studies (e.g. Hutchings & Mednick, 1977) Ø Children of criminal parents who are adopted soon after birth by non-family members Ø Those with criminal biological parents more likely to be criminal themselves – evidence of inheritance Ø The biological parents’ criminality seemed to have more bearing than the adopted parents Ø But if both sets of parents have criminal record – child’s criminality even more likely

Chromosomes and criminality Ø Chromosomes are structures in cells which govern individual characteristics: Ø Humans have 23 pairs, one of which are sex chromosomes: Ø Females XX and males XY Ø Abnormalities, eg. male with EXTRA Y (XYY) Ø Can occur via: Ø Genetic transmission (inherited). Ø Genetic ‘mutation’ at conception. Ø Price & Whatmore (1967) studied “supermales” with XYY (extra Y male chromosome) Ø 1 in 1000 males Ø XYY noted to be unusually tall, aggressive criminals, low intelligence, alcoholics Ø But is this a causal link? Largely discredited. Ø Often link genes to physical/mental health, but less inclined to link genes to behaviour Modern Advances: Brain Abnormalities Ø Structural abnormalities (e.g. trauma, lesions, decay) and functional abnormalities (e.g. reduced blood flow) Ø Lots of evidence for brain abnormalities in psychiatric diagnoses associated with unpredictable, aggressive or hostile behaviour (e.g. ADHD, psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder) Ø No single brain region implicated in criminal behaviour: Ø e.g. left temporal lobe (language), frontal lobe (cognitive function), insular cortex and amygdala (empathy)

Biochemical Factors

Hormones Ø Males responsible for more crime than women, and heightened delinquency in puberty Ø Thus, excessive testosterone thought to be linked to criminal behavior (especially violent and sexual) Ø More recently, testosterone a precursor to violence but requires trigger. Ø Women – PMT and hormonal fluctuations? Neurotransmitters (“brain messengers”) Ø Responsible for the production/inhibition of behavior Ø Particular interest in serotonin and dopamine – regulation of aggression (among other things) Ø Evidence of an imbalance among criminals, though uncertainty regarding the exact nature Implication of individual positivism Implication for punishment Ø Cannot punish for vengeance (retributivist) because offenders lack control over their behaviour (i.e. pre-determined rather than voluntary) Ø Cannot punish for deterrence-effect (reductivist) because offenders lack the capacity for rational thought The goal for positivist school is ‘social defence’ 1) Eliminate or incapacitate criminals to ensure the survival of society (survival of the fittest) 2) Make criminals ‘safe’ to live in a society 3) – reduce the likelihood that they will re-offend (reductivist) 4) – but this can only be achieved through rehabilitation 5) -‘treat’ offenders so that they are cured of the predisposing condition that causes criminality Ø Specific ‘treatment’ depends on perceived causes of crime: Ø Atavism, inheritance or genetics: Ø Eugenics or social engineering Ø Brain abnormalities: Ø Ppsychosurgery Ø Psycho-pharmacological treatment Ø Biochemical imbalances: Ø Psycho-pharmacological treatment Ø ‘Chemical castration’ Implication for courts and sentencing - Includes a rejection of legal responsibility (i.e. no determination of guilt or innocence) - Proportionality replaced by consideration of ‘danger’ (i.e. sentencing is a response to the offender rather than the offence)

-

Rejects uniformity sentencing – responses should be individualised according to offenders’ characteristics Judges/juries replaced by scientific experts

Strengths of Individual Positivism -

Positivism represents a break with speculation and philosophy (classicism) and a move towards an empirical (scientific) study

-

In the eyes of society ‘comforting’ to think of offenders as different

-

Often regarded as more humane

-

Not blaming others, informing rehabilitation (treatment) rather than punishment, recognition of individual differences promotes fairness and equality in CJS

Weaknesses of Individual Positivism -

Removal of responsibility from the offender

-

Pure deterministic approach might suggest crime is inevitable for some individuals

-

Determinism does not equal certainty, rather increased likelihood of criminality

-

If we can identify criminals before then commit crime, should we intervene before they have the opportunity to do so?

-

The use of biological therapies seems to suggest a world in which big brother curbs our right to be different

SUMMARY    

PAM assumes behaviour is pre-determined (OPPOSITE OF RAM) Argues for innate biological/psychological causes Biological factors almost certainty have some role in criminal behaviour, but the precise nature and size of the contribution is still unclear PAM favours rehabilitation (not deterrence and rehabilitation) and fairness and equality in CJS...