Why criminal behavior exists

Contemporary criminologists believe that policies based on rational choice theory should have more modest, specific targets and focuses. But while rational choice theory has evolved on the academic side, policy crafted according to its dictates has lagged behind.

Examples of policies related to outdated interpretations of rational choice theory include:. Classical biological theories of criminality stated that people are "born criminals" who cannot be deterred from committing crimes: Whether due to mental or physical disability, criminals cannot learn to control themselves.

In contrast, contemporary biological theories emphasize biosocial causes rather than strictly natural ones. By foregrounding social factors, these criminologists theorize, we can mitigate risks of criminal behavior prompted by biological factors. This theory asserts that criminal behaviors are learned and therefore can be counteracted by developing a social environment in which criminal behavior is not normalized. This theory is most frequently used as the basis for supportive, less punitive programs that serve juveniles, such as:.

Labeling theory proposes that applying a label, whether that means informally designating a youth as a "bad kid" or a "troublemaker" or a more formal arrest or incarceration record, has a long-term effect on a given person. Policies inspired by labeling theory were popular in the s, but they were perceived as ineffective and fell out of use, replaced by "tough on crime" rational choice approaches.

Barnett, E. A Definition of "Social Environment". Bartol, C. Criminal Behavior A Psychological Approach. Cullen, F. Criminological Theory: Past to Present. Kaiser, B. Biological Risk Factors for Challenging Behavior. Retrieved November 3, , from Education. The Autistic-Spectrum Disorders. The New England Journal of Medicine , Salehi, E. Environmental factors and urban crime. Retrieved July 27, , from Wordpress.

A Neuropsychiatric development model of serial homicidal behavior. Warr, M. Companions in Crime. More Corrections1 Articles. More Probation and Parole News. More Product Listings. More Product news. More Probation and Parole Videos. Make Corrections1 your homepage. The benefits of housing units for military veterans. Several social structure theories exist. A popular explanation is social disorganization theory. This approach originated primarily in the work of Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D.

To explain these related patterns, Shaw and McKay reasoned that the inner zones of Chicago suffered from social disorganization : A weakening of social institutions such as the family, school, and religion that in turn weakens the strength of social bonds and norms and the effectiveness of socialization.

Another popular explanation is anomie theory , first formulated by Robert K. Merton in a classic article. Writing just after the Great Depression, Merton focused on the effects of poverty in a nation like the United States that places so much emphasis on economic success. With this strong cultural value, wrote Merton, the poor who do not achieve the American dream feel especially frustrated.

They have several ways or adaptations of responding to their situation see Table 8. First, said Merton, they may continue to accept the goal of economic success and also the value of working at a job to achieve such success; Merton labeled this adaptation conformity.

Second, they may continue to favor economic success but reject the value of working and instead use new, illegitimate means, for example theft, of gaining money and possessions; Merton labeled this adaptation innovation. Third, they may abandon hope of economic success but continue to work anyway because work has become a habit. Merton labeled this adaptation ritualism. Finally, they may reject both the goal of economic success and the means of working to achieve such success and withdraw from society either by turning to drugs or by becoming hobos; Merton labeled this adaptation retreatism.

He also listed a fifth adaptation, which he called rebellion , to characterize a response in which people reject economic success and working and work to bring about a new society with new values and a new economic system. They trace the roots of crime to the influence that our friends and family have on us and to the meanings and perceptions we derive from their views and expectations. By doing so, they indicate the need to address the peer and family context as a promising way to reduce crime.

Social process theories stress that crime results from social interaction. In particular, our friends influence our likelihood of committing crime or not committing crime. Sutherland and published in its final form in an edition of a criminology text he wrote Sutherland, Sutherland rejected the idea, fashionable at the time, that crime had strong biological roots and instead said it grew out of interaction with others.

Specifically, he wrote that adolescents and other individuals learn that it is acceptable to commit crime and also how to commit crime from their interaction with their close friends. Adolescents become delinquent if they acquire more and stronger attitudes in favor of breaking the law than attitudes opposed to breaking the law.

In a book, Causes of Delinquency , Travis Hirschi asked not what prompts people to commit crime, but rather what keeps them from committing crime. It highlighted the importance of families and schools for delinquency and stimulated much research on their influence. Much of this research has focused on the relationship between parents and children. Millions of children around the nation live in circumstances that put them at risk for a childhood, adolescence, and adulthood filled with antisocial behavior, delinquency, and crime, respectively.

Although most of these children in fact will not suffer this fate, many of their peers will experience these outcomes. These circumstances thus must be addressed to save these children from a life of crime. As social scientists Brandon C. Welsh and David P. What are these risk factors? They include being born to a teenaged, single mother; living in poverty or near poverty; attending poor, dilapidated schools; and living in high-crime urban areas.

