Criminal Perspectives Social Trait Classical

Criminological Perspectives
Criminological perspectives explain why people commit crime and why some people are more predisposed to engage in criminal activity than others. The trait, social, and classical/choice perspectives are among the most common criminological perspectives. This text describes the core arguments of these three perspectives and how they dictate the sentencing model used at trial.
The Trait Perspective
The trait perspective argues that an individual’s predisposition to commit crime is influenced by their biological or genetic makeup (Siegel, 2015). According to the trait perspective, humans are born-criminals. However, individuals have certain traits such as blood chemistry disorders, neurological problems, defective intelligence or psychological disorders that determine whether or not they engage in crime when under duress or pushed in a certain direction. Traditional trait theorists believe that these biological and psychological attributes explain all criminality (Siegel, 2015). Contemporary theorists, however, believe that environmental factors such as disorganized neighborhoods, socioeconomic status, and family life trigger these traits (Siegel, 2015). In this regard, people with traits related to criminality are more likely to commit crime, but the risk is higher if they live in disorganized neighborhoods or have a close relative with criminal tendencies.
The Social Perspective
The social perspective argues that the predisposition to commit crime is influenced by group characteristics, as well as the social and physical environment (Hagan, 2010). It comprises of social structural theories and social process theories (Hagan, 2010). Social structural theories emphasize the effect of neighborhood characteristics such as school drop-out rates, gang activity, unemployment, deteriorating infrastructures, and single-parent homes, which increase the risk of engaging in crime (Hagan, 2010). According to the social disorganization theory, conventional institutions of social control including community organizations, churches, schools, and family units are weak and unable to regulate criminal behavior in such neighborhoods, increasing the risk of criminality (Hagan, 2010). Social process theories, on the other hand, argue that criminal tendencies are learned from interacting with or observing those in one’s social circle (Hagan, 2010). Based on the social perspective, therefore, individuals are more likely to engage in crime if they live in disorganized neighborhoods, lack access to social control institutions, and interact with people who either engage in or approve of criminality.
Classical/Choice (Deterrence) Perspective
The classical or choice perspective argues that humans are rational agents and will compare the benefits and costs of an action before deciding whether or not to act (Hagan, 2010). The deterrence perspective is one of the elements of the classical perspective. It postulates that individuals are likely to be deterred from criminality if they perceive the associated punishment to be severe enough (Hagan, 2010). The deterrence perspective identifies punishment as the best way to deter individuals from reoffending or causing further harm to others (Hagan, 2010). Punishment can be focused on either specific or general deterrence (Hagan, 2010). Punishment focused on the individual in the present case is referred to as specific deterrence, while that focused on all potential criminals engaging in a certain crime is referred to as general deterrence (Hagan, 2010). Based on the deterrence model, an individual is less likely to engage in crime if the perceived pain from the expected punishment outweighs the pleasure of engaging in crime (Hagan, 2010).
Sentencing Models and the Three Perspectives
The three basic sentencing structures are: determinate sentences, indeterminate sentences, and mandatory sentences (Cole & Smith, 2007). In an indeterminate sentence, the offender’s release date cannot be accurately predicted from the court’s sentence as the judge only gives the explicit lower and upper limits on the amount of time that they are to serve (Cole & Smith, 2007). For instance, the judge may issue a sentence of between five and ten years, giving the parole board the discretion to choose when to release the offender after serving a minimum of five years (Cole & Smith, 20070. The parole board’s decision for early release is based on multiple factors including good behavior and participation in vocational rehabilitation programs (Cole & Smith, 2007). Determinate sentences are characterized by a predictable release date as the judge gives a fixed term of incarceration that the offender must serve in full, independent of good time served in prison (Cole & Smith, 2007). If an offender behaves well during incarceration, they accumulate good-time credits that may or may not accelerate their release (Cole & Smith, 2007).
The choice of sentencing model often depends on the individual facts of the case. However, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) suggests that two factors underlie the use of indeterminate sentencing – environmental factors and psychological factors (Mackenzie, 2001). The environmental perspective argues that it may not be fair to hold individuals who grow up in the wretchedness of inner-city slum environments responsible for criminality in their later years of life (Mackenzie, 2001). Under the environmental perspective, an offender is to be treated as an individual; any other form of treatment is vengeful (Mackenzie, 2001). The psychological perspective, on its part, argues that offenders are ill and need treatment rather than punishment (Mackenzie, 2001).
The social perspective of criminology satisfies the environmental perspective above as the individual does not engage in criminality by their individual volition, but is pushed to do so by disorganized structures in their environment. Further the trait perspective satisfies the psychological perspective as the individual’s engagement in crime is driven by biological and genetic predispositions over which they have little or no control. In both the social and trait perspectives, the individual’s action is driven by external forces that they may not be in a position to control. As the driving force is external to the individual, the indeterminate model would be appropriate in both perspectives to allow individuals an opportunity for rehabilitation and treatment upon completion of the minimum sentence.
On the other hand, the classical/choice (deterrence) perspective would best be served by the determinate approach to sentencing for two reasons. First, criminality emerges from the individual’s own assessment of costs and benefits of engaging in crime, and not external elements. The aim of sentencing, therefore, is retribution as opposed to rehabilitation. Further, deterrence is associated with the severity of punishment – severe punishment has a higher deterrence effect as it increases the cost of criminality over the perceived benefits. Determinate sentencing represents higher levels of severity than indeterminate sentencing, making it more appropriate for use with the classical/choice (deterrence) perspective.
Indeterminate Sentencing vs. Determinate Sentencing
Each of the two models has its share of advantages. The primary advantage of determinate sentencing is that it takes off power from parole boards, minimizing the risk of bias and subjective evaluations in release decisions (Cole & Smith, 2007). The main disadvantage, however, is that it could reduce the inclination to change behavior since an offender is required to complete their sentence regardless of their good behavior (Cole & Smith, 2007). Generally, the indeterminate model has greater potential for reducing crime as the likelihood of early release serves as an incentive for offender rehabilitation and behavioral change. The inclination to change behavior is likely to be lower if the individual does not believe that such change will be rewarded through early release.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the indeterminate approach would be more appropriate for use with the social and trait criminological perspectives, while the determinate theory would be more appropriate for the classical/choice perspective. This text concludes that although both models have their fair share of advantages, the indeterminate model offers better prospects for crime prevention.
References
Cole, G., & Smith, C. (2007). Criminal Justice in America (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Hagan, F. E. (2010). Introduction to Criminology: Theory, Methods and Criminal Behavior (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mackenzie, D. L. (2001). Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st century: Setting the Stage for the Future. National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/189106-2.pdf
Siegel, L. J. (2015). Criminology: Theories, Patterns and Typologies (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.