Write a critical analysis of ONE piece of research

Criminologists have long been interested in the determiners of offense, particularly that which occurs on the streets. Street robbery is a peculiarly seeable type of offense and its effects have of import branchings for how safe people feel walking around outside of their places. If it can be understood why people commit street robberies and what type of factors influence them, so there is a higher opportunity of being able to set preventive steps in topographic point. For this ground, the research reviewed here is a paper by Wright, Brookman & A ; Bennett ( 2006 ) from The British Journal of Criminology which is entitled ‘The Foreground Dynamics of Street Robbery in Britain ‘ . This essay will critically analyze this piece of research, looking at its purposes and aims, the methods used in the research, the practical deduction of it every bit good as any issues of moralss and prejudice.

The purpose of this survey is clearly stated by its writers:

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


order now

“ Our purpose is to understand the socio-cultural context in which British street robbers contemplate and carry out their offenses. ” Wright et Al. ( 2006:1 )

This purpose is based on thoughts that have been emerging from research in the US about the grounds which wrongdoers are saying for holding committed offenses. The writers quote Wright & A ; Decker ( 1997 ) who have found that wrongdoers have begun to expose a greater designation with street civilization such that they want to indulge in activities that are culturally promoted and this provides the immediate ground why they carry out robberies.

The specific aim in this paper was to bring forth grounds that would back up one of two types of theoretical accounts for the grounds which people commit street offense. The first of the two viing theories is rational pick theory. Gill ( 2000 ) is one illustration of research that uses this attack and it is based on the thought that robbers – in this instance robbers of commercial premises such as Bankss – are chiefly motivated by equilibrating up the odds of being caught against the wagess that the offense will supply. The 2nd type of theory so is that which sees the actions of wrongdoers as more culturally determined by the demands the wrongdoer has for their peculiar life style. Within this 2nd theoretical theoretical account there is much less accent on the importance of ‘rational picks ‘ and more in the importance of direct cultural influences. The nonsubjective so was to transport out a figure of in-depth structured interviews with wrongdoers functioning sentences for those types of offenses that the writers wanted to look into.

The method used to garner informations in order to turn to these purposes and aims was based around a series of 27 interviews. The respondents in the research largely came from Cardiff or Bristol and were selected by a psychologist seeking the prison database for those captives that had been given sentences for offenses that were compatible with the research such as Actual Bodily Harm or robbery and so on. In add-on to this method, advertizements were besides placed around the prisons to inquire for wrongdoers who fitted the choice standards for the survey to come frontward. Those who had committed street robberies were the peculiar focal point of this survey. Of the 27 respondents eventually chosen for this survey the mean age was 25, 2 were female, the bulk were either ‘English ‘ , ‘White ‘ or ‘Welsh ‘ while one was Afro-Caribbean, one Asiatic and one from the Middle East.

Data was collected from these persons through the usage of semi-structured interviews. Wright et Al. ( 2006 ) argue that the semi-structured interview has two chief benefits. First it ensures that the interview will cover all of the chief points of research involvement. Second, because it is a flexible signifier it besides allows the respondent to run beyond the specific nature of the inquiries so that farther information can be gathered. Four chief countries were covered by the interview. The first examined the condemnable background of the wrongdoer in inquiry and in peculiar their experience and transition through the condemnable justness system. The 2nd asked about the fortunes of the street robbery which they had committed most late. The 3rd asked about any types of force that they had been involved in that were related to street robbery. Finally the respondents were asked about the life styles the wrongdoers had enjoyed ( or non ) before their imprisonment. In order to enter what the respondents said, the interviews were taped.

Turning so to the consequences of the survey it is necessary to analyze here how these are consistent with the two different theories of offense put frontward antecedently. From this information, practical thoughts about offense bar and other related issues can be discussed. The consequences of the survey are set within the analysis of cultural criminology. Cultural criminology, as Katz ( 1988 ) explains, is based on the thought that the cardinal motives for offense are based in cultural thoughts of the seductive powers of offense and how it feeds into aberrant subcultures. Different lines of research have pointed to the thought that offense is engaged in to keep a peculiar sort of convivial life style instead than what might be considered within the other theoretical model as a ‘rational pick ‘ .

Wright et Al. ( 2006 ) place a figure of different classs of ways in which their respondents talked about their offense. The first of these was in footings of ‘fast hard currency ‘ . While it is established in old research that wrongdoers frequently province that they need hard currency instantly, this survey found that it was non ever for subsistence points that the money was required. In fact many of the respondents talked about the demand to keep a condemnable life style that required regular injections of hard currency.

