Exam Question 1 Flashcards
How is the SCD Exam Q1 introduced?
When criminology began to develop into a separate discipline in the 20th century, it split into two separate strands. One was heavily influenced by clinical medicine, the other was heavily influenced by sociology.
There are mainly two claims when it comes to the causes of crime. One is that crime is a product of the individual, above their control of changing. The other is that crime is the product of an individual’s upbringing and social environment.
This essay question will look into the constitutional theories of Lombroso, XYY Syndrome, and the structure & function of the brain to support the claim that crime is a product of the individual. It will also look at Obedience to Authority, the Chicago School, and Labelling Theory to support the claim that crime is due to the environment. Looking into both claims, a variety of strengths and weaknesses come from both schools of thought.
Going into detail; a biological and psychological look into crime comes with the advantages of objective, reliable methods to gather results. Scientific theories also come with good evidence to support them. These strengths help back up the claim that crime is due to the individual’s biological makeup, beyond their control.
However, scientific criminology raises the question of whether something is causation or correlation. Some theories have been seen as inaccurate. As well as this, we see that treatment as a solution to crime is flawed, which will be looked at in detail further on.
Classical and sociological looks into crime come with studies that go more in-depth, allowing better explanation and understanding. Also, psychosocial theories further back up the claim that crime is due to the social environment, and not solely the individual.
These theories, however, raise the question of whether they are theories or a series of perspectives. As well as this, they have been argued to be determinist and do not take individual differences into account. Both sides come with similar flaws of generalisability issues.
Therefore, it could be best said that crime is a product of the individual, but this should be claimed simultaneously with crime being a product of the environment. Crime is a product of an individual’s biological makeup, social environment, and an individual’s free will. We will look into Eyesenck’s theory as an example of taking both into account.
What is the Structure of the SCD Exam Question 1?
- Introduction
- Context
- Lombroso’s theory and the positivist school
- Milgram
- XYY Syndrome
- Labelling
- Brain Injury
- Chicago
- Eysenck
- Conclusion
What is the Context of the SCD Exam Question 1?
Before going into the question, it is important to provide context of the schools of criminology, which the claims originally come from.
The claim that crime is a product of the individual originally derives from the positivist school of criminology; which says the root cause of crime is beyond the control of the offender. Positivists use objective scientific methods to understand criminology, and in particular the offender, rather than the offence. They believe crime should lead to rehabilitation/treatment.
This school built on the rival classic school of criminology, who argues that crime is a product of an individual’s free will and rationality. Researchers in this school are armchair philosophers who look into the offence and believe crime should lead to punishment in proportion to the severity of the crime. Examples of classical theories are Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.
Whatdo we say about the positivist school of criminology (Context Q1) ?
The claim that crime is a product of the individual originally derives from the positivist school of criminology; which says the root cause of crime is beyond the control of the offender.
Positivists use objective scientific methods to understand criminology, and in particular the offender, rather than the offence.
They believe crime should lead to rehabilitation/treatment.
Whatdo we say about the classic school of criminology (Context Q1) ?
The positivist school built on the rival classic school of criminology, who argues that crime is a product of an individual’s free will and rationality.
Researchers in this school are armchair philosophers who look into the offence and believe crime should lead to punishment in proportion to the severity of the crime.
Examples of classical theories are Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.
What is the Structure of the Introduction in SCD Exam Question 1?
Separate disciplines in 20th century The 2 claims What theories the exam answer will actually look at for both Biology adv Biology dis Sociology adv Sociology dis Both dis Therefore we should take both into account
What are the advantages of the biological causes of crime (introduction Q1)?
Reliable, objective methods
Good evidence to support theories
What are the disadvantages of the biological causes of crime (introduction Q1)?
Question of correlation or causation
Treatment to crime is flawed (will be explained later)
What are the advantages of the sociological causes of crime (introduction Q1)?
In depth support for theories
Psychosocial theories further help claim
What are the disadvantages of the sociological causes of crime (introduction Q1)?
Question of theories or perspective
What are the disadvantages for both claims for crime (introduction Q1)?
