Criminology Theories

Criminology
Theories - An assumption (or set of assumptions) that attempt to explain why or how
things are related to each other.
Criminological theory - The explanation of criminal behavior, as well as the behavior of
police, attorneys, prosecutors, judges, correctional personnel, victims, and other actors
in the criminal justice system.
The causes of crime have been the subject of much speculation, theorizing, research,
and debate. Theories about the cause of crime are based on religion, philosophy,
politics, economic, and social forces.
Classical Theory
One of the earliest secular approaches to explaining the causes of crime was the
classical theory.
Classical theory - A product of the Enlightenment, based on the assumption that people
exercise free will and are thus completely responsible for their actions. In classical
theory, human behavior, including criminal behavior, is motivated by a hedonistic
rationality, in which actors weigh the potential pleasure of an action against the possible
pain associated with it.
In 1764, criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote ' An
Essay on Crimes and Punishments', which set forth classical criminological theory. He
argued that the only justified rationale for laws and punishments was the principle of
utility.
Utility - The principle that a policy should "the greatest happiness shared by the greatest
number".

Beccaria believed the basis of society, as well as the origin of punishments and the right
to punish, is the social construct.
The only legitimate purpose of punishment is special deterrence and general
deterrence.
social contract - An imaginary agreement to sacrifice the minimum amount of liberty to
prevent anarchy and chaos.
special deterrence - The prevention of individuals from comitting crime again by
punishing them.
general deterrence - The prevention of people in general or society at large from
engaging in crime by punishing specific individuals and making examples of them.
Functionalist Crime Theories
Emile Durkheim
“Crime is an integral part of all healthy societies.”
He argued that crime is inevitable, normal and necessary (functional) aspect of social
life.

Crime is inevitable because not everyone in society is going to be equally committed to the
collective (shared) sentiments (values and morals). This is because we are all exposed to
different influences & circumstances.
Durkheim - ‘Society of Saints’
With no crimes at all the society would see little deviance acts as a very bad thing.
Durkheim - Deviance is necessary
Durkheim argued that deviance helped society to evolve “Yesterday’s deviance must become
today’s normality.”
Some deviance is necessary….
Low crime & deviance = no change
High crime & deviance = disorganisation & chaos
Durkheim - Solidarity
“Punishment serves to heal the wounds done to the collective sentiments.” It creates
SOLIDARITY (togetherness)
Criticisms
Dodgy Research:
No actual study carried out - “armchair criminology”
Not all crime is functional:
Victim support groups would find it very difficult to say that violent crime against the
person was a way of strengthening “collective sentiments”.
Does not look at what the causes of crime might be just that it is functional, healthy,

universal and inevitable.
Merton
Functionalist who argued that there are five responses to the value consensus – we can
either love it, abuse it, neglect it, reject it or radically change it. Unlike Durkheim, Merton
offers a reason for why people commit crime.
Merton states that deviance occurs when individuals find that they cannot achieve the
success goals of society in the normal way. There is “strain” between the goals and
people’s abilities to achieve them
Merton Strain Theory - summary
Because members of society are in different positions of the social structure, not
everyone conforms with the value consensus: some heartily embrace it (because they

can), while others reject it.
In Western societies there are cultural goals that we’re all socialised to want like big
cars, big houses, splendid holidays etc…
5 ways to achieve success goals:
1. Conformity:
Accepting both the goals and the institutionalised means of achieving them. This was
the most common response.
Institutionalised means of achieving those goals are chiefly education and career.
2. Innovation:
Accept the goals but reject the institutionalised means. This involves finding other, more
innovative deviant ways to achieve success goals.
Stuart Howatson, 31, of Bewdley
He conned his wife, family and friends into believing he was a Scotland Yard officer.
Over several years, Howatson detailed his "career" to friends. While on holiday in Spain,
he convinced a friend that he could buy their property for £720,000 without a mortgage.
He was later arrested for pretending to
be a Formula 1 boss and buying computers worth over a £1million.
3. Ritualism:
Rejecting the goals but going along with the institutionalised means (work and school).

