Age Crime Research Paper
Offending decreases with age from the mid 20s (Hayes & Prenzler, 2012). Explain this finding using one psychological theory, one sociological theory and one interactionist theory. Can these theories of crime adequately explain this finding? Discuss.
Juvenile offending increases to a peak in the adolescent years and then decreases in early adulthood. Criminal behaviour in offenders decreases in age from the mid twenties which has been proved fact using evidence from psychological, sociological and interactionist theories of crime. There is adequate evidence for all three theories of crime to explain this finding. In this essay it will be argued that each of these theories of crime can adequately explain crime desistance. Discussed …show more content…
in the essay will be firstly the social learning theory which is a perspective of the psychological theory, secondly will be the social control theory which is a perspective of the sociological theory, thirdly will be the differential theory which is a perspective of the interactionist theory and lastly the age crime curve and crime desistance.
The psychological theory is the emotional, behavioural and cognitive characteristics of an individual. There has been a number of psychological theories that have been used to interpret and understand crime and delinquency. Some of those perspectives are social learning theories, intelligence theories, personality theories, theories of psychopathy, and cognitive and social development theories. The social learning theory will be the focus of this discussion. “Among the most of Bandura’s insights was that learning takes place within a social environment” (Hayes & Prenzler, 2012, p.198). Growing up from a child through to the adolescent year’s social environment is of great importance, as a child’s behavioural and cognitive characteristics continue to develop. Children observe what takes place in their surroundings and they also observe the behaviour of others around them, in which helps to shape their own behaviour. There are two key principles of the social learning theory. Firstly is that behaviour is modelled, when criminal behaviour is involved and carried out in front of a child, the child is more likely to carry out the same crime or rather copy what they observe. Secondly is vicarious learning, again when criminal behaviour is involved and carried out in front of a child, if the child observes that there is no punishment or if there has been a reward, in other words if there are no bad consequences for committing the crime, the child is more likely to carry out the same act of crime. Rotter (1954) proposed a social learning theory of personality that emphasized the role of learned behaviour and experience in the interaction of person and environment determinants of behaviour (Megan Moore, 2011). Criminal behaviour from early childhood onto adolescence is certainly more likely to be shaped by observations in their environments. Behaviour is learned through observations, modelling and social persuasion. Social learning theories that have been used to explain crime and deviant behaviour through childhood to adolescence has the most empirical support in regards to crime desistance (Megan Moore, 2011). (Skinner, 1963) “If behaviour is rewarded, it will be continued, and if the behaviour is not rewarded, it will be discontinued or extinguished” (Megan Moore, 2001).
The sociological theory is a knowledge base of constructs and ideologies of how groups form, how they interact, and how they may interact with others, on a group or individual basis. Some of the perspectives of the sociological theory are anomie theory, theories of strain, social control theory, opportunity theory, conflict theory and the developmental life course theory. The social control theory will be the focus of this discussion. “People who engage in crime and delinquency are free from intimate attachments, aspirations and moral beliefs that bind them to conventional and law abiding ways of life” (Hayes & Prenzler, 2012, p.212). It has been argued that crime and delinquent acts are carried out when a person has very little or broken bonds to their society. There are four types of social control that contribute to creating social bonds. Firstly is attachment, which is in relation to having affection for and sensitivity to others around them. The bond includes relationships to family, school and friends. Family bonds relate to how strong the bond is between a parent and a child. This has been seen as the main cause for crime and delinquent behaviour when the strength of the bond is weak. Poor academic learning in school causes a person to have disrespect for the school and the teaching staff. Friend’s loyalty is also an important aspect of delinquent behaviour when it comes to fitting in to the group. Secondly is commitment to long term goals in life. The stronger the commitment to achieve the goals a person has set for their life, for example, for their education, career and employment, it is less likely a person will engage in criminal and delinquent behaviour. Thirdly is belief that is which to what extent people believe they have to obey the rules and the law of society. The beliefs of a person are in regards to their morals, for example they do or do not believe it is ok to commit acts of crime. Their beliefs need to be constantly supported by their social community, for example family and friends, to help them believe it is not ok to commit acts of crime. Lastly is involvement in everyday life such as going to work or school. If these bonds in a person’s life are relatively weak the more likely a person is to carry out and commit crimes. If a person devotes their time and energy to going to school, going to work, engaging in activities such as sports and homework, or any kind of activity that is accepted in normal society, the less chance there will be of crime and delinquent behaviour in the person. There is sufficient empirical support that if all of these bonds are strong with a person in their social community, acts of crime are less likely to be committed. If all bonds are considered in regards to deviant behaviour, (Hirshi, 1969) pointed out that “The chain of causation is thus from the attachment to parents, through concern for the approval of persons in positions of authority, to belief that the rules of society are binding on one’s conduct” (David Zembroski, 2001, p.248).
