ASSIGNMENT

QUESTION:
DISCUSS THREE OR FOUR CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES

CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES:

DEFINITION OF CRIMINOLOGY:

It is the scientific study of crime, including its causes, responses by law enforcement, and
methods of prevention. It is a sub-group of sociology, which is the scientific study of social behavior.
The following fields of study are used in criminology; biology, statistics, psychology, psychiatry,
economics and anthropology. Just as criminology is a sub-group of sociology, criminology itself has
several sub-groups, including;

 Penology: the study of prisons and prison systems

 Bio-criminology: the study of the biological basis of criminal behavior
 Feminist criminology: the study of women and crimes
 Criminalistics: the study of crime detection.

What are Theory?

Theories are logical constructions that explain natural phenomena. They are not always directly
available, but can be supported or refuted by empirical findings.

 Theory and empirical research are related through hypothesis which are testable propositions
that are logically derived from theories.
 Scientific hypothesis can be capable of being accepted or rejected
 Criminal justice theory: frequently adapted from other disciplines.
 Two general overlapping categories: law breaking, policy responses.
 Theory influences basic research which may suggest new policy’
 Policies are formulated like hypothesis and may be subjected to empirical test.

The Development of Theories:

The conduct of science is carried out within the community of scholars. This requires the
submission of research to security by the scientific community. Through this process, findings
 and opinions are examined by other scholars and through a process of communication either
proves, disproved, or improved.

What constitutes a Theory?

Theories are tentative answers to commonly ask questions about such events. (Akers 1999)

In general, scientific theories make statements about the relationship between two classes of
phenomena.

History and Theories:

There are many different theories of criminology that has evolved over the past 250 years or
above, while some have fallen out of popularity, others are still thought relevant today. The origin of
criminology can be traced as far back as the 18 th century when two social theories Cesare Beccaria in
Italy and Jeremy Bentham in England, each pushed the idea that the punishment should be so severe
that the criminal would decide that, the pleasure of the criminal act will not be worth the pain of the
punishment. This was known as the classical school of criminology. An example of this school is seen
in a very recent case in 1995, where a judge in California sentenced a man to prison for 25 years - life
for stealing a slice of pizza. The judge stated that his hands were tied because of the three strikes law
and the law will not allow the judge look at the specific crime. This followed the ideology of the
classical school of criminology over 200 years again.

At the beginning of the 19th century, some criminologist started arguing that the classical
school of criminology does not differentiate between varying degrees of crimes. These group was
known as the positivist. They were of opinion that the punishment should fit the crime and not the
crime fitting the punishment

Cesare Lombroso, Italian physician was leading the positivist theory, and believed that criminals were
born not made, and that crime was a matter of nature not nurtured. He conducted extensive studies on
cadavers of executed criminals, coming up with the argument that certain facial features, such as very
large jawbones and strong canine teeth, were obvious signs that an individual was or would be a
criminal. However, the theory became less popular for moral reasons and in favor of later theories
focusing on environmental factors that contribute to criminal behavior.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE
 1. Strain Theories:

Introduction:

Strain theories state that certain strain or stressors increase, the likelihood of crime. These
strains involve the inability to achieve ones goals (for example monetary or status goals), the loss of
positive stimuli (for example the death of a friend, the loss of valued possessions), or the presentation
of negative stimuli (for example verbal or physical abuse). Individuals who experience such strains
become upset, and they may turn to crime in an effort to cope. Crime may be a way to reduce or
escape from strains. For instance, people may steal money they want or individuals may run away
from the parents who abuse them. Most often, people use crime as a means to seek revenge against
the source of strain or related targets. For example, individuals may assault their peers who harass
them. Crime also may be used to alleviate negative emotions; for example, individuals may engage in
illicit drug use in an effort to make themselves feel better. Strain theories are amongst the dominant
explanation of crime, and, as discussed in this research paper, certain strain theories have had a major
impact on efforts to control crime.

We have the following as the types of strain most conducive to crimes:

1) Inability to achieve monetary success

2) Other strains conducive to crime
3) Research on strains and crime
A. Introduction
B. Why strain increases the likelihood of crime
C. Factors that increase the likelihood of criminal coping
D. Explaining group differences in crime
E. Recommendations for controlling crime
F. Reducing the exposure of individuals to strain that are conductive to crime
G. Reducing the likelihood that individuals will respond to strain with crime
H. Conclusion.

In this essay I will describe

a) The types of strain most conductive to crime
b) Why strains increase the likelihood of crime
c) The factors that increase the likelihood that individuals will cope with strains through
crime.
 All strain theories acknowledge that most individuals deal with strain in a legal manner. For
example, most often, individuals try to cope with monetary problems by doing such things as cutting
back on expenses, borrowing money or working extra hours. It is therefore very difficult to explain
why some individuals engage in criminal coping. After presenting a basic overview on strain theories,
I will then describe how strain theories have been used to explain group differences, such as gender
differentiation in crime, and a discussion of a policy implication of the strain theories.

Robert Merton, developed the strain theories. He argued that society may be set up in a way
that encourages too much deviance. He believed there was a disjunction between socially approved
means to success and legitimate cultural goals. Merton believed that when societal norms or socially
accepted goals such as the “American Dream”, place pressure on the individual to confirm, they force
the individual to either work with the structure society has produced or instead become a member of a
subculture in an attempt to achieve those goals. He then termed this theory Strain theory. This theory
has the most important characteristics which will be discussed below.

Typology of Deviance and Examples

Merton’s main worry was the fact that societies such as the United States, do not provide the
means to achieve cultural goals. For example, for citizens to achieve the American Dream, society
needs to provide access to education, employment, etc. and he felt the United States was not doing a
good enough job. When individuals are faced with a gap between “what ought to be” and “what is”,
they will feel strained and have a choice between five modes of adaptions

Robert K. Merton’s Deviance Typology

Institutionalized means

Accept Reject New goals

Accept Conformity Innovation New means
Reject Ritualism Retreatism Rebellion

Conformity:

Involves pursuing cultural goals through approved means. Conformist have accepted the goal of
society and the societally approved ways of attaining them. The American Dream is financial security
through talent, schooling, and above all hard work. The problem as Merton saw it is that not everyone
who wants conventional success has the opportunity to obtain it. To him the strain between our
culture’s emphasis on wealth and the lack of opportunities for success may encourage some people,
especially the poor to engage in stealing, selling drugs and other forms of street crime and Merton
called this type of deviance innovation, using unconventional means (dealing drugs) to approve
culturally approved goals (financial security).

Innovation:

Using socially unapproved or unconventional means to achieve culturally approved goals. For
example dealing drugs or stealing to achieve financial security. (Serving poor)

Ritualism:

Using the same socially approved means to achieve less elusive goals (more modest and
humble). (Passive poor)

Retreatism:

To reject both the cultural goals and the means to obtain it, then find a way to escape it.
(Retreating poor).

Rebellion:

To reject the cultural goals and means then work to replace them. (Resisting poor). Not
accepting any goals and means.

General Strain Theory

The general strain theory (GST) is a sociology and criminology theory developed in 1992 by Robert
Agnew. Agnew believed that Merton’s theory was too vague in nature and did not account for
criminal activity which did not involve criminal gain. The core idea of general strain theory is that
people who experience strain or stress become distressed or upset which may lead them to commit
crime in order to cope. One of the key principles of this theory is emotion as the motivator for crime.
The theory was developed to conceptualize the full range of sources in society where strain possibly
comes from, which Merton’s strain theory does not. The theory also focuses on the perspective of
goals for status, expectation and class rather than focusing on money (as Merton’s theory does). An
example of GST are people who use illegal drugs to make themselves feel better or a student
assaulting his peers to end the embarrassment they caused.

General strain introduces 3 main sources of strain such as;

1. Loss of positive stimuli( death of family or friend)

 2. Presentation of negative stimuli(physically or verbal assaults)
3. The inability to reach a desired goal

Institutional Anomie Theory:

IAT is a criminology theory developed in 1941 by Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld.
The theory proposes that an institutional arrangement in a market where the market economy is
allowed to operate, dominate without restraints from other social institution like family will likely
cause criminal behavior. Derived from Merton’s strain theory, IAT focus on criminal influence of
varied social institutions rather than just the economic structure.

Illegitimate Opportunities Theory:

Illegitimate opportunities is a sociology theory developed in 1960 by Richard Cloward and

Lloyd Ohlin. The theory states that crimes results from a high number of illegitimate opportunities and
not from a lack of legitimate ones. The theory was developed from Merton’s stain theory to help
address juvenile delinquency.

Role Strain Theory:

This theory was developed by a sociologist William J. Goode in 1960. He states that social
institutions are supported and operated by role relationships. Due to these role relationships
individuals may feel “role strain”, or difficulty fulfilling their sociological duties in relationship. It is
through this “role strain” that social action and social structure are maintained. With these
relationships, come social obligations 0that members of that society are required to follow, which
people are usually not forced to fulfill. In order for the society to continue existing these obligations
must be fulfilled at the volition of the individuals in it, what the theory states is what most people are
inclined to do. Due to the fact that there’s no force involved in maintaining these role relationships,
there will be individuals who cannot, or will not, conform to these societal expectations.

According to Goode, however, due to these multiple relationships, an individual will almost
always have a total amount of role obligations that demand more than what the individual can give,
whether it is in terms of time, emotional favor, or material resources. This can give rise to “role
strain” which can lead the individual to attempting to fulfill socially acceptable goals in means that
may not be socially acceptable.

While the theory of role strain attempts to attribute the maintenance of society to role
relationships. Goode also acknowledges that the theory does not account for the existence of more
complex social settings such as that of urban society. The theory of role strain does not account for
several aspects of urban life, such as the fact that some individuals accepts absolutely none of the
society’s central values, the fact that individuals vary in their emotional commitment to these societal
values, how these role relationships changes when individuals go through a change in social position
or how these relationships hold up during time of crisis.

Other Strain Theories: Robert Agnew

Robert Agnew in 1992, asserted that strain theory could be central in explaining crime and
deviance, but that it needed revision so that it was not tied to social class or cultural variables but
refocused on norms. Agnew then proposed a general strain theory that was neither structural nor
interpersonal but rather individual and emotional, paying special attention to an individual’s actual or
anticipated failure to achieve positively valued goals, actual or anticipated removal of positive valued
stimuli, and actual or anticipated presentation of negative stimuli all result in strain.

Anger and frustration confirm negative relationships. The resulting behavior patterns are
often characterized by more than their share of unilateral action because an individual will have a
natural desire to avoid unpleasant rejections and these unilateral actions (especially when antisocial)
will further contribute to an individual’s alienation from society.