This deviant behaviour results from being strongly socialized to conform to expected
behaviours.
4. Retreatism
Rejecting both the goals and the means, this group often descends into alcoholism &/or
drug abuse.
5. Rebellion

Is a response that seeks to replace the cultural goals and institutionalised means with
new ones that meet the norms and values of their particular group or culture.
Criticisms
Merton neglects the bigger questions of power - ‘who makes the laws in society’ and
assumes that there is one overarching value consensus in a country as massive as
America. It also over-predicts and exaggerates working class crime while
underestimating middle class crime.
Marxist Theories of Criminality
How do the Marxists explain crime?
Marxists believe that society is best understood by examining the process whereby the
majority of the population are exploited by the owners and controllers of commerce
and industry. The way we structure our society is based upon the idea of capitalism and
the class structure
Those in favour of Capitalism believe it is:
• An economic system that allows private ownership of property and the freedom
to pursue individual wealth.
• Capitalism is moral and practical as it leaves the individual free to think rationally
and act productively to sustain one’s life and experience happiness on earth.
• It allows for economic growth and prosperity

Marx, however, saw Capitalism as a system that allows the ruling class (bourgeoisie) to
exploit the poor working class (proletariat) by forcing them to sell their labour allowing
the rich owners of the factors of production to make more profit.
Therefore Marxists argue most crime is a logical response to inequality and economic
deprivation or poverty.
The key rules of the Marxist criminology approach include:
1. The basis of criminal law
2. The dominant hegemony of the ruling class
3. Law enforcement
4. Individual motivation
5 Crime and control
1. The basis of the criminal law
All laws are essentially for the benefit of the ruling class, and reflect their interests.
Criminal law therefore operates to protect the rich and powerful.
2. Law creation and the dominant hegemony
In capitalist societies, the ruling class impose their values (values which are beneficial to
themselves) upon the mass of the population. They do this through a number of
agencies such as the education system, religion and the mass media. (This concept of
ruling class values being imposed upon the population is commonly known as
hegemony.)
It is the dominant set of values that are the basis from which laws arise in a democracy.
However, according to Marxists, the set of values is actually ‘forced’ on the people. Thus

what they believe they are agreeing to as a result of their own beliefs are, in reality in
the interests of the ruling class.
3. Law enforcement
Despite the fact that the law making process reflects the interests of the ruling class,
many of these laws could provide benefits for the majority of the population if they
were applied fairly. However, even the interpretation and enforcement of the law is
biased in favour of the ruling class, so that the police and the criminal justice system will
arrest and punish the working class, but tend not to enforce the law against the ruling
class.
4. Individual motivation
Marxist theory provides an explanation for the individual motivation underlying crime.
Bonger argued that capitalism is based upon competition, selfishness and greed and this
formed peoples’ attitudes to life. Therefore crime was a perfectly normal outcome of
values which stressed looking after oneself at the expense of others. But Bonger also
said that in many cases, poor people were driven to crime by their desperate conditions.
5. Crime and control
Marxists believe that the ruling class in a capitalist system constantly seek to divert the
attention of the population away from the ‘real’ problem the true causes of their
situation the capitalist society. Institutions such as the media, religion and the education
system reinforce and acts as justifications that the capitalist system is the ‘natural’ and
‘best’ economic system.
Crime plays a significant part in supporting the ideology of capitalism, as it diverts
attention away from the exploitative nature of capitalism and focuses attention instead
on the evil and frightening nature of certain criminal groups in society, from whom we
are only protected by the police. This justifies heavy policing of working class areas,
stops and searches by the police of young people and the arrests of any sections of the
population who oppose capitalism.
An example of the traditional Marxist approach
William Chambliss’ study of British vagrancy laws provides an illustration of the ways in
which laws may be directly related to the interests of the ruling class. Just after the
Black Death Plague in 1349 that killed more than one third of the country’s population, a
law was introduced that required every able-bodied man to accept work at a low, fixed
wage. This stopped those who had survived from moving from village to village,

