Read Ch2 from MacLin & MacLin (sent to you via email).
From your reading, what topics most interested you? What was the most surprising or memorable thing you learned about in this chapter? What are your thoughts on the causes of crime? Are there any instances where you can think someone could never be responsible for their actions? Situations where no matter what they would be responsible? What types of psychological factors would be operating in each of those instances that lead you to assign culpability (or not)?
Towards the beginning of the chapter, racial disparity in the criminal justice system was discussed. This is a topic that was heavily discussed in my Crime and Public Policy class last fall and I thought that I would add some information to that for anybody who was interested in learning more.
Some of the reasons my class had discussed behind the racial disparity in the prison system were the fact that whites were more likely to accept plea deals thus receiving lighter sentences (such as probation). Also, in 1980s the "War on Drugs" policy threw a huge "net" out to catch drug addicted criminals. This "net" was aimed directly at inner cities which are heavily populated with blacks and other non-whites. Thus, it could have resulted in the dramatic increase in both the prison population and the proportion of blacks incarcerated. Additionally to the "War on Drugs" policy, another factor to consider in the racial disparity of the prison system is that when sentencing offenders, judicial administrators rely on information collected through a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSI). The major decision maker in whether a person receives probation or prison is the offender's employment. Since black offenders are less likely to be employed, they are deemed at high risk of re-offending to judges, probation officers, and parole boards.
Another bit of information that I found relevant to the topic of racial disparity is the findings of a study conducted by criminologists Lana Harrison and Joesph Gfroerer. They produced two regression models for both violent and property crime. They then divided up the research by location (looking specifically at the six major cities and then all areas excluding the six major cities) which then was subdivided into two categories: actual involvement and being booked for the crime. What the research found was the following:
Predictive factors of Violent Crime (listed in rank order of most prevalent to least)
Six Major Cities
Involvement Booked
Age (youth) Cocaine use
Cocaine use alcohol use
Marijuana use marijuana use
Alcohol abuse black
male
Excluding the major cities
Involvement Booked
Age (youth) Black
Male High School dropout
alcohol Cocaine
marijuana use male
cocaine
Predictive Factors for Property Crime
Six Major Cities
Involvement Booked
Age Cocaine use
Cocaine Age
Marijuana Male
alcohol abuse alcohol/marijuana use
male High school drop out
poverty poverty
Excluding the six major cities
Involvement Booked
Age Marijuana
marijuana cocaine
cocaine High School drop out
male alcohol
alcohol black
unmarried age
poverty
As you can see from the limited information from above, the predictive factors for actual involvement versus being booked for the crime differ greatly. As you can see, the biggest predicts for involvement in violence and property crimes is young, male, and drug use. Sadly, however, the statistics also show the racial disparity in officers' discretion as to whom they arrest.
In my homicide class, our professor gave us some additional information about homicides which broke down the types of homicides and the victims and offenders by race. The statistics were quite startling as you can see for yourself:
W= White
B= Black
O= Other
Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2005
Victims Offenders
W B O W B O
All homicides 50.9% 46.9% 2.1% 45.8% 52.2% 2.0%
Victim/offender relationship
Intimate 56.6% 41.2% 2.2% 54.4% 43.3% 2.2%
Family 60.7% 36.9% 2.4% 59.2% 38.5% 2.3%
Infanticide 55.9% 41.6% 2.5% 55.4% 42.1% 2.5%
Eldercide 69.2% 29.1% 1.6% 54.5% 43.8% 1.6%
Circumstances
Felony Murder 54.7% 42.7% 2.6% 39.1% 59.3% 1.6%
Sex related 66.9% 30.5% 2.5% 54.7% 43.4% 1.9%
Drug related 37.4% 61.6% .9% 33.9% 65.0% 1.1%
Gang related 57.5% 39.0% 3.5% 54.3% 41.2% 4.4%
Argument 48.6% 49.3% 2.1% 46.8% 51.1% 2.2%
Workplace 84.6% 12.2% 3.2% 70.5% 26.7% 2.8%
Weapon
gun homicide 47.2% 50.9% 1.9% 41.9% 56.4% 1.7%
Arson 58.9% 38.1% 2.9% 55.7% 42.0% 2.3%
Poison 80.6% 16.9% 2.5% 79.8% 18.4% 1.8%
Multiple victims or offenders
Mult victims 63.4% 33.2% 3.3% 55.7% 40.8% 3.5%
mult offenders 54.8% 42.5% 2.7% 44.6% 53.0% 2.4%
From these statistics, we can also gather a lot of different types of information but more importantly that most murders occur by people we know.
The most memorable thing that stood out to me in the chapter was about the Cross-race Effect. Although I had heard about it before, I found the data on the misidentifications quite interesting. Furthermore, the information about how our stereo-types may influence our facial processing is something that never occurred to me before.
As far as the causes of crime, I'm not sure where I stand (theory-wise anyway). I do believe that property crime is something people tend to be more socialized into whether it be their family, neighborhood, or peer groups that do the socializing. On the flip side, I believe violent crimes stem from more psychological factors such as drug and alcohol addictions, inability to emotionally cope with stresses, etc.
I do not believe that a person who is protecting themselves from harm and accidentally kills another person should ever be held responsible for murder (especially in instances where the other person is attacking them with a weapon). In that type of situation, the person who is protecting themselves is operating under a "fight or flight" response. Since they may not be able to flee, they have no choice but to fight back.
I do however believe that a person who commits a murder that is malicious and pre-meditated in nature should always be held responsible (especially if it's like a serial murder). If the murder is malicious and pre-meditated, the person committing the crime has a choice in whether to do it or not (this would use their cognitive skills to make the decision).
This chapter was packed full of interesting issues and topics when it came to psychology and law. I think that the section about how whites commit more crimes but more black people are convicted and sent to prison is crazy! It makes me wonder why some of the theories proposed make so much sense but on the other hand if there are some other explinations that specifically target black people.
After I got done reading through this chapter I was take aback by how much information and research has been done on some of the simplist things that have to get over looked a lot. Like the lighting aspect of how our sight is impaired depending on where we are. People could totally give police a describtion of a person and be completely off just because somebody didnt take into account that the lights in the parking lot were yellow. Another point made in this chapter is that most people always asssume that a witness is going to be an 'eye' witness when in some cases isn't always true. The testimony about what a person heard while they were on the phone could have a huge impact in court, even though it probably didn't cross a lot of people's mind that these noises could be linked to a murder invesstigation.
Going back to the begining of the chapter were it talkes about nature vs. nurture and if people have any control over things they are going to do in the future, I agree with psychologist that its not one or the other but its both working together. I think this is something that needs to be taken into account when trying to convict a criminal. I know that when it comes to the law that nothing is ever black and white, there are always some areas of gray. Im not sure that there is a case where a person absolutly shouldn't be accountable for a crime they committed but there could be exceptions for people who were brainwashed or committed a crime to save thier own lives. I dont think that there should be rules that apply to all cases but instead should be looked at individually and that is what happenes for the most part in our crimial and law system.
As for the most interesting topics I found, the explanations for the causes of crime as well as the factors pertaining to the crime itself to be most interesting. Its fascinating to me trying to explain human behavior and its causes just because it seems to be something we know so little about. The only way a person can TRULY know the motive behind a behavior would be to be inside the person's head. And sometimes, we don't even know why we did something. Subconscious and conscious factors play into every decision we make so even if someone could see what someone else was thinking the subconscious things going on in the back of their minds would still be under wraps. The important factors during a crime event like sensation and perception, attention, focus, distance, and lighting are all vital when a witness relays information to investigators. Each of these factors is EQUALLY important in trying to determine truth from memory. When something emotionally stimulating occurs, a person doesn't always remember every detail of the event that occurred and couldn't possibly remember minute details about the setting surrounding the crime scene. When you go up and talk to someone you have a crush on for the first time its doubtful that you would remember anything going on around you, what you were wearing, or what you ate for lunch that day simply because most of your attention is focused on the interaction. Similarly, when someone witnesses a crime especially one involving direct contact with a violent individual wielding a weapon, their focus might be towards the weapon or on the individual itself. Many things can cloud someones memory so it's very hard to determine what actually happened after a crime has been committed.
