![\"\"](\"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/ScreenHunter_12-May.-14-10.17.png\" "\\"ScreenHunter_12")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis seems to be rather poor quality. Why is the “unlawful” included in the definition of the acts? It seems superfluous or perhaps even circular. Same applies to “wrongful”.<\/p>\n
The example for battery makes no sense to me. “A man seeing a stranger sitting in his favorite seat in a cafeteria,
\ngoes up to that person and pushes him out of the seat.”. There is no intention to cause injury in such a case. The intent is to move the person away from the seat.<\/p>\n
The definition of “burglary” is strange. “Trespassory breaking and entering of a dwelling
\nhouse of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony.”. Why the inclusion of the night time criteria?<\/p>\n
etc.<\/p>\n
–<\/p>\n
Clarifying Rape\u00a0 Sometimes laws are changed to clar-
\nify the dei nition of crime and to quell public debate over
\nthe boundaries of the law. When does bad behavior cross
\nthe line into criminality, and when does it remain merely
\nbad behavior? An example of the former can be found in
\nchanges to the law of rape. In seven states, including Cali-
\nfornia, it is now considered rape if the victim consents to
\nsex, the sex act begins, the victim changes his\/her mind dur-
\ning the act and tells his\/her partner to stop, and the part-
\nner refuses and continues. The fact that the victim initially
\nconsented to and participated in a sexual act does not bar
\nhim\/her from withdrawing that consent. However, the vic-
\ntim must communicate the withdrawal of consent in such
\na manner that the accused knew or reasonably should have
\nknown that the consent was withdrawn. Before the legal
\nchange, such a circumstance was not considered rape but
\nmerely aggressive sex.<\/p>\n
I’m having trouble believing that anyone ever got off the hook by arguing that it didn’t matter that the partner stopped consenting after a while. Srsly?<\/p>\n
Citation given is: Matthew Lyon, \u201cNo Means No? Withdrawal of Consent During Intercourse and the Abstract: Section I of the article describes the evolution of the definition of rape over the past 25 years, with reforms bringing the termination of the marital rape exemption and an increased emphasis on nonconsent of the victim; the latter trend has resulted in the removal of the force requirement as an element of sexual assault in some jurisdictions. Section II reviews the current state of the law in cases where consent is initially given and then withdrawn. Some State court decision in the 1980’s reinforced the common-law rule that if consent is given initially, the act cannot be considered rape, even if consent is withdrawn in the course of the act. In contrast, several recent State court decisions have broadened the definition of rape to include situations where consent is initially given but subsequently withdrawn by the victim.<\/strong> Section III compares these two differing statutory definitions of rape. Section IV notes some of the criticisms of the expansion of the rape definition in California, Illinois, and other jurisdictions. The main criticisms are that it is impossible to define a reasonable amount of time for the partner to stop the act after consent is withdrawn; it victimizes men; and it trivializes the harm done to women who are victims of “actual” rapes. Another criticism is made by reform advocates when they claim that such laws minimize the rights of rape victims by transforming them from constitutional rights to statutory rights. This article argues that rape statutes should protect all victims of nonconsensual intercourse, regardless of when the decision not to have intercourse is stated.<\/p>\n Seems legit?!<\/p>\n (in an info box about Part I crimes) Not sure if text is supposed to be US centric or not (it is very US centric, but that may or may not be on purpose). However, this bugs me. Does the US really not recognize rape by females or male-male rape for that matter? Wikipedia has some interesting data about that: http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Male_rape#Rape_of_males_by_males<\/a><\/p>\n Motor Vehicle Theft Seems kinda strange for stealing of automobiles (but excluding similar things, like a bike or a tractor) to have a category of its own.<\/p>\n Use of Firearms<\/strong> Can u see the problem with this reasoning? Supposing that it really is of by factor 10, and that firearms avoid some 40k deaths a year, and cause some other 30k. This means a net benefit of -10k deaths, right? However, there is an obvious and relevant question here: Supposing there was firearms regulation, how much wud that reduce the need<\/em> for guns to save lives? Almost certainly by a lot. One can correct for this, by asking about the type of situation where the firearm allegedly saved lives. If the main situation where they save lives are where other people have guns, then gun control may be a good idea. This depends a bit on how easy it will be to get a hold of guns thru a black market, and how effective gun control enforcement is. Difficult subject!<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n While the association between class and crime seems logical, it is not accepted by all criminologists. An alternative explanation is that the relationship between official crime and social class is a function of law enforcement practices, not actual criminal behavior patterns. Police may I’d be surprised if there was true.\u00a0 Sources are:<\/p>\n James Short and F. Ivan Nye, \u201cExtent of Unrecorded Juvenile Delinquency, Tentative Conclusions,<\/a>\u201d Journal of Criminal Law, Charles Tittle, Wayne Villemez, and Douglas Smith, \u201cThe Myth of Social Class and Criminality: An Empirical Assessment of the Empirical Evidence<\/a>,\u201d American Sociological Review 43 (1978): 643\u2013656.<\/p>\n First off, the sources are quite old. Average age = 1968, which is about 45 years old! That makes me even more skeptic. Surely, if there is good, current evidence for such a claim, there are more recent data and reviews about it. Nevertheless, let’s check the actual papers as well. Begining with the most recent paper, which turns out to be a systematic review.<\/p>\n FINDINGS Here is the table mentioned:<\/p>\n The correlation is not at all impressive. Interesting, the correlation with IQ is stronger, sitting at -.20 (based on studies mentioned here<\/a>). Controlling for SES lowers this to -.17, which is still larger than the -.09 found with SES alone. In fact, almost double as strong. It wud be interesting to see a study that controlled for both, i.e., large scale regression analysis.<\/p>\n The authors also divide the studies up by report type: self-report and official, and by time. Here is the figure:<\/p>\n Note how the self-report percentage increases and the correlation reduces over time. They authors conclude:<\/p>\n Accumulated\u00a0 data suggest that for the past\u00a0 four\u00a0 decades\u00a0 there\u00a0 has\u00a0 been a monotonic\u00a0 decline\u00a0 in association\u00a0 between social class\u00a0 and crime\/delinquency,\u00a0 with contemporary (those\u00a0 done\u00a0 since\u00a0 1970) self-report and official\u00a0 statistics\u00a0 studies finding\u00a0 essentially\u00a0 no\u00a0 relationship between\u00a0 class\u00a0 and\u00a0 crime\/delinquency. Moreover,\u00a0 these\u00a0 historical changes\u00a0 are found\u00a0 to be attributable\u00a0 to changes\u00a0 in\u00a0 findings\u00a0 by\u00a0 studies\u00a0 using\u00a0 official\u00a0 data. Further,\u00a0 analysis reveals a pattern\u00a0 of results which\u00a0 can be interpreted\u00a0 in either\u00a0 of two ways. One interpretation,\u00a0 contingent on confidence\u00a0 in the validity\u00a0 of self-report data,\u00a0 is that data\u00a0 never did demonstrate a negative relationship\u00a0 between status and crime\/delinquency,\u00a0 and that\u00a0 in previous decades\u00a0 research\u00a0 appeared\u00a0 to show such\u00a0 a relationship\u00a0 because of biases\u00a0 in\u00a0 the criminal\u00a0 justice process which now have been corrected. Another\u00a0 interpretation,\u00a0 contingent\u00a0 upon confidence in\u00a0 the\u00a0 validity of official\u00a0 data,\u00a0 is that\u00a0 a class relationship\u00a0 did exist in the past, but no longer\u00a0 exists because\u00a0 social\u00a0 class generally has become less\u00a0 important. But\u00a0 whichever\u00a0 interpretation is\u00a0 accepted,\u00a0 the\u00a0 implications undermine\u00a0 the purported class\/criminality relationship which has fueled so much\u00a0 theoretical\u00a0 activity\u00a0 in\u00a0 sociology.\u00a0 Thus,\u00a0 numerous theories developed on\u00a0 the assumption\u00a0 of class\u00a0 differences appear\u00a0 to\u00a0 be\u00a0 based on false premises. It is now time, therefore, to shift away\u00a0 from\u00a0 class-based\u00a0 theories\u00a0 to those\u00a0 emphasizing more\u00a0 generic\u00a0 processes.<\/p>\n This is a difficult issue. I shud read more about it before i settle on some opinion. It has definitely weakened my belief in the association between SES and crime. Somethings remain, however. It is possible that the self-reports studies underestimate the correlation a bit. The hypothesis being that there is a correlation between SES and intelligence, and between intelligence and ability to remember past events. Everything else equal, one wud expect a correlation between self-reported criminal activity (past events) and SES to be a little smaller. I dunno if this is actually true at all. It’s worth checking.<\/p>\n I didn’t bother to check out the other paper. It seems to be a study, not a meta-study and it’s very dated, being even before the civil rights amendment.<\/p>\n Another thing: how does this hold up in other countries? Presumingly, all the studies used in the systematic review above are from the US.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Individual Costs\u00a0 In addition to these societal costs, victims may suffer long-term losses in earnings and occupational attainment. Victim costs resulting from an assault are as high as $14,000, and costs are even higher for rape and arson; the average murder costs more than $4 million.8 That causal mechanism doesn’t sound very plausible to me. I wonder if they corrected for intelligence in the data. I suspect that victims of violent crime are less smart on average. Smarter people generally stay away from high risk areas, and associate with fewer high risk people due to assortative relationships for intelligence, and the negative correlation between intelligence and violence. At least, i do all these things and some of the smart people i know have expressed similar views about safety.<\/p>\n The source is:<\/p>\n Ross Macmillan, \u201cAdolescent Victimization and Income Deficits in Adulthood Rethinking the Costs of Criminal Violence from a Life-Course Perspective<\/a>,\u201d Criminology 38 (2000): 553\u2013588.<\/p>\n Abstract A keyword search for “intelligence”, ” IQ “, “cognitive” got no relevant hits. Presumably, there is no control for intelligence and his theory is consistent with the data as much as mine is, except mine uses an already known causal mechanism and his doesn’t. Mine is more plausible. Altho, i didn’t bother to read the paper in detail. I read the abstract, skimmed the discussion and used the search. Good enough for now.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Adolescent Stress Who wants to be named “defender of rape”? Well, probably not many. But i can’t help wondering how many of these studies had adequate controls. Here’s what i’m thinking that they did: they compared groups of people who suffered this or that with people who didn’t. Perhaps they controlled for a few things. My suspicion is that people that get raped are people that tend to be irrational and have psychological problems to begin with that resulted in them being raped (statistically). One can test for this by doing early personality tests on people and correlating those vs. outcomes. If a trait tends to correlate with later on being raped (for instance), it is hard to not think that that personality trait simply makes people behave in risky ways: do more drugs, hang out with questionable people.<\/p>\n I dunno. Ofc, it is not so easy to do something similar with persons who were raped as small children. One cannot just give them personality tests before that. And there is also the problem of reliability thruout childhood for personality tests. I’m not familiar with the reliability of Big Five traits in childhood.<\/p>\n The author seems to agree with me about this suspicion, for he later writes:<\/p>\n Victim Impulsivity<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 Perhaps there is The cites are:<\/p>\n 73. Wilcox, Tillyer, and Fisher, \u201cGendered <\/a> Abstract of the latter study:<\/p>\n This research expands past investigations into the influence of low self-control as a risk factor for criminal victimization. Specifically, we consider two questions: (1) whether low self-control at one point in time can predict future victimization, and (2) whether victims alter lifestyle choices (like their own delinquency and contact with delinquent peers) in response to their earlier victimization. We answered these questions using three waves of adolescent panel data from the evaluation of the Gang Resistance Education and Training program. Our results support the predictions of self-control theory, showing that low self-control measured at an earlier time is associated with later victimization, even after controlling for past victimization, delinquency, social bonds, and delinquent peer contact. Likewise, self-control appears to influence the relationship between earlier victimization and later lifestyles.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Gender\u00a0 As Figure 3.3 shows, gender affects victimization risk. Altho there is apparently some doubt about this. See Wikipedia on Rape by gender<\/a>.