Forensic Psychology Book - PDF

Chapter 2 Media Coverage of Crime Media Influence: Crime is heavily featured in the media, although not necessarily the majority of news stories. Media coverage shapes public perceptions of crime, even though it often distorts reality. Violent crime, such as homicide, is disprop...

Chapter 2 Media Coverage of Crime Media Influence: Crime is heavily featured in the media, although not necessarily the majority of news stories. Media coverage shapes public perceptions of crime, even though it often distorts reality. Violent crime, such as homicide, is disproportionately reported compared to its actual prevalence. Mismatch with Reality: Media coverage doesn't align with the reality of crime. For example, property crimes like theft are underrepresented in the media, while violent crimes are overemphasized. This creates a distorted view of crime, often leading to public fear about violent crime despite its lower occurrence. Law of Opposites (Surette, 2010): Media portrayal of crime tends to be the opposite of what criminal statistics show. Media focuses on sensational crimes, while the majority of crime is more mundane (e.g., petty theft, scams). Crime Statistics and Surveys Victimization Surveys: Victim surveys, such as the National Crime Victimization Survey (USA) and the Crime Survey of England and Wales, offer a more direct understanding of crime, especially those crimes not reported to the police. However, they exclude certain types of crimes, like drug offences and crimes without clear victims (e.g., vandalism). Limitations of Victim Surveys: ○ Exclusions: No data on crimes without victims (e.g., vandalism) or certain crimes (e.g., sexual offenses) due to sensitivity. ○ Definition Issues: Definitions of crimes may change over time, making comparisons difficult. ○ Accuracy: Not all people report crimes accurately, and some may misinterpret or overlook what constitutes a crime (e.g., fraud). Police and Official Crime Data Police Crime Statistics: Police reports provide crime data based on "crimes known to the police." However, many crimes are unreported, leading to underestimates. The statistics may be influenced by political or social factors and police discretion in reporting crimes. Underreporting and Bias: Since not all crimes are reported to the police, the data often underrepresents the actual crime rate. For example, some types of crimes (e.g., drunkenness, minor motoring offences) may not be included in police crime statistics. Discrepancies Between Surveys and Police Data: The figures reported by victim surveys (e.g., 12 million crimes) are often much higher than those recorded by the police (e.g., 5.6 million crimes). This highlights the substantial differences between these two sources. Sources of Crime Data Court Statistics: Reflect the number and types of offences processed through the courts, including outcomes like sentencing. Biases exist depending on which crimes are prosecuted. Prison Statistics: Reflect the number of individuals incarcerated for specific offences. Biases may stem from changes in sentencing policies (e.g., harsher penalties for certain crimes). General Population Offender Surveys: These surveys ask people about the crimes they have committed. They help capture crimes not reported to the police but may exclude more serious crimes, as offenders may already be incarcerated. Challenges with Crime Data Interpretation Biases and Limitations: Each type of crime data has its limitations, and they rarely converge perfectly. This reflects different perspectives and purposes behind the data collection. Purpose of Data: While no one source can fully capture the "true" level of crime, each serves different purposes. For example, police statistics can track trends, while victim surveys offer insights into unreported crimes. Interpretation of Trends: Crime statistics may be influenced by legal changes, increased reporting, or societal awareness rather than actual increases in crime (e.g., changes in rape definitions leading to higher recorded rates). Godfrey, Lawrence, and Williams (2008) - Crime Statistics Approaches Positivist Viewpoint: ○ Criminal statistics are useful despite shortcomings. ○ They provide a sufficient reflection of social reality. ○ Researchers can use statistics to identify relationships between crime levels and societal events. Interactionist Viewpoint: ○ Crime statistics are the product of both crime reality and criminal justice system activities. ○ There is interdependence between crime and the law, courts, and police. ○ This is the most common perspective among experts. Pessimistic Viewpoint: ○ Criminal statistics are too flawed to provide reliable information about crime. ○ Variations in crime statistics are seen as random. ○ The study of crime statistics is useful for understanding their collection, not crime itself. Validity of the Three Viewpoints: ○ All three viewpoints might be valid under different circumstances. ○ Careful consideration is needed to determine when crime statistics are useful. The Extent of Crime  Public Perception of Crime: ○ How events are construed by the public and police affects crime reporting. ○ Eyewitnesses play a key role in whether a crime is reported. ○ Example: A study by Langsdale and Greenberg (2006) shows that the duration of a suspect's actions (walking vs. running) can impact the likelihood of perceiving and reporting an event as a crime. Crime Statistics Over Time: ○ Crime trends can vary across time and countries. ○ Online crime statistics are frequently updated but can be influenced by organizations' biases. Crime Indexes: ○ Composite measures of crime, often focusing on serious crimes (e.g., murder, robbery). ○ These can be misleading as sub-categories may show different trends from the overall index. Role of Crime Statistics: ○ Collected to inform government planning and evaluate policy success. ○ Governments use these statistics to manage the economic costs of crime (e.g., costs of criminal justice systems, lost workdays, prevention of juvenile crime). Extent of Criminality Historical Belief in Crime and Poverty: ○ Crime was once believed to be mainly committed by the poor. ○ White-collar crime, as defined by Edwin Sutherland (1949), includes crimes by individuals of high social status in their occupations (e.g., fraud, embezzlement, petty workplace theft). Prevalence of Crime: ○ Most people have committed minor crimes at some point, such as driving offenses. ○ In the U.S., nearly 7% of people will go to prison during their lifetime, with higher risks for certain groups (e.g., men, Black people, and high school dropouts). Disparities in Imprisonment Rates: ○ Men (11%) are more likely to be imprisoned than women (2%). ○ Black individuals have a much higher chance of imprisonment compared to white individuals (19% vs. 3%). Generational and Racial Factors: ○ Risk of imprisonment is higher for younger generations and affected by race and school dropout. ○ Black high school dropouts (68%) have a much higher likelihood of imprisonment compared to white high school dropouts (27%). Self-Reported Offending Studies:  Self-Report Studies on Criminal Behavior: ○ Studies have shown that self-reported crime rates are higher than official statistics. ○ Example: Wilson (1980) found that over 40% of boys in deprived housing estates admitted to crimes like shoplifting, whereas only 20% had criminal records. British Crime and Justice Survey (2005): ○ Over 50% of men and 30% of women reported committing crimes such as burglary, theft, or assault. ○ 6% committed property crimes and 5% committed violent crimes in the past year. Psychological Experiments on Dishonesty: ○ Studies on dishonesty (e.g., Hartshorne & May, 1928; Farrington & Kidd, 1977) show that baseline dishonesty rates are relatively high in the general population. ○ Example: In experiments, people often keep money they find instead of returning it. Implications for Forensic Psychology: Crime behavior often involves normal, rather than abnormal, psychological traits. The study of criminal behavior is an examination of typical human behavior, as most individuals admit to some form of crime in their lives. International Crime Statistics Comparison International Crime Victimization Survey (2001): ○ Surveyed 16 countries (e.g., England, Wales, USA, Canada, Australia) on crimes from property theft to sexual offenses. ○ Found the highest victimization rates in England and Wales (31%), followed by countries like the USA (24%) and Belgium (lower rates). Prevalence vs. Incidence Rates: ○ Prevalence rates indicate the number of victims, while incidence rates reflect the frequency of victimization. ○ Example: A person reporting multiple thefts contributes only once to the prevalence rate but multiple times to the incidence rate. Crime Trends by Country: ○ Different countries showed varying trends over time (e.g., increased burglaries in Australia, decreased burglaries in the U.S.). ○ Some countries, like Australia, had much higher rates of recorded burglaries compared to others like Switzerland, which had the lowest. Cross-National Comparisons (1980-2000): ○ Studies comparing eight countries (England, USA, Canada, etc.) showed differing crime trends.  ○ Some countries saw an increase in specific crimes (e.g., burglary in Australia), while others saw a decrease (e.g., burglary in the U.S.). 2. The Reliability of Crime Statistics Issues with Crime Reporting: ○ Many crimes are not reported to the police, particularly rape and assault in the UK (only 17% of rape cases are reported). ○ Victim Surveys help estimate the "true" rate of crime, adjusting for non-reporting. ○ Burglary has a high reporting rate due to insurance requirements. International Comparisons: ○ Countries differ in their crime reporting and definitions. ○ UN ICCS (International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes) aims to standardize crime data for better international comparisons. 