SO505 - crime and deviance revision notes PDF

Preview

Summary

entire course revision notes ...

Description

Positivism -Born bad’. Discuss. Are some people more biologically prone to commit crime than others? Dangers of BP. -Biological positivism is based on the belief that criminals are physiologically different from non-criminals and suggests that the cause of crime is biological inferiority. Traditional biological theories suggest that criminal behaviour is a result of a defect within the individual whereas more modern biological theories search for a link between for example, testosterone and IQ. Even though modern theories share a biological link they also understand that larger society has an influence on an individual’s choice to commit crime. This essay will examine whether some people are more biologically prone to commit crime than others and assess the dangers of biological positivism. -Lombroso rejected the Classical School theory which believed that crime was a characteristic of human nature and instead believed that a person’s bodily constitution indicates whether or not an individual is a "born criminal." These "born criminals" are atavistic, throwbacks to an earlier stage of evolution life with the physical makeup, mental capabilities, and instincts of primitive man. Lombroso studied abnormalities such as the dimensions of skull and jaw, and asymmetries of the face and body and referred to these various anomalies as stigmata. He advocated that criminals could be identified by these types of features. Lombroso declared that males with five or more of these characteristics could be marked as born criminals. Females, on the other hand, only needed as few as three of these characteristics to be born criminals. Lombroso also believed that tattoos were markings of born criminals because they stood as evidence of both immortality and insensitivity to physical pain. As a result, Lombroso’s work was criticised for encouraging stereotyping and consequent discrimination towards individuals who possessed the characteristics Lombroso referred to. -Goring studied 3000 inmates and disproved Lombroso’s theory that criminals show certain phsyical abnormalities when compared to the general population. Goring found the difference that criminals were 1-2 inches shorter and 3-7 lbs lighter but attributed these differences to hereditary inferiority, thus rejecting biological explanations of crime. One of the dangers of Lombroso’s theory is that it was used to support arguments favouring eugenics - for example, the Nazi Party used Lombroso’s theory to demonstrate that biological devolution was present in the skulls of Jewish people. This of course justified their execution. Positivist Garofalo also concluded that criminal eugenics should be employed in the artificial removal of offenders. Whilst Lombroso's theory of physical abnormality and criminal behaviour has been scientifically discredited, he was however responsible for instigating the importance of the scientific study of the criminal mind. -Sheldon examined 200 photographs and distinguished between three different body types, what he termed ‘somotypes’. These included endomorphs (large and heavy with a outgoing and sociable attitude), Mesomorphs (broad and muscular with an adventurous and aggressive personality) and ectomorphs (thin and bony with a restrained and introverted personality). Mesomorphs, according to Sheldon, are the most prone to commit crime or deviant behaviors. Sheldon's theory has received criticisms stating that Sheldon underestimates the effects that society has on behaviour. Additionally, sheldon’s theory has been deemed unreliable since studies have repeated this experiment and have produced inconsistent results, thus questioning biological explanations of crime. -Y chromosome theory argues that criminals have an extra Y chromosome which results in a strong urge to commit crime. These individuals are sometimes known as the “super male”. Although some studies have found a higher proportion of XYY males compared to XY males in prison, numerous studies have failed to support this theory. This theory along with Lombroso’s and Sheldon’s have been discredited. Today, most criminologists believe that criminal behavior is the product of a complex interaction between biology and environmental or social conditions. This can particularly be seen from the work of the Chicago school. Chicago School established the link between social environment and crime, thus refuting biological explanations of criminality. -Hernstein and Murray’s the bell curve focused on genetic factors, particularly IQ to explain tendencies towards criminal behavior. Reaction to The Bell Curve has generally been negative, with many commentators denouncing the book as a racist product of conservative ideology. Most blacks and Latinos, because of their low IQs, fall in the underclass and it was found that Afro-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately in prison. This