Introduction to Crime

Introduction To Crime

The case of the West Memphis Three

Causes of criminal behaviour / Making a Case
Reaching a verdict / After a guilty verdict

A Crime Quiz

Question / Your Answer / Actual answer
Have crime rates risen or fallen in the last fifteen years?
What proportion of crimes involve violence or sex?
Is the UK murder rate rising or falling?
Are more or less offenders imprisoned?
Is the rate of child abduction and murder going up?
Are women more likely to be attacked than men?
Are old people right to be afraid of crime?
What % of men have a criminal record by the age of forty?
What age group is most at risk of being a murder victim?

Has a crime been committed?

What causes people to become criminals?

In the space below write down as many causes of crime as you can think of.

Now compare your list with your partner. Which causes of crime do you think are most likely to be true?

Identifying causes of serial killer behaviour and serious crime behaviour

For each serial killer which cause or causes do you think most explain their behaviour

Killer / Upbringing / Cognition / Biology
Disrupted family / Peer group / Poverty / Lack of morals / Cognitive deficit / Blaming others / Brain damage / Genes / Gender
Ted
Bundy
Jeffry Dahmer
Aileen Wuornos
William MacDonald
Dennis Neilson
Myra Hindley
Robert Hansen
Randy Krafft
Peter Sutcliffe
Luis Gravitoi
Beverley Allitt
John
Gacy

What about these serious crimes.If you commit any of the offences below they are never regarded as spent as they are the most serious crimes.

Killer / Upbringing / Cognition / Biology
Disrupted family / Peer group / Poverty / Lack of morals / Cognitive deficit / Blaming others / Brain damage / Genes / Gender
Murder
Indecent assault
Use of a firearm
Child Offences
Rape
Wounding with intent
False imprisoning
Arson
Robbery
Aggravated burglary
2 or more burglaries
Dealing or supplying drugs
3 or more serious motoring offences
Racially motivated crime

Turning to Crime

For this course you have to learn 3 reasons why people turn to crime and 3 pieces of evidence for each reason.

This is the summary of the evidence you are going to learn. For each one you can find the original paper on the psychology web site. If you are intending to achieve a high grade you need to look at these and review the evidence.

Area / Study / Learned / Read original / Reviewed
Upbringing / Juby, H. and D. Farrington (2001). "Disentangling the link Between Disrupted Families and Delinquency." British Journal of Criminology41: 22-40.
Akers, R., L., M. Krohn, D., et al. (1979). "Social Learning and Deviant Behaviour: A Specific Test of a General Theory." American Sociological Review44(4): 636-655.
Fafchamps, M. and B. Minten (2002) Crime and Poverty: Evidence From a Natural Experiment. Centre for the Study of African Economics Working Paper Series
Cognition / McCoy, K., W. Fremouw, et al. (2006). "Criminal-Thinking Styles and Illegal Behavior Among College Students: Validation of the PICTS." Journal of Forensic Sciences51(5): 1174-1177.
Chen, C.-A. and D. Howitt (2007). "Different crime types and moral reasoning development in young offenders compared with non-offender controls." Psychology, Crime & Law13(4): 405-416.
Scott, K. and M. Straus (2007). "Denial, Minimization, Partner Blaming, and Intimate Aggression in Dating Partners." Journal of Interpersonal Violence22(7): 851-871.
Biology / Veit, R., H. Flor, et al. (2002). "Brain Circuits Involved in Emotional Learning in Antisocial Behaviour and Social Phobias in Humans." Neuroscience Letters328: 233-236.
Mednick, S., A., W. Gabrielli, F., et al. (1984). "Genetic Influences in Criminal Convictions: Evidence from an Adoption Cohort." Science224(4651): 891-894.
Shekarkhar, Z. and C. L. Gibson (2011). "Gender, Self-Control, and Offending Behaviors Among Latino Youth." Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice27(1): 63-80.

Upbringing as a Cause of Crime: Issue 1 Family

Some people ague that family breakdown leads to criminal behaviour. In pairs discus the following question

Juby, H. and D. Farrington (2001). "Disentangling the link Between Disrupted Families and Delinquency." British Journal of Criminology41: 22-40.
Background: Some psychologists argue that our relationships with our parents provide us with our templates for our relationships with others in the future. If these relationships are damaged then we might become criminals because we do not have a proper internal working model of how to conduct ourselves.
Aim: To find out if family disruption is linked to criminal behaviour, and if the causes of that disruption alters the chances of someone becoming a criminal.
Hypothesis/Research questions:

Is delinquency more common among boys from permanently disrupted families (broken homes) compared to boys from intact families?

Your guess

Are delinquency rates higher among boys from families disrupted by parental disharmony rather than death?

Your Guess

Are delinquency rates higher among boys who lose their mother as opposed to their father?

