Psychology and crime an introduction to criminological psychology 1st edition by clive hollin isbn 0

Psychology and crime An introduction to criminological psychology 1st edition by Clive Hollin ISBN 0415018072 978-0415018074 pdf download https://ebookball.com/product/psychology-and-crime-anintroduction-to-criminological-psychology-1st-edition-by-clivehollin-isbn-0415018072-978-0415018074-16678/

Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks at ebookball.com

Get Your Digital Files Instantly: PDF, ePub, MOBI and More Quick Digital Downloads: PDF, ePub, MOBI and Other Formats

Introduction to Forensic Psychology Issues and Controversies in Crime and Justice 1st Edition by Bruce Arrigo 0120643502 978-0120643509

https://ebookball.com/product/introduction-to-forensicpsychology-issues-and-controversies-in-crime-and-justice-1stedition-by-bruce-arrigo-0120643502-978-0120643509-19244/

Psychology and Work An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1st Edition by Dianne Krumm ISBN 1572596597 9781572596597

https://ebookball.com/product/psychology-and-work-anintroduction-to-industrial-and-organizational-psychology-1stedition-by-dianne-krumm-isbn-1572596597-9781572596597-23876/

An Introduction to Social Psychology 1st edition By William McDougall ISBN 1138851256 978-1138851252

https://ebookball.com/product/an-introduction-to-socialpsychology-1st-edition-by-william-mcdougallisbn-1138851256-978-1138851252-24612/

An Introduction to the History of Psychology 6th edition by Hergenhahn ISBN B004NTZ176 978-1111838314

https://ebookball.com/product/an-introduction-to-the-history-ofpsychology-6th-edition-by-hergenhahnisbn-b004ntz176-978-1111838314-23456/

An Introduction to the History of Psychology 6th Edition by Hergenhahn 0495506214 978-0495506218

https://ebookball.com/product/an-introduction-to-the-history-ofpsychology-6th-edition-byhergenhahn-0495506214-978-0495506218-23988/

An Introduction to Social Psychology 1st Edition by William McDougall 113885123X 9781138851238

https://ebookball.com/product/an-introduction-to-socialpsychology-1st-edition-by-williammcdougall-113885123x-9781138851238-23894/

An Introduction to the History of Psychology 7th edition by Hergenhahn, Tracy Henley ISBN 1133958095 978-1133958093

https://ebookball.com/product/an-introduction-to-the-history-ofpsychology-7th-edition-by-hergenhahn-tracy-henleyisbn-1133958095-978-1133958093-23466/

Introduction to Psychology 9th Edition by Rod Plotnik, Haig Kouyoumdjian 0495812811 978-0495812814

https://ebookball.com/product/introduction-to-psychology-9thedition-by-rod-plotnik-haigkouyoumdjian-0495812811-978-0495812814-23906/

Introduction to Psychology 9th Edition by Rod Plotnik, Haig Kouyoumdjian ISBN 0495812811 9780495812814

https://ebookball.com/product/introduction-to-psychology-9thedition-by-rod-plotnik-haig-kouyoumdjianisbn-0495812811-9780495812814-24656/

Psychology and crime

Psychology and crime An introduction to criminological psychology

Clive R.Hollin

London and New York

First published in 1989 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002. © 1989 Clive R.Hollin All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Hollin, Clive R. Psychology and crime: an introduction to criminological psychology. 1. Man. Criminal behaviour. Psychological aspects I. Title 364.2’4 Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Hollin, Colin R. Psychology and crime. 1. Criminal psychology. I. Title. HV6080.H64 1989 364.3 88–26371 ISBN 0-415-01807-2 (Print Edition) ISBN 0-203-14402-3 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-16284-6 (Glassbook Format)

Contents

Figures and tables Preface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Psychology and crime Psychological approaches to understanding crime Psychological approaches to understanding serious crime Mental disorder and crime Psychology and the police Psychology in the courtroom Psychology and crime prevention

1 22 63 99 126 152 181

Epilogue

209

References

212

Name index

263

Subject index

274

For Gregory

Figures and tables

Figures 2.1 3.1

Eysenck’s personality dimensions of extraversion and neuroticism Schematic representation of the relationship between cognition, emotion, and behaviour

55 67

Tables 1.1 1.2

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1

Offences in England and Wales: British Crime Survey (1983) estimates Offences in England and Wales: percentage change in British Crime Survey estimates (1983–85) and offences recorded by the police in the same period Summary of twin study data Percentage of male adoptees with criminal records according to criminality of parents Levels and stages of moral judgement in Kohlberg’s Theory Eysenck’s Theory: summary of cluster analysis studies Typology of violent incidents Typology of violent offenders Types of rapist Cognitive distortions in child molesters Finkelhor’s (1986) model of child molesting The prevalence of mental disorder in penal populations

18

19 26 29 52 58 69 76 83 93 95 102

Figures and tables

4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2

Principal offences of mentally handicapped offenders Cleckley’s (1976) characteristics of the psychopath Psychopathy checklist The importance of various signs of psychopathy as rated by forensic specialists Police ratings of job content and comparative assessment of police work Police work stressors British and American police views of extremely stressful situations Factors nominated as stress reducing by both junior and senior police officers Variables in the study of eyewitness memory Items from the juror bias scale Type of evidence used in court: from most to least frequent Examples of indicators for success and failure following discharge from special hospital Behavioural targets in a youth treatment centre

113 115 116 118 132 141 142 144 154 167 175 187 192

Preface

Looking back, there were a number of antecedents which led to my interest in crime, so to speak, and so to the writing of this book. These are mostly personal in nature, reflecting the various qualities of those with whom it has been my fortune and misfortune to meet, work with, and learn from. Of those who had a particular impact I must include my doctoral research supervisors, John Radford and Brian Clifford at North East London Polytechnic: both were influential in their own different ways. Of my former colleagues in the Directorate of Psychological Services in the Home Office, Felicity Clarkson, Head of the Psychology Unit at HM Borstal, Feltham, guided my uncertain first steps in the world of real offenders. At that same institution I profited greatly from many long discussions with Graham Huff, which moulded much of my thinking on clinical intervention with offenders. In the world of teaching and research my colleagues, and I hope friends, Monika Henderson, Martin Herbert, and Kevin Howells have influenced my work in many ways. In terms of the written word, Philip Feldman’s 1977 book, Criminal Behaviour: A Psychological Analysis, had an enormous impact in fostering my appreciation of the way in which psychology could be applied to the study of crime. I am aware that it is something of a cliché in any book written by an academic, but the undergraduate students who have taken my Forensic Psychology course at the University of Leicester over the past five years have been significantly instrumental in both sharpening my thinking and broadening my reading in the area of psychology and crime. Indeed, the writing of this book directly stems from my teaching. The Forensic course demands of students a great deal of reading, both within and outside mainstream psychology, and I have been aware of the lack of a single source which gathers the bulk of the material which I include on

Preface

the course. The primary function of this book is therefore to gather material which covers the range of psychology and crime, so providing a text for all those concerned with criminological psychology. (I shall, I think, change the name of my course; as discussed later, the term criminological may well be preferable to forensic.) Given the aim of a general text, I have tried not to let my own theoretical leanings show too much, although in one or two of the ‘perspectives’ the sound of galloping hobby-horses is clearly audible. During writing it quickly became apparent that it was impossible to cover everything which might justifiably be called criminological psychology. In consultation with the publishers it was therefore decided not to cover specifically the large field of juvenile delinquency, given the excellent recent text by Michael Rutter and Henri Giller (1983) which reviews this topic in great depth; of course, the discussion of theories and prevention of offending does include many references to delinquents. For the many topics which are included, I have always tried to give an overall picture of the field concerned, although limitations of space have often precluded a full literature review. For this reason I have given a large number of references in the text; the interested reader should always be able to follow up any topic in greater detail from the references given. In the process of writing I accumulated a number of debts. The second edition of Criminology by Larry J.Siegal was an invaluable source to which I referred countless times. A number of friends and colleagues provided references to guide my reading, while some were kind enough also to read parts of the manuscript and suggest improvements; my thanks to Ron Blackburn, Ray Bull, Gisli Gudjonsson, Kevin Howells, Sue Ledwith, Barry McGurk, Lizzie Noon, and Derek Perkins. Sheila Wesson typed the references with awesome speed. Any errors in any part of the text are, of course, of my own making. The research and writing for this book took a year or so of my life, perhaps one of the hardest year’s work I have experienced. My partner in life, Felicity Schofield, gave both the space and the support throughout to see the book through to its completion. It was a year which we started with one child and ended with two: demanding as my labours were, they pale to insignificance compared to hers. Clive Hollin January 1989