5. Conservative vs. Radical Interpretations of Crime Data Crime statistics can be interpreted in various ways: ○ Conservative View: High drug-related convictions signal a major issue with drug use, advocating for harsher punishments. ○ Radical View: High drug convictions reflect failure in drug policy, advocating for decriminalization and reforms. ○ Racial Disparities: In the U.S., Black individuals are overrepresented in both homicide victim and perpetrator statistics. Interpretations range from inherent racial differences to systemic social inequalities and biases in policing. Personality and crime Hans Eysenck - what makes peoplpe different from each other - such as personality ○ Linkedpersonality to deviant/criminal behaviour ○ He suggested that personality could be reduced to 2 dimensions - extraverson and neuroticism ○ These can be measured in yes or no questionnaire (Eysenck Personality Inventrory) ○ High Extraversion - lively, sociable, thrill seeking ○ High neuroticism - anxious, depressed, preoccupied ○ In a later version of his theory he added psychoticism - high - aggressive, antisocial ○ Most people will score somewhere along the middle but criminals would score at higher ends  ○ Believed that there was a biological basis for personality ○ Neuroticism and extraversion - arousal from nervous system ○ People with high extraversion had low arousal levels, therefore they would seek arousal from envornment ○ People with low extraversioin hav over-aroused nervous system - reduce their arousal ○ People with high neuroticism have more easily aroused nerovous system ○ Said that link between personality and criminal behaviour is due to differences in learning during childhood ○ As children grow up they develop a conscience by learning right and wrong. This develops through conditioning ○ Children with high neuroticisim and extraversion - find it harder to learn during childhood so find it hard to develop a conscience - more likely to cmoommit crime Cambridge study in delinquent development - Farrington 1. Longitudinal study of large group of children to see why some commit crime 2. 411 males from age 8 to 48 3. All were from working class backgrounds and living in a deprived area 4. Tested 9 times during study 5. Tests measured individual differences - personality and intelligence, living conditions, employment, erlationships, leisure activities and offending behaviour 6. When boys were at school, teachers filled out questionnaires about their behaviour and school attainment 7. Their peers were asked about their behaviour, popularity, risk taking and honesyu 8. When males reached 32 yrs, criminal conducts where checked to see how many crimes and what type 9. Found number of predictors from 8-10 years of delinuqnecy (ABAFSP) a. Antisocial behaviour: trouble some at school, dishonesty, aggressiveness b. Behavioural traits: Hyperactivity, add, daring, risk-taking, poor concentration c. Academic factors: Low intelligence and poor school attainment d. Family background: Family criminality, convicted parens, siblings with behavioural problems e. Socioeconomic: Family poverty, poor housing and large family f. Parenting issues: Poor parental child-rearing behaviour, hars inconsistent discipline, poor supervision, parent conflict, neglect 10. Most frequent studies by men commited from 17-20 yrs - most likely to offend 11. More likely to offend when unemplpoyed 12. Unemployed people crimes a. Material gain such as theft, robbery 13. Personality is important - impulsivity Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential (ICAP) - Farrington using cambridge findings 1. Influences of Antisocial potential a. Desire for material gain, status, excitement and sexual satisfaction b. Individuals with fewer legitemate means (unemployed, low academic, low income) may resort to crime 2. Types of Antisocial Potential a. Long term AP = poor socialisation, low iq, impulsiveness, sensation seeking, neglected families b. Short term AP = situational factors like frustration, boredom, alcohol, leading to impulsive decisionns. If they are reinforced, they will be repeated and can develop into long term AP c. With age - frustration and impulsivity decrease and usually life events like marriage and steady empployent increase - these reduce AP i. Decrease offending opportunities ii. Increase family and work responsibilities, less time with peers iii. Change decision making by increasing risks of offenting Howard Becker (Back to old thinking is better) Not everyone who breaks the law is caught and prosccuted Only difference between two groups is that ○ One group is labelled as deviant/criminal (also falsely accused people) ○ Normals - might have done same things but not labelled as deviant Deviance is created by society not a quality of an act Social groups define deviance by making rules and applying them to individuals The act itself isnt deviant, its the social response to it which is deviant Society decides which behaviours are deviant or criminal Labeling someone as deviant can shape how others see them ○ Being labeled as criminal might cause individual to adopt to that identity which  will lead to deviant career Social control and deviance 1. Selective rule application: a. In democratic societies - equality before law is important but social differences can influence how laws are applied 2. juvenile delinquency - delinquency is often framed as a male problem with greater focus on young men 3. The rise of female delinquency reflects changing social Chapter 2 blackburn The Measurement of Crime Crime Rate and Epidemiological Terms: ○ Crime is often measured by counting criminal events or offenders. ○ Crime rate = the number of crimes per unit of population, which is a product of: Prevalence: Number of individuals committing crimes at any time. Incidence: Number of crimes committed per offender. ○ Changes in crime rates can reflect changes in prevalence, incidence, or both. Criminal Careers: ○ A criminal career involves the progression of criminal behavior over time, much like an occupational career. ○ Career Criminals: Those whose involvement in crime is intensive and extensive enough to become a way of life. ○ Some researchers question this analogy due to the transient nature of criminal careers. ○ Criminal careers are influenced by initial involvement, frequency, and termination of crimes. Crime Categories: ○ Legal categories of crime are often crude approximations to actual behavior. ○ Crimes can be categorized by seriousness, which is typically determined by the harm involved (e.g., personal injury, material loss). ○ Studies have shown that there is broad agreement on crime seriousness, transcending cultures and social groups. Official Statistics Crime Reporting and Recording: ○ Most crimes come to light through reports from the public (77%-96% in Britain). ○ Official statistics reflect crimes recorded by the police after they are reported.  ○ The recording process involves complex social and institutional decisions, meaning crime statistics are socially constructed. Crime Data in Western Countries: ○ Crime statistics are published annually by governments (e.g., England and Wales, FBI Uniform Crime Reports in the U.S.). ○ Data is categorized by crime severity (e.g., serious offenses vs. less serious offenses). ○ Example (England & Wales, 1988): Property crimes make up the majority of reported crimes (e.g., burglary, theft). Violent crimes (e.g., sexual offenses, robbery) represent a smaller proportion of the total. Crime rates show significant variation across police forces. Clear-up Rates: ○ Clear-up rates indicate the proportion of crimes where a suspect is identified and proceeded against. ○ In 1988, 35% of crimes in Britain were cleared up, with higher clear-up rates for crimes against persons (e.g., violence, sexual offenses). ○ Clear-up rates vary based on the reporting and identification processes, and high rates for violent crimes are often due to easier identification of offenders. Self-Reported Criminal Behavior Self-Report Studies: ○ Involves individuals reporting their involvement in crime through anonymous surveys or interviews. ○ Most research focuses on adolescents, revealing that many individuals admit to committing illegal acts that never came to the police's attention. ○ Example (Williams and Gold, 1972): 88% of adolescents admitted committing at least one crime, but only 9% were caught by the police. Prevalence and Continuum of Crime: ○ These studies show a continuum of criminal involvement, with varying prevalence across types of crimes. ○ Example: 69% of boys admitted breaking windows, but only 9% broke into buildings to steal. Relationship Between Self-Reports and Official Crime: ○ High self-report scores often correlate with official delinquency (e.g., arrests, convictions). ○ Example (West and Farrington, 1973): Half of high scorers at age 16 had prior official convictions. Limitations of Self-Report Data: ○ Measurement errors and inconsistencies in reporting (e.g., underreporting, exaggeration). ○ Studies show that some individuals may conceal or exaggerate their delinquent behavior.  ○ Correlations between self-reports and official records tend to be moderate (around 0.5). ○ Some studies indicate a 20% discrepancy in self-reported crime due to forgetfulness or intentional concealment. Victimization Surveys Crime Surveys: ○ Crime surveys ask individuals about their experiences as victims of crimes in the past six to twelve months. ○ These surveys have been conducted on a national scale (e.g., the National Crime Surveys in the U.S.). ○ The surveys are valuable for capturing unreported crimes, providing a broader view of crime rates. Advantages and Disadvantages of Victimization Surveys: ○ Victimization surveys reveal crimes not captured in official statistics. ○ They help estimate the extent of unreported crime and highlight patterns of victimization across different demographics. Reasons for Not Reporting Crime: Skogan (1977) Findings: 84% of crimes in the 1973 National Crime Survey (NCS) involving losses under $50 were not reported. Common reasons: crime perceived as too trivial or belief that police couldn't do anything. Subjective Seriousness & Reporting: The seriousness of the offense correlates with the likelihood of reporting (Hough & Mayhew, 1985). Serious Crimes: Some serious crimes are not reported due to the stress of litigation (Skogan, 1977). 1984 BCS Findings: Among those who reported crimes, one-third did so due to a sense of obligation, one-third for personal gain (e.g., recovering property), and 16% sought retribution. Underreporting and Underrecording: "Dark Figure" of Crime: Crime statistics often underreport crime due to police discretion. 1988 BCS Findings: Significant underrecording in specific crimes: 75% of vehicle thefts, 65% of burglaries, and 38% of robberies were not included in criminal statistics. Reasons for Underrecording: 1. False or mistaken complaints, or withdrawal. 2. Police judgment that the crime is trivial, unlikely to be solved, or involves a child. 3. Ambiguities in crime classifications leading to miscounting.  