Section 1: Proposal
Within the major profession of criminology, one recurring problem is the explanation of criminal behavior patterns and their relationship to crime, involving the subtopics of the sociological legal and psychiatric aspects of crime which contribute to defining and elaborating on criminal behavior.
Section 2: Body Sections
Casey, Sharon. "Elements of Psychological Maturity and Its Influence on Antisocial and
Criminal Behavior." The open criminology journal 4.Suppl 1-M1 (2011): 32-39.
This article by Casey explores the concept of psychological maturity in adolescents and how it relates to teen violence. The author explores the background information currently existing in the field of developmental psychology to explain the idea of separated justice systems (juvenile and adult court) for the same crime – in essence, young people are commonly considered to be less capable of making mature judgments, are “more impulsivehave less developed problem solving skillsand engage in less consequential thinking than their adult counterparts” (Casey 33). However, because of recent data that suggests an absence of quantitative difference in decision making between 16 and 18 years of age, issues about the line at which psychological maturity is decided is up for debate. Casey performs a literature review whose purpose is to explore different definitions of this level of psychological maturity, but comes away with more questions, only conclusively noting that “intellectual maturity is reached several years before psychological maturity” (Casey 37). The article acts as a rudimentary review of the existing literature regarding adolescents and their cognitive reasoning from a legal and psychological point of view; Casey’s primary output is to stress the need for a “legal standard for juvenile competence” in order to accurately judge criminal behavior in someone based on their age. This source provides unique insight into both the legal and psychological subtopics of determining criminal behavior, as it allows for exploration of the psychological factors that lead adolescents to commit crimes and shows the confusing level of legal recourse given to them.
Dezhbakhsh, Hashem, and Joanna M. Shepherd. "The deterrent effect of capital
punishment: evidence from a “judicial experiment”." Economic Inquiry 44.3 (2006): 512-535.
This article explores the possibility of capital punishment deterring capital crimes. This is conducted through a combination of panel data across all 50 American states from 1960 to 2000, using pre- and post-moratorium evidence to explore how criminals respond to the severity of punishment they would receive for said crimes. A literature review of the history of the death penalty is provided, as well as the results for death penalty rates in the US and the accompanying analysis of said data. Murder rates before and after death penalty legislation changes in each state are also explored. According to the authors, capital punishment does actually have a successful effect in deterring crime, much greater than legislative changes to non-capital crimes. The authors note that their results “do not necessarily imply that all murders are deterrable,” and that the correlation for the deterrent effect “does not necessarily indicate that capital punishment is sound policy”; however, the existence of the effect is concretely found (Dezkbakhsh & Shepard 520, 527). This article works well in my examination of the legal aspect of criminal behavior patterns; the data supports an assertion that changes in criminal legislation do affect criminal behavior, as stricter death penalty laws are followed by decreases in violent crime. The large sample size and comprehensive modeling used in the study indicate a very robust data set that makes the results credible and easy to include in my arguments. This article can be contrasted with Petersen et al.’s article, which asserts that rehabilitation is much more important as it helps to alleviate evolutionary psychological guilt about violating social contracts.
Dvoskin, J., et al. "What if psychology redesigned the criminal justice system."Using social
science to reduce violent offending (2012): 291-303.
In this article, Dvoskin et al. explore the question of “How can expert psychological knowledge about shaping prosocial behavior be applied to design a criminal justice system?” (Dvoskin et al. 291). The current prison system’s policies are said to be not working, based on recidivism rates and the poor state of rehabilitation for these prisoners who are said to be “bad at life and not much better at crime” (Dvoskin et al. 292). A psychological approach is advocated in order to provide changes in behavior for those in our criminal justice system; behavior change programs, tailored to the individual, are advocated as a non-punishment-based means of changing behavior and encouraging prosocial attitudes (Dvoskin et al. 293). Positive reinforcement is cited as a way to decrease the “functional value” of unwanted behavior, making it less advantageous for criminals to want to commit crimes (Dvoskin et al. 293). A justice system based on these principles would stop imprisoning low-risk offenders, assess the risks and needs of each offender and provide sufficient staff for community corrections programs immediately, offering an environment that would lower recidivism rates and offer psychological incentives for criminals to behave correctly. This article fits quite well in both the psychological and sociological aspects of my topic, as criminal behavior patterns can be changed through these concrete psychological methods of encouraging prosocial behavior, which can combat the sociological disadvantages that often lead the poor and minorities to commit crimes. This article can be compared to Hagan’s assertion that the criminal justice system is unfairly harsh on low-risk offenders and ‘street crime.’