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n According to victim precipitation theory, some people Seems interesting. Unfortunately, both the cites are books, thus making it more difficult to review the evidence for me:<\/p>\n 68. Menachem Amir, Patterns in Forcible Rape –<\/p>\n Guardianship<\/strong>\u00a0 Even the most motivated This reminds me of the Kansas City preventive patrol experiment<\/a>. Surely, the author most know of this study. Why does he suggest the opposite? Altho it is possible that it is not whether law officers actually get to the crime scene quickly that matters or whether they patrol much, but whether the public, including the criminals, think so. One cud try another experiment, the reverse of the above, where one informs the public that the police will from now one be patrolling less becus of budget cuts (or whatever). In reality, the police will patrol the same amount. Sounds like an interesting idea for a study even if tricky to pull off. It might require the co-operation of some politicians.<\/p>\n The cites given are:<\/p>\n 103. Brandon Welsh and David Farrington, –<\/p>\n Chapter 4<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0It is relatively easy to show that some crimes are the product The rest of this section deals with the perceived rationality of different kinds of crime. Or rather, it is about the rationality of the perpetrators. Rational in this context means something like using a cost\/benefit analysis or trying to minimize the chance of getting caught. In this sense, there can’t be much dispute that some perpetrators are somewhat rational. This section seems somewhat strange, becus no one wud deny that perpetrators are somewhat rational in a rational choice theory<\/a> sense.<\/p>\n It seems worth noting that\u00a0just becus criminals think a bit about how to optimize what they are doing, it doesn’t follow that rational choice theory is a correct description of criminals’ thinking. RCT (at least, classical version) gives wrong predictions about human behavior as psychologists have time and time demonstrated. One is almost tempted to call such alternative theories for irrational choice theories. :D<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n According to the theory of specific deterrence, the This is interesting. I wonder how alternative punishments such as fysical punishment (say, whips with a lash \u00e1 la Starship Troopers<\/em><\/a>) or shameful and humiliating punishments such as being forced to walk around town picking up garbage while others can look at one. If such a punishment is equally good and costs the same, then surely it is a good idea. It gives the added benefit of cleaner streets.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n While these results are not encouraging, there are research According to deterrence theory, arrest should have Pretty interesting. Seems pretty conclusive to me, as in, there is no effect. If 5 of 6 studies find no association despite employing a proper method, then the one positive result is most likely a fluke.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Sociobiology<\/strong><\/p>\n What seems no longer tenable at this juncture is any At midcentury, sociology dominated the study of crime and Then in the early 1970s, spurred by the publication of Well, it starts off good. But then the author begins to do it wrong. No evolutionary psychologist wud affirm the author’s description of their thinking. People are not<\/strong> conscious about how reciprocal altruism works, or inclusive fitness. They will benefit their family for the evolutionary reason that the members of the family share genes with them, not becus this is some conscious motive. This is the difference between ultimate explanations and proximate explanations<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is exactly the kind of thing i love about being a polymath\/generalist. These small but crucial distinctions that are made within a field are often not made when people outside the field refer to the theories inside the field. This leads to lots of straw men and mischaracterizations. Polymaths and generalists can help avoid such mistakes. For instance, for a researcher in a given field who writes a text about a broad subject, it is probably a good idea if he cud get a polymath or generalist to read thru his work to fix such mistakes.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Smoking and Drinking<\/strong>\u00a0 Maternal alcohol abuse and\/or Not a single mention of genes. This is strange since this is from the section that supposedly deals with biosocial theories. How much of smoking behavior is explained via genetics alone? It was mentioned in Hjernevask<\/em> that it is highly heritable. I googled it and found a random study which puts the heritability at 56%<\/a>.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)<\/strong>\u00a0 Many This is a typical example of how the book deals with causes of crime. It is full of references to ‘abnormal’ brain this or that, hormones, food, etc. The author believes that criminal\/antisocial behavior is abnormal behavior. I counted 19 counts of use of the words abnormal <\/em>and abnormally<\/em> in just a few pages.<\/p>\n But such behavior really isn’t abnormal. For most of our evolutionary history, antisocial behavior was a good way to get things done. There was no justice system, no police (besides, perhaps the leader of the group). Aggressive behavior exists in humans, just as it does in other animals, for a good reason: it works. Even if it works less now than it did before, that is still the reason why it is here. It still seems to be adaptive. Here’s the abstract of a recent paper:<\/p>\n Adolescent peer-aggression has recently been considered from the evolutionary perspective of intrasexual competition for mates. We tested the hypothesis that peer-nominated physical aggression, indirect aggression, along with self-reported bullying behaviors at Time 1 would predict Time 2 dating status (one year later), and that Time 1 peer- and self-reported peer victimization would negatively predict Time 2 dating status. Participants were 310 adolescents who were in grades 6 through 9 (ages 11-14) at Time 1.\u00a0 Results showed that for both boys and girls, peer-nominated indirect aggression was predictive of dating one year later even when controlling for age, peer-rated attractiveness, and peer-perceived popularity, as well as initial dating status. For both sexes, self-reported peer victimization was negatively related to having a dating partner at Time 2. Findings are discussed within the framework of intrasexual competition.<\/p>\n A multi-informant longitudinal study on the relationship between aggression, peer victimization, and dating status in adolescence<\/a>, Evolutionary Psychology<\/em><\/em> 10(2): 253-270, Steven Arnocky, Department of Psychology, Nipissing UniversityTracy Vaillancourt, Faculty of Education and School of Psychology, University of Ottawa.<\/p>\n ETA: To be fair, later the author does acknowledge that evolutionary psychologists think that aggressive behavior was fitness increasing earlier in our history.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Ofc, no such book as this one is complete without the usual criticism of genetic studies.<\/p>\n Evaluating Genetic Research<\/strong>\u00a0 Twin studies also have Even if the behavior similarities between MZ twins It is also possible that what appears to be a genetic ef- The contagion effect may explain in part the higher Adoption Studies<\/strong>\u00a0 One way of avoiding the pitfalls of twin Obviously, the answer to this is: eugenics.<\/p>\n I’m curious about the sources, let’s have a look. They are rather old. The newest one is from 2004, that’s 8 years. Oldest is from 1983.<\/p>\n Abstract:<\/p>\n When twin pairs influence each other’s behavior, observed variance is greater for MZ twins than The authors of the paper write that previous studies with twins have not taken reciprocal imitation into account. For non-adoption twin studies, this seems to be true. The idea is that the twins imitate each other. The authors tested for this with a large danish cohort. It thus interesting to see the adoption studies also cited below. Do they show that this effect is minimal or it is of comparable size to the genetic influence alone?<\/p>\n Abstract:<\/p>\n This\u00a0 investigation\u00a0 used\u00a0 the\u00a0 statistical technique of meta-analysis to Interesting, but the meta-analysis is rather old. 20 years old. Surely, a more updated analysis has been published since. I wud be very surprised if it turns out to be true that the heredity of criminal behavior is close to 0.<\/p>\n It doesn’t seem worth it to dig thru these old studies. Surely, there must exist at least one good systematic review\/meta-review of the available studies. I used Google Scholar to locate a such study. I set the age to maximum 5 years old (from 2007 and later). Used the search frase “systematic review heritable criminality”. Link<\/a>. I found this study:<\/p>\n Heritability, Assortative Mating and Gender Differences in Violent Crime Results from a Total Population Sample Using Twin, Adoption, and Sibling Models<\/a> Research addressing genetic and environmental determinants to antisocial behaviour suggests substantial variability across studies. Likewise, evidence for etiologic gender differences is mixed, and estimates might be biased due to assortative mating. We used longitudinal Swedish total population registers to estimate the heritability of objectively measured violent offending (convictions) in classic twin (N<\/em>\u00a0=\u00a036,877 pairs), adoptee-parent (N<\/em>\u00a0=\u00a05,068 pairs), adoptee-sibling (N<\/em>\u00a0=\u00a010,610 pairs), and sibling designs (N<\/em>\u00a0=\u00a01,521,066 pairs). Type and degree of assortative mating were calculated from comparisons between spouses of siblings and half-siblings, and across consecutive spouses. Heritability estimates for the liability of violent offending agreed with previously reported heritability for self-reported antisocial behaviour. While the sibling model yielded estimates similar to the twin model (A\u00a0\u2248\u00a055%, C\u00a0\u2248\u00a013%), adoptee-models appeared to underestimate familial effects (A\u00a0\u2248\u00a020\u201330%, C\u00a0\u2248\u00a00%). Assortative mating was moderate to strong (r<\/em> spouse<\/sub>\u00a0=\u00a00.4), appeared to result from both phenotypic assortment and social homogamy, but had only minor effect on variance components. Finally, we found significant gender differences in the etiology of violent crime.<\/p>\n Pretty sofisticated study. I didn’t read all of it. Some of it was too technical for me.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Evaluation of the Biosocial Branch of Trait Theory<\/strong> Wow, the criticism is that people that belong to different races… are biologically different? Holy shit! Oh noes!<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Some biological explanations for the geographic, social, No they don’t. What they imply is that some groups are more likely to be criminals than others. This can’t be news to anyone. If there were nothing that correlated with criminal activity, then it follows that all acts of crime are completely random and everyone just randomly acts like that once in a while for no good reason in the theory. This is clearly wrong. There are tendencies in different people, and groups of people etc.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n The most significant criticism of biosocial theory has While this may be true for some studies, what is really needed to ‘silence’ critics is for them to stop setting different evidential standards. Basically, stop believing in blank slate<\/a> nonsense.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Psychological theories of crime have a long history. In Interesting. I didn’t know that other people than F. Galton did such research. Goring was without a doubt right to some degree.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Psychodynamic Theory<\/strong> No. It is clearly my impression that most psychologists today think those theories are unempirical, pseudoscientific etc.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n The American Psychiatric Association (APA) believes A person charged with a criminal offense should As used in this standard, the terms mental disease and mental The problem with such definitions is that psychological conditions may be and often are continuous, not discreet. In the case of intelligence, this is surely the case. It is also the case with autism. I’d guess it is very often the case. Human attributes tend to follow normal distributions. All normal distributions are continuous, and all attributes that follows those are thus also continuous.<\/p>\n Instead of using either\/or decisions in sentencing (and one is here reminded of the current case with Anders Breivik<\/a>), then perhaps one shud develop continuous methods. For instance, one cud say that having an IQ of <70 completely excuses one of any wrongdoing. One cud create a simple function where f(70)=0. One cud then use something like sentence length = f(IQ)*judge decided length. Not sure if this is a good idea. This wud make sentences really long for very bright people. However, one cud just have a function such that f(70)=0 and f(X)=1 such that one deems any person of that intelligence level adequate for full sentencing but retains a continuous scale between those two poles.<\/p>\n This approach seems worth thinking about altho it cud have disastrous consequences with societies with different populations that score differently on IQ tests. For instance, since the US african IQ=85, almost half of them will fall between 70-85 (-1sd to 0sd), and lots of them <70. One idea to fix this is to use population relative scales. For instance, at -2sd one is without blame at all. This is 70 for whites, 55 for US blacks.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Psychologist Hans Eysenck linked personality to crime A number of research efforts have found an association This is a rather poor description those traits. All those traits are on a line of continuity. There is no clear cut difference. Speaking of “the disorder” is rather misleading. There is only a continuum. Apparently, since humans have some amounts of neuroticism, it probably is good for something fitness related, at least in the ancestral environment. A high level of neuroticism is no more a disorder than is a low level of intelligence. It is simply personal variability that may or may not be good for different things in our modern societies. And actually, intelligence is bad for fitness in the modern environment. In other words, intelligence correlates negatively with having more surviving children.