Theories of Crime | Introduction

Theories of Crime | Introduction There are many theories of crime which fit into four different models each explaining crime through varied approaches, in this essay I will be discussing the weakest of these theoretical explanations of crime and the strongest. The weakest theory of crime is Biological Positivism which is part of the Predestined Actor Model which is a positivist model explaining criminal behaviour based on scientific factors beyond a persons control. Biological positivism has been heavily criticised by many criminologists due to their explanations that the internal factors of a person is what causes crime, this will be explored further and proven to be the weakest theory throughout the essay. The strongest theory of crime is Left Realism, which is an integrated explanation. This theory takes into account elements of other approaches and realises that there are multiple causes of crime therefore making it one of the strongest theoretical explanations, this will be elaborated on in the body of the essa y and will be further proven why it is the strongest of all the theories. Throughout the essay I will be addressing the main points, the key thinkers, their explanations of crime and why it was chosen for each theory, which will then conclude in support of my claim of the weakest and strongest theories. Lombroso was the founding father of biological positivism and his theory suggested that people were born criminal; this explanation was influence by Darwins work on evolution and atavism. Although he was a biological positivist his work gradually turned towards environmental factors therefore suggesting that biological factors as the cause of criminality was not enough of an explanation and poverty for example also became influential. Lombroso was interested in criminal behaviour and categorized criminals as born criminals, insane criminals, occasional criminals and criminals of passions. He set the scene for all positivist work and other biological positivists based their work on Lombrosos findings. However Lombrosos work has been criticised, as it used outdated methodology which was very basic therefore he was unable to create any meaningful conclusions. Furthermore he did not consider female offenders, any criminal acts which were carried out by women he disregarded and stated tha t the men were responsible for the female involvement, therefore lacking in validity (Burke, 2009). Matza in 1964 went on to say that a criminal is a specific type of person, that is different to those that are not criminals and that crime occurs due to factors outside of their control. However, this then ignores the aspect that humans have free will to commit crimes therefore disagreeing with theories in the rational actor model like Classical theory, which states that people choose to commit crimes. There are many theories in biological positivism which all state that individuals are compelled to commit crime as it is part of their biological make-up, such as physical factors, theories related to the body, chromosomal anomalies, etc. however these have be criticised as you will see below. Physical type theories were the first to come out and this was based on the idea that criminals stand out based on of their appearance. Lombroso did research on atavism as mentioned above, that criminals are born criminal and show signs of criminal throwbacks for example long ears and sloping foreheads. As a result of this, people speculated that those with physical atavistic characteristics were criminals and used it as a prevention tactic. However this only related to a small amount of criminals and therefore is not very reliable and many with these characteristics could be wrongly accused of criminality. In todays society Lombrosos work is considered outdated and discredited due to the theory that a persons physical appearance increases the likelihood of them being a criminal, this is seen as absurd and meaningless, hence perceived as a weak theory. Phrenology, which is the study of skulls was also used to explain crime, Gall stated that by looking at the shape and bums of a skull can indicate a persons character and specified that the area above the right ear determines how violent that person is. This theory has been criticised immensely along with physiognomy, which tells a persons character through facial featured, due to its lack of credibility. There is not enough substantial evidence to prove this theory amongst a vast population because people are individuals with an individual biological make-up (Maguire, 1997). Sheldon has done some similar work on linking body shape to behaviour, (his theory of somatypes) and identified three forms of body types which relate to certain personalities. He established that offending behaviour and crime is linked with mesomorphs, who are muscular and athletic with an aggressive personality. However it does not consider that these types of people may be targeted by the police more than the other two body types therefore is supporting his theory as those athletic built individuals are getting caught, where as other body types are not. These physical theories are very weak as they are ignoring different aspects of the interaction between the physical characteristics of the person and their social circumstances. (Burke, 2009:74) People from poor families and areas may have a poor diet therefore causing them to be small, while young people working manual jobs are more likely to be muscular. These people are over-represented with criminals, which could be explained by socio-cultures not via biological factors (Burke, 2009). Furthermore, to support the statement that biological positivism is a weak theory, Sheldons work was follow up by a Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development and found there was no physical difference between offenders and non offenders, therefore suggesting there is no reliability due to the inconsistency. Further criticisms of this theory are based on its methodology, as the sample of offenders and non offenders are not representative to society as mentioned above it does not account for those who do not get caught, it ignored the sifting process in the criminal justice system. It also disregards interaction with the environment, as those individuals with physical stigmas may retaliate against their social environment and labels given to them therefore living up to the expectation leading to a self fulfilling prophecy (Taylor, Walton, Young, 1973). Chromosomal Anomalies is another category of biological theory criminologists have used to explain crime, it looks at the link between abnormal chromosomes and criminal behaviour. A normal female complement is XX and male is XY, an abnormal complement is when there are chromosomes missing or there are too many for example the XYY. Brown in 1962 found that those with sex chromosome abnormalities had higher rates of delinquency than his other patients. Casey et al (1966) followed on from his work and did the first major studies at a secure hospital and found supporting results for men with an extra Y chromosome as well as them being taller and having low intelligence (Taylor, Walton, Young, 1973). The limitations for this theory are similar to that of the body type category, for example those with an extra Y chromosome may be taller and well built therefore targeted and treated harsher by agents of the criminal justice system like the police and judges. Further limitations which makes this theory the weakest, is that there are many individuals that are normal and do not behave criminally in society that have extra chromosomes, therefore suggesting that others factors have to be involved. In addition this theory also ignored the fact that those young men with an extra Y chromosome came from a working class background, therefore the cause