Evaluation points for Turning to Crime

I may be posting more of these, so keep checking back. If you have any other suggestions for the blog, leave a comment! 

S = strength, W =weakness

? = potentially

UPBRINGING

-          Situational perspective (S=useful for government, W=reductionist)

-          Nurture perspective (S=easier to change than biology, W=ignores biology)

-          Determinist explanation (S=follows scientific laws as in physics, may encourage rehabilitation rather than punishment, W=ignores freewill, how can we punish people for something they didn’t choose)

-          Reductionist (S=easier to understand, helps us to determine causality and importance of individual factors, W=ignores dynamic of relationship between factors, may not be valid)

-          Runs in families; not necessarily upbringing (S=easier to change environment than biology, W=may not have face validity)

-          For maximum validity, studies testing this explanation need to be longitudinal (S=more in-depth, track development, W=attrition, observer bias, ethics)

COGNITION

-          Dispositional perspective (S=suggests therapy may be useful, W=reductionist)

-          Doesn’t specify nature or nurture; could be both (S=holistic, W=unknown cause?)

-          Soft deterministic as it suggests that cognitions determine behaviour but we have some freewill over our cognitions (S=more holistic, W=to what extent can we blame the individual?)

-          Cognitions aren’t observable (S=more complex than behaviourist approach, accepts that people have individual differences, W=subjective, non-scientific, may be invalid)

-          Somewhat more holistic as cognition can be influenced by situation as well as nature and nurture (S=likely to be valid as it looks at a variety of factors, W=still reductionist in that biology and upbringing tend to be overlooked, may not enable causality so may be less useful)

-          Relies on self-report (S=allows for attitudes and cognitions to be accessed, qualitative and quantitative data, W=validity may be poor due to demand characteristics, lying, and misinterpretation etc.)

BIOLOGY

-          Deterministic (S= follows scientific laws as in physics, may encourage treatment rather than punishment, W=ignores freewill, how can we punish people for something they didn’t choose)

-          Reliance on correlation (S=more ethical than manipulating biology, W=causality; how do we know whether brain dysfunction/genes/serotonin is a cause or result of criminal behaviour?)

-          Reductionist (S=easier to understand, helps us to determine causality and importance of individual factors, W=ignores dynamic of relationship between factors, may not be valid)

-          Nature approach (S=more scientific, observable, objective, W=harder to rehabilitate, reductionist)

Poverty and Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods

Government records have shown that the most disadvantaged 5% of society are 100 times more likely to have multiple problems, including police contact and substance abuse, than the most advantaged 50% in society.

Thus, one explanation of why some people turn to crime is that it's due to upbringing in poverty or a disadvantaged neighbourhood.

This theory is most often associated with crimes such as theft, violence and anti-social behaviour. Theft is probably best explained with this theory, because those who are in poverty may need to steal to have money to buy necessities. 

Study: Wikstrom and Tafel conducted a cross-sectional study of 2000 Year 10 students (aged 14-15) from Peterborough. It was a self-report study using questionnaires and criminal records to see why people might offend. The research found that 45% of males and 30.6% of females in the study had committed at least one of the following crimes: vandalism, shoplifting, violence, car theft and burglary. Other findings included that victims of crime were also more likely to be offenders, especially where violence was concerned, and that there are considered to be 3 types of offenders:

1. Propensity-induced (commit because they want to)
2. Lifestyle-dependent (commit because they feel they have to)
3. Situationally-limited (commit very rarely)

Differential Association theory (Learning from others)

Edwin H. Sutherland proposed "differential association theory" as one explanation as to why people turn to crime. 

Differential association is a behaviourist theory, which is also referred to as a "learning from others" theory as it is closely associated with Bandura's social learning theory. 

Essentially, the theory works on the principle that if someone is exposed to more "pro-criminal" attitudes than "pro-social" attitudes then they will exhibit criminality.

Sutherland suggested that criminality is learnt through significant exposure to criminal norms from intimate peer groups and the family environment, rather than through television or neighbourhoods in general. "Exposure to criminal norms" encompasses not only knowing criminals and being taught their techniques, but merely being exposed to pro-criminal attitudes, which could come in the form of parents complaining about the government and inequality, or friends breaking school rules or smoking under-age. 

Study: Akers et al. attempted to test differential association, and look at the most important factors in determining why some teenagers abuse alcohol and marijuana, and why some don't. It was a cross-sectional study of 2500 13-18 year olds, and used self-report to gather data; largely in the form of questionnaires. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyse the data. Aspects of differential association theory accounted for 68% of the variance in marijuana taking behaviour, and 55% of the variance in drinking behaviour. Two main factors which appeared to be significantly linked with drinking and marijuana behaviour were differential peer association and imitation index. 

Disrupted Families

David Farrington proposed an upbringing theory of why some people turn to crime by explaining the role of "disrupted families". 

He explains that essentially, socialisation in a family that has been significantly disrupted in some way, due to occurrences such as long-term unemployment, divorce, imprisonment or parental death, can lead somebody to commit crimes. In other words, he believes that "problem families" create "problem children". 

Furthermore he proposed that criminality was an aspect of a large anti-social behaviour syndrome, which is also the result of upbringing in a disrupted family. 

Study: Juby and Farrington 

Juby and Farrington conducted a longitudinal study on 411 boys from South London from the age of 8 to 46. It used a variety of research methods, including interviews, questionnaires, government and criminal records - measures were taken at various intervals. 

On their fifteenth birthdays, boys from disrupted families had committed considerably more crimes than those who were from intact families (29% to 18%). Boys from high conflict intact families had similar delinquency rates to those from disrupted families, whilst boys who lived solely with their mothers had similar rates to those in intact families. Other notable findings included that parental disharmony (i.e. absence due to divorce) was more of an indicator of delinquency than parental death and boys who'd lost their mother were more likely to offend than those who'd lost their father. 

Evaluation issues: reductionist theory, situational approach, nurture explanation, deterministic, doesn't account for why most boys in disrupted families didn't offend, useful as it suggests individuals who are more prone to offend