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Research on Personality\u00a0 Since maintaining a deviant per- Evidence that personality traits predict crime and vio-<\/strong> 1) This is an unfortunate formulation that gives the wrong impression that such scales can be used to divide groups into two: deviants and nondeviants with 100% precision. This is not true. It is not even close to true. What is<\/em> possible is to detect a correlation between some scale of personality tests and deviant behavior (measured however).<\/p>\n 2) The last paragraf is strange, as it implicitly assumes that personality is not highly heritable. It also puts more focus on parents. This is a bad idea when research shows that parenting has little effect on personality and intelligence. http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Nurture_Assumption<\/a><\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Minority Group Poverty<\/strong> Fits perfectly with the population intelligence scores by rank order. How about relatively as well? Well, assuming white american IQ = 100, black = 85, asian = 105, hispanic 90. I entered all of those into a grafing program (Graph<\/a>), and asked it to find a linear trendline. It did and the goodness of fit (R2<\/sup>) is 0.9887. Average yearly income follows almost exactly the pattern expected by group IQ alone. The function is: f(x)=1643.84x-108526.55. This is very much in broad agreement with the methods and results used by Gordon (1997)<\/a>.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n While dropout rates have declined, about 6 percent of Not as predicted by pure population intelligence model. I also checked the numbers. They fit except for the hispanic which shud be between whites and blacks, not above blacks. However, the data is broadly consistent with population intelligence theory. Using these updated numbers<\/a>. The outliers here are hispanic. Using 87<\/a> as the population IQ for amerindians, they are also outliers. I did the same thing as above and got the function f(x)=-0.4936255x+55.844622. R2 is .5446 indicating that other things are at work. My immediate hypothesis is that it is due to having a different native language as both hispanics and amerindians presumably have significantly higher rates of having english as a second language. One cud enter the % of the population having a different first language into a multiple regression analysis and see whether i’m right.<\/p>\n The expectation is that the line shud go through blacks, whites and asians (bottom three dots), and the other two are inflated becus of language barriers.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Mistrust and fear. People who report living in neighbor- Lolwut? Reminds me of those mentioned in Gordon (1997)<\/a>. The effects of low population g<\/em> really is pervasive.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n A recurrent annoying theme with this book is the loaded terms<\/a> and questionable use of antisocial<\/em>. Here we see both:<\/p>\n 1) drug abuse<\/em> instead of the neutral drug use<\/em>.<\/p>\n 2) There is no explanation of why drug use is antisocial, especially given that many drugs are mostly used for social gatherings, say, alcohol or ecstasy both of which are party drugs. Other drugs such as THC can clearly be and are often used socially. Even stronger hallucinogens (salvia, shrooms, LSD) are often used socially. While, obviously, some people that are on drugs sometimes harm other people, this is true for people that are not on drugs as well. While some drugs may increase the chance of acting like that, others clearly reduce the chance. Ever heard of stoners fighting and killing each other while high? No. THC is a relaxing drug.<\/p>\n I even recall seeing a poster at Roskilde Festival saying that drug use (it also used abuse<\/em>) is antisocial. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense now. Here is the video<\/a> that they play over and over again. Probably without effect. Hell, it may even make people annoyed and curious and thus have the opposite effect. Their information is so obviously biased that i wud be surprised that it convinced anyone. People can tell when politicians and perhaps well-meaning doctors are lying to them.<\/p>\n Dropping out (of school?) is antisocial? What the fuck.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n One of the biggest question marks about GST is its abil- This is just screaming for evolutionary explanations.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Teenager Genarlow Wilson was an honor student and a gifted athlete, attractive, popular, and outgoing. He These laws are retarded. The state shud NOT<\/strong> have filled charges. This reminds me of how much i hate the US.<\/p>\n Should Genarlow Wilson have been labeled a \u201csexual preda- If this court or any court cannot recognize the injustice Here we can see how social processes inl uence both the Still a horrible situation. What the fuck is wrong with these people. This shudn’t be a crime at all. It is natural and common that males are a bit older than the females. There is nothing wrong with this.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Similarly to earlier, i plotted the data along with population IQs. It was somewhat difficult in this case becus the sources i consulted (source1<\/a> source2<\/a>) didn’t list IQs for all the groups. So i had to combine them. The problem was that one of them listed whites as 103 and the other as 99, asians at 105 and 106 respectively. I decided to stick with the standard numbers: 100 and 105. I used 85 for US blacks, 87 for amerindians, 89 for latinos. A further problem with the data from the book is that they conflate asians all into one category. Different asians have very different population IQs. I did a linear regression and found f(x):-2.128886x+236.81218. R2<\/sup> is 0.8851. Again, the raw population IQ data are rather good at predicting levels of single-parenthood.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Family Deviance\u00a0 A number of studies have found that <\/p>\n “intergenerational”? I can’t tell if this means heritable or just that they can see a pattern in families? It cud be both or either of them. Correlation within family does not alone show how it works. The 4 sources given are:<\/p>\n Some of these are books that i don’t have access to. The abstracts of the two relevant papers are:<\/p>\n Advancing our understanding of intergenerational continuity in antisocial behavior:<\/a><\/p>\n This commentary reviews the major findings of this set of 4 papers on intergenerational continuity in antisocial behavior; it identifies strengths and remaining challenges, and discusses potential policy implications of the research. As a group, these researchers have raised the methodological bar for future work in this area, using prospective designs with multiple informants and methods to test the influences of G2 parenting and adolescent antisocial behavior in mediating continuity between G1 parenting and G3 early disruptive behavior. The pattern of findings is discussed with respect to gender of G2 and social context. The inherent challenges of conducting intergenerational research are also highlighted, within the context of offering recommendations for improving future intergenerational investigations and their feasibility.<\/p>\n As far as i can tell, it doesn’t control for genes.<\/p>\n Continuities in antisocial behavior and parenting across three generations.<\/p>\n Accumulating evidence indicates that there are intergenerational continuities in antisocial behavior, and that parenting patterns play a role in these continuities<\/strong>. Very few studies, however, enable assessment across two generations of children at comparable ages, employing independent reporters and comparable measurements. The present study addresses the extent to which antisocial behavior in parents predicts antisocial behavior in children in two successive generations; the degree to which a man’s childhood antisocial behavior predicts antisocial behavior in his own children; the extent to which parenting problems are related to child antisocial behavior similarly in two successive generations; and the extent to which intergenerational continuities in antisocial behavior are mediated by parenting variables.<\/p>\n Questions are addressed with prospective longitudinal data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD). The CSDD includes data on 411 Inner London males (Generation 2, or G2), their female partners, their parents (G1) and their children (G3). At time 1, when G2 were aged 8-10, data on G2 child conduct problems and G1 parenting and convictions were available. At time 2 when G2 males were aged 32, data were available on the parenting of 178 G2 fathers with G3 children aged 3-15, and on their G3 children’s behavior. Time 1 data come predominantly from G1 mothers, whereas time 2 data come predominantly from G2 fathers.<\/p>\n Between generations, antisocial G1 mothers and fathers predicted conduct problems in G2 and G3 children, but G2 child conduct problems did not predict G3 child conduct problems. Within generations, G2 child conduct problems predicted G2 adult antisocial behavior and antisocial partnerships, which in turn predicted G3 conduct problems. Parental conflict and authoritarian parenting were similarly related to early childhood conduct problems in two successive generations. There was relatively little continuity between G1 and G2 parenting except that G2 males who were poorly supervised by their parents were themselves poor supervisors as fathers. Both G1 and G2 generations displayed assortative mating, with antisocial males tending to partner antisocial female peers.<\/p>\n There are between-generation and within-generation continuities in antisocial behavior, although assessment of such continuities is complicated by inevitable design and measurement limitations. Parenting partly mediated the impact of parental antisocial behavior on child antisocial behavior in two successive generations, but the relation between antisocial parents and antisocial children is not fully mediated by parenting variables.<\/p>\n Again, as far as i can tell, no control for genes. Altho the researches do claim that it is due to parenting, not genes. My emfasis.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n The Chicken or the Egg?<\/strong>\u00a0 Which comes first, bad par- Sounds like genes to me.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Educational Experience<\/strong> Perhaps becus academic achievement IS closed to someone of their limited skill…?<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Deviant involvement.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 Adolescents who report high levels Sure is moron mode in here. Taking drugs is generally a social activity. This repetition of this is annoying me. It makes it difficult to trust the author when he other places talk about antisocial acts.. perhaps in that particular occasion, it is just drug use (not necessarily abuse). Smarter people do more drugs. Life is boring.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n People interpret symbolic gestures from others and in- Derp. Sure is social constructivism in here. -.-<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Social reaction theory picks up on these concepts of I don’t like the use of the word assumed<\/em> here. To assume something is to take it as given without proper evidence. But there is proper evidence. Attractiveness and intelligence does correlate. It is not just a halo effect<\/a>. Inre. the first Beautiful People Really ARE More Intelligent<\/a>:<\/p>\n By pure coincidence, the correlation between physical attractiveness and intelligence in NCDS is exactly<\/em> the same, down to the third decimal point, as the correlation between intelligence and education<\/a>.\u00a0 Both correlations are .381.\u00a0 Everybody knows<\/em> that intelligence and education are very highly correlated.\u00a0 What they don\u2019t know is that physical attractiveness is equally highly correlated with intelligence as education is.\u00a0 If you want to estimate someone\u2019s intelligence without giving them an IQ test, you would do just as well to base your estimate on their physical attractiveness as you would to base it on their years of education.<\/em><\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Differential Enforcement<\/strong> In the US, minority groups often correspond with groups with lower intelligence and consequently higher crime rates. It might not be any oppressive effect, just that it is natural to focus on the most offending groups. How does data from, say, South Africa look like? Here we have cases of minority groups but where they have the higher intelligence. Do the police focus more or less on them? or no difference? In South Africa it is whites. Also, in the US, there are east asians. They have higher intelligence. Presumably the police doesn’t focus on them. So.. it cant be an effect of being a minority group?<\/p>\n I did try to find some evidence, but apparently, it is hard. Wiki doesnt have any<\/a>. What i cud otherwise find wasnt directly helpful<\/a>.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Retrospective Reading<\/strong>\u00a0 After someone is labeled because Reminds me of other invented memories, such as those regarding what one was doing when one heard about 9\/11<\/a>.<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Primary and Secondary Deviance<\/strong> Reminds me of this<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nContinuing Evolution of the Definition of Rape,\u201d Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 95 (2004): 277\u2013314.
