Introduction
There is a myriad of criminology theories whose cardinal goal is the attempted explanation of crime, perpetrators, and victims. Social deviance is not a new concept to man and criminology has its roots in the original civilizations in the world that first established laws to govern the societies that they inhabited. As such, truly it is no wonder that elements such as the social contract are a common denominator between law and criminology.
This paper shall comprehensively discuss some key elements of criminology, viz. theories of crime, victims of crime, recidivism or desistance, and the measurement of crime. Towards this end, the data presented is an amalgamation of numerous articles and other literature hubs consulted for research purposes and adequately cited within the text.
Explanation of the theories of crime
Crime is an interesting element in society. Dating back to Adam and Eve, the two broke a law that had been set for compliance and as a result, they suffered the promised consequences. This trend followed through with Cain who murdered his brother Abel, and then the Jews with their Torah all the way down to contemporary legal systems and institutions that form the pinnacle of order in today’s society.
The allusion to Christianity is a calculated move for crime has an element of morality in it and it is just as effective would have been an allusion to Islam or Atheism. Theories of crime are based on various possible perspectives on crime that have been investigated and empirical data drawn to support their accuracy or validity. They are theories as opposed to facts for they could yet be disproved.
However, in the meantime, they have been used to explain criminology for close to two centuries now and continue to do so. Additionally, some of them are actually theories used to explain other phenomena, but borrowed into criminology for the sole purpose of shedding further light on a general aspect of crime that is shared by another phenomenon. An illustration of this aspect would be the learning theory, which is a psychological theory that is originally, and still in most forums, used to explain behavioral development in general, but criminology enlists it as a learning theory for how crime is learnt by delinquents.
Theories that explain crime
Crime theories are numerous and diversified and they include psychological theories such as learning theories, intelligence theories, personality trait theories, psychopathic theories, cognitive and social development theories, positivist, classical, anomie – institutional anomie and feminism. Others include critical, social disorganization, differential association, control, general strain and deterrence among others. It is imperative to note that some of these theories are swallowed up in the initial five, and so for the purposes of this paper, only the fundamental aspects of these theories shall be discussed.
Classical theory
This theory posits that crime is a free willed choice, which occurs when the benefits far outweigh the costs of procuring them and people put their personal interests first. It denotes a lack of effective punishments and has close ties with the theories of deterrence and rational choice. The father of this school of thought is Beccaria. Deterrence and rational choice advance the classical theory by positing that crime is based on rationality, which means that criminals weigh the benefits versus the costs of a certain criminal act before proceeding to commit it.
In this case, the cost is punishment, and the more immediate and severe the punishment, the more deterrent it would be. Conversely, if the benefits outweigh the costs, so that for instance such a criminal through experience or observation has delayed or totally avoided punishment, it shall mean that there will be an escalation in the commission of such a crime.
Positivist theory
This theory mirrors legal positivism for it holds crime to be “determined”, which means that it is a positive action. For further explanation on what exactly causes crime, Lombroso looks to biological defaults in the subject. The validity of this theory is maintained by the later preference for psychological or sociological factors as the source of enlightenment as far as crime is concerned. This theory forms an umbrella for the psychopathic theory among others and other contributors to the same include Guerry and Quatelet.
Differential Associations / Social learning / sub cultural theories
These theories converge on the premise of learnt behavior. Consequently, they posit that if a person associates with a particular group of individuals that either openly embrace crime or are subjective about some form of crime being justified, then the individual shall become indoctrinated with this form of thinking and thus become a criminal. If such an individual is a delinquent, then interaction with antisocial contemporaries shall result in the commission of criminal activities.
Additionally, these theories posit that if such conduct is repeated, then it becomes reinforced and this move leads to an escalation of the crime rate in a given place. Subscribers of this theory include Sutherland and Cressey, Wolfgang and Ferrracuti, Akers, and Anderson. It is also worth mentioning an overlap exists among between theories and the cognitive and social learning theories that shall be discussed below. These differences and similarities shall be outlined and addressed sufficiently.
Anomie Institutional-Anomie theory
This theory captures the United States of America’s conundrum quite succinctly. In fact, it has its origin in the US as it is premised on the concept of the ‘American Dream’. It posits that if a society becomes obsessed with the concept of a dream, the economic institutions become dominant and norms are weakened as people strive to achieve and live the dream. During the ensuing anarchy, family ties, which are inherently crucial for the strengthening of a society’s morality, are loosened and even cut out and the result is anarchy without guiding norms meaning that the crime rate escalates as people set out to do whatever it takes to live the dream.
