Category: Criminal Behavior

How Law Enforcement Has Changed Since 9/11

Introduction

In a period of 15 years since 9/11, the US has been faced with a sense of fear mostly, by American Muslims who add up 1% of the community. This fear is embraced in the type of pestering, harassment, and violent behavior (Tonry, 2017). There have been great changes in the police and other law enforcement agencies. There have been also increased sharing of information, federal, state and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies (Weimann, G. 2005). The paper implies some of the changes which have occurred since the 9/11 the 9/11 attacks in the American policing.

How the structure of law enforcement changed with regard to the development and abolishment of various agencies

The involvement of the police has resulted in significant changes mostly in areas of leadership, structure, culture, policy, and technology (Weimann, G. 2005). There is also an adoption of new levels of transparency and aspect of understanding education and law enforcement.

How the management of policing and police activities changed

The change of the policy has led to improved police-community relations (Weimann, G. 2005). This has facilitated in building trust and mutual respect between police and communities. While on the other hand, police understands modes of communication, how to interact with citizens and not to use deadly force.

How the funding of police functions changed

Due to financial stability in police docket, police are able to cope with change in technology, whereby it facilitates further studies mostly in law education in order to ensure safety and security. The fund also facilitates the movement of the police from one place to another in case the need arises or for call of emergency.

The laws which were implemented to limit the enforcement of power or authority

The policies which were reviewed included community policing, use of force, bias and policing data (Weiss & Chermak, 2015). Departments of justice saw the confrontations between police and the public and came into an agreement to change the above policies in order, to enhance the relationship between communities and police for proper communication during crisis situations.

The overall changes in police function and activity which can be seen as a direct result of these changes

The overall for the change of these functions was the issue which concerned the investigations of officer-involved deaths. This issue made up the nine states to come up with procedures of improving transparency in regard to investigations of the officer-involved in deaths or allegations of police officers abuse of force.

How the noted changes affected the American people

These changes were set to better the lives of the American people. The changes in one way or another positively affected them, because the changes accomplished the purposes as per as reuniting the targeted population and communities was concerned. It also enhanced proper feedback between the police and the community.

If all these served to make the entity that is American law enforcement more effective or less

All these changes in American law enforcement have been effective to the nation in that, it has built up the trust between the police and the communities. Citizens now feel safe compared to 9/11 as there is proper security and peace has prevailed.

Efforts which can be taken to improve American law enforcement

The American authority should improve the juvenile justice systems around the country. Protect the youth as the future leaders of tomorrow. Establish some programs and initiatives so as to build up a police-youth relationship and prevent youth victimization and violence. They should also continue to fund the police in order to enable them to cope with the rapid change in technology.

References

1. Tonry, M. (2017). Why U.S. Incarceration Are Rates So High? Crime & Delinquency, 45(4), 419–437.
2. Weimann, G. (2005). The Theater of Terror: The Psychology of Terrorism and the Mass Media. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 9(3–4), 379–390.
3. Weiss, A., & Chermak, S. M. (2015). The News Value of African-Aerican Victims: An Examination of the Media’s Presentation of Homicide. Journal of Crime and Justice, 21(2), 71–88.

How Does A Lack Of Human Development Contribute To Criminal Behavior?

A criminal’s home can resonate with many different meanings. To understand a criminal, an individual must first understand their lifestyle. The origin of a crime can be nebulous, hence the fundamental importance of the criminal’s upbringing. Criminal tendencies distinctly tie to psychopathic or sociopathic personality traits. Underlying constituents could have triggered criminal behavior, provided that the criminal is not psychologically abnormal. People are not born criminals, a singular occurrence in their life could have guided them to this path.

Internal Factors of Criminal Development

Inside the head of every criminal is a foretelling past. The mind is an intricate path that shows distortion, inciting unlawful actions. Criminals are a product of the circumstances that encompass their lives. Former circumstances indicate the type of environment that will surround them in the future. Notably, figures who trigger unwanted memories from a killer’s past inadvertently cause the killer to target them. Serial offenders may go after people who remind them of childhood trauma. For example, one might attack drug addicts because that was what their parents were, believing that killing them was their way of “saving them.” By portraying themselves as a savior, the individual may even go as far as killing their own parents, which to them is logical. The ambiance of a person’s past or present home is an integral part of their crimes.Unmerited crimes occur because society drills hate into anyone willing to listen. Hate crime offenders surmise that groups of unfamiliar people are threatening and “…may not be motivated by hate, but rather by fear, ignorance or anger. These can lead to the dehumanization of unfamiliar groups and targeted aggression.” (American Psychological Association 1) Prejudice towards specific groups because of their religion, gender, or disability, encourage hate crimes.

External Factors of Criminal Development

Society associated with the criminal often lacks environmental factors crucial to positive development. The way a person was raised is a decisive factor for criminal behavior. Characteristics formed as a result of an involved or absent community may promote criminal development. Home is the natural school for children, reverberating future habits and morals associated with criminals. When negative societal behaviors enclose the individual, it makes it harder to differentiate their thoughts from others. Absent parental figures seldom decrease behavior linked to criminality. If a guardian is negligent of their parental duties, they take partial responsibility for all possible outcomes. “Sufficient supervision of children’s activities ensures that the child will not drift into types of antisocial and delinquent behaviors.” (Wright et al. 1) The morals of children, subsequently obtained from societal bonds, construct their future conduct. Illegal behavior can also be a lifestyle and not just a habit due to the criminal’s socio-economic status. Neighborhood dynamics in areas of economic disadvantage experience increasing crime rates. In high-crime neighborhoods, coercion caused by cultural goals and social structures drive people to commit crimes. “Individuals living in poverty are under immense stress and many resort to crime.” (Maryville University 1) Additionally, if the offender’s parents were criminals, the time they spent around crime can affect their behaviors. Whether illegal behavior is derived from the criminal’s home environment or not, the societal upbringing of the criminal plays a pivotal role in their crimes.

Motives Attributed to Human Development

Discerning the contrast between a motivated versus unmotivated criminal is, at times, complex. “A lot of people simply can’t comprehend the idea that sometimes the criminal has literally no motivation whatsoever to attack, but yet does so anyway.” (Ellifretz 1) Criminal actions are often influenced by outside forces, rather than solely internal conflict. Factors, such as drugs and alcohol, increase the chances of illegal behavior as they alter the person’s state of mind. The inevitable emergence of a dissociative and automatic state of mind majorly impacts the offender’s incentive. A considerable determinant in sexual assault cases is intoxication, which creates a sense of disconnection within reality. Although the individual’s initial intentions may not be violent, influences on the brain will disrupt their thought process. Usage of alcohol and drugs is a way to alleviate pain, escaping from overwhelming adversities in life. Addicts may even turn to crime to pay for their habit and spark a chain of reactions. The life of the criminal preordains the intoxicant path, which can lead to the criminal path. If the parent had drug problems when they were pregnant and now the child is unavoidably addicted as well, provides the implication of mental illness and increases their chances of addiction.

Psychological Theory of Crime Strengths and Weaknesses

Professionals have tried to use different angles including biological, psychological and sociological angles to analyze why one will commit a crime.

Biological theories focus on the characteristics of individual criminals. Cesare Lombroso’s theories of ‘born’ criminal think criminal behavior is determined on the inheritance of the ancestors. If one ancestor is hunters, their posterity is more violent and tend to commit crimes. Yet, if one ancestor is farmer, their posterity having less chance to commit a crime. Besides, the early body type theory divides people’s physique into three types including endomorphs, ectomorphs, and mesomorphs to discern what body type will be more likely to be a criminal.

Biological theories proved that some criminal behavior can not restrain by the criminal as their genetic make them born to be a criminal. It introduces a scientific approach which can analyze criminals genetic or their characteristic according to the biological theories. Also, it explains some of the criminal behavior, like the crime committed by manic criminals who sometimes can not state the reason for crime commitment. Also, if we discover the children have the characteristic that matched the biological theories, the parent can bring them to see the doctor and prevent the child to have delinquency.

Yet, not everyone who has this characteristic must commit a crime, it stereotypes and labels people. People with the characteristic of criminals which mentioned in theories are more likely to commit crime as others may bully or discriminate them. Also, their appearance can be changed by external factors, like if one does exercise every day, he can change his body type from ectomorphs to mesomorphs. As the somatotypes are not fixed, it fails to use the physique to determine one will commit crime accurately. The biological theories emphasize that criminals are mainly affected by pathological factors and ignore the possibility of criminals affected by society.

Psychological theories focus on the characteristics of individual criminals like biological theories, yet it emphasizes the importance of unconscious mind, sex, aggression, and childhood experience. Sigmund Freud pointed there are three major elements in one’s mind, including the id, superego, and ego. The id is limited by superego and if the three elements cannot balance each other, one may commit crimes due to weak conscience. Many criminal offenders are characterized by no sense of guilt, no subjective conscience, and no sense of right or wrong. The balance of the three major elements depends on one’s childhood. If the child received the “faulty identification” from his or her parents, the child is more likely to commit a crime. Thus, loving relationships and attachment between children and their parents are the key points of child development.

