Draft Exam Answer/Notes: Theories of Offending

Theories of Offending

One of the central concerns in the topic of criminal and forensic psychology is the investigation into the reasons to why people commit crimes. There are many theories ranging from purely biological to purely social. This essay aims to discuss and evaluate some of these theories.

Some early biological explanations for why some individuals commit crime and others do not, proposed it was due to physiological defects and criminals were less evolved social beings. Lombroso argued that criminality was inherited and suggested individuals were “born criminal”. He stated that criminals could be identified by physical defects such as a receding forehead and pronounced brow. Lombroso’s theory was quickly discredited, however research into “born criminal” still continues and many more viable theories exist with researchers finding many biological and neurological links to crime.

Genetic twin studies have found a higher concordance in criminal behaviour between monozygotic (MZ) twins when compared to dizygotic (DZ) twins (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000) even when reared apart (Joseph, 2001), suggestive that there is a hereditary factor associated with crime. Adoption studies have also found cause to argue that if a biological parent has a history of criminal and antisocial behaviour then their child is at high risk even when adopted away from the parents early on in life (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000). This again signifies that there may be a genetic link to criminality as adoption studies takes into account the environmental influences that may be a contributing factor to criminal and antisocial behaviour. Despite the apparent evidence of a genetic link to criminal behaviour no such evidence was found to support a genetic link to violent crimes (Joseph, 2001). Research does however support a genetic link to common personality disorders which have been highly correlated with an elevated risk of antisocial and criminal behaviour (REF).

Personality and trait disorders are often highly prevalent in individuals with a history of criminal behaviour. Two of the most common personality traits that are shown to have an association with criminal behaviour are impulsivity and aggression (Morley & Hall, 2003). Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is a personality disorder characterised by a reckless disregard for societal norms, impulsive behaviour and an inability to express guilt. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders restricts the diagnosis to individuals aged over 18, however antisocial tendencies must have been experienced before the age of 15. Other disorders seen in childhood such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD) are often seen as precursors to a diagnosis of ASPD in adulthood, therefore children diagnosed with the following conditions are often at a heightened risk of being involved in criminal behaviour, especially if they have ADHD with comorbid diagnosis of CD.  Therefore, by investigating the biological mechanisms underlying these disorders, may improve understanding of the criminal mentality.

ASPD has been linked to levels of serotonin, testosterone and cortisol. Low levels of serotonin have been associated with aggression and impulsivity as do high levels of testosterone both of which are present in individuals diagnosed with ASPD. Low levels of cortisol have also been linked to high levels of aggression and antisocial behaviour, it is suggested that cortisol is needed to determine how to behave in social situations. Brain structure is also altered in individuals diagnosed with ASPD, ADHD and CD, with the prefrontal cortex..... blah blah blah.

These studies may account for the difference in age and gender in crime rates. For example, the peak age for offending in males is 17-21 years. After puberty testosterone levels rise to be ten times more than seen in the average female, perhaps responsible for the differences in gender, age and types of crime committed. Violent crimes are much more common in men than women. The prefrontal cortex has been found to not fully develop until 25 years. Differences in prefrontal cortex function may also be related to later brain maturation in males comparative to females, with male’s brain undergoing significant myelin pruning in adolescents approximately 2 years after females. 

Many researchers argue that biological evidence is not enough to account for the differences witnessed in crime rates. Although it has been found that there is a high correlation for children born to parents with criminal convictions to also commit criminal offences later on in life, even if raised away from their parents, not all children born to parents with criminal history will go on to commit crime themselves. Differences in gender are argued to be due to the way females are treated by the criminal justice system, often gaining more lenient sentences. Statistics also only account for the individuals caught for their crimes, so are therefore not reliable. If biological mechanisms cannot account fully for an explanation for offending then social and environmental influences must also be considered.

