Human behaviour is one of the most studied subjects in the world today. The complexity of human behaviour has elicited a colossal amount of research by psychologists seeking to understand some of the behavioral trends exhibited by human beings. Consequently, these psychologists have advanced several theories that explain some of the fundamental aspects of human behaviour. Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable human behaviour. Theories of behaviorism emphasize behavioral changes that result from a stimulus-response association that is made by a learner. The proponents of this theory regard all human behaviour as a sort of response to natural stimuli (Becker, 1963). The immediate background environment that provides stimuli to which individuals responds determines all of human behaviour. In addition, the environment that an individual might have been exposed to in the past also plays a part because its causes that individual to develop or learn how to respond to stimuli in certain ways. This process is referred to as condition and in its simplest definition; it is the process of human behaviour development as a result of interaction with the immediate environment surrounding an individual. This interaction with the environment draws out a specific response that shapes the behaviour of that person. Another major argument of the behavioral theorists is that human behaviour can be systematically studied or observed without considering the internal mental states of humans. According to such theorist, only observable behaviors should be scientifically studied because internal responses like moods, emotions and cognitive abilities are subjective (Becker, 1963).
The theories of behaviorism classify the process of conditioning into two major categories: classical conditioning and operant conditioning. In classical conditioning, humans learn to associate two different stimuli when they happen together, such that the response that was originally elicited by the first stimuli is transferred to the other. Individuals learn to produce an already existing response to a brand new stimulus. Here, a previously neutral stimulus is paired alongside a natural stimulus. Eventually, the previously neutral stimulus is bale to elicit a response without the presence of the naturally occurring stimulus.
In operant conditioning, individuals develop or learn to perform new behaviors via the consequences of the things that they do (Blackman, 2000). Through this kind of conditioning, the learner makes an association between a behaviour and the consequences for that behaviour. For example, a toddler may produce a temper tantrum at the checkout counter of a candy or an ice cream store because he wants the mother to buy him some candy or ice cream. This may inadvertently prompt the parent to yield and buy the child the candy. The next time the child is at the store with the mother, he may use the same trick because it worked the first time. The child learns the consequence of his timely temper tantrum strategy. This way the child has found out that correct timing of a temper tantrum will result in them getting what they want. If a behaviour that the individual produces is followed by some sort of reinforcement, then there is a higher likelihood of that behaviour being repeated in the future, that is the behaviour is strengthened. The major difference between classical and operant conditioning is that whereas classically conditioning exclusively allows individuals to produce already existing stimuli, operant condition allows the individual to learn a relatively new response.
The operant class of conditioning has several components. One of these components is reinforcement. Reinforcements are simply the events and actions that impact on a certain behaviour by increasing its occurrence (Blackman, 2000). Consequences of behaviour can be seen to be reinforcing it in two ways: either the individual acquires something god (positive reinforcement) or he/she avoids something bad (negative reinforcement). Therefore, there are two types of reinforcements: positive and negative reinforcements. Positive reinforcements are the favorable events and outcomes that stem after the occurrence of a particular behaviour. A situation that reflects a positive reinforcement is one whereby a behavioral response or behavior is strengthened through the addition of an affirmative or positive detail. This may for instance be through praise or even a direct reward. On the other hand, a negative reinforcement refers to the removal of an element, event or outcome emanating from certain behaviour and that is viewed as negative. A behavior or a behavioral response is usually strengthened via the effective removal or elimination of factors considered foul or unpleasant. Both positive and negative reinforcement result in the increase of a particular behaviour (Blackman, 2000).
The other component of operant conditioning is punishment. Punishment is quite different from reinforcement because it is a representation of an adverse event or outcome that results in the decrease of a behaviour that it follows (Wheeler, 2002). If certain behaviour is followed by punishment, then, the likelihood of that kind of behaviour being repeated by an individual in future significantly decreases. The behaviour is essentially weakened. Just like reinforcement: punishment is classified into two parts: parts: positive and negative punishment. Positive reinforcement occurs where an unfavorable event is presented after the behaviour with the aim of weakening the behaviour. Negative punishment refers to punishment by removal. This type of punishment occurs where a favorable outcome of a behavior is removed immediately after the occurrence of behaviour. Although this outcome is positive, it is removed immediately to discourage or weaken the behavior. Both positive and negative punishments result in the weakening and decrease of a particular behaviour.