The cognitive theory suggests criminal behavior comes from people’s thoughts about morality and the law. Lawrence Kohlberg came up with a theory concerning moral reasoning and stated that there were six stages including obedience, self-interest, social norms, law morality, social contract, and ethics. Children will reach a different level of moral development, such as the pre-conventional level and moral reasoning is based on obedience and avoiding punishment. At the end of childhood, the child reaches the conventional level and at this point, moral reasoning is based on the expectations that their family has for them. People who progress through the stages would value the laws of the social system, otherwise, they may arrest during their moral development, and consequently become delinquents

For the strength of psychological theories, it explains delinquent and criminal behaviors are based on one’s personality. As individual personality would be developed from early childhood, so that poor parenting styles would negatively affect children and they are more likely to commit a crime.

However, these theories are unscientific as it is difficult to check the validity. It is impossible to test as one cannot see, identify, or measure the id, ego, or superego. It overemphasizes the importance and determination of the unconscious mind, sex, aggression, and childhood experiences do to criminal behavior. Also, psychological theories often neglect social and cultural factors.

sociological theories of criminology say that society creates conditions under which a person commits a crime. That is, people are influenced by society to commit crimes. both the biological and psychological approaches focus on the individual and treated crime as an individual problem. American sociologist, Robert K. Merton’s theory of anomie suggests that criminality results from an offender’s inability to attain his goals by socially acceptable means; faced with this inability, the individual is likely to turn to other—not necessarily socially or legally acceptable—objectives or to pursue the original objectives by unacceptable means. The strain theory, proposed by Robert K. Merton pointed out five types of people, including conformity, ritualism, innovation, retreatism, and rebellion due to their institutionalized means and cultural goals. One key idea that the sociological theories have in common is criminal behavior is not innate to humans and circumstances affect how people act. It proved that people are not born criminals, the environment in which they live that influences how they will turn out.

For the strength of sociological theories, it shifts more focus on how social factors influence one to be a criminal offender. For example, the number of crimes can determine by the working class demographics, there is less crime behavior during economic growth as many people can attain both institutionalized means and cultural goals. Also, it showed that anomie should blame not only the individual but also society. The types and seriousness of crime reflect what needs to be changed in society. If robbing is common in a society, it might reflect that most of the citizens are poor or even under unemployment, the government should have more education and welfare to change the social ethos.

However, it ignores the free will of one choose to commit crime as one may put too much strain and it causes anomie. Also, it fails to explain why some well-educated and wealthy people who would like to commit a crime, even they attain a higher social level. For example, some of them will rape a child and this criminal behavior might not be influenced by the societal factor, but it may due to a childhood experience or metal idleness.

In conclusion, biological and psychological theories of crime treated the crime as an individual problem, yet sociological theories tend to treat a crime is responsibility of society. Also, there are weakness and strengths of each approach, avoid just using or trust single angle point of view can analyze the crime behavior better.

The Causes For Criminal Behavior

Have you always wondered what are the underlying reasons why someone grows up to become a criminal in society? The world is filled with so much violence and with people who are heartless. Why is it that because of the violence and heartless people, we have human beings in our society who hurt others to fulfill themselves and feel pleased. Growing up from a loving and nurturing family, I believe that that is how everyone should grow up to see and feel. Unfortunately, there are circumstances where others were not so fortunate and had a rough childhood. Where they experienced neglection, violence, sexual abuse, etc. Some would say that criminal behavior is due to biological reasons, but adverse childhood experiences may actually be the cause of criminal behavior.

Criminal behavior is influenced by childhood experiences, negative social environment, substance abuse and child abuse. When you’re born, you don’t get to choose who your parents will be, nor choose how you want to live your life as a child Most convicted criminals have experienced a rough childhood and suffered from many abusing situations. Therefore, they believe that many situations they witness as a kid is what looks and seems correct to them.

Children who lived in a bad and negative home situation tend to become more like how their parents and to behave in those same behaviors. If there parents were There could be children living with parents who are abusing, who have some sort of substance abuse and this is what you grow up to see and do. The national traumatic stress center is a center for those who would like to learn more about trauma in children and how they are there to help them. It gives us information on the different types of behaviors a child may be showing. This quote explains that you may become very negative about yourself and others. You cannot trust anyone around you, and may believe everyone is out to hurt you. When you feel useless and powerless, you may try to find ways to make others feel how your feeling. Instead of wanting to change your negative thoughts to being more positive and changing for the best. Typically, they just become more negative and you can’t seem to change those expectations.

When you grow up in a dysfunctional home where there is violence and abuse, you begin to develop emotions and behaviors that as you grow older affect your everyday life and relationships with others. Feelings of anger, loneliness, sadness, anxiety and fear are the types of emotions both women and men may phase as a child and as they grow older in life. Women are typically more nurturing and caring, but If as a child there was maltreatment, sexual abuse, neglection. It is most likely to easily fall into dangerous relationships, drugs and delinquency at a young age and into adulthood. On the other hand, men may become more aggressive and express his emotions with more anger and violence. This affects the relationships they may be in because that’s how some men may become abusive towards their partner and others. Some may not be able to control their emotions and temper and it leads them to hurt themselves or others.

In addition, criminal behavior may start to show early on in a child’s life. If someone comes from a home of violence and abuse, children will typically feel this is normal to them and that is what they will portray to others. Early signs that a child may show could be hurting their peers in school, their family members or pets. Most of the time you start to see that there are behaviors that are not normal and it’s a sign of danger. From early in your childhood life, up to adolescence and to adulthood. These behaviors will become more common and intense. They start of by hurting animals, then to the people close to them and eventually killing. Like I said before when your whole life you are used to maltreatment and violence, you will start to get involved in drugs, substance abuse and in negative social environments. Which leads you to join gangs, witness crimes or even be involved in them. These criminal acts are a way of showing that you are strong and not weak. They will hurt others to please their needs and satisfactions to feel better about themselves.

There is a believe that criminal behavior is due to biological factors and that there is some dysfunction in the brain. However, adverse childhood experiences are the cause of criminal behavior. As a child you are exposed to different life situations where you can’t control them because as a child you are guided by your parents and can’t chose how to be raised. Some Biological factors that can take place into criminal behavior could be brain malfunction, where there are parts in the brain that are not connecting properly with areas of decision making and emotions. In the brain there is the amygdala that is where it produces fear, anger and it can reinforce such behaviors where you may act in harm to others.

However, the true cause of criminal behavior is due to the childhood experiences you went through. When you are a child you are not able to choose who your parents are or how you want to be treated and raised. Underlying reasons are that if you grow up in a home where you are being abused or you see violence and abuse at home, children usually tend to either produce the same actions as they grow older. Child trauma can affect their social life and have them feel anger as they grow older. If a child has parents who besides being abusive, have a substance problem the child will see everything and will look up to their parents, even sometimes if they don’t know that what they are doing is wrong. Parents can be at fault because they are either consciously or unconsciously showing their kids what is not right to do. Even though biological reasons could also influence criminal behavior, the actual reason is adverse childhood experiences because that is how eventually they suffer from mental problems or emotional problems because of their childhood life.

In conclusion, childhood experiences are a major cause of why people turn into criminals and why they behave with such anger and violence. Criminals come from a difficult and abusive home, with parents who were a bad influence in their lives and where they had no one to look up to, for guidance and for love and affection. That is how these criminals grew up to not care about anything or anyone but themselves, they grow up being heartless and doing anything, up to killing who ever in order to satisfy themselves. As a child they lived in fear of their own parents or of their life and when they grow older, they start to show those hurting memories and instead hurt others who they see as more fortunate then themselves.

Investigating The Psychology Of Dark Personalities

Introduction

Both in the sub-clinical and clinical spheres, malicious, immoral and malevolent behaviour is everywhere. For many years, psychologists have shown a pervasive interest in attempting to define and study the nature of evil. While initial research was limited to identifying these similarities and differences in criminal and delinquent populations, new conceptualisations of evil have focused on a constellation of dark personalities in the general population (Kaur, 2013). Dark Personalities refer to a set of socially aversive traits in the subclinical range, meaning that they are not severe enough to warrant forensic attention but fall outside the spectrum of normality in an everyday sense (Paulhus, 2014, pp. 422). Paulhus and Williams (2002) were the first to coin the term, ‘The Dark Triad’ describing “socially malevolent characters with behavioural tendencies towards self-promotion, emotional coldness, duplicity and aggressiveness” (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The Dark Triad was developed to study three distinct yet interconnected personality features; narcissism (characterised by grandiosity, need for affirmation and entitlement), Machiavellianism (characterised by manipulation, exploitation and deceit for individual gain) and psychopathy (characterised by impulsiveness, lack of personal affect and remorselessness) (Muris et al, 2017; Paulhus, 2014; Book, Visser & Volk, 2016). Across some literature, the Dark Triad has also been extended to include Sadism (characterised by taking pleasure or enjoyment in the suffering of others), thus becoming the Dark Tretrad (Krauss, 2015). However, with the continuous developments in the way the Dark Triad is conceptualised and measured, there has been growing discrepancies as to what criteria is necessary for personality features to be considered ‘dark’ or ‘malevolent’.

