Criminology Theories: Genetic Composition, Poverty, Personality (Research Paper Sample)

CRIMINOLOGY THEORIES
By
Student’s Name
Course Name
Tutor/Professor
City/State
Date of Submission
CRIMINOLOGY THEORIES
There has been an ongoing debate on what causes some individuals to be more inclined towards crime committing crime than others. Consequently, the study of criminology has laid its central focus on the reason people commit a crime as well as why they behave in a particular way given different situations. It is only through having a deeper insight of the cause of criminality; that crime can be rehabilitated and prevented. Therefore, scientists from sociological, biological, anthropological, and psychological backgrounds have come up with different theories that advance the understanding of crime and criminal behavior. There are a plethora of factors that influence the propensity of an individual or a group to commit a crime. Some of the factors pointed out by scientists include homelessness, social class, genetic composition, poverty, personality, the community and physical appearance among other many factors. It is critical to evaluate and analyze the theories to get a deeper insight of crime and criminal behavior.
Despite a large number of criminology theories, two of the most prominent theories explaining criminal behavior are the rational choice theory and the social disorganization theory. The rational theory rests on the premise that an individual’s self-interest make them more inclined to commit a crime. The individuals engage in a risk assessment process, weighting the factors that could hinder their success as well as those that can make them successful in committing an act of crime (Gül, 2009, p.37; Gaines, Kaune, and Miller, 2008, p. 38). Similarly, those that do not commit a crime shy off after discovering the punishment that follows such actions. On account od the theory an individual might choose to commit a crime based on their behavior, to maximize their goals or to fulfill their self-interests (Gül, 2009, p.37). Consequently, the major proposition of the theory is that incentives or rewards and constraints affect the behavior of an individual in a different situation.
Even so, the rational approach has some strengths and weaknesses, the latter being the core of most criticisms. On to the strengths, the theory used in the domain of criminology sheds some light on different types of criminality including the irrational crimes. As such, the theory gives a better understanding of the various forms of criminal behavior (Gül, 2009, p.43). Secondly, it has created a breakthrough in the research arena, especially those focusing on how offenders transform from criminal orientation to the actual commission of the crime (Gül, 2009, p.43; Gaines, Kaune, and Miller, 2008, p. 38). In this manner, the theory has advanced the field of policy formulation for prevention of situational crime. Furthermore, the theory has also received acceptance for having a good parsimony that makes it falsifiable. All these strengths best explain its popularity in criminology.
The rational choice theory also has some weaknesses. First off, most studies and scientists critique the theory based on its unfounded empirical test results that do not show the connection between human behavior and rational decision making (Vito and Holmes, 2011, p. 64). For example, whether or not an individual engages in crime is not a question of comparing benefits and punishments, rather there is another welter of factors that determine the criminality. Secondly, most of the concepts that found the theory are borrowings from competing theories such as social learning theory, and psychological theory, all which have their limitations (Vito and Holmes, 2011, p.65; Gaines, Kaune, and Miller, 2008, p.46). Therefore, the rational theory is not purely relevant in explaining decision making. Furthermore, decision making is often made without any pertinent information or considerable evidence, as well as under pressure, making the process complex to explain criminality.
The second theory is the social disorganization theory, which pegs the crime on the failure of the society to achieve collective values or solve social problems. Essentially, the theory ascribes crime to the physical environments, which acts as the core for behavioral choices of an individual (Gaines, Kaune, and Miller, 2008, p.47). For example, in a neighborhood where there are fraying social structures, there is a higher likelihood of crime. Such areas may lack good school, healthcare facilities, employment, and have a mixture of residential and commercial property (Vito and Holmes, 2012, p.144). Some of the variables that exacerbate the propensity of an individual to commit crime include ethnic diversity, residential instability, family disruption, economic status, proximity to urban areas, and population density.
The theory has some advantages. First, it goes without questioning that the ideas of the theory have become central to understanding different aspects of criminology (Finley, 2007, p.236). For that matter, it has helped in reducing the prevalence of crime among immigrants and minority communities. Secondly, it has also become a foundation for most of the criminal justice policies like the Weed and Seed program that sought to weed out the incivilities within a neighborhood and replace them with developmental programs and policies (Finley, 2007, p.236). Lastly, the theory has established a new area of how fear of crime leads to the disorganization of the structure of a community. Therefore, it has pioneered a new level of understanding of the association between social ties, the community and crime.