The most surprising thing I read in the article concerned the number of misidentifications of individuals. It really is interesting that there is a 44% misidentification rate when a white witness tries to identify an african american perpetrator.
Causes of crime? A very hard question to answer but I believe both biological and environmental factors come in to play. If someone was born with a mental disease like schizophrenia or depression, the circumstances surrounding a crime they commit would be severely different from someone born "mentally stable". A person born to be short, maybe overweight, and less attractive would also have different situational factors surrounding a crime they commit (at least in America) then someone born tall, athletic, and "beautiful". But I think the majority of crime stems from the environment one is exposed to during the MOST IMPORTANT stages of life in MY opinion which is between the ages of 1~18. When people are born into American society during this day and age where one can see someone's head blown off on TV, play games where an individual throws people out of their cars runs them over and takes their money, listen to public radio about drugs, violence and "hoes", be told by advertisements that we aren't pretty enough or rich enough to be accepted, I'm not surprised more people aren't criminals. So societal factors have a huge influence on early childhood development but family situation is the biggest influence on anyone's life in my opinion. Values, beliefs, and views expressed by one's parents or guardians are the most important factors in the development of child's values, beliefs, and views. I don't even have to see the statistics on the number of criminals coming from broken homes to know that the majority are.
As far as responsibility for a crime goes, there is not much of an excuse that relieves someone of ALL guilt from a crime. Unless someone is declared CLINICALLY INSANE to the PROVEN point where they ABSOLUTELY don't know that what they did was wrong, a person is pretty much 100% responsible for ANY crime they commit. As stated in the chapter ignorance of the law is absolutely NOT an excuse for crime. Now, the definition of crime is all relative. I tend to go deep so every "crime" can be viewed differently by each individual. Just because as a society we deemed the word "crime" to mean something WE defined to be "wrong" doesn't mean the action itself HAS to be bad. Its just the way we define it. We as a society define CRIME and a CRIMINAL so to me its hard to point the finger and differentiate between a jay walking "CRIMINAL" and a murderer.
One of the more interesting topics in this chapter was the section on memory and biology. The midbrain is so small in comparison to the rest of the brain, and yet that is where much of the memory is stored. I was taught in my criminology class that more whites commit criminal activities than minorities. This information is not surprising, but it is interesting to learn especially when society wants us to believe it is minorities which are at fault. I think that bad circumstances and situations people get themselves to create crime, at times. This may be more prevalent to the property crimes which are committed. Some people live in certain environments which exposes them to more criminal activity which increases the chance of that individual to commit criminal activities. I think that some people also have genetic predispositions which make them more susceptible to criminal behavior. I would have to agree more with the biopsychological approach to the cause of criminal activity. I am skeptical to agree with the facial similarities of criminals but more of how there may be a chemical or hormone factor which increases the likelihood of someone becoming a hard criminal. Some people with the disease of Lesch-Nyhan syndrome may not be accountable for their actions. These people have self-mutilating actions and sometimes turn to others to cause harm. This syndrome is due to a biological factor which could not be blamed on the individuals own premeditated actions. On the other hand, I do think that a premeditated criminal act should always be responsible to the criminal act committed. Giving a list of who should always and never be responsible for their actions would not really work. There are always special circumstances and individualistic attributions which make each case different.
One of the topics I found most interesting was lighting, and how depending on certain conditions an object may appear to be a different color than it actually is. It was interesting how this can potentially affect the accuracy of eye witnesses. I found the section on selective looking most memorable. It explained how in crimes where weapons are used, the victims can give a detailed description of the weapon, but they can give very little information on the person holding the weapon. As far as the causes of crime I think there are probably both biological and environmental factors involved when it comes to who commits crimes and which types of crimes they commit. I think if someone grows up to be a serial killer it may be more biological, but if someone grows up to be a thief it may be more environmental, or a combination of personality and environment. When it comes to people being held responsible for their actions when they commit a crime, I think it depends on each individual case. However, I do think in cases of self-defense people should never be held responsible. For example, I think if a woman is being abused by her husband and her only option to protect herself from getting seriously injured by her husband is to seriously injure him then I think she should not be held responsible. I think a person should be held responsible for their actions if they have a record of committing certain crimes before, and show that they planned to do whatever it is that they did beforehand.
The section that examined the causes of crime and the nature v. nurture debate was very interesting. However, the most interesting part of the chapter was the portion exploring sensation and encoding, specifically visual accounts relating to memory, and how they can be distorted due to various factors.
In addressing the causes of crime, I will begin by stating that almost all crimes can be crimes of circumstance, however, crimes of circumstance are more common the less sever the crime is and they are negatively correlated to the severity of the crime, as the crime gets more sever, the less like a crime is to be of circumstance. For example, if your family is starving and you don’t have money for food, you will steal. However, a situation is unlikely to occur in which a circumstance arises that you are compelled to murder someone. With that said, people who habitually commit crimes may have some predisposed biological factors pushing them to do so and these biological factors compliment events in a persons up bringing, which make the largest contribution to the actions of people. What I am saying, is that nature and nurture combine to create who we are, with nurture playing a bigger role.
I am a firm believer in the idea that your world is what you make it, however there are instances in which people aren’t responsible for their actions. For instance self defense. There are also instances in which a person is completely responsible for their actions. For instance, a premeditated crime with malevolent intent, again baring self defense issues. Psychological factors examined to determine if the person was blameworthy, would include some factors already discussed. Whether or not the person was acting in self-defense, fight or flight. The age of the person must also be take into account, I think it is hard to hold children under the age of 10 accountable for their actions, because they often lack the cognitive ability to determine what is right or wrong and they do not understand the ramifications of their actions. Finally we would examine whether the crime was calculated, thought-out, and malicious.
I think the most interesting aspect of this chapter was about trying to figure out the causes of crime and what "makes" an individual a criminal. The chapter discusses personality traits (such as sadism), biological features (such as the early studies on asymmetrical faces of criminals), and surroundings (such as growing up in a home without a father.) I was rather surprised about the study of Italian criminals having asymmetrical faces. I had heard of the study about bumps or depressions in the head being associated with smaller or larger areas of concentration in the brain. However, I had never before heard of associating a "face type" to criminals. I was also very surprised about the study with the mother Ada, who had children that were all criminals in some way or another. I personally believe that both nature and nurture interact to produce a criminal. For example, there may be some personality traits that make a person more likely to commit crimes, but I think that the individual's home environment and society also affect if the individual may be likely to commit a crime. If a person with personality traits such as introversion and sadism are abused as a child and weapons are readily available, he or she may be more likely to commit a murder. I do not think that only nature or only nurture can be described as causes to criminal behavior.
A person may not be responsible for his or her actions if he or she did not mean to kill someone. For example, if a hunter shoots another hunter while hunting by accident because he or she did not see the person. There was no intent to kill, there was no motive to kill, it was simply an accident. Also, a person may not be responsible for his or her actions if he or she is mentally incapacitated. For example, someone with Downs Syndrome could hit their guardian, but would not be held responsible for assault or battery charges due to the fact that he or she is mentally unable to comprehend his or her actions and know that the actions are wrong. He or she also may not be able to understand that harm is being done.