Significant controversy surrounding the empirical and theoretical overlap between the core Dark Triad members has raised questions as to the extent to which the Dark Triad members should be studied in concert. Various models have been developed to test the conceptual overlap between the Dark Tetrad members, these include the HEXACO model, the Five Factor Model and the Short Dark Triad (SD3), in addition to specific inventories for each trait (MACH-IV, SRP-4, STMO) (McHoskey, Worzel & Szyarto, 1998; Roberts, 2007) However, despite their differing opinions on how closely the dark triad overlap, each model proposes that the dark triad should not be considered a single, indistinguishable unitary construct. The thesis of this research article is that the Dark Tetrad members should be studied alongside each other, as interconnected but independent parallel constructs. Empirical and theoretical research suggests that in studying the complicated relationship between individual Triad members, researchers can gain new insight and knowledge into controlling for the other members. In application, it is believed that research in this field can further knowledge on the correlation between dark personality traits and socially aversive behaviours such as racism, bullying and trolling in the student and community spheres (Buckels, Trapnell & Paulhus, 2014).

Body

Contrary to popular opinion at the time, McHoskey, Worzel and Szyarto (1998) proposed that Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism are more or less the same construct in non-clinical populations. However, from their study of 245 university students using a combination of self-report and laboratory measures, Paulhus and Williams (2002) concluded that the even in the general population, the Dark Triad members are differentiated enough to be studied separately. These two differing perspectives have been heavily debated among psychological intellects and subsequently, have inspired a growing body of research in the fields of applied and personality psychology.

The Paulhus and Williams study relied on the five factor (FFM) or ‘big 5’ personality model to evaluate the different relations between traits and identify the subsequent differences between personality and individual behaviours (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Burton, Kowalski & Westen, 2018). Their results showed that the only big 5 correlate which was consistent for all three triad members was agreeableness (Book et al, 2016). Furthermore, the results exposed that while psychopaths were identified by low neuroticism, Machiavellianism’s and psychopaths were low in conscientiousness. Additionally, across two measures, self-enhancement was significant for narcissism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002. These results suggested that the dark triad lack enough of an empirical overlap to be studied simultaneously.

However, compared to the more contemporary HEXACO model of personality, the Big 5 Model has issues surrounding cross-cultural applicability (Ashton, Lee & Son, 2000; Burton, Westen & Kowalski, 2018). Therefore, has been argued that the inclusion of the Honesty-Humility factor (prosocial behaviour including fairness, sincerity, greed avoidance and modesty) in the HEXACO model, has improved reliability and validity for most measures (Book et al, 2016). However, a limitation of the Paulhus and Williams study was the use of an anonymous self-report questionnaire. In self-report questionnaires, it is common for individuals to underestimate or underreport the extent to which they hold or exhibit negative traits, especially if they have enough traits to be deemed a Dark Personality (Book et al, 2016). Subsequently, this can lead to a reduction in criterion-related validity.

In a large online study by Book et al. (2016), 490 undergraduate university students were assessed across four models; The Short-Dark-Triad, The Big Five Personality Model and the Factor 1 and Zero-Empathy Models. The degree to which participants held dark triad traits were measured using the same five-point scale. As predicted in Book et al (2015), all Dark triad members loaded on only one factor; the Honesty Humility factor. For Emotionality (observable emotional and behavioural component to emotions), Agreeableness (prosocial behaviour which supports social harmony) and Conscientiousness (ability to control, regulate and direct impulses) positive correlations were moderate to low. However, the personality traits did not have significant loadings for Extraversion and Openness to Experience (Book et al, 2016). These results suggested that while a significant proportion of the variability is common across all members of the triad, each member consists of a different combination of antisocial personality traits.

However, in a metanalysis which evaluated the strength of hundreds of Dark triad correlations across the literature, Kaur (2013) found that not only were all correlations positive but just under one quarter of correlations were below .5. Additionally, it was identified that the highest average correlation between triad members was between Machiavellianism and narcissism (Kaur, 2013). For psychopathy, research has pointed to a clear distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy. While the latter is thought to be a consequence of environmental influences such as inconsistent parenting styles, low socioeconomic status and trauma (Kaur, 2013), the former is hereditary and primarily characterised by deficient affective reactivity (Muris et al, 2017). It has been argued that by studying a dark personality solely within the constellation of the dark triad oversimplifies each construct (Muris et al, 2017). The idea that by studying all three traits simultaneously, researchers become preoccupied recognising similarities among the constructs, inhibiting their ability to identify variables which are inconsistent is common throughout the literature ( ). It is argued specifically that in the case of psychopathy, a lack of recognition for the differentiation between the two strings (primary and secondary), can negatively affect response to treatment and patterns of violence and offending in application (Levenson, Kiehl & Fitzpatrick, 1995)

In a study by Glenn and Selbom (2015) which aimed to test whether the three constructs as measured by self-report questionnaires in non-clinical samples were equivalent, yielded similar findings as the Paulus and Williams (2002) landmark study. From their data collection, Glenn and Selbom concluded that due to the close resemblance between the core traits of Machiavellians and psychopathy, it can be debated that they are essentially the same dark personality. In their principal component’s analysis, which split primary and secondary psychology between two factors, Jacobwitz and Egan (2006), found that the MACH-IV Scale correlated strongly with both strings of psychopathy. In their preceding study, McHoskey, Worzel and Szyarto (1988) proposed that since the dark personalities are often studied under different subdivisions of psychology, their strong theoretical overlap has been overlooked. However, McHoskey, Worzel and Szyarto (1988) recognise that the Mach-IV is an ineffective measure for assessing dark personality traits as a consequence of its confounding of primary and secondary psychopathy.

In a study by Paulhus (2014), the common trait of callousness (a lack of empathy towards people) was identified as the core empirical and theoretical overlap between the dark personalities. However, because of their other individual characteristics, the same trait plays a different role among each member of the triad (Paulhus, 2014). While Narcissisms lack empathy towards those in their immediate environment, the Machiavellian takes care while taking advantage (Jonason, Kavanagh, Webster & Fitzgerald, 2011; Muris et al, 2017; Paulhus, 2014). By only studying one dark personalities, a researcher may inhibit their ability to discover that a correlate could be ascribed to another variable from the Dark Tetrad (Glenn & Selbom, 2015). This argument supports the notion that this possibility is not unlikely considering the frequency of positive correlations among variables of dark triad traits.

Lincoln et al (2014) suggests two types of research data supporting the strong empirical overlap in his metanalysis of literature on the Dark Triad; factor analytical studies and correlation studies (Muris et al, 2017). In regard to the former, a well-known study by Furnham and Crump (2002), in which regressional analysis assessed various hypothesis about the empirical overlap between dark triad members, confirmed that Machiavellianism and narcissism load onto one factor (Glenn & Selbom, 2015). These overlaps were also suggested by Widiger et al (2002). However, based on these studies it is unclear the extent of the overlap considering in some studies, the same three measures do not always result in an observable correlation (Glen & Selbom, 2015). A prominent correlational study by McHoskey, Worzel and Szyarto (1988) also found evidence of correlation and psychopathy on several self-report, behavioural and personality measures.

In another metanalysis of current psychological literature, Muris et al (2017) identified 91 research papers containing 42,359 participants across 18 populations from the Web-of-Science Database. Majority of the articles which addressed either the Dark Triad or a dark triad members, highlighted a shared variance as a result of an empirical overlap across measures such as malevolent personality style. The authors findings replicate those of Paulhus and Williams (2002); that the dark triad traits are significantly intercorrelated and primarily related to the Big Five personality trait of agreeableness. Therefore, the authors conclude that the overlap between the dark triad personality traits is enough to obtain significant benefit by studying the traits simultaneously. However, it is important to recognise that simultaneously does not infer that the dark triad members should be cautioned as a single unitary construct. According to Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996), psychopathy may be a more dominant trait of the triad members. In considering a possible hierarchy among the triad members, Lillenfeld and Andrews imply that the triad members are separate yet interconnected entities. Expanding on this concept, Muris et al (2017), suggests that the current literature overlooks the multi-dimensional aspect of the dark triad traits and ignores the idea that each is formed out of a heterogeneous set of characteristics.

However, it is also fairly common in self-report measures for participants (especially those in delinquent or criminal populations) to underreport or underestimate the extent to which they hold negative personality traits or behaviours, therefore the validity of results may be questionable. Additionally, it has been proposed that the overuse of non-clinical samples can result in a low base rate of dark personality traits. Although, Roberts et al. (2007) suggests that rather than focusing solely on either a clinical or non-clinical population, researchers should view the dark personality traits on a continuum, rather than discrete, fixed units. Roberts proposes undertaking multiple trials within both clinical and sub-clinical populations to generate more generalisable data.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is undeniable evidence from various analytical and correlation studies that dark triad members each share a complication of traits which qualify them as dark personalities. However, despite their strong theoretical and empirical overlap, the dark triad members share enough distinct characteristics to be studied alongside each other, as interconnected but independent parallel constructs. There is strong evidence against the Dark Triad representing a single, indistinguishable unitary construct, as all three members are positively correlated but do not share all of the same correlates (Glenn & Selbom, 2015). By studying the dark triad members simultaneously, researchers can often become occupied with identifying similarities between the constructs often overlooking the conceptual differences which contribute to varying psychosocial outcomes. However, by viewing the dark personality traits as overlapping rather than equivalent, researchers are able to explore the complex relationship between the dark triad members and acknowledge shortcomings which may be problematic for application. Both the HEXACO and the Five Factor Model, along with several specific inventories (MACH-IV, SRP-4, STMO), have been powerful tools in measuring whether the three dark personalities are analogous in both non-clinical and clinical populations. However, it is important to recognise that the use of self-report and questionnaire-style measures can result in individuals underreporting or underestimating the extent to which they hold negative personality traits or behaviours. One particular path of enquiry, which explores the close link between psychopathy and Machiavellianism provides sufficient evidence in support of the dark triad as interconnected but independent parallel constructs.

