A topic that recently came up during a lecture involved the psychological motivation associated to killing animals. The following synopsis will examine the various features associated to the controversial phenomenon of blood sporting.

A blood sport can be defined as any activity in committing violence against animals that sheds blood.

Blood sporting and activities like this have played a fundamental role in history in regards to the entertainment and business arenas alike.

Types of Blood Sporting

The goal of a blood sport is to shed blood of an animal or to watch two animals fight until the death of one or more of the participants.

There are a variety of killings that are classified as being a blood sport to include: (a) bull fighting, (b) dog fighting, (c) rat-baiting, (d) bear-baiting, (e) cockfighting, (f) fox tossing, (g) lion-baiting, (h) hog dogging, (i) hyena-baiting, (j) cock throwing, (k) coursing, (l) duck-baiting, (m) Chilean rodeo, (n) Gladiatorial events, and (o) hunting.

History of Blood Sports

The traditional aspect of blood sporting dates back to Spanish Fiestas in which bull fighting or tauromachy was actually considered to be a form of art and entertainment. What may not be known about bull fighting is that it can be traced back to North Africa as being a ritualistic ceremony (Bullfighting in Spain, 2011). The matadors were paid top salaries to run these businesses at that time with the public spectacle of killing becoming dangerously engaging.

Psychological Motivation of Blood Sports

Although such venues were considered to be a vital cultural tradition, the psychological motivation associated to committing such tasks is as equally important to consider. Maneuvering in a manner to taunt animals, enrage them, and ultimately harass them for the purpose of shedding their blood and cheering while watching these heinous actions was publicly celebrated and encouraged, reminiscent of medieval torturing.

Michael Vick Draws Attention to Blood Sports

Michael Vick’s decision to participate in dog-fighting is really accredited to the attention now being received for blood sporting. These sports were not considered to be heinous or sadistic until the publicity associated to what takes place outraged individuals throughout society, increasing our interest pertaining to what motivates someone to participate in these activities. Furthermore, there is much that society does not know about such events and until a tragic incident takes place, the ambiguity will inevitably remain.

Is Hunting A Blood Sport?

Hunting and fishing is considered to be a form of recreational entertainment associated to killing and both are actually considered to be a blood sport. It could be argued that there are differences in hunting an innocent deer or hooking a catfish versus that of other blood sports; however, it should be noted that the line for disparity is emaciated. Torture is torture and killing is killing and that is how blood sports are perceived with hunting being the concession, permitting one to commit a blood sport and providing them with a license to do so of course.

Blood Sports Are Illegal

The examination of the psychological elements associated to blood sporting is going to be subjective. There are many reasons that individuals elect to participate in these events and as previously mentioned they range from that of recreation to entertainment and to one of revenue, charging for admission to such venues. Another issue pertains to the illegal aspect of such events. Cockfighting is illegal in the United States; however, it is celebrated throughout various cultures. These celebrations can be found to take place in seclusion throughout the United States as large amounts of money are gambled upon the torturous death of a rooster.

Cock Fights

Imagine two roosters that are forced to have razors strapped to their legs and left to fight for their lives as another rooster experiences the same reciprocated agony for no reason at all. Thousands of roosters are killed in such events each year and the LAPD recently conducted an investigation, examining the workings of cockfighting throughout Southern California alone. In both the Philippines and in Mexico, cockfighting is legal with children as young as 7 years old participating in the events, teaching children that it is okay to conduct such fights and training them to disassociate themselves psychologically to being cruel to animals (Chicago Tribune, 2011).

There is a dichotomous element associated to blood sporting as certain types are considered to be barbaric and intolerable and others are celebrated as a form of amusement. All in all, participating in any act that involves shedding blood or killing an animal is a blood sport, causing individuals to have a lack of conscience in committing these tragic events.

How do you feel about these types of sports?  I want to know.

References:

Bullfighting In Spain. (2011). Spanish Fiestas. http://www.spanish-fiestas.com. Retrieved from, http://www.spanish-fiestas.com/bullfighting/

KTLA Special Report: The Truth Behind the Illegal Bloodsport of Cockfighting. (2011). Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com. Retrieved from, http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/ktla-cockfighting-parker,0,5846734.story.

Psychopathy and  Sociopathy

One of the most common questions that I receive from my students and colleagues alike, pertains to psychopathy and sociopathy. The inquisition regarding the context in which each classification is utilized is extremely multifaceted and will be addressed in the article below.

Psychopathy is not equivalent to psychopathology or psychosis for that matter but for some reason individuals are under the perception that these terms are analogous which is actually understandable for those unfamiliar with the application of such terminology. Psychopathy is a term that references the lack of empathy associated to conscience, a trait that is most often illustrated in antisocial personality disorder.

Antisocial personality disorder is also known as dissocial disorder, which is a form of psychopathology and would explain why most assume if an individual has psychopathic tendencies, they must be psychotic. It is plausible to say that psychopathic individuals may suffer from hallucinatory and delusionary aspects of fragmentation; however, this contention should in no way be presumed in cases of psychopathy and such an assumption is highly erroneous. According to Cleckley (1941), a psychopath will characteristically be free from neurotic manifestations and will not have delusional cognitions or other signs of irrational thinking (as cited in Montaldo, 2011).

Sociopathy is similar to psychopathy and many professionals utilize these terms interchangeably, believing that there isn’t a difference behaviorally between the two classifications. However, there are similarities as well as distinguishable characteristics between psychopathic and sociopathic behaviors and the basis of their deviancy is closely parallel in nature.

It should be noted that sociopathy is a typology of psychopathy and this may be the reason underlying the ambiguity of what term is most applicable to certain behaviors or actions. Psychopaths have an inheritable ability to be antisocial whereas the sociopath has been shaped socially to be dissocial.

Similarities & Differences between Psychopaths and Sociopaths

Behaviorally speaking, psychopaths and sociopaths alike have a complete disregard for the feelings and rights of others. They have the inability to feel culpable for committing heinous offenses towards others due to their lack of conscience and self-serving demeanor. They are often highly unconventional within social contexts and find themselves dismissing or even ignoring the social rules and morals for behavior within a given context. Both the psychopath and the sociopath have the ability to be rather impulsive or erratic at times; however, the psychopath expresses true impulsivity while the sociopath feigns their impulsivity because they are constantly acting. A sociopath may believe they are impulsive because they have conditioned themselves to be this way.

The psychopath doesn’t act as much as the sociopath and this is why the majority of sociopaths have a difficult time maintaining relationships with others; it is hard to keep the act up. On the other hand, psychopaths have the ability to maintain relationships and even fly under the radar for atypical behaviorisms because they have more control in general and are able to be rather cunning at times. Therefore, psychopaths are more intelligent than sociopaths in regards to having the ability to emulate normalcy. This may be referred to as emotional intelligence.

Sociopaths are intelligent but they are lacking in emotional intelligence, they show their cards and aren’t even aware of this action. They are almost dumbfounded that they have been suspected or even apprehended for committing an offense that they actually admit participation in a crime through expressive behaviors of astonishment.

When a sociopath overcompensates during the interrogation process, acting alarmed by the accusations, they have issues in keeping up their act and their disposition becomes highly flawed. This maneuver is rather transparent for the trained eye and almost humorous in that the sociopath isn’t aware of their defected affect in aiming to emulate normalcy and neutrality. It is much harder for a sociopath to emulate normalcy because their perspective of normalcy is highly demented and they are unable to keep up the act but for so long. In regards to killing patterns, the sociopath is messy and less organized, appearing to be much more spontaneous and may kill due to simple agitation and boredom.
Psychopaths are much more controlled in their killings and they are extremely secretive.

The sociopath is erratic and not as secretive because they are predominantly performing and unaware that they are sharing elements of atypical behavior all the while. As previously mentioned, psychopaths have the cunning ability to emulate normalcy and they are actually rather charismatic, with even the ability to be endearing at times. Sociopaths are not as charming, but irritating and they not only irritate others but irritate themselves; based on their own personal agitation, they kill and make demented sense from their killings.

People that are associated with the sociopath will believe that they committed their heinous crime(s) because they are aware that this individual is eccentric and often overcompensates to avoid detection, but it does not work. However, those individuals that know that psychopath will be in complete surprise, because the psychopath denotes organization and control in a cunning manner and at an extraordinary level. The oddity here is that psychopaths are hateful and yet have the ability to gain the trust of others very easily because they are highly manipulative.

Sociopaths are rebellious in their level of impulsivity and although they are intelligent, they aren’t typically overachievers and they have a hard time functioning within a relationship for very long or even keeping a job very long. The loophole here is that if there is a vocational opportunity of advancement or supervisory role, the level of stealth applied to employ this position is ludicrous and even awkward for others around them. Sociopath’s are caught because they sabotage themselves in a systematic fashion, and they will be highly vindictive if anyone gets in their way of devastating their demented plan to perfection (Boom, 2009).

Psychopaths utilize their mirror neurons to emulate conventional behavior of those around them and as they are undetected by members of society, they become empowered. This empowerment fuels their ability to fly under the radar and to feign normalcy and this is why they often believe they are much smarter than those around them.

Types of Psychopaths

The primary psychopath is a true sociopath feigning emotionality and intelligence. This individual has linguistic intelligence but due to their erratic impulsivity, they are often caught for meaningless crimes. These individuals may participate in thrill killing because they are actually bored and lack stimulation from their vocational or home life alike.

The secondary psychopath is neurotic in which their level of psychopathy is severe in nature and they illustrate to others all the time that they have emotional disturbances. According to Dr. Curt Bartol, these psychopaths are so neurotic that the act out and are likely to be in contact with law enforcement due to their elevated levels of antisocial behavior.

The third type of psychopath is the dissocial psychopath in which both neurological and environmental factors contributes to one’s antisocial demeanor and lack of empathy for others.

In closing, there are distinctive characteristics between both the psychopath and the sociopath; however, for certain offenders these classifications are ambiguous as criminality is sometimes synchronously motivated but ultimately committed in a dichotomous manner.

References:

Boom, R. (2009). The various types of psychopaths. Health24: Live a great life. http://www.health24.com. Retrieved from, http://www.health24.com/mind/Psychopaths/1284-4393,50401.asp.

Montaldo, C. (2011). Characteristics of the psychopathic personality. Psychopathic Behavior. http://crime.about.com. Retrieved from, http://crime.about.com/od/serial/a/psychopaths.htm.

When I lecture on the states of consciousness, hypnosis is a topic that is briefly discussed. Students are interested in the plausibility of mind control, suggestibility and so forth. It is often questioned as to whether or not hypnosis can be utilized as an investigative strategy within the forensic investigative process and the answer is: most certainly, under specific parameters of course. The following article expounds upon the process of applying hypnosis as a psychological approach to forensic and investigative strategies.

Unfortunately, there are law enforcement personnel that believe the application of psychological techniques and forensic psychology in particular plays a pretentious role within investigations; however, what is unknown is that such techniques have been utilized for over 100 years (Spiegel & Spiegel, 1987) within the legal system alone (as cited in Wrightsman, 2001). Forensic psychology is the process of integrating a psychological approach or perspective into the legal realm.

