Why do people commit deviant acts? Deviance Why do people commit deviant acts?

Three Competing Explanations 1. Sociobiology 2. Psychology 3. Sociology

1. Sociobiology Having a genetic predisposition to commit deviance (internal) Intelligence – lower intelligence leads to crime The “XYY” Theory – an extra Y chromosome in males leads to crime Body type – people with “squarish, muscular” bodies are more likely to commit crime

Challenges to Sociobiology Intelligence: The IQ test measures middle-class knowledge and values (minority groups and the poor score lower on the test) These same groups also commit proportionately more crime because they suffer structural disadvantages such as poverty and discrimination.

Challenges to Sociobiology “XYY” Theory: Most men who commit crimes have the normal XY chromosomes No women have this combination genes, therefore this theory cannot apply to females who commit crime Based on the study of inmates – “Super-male” There were more inmates who had the XYY than those that did not – Most likely reason is upbringing and not extra chromosome

Challenges to Sociobiology Body Type: Early studies were racially motivated Criminals exhibit a full range of body types

2. Psychology Focus on abnormalities within Personality disorders Deviating individuals have deviating personalities Subconscious motives drive people to commit deviant acts

Insanity Plea The M'Naghten Rule (1843) states a person was not legally insane unless he is "incapable of appreciating his surroundings" because of a powerful mental delusion. A person who is insane is not capable of forming willful intent. The defense must prove that there is a sever mental disease or defect.

3. Sociology Search for factors outside the individual Such as Socialization Subculture membership Social class

Socialization Farrington and West traced the development of 411 working-class London boys Their teachers identified some as particularly difficult and aggressive. Social workers visited the homes of the boys in 1961 1974 boys were labeled as criminal or noncriminal Families were quarrelsome, provided little supervision, and/or included a parent with a criminal record. Parental cruelty In studying the impact of family on delinquency, long-term studies are particularly helpful, providing information for judging whether parental rejection and unfair discipline precede or follow antisocial behavior. For two decades, David Farrington and Donald West traced the development of 411 working-class London boys born between 1951 and 1953. When the boys were between eight and ten years old, their teachers identified some as particularly difficult and aggressive. Social workers visited the homes of the boys in 1961 and gathered information on the parents' attitudes toward their sons, disciplinary techniques used, and compatibility between the parents. In 1974, as the boys reached maturity, each was classified as noncriminal (if there were no convictions) or, according to his criminal record, as a violent or a nonviolent criminal. Farrington and West found that the families most likely to produce criminals had been quarrelsome, provided little supervision, and included a parent with a criminal record. Furthermore, boys whose parents had been harsh or cruel in 1961 were more likely than their classmates to acquire records for violent crimes. Parental cruelty was actually a more accurate selector of boys who would become violent criminals than was the child's early aggressiveness.

Subculture Membership Gangs Drug users Requiem for a Dream Other Deviant groups

Social Class Cycle of Poverty Street crimes