A person would certainly be held responsible for actions if he or she knew the act was wrong, planned it in advance, and still committed the crime anyway. For example, a person could intentionally set out to kidnap a victim, rape the victim, and proceed to kill the victim. For argument's sake, we will assume that this person is perfectly mentally stable, has no mental disorders, and knows that kidnapping, raping, and killing are wrong and illegal, yet the person committed the crimes anyway. This person would certainly be held responsible for the crimes. There could be underlying personality traits or situational factors contributing to the crimes, but the person would still be held accountable.
The most interesting topics in this chapter involved race and crime. It was very interesting to note that even though whites commit a higher percentage of crimes, the deeper in the correctional system one goes, the “blacker” it gets. The explanations provided all make sense, but sadly I am sure it is a combination of all of them. This includes explicit and implicit racism from the justice system. Now I am not saying the whole system is racist or anything like that, but sadly I feel a portion of it must be to attribute to those numbers. Another race related topic I found interesting is the race identification of faces. I found it very interesting that it was not about race, but rather ingroup and outgroup definition. People of different races misidentified people of a different race much more often than people of the same race. Other-race faces can tap into stereotypes because interaction with the other races is often not as frequent as one’s own race, so their ability to identify faces of those races is not as good.
Like most other people, I think crime is because of a mixture of nature and nurture. I do not think people are born criminals, but they can definitely have some predispositions to crime, such as mental illnesses in the rare cases that they cause one to commit a crime. If one is raised in the right environment, I am sure they could form their own destiny and have a productive life. As I just mentioned, I do believe there are some instances where people cannot help what they are doing and therefore cannot be held responsible. If someone is severely mentally ill, they are so far in their own world that they cannot relate to the real world. Also, if they are protecting themselves or someone else from danger, they should not be punished for harm they cause to someone dangerous. If it is their last option or an accident, they should not be in trouble with the law. Outside of cases like this, people should always be held responsible for what they do. Alcohol, for example, is no excuse for any crime. They chose to drink, so they need to know what can happen when people drink. Overall, I think if someone harmed someone intentionally and maliciously and knew what they were doing, they should be punished.
After reading chapter two there were plenty of facts that seemed interesting and informative. The topic which was the most interesting was about the criminals the research on the topic that it was researched upon that nature, nurture or even the thought that being a criminal was biological i.e. the criminals are born that way a criminal is born to be a criminal. Another fact that the facial features of the criminals are alike or the criminals or perpetrators have some specific facial features which they can be identified by was very interesting.
The different types of physiological processes which we make use of and dare key while identifying a crime and acting as a witness to a crime and how these processes can hamper or help us in the process of doing so topic in this is another informative topic in this chapter.
various causes of crime there were also different causes of crime I think that the reason which is the most responsible for criminal activities in our society is the poverty and unequal distribution of wealth in our society with the growing materialism and growing demand and appreciation of luxury items which prompts people to steal and commit criminal offences. Other reasons which can be responsible are the illiteracy in our society and sometimes psychological factors and imbalanced mind or traumatic childhood.
There can be and have been a lot of instances where the perpetrators have not been executed only because of the lack of evidence against them for example if a person commits crime and the only key witness can recognize him but only due to the witnesses physical impairment for example the eyesight problems ,colorblindness etc which might hinder the witness to legally testify against the criminal as the witnesses’ testimony may not count only because of those factors, even though he /she can identify the criminal and the perpetrator is set free only because of the lack of evidence. There can also be instances where a person is wrongfully acquitted of criminal charges when some evidence are wrongfully point out towards a person’s actions for example in a real case a man was suspected and even sent to jail for a few days as he was charged with killing his wife and the evidence against him was that his DNA was found in the victims (his wife’s) nails but was released later on as it was found out that DNA can stay in a place for days or weeks altogether.
This chapter was really interesting and it highlighted several reasons why eye witnesses may, without knowing, give an inaccurate description of the "perpetrator". The most intriguing thing to me was how many factors are present when deciding what a person "sees". The lighting, the time of day, the arousal level, the familiarity, etc.. are some, but not all, of these factors. There are many times when friends and I have been discussing something such as an outfit another friend was wearing but none of us agree on what the outfit really was. Of course, I have always assumed that my vision and memory of the outfit was correct and that my friends were all wrong but after reading this chapter I began to wonder how many times had my memory mislead me? Maybe I wouldn't be such a good eye witness after all.
There was two points that I really liked in this chapter. The first being that while murder kills 520,000 people around the world each year, 6 million people die from cancer in the same year. These numbers surprised me because media portrays murders to be very common and media also often scares the viewers into believing that at any time, they too could be murdered. Maybe the media should focus more of their time on cancer prevention? The second point that really made me think was that although the average person has never been found to be a criminal, how many of these "average people" have gotten away with a criminal act? I see "criminals" every day (under aged drinkers, jay walkers, pot smokers ) but no one looks down on these people the way they look down on inmates. Apparently, it is only a wrong doing if you get caught otherwise, all's well that ends well.
For the most part, I believe that society and it's many problems put criminals in a place where crime is accessible. However, I also believe that there are certain people who are just born evil. As far as responsibility of crime goes, I believe that the criminal is always responsible but that not all punishments should be the same. For instance, a serial killer should be condemned to life in jail but a woman who kills her cheating husband should not be treated the same way.
chapter 2 of M&M was full of many interesting issue and topics that i have already learned about, but what i loved reading was, reading about the seven basic principles and it's knowledge of what is a crime and what is not a crime. This subject was very interesting to be because, how do one truly know what is a crime, dose death have to accrue in order for them (the Law)to consider it a crime,dose it have to affect society in a huge way for it to be consider a crime or dose it have to only affect the legal system in order for it to be consider a crime.
one of the most memorable thing that i learned why reading chapter 2 was learning about the human Personality and how human that have normal personality can also cause crime. I truly do not understand what they meant by normal personalties, i mean, if a crime is being committed by a normal personality human being then what do we consider normal personality? or should i say is their any such thing as a normal personality. i believe that a crime can be committed by anyone at any time because the way a human being mind works when it come to committing a crime dose not depend on personality characteristics.
i was also surprised when i read that The only category of the mentally ill that is at higher risk for crime are those people with substance abuse issues, by themselves, or in association with another mental illness.
My thoughts on the cause of crimes is simply, I do not know because i believe that a crime can happen at any time any where and any place it just depends on the person who is committing the crime and why.
i believe that their are no instances that i can think of where some one is not or would not be responsible for their actions because truth be told it was their actions, they might not have planed to act on their action but they did and they should be responsible for it no matter what situations that they are in.
There are always special circumstances and individualistic attributions which make each case different, but many people clime insanity and other BS to keep them from paying for what they did so i would say, insanity or not, medication or not, you are always capable of knowing right from wrong which means you are always responsible for your actions because two wrongs don't make a right, their would be no psychological Factors. what ever punishment you get for killing under the law i suggest you get ready for it and what ever punishment you get for j walking well i suggest you get ready for it too.
The nature/nurture has always boggled my mind. The reading discussed how if nurture or the environment of a person committing a certain crime is at fault, then perhaps their sentencing should depict that..aka not be as harsh. Of course this is not the way things work, but they are still mentioned. As far as the nature debate can people truly be born to kill? The reading discussed this as well. It talked about faulty minds and mental disorders causing people to kill. I personally think no one is in their right mind if they kill anyone, so is everyone insane? You would think so, but that is not the case. The nature nurture debate is always brought up, yet it is near impossible to prove.