The interactionist theory deals with a person’s understanding of society based on individuals that they meet, according to the theory, a person’s perspective changes everytime they interact with an individual, shaping and changing the opinions and views of both parties. Some of the perspectives of the interactionist theory are the differential association theory, social learning theory, labelling theory and neutralisation theory. The differential theory will be the focus of this discussion. “The differential association theory, which is considered by most sociologists as the best formulation to date of a general theory of criminality, holds, in essence, that criminality is learned in interaction with others in a process of communication” (Donald R. Cressey, 1954, p.29). It has been argued that most criminal behaviour is learned when a person forms relationships within a group of peers whom engage in criminal acts. The person is taught how to commit the crimes their peers carry out, in which they will follow suit and carry out themselves, as it is the social norm to do so within the group. (Sutherland, 1947) set out nine propositions of differential association (Hayes & Prenzler, 2012). These nine propositions of differential association were defined and elaborated on. They covered one- that the learning of criminal behaviour takes place in close social groups such as peer groups that carry out criminal acts, two- a person will develop criminal behaviour over a period of time through verbal communication with those whom already commit crimes, three- a person learns criminal behaviour when they form bonds with others whom already engage in crime, four- what a person learns from their peers about crime, five- the establishment of the role of drive towards crime, six- whether or not a person will engage in acts of crime will depend on how many criminal peers they have opposed to non criminal peers, seven- a person who is spending most of their time with their delinquent peers will commit crime, eight- a person learning criminal behaviour is not only copying the acts of crime but may learn the criminal behaviour by delinquent peers and nine- why a person chooses crime to satisfy their needs opposed to those who choose not to commit crime to satisfy their needs. “Sutherland’s differential association theory draws attention to the importance of social interaction in the formation of deviant definitions, ie favourable views of criminality (Hayes & prenzler, 2012). If a person associates with peers whom already engage in acts of crime and delinquency the person is more like to act in the same manner, however if the person detaches themselves from those peers it is more likely the acts of crime will diminish.
The age crime curve increases to a peak in the adolescent years and then decreases in early adulthood.
Age crime curves for individual’ is dependent on ones situation in their life, for example bonds in their social society and peer influences. Hirshi and Gottfredson (1983) have argued that the age crime curve is invariant over different times, places, crime types, sexes and so on (David P. Farrington, 1986). Age crime curves have only one peak and that is in the adolescent years of life. A number of these theories have been researched to explain this finding. These findings include social bonds a person has in their life. During the adolescent years teenagers may have very weak bonds with others such as parents and family members, in which the teenager may become rebellious and act out using criminal behaviour. A teenager could also become involved in criminal behaviour when they become associated with other people whom already are involved in participating in criminal acts and delinquent behaviour. The teenager may be pressured into committing these acts of crime and delinquency, or may simply choose to do so to become part of the group. For a teenager to desist in criminal behaviour, strong bonds within their social society need to be formed, and the teenager also needs to disassociate themselves from groups whom engage in criminal activity. Crime desistance becomes more dominant in early adulthood. This is due to a number of factors. Maturation is the primary factor, individuals mature both mentally and physically as the make the transition into adulthood, and therefore begin to break the cycle of offending and desist from crime. There is also once again the factor of the social environment one has in adulthood, for example employment stability, financial stability, marriage having children of their own. These factors can explain crime desistance in early adulthood. (Laub, 1996) “[W]e found that job stability and marital attachment in adulthood were
significantly related to changes in adult crime - the stronger the ties to work and family, the less crime and deviance among both delinquents and control” (Raymond E. Collins, 2004, p.10).
