THEORIES AND CAUSATION OF CRIME Homework Help

 Define and state when a case becomes a crime………………..

Introduction

Crime is the violation of laws or rules for which some sovereign body or authority can in due course recommend a conviction. Currently, crime can refer to offences against the public or the government which can give rise to a civil cause of action. To comprehend the concept of criminal justice, it is crucial to understand the most important policies on the foundation of theory of criminology. Many policies fail as a result of misconception, biased execution or total lack of knowledge of the theories. So much time and resources can be saved by the policy makers if they can have a good understanding of the theories of criminology. For instance, most current criminologists make use of law description instead of normative explanation of crime. Law explanation takes into account the legislative description enclosed in the punitive code, legal decrees or edicts. Normative description takes into account crime as an infringement of standards, though there are instances when criminology can put light on standards and their infringement. Every theory of criminology constitute of situate of postulations about the nature of human beings, the structure of the community and the doctrine of causation. It also constitute of a phenomenon description and a forecast of the occurrence. The theories of criminology have emphasis on the research of causes or reasons for the crime, and from time to time have significant issues to discuss about the persons in the system of criminal justice, for instance, law enforcement, casualties, correctional personnel and legal representatives. In this essay, Jessica Tata’s case in Houston will be critically evaluated using the theories of criminology to establish the merits and demerits of the theories.

Criminological theories

There are various theories of criminology which have been explained by different criminologists as to the causes of the crimes. Among them include; control theories, strain theories, learning theories, biochemistry theory, peacemaking theory, feminist theory, left realism and postmodern theory among others (Shoemaker, 2000). In this context, the main focus will be on the first three mentioned theories.

Strain theory of criminology

It was first put forward by Emile Durkheim who is considered to be the father of current sociology. In this theory, crime is viewed as an ordinary result in which individuals define their ambitions, such as aspirations for prosperity, learning, status icon and career, to high and unavoidably realize strain or objective impasses in their way of life. The only two available options are; to lower down ambitions or raise their opportunities.

People will engage in crimes because they get too stressed as a result of not achieving their ambitions in record time. Hence, they would wish to break away from the stress they are encountering. For instance, people may employ brutality to put an end to the irritation from other people, while some may take other people’s property to reduce problems related to their finances, or some may flee from home to run away from obnoxious blood relations. Similarly, others may be involved in crime to avenge those who have offended them in one way or another.

The latest version of strain theory is the 1992 Robert Agnew’s universal strain theory. In this theory, he portrays two universal classification of strain that makes a contribution to crime. This stipulates that; other people stop one from attaining their goals and on the other hand, others acquire items one treasures or gives one negative items or noxious stimuli. The chief goal in United States may be money. Many individuals are motivated when they toil to make a lot of money, whether they are poor or rich. This is because money is important to acquire items hence one needs inclusion of life necessities and opulence items (Cullen & Agnew, 2002).

However, many individuals are averted from acquiring the money they require via genuine channels like working. Alternatively, some individuals may be stressed in getting the right amount of money they need and so they may make an effort to acquire money through illegitimate means. Some of the means include; theft, drug peIDling, prostitution and robbery. Some research sustains this case, such that criminals and felonious get involved in income generating crime, since they need the cash but they cannot get it easily in the normal way.

In desire for wealth, people may also want to attain a status or admiration. They want to be affirmatively regarded by other people. They desire to be treated with respect by other people in a just or reasonable way. Some theorists have the argument that some people desire to achieve the masculine status where, for one to be a man, one has to be autonomous, overriding, strong, and aggressive. In this respect, they will coerce others to treat them with respect, engage in crime and other forms of violence. A major goal for most adolescents is independence from parents. They want to have the authority over others and oppose demands of others without their acquiescence. In normal situations, adolescents are denied the independence which may lead to delinquency actions.

Learning theory

They have a tendency to go after Edwin Sutherland’s theory of differential involvement extended in 1947. The theory is normally termed as peer group theories though it is more than just peer analysis, as it entails affirmatively and unconstructively reinforcing for persons. The principal side was described by Ronald Akers, which came to be referred to as Akers’s theory.  People learn to get involved in crime thorough their interaction with other people. They are therefore buttressed for crime, find out the ideas favorable to crime and eventually vulnerable to models of crimes. As a repercussion, the individuals come to see crime as an action that is admired or validated in certain circumstances (Akers & Sellers, 2004).

In regard to this theory, young people get knowledge of crime in a similar way they get to be involved in matching conduct through relation or experience to others. Relational clusters like family and friends have a large effect or influence on what young people learn. As a matter of fact, relation with criminal friends is the highest forecaster of criminology as the youth learn from them through interaction. For instance, young people may learn crime through media interaction which reinforces them, makes them develop confidence and eventually model them as a result of excessive interaction with the media.

Through differential reinforcement of crime, a person may advise other persons to get involved in crimes via the fortification retributions they give for conduct. Hence crime is more probable to take place when it is repeatedly fortified and reattributed and results in huge quantity of retributions and unconventional conducts. These fortifications may be positive or negative hence individuals may go for money and feelings of pleasure to associate with crime.

Some other people, may not only fortify the crimes, but may also train others beliefs complimentary to crimes. In the society, most people are educated that crime is wrong and hence they grow up believing they can not involve in crime as a consequence. Some learn beliefs that are complementary to crime hence likely to be involved in crime.