As should be evident, these risk factors are all related, as most children born to teenaged, single mothers live in poverty or near poverty, and many such children live in high-crime urban areas.

What can be done to help save such children from a life of crime? Ideally, our nation would lift them and their families entirely out of poverty with employment and social payment policies. Although this sort of national policy will not occur in the foreseeable future, a growing amount of rigorous social science evaluation evidence points to several effective programs and policies that can still help at-risk children.

These include 1 at the individual level, certain types of preschool programs and social skills training programs; 2 at the family level, home visiting by trained professionals and parenting training programs; and 3 at the school and community levels, certain types of after-school and community-mentoring programs in which local adults spend time with children at risk for delinquency and other problems. Another social institution, religion, has also been the subject of research. Fewer studies of religiosity and criminality during adulthood exist, but one investigation found an association between greater religiosity and fewer sexual partners among never-married adults Barkan, Our criminal justice system is based on the idea that the prospect of quick arrest and harsh punishment should deter criminal behavior.

Children who are neglected or abused commit substantially more crimes later in life than others. The cycle of violence concept, based on the quality of early life relationships, has its positive counterpart. Supportive and loving parents who respond to the basic needs of their child instill self-confidence and an interest in social environments. These children are generally well-adjusted in relating to others and are far less likely to commit crimes.

By the late twentieth century the general public had not accepted that criminal behavior is a psychological disorder but rather a willful action. The public cry for more prisons and tougher sentences outweighed rehabilitation and the treatment of criminals. Researchers in the twenty-first century, however, continued to look at psychological stress as a driving force behind some crimes.

Searching for the origins of antisocial personality disorders and their influence over crime led to studies of twins and adopted children in the s.

Identical twins have the exact same genetic makeup. Researchers found that identical twins were twice as likely to have similar criminal behavior than fraternal twins who have similar but not identical genes, just like any two siblings.

Other research indicated that adopted children had greater similarities of crime rates to their biological parents than to their adoptive parents. These studies suggested a genetic basis for some criminal behavior. Prisoner in California being prepared for a lobotomy in At the time, many psychiatrists believed that criminal behavior was lodged in certain parts of the brain, and lobotomies were frequently done on prisoners.

With new advances in medical technology, the search for biological causes of criminal behavior became more sophisticated. In psychologist Robert Hare identified a connection between certain brain activity and antisocial behavior. He found that criminals experienced less brain reaction to dangerous situations than most people. Such a brain function, he believed, could lead to greater risk-taking in life, with some criminals not fearing punishment as much as others.

Studies related to brain activity and crime continued into the early twenty-first century. Testing with advanced instruments probed the inner workings of the brain. With techniques called computerized tomography CT scans , magnetic resonance imaging MRI , and positron emission tomography PET , researchers searched for links between brain activity and a tendency to commit crime. Each of these tests can reveal brain activity. Research on brain activity investigated the role of neurochemicals, substances the brain releases to trigger body activity, and hormones in influencing criminal behavior.

Studies indicated that increased levels of some neurochemicals, such as serotonin, decreases aggression. Serotonin is a substance produced by the central nervous system that has broad sweeping effects on the emotional state of the individual. In contrast higher levels of others, such as dopamine, increased aggression. Dopamine is produced by the brain and affects heart rate and blood pressure.

Researchers expected to find that persons who committed violent crimes have reduced levels of serotonin and higher levels of dopamine.

This condition would have led to periods of greater activity including aggression if the person is prone towards aggression. In the early twenty-first century researchers continued investigating the relationship between neurochemicals and antisocial behavior, yet connections proved complicated. Studies showed, for example, that even body size could influence the effects of neurochemicals and behavior.

Hormones are bodily substances that affect how organs in the body function. Researchers also looked at the relationship between hormones, such as testosterone and cortisol, and criminal behavior. Testosterone is a sex hormone produced by male sexual organs that cause development of masculine body traits.

Cortisol is a hormone produced by adrenal glands located next to the kidneys that effects how quickly food is processed by the digestive system. Higher cortisol levels leads to more glucose to the brain for greater energy, such as in times of stress or danger.

Animal studies showed a strong link between high levels of testosterone and aggressive behavior. Testosterone measurements in prison populations also showed relatively high levels in the inmates as compared to the U. Studies of sex offenders in Germany showed that those who were treated to remove testosterone as part of their sentencing became repeat offenders only 3 percent of the time. This rate was in stark contrast to the usual 46 percent repeat rate. These and similar studies indicate testosterone can have a strong bearing on criminal behavior.

Cortisol is another hormone linked to criminal behavior.