There are many social theories that account for criminal and antisocial behaviour. Social learning theory suggests that individuals learn through experience and through watching how others interact and behave in novel situations. Therefore an explanation for offending viewed through a social learning approach would suggest that criminal behaviour is learnt through witnessing it. This would correlate with research suggesting that parents whom have a history of offending often have offspring who go on to offend, however does not account for studies that suggest a biological association. It may also account for the reasons as to why women are seen to commit different crimes as would account for possible gender roles and societal norms in society. The Differential Association Theory (Sutherland 1934) suggests that not only do you learn behaviour from others, but you also learn the rationalisations, motivations and excuses that go with it. Though a strong biological approach may determine that children raised away from their families still displaying criminal and antisocial behaviour, it fails to account other environmental influences in a child or young adults life, failing to account the roles of education, peer influences and the media pop-culture.

Bandura (1961) illustrated social learning theory through his famous “bobo doll” experiment, in which children witnessed an adult acting aggressively or non-aggressively towards a toy clown in a room. Those children whom witnessed the aggressive behaviour were far more likely to mimic this behaviour when left alone with toys including the Bobo doll. This study shows that behaviour is strongly influenced and modelled on those around us, therefore criminal behaviour is more likely if an individual is exposed to it frequently. Social learning theory is criticised however for not considering thought processes or an individual’s free will. Although it may be true that individuals may imitate and learn from behaviour they witness, humans are also capable of rational choice.

There are many social economic factors that may contribute to a person’s decision to commit crime however, crime has been associated with low income, poor education, drugs and alcohol abuse, mental health problems, however the explanations given for why people commit crime are vast and varied. Establishing the reason why an individual is partaking in criminal behaviour is important to establish as it affects the treatment and rehabilitation offered. Biological explanations can use medical intervention as therapies, for example, stimulant medication in children with ADHD has been found to decrease impulsive behaviour, making a child better able to think rationally about the decisions they are making. Social skills training and therapy for individuals with ASPD or CD may help and individual to understand how their behaviour impacts on others around them. Treating addictions in individuals with substance abuse problems may help deter them away from some types of petty crime, such as theft to fund their addiction.

Improving life prospects for individuals in lower class positions, ensuring individuals have social mobility through education is one way in which crime can be prevented. It is clear that explanations for offending are complex, and many theories intertwine with biological, social and cognitive approaches, each individual being unique with their own set of risk factors. Though there will be never one “treat all” approach to reducing crime tackling risk factors associated in society, through welfare state, education, national health system ensuring individuals at risk or offenders receive multimodal support is one way in which crime can be reduced and levels maintained. It can therefore be argued that the threat of the dissolvament of any such social services, such as the welfare state, or the NHS may lead to an increase in crime.

Rational Choice Theory:

People act on rational dessicions, will commit crime unless they believe the potential punishment outweighs the pleasure benefits they get from commiting the crime. Rational choice theory suggests individuals weigh the pros and cons of their actions, including risk  of punishment and make decisions based on their calculations.

Examples of benefits; money or property, thrill/excitement, status among peers, revenge, dominance, bond with other criminals.

Risks punishment of law, if risk of this is minimal, crime happens.

Belived that crime involves conscious weighing of cost/benefit.

Does not account for irrational choices, drugs, alcohol, meantal health

Does not explain how people develop values that account for crime being a rational choice

Does not explain why one person becomes a criminal and another when faced with same situation does not.

Some people see prison as a benefit, safe, status, help

Social Disorganisation Theory (Shaw and McKay)

Physical and social environments resposnsible for behaviour choices

Emphasises the connection between crime and neighbourhood structure.

Poor schools, vandalised buildings, unemployement

Strain Theory (Merton, 1957).

Most people in society share common goals of wealth and success

Lower class don’t have same opportunities as higher classes

This frustration or strain casuses crime

Societal pressures, make money, do well, but only by working hard, going to school is acceptable in societies standards... disadvantaged people cannot achieve goals in conventional ways so resort to crime.

One criticisms is not all people in lower classes commit crime, higher class people do

General Strain Theory (Agnew, 1992)

Strain can be in ALL social classes. Failure to compete with neighbour, friends. Failure to live up to own expectations, loss of positive influences, introduction of negative influences, drugs, alcohol.

Differential association theory (Sutherland 1934)

Class doesn’t matter, it’s dependent on influences one associates themselves with. Family and close friends. You do not only learn the behaviour but the rationalisations, motivations and excuses that explain choices.