In conclusion there is adequate evidence for all three theories of crime to explain crime desistance. Discussed in this essay was firstly the learning theory which is a perspective of the psychological theory, secondly was the social control theory which is a perspective of the sociological theory, thirdly was the differential association theory which is a perspective of the interactionist theory and lastly was the age crime curve and crime desistance. Criminal behaviour in offenders increases to a peak in the adolescent years and then decreases in early adulthood using evidence from psychological, sociological and interactionist theories of crime, in which are based on and individuals social environment, for example family bonds and ties, employment stability aswell as maturation in the individual.
References
Bull, M. (2012). Social Explanations: An Introduction to Crime and Criminology, 3rd Ed, 226-229.
Collins, R. E. (2004). Onset and Desistance in Criminal Careers: Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39:3, 1-19, http://dx.doi.org/101300/J076v39n03 01.
Cressey, D. R. (1954). The Differential Association Theory and Compulsive Crimes: The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 45, No. 1, 29-40, http://www.jstor.org./stable/1139301.
Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and Crime: Crime and Justice, Vol. 7, 189-250, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147518.
Hayes, H. (2012). Interactionist Explanations: An Introduction to Crime and Criminology, 3rd Ed, 226-229.
Hayes, H. & Prenzler, T. (2012). Victim and Offender Characteristics: An Introduction to Crime and Criminology, 3rd Ed, 74-77.
Hearn, N. (2010). Theory of Desistance: Internet Journal of Criminology, 1-24, http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com.
Moore, M. (2011). Psychological Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 21:3, 226-239, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.564552.
Smallbone, S. (2012). Social Explanations: An Introduction to Crime and Criminology, 3rd Ed, 198-199. Zembroski, D. (2011). Sociological Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 21:3, 240-254, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.564553.
Juvenile offending increases to a peak in the adolescent years and then decreases in early adulthood. Criminal behaviour in offenders decreases in age from the mid twenties which has been proved fact using evidence from psychological, sociological and interactionist theories of crime. There is adequate evidence for all three theories of crime to explain this finding. In this essay it will be argued that each of these theories of crime can adequately explain crime desistance. Discussed …show more content…
in the essay will be firstly the social learning theory which is a perspective of the psychological theory, secondly will be the social control theory which is a perspective of the sociological theory, thirdly will be the differential theory which is a perspective of the interactionist theory and lastly the age crime curve and crime desistance.
The psychological theory is the emotional, behavioural and cognitive characteristics of an individual. There has been a number of psychological theories that have been used to interpret and understand crime and delinquency. Some of those perspectives are social learning theories, intelligence theories, personality theories, theories of psychopathy, and cognitive and social development theories. The social learning theory will be the focus of this discussion. “Among the most of Bandura’s insights was that learning takes place within a social environment” (Hayes & Prenzler, 2012, p.198). Growing up from a child through to the adolescent year’s social environment is of great importance, as a child’s behavioural and cognitive characteristics continue to develop. Children observe what takes place in their surroundings and they also observe the behaviour of others around them, in which helps to shape their own behaviour. There are two key principles of the social learning theory. Firstly is that behaviour is modelled, when criminal behaviour is involved and carried out in front of a child, the child is more likely to carry out the same crime or rather copy what they observe. Secondly is vicarious learning, again when criminal behaviour is involved and carried out in front of a child, if the child observes that there is no punishment or if there has been a reward, in other words if there are no bad consequences for committing the crime, the child is more likely to carry out the same act of crime. Rotter (1954) proposed a social learning theory of personality that emphasized the role of learned behaviour and experience in the interaction of person and environment determinants of behaviour (Megan Moore, 2011). Criminal behaviour from early childhood onto adolescence is certainly more likely to be shaped by observations in their environments. Behaviour is learned through observations, modelling and social persuasion. Social learning theories that have been used to explain crime and deviant behaviour through childhood to adolescence has the most empirical support in regards to crime desistance (Megan Moore, 2011). (Skinner, 1963) “If behaviour is rewarded, it will be continued, and if the behaviour is not rewarded, it will be discontinued or extinguished” (Megan Moore, 2001).