Chapter one

Psychology and crime

One of the challenges of crime is that any attempt at its understanding demands knowledge across a wide range of disciplines. Writers and researchers from anthropology, economics, jurisprudence, medicine, philosophy, psychology, and sociology have all contributed to the study of crime. As the study of crime became more refined so it evolved into the specialism of criminology: an integrated approach to the study of crime, in which the elements of other disciplines are used to develop theories and explanations for the phenomenon of crime. There is some debate as to whether criminology has achieved the status of an independent discipline. Critics suggest that as criminology relies so heavily on other disciplines its independence is doubtful and so it would be better considered as a specialization within another established field such as, say, sociology. This argument may have had some force in the past but seems altogether less tenable in the 1980s. I am persuaded by the arguments of writers such as Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) who claim that criminology has achieved the status of an independent discipline with its own data base, methodologies, and theories. With this in mind, I am able to set this book into perspective. I make no imperialist claims on behalf of psychology; crime cannot be explained solely by psychological theory. However, what I believe psychology can do is to contribute to criminology both in terms of its methodology, and by the application of some of its own data base and theory. Further, crime and criminals raise a number of practical issues, principally in two fields. First, how can it be determined whether or not an individual has committed an offence when so accused? Second, when an individual has committed an offence how, if at all, are we to respond to that person? Psychology on its own cannot provide all the answers but, once again, I believe it has a contribution to make. In this light, therefore, the emphasis 1

Psychology and crime

of this book will be the contribution psychology can make to the study of crime. Of necessity the bulk of each chapter is concerned with psychological research and theories as applied to some aspect of crime. Each chapter ends with a short section labelled ‘Perspective’. The function of these sections is precisely as the name suggests: to provide a sense of perspective by addressing some point raised in the preceding material. At the outset, however, there are three fundamental points which must be addressed: What is psychology? What is crime? What is the relationship between psychology and crime? What is psychology? There are a number of popular books which attempt to answer the question, what is psychology? (e.g. Colman 1981). To appreciate in full the depth and scope of psychology the best strategy is to peruse an introduc-tory text (Atkinson et al. 1983; Berryman et al. 1987; Radford and Govier 1980). Simply, psychology is the study of people, although there is a branch of psychology concerned with animals. In the main, psychologists are engaged in the study of individual qualities such as perception, memory, thinking, learning, intelligence, creativity, and personality. Further, some psychologists study these human qualities in a particular way: developmental psychology is concerned with the study of human growth from infancy to old age; abnormal psychology, sometimes called psychopathology, is concerned with understanding disturbances such as anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia; social psychology is the study of interactions between people, say at work or as part of a family; while psychophysiology is the study of the relationship between psychological and physiological processes, as in the interaction between behaviour and aspects of brain functioning. While these are the mainstream areas of psychology, typically found in undergraduate degree courses, there are also a number of specialist areas of psychological practice. These specialities, developed from the main body of psychological inquiry, are generally studied at postgraduate level. Educational psychology is concerned with many aspects of teaching and the educational system. Occupational psychology is the application of psychological theory and expertise to the world of organizations, business, management, and so forth. Clinical psychology is the extension of abnormal psychology to the treatment, as well as study, of psychological disturbances; treatment methods would include, 2

Psychology and crime

for example, behaviour therapy, counselling, and psychotherapy (Kovel 1976). Finally, in this brief gallop through psychology, it is important to note that there are a number of theories prevalent in mainstream psychology (e.g. Chapman and Jones 1980; Price 1978). These theories very much influence the type of research, interpretation of findings, and style of practice of any psychologist. The principal distinction is illustrated by the titles of two psychology books: George Miller’s (1962) title is Psychology: The Science of Mental Life; while B.F.Skinner (1953) prefers that psychology is about Science and Human Behavior. The ‘mind’ versus ‘behaviour’ controversy, while not strictly dichotomous, is central to theories of psychology. Recourse to mental processes in seeking to understand human functioning is found in psychological theories both old and new. Freud’s theories involved the notion of psychic energies, or psychodynamic forces, driving or compelling human actions (see Kline 1984). More recently cognitive theories have become popular: such theories suggest that human action is determined by a range of mental processes such as reasoning, beliefs, schema, information processing, and so on (see M.W.Eysenck 1984). Such theories would also take into account the force of such ‘internal’ states as arousal, anger, despair, and self-control as being of fundamental importance in accounting for our actions. The primacy these theories place on mental or ‘private’ events in determining human functioning contrasts sharply with the position of behavioural theories where emphasis is laid on environmental, not internal, events as determinants of behaviour (Skinner 1974; 1985). This is not to say that behaviourists ignore or deny the existence of internal, private events; rather, that such phenomena are seen as an integral part of human behaviour which, like overt behaviour, can be reinforced or punished by environmental contingencies. The evolution of Social Learning Theory (Bandura 1977) has gone some way towards combining the behavioural and cognitive positions (although differences remain), as also have other multicomponent models of human functioning such as Argyle’s (1967) skills model. While there is disagreement about the role of mental events in determining behaviour, it is probably true to say that the majority of psychological theories acknowledge the importance of genetic, neurological, and other biological factors in human functioning. These theories assume crucial importance when applied to criminal actions. Is a crime committed because the criminal is a rational being, able to make the decision to offend as an act of freewill? Does the crime 3

Psychology and crime

occur because environmental influences—parents, peer group, culture, and so on—determined the act would invariably happen? Or is the real clue to be found in the genes: are criminals born, not made? The issue goes yet further; if crime is an act of free will, or determined by environmental conditions, or by biological influence, then the solutions to crime demanded by these different perspectives will be very different. These issues will be of concern in this book, but first they need to be set in context alongside some basic facts about crime and criminology. Two points are of particular importance: approaches to defining crime; and the measurement of the amount of crime. What is crime? Definitions of crime The following section examines the three major approaches to defining crime. This is not to say that these are the only approaches, or even the best approaches; rather that they are the most widespread. New ways of viewing crime are continually being developed, such as the critiques presented from a feminist perspective (Heidensohn 1985). However, for the present purpose the three main approaches will suffice. The consensus view The consensus approach to defining crime stems from the functionalist school within sociology (J.Shepherd 1981). The basic tenet of this school of thought is that society functions as an integrated structure, its stability depending upon agreement, or consensus, among its members about the norms, rules, and values which are to be uniformly respected. Thus, a society’s legal system is a reflection of the consensus of what, within that particular society, will and will not be tolerated as acceptable conduct. A crime is therefore a violation of the criminal law, an act which meets with the disapproval of the majority. A definition of crime following this tradition would be of the style exemplified by Williams: ‘A crime is an act that is capable of being followed by criminal proceedings, having one of the types of outcome (punishment, etc.) known to follow these proceedings’ (G.Williams 1955:21). This definition clearly has a number of important consequences. First and foremost an act has to be committed before a crime can be said to have occurred; thought without some action is not a crime. Further, the act must be legally forbidden; ‘anti-social’ behaviour in itself is not a crime unless specifically and explicitly prohibited by law (actus reus). In keeping with 4