Deterministic
Generalisability of evidence
What is the Lombroso’s theory paragraph?
The idea that criminals stem from certain individual characteristics which renders them inferior has been argued thoughout history, and “can be seen in Egyptian writings and in the Bible”. But it arguably came into prominence in teh 19th century, by the father of criminology, Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909).
Inspired by Darwinism, phrenology and physiognomy, Lombroso argues that criminals have certain biological or physical characteristics which makes them criminal. In particular, he viewed criminals as suffering from atavistic reversion.
In the work ‘Criminal Man’, we see that Lombroso comes up with classifications of criminals. These are the ‘born criminal’, ‘insane criminal’, ‘criminal by passion’ and ‘occasional criminal’, with the second and fourth having subcategories.
Lombroso provides a list of characteristics which he believed indicates a ‘born criminal’. This includes: unusual size or shape of the head, facial asymmetry, fleshy lips, a receding chin, and an abnormal nose (nose curled up; thieves have a flat nose and murderers have a beak nose).
Lombroso backed up hs theory with work: Studying 383 Italian criminals, Lombroso found that 21% of the sample had one of his dcided characcteristcs, and 43% had at least 5 characteristics. This led to him finalising his claim to be that you needed at least 5 characteristics to be a ‘born criminal’.
Because he used a control group, which found that such stigmata was not as present in non-criminals, Lombroso’s claim is accurate, and therefore biological characteristics of the offender would be deemed significant in the cause of crime.
However, it should be pointed out that his results are not generalisable to all of society, as he only used criminals from Italy in his study. Because of this, we cannot be fully sure that the same results would occur around the world. Also, many of the ‘criminals’ he used were Sicilians, who are known for their stocky appearence. This would suggest that his work is therefore biased towards supporting his claim, suggesting cherry picking, and that his claim is not to full accuracy.
Also, although we see results with internal validity due to the control group, we cannot necessarily say that these biological characteristics caused crime, or whether it is simply correlation. This correlation/causation issues further questions the validity of Lombroso’s claim.
To summarise, the father of ciminlogy Cesare Lombroso classified criminals into different classifications. This included the ‘born criminal’, who must havve had at least 5 of his written characteristics to be deemed that label. He backed up this theory with evidence, which was found to ahve no generalisabilit, and oeven be cherry picked. It may also prove a correlation, rather than causation.
What is the Structure of Lombroso’s theory paragraph?
History of scientific claims Who brought it into prominence Lombroso's influence and argument His classification crf criminals His characteristic of the 'born criminal' His evidence for his claim Strengths of the evidence Weaknesses of the evidence Summary of paragraph
What is the history of the scientific claim (Lombroso Q1)?
The idea that criminals stem from certain individual characteristics which renders them inferior has been argued thoughout history, and “can be seen in Egyptian writings and in the Bible”. But it arguably came into prominence in the 19th century, by ‘the father of criminology’, Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909).
What was Lombroso inspired by (Lombroso Q1)?
Darwinism, phrenology and physiognomy
What did Lombroso argue (Lombroso Q1)?
Lombroso argues that criminals have certain biological or physical characteristics which makes them criminal. In particular, he viewed criminals as suffering from atavistic reversion.
In what work did Lombroso classify criminals (Lombroso Q1)?
In the work ‘Criminal Man’, we see that Lombroso comes up with classifications of criminals.
What ways did Lombroso classify criminals (Lombroso Q1)?
These are the ‘born criminal’, ‘insane criminal’, ‘criminal by passion’ and ‘occasional criminal’, with the second and fourth having subcategories.
Which characteristics did Lombroso think made a ‘born criminal’ (Lombroso Q1)?
Lombroso provides a list of characteristics which he believed indicates a ‘born criminal’. This includes:
unusual size or shape of the head, facial asymmetry, fleshy lips, a receding chin, an abnormal nose (thieves have a flat nose and murderers have a beak nose).
How did Lombroso back up his theory (Lombroso Q1)?
