Category: Criminology

Criminologists are always trying to get to the root of why people commit crimes and create theories on why those same people act in the manner that they do. There are many theories that account for why people commit crimes and what drives them to do so. Recently through this course, the class has touched base on a few of these key theories, such as social disorganization or social ecology, the code of the streets, social learning, and biosocial theories. With these theories in mind, criminologists can get to the core of why crime is committed, and how these theories need to coincide with one another to work. This essay will touch on what each of these theories is, and how they work with each other.

As the class has moved through the course, we have found out that most of the time, when there is poverty, there tends to be a crime. This would indicate that if there is a lack of jobs and income in turn there will be higher crime rates to not only supplement income but also get by. Also, if someone is associated with peers who are inclined to crime, they too will participate and feel little remorse because the reward is greater at the time the crime had been committed.

The first theory to look at is social disorganization or social ecology and what it exactly is. The main goal of these theories is to look at the factors that affect the local community and how it affects the crime rate within that area. Wilson writes: “The decline in federal support for cities since 1980 coincided with an increase in the immigration of people from poorer countries – mainly low-skilled workers from Mexico – and whites steadily moving to the suburbs. With minorities displacing whites as a growing share of the population, the implications for the urban tax base were profound, especially in America’s cities”. This provides insight as to how the federal government views cities and, in turn, may give a glimpse as to why people in these areas may act the way they do. It also shows that with a higher tax rate in these areas of poverty, there may be more of a reason for crime to develop due to the higher rate of poverty.

Another theory that has been looked at in this course is the code of the streets. This theory arose from “the street culture that has evolved into what may be called the code of the streets, which amounts to a set of informal rules governing interpersonal public behavior, including violence” (Anderson). To break it down, it means that things in the ‘streets’, which tend to be an urban setting need to happen in a certain manner. “At the heart of this code is the issue of respect, loosely defined as being treated right” (Anderson). Though the definition in recent times of respect has changed and is in a way hard to define. People who live by this code tend to do whatever it may take to defend themselves.

Moving on to the next theory, social learning, which states: “The probability that persons will engage in criminal and deviant behavior is increased and the probability of their conforming to the norm is decreased when they differentially associate with others who commit criminal behavior and espouse definitions favorable to it, are relatively more exposed in-person or symbolically to salient criminal/deviant models, define it as desirable or justified in a situation discriminative for the behavior, and have received in the past and anticipate in the current or future situation relatively greater reward than punishment for the behavior” (Akers). This theory states that when someone is associated with people who commit crimes, they too will be at a higher risk of committing a crime. It also goes on to say that those who commit crimes see a higher reward than the punishment for the crime that they have committed. Akers also has proposed the SSSL (social structure and social learning) model, in which social structural factors are hypothesized to have an indirect effect on an individual’s conduct. They affect the social learning variables of differential association, differential reinforcement, definitions, and imitation, which in turn have a direct impact on an individual’s conduct. It breaks down that social structure has a direct impact on an individual’s conduct and how they act in such a manner.

The final theory that was talked about is biosocial theory and how that affects the criminal intentions of people who commit crimes. The main focus of this theory is to take a look at how early health risks, minor physical anomalies, prenatal nicotine and alcohol exposure, birth complications, genetics, hormones, and neurotransmitters. All of these play a role in how a person will act and feel in certain situations and, in turn, how and if they will commit a crime. So, it’s said that every level of analysis of biological factors – from molecular genetics to brain structure and function, to neuropsychological performance – has found links between biology and antisocial behavior. Likewise, several social or environmental factors such as maltreatment, socioeconomic status, education, and so on are believed to contribute to crime and aggression. This means that biological and mistreatment, mixed with education and socioeconomic status, indicate how aggressive a person will be and, in turn, the likelihood of them committing a crime.

Now that all the theories are explained in what they mean and how they operate, it’s time to dig into why they work with each other and how they make one another possible. It is said that social disorganization can lead to the rising of the code of the streets. This is ever so prominent and correct as an argument. When the community is high in poverty and tightly congested in a small space, this leads to a rise in crime rates, such as in urban settings. It also seems that there was scant media attention to the problem of concentrated urban poverty (neighborhoods in which a high percentage of the residents fall beneath the federally designated poverty line), little or no discussion of inner-city challenges by mainstream political leaders, and even an apparent quiescence on the part of ghetto residents themselves. What this correlates to is that the rise of the code of the streets is due in part to what America has done with its inner-city populations by seemingly letting them hang out to dry. Not only that, the urban locations and people who reside in them took matters into their own hands and devised a way of handling situations in front of them and that is through the code of the streets.