The inconsistencies in terms of race and convictions is overwhelmingly bias. It is sad that the court systems reflect these types of results. As far as causes of crimes, this chapter talked about how areas with little potential housed increased crime rates. This completely makes sense. I can't imagine feeling as though each day I could never become something, or living in poverty. Stealing becomes a justified way of life, and killings help initiate you into a gang. This type of community breeds crime. It's hard to see a way out.
As far as believing if everyone is responsible for their actions-that is tough to say. I'd like to believe that everyone has the right mind to understand right from wrong. You can think about a child committing murder. People may think they didn't know any better. Death is death in my opinion. It is hard to not punish when someone died as a result of an action.
I feel as though if someone plotted and planned to kill someone, they are guilty. Of course there are an array of mental issues that could be the cause of someone not thinking clearly drugs and alcohol do the same thing. I can't help but think from a victim's family point of view. It is almost as if mental disorders are used as an excuse in terms of the severity of a crime. The chapter also talked about how those with mental illness are often the victims of crimes as well..I am not saying that mental illness is not real, it just shouldn't be an excuse to get off scotch free. As far as planned out calculated murder, that is punishable.
In reading through Chapter 2 on Crime I found multiple aspects to be quiet interesting. This again was a reading that opened my eyes on the criteria that I have never previously thought of in depth and how it is associated with crime in itself. Most interesting to me was how this chapter looks into the quality of a witness’s recollection of the crime. It listed multiple examples and variables from the Estimator Variable (which are those factors that are present at the time of the witnessed event), System Variables (those factors that law enforcement can exert control over including many different categories), Sensation, Perception, Audio, Light, and of course Memory.
The most memorable thing that I learned in this reading was the idea of how the senses are defined to an extent and how a witness may perceive certain ideas or wrongfully be convinced of a fact by personal observation and how that may play a role in ones memory when referring to a crime. It brought about many ideas that I saw quiet awesome in that an Attorney may use against a witness testimony. When a witness is asked to recall a situation they are to recite in detail what it is that happened with any minute details they may also contribute to the case. How off task may an investigation become if one witness says the suspect was wearing a red shirt when in fact it was black or that he/she had a tattoo of an eagle when it was really a set of wings symbolizing an angel? I took this insight as a very important approach in many ways for attorneys to really get at the witnesses for credibility as there is much proof that shows how people may visualize the wrong colors or process an image the wrong way. All the way to vision and hearing, how accurate can someone’s memory of an instance be if it is when we are in a high state of arousal that we lock stuff into memory the best but yet a crime happens when that isn’t present? Correct me if wrong, I believe that most crimes happen unexpected (although some are seen coming but very few) and with that it says in the reading that when someone awakes it is probably not the best time to give them directions, so what if a perpetrator breaks into your home and kidnaps your daughter? Are you in a perfect mind state to collect all the accurate detail to perfection to walk up the stand and convince the jury/judge that what you saw was and is the truth? With this said, as a future attorney, I loved reading into this and how one can depict certain facts that are “claimed” to be true can be really turned or put to question just by the proof of science itself. How can someone argue that an attorney is wrong if someone says “I saw the man with a scar on his face.” When the attorney unravels the fact that the witness was not wearing her glasses and admits to haven just woken up which would affect her state of arousal dealing with concrete memory?
My thoughts on the causes of crime have always differed. I have one side that believes that everyone being has a different behavioral approach to different instances and will react to a stimulus a different way which may result in an unintended act that is considered criminal or not criminal. The other side of me strongly believes crime is not to be something that a person is born with but an action that one accumulates over the span of a lifetime. I know Gary Ridgeway, the famous “Green River Killer,” grew up with a mom who dressed very promiscuous but never seemed to be the faithful women she should have been by always looking to please men when she should have been committed to her husband. Gary was married twice and had both of his wives cheat on him. He became fed up and snapped and continued on to murder 48 plus prostitutes. These victims resembled his mother, whom he hated, and his ex relationships therefore he targeted the women who dressed to impress and were out to please men for money without the respect for the man themselves which was something that haunted him forever. With that example I understand that Gary Ridgeway does not create the basis in how everyone in the world acts but in hindsight isn’t that how we all make decisions and choose certain prejudices and stereotypes? We put great emphasis in how our relationships with our parents and loved ones become to us and rely on that connection in society. If someone is constantly cheated on, poor, or depressed they will find their antidote for that cause by burglary, rape, murder, drugs, or even legal things. Crime to me is something that an individual commits due to personal relationships, experiences, lifestyle, and even personality. Some comes unintended and the causes are different in each case. Where crime in the highest degree, I believe, comes from ones personal own being and how they respond to society and its actions upon them.
Do I think there are situations where someone could not be held responsible for their actions? Of course, I would say in an example if some perpetrator enters your home with a gun and has caused a ruckus already shooting both the mother and father while the son “out of defense” clobbers the suspect over the head with a bat which kills him, I do not believe the son even being a legal adult (18) should be held responsible in the fact that he was defending himself given the circumstances he knew that the individual in the home had no remorse and was willing to go to any measure. On the other hand I also believe that no matter what someone may be held accountable in some cases. Let’s say a drunk driver gets into an accident in which he/she caused which resulted in the death of a family. Yet the driver shows great remorse and emotionally breaks down and apologizes for their wrongdoings, there is no way they are getting out of the incident no matter what. In assigning Psychological factors to these individual cases I would say that in the first case where the boy defended himself he may have known that its morally and legally wrong to hit and kill someone but with his mental state being that he heard his father and mother killed by gunshot and knew the suspect had no sense of care, he responded to the situation by acting in a psychological mode of self-defense. He may have experienced intense adrenaline or aggression but still doesn’t deserve any fault given the instance even if he had pre-meditated to harm the suspect. In the other case the Psychological factor would be under the influence of alcohol. Thinking one can drive is not the same as being actually able to drive. Alcohol affects the brain and as we all know all motor skills involved with driving. He didn’t intend to kill a family by driving under the influence but was in a state of mind that changed his perception on the necessary conditions to operate a vehicle. He did what he did and there is nothing that can get him out of that accident even showing an emotional and mental state that he never intended to harm anyone.
The topics that interested me the most were the topics that had to do with everything that happends when a crime evolves. It starts with the crime event where you have the 911 opperator which I personally can not imagine doing because it would be a very stressfull job in my opionon. Then there are so many things that go into it with the sound and hearing-what different pitches mean. There is a lot and that is all just the crime event and the 911 phone call.
Something that was interesting to me in this chapter was the whole sections on light and vision. I had no idea how much goes into light and the way our eyes see things. In previous psych classes we have discussed it before but not to this length that I remember.
The different causes of crime did not suprise me too much. A long while back when they believed depending on your face struture and such was the reason you commited crime or not was obviously pretty wrong. Being a criminology major though we have discussed many theorys as to why people commit crimes and what influences them. There are many enviornmental factors and other factors that go into it.
I believe in certain sistuations there are times when people commit crimes that they maybe do not have total control over. When people are mentally ill they may do things and blame their mental illness on it even though they did know what they were doing. Other times I believe certain mental illnesses people have they have no control over their actions and nothing could stop them.
I thought chapter two was very interesting to read. I was very surprised to read many of the statistics. I thought the statistics about persons worrying they could be a victim were shocking. I for one am one who worries frequently about my house being broken into. I thought it was also very surprising that only 29% women worry about being raped. After reading this part in the chapter, I asked my roommates and a couple of close girl friends how safe they feel living close to campus. Like me, many of my friends feel they have to always be ready to protect themselves in a campus town. Therefore, I find these statistics quite shocking in my point of view. However, I would rather be too worried and overprotective than naive about what could happen. I was also very shocked to learn that persons who are black face more charges for crimes than persons who are white. The issues of race are continuous and according to this article, “racial disparity persists with minorities receiving more severe sentences” (p. 7). In all, the paragraphs describing the victim, witnesses, and perpetrators were very interesting to me as I was able to learn more about these roles and the statistics that were provided. I thought the statistics were the most interesting and surprising facts in this chapter. The most memorable quote from this chapter was, “once a criminal, always a criminal” (p.3).
