ADVANCED CRIMINOLOGY EXAM SUMMARY
HC1: Biological and Psychological Theories of Crime
Q1: Is there a crime gene? 3 reasons crime genes don’t exist:
1. Crime = criminal law. Crime is a legal definition, laid down in the law. It is culturally
determined and legally defined.
a. Dynamic
b. Cultural
2. Genes code for proteins, not for behaviours (M. Kruk 1981). There are genes
influencing our behaviours (e.g. banana fly’s mating dance), but they do not code for
behaviour.
3. Genetic influence is always in constant interaction with contextual factors: e.g.
smoking influences development of the foetus, but even identical twins are not the
same people
Q2: Can we predict who becomes a criminal?
The variable that early age of onset of antisocial
behaviours is the strongest predictor for a long
criminal career is always the variable most important
of decision making in risk assessment tools, but no
valid prediction is possible on an individual level. See
the table: a cell never gets 100%.
Why is it impossible to predict that? our behaviour
is complicated, a mix of causal factors. Genes and
other factors are in constant interaction.
Explanation of the answer:
Behaviour is both nature and nurture. (nature x nurture = biosocial interaction effect)
Heterogeneity of antisocial behaviour: antisocial behaviours have a predictive
value, but are not explanatory factors. Because otherwise you would be saying,
antisocial behaviour is predicted by antisocial behaviour at a younger age (e.g.
gambling is predicted by lying in adolescence) tautological
Negative context & negative individual factors (Sutherlands contact with delinquent
friends; Hirschi’s lack of social bonds): theories from the past
Those theories are correct, but need to be integrated, because there is more than
one pathway.
So: there is no one way to predict crime, to explain it purely on biological factors.
,HC2: Social Ecology and Cultural Theories
Geography and criminology: Why are certain cirties and certain areas of those cities more
susceptible to criminal activity than others?
Where do we place the social ecological theory?: it is a reaction to biological and
psychological theories, which are deterministic. It is critisicm to this, because it looks at the
bigger picture with changes in society like industrialism and return of soldiers.
Socio-ecological theory: We are talking about 'criminal places': certain districts or places
remain problem areas, regardless of the people who live there, because of the flow of
people; trying to leave the bad neighbourhood asap. The theory is based on the idea of how
plants and animals colonize their environment: people would be similar in colonizing
geographical spaces.
Conflict and consensus: ecological interaction: symbiosis, dominance, and succession:
Human order results from the interaction of the population and the environment. Individuals
create communities and neighbourhoods that compete with each other for scarce resources.
This results in conflict, but this communities and neighbourhoods also exist in a symbiotic
balance with each other and the society as a whole. (Ecological interaction)
Limitations of the theory: the dynamics of the forces within the neighborhoods are more
complex, and how these forces effect the systematic relationship between neighborhood
network, community network and social control remains a little bit limited. So limitation:
practically missing out on a lot of other attributes which are playing a role besides these
ecological aspects.
Chicago school: Human behaviour is determined by social structures and physical
environmental factors in place of genetic and personal characterize. Specialized in urban
sociology based on: theory and ethnographic fieldwork in Chicago + symbolic interactionism
combined with methods of field research.
Robert park and chicago school: Robert Park believed that the spread of plants and animals
in nature provides important insights for understanding of the organization of human
societies. So just like plants and animal populations grow and invade, a city also grows
according to fundamental social processes such as invasion, dominance and accomodation.
So: people are coming = invasion, they take over most imporant roles = dominance, then
accomodate their own people and (self)organize = accomodation. This is called ‘biotic order’.
Concentric zone theory: Burgess used five
concentric zones to describe the patterns
of the social development in Chicago.
Shaw & McKay applied this framework to
investigate the social causes of crime. See
model on the right.