There is much debate encompassing the application of hypnosis in particular within the realm of forensic investigations. One of the most bothersome characteristics pertaining to the overall retrieval process of memories is the susceptibility of distortion and false evidence that can surface as testimony, when in actuality these statements may be corrupted, representing a convoluted form of deception (Wrightsman, 2001).

CASE APPLICATION

Hypnosis was not an effective strategy in the case of The Hillside Strangler. There were 10 females that were raped and tortured, and strangled to death and displayed graphically on various hillsides throughout the northern region of Los Angeles between October of 1977 and February of 1978 (Wrightsman, 2001). It was dubious to integrate hypnosis into the interrogation process, but forensic psychologists proceeded to do so, the result of this maneuver was remarkable to say the least.
The suspect in question for these murders was none other than Kenneth Bianchi.

He was arrested in the State of Washington in January of 1979 and he denied any participatory action or relation to the events. Under hypnosis, it was transparent that Bianchi had manifestations of multiple personality disorder; known now has dissociative identity disorder. What was not immediately evident was that he was simulating this disorder and pretending to have divergent personalities.

During the interrogation process, Bianchi revealed that he had no recollection of the events that were questioned upon and he also displayed up to five different personalities. His lawyer motioned a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity; however, the case was not so easily dismissed. A psychiatrist and a forensic psychologist each hypnotized Bianchi in two different occasions and both believed that the claim of having multiple personality disorder was a notion completely fabricated by Bianchi.

Another hypnotic specialist deceived the suspect and proved that he was malingering (Wrightsman, 2001). Bianchi didn’t receive the death penalty because of his guilty plea to five of the killings and his cousin Angelo Buono was eventually convicted of 9 accounts of first degree murder.

Hypnosis is considered to follow the per se exclusionary rule in approximately 2/3 of the states with the totality of circumstances test endorsed in 1/3 of states. Hypnosis is a technique that can be utilized for both witnesses and suspects of crime. Integrating hypnotic ability into interrogation procedures can be done without being detected, especially when the interrogator is trained within forensic hypnosis.

References:

Wrightsman, L.S. (2001). Forensic psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

The following article assesses the elements pertaining to delusional disorders among the juvenile population. Psychosis or psychotic are terms that were coined from a medical perspective to address certain behaviors; however, there is a propensity for these terms to be utilized incorrectly with irrational connotations (Dupee, 2002).

Delusions are false beliefs that directly pertain to one’s external reality and range in risk as they may include: (a) bizarre behavior, (b) grandiose beliefs, (c) nihilistic circumstances, (d) somatic beliefs, (e) paranoid behavior, (f) persecutory beliefs, (g) erotomanic beliefs, and (h) jealous tendencies (Dupee, 2002).

First and foremost, it is important to understand that delusional disorders in and of themselves are a rarity among juveniles and don’t require mandatory hospitalization. Furthermore, delusional disorders typically develop later in life but in certain cases they directly affect the population of juvenile offenders (Dupee, 2002).

Regarding criminal behavior of juveniles and the delusional disorders that may corroborate with a deviant disposition include both the Erotomanic Type and the Jealous Type. The erotomanic delusional disorder is most often affiliated with stalking behaviorisms with fixation centered upon love, lust, desire and power. Power is integrated into this typology due to the supremacy related to emotionality.

A juvenile suffering from this delusional disorder is practically spellbound and rather preoccupied with a fantasy realm that is based on their truth, resulting from their demented interpretation of events (Dupee, 2002). According to Kaplan and Sadock (1997), individuals that suffer from erotomanic delusional disorders have the capability of appearing to be normal with possible obsessive tendencies; however, the range of psychotic conduct is rather vast in which a certain level of eccentricity will indeed be prevalent in some formation (as cited in Dupee, 2002).

Individuals that suffer from the jealous delusional disorder are often absorbed and even rather fanatical with the possibility or potentiality that their significant other is going to cheat on them. The onset of these delusions is rather abrupt, with the risk of danger emanating from their persistent beliefs and fears of infidelity (Dupee, 2002). Domestic violence can result from such a control issue and such violence can easily lead to murder.

Other delusional disorders that may accompany criminal behavior include both the Grandiose Type and Persecutory Type. Juveniles that suffer from a grandiose delusional disorder may be rather treacherous due to their frantic demeanor and fragmented perception (Dupee, 2002). This type of individual believes that they have super-human abilities or an exceptional aptitude in determining some sort of significance within society. This individual may also be oblivious to their manic demeanor; level of fury that results when their suggestions or insight is ignored can be tremendously detrimental to their mind. Such fragmentation will often lead directly to violence and danger in coping with feelings of humiliation and rejection of this level.

One of the most universal delusional disorders is that of the persecutory type. Individuals that suffer from the persecutory delusional disorder are overwhelmed with paranoia to the point in which they believe that they are being followed or watched, harassed, and even chased (Dupee, 2002).
It is atypical to see the fruition of a psychotic disorder among juveniles before late adolescence and early adulthood.

The accompaniment of substance abuse during this time of experimentation in life is also related to the onset of psychosis-related crime (Dupee, 2002) especially if there is a genetic predisposition for psychopathology. When an individual is suffering from psychosis, this means that their overall level of reality is defeated, fractured and dependent upon an uncontrollable foundation in which the lethality is varied and ultimately reliant upon situational and dispositional attributions.

References:

Dupee, S. M. (2002). Psychosis in juvenile offenders. In Ribner, N.G., The handbook of juvenile forensic psychology (p. 155-177). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The following discussion investigates the dispositional and contextual elements associated to the predictive variables in profiling a classroom avenger. The classroom avenger is a typology pertaining to disturbed adolescents that reside in small communities, having the motive to kill within the educational setting.

Profile

The classroom avenger is typically a Caucasian adolescent male that plans to perpetrate within a classroom arena with the private ambition to kill within a multiple victim setting. The motive for this type of perpetrator is related to vengeance with undertones to venerate themselves in a variety of ways. Their retribution is fanatical in nature with media sensationalism being a primary objective in crime commission. It should be noted that the classroom avenger premeditates the killing(s) and often perceives the attention or notoriety as being infectious and idolizing and may possibly simulate a copycat killing because of this perspective (McGee & DeBernardo, 1999).

There is an analogous element prevalent between the classroom avenger and the workplace avenger. The classroom avenger is typically going to be bullied at school and may even have feelings of disloyalty and distance from their own parents and siblings. It is plausible to deduce that the individual is overwhelmed daily with concerns of denunciation and degradation, utilizing revenge to reconcile the psychological and emotional vulnerabilities.

Dispositional Characteristics

The classroom avenger is most likely to be between the age of 11 and 18 years old (McGee & DeBernardo, 1999). Their family is dysfunctional and eccentric but falsely appears to be normal, this is where the psychological and emotional vulnerability is perceived to be learned in which they learn to overcompensate first within the home and then later among peers. This adolescent is knowledgeable about firearms and there is typically a firearm within the home that may belong to another family member or parent (Singh Sandhu, 2001).

This adolescent’s rage is fueled by their social distortion, requiring them to elicit even further antisocial behaviorisms. The psychological categorization of a maladaptive individual can elicit a conditioning response to unconventionality based on societal expectations. For example, an adolescent that does not fit into societies standards for normative behaviorisms or scripts will be cognizant of their ostracizing disposition and further elicit these antisocial behaviors because that is what is expected from others. This creates a rather tautological process in which the adolescent is not accepted among their peer groups or even their parents or family members and the rivalry is further conditioned as they mirror what is expected behaviorally.

The classroom avenger is typically suicidal (Menninger, 1938) in addition to being homicidal, with the goal of being killed (as cited in Singh Sandu, 2001). The classroom avenger typically expresses signs of menacing behaviorisms and thoughts to represent a caveat or warning, indicative of their perilous disposition. According to McGee and DeBernardo (1999), the parents of this child were most likely unable to provide consistent disciplinary action and the methods of punishment that were utilized are classified as being callous. The adolescent will most likely blame themselves for many things, maintaining a history of falling prey to viewing abusive behaviors or negligence within the home (Singh Sandhu, 2001).

Such sociological and psychological shortcomings produce precursors for being antisocial and the adolescent may express cruelty or hatred toward animals, applying deceitful behaviors, participating in acts of arson, or may even have issues with enuresis (McGee & DeBernardo, 1999). Believe it or not, these types of adolescents are not troublemakers; they simply have issues emanating appropriate psychological and sociological behaviors.

Contextual Tenets of Maladaptive Behavior

Approximately two to three weeks prior to the violent rampage, the adolescent will undergo some form of reprimand associated to disciplinary action. This could be directly from the parent(s), a teacher or principal, or even a peer that goes too far in explicitly embarrassing the individual. Their next step will be to initiate an inexhaustible effort to articulate their despair and alienation to others. These actions may be illustrated in a note, a confession, a video recording, and even a drawing of a comic with the goal of communicating a precise and celebratory notion pertaining to a predictive impending attack (McGee & DeBernardo, 1999).

Although this process is vital to the adolescent, they may make comments in a repartee fashion, joking with peers or siblings about what they could or would do in certain situations. However, such teasing is often psychologically desensitizing, preparing the adolescent for the rampage and boosting their efficacy to participate in the planned attack.

Inclusionary Attributes of Classroom Avengers

The classroom avenger lacks empathy, has violent fantasies, and transforms their subordinate social role into an approach that is rather narcissistic. They have experience with being humiliated in front of others, and they attempt to earn respect or admiration from others by boasting about their cruel and brash approach to society; however, this attempt is rarely successful in earning the respect of others, fueling their infuriated disposition.

The motive in their killing(s) is centered on power, authority, and vengeance towards others. They are extremely sensitive to criticism, having no problems stalking females and even targeting females as victims. The eccentric characteristic is that they appear customary to adults, and do not always elicit a warning of being dangerous, they can easily remain undetected as being a risk to themselves or their peers. Their grades in school are average with IQ being above average and social intelligence being atypical. Their inept social and psychological disposition is what ultimately fuels the instability, producing a low self-esteem and self-image in comparison to others around them.

In conclusion, the profile of a classroom avenger is ultimately constructed on the subjective truth of sensationalism. The adolescent is infatuated with proving that they are not worthless and by inflicting violence in its most extreme form, they have the perception that honor and praise will be the definitive result in their death.

Their rampage is often premeditated and complex, with temperamental dysfunctional influences conditioning their intolerance of others. If intolerance is expressed towards another person, intolerance is perceived by that person, and the vicious cycle of dilapidation formulates as the mind fragments and plots to appall others with the end goal of receiving nobility and reverence for their actions.

