SECTION 1: Discuss and provide your assessment of the idea that crime is caused by individual traits such as genes or intelligence.
Introduction
Criminological theories have had considerable debate on the influence of individual traits on crime. Criminological theories in support of the idea propose that there is a relationship between personality traits such as self-esteem, self-control, and impulsivity and the likelihood to engage in criminal behavior (Baker et al., 2010). Individual traits such as genes and intelligence determine our personalities. The individual trait theory of crime submits that certain personality traits increase the probability of committing crime (Baker et al., 2010). More support for the relationship between individual traits and criminal behavior is propelled by the research to solve crime by understanding the perpetrator.
Multiple criminological theories understand crime as an outcome of multiple hostile conditions which supports the concept that crime is affected by social, economic, cultural, and family conditions as well as individual traits (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2010). The relationship between individual traits and propensity to crime can be analyzed by dissecting the criminological research and theories’ concept explaining the correlation. According to Jolliffe & Farrington (2010), the significance placed on the relationship between individual traits and criminal behavior has evolved throughout the discipline’s history. Jolliffe & Farrington (2010) propose that the concept of individual traits as a cause of crime is influenced by development of offending and other factors such as social and environmental forces.
Individual Traits and Crime
The influence of individual traits such as genes on criminal behavior stems from past criminological concept of “born criminals.” According to Baker et al. (2010) the concept of individual traits as an influence to criminal was supported by several studies that researched the likelihood of a criminal conviction for children with incarcerated birth parents. The studies found that there risk of a criminal conviction is higher for children with incarcerated birth parents even if they are brought up by law-abiding foster parents (Baker et al., 2010). The same studies would rare different results in the current environment due the changes in concepts and in definition of criminological aspects. However, the results of the studies did support the concept of “born criminals” proposed by Cesare Lombroso who argued that individuals are predisposed to criminal behavior due to inherited traits. Individual traits such as social behavior, impulsivity, aggression, and risk-taking probability define personal behavior.
Preceding studies have confirmed the relationship between genetic outcomes such antisocial behavior and delinquency and criminal behavior outcomes (Baker et al., 2010). According to Baker et al. (2010), the relationship between individual traits such as genes which lead to personality traits is unspecified due to the undefined but definite influence of environmental causes. Impulsivity which is defined as reduced ability to control one’s behavior is highly related to criminal behavior. According to Jolliffe & Farrington (2010), high impulsiveness shows the likelihood of poor life outcomes such as gambling, smoking, drinking, and offending. Intelligence is another individual trait that has been assessed on its relationship with criminal behavior. The research to determine the relationship between intelligence and criminal behavior defines intelligence from predicted school success concept (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2010). With the controlled definitions and aspects, criminal behavior is more likely in lower intelligence individuals (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2010).
Critique of the Idea
Although there is a link between individual traits and crime, the specification of the influence of the traits on criminal behavior is undefined. One of the major opposition of the direct link between individual traits and crime is developmental effects. According to Baker et al. (2010), age is a large factor in predisposition of individual traits. For example, adolescents have a higher preposition of delinquent behavior based on individual traits such as impulsivity, social behavior, and conformity to societal norms (Baker et al., 2010). However, such behavior is not a definite likelihood of criminal outcomes. Outside factors such as environmental effects have a probability of influencing individual traits during growth and development. According to Baker et al. (2010), adolescent delinquent behavior might be limited to adolescence and not into adulthood which negates the probability of determining the influence of the specific individual traits on criminal behavior.
Individual traits such as genes and intelligence are influenced by environmental causes such as social and cultural surroundings. The development of traits and behavioral outcomes based on those individual traits relies on the shaping of personality by cultural beliefs, social state, and conditions of development. For example, the past concept that low intelligence is proportional to higher likelihood of criminal behavior has been recently opposed by the current definition of intelligence (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2010). The past concept derived intelligence from a school based understanding which disadvantages people with limited access to quality education. According to Akers & Jensen (2010), the probability to engage in crime and delinquency is increased when the individual’s conformity to the norm reduces. Akers & Jensen (2010) submit that criminal behavior is influenced by different aspects such as anticipation, perception, probability of rewards, and view of consequences.