The sociological theory is a knowledge base of constructs and ideologies of how groups form, how they interact, and how they may interact with others, on a group or individual basis. Some of the perspectives of the sociological theory are anomie theory, theories of strain, social control theory, opportunity theory, conflict theory and the developmental life course theory. The social control theory will be the focus of this discussion. “People who engage in crime and delinquency are free from intimate attachments, aspirations and moral beliefs that bind them to conventional and law abiding ways of life” (Hayes & Prenzler, 2012, p.212). It has been argued that crime and delinquent acts are carried out when a person has very little or broken bonds to their society. There are four types of social control that contribute to creating social bonds. Firstly is attachment, which is in relation to having affection for and sensitivity to others around them. The bond includes relationships to family, school and friends. Family bonds relate to how strong the bond is between a parent and a child. This has been seen as the main cause for crime and delinquent behaviour when the strength of the bond is weak. Poor academic learning in school causes a person to have disrespect for the school and the teaching staff. Friend’s loyalty is also an important aspect of delinquent behaviour when it comes to fitting in to the group. Secondly is commitment to long term goals in life. The stronger the commitment to achieve the goals a person has set for their life, for example, for their education, career and employment, it is less likely a person will engage in criminal and delinquent behaviour. Thirdly is belief that is which to what extent people believe they have to obey the rules and the law of society. The beliefs of a person are in regards to their morals, for example they do or do not believe it is ok to commit acts of crime. Their beliefs need to be constantly supported by their social community, for example family and friends, to help them believe it is not ok to commit acts of crime. Lastly is involvement in everyday life such as going to work or school. If these bonds in a person’s life are relatively weak the more likely a person is to carry out and commit crimes. If a person devotes their time and energy to going to school, going to work, engaging in activities such as sports and homework, or any kind of activity that is accepted in normal society, the less chance there will be of crime and delinquent behaviour in the person. There is sufficient empirical support that if all of these bonds are strong with a person in their social community, acts of crime are less likely to be committed. If all bonds are considered in regards to deviant behaviour, (Hirshi, 1969) pointed out that “The chain of causation is thus from the attachment to parents, through concern for the approval of persons in positions of authority, to belief that the rules of society are binding on one’s conduct” (David Zembroski, 2001, p.248).
The interactionist theory deals with a person’s understanding of society based on individuals that they meet, according to the theory, a person’s perspective changes everytime they interact with an individual, shaping and changing the opinions and views of both parties. Some of the perspectives of the interactionist theory are the differential association theory, social learning theory, labelling theory and neutralisation theory. The differential theory will be the focus of this discussion. “The differential association theory, which is considered by most sociologists as the best formulation to date of a general theory of criminality, holds, in essence, that criminality is learned in interaction with others in a process of communication” (Donald R. Cressey, 1954, p.29). It has been argued that most criminal behaviour is learned when a person forms relationships within a group of peers whom engage in criminal acts. The person is taught how to commit the crimes their peers carry out, in which they will follow suit and carry out themselves, as it is the social norm to do so within the group. (Sutherland, 1947) set out nine propositions of differential association (Hayes & Prenzler, 2012). These nine propositions of differential association were defined and elaborated on. They covered one- that the learning of criminal behaviour takes place in close social groups such as peer groups that carry out criminal acts, two- a person will develop criminal behaviour over a period of time through verbal communication with those whom already commit crimes, three- a person learns criminal behaviour when they form bonds with others whom already engage in crime, four- what a person learns from their peers about crime, five- the establishment of the role of drive towards crime, six- whether or not a person will engage in acts of crime will depend on how many criminal peers they have opposed to non criminal peers, seven- a person who is spending most of their time with their delinquent peers will commit crime, eight- a person learning criminal behaviour is not only copying the acts of crime but may learn the criminal behaviour by delinquent peers and nine- why a person chooses crime to satisfy their needs opposed to those who choose not to commit crime to satisfy their needs. “Sutherland’s differential association theory draws attention to the importance of social interaction in the formation of deviant definitions, ie favourable views of criminality (Hayes & prenzler, 2012). If a person associates with peers whom already engage in acts of crime and delinquency the person is more like to act in the same manner, however if the person detaches themselves from those peers it is more likely the acts of crime will diminish.