of criminality could be due to their exploitation from the ruling class not because of chromosomes. Marxist theory would agree that the cause of criminality was a result of capitalist society and not chromosomes that are not identifiable and unable to predict criminal behaviour. Biological positivists also explained criminality as genetically inherited; they suggested that a criminal gene can be passed on through the family just like physical characteristics. To test this theory they used three sources of data, studies of criminal families, studies of twins and studies of adopted persons. All three sources claimed that criminal behaviour was inherited rather than environmental, however family studies did not considered the effect of an absent parent lending to criminality. In twin studies they could not identify whether criminality was influenced more by environmental or biological factors however did mention that biological theory on its own to explain crime is not enough, therefore is a weak theory to base criminal explanations on. This was also reiterated in adoption studies emphasising that environmental factors play a role and add to the reliability of the theory, therefore showing the weaknesses of the biological theory when it is used to explain crime on its own (Wiley, 1996). There are many weaknesses in the categories within biological theory, from the methods used by criminologists to their shortcomings in ignoring certain aspects including the three data sources that explained inherited criminal characteristics. The main limitations in biological positivism occur throughout all the categories even biochemical explanations such as hormone imbalances and substance abuse which has not been discussed in detail. The reason this theory was chosen as the weakest is due to it many limitations; criminologist largely discredit this approach as it is nowadays seen as outdated and not relevant, therefore there are many better explanation to crime that can be proven. Biological theory only looks at criminality from one approach which is seen as a very over determined view of human actions and a more integrated approach would explain crime better for example the more recent socio-biological explanation of crime. It only explains criminal behaviour effectively in a m inority of offenders and has considerably more limitations as mentioned above. This weakest theory also cannot explain the variation in crime rates and offers no explanation to why and how laws arise. A further reason it was chosen as the worst, was due to the unethical and harsh treatments to prevent crime which in the USA, even results in death, genetic selection and sterilisation. The strongest theoretical explanation of crime is left realism. This theory is chosen as the strongest because unlike biological positivism it does consider other factors and is an integrated model which recognises that there are many causes of crime and contains essential parts from all three models of crime. Jock Young had a major turnaround which altered criminological thinking to the emergence of left realism; when crime rates were meant to decrease due to economic restructuring and improved conditions and instead actually increased, with the increased awareness of victims of crimes and crimes that were previously invisible, and finally a growing public demand and disapproval in efficiency of public service (Newburn, 2007). This new criminology from the left political view, with criminologists such as Young, Lea and Matthews believed crime is a real issue and not socially constructed therefore it needs to be addressed. Left realism is the strongest theory as it takes into account the immediate fears that people have and seek to deal with them (Burke, 2009:264), such as street crimes in high offending areas as those living there are caught right in the middle of it. As mentioned above this theory is seen as theoretically strong as it recognises various causes of crime that are credited. The relationship individuals have with the police could be a cause of crime, if the police are harassing people therefore causing them to retaliate or feel helpless; this will drives them to offend. This theory is supported by labelling theory which makes it stronger because instead of theories disagreeing with the causes it agrees therefore creating validity. The police can also cause moral panics in society which can lead to further criminal behaviour; this could be a distraction by capitalist so that the working class are not aware of the real issues that they should be concerned about, this strength allows the individual to be aware of the capitalist system and the exploitation by the ruling class therefore can avoid crime. A key element of left realism is relative deprivation as a cause of crime. People measure their situation for example what they have got, (money and jobs) against the expectation that society creates. When individuals are unable to reach that expectation they may turn to crime in order to achieve it, this is the theory of anomie suggested by Merton. This explanation adds to the strength of this theory as it highlights economic and social factors of crime. Another key element is subculture, Lea and Youngs subcultural model explains how subcultures are used as a response to problems. Those who are unable to adapt to middle class values create subcultures that include people that share their norms and values so they are no longer frustrated. This therefore can be a response to the problem for the working class individuals; however this subculture may create norms and values to suit the group which may include criminal acts as a way of rebellion against the system (Lea, 2002). The final key element is marginalisation, as certain groups lived on the margins of society and are not accepted by others, consequently turning to crime. All these explanations of crime are some of the best from other theories and now under one theory therefore this is the strongest theoretical explanation of crime. An additional reason this is chosen as the strongest theory is because it provides a solution to crime and not just the causes, this is shown with the square of crime. Left realists state that crime is a gathering of the following four factors and the relationships between the four factors determine the effectiveness of that relationship to preventing crime. The first of the four factor, is the state; where the agents of the system label individuals as offenders which is a major factor of recidivism, the second is the victim; who may encourage criminal behaviour due to lack of defence or through repeated lifestyle (routine activity theory), the third is society; where formal and informal social controls occur and the fourth is the offender; how often they commit crimes and the type of offences, etc. (Burke, 2009). To prevent crime, you have to interfere at each point of the square. For example, in the state the police should have more effective policing and the courts should not make preconceptions. The victim should be more responsible for their protection and maybe change their daily routines regularly. The public (society) to ensure that the required socialisation is taking place in primary years and finally the offenders should exercise their free will and decide not to offend. A criticism of left realism, is that the theory is mainly based on previous approaches. However this can be considered as a positive factor, as the theory is hard to criticise due to the fact it has elements from all modules therefore accounts for many explanations and was chosen as the strongest theory. Further advantages includes how it seeks realistic policies to tackle crime problems and how left realism is about prevention not control, therefore left realists believe that if you punish it will lead to marginalisation, so consequently prevention is better.