If particular rejections are generalized into feelings that the environment is un-supportive,
more strongly negative emotions may motivate the individual to engage in crime. This is mostly the
case with younger individuals. Agnew then suggested that research should focus on the magnitude,
how recent, duration and clustering of some strain related events to determine whether a person copes
with strain in a criminal or conforming manner.

Temperaments, intelligence, interpersonal skills, self-efficacy, the presence of conventional

and social support, the absence of association with antisocial (for example, criminally inclined age
and status peers) are chief among the factors that Agnew identified as benefits.

Jei Zhang: The strain theory of suicide is postulated by Zhang that it is usually preceded by
psychological strains. A psychological strain is formal by at least two stresses or pressures, pushing
the individual to different directions. A strain therefore can be a result of any of the four conflicts:
differential values, discrepancy between aspiration and reality, relative deprivation and lack of
coping skills for a crises. Psychological strains in the form of all the sources have been tested and
supported with a sample of suicide notes in the United States and in rural china through psychological
autopsy studies. The strain theory of suicide forms a challenge to the psychiatric model popular
among the sociologist in the world. The strain theory of suicide is based on the theoretical frameworks
established by previous sociologist. For example Durkheum (1951), Merton (1957), and Agnew
(2006) and preliminary test have been accomplished with some Americans (Zhang and Lester (2008))
and Chinese data (Zhang 2010); Dong and Delprino and Zhou 2009; Zhang, Conwell, TU and
Wieczorek 2011.

There could be for types of strain that proceed a suicide, and each can be derived from
specific sources. A source of strain must consist of two and at least two conflicting social facts. If the
two social facts are non-contradictory there would be no strain.

Sources of Strain: Differential values.

When two conflicting social values or beliefs are competing in an individual’s daily life, the
person experiences value strain. The two conflicting social facts are competing personal beliefs
internalized in the person’s value system. A cult member may experience strain if the mainstream
culture and the cult religion are both considered important in the cult members’ daily life. Other
examples include the second generation of immigrants in the United States who have to abide by the
ethnic culture rules enforced in the family while simultaneously adapting to the American culture with
peers and school. In China, rural young women appreciate gender equalitarianism advocated by the
communist government, but as the same time, they are trapped in cultural sexual discrimination as
traditionally cultivated by Confucianism.

Another example that might be found in developing countries is the differential values of
traditional collectivism and modern individualism. When the two conflicting values are taken as
equally important in a person’s daily life, the person experiences great strain. When one value is more
important than the other, there is then little or no strain.

Criticism of this Theory of Strain

The strain theory has received several criticisms such as:

1. Strain theory fails to explain crimes based in gender inequality

2. Strain theory best applies only to the lower class as they struggle with limited
resources to obtain the goals.
3. Merton deals with individual forms of responses instead of group activities which
crimes involve
4. Strain theory fails to explain white collar crimes, the perpetrator of whom have many
opportunities to achieve through legal and legitimate means.
5. Strain theory neglects inter-and intra-personal aspects of crime.
6. Strain theory has week empirical evidence supporting it.
 7. Merton’s theory is not very critical of the social structure that he says generates the
strain.

CONCLUSION:

Strain theories are based on simple common sense ideas. When people are treated badly, they
may become upset and engaged in crime. Strain theories elaborate on this idea by describing
the types of negative treatments most likely to resolve in crime. Strains most likely to lead to
crimes are high in magnitude, perceived as unjust and associated with low social control and
they create some pressure or incentive for crime. Example, abusive discipline, chronic
unemployment or work in “bad” jobs, criminal victimization, homelessness, discrimination
and the inability to achieve monetary goals. These strains lead to a range of negatoive
emotions such as anger. These emotions create pressure for corrective action with crime
being one possible response. Crime may allow individuals to reduce or escape from strains,
seek revenge, or alleviate their negative emotions through illicit drug use. Strain might also
increase crime by reducing social control, fostering association with criminal peers and
beliefs favorable to crime, thereby contributing to negative trends like emotionality.
Researchers are using the strain theory in many important ways to explain group differences
in crimes such as gender differences in offending. Furthermore, the implication of strain
theories in the control of crime is receiving increase attention. To sum it all, strain theories
constitute one of the major explanation of crime, and has more potential in the control of
crime.

REFERENCES:

Agnew, R. 1992 “Foundation for A General Strain theory of crime and delinquency
criminology” (pages 30,47-87)
Agnew, R. 1997 “Stability and Change in Crime over the life course. A strain theory
Explanation advances in Criminological theory Vol 7”
Agnew, R. 2001, 2006, 2009 successively in different write ups
Anderson. E (1999) Code of the Street, New York, Norton
Baron, S.W 2004: General Strain, Street Youths and Crime. Atest of Agnew’s revised
theory.
 Elliot, D. Huizinga, D. & Ageton. S (1979) An Integrated perspective on delinquent
behavior
Merton. R (1938) Social Structure & Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3 (Pg
672-682)

B. CRIMINAL JUSTICE THEORIES

Plan

1. Introduction
2. Criminal justice theories: Varieties and Possibilities
3. Theoretical orientations: Infrastructure Beginnings
4. Conclusions

Introduction:
I will start with this fundamental questions that despite the large number of academic programs and
scholarly works dedicated to the studying of criminal justice have been unable to ask nor answer.
“What are criminal justice theories?”

To answer this question, let me explain what criminal justice theory is all about in one sentence.
Criminal justice theories explain the theories surrounding punishment and also used for the research
of history or the evolution criminal justice ideologies

Wikipedia defines criminal justice theory as “the theory of criminal justice is the branch of philosophy
of law that deals with criminal justice and in particular punishment.” The theory of criminal justice
has deep connections to other areas of philosophy such as political philosophy and ethics as well as to
criminal justice in practice

Given that a theoretical infrastructure is the intellectual and conceptual core of any legitimate area of
study, the time is past due to begin recognizing and developing a theoretical foundation explicitly
intended to make the theoretical sense of criminal justice. Researchers in this field have amassed an
impressive body of theoretical work.

The focus of this work will be concentrated mostly to answer the “why” of crime and explaining
crime rates. The term theory is used here to describe criminal theory. There is an underlying
assumption in the field that the discipline of criminology is more interested in explaining the why of
crime and thus by nature is more theoretically oriented. It follows therefore that studying criminal
justice is necessarily a policy-based pursuit more interested in effecting practical crime-control
initiatives as derived from theories of crime. (Gibbons 1994). The study of criminal justice is tacitly
relegated to the limited role of discerning “how to” and “what works” –laudable objectives, but
incomplete insofar of understanding the nature of our formal reaction to crime. Dantzker’s (1998)
delineation between criminology and criminal justice is typical of this view “criminology is the
scientific study of crime as a social phenomenon that is the theoretical application involving the study
and nature of the extent of criminal behavior that is the actions, policies, and functions of the agencies
within the criminal justice system charged with addressing this behavior.”

There is a question that comes up after this definition above; is criminology and criminal justice
studies diminishing their theoretical integrity with this conception? Certainly not because the study of
criminal justice by both criminological and criminal justice scholars, has involved far more than
merely describing its functions and devising means of crime control.

Criminal justice studies could also could also be viewed with a slight modification from Datzker’s
view. As “the scholarly examination of criminal justice as a social phenomenon that is. The
theoretical application involving the study of, the nature and extent of criminal justice behavior.”
Criminal justice phenomena can somehow be excluded is not only erroneous but also highly
damaging to the disciplinary integrity of the criminal justice studies.

This view might be an exception to the traditional criminological theorist. They will argue, crime
theory has already been used as the foundational material for developing models of criminal justice
functioning (Einstatder and Henry; 1995). The approach to understand criminal justice has taken the
traditional theories and infers a model for criminal justice that functions based on that particular
conception of crime causation. However, modeling criminal justice functioning sheds important
theoretical light on the system, even those involved in the activity admit that these models do not
constitute the development of theory (Einstatder and Henry; 1995). Therefore the notion that there can
be no other theoretical foundation for understanding criminal justice behavior besides those
preexisting theories.

Exceptions might be taken here by some critical criminologist. Critical criminologist has a rich body
of work theorizing the behavior of the state, the legal apparatus, trends in social control and
oppressive crime control policies. Compared with their analysis of criminal justice behavior,
explaining law breaking has been a secondary pursuit. This explains why critical scholarship often
seems out of place in most criminological theory text books. Their object of study- an oppressive
crime control apparatus- does not coincide well with theories focused only on the oppressive features
of how the state differentially defines acts as crimes among marginalized groups. It is clearly seen that
critical criminology is, more engaged in theorizing criminal justice than crime.
Criminal justice theory: Varieties and Possibilities:
It has been proved that theorizing crime is a complex endeavor. It is difficult to identify and agree on,
a plethora of theories competing for prominence, and determine the strength and worth of these
theories is wrought with controversy and conflicting evidence. This is not meant to be an indictment,
instead, criminological theories render it dynamic and intellectually stimulating.

The theorization of criminal justice possibly harbors even more potentially for this type of complexity
and stimulation. The main reason being the multifaceted nature of the object of study. The entity

called criminal justice actually comprises numerous objects of study - including the criminal justice
system; each of the major components within that system (police, courts, corrections, and criminal
justice), and other participants in criminal justice including but not limited to, academic researchers,
the media, legislative body and the public.

Below are some sample questions also posed by scholars when theorizing criminal justice;

1. How do we best make theoretical sense of the criminal justice apparatus’s (CJA) long term
historical development?
2. What accounts for the steep growth in power and size of the CJA over the last 30 years?
3. How do we best make the theoretical sense of current and future trends associated with the
CJA?
4. On what theoretical base can we best understand various controversial issues facing the CJA
for example, racial profiling, death penalty, erosion of constitutional safeguards,
privatization, etc.?
5. How does the CJA affect the large society of which it operates; conversely, what societal
forces affect the CJA?
6. How do we best make the theoretical sense of the behaviors of criminal justice practitioners?
7. What best explains the internal functioning and practices of the criminal justice agencies?

The above questions have demonstrated that field time theories have been constructed
specifically to explain crime and are inadequate for providing suitable answers. The attempt to
explain the behaviors of the state, public agencies, the criminal law apparatus, trends in criminal
control or organizations, and trends in social control necessitate a theoretical infrastructure
unique to these unique objects of study.