Psychology and crime

this, in the majority of instances the individual must also have had criminal intent in committing the act (mens rea), the exception being crimes of strictliability such as health and safety regulations. An interesting discrepancy arises here between what might seem morally wrong, as opposed to ‘wrong’ in the legal sense. Racism and sexism, for example, may raise great moral issues, but are not well established in criminal law. This is not to preclude the possibility that they might: criminal law has to have the flexibility to accommodate shifting societal values. Sutherland and Cressey (1960) illustrate this latter point, noting that at various times in the past activities such as printing a book, having gold in one’s house, or driving with reins have all been criminal acts. More recently abortion, suicide, and consenting homosexual behaviour in adults over the age of 21 years have all been removed from the criminal law domain (or decriminalized). The reverse can also happen: acts once not punishable by law are turned into crimes. In the USA it was perfectly legal to own and sell marijuana until the federal law was amended in 1937. In this country changes have been made regarding the sale of solvents to certain age groups, criminalizing a once legal activity— within, of course, the specific boundaries of the law itself. In other instances, technological advances are at present proving challenges to the law-makers: video piracy and computer fraud are contemporary acts which criminal law is having to address. While there are those acts which may pass in and out of criminal law, and can be thought of as ‘statutory’ crimes (mala prohibitum), there are other acts which are almost universally deemed ‘wrong’ or ‘bad in themselves’ (mala in se). Such acts would include those which inflict harm on another’s person, for example murder, assault, and rape; or would inflict harm on the other person’s property, for example burglary, malicious damage, and trespass. Thus the function of criminal law is to ensure the maintenance of these agreed aims of society, that is to protect the individual’s person and property. However, as N.Walker (1965) points out, criminal law adopts a wider brief in seeking to achieve this aim. Laws also exist for the defence of the Realm, and to prevent public acts which might shock, corrupt, or deprave. It can be seen that such laws can be comfortably accommodated within a consensus framework: they act to preserve the stable society within which the individual lives and his or her possessions exist. An important part of criminal law is the delivery of retribution to those who transgress the commonly agreed boundaries of acceptable conduct. The concept of punishment is not a simple one, raising many practical, 5

Psychology and crime

legal, and ethical issues (e.g. Ginsberg 1965). For example, most people would agree that not all crimes merit the same punishment. Some system is needed which can differ between crimes of varying severity and magnitude. The tradition in this country is to distinguish between serious offences, sometimes referred to as indictable or notifiable offences, such as theft, fraud, and violence against the person; and less serious, or nonindictable or summary, offences such as minor traffic offences and petty damage to property (although some crimes are ‘triable either way’). This dichotomy of serious and non-serious offences can be broken down still further: for example Siegal (1986) summarizes findings from the American National Survey of Crime Severity of public perceptions of crime seriousness. In this survey the five most serious crimes, as nominated by a sample from the American public, were all crimes of violence against the person. The most serious of all was: ‘Planting a bomb in a public building. The bomb explodes and twenty people are killed.’ The crimes judged least serious were being drunk in public, trespass, and least serious of all the 204 crimes in the survey was a ‘youngster under sixteen years plays hooky from school’. If criminal law reflects the consensual views of society, then the punishments it delivers must also reflect the consensual view of the seriousness of different types of crime. The conflict view The conflict view of crime stands directly opposed to the consensus view. It argues that rather than functioning as an integrated unit, society is best seen as a collection of competing diverse groups—professional bodies, unions, students, industrialists, and so on. These groups are in conflict with each other on a range of fronts as, given the unequal distribution of wealth and power within society, some are poor and dissatisfied while others are wealthy and powerful. This inequality in the distribution of power creates a social atmosphere based on conflict, which in turn, it is argued, promotes crime. The conflict view of crime grew in both popularity and sophistication in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is most closely associated with the writings of criminologists such as Turk (1969), Quinney (1970), and Chambliss and Seidman (1971); although the contribution of earlier writers such as Vold (1958) and Dahrendorf (1959) should not be neglected. The conflict view of crime developed into a distinct branch of criminology with the introduction of Marxist theory, a merger generally credited to the book The New Criminology by I.Taylor, Walton, and Young (1973). Specifically Marxist or new criminology views crime as 6

Psychology and crime

a function of a capitalist system which produces those who have wealth and power and those who do not. While each group, or class, within society commits crimes, the type of crime is dictated by the system: the poor commit crimes within their scope, such as theft, murder, and burglary; the middle class commit typical ‘white-collar’ crimes such as tax evasion and theft from employers; while the wealthy and powerful upper class indulge in activities such as exploitation, profiteering, and environmental pollution and damage—acts which are not accorded the status of crime. As theories based on conflict are clearly political and economic in orientation, the function of the criminal justice system is viewed in very much the same terms. Criminal laws exist for the express purpose of protecting the rich and powerful from the remainder of the population. In Marxist terms, the ‘justice’ system exists to preserve capitalist interests —that is the interests of the capitalist bourgeoisie—ensuring power remains with the wealthy and not the proletariat. Thus inequalities in sentencing can be used to support the position of conflict theories. Laws which exact harsher penalties for offences against property rather than against people, and cases in which the poor are imprisoned for minor offences while the rich receive lesser sentences for more serious crimes, appear to offer evidence for a conflict view of crime. Conflict theories have attracted a great deal of criticism. Klockars (1980) has pointed specifically to a number of gaps and flaws in Marxist theories: for example the neglect of individual differences—why do not all people within a capitalist system commit crimes? It should be noted that Marxists have responded to these criticisms and are seeking to refine their theories of criminology (T.Platt 1985). The interactionist view While the consensus and conflict view of crime stand directly opposed, the interactionist view falls between these two camps. With its beginnings in a school of thought within sociology known as symbolic interactionism (Blumer 1969), this view of crime rests on a number of critical assumptions. The first of these assumptions is that each individual’s behaviour is guided by their interpretation of reality and the meaning which events hold for them. The second assumption has its focus on the learning of meaning, a process seen as resulting from the way in which other people react, either positively or negatively, towards any given individual or situation. Finally, the third assumption holds that the evaluation of one’s own behaviour is made according to the meanings learned and acquired from other people. 7

Psychology and crime

In focusing so sharply on meaning, the interactionist view of crime moves away from the moral stance of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ central to the consensus view. Thus, while taking the life of another person is a criminal act, this does not always have to be the case: self-defence, in battle during war, and state execution are examples of ‘legitimate’ killing. The decision as to when an act becomes a crime is not a matter of consensus, rather a statement of the preferences of those who hold social power and are able to impose their preferred definition on society. However, unlike the conflict views of crime, the interactionist view does not suggest that economic and political considerations are the driving motivations for those in power. Becker (1963) used the term ‘moral entrepreneurs’ to describe those individuals who advance to positions in society which allow them to influence the rule (that is law) making process. Thus the interactionist view is concerned with the way in which changing moral standards—not therefore seen as fixed or absolute—relate to changes in legal standards. Interactionist views were at their most influential in the 1960s but have rather declined in popularity since then within the criminological community. Some of those who held interactionist views have moved to a conflict position while others shifted to a consensus view: it is probably true to say that in the 1980s the conservative consensus view is once again gaining the ascendancy. Theories of crime The three views discussed above have clearly placed very different constructions around the phenomenon of crime. The view taken by the individual criminologist, together with his or her own background in sociology, psychology, and so on, will influence the way in which research evidence is gathered, data interpreted, and theories constructed. The following section briefly examines how the three views noted above have been translated into theories of crime. Classical and positivist theories The consensus view of crime is linked to two schools of thought within criminology. The classical theorists hold central the concept of free will in explaining why a person commits a crime. When the opportunity for crime arises, the individual has a free choice between criminal and non-criminal behaviour. If the payoffs for the criminal act are greater than the retribution it will bring, so the probability of a crime increases. At its most basic this suggests that severe retribution will deter people from any criminal act. Indeed, this simple 8