References:

McGee, J.P., & DeBernardo, C.R. (1999). The classroom avenger. In Ribner, N.G., The handbook of juvenile forensic psychology (p.230-249). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Singh Sandu, D. (2001). Faces of violence: Psychological correlates, concepts and intervention. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=JPwDcEBq87UC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Out of the heinous actions and routines that are perceived to be typical and sadistic in nature, the dismemberment of a victim appears to be on an entirely new level of hate. The following article will examine the psychological reasoning associated to dismembering victims.

Dismemberment is classified as a form of picquerism, the stabbing or wounding of an individual resulting in sexual gratification (Holmes & Holmes, 2002). Therefore, dismemberment although sadistic, is actually a sexually driven behavior demonstrable of the supremacy and hegemony that the perpetrator holds over their victim.

Dismemberment dates back to the 1200’s in which beheading and torture were embraced as a sociological norm and even considered to be a festivity of the highest regard. In fact, decapitation was perceived to be the most prestigious form of death during this period (Owens, 2005). Neung Ji Cheo Cham was a form of dismemberment that was utilized during the 12th and 18th century in Korea that is better known as the four horses; this was utilized as a form of punishment by tearing the body into five separate parts.

Dismembering a victim illustrates an extreme notion of abhorrence towards the victim, psychologically dismissing their existence and disregarding them as being of any value whatsoever (Holmes & Holmes, 2002). The perpetrator that elects to dismember their victim desires to eliminate their existence, refusing to acknowledge them on a conscious level; furthermore, taking their body apart is perceived to be gratifying sexually and psychologically necessary (Holmes & Holmes, 2002).

A perpetrator who kills and selects to dismember their victim is driven by the lust and power that they have over the victim. Regarding these patterns in serial crimes, the killer that elects to dismember their victim(s) is one that is visionary in nature. The sexual component is not as important as believed, but rather it is the mission, the voice of their internal demise that drives them to engrave their hate into another (Holmes & Holmes, 2002). I personally disagree with this classification.

It is my opinion, that dismemberment would more so include serial killers that are classified as being power-control killers versus that of the visionary serial killer. The power-control serial killer receives sexual gratification in committing the killing but also takes the act(s) further in detestation as domination is equated to psychological competition.

There is an underlying psychological competition associated to dismembering victims and the situation is not finalized until mutilation is complete. This individual receives psychological gratification from killing and harming others and takes their time in doing so. They also tend to be hands on in their killing, so they will use their hands for torturing them or hands-on weapons.

It is highly plausible that dismemberment is often times associated with hiding a body. The psychological connotation associated to the killer that proceeds to dismember a victim for the purpose of concealing the body is psychologically aware of their wrongdoing. They are more likely to take precautionary measures in dismembering to evade any possible detection as a suspect in the killing. They may also agree to take a polygraph as an additional means to corroborate with reducing or even eliminating the plausibility of being culpable for the crime in question.

Dismemberment appears to be one of the most dehumanizing acts that a killer can take in committing a crime. Due to the level of psychological competition and power utilized to take control and dominate their victim, dismemberment provides an opening for self-magnifications to surface and such action more often than not, reaffirms their own sense of worth (Holmes & Holmes, 2002).

Dismemberment, decapitation in particular, provides psychological closure to the killer and may be considered to be dramatic or theatrical in nature (Owens, 2005). During the past year, there was a case in North Carolina in which a child was dismembered. It is rare to dismember children and the psychological motivations associated to this investigation should take into consideration the sexual undertones, the psychological competition and dominance over the victim, as well as dismemberment being attributed to the evasion of probable suspicion.

References:

Holmes, R.M., & Holmes, S.T. (2002). Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Page Publications, Inc.

Owens, M.W. (2005). Stages of dismemberment: The fragmented body in the late medieval and early modern drama. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=6-zEoNijqxoC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

The following post is atypical for my specialization yet pertinent to the behavioral, physical, and biological implications associated to sexual attraction. Relationships are perceived as being phenomena that makes the world go around, resulting in fulfillment, content, and emotional competence. If you are not in a relationship, you are perceived to be deficient; however, selecting a mate that is suitable is not uncomplicated or linear by any means.

Pheromones are said to play an important role in determining who we find attractive on a variety of different levels. Pheromones are described as being chemicals that organisms release into the environment that facilitate communicative processing with other members of their species. It has been proven that there are many; in fact, hundreds of pheromones that represent sexual attractants. However, there is a certain level of absurdity associated attract ability being predominantly attributed to olfactory application alone.

According to Levine (1999), pheromones are critical in seeking a substantial partner especially regarding sexual attraction. Although this application is highly controversial, the biological and behavioral relevance provides overwhelming attestation to the corroboration of such research. Cutler (1986) asserted that although human pheromones are individualized and even undetected at times, there are certain scents that affect the body in different ways, highly responsible for syncing individuals together in a sexual manner (as cited in Levine, 1999).

For example, when a woman is ovulating, her body produces copulins, a scent that is attractive to men as it raises their level of testosterone. The biochemical association of sexual attraction takes into account: (a) odor, (b) face shape, and (c) the pitch of one’s voice (Schmid, 2009). There are theorists that believe sexual attraction to be highly associated to science and evolution. Facial construction and the fullness of one’s lips are at times perceived to be most important in regards to sexual attraction. In fact, approximately 66% of females feel obliged to break up with a man after a bad first kiss due to the level of sensuality that is either detected or nonexistent (Schmid, 2009).

When considering the variables that directly pertain to another’s attraction, perception is a substantial motive relating to appeal. There are many different ways that individual’s measure attractiveness and the qualities associated to appeal are highly subjective in nature. With women having faster perceptual speed, it is interesting to consider whether or not they are able to detect an appealing or attractive man quicker than a man realizes that he is attracted to a woman (Kimura, 1992).

The brain organizes sex hormones that develop during puberty and these hormones affect the brain differently as the individual ages. Sexual function is complex because it involves the interaction of the spinal cord reflexes, an individual’s hormones, psychological elements, as well as the overall influence from the brain. Orgasmic activity for males and females is typically found to be reflexogenic or psychogenic in regards to overall stimulation. Reflexogenic refers to direct stimulation in which the brain is not found to be important as psychogenic stimulation results from a message sent from the brain due to the level of attraction that each may have towards one another. Most of the time, stimulation from both senses are utilized to climax.

There are receptors in the brain that bind together during sexual behavior that changes the brain. These neural modifications change within the limbic system of the brain, controlling the majority of one’s bodily functions. Such neuro-chemistry is biologically based in which the dopamine levels activate the reward circuitry. Sexual attraction is based on interpretation, appeal, chemistry, and the sociological rewards received from one another, without actually having sex. The rewards interpreted from sexual attraction and sex itself can result in euphoric expressions, directly effecting behavior and actions.

Upon sexual excitement or involvement, the neurotransmitter dopamine is activated and if this activation is determined to be significant, the reciprocated response can be associated to substance utilization a drugging of sorts. Dopamine affects the brain in the comparable way that cocaine affects the brain. The brain stem is also involved in this process as it releases phenylethylamine (PEA) which increases the behavior and interaction that takes place between nerve cells (Amen, n.d.).
The regions of the brain that are affected during sexual pleasure include the temporal lobe, the amygdala, the hippocampus, the anterior insula, the brain stem, and the limbic system (Kimura, 1992).

It should also be noted that women have excess levels of the hormone oxytocin, a neurotransmitter secreted from the pituitary gland. The excess of this “hormone of love” results in forming bonds with sexual partners as well as having the desire to form monogamous bonds with sexually active partners (Wadem 2011).

The final consideration examined is the genetic or predisposed association of attract ability, our literal sexual chemistry. This is referred to as the histocompatibility complex (MHC) in which humans have a genetic predisposition to be attracted to certain individuals with a certain genetic composition (Haselton, 2006). Typically, mates with different immune systems produce children that are healthy; however, if women are taking contraceptives, the opposite is found to be applicable because they would prefer MHC genes that are similar to their own (Haselton, 2006).

It is proven that partners who are sexually active at times produce impediments in regards to companionable feelings because sex is an enigma causing the brain to release oxytocin afterwards and can lead you to bond with someone that you actually do not bond with. This hormone sends false messages to the control panel of the brain and is deceptive when interpreting the behavior and expectations of another based on a bond that really doesn’t exist (Haselton, 2006). Amenability is highly significant within the realm of relationships and sexual attraction can make this pronouncement ambiguous; therefore, abstaining from sexual behavior at the onset of relationships is paramount in determining overall attract ability.

It should also be noted that attraction can take place via the internet in an online dating scenario and not be communal in person, when meeting face-to-face. A prospect able mate may provide intellectual conversation, portray analogous moral perspectives of conventionality, display ambitious undertones, and provide an astounding personality with witty simulation as well. However, in person, the attraction is shelved as there are other characteristics that make someone attractive. Therefore, it can be deduced that sexual chemistry may subsist in an online environment but this appeal should not be expected to be reciprocated in person because chemistry is not linear and when circumstances are modified, the charismatic association that once existed has vanished (Williams, 2008).

In summation, the elements pertaining to sexual attract ability or appeal is highly subjective, with varied perspectives and theories applicable to overall mate selection and satisfaction. It has been argued that men are more visual until their mid to late 30’s before they are able to assess other factors of attract ability in their mate that out-weigh sole appearance.

Likewise, it has been argued that women search more for personality and security, commiseration and stability, a paternal perception, surpassing the appearance or vocation of a male. Furthermore, conclusive results of sexual attraction and companion ability are left ajar for interpretation and subjective application.

References:

Amen, D. (n.d.). Understand what sex does to your brain. Men’s Health. Http://www.menshealth.com. Retrieved from, http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/understanding_sex_and_the_brain/index.php.

Haselton, M.G. (2006). Sexual attraction: The magic formula. The Sunday Times. http://women.timesonline.co.uk. Retrieved from, http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/style/article722915.ece.

Kimura, D. (1992). Sex differences in the brain. Scientific American.http://www.dhushara.com. Retrieved from, http://www.dhushara.com/book/socio/kimura/kimura.htm.

Levine, D. (1999). Pheromones: Potential participants in your sex life. Cnn.com. http://www.cnn.com. Retrieved from, http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/women/9906/25/sexuality.scent/.

Schmid, K. (2009). The laws of sexual attraction. Cnn.com. http://articles.cnn.com. Retrieved from, http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-13/living/o.laws.of.sex.attraction_1_attraction-mhc-testosterone-levels?_s=PM:LIVING.

Wade, N. (2011). Depth of the kindness hormone appears to know some bounds. New York Times. Http://www.nytimes.com. Retrieved from, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11hormone.html.

Williams, D. (2008). Sexual attraction online that should have stayed online. Associated Content. http://www.associatedcontent.com. Retrieved from, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1308381/sexual_attraction_online_that_should_pg2.html?cat=41.

Feminism may be perceived to be a sociological movement established and framed by an empirical application that addresses gender, social opportunity, and policy change (Kraska, 2004). In other words, perceptions and beliefs are consequences or effects of what an individual knows and this knowledge is based on their social context. Maier (2008) stated that the term feminist is a rather complex classification that is often applied to various circumstances that are political or sociological.

