EARLY POSITIVE SCHOOL PERSPECTIVES OF CRIMINALITY

Transcription

1 EARLY POSITIVE SCHOOL PERSPECTIVES OF CRIMINALITY Introduction These perspectives focused on that certain individuals/groups tend to offend more than others o EUGENICS inferior individuals should be controlled or eliminated, control of reproduction Early to mid 1800s establish a framework to distinguish superior and inferior individuals o Craniometry brain & skull size = superiority/inferiority Thought size of skull = size of brain Measure volume of brain, circumferences of skull, pour seeds/buckshot/ball bearings into skulls to measure volume White, Western European = superior Front portion of brain larger = superior; back portion of brain large = inferior Craniometrists changed belief and said convoluted or complex structure of brain + fissures and gyrus = superior brain Lack of validity Now = large brain = score higher on intelligence tests o Phrenology determine human dispositions based on distinctions Assumed size of skull = size of brain Bump or abnormality of skull = abnormality of brain Certain parts of brain is responsible to certain tasks Phrenology = area above left ear destructiveness Now = area above left ear (left temporal) trauma Correct about certain areas of brain govern operation of different physical activities but bumps on skull meant nothing o Physiognomy study of facial and other bodily aspects to indicate developmental problems Focused on compare/contrast different racial groups to prove superiority/inferiority Darwin The Origins of Species (late 1800s) o Evolution of human species, adaptations preferred by natural selection o Falsely led to believe certain groups are superior/inferior Lombroso s Theory of Atavism and Born Criminal 1876 The Criminal Man 1

2 o Outlined a theory of crime combining craniometry, phrenology, physiognomy Believed certain people are atavistic, likely born to commit crime o Atavism person/feature of individual is a throwback to an earlier stage of evolutionary development o Serious criminals = lower forms of humanity Born criminals = target in addressing crime Societies can identify born criminals by their stigmata o Stigmata = physical manifestations of atavism of an individual, features that indicate a prior evolutionary stage of development Lombroso s List of Stigmata o 5+ stigmata = atavism & born criminal o Consisted of facial and bodily features that deviated from the norm Ex) small/large noses, ears, eyes, jaw, etc. Anything outside the bell curve o Extra-physiological features as well Tattoos, family history of epilepsy, disorders o Incorporates core principles in his theory Idea criminals are biological throwbacks in evolution Importance of stigmata o Claimed he could associated stigmata with certain types of criminals Lombroso as Father of Criminology & Father of Positive School o Model supported Western world s view of slavery, deportation o First to gain prominence in identifying factors outside of free will or free choice o Determinism = assumption that most human behavior is determined by factors beyond free will Do not logically think through costs and benefits of a situation o Attributes behavior on biological, psychological, sociological variables o When people make important decisions, it is usually not free will that helps us decide, but is almost determined by the environment o When humans are exposed to certain environments, we will act in a predictable way o Deterministic factors = biological makeup of an individual Lombroso s Policy Implication o Lombroso & his students called to testify using judgements of stigmata to determine guilt or innocence o Identifying young children with observed stigmata, indicates high risk of developmental problems Minor physical anomalies (MPAs) 2

3 Not normal head Low-set ears circumference Large gap between 1 st & 2 nd tow Fine electric hair No ear lobes 1+ hair whorl Curved 5 th finger Droopy eyelids 3 rd toe bigger than 2 nd tow Hypertelorism Asymmetrical ears (orbital) Furrowed tongue Malformed ears Simian crease o Lombroso s model of stigmata in predicting antisocial behavior used today The IQ Testing Era Before Binet IQ = Alfred Binet IQ (intelligence quotient) testing o Used to identify youths doing poorly at school o Stated that IQ could be changed H.H Goddard twisted Binet s test for purposes of deporting, incapacitating, sterilizing low IQ individuals o Examined immigrants coming into the US o Proposed that IQ was static/innate and cannot be changed o Assumed intelligence was passed from generation to generation, inherited o Feeblemindedness low IQ Morons biggest threat Imbeciles Idiots lowest intelligence group o Morons is smart enough to slip through the cracks and reproduce o Felt woman are better at distinguishing the feebleminded by sight o Realized his recommendations were not accurate Tested on US military Found many recruits to fall into the feebleminded category o Lowered mental age criterion from 12 to 8 o Later on, admitted that intelligence could be improved/changed o US government continued to sterilize people based on IQ scores of their parents Travis Hirschi & Michael Hindelang o Examined effect of intelligence on delinquency and criminality among individuals o Showed IQ of delinquents or criminals about 10 points lower than non-criminals Certain studies show that have certain types of intelligence are more important o Low verbal IQ = predicting delinquent and criminal behavior 3

4 Body Type Theory: Sheldon s Model of Somatotyping William Sheldon Somatotyping = development of certain body types and temperaments or personalities o Development of certain tissue layers in the embryonic and fetal stages All embryos must develop 3 distinct tissue layers o Endoderm = inner layer of tissues, internal organs o Mesoderm muscles, bones, ligaments, tendons o Ectoderm outer layer of tissue, including skin, capillaries, nervous system Proposed certain individuals tend to emphasize certain tissue layers o Focus on endoderm development = endomorphic o Emphasis on middle layer, athletic, muscular build = mesomorphic o Emphasis on outer layer, thin = ectomorphic Each body type measured on a scale of 1 7, 7 = highest score o Typical somatotype is Little lower than average in endomorphy High on mesomorphy Relatively low on ectomorphy o person likely candidate for criminality Body types matched personality traits or temperaments o Endomorphic: jolly and lazy viscerotonic o Mesomorphic: risk taking and aggressive somotonic o Ectomorphic: introverted and shy cerebrotonic Test was conducted with poor methodology low inter-rater reliability o Told staff to make their determination on how individuals scored Argument: individuals alter their body type via diet or exercise Conclusion: mesomorphs are more delinquent and criminal and others with other body types Recent study: chronic offenders identification by v-shaped and u-shaped pelvis o V-shape = high levels of androgens, predisposes individuals towards crime o U-shape = low levels of androgens Not studies have been able to refute Sheldon s mesomorph claim, so it is assumed to be true Both biology and social environment interact to explain the link Policy Implications More medical screening at birth regarding minor physical anomalies Suggesting same sex classes for children because they are gender focused on deficiencies 4