Assessment of the Idea that Crime is caused by Individual Traits
Several criminological theories have evidenced the relationship between individual traits and criminal behavior with controlled studies and statistical analysis. However, the relationship is undefined with the constant influence of other factors such as developmental conditions. For example, social behavior is often defined by social surroundings which means that specific communities and populations conform to specific behavior (Baker et al., 2010). Defining certain social behavior as an influence to criminal behavior is a direct insult to such communities and populations. The criminological concept is also affected by the essence of maintaining a neutral stature. The past definitions and concepts such as the “born criminal” idea were defined in an era with minimal repercussions to racist and discriminative specifications. Traits such as aggressiveness, hostility, empathy, and impulsiveness have often been used to determine psychoticism and neuroticism scores which are statistically related to crime probability (Baker et al., 2010). These traits are defined by more than individual traits such as genes and intelligence levels. Aggressiveness, hostility, and impulsiveness among all other traits are influenced by many factors. Although individual traits have a partial relationship to probability of offence, their definite link to crime causing negates the input of other major factors that influence perpetrators in committing crime.
SECTION 2: Explain why differential association theory is part of the social-learning paradigm. What concepts does Akers draw upon to create an interactive theory of learning crime?
Introduction
The differential association theory of criminology which was proposed by Edwin Sutherland in 1947 attempts to explain the social processes that lead to criminal behavior. Akers social learning theory of criminology conceptualizes the role of social interactions and learning on deriving personal behavior. AccordingAkers & Jensen (2010), social learning theory generally explains criminal and deviant behavior by integrating the differential association concepts with the principle of behavior as a function of the environment. However, social learning theory is a wider concept which assumes that the social, structure, and situation context of both delinquent and conforming individuals is similar (Akers & Jensen, 2010). Since both individuals are defined by the same context, the difference in outcomes is extent of behavioral influence (Akers & Jensen, 2010). The goal of the discussion is to understand why differential association theory is part of the social-learning paradigm and explore the concepts drawn upon by Akers to develop an interactive theory of learning crime.
Differential Association Theory within the Social Learning Theory
Differential association theory assumes that individuals learn criminal or deviant behavior through significant intimate interactions with individuals or social groups. According to Akers & Jensen (2010), the differential association theory submits that criminal behavior is acquired through individual or social interactions which depict favor or ill-favor to offence and criminal behavior. The concept submits that principles and ideas derived from these interactions influence personal attitude, values, conformity behavior, and eventually susceptibility to criminal behavior (Akers & Jensen, 2010). Social learning theory utilizes the concept of differential association theory on principles and ideas learnt in social and individual interactions to support the process of learning criminal behavior. According to (Akers & Jensen, 2010), learning criminal behavior happens similarly like learning any other behavior which is through communication of values and socialization with deviant attributes.
The differential association theory submits that direct or indirect interactions expose individuals to different values, beliefs, and attitudes (Akers & Jensen, 2010). The different vales, beliefs, and attitudes provide different behavioral models where specific behaviors are either encouraged or discouraged. The social learning theory conforms to the idea through the principle that criminal behavior is derived from behaviors encouraged in an adopted behavioral model that supports delinquent behavior (Akers & Jensen, 2010). Apart from how criminal behavior might be adopted, social learning theory further analyzes behavioral patterns, frequency, and maintenance of behavior over time to try and understand behavioral versatility between conformity and delinquency.
Interactive Theory of Learning Crime
The interactive theory of learning crime expounds on factors shaping individual behavior to delinquency or law-abiding. The theory uses principle of differential association which explains that people learn behaviors associated with crimes through socialization and differential reinforcement which assumes that perception of rewards and punishment shapes human behavior (Akers & Jensen, 2010). Akers’ interactive theory submits that criminal behavior is learnt through observation, conditioning, and differential association. The interactive theory shows that the outcome of criminal behavior is influenced by more than one factor. For example, the conditioning principle suggests that behaviorism is affected by the perception of its consequences. An individual might conform to non-delinquency due to how they perceive criminal behavior consequences. An individual that views criminal outcomes as rewards is more likely to conform to criminal behavior than an individual perceiving them as punishments of criminal behavior.