References

1. Book, A., Visser, B., & Volk, A. (2016). Unpacking Evil: Claiming the Core of the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 101(73), 468. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.094
2. Book, A., Visser, B., Blais, J., Hosker-Field, A., Methot-Jones, T., & Gauthier, N. et al. (2016). Unpacking more “evil”: What is at the core of the dark tetrad? Personality and Individual Differences, 90(1), 269-272. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.009
3. Buckels, E., Trapnell, P., & Paulhus, D. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67(1), 97-102. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016
4. Burton, L., Kowalski, R., & Westen, D. (2018). Psychology, 5th Australian and New Zealand Edition (5th ed., pp. 707-711). Milton, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd.
5. Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2005). Personality traits, types, and disorders: an examination of the relationship between three self-report measures. European Journal Of Personality, 19(3), 167-184. doi: 10.1002/per.543
6. Glenn, A., & Sellbom, M. (2015). Theoretical and Empirical Concerns Regarding the Dark Triad as a Construct. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(3), 360-377. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2014_28_162
7. Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 331-339. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.006
8. Jonason, P., Kavanagh, P., Webster, G., & Fitzgerald, D. (2011). Comparing the Measured and Latent Dark Triad: Are Three Measures Better than One? Journal of Methods and Measurement in The Social Sciences, 6(1). doi: 10.2458/azu_jmmss.v2i1.12363
9. Kaur, H. (2013). Dark triad of personality: A theoretical review of the concept. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 4(1), 95-98. Retrieved from http://www.i-scholar.in/index.php/ijhw/article/view/92420
10. Krauss, S. (2015). 10 Ways to Spot an ‘Everyday’ Sadist. Retrieved 18 September 2019, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201503/10-ways-spot-everyday-sadist
11. Levenson, M., Kiehl, K., & Fitzpatrick, C. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 68(1), 151-158. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.68.1.151
12. Lilienfeld, S., & Andrews, B. (1996). Development and Preliminary Validation of a Self-Report Measure of Psychopathic Personality Traits in Noncriminal Population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(3), 488-524. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3
13. McHoskey, J., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 192-210. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.1.192
14. Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The Malevolent Side of Human Nature. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183-204. doi: 10.1177/1745691616666070
15. Paulhus, D. (2014). Toward a Taxonomy of Dark Personalities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(6), 421-426. doi: 10.1177/0963721414547737
16. Paulhus, D., & Williams, K. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563. doi: 10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00505-6
17. Roberts, B. (2007). Contextualizing Personality Psychology. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1071-1082. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00467.x
18. Thomaes, S., Brummelman, E., Miller, J., & Lilienfeld, S. (2017). The dark personality and psychopathology: Toward a brighter future. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(7), 835-842. doi: 10.1037/abn0000305

Genes And Environment In Criminals Behavior

It is a possibility that DNA and environmental influences, is a contributing factor in crime. It has shown in many factors in example,families with drug abuse or such as sexual abuse will soon inherit in the genes of the criminal or grow in or around the environment and watch and learn things he/she shouldn’t and become so used to that behavior that they have the need or urge in the future to have that intensity or adrenaline. Growing up around such a negative environment as a child or in the womb, it has always reflected as if you’re growing up and you’re learning from others, or in such as in the womb, parents doing drugs, being abused or doing crimes is in their blood and that blood is connected to the child. In this article Genes and Environmental Influences Inherited in the Criminals behavior Jones talks about the environmental influences and how it is related to criminals. There has been research shown that genes and environment affects the criminal’s mind and behavior. Researchers have claimed that it is the family environment that influences the hyperactivity of children such as factors of poverty, education, parenting practices, and family structure. Those families who have more children and are not financially sound, shows lack and consistency of discipline or punishment if the children ever do anything wrong and will have a bigger chance of influencing the behavior of an antisocial or delinquent behavior. One of the most important arguments that has been said is that there is fifty percent greater risk of acting upon criminal acts, if they were ever neglected or abused.

Genes and Environmental Influences Inherited in the Criminals behavior

There is a common comparison between one’s inherited genes and the environmental influences around them. A very complex interaction in these two comparisons, evidence shows the expression of the genes are influenced by a wide variety of the habitat cause. If these two similarities do affect the adjustments of genes and activity of neurotransmitters that cause the behavior, this interaction can be an important factor of the development of criminal or antisocial behavior.

Method

Criminals are surrounded and grown into the bad behavior. Even though they don’t make their choices until a decent age they start off as being peculiar as young kids, and people usually never seem to notice and think it’s a normal behavior for a kid. Once they are are grown ups, it’s good sense that they make their own decisions and choose their choices but inside their mind they have a different perspective or urge to different things as anyone else would. The point is that even as a child they start off with an off behavior and develop more of it and as it grows the urge becomes stronger.

Alcohol and Drugs are very big concern in criminals behavior. Two major concerns that can just change your whole world upside down. Big impacts such as drug abuse and alcohol abuse has shown in different cases in the criminals record, showing either they grew up around it in the environment or had issues when they were born and affected them. Being altered has caused them to become criminals, the environment and the genes where he/she is coming from that is who they are and how they live. Becoming so used to that lifestyle, they have been taught or shown the crimes to do drugs or other things and show the visuals and excitement that person gets and proves it is a good feeling and convinces the soon to be criminal that it is okay to do such thing. Although all criminals are different, as two organisms with the same genes and environment they all show the comparison in how they react to crime at a young age and as growing up and being forced to show the interest and finally become the criminal and no longer being the victim who was forced into doing something he/she never thought they would do. With the family not having a good finances towards the child it starts showing as an example of the criminal behavior, they do not have much so therefore they have to get things the hard way. It can be from small crimes to large crimes, in the genes and habitat it has came down to the feeling you get when you have done the crime. Usually when doing the crime it’s a relief or a release of your own problems and self-preservation those conclusions will obviously influence the soon to be criminal. Such as disciplinary the genes coming from the parents and the disciplinary they had will show off on the new child and affect the child providing the loneliness or abuse the parents had and take it out on the child and show the same emotion, that’s when the environment comes around because that is how they are living and used to that anger from the parent and abuse, they don’t know anything else and feel neglected.

Results

Genes and environment for the criminal is coming out as the same, parents who are encouraging or forcing the criminal to do crimes will show the effect on the child and prove the child will be the outcome of the crimes and become the criminal and will not stop until he is stopped by someone of greater authority. These genes inside the criminal will never change such as the environment they grew up in, it will always be as how they were taught and how they inherited from the family.

Outcome 1: The factors are taught and brought up the criminal’s behavior and kept that way to make the criminal content with the lifestyle.

Outcome 2: Proof shows that being violated or hurt or humiliated in any way definitely show some actions the criminal has taken due to those things being done to them.

Conclusion

With my agreement towards the articles genes and environment affect the criminal’s behavior, with and how the family acts it will eventually be shown to the child and show that is who they are and how they have to live to get that satisfaction of such a crime. They are both very important and I believe share the outcome and behaviors.

Criminal Behavior And Its Contexts

This assignment focuses on explaining Mr. Khatri’s stalking and abusing behavior, in light of relevant theories and researches. The theoretical framework is followed by the intervention and treatment strategies.

Critical Evaluation on Psychological Theories to Understand Offender’s Behavior

Psychological theories are an array of explanations that help us explore human behavior in different situations. Different psychological theories present different reasons for criminal behavior in people. These theories aid in unveiling crime, criminal behaviors of people, causes and consequences of criminal acts and criminal justice.

Stalking is regarded as intentional, hostile and continuous trailing. It is defined as abusing or threatening other person’s safety. It is a person specific behavior, involving frequent visual or physical presence and verbal, written or imposed threats to frighten a person. It occurs against the will of person being followed. Hence it is referred to as frequent behaviors directed or intended to frighten a specific person (Davis, Swan & Gambone, 2012). As in this case Mr. Khatri was following Mrs. Khatri to prove that his judgment about her was right and she is cheating on him. Mrs. Khatri was uncomfortable with Mr. Khatri’s stalking but she tried her best to ignore him.

Feminist theory

Feminist theory focuses on control and aggression in romantic relationships. According to this theory, men engage in violent and aggressive behaviors to maintain male power within the marriage. It has been proved that wife abuse is comparatively low in societies where wives have financial authority than in societies where they lack financial influence. Furthermore, family violence in societies with men having a thought pattern of not being leaders of their homes and low patience level is very less. In view of feminist theory, the dominant partner, mostly men, consider them as dominating figure in decision making, having greater competency than women and high expectations regarding men’s priority over the needs of women (Ehrensaft, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Heyman, O’Leary & Lawrence, 1999).