Your Guess
There were six other hypotheses
Method:
Longitudinal survey of the development of offending and antisocial behaviour in 411 males.
Natural Experiment
IV =
DV =
Materials/Measures:
Interview about such topics as living circumstances, employment histories, relationships with females, leisure activities such as drinking and fighting, and offending behaviour
Parent interviews about family income, family size, their employment histories, their child-rearing practices (including attitudes, discipline, and parental disharmony), their degree of supervision of the boy, and about all his temporary or permanent separations from them.
Crime record from courts
Sample:
At the time they were first contacted in 1961–2, these males were all living in a working-class inner-city area of South London. The sample was chosen by taking all the boys who were then aged 8–9 and on the registers of six state primary schools within a one-mile radius of a research office that had been established. In nearly all cases (94 per cent), their family breadwinner at that time (usually the father) had a working-class occupation (skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled manual worker). Most of the males were white (97 per cent) and of British origin.
Procedure:
Interviewed and tested at about ages 8, 10 and 14 in their schools, at about 16, 18 and 21 in a research office and at about 25 and 32 in their homes.
Interviews with parents carried out by psychiatric social workers at homeabout once a year from 8 until when he was aged 14–15. The primary informant was the mother, although most fathers were also seen. Thus, information about separations was collected by psychiatric social workers in repeated interviews with the boy’s parents.
Results:
Variables / % Juvenile self report delinquency(23) / % Juvenile Conviction (20) / % Adult Conviction (24)
Intact Family
Disrupted Family / 20
35 / 18
29 / 22
34
Cause of disruption – death
Cause of disruption - disharmony / 32
37 / 21
35 / 26
40
Loss of father
Loss of mother / 22
63 / 20
48 / 25
62
Conclusion:
From these results write a conclusion in your own words about the relationship between delinquency, family disruption, the type of disruption and which parent is more important.

Answers these questions in your own words – no copying!

What was the aim of the Juby & Farrington study? / Why did they want to investigate this?
What was the method used by Juby & Farrington? / Who were the participants in this study?
What design did Juby & Farrington use? / What was the procedure?
What did the findings show about the effect of family disruption on criminal behaviour? / What were the findings in relation to the types of disruption that are most damaging?
Why is this study useful? What recommendations would you make?

Evaluation of Juby

Area / Positive / Negative
Method
Sample
Materials
Procedure

Is this study:

Yes / No
Ethical
Useful
Generalisable
Valid

Upbringing as a Cause of Crime: Issue 2 Your Peers

Discussion

In pairs discuss the following questions;

Do you think there would be no crime if no-one ever had ever seen a crime being committed by someone else?
Being totally honest, what laws in our society do you think are worth breaking?
Have you ever broken those laws because you have learned to from your friends?
How have you ever explained a situation to yourself in a way that you feel it is worth breaking laws?
According to the following study, you will become delinquent when your friendships are more deviant than law abiding. Do you think this is true?
The study also felt that the media had little influence on people’s attitudes to criminal behaviour. Do you agree?

Background: Sutherland Differential Association Theory

Two key assumptions

Deviance occurs when people define a certain human situation as an appropriate occasion for violating social norms or criminal laws.
Definitions of the situation are acquired through an individual’s history of past experience.

The theory actual contains nine features here are six key ones
Concept / Do you agree

Criminal behaviour is learned

Not inherited or biological

Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.

Usually verbal interaction

The principal part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal groups.

Intimate personal groups big influence – media not seen as influence.

When criminal behaviour is learned, the learning includes the techniques of committing the crime and also the motives, attitudes and excuses for criminal behaviour.

‘tools of the trade’ are learned as well as attitudes to crime – badge of honour

The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favourable or unfavourable.

Some groups see particular laws as there to be broken. eg underage drinking or speeding.

A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law.

Repeated exposure to idea that crime is OK rather than exposure to idea crime is bad.
Akers, R., L., M. Krohn, D., et al. (1979). "Social Learning and Deviant Behaviour: A Specific Test of a General Theory." American Sociological Review44(4): 636-655.
Aim:To test a social learning theory of deviant behaviour is tested with survey data on adolescent drinking and drug behaviour.
Hypothesis/Research questions:Is there a correlation between alcohol/drug use and measures of differential association
Method: Correlation using a questionnaire
Materials: Questionnaire with several variables the key ones are listed below
Measures:
Abstinence-use of alcohol and marijuana is measured by a six-point frequency-of-use scale ranging from nearly every day to never.
Abuse among users is measured by combining responses to the frequency questions with responses to a question asking the respondents to check whether or not they had experienced on more than one occasion any of a list of problems while or soon after using alcohol or marijuana. This combination produced a four-point abuse scale ranging from heavy abuse to no abuse.
The main concepts to be measured are imitation, differential association, definitions, and differential reinforcement.