Although gender conflict is a social threat, it is not perceived to be physically ailing or as socially harmful as economic, political, or racial disparities (Liska & Messner, 1999). The feminist theory in the realm of criminal justice considers the level of inequality prevalent within the justice system that operates from a predominantly masculine approach. Feminist criminology was established during the 1970’s with concentration placed on the delinquent acts that were being committed by women (Burgess-Proctor, 2006).

Feminist theory is not considered to be one approach but rather a combination of varied criticisms (Brittan & Maynard, 1984) relating to the viewpoint of women (as cited in Simpson, 1989). Feminist theories are categorized as being a critical perspective representing a social response to (a) crime, (b) power, (c) inequality, (d) social class/role, (e) race, (f) ethnicity, and (g) gender (Barkan, 2009). There are five classifications of the feminist theory (a) liberal feminism, (b) radical feminism, (c) Marxist feminism, (d) socialist feminism, and (e) postmodern feminism (Burgess-Proctor, 2006).

Criminological Perspective of the Feminist Theory

The feminist theory may be considered a derivative of radical criminology in that theory is utilized and applied to the enforcement of social change (Vito et al., 2007). Feminist criminology was established when liberal feminist researchers observed the elimination of gender being integrated into the study of crime, perpetration conviction, and the results of being sentenced were areas that were being somewhat neglected from a criminological perspective (Burgess-Proctor, 2006).

The two prominent ways (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988) that the feminist perspective directly relates to the study of criminology is in (a) the relationship of theory of crime, and (b) the degree to which theory explains gender disparity in the examination of crime commission (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). From a traditional standpoint, criminological theory was framed by crime and delinquency that was utilized to explain criminality among males (Einstadter & Henry, 1995; Leonard, 1982; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004) versus that of females (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009).

Feminist theories apply to the study of criminology (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988) by providing a female’s perspective to knowledge while explicating the differences associated to gender throughout society and the judicial system (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). The application of feminism offers the opportunity to investigate the importance that one’s gender or role is to society (Gelsthorpe & Morris, 1990) with concern afforded to the characteristics that encourage dominance and females being the population that is primarily discriminated against (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009).

Adler (1975) researched the progressive rate of crime committed by females, purporting that the disparity between male and female crime commission was decreasing in regards to criminality (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Such a decline was attributed to the women’s movement and the modifications of traditional and customary roles of women. The women’s movement provided the opportunity for women to expand their social roles and unfortunately such growth provided the option for females to participate in deviant behavior (Adler, 1975) at a rate that was higher than normal (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Simon and Ahn-Redding (2005) categorized this criminological advancement as the “masculinity thesis” in which the prediction of equality among women and men in regards to crime commission was perceived to be a sociological inclination (Adler, 1975) towards opportunity (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009).

The nature of violence is cyclical (Rochefort, 1986) due to the social expectations and the evolution of problems from a sociological, political, and historical perspective. Barkan (2009) explored the social and structural conceptualization of masculinity and reported that behavior motivates criminality which makes elevated participation in deviant behavior a naturalistic element that is directly associated with the process of male socialization. Additionally, Butler (1990) noted the theoretical connotation of gender being constructed from social interaction and West and Zimmerman (1987) reported that gender dynamics are associated to the customary routines that are expected of each sex (as cited in Anderson, 2005). Naffine (1987) claimed the female socialization accompanies a sense of constructive features as well as a sense of reliance upon others (as cited in Barkan, 2009). However, this concept is not empirically supported (Archer, 2000; Sugerman & Frankel, 1996) because of the weak association that violent perpetration is a form of individuality for males (as cited in Anderson, 2009).

The objective in applying the feminism perspective is considered to be “deconstructive” as the aim is to confront and overturn the oppositions related to gender (Barrett & Phillips, 1992, p. 1). The next section presents an evaluation of both liberal and radical feminism and describes the application of both categories to sociopolitical and criminological research.

An Evaluation of Liberal and Radical Feminism

Liberal feminism embraces the role of gender and social status or expectations as being the basis of “oppression” or domination for women (Burgess-Proctor, 2006, p. 29). The liberal feminism approach is the most recognized perspective of feminism (Beasley, 1999). Eisenstein (1981) claimed that liberal feminism centered on the examination of “opportunity and freedom of choice” (as cited in Kraska, 2004, p. 235). Liberal feminists are also referred to “sameness or rule-equality feminists” (Eichner, 2001) with the concern of equality between the sexes being the goal to conquering gender neutrality (as cited in Hopkins & Koss, 2005). Liberal feminists assert that males are socially awarded power in ways that were also politically and economically unequal. Liberal feminism applies the “sameness and difference” models (Barak et al., 2001; MacKinnon, 1991; Sokoloff, Price, & Flavin, 2004) to investigate the relationship between gender and opportunity (as cited in Burgess-Proctor, 2006, p. 32).

From the liberal feminism approach, gender disproportion derived from the divergent roles and customary standards which encourage women and men to adapt (Pateman, 1987) to these expectations (as cited in Kraska, 2004). As a result, gender connotations are further perceptible within the political, occupational, social, and educational arenas. Bem (1974) claimed that liberal feminism activists encourage the unification of both genders to operate collectively with the goal of eliminating the discriminatory approach towards women throughout society (as cited in Kraska, 2004). It was the liberal feminists that had the most persuasion on the women’s movement with prominence on the reexamination of how “cultural arrangement” and “sex-role socialization” influences the subordination of females versus that of males
(Vito et al., 2007, p. 227). One criticism of liberal feminism (Simpson, 1989) is associated to gender discrimination and the negligibility associated to racial disparity between classes.

Radical feminists are categorized as critical feminists with importance placed on the structural elements of sexuality, meaning: (a) power, (b) violence, (c) authority, and (d) control (Vito et al., 2007). Radical feminism attributes male supremacy being the fundamental principle and cause of oppression for women (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Such subjugation is perceived to be the result of the social inequity that is oftentimes stimulated by authority and opportunity.

From a criminological viewpoint, radical feminists concentrate on the crimes that are committed against the female population by males (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Radical feminism implies that power and dominion are features that mold gender roles (Barak et al., 2001; MacKinnon, 1991) with concern placed on social inequities (as cited in Burgess-Proctor, 2006).

Simpson (1989) argued that radical feminism addresses the oppression associated to the sexuality of women and the authority that men have within relationships. Early radical feminists (Atkinson, 1974; Barry, 1979; Firestone, 1970; Rich, 1970) asserted sex more so than gender to be of concern with political (Millett, 1971) aspects associated to the oppression and subordinate positioning of women throughout society (as cited in Simpson, 1989). Dworkin (1989) claimed that “Radical feminists argue that patriarchy precedes capitalism and that gender relations are more important than class relations” (as cited in Barkan, 2009, p.250). There are similarities and differences between liberal feminism and radical feminism with both models utilized in the implementation of social and policy change (Beasley, 1999).

Liberal feminism is different from radical feminism in that the approach to investigating gender is fueled from an approach that is grounded on social opportunity while radical feminism is driven by the notion of domination and authority. With that being said, both forms of feminism are similar in that the concentration of oppression for women is at the forefront of concern and inequity is perceived to be political, social, and opportunistic (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). While liberal feminism is perceived to be a model for reformation, radical liberalism is revolutionary. Liberal feminism is associated with a welfare or political perspective with primary concern attributed to the reallocation of opportunity (Beasley, 1999).

Radical feminism is similar to liberal feminism in that concern on the oppression of women pertaining to that of social order is at the forefront of policy implementation. However, radical feminism is distinctly different from liberal feminism in that the perspective of oppression is sexually instigated with women sharing common characteristics with other women (Beasley, 1999). Although liberal feminism is the form of feminism that is most credited for the women’s movement, radical feminism may be perceived to be more profound and reflective of the oppression of women due to the sexual nature of inequality and gender.

Another distinctive characteristic between the two types of feminism is that liberal feminists embrace the equality of rights between men and women and radical feminists investigate the male domination and subordination in the form of violence, sex, or even occupational and physical opportunities. Beasley (1999) revealed that radical feminists encourage lesbianism as a method of emancipation from sexual domination and subordination that may be experienced in heterosexual relationships.

The Explanatory Power of Feminism in Regards to Criminology

Warren (1980) argued that a radical feminist desires for sexual equality to be attained through innovative strategies in modifying the structure of society (as cited in Shibles, 1989). It is implausible to examine the explanations of criminal behavior without consider the role that gender plays (Miller & Mullins, 2006) to the occurrence of crime (as cited in Barkan, 2009).

The application of the feminist theory to the incident of female violence (Davis & Hagen, 1992) may be referenced as: “(a) family violence, (b) marital violence, (c) spouse abuse, (d) wife assault, (e) wife beating, and (f) battered women” (as cited in Yick, 2001, p.548). The feminist psychoeducation approach became popular as time evolved in which women’s shelters and programs for batterers developed onto the forefront (Feder & Dugan, 2002). Akers and Sellers (2009) stated that the National Crime Victimization Survey and the American Correctional Association Survey report that nearly half of all female offenders in the prison system have a history of physical or sexual abuse. Much research using the feminist perspective embraces discrimination, victimization, and gender inequality.

Lancaster (1998) asserted that due to the social organization of male dominance within society in general, this authority is oftentimes transferred over into relationships, as males desire to express power or control over women with the purpose of maintaining their identity or engendered role.

Stark (2007) proposed a coercive control theory to convey the structural inequities associated to the power and control that men display over women (as cited in Anderson, 2009). The explanations regarding the motivation for violence and control can be examined from a cultural and structural perspective; however, violence committed against women from a patriarchal standing does not adequately explain why all men are not violent (Dutton, 1994) with women (as cited in Anderson, 2009). Patriarchy is perceived to be the prominent explanation (Schecter, 1982) for male power and control, due to the economic, social, and political aspects associated to the reinforcement of authority (as cited in Yick, 2001).

Dutton and Nicholls (2005) conducted a research study on the application of the feminist theory to the occurrence of domestic violence and the accuracy of reporting such incidents. From the feminist perspective of domestic violence, females are abused in relationships more than males and this is a concept that is culturally sustained; however, any violent behavior expressed by females is not based on cultural expectations but rather is perceived to be reactive and protective action against the controlling and dominating male (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005).

This conceptualization is confirmed in previously conducted research studies (Frohman & Grossman, 2001; Bograd, 1992) as approximately 91 to 95 % of all cases of domestic violence are perpetrated by males against females (as cited in Corvo & Johnson, 2003). Therefore, the concern was on males committing intimate partner violence rather than on females participating in violence (Corvo & Johnson, 2003). Theoretically, batterers that participate in domestic violence are perceived to be males, with aggressive tendencies that are culturally authorized (Dobash & Dobash, 1978) to conduct themselves in this manner (as cited in Dutton & Nicholls, 2005). Ehrensaft et al., (2004) argued that research conducted on only one gender in the examination of domestic violence in relationships should not be empirically validated due to the dynamics associated to the social, behavioral, and cultural elements of this form of violence.

