3.2 Flashcards
Evaluate the effectiveness of Lombroso’s theory to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: Lombroso was the first to study crime scientifically rather than morally or religiously. Introduced objective measurements and helped criminology gain scientific credibility (Garland, 1994). Emphasized examining clinical and historical records of criminals to identify common themes, focusing on crime prevention rather than punishment. Goring found low intelligence among all convicts, suggesting a genetic base to criminality.
Limitations: Lombroso did not compare his findings with a control group, making his conclusions unreliable. Goring’s study did not find the facial characteristics Lombroso identified. Theory is descriptive, not explanatory; cannot explain why criminals have certain features. Raises ethical issues about preemptively labeling people as criminals based on appearance. Highly deterministic, ignoring social and economic factors. Modern research has shown no support for Lombroso’s claims.
Evaluate the effectiveness of Sheldon’s theory to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: Other researchers, like Glueck & Glueck (1956), supported Sheldon’s findings, with a high percentage of delinquents being mesomorphs. The theory showed a link between body build and criminal behavior, especially for serious offenders. Other studies (Putwain & Sammons, 2002) confirmed the body build-criminality connection.
Limitations: Glueck & Glueck found that other factors, such as psychology and environment, also explain criminality. Body shape may be a result of criminality, not its cause; working-class jobs may influence body type. Stereotyping of mesomorphs could lead to unfair treatment, increasing their likelihood of being labeled as criminals. Sheldon overlooks other somatotypes and non-violent crime, reducing the theory’s validity.
Evaluate the effectiveness of twin studies to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: MZ twins share the same genetic makeup, providing insight into the genetic component of criminal behavior. Studies like Christiansen (1977) and Ishikawa & Raine showed higher concordance rates for identical twins.
Limitations: The concordance rate is not 100%, suggesting that genes are not the only factor in criminality. Twins share similar environments, making it difficult to isolate genetic and environmental influences. Earlier twin studies lacked DNA testing, making the results unreliable.
Evaluate the effectiveness of adoption studies to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: Adoption studies separate genetic and environmental influences, offering a clearer picture of their respective roles. Findings show a higher likelihood of criminality in adoptees whose biological parents had criminal records.
Limitations: Adopted children are often placed in environments similar to those of their birth families, which may diminish the genetic factors. Some adoptees spend time with biological parents before adoption, which could influence criminal behavior during early development.
Evaluate the effectiveness of XXY syndrome to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: Studies (e.g., Jacob et al., Price & Whatmore) show some link between XYY syndrome and violent crime, suggesting a genetic component to aggression.
Limitations: Just because some violent offenders have XYY does not mean it causes their violence. XYY males may be over-represented in prison due to stereotypes and low intelligence, not the syndrome itself. Research shows that genetic abnormalities are common in the general population, so they cannot solely explain aggressive behavior.
Evaluate the effectiveness of psychodynamic theories (Freud and Bowlby) to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: Psychodynamic theories highlight the importance of childhood experiences and parent-child relationships on later criminal behavior. Influential in developing other criminological theories and policies on crime prevention and rehabilitation.
Limitations: The theories rely on unproven concepts like the unconscious mind, making them unscientific and subjective. Psychodynamic theories are more focused on explaining criminality after it occurs rather than preventing it. Treatments based on these theories have had limited success, raising ethical concerns and wasting resources.
Evaluate the effectiveness of social learning theories (Bandura and Skinner) to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: Supported by numerous studies, including Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment, which demonstrated how children imitate aggressive behavior seen in role models. Social learning theory accounts for the influence of role models in shaping deviant behavior, especially when rewards are involved.
Limitations: Lack of ecological validity; controlled experiments may not reflect real-life situations. The study does not measure long-term effects of imitating criminal behavior. Ignores other factors like cognitive control and assumes all behavior is learned, not considering free will in criminal choices.
Evaluate the effectiveness of psychological theories (Eysenck) to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: Used large sample sizes to compare convicted offenders and the general population, adding reliability to the findings. Identifies personality traits (e.g., aggression) linked to criminal behavior. Eysenck’s theory provides a framework for detecting potential offenders early, which can aid in crime prevention.
Limitations: Relies on self-report measures, which can be unreliable due to offenders’ desire to present themselves in a more favorable light. Focuses only on convicted offenders, ignoring those who commit crimes but are not caught. Personality is not fixed and can change over time, undermining the theory’s consistency. Farrington’s study contradicted Eysenck’s findings, further questioning the theory’s validity.
