Evaluate the Effectiveness of Criminological Theories to Explain Causes of Criminality (AC 3.2) Flashcards
Strengths of Lombroso
- Scientific
- Showed importance of examining clinical records
- His argument shows how we may go about preventing crime
Limitations of Lombroso
- Other research fails to see any connection between physical traits and criminality
- No control group too compare with means his results are invalid
- Outdated research and is discredited today
Strengths of Sheldon
- Glueck and Glueck found that 60% of offenders were indeed mesomorphs
- Extreme delinquency acts are mostly made by people with a mesomorphic body type
Limitations of Sheldon
- Glueck and Glueck did point out that a range of factors were involved such as labelling
- A persons somatotype could be caused by their criminality rather than vice versa
- It doesn’t account for other somatotype criminals
Strengths of Twin / Adoption studies
- It is logical to use concordance rates
- Evidence from research does support its argument
Limitations of Twin / Adoption studies
- Studies never show 100% concordance rates, other factors such as environment must also influence criminality
- Adopted children are likely to stay within the same area (same environmental factors)
Strengths of Jacob
- An association is found between criminals and XYY syndrome
- Price and Whatmore also found links between XYY syndrome and motiveless property crime
Limitations of Jacob
- XYY syndrome is rare, so iy cannot explain all crime
- This could stereotype people with the syndrome as criminals when it hasn’t been proven to be the main cause of criminality
- XYY hasn’t been proven to be the main or the only cause of violence in criminals who do have it
Strengths of Brain injuries and disorders
- Evidence supporting its claims
- There is a correlation between abnormal EEG test results and psychotic criminality
- Prisoners are more likely to have brain injuries
Limitations of Brain injures and disorders
- Brain injuries are too rare for us to conclude they cause all criminality
- The connections of a cause and effect relationship are unclear
- An injury could be a result of criminal behaviour rather than the cause
Strengths of Biochemical explanations
- It has been proven that hormones so effect mood and judgment
- Biochemical factors are factored in by courts
- Offending statistics match up with the ages in which hormone levels peak
Limitations of Biochemical explanations
- Ignores environmental factors
- Some research (Scarmella and Brown) finds that testosterone levels do not greatly affect aggression in most men
- Links between other substance use and criminality is unclear
General critiques of Biological Theories
- Crime is a social construct, so there is no universal explanation
- There is gender bias in most research as little is focused on female criminality
- There’s also sample bias as they can only study convicted criminals and not those who get away with it
- Environmental factors are ignored, they will trigger an act with or without biological factors
Strengths of Durkheim
- First to recognise the positive effect crime had on society
Limitations of Durkheim
- Victims of crime may not find it to be “functional”
- Never suggested the amount of deviance needed for society to function
Strengths of Merton
- Shows how both normal and deviant behaviours arise from the same goals
- Explains high property crime rates
Limitations of Merton
- Ignores white-collar crimes
- Ignores non-utilitarian crimes
Strengths of Subcultural
- Shows how subcultures have a purpose to their members
Limitations of Subcultural
- Ignores upperclass criminals
- People can be attracted to crime for other reasons than blocked opportunities
Strengths of Labelling Theory
- Shows how the law is not a fixed set of rules, but a social construct
- Shifts focus onto police created crime and selective law enforcement
Limitations of Labelling Theory
- A deviant label does not always lead to a deviant career
- Fails to explain why primary deviance occurs
- Doesn’t explain where the power to label comes from or why labels are applied to some groups over others
Strengths of Marxism
- Shows how inequality can cause crime and how capitalism encouraging upperclass crime
- Shows how enforcement of the law is bias
Limitations of Marxism
- Ignores other inequities e.g gender, ethnicity
- Over predicts working class crime, not all people in poverty will turn to crime
- Not all capitalist socketed have high crime rates e.g. Japan
Strengths of Right Realism
Supported by several studies:
- Rettig found the degree of punishment affected students choice to commit crime in a hypothetical scenario
- Feldman found people thought crime was worth committing based on low risk and high reward
- Bennett and Wright interviewed burglars, reward and difficulty were the most important factors
Limitations of Right Realism
Studies have weaknesses:
- Rettig and Feldman used experiments, may not generalise ti real life
- Bennett and Wright used unsuccessful burglars, doesn’t apply to successful ones
Also, Not all crimes are of rational decision: Violent crime is often impulsive, alcohol/ drugs affect ability to calculate risk
Strengths of Left Realism
- Draws attention to poverty as the underlying cause of crime
- Draws attention to street crime and its effects on victims from deprived groups
Limitations of Left Realism
- Ignored white-collar crimes
- Over predicts crime, not everyone experiencing relative deprivation will turn to crime
- Focus on high-crime inner-city areas gives an unrepresentative view