Petersen, Michael Bang, et al. "To punish or repair? Evolutionary psychology and lay
intuitions about modern criminal justice." Evolution and Human Behavior 33.6 (2012): 682-695.
In Peterson et al’s article, the concept of evolutionary psychology is introduced to provide an explanation for the way criminals deal with or legitimize a criminal behavior within their own minds. According to evolutionary psychology, the drive to commit violence and do unspeakable things to protect and get what we want stem from something called the welfare tradeoff ratio (WTR), “which sets the weight the actor places on a specific person’s welfare relative to the actor’s own” (Peterson et al. 683). From a psychological and legal standpoint, the way criminals relate to their crimes then factors in the WTR between their ability to get away with it and the severity of the consequences, including those of law enforcement. Because of this, it is theorized that people attempt to balance their WTR intrinsically in order to try to restore their status within a group society (as opposed to the small-scale interactions of our ancestors). The authors perform experimental survey designs in order to validate this theory, supporting their assertion that people invariably have a psychological desire to restore their social relationships after they perform an exploitative act. The authors conclude that “current models of criminal justice intuitions should be expanded to account for the existence and effects of nonpunitive reparative sentiments in the human response to exploitation and crime” (Peterson et al. 683). This article will be immensely useful in advocating for a legal push toward greater rehabilitation as opposed to punishment in order to curb criminal behavior; this is opposed to Dezhbakhash and Shepherd’s assertion that punitive measures provide effective deterrents, but supports Dvoskin et al.’s ideas of emphasizing rehabilitation.
Morenoff, Jeffrey D., Robert J. Sampson, and Stephen W. Raudenbush. "Neighborhood
inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence*." Criminology 39.3 (2001): 517-558.
In this article, the authors explore the sociological factors that often lead to urban violence. These factors are identified as “resource inequality, social processes, and spatial interdependence,” using a predictive model of homicide variations throughout hundreds of neighborhoods in Chicago from 1996 to 1998 (Morenoff, Sampson and Raudenbush 517). Social disorganization theory is used to describe the social factors that lead to communities having more violence than others, including “low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential instability” which lead to community disorganization that allows delinquent subcultures and rates to increase (Morenoff, Sampsoon and Raudenbush 518-519). Strong social ties are correlated with low crime rates, as greater spatial proximity and social support networks diminish violence; when social ties among neighbors decrease, violence is found to be higher. Spatial dynamics also play a large part in determining urban violence, as the closer residents are to organizational participation from local members of the community, the lower crime rates become. Those areas of greatest violence and crime have “concentrated disadvantage,” systemic poverty and segregation that leave many residents with little choice but to commit crime in order to survive (Morenoff, Sampsoon and Raudenbush 527). This article is helpful in elucidating the various sociological aspects that lead to criminal behavior, including the environmental factors of poverty and racism that prevent people from being able to see to basic needs without resorting to crime. This article can be equated to Rock’s idea of anomie, which is the theoretical name for this school of thought involving environmental factors and their contribution to criminal behavior. However, it can also be contrasted with McCarthy’s rational choice approach.
Young, Jock. "Merton with energy, Katz with structure: The sociology of vindictiveness
and the criminology of transgression." Theoretical Criminology7.3 (2003): 388-414.