The majority of the research pertaining to the application of the feminist theory to domestic violence has encompassed American social standards versus that of other cultures. Yick (2001) applied both the feminist perspective as well as the family violence perspective to investigate the Chinese population, representing 22.6 % (Uba, 1994) of Asian Americans. Domestic violence among the Asian population is more prevalent than realized (Kim, 1973) with approximately 25% reporting physical abuse (Yick, 1999) and 42% reporting psychological abuse (cited in Yick, 2001).

Data obtained from Asian women who are battered is oftentimes underreported (Huisman, 1996) due to the level of hopelessness associated to the situation and a sense of entrapment (O’Herron, 1993) is experienced (as cited in Yick, 2001). Culture plays a vital role in social positioning. For example, Honig and Hershatter (1988) reported that Chinese males develop with the understanding that they are much more highly valued than that of their female counterparts (as cited in Yick, 2001).

Maier (2008) applied the feminist theory to conduct research on rape crisis centers in which liberal and radical feminists purport rape to be the result of gender inequality. However, such a statement does not directly support the occurrence of same gender rape. Brush (1997) stated that the National Violence Against Women Act modified the perception of violence committed against females in certain jurisdictions. Feminist criminologists are accredited for addressing the gender disparities among both offenders and victims of crime. The application of the feminist perspective has been beneficial in the investigation of female perpetration patterns and crime rate, as well as describing the causes of female crime and how these explanations differ to that of the male population (Haney, 2003). In summation, feminist theories are utilized to explore the issues of female oppression in which culture, family systems, socialization, economic status, and gender role/expectations are evaluated with the goal of addressing policy change and empowering the female population to have equal opportunity and not perceived as being the inferior gender.

Criminological Perspective of Liberal and Radical Feminism

Criminology was established as a social science to investigate the problematic areas of control and organization from a sociological perspective (Messerschmidt, 1993). At one time, the feminist perspective of criminology was related to Marxism in that the explanation of a segregated society is framed by domesticated roles within the workforce. Marxist theorists believed that women experienced oppression in relation to their roles and rights within society; however, there are feminists that opposed the fundamental purpose of oppression being directly associated to production versus the classification of subordination regarding gender (Messerschmidt, 1993). Regarding the criminal justice system, Marxist theorists evaluate the relationship between those individuals of power and authority to the “political state, including its law and justice system (Akers, 1999, p. 185).

Female criminality may be the result of many factors of which feminist theorists have interpreted to be the result of social patterns that initiate with the label of gender. Feminist criminologists describe the stereotypical aspects associated to gender within the justice system in addition to class or racial elements that influence status (Haney, 2003). From a criminological perspective, liberal feminists differ from radical feminists. Liberal feminists view the causation of crime to be predominantly associated to the result of inequality among gender, power, and race (Moyer, 2001).

In the investigation of the social structure of deviant behaviorisms, Akers’s General Theory of social disorganization can be related to the feminist perspective through the examination of socialization, gender patterns, values, attitudes, and exposure to deviant delinquent behavior (Morash, 1999). Therefore, the feminist theory in conjunction with other theories offers an integrative approach in recognizing the dynamics that influence and shape behavior, whether it is conventional or unconventional. Adler and Simon (1975) applied the concept of liberal feminism to the field of criminology during the women’s movement to further examine the educational and occupational opportunities as well as the types of crime that was being committed by females (as cited in Moyer, 2001).

Radical feminists view the occurrence of crime to be the result of female oppression with an emphasis placed on sex, race, and society. Research conducted on a radical approach to criminology suggests that women are victimized by males more so than males victimized by females and further evaluation of the diversity associated to offending disparities is necessary to better understand the subordinate role of the female population (Moyer, 2001). Feministic research is related to activism; furthermore, the application of this perspective to the study of criminology has been most efficient in the area of victimization (Britton, 2000). Another focal point for feminist criminologists is to identify the disparities among gender regarding treatment from the criminal justice system.

Radical feminists believe that the authority of males dominates societal structure in such a manner that frames the socialization of power. Supremacy is therefore transferred in the operation of organizations and permits males to objectify women to being mere sex objects available for maltreatment (Solomon, 1992). Therefore, one may argue that gender does play a much stronger role in socialization more so than race or class and that the feminist perspective is pertinent to addressing the disparities among men and women. The radical feminism approach to criminology attributes sexual victimization and abuse to be the result of male power and authority within the family and society alike (Solomon, 1992). Radical feminists evaluate the diversity of treatment between males and females within the prison system as a result of male domination of female sexuality (Simpson, 1989).

Therefore, gender appears to be a significant factor pertaining to sentencing disparity versus that of race. The concerns of sentencing disparity for liberal feminists encompass fair and similar punishments received. From the liberal feminism perspective of criminology, females rarely participate in acts of delinquency in comparison to men and this is primarily based on the level of social engagements or commitments that prohibit the opportunity for crime commission (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Nevertheless, research (Daly, 1989) regarding sentencing disparity due to gender relations appears to be uncertain and the sentence given may in fact be affected by family status and the expectation of acquiring a sexual role that is familial (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). The female inmate population is comprised of less that 10% of all incarcerated prisoners (Vito et al., 2007).

The investigation of the disparate treatment of male to female offenders confirms that there is an advantageous feature for females versus that of males. This association is classified as the gender effect (Daly, 1989) in which punitive decisions are not as severe for females; furthermore, Figueira-McDonough (1985) characterized such patterns as the chivalry hypothesis or to even be a paternalistic approach (Akers & Sellers, 2009) to perceiving disparate sentencing between genders.

Bishop and Frazier (1992) investigated the treatment of juveniles, discovering that leniency was afforded to female delinquents versus male delinquents only in situations in which harsh crimes were committed; however, for offenses that were not serious, there was no discrepancy evident in the treatment received. Historically, empirical assessments were not developed to explicate female offending patterns but rather the criminality associated to the male population governed the scope of research that was conducted by criminologists (Vito et al., 2007). Additionally, concentration on female criminality was not a common phenomenon until after the women’s movement. Feminist theories are utilized to conduct both quantitative and qualitative research; furthermore, feminism is an efficient approach in the examination of social structure by providing an explanation to the social behaviors that permeate the dynamics pertaining to power and status (Bean, 2003).

Criticisms of Feminist Theory

Feminism presumes that the causes of oppression experienced by women are identified through social aspects pertaining to structure, roles, and opportunity (Barrett & Phillips, 1992). The feminist perspective is often related to issues and circumstances associated to oppression that is experienced by females. However, it may be argued that this viewpoint addresses the subordination in such a way that societal standards are consistently examining the inequality associated to gender versus the modification of certain elements that may be perceived to be unfair or problematic (Brush, 1997). Such a concept is dichotomous in that the feminist perspective at times may even authenticate the division between genders in a manner that further hinders constructive changes that could be implemented throughout society.

In other words, the feminist perspective at times nullifies the productive elements by concentrating on the vulnerable aspects pertaining to the female population. Denfeld (1995) examined the application of feminism to address issues and claimed that more often than not, the feminist perspective imposes a victim mind set while underwriting the concept of double standards associated to gender (as cited in Brush, 1997). Burgess-Proctor (2006) identified a blanketing effect that occurs when applying the feminist approach to research in which assumptions reduce the amount of diversity throughout society and consider all women to experience oppression in the same manner.

Daly and Stubbs (2006) reported that violence is a phenomenon experienced in an incongruent fashion, not a concept directly related to gender alone. Therefore, the feminist approach to conducting research limits the experiences of women as a whole and assumes that all women throughout society in various circumstances experience oppression. It may be argued that this perspective is not even a realistic concept in addressing the sociological elements pertaining to strain experienced throughout society that is completely unrelated to gender altogether. With that being said, the end result of feminist studies is oftentimes disputed to represent a “false universalism” (Zinn & Dill, 1996) of gender in relation to inequality and diversity (as cited in Burgess-Proctor, 2006, p. 35).
Harding (1986; 1987) asserted that feminism opposes objectivity in the realm of empirical research further raising objections to the male prominence associated to social science and behavior (as cited in Bean, 2003).

Through feminist jurisprudence, the law is perceived to be ideological and rather sexist, a result of gender relations (Haney, 2000). The feminist perspective may be viewed as being somewhat tautological in that the examination of bias that women experience throughout society is a bias perspective in conducting research in and of itself (Letherby, 2003). In all, the feminist approach to criminology is radical and controversial with eminence typically placed on the political application to implement social change.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the feminist theory is comprised of many perspectives and approaches in addressing the divergent aspects of dominance and power throughout society. Women and minorities often experience oppression and are considered to be the subordinate population within social, political, educational, and occupational settings (Akers & Sellers, 2009). Such gender differences are perceived to exist because of certain expectations or roles for sexes. Within the criminal justice system, the constraining position of women is prevalent as men continue to overshadow positions of authority.

The parsimonious role of females in the criminal justice system may be the result of the predominantly seeking employment opportunities within law enforcement. The application of the feminist theory entails the examination of social relationships from a gender perspective with centering on the oppression of women from a broader concern of socialization (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005).

Feminists often conduct research on the force and violence that men employ in relationships. Dobash and Dobash (1979) argued that those men who abuse their wives are behaving this way as a means of representing the cultural expectations that are esteemed in Western societies (as cited in Dutton & Nicholls, 2005). The problematic issues of power and control against women in all aspects are consistently placed at the forefront of feminist researchers; furthermore, disappointment pertaining to the structure of social standards regarding gender establishes disparity, value, status, and expectations. Such organization results in disproportionate worth of the inferior gender with investigation on culture, social organization, role progression, gender identification, and the application of theory to endorse policy change.

References

Akers, R.L., & Sellers, C.S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, K.L. (2009). Gendering coercive control. Violence Against Women, 15(12), 1444-1457. Doi: 10.1177/1077801209346837.

Barkan, S. E. (2009). Criminology: A sociological understanding. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Barrett, M., & Phillips, A. (1992). Destabilizing theory: Contemporary feminist debates. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=NgGRGDxEdNoC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Bean, P. (2003). Crime. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=HFeOTY8hMpoC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Beasley, C. (1999). What is feminism? An introduction to feminist theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Bv_9oDv4l38C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=similarities+of+liberal+feminism+and+radical+feminism&ots=frfl7LYiHk&sig=M_wiKwcKSVMoq–PFvFqZfCQc8A#v=onepage&q=similarities%20of%20liberal%20feminism%20and%20radical%20feminism&f=false

Bishop, D.M., & Frazier, C.E. (1992). Gender bias in juvenile justice processing: Implications of the JDP Act. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 1162-1186.

Britton, D.M. (2000). Feminism in criminology: Engendering the outlaw. The American Academy of Political and Social Science, (571 Annals 57). Retrieved from, http://www.lexisnexis.com.library.capella.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T9480248597&treeMax=false&sort=&docNo=1&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=0&treeWidth=0&nodeDisplayName=&cisb=&reloadPage=false.