Criminal justice theories has numerous approaches to develop it, such as constructing models of
criminal justice functioning based on differing theories of crime. In 1990, David Duffee took a
more traditional approach by attempting to articular a general theory of criminal justice grounded
in the context of local communities. This was of course the development of a grand theory that
accounts for all social, economic, political, and cultural influences which would probably
impractical undertaking. In 2001 David Garland in the search for avenues to answer specific
study, limited his theoretical analysis to the question of what accounts for the rapid growth of
criminal justice system over the last 30 years?, focusing primarily on the correctional subsystem.
Other researchers concentrated on research on individual practitioner behavior- such as why are
some police officers engaged in corruption? And finally some academicians have worked on
developing normative theories of criminal justice, concentrated on philosophical principles in
order to guide criminal justice practices, such as Braithwaite and petit in 1990 and Ellis in 1989.

Theoretical Orientation: Infrastructure Beginnings.

The problem addressed here is one of recognition and accessibility and also the labels that are
used to identify particular areas of scholarship.

Labels signify well-grounded intellectual territories. It has already been established, that the label
criminal justice studies are associated with theoretical research and writing. Scholars targeting
their theoretical efforts on criminal justice phenomena would likely resist having their work
identified as “developing criminal justice theory”, but would instead label their endeavors
theories of social control (sociology proper, socio-legal studies, and sociology of punishment,
theories of late modern trends in crime control; such as punishment and govern mentality studies,
theories of oppression; such as critical criminology, or theories of public organization; such as
public administration) though there is lack of recognition and conscious pursuing of a theoretical
project there exist a substantial amount of theoretical work about criminal justice phenomena that
can be credibly conceived as criminal justice theory.

A good example is the rigorous theoretical work in sociological studies and in the sociology of
punishment. The following researchers; Bauman (2000), Garland (1997, 2001), O’Malley, (1999,
2000), Rose (2000), Simon and Freeley (1994) came up with rich intellectual projects targeted at
theorizing recent shifts in the crime control apparatus. Theorizing criminal justice at this point is
contextualized within the field of social control, which probably accounts for why this highly
informative body of work has not had a significant impact on mainstream criminal justice and
criminology literature and textbooks. Its influence is starting to take hold though in particular in
the works of David Garland (the culture of control: crime and social order in contemporary
society, 2001) and Jonathan Simon (The New penology: notes on the emerging strategy of
correction and its implications) Feeley and Simon, 2006 and Governing through Crime: how the
war on crime transformed the American democracy and created a culture of fear, Simon, 2007.

Interestingly another example can be found in the field of critical criminology. Scholarships have
been awarded for many years in this area to examine the states operation marginalized groups
such as women, the poor, racial minorities, homosexuals, etc by means of the criminal justice
system. This can be viewed as legitimately as developing theories of crime control, specifically,
oppressive state behavior, this can be seen in the books of Arrigo, 1990; Milovanovic and
Russell, 2001 and just a few to mention. This explains why critical criminological theories fit
awkwardly into traditional crime theory text books; where the bulk of its explanatory intention
concentrates on the behavior of the law, the government and/or the state. Despite all this avenues
for developing criminal justice theory, the field still does not have a well-recognized theoretical
infrastructure about criminal justice.

In 2004, 2006 Kraska began the process of rectifying this situation by publishing two works that
advanced the obvious approach of identifying and articulating the contours of eight different
theoretical orientations found in traditional and contemporary scholarship about the criminal
justice system and trends on crime control.

Therefore the first step in mapping the first terrain of criminal justice theory is to identify and
elucidate the basic tenets of the various theoretical orientations that attempt to make sense of
criminal justice phenomena, which is simply an interpretive construction, a logically coherent set
of organizing concepts, casual preferences, value clusters, and assumptions that work to develop
a single, testable criminal justice theory; to the contrary, the objective would be to illuminate the
multiple theoretical lenses, (broad-based interpretive constructs) crime and justice scholars to
help people understand the behavior of the criminal justice system and crime control.

The network of governmental agencies responding to the crime problem is universally known as
the criminal justice system. Most academics would agree that the system framework has
dominated the fields thinking and research about criminal justice. The frame work is derived
from the biological sciences, Parson’s 1951 structural functionalism, and organizational studies.
It has a strong reformist element, emphasizing the importance of enhancing criminal justice
system coordination, efficiency, rational decision making and technology.

Conclusion: Theoretical and Disciplinary Integrity

An assertion was made by Marenin and Worrall in 1998 that “criminal justice is an academic
discipline in practice but not yet in theory” (page 465). There are two reasons in the field why
scholars have not placed high value on this endeavor. The first which has been discussed above is
crime theory suffices. The second is more difficult to overcome. Although exploring the why of
crime has been prima facie important, our field has neither articulated nor acknowledged what
value criminal justice provides. There are however some assumptions that studying criminal
justice is inherently and necessary a theoretical because it concentrates on practice. This notion
has been thoroughly debunked in most other major fields of study. Practice and theory are
implied in one another; no policy analysis; implementation, strategic plan or practitioner is
devoid of theory. To deny the integral role of theory, plays in all these instances to remain
ignorant of its influence.

Thus theorizing criminal justice is an inherently critical endeavor providing important insights
into the system irrationalities, missteps, and disconcerting implications. Our analysis are guided
by numerous criminal justice issues: the criminal justice apparatus’s steep growth in size, power
and positives; controversial new initiatives in the war of terrorism, drugs and disparities in the
treatment of minorities, women, and the poor. Each of these need a scrutiny of immediate causes
as well as their larger theoretical context like cultural, political, economic, and sociological
forces. It is also true that the level at which this scrutiny will be carried out with vary, ranging
from a critique of a single administrative practice to perhaps a wholesale critique of the criminal
justice growth complex. Theoretically based scrutiny focused on criminal justice and criminal
control should not be misconstrued as inappropriately critical. It simply approaches criminal
justice as a research problem similar to the way crime is studied.

Note should be made here that numerous scholars in this field find the study of the society’s
reaction to crime intellectually stimulating in and off itself- much like a biologist studies the solar
system. This view was expressed by Krsaska and Neuman, in 2008. The study of human and
organizations attempting to control wrongdoing while trying to control it yields intriguing
insights about the nature of society; the political landscape, and cutting edge cultural trends. In
short how we react to crimes tells us a lot about ourselves and where our society might be
headed.

To round it up we can say theories are repositories for substantive thought; impossible-to-avoid
filters for history major contemporary issues and trends; the foundational material through which
innovative solutions are developed; and the back drop for all research in the field whether policy
based, descriptive or theoretical today many contemporary scholars are beginning to study
criminal justice using more modern conceptions of system theory, social constructionism,
Foucauldian theory, feminist theory, and late modernism. The time is now for scholars in the
field to start placing higher value on developing a theoretical infrastructure about criminal
justice.

Ref:

1. Arrigo, BA (1999) social juticel criminal justice: the maturation of critical theory in law,
crime, and deviance.
2. Barack. G, Flavin J.M, and Leighto P.S (2001) class, race, gender and crime; social;
realities of justice in America.
 3. Bauman Z (2000), social issues of law and order. British journal of criminology page 40.
205-221.
4. Bernard T. and Engel R. (2001) conceptualizing criminal justice theory. Justice quarterly
page 18, 1-30.
5. Braithewaite J. and Pettit P. (1990) a republican theory of criminal justice.
6. Dantzker M. L. (1998). Criminology and criminal justice: comparing, contrasting, and
intertwining disciplines.
7. Duffee D. E. (1990), explaining criminal justice theory: explaining the nature and
behavior of criminal justice.
8. Ellis, R. D. and Ellis, C. S (1989) theories of criminal justice. A critical reappraisal.
9. Garland,D (2001a) the culture of control: crime and social order in contemporary
society: university of Chicago press.
10. Galand, D (2001b) epilogue: the new iron cage. Punishment and society.
11. Kraska P.B (2004). Theorizing criminal justice: eight essential orientations. Prospects
heights.
12. Kraska P.B (2006) criminal justice theory towards legitimacy and an infrastructure.
Justice quarterly
13. Kraska P.B and Neuman, L.W (2008) criminal justice and criminological research
methods.

C. PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF CRIME

When examining psychological theories of crime, one must be cognizant of the three major
theories;

The first is psychodynamic theory, which is centered on the notion that an individual’s early
childhood experience influences his or her livelihood for committing future crimes.

The second is behavioral theory. Behavioral theorists have expanded the work of Gabriel
Tarde through behavior modeling and social learning.

The third is cognitive theory, the major premise of which suggests that an individual’s
perception and how it is manifested (Jacoby 2004) affects his or her potential to commit
crime.

Outline

1- Introduction
 2- Early Research
3- Psychodynamic Theory
4- Mental disorders and crime
5- Mental illness and crime
6- Behavioral theory
7- Cognitive theory
8- Personality and crime
9- Psychopathic personality
10- Intelligence and crime
11- Conclusion

1- Introduction:

I will start my essay with questions: why do individuals commit crimes? At the
same time why is crime present in our society? These questions are the reseans why
criminal justice system is very concerned, and criminologists are doing all in attempt to
answer them. To be very honest the question as to why crimes are committed is very difficult
to answer. This has however not stopped the quest for answers over centuries now, like
Jacoby in (2004).

Conklin, in 2007 stated that it is important for us to recognize that there are many different
explanations as to why individuals commit crimes. One very important reason or explanation
is based on psychological theories, which focused on the association among intelligence,
personality, learning and criminal behavior.

When examining psychological theories of crime, we must be cognizant of the three

major theories mentioned at the beginning of my essay. To add to these also is personality
and intelligence. There are these five theories: psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioral,
personality and intelligence which offer appealing insights into why an individual may
commit a crime. This was Schmalleger’s, opinion or idea in 2008. Therefore there cannot be
only one reason why crime is committed.

2- Early Research:
 Charles Goring (1870 - 1919), discovered the relationship between crime and
flawed intelligence. He examined more than 3000 convicts in England and found no
physical differences between non-criminals and criminals, however he did find that
criminals are more likely to be insane, unintelligent and exhibit poor social behavior.
Another pioneer who was second, Gabriel Tarde (1843 - 1904) maintained that
individuals learn from each other and ultimately imitate one another. Interestingly,
Tarde thought that out of 100 individuals, only one was creative or inventive and the
rest were prone to imitate (Jacoby 2004).

3- Psychodynamic theory:

Proponents of this theory suggest that an individual’s personality is controlled by

unconscious mental processes that are grounded in early childhood. Theory originated by
Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939) founder of psychoanalysis. In this theory we have the three
elements or structures that make up the human personality.