finding can assist in explaining why stop and search rates among the black population are high and could be attributed to discrimination and high suspicion. The bell curve also has the danger of portraying crime as a working class problem. The failure to match police ‘typifications’ results in a diversion of attention of corporate criminals and can assist in explaining corporate crime low prosecution rates (Cicourel, 1968). -Biological positivism in general can be critiqued for ignoring the impact of labeling and focusing particularly on biological factors in explaining crime. Just because one’s biological make-up is different does not mean that they will become a criminal. However, one could argue that where individuals are viewed as being criminal due to their biological make-up, this ‘label’ can, as labeling theory suggests, lead to self-fulfilling prophecies which can increase the level of crime. A focus on biology can result in stereotyping offenders. This could divert attention from criminals that do not match the biological characteristics since it results in a targeting of certain types of offenders. In addition, focusing on the bell curve, crimes of the powerful are likely to be ignored as crimes of the ‘underclass’ are likely to be given focal attention. In addition, biological positivism suggests that these individuals are ‘born bad’ thus providing excuses for being criminal. -In conclusion, positivist theories have shown that crime rates can be attributed to biology suggesting that some people may be more biological prone to commit crime. However, since a number of biological positivist theories have been discredited one could argue that biology alone cannot explain crime rates. Biological positivism can have dangers of encouraging eugenics policies, and lead to discrimination and stereotyping. Biology or genetics gives an individual a predisposition to behave in a certain way, but whether a person actually behaves in that way and whether that behavior is defined as a crime depends on environmental or social conditions. Geographies of crime- What are the limitations of crime mapping? Discuss with regard to environmental criminology, both past and present. -Environmental criminologists often use maps to look for crime patterns. Crime mapping using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), allows crime analysts to identify crime hot spots, along with other trends and patterns. Crime analysts use crime mapping and analysis to help law enforcement make better decisions, target resources, formulate strategies, and for tactical analysis. Despite these advantages, crime mapping also holds many disadvantages. This essay will discuss the limitations of crime mapping both past (looking at choropleth maps) and present (the use of computers and GIS). -Crime mapping has a long history but has received greater advent as technology has improved and made mapping far easier. Quetelet, Guerry and Mayhew all utilised choropleth crime maps in their studies of crimes. Choropleth maps indicate the crime committed in certain areas and are shaded or patterned to display the quantities of crimes. A limitation of this method of crime mapping involves human error. For example, unless the map maker has an intimate knowledge of the geographic area being mapped, it can be difficult to detect erroneous addresses in the data set. Furthermore, there is likely to be a margin of error. On large-scale maps it may be difficult to identify errors in placement of points of a couple hundred feet but errors on maps of a smaller-scale are more noticeable and can affect conclusions that one might draw from a map. In addition, choropleth maps are considerably timeconsuming involving hours of work as they are drawn by hand utilising pens, pencils or crayons. If points are misplaced, the maps are required to be redrawn further consuming time. (Paynich and Hill, 2011) (Manning, 2008) -in the past, police departments relied on techniques such as sticking thousands of pins into large maps attached to the wall in order to map crime rates in areas. Such a technique can involve imprecisely pinpointing crime in areas due to the scale of the map not displaying areas in great depth, resulting in police targeting areas where crime is less prominent. A strength of this technique involves the ability to detect clusters of criminal activity, however it does not permit more sophisticated analyses that incorporate other, non-geographic factors, such as modus operandi or time of offense (Boba, 2009). (Manning, 2008) - It was not until the 1960s and 1970s that computerised crime maps became available. The early computers were large and expensive and were only affordable to large agencies. The creation of maps was still labour intensive and maps were of poor quality. The 1980s witnessed the arrival of desktop computers but crime mapping did not advance fully until the 1990s where desktop computers with GIS capabilities were available. This consequently