The age crime curve increases to a peak in the adolescent years and then decreases in early adulthood.
Age crime curves for individual’ is dependent on ones situation in their life, for example bonds in their social society and peer influences. Hirshi and Gottfredson (1983) have argued that the age crime curve is invariant over different times, places, crime types, sexes and so on (David P. Farrington, 1986). Age crime curves have only one peak and that is in the adolescent years of life. A number of these theories have been researched to explain this finding. These findings include social bonds a person has in their life. During the adolescent years teenagers may have very weak bonds with others such as parents and family members, in which the teenager may become rebellious and act out using criminal behaviour. A teenager could also become involved in criminal behaviour when they become associated with other people whom already are involved in participating in criminal acts and delinquent behaviour. The teenager may be pressured into committing these acts of crime and delinquency, or may simply choose to do so to become part of the group. For a teenager to desist in criminal behaviour, strong bonds within their social society need to be formed, and the teenager also needs to disassociate themselves from groups whom engage in criminal activity. Crime desistance becomes more dominant in early adulthood. This is due to a number of factors. Maturation is the primary factor, individuals mature both mentally and physically as the make the transition into adulthood, and therefore begin to break the cycle of offending and desist from crime. There is also once again the factor of the social environment one has in adulthood, for example employment stability, financial stability, marriage having children of their own. These factors can explain crime desistance in early adulthood. (Laub, 1996) “[W]e found that job stability and marital attachment in adulthood were
significantly related to changes in adult crime - the stronger the ties to work and family, the less crime and deviance among both delinquents and control” (Raymond E. Collins, 2004, p.10).
In conclusion there is adequate evidence for all three theories of crime to explain crime desistance. Discussed in this essay was firstly the learning theory which is a perspective of the psychological theory, secondly was the social control theory which is a perspective of the sociological theory, thirdly was the differential association theory which is a perspective of the interactionist theory and lastly was the age crime curve and crime desistance. Criminal behaviour in offenders increases to a peak in the adolescent years and then decreases in early adulthood using evidence from psychological, sociological and interactionist theories of crime, in which are based on and individuals social environment, for example family bonds and ties, employment stability aswell as maturation in the individual.
References
Bull, M. (2012). Social Explanations: An Introduction to Crime and Criminology, 3rd Ed, 226-229.
Collins, R. E. (2004). Onset and Desistance in Criminal Careers: Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39:3, 1-19, http://dx.doi.org/101300/J076v39n03 01.
Cressey, D. R. (1954). The Differential Association Theory and Compulsive Crimes: The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 45, No. 1, 29-40, http://www.jstor.org./stable/1139301.
Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and Crime: Crime and Justice, Vol. 7, 189-250, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147518.
Hayes, H. (2012). Interactionist Explanations: An Introduction to Crime and Criminology, 3rd Ed, 226-229.
Hayes, H. & Prenzler, T. (2012). Victim and Offender Characteristics: An Introduction to Crime and Criminology, 3rd Ed, 74-77.
Hearn, N. (2010). Theory of Desistance: Internet Journal of Criminology, 1-24, http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com.
Moore, M. (2011). Psychological Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 21:3, 226-239, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.564552.
Smallbone, S. (2012). Social Explanations: An Introduction to Crime and Criminology, 3rd Ed, 198-199. Zembroski, D. (2011). Sociological Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 21:3, 240-254, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.564553.