There are three main influences that explain why a person will turn to crime. These are cognitive, biological and upbringing. One influence that might cause an individual to turn to crime is upbringing. Farrington (2006) conducted a study in delinquent development to document the start, duration and end of offending behaviour from children and to adulthood in families. Farrington’s study concluded that offenders tend to be deviant in many areas of their lives. One of the most important risk factors for criminality in the family was poor school performance. This statement can be backed up by Farrington’s results that showed that, those who started criminal careers aged 10-13 were nearly all reconvicted (91%) and committed on average 6 crimes. Ages 10-16 (the early offenders) accounted for 77% of all crime in the group. This concluded that early intervention programmes for the under tens could have significant impact in reducing offending. …show more content…
Another influence that might cause an individual to turn to crime is their cognition.
Individuals might turn to crime as they think in a fundamentally different way to law-abiding citizens. Yochelson and samenow (1976) conducted a study to help understand the make up of the criminal personality. Yochelsons study concluded that criminals passed a number of personality traits including: restlessness, dissatisfaction, adrenaline junky, habitually angry, lacking empathy, and feel no obligation to anyone or anything. This suggests that individuals who posses these characteristics are likely to turn to crime. However, the 52 thinking ‘errors’ discovered may not be unique to criminals, as a control group was not
used.
2.Using the issue of reductionism, evaluate any two explanations of crime. (15)
Reductionism is where a complex behaviour (crime) is reduced to a simple factor or group of factors. In the case of crime it is important to avoid reductionist arguments as upbringing, biology and cognition can all explain criminality. Although all these factors affect the chances of turning to crime, none are causal factors. It is the interaction between these factors that chooses whether or not we turn to crime.
The biological explanations of crime are reductionist as they ignore the influence of upbringing in individuals who turn to crime. Brunner et al is a good example of this as his study is hugely reductionist. Brunner’s study (1993) of a Dutch family with 5 generations of excessively aggressive men who were borderline mentally retarded identified a deficit of the enzyme MAOA, with a point mutation identified in the X chromosome of a gene responsible for the production of this. However the study is reductionist as it ignores the upbringing of the boys and has a small sample so it cannot be generalised to the entire population. The results of this study show how the MAOA deficit is responsible for the mental retardation, which could link to aggressive behaviour, but this does not provide an explanation as to why individuals perform minor/ non-aggressive crimes such as illegal downloading. However this study can still be seen as useful because although it is reductionist it suggests that if the violence was caused by a deficit in the MAOA production then a synthetic enzyme can treat it.
The explanations for crime regarding upbringing can also be seen as reductionist as they ignore innate factors. Sutherland’s study (1939) presents a theory of nine principles referred to as the Differential Association Hypothesis. Sutherland’s theory states that criminal behaviour is learnt and that it is learned in interaction with other people in a process of communication. However Sutherland’s theory is flawed as if all criminal behaviour is learnt then where did it originate? Furthermore, it is unable to explain many forms of crime such as individual crimes, and ‘white collar crimes’. Not all people with the risk factors become criminals. By ignoring innate factors Sutherlands study cannot prove that criminal behaviour is learnt, as it would have had to originate somewhere. However, although Sutherland’s study is reductionist, it does show a clear cause and effect for certain types of crimes (gangs etc), so can still be useful in preventative strategies.
In conclusion, as there is such a wide range of crimes committed it is impossible to explain criminal behaviour in a reductionist perspective. A variety of causal factors contribute to individuals who turn to crime, and individual differences must be taken into account to explain the interactions between what turns individuals to crime.
In conclusion as there is such a wide range of crimes committed it is impossible to explain criminal behaviour in a reductionist perspective. A variety of casual factors contribute to individuals who turn to crime, and individual differences must be take into account to explain the interactions between what turns individuals to crime.
In conclusion, as there is such a wide range of crimes committed it is impossible to explain criminal behaviour in a reductionist perspective. A variety of causal factors contribute to individuals who turn to crime, and individual differences must be taken into account to explain the interactions between what turns individuals to crime.
In conclusion, as there is such a wide range of crimes committed it is impossible to explain criminal behaviour in a reductionist perspective. A variety of causal factors contribute to individuals who turn to crime, and individual differences must be taken into account to explain the interactions between what turns individuals to crime.
In conclusion, as there is such a wide range of crimes committed it is impossible to explain criminal behaviour in a reductionist perspective