Lombroso backed up hs theory with work: Studying 383 Italian criminals, Lombroso found that 21% of the sample had one of his dcided characcteristcs, and 43% had at least 5 characteristics. This led to him finalising his claim to be that you needed at least 5 characteristics to be a ‘born criminal’.
What were the strengths of Lombroso’s evidence (Lombroso Q1)?
He used a control group, meaning internally valid results:
Because he used a control group, which found that such stigmata was not as present in non-criminals, Lombroso’s claim is accurate, and therefore biological characteristics of the offender would be deemed significant in the cause of crime.
What were the strengths of Lombroso’s evidene (Lombroso Q1)?
Generalisability - only from Italy
Cherry Picking - Sicilians have a stocky appearance
Correlation/Causation - We don’t truly know which one it is
However, it should be pointed out that his results are not generalisable to all of society, as he only used criminals from Italy in his study. Because of this, we cannot be fully sure that the same results would occur around the world. Also, many of the ‘criminals’ he used were Sicilians, who are known for their stocky appearence. This would suggest that his work is therefore biased towards supporting his claim, suggesting cherry picking, and that his claim is not to full accuracy.
Also, although we see results with internal validity due to the control group, we cannot necessarily say that these biological characteristics caused crime, or whether it is simply correlation. This correlation/causation issues further questions the validity of Lombroso’s claim.
How can we summarise Lombroso’s theory (Lombroso Q1)?
To summarise, the father of criminology Cesare Lombroso classified criminals into different classifications. This included the ‘born criminal’, who must have had at least 5 of his written characteristics to be deemed that label. He backed up this theory with evidence, which was found to have no generalisability, and even be cherry-picked. It may also prove a correlation, rather than causation.
What is the Obedience to Authority (Milgram) paragraph?
Something that does have a good cause and effect relationship is the claim that crime is a product of obedience to authority.
Social psychology argues that our behaviour is stemmed from social situations and the environment, which is supported by Stanley Milgram’s 1963 experiment.
In his original experiment, he wanted to investigate how situational context could lead ordinary people to show obedience to authority and inflict harm on others.
Using a fake memory test, and the belief that the ‘learners’ of the test were not actors and actually receiving electric shocks, Milgram managed to find shocking results about an ordinary person’s submission to pressure.
Milgram originally believed that only 4% would go to the full 450V, a fatal dosage of volts- however, 65% went to the full 450V, and 100% surpassed 300V.
Milgram concluded that ordinary people are capable of following orders to hurt others, even when this causes them distress. He also concluded that obedience to authority is due more to situational factors than to deviant personality; which suggests that crime is not a product of the individual.
An example of this study being supplied to real life is Oskar Groening, who discussed that he was influenced by authority to commit the acts that he did during Nazi Germany.
Another example is the serial killer Charles Manson who used the 12 members of his cult the ‘Manson Family’ to murder 11 people, including the pregnant Sharan Tate. This shows that the claim that crime is a product of obedience to authority is accurate & applicable.
Milgram’s experiment also had a high degree of control over the independent and dependent variable, providing a good cause and effect relationship – this means Milgram’s results had high internal validity.
This being said, he used a study of 40 adult males between 20 and 50 years old. Because of this sample of low representation; it is hard to determine whether the same results apply to females and child juveniles.
To summarise, Stanley Milgram devised an experiment that found that most people submit to authority, even if it means inflictng pain on others and/or doing illegal acts. His results can be applied to the real life examples of Oskar Groening and Charles Manson. However, they do not generalise to all of society.
What is the structure of the Milgram paragraph?
Link to Lomroso paragraph Social psychology argument Milgram aim Milgram procedure Milgram results Milgram conclusion Oskar Groening Manson family Intrenal validity Generalisability issues Summary
What does social psychology argue (Milgram Q1)?
Social psychology argues that our behaviour is stemmed from social situations and the environment, which is supported by Stanley Milgram’s 1963 experiment.
What was the aim o Milgra’s original experiment (Milgram Q1)?
In his original experiment, he wanted to investigate how situational context could lead ordinary people to show obedience to authority and inflict harm on others.