I feel there are many different causes of crime. Why do people do it? I have no idea. People break the law every day, but people are forced to serve time in jail when the causes of crime are typically more severe. Poverty has definitely been a factor in the causes of criminal offenses as well as psychological factors including persons having mental illnesses.
I believe that if there is an instance in which an attacker is killed during a feud with a person using self defense, the persons who is being attacked and protecting oneself should not be charged with a criminal act. But everyone has to pay for their actions as well. Some people plan an attack, in which cases I believe should definitely pay their time in prison. Persons with a mental illness or not should pay their necessary consequences of their doings, in my opinion. The criminal is responsible for the act.
I was most interested in the section covering sensation, perception, and cognition. I have studied perception in philosophy and I must say it was refreshing to read something so well defined, much of what I am acquainted with questions the validity of perception to account for the workings of the "mind" (itself a cloudy issue). I accept there are certain channels our brain utilizes to receive information via sensation; biologically programmed and common to all people in usual physiological condition. Perception adds in a greater element of individually as it largely draws from our experiences. The portion on attention was particularly fascinating to me as there are so many factors affecting what it is we hear. I laughed at the cocktail party example. Cognition and how people use their information provides an exciting, increasingly unclear window in which further investigation is needed. It is a wonder that all consciousness is an illusion, so to speak.
I believe individuals are genetically predisposed to certain tendencies such as aggressiveness, passivity, or social hegemony. However, I feel genetics provide an individual's "base stats" that will be suppressed or augmented through conditioning as the individual develops. Someone may be born with the "inclination" to have a temper but that temper may never develop if that person learns to mitigate frustration another way. Conversely, someone without the inclination to act aggressive may learn to react to frustration very violently. Basically, I currently think we are all born with different inclinations but we all have the same ability to learn how these tendencies are expressed: Any behavior may be exhibited by any person. There are so many factors at play throughout an individual's that it is impossibly to determine how or why these behaviors occur. In the case of criminal behavior it becomes impossible to chalk up either way, so I will will say is crime is caused by circumstance (an unsatisfying answer, yes).
The way in which "responsibility" is framed determines whether an individual may be considered wholly responsible or wholly inculpable. Is a person at gunpoint to be held responsible for using lethal self defense? Is a sleepwalker responsible for damaged property if he had unknowingly begun to drive in his sleep? For every action there is a responsible party, it depends on how far we are willing to extend the blame. In most cases we would not hold someone responsible for an act of self defense, though I suspect we would hold the sleepwalker accountable for property damages. That said, I do feel people must be held fully responsible for acts committed with malicious intent.
One thing that I found very interesting in this chapter is the disparity between offenders and the convicted. I took Crime and Social Inequality last semester and it still amazes me at how there could be this huge disparity. The majority of offenders are white, yet there is an outrageous amount of blacks that are serving time, compared to the population of blacks in the country. I have always thought that a large contributor to this is/can be attributed to personal and institutional biases. I think, and research shows, that blacks are way more likely to be pulled over and arrested than whites, even if the black “offender” has not committed a crime. In my previous class, we discussed the fact that if a black person, typically male, is seen walking around a neighborhood that is primarily white, or a gated community as such, they will be stopped and grilled about what they are doing there, etc. A lot of this has to do with the police officers having a preconceived notion that black males are more likely to commit crimes. They are also more likely to be charged for lesser crimes, such as having a small amount of drugs, than a white person who committed a worse crime, such as a large amount of drugs. I think we will never be able to completely escape this situation and it’s sad and shocking to me.
I also found the discussion about the lighting and how that effects witness identification and such to be extremely interesting. I knew before that color is actually a representation of that color being reflected, however, I did not realize how big of an effect different colors of lighting have an effect on what we perceive. I never really thought about that being able to change the color of a car or jacket just because it is dark out. I have always thought well just because it’s dark doesn’t change the color of it. This discussion made me realize that is not necessarily the case. The possible effect of different lighting on eyewitness description is amazing. It could lead to completely wrong descriptions of the offender and thus an innocent person being convicted. This is definitely an area of research that can have a profound influence on the way we charge and convict people in the future.
As for the causes of crime, I have been a person who has not really chosen one cause, but integrated many. I believe that there are traits people have that are influenced by the environment present. The way the person is brought up and taught to handle such things is also a factor. I believe that opportunities really give way to crime if the person is more likely to commit it in the first place; however, I also believe that anyone is capable of committing any crimes if absolutely no other option is present. As an example, people who are more violent in nature due to biological processes, etc., will be more likely to commit crimes if they don’t have the tools necessary to avoid such crimes. If they also do not have control factors, concerning the social bond theory, such as individual, commitment, belief, attachment, and involvement, they will be more likely to adhere to their biological nature. On the other note, if a person is in a situation where they only have the option of committing a crime to survive or save someone else, they will probably do it, even if they are not naturally aggressive. I’m sure a mother/father would kill if their child was in front of them being held at knife-point and no other options were available. It is the classic life instinct that is instilled in us, coined libido and discussed by Sigmund Freud.
I think there are instances where people should not be responsible for their actions, such as the one described above, where there are no options and the person’s child’s life is in immediate danger. This follows the concept of self-defense. If there is immediate danger to one’s self and/or family member, property, etc., one may act upon the nature to protect it if there are no options besides fighting. The person should not be held responsible if this is the case. However, along these lines, they should only not be held responsible as long as the force used to relieve the situation is not excessive. They should only use the force necessary to stop whatever harm is being done. Thus if hitting a burglar on the head with a bat makes him stop and run, chasing him and beating him to death should make the person who killed the burglar responsible.
If the person uses excessive force, as in my example above, and the crime is not deemed inescapably necessary, they should always be held responsible. Unless the offender has a mental illness that prevents them from being able to comprehend their actions, or control them, such as some forms of disease that make the person have uncontrolled movements, responsibility should be there. This is especially true if someone commits a premeditated crime, such as murder. If they can go through with planning it and preparing for it, the cognitive processes are there for that person to be held responsible. This does get a little blurred when courts discuss the insanity defense however. How do you really know if the person is telling the truth if they say that they thought their action was the only one possible for a situation? This is the problem in the case of Michelle Kehoe. She is a woman who had previously tried to kill her 2 children by driving into a lake with them in the car and drowning them. A passerby was able to save them. She later drove them to a pond near Littleton, Iowa and covered their faces with duct tape and cut their throats. She then cut her own and went to a nearby house for help, saying they were attacked. Her youngest son died, and the older one, 7, lived. He also testified against her in court. Her attorneys claimed insanity, because she stated that she truly believed they had terminal illnesses and that she had to return them to God to save them. The fact that she premeditated the murder and attempted murder previously, worked against her. How do you know she didn’t just claim this after the fact to get away with it? I think the hardest part of cases like this is the fact that her husband still was on her side. He asked the judge for the minimum sentence and for the no-contact order between her and their son be lifted. The judge, correctly, denied this. If someone can convince others who know them the best that they are not responsible, how can “outsiders” correctly determine when someone is or isn’t responsible? It is an extremely hard thing to decide, but the factors such as premeditation, previous attempts, knowledgeable decisions, etc. that I described above are some of the psychological factors that help assign culpability.