5 Mandatory health insurance for pregnant mothers and children Youth should be screened for abnormal levels of hormones, neurotransmitters, toxins Conclusion Positivism assumes individuals have no free will Criminal behavior is the result of determinism Lombroso = criminals are biological throwbacks to an earlier stage of evolution Low IQ = feeblemindedness mesomorphic body = probability the individual will be involved in criminality Reading The Contribution of Family Adversity and Verbal IQ to Criminal Behaviour Chris Gibson, Alex Piquero, Stephen Tibbetts Introduction Farrington risk factor prevention paradigm o Risk factor variable that predicts later involvement in offender o Protective factor variable that mediate the likelihood that a risk factor will increase later offending behavior Investigate the interactive effect of verbal IQ and family adversity as they relate to the prevalence of offending as well as an early onset of offending Hypothesize: Verbal IQ x Family Adversity interaction not predictive of whether an individual is an offender by age 18 Secondly, examine Moffitt s hypothesis: Verbal IQ x Family Adversity important in weeding out specific types of offenders within age-crime curve Correlates of Early Onset and Persistent Offending Adult persistent offending rooted in early childhood behavioral problems Age of first offense correlates to future offending Predictors of early onset: neuropsychological and psychosocial deficiencies, poor psychomotor skills, family adversity, economic/social deprivation Moffitt s Interaction Hypothesis 6%-10% of offenders exhibit criminal behavior early in life and are likely to be chronic Those individuals likely to possess neuropsychological deficiencies and disadvantaged environments and/or family adversity ND (neuropsychological deficiencies) disrupt normal development 5

6 Theorized a variety of factors disrupt central nervous system of the fetus/infant such as prenatal and perinatal complications Suggested that neuro-environmental interactions should not distinguish offender from non-offender but between different types of offender ND x disadvantaged environments predict early onset Verbal IQ and Criminal Behaviour Delinquents have a language manipulation deficit Limited empirical evidence showing that childhood verbal IQ test scores interact with one s social environment to minimize and/or their likelihood of early offending behavior Family Adversity (FA) and Criminal Behaviour Emphasized that children with cognitive and temporal deficiencies are often born into non-supportive families that are oftentimes saturated with family adversity Criminogenic environment synonymous with family adversity o Socioeconomic status (SES), single parenting, age of mother at birth, multiple family transitions Empirical evidence has shown that maternal age at birth is a risk factor for offending behavior of offspring Broken homes and early separation of parents predict criminal offending Children from single-parent families have been found to have a variety of adverse problems such as conduct disorder and substance abuse Current Effort Build on prior research o Examine different outcome variables that are hypothesized to be related to various risk factors o Measure the role of neuropsychological risk by explicating measures of verbal IQ and expand prior measurement of family adversity o Examine Moffitt s developmental taxonomy centered around ND and FA Moffitt hypothesized ND x FA not be predictive of who does/does not offend but predictive of early but no late onset of offending because adolescent-limited (AL) offenders do not suffer from any individual-level deficits in neuropsychological risk or self control 2 hypothesis: ND x FA no predict of offending or not ND x FA distinguish among the offending population 6

7 Data Variable coded: o 0 non-offender o 1 offender Dependent Variable: o Whether the participant was/was not an offender by age 18 o If participant was an offender, the age at first police contact o Early onset as onset before 14 Independent variable: o Verbal IQ Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Summary of verbal ability in 4 subtests: information, comprehension, digit span, vocabulary o Family Adversity o Birth weight important correlate of a variety of negative sequelae o Gender o Interaction between verbal IQ and FA Hypotheses Verbal IQ x FA not predict individual is offender or not by age 18 Verbal IQ x FA predictive of age at first police contact Results Individuals scoring highest on FA scale scored lowest on Verbal IQ and vice versa Predicting Offending: o FA = probability of becoming an offender o Birth weight not a significant predictor o Verbal IQ and Verbal IQ x FA not significant predictors Predicting Early Onset: o Individuals with low birth weights significantly more likely to incur an early age of onset o Interaction between Verbal IQ and FA a significant predictor of early onset Verbal IQ + FA = most at risk for early onset of offending o Individuals with high verbal IQ are able to minimize the detrimental effects of family adversity on early onset Discussion Negative effects of biosocial interactions on early offending are rooted in early childhood 7

8 Verbal IQ x FA does not distinguish whether the individual is an offender by age 18 Low verbal IQ scores at age 7 interact with family adversity to predict early onset of offending o Increased when there is a co-occurrence of both low verbal IQ and high FA Limitations of the study: o Only used WISC verbal IQ scores as an indicator of neuropsychological risk o Study only focused on life-persistent offenders o Reports of antisocial behavior should be gathered from multiple sources o Generalizing of results is limited due to the sample o Should explore how Moffitt s interaction hypothesis relates to sociopathy It would be beneficial to initiate prevention and intervention strategies early in the life course 8