, Concentric zone model lectures interpretation: you see different
zones that according to Shaw & McKay you see the same
pattern in every/many big city:
Zone 1: Business zone, city centre, aka The Loop,
Zone 2: Transition zone because of the growth of industry and
expansion of business zone
Zone 3: Workers’ housing: those who have ‘ escaped’ from
zone 2
Zone 4: Residential area for lower middle class
Zone 5: Family homes for most influential white middle class
and upper class families (suburbs)
Zone 2 (and 3) = most criminogenic. Because of transition:
least stability highest crime rate.
Detail: being part of gang gives protection for the family
Selffulfilling prophecy? Media was different at the time, so not
really. Maybe having an Italian last name could be selffulfilling prophecy, because you saw
most crime in that group.
Shaw and McKay understanding crime rates with the model: Ecological/geographical areas
matched with crime.
Official crime rates highest in zone 2, and descend parallel to the distance outside the
city
This pattern remained for more than 40 years unchanged, regardless of which ethnic
group/nationality moved to the area during new waves of immigration.
Later research confirmed the same patterns in eighteen other cities over a period of
sixty years; the crime reduction of the centre of the city to the suburbs.
Critique on concentric zone model: they say the place makes the people criminal, so not their
ethnicity or roots. So unstable environment (bad housing and health care, lack of good job
oppurtinities) makes people engage with criminal networks.
Social disorganization theory:
In socially disorganized neighborhoods (thats how they define them based on the
chicago school circles) there are several competing and conflicting moral values.
In these impoverished areas there is a conflict between different groups about scarce
means
Delinquency patterns have become a competitive lifestyle as a means to survice and
as a way of obtaining income, intimacy and honer
As a result: gang formation
→ So: in the disorganized neighborhood with a lot of transition, people compete for scarce
means through delinquency which results in gang formation.
Criticism social disorganization theory: criticism against deterministic way of conceptualizing
criminal behavior through space:
Based solely on police data: selective and corruption within the police so doesn’t
cover all of it
Certain crime excluded (violence at home, white collar crime, victimless crimes, drug
abuse)
Government policy is not taken into account
HC1: Biological and Psychological Theories of Crime
Q1: Is there a crime gene? 3 reasons crime genes don’t exist:
1. Crime = criminal law. Crime is a legal definition, laid down in the law. It is culturally
determined and legally defined.
a. Dynamic
b. Cultural
2. Genes code for proteins, not for behaviours (M. Kruk 1981). There are genes
influencing our behaviours (e.g. banana fly’s mating dance), but they do not code for
behaviour.
3. Genetic influence is always in constant interaction with contextual factors: e.g.
smoking influences development of the foetus, but even identical twins are not the
same people
Q2: Can we predict who becomes a criminal?
The variable that early age of onset of antisocial
behaviours is the strongest predictor for a long
criminal career is always the variable most important
of decision making in risk assessment tools, but no
valid prediction is possible on an individual level. See
the table: a cell never gets 100%.
Why is it impossible to predict that? our behaviour
is complicated, a mix of causal factors. Genes and
other factors are in constant interaction.
Explanation of the answer:
Behaviour is both nature and nurture. (nature x nurture = biosocial interaction effect)
Heterogeneity of antisocial behaviour: antisocial behaviours have a predictive
value, but are not explanatory factors. Because otherwise you would be saying,
antisocial behaviour is predicted by antisocial behaviour at a younger age (e.g.
gambling is predicted by lying in adolescence) tautological
Negative context & negative individual factors (Sutherlands contact with delinquent
friends; Hirschi’s lack of social bonds): theories from the past
Those theories are correct, but need to be integrated, because there is more than
one pathway.
So: there is no one way to predict crime, to explain it purely on biological factors.
,HC2: Social Ecology and Cultural Theories
Geography and criminology: Why are certain cirties and certain areas of those cities more
susceptible to criminal activity than others?
Where do we place the social ecological theory?: it is a reaction to biological and
psychological theories, which are deterministic. It is critisicm to this, because it looks at the
bigger picture with changes in society like industrialism and return of soldiers.