Evaluate the effectiveness of Marxism to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: Explains crime across all social classes, highlighting how both the ruling and working classes commit crimes for different reasons (white-collar crime vs. survival). Highlights selective law enforcement, showing how street crime is over-policed while white-collar crime is under-policed. Links well with other theories like labelling and strain theory, enhancing its reliability.
Limitations: Ignores other social inequalities, such as ethnicity and gender, which may also contribute to criminality. Overstates the prevalence of crime in working-class communities and underestimates the impact of those from other social classes. Does not account for successful white-collar prosecutions, like Bernie Madoff.
Evaluate the effectiveness of Strain Theory (Merton) to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: Explains why working-class crime rates may be higher, linking it to limited legitimate opportunities to achieve wealth. Provides a nuanced understanding of how individuals in different social positions respond to societal goals. Links with other theories like Marxism and labelling, enhancing its reliability.
Limitations: Focuses too much on individual responses, ignoring group crimes like gang-related offenses. Deterministic and stereotypical, overemphasizing crime in working-class communities. Ignores the role of the capitalist ruling class in creating and enforcing laws that lead to blocked opportunities.
Evaluate the effectiveness of Functionalism (Durkheim) to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: Recognizes that crime can have positive effects on society, such as creating unity and defining moral boundaries.
Limitations: Does not explain how much crime is necessary for society to function properly. Ignores the negative impact of crime on victims and their families.
Evaluate the effectiveness of Labelling Theory to explain causes of criminality
Strengths: Highlights how crime statistics reflect social constructs, showing how certain groups are disproportionately labeled as criminals. Demonstrates how the police and courts contribute to crime by labeling individuals, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Limitations: Does not explain why people engage in deviant behavior in the first place. Assumes all deviant behavior is caused by labeling, but people can resist being labeled and choose not to engage in crime. Lacks explanation for middle-class or white-collar crime and crimes that are spur-of-the-moment (e.g., violent crimes).
Evaluate the effectiveness of Right Realism to explain causes of criminality
Strengths
Right realism argues that criminal behavior is the result of rational choices and that individuals weigh the risks and rewards of committing crime. Feldman found that people do make rational decisions—if the reward is high and the risk is low, people are willing to commit crime.
Right realism emphasizes the importance of deterrence in reducing crime. Rettig’s study found that punishment severity affects people’s willingness to commit crime. The idea is that if punishment is harsh enough, it will deter criminal behavior.
It also helps explain opportunistic crimes, such as theft, which is the most common form of crime. This theory suggests that these crimes are committed when there is an opportunity and low risk of detection.
Weaknesses
Right realism often overlooks the social conditions that might push individuals into crime, such as poverty and inequality. It assumes that all individuals have the same opportunities for success and ignores structural factors that might limit these opportunities.
It also tends to focus solely on street crime and the working class, neglecting white-collar crime and other forms of criminality committed by more affluent individuals.
The theory’s emphasis on personal responsibility and rational choice tends to ignore the social factors that may influence a person’s choice to commit crime, such as peer pressure, family issues, or economic hardship.
Right realism is criticized for its punitive approach to crime, focusing on deterrence and punishment, rather than rehabilitation or addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior.
Evaluate the effectiveness of Left Realism to explain causes of criminality
Strengths
Left realism acknowledges the role of social inequality and deprivation in causing crime. It highlights that the working class, who face social and economic disadvantages, are more likely to commit crime, particularly when they are excluded from legitimate means of success.
It emphasizes the importance of understanding crime from the perspective of the victim and the impact crime has on disadvantaged communities. This is an important aspect of explaining crime in areas that are highly affected by social inequality.
Left realism also emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to crime prevention, including both social policies (such as improving education and employment opportunities) and criminal justice interventions (such as policing and community-based programs).
Weaknesses
Left realism has been criticized for its tendency to focus too much on the impact of social inequality and not enough on the individual responsibility for criminal behavior. Critics argue that it does not give enough attention to personal choice and the role of free will in committing crimes.
The theory has been accused of being overly focused on the working class and neglecting other forms of crime, such as white-collar crime, which is often committed by more affluent individuals.
Some critics argue that Left realism places too much blame on the system and external factors, thus excusing individual responsibility for criminal behavior. It can lead to policies that focus too heavily on rehabilitating offenders without adequately addressing societal factors that may still contribute to crime.
Left realism does not always provide clear or practical solutions to addressing crime. While it acknowledges the importance of social change, some of its policy recommendations can be difficult to implement and may take a long time to have an impact on crime rates.