 The ID,
 The ego, and
 The superego.

ID here can be considered as the primitive part of a person’s mental makeup that is
present at birth. Freud (1993) believed that the ID represents the unconscious biological
drives for food, sex, and other necessities over the life span. The most important thing here is
that the ID is concerned with instant pleasure or gratification while disregarding concern for
others. This is known as the pleasure principle and it is often paramount when discussing
criminal behavior. Most often we watch over news stories and studies about criminal
offenders who have no concern for anyone but themselves. The question therefore is that: it
is possible to say that these male and female offenders are driven by instant gratification?

The second element which is the ego and which is thought to develop early in a
person’s life. An example is, when a children learn that their wishes cannot be gratified
instantaneously, they often throw a tantrum. Freud (1933) suggested that the ego compensates
for the demands of the ID by guiding an individual’s actions or behaviors to keep him or her
within the boundaries of society. The ego is guided by the reality principle.
 The third element of personality which is the super ego, develops as a person
incorporates the moral and standard values of the community; parents and significant others
such as friends and clergy members. The focus of super ego is variety. The super ego serves
to pass judgment on the behavior and actions of others. The ego mediates between the ID’s
desire for instant gratification and the strict morality of the super ego. We can assume that
young adults as well as adults, understand wrong from right. However, when a crime is
committed, advocates of psychodynamic theories suggest that, an individual committed a
crime because he/she has an undeveloped super ego. To sum it up, psychodynamic theory
suggest that criminal offenders are frustrated and aggravated. They are constantly drawn to
past events that occurred in their childhood. As a result of a negligent unhappy or miserable
childhood which is most often characterized by a lack of love and or nurturing a criminal
offender has a weak (or absent) ego. Researchers suggest that having a weak ego is linked
with poor or absence of social etiquettes, immaturity and dependence on others. Also that
individuals with weak egos may be more likely to engage in drug abuse.

4- Mental Disorder and Crime:

Within the psychodynamic theory of crime are mood disorders. Criminal offenders may have
numerous disorder moods that are ultimately manifested as depression, rage, narcissism and
social isolation. On example of disorder found in children is conduct disorder. This conduct
disorder in children makes it difficult for them to follow rules and are behaving in socially
unacceptable ways, says Boccaccini, Murrie, Clarks and Comell (2008). Conduct disorders
are ultimately manifested as a group of behavioral and emotional problems in young adults
children diagnosed with conduct disorder are seen by adults, other children and agencies of
the state as “trouble”, “bad”, “delinquent” or even mentally ill. This leads us to the question
why some children develop conduct disorder while others do not. Some attempts to answer
some of the most prominent include child abuse, brain damage, genetics, poor school
performance, and a traumatic event.

Most often this diagnosis is identified by the parents or the teachers of the child, with
oppositional defiant disorder. When this happens the child is now taken to a medical
professional to confirm it. The doctor will inquire into the history of the child’s behavior,
which includes the perspective of all interested parties, and will verify the results of any
clinical observations of child’s behavior. Psychological testing may also assist in assigning a
diagnosis. When discovered early it is very important and treatment will be easier, and will
prevent future problems.

Oppositional defiant disorder may exist. Other mental health problems, include mood end
anxiety disorders, conduct disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This
treatment can only be determined by a physician who considers the child’s age, overall health
and medical history, and also will consider the extent or totality of a child’s symptoms, the
child’s tolerance for the course of the condition, and the opinion or preference of the
caretaker or parent. Treatment at times could include psychotherapy that teaches problem
solving skills, communication skills and anger management skills. Treatment can also be in
the form of family therapy. For instance improving on family interactions and
communication skills, peer group therapy focused on developing social skills and
interpersonal skills is also an option. Then the last option will be medication where the above
does not help.

5. Mental Illness and Crime

The most serious forms of personality disturbance results in mental disorders. The most
serious cases of mental disturbance are referred to as psychoses by Siegal (2008). Some
examples of mental health disorders are; bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Bipolar disorder
is marked extreme highs and lows; the person alternates between being existed, assertive and
loud behavior and lethargic, listless, and melancholic behavior.

Another mental health disturbance is known as schizophrenia, where the individual often
exhibits illogical and incoherent thought processes, and they often lack insight into their
behavior and do not understand reality. A person with paranoid schizophrenia often believes
everyone is out to arrest them. Research has proven that female offenders appears to have a
higher probability of serious mental health symptoms than male offenders. These include
symptoms of schizophrenia, paranoia, and obsessive behaviors. At the same time, studies of
males accused of murder have found that three quarters could be classified as having some
form of mental illness. Interestly, individuals who are diagnosed with mental health issues are
always arrested, and they appear in court at a disproportionate rate. Lastly, research suggest
that delinquent children have a higher rate of clinical mental disorders compared with
adolescents in the general population (Siegal 2008).
 6. Behavioral theory:

This is the second major psychological theory. The theory states that human behavior is
developed through learning experiences. The hallmark of behavioral theory is the notion that
people alter or change their behavior according to the reactions this behavior elicits in other
people (Bandura, 1978). Behaviorists view crimes as learned responses to life’s situations
social learning theory is the most relevant to criminology and is a branch of behavioral
theory: Albert Bandura is the most prominent social learning theorist in (1978) he maintained
that individuals are born with an innate ability to act violently. He suggest that in contrast,
violence and aggression are learned through a process of behavior modeling (1977). In other
words children learn violence through the observation of others. Aggressive acts are modeled
after three primary sources

 Family interaction
 Environmental experiences, and
 The mass media. Research has shown that children who are aggressive grew up in
homes most likely where the parents or caretakers were aggressive (Jacoby, 2004).

The second problem of this theory suggest that individuals who reside in areas that are crime
prone are more likely to display aggressive behavior than those in low crime areas (Shelden,
2006) Bohm, 2001 argued that high crime areas are without norms, rules and customs
manifestations of unconventional behavior include the inability to gain employment, drug or
alcohol abuse and failure to obey the local state and federal laws. Individuals who adhere to
conventional behavior are invested in society and comity to a goal or belief system.

The third source of behavioral problems are the mass media, it is difficult to discern the
ultimate role of the media in regard to crime. For instance films, video games and television
shows depicting violence are harmful to children. This has been widely proven as the source
of most of the violence we have in the society today. For instance most violent cases we have
in school by pupils and students is as a result of what they see in the media which usually
inflict physical or psychological damage to someone in school. We have had cases over the
last 50 years where professional athletes who engaged in inappropriate behavior on and off
the field. These are watched by children who try to do same. Thus when a 10 year old
amateur athlete imitates such behavior by a professional sport figure, whom does society
blame or punish?
Furthermore, consistent media violence desensitizes children and adolescents when searching
for stimuli that foster violence acts, social learning theorists suggest that an individual is
likely to inflict harm when he or she is subject to a violent assault, verbal heckling or insults,
disparagement and the inability to achieve his or her goals and aspirations (Siegal, 2009).

Cognitive theory:

This is the third major psychological theory, significant gains have been made in recent years
in explaining criminal behavior within the cognitive theory framework, and psychologists
have focus on the mental processes of individuals. A cognitive theorists like Knepper in 2001
attempt to understand how criminal offenders perceive and mentally represent the world
around them. To German cognitive theory is how individuals solve problems. Wilhelm
Wundt and William James were two prominent pioneering psychologists in the 19 th Century.
There are two sub discipline of cognitive theory that will be discussed below.

The first is the moral development branch, the focus of which is understanding how people
morally represent and reason about the world. The second in information processing here
researchers focus on the way people acquire, retain and retrieve information by Siegal, 2009.
Scholars are concerned with the process of those three stages which are acquisition, retention
and retrieval. One theory within the cognitive frame work focuses on moral and intellectual
development Jean Piaget (1896 - 1980) hypothesized that the individual reasoning process is
developed in an orderly fashion. As we grow up from birth we continue to develop Lawrence
Kohlberg (1927 - 1987) is another pioneer of cognitive theory, who applied the concept of
moral development to criminological theory. Kohlberg in 1984 believed that individuals pass
through stages of moral development this theory is important because it creates the notion
that there are levels, stages and social orientation. The three stages are level I, pre-
conventional, level II, conventional, and level III, post conventional. Stages 1 and 2 fall
under 1 stage 3 and 4 fall under level II, and stages 5 and 6 fall under level III.

Stage 1 is concerned about obedience and punishment. This level is most often found at the
grade levels of kindergarten through fifth grade. At this stage individuals conduct themselves
in a manner that is consistent with socially acceptable norms, Kohlberg, 1984. This
conforming behavior is attributed to parents, teachers or the school principal. The obedience
here is compelled by the threat or application of punishment.
Stage 2 is characterized by individuals seek to fulfill their own interest and recognize that
others should do the same. This stage maintains that the right behavior means acting in one’s
own best interests. Still in 1984 Kohlberg believes that individuals who reason in a
conventional way are more likely to judge the morality of actions by comparing those actions
to societal viewpoints and expectations. Conventional level of moral reasoning is often found
in young adults or adults.

The third and fourth stages fall under this level of development. In stage 3, the individual
recognizes that he or she is now a member of the society. An important concept stage is the
idea that individuals are interested in whether or not other people approve or disapprove of
them. For example, if you are an attorney, what role does the society want you to play?
Tangentially, what role does the clergy hold in society? With respect to stage 4, the promise
is based on law and order. Here, individuals respect th importance of law, rules and customs.
Which is very important because a proper society is one where the citizens obey law and
order as the social pillars of society. Individuals must also significance of right and wrong. A
society without laws and punishment leads to chaos. In contrast, if an individual who breaks
the law is punished; others will recognize that and exhibit obedience. Kohlberg (1984)
suggested that the majority of individuals in our societies remain at this stage, in which
morality is driven by outside forces.

The last stage which is 5 and 6 are referred to as post conventional level, referred to as the
social contrast. Individuals at this stage are concerned with the moral worth of societal views
and values, but only as far as they are related to or consistent with the basic values of liberty,
the welfare of humanity and welfare of human rights. Some fundamental terms associated
with this stage are majority decisions and compromise. Stage 6 is often termed principled
conscience. It is characterized by universal principles of justice and respect of human
autonomy. Most important to criminal justice and criminology is the notion that laws are
valid only if they are based on or grounded in justice. It is important to recognize that justice
is subjective. Thus, Kohlberg argued that the quest for justice would ultimately call for
disobeying unjust laws. He suggested that individuals could progress through this six stages
in chronological fashion. Important for criminology is that Kohlberg suggested that criminals
are significantly lower in their moral judgment development.