Lastly, there are criminal imitation models which stipulate that behavior is a function of the conduct of people around the individual. Individuals normally emulate others behavior or model into other people’s behavior. This may be for the reason that they normally see them and acquire fortifications for their deeds. Learning theory is the greatest supported theory of crime in the current generation due to the supporting evidence, both statistical and qualitative data.

Control theory

These are theories about social power. The theories describe that behavior dependent on the psychology of the person. It puts attention on individual connection to their driving forces of socialization. Such forces may comprise of preachers, teachers, parents, police force, among others. It researches the extent of efficiency in bonding with figures of influence into attachment with the community hence, safeguarding individuals from problems with the legal system (Rawlers, 2005).

Theories of control explain the main categories of social control or moderations to crime. There are three main types of control which are: direct, stake in conformity and internal control. In direct control perspective, majority of people view that such control maybe exercised by next of kin members, school administrators, colleagues, residents in the neighborhood, law enforcers and others. Nevertheless, next of kin are the main foundation of direct control basing on the association with the individual. Three components exist in direct control: rule setting, conduct monitoring and crime approving (Bohm, 2001).

In conforming to the chance, there are efforts which may be effectual with some individuals than with others. For instance, the adolescents are prone to less or more direct controls at the learning institutions.  There are same rules, monitoring and similar permits if they stray. As a result some adolescent conform to the controls while others often defy the controls on habitual basis. However, this largely depends on the extent of what the youth have to lose. Those with a lot to lose, usually refrain from crime, while those with less to lose will regularly involve themselves in crime. For instance, if some individuals have a high emotional connection with the members of the family, and that if they engage in crime will hurt them a lot, they will not get into crime. This is contrary to the opposite where some will engage in crime to hurt most, those they despise.

Finally, with internal control, some individuals may get themselves in conditions where they are prone to involve themselves in crime. Nevertheless, some individual continue refraining from crime due to high internal control they possess. Internal control is all about individuals’ self control which may restrain or allow one to engage in crime. This will largely rely upon the level at which individuals believe that crime is bad and the stake in conformity.  Some persons possess character traits which may make them to be less receptive to internal controls. For example, they might retaliate back easily if provoked into anger, hence engage in more violence (Witte & Witt, 2000).

Jessica Tata’s case

Jessica Tata, who was in charge of Houston home care center recklessly, left children who were later burned to death, fled to Nigeria to avoid prosecution. Four children died in the inferno while three were injured as Tata went to grocery store to pursue her own interests, to earn more income. She apparently left an oil pot boiling on the stove with the children unattended but when she came back the house was on fire which lead to the death of four kids and injury to other three kids. Jessica’s case is a good example of strain theory.

Jessica actually did not intend for this to happen. This is because she did not see a possibility of its occurrence. Being young and vigilant, she thought that she could go the general store in record time and come back to take care of the kids under her jurisdiction. She had ambitions to carry out numerous tasks at the same time though she did not anticipate the children under her care would burn to death due to negligence. Tata had a lot to do on that particular day; she was to take care of the kids, purchase groceries and perhaps accomplish other tasks under her obligations.

Considering her age at 22 she had a desire to accomplish the tasks to earn more money. This was legitimate way of getting money to meet her needs as a young lady. That is, by working. She expects her peers to treat her with respect, like somebody, and this can only be achieved by the level of income she obtains through her work. Tata cannot opt for crime acts such as prostitution and drug peIDling which are highly criminal in the United States.

She cannot be held responsible for the death of the children because, going to the grocery was perhaps part of the tasks that was expected of her. Those who left her with the responsibility of caring for the children must surely have known she may require a helping hand. She may not be expected to ask for help as her subconscious mind was all focused on the motivating factor- the wages she was to earn.

As much as fingers may be pointed at Tata, people should understand, when fending for children, there are always emergency needs that must be sorted out urgently. For instance, missing ingredients and so, most mothers or ladies will have a notion that they can easily run and get them in record time to resume on their duties. This was the case with Tata as she had no idea of the perceived danger of leaving the boiling pot on the stove. Its a pity that the children had to die in that manner, but no woman nor man in her or his right mind can wish to brutally end life in such a way. When pressure piles up on individuals they tend to forget the simplest obvious things just like Tata. The blame should therefore not only be on Tata, but also on the people who left the children under her care. They should have employed another person to support Tata in conducting her duties.

In conclusion, from the above case in Houston, it is evident that some causative factors of crime might really not be intentional. Some crimes may happen by accidents of which punishment subjected to them may be as severe as those intentionally caused crimes. It is important for the legislative statutes to effectively evaluate the motive behind the crimes, and the frequency of occurrences to prevent convicting innocent victims. Just like Tata who may be put in for a period not less than 20 years. She understood the probable verdict and she was helped by her brother to flee to Nigeria.

References

Ann Dryden Witte and Robert Witt, (2000), Crime Causation: Economic Theories, Wellesley

College and NBER, and University of Surrey

Bohm, R. (2001), a Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Cullen & Agnew, (2002), Criminological Theory, Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury

Lionel C.M. VonFrederick Rawlins, (2005), Theories of Crime Causation, VonFrederick Group

Article

Ronald L. Akers and Christine S. Sellers, (2004), Criminological Theories: Introduction,

Evaluation, And Application, 4th Edition, Roxbury Publishing Company, Los Angeles, California

Shoemaker, D. (2000), Theories of Delinquency, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.

Order now