\nhttps:\/\/www.ncjrs.gov\/App\/publications\/Abstract.aspx?id=208930<\/a><\/p>\nChapter 2<\/h3>\n
\nForcible Rape
\nThe carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Included are rapes by force and attempts or assaults to rape. Statutory offenses (no force used\u2014victim under age of consent) are excluded.<\/p>\n
\nThe theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is self-propelled and runs on the surface and not on rails. Specifically
\nexcluded from this category are motorboats, construction equipment, airplanes, and farming equipment.<\/p>\n
\nFirearms play a dominant role in criminal activity. According to the UCR, about two-thirds of all murders and 40 percent of robberies involve firearms; most of these weapons are handguns. Because of these findings, there is an ongoing debate over gun control. International criminologists Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins believe the proliferation of handguns and the high rate of lethal violence they cause is the single most
\nsignificant factor separating the crime problem in the United States from the rest of the developed world.
\nDifferences between the United States and Europe in nonlethal crimes are only modest at best\u2014and getting smaller over time.
\nIn contrast, some criminologists believe that personal gun use can actually be a deterrent to crime. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz have found that as many as 400,000 people per year use guns in situations in which they later claim that the guns almost \u201ccertainly\u201d saved lives. Even if these estimates are off by a factor of 10, it means that armed citizens may save 40,000 lives annually. Although Kleck and Gertz recognize that guns
\nare involved in murders, suicides, and accidents, which claim more than 30,000 lives per year, they believe their benefit as a crime prevention device should not be overlooked.<\/p>\n
\ndevote more resources to poor areas, and consequently apprehension rates may be higher there. Similarly, police may be more likely to formally arrest and prosecute lower-class citizens, especially racial and ethnic minorities, while giving those in the middle and upper classes more lenient treatment, such as handling their law violations with a warning. Police behavior and not actual behavior may account for the lower class\u2019s over-representation in official statistics and the prison population. This explanation is supported by self-report data that does not find a direct relationship between social class and crime.68 The conclusion: if the poor have more extensive criminal records than the wealthy, this difference is attributable to differential law enforcement and not to class-based behavior differences. That is, police may be more likely to arrest lower-class offenders and treat the affluent more leniently.69<\/p>\n
\nCriminology, and Police Science 49 (1958): 296\u2013302.<\/p>\n
\nThe\u00a0 basic\u00a0 findings\u00a0 are\u00a0 presented\u00a0 in Table 1, which\u00a0 shows average\u00a0 gammas\u00a0 for various categories of age,\u00a0 sex,\u00a0 and race. Contrary\u00a0 to\u00a0 general theoretical expectations and widespread\u00a0 popular\u00a0 opinion,\u00a0 the data as a whole show only a very slight negative\u00a0 relationship\u00a0 between social class
\nand\u00a0 crime\/delinquency.\u00a0 The\u00a0 overall gamma\u00a0 for\u00a0 the 363\u00a0 instances\u00a0 (fourth\u00a0 panel) is only\u00a0 -.09,\u00a0 a figure which indicates\u00a0 almost no relationship.\u00a0 Indeed, a gamma\u00a0 of this magnitude\u00a0 could result from a mere two or three point difference\u00a0 between\u00a0 the percent\u00a0 of upper\u00a0 and\u00a0 lower\u00a0 class individuals displaying\u00a0 criminal\u00a0 tendencies. Examining\u00a0 column\u00a0 totals in panel\u00a0 four, one can see that\u00a0 the relationship\u00a0 is similarly\u00a0 weak
\nin\u00a0 instances where\u00a0 only\u00a0 males\u00a0 are\u00a0 in-eluded\u00a0 (-.08),\u00a0 where only females are\u00a0 included\u00a0 (- .11), and\u00a0 in mixed-sex\u00a0 instances (-.10).\u00a0 Row totals show the same for instances\u00a0 of\u00a0 whites\u00a0 (-.07),\u00a0 nonwhites (-.01),\u00a0 and\u00a0 of\u00a0 both\u00a0 combined\u00a0 (-.12).\u00a0 In short,\u00a0 the\u00a0 variance\u00a0 about\u00a0 our\u00a0 average gamma\u00a0 is\u00a0 small.\u00a0 With more\u00a0 thorough breakdowns\u00a0 by age, sex, and\u00a0 race of subjects\u00a0 (panels\u00a0 one\u00a0 through four),\u00a0 some larger\u00a0 average\u00a0 gammas\u00a0 result, but\u00a0 there\u00a0 is no\u00a0 consistent\u00a0 patterning. Although the signs of most gammas\u00a0 are negative\u00a0 (indicating some support\u00a0 for an inverse relationship\u00a0 between class and deviance),\u00a0 the measures\u00a0 themselves\u00a0 are\u00a0 usually\u00a0 quite small, and the signs are not all negative. The most stable results are in\u00a0 instances
\nwhere\u00a0 young\u00a0 males\u00a0 are\u00a0 the\u00a0 object\u00a0 of study.\u00a0 Yet\u00a0 for\u00a0 this\u00a0 category,\u00a0 154\u00a0 individual instances yield a mean gamma\u00a0 of only\u00a0 -.12.\u00a0 There\u00a0 are\u00a0 categories\u00a0 with larger\u00a0 negative\u00a0 average\u00a0 gammas\u00a0 (all adult-only\u00a0 instances, -.46;\u00a0 all youth-adult mixed\u00a0 instances, -.70)\u00a0 but\u00a0 those averages
\nare based on\u00a0 small N’s\u00a0 (three and five, respectively) and\u00a0 are\u00a0 therefore not\u00a0 impressive given the variance\u00a0 found\u00a0 in subgroups with many instances. In fact, except\u00a0 for\u00a0 the\u00a0 two cases mentioned,\u00a0 if we set confidence\u00a0 limits about any of\u00a0 the mean gammas,\u00a0 those limits would include zero
\nin\u00a0 every case. Thus, support\u00a0 for\u00a0 an\u00a0 overall negative\u00a0 class\/criminality\u00a0 relationship\u00a0 is at best\u00a0 slight when the data are considered simply as a collectivity of evidence.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n\u00a0Chapter 3<\/h3>\n
\nResearch by Ross Macmillan shows that Americans who suffer a violent victimization during adolescence earn about $110,000 less than nonvictims during their lifetime; Canadian victims earn $300,000 less. Macmillan reasons that victims bear psychological and physical ills that inhibit first their academic achievement and later their economic and professional success.9<\/p>\n
\nEstimating the\u00a0 financial costs\u00a0 of\u00a0 criminal\u00a0 violence\u00a0 to\u00a0 victims\u00a0 is important\u00a0 for assessing both\u00a0 the\u00a0 impact of crime on\u00a0 individuals and
\nevaluating\u00a0 the feasibility and utility of various crime prevention, crime control, and\u00a0 criminal justice policies.\u00a0 Traditionally, such\u00a0 estimates
\nfocus on\u00a0 short-term costs: costs\u00a0 connected to\u00a0 the\u00a0 victimization event itself\u00a0 and costs incurred\u00a0 during\u00a0 the immediate\u00a0 aftermath.\u00a0 Although the possibility\u00a0 of more long-term costs\u00a0 is acknowledged, research\u00a0 has yet\u00a0 to articulate\u00a0 how and to\u00a0 what extent criminal violence\u00a0 impacts socioeconomic fortunes.\u00a0 In\u00a0 this article,\u00a0 I propose a\u00a0 life-course model for estimating the long-term costs of violent victimization. Using prospective, longitudinal\u00a0 data\u00a0 from a national\u00a0 sample of American adolescents, and retrospective\u00a0 data\u00a0 from a national\u00a0 sample of Canadians,\u00a0 I use this conceptual model\u00a0 to\u00a0 estimate income\u00a0 losses over\u00a0 the life\u00a0 cycle associated with violent victimization.\u00a0 Three significant\u00a0 results are reported. First, income losses\u00a0 from violent victimization are\u00a0 age-graded, with the greatest costs occurring\u00a0 for victimization experienced in adolescence. Second, criminal violence experienced in adolescence\u00a0 appears\u00a0 to influence later earnings\u00a0 by\u00a0 disrupting\u00a0 processes of educational\u00a0 and occupational attainment.\u00a0 Third,\u00a0 the\u00a0 total\u00a0 costs\u00a0 of criminal violence\u00a0 over\u00a0 the\u00a0 life course\u00a0 for adolescents\u00a0 are considerable\u00a0 in comparison\u00a0 to estimates\u00a0 provided\u00a0 in previous research. The\u00a0 policy\u00a0 implications of these findings are discussed.<\/p>\n
\nIt is widely assumed that younger children are less likely to be injured in attacks than older teens and adults, but in fact the opposite may be true.14 Recent research by David Finkelhor and his colleagues at the University of New Hampshire Crimes Against Children
\nResearch Center found that younger children\u2019s victimization by peers and siblings was similar to that experienced by older youth. Both groups suffered similar injuries, were just as likely to be hit with an object that could cause injury, and were victimized on multiple occasions.15
\nThese younger victims are also more prone to suffer stress. Adolescent victims are particularly at risk to PTSD.16
\nKids who have undergone traumatic sexual experiences later suffer psychological deficits.17 Mark Shelvin and his associates found that a history of childhood trauma, including rape and molestation, was signii cantly associated with visual, auditory, and tactile hallucinations. Kids who were repeatedly traumatized increased their experience with the three types of hallucinations, clearly indicating that childhood abuse can have a devastating effect on long-term mental health.18
\nMany run away to escape their environment, which puts them at risk for juvenile arrest and involvement with the justice system.19 Others suffer posttraumatic mental problems, including acute stress disorders, depression, eating disorders, nightmares, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and other psychological problems.20 Stress, however, does not end in childhood. Children who are psychologically, sexually, or physically abused are more likely to suffer low self-esteem and be more suicidal as adults.21 They are also placed at greater risk to be re-abused as adults than those who escaped childhood victimization.22 The re-abused carry higher risks for psychological and physical problems, ranging from sexual promiscuity to increased HIV infection rates.23
\nAbuse as a child may lead to despair, depression, and even homelessness as an adult. One study of homeless women found that they were much more likely than other women to report childhood physical abuse, childhood sexual abuse, adult physical assault, previous sexual assault in adulthood, and a history of mental health problems.24<\/p>\n
\nsomething about victims\u2019 personality
\ntraits that incite attacks. A number of
\nresearch efforts have found that both
\nmale and female victims have an im-
\npulsive personality that might render
\nthem abrasive and obnoxious, char-
\nacteristics that might incite victimization.73 People who are
\nimpulsive and lack self-control are less likely to have a high
\ntolerance for frustration and a physical rather than mental
\norientation; they are less likely to practice risk avoidance. It
\nis possible that impulsive people are not only antagonistic
\nand therefore more likely to become targets, but they also
\nare risk takers who get involved in dangerous situations and
\nfail to take precautions.74<\/p>\n
\nOpportunity?<\/a>\u201d
\n74. Christopher Schreck, Eric Stewart, and
\nBonnie Fisher, \u201cSelf-Control, Victimization, <\/a>
\nand Their Inl uence on Risky Lifestyles: A <\/a>
\nLongitudinal Analysis Using Panel Data<\/a>,\u201d
\nJournal of Quantitative Criminology
\n22 (2006): 319\u2013340.<\/p>\n
\nExcept for the crimes of rape and sexual assault, males are more
\nlikely than females to be the victims of violent crime. Men are
\nalmost twice as likely as women to experience robbery. Women, <\/strong>
\nhowever, are six times more likely than men to be victims of <\/strong>
\nrape<\/strong>, domestic violence, and sexual assault. Although males are
\nmore likely to be victimized than females, the gender differences
\nin the victimization rate have narrowed signii cantly over time.<\/p>\n
\nmay actually initiate the confrontation that eventually leads
\nto their injury or death. Victim precipitation can be either
\nactive or passive.