The next sub discipline is the information processing branch, predicted on the notion that
people use information to understand their environment. When you make a decision, you
engage in a sequence of cognitive thought process. As illustration; individuals experience an
event and encode or store the relevant information so it can be retrieved and interpreted in a
later date (Conklin 2007). Secondly, these individuals search for the appropriate response and
then they determine the appropriate action. Lastly, they must act on their decision. Some
findings declare that firstly, individuals who use information more properly are more likely to
avoid delinquent or criminal behavior, by Sheldon (2006). Secondly those who are
conditioned to make reasoned judgments when faced with emotional events are more likely
to avoid antisocial behavioral decisions according to Siegal (2008). Interestly, an explanation
for flawed reasoning is that the individual may be relying on a faulty cognitive process
specifically, he or she may follow a mental script that was learned in childhood (Jacoby
2004). A second reason that may account for flawed reasoning is prolonged exposure to
violence. A third possibility of faulty reasoning is over sensitivity or rejection by parents or
peers. Research has therefore demonstrated that individuals who use violence as a means of
coping mechanism are substantially more likely to exhibit other problems, such as alcohol
and drug depending by Piquero and Mararolle, (2001).

Personality and crime: personality can be defined as something that makes us what we are
and also that which makes us different from others according to Clark, Boccaccini, Caillouet,
and Chaplin, (2007). Personality is ideally stable over time. Inconsistent results have been
yielded in the examination the relationship between personality and crime. The Big five
model, is one of the most well-known theories of personality used to examine this
relationship. The model provides a vigorous structure into which most personality
characteristics can be categorized. The model also suggest that five main domains accounts
for individual differences in personality; as follows;

1. Neuroticism.
2. Extraversion.
3. Openness.
4. Agreeableness. And
5. Conciseness.
As per Clark Etal (2007), neuroticism involves emotional stability: individuals who
score high on these domains often demonstrate anger and sadness and have irrational
ideas; uncontrollable impulses, and anxiety. In contrast, people who score low in
neuroticism often are described by others as even tempered, claimed, and relaxed.
The second domain, extraversion, is characterized by sociability, excitement, and
stimulation. Individuals who score high on extraversion (extraverts) are often very
active, talkative, and assertive. They are also more optimistic towards the future. In
contrast, introverts are often characterized by being reserved, independent and shy as
per Clark Etal, (2007).
The third domain is openness. This refers to individuals who have an active
imagination, find pleasure in beauty, are attentive to their inner feelings, have a
preference for variety, and are intellectually curious, people who score high on
openness are willing to entertain unique novel ideas, maintain unconventional values,
and experience positive or negative emotions more so than individuals who are
closed-minded. On the other hand people who score-less in openness often prefer the
familiar, behave in conventional manners, and have a conservative view point (Clark
Etal, 2007).
Agreeableness is the fourth domain. It is related to inter personal tendencies.
Individuals who score high here are considered warm altruistic, softhearted, forgiving,
sympathetic, and trusting. While those who are not agreeable are described as hard-
hearted, intolerant, impatient, and argumentative.
The fifth domain, focuses, on a person’s ability to control impulses and exercise self-
control. Individuals who score high on conscientiousness are described as organized,
thorough, efficient, determined and strongly willed. They are also able to achieve high
academic and occupational desires. On the other hand, people who score less on this
domain are thought to be careless, lazy and more likely assign fault to others than to
accept blame themselves. (2007).
Another personality study discovered that the personality traits of hostility,
impulsivity and narcissism are correlated with delinquent and criminal behavior.
Furthermore, research conducted by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck during the 1930s
and 1940s identified a number of personality traits that were characteristic of
antisocial youths (Schmalleger 2008). Another important figure who examined
criminal personality is Hans Eysenck (1916-1997). Eysenck identified two anti-social
personality traits:
I. Extraversion and
II. Neuroticism
 He suggested that who score at the end of either domain of extraversion and
neuroticism are more likely to be self-destructive and criminal. (Eysenck, 1985).
Note should be mentioned that neuroticism is associated with self-destructive
behavior like abusing drugs and alcohol and community crimes.

Psychopathic personality: psychopathic anti-social personality, or sociopath are terms used

interchangeably (Siegal 2009). Sociopath are often a product of a destructive home
environment. Psychopaths are a product of a defect or aberration within themselves. The anti-
social personality is characterized by low levels of guilt. Superficial charm, above-average
intelligence, persistent violation of the rights of others, an incapacity to form enduring
relationship, impulsivity, risk taking, egocentricity, manipulative, forcefulness and cold
heartedness, and shallow emotions, explained by Jacoby, (2004). Siegal in 2008 explained
that the origin of the above conclusions may include traumatic socialization, neurological
disorder, and brain abnormality. It’s interesting to know that individuals suffer from low
levels of arousal as measured by neurological examination, they may engage in thrill seeking
or high risk behaviors such as crime to offset their low aroused level. Other psychopathic
personality that may contribute are parent’s pathological tendencies childhood traumatic
events, or inconsistent discipline. Note should be mentioned here that many chronic offenders
are sociopaths. If we accept that personality traits can predict crime and violence then we can
assume that the root cause of crime is found in the forces that influence human development
at an early stage of life. Siegal again 2008.

Intelligence and crime: Dabney, 2004 says criminologist have suggested for many years that
there exist a link between intelligence and crime. It is believed by researchers that criminals
and delinquents possess low intelligence that which in turn causes criminality. With the
advancement of criminology, scholars suggest that the Holy Grail is causality. That is the
ability to predict criminals and non-criminals is the ultimate goal. Jacoby in 2004 said the
ideology or concept of IQ and crime has crystallized into the nature-versus-nature debate.

In 2007 Messner and Rosenfield, said the nature-versus-nature debate is a psychological

argument that is related to whether the environment or heredity impacts the psychological
developments of individuals. Science recognizes that we share our parents DNA. For
instance, some people have short fingers like their mother and brown eyes like their father.
However, the question remains: where do individuals get their love of sports, literature, and
humor? The nature-versus-nature debate addresses this issue. As concerns nature research on
the prison population has consistently shown that inmates typically score low on IQ test. This
Schmalleger observation in his research in 2008. Researchers also observed in the early 20 th
century that the IQ test was administered to delinquent male children and the result proved
that 40% had below average intelligence. On this basis it can be argued that the role of this
nature is prevalent can researchers however assume a priori that heredity determines IQ,
which in turn influences an individual’s criminal behavior? There is however one criticism of
this perspective which is the failure to account for free will. People believe in the ability to
make choices. Also there are some individuals with low IQ but refrain from committing
crime.

Advocates in the other hand in respect to the nature theory ground themselves on the
premises that intelligence is not inherited. Although there is some recognition of the role of
heredity; emphasis is placed on the role of society that is environment. To illustrate, parents
are a major influence on their children’s behavior. Some parents at early age, read books,
play music, and engage their children to engage in art, museum, and sporting events. Some
parents on the other hand have no time to spend on their children and the children are
believed to perform poorly on intelligence test. Friends, relatives and teachers are also very
important in a child’s nurturing. A child who has no friend, no relative and drops out of
school is destined for difficult times. It is very true as demonstrated that, the more educated a
person is the higher his or her IQ.

Two scholars, Travis Hirschi and Michael Hindelang in 1977concluded the debate that has
had peaks and valleys on nature-versus-nature, by suggesting that low IQ increases the
likelihood of criminal behavior through its effect on school performance. The argument
seems somewhat elementary. They argued that a child with low IQ will perform poorly in
school and will eventually drop out of school, and will be left with very few options. This
therefore will obviously lead to delinquency and adult criminality. There has been
widespread support of this position.

There is a second view about nature-versus-nature conducted by Herrnstein Charles Murray

in their work” The Bell Curve”, which states that individuals with lower IQ are more likely to
commit crime link to another level. What they suggested is that prisons and jails are highly
populated with inmates with low IQs; however what about the criminal whose actions go
undetected? To conclude this argument, those criminal offenders who have been caught and
those have not have an IQ lower than the general population (Herrnstein and Murray 1994).
For centuries, scholars have been attempting to explain why someone commits a crime. This
research paper examine the role of psychodynamic theory as developed by Sigmund Freud.
Included here are the roles of the Id, ego, and superego in criminal behavior. This was
followed by a discussion of mental disorders and crime. We learnt from conduct disorders
and oppositional defiant disorder that children possess many characteristic associated with
delinquency and adult criminality. Alternately saying that treatment is a necessity and early
intervention is paramount.

The role of mental illness and crime was also discussed. Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia
are known as the two most serious disorders. A correlation between individuals with bipolar
disorder and schizophrenia and delinquency and or criminal behavior exist.

The second major psychological, theory was behaviorism, this theory suggest human
behavior is fostered through learning experiences. This theory has at its fore front the premise
that individuals change their behavior according to their reaction from others. In real world it
is believed that behavior is reinforced via rewards and eliminated through a negative reaction
or punishment. Social learning theory which is a branch of behavior theory, is the most
relevant to criminology. The most prominent social learning moreover is Albert Bandura.

The third psychological theory examined is cognition where the importance of mental
processes of individuals is examined. A discussion followed of individuals perceive and
mentally represent the world. Furthermore how do individuals solve problems? Two
important sub disciplines were examined by Kohlberg’s moral development theory and
information-processing theory. Ultimately we can conclude that criminal offenders are poor
at processing information and evaluating the world around them. The next topics discussed
were personality and intelligence where we learned that personality can be measured via the
domains of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. We
learned that extraversion and neuroticism are related to criminal behavior. Important to the
discussion on intelligence and IQ is school performance. Research studies have examined the
future delinquency and adult criminality have consistently demonstrated the link between the
two. Therefore in reality, it is not difficult to understand why somebody fails or drops out of
school is limited to his or her career or future options. Occupations that have a desirable
salaries often require a high school degree as well as a bachelor’s or master’s degree. Finally,
when citizens and scholars attempt to understand why people commit crime, recognition must
be given to psychological theories. Not doing so will be a serious error in judgment.
References.