For anyone interested, here is just a little blurb about the case of Michelle Kehoe, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5987293-504083.html. A quick Google search will bring up plenty more if you are interested further. One reason I was interested so much is the fact that I lived in Oelwein at the time, which was probably about 5-8 miles away from where this occurred. It is scary when something this violent happens close to where you live. It could have been anyone’s door she went to after she did it, and I think that’s part of what makes it so scary.
While I was reading this chapter there were a lot of topics that interested me. I was fascinated by the idea that "people were easily able to characterize ‘good guy‘ voice properties from ‘bad guy‘ voice properties (Yarmey). To me, it would seem that by just listening to someone's voice and saying what type of person they are is very judgmental. How is it possible to ascertain the personality of someone by just hearing them? Would there be different results if a person was sick and their voice was altered? Another topic that was rather surprising to me was the fact that there is a larger percentage of crimes being committed by whites, however, the amount of people charged for crimes is larger with black people. Why wouldn't the justice system convict more white people if they are the ones with the higher percentage of crimes committed?
I enjoyed the part of this chapter that had to do with the nature vs. nurture debate dealing with criminals. I personally feel that criminals are not born, they are bred. However, certain personality traits may assist people to take on more of a violent lifestyle. There are multiple factors in people's lives that can lead them to committing crimes, abusive/neglectful parents, extreme trauma at an early stage of life, and excessive financial stress are just a few examples. These factors plus possibly a person with an already high tendency to anger or have impulsive actions can be the perfect combination for creating a criminal. The only instances that I believe people wouldn't need to be held responsible would be self-defense or saving an innocent life. However, things might become tricky because there isn't always a right or wrong solution to a problem. Each individual case is different and needs to be looked at as unique because it is. I feel that people should be held accountable for their actions when what they did was a crime that was premeditated. The crime does not always have to be the classic rape, murder, etc., but could also be embezzlement and fraud.
Some of the topics that most interested me were the topics of Criminology, mainly because that is what I am studying in school. Biopsychological Causes have interested me as well because we spent some time looking at the Juke family in one of my other classes and studied their family and all the criminals that came from it. The personality approach amazes me even more especially since behavior is my main interest in the psychology field. As for the cause of crime I most agree with the Social Psychological Explanation. Some instances that I think people are not responsible for their actions are when mental disorders are involved, if someone did not mean to commit the crime, if someone was unaware of a law against the act committed, or if someone did not understand the difference between right and wrong. I personally believe that no matter what, if a murder is committed the person should be held responsible. I may take more of a punishment approach to the corrective system than a rehibilitative approach, which you can see here. I believe that in certain instances people may not know the difference between right and wrong and they should not be held accountable if that can be proven. With instances like a drunk driver hitting and killing a stranger, I believe they should be held accountable even if they were blacked out and didn’t know or understand what they were doing and what they did. Murder and rape are always wrong, (let’s exclude murder in war and self-defense), and people should be punished for them.
I found this chapter to be very interesting! I thought that the information about hearing and visuals aspects of being an eyewitness was very informative and interesting. I never would have guessed so many factors could influence eyewitness memory and what they actually saw (or what they may NOT have saw). I knew that eyewitness testimony was not always looked highly upon, and I knew that different factors including light could affect what people saw, but I never would have guessed to this extent that so many different things influence how people see. I never took into account colorblindness or eye disorders. It made me wonder how many people have been wrongly accused or even convicted because of eyewitness testimony. And the sad part is that they may not know what they saw was 'wrong.'
As far as being culpable for a crime or not, I feel like is (and should be) based on a case by case situation. Sure it may time more time and effort than just assigning guilt in certain situations, but everyone is different and has a different life story. I guess guilt can be 'assigned' but as far as punishment for what they did should be an individual thing. For example, a teenager may steal food from a store to feed his/her younger siblings if mom is out for the night looking to score some drugs. This person would be guilty of stealing, but would a punishment the same as someone who stole to buy drugs be fair? Even with the mentally challenged...there are varying levels of functionality for them. It wouldn't be fair to say someone who can function but may be autistic deserves the same punishment as someone who is mentally retarded. I feel like each situation and determining guilt and punishment should depend on the situations. Murder can be wrong, but is murder in self-defense wrong? Rape is wrong, but if someone is holding your family hostage unless you rape another person (far-fetched I know...) would it be in punished in the same manner as someone who rapes because they enjoy it? Criminals, in my opinion, are they way they are based on nurture and nature. Not only one fully contributes to each individual. Maybe some criminals fall into one category and maybe other fall into the other, but I feel that for the most part, people do the things they do because of both nature and nurture.
After reading this chapter the most interesting topics I came across was the societal factors for explanation of crime and also the race disparities that are occurring within the legal system. It was really surprising to see the major gaps when it came to race and crime. It was shocking to read that though there are more White perpetrators, there are more Black perpetrators serving prison time.
When reflecting upon the causes of crime I can say that I really do take a sociological/nurture explanation. However, I have learned many times that it is not so much the nature vs. nurture debate as it is trying to see how these two interact. I believe that if a person is nurtured negatively then they probably already biological predispositions towards negative or criminal behavior. So, lets use a very vague and cliche example. If a child is born and raised in the ghetto, the child is readily exposed to violence and learns a different moral code. This could then lead to partaking in potential criminal behavior.
Like stated in a previous post, I also feel that when it comes to assigning responsibility and guilt it should be given on a case by case basis. Currently there are mandatory sentencing laws for juveniles and also when it comes to gang activity. Laws like these can be detrimental because the case is not truly being examined. When a person is acting in self defense or suffers from certain mental illness then the person cannot be held fully responsible. In the chapter it says that most perpetrators do not suffer from a mental illness, so in the very rare cases that they are mentally ill, then they should be treated appropriately.
When speaking of self defense, or deciding whether it was self defense one would need to ask how much social influence was there? Were they threatening the person or their personal property? Was this person experience torture or was the person violated taking away the perpetrators basic needs. If any of these were fit the questions then there is a possibility the person cannot be held responsible for their psychological state can be under much distress.
I think the most interesting features of the chapter were the association of face typing criminals and what truly makes the person a criminal. The study of depressions in the head being related to the concentrations of the brain has been mentioned in a few of my other classes and has also been of fascination to me. So, getting a better look at the ‘face type’ subject was rather interesting. Realizing that there are many factors, whether psychological, biological, etc., that contribute to whether or not you’ll be this or that. During my free time I work, I like to sit and see who’s been arrested and what for, and when looking at that you get to look at quite a bit of information about them. I’ve seen that there’s quite a correlation between living environments and mentality that are present in their information.
I am a firm believer that nature and nurture both interact to produce the outcome, though there are some cases that may differ. There are definitely personalities and mental deficiencies that make people more apt to act in certain ways, but everyone is affected by their surroundings. I don’t believe people are just born to murder, rape or steal, something absolutely triggered these actions. Everyone is a little crazy in their own way: crazy in love, crazily indecisive, crazy insane, etc. So as you can see, some behavior and mental attributes may not be completely faulty.
I used to think that people should be punished for their actions no matter what but, looking at the seven principles my views have changed a little. You really must interpret the intent of the ‘crime’. Self-defense should never be punished, but then you have to go about proving how it was self-defense. Accidental deaths happen, but finding out the intent determines the punishment and that’s why in trials there is manslaughter vs murder convictions. If a person is unable to comprehend what they’re doing or the harm they’re causing, they should also not be punished. Though, there are plenty of people out there that fake insanity pleas or mental disability to get off for things they know were wrong, so it’s hard to justify in all cases regarding mentality. Nurture is also another thing to look at when you’re trying to decide punishment. Letting people off for being brought up in good homes or giving harsher punishment to those brought up in bad homes are both unjustified. Just because something looks so good or so bad on the outside, doesn’t mean it reflects the inside.