demanding higher pay. The new law was strictly enforced and produced a supply of low-
paid labour to help the workforce shortage.
In 1530, a law was introduced that punished anyone with out a job ‘on the road’,
assuming they were highway robbers preying on the traffic of goods along major
highways.
In both cases, the law was introduced and imposed in such a way as to benefit the ruling
class – whilst apparently being about stopping ‘vagrants’ from travelling around
England.
Criticisms of the traditional Marxist approach
1. The victims of crime are simply ignored and the harm done by offenders is not taken
into account. )
2. The explanation for law creation and enforcement tends to be one dimensional, in
that all laws are seen as the outcome of the interests of the ruling class – no allowance
is made for the complexity of influences on law making behaviour.
Crime and control: a Marxist perspective
Box (1983) agrees with the more right-wing Marxist writers in that it is release from
social control, which propels people into committing crime. He states that the capitalist
society controls and exploits workers for its own ends / to benefit the ruling class and
when people are released in some way from this control, then they are much more
likely to commit crime as they see the unfairness of the system.
Box argues that the there are five elements, which can weaken the bonds of capitalist
society and propel individuals into committing crime.
1. Secrecy
If people are able to get away with a crime then they are more likely to attempt to
commit crime. According to Box, this is one key factor which helps explain why white-
collar crime such as fraud, takes place. The majority of white-collar crime simply goes
undiscovered.
2. Skills
Most people are simply unable to commit serious crime. Minor offending and anti-social
behaviour is generally on the spur of the moment. Serious crime however requires

planning and knowledge, plus the skill to carry it out.
3. Supply
Even knowledge and skill are not enough by themselves. The potential offender must
also be able to obtain the equipment and support to be able to carry out most serious
crimes. For example, a burglar needs a ‘fence’ to sell his stolen goods to.
4. Symbolic support
All offenders must have some justification for their activities.
5. Social support
Directly coupled with the idea of symbolic support is the need for others who share
similar values to support and confirm the values which justify crime. (Social support is
another way of describing a subculture)
For Marxists, social control operates for the benefit of the ruling class and once this is
weakened, it is possible that people will turn to crime to express their disillusionment
with capitalism.
Critical criminologists still take this position and argue that criminals are engaging in a
form of political act in their crimes and that if they were made more aware of the
circumstances which propelled them into crime, they may well act in a more politically
conventional way.
https://misssrobinson.wordpress.com/tag/marxist-criminology/
Right and Left realism
Realist approaches try to take a more practical view of crime and deviance, offering
suggestions for what might be done to reduce crime and to make communities feel
safer.
According to crime statistics, the likely victims of crime are, perhaps surprisingly, more
likely to be poor and disadvantaged rather than the rich. The majority of crime occurs in
inner-city areas and in large social housing developments – where there is real concern
about the amount of crime – a concern previously missed by sociologists.
1. Right realism: derived from right-wing theories of James Q. Wilson and
emphasises.
2. Left realism: derived from the writings of Lea, Young and Matthews.

Right realism
This originated in the USA with the writings of James Q. Wilson in ‘Broken Windows’
(1982). He argued that crime flourishes in situations where social control breaks down.
In any community, a proportion of the population are likely to engage in ‘incivilities’ i.e.
dropping litter, vandalism, rowdy behaviour etc. In most communities this is prevented
from going further by the comments and actions of other members of the local
community. However, if the incivilities go unchecked, then the entire social order of the
area breaks down and gradually there is a move towards more frequent and serious
crime. Wilson uses the example of abandoned buildings, asking whether anyone had
ever seen just one window broken? The answer is that once one window was broken,
then they all were. Once crime is allowed to happen, it flourishes. Wilson was influenced
by Etzioni (1993) and his theory of communitarianism which stresses the fact that only
local communities by their own efforts and by local face-to face relationships can solve
social problems.
Wilson drew the conclusion that the police should have a crucial role to play in restoring
the balance of incivilities and helping to recreate community. Most police officers
engage in law-enforcement, ensuring that the law is not broken and apprehending
offenders if they have committed an offence. He argued that they did relatively little to
reconstruct communities and prevent crime (after all only 3% of offences result in
successful prosecutions) police should be concentrating on order maintenance, using
the law to ensure that the smaller incivilities – groups of rowdy youths, drug use etc. –
are all crushed. This would help to create a different view of what was acceptable
behaviour, and would make public areas feel safe again for the majority of people.
For right realists crime is the product of 3 factors:
• Individual biological differences
• Inadequate socialisation
• Rational choice to offend
They reject the structural or economic factors put forward by other theorists and focus

on these three causes:
Biological differences:
Some people are predisposed to commit crime because they have certain personality
traits such as aggressiveness, extraversion, risk taking and low intelligence.
Socialisation and the underclass:
Murray argues that crime levels are increasing because there is a growing underclass
who fail to socialise their children properly. Murray believes the underclass in the USA
and the UK is growing because of welfare dependency.
The welfare state is too generous according to Murray which has allowed people to
become reliant on it, which has led to the decline of marriage, and the growth of single
parent families because women and children can live on benefits.
Boys do not learn discipline because
fathers are absent, and do not have proper role models so they turn to other often
delinquent role models in gangs and on the street.
Rational choice to offend:
Rational choice theory assumes individuals have free will, and Clarke argues that the
decision to commit crime is based on a rational choice.
If the perceived rewards of committing a crime outweigh the costs, or the rewards of
crime outweigh not committing crime then individuals will be more likely to offend.