\nActive precipitation occurs when victims act provoca-
\ntively, use threats or fighting words, or even attack first.67
\nIn 1971, Menachem Amir suggested female rape victims
\noften contribute to their attacks by dressing provocatively
\nor pursuing a relationship with the rapist.68 Although
\nAmir\u2019s findings are controversial, courts have continued
\nto return not-guilty verdicts in rape cases if a victim\u2019s ac-
\ntions can in any way be construed as consenting to sexual
\nintimacy.69<\/p>\n
\n(Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
\n1971).
\n69. Susan Estrich, Real Rape (Cambridge, MA:
\nHarvard University Press, 1987).<\/p>\n
\noffenders may ignore valuable targets if they
\nare well guarded. Despite containing valuable
\ncommodities, private homes and\/or public
\nbusinesses may be considered off-limits by
\nseasoned criminals if they are well protected
\nby capable guardians and efficient security
\nsystems.103
\nCriminals are also aware of police guard-
\nianship. In order to convince them that crime
\ndoes not pay, more cops can be put on the
\nstreet. Proactive, aggressive law enforcement
\nofficers who quickly get to the scene of the
\ncrime help deter criminal activities.104<\/p>\n
\n\u201cSurveillance for Crime Prevention in Pub-
\nlic Space: Results and Policy Choices in
\nBritain and America,\u201d Criminology and Pub-
\nlic Policy 3 (2004): 701\u2013730.
\n104. Richard Timothy Coupe and Laurence
\nBlake, \u201cThe Effects of Patrol Workloads and
\nResponse Strength on Arrests at Burglary
\nEmergencies,\u201d Journal of Criminal Justice 33
\n(2005): 239\u2013255.<\/p>\n
\nof rational, objective thought, especially when they involve
\nan ongoing criminal conspiracy centered on economic gain.
\nWhen prominent bankers in the savings and loan industry
\nwere indicted for criminal fraud, their elaborate i nancial
\nschemes exhibited not only signs of rationality but brilliant,
\nthough l\u00a0 awed, i\u00a0 nancial expertise.67 The stock market ma-
\nnipulations of Enron and WorldCom executives, the drug
\ndealings of international cartels, and the gambling opera-
\ntions of organized crime bosses all demonstrate a reasoned
\nanalysis of market conditions, interests, and risks. Even
\nsmall-time wheeler-dealers, such as the female drug dealers
\ndiscussed earlier in the chapter, are guided by their rational
\nassessment of the likelihood of apprehension and take pains
\nto avoid detection. But what about common crimes of theft
\nand violence? Are these rational acts or unplanned, haphaz-
\nard, and spontaneous?<\/p>\n
\nharsher the punishment, the less likely the chances of re-
\ncidivism. But research shows that this is not always the case.
\nOffenders sentenced to prison do not have lower rates of
\nrecidivism than those receiving more lenient community
\nsentences for similar crimes. White-collar offenders who
\nreceive prison sentences are as likely to recidivate as those
\nwho receive community-based sanctions.185<\/p>\n
\nstudies that show that arrest and conviction may under some
\ncircumstances lower the frequency of reoffending, a find-
\ning that supports specific deterrence.
\n191 The most famous of
\nthese involve arrest and punishment for domestic violence.
\nYet, they also show that achieving specific deterrent effects
\nmay sometimes be elusive. In the classic study, Lawrence
\nSherman and Richard Berk had police officers in Minneapo-
\nlis, Minnesota, randomly assign one of three outcomes to do-
\nmestic assault cases they encountered on their beats:192<\/p>\n\n
\na greater impact than advice and mediation, and in this
\ncase it did. Sherman and Berk found that when police took
\nformal action (arrest), the chance of recidivism was sub-
\nstantially less than with less punitive measures, such as
\nwarning offenders or ordering offenders out of the house
\nfor a cooling-off period. A six-month follow-up found that
\nonly 10 percent of those who were arrested repeated their
\nviolent behavior, while 19 percent of those advised and
\n24 percent of those sent away repeated their offenses. Sher-
\nman and Berk concluded that a formal arrest was the most
\neffective means of controlling domestic violence, regard-
\nless of what happened to the offender in court, and the
\nspecific deterrent effect of arrest produced positive long-
\nterm outcomes.
\nThe Minneapolis experiment deeply affected police op-
\nerations around the nation. Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Den-
\nver, Detroit, New York, Miami, San Francisco, and Seattle,
\namong other large cities, adopted policies encouraging ar-
\nrests in domestic violence cases. A number of states adopted
\nlegislation mandating that police either take formal action
\nin domestic abuse cases or explain in writing their failure
\nto act. Nonetheless, replicating the Minneapolis experiment
\nin five other locales\u2014including Omaha, Nebraska, and
\nCharlotte, North Carolina\u2014failed to duplicate the original
\nresults.193 In these locales, formal arrest was not a greater
\ndeterrent to domestic abuse than warning or advising the
\nassailant.
\nMore recent efforts to link punishment and deter-
\nrence in domestic violence cases have also produced in-
\nconclusive results. One recent examination conducted by
\nAndrew Klein and Terri Tobin of the abuse and criminal
\ncareers of 342 men arraigned in the Quincy, Massachusetts,
\nDistrict Court found that batterers were undeterred by ar-
\nrest, prosecution, probation supervision, incarceration,
\nand treatment. Although only a minority of the men in the
\nstudy reabused (32 percent) or were arrested for any crime
\n(43 percent) within a year of their i rst involvement with
\nthe justice system, over the next decade, the majority
\n(60 percent) were involved in a second incident and almost
\nthree-fourths were rearrested for a domestic abuse or non-
\ndomestic abuse crime. The implications of the domestic
\nviolence research is that even if punishment can produce a
\nshort-term specific deterrent effect, it fails to produce lon-
\nger-term behavior change.194<\/p>\nChapter 5<\/h3>\n
\ntheory of human behavior which ignores biology and
\nrelies exclusively on socio-cultural learning. . . . Most
\nsocial scientists have been wrong in their dogmatic
\nrejection and blissful ignorance of the biological param-
\neters of our behavior.18<\/p>\n
\nscholarship and any suggestion that antisocial behavior may
\nhave an individual-level cause was treated with enmity.19
\nSome criminologists label this position as biophobia, the
\nview that no serious consideration should be given to biologi-
\ncal factors when attempting to understand human nature.20<\/p>\n
\nSociobiology, by biologist Edmund O. Wilson, the biologi-
\ncal basis for crime once again emerged into the limelight.21
\nSociobiology differs from earlier theories of behavior in that
\nit stresses that biological and genetic conditions affect how
\nsocial behaviors are learned and perceived. These percep-
\ntions, in turn, are linked to existing environmental struc-
\ntures. Sociobiologists view the gene as the ultimate unit of
\nlife that controls all human destiny. Although they believe
\nenvironment and experience also have an impact on behav-
\nior, their main premise is that most actions are controlled by
\na person\u2019s \u201cbiological machine.\u201d Most important, people are
\ncontrolled by the innate need to have their genetic material
\nsurvive and dominate others. Consequently, they do every-
\nthing in their power to ensure their own survival and that of
\nothers who share their gene pool (relatives, fellow citizens,
\nand so forth). Even when they come to the aid of others,
\nwhich is called reciprocal altruism, people are motivated
\nby the belief that their actions will be reciprocated and that
\ntheir gene survival capability will be enhanced.<\/p>\n
\nsmoking during gestation have long been linked to prena-
\ntal damage and subsequent antisocial behavior in adoles-
\ncence.28 When Lisa Gatzke-Kopp and Theodore Beauchaine
\nexamined relations between maternal smoking and child
\nbehavior, they found that exposure to smoke was associ-
\nated with increased psychopathology in offspring and that
\nexposure to secondhand cigarette smoke during pregnancy
\npredicted later conduct disorder.29 Having a smoking par-
\nent had a greater affect on behavior than other influences,
\nincluding prematurity, low birth weight, and poor parenting
\npractices.
\nResearch now shows that people who start drinking by
\nthe age of 14 are five times more likely to become alcoholics
\nthan people who hold off on drinking until the age of 21. It
\nis possible that early exposure of the brain to alcohol may
\nshort-circuit the growth of brain cells, impairing the learn-
\ning and memory processes that protect against addiction.
