3.2 Flashcards
memorise the pros and cons
psychodynamic strengths
highlights the importance of early socialisation+family relationships regarding criminality.
Psychoanalytic explanations have had some influence on policies for dealing with crime and deviance.
psychodynamic limitations
critics doubt the existence of the unconscious mind. Psychoanalytic explanations=unscientific and subjective, they rely on accepting the psychoanalyst claims that they can see into the workings of the individuals unconscious mind to discover their inner conflicts and motivations.
bowlby’s maternal deprivation strengths
research shows that more of his sample of 44 juvenile delinquents had suffered maternal deprivation, that being 39%, than a control group of non-delinquents, that being 5%.
also shows the need to consider parent child relations regarding criminality.
bowlby’s maternal deprivation limitations
retrospective study; delinquents and their mothers had to accurately recall, and this can be a problem, especially if it involves recalling emotive experiences.
Bowlby accounts the delinquency of 39% of children in the terms of maternal deprivation but doesn’t explain why the other 61% were delinquent. Deprivation cannot be the only cause.
eysenck’s personality strengths
useful in describing how some measurable tendencies could increase a person’s risk of offending.
He predicts that high E, N and P scores lead to criminality and some studies support his predictions.
eysenck’s personality limitations
Farrington concluded that prisoners are P and N but not E.
Convicted offenders may not be typical of offenders. For example, less impulsive offenders may be more likely to avoid getting caught.
operant learning strengths
skinner’s study of animals shows they learnt from reinforcement; some human learning is also like this.
Jeffrey states that if a crime leads to more rewarding than punishing outcomes, they will be more likely to offend.
operant learning limitations
based on study of animals=not adequate to human behaviour. theory ignores internal mental processes.
explains criminality solely through internal/external reinforcement.
SLT strengths
Bandura takes account of the fact that we are social beings; we learn from the experiences of others, not just from our own direct experience.
children are being rewarded for their aggressive behaviour= imp of role models.
SLT limitations
theory is based on lab studies=artificial settings=not valid.
believes behaviour is determined by exp only- ignores free will.
we may lack the skills to imitate certain behaviours.
criminal personality strengths
criminals thinking patterns are different from normal~>other research, (PICTS- questionnaire reveals whether someone shows criminal thought patterns.
CBT have been developed because of this.
criminal personality limitations
Yochelson and Samenow did not use a control group of non-criminals to see if normal people also make the same thinking errors.
merton’s strain theory strengths
shows how both normal and deviant behaviours arise from the same goals.
conformists and innovators both pursue money success, just by diff means.
WC crime rates are higher as they have less opportunity to obtain wealth legitimately.
merton’s strain theory limitations
ignores crimes of the wealthy and over-predicts the amount of WC crime.
he focuses on utilitarian crime: e.g. theft, ignoring crime with no financial motive e.g. vandalism.
durkheim strengths
was the first to recognise that crime can have positive functions for society; reinforcing boundaries between right and wrong by uniting people against the wrongdoer.
durkheim limitations
claims society requires a certain amount of deviance to function but offers no way of knowing how much the right amount is. While crime might be functional for some, it is not functional for victims.
subcultures strengths
Cloud and Ohlin show how different types of neighbourhoods give rise to different illegitimate opportunities in different subcultures (criminal, conflict and retreatism.)
subcultures limitations
ignore the crimes of the wealthy+over-predict the number of working-class crimes. They assume everyone starts with the mainstreams goals and turns to a subculture when they fail to achieve them.
interactionism+labelling strengths
shows that the law is not a fixed set of rules to be taken for granted, but something whose construction we need to explain.
it shifts the focus onto how the least create crime by applying labels based on their stereotypes of the criminal typical victim.
interactionism+labelling limitations
Its emphasis on the negative effects of labelling gives offenders a victim status, ignoring the real victims.
It fails to explain why people commit primary deviance in the first place, before they are labelled.
It does not explain why the power to label comes from.
marxism strengths
shows how poverty inequality can cause working class crime, and how capitalism promotes greed+encourages upper class crime.
It shows how both law-making and law enforcement are biased against the WC and in favour of the powerful e.g. corporate crime is rarely prosecuted.
marxism limitations
focuses on class and largely ignores the relationship between crime and other inequalities, such as gender and ethnicity.
It over predicts the amount of WC crime; not all poor people turned to crime
left realism strengths
draws attention to the importance of poverty, inequality and relative deprivation as the underlying structural cause of crime.
It draws attention to the reality of street crime and its effects, especially on victims from deprived groups.
left realism limitations
Henry and Milakovic argue that left realism accepts the authority’s definition of crime as just being the street crimes of the poor.
It fails to explain the white collar and corporate crime and ignores the harms done to the poor by the crimes of the powerful.
right realism strengths
provides a realistic assessment of crime by acknowledging its prevalence and impact on society. By recognizing the existence of crime and its consequences, policymakers can implement effective strategies to address it.
right realism limitations
Not all crimes are a result of rational decisions. Violent crimes are often impulsive. Offenders under the influence of drugs or alcohol may also be unlikely to calculate the risks and rewards before offending.
lombroso born criminal strengths
His research showed the importance of examining clinical and historical records of criminals.
By arguing that offenders were not freely choosing to commit crime, he helps us to focus on how we might prevent further offending rather than simply punishing offenders.
lombroso born criminal limitations
research since Lombroso failed to show links between facial features and criminality. Lombroso failed to compare his findings on prisoners with a control group of non-criminals
sheldon’s somatotypes strengths
Glueck and Glueck found that 60% of the offenders in their study were mesomorphs. The most serious delinquents in Sheldon’s sample were the ones with the most extremely mesomorphic body shapes.
sheldon’s somatotypes limitations
Criminals may develop a mesomorphic build because of needing to be physically tough to succeed. If so, criminality causes somatotypes rather than somatotype causing criminality.
Mesomorphs may be labelled as troublemakers because they fit into the tough guy stereotype=SFP.
XYY syndrome strengths
Jacob et al found an association between XYY syndrome and offenders in prison for violent behaviour. Price and Whatmore found some links between the syndrome and property crime.
XYY syndrome limitations
Research findings regarding behavioral characteristics associated with XYY syndrome have been inconsistent. While some studies suggest a slightly increased risk of certain behavioral traits such as impulsivity or attention difficulties, others find no significant differences compared to the general population.
