This essay will examine the understanding of

This essay will analyze the apprehension of the causes of condemnable behavior from both a psychological and a sociological position, and concentrate on countries where the deterministic psychological criminologies do non incorporate good with the more classicist sociological criminologies, taking to a deficiency of apprehension of what causes offense. The hunt for a cause of condemnable behavior is in itself an illustration of how psychological and sociological positions differ. The thought that triggered the hunt for a cause of offense ( so condemnable behavior could be isolated and controlled ) is embedded within constructs such as societal order, scientific advancement, and civilization. Hay ( 1975, as cited by Sharpe, J 1996 p112 ) argues that during the 18th century the traditional relationship between faith and offense control, came to be replaced by a acknowledgment that offense must be controlled in order to protect the rights of property-owners. As offense itself was being defined, new apprehensions around penalty, the legal system, and the province were in the procedure of altering and/or creative activity. The legal system was traveling off from a localised and traditional system to a more centralized and politicised system that was protective of the involvements of the electorate.

During this period of societal and cultural dynamism, the paradigm of scientific discipline was easy replacing the bing paradigm of theocracy, and the popular construct of scientific discipline was alining to thoughts such as advancement and the hunt for truth. Darwin published his theory of natural choice in the late 19th century, which proposed the thought that worlds were similar to other animals, but were merely more extremely evolved and developed. It followed that some of the worst temperaments within the human character may be the consequence of a reversion of an person to a less-developed province ( Darwin 1971, as cited by Muncie, J, 2001 p9 ) . The biological position of single behavior within Darwin’s theory gave rise to a position of condemnable behavior as caused by biological differences within the condemnable. From this one thought, all of the constructs related to offense and to the control of offense changed irrevocably. Indeed, Beirne ( 1993, as cited by Muncie, J 2001 p9 ) sees criminology itself, and the hunt for the causes of offense, as owing their being to this rational interruption. Prior to this, single bureau had been conceptualised along classical lines, that is, persons exercised free will and made rational picks.

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now

The positive school of idea that characterised all scientific methodological analysiss, and hence scientific discipline itself at that clip generated a positive position of criminology. From a rationalist position, condemnable behavior was caused by biological and/or cultural effects, which could be isolated, measured, understood, and treated or cured. One of the first ‘modern’ criminological surveies sought to mensurate anthropological features such as skull size and facial construction as a forecaster of condemnable behavior ( Lombroso & A ; Ferrero 1895, as cited by Muncie, J. 2001, p8 ) . Lombroso & A ; Ferrero’s research was instrumental in determining public perceptual experiences around the abnormalcy of persons that behaved reprehensively at the clip. If felons were easy identifiable by gross physical features, so offense could be controlled by analyzing people and segregating them from the remainder of society. There was small likeliness of rehabilitation as the cause of condemnable behavior was biological.

The premise that condemnable behavior is unnatural implicit in positive positions of condemnable behavior, rests on cultural norms and constructs of what normal behavior is. As we have already seen, non merely offense, but the legal system and the province itself were all undergoing important alteration during this period, which influenced both how offense was defined, and how condemnable behavior should be dealt with. It was politically necessary to protect the rights of landholders and fiscal establishments, as these people were cardinal members of the electorate. Crime was ( and still is ) hence defined in portion by political jussive moods, and scientific discipline was brought to bear in order to happen a agency of commanding offense to fulfill political jussive moods. We can now see how sociological factors and psychological factors both contribute to an apprehension of condemnable behavior.

From a psychological position, a scope of factors, from biological to social and cultural, determines single behavior that is both unnatural and condemnable. Punishment of a offense is required to handle an unnatural status, and should be tailored to the single felon. From a sociological position, persons have free will, and do a rational pick to act in a condemnable manner. All felons are basically the same, so all should be equal in the eyes of the jurisprudence. The penalty should therefore suit the offense instead than the condemnable. Disincentive of condemnable behavior instead than intervention is the manner to command offense. Persons will burden the hazard of being caught and punished against the benefits of the offense and do the appropriate pick for them. Psychological factors around causing of offense focal point on the abnormalcy of the person, ensuing from either familial sensitivities or features, or physiological or personality traits. Sociological factors around causing of offense Centre on societal or cultural factors that determine the behavior of the single felon through determining the picks that an person can do. Crime is a societal fact, although one which must be managed in order to protect society itself.