Left realism
Derived from the writings of Runciman (1966) who argued that political revolutions only
occurred when the poor became aware of the sheer scale of the differences between
themselves and the rich. Without this knowledge they generally accepted their
powerless and poverty. Therefore, it is not poverty which leads to revolution, but
awareness of their relative poverty. Therefore, Lea and Young (1984) pointed out that
poverty or unemployment do not directly cause crime, as despite high unemployment
experienced in the economic depression in Britain in the late 1920s to 30s, crime rates
were considerably lower than they were in the boom years of the 1980s. According to
Lea and Young, the expectations of 1930s youth were much lower than those of
contemporary young people, who feel resentful at what they could actually earn
compared with their aspirations.
Marginalisation
This refers to the situation where certain groups in the population are more likely than
others to suffer economic, social and political deprivation – young people living in inner
cities and social housing estates are likely to suffer from high levels of deprivation than
those from more affluent areas. In terms of political deprivation, this refers to the way
there is no way for them to influence decision-makers, and thus they feel powerless.

Left Realists criticise other theories that they think do not take crime seriously. They
argue that:
• Marxists focus too much on corporate crime.
• Neo-Marxists ignore working class victims
• Labelling theorists focus on labelling and social construction and ignore the real
victims – working class people.
Left Realists believe that there has been a real increase in crime, and that statistics are
largely accurate (in opposition to labelling theorists) – as the findings of victim surveys
reveal.
Left Realists argue that disadvantaged groups have a greater fear of crime, are more
likely to be victims of crime and are less likely to report offences than other groups.
The causes of crime according to Left Realists:
Left realists believe that there are a number of causes of crime – these causes tie in with
the ideas of various other theorists from Marxists to Functionalist subcultural theories:
Relative deprivation:
For Lea and Young crime occurs because of deprivation. They use the concept of
relative deprivation to explain crime. This is how deprived a person feels in relation to
other members of the same society. This can lead to crime because people feel resentful
that others have more than they do.
British society is better off than it has ever been, but crime rates are higher – Lea and
Young argue that people are more aware of what they are missing because of the
media.
Lea and Young argue that this is increased by individualism – a concern with self above
all.
How would this cause crime?
This is leading to the breakdown of families and communities (‘I’m alright Jack’
mentality). This weakens informal social control which allows anti-social behaviour to
occur.

Subcultures as a cause of crime:
This takes some of its ideas from Merton’s strain theory– especially reactions to the
failure to achieve societies goals.
A subculture can emerge as a group response to relative deprivation. For Left Realists
criminal subcultures still subscribe to the mainstream norms and values of society –
such as materialism and consumerism – Young (2000) argues that street crime is caused
by the gap between the goals and the means of achieving them.
Labelling (INTERACTIONISM)
Instead of looking at why some social groups commit more crime, labelling theory asks 
why some people committing some actions come to be defined as deviant, while others
do not. Labelling theory is also interested in the effects of labelling on
individuals. Labelling theorists note that most people commit crimes at some time in 
their lives but not everyone becomes defined as a deviant or a criminal. So how does
this process of defining a person as deviant work?
Labelling theorists take a different approach to structural theories such as functionalism
and Marxism, and instead of looking at the causes of criminal behaviour they are more
interested in why some behaviour gets labelled as criminal or deviant.
Instead of taking statistics on crime at face value they are more likely to look at them as
social constructs rather than fact. Interactionist theorists are interested in how certain
crimes come to be defined or labelled as deviant or criminal.
Instead of taking statistics on crime at face value they are more likely to look at them as
social constructs rather than fact.
Interactionist theorists are interested in how certain crimes come to be defined or
labelled as deviant or criminal.
Society’s reaction to the act is what is interesting. Becker argues:
‘Social groups create deviance by creating the rules whose infraction constitutes
deviance..’
A deviant is someone to whom the label has been successfully applied.