Concepts drawn by Akers to Create an Interactive Theory of Learning crime
The first concept is differential association which is defined as the direct or indirect interaction between individuals or groups such as families, friends, or peers. According to Akers & Jensen (2010), there are four ways in which these associations differ which is proportional to the influence they have in shaping human behavior. Intensity, frequency, duration, and priority are the four factors that determine the influence of an adopted behavioral model on an individual (Akers & Jensen, 2010). The associations encourage or discourage specific behavior by exposing values and beliefs normal to the cultural dimension conformed to by the group or individuals. In differential association, the individual tries to conform to behavior supported by the values, attitudes, and beliefs, of the associating social group.
Differential reinforcement is another concept that expounds on the social learning theory by determining the balance of anticipated or perceived rewards and punishment of criminal behavior (Akers & Jensen, 2010). The concept assumes that crimes with higher perceived reward over punishment are more likely to occur and be repeated. The social learning theory uses the concept of differential reinforcement to explain that nonsocial rewards and punishments are influential in adopting and sustaining criminal behavior (Akers & Jensen, 2010). Although psychological differences such as specific tendencies affect general perceptions, there is a link between likelihood of criminal behavior and anticipated rewards or punishment.
Akers interactive theory of learning crime also utilizes the concept of definitions which encompasses individual view of crime. According to Akers & Jensen (2010), personal definitions of situations and attitudes rationalizes certain behavior as right or wrong. If a personal definition is favorable to criminal behavior, the individual finds the crime desirable. However, the concept of definitions evolves with the evolution of the individual. According to Akers & Jensen (2010), definitions favorable to crime are not a definite eventuality of criminal behavior. Although people might define crime as sometimes right or desirable, it does not improve their susceptibility to commit crime.
Imitation which is a concept utilized by interactive theory of learning crime is the participation in specific behavior after observing similar behavior (Akers & Jensen, 2010). However, in imitation, whether a trait or a behavior is imitated depends on the individual’s acceptability of presented behavioral model. The characteristics and consequences of the presented behavioral model determine their likability and acquisition of behavior (Akers & Jensen, 2010). Despite the effect of imitated behavior having little influence on behavioral patterns, it increases the susceptibility to criminal behavior.
SECTION 3: In the context of Routine Activities Theory, governments are now promoting precautionary measures that many people find objectionable. Discuss some of the ethical implications of situational crime prevention.
Introduction
The routine activity theory submits that a crime happens when three elements which are a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian converge in time and space (Chamard, 2010). Along with rational choice and crime pattern theories, routine activity theory form the environmental criminology which entails among other aspects the situational crime prevention and victimization theories (Chamard, 2010). Contrary to theories that attempt to understand susceptibility to criminal behavior, routine activities theory analyzes broad and situational reasons for crime occurrence. Situational crime prevention (SCP) is a crime prevention strategy that aims to reduce crime opportunities by changing the physical and social environment through manipulation of the three elements. From a routine activities theory approach, SCP seeks to remove the probability of crime occurrence by ensuring that the three elements of a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian are altered to never converge in time and space.
A likely offender in routine activities theory is defined as a person with ability and propensity to commit crime (Chamard, 2010). According to Chamard (2010), a crime happens when a likely offender finds a suitable target and with absence of a capable guardian. The concept assumes that there are already likely offender without diving into susceptibility of specific people to criminal behavior. The downside into the specification of the likely offender in the routine activities theory is that it fails to account for disposition differences (Chamard, 2010). Due to the unpredictability of the likely offender SCP uses strategies of target hardening and environmental design to reduce the suitability of a target and provide a capable guardian. Although SCP strategies have proven effective in reducing crime rates in some parts of the world, there are ethical concerns associated with SCP.
Ethical Concerns Associated with SCP
Social Equity: SCP strategies are prone to mismanagement under the wrong definition of the elements being manipulated to reduce probability of crime (Chamard, 2010). In such scenarios, SCP strategies are used to discriminate marginalized communities such as the poor or homeless. Strategies of SCP, target hardening and environmental design can be used by people in higher power to deprive marginalized people opportunities. SCP strategies have also been used against communities defined as susceptible to crime (Chamard, 2010). Racist and discriminative organizations use these strategies to deny marginalized opportunities by designating them as likely offenders. Other equity concern are fuelled by specific intent to target individuals or groups (Wang et al., 2019). For example, there are organizations in a low-income neighborhood that installs heightened surveillance to harass and intimidate the residents.