1. Bandura A(1977) social learning theory

2. Bandura .A (1978) social learning theory of aggression journal of communication
28:12-29
3. Bandura .A (1986) social foundations of thought and action, Englewood Cliff, N J:
Prentice hall.
4. Boccaccini, M, Murrie, D. Clark, J.J Comell .D (2008). Describing, diagnosing, and
naming psychopath: how do youth psychopathy labels influence jurors? Behavioral
sciences and law.
5. Bohm R. (2001), Pimer on crime and delinquency theory (2 nd ed). Belmont C.A:
wards worth.
6. Clark J, Boccaccini, M, Cailluet B and Chaplin W (2007) five factor model or
personality traits, jury criminal justice and behavior, 34, 641-660.
7. Conklin J (2007), criminology (9th ed).
8. Dabney, D (2004) crimes type:
9. Eysenck H and Eysenck, M. (1985) personality and individual differences.
10. Freud S (1933) new introductory lectures in psycho-analysis. New York Norton
11. Herrstein, R, J Murray, C (1994) the bell curve: intelligence and class structure in
American life.
12. Jacoby J (2004) classics of criminology
13. Kohlberg L (1984) the psychology of moral development: essay on moral
development
14. Kraska P (2004) theorizing criminal justice.
15. Sregal L (2008) criminology: The Core (3rd ed).
16. Sregal L (2009) criminology (10th ed).

D. BIOLOGYCAL THEORIES OF CRIMES

Biological theories of crime attempt to explain behaviors contrary to societal expectations through
examination of individual characteristics. These theories are categorized within a paradigm called
positivism (also known as determinism), which asserts that behaviors are determined by factors
largely beyond individual control.
Outline
1. Introduction
 2. Classical and positivist views of behavior
3. The scientific method
4. Physical trait theories
a) Physiognomy
b) Phrenology
5. The origins of humanity and the mechanism of inheritance
a) Persistence of human traits and characteristics
b) The impact of positivism
c) Statistics and the social sciences
d) Evolution
e) The criminal physique
f) The implication of heredity and evolution
g) Social Darwinism
h) The legacy of eugenics and social Darwinism
6. Post World War 2 research on biology and behavior.
a) Body physique and crime
b) Genetics in modern biological theories
c) Biochemical explanations; Hormones Neurotransmitters, Diet
d) Brain structure and function
e) Biosocial prospective
7. Conclusion
Introduction: Biological theories within the field of criminology attempts to explain behaviors
contrary to societal expectations through examinations of individual characteristics. These theories are
categorist within a paradigm called positivism or determinism which state or asserts that behaviors,
including law-violating behaviors, are determined by factors largely beyond individual control.
Positivist theories contrast within classical theories. It argues that people generally choose their
behaviors in national processes of logical decision making and with critical theories, which critique
law-making social satisfaction, and unequal distribution of power and wealth.
Positivist theories are further classified on the basis of the type of external influences they identify as
potentially determinative of an individual behavior. For instance psychiatric and psychological
theories look at an individual’s mental development and functioning: sociological theories evaluate
the impact of social structure o individual’s (for example, social disorganization, anomie, subcultural
theories, opportunity, strain) and the impact of social function and processes on individuals (for
example, differential association, social learning, social bonds, labeling).
Biological theories can be classified into three types:
1. Those that attempt to differentiate with individuals on the basis certain innate(that is, those
with which you are born) outwards physical traits of characteristics;
 2. Those that attempt to trace the source of differences to genetic or hereditary characteristics
and
1. Those that attempt to distinguish among individuals on the basis of structural, functional or
chemical processes in the brain or body
Classical and Positivist views of behavior
Biological theories are a subtype of positivist theory, positivism evolved as instrumental in explaining
law-violation behaviors during the latter part of the 19 th century as a result of the perceive harshness
of classical school philosophers. Classical thoughts emerged in the mid-1600 ths to late 1700ths referred
to as the age of enlightenment, if asserted that man operated on the basis of free will and rational
thought choosing which courses of action to take. According to classical theorist, individuals would
engage in behaviors that are pleasurable and avoid behaviors that are painful. Punishment of the right
type and in the right amount will detrain from committing an act if that punishment result in pain that
outweigh the pleasure. Classical theorist denounce torture as a type of punishment, for most part,
because it was more punishment that was necessary to prevent a future occurrence of the act. They
believed that punishment should be proportionate to the crime to be effective as a deterrent.
Classical views were not very concerned about the cause of the behavior. Behaviors were seen as a
result of choice rather than as a result of inherent or external factors largely uncontrollable by the
individual. The scientific progression became very significant and thought method, however, led to
the application of science in the study of human and social behavior. The central focus of these ideas
was that the aim of any social action towards individuals who violated law should be curing them, not
punishing them.
Positivist criminology is distinguished by three main elements:
I. The search for the causes of crime, whether biological, psychological, or sociological;
II. The use of scientific method to test theories against observation of the world;
III. Thirdly the rejection of punishment as a response to law-violating or deviant behavior
replaced with treatment based on the medical (rehabilitation) model.
Positivism rejects free will and replaces it with scientific determinism. Finally it rejects focus on
criminal law and replaces it with a study of the individual.
The Scientific Method: it is important to positivism and to biological theories of crime because it
provides a systematic way to examine a particular problem or issue rather than relying on spiritual or
mystical explanations or haphazard guess work. The development of the scientific method is credited
primarily to Ibn Al-Haytham (965-1039) an Iraqi born scientist who wrote the book of Optics during
the years 1011-1021. It consist of seven steps:
I. Observation: visual examination of a problem or issue, noticing characteristics and patterns.
II. Statement of the problem: a verbal description of the problem or issue, noticing how it
impacts and relates to other events or structures. An explanation of how and why the problem
or issues is a problem.
III. Formulation of hypothesis: development of potential explanations or solutions. Educated and
informed statements about the expected nature of the problem and relationships among the
various components of the problem, specification of variables involved in the problem so that
the potential explanation can be tested.
IV. Testing of the hypothesis using controlled experimentation: controlled manipulation of the
variables to determine whether the hypothesis are supported.
V. Analysis of experimental results: this usually involves the examination of statistics.
VI. Interpretation of the data obtained from the testing of analysis and the formulation of a
conclusion: taking in account all the factors, the researchers makes a conclusion about the
nature of the problem.
VII. Publication or dissemination of findings to inform interested populations and future research:
providing information to the scientific community about your findings to help future
researchers.
Linnaeus grouped humans with other primates becoming the first to recognize the similar
characteristics across species hinting at an evolutionary progression
 Pierre-Louise Moreau de Maupertuis in 1698-1759 who was a French philosopher published
in 1945 Venus physique (physical Venus) wherein he proposed a theory of reproduction in
which organic materials contained mechanisms to naturally organize. He subsequently
discussed his views on heredity and examined the contribution of both sexes to reproduction
examining variations through statistics. He is generally credited with outlining the basic
principles with evolutionary thought along with his contemporary, James Burnett, Lord
Monboddo
 David Hartley (1705-1757 and the Associationist school). Hartley published his most
influential work-observations on man. His frame, his Duty and his expectations in 1749
borrowing ideas from John Locke a philosopher. Hartley in his publication attempted to
explain memory and thought, in general through the doctrine of association. This was very
interesting because he attempted to link the processes of the body and the processes of the
brain. He explained that action and though that do not result immediately from an external
stimulus are influenced by the constant activity of the brain because man’s pass experience,
mediated by the current circumstances, causing man to act in one way or another. Hartley’s
work was important because it brought scientific focus to the process of thought, the origin of
emotions and the impact of feeling on the creation of voluntary action.
 George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon 1707-1788 published the most famous and
influential work in 36 volume, with an additional 8 volume published in postmortem. It was a
study of general history from the general to the specific. In this work he proposed the idea
that species including humans change throughout generations in the same light with Linnaeus,
he also proposed the radical idea of a relationship between humans and apes.
 In the Era of Nature 1778, Leclerc questioned the long-standing and secret believe that the
universe was created by a divine power, instead suggesting that our solar system was created
by celestial collisions.

Leclerc’s influence was wildly spread and impacted subsequent believes about the
transmission of traits from one generation to the next (inheritance, heredity) as well as about
changes that occur over time with each passing generation (evolution). This ideas impacted
biological theories significantly.
In 1714-1799, James Burnett, Lord Monboddo, a Scottish judge, was credited being another
first to promote evolutionary ideas, in particular, the idea of national selection. Burnett
analyzed the development if language as an evolutionary process, it was familiar with the
ideas of natural selection, though he differed with Leclerc in his notion of humans related to
apes.
In 1744-1829, Jean Baptiste Lamarck a French Naturalists, mentored by Leclerc, published
Recherche sur l’Organisation des Corps Vivant (Research on the Organization of Living
things). In 1802, Lamarck was among the first to attempt to classify invertebrates and was
among the first to use the term Biology. He is primarily referred to for promoting and
advocating a theory of Soft Inheritance, or inheritance of acquired characters, in which
characteristic developed during the lifetime of an organism; e.g. larger or stronger muscles are
passed along to subsequent generations making them better suited for survival.

The Impact of Positivism

Auguste Comte in 1718-1857 was known as the Father of Sociology. He was a French scholar
who published Plan de Travaux Scientifique Nécessaire pour Re-Organiser la Société (Plan
of Scientific Studies Necessary for the Re-Organization of Society) in 1822. In this
publication, he argued for, a universal law of three phrases:
i. Theological
ii. Metaphysical
iii. Scientific, through which all societies have all will progress.

The theological stage is the most primitive characterized by the supernatural, religious or animistic
explanations for events, situations, and behaviors, and a lack of interest in the origins of causes. The
metaphysical is slightly more advanced and deals with abstract forces like faith and accidents as the
origin of causes. The Scientific is the most advanced stage which Comte calls The Positive Stage
(l’Etage Positive). They all point to the fact that, there is concern for the origin of actions but a focus
on the outcomes, which man can control.
The positive stages are characterized by observation, experimentation, logic and attempts to
understand the relationship among components. Comte’s attempt to apply the scientific method to the
behavior of societies and to the behavior of groups win and emphasize the connectedness in all the
demands involved in behavior. Positivism is one of the first theories of social evolution attempting to
explain how societies progress. He believes that the only real knowledge, is that gained through actual
sense experience (i.e. Observation). Comte’s scientific stage is exemplified by the use of quantitative,
statistical procedures to make logical, rational decisions based on evidence.

Statistics and the Social Sciences

Adolphe Queteulet (1796-1894) and Andre-Michelle Guerry (1802-1866) were convinced that it was
possible to apply statistical techniques to the investigation of social behavior. Both men were
interested primarily in unravelling the statistical laws underlying social problems such as crime and
suicide. This idea was controversial at the time, because it contradicted prevailing belief in freewill.
He published a book “Sur l’Homme et les Développent de ces Facultés, ou Essaie de Physique Social”
(Treaties on Man; 1835), where he described “Average” man, developed from the calculation of mean
values to form a normal distribution.
He did a publication in 1829 containing three maps of France shaded in terms of crimes against
property, crimes against persons, and a proxy for education (School Instruction). Another essay on
moral statistics of France (1833), and expanded on this technique and developed shaded maps to
evaluate crime and suicide by age, sex, region, and seasons. He found that these rates varied by region
but remained remarkably stable across the other factors.
POST WORLD WAR 2 RESEARCH ON BIOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR.