Regional Variations: Different regions have varied practices, such as Nottinghamshire, which had high crime rates due to more recorded trivial offenses. Crime Surveys and Their Accuracy: Sampling Errors: Crime surveys often miss high-risk groups (e.g., young males, tourists), and low base rate crimes like rape are prone to error (Block & Block, 1984). Over- and Underreporting: Surveys may overreport or underreport certain crimes, but provide valuable insights like the fact that most crime victims are young, poor, or from ethnic minorities. Crime Survey Benefits: These surveys reveal the relatively minor nature of many criminal behaviors. The Utility of Crime Measures: Purposes of Crime Statistics: Useful for policy formation, evaluating criminal justice systems, and constructing theories (Nietzel, 1979). However, official statistics are unreliable as measures of actual criminal events. Criticisms of Official Data: Box (1981) argues official data are not valid as they reflect discretionary decisions in the justice system. Crime Survey Comparisons: While official stats underestimate crime, discrepancies are larger for minor offenses but smaller for serious crimes like homicide and auto theft. Validity of Official Statistics: Official statistics show consistency in relative crime rates across regions, though they may underrepresent actual crime, especially for minor offenses. The Increase in Crime: Crime Trends: Crime has increased over recent decades in industrialized nations, especially in the UK and US, but much of this rise could be due to changes in legislation and procedural factors. Changes in Crime Recording: Legislative changes like the Theft Act (1964) and Criminal Damage Act (1968) inflated crime statistics by reclassifying offenses. Reporting and Social Factors: Crime increases partly reflect changes in victim reporting rates and increased opportunities for crime (e.g., self-service shopping and availability of cars). Legal Processing and Biases: Biases in the Legal System: Social status, race, and sex can affect the likelihood of being convicted, and legal decisions may not always be fair (Chambliss, 1969). Class and race influence who is scrutinized and the severity of sentences. Legal Decision-Making: The process of handling a criminal case involves multiple decision points (reporting, arrest, prosecution, etc.), and biases or social factors influence outcomes at each stage (Ebbesen & Konecni, 1982). Disparities in Legal Outcomes:  Offender Characteristics and Sentencing: Police decisions, including arrests and cautioning, often depend on factors like age, race, and previous offenses. Variations in Sentencing: Sentencing decisions vary based on offender characteristics, with studies showing inconsistent patterns across race and socioeconomic status. Plea Bargaining: In the U.S., defendants may plead guilty to lesser charges to avoid harsher penalties, a practice that is not formally recognized in the UK. Police Processing of Offenders: Factors Influencing Arrests: Police decisions to arrest are influenced by offense seriousness, suspect characteristics, and complainant behavior. Race and appearance can play a role, with black suspects sometimes more likely to be arrested, but often due to the nature of the offense. Cautions: In the UK, the police increasingly use cautions for minor offenses, particularly for younger offenders. Extra-Legal Factors: Race and Class Bias: Race and socioeconomic status play significant roles in who is processed and convicted. Police hold certain stereotypes of offenders, and the social context of the police station or court can affect decisions (Garrett & Short, 1975; Colman & Gorman, 1982). Psychological Attributes: Offender social skills may influence how police perceive and deal with them. Delinquents with better social skills may be treated more favorably (Werner et al., 1975; Freedman et al., 1978). Notes on Age and Crime: 1. Statistics on Age and Crime: ○ Younger people, particularly men aged 15-20, are more likely to engage in criminal activity than older individuals. ○ In 2015 (England and Wales), more men aged 15-20 were arrested for serious crimes than those aged 21 or older. ○ Self-report studies show that most young people do not commit crimes, and when they do, they typically engage in minor offenses. 2. Theories on Age and Crime: ○ Functionalism and Inadequate Socialisation: Functionalists argue that inadequate primary and secondary socialisation leads to deviant behavior. Inadequate primary socialisation (poor family structure) and secondary socialisation (school, media, etc.) can result in crime. Poor parenting, lack of supervision, and family breakdown (especially lack of fathers) are key factors. ○ Subcultural Theory (Albert Cohen): Cohen focused on working-class youth, particularly boys, and their involvement in juvenile delinquency.  Status frustration arises when working-class youth feel alienated from middle-class educational values, leading them to seek status through criminal behavior. Crime is often a group phenomenon, with youth gangs and subcultures promoting violence and vandalism. ○ Marxist Perspective (Paul Willis): Willis studied working-class boys and their anti-school attitudes, linking delinquency to the flawed education system. He argued that these students felt disconnected from the value system of middle-class education, and therefore, joined gangs to gain status. 3. Prison Demographics: ○ Older people (over 60) are now the fastest-growing age group in prisons. ○ Some older prisoners are repeat offenders, while others committed crimes later in life, especially in their 50s or 60s. ○ Longer life expectancies contribute to the increase in older prisoners. 4. Key Sociological Insights: ○ Youthful Crime: Young people, particularly males aged 15-20, engage in more crime due to the excitement and rebellion associated with breaking rules. ○ Crime Decrease with Age: As people age, they tend to become less involved in criminal activities, possibly due to changes in life priorities and a decrease in the desire for risky behavior. ○ Role of Family and Socialisation: Failure in both primary (family) and secondary (school, media) socialisation can result in a higher likelihood of engaging in deviant behavior. 5. Key Statistics (2005 vs. 2015): ○ 2005 Crime Offences per 100,000 People: Males aged 15-17: 4,489 Males aged 18-20: 4,707 Males 21+: 1,104 Females aged 15-17: 780 ○ 2015 Crime Offences per 100,000 People: Males aged 15-17: 2,000 Males aged 18-20: 3,031 Males 21+: 1,171 Females aged 15-17: 325 6. Key Takeaways: ○ Age and Crime: Younger people, especially young men, are more likely to commit crimes. ○ Older Prisoners: The number of older prisoners is increasing due to demographic changes and longer life expectancies. ○ Functionalist and Subcultural Theories: Both theories highlight the role of socialisation and class struggles in youth crime. ○ Youth Subcultures: Many young people engage in delinquency as part of a group or subculture, seeking status and validation through criminal acts. Notes: Gender and Crime 1. General Patterns: ○ Men are more likely to commit crimes than women. ○ Men commit more violent crimes (e.g., murder), although there have been shifts in this trend since the late 20th century. 2. Theories on Gender and Crime: ○ Sex-Role Theory: Gender differences in crime result from socialization processes, where femininity discourages crime, and masculinity promotes delinquency. Talcott Parsons (1937) argues women’s roles in families make them less prone to crime. Masculinity, associated with aggression and toughness, increases criminal behavior in men (Edwin H. Sutherland, 1960). ○ Biological Theories: Testosterone influences higher aggression in men, leading to more criminal behavior. ○ Feminist Perspectives: Marginalization Theory: Men's greater opportunities outside the domestic sphere lead to more criminal activity. Control Theory: Women's criminal behavior is constrained by stronger social control from fathers, husbands, and society (Frances Heidensohn, 1985). Liberation Thesis (Freda Adler, 1975): As women gain more social freedoms, their crime rates rise, resembling men's criminal behavior. ○ The Chivalry Thesis: Suggests that women may be treated more leniently by the criminal justice system due to "chivalrous" attitudes. 3. Research Findings: ○ Dabbs et al. (1990, 1995): Found a correlation between high testosterone levels and increased delinquency and violence in both men and women, particularly in prison populations. 4. Statistics: ○ Ministry of Justice (2019): Men account for 85% of arrests, 75% of charges, and 95% of prisoners. ○ 98% of sexual offenders are men, and 85-90% of male criminals commit serious crimes. 5. Sociological Evaluations: ○ Carol Smart (2008): Critiques traditional criminology theories, arguing they focus too much on male experiences and need a more inclusive approach. ○ Double Deviance: Women are often punished more harshly for breaking laws due to gender expectations (social and legal norms). 6. Key Takeaways: ○ Gender influences crime patterns, with men committing more and different types of crimes. ○ Sociological theories explain this through socialization, biology, feminist perspectives, and critiques of the criminal justice system's gender bias. Chapter 3 Familial and Social Correlates of Crime Introduction: Criminal behavior is influenced not only by individual genetic traits but also by social interactions, including family dynamics. Children contribute to their development, shaping their environment and influencing the reactions of others. The chapter explores the social influences on criminality, with a focus on family and social environments. Conduct disorder and aggression, precursors to criminality, share antecedents with criminal behavior and are important to understand. The family is the primary socialization agent, but the influence of other social settings like school, neighborhood, and work is also considered. Family Patterns and Interactions: Studies compare family environments of delinquents vs. nondelinquents, showing regular adverse conditions in delinquent families. Early research on family correlates of crime was influenced by psychoanalysis, emphasizing early years of life, but modern research focuses on ongoing parent-child interactions and social learning. Family factors impacting crime are divided into: ○ Functional aspects (e.g., parent-child interaction) and ○ Structural aspects (e.g., family size). Child Rearing Practices: Disciplinary Techniques: Focus on how parents manage undesirable behaviors through consistent techniques. ○ Power assertion: Use of physical punishment, threats, or material deprivation. ○ Love withdrawal: Non-physical disapproval or withholding affection. ○ Induction: Reasoning about the consequences of behavior for others. Moral development is positively linked to induction and negatively to power assertion. ○ Power assertion may lead to hostile behavior. ○ Withdrawal of affection only works in affectionate relationships. ○ Induction teaches contingency rules and empathy, promoting positive development. Disciplinary Styles and Family Interaction:  Delinquent families tend to use more power assertion (physical