In this article, sociological factors of criminality are explored through the lenses of economic and cultural globalization. With the “blurring of boundaries” that has occurred as a result of globalization, a sense of resentment has fostered between communities in the First World and across borders (Young 389). Young explores a theoretical perspective that compares the more inclusive world of the post-war 1950s with the global, interconnected world of the 21st century. In contrast with works such as Morenoff et al., Young does not believe that environmental factors contribute to criminal behavior exclusively, but rather many crimes are “expressive rather than narrowly instrumental” (Young 391). The research in this article suggests that crime is often motivated by a transgressive desire to escape from the mundane and to break societal rules, something that is antithetical to the “intense commodification of consumer culture” (Young 391). Instead of treating crime as a binary between opportunity and crime, Young argues that the prevalence of crime has come from a breakdown of culture and value systems stemming from a need for instant gratification, “aggressiveness and willingness to use violence to achieve desired goals” (Young 394). This article is extremely useful in providing context for many of the psychological and sociological factors inherent to criminal behavior; unlike many other pieces of literature, Young’s article dares to imply that the instant-gratification culture of 21st century America instills in people a sense of anxiety about having things now that can only be sated through illegal behavior. Whether or not this is true, this provides a needed perspective on the different motivations people have for committing crimes.
Section 3: Potential Solutions
In order to come up with solutions to the problems posed in Section 1 (namely the explanation of criminal behavior as a result of psychological, sociological and legal factors), the aforementioned literature must be consulted in depth. According to Casey (2011) and Dvoskin et al. (2012), the use of psychological tactics to understand criminal behavior is essential to understanding the criminal mind and why it leads people to commit antisocial behavior. Casey (2011) argues that adolescents commit crime due to the relatively immature level of psychological health possessed by many adolescents, as it is incredibly difficult to judge the intentionality and level of punishment for criminal behavior depending on one’s age. Casey emphasizes the need for a “legal standard for juvenile competence,” which can only be determined through further academic research on juvenile’s ability to comprehend the criminal actions they are undertaking (Casey 37). Dvoskin et al. (2012) note the need for a change in psychological approach to understanding criminals, using positive reinforcement to rehabilitate criminals and creating a justice system that lowers recidivism rates and increases the incentives for people to be rewarded for good behavior. If criminals were to be treated with these psychological approaches, a new criminal justice system could be created that incentivizes prosocial behavior, creates psychological rewards for not committing crimes or performing well in rehabilitation initiatives, and more accurately punishes adolescents based on perceived psychological understanding of their actions.
The sociological factor in predicting and explaining criminal behavior relies on the assumption that one’s environment is responsible for criminality; people are not mentally damaged or psychologically predisposed toward criminality, but simply forced into crime due to circumstances in which they live. Morenoff, Sampson and Raudenbush (2001) and Young (2003) explore different approaches to sociological aspects of criminal behavior; the former explores urban violence as a result of socioeconomic factors like systemic poverty and large class distinctions that prevent upward mobility, while the latter believes that criminality is a consequence of the lack of boundaries and increase in globalization that comes with the 21st century’s interconnectedness. Young’s perspective does not provide a suitably effective solution, as the symptoms of criminal behavior he outlines are inextricable components of an Information Age society (e.g. instant gratification driving us to commit crimes to get what we want now). Morenoff, Sampson and Raudenbush (2001), however, offers the possibility to limit sociological factors in criminal behavior through problems that can be solved with appropriate social infrastructure changes. These include the building of strong social support networks that tie communities together in a more closely knit way, which can curb the “concentrated disadvantage” and alienation that occurs which leads people in poverty-stricken areas to retaliate with crime (Morenoff, Sampson and Raudenbush 527).
Works Cited
Casey, Sharon. "Elements of Psychological Maturity and Its Influence on Antisocial and
Criminal Behavior." The open criminology journal 4.Suppl 1-M1 (2011): 32-39.
Dezhbakhsh, Hashem, and Joanna M. Shepherd. "The deterrent effect of capital
punishment: evidence from a “judicial experiment”." Economic Inquiry 44.3 (2006): 512-535.
Dvoskin, J., et al. "What if psychology redesigned the criminal justice system."Using social
science to reduce violent offending (2012): 291-303.
Petersen, Michael Bang, et al. "To punish or repair? Evolutionary psychology and lay
intuitions about modern criminal justice." Evolution and Human Behavior 33.6 (2012): 682-695.
Morenoff, Jeffrey D., Robert J. Sampson, and Stephen W. Raudenbush. "Neighborhood
inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence*." Criminology 39.3 (2001): 517-558.
Young, Jock. "Merton with energy, Katz with structure: The sociology of vindictiveness
and the criminology of transgression." Theoretical Criminology7.3 (2003): 388-414.