When something is planned and plotted with calm and collect emotions, it should be held punishable. Cold blooded murder, sex crimes, theft, internet crimes: all those would be considered punishable in my opinion. If someone has the intent to do harm in any way, physical or mental, they should be punished. Mental disorders range from very severe to not severe at all so they shouldn’t always just be let go on account of their mentality. There are plenty of cases where they should, but plenty they should not. Mental impairments can be closely related to actions under the influence of drugs and alcohol, yet punishments seem to differ quite a bit there. There are plenty of prescription drugs that are supposed to make you feel better but people are different and have different recoveries, therefore resulting in another thing to factor in when it comes to punishment.
What interested me first were the seven basic principles underlying criminal law. This caught my attention because in another one of my classes we discussed an individual what was going to commit a crime when he got out of prison. He wanted to kill a rival gang member because they were in another gang’s territory. What was hard to understand is that they didn’t see that by causing someone else harm (no matter who they were) that a punishment would follow after their actions. They didn’t believe they were going to go to jail, but they did.
Incompetent is the word used for people who are not responsible for their actions. Everyone else on the other hand, just needs to make better decisions. It can be really hard (believe I know) but sometimes a decision has to be made to either keep doing what you are doing or do the ‘right’ thing. I believe that many ‘criminals’ are molded. I think it starts with the house hold. Parents are the first rule makers a child knows. If parents do not enforce roles, or just have none to begin with the child is not going to see a problem later in life when it comes to not following laws. An example of this would be if a parent told a child that hitting was bad but the child hit someone anyway. If the parent does nothing then the child does not connect hitting someone with a punishment because they were not punished for hitting. When a child gets older, they want to fit into the culture outside of their home. That’s when they look at the culture they live in. If they live in a neighborhood where people don’t trust cops and every other person is breaking the law (celling drugs or prostitution) they are going to see that as the norm because that is what they are exposed to every single day. Still using the hitting example, they may be more physical towards the people around them and see no problem with hitting (assault) someone because they believe they didn’t truly do anything ‘wrong’. Now if someone in the same neighborhood wants to go into law enforcement they are going to be seen as going against the norm and therefore may experience isolation. This may be because they were told hitting was bad, and were punished for hitting. They learned ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ and that caused them to follow laws because it was the ‘right’ thing to do.
Over all, I think it is a combination of things that lead to a person’s criminal record (or lack there of). What people see as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and their perception of the results of their actions. What they have learned they can get away with and what they don’t want to happen to them if they get caught.
This whole concept of eye witness identification is interesting to me. It is such a valuable concept to understand completely. But to be more specific I would say using personality traits to identify criminals is my favorite. There are always going to be two sides of the debate but some people are going to have traits that lead to a life involving crime. Of course, for someone like me it is hard to imagine have an uncontrollable urge and maybe even for them it is hard to understand or accept. The side part of this fact is there will always be people taking advantage of this “concept” and claiming a personality disorder. I would say someone couldn’t be held responsible if they were officially diagnosed with a certain disorder. But if that be the case, they should be housed or in a safe area for them and the public. But it’s really hard for me to think of a situation where no one would be held responsible. The only idea that comes to mind is self defense but even there it’s hard to differentiate from the lies. When someone is being evaluated to see whether there are going to be held responsible, numerous psychological factors should be looked at. If they had a history of problems choosing right from wrong. But it is a difficult area because situations are unique to each and every person.
The most surprising thing I learned from this chapter is this idea of our greatly overestimated fear of crime. Most seem to come off as aware of potential crime but from surveys it seems people are literally living in fear. This of course will be different to each and every individual and the environment they live it. But I cannot say I am living in constant fear and it is nearly impossible for me to literally imagine that. That would be a dreadful way to live life. It makes me wonder what causes so many to worry when their actually lives are not in danger. If I had to guess I would blame the media. It’s sad that the most “interesting” story of the nightly news is a horrific death/murder/rape. Our society is starting to loss the concept of reality and fiction. We are so attracted to all these criminal shows so when something happens locally we freak out!
I don’t think people are raised to be criminals, nor are they born criminals, I personally think they make a decision that defines them as a criminal, yes other factors come into play, but when it’s nature vs. nurture, I go with nature. The most surprising thing I read was the percentage of people that worry about being victims to certain crimes. I’ve really only worried about my house being broken into or being raped since I’ve moved to college in 2007 and it surprise me that 2 out of 1000 women will be raped on average, because I feel like schools and the media make it seems like women are getting rapped left and right every day and we should do more to protect ourselves, and the fact that race plays a role in who is the victim of crimes.
My thoughts on the causes of crimes: Yes, your environment can affect the fate of committing a crime, but I honestly feel like it’s a choice, no matter what I read, I may snap and kill you because of aggression or a crime of passion, but that was my choice, I didn’t have to take it there. Again I don’t think we are born or raised as criminals either, I just can’t grasp that, if we are born to be criminals, wouldn’t it just be our destiny? In cases of women and children being abused by a man, beating and emotionally abused and they take action against that person they aren’t necessarily responsible for their actions, DEPENDING on the circumstances (factors), the crime, how long it was happening to them, what exactly was being done to them, the type of action they took in the past towards the person, etc.
When you rob someone or rape them, you are fully % responsible!! You decide to rob someone, you plan it out, and carry out the plan, and when you rape someone you over power them to gain control of the situation and their body. You may be robbing someone because of hunger or you are in need, but it’s all the same even if you are stealing someone’s purse because it’s better than yours and you want it, the punishment can be different for each crime, but it’ still wrong and against the law either way.
After reading, I better understand several different ideas presented in the chapter. The idea of weapon focus was unclear to me, however, after imagining someone injecting me with a syringe filled with an unknown substance; it was easy to realize that I would be more focused on the syringe than the perpetrator. When faced with the question, of “who done it?” victims can’t always be sure, unless it is someone they know, which is likely to be the case. This brings up a memorable fact; over 50% of violent crime is committed by people we know.
Crime can be theorized to be caused by numerous things; however, we can never pinpoint one cause. Our culture, upbringing, societal norms, etc. each play a role in shaping who we are as individuals, what we believe, how we behave, and who we interact with. From there, we find ourselves in a situation where peer influence can be a cause of crime. Because our friends are involved in criminal activity, it may draw us to become involved in criminal activity. However, we could flip the same situation and say that the cause of crime in that situation is not due to peer influence, but the need to fit in. No matter what is theorized to be the cause of crime, there will always be an argument against it as well. We have to look at the big picture and realize that everything plays a role in causing crime. It is a tangled web; every question has a multitude of answers that are plausible.
When thinking about crime and responsibility it can, at time, become difficult to determine whether their actions were intended or accidental. I believe people are ultimately responsible for their actions whether they know something is wrong or against the law is not the question, because ignorance of the law does not make someone any less responsible for partaking in a particular action. Another factor would be if they were mentally capable of understanding the situation or what they were doing. No matter the case, they are responsible for what they did, but may be excused of their action. There is a difference in cognitive development in children, adults, and even the elderly. Also, there are people with mental disabilities. One example would be, if a person were driving in the winter and were unable to stop at an intersection and in turn killed someone in another vehicle, they are responsible for the death of another. However, they did not intend to kill the other individual A second example, touching on cognitive ability, would be a child killing their younger sibling or even stealing bubble gum from the grocery store. They may not realized that just because their brother laughed once when they put a pillow over his face, does not make it okay to keep the pillow over his face. Or, they may not even understand the concept of stealing at the time they take the bubble gum. In conclusion I think the question should not be just of responsibility, we have to think about intent, ability to comprehend, and mental state before the action.