punishment, ridicule) than nondelinquent families (which rely more on induction and love withdrawal). Disciplinary styles can be categorized into a circumplex model of: ○ Affection (warmth vs. rejection) and ○ Control (demanding vs. permissive). Parenting Styles: ○ Authoritative (warm and demanding): Promotes self-control and self-confidence. ○ Indulgent (warm but undemanding): May lead to poor socialization. ○ Authoritarian (rejecting and demanding): Linked to lower moral development, aggression, and low self-esteem. ○ Neglecting (rejecting and undemanding): Can also lead to delinquency. Inconsistency in Discipline: ○ Erratic parenting, such as differing techniques between parents or inconsistent discipline, is common in delinquent families. ○ Maternal laxness and paternal restrictiveness often occur together. ○ Inconsistency and noncontingent consequences (e.g., unlinked punishment) are emphasized in behavioral approaches to understanding antisocial behavior. Patterson's Observations on Child Behavior: ○ Innocuous Aversive Behaviors: Patterson notes common behaviors like yelling, whining, teasing, and ignoring in families. These tend to decline when parents use effective, non-physical punishment such as time-out, withdrawal of privileges, and assignment of chores. Teaching prosocial behaviors through rule specification is also important. ○ Deviant Families: In contrast, deviant families use severe, inconsistent punishments like humiliation and threats that are not followed through. This creates high rates of coercive interactions between parent and child, with the mother often interacting more when the child misbehaves. The child’s aggressive behavior is reinforced by attention from the parent or by counterattacks that end punishment. ○ Key Distinction: Patterson emphasizes that it is the severity and inconsistency of punishment, rather than punishment itself, that characterizes deviant families. Types of Disciplinary Styles in Families with Antisocial Children: ○ Two Styles: Enmeshed Style (Social Aggressors): In this style, minor misbehaviors prompt high irritation, criticism, and commands, leading to coercive exchanges that escalate. These children engage in aggressive behaviors like teasing, hitting siblings, and frequent tantrums. Lax Style (Stealers): Here, parents are uninvolved and use inconsistent punishment. These children display behaviors like lying, stealing, firesetting, and overactivity. ○ Impact of Styles: Both enmeshed and lax styles fail to modify deviant behavior. The lax style, in particular, is linked to later delinquency, with 84% of children who were stealers at age 8 having police contact by age 14.  ○ Connection to Parenting Styles: The lax and enmeshed styles align with the neglecting and authoritarian styles described by Maccoby and Martin. The lax style is more associated with later delinquency due to inadequate supervision. Parental Supervision and Delinquency: ○ Inadequate Supervision: A key feature of the lax style is poor monitoring of the child’s behavior, including not knowing the child's whereabouts or activities. This lack of supervision is strongly correlated with delinquency. ○ Significance of Monitoring: Parental monitoring is central to managing confrontations and using social reinforcement effectively. Studies show that poor monitoring is more associated with delinquency in older adolescents than younger children. Family Interaction and Delinquency: ○ Conflict and Marital Instability: Delinquents often come from families with high conflict and marital instability. Studies show that marital discord and negative attitudes towards children are linked to later delinquency, with discord influencing boys’ aggression outside the home. ○ Negative Parental Interaction: Delinquents often describe their parents as less affectionate and supportive compared to nondelinquents. Negative father-son relationships, in particular, predict delinquent behavior. ○ Family Cohesion and Delinquency: Delinquents report less family cohesion and lower involvement in shared activities. Negative family interactions are linked to hostility, less warmth, and increased parent-child conflict. Physical Abuse and Delinquency: ○ Physical Abuse: Physical abuse in childhood can be linked to later antisocial behavior, but not all abused children become delinquent. Some studies suggest that parental rejection, rather than abuse itself, is a significant factor in delinquency. Widom’s 20-year follow-up study found that abused children were more likely to have a criminal record, particularly for violent crimes, though the effect was stronger for males. Family Disruption and Delinquency: ○ Broken Homes: Children from single-parent or disrupted homes have higher rates of delinquency. However, the relationship is more complex. Some studies show no consistent link between father absence and delinquency, and it is particularly relevant when the family breaks down due to divorce or separation rather than death. ○ Effect of Divorce and Conflict: Divorce and parental conflict are significant predictors of delinquency, especially when the child’s mother is unaffectionate or neglectful. The stress on the mother, particularly in single-parent households, often worsens family conflict and reduces supervision, increasing the likelihood of delinquent behavior. ○ Father Absence: The absence of the father, particularly in relation to the child's model of masculine behavior, can contribute to delinquency, particularly in boys. Some studies suggest that the lack of a father figure makes the child more susceptible to peer pressure and delinquent behavior. Sociological Perspectives on Family and Delinquency: ○ Social Position and Delinquency: The family may influence delinquency not just as an agency of socialization but also by affecting the child’s position in  the wider social structure. Children from broken homes may be viewed as deviant, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy of delinquency. ○ Impact of Family Discord vs. Absence: The effect of broken homes on delinquency may be more about family discord than the physical absence of a parent, as discord often precedes or follows separation or divorce. Parental Criminality: Criminals are more likely to have criminal parents. In the Cambridge study, 37.9% of delinquent boys had a parent with a criminal record by age 10, compared to 14.6% of non-delinquents. Family criminality also predicts ongoing criminality and violent convictions (Farrington & West, 1990). Delinquents are more likely to produce delinquent children (Robins et al., 1975), indicating intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior. Explanations for Parental Deviation: ○ Genetics: Genetic factors may explain persistent offending. ○ Modeling: Criminal behavior may be learned from parents. However, in the Cambridge study, this was only significant if parental criminality persisted during child-rearing. ○ Ineffective Parenting: Criminal parents often exhibit poor supervision (West & Farrington), which contributes to delinquency. This is more common in impoverished households. ○ Stress from Deprivation: Irregular employment and reliance on welfare can increase family stress, worsening parenting (West, 1982). Parent-Child Dynamics: Parental deviance is compounded by aggression and conflict. McCord (1986) found stronger effects when paternal deviance co-existed with aggression and family conflict. Parents of delinquents often failed to model prosocial behavior. Family Size and Sibling Relationships Large Families: Large families are linked to higher delinquency rates (Fischer, 1984). Delinquents often come from families with four or more children (West, 1982), although the effect is not significant for female delinquents. The reasons include: 1. Overcrowding and Stress: Large families are often poor and overcrowded, leading to family disorganization. 2. Less Supervision: With many children, individual attention and supervision may be insufficient, even in the presence of strong family affection (Hirschi, 1969). 3. Delinquent Siblings: Delinquent children often have delinquent siblings (Glueck & Glueck, 1950). This "contagion" effect is stronger with brothers than sisters (Offord, 1982). Parenting in Large Families: Large families may result in inconsistent discipline and fewer prosocial models. Children may rely more on siblings for social learning. Socioeconomic Deprivation  Deprivation and Delinquency: Although delinquency is not strongly linked to social class, delinquents are often from deprived families, facing poverty, poor housing, and welfare dependence (West, 1982). 1. Material Deprivation: While deprivation may not directly cause delinquency, it contributes to stress, which affects parenting (Patterson, 1982). 2. Socialization and Norms: Children in deprived areas may adopt values that emphasize externally imposed rules and limited self-direction, which align with delinquent behavior. Parenting in Deprivation: Deprivation can lead to power-assertive discipline and less affectionate, more coercive parenting, which are linked to delinquency. Differences Among Delinquents Types of Delinquency: Different family dynamics influence types of delinquency. For example: 1. Personal Crimes: Linked to family conflict, lack of maternal affection, and poor supervision (McCord, 1979). 2. Property Crimes: Primarily associated with lack of maternal affection and supervision. 3. Aggressive Delinquents: Come from homes with neglect and permissiveness (Hewitt & Jenkins, 1946). 