Many studies have shown that families that are involved in crime tend to set their children on a law breaking path. (Henslin, 2103, p.158) Some people may not know what the term differential association means, but most are familiar with how it works. For instance parents do not want to live in a bad neighborhood filled with delinquents because if their child is around that influence, they are likely to turn out the same way. In some areas deviation is very woven into the subculture, such as inner cities. If a wrong glance is given to the wrong person, it could cost someone their life.
This shows that many parents are sceptical to the vaccinations, what might have negative consequences for children. The reason why in 1990s and 2000s many children did not receive their vaccination was the publication of The Lancet study by Andrew Wakefield talking about a link between autism and MMR vaccination. The strong phrase that some people still remember is that vaccinations are dangerous. Despite the fact that science has proven this is wrong some people still believe there is link between autism development and MMR vaccination. Therefore it is strange that they are making informed choice.
Is crime genetic? The debate on whether crime is genetic or not has been going on for a long time some think it is and others think it’s down to ‘nature’, it could be believed that crime is genetic. Raine believes that the basis of it is biological and that criminals have a brain disorder and that we may be able to identify the potential criminal before they offend by using psychometric tests although this doesn’t really seem like a very realistic idea having to test every single person, and even then do what age do you test them? And how do you know when these ‘genetic disfunctions’ occur is it at birth of later stage of life?, however Oliver James doesn’t believe the genetics of someone is what makes them a criminal and thinks that its down to ‘nurture’ the environment that a child is brought up in for example if your mother is depressed it can trigger genetic changes. Young poor and male are the things that lead to violence, not genetics this is something that is probably easier to buy than the idea of genetics, if you consider the fact that the majority of criminals are male and for the minority of female criminals the crimes are usually a lot more minor.
Therefore In this essay I intend to put across both side of the arguments and then conclude with my own personnel opinion. Some people are against smacking children because the research evidence shown is overwhelming; smacking children is an ineffective way to manage children's behavior and damages their development. We have laws that protect adults from being assaulted by other adults however many people still believe that smacking children is a legal form of discipline. Is this therefore not ironic? As an adult can be protected by violence but a child does not have the same right.
Criminal Psychology: Trauma that influences criminal behavior Criminal activity is the act of an individual breaking a law. This could vary from a violent murder to a simple argument out in public. Criminals are usually prosecuted and sometimes are not granted a fair trail due to the severity of the crime they have committed, but could there be a psychological reason as to why an individual is persuaded to commit a crime? This has been a controversial debate that has been researched over the years. It is believed that certain traumas and different environments have a great effect on how ones mind develops.
It will also be hard for adult researchers to find an appropriate role for covert observation because of differences in age and appearance. The youthfulness of some offenders may win the researchers sympathy, which may affect the direction of the study. However, PO has many strengths. It is probably the only way to really find out what happens and why. Interpretivists are interested in exploring the meanings people attach to their
This basically means that humans have basic unconscious biological urges and a desire for immediate gratification and satisfaction. Freud believed that if gratification and satisfaction could not be acquired legally, people would instinctively try to do so illegally. (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/why_do_people_commit_crime.htm) Freud also believed that we learn right from wrong when we are children and we also learn to control our desires. He believed that “people primarily get moral principles as a young child from their parents and that if these were missing it’s because of poor parenting. (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/why_do_people_commit_crime.htm) So in essence he is saying that if our parents teach us as children to control our desires and properly teach us right from wrong, we wouldn’t have desires to acquire things illegally.
The issue of same-sex marriage has been debated for a very long time. Whether we will ever reach a middle ground in which both sides can live happily is uncertain. The arguments against same-sex marriage can be seen as unreasonable and bias since much of it is not entirely true. A major argument for the opposition of same-sex marriage is that homosexual marriage negatively affects children and result in many issues children of heterosexual parents do not usually experience. Toni Meyer and Jocelyn Floyd both argue against same-sex marriage relying heavily on the fact that it will harm children today, but does same-sex marriage actually impact our society and more importantly children by doing more harm than good?
The question of criminal behaviour being a result of ‘nature or nurture’ has been a topic of debate for many years. This essay will show criminals are ‘made’. It is surmised all humans are born a blank canvas, potentially developing equally and to a society based norm. Research indicates genetic makeup may cause a behavioural predisposition toward crime but there is no known criminal gene. A variety of factors constituting the ‘make –up’ of an individual including biological, environmental, psychological, socio - economic variables can lead one to undertake criminal activities.
When looking at Ted Bundy, it’s obvious that his personality might have played a big part in his crimes. As a result of his unstable home environment, Bundy displayed over-attachment problems, which will also be discussed later on. In addition, he displayed aggression from a young age and a lack of caring about other people. If personality is determined by genes such as the study done in Finland claims, then would a child who was naturally optimistic and empathetic have ended up a serial killer had they been in Bundy’s home situation? It’s impossible to tell.