Free Essays: The Prologues of Oedipus Rex and Everyman :: comparison compare contrast essays

The Prologues of Oedipus Rex and Everyman Two Works Cited A prologue is a miniature version of the actual text. It answers the elements of literature in a work, and exposes the reader to essential facts, as well as foreshadows the outcome of the work. The prologue also introduces themes, characters, and literary devices to complement the work. Thus, through the study of the prologues of Oedipus Rex and Everyman, one may learn much about the nature of both plays. In the prologue of Oedipus, the 'bear' pun is used. The 'bear' pun is a popular literary device used in many plays. To bear means to carry a babe; To bear can also mean to carry something heavy. The pun indicates that if one cannot bear the truth (which is a very heavy object placed on the heart) than one cannot bear new life. In order to be reborn one must suffer the bearing of truth. When Oedipus says, "I, Oedipus, who bear the famous name." (Sophocles, 715), he indicates that he is bearing the name and therefore must bear the fate that is set for him in order to conceive new life. In order for Oedipus to fully bear his name he must accept the responsibilities that follow; He must escape from the ways of the flesh. Until this time comes, the Gods must bear Oedipus's pain until he is ready to accept it. Likewise, Everyman cannot reach enlightenment (to be free of guilt) because he cannot bear the truth. God explains why Everyman cannot be enlightened as he says, "They use the seven deadly sins damnable, / As pride, covetise, wrath, and lechery . . ." (Everyman, 761). This proves that Everyman is too much of the flesh, and he uses the ways of the flesh to keep him bound to the earth. Thus, when God says, "I see the more that I them forbear" (Everyman, 761), God is bearing Everyman's truth until he is ready, when Everyman is no longer of the flesh. A major theme consistent in both works is that of suffering. In Oedipus Rex, the kingdom of Thebes is suffering because of Oedipus's sin. The suffering of Thebes is illustrated when the Priest said: The herds are sick; children die unborn, And labour is vain. The god of plague and pyre Raids like detestable lightning through the city, And all the house of Kadmos is laid waste,