4. Psychopathic Delinquents: Experience more father rejection and less nurturance (Fodor, 1973). Family Variables and Delinquency: ○ Combinations of family variables correlate more strongly with delinquency than single factors (e.g., both parents rejecting vs. one). ○ Parental criminality or maternal rejection intensifies the effect of supervision on delinquency. ○ The Glueck prediction index (maternal affection, paternal affection, etc.) predicts delinquency beyond chance (Glueck & Glueck, 1950, 1964). ○ Cambridge study: Low family income, poor child-rearing, low IQ, and parental criminality are independent predictors of delinquency (Farrington, 1990). ○ Kolvin et al. (1988): Deprivation (e.g., marital instability, poor child care) links to criminality, but many offenders didn’t experience deprivation. Causal Relationship: ○ No direct evidence of family factors causing delinquency. ○ Family factors may reflect third variables like genetic influences or child temperament. ○ Poor parenting may result from stressors like poverty, housing, or the child’s own delinquent behavior. Learning and Parental Discipline:  ○ Ineffective parental discipline (poor monitoring, inconsistent punishment) leads to deviant behavior (Patterson, 1982). ○ Lack of parental affection and coldness toward children is a stronger predictor of delinquency. ○ Modelling deviance: Children can adopt deviant behaviors through observing parents or siblings, though delinquents often don’t see parents as role models (Bandura & Walters, 1959). School and Peer Group Influences: ○ Educational failure is associated with higher risks of delinquency (Hirschi, 1969; Elliott & Voss, 1974). ○ The educational system may contribute to delinquency by imposing middle-class standards on working-class youth (Cohen, 1955). ○ Schools vary in delinquency rates; internal school processes contribute more than the intake characteristics of students (Power et al., 1967). ○ Delinquent subcultures: Rigid, coercive discipline systems in schools contribute to delinquency-prone subcultures (Reynolds, 1976). Delinquent Schools: ○ School characteristics: Schools with higher delinquency rates tend to admit lower ability, delinquency-prone students (Rutter et al., 1979). ○ Streaming: Flexible streaming in schools polarizes students into delinquent subcultures, especially when lower streams receive lower quality teaching (Hargreaves, 1980). ○ High delinquency schools are often located in disadvantaged neighborhoods with low teacher expectations and high turnover. Conclusion: ○ No single factor causes delinquency; it results from the interaction of family, school, and community influences. ○ Family variables (rejection, poor supervision) and school processes (streaming, discipline) significantly contribute to delinquency. Streaming, Labelling, and Teacher Disciplinary Practices: Hargreaves' Speculation: Hargreaves acknowledges that evidence on the effects of school processes like streaming, labelling, and teacher disciplinary practices remains limited and speculative (Graham, 1988). Streaming and Delinquency: ○ Streaming (tracking) isn't consistently linked to delinquency. Finlayson and Loughran (1976) found delinquent students were in lower streams, but this only occurred in low delinquency schools. ○ Some American studies suggest streaming facilitates delinquency, but Wiatrowski et al. (1982) didn’t confirm this link in a longitudinal study. Labelling and Delinquency: ○ Labeling students as deviant may increase delinquency. Elliott and Voss (1974) found that students who dropped out of school reported higher delinquency, but their delinquency decreased after leaving, suggesting the "failure role" imposed by schools contributes to antisocial behavior.  ○ Menard and Morse (1984) showed that perceived negative labelling and association with delinquent peers were stronger predictors of delinquency than IQ and academic performance. Teacher Disciplinary Practices: ○ Teacher expectations affect student behavior. Jussim (1986) found low expectations lead to harsher treatment of students, with low-ability students being criticized more and praised less. ○ In high delinquency schools, students perceive teachers as more authoritarian (Finlayson and Loughran, 1976). ○ Effective rule enforcement with systematic, predictable sanctions, applied consistently by caring teachers, can reduce delinquent behavior (Graham, 1988). Peer Group Influence: Delinquency and Peer Influence: ○ Delinquency is strongly associated with peers; most juvenile crimes are committed in groups. Aultman (1980) found two-thirds of offenses involved small groups. Group offending was more common in nonviolent crimes. ○ Group offending is more common in younger delinquents, with co-offenders living near each other (Farrington & West, 1990). Subcultural Theories: ○ Delinquent peer groups are thought to directly cause delinquency. These groups form in delinquent neighborhoods where peer group formation is influenced by status deprivation (Hargreaves, 1980). ○ Gold (1978) argued antisocial behavior may stem from a gap between academic aspirations and achievement, leading to rejection by school and lower self-esteem. Social Learning Theory: ○ Social learning theory suggests peer groups facilitate delinquency through modeling and reinforcement. Delinquents often engage in delinquent activities with peers who approve of such behavior (Akers et al., 1979). ○ Peer group selection is active; delinquents tend to select delinquent peers due to similarities in behavior and attitudes (Bandura & Walters, 1963). ○ Longitudinal studies show that delinquent friendships form based on mutual influence, with pairs increasing their similarity over time (Kandel, 1978). Alternative Views: ○ Some argue the peer group plays a minimal role in delinquency, as delinquent tendencies may be pre-existing before peer group formation. Hirschi (1969) suggested that weak bonds to family, school, and peers, rather than peer group membership, increase the likelihood of delinquency. ○ However, Hirschi acknowledged that having delinquent peers still raises the level of delinquency. Conclusion:  School Processes and Delinquency: School factors like streaming, labelling, and teacher expectations can marginalize students and potentially facilitate delinquent behavior, though these processes interact with individual and family characteristics. Peer Group Dynamics: Peer influence plays a critical role in delinquency, with delinquent friendships forming due to similar behaviors and attitudes, but some theories suggest that delinquent behavior precedes peer group affiliation. Key Protective Factors: 1. Dispositional Variables: ○ Intellectual abilities: Cognitive skills can help individuals navigate adverse environments. ○ Achievement motivation: A strong drive for success can lead individuals to avoid delinquency. ○ Self-esteem: A positive self-image can protect against peer pressure and criminal behaviors. ○ Temperament: Traits like emotional regulation can influence resilience. 2. Social Support and Relationships: ○ Supportive relationships: Positive connections with non-delinquent peers or adults can reduce exposure to delinquent behavior. ○ Maternal affection: In families with conflict, maternal affection can mitigate the criminogenic effects of inconsistent parenting (McCord, 1986). ○ Role models: Influence from adults outside the home, like mentors or teachers, can protect against delinquency (Reitsma-Street et al., 1985; Ross and Glaser, 1973). ○ Social involvement: Involvement in clubs, religious activities, or community organizations can foster conformity and reduce delinquent tendencies. 3. Environmental Changes and Turning Points: ○ Relocation: Moving away from high-crime areas has been shown to reduce recidivism (Buikhuisen and Hoekstra, 1973; West, 1982). ○ Positive life events: Events like marriage or stable employment can reduce delinquency in adults (Rutter, 1987). 4. Early Development and Family Environment: ○ Firstborn children: In Werner’s study, firstborn children were more likely to become resilient adults (Werner and Smith, 1982). ○ Parent-child relationship: Children who receive greater affection from parents tend to be more resilient (Werner, 1989). ○ Complementary role models: Fathers as role models for girls can play a protective role, influencing life paths and achievement orientation. Interaction of Protective and Risk Factors: Protective factors often work through interactions with risk variables. For example, lack of maternal affection is less impactful when the mother is self-confident and consistent in discipline (McCord, 1986). Bidirectional influences: Personal characteristics and social environments influence the development of life paths. Resilient children often display positive traits  like confidence and independence early on, contributing to better outcomes in adulthood (Werner, 1989). Turning points: Protective factors, such as supportive relationships or life changes like relocation, interact with risk factors to create new opportunities and reduce delinquent behavior. Limitations and Considerations: While the identification of protective factors provides valuable insight into resilience, it does not fully explain criminality development. Research often lacks a clear theoretical framework to guide the identification of these factors and their interactions. Protective factors should not be seen in isolation from risk factors, as their impact often depends on the broader social and personal context (Rutter, 1987; Werner, 1989). Peer Group Influence and Delinquency: Control theory: Delinquency caused by weak bonds to conventional society (family, school). Linden & Hackler (1973): Delinquency influenced by both conventional bonds and peer group bonds. ○ Highest delinquency: Weak bonds to conventional peers, strong bonds to deviant peers. ○ Lowest delinquency: Strong bonds to conventional peers, weak bonds to deviant peers. Social learning theory: Delinquency depends on social reinforcement from peer groups. Elliott et al. (1985): ○ Strong bonds to deviant peers = direct cause of delinquency. ○ Weak bonds to conventional peers influenced by strain, poor socialization, and disorganization. ○ Peer influence is indirect, mediated by deviant peer relationships. Unanswered questions: ○ Is the peer group universally necessary for delinquency? ○ Does the peer group facilitate or teach delinquency? Employment, Marriage, and Crime: Transition to adulthood: Decline in delinquency linked to employment/marriage. ○ Employment reduces peer group influence and strengthens conventional bonds. ○ Unemployment increases criminogenic influences (psychological distress, frustration). Jackson & Warr (1984): Unemployed individuals have more psychological distress. Strain theory: Unemployment causes frustration, increasing criminal attraction. Control theory: Employment strengthens bonds, reduces crime. Allan & Steffensmeier (1989):  ○ Juveniles: Crime linked to job availability. ○ Young adults: Crime linked to poor-quality jobs. Mixed evidence: Unemployment may reflect criminal propensity, not just cause crime. Marriage and Criminal Behavior: Marriage impact: Complex, not always reducing crime. Knight et al. (1977): No significant difference in delinquency between married and single individuals. West (1982): Delinquents who marry often marry other delinquents, maintaining criminal behavior. Farrington & West (1990): Criminals are more likely to experience marital conflict or separation. Marriage effects: Can reduce crime by reducing exposure to deviant peers or opportunities, but depends on partner's criminality. Chapter 4 Social and Environmental Theories of Crime (Summary) Criminality vs. Criminal Acts: Theories of crime aim to explain either the general tendency to commit crime (criminality) or specific criminal events (criminal acts). Most theories focus on criminality, which could be influenced by social and individual factors. Some emphasize societal influences over personal tendencies, while others stress individual tendencies formed through socialization. Sociological vs. Psychological Explanations: Sociological theories often emphasize the role of social structures and culture in crime, whereas psychological theories focus on internal processes, like moral development and self-control. Control theorists, both in psychology and sociology, argue that deviance is an innate human tendency, and conformity is learned through socialization. Theories often conceptualize crime as stemming from a lack of moral learning or self-control. Sociological Theories of Crime: Six main sociological theories are identified: 1. Differential Association: Crime is learned through social interactions, where criminal behavior is learned from intimate groups. Criminal behavior arises when individuals are exposed to more pro-criminal definitions than anti-criminal ones. 2. Strain Theory: Crime occurs when individuals face frustration due to a disconnect between cultural goals (e.g., success) and the means available to achieve them, especially for lower-class individuals. 