CCJS105 Study Guide Exam 3 Criminological Theory Throughout 1700 s laws and punishments were uneven and barbaric Demonological theory supernatural explanation of crime so harsh Judges had unbounded power no due process punishments for wrong doers Emergence of Classical Theory Classical criminologist challenge traditions of church and Age of Enlightenment Cesarean Beccaria Classical criminologist crimes on punishment Presented the first modern theory of crime and did not publish his name on his book because church would go after him Individuals have free will and are rational Pursue own interests can lead people to harm one another Maximize pleasure and minimize pain pleasure principle Enter into social contracts o Agree to give up some freedom in order for the state to protect them o State enforces social contract through laws To control crime must deter people from criminal behavior better to prevent crimes than to punish them create a utilitarianism the greatest good for the greatest number act not actor Deterrence When someone refrains from committing a crime because he she fears punishment Jeremy Bentham balanced the two o Specific punish one person for their wrongdoings prevents them from committing the crime again o General Punishing someone to make an example to other offenders Punishment must be known swift severe and certain Problem low risk of being arrested for crime Project Hope Identifies probationers at high risk of violating the conditions of their community supervision deters them from using drugs and committing crimes with frequent and random drug tests backed up by swift certain and short jail stays Why do some individuals commit crime while others do not due to Evaluation of the potential pains of punishment and pleasure of crime varies hedonistic calculus from individuals Impact of Classical Theory Basis for the CJS in the US and other western countries Lasting ideas laws should be applied to everyone equally Laws and punishments should be known to the public Control crime by focusing on deterrence Punishments based on crimes not offenders actus reus Critiques of the Classical Theory Assumes everyone is motivated to engage in crime through pursuit of self interests motivation Modern day theories argue that individuals and groups vary in their Does not take into account the insane biological sociological and psychological factors No scientific evaluation Rebirth of classical theory 1970 s to 1980 s Tried to control crime by increasing the severity of punishment Neoclassical criminology bounded rationality with classical theory Rational Choice Theory Cornish and Clark mid 1980 s Free will Bounded rationality humans are rational but not perfectly so Costs include both formal and informal sanctions and moral costs Hedonistic Calculus pleasure v pain benefits v costs Adopt a crime Specific focus Focus on particular crime types rather than examining all crime Situational crime prevention o Surveillance o Target Hardening making it more difficult for people to steal plastic locked cases over certain products o Environmental Management rearranging the environment in a way that prevents crime denying benefits putting only one shoe on display for sale Routine Activity Theory Cohen and Felson in the 70s 3 elements must converse in time and space for a crime to occur Motivated offender Suitable target Lack of Capable Guardians Suitable Target and Lack of Capable Guardians core dimensions of criminal opportunity Supply of a motivated offender as given shift focus from offending to victimization Lack of any of these elements can prevent crime Suitable target and capable guardians influenced by our every day routine activities The spatial and temporal structure of routine activities we can determine location type and quantity of crime Predictive Policing Predict what type of crime and where and when it will happen Based on routine activity theory Increased use by police departments Positivist School of Criminology Emerged in the late 1800 s Crime due to forces beyond the individual s control Empiricism we can only understand crime through observations and measurements our own experience Determinism criminal behaviors are not based on free will or rational thought but certain forces that are beyond our control that force us to commit a crime Early Biological Positivism Biological features distinguish criminals from non criminals Influence of Charles Darwin Franz Gall s phrenology researching skulls shape to distinguish whether or not they were criminal Lombroso Atavism criminals were born as such throwbacks to a more primitive evolutionary period criminals identified by certain physical features Born criminals vs criminaloids Later considered social factors Extermination incapacitation of criminals Scientific study with measurable data Charles Goring Ernest Hooton Data on traits of more than 3 000 convicts and a large control group Refuted Lombroso s notion of physical differences Found criminals were shorter and lighter of diminished intelligence Proposed connection between physical inferiority and crime Inferiority genetically transmitted Argued for the segregation of criminals Social Darwinism Eugenics Application of survival of the fittest to human society Criminals are unfit for society they are not survivors Movement to control genetic composition of a population Assumes criminality genetically transmitted Target criminals for sterilization Nazi s copied idea from eugenics Critiques Suggests a genetic source for a socially defined category of behavior Unquestioned acceptance of consensus perspective Often based on inappropriate samples and faulty statistical analysis Compatible with authoritarian totalitarian thinking Most important trait of crime chromosomes male 4x more likely to Biological Positivism commit violent crime Crime can be hereditary Forms of research o Family Studies crime inherited through families Having a criminal mother was much more of an influence than having a criminal father antisocial mother father is often absent if he s criminal Problem very difficult to separate genetics with environment nature vs nuture o Twin Studies Compare identical and non identical fraternal twins Examined concordance rates whether or not someone shares a certain trait sharing the same trait Identical twins have 2x more traits in common including criminal traits Problem identical twins supposed to be the same ex clothes everything they do whereas fraternal twins have
View Full Document
Unlocking...