This theory applies to Mr. Khatri’s case since he also wanted to control his wife. Mrs. Khatri was a working woman. She was independent and this feared Mr. Khatri that she won’t abide by his instructions as she is no more dependent on him for her need fulfillment.

Coercion refers to observing victim’s specific actions, threatening the victim and intimidating him/her to obey or else he/she would be harmed, fearing with hostile behaviors, continuous stalking of the victim so he/she may not find any way out of this trap and end up following offender’s instructions and making arrangements to cut off victim from his/her social environment to prevent any social support (Davis, Swan & Gambone, 2012). In view of coercion model, men are known to be more stalking than women. The main purpose behind men’s stalking is to acquire, maintain or retrieve personal resources as their romantic partners (Stark, 2007). Men take their partners far away from their families and strictly forbid them from talking to their family members, friends or relatives by limiting their use or electronic and social media, by restricting their economical resources and often keeping a track of where their partners are. This kind of stalking is followed by keen observation and continuous communication by stalkers (Davis, Swan & Gambone, 2012).

Feminist theory is applicable in Mr. Khatri’s case as he also stalked and kept a record of where her wife was going. He skipped his office hours just to follow Mrs. Khatri and threaten her if she does something against Mr. Khatri’s will.

Relational Goal Pursuit Theory (RGP Theory)

According to this theory, Obsessive relational pursuers link the goal of having a particular relationship to higher-order goals such as happiness and self worth (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). It is said that these kind of goal persuasion leads to overemphasized feelings about goal significance. If the pursuer fails to attain the goal, he gets frustrated and irritated. He puts even more effort to achieve that goal (Duntley & Buss, 2012).

Relational goal pursuit theory is alternative form of self regulation-theory. It pays attention on failed attempt of self-regulation, resulting in infelicitous perseverance and cognitive distortion regarding the behavior of offender and reaction of victim. The victim takes the repetitive, undesirable behaviors of donor as annoying, frustrating, abusing and above all, intimidating. According to this theory, the person who experiences envy, possessiveness, despair, insecure attachments and acute attraction are most probable to involve in obsessive relational intrusions. The more the person becomes obsessed with this relation, the more he will lose control over his self-regulation (Davis, Swan & Gambone, 2012). Mr. Khatri had been in relationships since the age of 18, but when he met Mrs. Khatri, he was pretty serious about her. They got married and according to Mr. Khatri, they were leading a very happy life until his wife started cheating on him. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Khatri was pretty serious about his wife, it might be possible that he felt jealous when his wife got close to other people or treat them fairly. Mr. Khatri might be a possessive husband who didn’t wanted his wife to ignore him because of others. Due to his possessiveness and fear of losing his wife, Mr. Khatri lost control over him and engaged in such behaviors.

The offender or stalker experiences the harassment, perseverance and displeasing thoughts which makes him unable to accomplish a goal. Unachieved goals results in anticipatory emotions. Obsessive offenders perceive to become sad, stressed and fearful when they fail to see their desired relationship being accomplished. They keep on experiencing such emotions until they get or lose what they were aiming for. It likely for the goal to remain unachievable when relational goal is linked to higher order goal. As an outcome of this, rumination occurs and inspires a person to be more determined for achieving his goal. Ruminating is caused by emotional flooding (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).

Irritability for a significant relational goal may results in aggression, irritation, hurt, envy and feelings of shame. Ruminating thoughts adversely affects a person and results in further rumination. Hence now it becomes necessary for the individual to achieve his goal or else he won’t get relief from the negative thoughts and feelings. Attainable goals are more likely to be desirable. The self-efficacy of individuals makes them determined to achieve a specific goal. Obsessive relational pursuers think they would achieve their desired goals if they work harder on it. If they find any hurdles in achievement of their goals, they become more persistent and cross all limits to successfully attain that goal. In addition to the availability of goal attainment, the obsessive relational pursuers face other rationalizations too. They idealize their partners and the rejected behaviors of their partner give them strength, motivates them to work even harder on their goal achievement. Ignorance of anxiety and distress, resulting from this effort on the victim, is often disregarded. Furthermore, to justify their actions, the pursuers consider them as a sign of love for their partners (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).

Treatment and Interventions for Offender’s Behavior

Keeping in view Mr. Khatri’s history of present illness, he was directed to work on relationships with inmate partners, attitudes towards women and relationships, problem solving skills and self esteem.

Empirical evidence has unveiled that people belonging to a positive and caring family possess good problem solving skills and are less violent. Furthermore, good problem solving skills positively correlated with assertiveness in adolescence and love in romantic relationships in young adulthood (Xia, Fosco, Lippold & Feinberg, 2018). Mt. Khatri had lived a very happy childhood and his parents were very supportive. Hence, he must also possess appreciable problem solving skills. Therefore more attention should be laid on finding real cause behind his doubting behavior.

People suffering from psychological disorders are more likely to engage in stalking behaviors. These psychological disorders results from harmful break down of evolved mental processes (Duntley & Buss, 2012). Feelings of jealousy when partner talks to somebody else, also strengthens stalking behavior. Results of formal assessment had shown Mr. Khatri had traits of psychopaths. Hence working on relationships with inmate partners and attitudes towards women and relationships would prove to be a good intervention technique for Mr. Khatri. He must be taught to give a personal space to others. His restrictions and harassment for Mrs. Khatri would surely have suffocated her. Mr. Khatri needs to be given empathy training.

Mr. Khatri considered himself grandiose. Hence he wanted to dominate in every field of life. he wanted to control his wife too. Studies have also proved that narcissist personalities are more likely to engage in battering of women. They involve in stalking and violent behaviors to satisfy their needs of dominating and self regarding personalities. Cognitive behavior groups’ therapy (CBGT) is suggested for such men (Walby & Towers, 2018).

Whenever Mr. Khatri saw his wife talking or meeting to someone, especially male friends, he became aggressive and hostile. He lost control over himself and harassed his wife. It is said that men are innately violent and whenever their anger is triggered, they become violent instantly. The nature and timings of such violent behaviors show intentionality and control for example Mr. Khatri was already angry that his wife is cheating on him, when he saw his wife with a male, his anger heightened, he lost control over him and become hostile (Walby & Towers, 2018). Therefore, Mr. Khatri needs to be given anger management training so he could learn to keep a hold on himself in triggering situations.

It is said that stalking may be a results of relationship which is in danger. As a consequence of this jealous, the jealous partner works to strengthen his concern and become more close to his or her partner. The relation of a partner with other people may create an alarming situation for the jealous partner about losing his connection with his or her partner. It may fear the person that his relation with inmate would weaken or even break. Empirical evidence has also unveiled a positive correlation among jealousy and domestic violence (Roberts, 2005). Mr. Khatri feared his wife would leave him. Mrs. Khatri experienced domestic violence and harassment just because of Mr. Khatri’s fears. He didn’t want to let go of her that is why he kept stalking her even after she got separated from him, so he could prove his fears were rational and his claim about his wife cheating on her was true.

Mr. Khatri claimed that his wife is cheating on him, whereas Mrs. Khatri refused this claim. It means Mr. Khatri was delusional about his wife’s behavior and actions. This delusion made him abusing and violent towards his wife. The delusions of envy and jealousy results dissolution of the relationship and leads to stalking (MacKenzie & James, 2011). Just as in case of Mr. Khatri, who reported her wife to be unfaithful with him and turned his loving married relationship into an abusive one. Mr. Khatri’s delusional disorder needs to be treated with effective interventions.

Men stalk more than women do. Hence it is recommended to teach victims, the strategies by which they can avoid stalkers to threaten and harm them. Since assaults and harassments do a great damage to women, either physically, emotionally or psychologically, women must be taught anti-stalking defense strategies and error management biases. In this way women could avoid stalkers who feel dominated and motivated after battering them (Duntley & Buss, 2012).