Society creates the rules, so deviance is not a distinctive form of behaviour, but
behaviour that is seen to break the rules.
Acts labelled as deviant tend to be committed by certain types of people.
For example the police tend to target specific groups.
The effects of labelling
Labelling theorists are interested in the effects of deviance on those that are labelled.
One of the effects of labelling is that the deviance becomes worse.
Primary and secondary deviance:
Lemert distinguishes between primary and secondary deviance.
Primary deviance is deviance that has not been labelled by society these acts are not
part of a deviant way of life, and they do not have any effect on an individual’s self-
concept.
Secondary deviance refers to acts that have been publically labelled. Once labelled
other people may see the person in terms of that label, and the label becomes the
master status of the labelled person or controlling identity. For example a label as
paedophile or thief would override a man’s status as a father, co-worker etc.
Lemert refers to further deviance that results from the label as secondary deviance. The
person accepts the label and it becomes a self – fulfilling prophecy. The deviant has their
status reinforced as an outsider.
A deviant career may occur as the master status stops a criminal finding work, thus
leading them to offend again through association with a deviant subculture that rewards
deviant behaviour and confirms the deviant identity.
Jock Young showed how this happened amongst hippie communities in Notting Hill in
the 1960s where smoking marijuana was a peripheral activity. Once the police started
targeting them and focusing on the drugs, the drugs themselves became more central to
their identity, and created a deviant subculture which had not really previously existed.
Deviance amplification:

This is a term used by labelling theorists to describe what happens when attempts to
control deviance cause it to escalate.
This leads to greater attempts to control it and so the offending appears to increase.
Stan Cohen’s famous study into the conflict between mods and rockers in Clacton in
1964 illustrates deviancy amplification. In Folk Devils and Moral Panics Cohen shows
how media attention and exaggeration led to a moral panic about the behaviour of a
few anti-social youths on the beach on a bank holiday weekend.
This lead to young people identifying more strongly with one group or the other, visiting
seaside towns on subsequent bank holidays which attracted more police attention, so
more arrests were made, and a deviancy amplification spiral occurred.
Goffman: Spoiled identities
Negative physical and mental characteristics and statuses are known as stigmas or as
Goffman referred to as ‘spoiled identities’.
Stigmatisation is clearest when looking at prisons. Losses whilst someone is in prison can
change that person’s moral career.
The following index of suspiciousness emerges:
* Young people generally, but especially in cars (and even more so if in groups in cars)!!!
* People in badly maintained cars, especially if they have tatty, screwed up licence.
* People of untidy, dirty appearance – especially those with dirty shoes (even manual

workers, if honest, he says, are clean and tidy)
* People who are unduly nervous or confident in police presence (unless they are
doctors, who are usually naturally confident)
* People whose appearance is very different in some way – e.g. their clothes are not as
smart as their car.
* People in unusual family circumstances
* Political radicals and intellectuals, especially if they spout extremist babble these
people are also particularly likely to make unjust accusations against the police.
NORMAL PEOPLE
Normal unsuspicious people are those outside the above categories, especially if they
are of smart conventional appearance (which command natural authority and respect)
and even more so if they smoke a pipe!!!!!!
These points add up to a fairly clear-cut picture: respectable, unsuspicious people
conform to extremely conventional middle-aged, middle-class/respectable working class
modes of appearance, lifestyle and political belief. Anything else is suspicious, and the
further it deviates from that model, the more suspicious it becomes.
Individualistic theories
They cover:
Learning theories which focus on the role of rewards, punishments and role models
Psychological theories which emphasis the individual personality characteristics that are
related to criminality
Psychodynamic theory which looks at the role of childhood trauma and unconscious
forces in determining criminality
Learning theories

