Biological and Psychological Theories of Crime, Essay Example

For the purposes of this research paper I will discuss and analyze the differences of the Choice Theory and the Trait Theory and decide which theory is more realistic as to why criminals offend and reoffend. The rational choice theory was developed by Cesare Beccaria, an Italian social thinker who was widely accepted throughout Europe and the United States for his theories in biological and criminology studies. “The theory focused on external factors such as poverty, IQ, education or lack of it; say to speak as the root of the cause of crime”. (Siegel, 2008). This theorist did not believe in personal choice or decision making as a play in the action of crime. James Wilson, political scientists embraced this theory believing that people who commit crimes are not afraid of the consequences they have to face as a result of committing crimes. They further are willing to take greater risks than the average person. This makes this sort of criminal very dangerous and in most cases without a high level of conscious. The rational choice theory suggests motivators for criminals to commit crimes such as money, revenge and even a risk associated with apprehension. The theory suggests the criminal carefully thinks out the crime before he/she commits it and may even go to the extent of choosing well-groomed neighborhoods with highly sophisticated security systems. “Crimes are said to be offense-specific because offenders react selectively to the characteristics of particular crimes. They scale a particular neighborhood for a burglary and decide if the cash yield is high enough to take the risk to commit the crime.” (Siegel, 2008). The natural offender has a trait of criminality in them. This is a trait that is a personal trait within the criminal. These criminals do not commit crimes all of the time but rather selectively. The criminals choose their crime carefully, choose their target by making sure no one is home before committing the crime and then striking. They basically shape and structure the crime in their mind before committing it. In no way do they sporadically commit a crime.

For criminals the thought of committing a crime appears to be more rational than abiding by the laws of society. They often speak of an adrenaline rush that comes with committing a crime and getting away with it. Whether it is for satisfaction of a personal need, a sneaky thrill, to satisfy incompetence within them or avenging a god like feeling they have, they commit the crime for some reason that is not rational to the normal psyche. They are street smart; they select their targets according to risk assessment categories, often choose crimes that appear to have no disadvantages and try to control the situation by using specific deterrence strategies. “Learning theories are discussed as comparable or compatible with the rational choice theory.” (“Choice Theories in Criminology”).

“The hard question is “why do people engage in such destructive activity?” The answer lies within human nature and its delicate intricacies, be they by choice or inherent traits.”(Mydland, 2010). The second theory of discussion is the Trait Theory which discerns that a criminal has the disposition to commit crime because it is simply in their blood or genetic. Often we can recall the behavior of Andrew Luster who was a wealthy and handsome man who had everything in life. He committed a heinous crime of rape under the influence of drugs to a very unsuspecting woman? The first question that comes to mind to resolve this crime is, “Why would this sort of man do such a thing? It must be in his blood!” Others thought he must have been mentally ill for a short period of time in his life. Italian physician and criminologist Cesare Lombroso studied the quest to answer these questions of what makes a normal person commit these sorts of crimes. It was thought that these traits were not really genetically inherited but rather environmentally inflicted. The contemporary trait theories view biology and psychology as independent factors contributing to criminality. There are neurological contributions to examine, chemical disorders, and anti-social behaviors that equally can contribute which give rise to the trait theory. Repeat offenders have often been found to have a biochemical makeup that is abnormal, brain structure that is abnormal or mental impairment. Psychologists and criminologists often focus on social environment influence such as “parents, peers, school and neighborhoods.” (Siegel, 2008). It appears that the majority of the criminal and biological theories have been tested somewhat but are not fully tested hence are only as good as tested and are only theories as hypothesized.

People who maintain a healthy diet for normal brain functioning have been found to have the proper vitamins and minerals needed for adequate growth during childhood years. Those who have not been privy to healthy eating have been linked to antisocial behavior and cognitive learning deficits which can lead to criminal behaviors. People that lack diets in saturated fats, Vitamin C and E and minerals such as Zn and Fe have been linked to AQDHD, depression, Dementia and Schizophrenia. People with these conditions have been linked to higher risks of criminal activities and repeat offenders.

Both theories seem adequate to be logical and it is a criminologist’s personal choice of which theory he/she wishes to believe. I personally feel each theory has its own place in the fields of biology and criminology. Each theory can help us to better understand why criminals behave the way they do, what motivates a man or woman to break the law and what means can be used to deter a person from re-offending. “Felson and Clarke remind us that ‘opportunity’ is a main cause of crime and accepting this is a key to the reduction of crime. We must reduce the criminal opportunity in order to reduce the crime rate.” (Schmalleger, 2007). Walters and White agree that genetics play a part in criminal activity however true studies are hard to collaborate due to “small sample size, subjects dropping out of studies and lack of control or comparison groups available. Further other comparative studies in Denmark and Sweden was not conclusive.”

References

Schmalleger, F. Criminology Today: An Integrative Introduction New York: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.

Choice Theories in Criminology (2007) Retrieved April 9, 2010 from, http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/crim/crimtheory01.htm

Siegel, L. Criminology: The Core New York: Thompson Wadsworth, 2008.

Mydland, B. (2010) Choice Trait Theory and Criminal Behavior Retrieved April 9, 2010 from, http://ezinearticles.com/?choice-trait-theory-and-criminal-behavior&id=973451