Strain / General Strain theory
For better understanding, strain in this case could range from emotional to economical. Nevertheless, regardless of one’s perspective, strain leads to stress, which then evokes different reactions from different people with different backgrounds or mental states. This theory, to some extent, overlaps with the control theory that shall be discussed later in this paper for the inherent differences in people are responsible for different reactions to similar occurrences.
Consequently, in the same instance, one person may react by getting angry, another by getting frustrated, and another by seeing an opportunity and feeling optimistic. The negative responses to strain could lead to an outcome of crime. Within this mix is also the issue of covariance and co-morbidity, so that at times when drugs and alcohol are introduced as negative stimuli to deal with the strain, chances of resorting to crime are high. Theorists in this school of thought include Cohen, Agnew, Cloward and Ohlin.
Critical theory
This theory blames capitalism and opines that inequality in the division of power and resources cause crime as the wealthy minorities seek to exploit the struggling majority and so at some point, some of the poor majority resort to crime as a revolutionary tool. It is noteworthy that many scholars in criminology treat this theory with misgivings for it does not say that in a capitalist system, crime is justified by the reigning inequality. Critical theorists of this theory include Bonger, Quinney, and Greenberg.
Psychological theories
Learning theory
Summarily, this theory underscores the study of the circumstance under which a response and a cause stimulus become connected (Miller & Dollard, 1941, p. 81). For effective learning to ensue, there should be modeling, instruction, and self-persuasion culminating in the adoption of a new behavior, which over time, due to repetition, becomes reinforced (Moore, 2011, p. 236). Additionally, even if such learning is through observation of peers or parents, it shall still be reinforced in the individual.
The collateral hypothesis of “vicarious reinforcement” posits that if a delinquent or criminal gains a lot of recognition and attention from being deviant, other peers shall observe this trend and strive to achieve the same status or credit by being criminal. Learning theories have the most evidence in the form of empirical data and so they are the most reliable theories in criminology.
Intelligence theories
It is important to begin by pointing out that these theories are inherently flawed with controversy as regards the actual relation between intelligence and crime. The shortage of empiric data to straighten out the multiple controversies is also noteworthy. However, the position is that there is definitely a connection between intelligence and crime. Initially, the assumption was that criminals have a low IQ.
However, this assumption was proved to be erroneous and presently, the position is that the crux of this theory turns on school of performance. In this case, students who perform poorly at school, for whatever reasons, have reduced chances of excelling in the highly competitive world out of school (Koenen et al., 2006). Consequently, they start by shutting out the school controls and becoming regular detainees at detention. This element in effect means that whatever control or values they should have learnt from school, they shall not learn. They end up receiving harsh treatment from teachers and peers and eventfully they miss legal employment opportunities or pro-social relationships. This aspect forces them to seek a replacement of the lost social control or support and they find it in deviance.
Personality Trait theories
This theory defines criminal or delinquent behavior as an external manifestation of an internal disease, or pathology. Under this premise, there is the psychodynamic – psychoanalytic theory and the personality trait theory. The theories posit that the human personality is made of “the id, the ego, and the superego” (Caudill, 1997, p.76). The clash between the id and the ego culminates in a destabilized state of mind, which in turn triggers the operation of defense mechanisms to cope. These changes are reinforced over time and mastered by the system to form a personality type, which is made up of distinguished characteristics. This knowledge is essential for the development of intervention strategies to prevent an individual from adopting criminal or delinquent traits.
Psychopathic Theories
These theories are used in the definition of more serious delinquent acts or crimes. They opine that such action is the physical manifestation of a mental illness, but this assertion is construed differently from the position taken in personality trait theories. The key difference is psychopathic theories is the focus on a state of being or a mental disorder as the cause of a criminal act as opposed to the personality trait theories that capitulate on individual traits in a particular person. The crux of such disorders is the Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) as diagnosed by the DSM –IV scales (Shoemaker, 2005; Siegel et al., 2006).