1. BODY PHYSIQUE AND CRIME:

Research into biological routes of crime persisted after WW2, following the footprints of the
following researchers before WW2, Lombroso 1876, Kretschmer 1925, Hooten 1939, William
Sheldon 1898-1997. All attempted a direct link between biology (specifically physique) and
personality (specifically, crime) through the development of a classification system of personality
patterns and corresponding physical builds (Sheldon 1940).

Contrary to prevailing sociological emphasis on the environmental correlates of crime, Sheldon chose
to instead employ believes about Darwin’s Survival of the fittest, Lombroso’s Criminal Man and
Galton’s Eugenics. Sheldon argued for an “ideal” type in which perfectly formed physique joined
perfectly formed temperaments and disposition. Any combination that deviated from this ideal, was
associated to disorders of both personality and behavior.
Sheldon developed and tested his classification system in 1940 known as Somatoe Typing. He created
three classifications;
1. Ectomorphs, who were thin, delicate, flat and linear.
2. Endomorphs, who were heavy or obeised, with a round soft sharp and
3. Mesomorphs, who were rectangular, muscular and sturdy in subsequent studies of
juvenile delinquency. Sheldon argued that monomorphic types were more likely to
engage in crime, ectomorphs were more likely to commit suicide and endomorphs
were more likely to be mentally ill. Sheldon linked physical and psychological
characteristics and concluded that both were the result of heredity, though he failed to
support that conclusion with valid statistical methods.
Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck during the late 1940s and 1950s, conducted longitudinal research into
juvenile delinquencies using control groups and added to the list of Somatoe types. They suggested a
fourth type called Balanced. In their research support was found for Sheldon’s proposition.
Mesomorphs are more likely to commit crime. Among the juveniles, the studied mesomorphic
somatoe types was disproportionately represented among the delinquents by a ratio of nearly 2:1 as
compared with non-delinquent controls. While 14% of delinquents could be classified as ectomorphs,
nearly 40% of the non-delinquent controls could be placed in this category. Instead of concluding that
body type led to delinquency, the Gluecks (1956) concluded that participation in delinquency (for
which individuals are more likely to get arrested) may be facilitated by having a mesomorphic body
type rather than an ectomorphic, endomorphic, or balanced body type.

Despite all the research, biological explanations for behaviour lost much popularity during the 1960s
with the belief that their inherent implication of inferiority often was misused to justify prejudice and
discrimination. Criminologists and other scientists once again turned to the evaluation of internal
components and processes of the human body.

2. GENETICS IN MODERN BIOLOGICAL THEORIES

Efforts to find a genetic explanation for evidence and aggression have met with strong resistance
primarily because of painful memories of how research linking biology and crime were used in the
past (eugenics). In 1992, a conference on human genome project at the University of Maryland, had
its Federal funding withdrawn for attempting to discuss any particular linkage between genes and
violence, on the grounds that any such research will be used to oppress the poor minority population.

The discovery of the genetics called “Code” in the mid-1950s went above recognizing that genes
were involved in heredity to a greater understanding through which hereditary traits are passed from
one generation to another. This process was the clarification and structure of chromosomes, which
carry human genetic material.

Chromosomes: Sex chromosomes are termed X and Y. Females carry a combination of XX and males
XY. During conception, the male sperms carry genetic material to the female’s egg. If the sperm that
fertilizes a female egg is carrying a Y chromosome, the resulting embryo will develop into a female
fetus (XX).
During this process abnormalities may occur, for instance some men left with an extra Y chromosome
(XYY) termed the XYY Syndrome, a “super male” carrying this chromosome pattern usually has a
normal appearance and will probably never know that he is carrying an extra Y chromosome until he
is genetically tested for some other reason. Given the Y chromosomes association with the male sex,
and with increased production in testosterone, many claims have been made in the research literature
that XYY males are more aggressive and more violent. This point has not been supported with
scientifically valid research. Although scholars are reluctant to associate criminal behavior with any
gene, researches continue to research the inheritability of behavioral traits. This work involves the
study of twins and adoptions.

Twin Studies: Twin studies have become so sophisticated and have attempted to respond to
methodological criticism. Distinctions between (dizygotic [DZ]) and identical (monozygotic [MZ])
twins have contributed to the sophistication of this type of research. DZ twins develop from two eggs
and share about half their genetic material whereas MZ develop from single egg and share all their
genetic material.
Twin studies attempt to control the impact of the social environment, hypothesizing that these
environments are similar for twins. Thus, any greater similarities between identical twins than
between fraternal twins will provide evidence for a genetic link. Although studies have provided some
support for a genetic component to behavior, it is difficult to separate the influence of genetics from
the influence of social factors. There is an assumption that twins raised in the same house are
subjected to the same treatment, and the same social environment. Therefore concluding that the
similarity on twins might have an impact on their behaviors. Studies of adopted individuals constitute
one attempt to resolve this issue.

Adoption Studies: The behavior of adoptees is compared with the outcome of their adopted and
biological parents. The aim is to separate out the impact of the environment from the impact of
heredity. In this case, the child will exhibit traits of the adopted parents or the biological parents.
Research shows that an adoptee with a biological parent, who is criminal is more likely to engage in
property crime, and this effect is stronger for boys. I confirm this assertion because I lived it, where
my sister adopted a boy whose father was a thief and brought to England, before she knew it, the boy
was in the streets smoking and stealing. According to researchers who worked on the human genome
projects, however, twin and adoption studies are the best source for evaluating individual differences
in human behavior. Recently, studies have demonstrated consistently that genetic variations
substantially contribute to the behavioral variations across all types of behavior. However, two
primary conclusions are derived:
1) Nearly all the most frequently studied behavior characteristics and conditions (e.g. cognitive
abilities, personality, aggressive behavior) are moderately too highly heritable and
2) Non-shared environments play a more important role than shared environments and tend to
make people different from, instead of similar to, their relatives.

3. BIOCHEMICAL EXPLANATIONS: Hormones, Neurotransmitters, Diet.

Another biological explanations for criminal behavior involves the body’s hormones, released
by somebody cells or organs to regulate activities in other cells or organs. Androgens are
masculine traits, hormones estrogens are associated with feminine traits. Progesterone is also
primarily associated with the female reproductive processes such as pregnancy and
menstruation.
Testosterone
It is the male sex hormone. Though people of both sexes secrete testosterone, males do it in
higher levels. Research shows that the higher levels of this hormone are associated with
increased levels of violence and aggression both in males and females. However it is not been
easy proving this fact because some problems occur with attempts to explain criminal
behaviors by testosterone levels. Testosterone levels fluctuate throughout the day caused by
some environmental stimuli. For examples, levels among athletes increase prior to
competition maybe indicating that testosterone is produced to increase aggression instead of
instead of as a response to aggression. This therefore makes the correlating levels to behavior
and controlling for environmental stimuli extremely difficult.
In 2003 Ellis conducted a research which added an evolutionary component. In this
evolutionary neuroandrogenic theory, Ellis argued that increased levels of testosterone
reduces the brain’s sensitivity to environmental stimuli, making a person act out with reduced
abilities to control emotions. He also speculated that the development of testosterone’s
“competitive-victimizing” effects is a result of natural selection as described by Darwin.
The study of relationships between testosterone levels and crime cite as support between
males and females in terms of levels of crime and violence in particular. This has led to
“treatment” of male sex offenders with chemical derivatives from progesterone to reduce
male sexual urges through the introduction of female hormones (for example, Depo-provera,
a brand of birth control for women). This has helped a lot in reducing some types of sex
offenses like pedophilia, exhibitionism but had little or no impact on other crimes or violence
 Premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual Dysphoric disorder.
Research has also been carried about female hormones and its impacts on women behavior,
beginning with two English cases in 1980. Where two women used premenstrual syndrome
(PMS) as a mitigation factor in violence offenses. This happened to a female defendants in
the United States arguing for reduced culpability due to PMS.
A more severe form of PMS has recently been identified as premenstrual dysphoric disorder
(PMDD) which is severe and debilitating form of PMS, distinguished by the level of
interference the menstrual process has the ability of the woman to engage in the function of
everyday life. Interestingly, a genetic link has been established by researchers to develop the
PMDD. It is explained that women with a certain genetic structure have increased (abnormal)
sensitivity to their own normal hormones, resulting to increasing symptoms of emotional and
physical stress.
Another phenomenon related to the female hormones is known as the postpartum depression
just after weeks of delivery which is primarily thought to be due to a decrease in
progesterone, nearly 1% to 2% of these women exhibit severe symptoms, such as
hallucination, suicidal or homicidal thoughts, mental confusion and panic attacks. As a result,
PMS and PMDD, postpartum depression syndrome has been used successfully as a mitigation
factor in the legal defense of women accused of crimes while suffering from its effects. It
should be mentioned that the two are controversial concepts because they are difficult to
diagnose as medical condition, some argued that it is social constructions and psychiatric
problems instead of medical conditions.

Neurotransmitters:
These are chemicals that transmit messages between brain cells called neurons and have a
direct impact on many functions of the brain including those that affect emotions, learning,
mood and behavior. Although extensive research studies have been made over 50 of these
chemicals, the biological bases of crime has focused on three of these:
 Norepinephrine, which is associated with the body’s fight-or-flight response
 Dopamine, which plays which plays a role in thinking and learning, motivation, sleep,
attention and feelings of pleasure and reward, and
 Serotonin, which impacts many functions, such as sleep, sex drive, anger aggression, appetite,
and metabolism
High levels of norepinephrine, low levels of dopamine, and low levels of serotonin have been
associated with aggression. There is little doubt about the direct relationship between levels of
different types of neurotransmitters and behavior, because it is extremely complex and nearly
impossible to disaggregate. Chemical changes are part of the body’s response to
environmental conditions (for example threats) and to internal processes (for example fear,
anxiety), and environmental conditions and internal processes produce chemical process in
the body.

Diet, food allergies, sensitivities, vitamins, and minerals.