The Effects of Deprivation
Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Study:
Aim
To test the maternal deprivation hypothesis, that is, to see whether frequent early
separations were associated with a risk of behavioural disorders: in particular, a disorder
termed ‘affectionless psychopathy’, Bowlby used this term to describe individuals that
have no sense of shame or guilt; they lack a social conscience. Is it possible that such
individuals were more likely to have a disrupted early childhood!
Procedures
* The participants in this study were 88 children ranging in age from 5 to 16 who had
been referred to the child guidance clinic where Bowlby worked.
* Forty-four of the children had been referred to the clinic because of stealing (the
‘thieves’. Bowlby identified 16 of these thieves as affectionless psychopaths (described
above).
* The remaining 44 children in the study had not committed any crimes; they were
emotionally maladjusted, but did not display antisocial behaviour. None of this control
group were diagnosed as affectionless psychopaths.
* Bowlby interviewed the children and their families and was able to build up a record
of their early life experiences.
Findings
* Bowlby found that a large number (86 per cent) of those thieves diagnosed as
affectionless psychopaths had experienced “early and prolonged separations from their
mothers”.
* Only 17 per cent of other thieves (the ones who weren’t classed as affectionless
psychopaths) had experienced such separation.
* Even fewer (4 per cent) of the control group (‘non-thieves’) had experienced frequent
early separations.

Conclusions
* These findings suggest a link between early separations and later social and emotional
maladjustment.
* In its most severe form, maternal deprivation appears to lead to affectionless
psychopathy. In its less severe form it leads to antisocial behaviour (theft).
* These findings support the maternal deprivation hypothesis..
Behaviourist Psychology
Behaviourism, also known as behavioural psychology, is a theory of learning based upon
the idea that all behaviours are learnt. In contrast to the biological explanations,
behaviourism suggests that criminality is not something that is innate, rather it is learnt
through interactions with the environment. An important part of learning is the
consequences for a behaviour.
Operant conditioning
A learning process in which the likehood of a specific behavior is increased or decreased
through positive or negative reinforcement each time the behavior is exhibited, so that
the subject comes to associate the pleasure or displeasure of the reinforcement with
the behavior.

Operant conditioning is based on the consequences of behaviour. There are three
important consequences.
1. Positive reinforcement involves receiving something good for an action which
reinforces or encourages the behaviour to be repeated.
2. Negative reinforcement involves the removal of something bad when certain
behaviour is produced when certain behaviour is reproduced which again reinforces
that behaviour is to be repeated.
3. Punishment involves a negative event following an action which makes you less likely
to repeat the action again. This is not the same as negative reinforcement.
Social Learning Theory
Behaviourism suggested that learning takes place directly. E.g. a person would have to
experience the consequences of an action themselves in order to learn the behaviour.
Social learning theory believed that learning could also take place indirectly through
observation and imitation of role models.
Albert Bandura investigated social learning using the famous
Bobo Doll study.
In a later study, Bandura showed the importance of vicarious reinforcement. This occurs
when you learn behaviour by seeing another person being rewarded or punished.
Bandura showed children films of a person being rewarded or punished for behaving
aggressively. The children who saw the person being rewarded were much more likely
to imitate the behaviour than those who saw the person punished.
Psychodynamic theories

All psychodynamic explanations originate from the work of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).
Although Freud did not address the issue of criminal behaviour himself, other
researchers have attempted to apply some of his key concepts to criminality.
Freud drew attention to the importance of memories or
traumatic experiences that occurred during childhood which became stored in the
unconscious part of the psyche which influenced an individual’s conscious thoughts and
behaviour and resulted in a range of personality disorders which could result in criminal
activity.
Freud believed that we can understand human behavior best by examining early
childhood experiences. Freud had a theory of consciousness and a theory of
personality, both of which can be related to crime.
Freud’s theory of consciousness suggested that only a small percentage of experiences
form our conscious which are actively aware of.
1. The conscious mind includes everything that we are aware of. This is the aspect of our 
mental processing that we can think and talk about rationally.
2. The preconscious mind is the part of the mind that represents ordinary memory. 
While we are not consciously aware of this information at any given time, we can
retrieve it and pull it into consciousness when needed.
3. The unconscious mind is a reservoir of feelings, thoughts, urges, and memories that 
outside of our conscious awareness. Most of the contents of the unconscious are