Intrinsic intrigues of these theories include the observation that APD is predominantly a male disorder and so the question remains; how would this theory explain crime by women. The effect here is similar to the categorization of personality traits for with psychopathic theories, there is a cluster of personality types and behavioral characteristics. However, the problem with this categorization is the labeling of people, which could easily have adverse effects (Pfohl, 1994).
Developmental Theories (Cognitive and Social Development)
These theories are a rather elaborate position, which alleges that there are different stages of mental development during which different types of thinking ensues and sometimes this development could breed delinquency (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). An illustration of this assertion is the increased rebellious attitude of teenagers during adolescence regardless of race, sex, or education level. This scenario gives one a lot to consider with regard to the idea that crime at one’s teens makes such an individual more susceptible to committing a crime in his or her adulthood (Siegel et al., 2006). However, this theory is an exception as opposed to generalization. All these theories are inherently different, yet again, all of them can be used to supplement and compliment the others for a wholesome understanding of crime.
What is the role of the victim in the criminal justice process?
The victim of crime is the entire reason why the criminal justice process is carried out. The process exists as a manner of righting wrongs or atrocities committed by criminals and delinquents against innocent victims. Consequently, the victim of crime grants justification for the existence of the criminal justice process as the recipient of the retribution that shall be meted out on the criminal by the system.
Nevertheless, the victim of the crime has some preordained obligations too, which if executed, shall serve to lubricate the wheels of justice. The first responsibility is the reporting of criminal occurrences to the authorities so that investigations can begin and a suspect arrested (Kilpatrick, Beatty, & Howley, 1998, p. 2). Next, the victim has to participate in the judicial proceedings by offering all the cooperation required of him or her by the prosecutor and other players.
Finally, in a bid to help in improving the judicial system, the victim could offer his or her input on the delivery of judicial services, particularly with regard to such a victim’s satisfaction with the justice proffered as well as the services by the judicial officials throughout the trial. These services include the relaying of notifications on dates, places, and times among others. The opinion of the victim with regard to the satisfactory of the judicial proceedings is significant for if a victim is dissatisfied with the proceedings, such a victim is likely to share his or her negative sentiments with other victims and that would seriously jeopardize the credibility of the judicial system.
How are the victim’s rights protected?
A victim’s rights are protected through several steps, first of which is the promulgation of the necessary laws. In 1982, “the Presidential Task Force issued a Final Report on Victims of Crime that was rent with imbalances of unrivalled proportions between the rights of accused persons versus the right of crime victims” (Pfohl, 1994, p.86). In a bid to restore a state of equilibrium, the committee proposed that a constitutional amendment be introduced to cater for the right to be present and to herd at all stages of the judicial proceedings.
However, this quest failed and as a result, states went on a rampage of promulgating the relevant statutory as well as constitutional provisions to secure victims of crimes’ rights. At the federal level, “the Victims’ Rights and Protection Act came into force in 1990 to cater for the victims of federal crimes and so the trend is that there are both statutory and constitutional provisions that are meant to protect crime victims throughout the United States” (Pfohl, 1994, p.86).
Therefore, legislation is one of the ways of ensuring protection of victims’ rights. However, legislation alone cannot ensure the protection of victims’ rights. In addition to this element, the policymakers have to warn themselves about the mediating factors such as knowledge, resources, and the lack of efficient enforcing mechanisms to ensure those victims’ rights. If the victims are not aware that they have rights then they shall not follow up the same rights.
If the staff members at the judicial offices are not aware of victims’ rights, they shall not know to extend the same to the victims. The matter of resources is with regard to adequate funding to extend to victims their rights. Finally, with regard to enforcement mechanisms, there is a need to install self-monitoring systems to ensure that the system works without any inhibitions. The system should work in compliance with the procedural rules established to protect victims’ rights.
What is a chronic offender and what can be done to decrease their criminality
A chronic offender is one who persistently commits a crime and so the chances of conviction and imprisonment are always high. He or she is a habitual offender, but is distinguished from a serial offender who is specific in his or her line of crime. Chronic offenders have some inherent characteristics such as a lack of the willpower to desist, which is better understood by looking at the necessary characteristics in a criminal who is more likely to desist as compared to others who are not (Koenen et al., 2006).
Researchers have pinpointed four variables, viz. hope and self-efficacy, shame and remorse, internalizing stigma, and alternative identities. A brief explanation of these aspects is necessary; hope refers to the belief that one can be reformed. It is necessary for an ex-convict to believe that he or she can be reformed for the next part of the change to take place. The second step requires a feeling of shame or remorse for the wrongs so far committed.
