Criminology Notes: Unit 2 Chapters 5 to 8

Early Perspectives on Crime: From Demons to Reason

Ever wonder why people commit crimes? Throughout history, explanations have changed dramatically. Before modern criminology, demonology was the dominant view—the belief that supernatural forces caused criminal behavior.

Under demonological thinking, crime resulted either from possession by dark forces or as punishment from good forces. Religious leaders served as the "experts" who addressed crime through theological methods like trial by combat or ritualistic executions (often burning at the stake).

This supernatural understanding of crime dominated until more rational approaches emerged in the 1800s. These early beliefs show how drastically our understanding of criminal behavior has evolved over the centuries.

Think about it: How might society be different if we still believed supernatural forces caused crime rather than human choices or social conditions?

Classical Approaches: Rational Choice and Punishment

Before the 1800s, criminal punishments were often random, cruel, and unfairly applied. Many offenses weren't even written into law, and punishments like burning, drowning, and mutilation were common. This all changed with Cesare Beccaria's revolutionary ideas.

Beccaria proposed that people think rationally about crime (not possessed by demons) and make decisions based on costs and benefits. He argued punishments should be:

• Based on objective criteria
• The same for everyone committing the same crime
• Only severe enough to deter crime—no more, no less

Jeremy Bentham expanded these ideas with his principle of utilitarianism. He believed people act as "human calculators," weighing pleasures against pains before making decisions. According to Bentham, even mild punishments could deter crime if people were certain they would get caught.

Classical theories revolutionized criminal justice, shifting focus from cruel punishment to rational deterrence based on predictable consequences.

Key insight: The certainty of punishment may be more important than its severity—research still supports this conclusion today!

The Scientific Turn: Mapping Crime Patterns

In the early 1800s, scholars began using scientific methods to study crime. Researchers like Guerry and Quetelet pioneered the use of maps and statistics to identify patterns in criminal behavior, creating the first ecological approaches to understanding crime.

These early scientists discovered fascinating correlations:

• Crime occurred most frequently where opportunities were greatest
• Poverty, urban settings, and geographic location all influenced crime rates
• These correlations remained stable over time, suggesting environmental factors shaped criminal decision-making

Interestingly, Quetelet found that variables like relative deprivation (feeling poor compared to others), age, sex, and even temperature affected crime rates. This challenged the purely rational view of crime, suggesting social contexts mattered.

These ecological approaches laid the foundation for modern sociological theories, though they temporarily lost influence when biological and psychological explanations gained popularity in the mid-1800s. Eventually, in the 1960s, neoclassical approaches would emerge, returning focus to increasing the costs of crime through punishment and deterrence rather than addressing root causes.

Did you know? Modern crime mapping used by police departments today builds on techniques first developed nearly 200 years ago!

Neoclassical Approaches: Deterrence and Rational Choice

By the 1960s, criminologists began questioning whether we should focus on the "true" causes of crime or simply make crime less appealing. This led to neoclassical approaches that focused on increasing the costs of crime through deterrence rather than rehabilitation.

Rational Choice Theory proposes that people weigh opportunities, costs, and benefits before committing crimes:

Benefits include:

• Chance of success
• Anticipated rewards (money, personal satisfaction, social status)

Costs include:

• Social costs: Breaking bonds with family and community
• Legal costs: Punishment certainty, swiftness, and severity

Different factors affect this calculation:

• Individual factors: adult supervision, personality traits
• Neighborhood factors: poverty, community resources
• Target-specific factors: some places are easier to commit crime

Deterrence Theory suggests we can reduce crime by:

• Increasing certainty of punishment (more effective policing)
• Increasing punishment severity (longer sentences)
• Implementing situational strategies (target hardening)

Research consistently shows the certainty of punishment matters more than its severity—people who believe they'll get caught are less likely to commit crimes.

Remember: The decision to commit crime happens in specific situations with specific calculations, not just because of someone's background or personality.

Rational Choice and Deterrence: Making Crime Less Appealing

When considering whether to commit a crime, people calculate both benefits and costs. Rational Choice Theory helps explain why seemingly "irrational" criminal behavior actually makes sense from the offender's perspective when you consider all the factors influencing their decision.

People assess specific situations before committing crimes:

• Is this target easy or difficult?
• Are there witnesses around?
• What's my chance of getting caught?
• What will I gain if successful?

Effective deterrence works through three key elements:

1. Certainty of punishment (Will I get caught?)
2. Severity of punishment (How bad will the consequences be?)
3. Swiftness of punishment (How quickly will I face consequences?)

Research consistently shows that certainty of punishment has the strongest deterrent effect. Even if penalties are harsh, people won't be deterred if they believe they can avoid detection.

This explains why crime prevention strategies like target hardening (better locks, security systems) can be effective—they increase the perceived difficulty and reduce the likelihood of success, changing the criminal's cost-benefit analysis.

Real-world application: When communities increase police presence or install security cameras, they're applying deterrence theory by increasing the perceived certainty of getting caught.

Deterrence Strategies and Their Effectiveness

Deterrence-based approaches aim to prevent crime by influencing potential offenders' decision-making. There are two main types of deterrence:

1. Specific deterrence: Targets individuals who have already committed crimes to prevent them from reoffending
2. General deterrence: Aims to discourage the broader population from committing crimes

The effectiveness of deterrence varies depending on which element you focus on:

• Certainty of punishment: Research consistently shows this works—people avoid crime when they believe they'll get caught
• Severity of punishment: Shows mixed results—extremely harsh penalties don't necessarily reduce crime more than moderate ones
• Swiftness of punishment: Less studied but important, especially for irreversible penalties

Based on these findings, effective strategies for reducing crime include:

• Increasing police presence to raise the perceived chance of getting caught
• Using target hardening techniques (better locks, security lighting, surveillance)
• Designing environments that reduce criminal opportunities

These approaches focus on changing the immediate situation rather than trying to change the person. By making crime more difficult, less rewarding, and more likely to result in consequences, these strategies can effectively reduce criminal behavior.