The final component of operant conditioning is extinction. Extinction refers to the lack of consequence after a particular behaviour. Here, a behaviour exhibited or practiced by an individual exhibits neither a positive nor a negative consequence. If behaviour appears to inconsequential, then the likelihood of it occurring again or being repeated diminishes significantly (Wheeler, 2002).
As observed above, operant conditioning is the dominant type of conditioning. Consequently, it finds applications across many fields. This ranges from families, homes, clans and even in businesses. However, one of the major areas where operant conditioning finds massive application is the criminal justice field. Operant conditioning can particularly be used top explain criminal behaviour. In regards to its application in the criminal justice field, it relies on the system of punishments and regards associated with behaviour that result in increasing or decreasing the frequency of behaviors. Criminals who find rewards from their actions, for example in the form of money, attention, prestige or adequacy feelings tend to engage even more in criminal activity. On the other hand, those who are punished because of their actions, for example through jail or isolation from the society often tend to decrease their criminal behavior frequency. This school of thought is mainly attributed to the works of two psychology researchers, B.F Skinner and Ivan Pavlov. Through various experiments and test, the two men theorized that the process of conditioning was responsible for not only most of the observable human behaviors but also those of animals. In fact, their early observations and research led to of the major techniques used to modify criminal behaviour (Blackman, 2000).
As seen above, operant conditioning is hugely applicable to the criminal justice field. However, the field of criminal justice is very wide and, it would therefore, be wise to subdivide it into various sections to understand better the application of criminal justice to this field.
The first application of operant conditioning in criminal justice is the enactment of criminal statutes. In this section, the element of operant conditioning utilized is punishment. From a general view, punishments usually act as deterrents to criminal behaviour and activity as statutes enacted by relevant bodies have clear provisions or clearly stipulate the implications of engaging in errant behavior (Durrant, 2013). The statutes state what will follow or will result after individuals engage in criminal behavior. To this regard, the application of the punishment element is visible right from the drafting of statutes up to their enactment phase. The statutes also comment on some behaviors that are easily acquirable but, that should not be exhibited. In fact, most statutes enacted in the criminal justice field are often in the negative. In the case of commited crimes, the statue will stipulate what a person ought not to do. However, there are other statutes that act on omissions crimes. Here, the statutes talk about what an individual is supposed to do. In light of these factors, a statute can act as a deterrent but can also give mandate for a particular action in certain cases. The penalties stipulated by a given statute are what essentially trigger the learning behavior. Penalties may include things such as imprisonment, humongous fines amongst others. In light of the above explanation, it is clear that the enactment of statutes is one of criminal justice fields where the operant conditioning school of thought is applied.
The second area of criminal justice where operant conditioning is applied is the enforcement of statutory laws. This area is closely related to the first one discussed above. For example, the element of operant conditioning that is utilized here is once again punishment. Statutory laws sometimes prove very hard to enact. This may be because of uncooperative forces such as the public or the relevant authorities. One thing that should however, be noted is that the enactment of statutory laws cannot bear any fruits or be successful without effective and adequate enforcement (Durrant, 2013). It would be hypocritical or even pointless for any region, nation or state to have some of the best crime management and criminal justice laws and then ineffective or poor enforcement criteria. If a strict enforcement of statutory laws is effected, then there is inadvertently a bigger working propensity for crime deterrence. The participants of criminal activity are likely to be deterred even further from those activities when they have knowledge of the fact of the fact not only is the law that governs such activities present, but this law is also enforced actively. In the instance of crimes of commission, the individual learns what they law forbids them from doing and in the case of omission crimes; they learn what they ought to do under the statutory law. The operant conditioning application becomes very clear here. The consequences that are applied in statutory laws to stimulate behaviour learning are the penalties prescribed as well as the knowledge that engagement in a particular omission or commission crime that is prescribed by a statue may result in arrest (Blackman, 2000).
The third area where operant conditioning finds application in the criminal justice field is the prosecution of criminal cases. In this area, two elements of operant conditioning are applied. First, the person being persecuted is fully aware of the fact that the statute clearly stipulates the crime and the associated punishment. However, the final outcome depends on many other factors. The first factor is the prosecutor’s case strength. The other factor is the final persecution of the evidence, testimony and other submissions by the jury or the case judge. Because of this, the trial process acts as reinforcement due to the “innocent until proven guilty” principle. The prosecution side may miss an important detail or element and as result the defendant may be released. This wrongful acquittal may lead the defendant to conclude that the criminal justice is laden with faults. The person may therefore, develop other criminal behaviors or their behaviour may be simply reinforced by this event because they gain the view that it possible to get away with crime due to the loopholes in the criminal justice field (Durrant, 2013). On the other hand, the prosecution side may have a relatively strong case and, as a result, the person may be consequently convicted of their crimes. The person learns because he does not wish to be a part of such a case ever again because the chances of conviction are high. The element of punishment finds application here too. If the prosecution’s case is strong, the defendant will be convicted. Consequently, the law will punish his behaviour. This punishment inadvertently leads to a decrease in the probability of the individual committing the crime again.