Socio-ecological theory: We are talking about 'criminal places': certain districts or places
remain problem areas, regardless of the people who live there, because of the flow of
people; trying to leave the bad neighbourhood asap. The theory is based on the idea of how
plants and animals colonize their environment: people would be similar in colonizing
geographical spaces.
Conflict and consensus: ecological interaction: symbiosis, dominance, and succession:
Human order results from the interaction of the population and the environment. Individuals
create communities and neighbourhoods that compete with each other for scarce resources.
This results in conflict, but this communities and neighbourhoods also exist in a symbiotic
balance with each other and the society as a whole. (Ecological interaction)
Limitations of the theory: the dynamics of the forces within the neighborhoods are more
complex, and how these forces effect the systematic relationship between neighborhood
network, community network and social control remains a little bit limited. So limitation:
practically missing out on a lot of other attributes which are playing a role besides these
ecological aspects.
Chicago school: Human behaviour is determined by social structures and physical
environmental factors in place of genetic and personal characterize. Specialized in urban
sociology based on: theory and ethnographic fieldwork in Chicago + symbolic interactionism
combined with methods of field research.
Robert park and chicago school: Robert Park believed that the spread of plants and animals
in nature provides important insights for understanding of the organization of human
societies. So just like plants and animal populations grow and invade, a city also grows
according to fundamental social processes such as invasion, dominance and accomodation.
So: people are coming = invasion, they take over most imporant roles = dominance, then
accomodate their own people and (self)organize = accomodation. This is called ‘biotic order’.
Concentric zone theory: Burgess used five
concentric zones to describe the patterns
of the social development in Chicago.
Shaw & McKay applied this framework to
investigate the social causes of crime. See
model on the right.
, Concentric zone model lectures interpretation: you see different
zones that according to Shaw & McKay you see the same
pattern in every/many big city:
Zone 1: Business zone, city centre, aka The Loop,
Zone 2: Transition zone because of the growth of industry and
expansion of business zone
Zone 3: Workers’ housing: those who have ‘ escaped’ from
zone 2
Zone 4: Residential area for lower middle class
Zone 5: Family homes for most influential white middle class
and upper class families (suburbs)
Zone 2 (and 3) = most criminogenic. Because of transition:
least stability highest crime rate.
Detail: being part of gang gives protection for the family
Selffulfilling prophecy? Media was different at the time, so not
really. Maybe having an Italian last name could be selffulfilling prophecy, because you saw
most crime in that group.
Shaw and McKay understanding crime rates with the model: Ecological/geographical areas
matched with crime.
Official crime rates highest in zone 2, and descend parallel to the distance outside the
city
This pattern remained for more than 40 years unchanged, regardless of which ethnic
group/nationality moved to the area during new waves of immigration.
Later research confirmed the same patterns in eighteen other cities over a period of
sixty years; the crime reduction of the centre of the city to the suburbs.
Critique on concentric zone model: they say the place makes the people criminal, so not their
ethnicity or roots. So unstable environment (bad housing and health care, lack of good job
oppurtinities) makes people engage with criminal networks.
Social disorganization theory:
In socially disorganized neighborhoods (thats how they define them based on the
chicago school circles) there are several competing and conflicting moral values.
In these impoverished areas there is a conflict between different groups about scarce
means
Delinquency patterns have become a competitive lifestyle as a means to survice and
as a way of obtaining income, intimacy and honer
As a result: gang formation
→ So: in the disorganized neighborhood with a lot of transition, people compete for scarce
means through delinquency which results in gang formation.
Criticism social disorganization theory: criticism against deterministic way of conceptualizing
criminal behavior through space:
Based solely on police data: selective and corruption within the police so doesn’t
cover all of it
Certain crime excluded (violence at home, white collar crime, victimless crimes, drug
abuse)
Government policy is not taken into account