\nThus, early ingestion of alcohol will have a direct influence
\non behavior.30<\/p>\n
\nparents have noticed that their children do not pay attention
\nto them\u2014they run around and do things in their own way.
\nSometimes this inattention is a function of age; in other in-
\nstances, it is a symptom of attention deficit hyperactivity
\ndisorder (ADHD), in which a child shows a developmen-
\ntally inappropriate lack of attention, impulsivity, and hyper-
\nactivity. The various symptoms of ADHD are described in
\nExhibit 5.2.
\nAbout 3 percent of U.S. children (most often boys, but
\nthe condition can also affect girls) are believed to suffer from
\nthis disorder, and it is the most common reason children are
\nreferred to mental health clinics. ADHD has been associated
\nwith poor school performance, grade retention, placement
\nin special needs classes, bullying, stubbornness, and lack
\nof response to discipline. Although the origin of ADHD is
\nstill unknown, suspected causes include neurological dam-
\nage, prenatal stress, and even reactions to food additives
\nand chemical allergies. Some psychologists believe that the
\nsyndrome is essentially a chemical problem, specifically,
\nan impairment in the chemical system that supports rapid
\nand efficient communication in the brain\u2019s management
\nsystem.119<\/p>\n
\ntheir detractors. Some opponents suggest that available
\nevidence provides little conclusive proof that crime is ge-
\nnetically predetermined. Not all research efforts have found
\nthat MZ twin pairs are more closely related in their criminal
\nbehavior than DZ or ordinary sibling pairs, and some that
\nhave found an association note that it is at best \u201cmodest.\u201d165
\nThose who oppose the genes\u2013crime relationship point to
\nthe inadequate research designs and weak methodologies
\nof supporting research. The newer, better-designed research
\nstudies, critics charge, provide less support than earlier, less
\nmethodically sound studies.166<\/p>\n
\nare greater than those between DZ twins, the association
\nmay be explained by environmental factors. MZ twins are
\nmore likely to look alike and to share physical traits than
\nDZ twins, and they are more likely to be treated similarly.
\nSimilarities in their shared behavior patterns may therefore
\nbe a function of socialization and\/or environment and not
\nheredity.167<\/p>\n
\nfect picked up by the twin research is actually the effect of
\nsibling influence on criminality, referred to as the contagion
\neffect: genetic predispositions and early experiences make
\nsome people, including twins, susceptible to deviant behav-
\nior, which is transmitted by the presence of antisocial sib-
\nlings in the household.168<\/p>\n
\nconcordance of deviant behaviors found in identical twins
\nas compared to fraternal twins or mere siblings. The
\nrelationship between identical twins may be stronger and
\nmore enduring than other sibling pairs so that contagion and
\nnot genetics explains their behavioral similarities. Accord-
\ning to Marshall Jones and Donald Jones, the contagion effect
\nmay also help explain why the behavior of twins is more
\nsimilar in adulthood than in adolescence.169 Youthful mis-
\nbehavior is influenced by friends and peer group relation-
\nships. As adults, the influence of peers may wane as people
\nmarry and i nd employment. In contrast, twin influence is
\neverlasting; if one twin is antisocial, it legitimizes and sup-
\nports the criminal behavior in his or her co-twin. This effect
\nmay grow even stronger in adulthood because twin relations
\nare more enduring than any other. What seems to be a ge-
\nnetic effect may actually be the result of sibling interaction
\nwith a brother or sister who engages in antisocial activity.<\/p>\n
\nstudies is to focus attention on the behavior of adoptees.
\nIt seems logical that if the behavior of adopted children is
\nmore closely aligned to that of their biological parents than
\nto that of their adoptive parents, then the idea of a genetic
\nbasis for criminality would be supported. If, on the other
\nhand, adoptees are more closely aligned to the behavior of
\ntheir adoptive parents than their biological parents, an envi-
\nronmental basis for crime would seem more valid.
\nSeveral studies indicate that some relationship exists be-
\ntween biological parents\u2019 behavior and the behavior of their
\nchildren, even when their contact has been nonexistent.170
\nOne analysis of Swedish adoptees also found that genetic
\nfactors are highly significant, accounting for 59 percent of
\nthe variation in their petty crime rates. Boys who had crimi-
\nnal parents were significantly more likely to violate the law.
\nEnvironmental influences and economic status were signifi-
\ncantly less important, explaining about 19 percent of the
\nvariance in crime. Nonetheless, having a positive environ-
\nment, such as being adopted into a more affluent home,
\nhelped inhibit genetic predisposition.171
\nThe genes\u2013crime relationship is controversial because it
\nimplies that the propensity to commit crime is present at
\nbirth and cannot be altered. It raises moral dilemmas: if in
\nutero genetic testing could detect a gene for violence, and a
\nviolence gene was found to be present, what could be done
\nas a precautionary measure?<\/p>\n\n
\nAbnormal Psychology 101 (1992): 18\u201325;
\nDavid Rowe and Joseph Rodgers, \u201cThe
\nOhio Twin Project and ADSEX Studies:
\nBehavior Genetic Approaches to Under-
\nstanding Antisocial Behavior,\u201d paper pre-
\nsented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
\ncan Society of Criminology, Montreal,
\nCanada, November 1987.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\nfor DZ twins under at least 1 of 2 conditions: (a) the trait has some heritability and (b) MZ twins
\ninfluence each other more than do DZ twins. Applied to a trait that has an underlying continuous
\ndistribution but is measured as a dichotomy, the presence of reciprocal twin influence predicts that
\nif the base rate for the trait is not exactly 50%, then the prevalence of the trait should differ in MZ
\nand DZ twin pairs. This prediction held for registered criminality in a large twin cohort. Methods
\nof analysis that permit reciprocal twin interaction not only provide better statistical fits to the data
\nbut also yield estimates of heritability that agree with adoption data. The results suggest that the
\ngenetic influence on registered criminality may be more modest than previously thought.<\/p>\n\n
\n(1992): 595\u2013613.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\nprobe\u00a0 the putative association between heredity and\u00a0 crime.\u00a0 The data for
\nthis study were 54 effect sizes obtained\u00a0 from 38\u00a0 family,\u00a0 twin, and adoption
\nstudies on crime.\u00a0 In\u00a0 addition\u00a0 to\u00a0 the overall gene-crime relationship, the
\npotential moderating effects of gender, sample nationality, date of publica-
\ntion, and quality of the research design were also investigated.\u00a0 It was pre-
\ndicted\u00a0 that heredity\u00a0 and crime would\u00a0 not coincide, although subsequent
\nanalyses disclosed a low-moderate correlation between these two variables
\n(mean unweighted phi coefficient =\u00a0 .25; mean weighted phi coefficient =
\n.09). Further analysis of\u00a0 these\u00a0 data\u00a0 revealed\u00a0 that\u00a0 better designed and
\nmore recently published studies provided\u00a0 less support for\u00a0 the gene-crime
\nhypothesis than more poorly designed and earlier published\u00a0 investigations.
\nThe individual\u00a0 strengths and\u00a0 weaknesses of\u00a0 the meta-analytic technique
\nrelative to this effort to achieve insight into the gene-crime relationship are
\ndiscussed.<\/p>\n\n
\nmin, \u201cExploring the Association Between
\nAnxiety and Conduct Problems in a Large
\nSample of Twins Aged 2\u20134,\u201d Journal of
\nAbnormal Child Psychology 32 (2004):
\n111\u2013123.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
\nContagious Nature of Antisocial Behavior,\u201d
\nCriminology 38 (2000): 25\u201346.<\/li>\n
\n\u201cEvidence for a Gene\u2013Environment Inter-
\naction in the Development of Adolescent
\nAntisocial Behavior,\u201d Behavior Genetics 13
\n(1983): 301\u2013310.<\/li>\n
\n\u201cA General Theory of Expropriative Crime:
\nAn Evolutionary Ecological Approach,\u201d
\nAmerican Journal of Sociology 94 (1988):
\n465\u2013501.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\nVolume 42, Number 1 (2012), 3-18, DOI: 10.1007\/s10519-011-9483-0. Abstract:<\/p>\n
\nBiosocial perspectives on crime have raised some challeng-
\ning questions. Critics find some of these theories to be rac-
\nist and dysfunctional. If there are biological explanations for
\nstreet crimes, such as assault, murder, or rape, the argument
\ngoes, and if, as the official crime statistics suggest, the poor
\nand minority-group members<\/strong> commit a disproportionate
\nnumber of such acts, then by implication biological theory
\nsays that members of these groups are biologically different<\/strong>,
\nl awed, or inferior.<\/p>\n
\nand temporal patterns in the crime rate are problematic.
\nFurthermore, biological theory seems to divide people into
\ncriminals and noncriminals on the basis of their genetic and
\nphysical makeup, ignoring self-reports indicating that al-
\nmost everyone has engaged in some type of illegal activity
\nduring his or her lifetime.<\/p>\n
\nbeen the lack of adequate empirical testing. In most research
\nefforts, sample sizes are relatively small and nonrepresen-
\ntative. A great deal of biosocial research is conducted with
\nsamples of adjudicated offenders who have been placed in
\nclinical treatment settings. Methodological problems make
\nit impossible to determine whether i\u00a0 ndings apply only to
\noffenders who have been convicted of crimes and placed in
\ntreatment or to the population of criminals as a whole.185
\nMore research is needed to clarify the relationships pro-
\nposed by biosocial researchers and to silence critics.<\/p>\n
\nThe English Convict, Charles Goring (1870\u20131919) stud-
\nied the mental characteristics of 3,000 English convicts.186
\nHe found little difference in the physical characteristics of
\ncriminals and noncriminals, but he uncovered a signii\u00a0 cant
\nrelationship between crime and a condition he referred to
\nas defective intelligence, which involves such traits as
\nfeeblemindedness, epilepsy, insanity, and defective social
\ninstinct.187 Goring believed criminal behavior was inher-
\nited and could, therefore, be controlled by regulating the
\nreproduction of families who produced mentally defective
\nchildren.<\/p>\n
\nPsychodynamic (or psychoanalytic) psychology was origi-
\nnated by Viennese psychiatrist Sigmund Freud (1856\u20131939)
\nand has since remained a prominent segment of psychologi-
\ncal theory.189<\/p>\n
\na person should not be held legally responsible for a
\ncrime if his or her behavior meets the following stan-
\ndard developed by legal expert Richard Bonnie:<\/p>\n
\nbe found not guilty by reason of insanity if it
\nis shown that as a result of mental disease or
\nmental retardation he was unable to appreciate
\nthe wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of
\nthe offense.<\/p>\n
\nretardation include only those severely abnormal mental condi-
\ntions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person\u2019s perception
\nor understanding of reality and that are not attributable primar-
\nily to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or other psychoactive
\nsubstances.<\/p>\n
\nwhen he identified two traits that he associated with antiso-
\ncial behavior: extroversion-introversion and stability-instabil-
\nity. Extreme introverts are overaroused and avoid sources of
\nstimulation; in contrast, extreme extroverts are unaroused
\nand seek sensation. Introverts are slow to learn and be con-
\nditioned; extroverts are impulsive individuals who lack the
\nability to examine their own motives and behaviors. Those
\nwho are unstable, a condition Eysenck calls \u201cneuroticism,\u201d
\nare anxious, tense, and emotionally unstable.259 People
\nwho are both neurotic and extroverted lack self-insight and
\nare impulsive and emotionally unstable; they are unlikely
\nto have reasoned judgments of life events. While extrovert
\nneurotics may act self-destructively (e.g., abusing drugs),
\nmore stable people will be able to reason that such behav-
\nior is ultimately harmful and life threatening. Eysenck be-
\nlieves that personality is controlled by genetic factors and
\nis heritable.<\/p>\n
\nbetween the personality traits identified by Eysenck and
\nrepeat and chronic criminal offending.260 Other suspected
\ntraits include impulsivity, hostility, and aggressiveness.261
\nCallous, unemotional traits in very young children can be
\na warning sign for future psychopathy and antisocial behav-ior.