Now not only can social disorganization lead to the rising of the code of the streets, but learning theory and biosocial theory can explain why some people living in a high crime area engage in crime while others do not. Learning theory breaks down that people who tend to be around others who commit crimes will, in turn, also commit crimes as well. Though this argument isn’t always true and the reasoning behind that is biosocial theory. Biosocial theory takes many aspects such as health risks, exposures, and even genetics play a role in how one will engage in crime. When someone with strong willpower is presented with a situation of being offered to join in on a crime, they may decline, though they tend to hang out and be around criminals. While someone with weak willpower or an addictive personality will take part in crimes being committed by their peers. Regardless, biosocial theory clearly explains learning theory, and one by one they would almost be incomplete and make little to no sense.

There are specific ways to help reduce crime within these communities. The first and foremost is to take a look and offer help to these struggling communities in the form of outreach programs and even federal programs. The next thing to be done is to eliminate the amount of poverty within these urban settings. This will cause the code of the streets to decline and people will not have to defend themselves as much and can in turn provide back to the community. The next thing would be to try and get more education within the communities about biosocial theory and how that relates to a person’s genetic makeup. This means that people may have the predisposition to commit a crime and if people were informed it may help reduce the likelihood of this occurring. Finally, once these things are in place and full swing, people can finally relax and stop committing crimes to stay afloat. If this occurs, learning theory becomes almost obsolete and people will stop committing crimes based on their peers’ actions, since their peers won’t be committing crimes. Will any of this happen? Most likely not, but it is nice to think of the possibility of it occurring.

Now that the different theories have been discussed and broken down, it can be seen that they all intertwined with each other to make them work. If one is missing the other can hardly stand on its own. Not only that but each theory is unique and has its own qualities to it. To finish off there are also a few things that can change the current crime rate and overall change how much these theories are applied to urban populations. Not all crime can be stopped, however, it can be reduced with a few simple implementations in these urban settings.

Works Cited

1. Akers, Ronald. A Social Learning Theory of Crime, 1994.
2. Anderson, Elijah. The Code of the Streets. Atlantic Monthly, May 1994.
3. Rudo-Hutt, A., Gao, Y., Glenn, A., Peskin, M., Yang, Y., & Raine, A. (2011). Biosocial Interactions and Correlates of Crime. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/neuroethics_pubs/90
4. Wilson, William. The Political and Economic Forces Shaping Concentrated Poverty. Political Science Quarterly , 2008.

Introduction

Intersectionality, a concept first coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in the late 1980s, offers a framework for understanding how various forms of social stratification, such as race, gender, class, and sexuality, intersect to create unique modes of discrimination and privilege. This paradigm shifts the focus from singular categories of identity to the complex, overlapping networks of advantage and disadvantage that shape individuals’ experiences in society. Intersectionality reveals that the effects of multiple forms of oppression are not merely additive but exponential, creating distinct experiences for people who belong to multiple marginalized groups. By examining the interplay between different identity categories, intersectionality challenges traditional, monolithic approaches to social justice and equity, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of human experiences. It underscores the importance of considering the whole person in their social context, recognizing that each individual’s identity is shaped by a confluence of social factors. As a critical tool for analysis in feminist theory, sociology, and beyond, intersectionality facilitates a deeper comprehension of the complexities of power, oppression, and privilege, guiding efforts toward more inclusive and effective strategies for social change.

100 Words Essay about the intersectionality

Intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, is a critical framework for understanding how various forms of social stratification, such as race, gender, class, and sexuality, intersect to create unique modes of discrimination and privilege. It challenges the notion that identity categories are separate and independent, highlighting instead the complex and interconnected nature of social inequalities. Intersectionality reveals that experiences of oppression are not uniform but are deeply influenced by multiple, overlapping identity factors, leading to distinct experiences for different individuals. This concept is vital for developing more nuanced and effective approaches to social justice, ensuring that advocacy and policies address the multifaceted realities of those who navigate compound forms of discrimination.

250 Words Essay about the intersectionality

Intersectionality, a term first coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, revolutionized the way we understand identity and oppression. It articulates a critical insight: that our social identities and the systems of oppression that relate to those identities do not exist independently of each other but are interwoven in complex ways. This framework acknowledges that race, gender, class, sexuality, ability, and other identity markers do not operate in isolation but interact to shape the specific experiences of discrimination or privilege an individual may face.