The things we eat impact our body chemistry. For instance high protein food like fish, egg,
meat and many diary-products contain high level of amino and tryptophan. Tryptophan
produces serotonin. Tyrosine is also found in high protein foods which is related to the
production of dopamine and norepinephrine. These relationships have suggested that many
aggressive behaviors may be controlled with a diet higher in protein and lower in refined
carbohydrates.
Refined carbohydrates such as white refined flour, white rice, white refined sugar, and any
processed foods with high levels of sugar are also seen as related to problem behavior. The
slow transformation of carbohydrates into glucose thereby stimulated the production of
insulin I the pancreas in turn produces energy for the body. This process further leads to a
rapid release of insulin in the blood stream, causing a sharp decrease in blood sugar depriving
the brain of the glucose necessary for proper functioning. The sharp decrease in blood sugar
triggers the release of hormones such as adrenaline and increase dopamine. This combination
has been associated increase aggression irritability and anxiety. This chronic state reduces
blood sugar caused by excessive production of insulin is called hypoglycemia leading to
irritability, aggression, and difficulties in controlling their emotional expressions.
Several food components have been associated with reactions that may include aggression,
violence or criminal behavior. Some people have a high sense of allergy or some sensitivity to
chemicals contained in chocolate (Phenyl ethylamine), aged cheese and wine (thiamine),
artificial sweetness (aspartame) etc

Environmental toxins
The frontal lobe of the brain, is an area that has become the focus of biological investigations
into criminal behavior, is particularly sensitive to environmental toxins, such as lead and
manganese. Behavioral difficulties such as hyper activity, impulsivity, aggression, and lack of
self-control have been associated with increased levels of these heavy metals.
Environmental toxins have been examined to have an impact on human behavior and is very
promising because it integrates biological with sociological and criminological theories.
Facilities that produce, store, treat and dispose of hazardous waste are largely to blame for the
production environmental toxins. Research has shown that proximity to these types of
facilities increases the impairment of the brain and of the general central nervous system,
producing lower IQ’s reduction in learning abilities, frustration tolerance, and self-control, an
increase in impulsivity, hyper activity anti-social behaviors, violence and crime.
Research done by researches states that the relationship of environmental toxins on the
environment is producing crime is producing crime by producing neurological damage. Most
scholars lay emphasizes to the fact that minority populations and lower income groups are the
ones most likely to live near these facilities and as a result are more likely than white and
higher-income groups to be negatively impacted by these toxins. This according to
researchers, may help explain why minorities and people from lower classes seem to catch the
attention of the criminal justice system in higher rates than others.

Brain structure: Functions

The brain was considered by biological theories in the past as an organ with various areas of
specialist functions, whereas modern theories recognize that the brain is a complex organism.
Some areas of the brain like speech and vision are associated with specific functions, but all
areas of the brain work together, and a problem or event in one area inevitably affects other
areas. Despite our understanding of the brains function and structure we still know little about
the relationship between the brain and many behaviors especially those related to crime, and
also we know little about how environments affects the brains structure and function
Researchers have examined the frontal lobe and temporal lobe of the brain with much interest
in criminal behavior. The frontal lobe is responsible for regulating and inhibiting behaviors,
while the temporal lobe is responsible for emotionality, subjective consciousness, and
responses to environmental stimuli.
Electroencephalography are sophisticated medical equipment used to evaluate brain structure,
brain function and behavior which is computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging
positron emission tomography and single photon emission computed tomography.
Researchers have used these devices to compare the brain’s structures and the brain functions
between criminal and non-criminal population. In addition in providing images of structure
many of these technologies can track real-time changes in the brains neural activity before,
during, and after exposure to physical or emotional stimuli
Preliminary studies indicate that the brains of violent offenders and the brain of individuals
differ in both structures and function, but most of the studies have relied on very small
samples sizes, which reduces the generalizability of these findings. Moreover, this studies
also are plagued by questions of whether the brain causes the violence or whether violence
results in changes of to the brain. Evidence of structural or functional abnormalities in the
brain has, however, resulted in mitigation of criminal offenses such as reducing changes of
murder to manslaughter.
Studies of brain development have shown that early and chronic exposure to stress such as
abuse, neglect and violence may cause physiological changes in the brain that impact the way
a person response to stress. The human brain under stress under stress produces cortisol
hormone, which help to return body function to normal after a stressful event. Another effect
of exposure to cortisol may result in decrease sensitivity to its effects and either contribute to
criminality or contribute to a person’s acceptance of being victimized. This is supported by a
study of brain development of children raised in high-stress environment inner city, urban,
high-crime areas that found enhance fight-or-flight impulses among this children.
Diana Fishbein in 2003, concluded that behavioral problems may originate in the
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) that connects the brain to the adrenal gland which
regulate the production of important hormones. He claimed that increased levels of cortisol,
produced in response to stressors, cause the HPA to shrink and become ineffective.

Biosocial Perspectives
Some studies on criminal behavior began to synthesize sociological perspectives with
biological perspectives. One most influential publications in this area was
Sociobiology: it was known as the New Synthesis, written by E.O. Wilson in 1975.
Wilson was one of the first criminologist to express disillusion with current
sociological and behavioral theories by emphasizing that an individual was a
biological organism operating within social environments. In 1976, Dawkins
published “the selfish gene” and in 1977, Ellis published “the decline and fall of
sociology”. The period 1975-2007 illustrated criminological disillusion with purely
sociological explanations and renewed hopes for improved biological perspectives
that would not operate under the faulty assumptions of earlier biological research. The
period between 1950 to mid-1970s, witnessed a major scientific development, in the
study of genetics and also contributed to the resurgence of interests in explanations of
behavior with biological basis. Then in mid-1980s, scholars made advances in the
examination of the brain more closely as a potential factor in criminal behavior.
The modern studies show that biosocial theories attempt to integrate beliefs about the
sociological development of behavior such as social learning and conditioning with
the biological development of the individual who engages in behavior. This notion
contrasted that of the earlier biological theories that implied the heritability of
behaviors, biosocial theories suggest there may be a genetic predisposition for certain
behaviors.
The predispositions are expressed in terms of biological risk factors associated with
increase probability of delinquency and crime, when paired with certain
environmental and social conditions, other risk factors evaluated are IQ Levels and
performance, attention deficit, hyper activity disorder and conduct disorder. Although
low IQ is not directly attributed/associated with crime or delinquency, individuals
with lower IQs may experience frustration and stress in traditional learning
environments, resulting in antisocial, delinquent, or criminal behaviors. Increased
levels of delinquent and criminal behavior has been associated with a deficit hyper
activity disorder, and also individuals who are diagnosed with conduct disorder. It
was worth noting that, both disorders can be traced to abnormalities in the frontal
lobe, so it is difficult to disentangle the relationship of each to undesirable behaviors.

Another factor which is a contrast to this factor is empathy that may enhance the
probability of an individual to engage in delinquency and crime. Empathy is the
ability of one person to identify with another person and to appreciate another
person’s feelings and perspectives. Sixty-eight percent of empathy is largely inherited.
Research on this inhibiting protective factors is still quite sparse but may help explain
why some people who have genetic predispositions towards delinquency and crime
refrain from those behaviors.

CONCLUSION:
There has been a significant evolution of biological theories, with advances in
theoretical understanding of human behavior and in our technological capabilities of
measuring human biological characteristics and processes. Earliest attempts to
understand the relationships between biology and behavior, focuses on the outward
observables, modern efforts are looking inward, to the chemical and structural
foundations of our bodies. Contemporal biological theories also recognize the
interactive relationship between internal biological events and external sociological
events. Moreover, increasing awareness of the complex interrelationships among our
environment, our biology, and our behavior is contributing ti the development of a
rich and promising epistemology of criminal behavior.

Our scientific advancement, however, still have not reached the level where we can
definitively determine that antisocial deviance, or criminal acts have biological roots
or correlations. Increasing awareness of how our genes pass along or do not, our
behavioral characteristics of how our brain structures and functions are interrelated, of
how our body chemistry affects and is affected by our behavior, and reacts to
environmental stimuli and of how our development in a social environment impacts
all of these biological processes, and will bring us closer to being able to predict
behavior and therefore, being able to better control it.

As our ability to determine biological correlates of behavior expands, so too does the
danger of using such information in unethical and inhumane ways that will stigmatize
or punish people on the basis of what prohibited behaviors, their biological often
suggest they might do. It is hoped that progress in these areas of inquiry with parallel
corresponding advances in our capabilities, to prevent initial undesirable behaviors,
and to treat individuals who do behave undesirably because of biological or biosocial
influences.

REFERENCES
Adler, F Mueller, G.OW & Laufer, W. (2004) Criminology and the Criminal
Justice System (5th Edition)
Barret, D and Kurzman, C. (2004) Globalizing Social Movement Theory: The
caqse of eugenics; Theory & Society
Burnett, J. (1773) the Origin & Progress of Language. Edinburgh, Scotland:
A Kincaid
Christiansen, K.O. (1974) Seriousness of criminality &Concordance among
Danish twins. In R. Hood, crime, criminology & Public Policy (pp 63-77).
New York: Free Press
Comte, A. (1822) Plan des Travaux Scientifiques Necessaire pour
Reorganiser la Societe
Curran, D.J. & Renzetti, C.M. (2001) Theories of Crimes (2nd Edition)
Darwin C (1859) on the Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the
preservation of favored racists in the struggle for life. Cambridge, MA:
Havard University Press.
Darwin 1794-1796; The Laws of Organic life
Dawkins; The selfish gene
 Ellis, L 2003; Genes, Criminality, and the Evolutionary Neuroandrogenic
theory. Biosocial Criminology

ABSTRACT:

Recently, there has been a vigorous debate about theoretical integration in criminology. There
are many criminology theories, but no agreement on which (if any) have been falsified by
research. This is perceived as a problem because theory is supposed to guide interpretation of
past research and chart the direction for future research. Some criminologists argue that the
effort to falsify theories must continue because the theories contradict each other. Others
argue that the theories are different but not contradictory, so they can be integrated with each
other. Criminology theories can however, be integrated in ways that rule out most
competitive testing. This new interpretation brings criminology theories more into line with
common research practices and enhance the possibility of scientific progress.

Most criminologists will agree that there are too many theories in criminology. All of the
standard theories have been around for at least 25 years, including those by Merton 1938,
Shaw and McKay 1942, Sutherland 1947, Cohen 1955, Cloward and Ohlin 1960 and
Wolfgang and Feracuti 1967, Akers (Burgess and Akers 1968), and Hirschi 1969. In
addition, new theories appear on the scene with astonishing frequency. A partial list of those
appearing in the last ten years, will include theories offered by Schwendiger and
Schwendiger (1985).