\n262 Personality defects have been linked not only to ag-
\ngressive antisocial behaviors such as assault and rape, but
\nalso to white-collar and business crimes.263
\nAccording to this view, the personality is the key to
\nunderstanding antisocial behavior. The more severe the
\ndisorder, the greater the likelihood that the individual will
\nengage in serious and repeated antisocial acts.264 Take for
\ninstance sadistic personality disorder, defined as a re-
\npeating pattern of cruel and demeaning behavior. People
\nsuffering from this type of extreme personality disturbance
\nseem prone to engage in serious violent attacks, including
\nhomicides motivated by sexual sadism.265<\/p>\n
\nsonality has been related to crime and delinquency, numer-
\nous attempts have been made to devise accurate measures
\nof personality and determine whether they can predict anti-
\nsocial behavior. One of the most widely used psychological
\ntests is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,
\ncommonly called the MMPI. This test has subscales de-
\nsigned to measure many different personality traits, includ-
\ning psychopathic deviation (Pd scale), schizophrenia (Sc),
\nand hypomania (Ma).268 Research studies have detected an
\nassociation between scores on the Pd scale and criminal in-
\nvolvement.269 Another frequently administered personality
\ntest, the\u00a0\u00a0 California Personality Inventory (CPI), has also <\/strong>
\nbeen used to distinguish deviants from nondeviant groups<\/strong>.270
\nThe\u00a0\u00a0 Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ)
\nallows researchers to assess such personality traits as control,
\naggression, alienation, and well-being.271 Evaluations using
\nthis scale indicate that adolescent offenders who are crime
\nprone maintain \u201cnegative emotionality,\u201d a tendency to experi-
\nence aversive affective states, such as anger, anxiety, and irrita-
\nbility. They also are predisposed to weak personal constraints,
\nand they have difficulty controlling impulsive behavior urges.
\nBecause they are both impulsive and aggressive, crime-prone
\npeople are quick to take action against perceived threats.<\/p>\n
\nlence is important because it suggests that the root cause <\/strong>
\nof crime can be found in the forces that influence human <\/strong>
\ndevelopment at an early stage of life.<\/strong> If these results are
\nvalid, rather than focus on job creation and neighborhood
\nimprovement, crime control efforts might be better focused
\non helping families raise children who are reasoned and re-
\nflective and enjoy a safe environment.<\/p>\nChapter 6 – Social Structure Theories<\/h3>\n
\nThe burdens of underclass life are often felt most acutely by mi-
\nnority group members. As Table 6.1 shows, there is real dispar-
\nity in the annual income of Asian ($65,469), white ($54,461),
\nHispanic ($38,039), and black ($32,584) households.27<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nwhite, 11 percent of black, and 22 percent of Hispanic
\nstudents drop out of high school each year. In the in-
\nner cities, more than half of all black men do not finish
\nhigh school.39<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nhoods with high levels of crime and civil disorder be-
\ncome suspicious and mistrusting.97 They develop a
\nsense of powerlessness, which amplifies the effect of
\nneighborhood disorder and increases levels of mistrust.
\nSome residents become so suspicious of authority that
\nthey develop a siege mentality in which the outside
\nworld is considered the enemy out to destroy the neigh-
\nborhood. Elijah Anderson found that residents in the
\nAfrican American neighborhoods he studied believed in
\nthe existence of a secret plan to eradicate the population
\nby such strategies as permanent unemployment, police
\nbrutality, imprisonment, drug distribution, and AIDS.98
\nWhite officials and political leaders were believed to
\nhave hatched this conspiracy, and it was demonstrated
\nby the lax law enforcement efforts in poor areas. Resi-
\ndents felt that police cared little about black-on-black
\ncrime because it helped reduce the population. Rumors
\nabounded that federal government agencies, such as the
\nCIA, controlled the drug trade and used proi\u00a0 ts to fund
\nillegal overseas operations.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nity to adequately explain gender differences in the crime
\nrate. Females experience as much or more strain, frustra-
\ntion, and anger as males, but their crime rate is much lower.
\nIs it possible that there are gender differences either (a) in
\nthe relationship between strain and criminality or (b) in the
\nability to cope with the effects of strain? Not all sources of
\nstrain produce the anger envisioned by Agnew.201
\nAlthough females may experience more strain, males may be more
\ndeeply affected by interpersonal stress.202
\nThere is evidence that stress influences both males and
\nfemales equally; however, the degree to which it leads to
\ncriminal behavior is much higher among males than fe-
\nmales.203 When presented with similar types of strain, males
\nand females respond with a different constellation of nega-
\ntive emotions.204 Females may be socialized to internalize
\nstress, blaming themselves for their problems; males may
\ntake the same type of strain and relieve it by striking out
\nat others and deflecting criticism with aggression.205 Con-
\nsequently, males may resort to criminality in the face of
\nstressors of any magnitude, but only extreme levels of strain
\nproduce violent reactions from women.206 Males may also
\nseek out their peers when they are faced with strain, whereas
\nfemales are less inclined to confide in others. Male bonding
\nwith peers may actually increase their involvement with de-
\nviant behavior, a risk that is avoided by females. More effort
\nis certainly needed to understand the cross-gender impact
\nof strain.207<\/p>\nChapter 7 – Social Process Theories: Socialization and Society<\/h3>\n
\nhad a 3.2 grade point average, was all-conference in football, voted 11th-grade prom prince, and his senior
\nyear was capped off with a special honor when he was elected Douglas County High\u2019s i\u00a0 rst-ever homecoming
\nking. Instead of going right to his college of choice, Genarlow instead served a sentence in a Georgia prison.
\nHis crime: engaging in consensual sex when he was 17 years old with a girl two years younger. Wilson was
\nconvicted of aggravated child molestation even though he and the girl were both minors at the time and the
\nsex was clearly consensual.
\nWilson engaged in oral sex with the girl during a wild party involving a bunch of kids, marijuana, and
\nalcohol, all captured on videotape. The tapes made it clear the sex was voluntary and not coerced. Though the
\nprosecutor favored leniency, Wilson refused a plea bargain because it would mean admitting he was a sexual
\npredator, a charge he vehemently denied and that no one, including the prosecutor, believed was true. Ironically,
\nif the couple had had sexual intercourse, it would have been considered a misdemeanor, but since oral sex was
\ninvolved, the crime was considered a felony. An additional irony in the case: after Wilson was convicted, the
\nGeorgia law was changed, making consensual oral sex between minors a misdemeanor as well. But the new law
\ndid not apply retroactively. Instead of using his college scholarship, Wilson was sent to prison.1
\nGenarlow Wilson\u2019s case shows how social interactions and process shape crime. He did not consider
\nhimself a criminal and even in court denied his culpability. Here is an exchange he had with the prosecutor
\nduring the trial:
\nWilson:\u00a0\u00a0 Aggravated child molestation is when like a 60-year-some old man likes messing with 10-year-old
\ngirls. I\u2019m 17, the girl was 15, sir. You call that child molestation, two years apart?
\nBarker: I didn\u2019t write the law.
\nWilson: I didn\u2019t write the law, either.
\nBarker: That\u2019s what the law states is aggravated child molestation, Mr. Wilson, not me.
\nWilson:\u00a0 Well, sir, I understand you\u2019re just doing your job. I don\u2019t blame you. . . . But do you think it\u2019s fair?
\n. . . Would you want your son on trial for something like this?2<\/p>\n
\ntor\u201d? If he had engaged in a different type of sex act, the
\ncase would never have been made public. The law itself was
\ndesigned to protect young girls from being abused by older
\nmen, not members of their own peer group with whom they
\nwere socializing freely. And if the act itself was so bad, why
\nwas it decriminalized a short time later? The bottom line: if
\nthe party had occurred a few months later, Genarlow Wil-
\nson would have been playing football at Georgia State Uni-
\nversity, and not sent to Georgia State Prison!
\nGenarlow Wilson was in fact labeled a sexual predator and
\nsent to prison because those in power, who define the law and
\ncontrol its process, decided that his behavior constituted a se-
\nrious crime, a felony. They could have just as easily ignored
\nthe action and let him go. It would have been just another case
\nof teens behaving badly. But even powerful decision makers
\ncan change their minds and reassess labels. On June 9, 2007,
\na Georgia judge threw out Genarlow\u2019s 10-year sentence and
\namended it to misdemeanor aggravated child molestation with
\na 12-month term, plus credit for time served. Under the rul-
\ning, Genarlow, who had been behind bars for more than two
\nyears, would not be required to register as a sex offender. In
\nmaking his decision, the Georgia judge stated:<\/p>\n
\nof what has occurred here, then our court system has
\nlost sight of the goal our judicial system has always
\nstrived to accomplish . . . justice being served in a fair
\nand equal manner. . . . The fact that Genarlow Wilson
\nhas spent two years in prison for what is now classified
\nas a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this
\ncourt, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave
\nmiscarriage of justice.3<\/p>\n
\ndei\u00a0 nition of what is to be considered a crime and who is
\nto be considered a criminal. How people are socialized and
\nhow they are perceived by others are critical determinants of
\na person\u2019s status and behavior.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nparental deviance has a powerful inl\u00a0 uence on children\u2019s fu-
\nture behavior. Kids look up to and are inl\u00a0 uenced by their
\nparents, so it comes as no surprise that they are willing to
\nmodel their behavior along parental lines.19 When parents
\ndrink, take drugs, and commit crimes, the effects can be
\nboth devastating and long term. In fact, research shows the
\neffect is intergenerational: the children of deviant parents
\nproduce delinquent children themselves.20
\nSome of the most important data on the inl uence of
\nparental deviance were gathered by British criminologist
\nDavid Farrington, whose longitudinal research data were
\ngathered in the long-term Cambridge Study in Delinquent
\nDevelopment (CSDD). Some of the most important results
\ninclude:<\/p>\n\n
\nnal fathers. About 8 percent of the sons of noncriminal
\nfathers became chronic offenders, compared to 37 per-
\ncent of youths with criminal fathers.21<\/li>\n
\nerational. Bullies have children who bully others, and
\nthese \u201csecond-generation bullies\u201d grow up to become
\nthe parents of children who are also bullies (see Chap-
\nter 9 for more on bullying in the school yard).22
\nThus, one family may have a grandfather, father, and son who
\nare or were school yard bullies.23<\/li>\n
\nto be at risk for delinquency than children of nonincar-
\ncerated parents.24<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
\ning of Intergenerational Continuity in
\nAntisocial Behavior,\u201d Journal of Abnormal
\nChild Psychology 31 (2003): 193\u2013199.<\/li>\n
\neds., \u201cWho Becomes Delinquent?\u201d in The
\nDelinquent Way of Life (London: Heine-
\nmann, 1977); Donald J. West, Delinquency:
\nIts Roots, Careers, and Prospects (Cam-
\nbridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
\n1982).<\/li>\n
\nPreventing Bullying,\u201d in Crime and Justice,
\nVol. 17, ed. Michael Tonry (Chicago: Uni-
\nversity of Chicago Press, 1993), pp.