Psychology and crime

philosophy was one which guided the process of justice through to the mid-1700s and even into the early 1800s, when acts such as stealing or vagrancy were punishable by severe physical punishment such as flogging or even death. The eighteenth-century Italian economist Cesare Beccaria was in accord with the general view of the time that humans are rational beings, able to choose and control their behaviour. Beccaria was also concerned that the punishment should fit the crime and so argued, with eventual success, that extreme measures are unnecessary and, indeed, may be counter-productive. There is more than a grain of truth in the saying that ‘it is as well to be hung for a sheep as a lamb’. Around the turn of the eighteenth century, the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham similarly argued that a balance between profit and pain guided the free choice of a criminal act. Bentham formulated a number of rules by which to regulate the administration of punishment; with the justification for punishment always presented in terms of its preventing a greater evil than it creates. Classical theory, as presented by Beccaria and Bentham, was the dominant force in Europe and America in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, guiding both judicial philosophers and criminal justice system of the time. With the advent of positivist theories (see next paragraph) the classical school waned in popularity and influence throughout the twentieth centry. However, the 1970s and 1980s have seen a renewed interest in classical criminology. The neoclassical or conservative criminologists have emerged as a strong voice in contemporary theorizing (e.g. Bayer 1981; Van Den Haag 1982). Fuelled by a general failure of positivist theories to discover the causes of crime and to develop effective strategies for controlling crime, some of the basic ideas associated with classical theories are beginning to return. The call for greater deterrence in the form of longer prison sentences, the return of the death penalty (in Britain), and the notion of ‘just deserts’ for lawbreakers, has been heard increasingly over the past decade. The positivist theorists, while sympathizing with the consensus view of crime, differ from classical theorists with respect to the role of free will in determining behaviour, including criminal behaviour. Positivist theories grew from the arguments, advanced from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, that influences outside the realm of free will are the most important in determining behaviour. As theories have advanced and fallen so these influences have ranged from biological factors such as genetic transmission, to psychological constructs such as personality, learning, and moral development. While from a more sociological 9

Psychology and crime

perspective, there are social structure theories which emphasize concepts such as ‘anomie’, and ‘strain’ which result from class structure and poverty; and social process theories which focus on the effects of, for example, education, peer relationships, and the family. Positivist theories are generally seen as more liberal in orientation, with their suggestions that some form of helpful intervention—be it welfare at a social level or treatment at an individual level—is the optimum strategy for reducing crime. Radical criminology While conflict views of crime encompass a range of opinions, it was those theorists who emphasized the Marxist position who advanced the framework for a new model within criminology. The new criminology promised by I.Taylor et al. (1973) quickly became more popularly known as radical criminology. It is incorrect to say that radical criminology represents a unified theory; rather since 1973 it has put forward a series of associated coherent statements which combine to form a body of knowledge and opinion. While radical criminology has its roots in the writings of Marx and Engels, it was theorists such as Willem Bonger who began to formulate a full Marxist critique of crime. In contrast to classical theories it is proposed that no act in itself is naturally immoral or criminal; definitions of crime are socially determined, reflecting current social values. This emphasis on social determination also runs counter to those positivist theories which incorporate genetic or other biologically based explanations of crime. Within a radical framework, criminal law is designed to suit the purposes of the dominant ruling class, those within society who hold wealth and power. In a capitalist system, the unequal distribution of wealth means that those without finance have to resort to crime to enjoy the luxuries and advantages seen to be enjoyed by others. Crime therefore is in some instances a function of poverty. The rich also commit crimes for the purpose of gaining further wealth and power. However, as the rich control the means of regulating crime, their legal sysem will discriminate against the poor. So while the poor, the proletariat, may commit the same number of crimes as the wealthy, the bourgeoisie, they are arrested and punished with much greater frequency. A number of modern writers have clarified, elaborated, and extended the position defined by Bonger and articulated by I.Taylor et al. (Quinney 1975; Schwendinger and Schwendinger 1979; Spitzer 1975; Sykes 1974; Young 1986). In terms of a solution for crime, radical criminology suggests that changes must occur at economic, political, and social levels. Specifically if progress from the present capitalist system to monopoly 10

Psychology and crime

capitalism can be made, then redistribution of wealth can take place. It is argued that crime will then no longer be necessary; any crimes which do occur will be the result of individual psychopathology. T.Platt (1985) presents a blueprint for the formulation of alternatives to the present system of ‘law and ‘order’ which follow a radical criminological approach. As noted previously, radical criminology has been subjected to fierce criticism, with some carefully constructed commentaries (Klockars 1980) and others with more than a touch of naivety (e.g. Washbrook 1981). Labelling theory The interactionist view of crime gave rise to a theory of criminology which relies on a mixture of social and semantic processes to explain deviance. In common with conflict theories, labelling theory suggests that the law is applied to the benefit of those who hold social and economic power. Thus disadvantaged groups within society, such as the lower socioeconomic classes and minority groups, are more likely to be prosecuted and to receive harsher penalties (Chilton and Galvin 1985; Visher 1983). An individual becomes a criminal when the people who hold power—judges, parents, police, teachers, etc. —decide to confer the label ‘criminal’. As Becker notes: ‘Deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label’ (1963:9). Here there is a clear contrast with a moral view: behaviour is not seen as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, rather ‘deviant behaviour’ is a judgement by certain sections of society towards certain classes of behaviour. This argument does not, of course, apply only to criminal behaviour: the same reasoning has been used to explain the creation of groups variously labelled ‘alcoholic’, ‘mentally ill’, ‘sexually deviant’, and so on. While writers such as Gove (1975) have offered explanations within a labelling theory framework to account for the involvement of people in criminal acts, the main force of labelling theory has been to examine the consequences of labelling. Two consequences are emphasized—the creation of stigma and modification of self-image. The term stigma refers to the public attitude of condemnation of the deviant and the associated exclusion of the labelled individual from some parts of society. The label ‘criminal’ is associated with undesirable traits and so, in the public eye, the criminal is a person to be avoided and treated with suspicion. Thus the criminal will find that he or she is barred from certain types of employment; the young offender may find that their school or their family is unwilling to offer a welcome; those with criminal records may attract an undue amount of attention from the police. The force of these social pressures can lead to the second major consequence 11

Psychology and crime

of the label: the individual comes to believe society’s judgement and so modifies his or her self-image to match the label. The prophecy becomes self-fulfiling: the individual becomes the person described by the label. As the label becomes a role for the labelled individual, so the role is reinforced so that the person’s life changes to suit the role. More crimes are committed, the peer group changes to others playing the same role, the person’s identity becomes that of a ‘criminal’ with all its associated values, attitudes, and beliefs. Lemart (1951) calls this process deviance amplification. The irony of any attempt at intervention, either by punishment or treatment, is that it serves only to reinforce the individual’s self-perception of him- or herself as a criminal. Like all other theories of crime, labelling theory has its critics. There are a range of objections from a failure to specify why some individuals set off on a path of crime, to a failure to acknowledge that some crimes such as murder and rape are universally judged as ‘wrong’ (Tittle 1975; Wellford 1975). As Siegal (1986) points out, several criminologists who were at one time strong advocates of labelling theory have in the 1970s and 1980s shifted ground to favour more radical theories, principally the conflict theories. In summary, it can be seen that the three influential theories discussed above explain crime in very different ways. It is true that there is a degree of overlap between certain aspects of some theories, which has been examined by experimental methods (e.g. Bales 1982), but in the main the theories remain independent of each other. While these theories offer explanations for crime, they do not inform us as to the numbers of crimes committed. Knowledge of the numbers of crimes committed is important both theoretically and practically: if crime is a low frequency behaviour then criminals may differ in some important way from those who do not perform such acts; if on the other hand it is a high frequency behaviour this may mean quite the reverse. The practical reasons are concerned with the allocation of finance to those establishments concerned with controlling crime: if there is a great deal of crime, and it is socie-ty’s wish to control it (however ‘society’ may be defined), then the forces of law and order will demand a proportion of the public purse—the higher the frequency of crime, the greater the demand on the purse. How much crime? In England in the late 1700s the practice began of gathering court statistics in order to gauge the moral health of the country. This 12