References

1. Davis, K.E., Swan, S.C. and Gambone, L.J. (2012) Why doesn’t he just leave me alone? Persistent pursuit: A critical review of theories and evidence. Sex Roles [online] 66(5-6), pp.328-339. Available from [19 September, 2010]
2. Duntley, J.D. and Buss, D.M. (2012) The evolution of stalking. Sex roles [online] 66(5-6), pp.311-327. Available from < https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-010-9832-0> [3 August, 2010]
3. Ehrensaft, MK, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J, Heyman, R, O’Leary, KD & Lawrence, E 1999, ‘Feeling controlled in marriage: A phenomenon specific to physically aggressive couples?’, Journal of Family Psychology [online] 13(1), 20-32. Available from
4. MacKenzie, R.D. and James, D.V. (2011) Management and treatment of stalkers: Problems, options, and solutions. Behavioral sciences & the law [online] 29(2), pp.220-239. Available from < https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/bsl.980> [23 February 2011]
5. Roberts, K.A. (2005) Women’s experience of violence during stalking by former romantic partners: Factors predictive of stalking violence. Violence Against Women [online] 11(1), pp.89-114. Available from [1 January 2005]
6. Spitzberg, B.H. and Cupach, W.R. (2007) The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and violent Behavior [online] 12(1), pp.64-86. Available from [7 July 2006]
7. Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Interpersonal violence. New York: Oxford University Press
8. Walby, S. and Towers, J. (2018) Untangling the concept of coercive control: Theorizing domestic violent crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice [online] 18(1), pp.7-28. Available from < https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748895817743541> [7 January 2018]
9. Xia, M, Fosco, GM, Lippold, MA & Feinberg, ME 2018, ‘A Developmental Perspective on Young Adult Romantic Relationships: Examining Family and Individual Factors in Adolescence’, Journal of youth and adolescence [online] 47(7), 1499-1516. Available from < https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10964-018-0815-8> [13 Feb 2018]

Antisocial Personality Disorder And Criminal Deviance

Understanding what factors contribute to the development of a criminal is crucial to understanding crime, social interactions, and today’s criminal justice system. For many years criminal law applications have relied on the sociological influences and theories derived from such influences. When understanding the criminal mind, there are many factors to consider, including an individual’s personality traits. Personality refers to an individual’s emotional and behavioral attributes that remain consistent as the individual moves from situation to situation (Snipes, Gerould, & Bernard, 2010).

Psychological explanations of deviance attempt to identify personality traits that distinguish deviants from non-deviants, assuming that the basic components of any personality are individual personalities or generalized ways of behaving (Clinard & Meier, 2016). This perspective argues that behavior is a product of one’s personality and deviant behavior is a product of specific psychological traits. Psychological explanations of deviance suggest that inadequacies in personality traits interfere with an individual’s ability to adjust to the demands of society (Clinard & Meier, 2016).

Psychological tests have been created to measure personality differences; just as psychological tests have been created to measure intelligence. These personality tests have been used to study delinquents and criminals and how their personalities differ from nondelinquents and non-criminals (Snipes et al., 2010). Many psychological associations distinguish antisocial personality disorder from adult antisocial behavior; however, they do not distinguish antisocial personality disorder from the terms sociopath and psychopath and instead consider the terms synonymous (Snipes et al., 2010). An individual’s personality may be a driving factor in their likelihood to commit a crime.

Many studies have been conducted regarding the connection between antisocial personality disorder and criminal behavior. A study was conducted testing how dark and vulnerable dark personality traits relate to criminal activity (Edwards, Bethany, Alberston, Emily, Verona, & Edelyn, 2018). The study found that individuals who expressed the dark and vulnerable dark personality traits often engaged in violent crimes and the impulsive nature of the dark personality traits had a significant effect on the individual’s likelihood to engage in crimes against people (Edwards et al., 2017). Impulsivity is a personality trait that may strongly suggest antisocial personality disorder.

Alternatively, some literature links psychopathy and psychopathic personality traits with criminal behavior. One study regarding crime and delinquency found that psychopathic personality traits have a statistically significant influence on one’s likelihood of being arrested, incarcerated, and sentenced to probation (Beaver, Boutwell, Barnes, Vaughn, & DeLisi, 2017). While psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder are not the same, some common traits exist within both disorders, such as impulsivity. Research has examined whether psychopathic personality traits are associated with the likelihood of being processed by the criminal justice system (Boccio, Cashen, Beaver, & Kevin, 2018). In this study; however, the findings revealed that psychopathic traits are generally not associated with criminal success (Boccio et al., 2018).

Interestingly, a study was conducted regarding the overdiagnosis of antisocial personality disorder arguing that psychopathy is a more useful forensic diagnostic construct that antisocial personality disorder (Cunningham, Mark, Reidy, & Thomas, 1998). The study found that an antisocial personality disorder diagnosis does not always indicate criminal behavior and that psychopathy strongly predicts criminal behavior (Cunningham et al., 1998). However, since this study has been conducted, many have found opposing results that will be the focus of the current analysis.

The purpose of this analysis is to understand the possible connection between individuals with personality disorders and their likelihood to engage in criminal deviance. Understanding these psychological factors is important in determining a motive and criminal responsibility as well as social interactions. Antisocial personality disorders can affect one’s impulsivity and self-control which can lead to engaging in criminal or deviant behavior. It is expected that individuals with antisocial personality disorders are more likely to engage in deviant or criminal behavior.

Methods

For this analysis, the use of external articles and research published will be used to support the connection between antisocial personality disorder and criminal deviance. Specifically, to be discussed; the book, Bad Boys, Bad Men: Confronting Antisocial Personality Disorder (Sociopathy) written by author Donald W. Black and, the article, Predictors of adult outcomes in clinically – and legally – ascertained youth with externalizing problems written by authors; Richard Border, Robin Corley, Sandra Brown, John Hewitt, Christian Hopfer, Michael Stallings, Tamara Wall, Susan Young, and Soo Hyun Rhee. These studies offer a great deal of evidence regarding the relationship and the likelihood of those who suffer from antisocial personality disorder to engage in deviant criminal behavior.

Bad Boys, Bad Men Participants

The participants in the study conducted by Black were, ‘predominantly white, blue-collar, lower middle class, married, and most had not graduated from high school’, according to the author. Black also identifies that the participants in the study were typically in their 20’s when they were hospitalized for antisocial personality disorder and in their 50’s when they were contacted to participate in the study. In this study, participants were offered twenty-five dollars as a form of compensation for participating, but many still refused (Black, 2013).

Bad Boys, Bad Men Materials/Procedure

Donald W. Black spent many years studying the curiosities of antisocial personality disorder and wanted to inform society on the severity of the condition. The study was conducted as a way to better understand antisocial personality disorder (ASP) and as a way to better inform society and their interactions. However, finding the subjects wasn’t easy. Black and other researchers who assisted would contact family members of the participants from a list of those hospitalized with antisocial personality disorder. They contacted family members via phone, however many were not willing to participate. Black mentions that many were quick to lie about their background and many were very aggressive. Black found that it would be more efficient to use male participants as many women commonly exhibited signs of borderline personality disorder, which is not the same. He notes; however, that this does not mean that women do not suffer from ASP. Black interviewed and recorded the participants as they took part in his survey. The purpose was to understand the deviant behaviors of those with ASP. Many would fabricate their stories at first, but he found that many also had no problem opening up about their criminal history. Black found that most individuals with ASP had long histories of deviant behavior. However, some details and names were changed in the publication of the study for the individual’s privacy (Black, 2013).

Significance

This study introduces many ideas regarding those with ASP and crime. The study found that most individuals with ASP had long histories of deviant behavior including criminal behavior. As ASP is a mental disorder, those who do not suffer need to understand the severity of the condition to better function as a society. The next study to be analyzed studies the predictors of adult outcomes in youth with externalizing problems (EP). This study allows society and professionals to better recognize individuals who struggle with the disorder and provide help before it escalates.

Predictors of Adult Outcomes Participants

Many participants were recruited from residential and outpatient treatment facilities for substance abuse and delinquency, criminal justice records, schools for youth with behavior problems, and drug and alcohol treatment programs for this study between 1992 and 2007 (Corley, Brown, Hewitt, Hopfer, Stallings, Wall, Young, & Rhee, 2018). Total, there were 1,517 adolescents recruited for the study (Corley et al., 2018). The participants were broken up between years based on where they were recruited from. For example, the 1993-1997 participants, known as the Denver Clinical Sample, consisted of 244 males recruited from the Denver, Colorado areas residential facilities for substance abuse and delinquency (Corley et al., 2018). The 1997-2002 Denver Clinical Sample consisted of 362 participants recruited from outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. 302 participants were from the Denver Adjudicated sample and were recruited through Colorado criminal justice records (Corley et al., 2018). Finally, the 246 participants from the San Diego Sample were recruited from schools for youth with behavioral problems and alcohol and drug treatment programs in San Diego, California (Corley et al., 2018).

Predictors of Adult Outcomes Materials/Procedure

The participants were gathered from a list of records regarding the specified individuals in the areas in which they were recruited. Participants were studied in categories and studied during different years. This allowed the research to be conducted in an organized manner. The 1993-1997 and the 1997-2002 Denver clinical sample, participants with whom a first-degree relative agreed to participate in the assessments were subjected to follow up (Corley et al., 2018). For the remaining samples, “participants who showed at least on CD symptom or at least one non-tobacco SUD symptom at initial assessment were subjected to follow up” (Corley et al., 2018). Total, 1,205 participants were targeted for follow up and completed between one and two follow up assessments (Corley et al., 2018). All participants were measured for intelligence, family environment, substance abuse, and dependence vulnerability, perceived peer deviance, CD and antisocial personality disorder, and legal outcomes (Corley et al., 2018).

Based on the statistical data collected, “sixty-eight percent of participants who were under 18 years old at baseline reported being arrested after their 18th birthday and forty-eight percent of participants endorsed being on parole, on probation, or incarcerated at some point during the past five years” (Corley et al., 2018). “Every demographic and psychosocial predictor was significantly related to at least one psychiatric or legal outcome at follow-up” (Corley et al., 2018).