The power of intersectionality lies in its ability to reveal how different systems of oppression intersect and compound, creating unique challenges for individuals who belong to multiple marginalized groups. For example, the experiences of a Black woman cannot be fully understood by looking solely at gender or racial oppression, as she faces a distinct form of discrimination that is informed by both her race and gender.

By highlighting the multifaceted nature of oppression, intersectionality calls for more nuanced approaches to social justice that address the specific ways in which various forms of discrimination converge. It challenges activists, policymakers, and scholars to consider the full complexity of individuals’ identities and experiences in their work, promoting a more inclusive and effective path to equality. Intersectionality thus serves as a foundational concept in efforts to dismantle systemic inequality, emphasizing that true social justice can only be achieved by recognizing and addressing the diverse realities of all individuals.

400 Words Essay about the intersectionality

Intersectionality, a concept that has gained significant traction in contemporary discussions on social justice and equality, offers a nuanced framework for understanding the complexities of human identities and the ways in which various forms of oppression intersect. Originating from the critical insights of Kimberlé Crenshaw, intersectionality challenges the conventional, monolithic approaches to analyzing social issues by highlighting the multidimensional nature of experience and identity.

At its core, intersectionality posits that categories such as race, gender, class, sexuality, and ability do not exist in isolation from one another. Instead, these categories interact on multiple levels, contributing to unique experiences of advantage or disadvantage. This perspective is crucial in recognizing that the discrimination faced by an individual can be both compounded and unique, depending on the intersection of their various identities. For instance, the challenges faced by a disabled, transgender person of color are informed by a convergence of racism, ableism, and transphobia, illustrating how different systems of oppression can overlap and amplify the experience of marginalization.

The strength of intersectionality lies in its ability to provide a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of social dynamics and inequalities. By accounting for the multiple facets of identity, it allows for a deeper analysis of how systemic injustices are maintained and reproduced. This approach not only enriches academic discourse but also informs practical strategies for activism and policy-making, ensuring that efforts to address social issues are inclusive and effective.

Furthermore, intersectionality fosters solidarity among diverse social movements by acknowledging shared struggles against interconnected systems of oppression. It encourages a collaborative approach to dismantling these systems, promoting a vision of social justice that is holistic and inclusive. By embracing the full complexity of individuals’ identities and experiences, intersectionality challenges us to confront the root causes of inequality and to work towards a more equitable society.

In conclusion, intersectionality is a transformative concept that reshapes our understanding of identity and oppression. It compels us to consider the multifaceted and interconnected nature of social categories and the ways in which they shape individuals’ experiences of discrimination and privilege. As a framework, intersectionality offers a powerful tool for analyzing social issues, guiding activism, and informing policy, with the ultimate goal of achieving a more just and inclusive world.

500 Words Essay about the intersectionality

Intersectionality, a critical framework developed in the late 20th century, primarily by scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, has revolutionized the way we understand and address the complexities of identity and oppression. This concept elucidates how various forms of social stratification, such as race, gender, class, sexuality, and ability, do not operate in isolation but interact in multifaceted ways to shape the experiences of individuals and groups. Intersectionality asserts that the intersections of these identities create unique conditions of privilege and oppression, challenging the notion that social issues can be adequately addressed through a single-axis framework.

The genesis of intersectionality was rooted in a critique of both feminist and anti-racist discourses, which often failed to account for the nuanced experiences of women of color, who faced overlapping forms of discrimination that could not be fully understood by examining sexism or racism alone. Crenshaw’s seminal work highlighted the need for a more inclusive approach to social justice, one that recognizes the complexity of human experiences and the ways in which structures of power intersect to affect individuals differently.

Intersectionality has profound implications for social justice activism and policy-making. It demands a reevaluation of traditional approaches to addressing inequality, urging advocates and policymakers to consider the diverse and intersecting identities of those they aim to support. This framework encourages a holistic analysis of oppression, recognizing that efforts to dismantle one form of inequality may inadvertently perpetuate others if the interconnectedness of different identities and systems of oppression is ignored.

Moreover, intersectionality has significantly influenced academic discourse, providing a valuable lens through which scholars can examine the complexities of identity, power, and inequality. It has fostered interdisciplinary research that spans sociology, gender studies, critical race theory, and beyond, offering nuanced insights into the ways in which societal structures impact the lives of individuals at the margins.