Broidy, L.M. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39(1), 9-36.

Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3). 275-306. Doi: 10.1177/0022427897034003001.

Brush, L.D. (1997). Harm, moralism, and the struggle for the soul of feminism. Violence Against Women, 3(3), 237-256. Doi: 10.1177/10778010297003003002.

Burgess, R.L., & Akers, R.L. (1966). Social problems. In J.E. Jacoby (Ed.), Classics of Criminology (3rd ed., pp.275-282). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime: Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 27-47. Doi: 10.1177/1557085105282899.

Corvo, K., & Johnson, P.J. (2003). Vilification of the “batterer”. How blame shapes domestic violence policy and interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 259-281. Doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00060-X.

Daly, K. (1989). Neither conflict nor labeling nor paternalism will suffice: Intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, and family in criminal court decisions. Crime and Delinquency, 35¸136-168.

Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Daly, K., & Stubbs, J. (2006). Feminist engagement with restorative justice. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 1362-4806. Doi: 10.1177/1362480606059980.

Dutton, D.G., & Nicholls, T. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1-The conflict theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680-714. Doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2005.02.001.

Ehrensaft, M.K., Moffitt, T.E., & Caspi, A. (2004). Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: Men’s and women’s participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(2), 258-271.

Feder, L., & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward experiment. Justice Quarterly, 19(2).

Figueira-McDonough, J. (1985). Gender differences in informal processing: A look at charge bargaining and sentence reduction in Washington, D.C. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 101-133.

Haney, L.A. (2003). Feminist state theory: Applications to jurisprudence, criminology, and the welfare state. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 641-666. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.641.

Kraska, P.B. (2004). Theorizing criminal justice: Eight essential orientations. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Lancaster, E. (1998). Probation journal. Feminist Theory and Probation Practice, 45, 208-212. Doi: 10.1177/026455059804500403.

Liska, A. E., & Messner, S. F. (1999). Perspectives on crime and deviance. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Maier, S.L. (2008). Are rape crisis centers feminist organizations? Feminist Criminology, 3(2), 82-100. Doi: 10.1177/1557085107310623.

Messerschmidt, J.W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=xo0gTQg5oi8C&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Morash, M. (1999). A consideration of gender in relation to social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Theoretical Criminology, 3(4), 451-462. Doi: 10.1177/1362480699003004005.

Moyer, I.L. (2001). Criminological theories: Traditional and non-traditional voices and themes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=HoyDXRCVtAAC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Shibles, W. (1989). Radical feminism, humanism and women’s studies. Innovative Higher Education, 14(1), 35-47. Doi: 10.1007/BF00889761.

Simpson, S.S. (1989). Feminist theory, crime, and justice. Criminology, 27(4), 606-617.

Solomon, J.C. (1992). Child sexual abuse by family members: A radical feminist perspective. Sex Roles, 27(9/10), 473-485. Doi:10.1007/BF00290004.

Vito, G.F., & Maahs, J.A., & Holmes, R.M. (2007). Criminology: Theory, research, and policy. (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Yick, A.G. (2001). Feminist theory and status inconsistency theory: Application to domestic violence in Chinese immigrant families. Violence Against Women, 7(5), 545-562. Doi: 10.1177/10778010122182596.

Criminologists investigate the causation of crime and the elements that encourage individuals to participate in deviant behavior. Through this examination, the application of theory provides a method of assessing the diversity of crime, expounding upon the occurrence, location, frequency, and motivation of perpetration. Nagin and Pogarsky (2001) discovered a correlation between the psychological rewards of negative reinforcement to that of conditioning an individual to participate in deviant behavior through the process of rationalizing and justifying the commission of delinquent acts.

Meier’s (1977, p.1) confirmed that Sykes (1974) identified the modern wave of criminology as being “radical”, evolving from the sociological characteristics that are associated to the commission of crime. Criminological theory is critically evaluated in relation to society, the occurrence of crime, the causation of crime, and the philosophical features pertaining to crime control and punitive decisions (Einstadter & Henry, 2006). The next section will address the development of deviant behavior relating to an individual’s social construction of behavior, values, and reinforcements that appear to initiate within the home and are further influenced within peer groups.

Social Construction of Deviant Behavior

Critical theorists concentrate on how social arrangements, status, position, and relationships correlate with issues of power, resulting in some form of conflict between social groups and structures (Straus, 2002). Deviance is a term that may be interchangeably utilized to describe dysfunctional behavior and strain (Spector & Kitsuse, 1977) that is prevalent in social contexts and perceived to be a sociological predicament (as cited in Schneider, 1985). The investigation of deviant behavior pertaining to sociological theory is classified as “social pathology” in which social reactions to acts of delinquency are explicated and investigated (Kitsuse, 1962). Deviance is classified as being situational in which society plays a role in the classification of unconventional behavior regarding social order (Hewitt & Hall, 1973). In 1960, Cressey suggested that “epidemiology” was the examination of the occurrence and distribution of criminal behavior that transpires throughout society (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 3).

The incidents of criminal behavior may be attributed to a particular group or groups of deviants as well within an individualized manner. The examination of the theoretical component(s) associated to social learning initiated in 1947 with Sutherland’s differential association theory. The differential association theory (Sutherland, 1947; Sutherland & Cressey, 1974) attributed deviant behavior to be a behaviorism that directly correlated with sociological theory and social learning theory (as cited in Akers et al., 1979).

It was during this time that theories pertaining to deterrence and control (Hirschi, 1969) began to materialize; however, the social learning theory was the prominent (Akers, 1977; Conger, 1976; 1977; Feldman, 1977) perspective that accredited reinforcement (Harris, 1975; 1977; Eaton, 1974; Meier & Johnson; 1977; Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977) as a sociological and behavioral approach to applying theory to the explanation of deviance (as cited in Akers et al., 1979). The theoretical tenets associated to the learning process are framed by empirical support (Skinner, 1953; Honig; 1966) that is typically retrieved within a laboratory (Ullmann & Krasner, 1969; Bandura 1969; 1977; McLaughlin, 1971; Staats, 1975) with applied experimental conditions (as cited in Akers et al., 1979). In summary, the differential association theory attributes criminal behavior to be learned from interactions that rationalize and inspire an individual or group to participate in deviant behavior.

Akers’s Social Learning Theory

The principle of the social learning theory is that social behavior is operant in nature because behavior that is consistently constructed is based on rewards or consequences. Therefore, social learning may be cultivated from either imitating or modeling the behaviorisms of others (Akers et al., 1979). The modification of behavior through both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement is a process accredited to differential reinforcement. The social learning theory is comprised of two fundamental elements (a) respondent and (b) operant behaviorisms (Burgess & Akers, 1966) that aid in social learning (as cited in Jacoby, 2004). Differential reinforcement (Akers et al., 1979) is a term that refers to the conceptualization of behaviors that may be deviant or conventional; furthermore, these behaviors are learned from individuals or groups that influence norms, values, and morals. Behavioral reinforcers are not necessarily social; there are instances in which nonsocial reinforcers influence behavior through the depiction or representation of what is behaviorally permissible.

The association of an individual’s social reinforcements is related to those who endorse behavior whether it is positive or negative. Social organizations may reflect behavior learned from one’s peers, parents, and members of society who are in positions of authority (Akers et al., 1979). Due to the fact that individuals strive to see how others perceive them, if they are perceived as deviant, they may be more inclined to behave in such a manner; however, this is not true in all instances (Akers & Sellers, 2009). There is a positive correlation between those who are labeled as being deviant (Goffman, 1963) to owning up to that label and participating in unconventional behavior; however, the label itself should not be credited for creating deviant behavior (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Akers and Burgess (1966) applied Sutherland’s (1937; 1940; 1949) criminological perspective of explaining criminal behavior and coined “differential association-reinforcement” to pertain to operant conditioning, concentrating on the behavioral principles utilized by psychologists (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 88).

The social learning theory contains characteristics that Burgess and Akers (1966) identified to be: (a) conditioning involuntary behavior, (b) stimuli that is both environmental and internal, presenting signals, (c) the degree in which compensation or consequences are afforded, and (d) the elements related to the modification of behavior (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Framed by Sutherland’s differential association theory (Akers, 1985), the social learning theory was established on the symbolic interactionism theory (Sandstrom, Martin, & Fine, 2003), which bases social interface on how individuals interrelate with one another, with the ability to perceive themselves in relation to others (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Through the process of differential association, an individual elects to participate in unconventional behavior while being exposed to a differential reinforcement that is eventually rationalized and possibly neutralized (Akers & Sellers, 2009). In summation, it is possible for an individual to establish a model of behavior that was socially constructed based on the appearance of what behaviors are rewarding, even if they are unconventional.

Agnew’s General Strain Theory

Strain is a concept that is perceived to be more prevalent throughout underprivileged communities as the lower socioeconomic standards epitomize disproportionate opportunities for achievement. The examination of social disorganization dates back to 1938 with Merton’s research on social structure, anomie, and the ideals pertaining to equal opportunity to be successful (Vito et al., 2007). Merton’s strain theory did not apply to all forms of deviant behavior and therefore it was not a model that was empirically supported. Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory provides the opportunity to examine strain experienced in relation to criminal and noncriminal adaptations (as cited in Broidy & Agnew, 1997). In other words, there are members of society that experience strain that do not elect to participate in criminal behavior; therefore, the complexity of strain is recognized as being diverse, warranting further exploration as to the affects of strain in general. In broadening this perspective, strain can be investigated within certain populations and environments in the examination of the sociological aspects associated to strain.

The general strain theory was developed by Agnew (1992) to generalize the explanation of criminal behavior in which strain consisted of three extensive areas: (a) failing to accomplish an objective, (b) the presence of an unpleasant incentive, and (c) the elimination of an attractive stimulus (Vito et al., 2007). The general strain theory expands the sources of strain to include adaptations attributed to the participation of criminal behavior (Broidy & Agnew, 1997). Negative results from the strain that is experienced can cause individual’s to react either conventionally or unconventionally while attempting to cope with the stressor. An interesting conceptualization of Agnew’s strain theory is that individual’s can experience stress vicariously, from other’s encountering strain (Bernard et al., 2010). Anticipated pressure or stress can result in apprehension as well; however, strain from a personal and vicarious perspective appears to be much more detrimental versus that of the anticipated form of strain (Bernard et al., 2010).

Agnew incorporated four specific features of strain that directly encourages delinquent acts: (a) when individuals are perceived to be mistreated or encountered unjustly, (b) when the strain is rigorous, (c) when strain is the result of low social control, and (d) when an individual is coerced or required to produce unlawful coping strategies (Bernard et al., 2010). Those individuals that demonstrate an elevated level of negative emotionality in addition to having a low level of control or restraint are more opt to participate in deviant behavior when they experience strain. However, those individuals who do not necessarily represent this population have the ability to implement conventional coping tactics in addressing general strain that is experienced (Bernard et al., 2010).