\n381\u2013457.<\/li>\n
\n\u201cContinuities in Antisocial Behavior and
\nParenting Across Three Generations,\u201d Jour-
\nnal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45
\n(2004): 230\u2013247.<\/li>\n
\n\u201cParental Imprisonment: Effects on Boys\u2019
\nAntisocial Behaviour and Delinquency
\nThrough the Life-Course,\u201d Journal of Child
\nPsychology and Psychiatry 46 (2005):
\n1,269\u20131,278.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nBACKGROUND:<\/h4>\n
METHODS:<\/h4>\n
RESULTS:<\/h4>\n
CONCLUSIONS:<\/h4>\n
\nents or bad kids? Does poor parenting cause delinquency
\nor do delinquents undermine their parents\u2019 supervisory
\nabilities? In a recent survey, David Huh and his colleagues
\nquestioned 500 adolescent girls from eight different schools
\nto determine their perceived parental support and control
\nand whether they engage in problem behaviors such as ly-
\ning, stealing, running away, or substance abuse. Huh and
\nhis colleagues found little evidence that poor parenting is
\na direct cause of children\u2019s misbehavior problems or that
\nit escalates misbehavior. Rather, their results suggest that
\nchildren\u2019s problem behaviors undermine parenting effec-
\ntiveness. Increases in adolescent behavior problems, such
\nas substance abuse, result in a decrease in parental control
\nand support. Parental control actually played a small role in
\ninl uencing children\u2019s behavior problems.
\nHuh suggests it is possible that the parents of adolescents
\nwho consistently misbehave may become more tolerant of
\ntheir behavior and give up on attempts at control. As their
\nkids\u2019 behaviors become increasingly threatening and unruly,
\nparents may simply detach from and reject their kids. So in
\nthe i nal analysis, the egg may control the chicken and not
\nvice versa.37<\/p>\n
\nThe educational process and adolescent achievement in
\nschool have been linked to criminality. Studies show that
\nchildren who do poorly in school, lack educational moti-
\nvation, and feel alienated are the most likely to engage in
\ncriminal acts.38 Children who fail in school have been found
\nto offend more frequently than those who are successful in
\nschool. These children commit more serious and violent of-
\nfenses and persist in their offending into adulthood.39
\nSchools contribute to criminality when they label prob-
\nlem youths and set them apart from conventional society.
\nOne way in which schools perpetuate this stigmatization is
\nthe \u201ctrack system,\u201d which identii es some students as col-
\nlege bound and others as academic underachievers or po-
\ntential dropouts.40 Those children placed in tracks labeled
\nadvanced placement, college prep, or honors will develop
\npositive self-images and achievement motivation, whereas
\nthose assigned to lower level or general courses of study
\nmay believe academic achievement is closed to someone of
\ntheir limited skills.<\/p>\n
\nof involvement, which Hirschi suggests should reduce
\ndelinquency, actually report high levels of criminal
\nbehavior. Typically, these are kids who are involved in
\nactivities outside the home without parental supervi-
\nsion.155 Kids who spend a lot of time hanging out with <\/strong>
\ntheir friends, unsupervised by parents and\/or other <\/strong>
\nauthority figures, and who own cars that give them the <\/strong>
\nmobility to get into even more trouble are the ones most <\/strong>
\nlikely to get involved in antisocial acts such as drink-<\/strong>
\ning and taking drugs.<\/strong>156 This is especially true of dat-
\ning relationships: kids who date, especially if they have
\nmultiple partners, are the ones who are likely to get into
\ntrouble and engage in delinquent acts.157 It is possible
\nthat although involvement is important, it depends on
\nthe behavior in which a person is involved!<\/p>\n
\ncorporate them in their self-image. When a teacher puts an
\nA on your paper, it tells you that you are an excellent stu-
\ndent, and the symbol pumps up your self-image. Symbols
\nare used by others to let people know how well they are
\ndoing and whether they are liked or appreciated. Wearing
\na Rolex and driving a Mercedes is a symbolic way of let-
\nting people know that you are quite successful. Designer
\nclothes display their symbol to let people know that the
\nwearer has both taste and income. How people view reality
\nthen depends on the content of the messages and situations
\nthey encounter, the subjective interpretation of these inter-
\nactions, and how they shape future behavior. There is no <\/strong>
\nobjective reality.<\/strong> When someone takes another person\u2019s life,
\nit could be self-defense or cold-blooded murder, depend-
\ning on how people interpret the act. The police officer who
\npunches a suspect may, depending on how people interpret
\nthe incident, get a medal for subduing a dangerous crimi-
\nnal or be suspended for police brutality. Because interpreta-
\ntion changes over time, so do the meanings of concepts and
\nsymbols.<\/p>\n
\ninteraction and\u00a0 interpretation.167 Throughout their lives,
\npeople are given a variety of symbolic labels and ways to
\ninteract with others. These labels represent behavior and
\nattitude characteristics; labels help define not just one
\ntrait but the whole person. People labeled insane are also
\nassumed to be dangerous, dishonest, unstable, violent,
\nstrange, and otherwise unsound. Valued labels, including
\nsmart, honest, and hard working, suggest overall com-
\npetence. These labels can improve self-image and social
\nstanding. Research shows that people who are labeled with
\none positive trait, such as being physically attractive, are
\nassumed to maintain other traits, such as being intelligent
\nand competent.168 In contrast, negative labels\u2014including
\ntroublemaker, mentally ill, and stupid\u2014help stigmatize
\nthe recipients of these labels and reduce their self-image.
\nThose who have accepted these labels are more prone to
\nengage in deviant behaviors than those whose self-image
\nhas not been so tarnished.169<\/p>\n
\nAn important principle of social reaction theory is that the law
\nis differentially applied, benei\u00a0 ting those who hold economic
\nand social power and penalizing the powerless. The probabil-
\nity of being brought under the control of legal authority is a
\nfunction of a person\u2019s race, wealth, gender, and social stand-
\ning. A core concept of social reaction theory is that police of-
\ni\u00a0 cers are more likely to suspect, question, search, and arrest
\nmales, minority group members, and those in the lower class
\nand to use their discretionary powers to give benei\u00a0 cial treat-
\nment to more favored groups.175 The term racial profiling
\nhas been used to signify that police suspicion is often directed
\nat minority group males. Minorities and the poor are more
\nlikely to be prosecuted for criminal offenses and to receive
\nharsher punishments when convicted.176 Judges may sym-
\npathize with white defendants and help them avoid criminal
\nlabels, especially if they seem to come from \u201cgood families,\u201d
\nwhereas minority defendants are not afforded that luxury.177<\/p>\n
\nof some unusual or inexplicable act, people begin to re-
\nconstruct the culprit\u2019s identity so that the act and the label
\nbecome understandable (e.g., \u201cwe always knew there was
\nsomething wrong with that boy\u201d). It is not unusual for the
\nmedia to lead the way and interview boyhood friends of an
\nassassin or serial killer. On the 11 o\u2019clock news we can hear
\nthem report that the suspect was withdrawn, suspicious,
\nand negativistic as a youth, expressing violent thoughts and
\nideation, a loner, troubled, and so on. Yet, until now no one
\nwas suspicious and nothing was done. This is referred to as
\nretrospective reading, a process in which the past of the
\nlabeled person is reviewed and reevaluated to i t his or her
\ncurrent status. By conducting a retrospective reading, we
\ncan now understand what prompted his current behavior;
\ntherefore, the label must be accurate.194<\/p>\n
\nOne of the best-known views of the labeling process is
\nEdwin Lemert\u2019s concept of primary deviance and second-
\nary deviance.196 According to Lemert, primary deviance
\ninvolves norm violations or crimes that have very little in-
\nfluence on the actor and can be quickly forgotten. For ex-
\nample, a college student takes a \u201cfive-finger discount\u201d at the
\ncampus bookstore. He successfully steals a textbook, uses
\nit to get an A in a course, goes on to graduate, is admitted
\ninto law school, and later becomes a famous judge. Because
\nhis shoplifting goes unnoticed, it is a relatively unimportant
\nevent that has little bearing on his future life.
\nIn contrast, secondary deviance occurs when a deviant
\nevent comes to the attention of signii\u00a0 cant others or social
\ncontrol agents who apply a negative label. The newly labeled
\noffender then reorganizes his or her behavior and personal-
\nity around the consequences of the deviant act. The shoplift-
\ning student is caught by a security guard and expelled from
\ncollege. With his law school dreams dashed and his future
\ncloudy, his options are limited; people who know him say
\nhe \u201clacks character,\u201d and he begins to share their opinion.
\nHe eventually becomes a drug dealer and winds up in prison
\n(Figure 7.6).
\nSecondary deviance involves resocialization into a devi-
\nant role. The labeled person is transformed into one who,
\naccording to Lemert, \u201cemploys his behavior or a role based
\nupon it as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the
\novert and covert problems created by the consequent social
\nreaction to him.\u201d197 Secondary deviance produces a deviance
\namplii\u00a0 cation effect. Offenders feel isolated from the main-
\nstream of society and become i rmly locked within their de-
\nviant role. They may seek out others similarly labeled to form
\ndeviant subcultures or groups. Ever more i\u00a0 rmly enmeshed
\nin their deviant role, they are locked into an escalating cycle
\nof deviance, apprehension, more powerful labels, and iden-
\ntity transformation. Lemert\u2019s concept of secondary deviance
\nexpresses the core of social reaction theory: deviance is a pro-
\ncess in which one\u2019s identity is transformed. Efforts to control
\nthe offenders, whether by treatment or punishment, simply
\nhelp lock them in their deviant role.<\/p>\n