3. Subcultural Theory: Some subcultures, particularly those from lower classes, develop norms that support delinquency. These subcultures conflict with dominant societal norms.  4. Control Theory: Deviance happens when individuals lack social bonds (family, school, etc.) that encourage conformity. Hirschi’s social control theory argues that crime occurs when these bonds are weak. Differential Association Theory: Developed by Sutherland, it argues that criminal behavior is learned in intimate personal groups and involves learning crime techniques and rationalizations. The key factor is an "excess of definitions favorable to law violations" within a person's environment. The theory, however, struggles with defining and testing "excess of definitions." Strain and Subcultural Theories: Strain theory by Merton argues that societal pressures cause deviance, especially when lower-class individuals experience a gap between aspirations and available opportunities. Subcultural theorists (e.g., Cohen, Cloward, Ohlin) suggest that subcultures form with distinct norms that can support delinquency, particularly when individuals are deprived of legitimate means. Control Theory: Hirschi’s social control theory suggests that strong bonds to society (attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief) reduce the likelihood of deviance. Crime occurs when these bonds are weak. Control theories are often criticized for failing to explain how bonds are formed or broken. Hirschi and Gottfredson's General Theory of Crime: This theory links crime to a general lack of self-control. Individuals with low self-control tend to seek immediate gratification, and crime is seen as a natural outcome of this tendency. Criminal behavior is thus impulsive, unplanned, and closely related to other deviant behaviors. Psychological Theories of Crime: Key Points 1. Low Self-Control and Crime: ○ The concept of low self-control, as seen in psychopaths (Gough, 1948) and antisocial personalities (Robins, 1978), is linked to crime, but the nature of low self-control and its measurement remains unclear. Further exploration of this concept is discussed in Chapter 8. 2. Labelling Theory: ○ This theory suggests that social reactions to deviance may influence the course of criminal behavior. ○ Key assumptions: Acts are not intrinsically deviant; they are labeled as such due to social reasons, particularly the interests of the powerful. Reactions by criminal justice agents depend more on offender characteristics (e.g., age, race, class) than the nature of the offense. Being labeled a criminal leads to a deviant self-image, fostering a criminal career. ○ Criticisms: The theory has been critiqued for focusing on the deviance of the underprivileged, oversimplifying the link between attitudes, self-concept, and behavior, and not accounting for all forms of deviance (Box, 1981; Welford, 1975). Some studies found that labelling has a greater effect on certain groups (e.g., higher socioeconomic status youths). However, some still defend the theory, especially regarding bias in criminal justice processes.  3. Learning Theories of Crime: ○ Learning theories emphasize that criminal behavior is learned through social interactions and cognitive processes, not necessarily through conditioning. ○ Social Learning Theory (SLT): Focuses on how behavior is learned through modeling and imitation. It argues that knowledge influences behavior and is a two-way process between behavior, cognition, and the environment. Self-Regulation: People control their behavior through self-imposed standards and goals. Deviant behavior can be reduced through reinforcement and punishment, though moral justification may disengage self-restraint. ○ Operant and Classical Conditioning: Early theories like two-process theory proposed that crime results from failed socialization (e.g., ineffective parenting or failure to acquire conditioned fear responses). ○ Social Learning Theory vs Radical Behaviorism: Unlike radical behaviorism, which views individuals as passive recipients of environmental stimuli, SLT sees individuals as active participants shaping their environment. 4. Social Learning in Criminal Behavior: ○ Observational learning plays a significant role in crime; people imitate behaviors they observe, especially when the model holds prestige or shows desirable outcomes. ○ Selective Imitation: The impact of models depends on their status, the observed outcomes of their behavior, and the observer’s susceptibility. ○ Techniques like "neutralization" (justifying deviant actions) can help disengage self-control, contributing to criminal behavior. ○ Parenting techniques, especially the balance between reinforcement and punishment, play a significant role in socialization. Research suggests that effective socialization depends on the interpersonal context of punishment and not just the punishment itself. 5. Operant Conditioning and Social Learning in Criminality: ○ Criminal behavior may be reinforced through both direct and vicarious reinforcement within delinquent groups. Once criminal behavior is established, intermittent reinforcement maintains it. ○ Theories emphasize learning the inhibition of deviant behavior in childhood, but Feldman (1977) argues that learning to offend becomes more prominent in adolescence and adulthood. Learning Theory Perspectives on Crime Transgression vs. Aggression: ○ Analogs for property and personal offenses. ○ Classical conditioning influences aggression learning. ○ Vicarious and direct reinforcement shape property offending. Performance & Maintenance: ○ Dependent on transgressing models, skills, goal incentive, and perceived risks. ○ Maintained by intermittent external and self-reinforcement.  Feldman: ○ Operant principles align with labeling theory, useful for delinquent role development. ○ Personality factors (Eysenck's dimensions) linked to imitation and reinforcement. Braukmann et al. (1980): ○ Peer modeling/reinforcement directly teach delinquency. ○ Skill deficits in school increase susceptibility to delinquent peers. ○ "Reinforcement value" tied to attachment in control theory. Patterson (1982, 1986): ○ Family dynamics significantly contribute to delinquent behavior. Sociological and Learning Theories Integration Burgess & Akers (1966): Reformulated Differential Association (DA) with operant conditioning. ○ Crime learned via "intimate groups" controlling reinforcement sources. ○ Deviant behaviors reinforced more than conforming alternatives. Evidence: ○ Akers et al. (1979): Correlation between substance use and peer behavior. ○ Andrews (1980): Controlled studies showing predictive validity of DA in prisons and probation services. Critiques & Limitations: ○ DA theory emphasizes unidirectional environmental factors. ○ Jensen (1972) and Patterson (1986): Family dynamics are significant beyond DA. Rational Choice Perspective Core Assumption: ○ Crime results from rational calculation of costs and benefits. ○ Applies even to impulsive or emotional crimes. Environmental Criminology: ○ Crime linked to physical context and situational constraints. ○ E.g., "Defensible space" reduces crime opportunities (Newman, 1972). Routine Activities Theory: ○ Crime occurs when motivated offenders, suitable targets, and lack of guardians converge. ○ Patterns of daily activities influence crime levels (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Situational Crime Prevention: ○ Focuses on reducing opportunities through surveillance and target hardening (Clarke, 1977). Deterrence Hypothesis Core Idea: ○ Crime prevention via fear of sanctions. ○ Effective when punishment certainty, severity, and swiftness are high. Variability in Deterrence:  ○ Instrumental crimes (e.g., burglary) more deterrable than expressive crimes (e.g., assault). ○ Individuals vary in risk tolerance and norm commitment. Challenges: ○ Many crimes lack rational calculation. ○ Perceptions of sanctions may be inaccurate. Integration and Evaluation Learning Theories: ○ Specify how criminogenic influences translate into behavior. ○ Limited by focus on unidirectional determinism and extrapolations from lab studies. Control Theory vs. SLT: ○ Hirschi’s theory emphasizes restraints, while SLT highlights facilitation by delinquent peers. ○ Combined perspectives explain both social bonds and deviance. Summary of Empirical Findings Learning and reinforcement principles underlie much of criminal behavior development. Family, peer influence, and situational opportunities significantly affect crime patterns. Rational choice theory highlights the interplay of cognitive, situational, and environmental factors in criminal decisions. Rational Choice Perspective and Crime Control Economists' Role: Economists advocate the rational choice perspective, emphasizing general deterrence as the main crime control tool (Palmer, 1977; Ehrlich, 1981). Assumptions: Based on Benthamite principles, criminals choose actions that maximize their utility, weighing benefits (pecuniary or nonpecuniary) against costs (resources, loss of lawful opportunities, legal punishments). Deterrence Factors: The certainty and severity of punishment influence the cost-benefit analysis of crime. Certainty is more impactful than severity in deterring crime. Empirical Evidence: Econometric studies link crime rates to punishment measures, e.g., clear-up rates or average sentences. Results often favor deterrence, but findings like Ehrlich’s (1975) claim about the death penalty reducing murders have faced criticism. Criticism: Economic models are faulted for focusing on actual rather than perceived threats of punishment and for unreliable indices of punishment (Cook, 1980). Perceptions of Risk and