The other sector of criminal justice where operant conditioning is applied is the sentencing of convicted offenders. Once again, the elements of operant conditioning applied are reinforcement and punishment (Durrant, 2013). This application immediately follows the prosecution of criminal cases. After a case is presented to court, the prosecution argues its case before a presiding judge or jury. Depending on the strength of the case, the defendant is either convicted or acquitted. In the case of conviction, a punishment usually accompanies it and, this may be in the form of a jail sentence. The crime committed should match the sentence performance. If the performance is deemed small as compared to the crime committed, then the people may learn a behaviour of committing this crime anyway because the punishment is only meager price to pay. If a big punishment is associated to a crime, people will be discouraged from committing that crime. If the public is aware that the punishments prescribed for crimes are stiff and effectively punitive, they are likely to disengage from committing such crimes. One the other hand, if the punishments are infinitesimal, a person may feel that the punishment is manageable and may perpetrate the crime altogether. In this case, a conviction becomes reinforcement. An example of such is when an individual is accused of mismanaging public funds. If punishment accorded to such a crime is a simple fine without a jail sentence, then this criminal behaviour will only be reinforced. This is because he understands that if he is ever caught again, a similarly minute punishment will be applied. In addition, the fine may represent only a miniature fraction of the money mismanaged or embezzled by the individual. The punishment will therefore, have very little effect if any.
The final area of criminal justice where operant conditioning once again finds application is inmate sanctions within correctional institutions. After a criminal has been convicted, he is usually sent to a correctional facility to begin his sentence. It is in such an institutions that the criminal is given the opportunity to understand actions and possibly rectify their behaviour (Durrant, 2013). If the amenities or the facilities offered in the correctional institutions are similar to those that the rest of the society enjoys, then it would be pointless for people to be punished through custodial sentences. The basic point is that life in prison should be harder than the one enjoyed by the rest of society. It should have a lower standard so that offenders can learn. The component of operant conditioning that is applied here is the punishment element. The person is punished by being taken to a correctional institution. Naturally, the sanctions in a corrective facility as well as the environment constitute things that the offender does not enjoy experiencing. On the other hand, if this environment proves to be similar to that outside or even better than it, then it acts as a reinforcement for the behaviour. This aspect also applies when it comes to the community based supervision conditions. If the conditions availed by this community supervision are not effectively tough, this may help in the reinforcement of the criminal behaviour as they may prove to be acceptable to many (Blackman, 2000). Community service conditions and correctional facilities sanctions should be punitive and stiff enough for them to be able to serve their purpose fully, this purpose being to deter potential or prospective criminals from engaging in criminal behaviour. The punitive aspect is the consequence that is applicable to all these situations. If crime perpetrators are of the opinion that the punitive aftermath of crime commitment is a meager one, they may not be deterred from such activities and they may continue with this errant behaviour (Durrant, 2013).
In conclusion, it is very clear that the role of operant conditioning in the criminal justice filed or system is very large. It has contributed massively to the evolution of this field. In fact, many of the laws developed in regards to criminal justice have been developed with the operant conditioning school of thought in mind. The major aim of every criminal justice system is to deter crime. For this system to be effective and to fulfill its goals, it must maximally utilize the operant conditioning aspect. For instance, to ensure that the punishment ascribed to certain crimes really deter people from engaging in such behavior. Otherwise, the criminal justice system will remain to be just another ineffective government body.
References
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2012). Constructions of deviance: Social power, context, and interaction (7th ed.). Australia: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders; studies in the sociology of deviance. London: Free Press of Glencoe.
Blackman, D. E. (2000). Operant conditioning: An experimental analysis of behaviour. London: Methuen.
Durrant, R. (2013). An introduction to criminal psychology. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Wheeler, H., & Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (2002). Beyond the punitive society: Operant conditioning: social and political aspects. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