Justice ethical concerns: SCP prioritizes the aspect of preventing crime but fails to analyze the criminal behavior address rehabilitation for offenders (Craig, 2018). In the realm of situational crime prevention, a caught offender is a more likely offender. Rather than understand why individuals commit crime to proportionally offer rehabilitation, the concept seeks to eliminate crime occurrence through preventive justice (Craig, 2018). The idea focuses on situational interventions rather than systemic issues profitable to the victim and the offender which is the principle of justice (Craig, 2018). An example is that installing surveillance on a suitable crime area does not solve the social and economic conditions that might contribute to the crime.
Transparency and Accountability: Technological measures such as facial recognition raise transparency and accountability concerns due privacy of data. Predictive policing algorithms and facial recognition techniques used in situational crime prevention use specific and personal data collected through formal sites (Freilich et al., 2018). The use and collection of the personal data is susceptible to hacking and cyber-attacks under inadequate security. Under situations of data loss or unethical data use, SCP initiatives undermine the public trust in all institutions (Freilich et al., 2018). Under wrong governance, SCP strategies are implemented in marginalized groups without public knowledge which goes is against public laws.
Crime Displacement: The indifference of environments and social cultures informs the probability that SCP strategies do not always produce similar results (Wang et al., 2019). Implementation of SCP strategies can lead to crime displacement to other areas or adverse unintended consequences such as hostility towards authorities (Wang et al., 2019). In cases where SCP strategies are used discriminatively or without assessing other social and economic factors, likely offenders are likely to adapt which would bring about crime displacement.
Individual Rights: The major strategies of situational crime prevention are enforced through security measures such as increased surveillance, instilled curfews, and changing regulations. The aspects implemented in SCP can infringe upon people individual rights of privacy and freedom (Wang et al., 2019). The technological advancements in surveillance also complicates the individual rights concern since most of these measures are undefined by law. There is an ethical dilemma between installing collective security measures and remaining within legal attributes of respecting individual rights.
Public Consent: SCP measures that affect the public should be implemented with official public consent (Freilich et al., 2018). However, individuals are inclined to decline or resist crime prevention measures that are intrusive or unjust. Crime prevention measures that are perceived as discriminative have reduced effectiveness due to the discord of the community. Ethical concerns of public consent are also raised with measures implemented without public knowledge to target specific individuals (Freilich et al., 2018). The support for specific targets under SCP measures implementation causes major public consent ethical concerns.
Conclusion
Under the right conditions, situational crime prevention has the potential to increase public safety through well-defined measures. The different aspects of SCP raise concerns on the right and legal way to implement strategies. Technological measures under SCP strategies raise individual rights, public consent, and transparency and accountability ethical concerns. The fact that SCP focus on prevention rather than reaction to crime raise ethical dilemmas whether the strategy implements legal justice. The discriminative implementation of SCP measures to marginalize specific groups or people raises issues of social equity. SCP measures can cause crime displacement instead of reduction which shows that the strategy might have unintended consequences.
References
Akers, R. L., & Jensen, G. F. (2010). Social Learning Theory: Process and Structure in Criminal and Deviant Behavior. The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Theory, 56–71. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200926.n4
Baker, L. A., Tuvblad, C., & Raine, A. (2010). Genetics and Crime. The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Theory, 21–39. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200926.n2
Chamard, S. (2010). Routine Activities. The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Theory, 210–224. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200926.n12
Craig, J. M. (2018). Extending Situational Action Theory to White-Collar Crime. Deviant Behavior, 40(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1420444
Freilich, J. D., Gruenewald, J., & Mandala, M. (2018). Situational Crime Prevention and Terrorism: An Assessment of 10 Years of Research. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(9), 1283–1311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418805142
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Individual differences and offending. The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Theory, 40–55. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200926.n3
Wang, J., Shan, Z., Gupta, M., & Rao, H. R. (2019). A Longitudinal Study of Unauthorized Access Attempts on Information Systems: The Role of Opportunity Contexts. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 601–622. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2019/14751
write