Psychology and crime

preoccupation with figures persists to the present day, although in 1856 the Judicial Statistics was for the first time compiled using ‘crimes known to the police’, rather than court convictions or numbers imprisoned, as the standard measure of quantity of crime. This measure is still favoured and reported annually in the Home Office publication Criminal Statistics, which presents a record of the number and types of crime recorded by the police in England and Wales. In the USA the Uniform Crime Reports, collected annually by the FBI, serve a similar function. Wolfgang (1971) suggested a number of uses for official statistics: to measure the total volume of crime; to measure the effectiveness of preventative measures; to detect changes in rates of crime; and to provide data for policy decisions. If the crimes recorded in Criminal Statistics are viewed in this light an ominous trend appears: the annual figure for recorded crime has risen from approximately 500,000 in the 1950s, to about 1 million in the mid1960s, around 2 million by the mid-1970s, and had touched 3 million in the early 1980s. If these figures are reliable, the crime rate is rising rapidly. The logical extension of this argument is that the present methods of crime control are not working and it may seem that policy changes are urgently needed. However, before making this leap from statistics to policy, the reliability of the figures must be questioned. How accurate is the official figure as a measure of the real amount of crime in society? In attempting to answer this question researchers have turned to the three agents involved in crime: the police, the offender, and the victim. Police recording of crime If an offence is reported to the police is it guaranteed to appear in the official statistics? An American study cited by Hood and Sparks (1970) suggests not: only about two-thirds of serious crimes which victims claimed to have reported to the police were actually recorded in police files. A British survey similarly found that there were discrepancies between reported crime and police-recorded crime: the percentage shortfall—crimes reported but not recorded—ranged from 75 per cent for robbery to 27 per cent for bicycle theft (Hough and Mayhew 1985). However, three offence categories—sexual offences, thefts of motor vehicles, and theft in a dwelling—showed no shortfall between reporting and police recording. While human error may play a part in misrecording or ‘losing’ crimes, and the exact figures involved may be open to question, it is also true that the police have considerable discretion 13

Psychology and crime

over the recording of reported crime. Bottomley and Pease (1986) present a full discussion of police work and criminal statistics; however, for present purposes the emphasis will be on the process of recording. As Hough and Mayhew (1985) note, the police may, with justification, feel that a reported ‘crime’ is a mistake, or there is a lack of evidence to support the report. In other instances an informal caution may be given in which case the offence will not appear in the official figures. In a similar vein, the criminal incident may be satisfactorily resolved by the appearance of a police officer: family disputes and arguments in public houses are examples of this type of situation in which the crime is reported but goes unrecorded. Alternatively it could be that after reporting a crime the injured party asks for the crime to be dropped and so the incident is written off as ‘no crime’ —again failing to appear in the criminal statistics. In a survey of three London areas, Sparks et al. (1977) found that ‘no crime’ cases accounted for between 18 per cent and 28 per cent of all initially recorded crimes. The time lapse between the committing of the crime and its reporting to the police is also important; those judged as being too ‘stale’ to merit investigation may fail to be recorded (Farrington and Bennett 1981). Thus for these and perhaps other reasons the discrepancy between the number of crimes actually committed and the number recorded by the police suggests that the official statistics are not telling the full story—at least for some types of crime. While crimes can be ‘lost’ and so distort official figures, variations in police activity can also cause fluctuations in the crime statistics. A crackdown on some criminal group, say drug offenders, can cause a ‘bulge’ in the figures. Of course this does not mean that there has been a dramatic increase in that type of crime—despite what some newspaper headlines might say—rather that, to use an experimental metaphor, improved sampling has given a better estimate of the true population. In other words, the official figure moves closer to reality. Similarly a change in public attitude or improving the means of communication — it is more convenient to telephone the police at 2 am than to walk to the station—may shift both the quality and quantity of crimes reported to the police. So while, say, the real amount of violent crime in society is decreasing, higher levels of reporting can cause an increase to appear in the official figures (McClintock et al. 1963). The first British Crime Survey (Hough and Mayhew 1983) showed that victims were selective in the crimes they reported to the police: there was, for example, a high rate of reporting for theft of a motor vehicle 14

Psychology and crime

but a low rate for theft in a dwelling (theft inside a home by someone who is there legitimately, such as a workman, party guest, and so on). M.Hough and Mayhew (1983) also examined the reasons offered by victims for not reporting a crime. The main reasons were the view that the crime was too trivial, or that the police could do nothing, or that it was appropriate to deal with the matter personally. In total these explanations show why victims may decide not to report a crime, although other factors can also be considered. The victim, or perhaps witness, may not realize an act is criminal: physical violence, for example, may be perceived as bullying rather than assault. In cases of fraud or theft from an employer the victim might be unaware of the crime. Alternatively the individual may be a ‘willing victim’: for example, some homosexual behaviour, drug dealing, and prostitution all involve willing victims. Finally there are ‘victimless crimes’: if a telephone box is vandalized, or a false income tax return submitted, who is the victim to report the crime? In summary, crimes are committed, some serious, which fail to appear in the criminal statistics. The amount of this ‘unknown’ crime is traditionally referred to as the Dark Figure. In attempting to shed light on the magnitude of the Dark Figure researchers have turned away from official bodies towards the other two parties involved in crime—the offenders and the victims. Offender surveys In the 1960s a number of offender surveys were carried out for which reviews are available (Box 1971; Hood and Sparks 1970; West 1967). The most commonly employed methodology was to select a sample either on the basis of age or geographical location, then to ask the members of the sample whether they had committed any crimes, either detected or undetected. This information was gathered either by questionnaire or interview, conducted with the target person themselves or with someone who knew them well. A British study of theft conducted by Belson (1975) illustrates a typical survey. A sample of 1,445 boys, aged from 13 to 16 years, was randomly selected from a large sample of London households. Interviews with the boys revealed that approximately 70 per cent of the sample had stolen from a shop, and about 17 per cent had stolen from private premises. Thus the majority of boys had committed an offence for which, had they been caught, they would have been liable to prosecution. 15

Psychology and crime

The general picture which emerges from the self-report studies is that the official figures underestimate the true extent of crime, especially amongst the young. Indeed, Hood and Sparks (1970) suggest that the official figures represent on average only one-quarter of those who actually commit offences; in other words, they estimate that the Dark Figure is actually about four times greater than the official figure. The initial impact of the self-report studies was to give pause for thought about whether crime, especially in the young, can legitimately be considered a deviant activity. If so many people are committing offences perhaps that is the norm rather than remaining within the limits of the law. Critics of self-report studies pointed to several shortcomings, the principal one being confidence in the veracity of the data. Does the respondent always tell the truth? Are some crimes withheld, others invented or exaggerated? Further research showed that a number of interviewer and interviewee characteristics—age, sex, socioeconomic status, and race—could influence the quality of information. Additionally there may be sampling problems: if a survey is carried out at a school, for example, it will lose those absent or playing truant—who may be engaged in committing the more serious crimes. Advocates of self-report studies pointed to the advantages of the methodology in that it not only gives a picture of crime involving victims, but also includes ‘victimless’ crimes such as drug abuse and vandalism. Such doubts led a number of investigators to refine the self-report methodology to include reliability checks on the data. The most frequently used verification technique is to compare selfreport with police records. Studies using this check have found high degrees of agreement between the two measures of offending (Blackmore 1974). Other verification methods include using peer informants to ensure reports match; testing respondents twice to determine if their answers remain constant; and including lie questions in the schedule as a general check on honesty. Hindelang et al. (1981), following a comprehensive review of self-report methodology, conclude that the match is a good one between self-report data and official recording. However, despite the assurances of researchers such as Hindelang et al., the trend in recent times has moved away from offender surveys to victim surveys. One reason for this is that not only can victim surveys reveal information about crime, but also they can be used to gather data on other issues such as public attitudes towards crime and public fear of crime. 16

Psychology and crime

Victim surveys The first contemporary victim surveys were carried out in the USA in the late 1960s (Biederman et al. 1967; Ennis 1967; Reiss 1967), followed by the first American national survey in 1972. Similar surveys were carried out in other parts of the world including Australia (Congalton and Najman 1974) and the Scandinavian countries (Aromaa 1974). Smaller-scale victim surveys have been conducted in specific parts of a country, for example in England surveys have been conducted in the Midlands (Farrington and Dowds 1985), in Islington in London (Jones et al. 1986), and on Merseyside (Kinsey 1984); or in areas of the same city, such as the survey in different parts of London (Sparks et al. 1977). Victim research has a range of available methodologies (Sparks 1981), but household surveys offer perhaps the most important means of data collection. This methodology is typified by the first British Crime Survey (M.Hough and Mayhew 1983). This survey selected 16,000 households from the Electoral Register, with the aim of interviewing one person aged 16 years or older from each household. The survey achieved an 80 per cent success rate in striving to achieve that particular sample. In the context of an interview respondents answered questions about any crimes in which they had been the victim, gave details of the crime (if any), and answered questions on their attitudes towards crime. Surveys such as the British Crime Survey have thrown up a vast amount of data, but across studies a consistent pattern of findings emerges. The most notable is the extent of crime, as Sparks notes: ‘Criminal victimization is an extremely rare event…crimes of violence are extremely uncommon’ (1981:17). The first British Crime Survey was in agreement with Sparks’s observations. As shown in Table 1.1, trivial crimes such as theft from a motor vehicle are the most common, while serious offences such as assault and robbery have a very low frequency of occurrence. Indeed, M.Hough and Mayhew (1983) estimate that the ‘statistically average’ person over the age of 16 years can expect to be burgled once every 40 years, and to be robbed once every 500 years. Crime is not, however, a random event and crime surveys illustrate this point. The majority of respondents, Sparks (1981) estimates about 90 per cent, report no experience of crime. On the other hand, some people report being involved in a series of incidents, having been the victims of two, three, four, or even more crimes. This leads to the 17