Significance

This study followed individuals with EP for many years and found that they often engage in deviant behaviors. The study used statistical analysis to organize the data collected. They followed different individuals in different areas in the United States and collected data based on their behaviors. Again, these studies allow for society to better understand the severity of these disorders and how-to better function as a society and help these individuals.

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to better understand the connection between individuals with antisocial personality disorder and their likelihood to engage in criminal activities, through the analysis of research published over time, as well as criminological and sociological theory. By using previous research, one can see how the correlation between antisocial personality disorder and criminal behavior persists through different scenarios and tests. The literature reviewed for the analysis included criminological theories and two studies; Bad Boys, Bad Men: Confronting Antisocial Personality Disorder (Sociopathy) written by author Donald W. Black and, the article, Predictors of adult outcomes in clinically – and legally – ascertained youth with externalizing problems written by authors; Richard Border, Robin Corley, Sandra Brown, John Hewitt, Christian Hopfer, Michael Stallings, Tamara Wall, Susan Young, and Soo Hyun Rhee. The theories discussed include intelligence and crime and the association between delinquency and IQ, personality and criminal behavior, and psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder.

Conclusion

The hypothesis that individuals with antisocial personality disorder are more likely to engage in criminal activity than individuals who do not suffer from antisocial personality disorder is supported by the data presented throughout the analysis.

The study, Bad Boys, Bad Men: Confronting Antisocial Personality Disorder (Sociopathy), found that individuals with antisocial personality disorder have long histories of criminal behavior and often aren’t honest about their criminal history. Based on these studies and the supporting criminological theories, one can conclude that the results show a pattern of individuals with antisocial personality disorder and criminal behavior.

The theories discussed all relate to individuals with antisocial personality disorder and crime. The theories provide a history of the understanding of the connection between intelligence and delinquency and antisocial personality disorder and delinquency. In the sixth edition of, Vold’s Theoretical Criminology, written by; Thomas Bernard, Jeffrey Snipes, and Alexander Gerould, it is argued that low IQ scores are associated with crime and delinquency. The challenge; however, is determining the explanation of why individuals with low IQ scores are more likely to engage in crime than those with high IQ scores. They argue that one can assume one of three approaches; ‘assume that IQ measures some form of abstract reasoning or problem-solving ability and that this is largely inherited’, ‘argue IQ does not measure innate ability but instead measures qualities that are related to dominant culture’, or ‘argue that IQ measures general abilities, but that these abilities are largely determined by a person’s environment’ (Bernard et al., 2010). While psychologists can measure an individual’s personality through the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMIP), much like an IQ, researchers argue that both crim and personality may be caused by a third-party variable, such as childhood trauma (Bernard et al., 2010). Many psychological associations distinguish antisocial personality disorder from adult antisocial behavior; however, they do not distinguish antisocial personality disorder from the terms sociopath and psychopath and instead consider the terms synonymous (Bernard et al., 2010). An individual’s personality may be a driving factor in their likelihood to commit a crime.

Both of the studies presented throughout this analysis can attest to the validity of the theories discussed. In the study, Predictors of adult outcomes in clinically – and legally – ascertained youth with externalizing problems, the researchers conducted a test of the individual intelligence and likelihood to express signs of antisocial personality disorder. I would argue that this test supports the third approach mentioned in understanding intelligence and crime as well as the theories discussed regarding personality and antisocial personality disorder and crime. The individuals tested were selected at random from different locations, but all shared a similar background of deviant behaviors. Using the evidence from the studies and theories, society can become better informed about these individuals and better understand what influences these individuals. The study, Bad Boys, Bad Men: Confronting Antisocial Personality Disorder (Sociopathy), followed a similar group of individuals and found a pattern of previous deviant behaviors that persisted into adulthood.

References

1. Black, D. W. (2013). Bad Boys, Bad Men: Confronting Antisocial Personality Disorder (Sociopathy) (Vol. Revised and updatedition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Beaver, K. M., Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., Vaughn, M. G., & DeLisi, M. (2017). The Association Between Psychopathic Personality Traits and Criminal Justice Outcomes. Crime & Delinquency.
3. Boccio, Cashen, M., Beaver, & Kevin, M. (2018). Psychopathic Personality Traits and the Successful Criminal. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology.
4. Border, R., Corley, R. P., Brown, S. A., Hewitt, J. K., Hopfer, C. J., Stallings, M. C., Rhee, S.H. (2018). Predictors of adult outcomes in clinically- and legally-ascertained youth with externalizing problems.
5. Clinard, M. B., & Meier, R. F. (2016). Sociology of Deviant Behavior. Boston: Cengage Learning.
6. Cunningham, Mark, D., Reidy, & Thomas, J. (1998). Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy: diagnostic dilemmas in classifying patterns of antisocial behavior in sentencing evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law.
7. Edwards, Bethany, G., Albertson, Emily, Verona, & Edelyn. (2017). Dark and vulnerable personality trait correlates of dimensions of criminal behavior among adult offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
8. Snipes, J. B., Gerould, A. L., & Bernard, T. J. (2010). Vold’s Theoretical Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Criminal And Deviant Behavior

Introduction

Criminal and deviant behavior is an important topic of research in psychology, including the environmental influences and genetic influences on deviant behavior. This is important to understand because if we get a better understanding of when deviant behavior starts then maybe we can give that person help to prevent them from engaging in future criminal activities. Does a person’s genes that are inherited or the environment they grew up in lead to deviant/criminal behavior? Research seems consistent in recognizing that heritability influences adult behavior more than environmental influences, but that for children and adolescents the environment is the most significant factor influencing their behavior (Rhee & Waldman, 2002). So, we see some consistencies in both environmental influences and genes and how they play a role in developing those behavior traits. Research further states that both play a role in deviant and criminal behavior and how there is an interaction between genes and environmental influences that leads to this behavior. This research paper will go over what is nature vs nurture, how social skills are acquired through the social environment (Baker et, al. 2019) a few studies on how it relates to a few theories such as Criminology theory, Biological theories, and Social Process Theory. I will define the difference between criminal behavior and deviant behavior. Then, this paper will talk about how genetics and how its role plays in the influence on early-onset than late-onset delinquency (McGue, M. et, al. 2000) and how criminality is associated with it. Last, well see how environmental influences and peer groups impact our behavior too. With research and studies, the conclusion is that environmental influences and genes can lead to us behaving in ways that can be considered deviant and could lead to criminal activity.

Nature versus Nurture

Nature versus nurture has been associated with questions such as: Do life experiences or inherited traits play a role in shaping your personality? Do genes or environmental factors influence your behavior? The main topic of this debate is, which contributes more to the human development of genetic inheritance or environmental factors? Nature is genes and hereditary factors that help make up who we are, which can include our personality characteristics and physical characteristics which are things that are passed down from our parents. Nurture is environmental variables that can impact who we are, how we were raised, our relationship with others, our culture, and childhood experiences. This debate is vital to the question, do genetics or environmental factors lead to deviant behavior? The process of how genes and environmental factors work together to influence behavior is “Behavioral Genetics”. How can we measure such influences and genetic traits? Through experiments we do. Twins studies have been very popular in testing theories and measuring behavior patterns. Three additional sources that most researchers cite when gathering information about both genetic and environmental influences are twin, family, and adoption studies (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000). with twin studies you can use a behavior genetic research method that includes a comparison of the similarity in identical twins (monozygotic; MZ) and fraternal twins(dizygotic; DZ). However, some have concluded that there is not enough evidence from these twin, family, and adoption studies to profess that genetics do play a role in antisocial or criminal behavior (Lowenstein, 2003).

Social skills

Social skills are thought to be acquired through parents, but the biopsychosocial model shows the importance of genetic influences and gene environmental interactions. A study conducted by (Baker et, al.2019) using the nature vs nurture model of social development wanted to see how social skills were developed by parenting in children. The study consisted of 110 children, 44.5% female along with their parents to see biologically plausible independent and interactive associations. They observed positive and negative parenting throughout the early stages of childhood in early school years ages 6-9. What they found was that the SS vs SL/LL, 5-HTTLPR genotype predicted social skills. Whereas “parenting behavior moderated these associations wherein putative GxE effects differed by developmental timing and social skills domain”. ( Barker et, al.2019) They say that good parenting at 6 is concurrent with their prediction of overall good social skills with the SL/LL genotypes but not SS. But, for the SS good parenting predicted growth in social responsibility while negative parenting predicted social cooperation. With 5-HTTLPR their findings found that 5-HTTLPR may flag differential sensitivities to nurturing styles and examples of social turn of events, which may assist with advising focused on intercession ways to deal with improve individual climate fit.

Criminology Theory

Criminology is the study of why people commit crimes and why they act in specific circumstances. The debate over the causes of crime is an old one, the potential for criminal behavior has been viewed by some as being stamped on people at birth for reasons of heredity while others have maintained that criminals are made, not born. (Jones 2005) By understanding why an individual commits a crime, one can create approaches to control crime or try and rehabilitate that person. There are numerous theories in criminology. Some trait wrongdoing to the individual; they accept that an individual loads the upsides and downsides and settles on a decision whether to carry out a crime. Others trust the community must guarantee that their citizens don’t carry out crime by offering them a free safe place to live. Some learn that a few people have inactive characteristics that will decide how they will respond when placed in certain contrary conditions. By reviewing these studies/theories and applying them to people, maybe psychologists can help criminals from doing crimes over and over again and instead help in their recovery. Criminology has four groups of theories that are related to the topic they are: classical theories, biological theories, psychological theories, and social theories of crime. Next, this paper will be talking about the biological theory and how it applies to the genetic aspect of the development of crime and delinquency.