A Synopsis of the Movie I, Robot Essay

I always asked myself if those stories about robots overcoming humankind will become real. Sci-Fi books are being my favorites since I was a kid and I watched every major movie about this subject. My favorites is â€Å"I, robot† that tells the story of a society in the future that relies on robots for all its domestic activities, but somehow one of those robots became aware of his own self and started to develop a mind, but most important, a soul. The robot started to develop a sense of what is right and wrong, and not because some program installed in its memory or an algorithm protocol of orders, it begun making decisions not based on instructions or learning by mistake process, but by searching deep on its â€Å"heart† what was the right thing to do. The robot’s name is Calvin and the movie, starred by Will Smith, is based on a set of short stories by Isaac Asimov, prolific writer considered a master in hard science fiction. On his â€Å"I, robot† short stories, one of them titled â€Å"Three Law of Robotic†, and which he considered his maximum contribution to human kind of the future (Asimov wrote the book on 1950), he came up with three laws that he thought a future society must input on robots in order to coexist with them as part of their day by day living. Those laws are: 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. These laws seem to be really basic, but their logic really doesn’t have any gaps, at least at first impression. When Calvin (the robot) encounters a conflict with those commands, he started to develop its artificial intelligence and becoming more human. When Calvin is in a situation that its deactivation will be harmful for his two human friends, he decided to fight for his existence, and a new era of robots was born. Like Asimov there are several authors and scientists that predicted a future where robots and artificial intelligence are a big part of society. And they have reasons to believe on this. After the Industrial Revolution took place, we have being searching for more productive ways to increase manufacture. Industrialization and mass production levels demand better, faster and smarter ideas to satisfy the greater demand of consume based societies. To achieve those exigent goals, technology and specially robotics is used more and more often. Some factories are made only on robots that build equipment parts or process food in a way no human can do. Major companies know where we are heading and invest more and more in robotic technology and artificial intelligence, like we read in the following citation of the article of Nicholas Carr â€Å"Is Google Making us Stupid?†: â€Å"Where does it end? Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the gifted young men who founded Google while pursuing doctoral degrees in computer science at Stanford, speak frequently of their desire to turn their search engine into an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected direct ly to our brains. â€Å"The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter,† Page said in a speech a few years back. â€Å"For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence.† In a 2004 interview with Newsweek, Brin said, â€Å"Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.† Last year, Page told a convention of scientists that Google is â€Å"really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large scale.†Ã¢â‚¬  There is no doubt for me that there is a future where robots will be everywhere: Some robots might be performing precise heart surgeries, controlling traffic and overseen proper transit on the streets, cleaning our houses as domestic service or maybe even teaching English Composition at the local Community College (no offense to Ms. Patrice Fleck), but let’s be ready if some day they become aware of their own existence, giving the next step on their evolution as metallic beings. Let’s hope that their intentions towards us are attached to the Three Laws of Robotic stipulated by Asimov, they could be the difference between our survival and coexistence, or our total annihilation.

The Treatment Of Outweighing By John Donne And Shakespeare...

Hand to strange hand, lip to lip none denies, Why should they breast to breast, or thighs to thighs? (Donne, ‘Sappho to Philaenis’) Write an essay on the treatment of homoeroticism in the writing of the period. The treatment of homoeroticism is explored through the influential writings of both John Donne and Shakespeare in the Renaissance Era. Similarly, the voice of both present a scornful dismissal of the opposite sex in order to defy the typical conventions of heterosexuality. Whilst Donne explores lesbianism in his poem ‘Sappho to Philaenis’, Shakespeare reveals a hidden homosexuality in his sonnet sequence, exposed through the analysis of both his literature, and the changes made to the 1609†¦show more content†¦Donne contrasts ‘poetry’ and ‘desire’ with ‘verse’ and ‘fire’ to present parameters which display the vexed relationship between the rhetoric and the erotic. The rhyming couplets which hold this ‘desire’ and ‘fire’ metaphorically evoke both the sexual and the rhetorical. This erotic relationship is evident through Sappho’s physical description: the ‘holy fire’ is one of eternity, which cannot ‘decay’ within her heart. Ignited by eroticism, it is this fire that fuels ‘mind’s creatures’, a personification of thoughts, reflecting Sappho’s uncontrollable desire caused by the magnificence of her lover. Similar to the way Shakespeare scorns his female lover in favour of his male love in his collection of sonnets (1-†¦), Donne also depicts how his protagonist, Sappho, dismisses Phao disdainfully in favour of her relationship with Philaenis. Thus, both poets seem to respect metonymic sex instead of metaphoric intercourse. The ‘old poetic fire’ continues to enflame Sappho’s new desire. This is reiterated through Donne’s patterning, through his imagery of a candle. It is this which presents Sappho’s heart not with an image of her lover, but with ‘wax’, surrounded by ‘fire’, ignited by the passion of a woman. However, as we delve further into the poem, there is evidence of cracks which form within the relationship, which result in a sheer loss felt by Sappho. She is ‘robbed of a picture, heart and sense’, as she loses her lover, Philaenis. As she grieves, she