Psychology and crime

Table 1.1 Offences in England and Wales: British Crime Survey (1983) estimates (after Hough and Mayhew 1983)

Source: British Crime Survey, Home Office Research Study No. 76, reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

important distinction between the incidence of victimization and the prevalence of victimization. The incidence is the average crime rate over the whole population; the prevalence is that percentage of the population who actually experience crime. Thus surveys reveal that burglaries are most prevalent in inner city areas; cars parked on the street at night are more likely to be stolen; and that it is not the elderly but young males, who typically have assaulted others themselves, who are the most likely victims of assault. If surveys are repeated over regular periods trends in crime rates may be described. Sparks (1981) discusses some figures from the American National Crime Survey over the period 1973–79: rates for burglary and robbery dropped over that period, while rates for household and personal larceny (without contact) fluctuated over that time. In Britain such trends cannot be calculated as only two national crime surveys have been completed (Hough and Mayhew 1983; 1985). The second of these showed rises in almost all categories of offence as detailed in Table 1.2. It can also be seen that the rises detected by the survey closely parallel changes in the amount of crime recorded by the police. 18

Psychology and crime

Table 1.2 Offences in England and Wales: percentage change in British Crime Survey estimates (1983–85) and offences recorded by the police in the same period (after Hough and Mayhew 1985)

Victim surveys provide a good picture of the type and amount of crime but they are not without drawbacks. The figures they produce will always underestimate the amount of crime: they focus on offences against the person and against property, omitting the whole area of ‘white-collar crime’ such as fraud and embezzlement (e.g. Levi 1984). The problems of respondent accuracy, as with offender surveys, also apply to victim surveys. Other factors such as the type of interview (by telephone or in person), interviewer characteristics (such as age and sex), and the use of multiple interviews can all influence the quality of information gained by the survey. Similarly Sparks et al. (1977) found that the amount of crime reported was related to the respondent’s level of educational achievement. Nevertheless, the figures produced by crime surveys are an important source of information about crime: as such they therefore have great potential for shaping theories of crime and influencing political and social policies towards managing and controlling crime. In summary, surveys of both offenders and victims confirm that the Dark Figure exists, and that it is substantially greater than official figures. However, given the methodological limitations of surveys, it is prudent to exercise caution in attempting to ascribe exact numerical values to the Dark Figure. Psychology and crime The interface between psychology and crime has been given a number of titles including forensic psychology, legal psychology, and criminological psychology. (The British Psychological Society has a 19

Psychology and crime

Divi-sion of Criminological and Legal Psychology.) In considering the title for this book I selected ‘criminological’ as the most suitable for my purpose. ‘Forensic’ and ‘legal’ are too narrowly defined for use here, properly meaning psychology as applied to courts, legislation, and the like. Criminological, on the other hand, strikes me as suitably all encompassing: if the term is used to refer to all matters related to crime, then it includes courts and so on, but also allows other material to be gathered under its banner. Therefore criminological psychology, as I have used the term, refers to that branch of psychology concerned with the study of criminal behaviour and the functioning of various agencies charged with managing this behaviour. Thus Chapter 2 is concerned with setting out psychological approaches to understanding crime, noting the range of psychological theories and explanations applied to this task. This topic is extended in Chapter 3 specifically to psychological approaches to understanding serious crime such as murder and sexual violence. Whle it can be argued that most crimes are committed by perfectly sane people, some crimes are carried out by those who are mentally disturbed. Chapter 4 addresses the issue of the mentally disordered offender. Moving from the criminal to the social agencies responsible for responding to crime, Chapter 5 discusses the application of psychology to the study of the police. This includes psychological studies of the police, and psychology as applied to police work. In a similar vein, Chapter 6 looks at psychology in the courtroom, with particular emphasis on the psychology of the eyewitness and of the jury. Chapter 7 returns to the offender with the topic of psychology and crime prevention, paying particular attention to the application of clinical psychology to crime prevention. Throughout all these topics I have tried to balance input from criminology and psychology: criminological research is cited to give an understanding of a topic, say a particular type of offence; then research is presented to try to illuminate that topic from a psychological perspective. In giving even a flavour of the areas in which psychology has been applied to the study of crime a substantial literature has been covered from a range of disciplines. Yet, in total, this is but a limited selection from a vast field: for reasons of space a number of areas were omitted or covered only briefly: more might have been included on delinquency —particularly the longitudinal studies which suggest a ‘natural lifespan’ to juvenile offending (Farrington 1983; Mulvey and LaRosa 1986; Rutherford 1986); on white-collar crime; on penology; on victimology; on drugs and crime; and on offences such as hostage20

Psychology and crime

taking, arson, and bombing. Similar restrictions limited coverage of criminological theories, social control of offenders, the politics of crime, the social role and functioning of the courts, sentencing, and economic crimes. However, my task was to cover psychology and crime; in selecting material two criteria were used: that a reasonable amount of psychological literature existed on a given topic, and that there was no duplication of recent sources such as Rutter and Giller’s (1983) masterful text on delinquency. The final product should be greater than simply the sum of the two parts, so that ideally criminology informs psychology and vice versa to produce the hybrid of criminological psychology. The feasibility of this ideal is discussed in the final pages.

21

Chapter two

Psychological approaches to understanding crime

Theories of crime will be determined, to a greater or lesser degree, by the discipline of the theorist concerned. Thus sociologists draw upon sociological concepts to explain and understand crime, economists upon economic concepts, psychologists upon psychological concepts, and so on. However, this is not to say that, for example, all sociologists will agree in their explanations: the concepts an individual selects as important will be determined by their particular theoretical stance within their discipline. Thus within sociology there are theories of crime which emphasize social structure and draw on concepts such as anomie and subcultures; other theories which stress the importance of social processes, using concepts such as control and labelling; while yet another theory draws on social conflict, calling on concepts such as class structure and class struggle. In some respects the variety of explanations may share common elements; in other instances they stand diametrically opposed. This chapter will examine the variety of psychological explanations which have been offered to attempt to understand crime. Given the close relationship which has always existed between psychology and biology, the starting-point will be those psychobiological theories which have emphasized the primacy of biological factors in explaining crime. Moving from this position, the contribution of the three major standpoints within psychology—psychoanalytic theory, learning theory, and cognitive theory—will be discussed in turn. Finally, it should be made clear that it is not the aim to present here all the evidence pertaining to the various theories; nor to discuss every single variable associated with crime. Such an exercise would demand volumes in its own right. Bartol (1980) and Feldman (1977) provide extensive summaries of a great deal of evidence, while Rutter and Giller (1983) give a concise overview of the whole field. The aim here is to introduce the range, and hint at the depth, of psychological approaches to understanding crime. 22