unacceptable or unpleasant, such as feelings of pain, anxiety, or conflict. According to
Freud, the unconscious continues to influence our behaviour and experience, even
though we are unaware of these underlying influences.
Freud therefore explained criminal behaviour as being a product of our unconcious
desires. They may also be the result of repressed memories which may manifest
themselves in outbursts of criminal behaviour.
Freud’s Theory of Personality
1. Id: This is the unconscious and instinctual psychic energy that we are born with. The
id is completely selfish, immediate gratification of needs without reference to reality or
moral considerations. Freud related it with pleasure principle in that it constantly tries
to gratify these instincts through sex and other forms of pleasurable activity, but this
may also lead to aggression and violence.
2. Ego: The ego works on the reality principle and is the mediator (or referee) between
the other two parts of the personality. It develops around the age of two and its role is
to reduce conflict between the demands of the id and superego. It does this through
defense mechanisms such as displacement in which feelings are transferred from the
true source of a distressing emotion onto someone else.
3. Super ego: The superego forms around the age of five. It is our internalized sense of
right and wrong and is based on the morality principle. The superego develops when a
child identifies with their same-sex parent and they take on their parent’s morals. The
superego is responsible for our feelings of guilt and shame.
Criminal behaviour results from an imbalance between the three parts of the
personality.

Ronald Blackburn (1993) argued that if the superego was somehow deficient then
criminal behaviour is inevitable as the id is not controlled. Three types of inadequate
superego have been proposed:
Weak superego – if the same-sex parent is absent during the age when the superego is
formed the child has no one with whom to identify. The superego and the associated
morality does not develop fully. This would make immoral or criminal behaviour more
likely.
The deviant superego – if the child’s parent is a criminal and lacks a high level of
morality, they will internalise this when they identify with them at age five. This will
make them more likely to engage in criminal behaviour as they are not likely to
associate wrongdoing with guilt (neither does their father).
An over-harsh superego – if a child is severely punished they may be overwhelmed with
guilt. This may (unconsciously) drive the individual to perform criminal acts in order to
satisfy the superego’s need for punishment. The child’s personality is imbalanced
towards guilt and shame.
Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality
Eysenck proposed that behaviour could be represented along two dimensions:
introversion/extraversion (E) and neuroticism/stability (N). The two dimensions
combine to form a variety of personality characteristics. Eysenck later added a third
dimension – psychoticism.

Extraversion: toughmindedness; impulsiveness; tendency to be outgoing; desire for
novelty; performance enhanced by excitement; preference for vocations involving
contact with other people; tolerance for pain.
Introversion: tendermindedness; introspectiveness; seriousness; performance
interfered with by excitement; easily aroused but restrained, inhibited; preference for
solitary vocations; sensitivity to pain.
Neuroticism: Below-average emotional control, will-power, and capacity to exert self;
slowness in thought and action; suggestibility; lack of persistence; tendency to repress
unpleasant facts; lack of sociability; below-average sensory acuity but high level of
activation.
Psychoticism: Poor concentration, poor memory; insensitivity; lack of caring for others;
cruelty; disregard for danger and convention; occasionally originality and/or creativity;
liking for unusual things; considered peculiar by others.
They create four basic temperaments recognized by ancient Greeks:
* Melancholic (introverted + unstable): sad, gloomy
* Choleric (extroverted + unstable): hot-tempered, irritable
* Phlegmatic (introverted + stable): sluggish, calm
* Sanguine (extroverted + stable): cheerful, hopeful
Family and crime theories
Family Studies
These studies look at the similarity in behaviour between members of the same family.
Francis Galton, a famous Victorian scientist, had looked at how intelligence or genius ran
in families concluding that this was hereditary.
Researching crime in the same way Osborne and West (1982) compared the sons of
criminal and non-criminal fathers. They found that 13% of the sons of non-criminal
fathers had a criminal conviction whilst 40% of those with criminal fathers had a
conviction.
Twin Studies

Monozygotic twins
* Known as "identical" twins
* All of their genes are the same
Dizygotic twins
* Known as "non-identical" or "fraternal" twins
* Half their genes are the same
Christiansen (1977)
Studied 3586 pairs of twins in Denmark.
* He found that if an identical twin was a criminal, 52% of the time, their twin was also
criminal.
* With non-identical twins, this was only true in 22% of cases. The link was for theft, but
not violent crime.
Dalgard and Kringlen (1976)
Dalgard and Kringlen (1976) found similar results in a Norwegian study with 15% for DZ
twins and 26% concordance for MZ twins.
These results do support the importance of genes but must also be treated with caution.
Concordance rates are not particularly high and so do also emphasize the importance of
the environment.