In practice, intersectionality has inspired a more inclusive and reflective social justice movement. It has led to the development of advocacy strategies that aim to address the multifaceted nature of oppression, advocating for change that is mindful of the diverse experiences within marginalized communities. This approach has facilitated greater solidarity and collaboration among different social movements, as it underscores the interconnectedness of their struggles against a backdrop of shared systems of power and privilege.

However, the application of intersectionality is not without challenges. It requires a continuous effort to recognize and address the complexities of identity and the ways in which various forms of oppression intersect. This can be a daunting task, necessitating ongoing self-reflection, education, and dialogue among individuals and groups engaged in social justice work. Despite these challenges, the intersectional framework remains a powerful tool for understanding and combating the multifaceted nature of oppression.

In conclusion, intersectionality offers a critical perspective that enriches our understanding of the human condition, highlighting the intricate ways in which various forms of identity and oppression intersect. It challenges us to think more broadly and inclusively about social justice, advocating for a world in which all individuals can navigate their lives free from the compounded effects of multiple, intersecting forms of discrimination. As we move forward, the principles of intersectionality will continue to guide efforts to create a more equitable and just society, reminding us of the importance of acknowledging and valuing the full complexity of human diversity.

Criminology, as a field of study, is deeply entrenched in the debate surrounding the origins of criminal behavior, with scholars and researchers grappling with the intricate interplay between nature and nurture. The nature vs nurture debate posits whether biological predispositions or environmental influences play a more significant role in shaping individuals’ propensity towards criminality. This analytical essay aims to delve into this discourse, examining the nuanced perspectives within criminology and the implications they hold for our understanding of crime.

Nature: Biological Determinants of Crime

Biological theories of crime attribute criminal behavior to innate characteristics and genetic predispositions. Scholars such as Cesare Lombroso proposed the concept of the “born criminal,” positing that certain individuals possess physical or psychological traits that predispose them to criminality. Biological factors such as neurological abnormalities, hormonal imbalances, and genetic variations have been implicated in influencing aggressive and impulsive behaviors associated with criminal conduct. Additionally, advances in neurobiology and genetics have provided insights into the biological underpinnings of antisocial behavior, suggesting a genetic component to criminal tendencies.

Nurture: Environmental Influences on Criminality

Conversely, nurture theories underscore the significance of environmental factors and socialization processes in shaping criminal behavior. Social learning theory, proposed by Albert Bandura, suggests that individuals acquire deviant behavior through observation, imitation, and reinforcement within their social environment. Environmental criminologists focus on the impact of neighborhood characteristics, socioeconomic status, family dynamics, peer influences, and exposure to violence on criminal involvement. Adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse, neglect, and familial dysfunction, are often cited as critical factors contributing to the development of criminal tendencies through social learning processes and maladaptive coping mechanisms.

Analytical Examination of Perspectives

An analytical approach to the nature vs nurture debate in criminology involves critically evaluating the empirical evidence and theoretical frameworks supporting each perspective. Research studies utilizing twin and adoption designs have provided insights into the heritability of criminal behavior, suggesting a modest genetic influence. However, methodological limitations and challenges in distinguishing between genetic and environmental factors underscore the complexity of unraveling the genetic basis of crime. Similarly, studies examining the impact of environmental factors on criminality highlight the importance of social context and situational factors in shaping behavior.

Moreover, integrative approaches that consider both nature and nurture factors offer a more comprehensive understanding of criminal behavior. The biosocial theory of crime, proposed by Terrie Moffitt and Avshalom Caspi, emphasizes the interaction between genetic predispositions and environmental influences in shaping antisocial behavior. This theory acknowledges the role of biological vulnerabilities, such as impulsivity and low serotonin levels, while also highlighting the impact of adverse environments, such as poverty and family dysfunction, on the manifestation of criminal conduct.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the nature vs nurture debate in criminology is multifaceted and complex, with competing perspectives offering valuable insights into the origins of criminal behavior. While biological theories underscore innate predispositions and genetic factors, environmental theories highlight the significance of socialization processes and environmental influences. An analytical examination of these perspectives reveals the interplay between biological vulnerabilities and environmental stressors in shaping criminal conduct. Ultimately, a nuanced understanding of crime requires an integrative approach that considers both nature and nurture factors, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary research and theoretical frameworks in the field of criminology.