Understanding crime

Psychobiological theories Genetic transmission In its most pure form a theory of crime based solely upon genetic transmission would hold that crime is a direct product of heredity — a criminal is born not made. While such a view would not be seriously entertained by contemporary theorists, who generally prefer interactionist theories, such thinking played a major part in the theories of Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso, a nineteenth-century Italian physician and ‘criminal anthropologist’, argued that criminals were the product of a genetic constitution unlike that found in the non-criminal population. However, Lombroso also invoked the notion of ‘indirect heredity’, suggesting that criminality could be acquired through contact with other ‘degenerates’ such as insane people or alcoholics. Further, in addition to indirect heredity, Lombroso extended his views still wider with the suggestion that environmental conditions such as poor education could also be numbered among the causes of crime. In his later writings Lombroso concluded that about one-third of offenders were born criminals: the remainder had to be accounted for by some other means of explanation. There was lively debate among Lombroso’s contemporaries as to the accuracy of his views. Charles Goring, for example, studied 3,000 English convicts and found that they were less intelligent than expected: as the wisdom of the time held that intelligence was genetically determined, so crime nevertheless had its roots in the genes. A strong genetic argument was evident in relatively recent work (Hooton 1939) and, indeed, is occasionally found in some contemporary work (L.Taylor 1984). With its emphasis on genetic forces rather than free will, Lombroso’s views fall clearly within the positivist school: the act of crime being determined by forces, in this case genes, outside the individual’s control. Lombroso’s research methods (and those of his contemporaries) had design faults such as the lack of any non-criminal controls, and the use of highly unrepresentative criminal populations which contained mentally disturbed people and others with chromosomal abnormalities. Yet Lombroso can with some justification be hailed as the ‘father of modern criminology’ (Schafer 1976) as his later theories encompass the three major strands—biology, environment, and psychology—evident in much contemporary research. In addition, by stressing the importance of data 23

Understanding crime

and theory, Lombroso played a significant part in shifting the study of crime towards an empirical scientific methodology and away from purely religious and philosophical debate. While modern theories have moved well away from the notion of a ‘criminal gene’ which irrevocably sets the criminal apart from the noncriminal, the possibility of some role for genetic constitution in explaining crime has been the subject of a great deal of recent research. This research has focused on three populations—the family, twins, and adoptees. Family studies In criminological research the family has been studied primarily for two reasons: first to examine the processes within a criminal family to see if they differ in functioning from non-criminal families; second to estimate the degree of similarity between the behaviour of the criminal and their biological relatives. The former strategy has provided a wealth of information about the family backgrounds of delinquents (Offord 1982), especially when longitudinal data are gathered (Farrington et al. 1986; West 1982). However, to answer questions of heredity, it is evidence from the consanguinity studies which is important. The argument behind family studies is that as biological relatives share varying degrees of genetic constitution (the closer the biological relationship, the greater the genetic similarity), so that if criminality is inherited, criminal families will tend to produce criminal children. Looking back to the time of Lombrosian theory, a number of studies were reported which showed that convicted offenders came from families with a criminal history (Dugdale 1910; Estabrook 1916). More recent studies have reached similar conclusions: Osborn and West (1979), for example, found that about 40 per cent of the sons of criminal fathers were criminal themselves, compared with a figure of 13 per cent for sons of noncriminal fathers. Hurwitz and Christiansen (1983) provide a thorough review of this research. While the early researchers claimed their findings as evidence that crime was inherited, and some used it as grounds to argue for the sterilization of criminals, it is evident that there is a major flaw in this conclusion, as contemporary researchers have been at pains to point out. A correlation between two variables—family criminality and offspring criminality—does not prove that a causal relationship exists between those two variables. It may be that a third variable, perhaps environmental rather than genetic, causes both the parents and their children to commit crimes. Thus it is not shared genes which cause high correlations in the criminality of family members, but the fact that all 24

Understanding crime

the family members had poor schooling, or inadequate diets, or were unemployed, or lived in the same city area, or were of the same social class, and so on. Alternatively it may be that social and psychological factors within the family are involved in the transmission of criminal values, behaviour, and so on. Clearly what is required is a means of study which would allow the effects of either heredity or environment to be controlled so that the effect of the other can be accurately assessed. One of the traditional methodologies, dating back to Sir Francis Galton, is the study of twins. Twin studies The basis of twin studies lies in the difference between the two types of twins. Monozygotic (MZ) twins develop from the splitting of a single egg at the time of conception and so share exactly the same genetic constitution: they are identical twins. Dizygotic (DZ) twins develop from two different fertilized eggs and are therefore no more alike than any other pair of siblings, sharing about 50 per cent of their genetic constitution. Now, if it is assumed that the two members of a twin pair—MZ and DZ alike—experience on average the same environment, then any major differences between members of a pair must be due to genetic variation. As MZ twins have identical genes then it would be predicted that their behaviour would show greater concordance than that of DZ twins. (Concordance can be seen as the degree to which related pairs of subjects within a study population display the same behaviour. It is usually expressed as a percentage: a 50 per cent concordance would indicate that in half of the total sample each member of a twin pair showed the same target behaviour, a 75 per cent rate that three-quarters of the twin pairs showed the same behaviour, and so on.) The twin study method has been widely used in seeking to determine the influence of heredity in, for example, intelligence, and also in disturbances such as alcoholism, depression, and schizophrenia. The first twin study concerned with criminal behaviour was reported in 1929 by the German physician Johannes Lange giving rise to a number of studies up to the 1940s. The general finding was that MZ twins showed a much higher degree of concordance than DZ twins for criminal behaviour. Indeed the seven studies in Table 2.1 up to and including 1941 show a mean concordance rate of 75 per cent for MZ twins compared to a mean of 24 per cent for DZ twins. A number of reservations have been expressed about the findings of these early studies. The sample sizes are small, only four pairs in two studies; and the sampling is open to question. However, the main reservation lies in the method used by the 25

Understanding crime

studies to determine zygocity. If the twins are of the same sex then it can be difficult to distinguish DZ from MZ twins simply on the basis of appearance. Thus typing on the basis of appearance, as in the early studies, may confuse MZ and DZ pairs leading to errors in the concordance rates: although, as Eysenck (1973) explains, this error is as likely to decrease concordance as it is to increase it. Later studies were able to capitalize on technological advances such as fingerprints, blood typing, and serum protein analysis to make exact determinations of zygocity. The five studies in Table 2.1 reported from 1961 onwards show a mean concordance of 48 per cent for MZ twins, compared to 20 per cent for DZ twins. Thus while the magnitude of the concordance is less in the later studies, which might also reflect improved sampling and different definitions of crime in these studies, the difference Table 2.1 Summary of twin study data

between MZ and DZ twins is in general in keeping with a genetic hypothesis. Critics of the twin study method rightly point out that the assumption that twins share the same environment can also work against a genetic hypothesis. It may be that MZ twins elicit more similar social responses than DZ twins, meaning that they share a more similar social environment than DZ twins. It may also be the case that MZ twins, again because of their similarity, share a closer relationship with each other than DZ twins and so exhibit similar behaviours—crime included. The answer to this might be found by studying twins reared apart: while the separated twin 26

Understanding crime

methodology has been used in other fields of research, it has not been used with criminal behaviour. In much social science there is a suspicion of explanations which rely upon or incorporate genetic explanations for behaviour. The genetic versus environmental argument is often one in which the proponents of each side stand opposed, arguing that it is their explanation which accounts for the greater degree of the variance in explaining the behaviour in question. Rowe and Osgood (1984) took the position that while genetic arguments for crime were once of the type which stressed the ‘defective’ nature of genetic material, and hence the person, this ‘defective explanation’ is not the only available hypothesis. Contemporary genetic theory is concerned with the role of normal genetic variability in accounting for differences in behaviour. Further, such genetic influences cannot be accounted for in terms of a single gene; rather the behaviour is associated with many genes. The search for a ‘criminal gene’ is a fruitless occupation; any tenable explanation for crime which incorporates a genetic element will have to be presented in terms of a polygenetic influence. Rowe and Osgood (1984) tested this hypothesis with a sample of MZ and DZ twins, measuring the relative influence on delinquent behaviour (self-reported) on three factors: genetic variation, that is type of twin pair; shared environmental influences that affect all family members equally, for example home broken or intact; and specific environmental influences unique to the individual concerned, for example peer group. Following a behavioural genetic analysis, Rowe and Osgood estimated that the genetic component accounted for over 60 per cent of the relationship between the three factors; the shared environment component accounted for about 20 per cent of the relationship; and specific environmental factors for just less than 20 per cent of the total relationship. In keeping with previous work (Rowe 1983), they conclude that genetic factors have a role to play in explaining crime. However, as they stress, this is not to say that delinquency is the inevitable result of a biological difference: rather that individual variations in genetic constitution are the beginnings of a potential for the development of criminal behaviour. An alternative strategy to the use of twins is to study children separated from their parents and raised in another family. The study of adopted children offers a means to do this and so avoid some of the difficulties associated with twin studies. Adoption studies The procedure in a typical adoption study involves identifying the parents of adopted children and then comparing the criminal behaviour of the biological parents and their children. If the 27

