Excerpt via Research Paper:
I find this very astonishing because I believed that cultural learning and incorporation of operant fitness as part of the cultural learning theory plays a preeminent function in affecting criminality.
I do believe that the theories that explain best the findings with the articles are definitely the sociological and theories. Internal and neurological theories are not suitable for support. I chose in the sociological hypotheses the “Social Disorganization Theory” emanating through the Chicago University research of Shaw and McKay. According to this theory’s general speculation “low monetary status, cultural heterogeneity, non commercial mobility, and family disruption lead to community social mold, which in turn increases crime and delinquency rates” (Sampson, R. J. Groves, W. M., Community Structure and Criminal offenses: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory, p. 774. ) The Social Disorganization Examine is the theory that due to the article’s title in fact underlies the research of Triplett Gainey. But in large parts it also mirrors the findings of the other writers that social class, interpersonal disorder, insufficient social cohesion and even ethnic differences are main elements causing legal activity. Psychological theories of crime affiliate crime with abstractions like mental illness, intelligence, or personality. non-e of these elements reflects the findings in the six content. The common assumption of the neurological theories of crime is that biological elements, such as body parts, facial features and skull shape have an effect on a individual’s proneness to interact in felony behavior. While discussed in the lecture, these theories are not supported by any scientific data and should therefore become disregarded. Probably none of those theories is able to support the research conclusions of the articles or blog posts.
In my opinion it might be very helpful to possess a coherent and coordinated strategy for studying causes of criminal tendencies both on the federal and state level. This would demand a comprehensive study agenda. Major should be both on sociological and psychological hypotheses not in isolation coming from each other but “as area of the big problem. ” Today, organizational responsibility for research is spread around a number of National agencies – the Countrywide Institute of Justice, the National Commence of Countrywide Health, the National Research Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control, and several more compact programs (Monahan, J. What causes violence, s. 1, 3). Coordination amongst these corporations is needed and a “concerted approach” will be recommendable. When the research answers are there and properly evaluated, programs to prevent crime needs to be implemented both on the national and state level. I believe it would become very important to sophisticated ways to raise parental awareness of the problem while parental oversight is essential to prevent criminal offenses. There should be courses to teach father and mother to recognize possibly serious patterns of their children and – if necessary – bring them in contact with institutions that could be of help to relieve the situation just before criminal habit occurs.
Set of References
Monahan, J. (19 February 2010). The Causes of Assault. Derived 15 August 2011 from www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-causes-of…/blog-263921
Sampson, Ur. J. Lines, W. N. (1989). Community Structure and Crime: Screening Social-Disorganization Theory. AJS Amount 94 Number 4 (January 1989): 774-802, derived 15 August 2011 from RJ Sampson – American Diary