Durkheim ( 1897 / 1952, as cited in Smith, M.J. 1998, p84-85 ) researched rates of self-destruction to place social or cultural forms, that may light sociological causes of offense. The survey aligned to empirical demands for grounds and analysis, and so was accepted by the scientific constitution and by the populace. Durkheim chose suicide as the topic of his research because the dominant belief around the cause of self-destruction at the clip of the survey was that self-destruction was an irrational act caused by the fundamental law of the person. Suicide was hence a condemnable act defined sociologically but caused by psychological factors.

Durkheim accepted that the motivations of an person could be explained psychologically but that an account of self-destruction required a general apprehension of the sociological factors that created the societal ‘fact’ of self-destruction. In this instance, sociological factors were brought to bear on understanding and re-conceptualising a condemnable act that was antecedently considered to be caused by psychological factors. The scientific method itself influenced the manner in which Durkheim’s consequences were written and interpreted, and the prevalent manner of believing within scientific circles at the clip was that of natural scientific discipline. The medical metaphor was a common device for pass oning and gestating theoretical accounts of causal account of all mode of phenomena. Durkheim himself utilised the medical metaphor to depict how societal conditions could be understood, and cured or treated. In this manner, the cultural values of the clip and topographic point Durkheim inhabited influenced the research, and the manner in which the research consequences influenced the wider civilization. Sociological factors influenced how Durkheim understood and conceptualised his capable affair. Psychological factors and sociological factors are hence inextricable. The psychological can non be isolated from the sociological, as both are interdependent. Similarly, the persons that read Durkheim’s research may hold reconstructed their ain single apprehensions of the causes of self-destruction as a consequence. Again, external factors influence the internal universe of the person.

The psychological apprehension and the sociological apprehension of causes of condemnable behaviors are basically related. It would therefore seem sensible to anticipate the survey of the causes of condemnable behavior to see both psychological and sociological factors. One of the jobs associated with taking both positions into history when understanding criminalism is theoretical understanding. Not merely are sociological factors much broader than psychological factors in footings of range and scope, but criminological theory is split along lines of determinism / rational pick, or positivism / classicalism. Positivist scientific discipline can do the objectification of scientific topics through classifying and classification of persons as groups, which can run in concurrence with medical metaphors to specify subdivisions of society as unnatural, in the same manner that felons were seen by Lombroso as being unnatural.

Merely as the position that condemnable behavior and felons are unnatural carries with it concepts of intervention, remedy, right, and incorrect ( amongst others ) , the criminologies that rest on rationalist theory have a different apprehension of the cause of condemnable behavior than make theories that rest on causal factors that are sociological. From a research point of position, it is so rather hard to integrate both psychological factors and sociological factors into a survey. The implicit in premises of what causes condemnable behaviors are really different depending on your point of view, and are conceptualised within theory really otherwise. Theory drives methodological attacks, such as isolation and definition of variables, measuring processs, analytical techniques, and reading of findings. The apprehension of the research worker is influenced by both psychological and sociological factors, non least the clip and topographic point that they inhabit, and the establishment that the research is being carried out for. Once the research is completed and published, the research itself helps to build how people think about what causes condemnable behavior.

In footings of the person defined as condemnable, both psychological and sociological factors have powerful influences on them. Womans, as a gender, are arguably defined from a sociological point of position both in footings of the economic system, and in footings of power constructions, and the function of adult females as a gender has shifted as these sociological phenomena have changed. Harmonizing to Anne Worrall ( 1990, p2 ) , traditional theories of female offense have been positive, and chiefly distinguish female felons from female non-criminals by features other than their condemnable Acts of the Apostless. As with Lombroso, the features used to specify female felons are psychological and deterministic. Sociological surveies of female felons have focussed on structural issues as the causes of their condemnable behavior, and so hold overlooked the experiences of single adult females, and hence are of limited usage in understanding psychological factors that cause condemnable behavior. This is another illustration of how theory can restrict understanding. Sociological theory focal points on sociological phenomena and psychological theory focal points on psychological phenomena.

