Summary
Summary CMY3701 Theories of Crime
- Course
- Institution
CMY3701 Theories of Crime
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Nomazizi
Reviews received
Content preview
Theories of crimeSummary
1. Classical and positivist theories
2. Radical criminology
3. Labelling theory
4. Constitutional theories
5. Genetic Explanations
6. Environmental explanations
Classical and positivist theories
The classical theorists believe in the concept of free will when explaining crime. If the
rewards for being a criminal are greater than the retribution it would bring then criminal
behaviour seems more likely. This theory would predict that extreme punishments such as
flogging or death would deter people from all crimes.
Cesare Beccaria in the 18th century successfully argued that the punishment should fit the
crime. Excessive punishments could be counter productive as a criminal would reason that if
they were to be hung for stealing a sheep they might as well commit more serious offences
such as murder and robbery. Jeremy Bentham, the British philosopher of the early eighteenth
century, justified punishment in terms of its being able to prevent further crime rather than
encouraging it. Why would Bentham, if he were alive today, argue that the Bulger killers
should not go to an adult prison?
Classical theory was prominent in the late 18th and 19th Centuries but positivist theories then
became popular instead. Since the 1970s there has been a resurgence of interest in the
classical theory of crime, with many people calling for harsher punishments.
Positivist theories have been criticised for failing to discover the causes of crime and to
develop effective strategies for controlling crime. Positivist theories discount the role of free
will; instead it takes into account factors such as genetic transmission, personality, learning
and moral development. The sociological perspective is also taken into account. Emphasis is
placed on anomie (a lack of moral standards in society) and strain resulting from poverty
imposed by a rigid class structure. Strategies to reduce crime would involve treatment at an
individual level or intervention at a social level.
,Radical Criminology
Radical criminology was first proposed by Taylor et al. (1973) who based his views on the
Marxist position. No act is naturally immoral or criminal; definitions of crime are socially
determined, reflecting current social values. Crime is therefore seen as socially
determined. Criminal law is designed to suit the purposes of the wealthy and
powerful. Those without money result to crime in order to enjoy the luxuries of the
wealthy. The wealthy also commit crime in order to gain further wealth. However because
the legal system flavours the wealthy they are less likely to be arrested and punished.
The solution to crime would occur at economic, political and social levels. If wealth was
redistributed then any crime that occurred would be the result of individual psychopathology.
Labelling theory
Labelling theory accords well with radical criminology as it sees criminal behaviour as being
defined by society. People without power are labelled by those with power (for example
judges, parents, police and, teachers, etc.). Behaviour is not seen as right or wrong rather as
a deviant behaviour. This argument applies not only to criminal behaviour but also to other
groups in society that have been labelled, such as alcoholics, the mentally ill, the deviant, etc.
There are two consequences of labelling - the creation of stigma and the modification of self
image (Gove 1975).
Stigma refers to the public attitude of condemnation and the subsequent exclusion of the
criminal. The criminal is seen as a person to be avoided and treated with suspicion. The
criminal is barred from certain types of employment, the family may make them unwelcome,
the police may give them an undue amount of attention.
The modification of self-image comes about because of the stigma the criminal
experiences. We have a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby the individual becomes the person
so described by the label. The label becomes a role and the individual changes that life to
suit that role. More crimes are committed and the individual forms an identity, that of the
criminal along with all its associated values, Attitudes, and beliefs. Lemart (1951) calls this
process deviance amplification. Any intervention such as punishment or treatment simply
reinforces the individual's perception, that of being a criminal.
Arguments against labelling theory would be its failure to specify how some individuals
started on a path of crime and that some crimes, such as rape and murder, are universally
judged as wrong.
Becker (1963) says that deviance is a normal part of adolescent life. Such behaviour is
labelled deviant and the adolescent then sees himself as a ‘deviant’, which encourages him to
continue his deviant behaviour into adulthood. The initial deviance might be some minor
theft (primary deviance) and this through labelling turns into more serious crime (secondary
deviance). Secondary deviance is when the adolescent accepts the label and follows the
deviant lifestyle (Lemert, 1972). Labelling theory cannot explain all criminal behaviour but
might help to explain crime amongst the lower economic social groups.
, Chen,-Xiaoming (2002) discusses the underlying philosophy and functions of social
control in Chinese society, and applications of reintegrative shaming theory. Social
order in China is based on moral socialization and not on the deterrence of law. The
Chinese system of social control reflects the 2 basic Western approaches to crime
control, informal social control and opportunity reduction. Labeling theory holds that
formal and informal societal reactions to delinquency can influence delinquents'
subsequent attitudes and behaviours. Reintegrative shaming theory and practice
aim at maximizing shame while maintaining community links and providing
opportunities for the offender to make amends to those injured. The evidence
presented supports reintegrative shaming theory as a valid model of Chinese social
practice, rather than labeling theory.
There are suggestions recently that schools should provide the police with information about
pupils who are ‘potential criminals’ even though they have not committed a crime. There are
concerns that this will label youngsters.
Constitutional theories
Lombroso in 1876 argued that the criminal is a separates species, a species that is between
modern and primitive humans. He argued that the physical shape of the head and face
determined the "born criminal". These people were primitive and were unable to adapt to
modern morality. His view was based on genetics. The atavist (primitive genetic form) and
had large jaws, high cheek bones, large ears, extra nipples, toes or fingers, and were
insensitive to pain. Lombroso went further and suggested that from the surveys he had
carried out in prison, he could detect physiological differences between different types of
criminal. Thus, murderers were said to have:
Cold, glassy, blood-shot eyes, curly, abundant hair, strong jaws, long ears and thin lips
Whilst sex offenders have:
Glinting eyes, strong jaws, thick lips, lots of hair and projecting ears.'
Lombroso's views received some indirect support from Goring, who in 1913 studied 3000
English convicts and found that although anatomical differences were not as extreme as
Lombroso had suggested, a common factor in his subjects was low intelligence. At this time
intelligence was regarded as genetically determined and so criminal behaviour too was seen
to be linked to genetic inheritance. Within such a reductionist biological determinism,
characteristics such as intelligence and criminality are seen as fixed and immutable. Any
possibility of social factors influencing outcome is minimised. From this perspective it is a
short step to compulsory sterilisation of those who are deemed immoral' or mentally
deficient, a policy which not only existed in Nazi Germany, but in Sweden, Britain and the
USA (see Rose et al., 1984).
It is easy now to criticise Lombroso's theories; for instance, his research methodology was
not particularly rigorous (he did not use a proper control group, often relying on large groups
of soldiers, and his criminal samples contained large numbers of the mentally disturbed) and
his conclusions sound bizarre. Perhaps the most important criticism, however, is Lombroso’s
failure to recognise that correlation does not imply causality. Simply became his criminal
subjects shared a significant number of physical anomalies does not mean that this made
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Nomazizi. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $2.84. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67474 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now