However, it is necessary to ensure that the kind of shame experienced is healthy, which means that it should be reiterative shame as opposed to stigmatizing shame (Moore, 2011, p. 238). The difference between the two is that with reiterative shame, the offenders are apologetic and embarrassed for their actions, but they do not lose their self worth. However, with stigmatizing shame, the offender is ashamed of both the act and the actor and this aspect is destructive.
Internalizing stigma refers to the concept of believing that the rest of the society is against you and so this belief makes one to lose courage in subsisting with the rest of the community after re-entry (Sellin, 1931, p. 338). Finally, the alternative identity allows ex-convicts to create new titles for themselves such as ‘provider’ or ‘family man’. This move is helpful, as the society shall view this person as being more responsible.
In the quest to make this strategy work for the criminals’ benefit, it would be helpful to institutionalize these theories and make a working system. That move would for instance include counseling the inmates before they leave the penitentiary. It would also be beneficial to create a sort of controlled society for immediate posting of ex-convicts before they rejoin the rest of the integrated society.
What are the common ways of measuring crime in the USA?
One can employ disparate ways of measuring crime in the USA including self-reporting, uniform crime reports, and the national prison statistics. Of all these, self reporting is the most popular, and thus it is as well the most efficient. The idea is to report on the phenomenological relationships amongst variables with the least bias possible. Such bias is not easy to ignore especially when using the formal reported information for this information, in the form of police reports and court files, is far removed from the actual occurrence of the crime and so it is relayed in the biased perspective of a bystander (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000, p. 35).
Self-reporting is popular as it involves a one-on- one interaction with the criminal or the delinquent of the drug abuser giving a personal account of how, why, when, and where s/he committed the ‘unreported’ criminal act. Sellin (1931) posits, “The value of a crime rate, for index purposes, decreases as the distance from the crime itself in terms of procedure increases” (p. 337). Consequently, self reporting seems to be the best masurement scheme for crime.
Since its initiation half a century back, it has undergone tremenduous improvements such as an increase in the comprehensiveness of its breadth, seriousnness of the measurement scales, and it has become more reliable and valid. It has test and retest mechanisms to ensure reliability (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000, p. 35). However, the challenge of cooperative respondents remains. Finally, the introduction of the use of audio assisted computerized interviews appears to be promisisng especially for more sensitive kind of reporting.
Conclusion
This paper has looked into the state of criminology. It began with the definition of present theories and proceded to look into victims of crime their rights and protections, then touched on recidivism before concluding with measurement of crime. In this light, it its clear that the view that crime is indeed a mental element with co-morbidities existing between crime and mental disorders or crime and drug and subtance abuse. In case of such covariance, the likelihood to engge in criminal escapades becomes heightened.
Reference List
Caudill, D. (1997). Lacan and the Subject of Law: Toward a Psychoanalytic Critical Legal Theory. New York, NY: Humanity Books.
Catalano, R., & Hawkins, J. (1996). The Social Development Model: A theory of Antisocial Behavior. In J. Hawkins (ed.), Delinquency and Crime, Current Theories (pp. 67-91). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kilpatrick, D., Beatty, D., & Howley, S. (1998). The Rights of Crime Victims—Does Legal Protection Make a Difference? Research Brief: National Institute of Justice, 12(34), 1-12.
Koenen, K., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., Rijsdijk, F., & Taylor, A. (2006). Genetic influences on the Overlap between Low IQ and Antisocial Behaviors in Young Children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115 (4), 787 -797.
Miller, N., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Moore, M. (2011). Psychological Theories of Crime and Delinquency. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21, 226–239.
Pfohl, S. (1994). Image of Devince and Social Control: A Sociological History. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Sellin, T. (1931). The basis of a crime index. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 22, 335–356.
Shoemaker, D. (2005). Theories of Delinquency: An Examination of Explnations of Delinquent Behaviors. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Siegel, L., Welsh, B., & Senna, J. (2006). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory Practice and Law. Belmont, CA: Thomson / Wadsworth.
Thornberry, T., & Krohn, M. (2000). Measurement and analysis of crime and justice: The Self-Report Method for Measuring Delinquency and Crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 4, 34-85.