The definition of adult females as a gender in footings of power dealingss serves to render single adult females, and single adult females felons, deaf-and-dumb person, in footings of the dominant power construction. Ardener ( 1978, as cited by Worrell, A, p11 ) states that members of hushed groups can merely pass on through the dominant manners of look, as the group the single belongs to is low-level and hence muted unless they conform with the mores of the dominant group. Female felons are hence limited in footings of their bureau by the sociological factor of patriarchal establishments. Not merely are they unnatural because they are felons, but they are low-level ( and arguably unnatural ) by virtuousness of the fact they are non male. Therefore, sociological factors associating to female felons shape the apprehension of what causes female condemnable behavior, and are separate to the apprehension of psychological causes of condemnable behavior in females. A sociological apprehension of adult females as a gender may transport with it wide classs like homemaker, cocotte, individual female parent which traditionally do non use in the manner that the bulk of males, or male felons, are understood. A individual female parent, for illustration, may transport out a condemnable act because of a assortment of sociological factors, which could act upon her at a psychological degree in a different manner than it would an unemployed thirty-year old male with no kids, even though the sociological factors would be the same for both. The jurisprudence states that all people are equal, but the causes of condemnable behavior could be different for a female than for a male, and the punitory or rehabilitative attack may besides be different, based on the individual’s gender, and fortunes environing a gender-specific ( sociological ) function.

The apprehension of causes of condemnable behavior demands to integrate both psychological and sociological factors so as to capture the comprehensiveness and scope of structural factors at a societal or cultural degree, and the psychological factors at an single degree, that for each person could do condemnable behavior. There are deductions for both the person and society in footings of how condemnable behavior is controlled. At a psychological degree, is it effectual to handle ( possibly exteriorize ) all persons as the same, and gestate the causes of condemnable behavior and the control of condemnable behavior as wide, structural factors? At a sociological degree, is it possible to see the person, and the specific fortunes around each condemnable act, and to rehabilitate each condemnable harmonizing to their psychological profile?

Criminal behavior and the causes of condemnable behaviors are complex concepts that incorporate both social and psychological factors, which have complex and separately differentiated relationships and interactions. Both structural and personal factors need to be taken into history both in understanding the causes of condemnable behavior, but besides in understanding how the causes of condemnable behavior can beast be tackled.

In decision, this essay has examined both sociological apprehension of what causes condemnable behavior, and psychological apprehension of what causes condemnable behavior, and looked at how the two degrees of analysis interact with one another across several illustrations of criminological research. It is apparent that both apprehensions differ basically, but both are valid positions of what causes condemnable behavior. The chief difference between these two schools of idea seems to stem from the beginnings of criminology, and the clang between classical and positive conceptualizations of bureau and determinism in act uponing single behavior. This distinction non merely influences how condemnable behavior is understood, but cascades into apprehensions of what causes condemnable behavior, and hence what can be done to command condemnable behavior. The distinction in criminology between psychological causing and sociological causing of condemnable behavior stems from the philosophical and theoretical roots of the assorted criminologies, which are to a grade incommensurate, although in the concluding analysis ; all sociological and psychological theories are about the same phenomenon: people. I hence think that there is a failure to incorporate psychological factors and sociological factors in understanding the causes of condemnable behavior, and that this has really existent effects for both persons and society as a whole. A full apprehension of what causes condemnable behavior is required to command offense, but this may be beyond the range of current scientific method, or political will.


Sharpe, J. ( 1996 ) , Crime, Order, and Historical Change, In Muncie, J. , and McLaughlin, E. ( explosive detection systems ) ,The Problem of Crime, London, Sage Publications in association with the Open University

Muncie, J, ( 2001 ) ,Reader Guide 1, the Search for the Causes of Crime,The Open University

Smith, M. ( 1998 ) ,Social Science in Question,Bath, The Bath Press

Worrall, A. ( 1990 ) ,Piquing Women, Female Lawbreakers and the Criminal Justice System,London, Routledge

Treatment Of Sex Offenders Psychology Essay<< >>Compare Gerald of Wales treatment of the Irish

About the author : admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.