Deterrence  Risk Perception: Perceived personal risk influences offending more than general risk perceptions. For example, delinquents feel a "magical immunity" from being caught (Claster, 1967). Comparative Studies: Informal sanctions, personal morality, and legal authority’s legitimacy often outweigh formal deterrence (Tyrer, 1990; Schwartz & Orleans, 1967). High-Risk Groups: For persistent offenders, perceived benefits of crime overshadow sanctions (Piliavin et al., 1986). Criminal Decision-Making Rational Choice Models: Focus on crimes rather than offenders, emphasizing situational decision-making (Clarke & Cornish, 1985). Critiques: Rationality in economic models is seen as unrealistic due to cognitive limits and subjective probabilities (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). Empirical Findings: Decisions are often based on a single dimension, e.g., monetary gain, suggesting limited rationality (Carroll, 1978). Delinquency as Self-Presentation Role Theory: Delinquent behavior may enhance self-esteem in response to academic or social incompetence (Gold, 1978). Social Identity: Delinquency reflects a coherent identity within peer groups, motivated by needs for approval and status (Reicher & Emler, 1986). Peer Influence: Peer group dynamics and the need for reputation significantly drive delinquent behavior. Psychoanalysis and Crime Freudian Perspective: Views humans as inherently antisocial, driven by id impulses managed by ego and superego. Socialization Theory: Crime emerges when these internal controls are underdeveloped or fail to balance primal drives with social expectations. Integrated Approaches Limited Rationality: Combines situational and individual factors, acknowledging cognitive and social constraints on decision-making. Social Learning Theory: Suggests rational choice and control theories are subsets of broader social learning processes (Akers, 1990). Key Takeaways Crime Control: Deterrence is nuanced; certainty of punishment generally outweighs severity, but personal and social factors complicate predictions. Decision-Making: Both situational and individual factors shape criminal behavior, highlighting the limitations of purely rational models. Delinquency Dynamics: Peer groups, self-presentation, and social identity are pivotal in understanding youth delinquency.  Holistic Perspectives: Integration of psychological, sociological, and economic theories provides a more comprehensive view of crime. Rational Choice Perspective and Crime Control Key Theorists: Economists like Palmer (1977) and Ehrlich (1981) advocate for the rational choice perspective. They argue that crime is driven by individuals maximizing their expected utilities. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Crime is viewed as a decision where criminals weigh the benefits (money, goods, enjoyment) against the costs (resources needed, legal consequences, loss of opportunities). ○ Costs of Crime: Include resources, nonenjoyment, legal consequences (probability of arrest and conviction), and the severity of punishment. ○ Risk: The decision depends on an individual's "attitude to risk," where typically, people avoid risks. If the cost outweighs the benefit, crime is not committed. Punishment and Deterrence Empirical Findings: Econometric studies on aggregate crime rates suggest a deterrent effect of punishment (Tullock 1974). Studies like Ehrlich (1975) claim that more executions reduce murders, but this is contested by Beyleveld (1982). Criticism: Econometric studies are criticized for focusing on actual rather than perceived threat of punishment and for unreliable indices of punishment (Cook, 1980; Matsueda et al., 1988). ○ Bandura (1986): Argues that deterrence depends on beliefs about the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. People tend to overestimate risk. Individual Perceptions of Risk Studies on Risk: Some studies show that certainty of punishment is more significant than severity. Perceived personal risk is more influential than general risk (Claster 1967). ○ "Magical Immunity" Effect: Delinquents tend to believe they are less likely to be caught (Claster 1967; Jensen et al., 1978). Influences of Sanctions: Fear of informal sanctions, like loss of status, is more influential than fear of formal legal punishment (Schwartz & Orleans, 1967; Tittle, 1977; Tyrer, 1990). Moral Commitment and Law Compliance Moral Influence: Studies suggest that moral commitment and the perceived legitimacy of authority can be more important than deterrence (Tyrer, 1990). This aligns with socialisation theory, which emphasizes social norms. ○ Role of Informal Sanctions: Fear of informal sanctions, such as social exclusion, plays a significant role in compliance. Conditioned Effects: Sanctions may have greater effects on individuals with weaker commitments to societal norms (Bishop, 1984). However, some studies (e.g., Piliavin  et al., 1986) suggest that for high-risk groups, perceived benefits of crime are more important than sanctions. Psychological Studies of Crime and Risk Studies on Offenders: Studies by Rettig (1963, 1964) and Carroll (1978) show that offenders and nonoffenders focus on different dimensions (e.g., gains vs. penalties) when deciding whether to commit a crime. ○ Psychopaths and Risk: Psychopaths show less sensitivity to punishment (Siegel, 1978), supporting the "magical immunity" effect. Limited Rationality and Criminal Events Clarke and Cornish's Model: They propose that criminal decisions are not entirely rational but rather "bounded" by cognitive limitations (Simon, 1978). Criminal decisions are often influenced by heuristics and are based on limited information. ○ Crime-Specific Decision-Making: Crime events (e.g., theft) are situation-specific, and the decision-making process may vary depending on the type of crime. Sequential Decision-Making: Criminals may evaluate crimes at different stages of their involvement, and early decisions may focus more on becoming a criminal than on committing specific crimes (Carroll and Weaver, 1986). Rational Choice, Social Learning, and Control Theories Social Learning: Rational choice theory integrates with social learning and control theories. While rational choice theory emphasizes situational decisions, control and socialization theories focus on long-term behavioral dispositions (Hirschi, 1986; Akers, 1990). ○ Social Context: Rational choice perspectives focus on the situation at hand, sometimes ignoring the broader social context and personal background that constrain choices (Norrie, 1986). Delinquency as Self-Presentation Self-Presentation Theory: Delinquency can be viewed as a way for individuals to present themselves and gain status within peer groups (Gold, 1978). Delinquents often adopt behaviors to enhance their self-esteem and assert their identity, especially in challenging social environments. ○ Role Theory: Hogan and Jones (1983) propose that delinquent behavior stems from the need for attention, status, and approval from peers. Delinquents often reject formal authority and adopt roles that align with their peer group values. Social Identity and Peer Group Influence Delinquency as Social Identity: Delinquent behavior is seen as a way to manage one's reputation within a group, especially when social expectations and academic failures lead to rejection of authority (Reicher & Emler, 1986).  ○ Self-Image and Peer Approval: Delinquent behavior is driven by the desire for approval from the peer group, and it becomes a way to project a "tough" and rebellious image, especially in the face of educational failure and poor interpersonal skills. Criticism and Limitations Heterogeneity of Delinquents: While self-presentation theories explain delinquent behavior for many, they do not fully account for individual differences among delinquents (Hogan & Jones; Emler). Also, the theory doesn't address why some adolescents persist in delinquency into adulthood. Superego and Guilt The superego regulates behavior based on moral standards. When impulses violate these standards, the superego directs aggressive energy toward the ego in the form of guilt. The ego adjusts behavior to avoid the pain of guilt. Superego Formation Superego formation occurs as the child resolves the Oedipal conflict (around age 5). Before this, the child's conscience is basic and reliant on external sanctions. Superego development depends on relationships with parents, who serve as moral role models. Stages of Development Infancy: Child perceives itself as omnipotent but gradually realizes the need for relationships. Psychosexual Stages: ○ Oral, anal, and genital stages involve developing impulse regulation. ○ Ego development occurs in the context of parental approval and moral standards. Oedipal Conflict Occurs during the genital stage, with unconscious desires for the opposite-sex parent and hostility toward the same-sex parent. Tension includes castration anxiety in boys and fear of losing affection from the father in girls. Conflict is resolved by identifying with the same-sex parent, which leads to the formation of conscience. Formation of Conscience and Ego-Ideal Child strengthens conscience by identifying with the same-sex parent and internalizing their values.  The ego-ideal forms as an idealized self-image, contributing to self-esteem and restoring early narcissism. Continued Superego Development Later theorists suggest that superego development continues throughout adolescence. The superego is seen as an inner moral agency, and its development depends on the quality of parent-child relationships. Attachment Theory Attachment during the first year of life is crucial for later cognitive and social development. Secure attachment leads to healthy relationships, while insecure attachment can cause future relational difficulties. Attachment theory is applied to understanding personality disorders, child abuse, and sex offending. Criminal Behavior and Superego Criminal behavior can be linked to an underdeveloped or defective superego. A weak or harsh superego can fail to regulate impulses and contribute to maladaptive behavior. Psychoanalysts argue that crime results from unsuccessful socialization, with the superego playing a central role. Harsh Superego A harsh superego may lead to neurotic criminal behavior. Criminal acts symbolize unresolved internal conflicts and an unconscious invitation for punishment. Example: Compulsive theft can represent repressed conflicts. Weak Superego A weak superego is characteristic of psychopathic personalities. Psychopaths are impulsive, egocentric, lack guilt, and have difficulty empathizing with others. Eysenck's Theory of Criminality (1964, 1977, 1989) Overview: Eysenck's theory explains criminality as a disposition to commit crimes, framed as a personality trait varying from normal behavior to antisocial criminal conduct. It focuses on the "actively antisocial, psychopathic criminal." Key Personality Dimensions: ○ Neuroticism (N): Reflects emotional instability and reactivity, related to greater limbic and autonomic system activity.  ○ Extraversion (E): Linked to cortical arousal; extraverts are less sensitive to pain, require more stimulation, and have weaker conditioned responses. ○ Psychoticism (P): Initially linked to psychopathy, aggression, and poor social conformity. More recently, associated with impulsivity and antisocial traits. Biological Basis: ○ Genetic Influence: Personality traits (N, E, P) are believed to have a biological basis, with N reflecting emotional reactivity, E associated with arousal levels, and P linked to impulsivity and psychopathy. ○ Conditionability: Eysenck posits that introverts are better at conditioning due to heightened emotional responses, while extraverts are less conditioned and more prone to rule-breaking. Theory of Socialisation: ○ Criminal behavior arises from poor socialization, where people fail to develop proper restraint mechanisms (conscience). ○ Morality is learned through punishment for antisocial behavior. ○ Introverts, due to their higher conditionability, are better socialized, while extraverts, less responsive to punishment, are more prone to criminal behavior. Criminal Personality Traits: ○ Criminals are predicted to score high on all three traits (N, E, and P), with stronger tendencies in neurotic extraverts. ○ Primary psychopaths: High P, characterized by aggression, social insensitivity. ○ Secondary psychopaths: High N and E, showing impulsive and unstable behaviors. Criticisms: ○ Theories of N and P, particularly equating them with neuroticism and psychopathy, have faced criticism due to their lack of precise definitions and empirical support. ○ The concept of "impulsivity" is debated, with some arguing that it relates more to P than E, undermining the link between extraversion and criminality. Arousal and Stimulation Seeking: ○ Extraverts require more stimulation to maintain positive states, leading to sensation-seeking behaviors, which may contribute to criminality, particularly in adolescents. ○ However, research suggests that sensation-seeking is more related to impulsivity (P) than extraversion (E). Biological Mechanisms: ○ Arousal theory posits that extraverts seek more stimulation due to lower basal arousal, but evidence for this is inconsistent. ○ Sensation-seeking behaviors are linked to impulsivity, which is more tied to P than E. Gray’s Revision: ○ Gray's theory of Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) and Behavioral Activation System (BAS) offers a revised model, linking impulsivity and social withdrawal to psychopathy. ○ Psychopaths have a less reactive BIS and are less sensitive to punishment, which contributes to impulsive and antisocial behaviors. Socialization and Conditioning in Introverts and Extraverts: Introverts' Conditioning: Research suggests introverts show superior conditioning under specific conditions, such as weak unconditioned stimuli and short intervals between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. However, this doesn't always apply in real-life situations, as such conditions are infrequent in daily life. Gray (1981) and Fear: Gray argued that introverts are biologically more susceptible to fear and condition more readily with aversive stimuli, but this doesn't fully explain socialization. Raing and Venables (1981) Study: Their study on electrodermal conditioning with adolescents showed no difference between introverts and extraverts in conditioning, though some support was found in the interaction between social class and conditioning (middle-class antisocial boys had poorer conditioning, and lower-class boys the reverse). Trasler's Theory: Trasler's socialization theory is less criticized, emphasizing passive avoidance learning (the association of cues with punishment) and parental approval in training. He suggests socialization is more influenced by the quality of training conditions than conditionability. Psychopaths, however, lack mechanisms necessary for learning social prohibitions and are less responsive to punishment cues. Eysenck's Personality and Crime Theory: Flaws and Criticisms: Eysenck's theory, which links criminality to personality dimensions (Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism), has been questioned. Studies yielded inconsistent results, with no strong support for the predicted correlation between extraversion and antisocial behavior. Studies on Personality and Crime: ○ Cochrane's Review (1974): Delinquents were not consistently more extraverted, and findings were mixed. ○ Farrington's Review (1982): Higher scores on P (Psychoticism) and N (Neuroticism) were found in offenders, but not on E (Extraversion). This may be a response bias in self-report studies. ○ P Consistency: The P scale was most consistently related to antisocial behavior, particularly in more serious offenders. ○ Extraversion and Antisocial Behavior: Although some self-report studies found a link, it was not robust enough to confirm the theory. Eysenck's predictions about extraversion's influence on crime behavior lacked strong consistency. Cognitive-Developmental Theory of Morality: Piaget and Kohlberg's Theories: Both emphasized the development of moral reasoning through cognitive growth. ○ Piaget’s Theory: Children shift from heteronomous reasoning (rules are fixed) to autonomous reasoning (rules are agreements made by the group) as they develop.  ○ Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development: Kohlberg expanded Piaget’s work, proposing three levels of moral reasoning: 1. Preconventional: Focus on self-interest and avoiding punishment (typically children). 2. Conventional: Judging based on societal rules (adults and adolescents). 3. Postconventional: Understanding societal rules through universal principles of justice (few adults reach this stage). Universal Progression: The progression through these stages is thought to be universal, with cognitive stimulation, social interaction, and exposure to differing perspectives being key factors for development. Summary: The relationship between conditioning and socialization, as suggested by theories of introversion, extraversion, and conditioning, remains complex, with conflicting findings. Eysenck's theory linking personality traits to criminal behavior has limited support, particularly in relation to extraversion. Cognitive-developmental theories propose that moral development is a process of active cognitive growth, emphasizing internalizing social rules through cognitive and social interaction rather than simple conformity to authority. Kohlberg's Levels and Stages of Moral Development: Level 1: Preconventional (Premoral) Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation: Right action is obeying rules to avoid punishment; actions are judged by their consequences. Stage 2: Instrumental Purpose and Exchange: Right actions serve one's immediate interests, with a focus on fairness and meeting personal needs, while considering others' needs. Level 2: Conventional Stage 3: Interpersonal Accord and Conformity: Right action is fulfilling roles, with behavior judged by good intentions, loyalty, and concern for others. Stage 4: Social Accord and System Maintenance: Right action involves fulfilling duties, upholding laws, and contributing to society or institutions. Level 3: Postconventional (Principled) Stage 5: Social Contract, Utility, and Individual Rights: Right action upholds social values, rights (like life and liberty), and the social contract. Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles: Right action is guided by self-chosen, universal ethical principles of justice and human dignity. Key Notes:  Role of Role-Taking: Kohlberg emphasizes the role of role-taking in moral development, in contrast to learning theories that focus on environmental influences like models and rewards/punishments. Assessment: Kohlberg's theory uses the Moral Judgment Interview (MJI), which assesses moral reasoning by presenting hypothetical moral dilemmas. A standardized method with reliable psychometric properties is used for scoring. Criticisms: Some criticisms of the theory include its perceived ethnocentric bias and neglect of cultural differences, particularly the higher stages' focus on Western ideals. Feminist critiques, such as Gilligan's "ethic of care," challenge the theory's emphasis on rights and fairness. Support: Research has provided significant support for the universality of lower stages (1-4), but higher stages may require more pluralistic definitions to accommodate non-Western cultures. Moral Development and Delinquency: Moral reasoning is an important mediator of moral action, but it is not the only factor. Factors like empathy, attention, and situational influences also affect behavior. While lower moral reasoning is associated with delinquency, moral reasoning is necessary but not sufficient to predict delinquent behavior. Delinquents often exhibit lower moral maturity, with younger or more psychopathic delinquents being more likely to reason at preconventional stages. Delinquency: Research suggests delinquents tend to score lower on moral maturity, but moral reasoning alone does not account for delinquency. Delinquents may justify illegal behavior at various moral stages, such as preserving relationships (stage 3) or defending rights (stage 5). Integrated Theories: Akers' Social Learning Theory: Sees delinquency as a result of reinforcement, with an integration of anomie, subculture, and conflict theories. Delinquency is motivated by experiences of failure and bonding to deviant peers. Wilson and Herrnstein's Eclectic Theory: Combines operant conditioning and rational choice theories. It suggests criminal behavior results from individuals' calculation of risks and rewards, with individual differences in impulsivity and time perspective influencing criminal decisions. Sociological Critiques: Sociological theories focus on the social conditions that influence behavior, but they neglect individual differences. Cognitive mediators, such as the evaluation of consequences, are also essential to understanding behavior. Eclectic Integration of Theories (Farrington, 1990, 1992) Farrington integrates multiple criminological theories, including Trasler's social learning, subcultural, opportunity, control, differential association, rational choice, and labeling theories. Antisocial behavior depends on personality factors like low arousal, impulsivity, low empathy, and lack of conscience, combined with internalized beliefs for material goods, status, an