What interested me most in the reading was nature versus nurture and how one or the other or both are thought to cause a person to be more likely to commit criminal acts. I do not think that one by itself can create a criminal, but the combination of the two may cause a person to be more likely to. I am not implying that a person's biology combined with being ignored as a child is going to for sure cause a person to be a criminal, just that it is interesting how there are trends that we are picking up on.
What surprised me most was how if a person had certain facial features in the past, it was made clear whether or not they were a criminal. Another thing that surprised me was that criminals were sterilized in the past because it was thought that being a criminal can be passed along from parent to child. Especially today, when we find that some criminals were wrongfully convicted, preventing them from having a child because of a mistake seems completely absurd to me.
I do not necessarily think that there are any instances in which a person should never be held responsible for their actions. I believe that even if a person was mentally disabled, that they still somewhat understand what they are doing, especially when it comes to something as severe as rape or murder. And even if they did not understand what was going on, they should still be kept in a place that keeps them from the public so that they cannot harm another person again or at least give them time to get better.
I also think that in the case of rape or premeditated murder, a person should be held accountable no matter the circumstances. Like I stated before, if a person is mentally disabled and they raped somebody or murdered somebody without knowing exactly what was going on, they should still be put some place away from the public where they cannot hurt anybody else and get better.
Chapter 2-M&M:
The most surprising thing from this chapter was how different each person interprets the world around them based on their senses. I think it is interesting how different people can see the exact same thing but interpret it and explain it completely different. The section about vision and light was especially interesting. The part about seeing a man in a black jacket, when really it was a red one and they just couldn’t tell because of the lighting was very interesting. This sort of example is really important in law because witnesses could be “sure” they saw a black jacket, but in reality it was red. This could throw the whole case off, as the chapter mentioned, we feel bad for any guy wearing a black jacket that night! It was also interesting reading about the weapon focus and how when a weapon, such as a gun, is present the people tend to focus their attention on the gun instead of the person holding it. This poses problems for witnesses who testify because they have more detailed information about the weapon as opposed to the person holding it.
The nature vs. nurture debate is talked about in every psychology class there is. In terms of the law this debate is just as complicated. I think it is hard to choose just one side of this debate. I think EVERY situation involves nature AND nurture, not one or the other. When looking at crime, I don’t think there is ever a single cause for why someone committed the crime. I think biological factors and the environment mesh together to form ideas, thoughts, and behaviors. So I don’t believe that JUST nature or JUST nurture can tell us why someone committed a crime. We need to look at not only their biology and family history but also where they were brought up, who they grew up around, and what kind of lifestyle they have lived in. It would be hard to say that criminals are “born criminals” because this would mean there was no hope for anyone who was “genetically criminal”. I don’t think that people are born with “faulty brains” and I don’t think that anyone can be born criminal. They can be born with personality traits such as aggression that may lead to criminal acts, but it will depend on their environment. If they are raised in a good home where their parents tell them that violence and crime is bad, I think they are likely to be good citizens. However, if they grow up in a poor environment with little supervision or good parenting I definitely think there is an increased likelihood they will commit crimes. This is not to say, however, that people can’t be brought up in good homes and still commit crimes.
In terms of being responsible for our own actions, I think that everyone is always responsible for their own actions, no matter what. However, I don’t think that everyone should be punished for these actions. In cases of self defense, I think the person is “responsible” for their actions but I don’t think that he or she should be punished necessarily. Each crime is different and I think that people should be punished based on their own personal situation. I don’t think that self defense is an excuse for killing someone, but if that was the only thing that person could do then they shouldn’t be punished for it. It gets complicated when dealing with the mentally insane or the unstable. People take this too lightly in my opinion. In criminal cases where mental stability is in question, I don’t think that anyone who can murder someone is stable. BUT I also don’t think that they should be able to use a mental disorder to justify what they did. When trying to answer this question about “being responsible” I wonder about children who commit violent crimes. Who is responsible in those cases? It is hard to tell who is responsible when children are involved. But overall, I don’t think there are any circumstances where the person who committed the crime shouldn’t be held responsible. However, I think that based on different situations there should be different punishments, such as for self defense. When answering this question the psychological factors to consider are if the person feels guilt, sadness, regret, or if they feel nothing or okay about it. I think the way they feel and talk about the crime can tell us a lot about how much they should be held responsible for.
I am really liking the M&M textbook compared to the C&K textbook. It might feel that the M&M appears to be geared toward a younger generation of readers and is more updated. I thought it was interesting how most crime is committed by caucasions and yet in the media it is portrayed that crime is predominantly an African-american problem. This stereotype always makes me think of the Amadou Diallo shooting in NYC (Bruce Springsteen later wrote a song based on the incident called “41 shots”). The situation involved a black man (Amadou Diallo). Four officers confronted Amadou thinking he was an alleged rapist and when Amadou went to take out his wallet the four officers shot Amadou 41 times thinking that Amadou was had a gun. The four officers were later acquitted in court for what they had done.
The causes of crime are numerous. If the cause of crime was able to pinpointed, then it would be able to be stopped and crime would diminish significantly. And there are many different types and severity of crime. The reason I jaywalk every day when I go to class is because I’m too lazy/cold to go the long way and I speed in my car every single time I drive and have a couple of tickets to prove it. I would not classify myself as a criminal though. And the whole nature vs nurture aspect of becoming a criminal, I don’t believe it is one or the other. I believe it’s a combination of both. Biology and the environment work together to create the person someone is, whether it’s a criminal or not. For example, people everywhere were blaming Marilyn Manson and other sadistic artists as the cause of columbine, but there are plenty of people out there (myself included) that listen to these types of artists and do not go off and kill people. There were other factors that contributed. I believe the reason someone becomes a criminal will never be fully understood, but it is very interesting to research. I do not believe there are any circumstances that would make someone not responsible for their actions. People need to be held accountable, even if the person is mentally disabled. If the person is so mentally disabled they do not have any idea what is right and what is wrong, they still need to be held accountable or there is a likely possibility that the person will commit the crime again. I am not saying that someone who is mentally disabled needs to be locked up with the rest of the felons in prison, but rather be institutionalized for an extended period of time. Insanity is not even a medical/psychiatric term, but rather legal jargon applied to an individual who the defense believes is not criminally responsible for their actions because he/she was insane at the time. Insanity defenses are extremely rare even though the media portrays insanity defenses as a regular occurrence in the judicial system. The only reason someone should ever not be punished for a normally criminal act is if it was self-defense.
I found chapter 2 to be very intersting with several different aspects of crime. I enjoyed the portion of eye witnesses but also found the section on vision to be surprising and interesting. On the topic of nature vs. nuture i feel that there are some aspects that are predisposed in humans such as the amount of testosterone but i dont feel that this is a valid excuse or arguement to deflect blame off of a person. I do however somewhat believe that if a person is mentally ill that they should not be fully held responsible for their actions. Other than that i feel that criminals, especially ones who premeditated their crimes, should be held responsible and furthermore punished. Clearly self-defense is excluded from this aspect. If a person doesnt intend on killing their attacked but does so i feel that they are in no way in the wrong so do speak.
I feel in some instances, such as children commiting crimes, that parents or other adult figures could also share responsiblity for their crime. If the child looks up to the elder or is influenced wrongly by their elder i feel equal if not more blame should be placed on the adult. I also feel this way becuase i dont really believe that nature is most to blame. I feel most criminal acts are due to nurture.