Index of Imitation

Total of all the "admired" models (parents, friends, other adults, etc.) whom the respondent reports having observed using the substance

Scale of Law-Abiding or Law-Violating Definitions

A scale of items measuring obedient or violating attitudes toward the law in general and alcohol and drug laws in particular.

Differential Peer Association Scale

A scale of three items measuring how many of respondents' best friends, friends with whom they associate most often, and friends whom they have known for the longest time use the substance.

Friends' Rewarding or Punishing Reactions

Respondents' report of anticipated or actual positive or negative sanctions of friends to respondents' use of the substance, ranging from encouraging their use to turning them in to the authorities.
Write a possible question for each one of these measures
Sample:
Data were collected by administering a self-report questionnaire to 3,065 male and 67% of the total number of students and female adolescents attending grades 7 through 12 in seven communities in three Midwestern states. This was done by randomly selecting schools and classes in schools
Procedure:
The questionnaire (which was pretested in a district not included in the final sample) was administered to all students in attendance in the selected classes on the day of the survey who had obtained written parental permission.
Results:
Measure / Correlation with Alcohol Abuse / Correlation with marijuana abuse
Imitation / 0.34 / 0.38
Definitions / 0.47 / 0.48
Associations / 0.68 / 0.79
Reactions / 0.40 / 0.50
Sketch a graph for each pair of scores
Conclusion:
From these results write a conclusion in your own words about the impact of others on the use of alcohol or marijuana. In your conclusion make sure you refer to all four measures.

Evaluation of Akers

Area / Positive / Negative
Method
Sample
Materials
Procedure

Is this study:

Yes / No
Ethical
Useful
Generalisable
Valid

Upbringing as a Cause of Crime:Issue 3 Poverty

Is poverty a cause of crime? Why might poverty cause crime?

Fafchamps, M. and B. Minten (2002) Crime and Poverty: Evidence From a Natural Experiment. Centre for the Study of African Economics Working Paper Series
Aim: To test whether a sudden change in poverty might cause an increase in crime levels
Hypothesis/Research questions:There is a change in the amount of crime between those times with high poverty and those with low poverty
Background:Following a disputed presidential election, fuel supply to the central highlands of the country was severely curtailed in early 2002, resulting in a massive -- if temporary -- increase in poverty. This situation, however dramatic it was for the population, enables us to ascertain the immediate effect of poverty on crime. Using data on crime and poverty before and during the crisis in a number of locations or ‘communes’, we examine whether locations where poverty increased more also experienced a higher increase in crime.
Method: Natural experiment
IV = Level of Poverty (low or High)
DV = crime rate
Materials: Questionnaire with several variables the key ones are listed below
Measures:
Levels of poverty
Numbers of cattle theft, property theft, homicides crop theft
Sample:
A stratified sampling frame was set up. Districts (fivondronanas) were divided into six strata depending on the distance to the provincial capital and on the availability of a tarred road. In each strata, one district or fivondronana was selected for every province. In each district, four communes were then selected at random, resulting in a total sample of 72 communes.
Procedure:
Via interviews with key informants and focus groups -- typically local administrators, public servants, traders, and farmers -- the survey collected detailed information on crime incidence in the April-May 2002 period immediately preceding the survey, as well as on the April-May 2001.
Results:
The number of people in extreme poverty increased
Increase in poverty results in an increase in burglaries and crop theft
Increase in poverty has no effect on homicides or cattle theft
Cattle theft is regarded an organized crime as it requires a lot of planning
Increasing the number of police officers only has an effect on decreasing cattle theft
Conclusion:
From these results write a conclusion in your own words about the impact of poverty on crime.

Describe each of the studies in 5 lines only

Juby & Farrington – Families
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Akers – Differential Association
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Fafchamps – Poverty
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

VaGUE evaluation of research into upbringing as a cause of crime

Claim / Evidence / Elaboration
Validity / Place
Where the activity is done might or might not create demand characteristics
Tasks
The task may or may not be measuring what it claims
Researcher
The researcher might be biased
Generalisability / Places
Will the findings apply to other places
People
Will these findings apply to other people
Time
Will these findings still apply in 10 years time
Usefulness / Practical
Does the research produce a practical application
Theory
Does the research support or refute a theory
Generative
Does the research generate new research
Ethics / Participants
Can the participants be hurt by the research
Public
Can the public be hurt by the research findings
Psychology
Does the research enhance or reduce the reputation of psychology

Previous Exam Questions on Upbringing

Jan 2011

a)How can upbringing in a disrupted family explain criminal behaviour? (10 marks)

b)Evaluate the use of longitudinal research when considering upbringing as an explanation of crime (15 marks)