Admittedly, there is a correlation between the crime statistics and the frequency of or tendencies of the criminal behavior occurring at any given time and area. Usually, crime statistics is useful in forecasting future crimes, a situation that implies the relationship existing between the statistics and the trends in criminal behavior. From a theoretical perspective, the relationship between crime statistics and the frequency of a crime is based on the routine activities and the rational choice perspective. In essence, both of these principles imply that individuals are self-determining even as criminal activities are purposeful. Substantially, this theoretical constructs mean that offenders or those who commit crimes are influenced by both environmental and situational factors, which create either desirable or undesirable opportunities for causing offenses. While crime statistics may provide a good starting point for forecasting the frequency of offenses, one can expect that many factors affect the trends of such offenses. For example, the state of economic opportunity may facilitate the occurrence of property offenses whereas most violent crimes would occur in response to the societal factors facilitating conflict or because of the availability of guns. In respect to John’s case, the psychological traits influence the likelihood of committing offenses. In fact, John suffers from the antisocial personality disorder that is has a close relationship with criminal behavior. With many factors influencing the occurrence and the frequency of crime, it follows that crime statistics has a limited accuracy.
In particular, crime statistics is not accurate in most cases because of many factors.
Sometimes, the statistics are subject to manipulation by the police department. Agreeably, the government facilitates manipulation of crime data either through altering the category of crimes or by underreporting. In essence, other factors that may compromise the accuracy of crime statistics in predicting the frequency of criminal activities include the literacy levels of the investigation personnel and the ability to document correct crime reports in the records. Moreover, people may give false information on crimes because they want to satisfy their interests, which may include attracting compensation from insurance agencies. In respect to this, crime data becomes inaccurate and cannot give a good picture of the frequency of offenses during forecasting of criminal behavior. At times, people engage in dispute resolution at the family level, which compromises the accuracy of the crime statistics because some of these crimes are not reported. While there is a relationship between crime statistics and the frequency of criminal behavior, correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. Because there are many factors that influence the occurrence of different crimes, it is pertinent that statistics is used sparingly in forecasting of offenses.
Contrary to the environmentalism, which suggests that environment variations cause variations in criminal behavior, the biosocial perspectives are founded on a different assumption. In particular, the biosocial perspective is based on the assumption that environmental and biological factors often interact to influence criminal activities or behavior. In respect, to the biosocial perspective, the occurrence of crimes entails an ever- changing legal designation and it is wrong to suggest that the commission of crimes is biological or occurs because of biology. In essence, the diagnosis that John might be suffering from hormonal imbalance, which makes him engage in shooting, is explainable using the biosocial approach. Notably, the hormonal levels in people have a correlation with their violent behaviors. Impliedly, the role of hormonal imbalance in predicting John’s violent behavior is instrumental and can be revealed by focusing on the expected changes in the level of violence with age. In fact, people tend to become less violent as they get old. Pertinently, this implies that the old people are less violent because of their low levels of hormones such as androgen. Evidently, high levels of androgen secretion such as testosterone are correlated with aggressive behavior in people. In fact, in male children such as John, high levels of testosterone results in violent behaviors or increases the likelihood of exhibiting aggressive behaviors. Admittedly, the environment in which a child is raised has a significant influence on the biological expression of genes. Usually, biosocial theorists believe that poor or disadvantaged environments often facilitate the expression of antisocial genes and cause suppression of the prosocial gene in a manner that hinders the realization of an individual’s genetic potential. More specifically, rearing children who are genetically at risk for antisocial behavior in positive family environments helps to prevent the development of antisocial behavior. Similarly, children who are not at a genetic risk for antisocial behavior never develop such behaviors when they are brought up in disadvantaged or adverse environments. From this perspective, one can explain that John’s development of antisocial behavior is because of the interaction between the genes (biological factors) and the environment (the environmental facilitates expression of antisocial genes).
Besides, the biosocial perspectives are instrumental in policy applications particularly regarding treatment and prevention programs. However, the biosocial perspectives may not are not valid indicators in assessing the responsibility of crime or evaluating crime tendencies. In fact, the biosocial theories or perspectives have an inherent individualistic bias, a situation that compromises their reliability in the determination of criminal tendencies or behaviors. Contrary to the biosocial perspective that there is a strong relationship between violence and hormonal behavior, there are cases where men having higher levels of testosterone have never engaged in violence. In addition, the biosocial approach to criminology fails to explain the existence of temporal and regional differences in crime rates. For example, it is hard to find a valid explanation why the eastern Canadian provinces have fewer homicide rates compared to Western Canadian provinces. On the other hand, the biosocial indicators are invalid because they create a bias by implying that people who come from disadvantaged environments are likely violent, a situation that may not always be true. While there are significant advances in research in respect to biosocial perspectives, such views lack a valid genetic basis for crime.
Substantially, the social structure theory can explain John’s behavior. In respect to the social structure theory, the forces of frustration, disorganization or strain among people facilitate the occurrence of crime. From John’s perspective the causes of strain or frustration include difficulties in adjusting to the lifestyle of the new upper-middle class neighborhood, hindrance from playing baseball and rejection at school by schoolmates.in essence, all of these factors add up to John’s frustration and he gets depressed. In most cases, people in such a social strain tend to avoid succumb to peer pressure but engage in crime because of trauma. While the social structure theory may be relevant in explaining john’s behavior, it does not mean that such conduct is uncontrollable and thus justifiable. In fact, a person might face the same situation as John has or even a more frustrating experience but make a choice of lawful actions because of having more resilience through strong and moral family values. Furthermore, many factors counter the tendency to commit crimes because of frustrations, as ones who engage in offenses.
Like any other student, John is entitled to make friends and express his freedom of association. In essence, the discrimination and harassment that he experiences from classmates entails a grave violation of human rights. While the classmates have a choice to decide whom they should associate with or should avoid, it is a gross violation of human rights to express the freedom of association at the expense of John’s rights. Usually, when one right’s violates the rights of a partner or another individual, which is regarded as offensive and is punishable in a court of law. In this situation, the girl who denies the friendship request of John commits a defamation crime by using the social media to label John as “freak.” In respect to the federal laws, it is a crime to discriminate persons because of their disability, nationality, race, color or background. Typically, discrimination exists when an individual with a particular trait or characteristics receives less favorable treatment compared to another person without such a characteristic in similar or same circumstances. In practice, it is illegal to discriminate any person in school, for example, the case of John, because of his disability. Furthermore, the other classmates are liable for a criminal offense when they harass John because of his disability or purported abnormality. In respect to John’s shooting behavior, he is liable for attempted murder although he did not kill any person. Usually, it is agreeable that shooting in a public place or any other action puts in danger the lives of other people, a situation that entails a criminal offense and is prosecutable as attempted murder. In essence, this further supports the fact that criminal activities are purposeful and not accidental. Advisedly, John would have reported the crime to the police or justice department for appropriate redress of the matter instead of succumbing to frustration and shooting carelessly in a public place
