Historically there are three broad theoretical models of criminal behavior: A) psychological models; B) sociological models; and C) biological models. All infer different methods of control. It actually difficult to completely separate the three categories completely as it is generally accepted that all three of the factors play a role in the expression of behavior. Moreover, psychological science consists of several disciplines including biological psychology and social psychology, so psychological principles could be applied across all three domains. However, there are some general principles associated with each of the above three paradigms that would be associated with some specific crime control policies.
The psychodynamic theory of offending believes criminality is caused by abnormal development of the psyche. The theory explains criminality happening for 4 different reasons, first being a weak superego as it doesn't punish them for acting on impulses from the id, second being a deviant superego as it has deviant values so doesn't react to certain crimes, third being a strong superego as they commit a crime to be punished to rid the guilt imposed by the superego or they suppress so much anger and frustration that one day they 'explode' releasing it in one go, and forth being maternal deprivation (proposed by Bowlby) as it leads to affectionless psychopathy so they can't form meaningful relationships. A major problem with the psychodynamic theory is that the concepts are difficult to test, and it relies on the unconscious mind which is impossible to prove meaning there is no empirical evidence. The biological approach can also be argued as difficult to test or proved because the CNS, ANS and endocrine system are very complex and interact with each other in a complex way, and because of this they are still not completely understood. The biological research is arguably better than the psychodynamic research because it relies on quantitative and objective data which will be interpreted the same by
They claim that profiling is then not about race or ethnicity but about carrying out the most proficient fighting operations to target crime. They, therefore, argue that have been targeted by ethnicity or race is simply the regrettable cost of crime fighting that is effective. Therefore, the supporters of racial or ethnic profiling are under the assumption that the use of appearance based on race or ethnicity as one of the factors for targeting possible criminals in fact yields better results (Harris, 2002). However, in a study conducted by David Harris a Law Professor, these assumptions are faulty. First of all, as of the late 1990’s, no one in the law enforcement departments had bothered to test whether these assumptions had some truth to them.
However subcultural theorists developed this idea claiming that people experiencing strain seek different forms of success. More specifically Cloward and Ohlin put forward the idea of the 'illegitimate opportunity structure’, which they used to explain subcultural crime. This structure was operable outside of the mainstream structure and ultimately lead to the attainment of success and money through deviant means. For example, Cloward and Ohlin argued that organized crimes such as the drugs trade could be explained by failures in mainstream capitalism. Cloward and Ohlin argue, that the majority of criminals involved in the drugs trade were unable to succeed within capitalism and were driven to an illegitimate means of obtaining wealth.
Lombroso stated that born criminals could be recognised because they possessed certain ‘stigma’, an example of this would be big ears, big lips, prominent cheeks bones, extra visible wrinkles, extra fingers or toes, irregularity of the head or face. A male with more than 4 of these anomalies is labelled a born criminal. Females can also be born criminal but they only need as little as 3 to inherit the title of a born criminal. (Lombroso 1876 cited in Akers 1999) This theory of criminal behaviour helped and inspired other criminologists come up with biological theories on criminal behaviour, but it has been proved that Lombroso’s theory on the born criminal is wrong. Charles Goring made an experiment of comparing prison inmates with soldiers, professors, university undergraduates and hospital patients and he found no differences between the 37 physical traits and behaviour, he concluded that ‘there was no such thing as a physical criminal type.’ (Akers,
In other cases some criminals are born with the lack of humility, which is the ability to put yourself in the situation of the person who you are doing harm to. These people are considered sociopaths. Another theory called the rational choice theory states that everyone has their own thoughts and emotions for which they commit their crimes weather to improve their living standards or to avoid hardships. Intelligence can play a huge role in the mind of a criminal; this is considered the nature theory. A person who does not know any better is much more likely to commit a crime then a well educated person, although this
According to Packers theory, the crime control model also leans more toward the idea that the costs associated with providing criminals “rights” are wasteful and would be better applied towards building new prisons and hiring more police officers (Packer, 1968). Under the due process model, law enforcement roles are dramatically reduced as this model leans more towards the constitutional rights of criminals and reduces the amount of officers in a given area. The attention here is put towards spending the money to rehabilitate the offenders instead of towards the hiring of more officers and building more prisons. What roles do the prosecutor and courts play? The crime control model is thought of as the “conveyor belt” of justice.
According to him, 99% would rather be imprisoned for life than sentenced to the death penalty. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, as cited in Haags argument says, "Some men, probably, abstain from murder because they fear that if they committed murder they would be hanged. Hundreds of thousands abstain from it because they regard it with horror. One great reason why they regard it with horror is that murderers are hanged”. In the article titled “The Folly of Capital Punishment”, Jeffrey Reinam concludes that capital punishment is immoral to our society; and thus, should not be legalized.
The War on Crime was basically a plan so show Americans that the criminal justice system could be restored. Many people thought law and order could not regain control. A study of the criminal justice system, with an eye on reform, was a great challenge, and many people thought the task impossible. The American Bar Association declared that the criminal justice system in America was, in reality, a “nonsystem.” The July 25, 1965, War on Crime’s objectice was to be the counter attack
He believed that the features of a criminals face could determine what kind of criminal they were; he believed that criminals were born deviant and lacked the free will and were not responsible for their own actions. He collected skulls, brains and photographs of the criminally insane which were later displayed in a museum. “Lombroso was the first to describe the observations of cortical dysplasia in patients with epilepsy. In attempting to predict criminality by the shapes of the skulls and other physical features of criminals, he had in effect created a new pseudoscience of forensic phrenology. For example, he and his collaborators were the first ever to describe and explain the form of epilepsy known now as Taylor’s dysplasia.