changed crime mapping through sophisticated technology, faster processing speeds, extensive memory and high printer quality making maps more reliable (Paynich and hill, 2011) -as technology expanded in the 1990s, growth of crime-mapping rapidly increased. With increased sophisticated technology, the ability to create maps has become faster, easier and more efficient. Computerised maps are less labour intensive and maps can be created via pressing buttons on a keyboard rather than having to be hand drawn. Mistakes are easier to rectify and maps can be redrawn with ease. -despite these advantages, computerised maps also have their disadvantages. Although crime mapping computer software has eased the creation of maps, the production of sophisticated maps and their integration into policing have not been straightforward and problem-free. - For more advanced analysis of crime mapping, some knowledge of cartography and GIS is required which may be difficult for small agencies who may be unable to free up personnel for training. In addition, it may be difficult to locate individuals who want to learn this technology. Despite this, Paynich and Hill (2011) argue that most crime mapping software is relatively user-friendly and there are many opportunities to receive training for those who wish to move beyond the manual. Although they recognise that this may be easier for larger agencies with bigger budgets and staff who can devote time to accessing data and learning how to use the software (Paynich and Hill, 2011). - Crime mapping in general does not select all crimes, it only maps certain categories e.g. street crimes. Where crime mapping indicates crime hot spots, police are more likely to target these areas. as middle class individuals fail to match police ‘typifications’ it results in a diversion of attention of corporate criminals (Cicourel, 1968). Thus crime mapping has a tendency of missing crimes that have a bigger impact on society and this can assist in explaining corporate crime low prosecution rates. Situational crime theory proposes that by altering the environment and policing hotspots it can prevent a cycle of deterioration and can lead to a reduction in crime. This is supported by the Kings Cross Project in London which found a continual decrease in the number of street robberies in Kings Cross as a response to the Safer Streets Initiative which ran from the period of 2000-2005 (Young et al, 2006). However, Young et al (2006) noticed that policing hotspots does not prevent crime but simply displaces crime to other areas; there was a reduction in visible drug dealing and drug use in Kings Cross but they had noticed a displacement of a drug market to other nearby areas such as the Borough of Camden. -Additionally, recent developments in crime mapping have enabled the public to access crime information allowing individuals to become aware of areas in which crime is more prominent (Boba, 2009). Such information can inform criminals and potential criminals of places to target (through repeat victimisation) and those of which to avoid. One could argue that if the public have an awareness of crime hot spots it is likely to displace crime to other areas since they will be aware that those hotspots are likely to receive increased police attention. -Furthermore, crime mapping can have adverse effects on urban space. Situational crime prevention suggests that crime can be prevented by adding changes to the physical environment such as surveillance cameras, zero-tolerance policies, target hardening. These changes are likely to alter the appearance of the neighbourhood. (Chainey and Ratcliffe, 2013) -In conclusion, despite the advantages of crime mapping including assessing crime patterns and targeting crime areas, it also has disadvantages. In the past crime mapping could be considered unreliable due to maps requiring being hand drawn involving higher rates of human error. With the arrival of desktop computers with GIS capabilities, crime mapping has grown and improved. Nonetheless, crime mapping has not remained problem free. New technology has the limitations of requiring increased knowledge and training. Crime mapping in general has a tendency to focus on select crimes and problems of displacement. Despite this, one could argue that crime mapping is a valuable police tool for understanding the spatial aspects of crime and thus should not be dismissed. Feminism- What contributions has feminism made to criminology? -Naffine (1996) argues that traditional criminology largely ignored women (either as victims or as criminals) and concentrated their attention to studying criminal men, rendering female crime as insignificant. Where women were included, it was only to explain women’s apparent sexual deviant nature which traditional criminologists, such as Lombroso, explained by suggesting women were still ‘primitive’ and thus driven by their biological and physiological needs (Heidensohn, 1985). The 1960s second wave feminism has made a major contribution to criminology and has changed social theory, making criminologists aware of issues that were previously ignored. Giving a voice to women remains feminist theory’s greatest contribution to society in general. Feminists fight for the equality of women