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 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...…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.…