Agnew’s general strain theory was and is most often applied to address the motivations associated to adolescent deviant behavior. Agnew claimed that negative relationships in which the situation is destructive and difficult to escape from, directly influences negative emotions that result in strain (Bernard et al., 2010). Therefore, participation in deviant behavior functions as an apparatus to coping with strain experienced and these responses are associated to interpersonal situations that are problematic. In response to the strain that individuals experience, substance abuse and contribution to aberrant behavior appears to be the methods utilized to manage negative emotions (Bernard et al., 2010). The next section identifies the similarities between Akers’s social learning theory and Agnew’s general strain theory.

Similarities of Akers’s Social Learning Theory and Agnew’s General Strain Theory

The social learning theory and the general strain theory do have similarities regarding the motivation to participate in delinquent behavior in the achievement of goals. While the general strain theory strives to explain criminal behavior as being the result of one achieving their goal, the social learning theory attributes delinquent behavior to relate to the conceptualization of learning or emulating behaviorisms (Barkan, 2009). Both of these theories utilize social order and social structure to explain normative behavior and delinquent behavior within specific geographical regions. While the social learning theory focuses on the process of socialization in explicating criminality, the general strain theory embraces the strain that is received from individuals within negative social conditions (Barkan, 2009). Both theories incorporate a sociological component in the explanation of crime and both social and structural concepts are compulsory in the examination of why an individual participates in deviant behavior.

Social learning theory assesses the likelihood of deviant behavior as a result of being exposed to variables that shape and at times may even manage an individual’s behavior (Akers & Sellers, 2009). Therefore, the social learning theory assumes that learning is a progression with interactions occurring within a specific environment or social structure that ultimately directs behavior. Agnew’s general strain theory utilizes a structural strategy to investigate industrial needs and one’s adjustment to strain and stress in relation to deviancy. Another similarity between both the social learning theory and the general strain theory is that both may interchangeably function as a precursor for one another.

For example, an individual that is experiencing strain can learn from others in how to adapt and function in a society that is frustrating, applying the negative emotion to an unconventional action, or imitating what others elect to do in expressing strain. Additionally, an individual may participate in delinquent behavior because they have in some fashion conditioned themselves to behave in a particular manner, not realizing that their actions are a result of the stress and strain that is experienced (Akers & Sellers, 2009). The general strain theory combines elements of the social disorganization theory to the investigation of community disparities and the occurrence of crime (Agnew, 1999). Another parallel concept between both the social learning theory and the general strain theory is that of negativity.

The general strain theory attributes negative emotions and relationships that result in strain or stress while the social learning theory encompasses negative affiliation or unconventional conditioning to the achievement of goals. When strain is experienced, there are several characteristics that relate to conditioning individuals to participate in deviant behavior to include the utilization of conventional coping strategies (Agnew et al., 2002). In summation, in the process of adapting to the strain that is experienced in society, an individual may utilize methods that have been socially or vicariously learned in addressing the perceived constraint. Although both the social learning theory and the general strain theory are categorized as being sociological theories (Agnew, 1992), there are disparities in the application of these theories to the causation of delinquency.

Differences of Akers’s Social Learning Theory and Agnew’s General Strain Theory

One of the fundamental differences between the social learning theory and the general strain theory is that strain theories associate delinquent behavior to social class (Agnew, 1985). The social learning theory attributes acts of delinquency to be associated to either the exposure or experience of participating in deviant behavior and the reinforcement that is achieved to encourage this participation. Delinquency pertaining to one’s social class limits the range and occurrence in crime commission. Such a deliberation is expected to take place especially when delinquency is prevalent among the middle class population (Braithwaite, 1981; Elliott & Ageton, 1979; Elliott & Huizinga, 1983), making social class a concept that intermittently explains deviant behaviorisms (as cited in Agnew, 1985). Agnew’s general strain theory is categorized as a social structural theory while Akers’s social learning theory is classified as being a social disorganization theory based on social learning (Vito et al., 2007).

Social learning is comprised of elements associated to differential association, differential reinforcement, defining standards of behaving, and imitating behavior that is learned (Akers, 1999). The examination of the social structure in explaining criminal behavior based on the perceived strain or stress may be attributed to variables such as: (a) family, (b) class, (c) age, (d) sex or gender, (e) school, (f) peers, and (g) race (Akers, 1999). However, one of the differences between the examinations of the structural elements to explaining the occurrence of crime is that the social learning theory applies principles that have been learned. The general strain theory utilizes negative relationships to be the motivating factors in participating in deviant behavior, whereas the social learning theory attributes such behavior as being the product of unconventional relationships and affiliations (Agnew, 1992). However, “social structure is hypothesized to have an effect on the individual’s behavior through its effect on the social learning process” (Akers, 1999, p. 70).

Both the social learning theory and the general strain theory are classified as sociological theories of explaining criminal behavior. Agnew’s general strain theory pertains to crime from a psychosocial perspective (Broidy, 2001) while Akers’s social learning theory is best associated with crime and social processes. The strain theory purports that individuals are coerced to participate in deviant behavior due to the expression of negative emotion or strain experienced, while the social learning theory rationalizes deviancy to be acceptable based on societal forces (Agnew, 1992). An examination of the theoretical contributions that the social learning theory and the general strain theory have had on the study of criminology is explored in the next section.

Theoretical Contributions to Criminology: A Historical Perspective

Classical criminology is framed by symbolic interactionism in which theory is utilized to explore the meaning of crime (Bernard et al., 2010). In the examination of social control, social learning, and behaviorisms, symbolic interactionism is the perspective that is utilized to contemplate the opportunity for an individual to participate in deviant behavior (Vito et al., 2007). The combination of operant conditioning and features of cognitive psychology create the social learning theory in which learning results from direct and vicarious experiences (Bernard et al., 2010). Social organization is given prominence in identifying the disparities in crime in regards to one’s identity and their individual perspective of themselves in relation to society (Best & Luckenbill, 1980). The process of identifying whether or not an individual is a deviant can be attributed to patterns of socialization (Ulmer, 2000).

Johnson (1973; 1991) established a commitment typology that identifies the structure of personal relationships (as cited in Ulmer, 2000). The three different forms of commitment include: (a) the structural commitment associated to external restrain, (b) the personal commitment that is based on internal judgment and behavioral selection, and (c) the moral commitment that pertains to an individual’s level of restraint (Johnson, 1973). However, Bandura (1977) did not believe that all behavior that is observed will be emulated but rather the behavior and the reinforcements pertaining to compensation are what influences behavioral patterns (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009).

Criminology embodies a vast array of knowledge pertaining to the occurrence of crime and acts of delinquency in which this sort of behavior is considered to be a social phenomenon in and of itself (Sutherland et al., 1992). Historically, explanations pertaining to the causation of crime were based on a “welfare solution” in which concern was on reformation with little interest on “criminogenic” opportunities (as cited in Garland & Sparks, 2000, p. 9). Criminological theories address the social and legal inquiry pertaining to deviant behavior.

Two avenues that are most often investigated are the variation of crime and the propensity for certain populations to participate in criminal behavior more so than others (Akers & Sellers, 2009). Foucault (1977) in conjunction with Durkheim, Marx, Mead and Simmel, equipped criminologists with the ability to view crime from a modern perspective based on the sociological elements of criminology (as cited in Garland & Sparks, 2000).
Sociological constraint dates back to Durkheim’s (1897; 1951) examination of the features that cultivate deviance and conventionality throughout society (as cited in Ulmer, 2000). Durkheim’s principle of functional analysis implies that there are functional needs and requirements to be met within society. Behaviors are functional and dysfunctional and directly affect the arrangement of individuals; furthermore, society judges what is considered to be typical and atypical behavior (Straus, 2002).

Durkheim claimed that cultural components subsist throughout society ascribing objectives to obtaining prosperity and the motivation to act on the methods that could ultimately lead to a sense of esteem (Bernard et al., 2010). Bertalanffy (1901-1972), a biologist who offered an alternative perspective to cause and effect reasoning, introduced the social systems theory reflective of the many subsystems within society responsible for forming a whole system (as cited in Straus, 2002).

Social ecology refers to the manner in which human relationships are cultivated and influenced by their environment. Shaw and McKay (1900-1933) investigated the rate of delinquency in regards to ethnicity and geographical structure while Park and Burgess (1942) joined those to expound upon the social disorganization that was prevalent throughout communities (as cited in Barkan, 2009). Therefore, social factors appear to be the primary elements associated to deviant behavior in which social structure is disorganized. Garland and Sparks (2000) noted that:
The plain historical fact is that the social significance of crime and its control is so pervasive, so complex, and so contentious that no scientific discipline can ever dictate the ways in which these matters will be understood or addressed. (p.3)

Sutherland (1949) approached the explanation of crime to be either based on an individual’s history of criminality or their circumstances pertaining to the motive and opportunity to participate in deviant behavior (as cited in Birbeck & LaFree, 1993). However, the evolution of modern criminology introduced a social and political conception to the examination of how criminal behavior is formed in relation to controlling crime (Garland & Sparks, 2000).

Akers’s social learning theory integrated the psychological features associated to the learning process into the differential association perspective. This viewpoint attributes delinquent behavior to be the result of being exposed to role models that incorporate deviant behaviorisms into their values and the imitation of these behaviors is dependent upon the level of reinforcement received (Vito et al., 2007). The implications in addressing behavioral modification under the social learning theory is to restrict one’s ability to be exposed to others who practice deviancy and to address the modifications of one’s social attitudes to promote “prosocial” behaviorisms (Vito et al., 2007, p. 199).

Cloward and Ohlin (1960) and Elliott and Voss (1974) applied the strain theory to examine delinquency from an integrated perspective that focused on the motivation to obtain a conventional goal versus participation in delinquent behavior (as cited in Elliott et al., 1979). Although there are differences among the social learning theory and the general strain theory, these two theories are capable of being combined to form an integrative theory.

An Integrative Theoretical Perspective: Social Strain Theory

A form of “theory competition” is the integration of two or more theories (Liska, Krohn, & Messner, 1989) together to logically conceptualize and empirically examine the explanations of crime (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 295). There are several explanations to describe the causation of crime; criminologists that utilize the situational perspective of criminality contemplate the physical and sociological elements associated to acts of delinquency. Mischel (1973) stated that there are incidents in which one’s circumstances directly restrict behavioral selection.

There are situational variables that fuel the motivation to commit a crime and without these situational variables, motivation may weaken (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1984). Elliott et al., (1979) proposed an integrative theory to explain the etiology of deviant behavior, utilizing the social bonds and experiences to describe the process of socialization and participation with peers that are delinquent.

There are many theoretical perspectives that are utilized and applied to examine the occurrence of criminal behavior; however, each theory proffers a unique analysis of delinquency that can be related to other criminological theories to substantiate the evaluation of criminal behavior. It is realistic and appropriate to combine both the social learning theory and the general strain theory to develop an integrated theory entitled the social strain theory. The social strain theory would be based on the symbolic interactionism of crime, combining the work of Akers’s social learning theory and Agnew’s general strain theory to expound upon the sociological causes of criminal behavior. The variables of social learning theory incorporate (a) association, (b) corroboration, (c) justification and rationalization of behavior, and (d) conditioning and reformation of actions (Akers & Sellers, 2009).