Adoption studies
Adoption studies provide us with strong evidence to show that crime could be due to a
biological reason. Adoption studies look at relatives, siblings and twins that have been
adopted at a young age.
In adoption studies researchers compare the similarity of behaviour between adoptees
and biological offspring. If the child is more similar to their adoptive parent then it
suggests that environment is more important. Conversely if they are more similar to
their biological parent it suggests that genes are more important.
This means that they share the same genes BUT not the same environment as their
parents, siblings or grandparents. Allows us to separate nature from nurture.
Crowe (1972) found that if an adoptees biological mother had had a conviction they had
a 50% chance of having had a conviction. If the adoptees biological mother did not have
a conviction they had only a 5% chance of having received a conviction.
Mednick (1984) studies court convictions of 14,427 adopted children. The criminal
records of biological and adoptive parents were then investigated.
He compared their criminal records with those of their adopted and biological parents.
* Results: adopted children with criminal records for theft also had biological fathers
with criminal convictions.
* This was even true where siblings had been separated and raised in different adoptive
homes.
MAIN RESULT
They found that where neither the adoptive nor biological father had a conviction the
adoptee had a 10% chance of receiving a conviction. If the adopted father had a
conviction this rose only slightly to 11%. If the biological father had a conviction this
rose to 21%.
If both the biological and adopted father had a conviction this rose to 36%. This suggests
that both genes and environment are important but that genes may be more important.
Neurophysiological (brain damage)

Raine – Brain Damage
Raine 1994 used PET scans to study the living brains of impulsive killers. Damage was
found in pre-frontal cortex, which controls impulsive behaviour. Phineas Gage is an
example.
To investigate this Raine (1997) used P.E.T. scans of violent offenders. He used 41
American prisoners and matched them with 41 ‘normal’ people. 6 of the prisoners were
schizophrenic and 23 had suffered head injuries. The schizophrenics were matched with
schizophrenic people from the general population.
Results showed that violent offenders had less activity in their frontal and parietal
lobes. The front lobe is responsible for self-control whilst the parietal lobe handles
verbal ability and learning. Violent offenders also had more activity in their occipital
lobe, responsible for visual information. Violent offenders also had comparatively less
activity in their Corpus Collosum. Violent offenders also had less balanced brains – their
amygdala and hippocampus showed more activity on the right than left.
Raine concluded that brain structure influences behaviour and therefore these

differences support a neurological element to criminal behaviour. Specifically, they
suggested that violent criminals may have:
* Malfunctioning amygdala: Violence is linked to unusual emotional responses possibly
a lack of fear
* Faulty hippocampus: Crime is the result of the inability to learn from mistakes
* Low activity in corpus callosum: Problems with spotting long-term consequences of
behaviour
* Low activity in pre-frontal cortex: Deals with rational thought and moral judgement.
Neurochemical
The brain’s chemistry can be influenced by diet, for example, food additives, pollution or
hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar levels associated with forms of diabetes). Dawn
Stanton attacked her husband with a knife when hypoglycaemic.
Some studies show low levels of serotonin are linked with higher aggression. Control by
diet is possible as foods like chocolate and chicken can help raise serotonin levels.
Individuals who take large amounts of steroids can become extremely violent (known as
"roid rage"). Steroids, usually taken to increase muscle growth, also increase
testosterone levels. Horace Williams, a body builder, beat a man to death after taking
two thousand times the recommended dosage of steroids.
Kohlberg’s moral development
Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one stage at
a time. That is, they could not "jump" stages. They could not, for example, move from
an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage without passing through the
good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one
stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was important to present them
with moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them to see the reasonableness
of a "higher stage" morality and encourage their development in that direction. The last
comment refers to Kohlberg's moral discussion approach. He saw this as one of the
ways in which moral development can be promoted through formal education.
Note that Kohlberg believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs
through social interaction. The discussion approach is based on the insight that
individuals develop as a result of cognitive conflicts at their current stage.

Behaviourist theory
Pavlov and Skinner
Bandura

John Watson proposed that the process of classical conditioning (based on
Pavlov’s observations) was able to explain all aspects of human psychology.
Everything from speech to emotional responses were simply patterns of
stimulus and response. Watson denied completely the existence of the
mind or consciousness. Watson believed that all individual differences in
behavior were due to different experiences of learning.

Criminology Theories

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Criminology Theories

Similar to Criminology Theories (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Criminology Theories