Understanding crime

behaviour of the children is more similar to their biological parents than to that of the adoptive parents who are part of the child’s environment, then a strong case for a genetic component emerges. Of course should it be the other way around—that children match their adoptive parents —then an environmental position is favoured. This assumes that the adoptive parents are not criminal themselves, a point which a number of studies have shown to be of importance. In one of the first adoption studies Crowe (1974) found that with a sample of adopted children whose biological mothers had a criminal record, almost 50 per cent of adoptees had a criminal record by 18 years of age. In a matched control group of adopted children born to mothers without a criminal record, only about 5 per cent of the adoptees had been convicted of a criminal offence. Hutchings and Mednick (1975) carried out a large-scale adoption study, involving over 1,000 male adoptees. They found that if the biological father had a criminal record and the adoptive father did not, then the number of adoptees who became criminal was twice that found in cases where the adoptive father was criminal and the biological father non-criminal. However, if both fathers had criminal records the percentage of adoptees with criminal records climbed higher still. In summarizing the findings of adoption studies Hutchings and Mednick (1977) concluded that while genetic factors play an aetiological role, the importance of environmental influences cannot be neglected. More recent research has continued to confirm the importance of genetic and environmental influences. Mednick et al. (1983a), with a sample of almost 14,500 adoptees, showed that having a biological parent who is a criminal does lead to a higher number of criminal (male) adoptees. However, as shown in Table 2.2, there is an interactive effect in that the percentage of criminal adoptees is highest when both fathers are criminal. (See Mednick et al. 1983b for a discussion of these data within the broader framework of inheritance of deviance.) While the tendency has been to concentrate upon the genetic factors, a developing line of research has stressed both the primacy and the potency of the interaction between genetic and environmental factors. A study by Cadoret et al. (1983) is illustrative of this general approach. Cadoret et al. investigated the effects of a range of genetic (e.g. criminality of biological parent) and environmental (e.g. disturbed adoptive sibling) variables on the development of antisocial behaviour in a sample of adoptees. (It should be noted that the term ‘antisocial’ — which is used in several of the studies cited immediately above—covers 28

Understanding crime

Table 2.2 Percentage of male adoptees with criminal records according to criminality of parents (after Mednick et al. 1983a)

a range of behaviours which might not be considered criminal; this includes being rebellious or difficult to discipline, being destructive, playing truant, fighting, and bullying.) They found that while previous studies had emphasized the influence of genetic factors (Cadoret and Cain 1981), their work favoured environmental variables as the better predictors of antisocial behaviour. In total, however, the genetic and environmental factors alone had a relatively small effect but there was a ‘dramatic increase in antisocial behaviours when individuals are exposed to both genetic and environmental factors’ (1981:309). As confirmed by Mednick et al. (1983a), the interaction between genes and environment appears to be crucial. The pathway by which the genetic influence might work has been the subject of a number of studies. In an investigation with Swedish adoptees, Bohman (1978) suggested that the genetic predisposition was to alcoholism; this, in turn, increased the probability of criminal behaviour. Cadoret and Cain (1980) similarly showed, with an adoptee sample, that the genetic variables which best predict antisocial behaviour are having a biological relative who is antisocial or alcoholic. They also found that two environmental variables, having psychiatrically ill or divorced adoptive parents, and having spent time in residential care (‘discontinuous mothering’), were also significant predictors of antisocial behaviour. While there is support for the alcohol-crime association, the genetic effect for criminal behaviour is maintained in the absence of alcoholism in the adoptee’s biological relatives (Bohman et al. 1983). Van Dusen et al. (1983) found that the adopted child’s social class has a significant effect on the development of later criminal behaviour. The genetic effect of a criminal biological parent is still present, but is particularly associated with the lower social classes. Van Dusen et al. also found a sex effect, such that for male adoptees the environmental 29

Understanding crime

factors were more influential than the genetic factors; for females this position was reversed. While this pattern was maintained for male property offences, it was not found for violent male offences (there were too few convicted female offenders for analysis in this study). Thus the evidence from family, twin, and adoption studies strongly suggests that genetic factors do have a role to play in understanding crime. While some studies favour genetic influences as the most powerful (Rowe and Osgood 1984), and others maintain that environmental factors exert the greater force (Cadoret et al. 1983), there is overall agreement that it is the interaction between genetic and environmental factors which is crucial. Genetic factors are important but do not predetermine a life of crime—only with certain environmental events is the genetic potential realized. Even given favourable genetic and environmental events as understood by research to date, the outcome is by no means totally predictable. There are children born to criminal parents who experience adverse environments and yet do not commit crimes: other children are born to non-criminal parents, experience seemingly the best of environments, yet commit crimes. The process by which the inherited factors work is also uncertain although a number of hypotheses have been advanced. These include for example a genetic predisposition toward low intelligence, personality type, learning capability, a link with alcoholism, and other biological factors. These qualities react in turn with environmental variables such as the family or school, in a chain of events which eventually culminates in the criminal acts. As Rutter and Giller note, ‘The question of just what is inherited remains unanswered. It is unlikely to be criminality as such’ (1983:179). XYY syndrome While contemporary theory has moved away from the notion of a single ‘criminal gene’ towards polygenetic considerations, the 1960s saw the emergence of an explanation for violent crime in terms of an individual, identifiable genetic abnormality—the XYY syndrome. Chromosomes are structures within cell nuclei which carry the genes: humans normally have 46 chromosomes, of which 44 determine the shape and constitution of the body and two determine sex. A human female would be designated 46,XX; a human male 46,XY. There are a variety of chromosomal abnormalities, some of which involve the presence of extra chromosomes. One such condition, designated 47,XYY, involves the presence of an extra Y chromosome in males. The extra Y chromosome may be linked to above average height and borderline intelligence; the controversial suggestion is that it is linked to violent crime. 30

Understanding crime

The association between the XYY syndrome and crime came from studies which suggested that XYY males had a disproportionate inclination to violent offences (Sandberg et al. 1961). Owen (1972) reviewed the evidence and suggested otherwise, describing a number of shortcomings with the research: these included difficulties with karyotyping (identification of the extra Y chromosome); the fact that the rate of XYY males in criminal populations is not radically different from non-criminal (at least non-convicted) populations; poorly controlled measures of aggression and violence; and that sexual rather than violent offences appear to be more frequent with XYY males. However, another review by Jarvik et al. (1973) favoured the view that XYY males are overrepresented in criminal, convicted populations as compared to noncriminal populations. A study by Witkin et al. (1976) involved testing over 4,000 men for the presence of the extra Y chromosome. Only twelve cases were identified: while these twelve men were more likely to be involved in crime than might be predicted on the basis of chance, this was not found to be violent crime. Contemporary writers are mixed in their conclusions. Bartol comments that ‘The data provide strong support for the relationship between criminal behaviour and the extra Y chromosome’ (1980:203). However, following a review by Zellweger and Simpson (1977), Rutter and Giller are of the opinion that ‘An extra Y chromosome…probably [carries] a slightly increased risk of behavioural problems’ (1983:177). Bartol and Rutter and Giller do agree that the link specifically with violent crime remains without substantive support: also, and more importantly, that some of those individuals with XYY syndrome are not criminal, and the vast majority of criminals do not have any chromosomal abnormality at all. Biochemical/neurological theories Over the past decade or so a considerable body of research has accumulated which indicates that the development of criminal behaviour may be related to a range of biochemical and neurological factors. One such area of biochemical research has focused upon the role of vitamin and mineral deficiencies in criminal behaviour. Hippchen (1978) suggested that a deficiency of the vitamin B3 is a major cause of hyperactivity in children and adolescents; Weiss (1983) argued that hyperactive children have an increased risk of later delinquency. Other studies have examined dietary factors such as levels of protein, carbohydrate, and sugar in relation to criminal behaviour (Schoenthaler 31