The 2nd class was that of ‘good times/partying ‘ . This was non, nevertheless, understood in the same manner that a suburban party might continue, alternatively respondents were speaking about their dependence to drugs, or to purchase intoxicant or to go on chancing. Money gained by street robbery was usually spent instantly by the respondents in order to derive a speedy high. A 3rd class was ‘keeping up appearances/flash hard currency ‘ . This class referred to the thought that the respondents were acute to raise their position. This meant that a auto was non so of import in itself but was critical in exposing a peculiar type of ‘good times ‘ life style to other people. A 3rd class was ‘buzz/excitement ‘ which referred to the thought that it was found to be a pleasance in itself to perpetrate a robbery. A 4th class involved ‘anger/desire to contend ‘ – this referred to where a victim was attacked violently but the sum of force used was much greater than that really required to consequence the robbery. It was, once more, the pleasance taken in the force that was of import for some of the respondents. Finally there was a sense in which the respondents used robbery as ‘informal justice/writing wrongs ‘ . Two subgroups were seen in this, the first of transporting out a robbery as a manner of taking retaliation against another individual, the second was transporting out a robbery in order to acquire back money or ownerships that were owed.

Wright et Al. ( 2006 ) argue that their findings show that there is small grounds for the rational pick position. The writers claim that the job with the rational pick position is that it greatly over-simplifies an highly complicated state of affairs. The ground for this is that it tends to concentrate on what are considered rational evidences in an ‘objective ‘ sense. Wright et Al. ( 2006 ) argue that this tends to except the socio-cultural factors involved in offense.

The practical deduction of the consequences of this survey is that the rational pick position does non supply a strong theoretical account of the causes of street robbery. Wright et Al. ( 2006 ) argue that one of the chief grounds that the wrongdoers had carried out these robberies was to keep their life styles every bit good as to keep their position degrees in the eyes of their equals. Wright et Al. ( 2006 ) claim that this helps to practically explicate why robberies in the street are so frequently for such little sums of money. It has been hard to depict in other theoretical accounts why anyone would take the hazard of transporting out a robbery in the street for such minimum wages. Wright et Al. ( 2006 ) argue that the ways in which wrongdoers decide to act is better viewed through their emotional reactions to their socio-cultural state of affairs and that these determinations are hardly rational at all in the sense that many other authors mean it.

One unfavorable judgment of this research is that there is an premise that the attainment of the convivial life styles does non suit within the rational pick image. This research tends to presume that taking for a speedy hole of money to keep this life style is non a rational pick. It could be argued that this peculiar interpretational pick is a small excessively neatly aligned with the writer ‘s presumed theoretical orientations, in other words they have an involvement in happening grounds for their ain preferable culturally-based theory and confuting the rational pick theory with which they do non hold.

A farther unfavorable judgment of this research is that there is an premise that the classs of grounds for which wrongdoers committed street robbery fits into a socio-cultural position. However, instead than suiting into cultural criminology, it is rather imaginable that thoughts like the ‘desire to contend ‘ and ‘informal justness ‘ , for illustration, really concentrate on more single factors – things that could suit within a rational pick theory.

The chief type of prejudice which a survey like this has to postulate with is merely whether the respondents, who are felons in this instance, are stating the truth. As Wright et Al. ( 2006 ) acknowledge there is really no dependable manner to be able to state if the respondents are stating the truth or non. They quote the research of Martin ( 2000 ) on this point reasoning that it has been found to be comparatively rare that wrongdoers lie to research workers when measured on objectively testable information. Importantly, though, Wright et Al. ( 2006 ) point out that while an wrongdoer might be stating the truth as they see it, that does non intend that their memory might non be missing. The writers of this paper claim that they help to get the better of this type of callback prejudice by showing the positions of the respondents in their ain words so that their significance can be evaluated in its original context.

The chief type of ethical inquiry to be addressed in this paper was maintaining the individualities of the participants anon. . This is because the respondents are likely to uncover information to the interviewer that is of a personal and possibly even lawfully detrimental nature. Anonymity was achieved in this research by inquiring the respondents to take a anonym at the start of the interview procedure and so go oning to utilize this anonym throughout the study of the research.

In decision, this piece of research aimed to seek and understand why wrongdoers commit street robberies. In making so, two different theories – rational pick theory and accounts from cultural criminology – were used to try to explicate the behavior. The aims of the research were clearly stated: to interview and analyze a group of wrongdoers ‘ talk on the topic. The method of utilizing an interview and the manner participants were selected was besides clearly described. Ethical issues and prejudice were both addressed by the writers and dealt with efficaciously. Finally, though, it was slightly ill-defined how the research related to pattern as there was some unfavorable judgments of the decisions that the writers drew from their research.

Mentions

Gill, M. ( 2000 )Commercial Robbery: Wrongdoers Positions on Security and Crime Prevention. London: Blackstone Press.

Katz, J. ( 1988 )Seductions of Crime: Moral and Animal Attractions in Doing Evil. New York: Basic Books.

Martin, C. ( 2000 ) Making Research in a Prison Setting. In: V. Jupp. , P. Davies, P. Francis ( Eds. )Making Criminological Research. London: Sage.

Wright, R. , Brookman, F. , Bennett, T. ( 2006 ) The Foreground Dynamics of Street Robbery in Britain.British Journal of Criminology, 46, 1-15.

Wright, R. , Decker, S. H. ( 1997 )Armed Robbers in Action. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Critically Evaluate the SGC Guidelines on Overarching<< >>The prime minister is getting tough on failing

About the author : admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.