and argue that women should share equally in society’s opportunities and scare resources. A section on feminist social theory would probably not have been included in a course in criminological theory a generation ago. By focusing on the differences between biological and social, feminist theory has forced criminologists to reexamine and revise their theories. This essay will illustrate how the contribution of feminist perspectives to criminology has enhanced our understanding of women as both perpetrators and victims of crime. -Feminism has provided an important new focus on gender and gender identity issues in explaining deviance, and led to the adaptation of existing theories to refocus them on gender rather than simply offending. -Some feminists have argued that writings on women’s criminality have relied greatly on the assumptions of Lombroso and Ferrero’s work, which suggests that sexist views are inherent within male dominated criminology. Lombroso and Ferrero believed that the different crimes committed by men and women are a result of their physical difference. They believe that women are innately different from men, with a natural desire to be caring and nurturing – both of which tend not to be values that support crime. ‘Normal’ women are therefore less likely to commit crime. Feminists aimed to expose male dominance and to challenge existing perceptions of female criminality within criminology. Smart (1977) argues that criminological theory is lacking if it does not attempt to understand women’s criminality and their particular vulnerability to violence and rape within the home. Over the years, feminist perspectives in criminology have challenged the existing theories, concepts, assumptions and methods. - Feminist criminologists have contested the argument that ‘female emancipation leads to more female crime’ and argue that it is a myth served to further subjugate women and maintain oppressive stereotypes. In order to re-address this issue, Feminists have provided reasons for women’s low participation in crime. Heidensohn argues that women’s behaviour is conformist. Women commit fewer crimes than men because patriarchal society imposes greater control over women and reduces their opportunities to offend. Control at home (Dobash and Dobash show that many violent attacks result from men’s dissatisfaction with their wives’ performance of domestic duties. Women’s domestic role imposes restrictions on their time and confines them to the house for long periods. ‘bedroom culture’ develops, where they socialise at home rather than going out. Girls are also required to do more housework than boys, and as a result have less opportunities to engage in deviant behaviour) work (Women’s behaviour at work is controlled by male managers. Sexual harassment is widespread and helps keep women ‘in their place’. The ‘glass ceiling’ prevents many women from rising to senior position where there is greater opportunity to commit fraud) and in public (Distorted media portrayals of the typical rapist frighten women into staying indoors). -Pollack (1950) argues that men have a protective attitude towards women. ‘Chivalry thesis’ argues that Even when female crime is detected or reported they are less likely to be prosecuted or if prosecuted more likely to be let off relatively lightly. Women are more likely to show remorse which may help explain why women are more likely to receive a caution than going to court. The chivalry hypothesis has been greatly contested by feminist criminologists who have rebutted claims that female offenders receive more favourable treatment from the police and courts. Feminist criminologists argue that courts reproduce gender stereotypes of women due to courts being male dominated, which results in women experiencing gender discrimination in their sentencing in order for men to punish women who deviate from the gender norm Heidensohn (1996). The topic of chivalry has united feminist criminologists in arguing that female offenders experience a form of ‘double jeopardy’ due to women’s crime rates being so low. Carlen found Scottish judges were more likely to jail women whose children were in care than women they saw as ‘good mothers’. Walklate (1998) argues that in rape cases it is not the deviant on trial but the victim as they have to prove their respectability in order for her evidence to be accepted. - Feminist criminology is perhaps most recognised for its contribution in opening up the topics of domestic violence, sexual assault and rape committed against women by men. Smart (1977) felt that not nearly enough research was being directed to understanding the darker side of the family. The study of victimology stemmed from the determination to make visible women’s victimisation and to challenge the acceptance of much male violence against

women (Newburn, 2007). They argued that sexual violence against women was not primarily motivated by sexual desire but by a need for dominance and power. Campaigns by feminists to increase the criminalising of male violence against women has seen the policing of sexual crimes improve which has assisted in protecting women. However, Wykes and Welsh (2009) argue that feminist criminology has failed to understand, control or treat male offen...