Biological Theory

Biological theories of crime are the biological nature of humans which determines if they will commit crime or not. It’s the physical and biological characteristics of criminals and non-criminals, it’s used to determine criminals from non-criminals with respect to their genetics, physical constitution, or neurology. Many genes may affect brain functioning in ways that either increase or reduce the chances of individuals learning various complex behavior patterns (Wilcox et, al. 2014). We saw from the earlier study that children learn from their parents and the environment. If a child witnesses’ violence and aggression then the probability of them acting in those ways are high. Addiction has been an example of biological traits that have been passed down from generation to generation and have been called “Hereditary”. Sometimes a child is exposed later in life to the drug then finds themselves addicted to it. This is because there can be a gene that can be associated with an addicted personality, once they are exposed to the drug, life of crime and deviant behavior may occur. Another interesting thing about the biological theory from (Rapin,2002) is that any person, talented or handicapped, whose social skills have been severely deficient since very early childhood, who started to talk late or whose communicative use of language is inadequate, and who perseverates and lacks cognitive and behavioral flexibility meets the diagnostic criteria for an autistic-spectrum disorder. This can explain how people grow up to do unexplainable crimes and severe crimes such as murder.

Social Process Theory

Social Process theory tries to show how people become criminals. It shows criminality in how people interact with various institutions, organizations, and society. This theory examines how criminal behavior is learned through others. People from all walks of life can have the potential to become criminals if they have destructive social relationships. This theory has three branches: social learning, social control, and labeling theory. This theory focuses on criminal behavior as learned behavior. For this theory to be completely tested would require that all the associations a person has ever had, be recorded and analyzed from the standpoint of the individual, which is clearly impossible (Conklin, 1989).

The influence on early-onset than late-onset delinquency

( McGue, M. et, al (2000). Proposed that early-onset delinquency has an underlying genetic influence that manifests in problems related to inhibition, whereas late-onset delinquency is more environmentally mediated. They conducted a study involving 11-year-old twins that consisted of 36 early starters, 85 late starters, and a 25 nondelinquent control group. They compared them to inhibition and peer group measures. What they found was that the early starters had more behavioral, psychological, and emotional problems related to inhibition than the control group and late starters. Further researched indicated that an increase in antisocial behavior in the late starter group just before their delinquency onset. Then the family history data and twin analysis showed that greater genetic influence in the early-onset as suppose to the late-onset delinquency.

Environmental Influences

It has been established that genetics do influence antisocial behavior or criminal behavior, genes can influence disorders and personality traits. But evidence has been found that environmental influences through peers and family can too, have a great impact. Many factors have an impact on a child’s path to crime or antisocial behavior such as the family’s education, poverty, and family structure. Research on the relationship between family environment and child behavior characterizes a child’s well-being with a positive and caring parent-child relationship, a stimulating home environment, and consistent disciplinary techniques (Schmitz, 2003). If a household doesn’t have these qualities, then the outcome of deviant behavior is highly likely. Families who don’t have strong bonds and have poor communication most likely will have a child that shows aggressive/criminal behavior. It can be concluded that less fortunate families who have many children, who all aren’t able to be punished, disciplined or given equal positive attention, will engage in some sort of antisocial or delinquent behavior. Also, another sign of future deviant criminal behavior is if abuse or neglect took place during childhood. Statistic’s shows that children are at a fifty percent greater risk of engaging in criminal acts if they were neglected or abused (Holmes et al., 2001). Peer groups are said to be a big factor as well in the development of delinquent/criminal behavior. For example, when children are in preschool and if there are signs of aggressive behavior towards their peers, they might be labeled already an outcast. In return, this creates poor peer relationships and those children will likely hang around other children with the same label. These relationships could continue into adulthood and the similar tendencies of these individuals create an environment in which they influence one another and push the problem towards criminal or violent behavior (Holmes et al., 2001).

Conclusion

There is overwhelmed evidence that concludes that both genetics and environmental influences are the causes of delinquent/criminal behavior. Nature vs Nurture helped us to see how genes help make up who we are and how nurture can impact who we are. Also, how important social skills are, how they are acquired through childhood and how they can have an influence on us. Then we saw how the criminology theory helped us to understand why people commit crimes and how they acted in specific circumstances. The biological theory explained the hereditary factors which are associated with genetics and how they can impact us as well to a life a crime. The social process theory showed us how people become criminals and how environmental influences and peer groups play a huge role in how we would behave in the future. What we can ultimately conclude is genes can possibly predict our future behavior to some degree and our environmental influences too could predict our behavior. Being a twin and also a person who has been interested in this topic, perhaps maybe because I can relate to it. I too am a firm believer in both of these being a factor in if we would live a life a crime. I had a great childhood and a lovely mother, but my father had substance abuse problems that I can say I endured at one point in my life. But I was able to correct it, and move on. Also, once I got out of high school, I had some trouble with the law, but again was able to correct it by changing the places I would hang out in, and the company I kept around. So, in a sense, I tested these theories, lived through them, and can say both are contributing factors.

Definition And Types Of Hate Crime

Social media has developed rapidly over the past 20 years, from Instagram and Snapchat to Messenger and WhatsApp, social media keeps changing. A fascinating study by the New York Times consumer insight group revealed the motivations of using social media. These include a desire to reveal entertaining content to others, define themselves, help causes and to feel involved. 94% of users have social media to share information and support great causes like cancer. Almost a quarter of the world’s population is now on Facebook, that’s about 2 billion users worldwide. Social media brings likeminded people together which allows communities and groups to grow online. Some groups can be related to health issues where others can be about making memes. Without social media, social, ethical, environmental and political issues would have minimal visibility. This increase in knowledge has shifted the political power from a few to the masses.

However, although social media is showing everyone what’s happening around the world it is making everyone lazy and not much change is occurring. Some say that social media allows people to express their concerns without actually having to do anything. A 2013 study by the University Of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business found that when people are given the option of “liking” a social cause, they use it as an excuse to opt-out of doing anything about.

It’s easier to say something mean or rude to someone online than in real life. Not only do you not have to see them you don’t have to deal with any repercussions (most of the time). Similarly, people have a lot less privacy now with the introduction of social media. Celebrities are among those most affected by this. Anyone can snap a picture of them on the beach or in a restaurant and in no time, everyone will know where they are. Also, it encourages people to form and cherish digital friendships over actual friendships. Snapchat is a prime example of this. People can send pictures of videos everyday which creates a “streak” between them. The term ‘friend’ on social media lacks the intimacy of real friendships, where people know each other and want to frequently interact face to face.

Social media has also long been blamed for many hate crimes regarding our world today including racial, sexual orientation and disability.

Before getting into the details of hate crimes, it is imperative to understand hate crimes from the definition although it has many definitions. For easy understanding, hate crimes are any offense based on the disability, sexuality, religion, and values of the victims. Hate crimes have many angles as it depends entirely on who or the purpose of the hate crime such as, sentencing, reporting, and conceptual purpose.

The first type of hate crime is racial hate crime. Racial hate crime is the most dominant in the public order offenses in term of the number and statistics as many people fall victims of this hate crime. For example, in Australia, the number of racial hate crimes recorded between 2018 and 2019 dropped drastically to 31486 as compared to 2015, which was at 42,554. This drop was due to many campaigns and civic education by the government to the people and the pressure from the international communities. The racial hate crime is so common, since it does not cause physical harm to the victims, but it has mental and emotional damage to the victims.

Another type of hate crime is the sexual orientation and gender, People in the society today are declaring their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian or straight. However, other people do not like to have their sexual orientation known which might lead to confusion of a persons’ sexuality. Hate crime again sexuality arises when a victim is mistaken as one who belongs to a given sexual orientation, which is against his or her actual sexual orientation. In 2018 and 2019, sexual orientation crimes rose from 312 to 357 offenses. This increase was due to the varying changes in definition and incidences by people as people realised the development of sexual and gender hate crimes.

Finally, disability hate crime is another category of hate crime. This hate crime varies as it depends entirely on the definition of the disability. People with mental impairment, physical disability or visual impairment are the victims of this hate crime as they consistently face stigmatisation from society.

It’s said that information is power and in today’s world, this power is distributed among everyone and not just a selected few. Everyone knows what’s happening in the world, whose destroying trees or which countries are launching nukes. This spread of information helps everyone make educated decisions based on what’s happening and not just what they’re told. However, social media results in hate crimes in today’s society including racial, sexual orientation and disability. Hate crimes have adverse effects on these victims and sometimes can lead to the death of the victims if they do not get help. Educating the people on hate crimes is important, as it will help reduce stigmatisation and prevalence of the crime since people will be aware of hate crime and its consequences. Thus, our relationship with what’s real and fake are slowly being changed from face to face and physical to digital.

The word “friends” is also losing its meaning.