What was the procedure of Milgram’s experiment (Milgram Q1)?
Using a fake memory test, and the belief that the ‘learners’ of the test were not actors and actually receiving electric shocks, Milgram managed to find shocking results about an ordinary person’s submission to pressure.
What were the results of Milgram’s experiment (Milgram Q1)?
Milgram originally believed that only 4% would go to the full 450V, a fatal dosage of volts- however, 65% went to the full 450V, and 100% surpassed 300V.
What was the conclusion of Milgram’s experiment (Milgram Q1)?
Milgram concluded that ordinary people are capable of following orders to hurt others, even when this causes them distress. He also concluded that obedience to authority is due more to situational factors than to deviant personality; which suggests that crime is not a product of the individual.
What were the Strengths and Weaknesses of Milgram’s experiment?
Application - Groening and Manson
IV meaning cause and effect relationship
Generalisability
How did Milgram’s experiment apply to Oskar Groening (Milgram Q1)?
An example of this study being supplied to real life is Oskar Groening, who discussed that he was influenced by authority to commit the acts that he did during Nazi Germany.
How did Milgram’s experiment apply to Charles Manson (Milgram Q1)?
Another example is the serial killer Charles Manson who used the 12 members of his cult the ‘Manson Family’ to murder 11 people, including the pregnant Sharan Tate. This shows that the claim that crime is a product of obedience to authority is accurate & applicable.
How did Milgram’s experiment apply to Charles Manson (Milgram Q1)?
Milgram’s experiment and variational experiments also had a high degree of control over the independent (immediacy of authority) and dependent variable (compliance), providing a good cause and effect relationship – this means Milgram’s results had high internal validity.
What was the weakness of Milgram’s study (Milgram Q1)?
This being said, he used a study of 40 adult males between 20 and 50 years old. Because of this sample of low representation; it is hard to determine whether the same results apply to female criminals and child juveniles.
How do we summarise Milgram Q1?
To summarise, Stanley Milgram devised an experiment that found that most people submit to authority, even if it means inflictng pain on others and/or doing illegal acts. His results can be applied to the real life examples of Oskar Groening and Charles Manson. However, they do not generalise to all of society.
What is the chromosonal anomalies (XYY Syndrome) paragraph?
Another claiim that has generalisability issues is the claim that crime is said to also stem from chromosomal anomalies.
In 1966, Price, Strong, Whatmore and McClemont discovered the disorder XYY syndrome.
Also known as ‘supermale syndrome’, XYY syndrome occurs when the 23rd pai of chormosones has an extra Y chromosone, making the perosn have 47 chromosones overall.
Those with XYY sundrome may be taller, have lower intelligence, have behaviour problems; and has been thought to be overly aggressive & lack empathy.
Jacobs et al (year) found that for every 1000 in the prison population, 15 havee XYY syndrome. Beecause XYY syndrome occurs in 1 in 1000 births, and occurs randomly at the time of conception, it is accurate to say that XYY sndrome is more prominent in criminals, and thus a cause of criminality. Therefore, crime is a pproduct of the individual.
However, XYY syndrome has been seen as highly inaccrutae: around 75% of cases are nott diagnosed/detected. Also, Some studies looking into XYY syndrome identified those with it incorrectly. On top of that, Visual cues can only be used to determine XYY. This is a subjective way of diagnosis.
XYY Syndrome also has issues with generalisability; as XYY syndrome fails to account for criminal behaviour among women.
Issues with correlation and causation are also raised; as just because XYY is prominent in criminals doesn’t necessarily mean that it casuses crimninality. Therefore the claim that crime is a prouduct of chromosomal anomalies is questioned.
To summarise, XYY syndrom is a disorder that occurs randomly in every 1 in 1000 birth. It gives men an extra Y chromosone on theiir 23rd pair, and arguably makes thm more aggressive. It has been supported by the works of Jacobs et al, but cant be said to be a strong cause of crime, due to issues of inaccuracy, generalisability and correlation/causation.
