Criminals especially those who are going through court proceedings may not feel comfortable disclosing certain information to someone they know to be a researcher. Typically most researchers are similar to police in characteristics, white and middle class, so acting covertly will most likely increase comfortability between the researcher and criminals, allowing more valid research to be acquired. Similarly judges and police may alter their behaviours if they know the researchers true identity in a bid to disguise any flaws in their practices and unjustified law enforcing. However, Positivists would argue that data collected by covert observations aren’t at all valid, they are biased as they are based off of the observer’s interpretations. This could be especially true in the case of researching court proceedings as it is unlikely many researchers have gone through one themselves.
This depends on whether they are observing covertly or overtly. If they have to maintain their ‘insider’ identity, they have little choice but to become involved in some way in law breaking. The young age of street criminals creates particular problems for observers. For example, they use a lot of ‘street’ language. It will also be hard for adult researchers to find an appropriate role for covert observation because of differences in age and appearance.
It is difficult for the researcher to observe everyone. Decisions have to be made about who to observe and when to observe them; significant evidence may be missed, leading to invalid interpretations of the group's behavior. Involvement with a group may be too superficial, given that one of th epuposes of participant observation is to experience the world from the viewpoint of the people being studied. If th eresearcher does not become sufficiently involved with the group then this type of data might not be collected. An example might be observation of a group involved in criminal activities.
Criminological Theories of Deviance Kristie Barela American Intercontinental University Criminological Theories of Deviance What are criminological theories? It is understood that criminology is the study of crime, but criminological theories provide us with an explanation of criminal behavior. These theories help one to understand why people commit crime. Social control theory, strain theory, differential association theory, and neutralization theory are just a few examples of sociological theories of crime that will be examined within this paper. Along with a brief description of the criminological theories, an attempt to show how they differ from one another and discussion of one strength and one weakness unique to each theory will be made.
Had the subjects been informed of the study’s purpose, the question of ethics would be less ambiguous. Some would argue that the special conditions needed for this study required the lack of informed consent. Males in the study would perhaps behave differently had they known what the goal of the study was, or that they were even partaking in a study. Although this is a valid point, debriefing and the request of consent after the experiment were attainable and would have put together a more ethical and less questionable study. Various approaches could have been used to compensate for the lack of personal privacy and informed consent but were not.
Examining Theory Paper Michael Kilgore CJS/314 August 11, 2014 Jennifer Duncan Examining Theory Paper Social structure theories are theories that describe criminal behavior in people. These theories have been in place for many years to help decipher the many things that paly a hand in the people committing crime. Social theories examine both the institutional arrangements within a social structure, social processes, and social life (Schmalleger, 2012). There are three main social theories, social disorganization theory, strain theory, and cultural conflict theory. These theories are different in determining factors that cause criminal behavior.
Social Process and Social Development Theory Paper CJA/314 – Criminology Damian Thomason University of Phoenix May 14, 2012 Judy Mazzucca Social Process and Social Development Theory There are several components of social process theory. Social process theories view criminal and deviant behavior as mechanisms which have evolved and have been learned through societal interaction. The three primary classes of social process theory include: social control theory, social learning theory and social reaction theory. The “Tent City, Arizona” video represents the element of criminal behavior which is learned societal interaction. An explanation of how the video represents the element of criminal behavior which is learned through societal interaction is to follow.
This theory is also sociological in its emphasis on the role of social forces in creating deviance. Deviant behavior can consist of different definitions. Some believe that deviance is the violation of any social norm and other feel that you can be deviant without breaking any rules or behavior that does not conform to a social norm which may be disapproved. Some people feel that getting away with something and not being punished will be an excuse for deviants to continue to commit a crime. In other words, I think that people feel that if they get away with it once they can get away with it again.
For example, with postal questionnaires the researcher cannot be sure whether the respondent has actually received the questionnaire. In other words, it can be unsure whether a respondent or a family member or friend of the respondent has answered the questionnaire. This can affect the validity and reliability of the research as the views would have come from someone else who may not be part of the population that the researcher is studying. Sociologists may also choose not to use questionnaires when conducting research as they can be because the respondents may not always give full or truthful answers. The respondents could be embarrassed or shy and may provide socially desirable answers.
For an organised criminal, there would be signs that the crime committed was pre-meditated and planned with minimal evidence left behind, they likely would have known the victim and if sexual assault did occur, it would have been while they were still alive. In contrast, the disorganised criminal would have minimal social skills, likely a low IQ and be criminally inept or inexperienced, the killer would likely not have even known the victim and would instead pick them at random without planning. The crime scene would thus be generally littered with evidence, this would include DNA (blood, semen, effluence too which would suggest that