Looking ahead: In the next chapter, we'll explore positivist approaches that focus on biological and psychological differences between criminals and non-criminals.

Positivist Approaches: The Criminal as Different

In the mid-1800s, criminology took a dramatic turn with the rise of positivism. Unlike classical theorists who saw criminals and non-criminals as the same rational actors, positivists believed criminals were fundamentally different due to biological or psychological traits.

The first major positivist was Cesare Lombroso, who proposed that criminals were evolutionary "throwbacks" with physical traits (stigmata) that marked them as primitive. He believed you could identify criminals by examining physical features like skull shape and facial characteristics.

Other early biological positivists expanded these ideas:

• Enrico Ferri recognized social factors worked alongside biological ones
• Raffaelo Garofalo believed criminals lacked basic moral sentiments
• Charles Goring focused on hereditary factors, particularly "feeblemindedness"
• Henri Goddard claimed criminal tendencies were inherited, though his work was later discredited
• Ernest Hooten advocated eliminating "physically inferior" people through eugenics

These early biological theories seem shocking today, but they represented an attempt to apply scientific methods to understanding crime. Most were later discredited due to methodological flaws and failure to consider social factors.

Historical context: These theories emerged during a time when scientific racism was prevalent and influenced many academic fields, not just criminology.

Body Types and Modern Biological Theories

The search for physical differences between criminals and non-criminals continued with William Sheldon's theory of body types (somatypes). He proposed three main body types, each linked to specific personality traits:

• Endomorphs: Soft, round body types—supposedly easy-going and extroverted
• Ectomorphs: Thin, fragile body types—supposedly introverted and sensitive
• Mesomorphs: Muscular, athletic body types—supposedly aggressive and action-seeking (and most likely to be criminal)

These early biological theories were eventually discredited. Researchers failed to find reliable connections between physical characteristics and criminal behavior, and they ignored important social and environmental factors.

However, modern biological research has taken more sophisticated approaches:

• Genetic studies: Twin and adoption studies suggest both nature and nurture influence criminal behavior
• Hormonal factors: Research examines how hormones like testosterone, estrogen, and cortisol may influence behavior
• Neurotransmitters: Chemicals like dopamine (associated with pleasure) and serotonin (associated with mood regulation) may impact criminal tendencies

Importantly, there is no single "criminal gene." Rather, genetic traits may predispose people to biological or psychological states that, under certain social conditions, make criminal behavior more likely.

Critical perspective: Modern biological theories recognize that environment and social context interact with biological factors—biology alone doesn't determine criminal behavior.

Brain Function and Evolutionary Perspectives

The relationship between brain function and criminal behavior has become a major focus of modern research. Scientists have found that brain injury or dysfunction can significantly impact behavior through several mechanisms:

Frontal lobe function is particularly important, as this brain region controls executive functions like problem-solving, reasoning, and impulse control. About 20% of known offenders report some type of traumatic brain injury. Exposure to toxins like lead, pesticides, and alcohol during development can damage these critical brain regions.

Arousal levels also play a key role. Some people naturally experience very low levels of arousal, leading to chronic boredom. These individuals may engage in risky or criminal behavior simply to increase their arousal to more comfortable levels. This explains why some people constantly seek thrills and take risks—their brains are wired differently.

Fear response acts as an internal regulator against crime. Those with low arousal often experience little fear, removing a major deterrent against criminal behavior. This reduced fear response is a hallmark characteristic of psychopathy.

Evolutionary theories suggest certain traits that can contribute to crime (like aggression and sexual promiscuity) may have provided survival advantages in our evolutionary past, particularly for males. This helps explain gender differences in offending rates, though these theories remain controversial.

Modern perspective: Brain science shows that some people may be neurologically predisposed to criminal behavior, but this doesn't mean their actions are predetermined or that they can't be influenced by their environment.

Psychological Approaches to Criminal Behavior

Psychology offers several frameworks for understanding criminal behavior, focusing on how people think, learn, and develop. These approaches fall into two main categories:

Cognitive approaches examine mental processes:

• Psychoanalytic theory: Sigmund Freud proposed that criminal behavior stems from an imbalance between the id (primitive desires), superego (moral conscience), and ego (mediator between the two)
• Stage models: Theorists like Piaget, Erikson, and Kohlberg suggested crime results from failure to properly develop through psychological stages
• Intelligence/IQ: Some research examines links between cognitive ability and crime
• Personality traits: Certain traits and disorders correlate with higher crime rates

Behavioral approaches focus on learned behavior:

• Social learning theory: People learn criminal behavior by observing and imitating others
• Reinforcement: When criminal behavior is rewarded, it's more likely to be repeated

Brain dysfunction can significantly impact behavior:

• Damage to the frontal lobe affects impulse control and decision-making
• Exposure to toxins like lead, pesticides, and alcohol during development can cause neurological impairments
• Conditions like ADHD and learning disabilities can hinder social functioning

People with brain-based arousal issues may commit crimes to escape boredom, as they require more intense stimulation to feel normal. Those with reduced fear responses miss an important internal regulator against antisocial behavior.

Brain science insight: Understanding the neurological basis of criminal behavior doesn't excuse it but helps explain why traditional deterrence sometimes fails with certain individuals.