Social learning theory is an integrated theory in and of itself, developed by Akers (1973; 1977; 1985; 1998) to incorporate differential association into the examination of behavioral principles to comprehensively investigate criminal behavior (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). Cullen and Agnew (1998) are credited for applying the control theory and differential association theory to the investigation of sociological elements to explain acts of deviancy. Agnew’s general strain theory of crime and delinquency is comprised of social psychological perspectives of responding to the pressure(s) of meeting sociological expectations (Akers & Sellers, 2009). The social strain theory would apply the differential association and reinforcement of learning principles while embracing the fundamentals associated to sociological structure and strain experienced in certain populations. The combination of both perspectives presents an exceptional approach to explaining the causes of crime based on socially constructed elements of behavior that aid in the adaptation of the strain experienced.

Lemert (1951) claimed that criminals do not often perceive themselves as perpetrators or partakers in crime commission (as cited in Bernard et al., 2010). At times, criminals experience a level of neutrality associated to the rationalization of crime commission; however, once labeled a criminal, there is often a conceptualization of legitimizing delinquent behavior while fueling socialization with others that are similarly labeled (Garfinkel, 1965; Becker, 1963). The social strain theory would investigate the process of socially constructed behavior that is unconventional and yet justified or rationalized upon. This integrative approach would examine both an individualized role and group role within society to explicate social structure, competition, adaptation, and the emotional aspect of criminality.

If the majority of deviant behavior is learned, it is possible to implement proactive strategies in addressing the learning process to prevent future participation in perpetration. The social strain theory is a social theory and not a conflict theory, not concentrating on the humanistic competition associated to the political agenda of power and control. The many different criminological theories that explain the causation, control, and prevention of criminal behavior represent an instrument to comprehensively understanding the complexity of crime. Hirschi (1979) established several different strategies for integrating theories to investigative crime (as cited in Liska & Messner, 1999). The social strain theory encompasses both the social learning theory and the general strain theory based on a conceptual integration. In other words, the two theories can be conceptually integrated due to parallel tenets of social learning.

Conclusion

When examining the causes of criminal behavior, a plethora of factors must be considered to appropriately attempt to comprehend the dynamics of deviant behavior. In the examination of the micro and macro aspects of crime, Akers (1968; 1985) applied theory to conceptualize the relationship between social structure and the plausibility of participating in deviant behavior (as cited in Akers & Sellers, 2009). The application of criminological theory involves the construction and implementation of criminal law to the investigation of those who refuse to abide by it. Theories are utilized to describe the behavior of individuals employed within the justice system who are responsible for the development and execution of laws, and also applied to examine the functionality of the justice system.

The transformation of traditional criminology to a modern perspective incorporated a democratization of social and cultural elements in the examination of social ecology and class disparity (Garland & Sparks, 2000). The epistemological assumptions of criminology contemplate how viewing the world is theorized in relation to the occurrence of crime and the problematic notion of controlling crime.

References

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-87.

Agnew, R. (1999). A general strain theory of community differences in crime rates. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(2), 123-155. Doi: 10.1177/0022427899036002001.

Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F.T. (2002). Strain, personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain theory. Criminology, 40(1), 43-72.

Akers, R.L. (1999). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation. (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Roxbury Publishing Company. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=TgX4eo04GVgC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Akers, R.L., & Sellers, C.S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Barkan, S. E. (2009). Criminology: A sociological understanding. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Becker, H.S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.

Bernard, T.J., Snipes, J.B., & Gerould, A.L. (2010). Vold’s theoretical criminology. (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Birbeck, C., & LaFree, G. (1993). The situational analysis of crime and deviance. Annual Rev. of Sociology, 19, 113-137.

Brantingham, P.J., & Brantingham, P.L. (1984). Patterns in crime. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Broidy, L.M. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39(1), 9-36.

Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3). 275-306. Doi: 10.1177/0022427897034003001

Cullen, F., & Agnew, R. (1998). Criminological theory: Past to present. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Einstadter, W.J., & Henry, S. (2006). Criminological theory: An analysis of its underlying assumptions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from, http://books.google.com/books?id=r3IMdD2xZ8MC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_s&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Elliott, D.S., Ageton, S.S., & Canter, R.J. (1979). An integrated theoretical perspective on delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16(3), 3-27. Doi: 10.1177/002242787901600102.

Garfinkel, H. (1965). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61(5), 420-424.

Garland, D., & Sparks, R. (2000). Criminology and social theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kitsuse, J.I. (1962). Societal reaction to deviant behavior: Problems of theory and method. Social Problems, 9(3), 247-256. Doi: 10.1525/sp.1962.9.3.03a00060.

Liska, A. E., & Messner, S. F. (1999). Perspectives on crime and deviance. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Meier, R.F. (1977). The new criminology: Continuity in criminological theory. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 67(4). Retrieved from, http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jclc67&div=47&id=&page=.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychology Rev., 80, 252-283.

Schneider, J.W. (1985). Social problems theory: The constructionist view. Ann Rev Sociology, 11, 209-229. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.11.080185.001233.

Straus, R.A. (2002). Using sociology: An introduction from the applied and clinical perspectives. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sutherland, E.H., Cressey, D.R., & Luckenbill, D.F. (1992). Principles of criminology. (11th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Ulmer, J.T. (2000). Commitment, deviance, and social control. The Sociological Quarterly, 41(3), 315-336.

Vito, G.F., & Maahs, J.A., & Holmes, R.M. (2007). Criminology: Theory, research, and policy. (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

During a recent lecture, I showed an excerpt from the Michael Crowe Interrogation to my psychology class. The goal was to illustrate the psychological fragmentation associated to a child that confesses to a murder that he did not commit. Students from the course astoundingly questioned the features associated to false confessions among this population and I am providing a discussion below that expounds upon the problematic concerns pertaining to juvenile confessions and why such incidents occur.

The most important question to a homicide is who is the perpetrator? The next most important would probably be why was this crime committed? Lastly, it is important how the crime was committed to be sure the evidence, methodology, motivation, victim selection, and other aspects corroborate with the suspect to make a case. The answer that law enforcement personnel are not typically seeking is that of a false confession or admission to perpetration, but such a happening does take place for several reasons, especially among children and juveniles.

The three predominant psychological categories that accompany false confessions (Gudjonsson & MacKeith, 1990; Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985; Kassin, 1997) include: (a) voluntary false confessions, (b) coerced compliant false confessions, and (c) coerced internalized false confessions. The voluntary false confession does not pertain to external pressures in admitting culpability for a crime; however, the coerced compliant false confession is due to the coerciveness that occurs during the interrogation process. The coerced internalized false confession is when the individual is made to believe that they committed the offense, with no memory of it because they are actually innocent (as cited in Ruiz, 2001).

There are approximately eight predominantly false confession typologies that are applicable to the children and adolescent interrogation process. The first typology is identified as Altruistic. In the altruistic confession, the individual does not believe that they committed the offense but they are possibly motivated to protect someone else through their erroneous admission.

The second typology is identified as Opportunistic. This is when the individual once again does not believe that they committed the offense but they seem to take the opportunity to admit to the offense as a means of desperation in protecting themselves from further harm that may accompany the prosecutorial process (Ruiz, 2001).

The third typology in false confessions is that of Notoriety Seeking in which the child or adolescent does not believe that they committed the offense but are susceptible to false admission due to the attention received from doing so. Such individuals usually have self-esteem issues and display anti-social behaviorisms.

The fourth typology is that of Sadistic, prevalent more so in adults versus children and adolescents, in which once again the individual does not believe they are culpable but they desire to inflict a form of psychological distress among the interrogator. This individual is cognizant of their innocence but falsely admits to crime commission based on the psychological need for attention, neurotically manipulating the entire investigation and representing control (Ruiz, 2001).

The fifth typology in false confessions is that Capitulation in which the individual being interviewed does not believe that they committed the offense but the interrogation process becomes psychologically overbearing and even forceful. Through a desperate act to protect themselves, they will admit crime commission just as a means to alleviate the pressures associated to the interrogation process. These individuals are rather interesting because the individual does not believe that they are guilty and they do not voluntarily confess but rather end up confessing because there is some type of reward or compensation that has been perceived to exist in exchange for a false admission. Such rewards could include a lesser sentence, ceasing the interrogation, sleep, food, and even going home. This form of confession is found to be prominent among children and adolescents (Ruiz, 2001).

The sixth typology in false confessions is that of Internal Guilt. This is when an individual believes that they are guilty of committing the offense and choose to falsely confess to the crime because they have an overwhelming sense of guilt and psychologically have the need to overcompensate for their wrongful disposition and should be punished for the crime as well. This may be referred to as pathological guilt.

The seventh typology in false confessions is that of Delusional. According to Gudjonsson (1992), this typology pertains to individuals that have a difficult time distinguishing between reality and fantasy. The individuals in this category suffer from some form of psychopathology in which they are constantly harassed by delusional thoughts of paranoia and end up confessing to a crime that they did not actually commit (as cited in Ruiz, 2001).

The eighth and final typology in false confessions is that of Convinced. This is when an individual believes that they are guilty of committing the offense because they believe during the interrogation process that they are the perpetrator. The interesting aspect here is that they admit to having no prior memory of committing the crime. Such an altercation is referred to as the memory distrust syndrome (Gudjonsson, 1992) and the individual is bewildered as the technique of source misattribution (Ceci & Bruck, 1993) is utilized to by the individual because they are unable to appropriately recall the events that took place (as cited in Ruiz, 2001).

There are several risk factors associated to false confessions to include: (a) age and overall developmental maturity, (b) heightened level of suggestibility, (c) poor recall in memory and lower intelligence, (d) poor assertiveness, (e) heightened anxiety levels, (f) lack of coping strategies or mechanisms, (g) knowing that negative feedback was given during the interrogation process, (h) having a history of high compliance with authority figures, (i) acute withdrawal from substances, (j) the absence of an attorney or adult present and no prior involvement within the justice system, and (k) the utilization of intimidation, manipulation, challenge, and leading questions utilized by the interrogator (Ruiz, 2001).

In closing, it should be noted that juveniles are more susceptible to providing false confessions to crimes due to their submissive social role to be subordinate to adult authority figures. Such a perception is both sociologically and psychologically constructed and when the authority figure proffers to behave in an authoritarian manner (Kaban & Tobey, 1999; Reed, 1996) juveniles find it arduous to deviate from the preconceived facts that interrogators at times suggest or fabricate to obtain the all important confession of a crime.

Reference

Ruiz, A. (2201). Problematic confessions in children and adolescents. In N.G. Ribner, The handbook of juvenile forensic psychology (pp. 58-76). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.