Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Thornberry’s theory is that of reciprocity. According to Thornberry, association with delinquent peers increases the chances for individual delinquency, but individual delinquency also increases the chances for association with delinquent peers. In a sort of feedback loop, the group and individual aspects of delinquency feed one another until the youth is fully involved in delinquency, usually with a set of delinquent friends. Thornberry’s theory has much in common with the integrated theory of delinquent behavior in that it relies on the effect of delinquent peers for part of its explanation of delinquency. Thornberry’s theory, however, does not include strain as a factor in delinquency, instead relying mostly on low social control for its explanations.
Control Balance Theory
Charles Tittle has proposed a theory that is extremely involved and complicated but has great appeal to a number of criminologists who find value in integrated theories. According to Tittle, all relationships exhibit a power differential. Whether it is between parent and child, parole officer and parolee, or professor and student, this difference in power is an interesting and understudied variable, and manifests itself in any type of relationship involving any number of people. Tittle states that “the amount of control to which people are subject relative to the amount of control they can exercise affects their general probability of committing some deviant acts as well as the probability that they will commit specific types of deviance.” In other words, it is a balance between the amount of control one has and the amount that one is controlled that determines who or whether s/he will break the law. A person with too little social control or a powerful person who has too much are each at risk for breaking the law, in the first case to reduce the lack of control or in the second to even further extend control (Fuller, 2010, pg. 107).
I believe these theories help clarify our explanations of crime because they provide a different view outside the “cookie cutter” theories. I believe there is no one theory (by itself) that explains why people break the law. The integrated theories provide other explanations which combine several theories to help explain why someone is predisposed or prone to break the law. The integrated theories represent efforts to extend the range and explanatory power of criminological theories.
Question #2: Provide an argument for the death penalty using rational choice/deterrence theory.
Ever since the beginning of time, man has committed crimes. Crimes were described as acts which go against the social and moral norms of society and people. People have learned to deal with these crimes in many different ways. One of the most used forms of dealing with crime is punishing those who commit crimes. There are numerous ways in which people have punished those who commit crimes throughout history from making the criminal pay fines to banishing them from the community. However, in modern times, there are fewer acceptable forms of punishment that are used. For very unserious crimes, governments may simply make a criminal pay a small fine or do service the community in some way. Offenders who commit more serious crimes may be forced to spend months or years in jail or prison. However, for the most serious crime of premeditated murder there is an even greater punishment; the punishment of death.
Capital punishment is one of the most hotly debated issues in politics and criminal justice today. The ability of the government and the judicial system to punish a criminal in the most severe way, the taking of their ability to live, is an issue that is discussed and evaluated nearly every day. Capital punishment has its roots in history though. Ever since man has formed societies he has used capital punishment as a form of punishment for criminals. The United States has also been using capital punishment for a long time. Many people believe capital punishment is a very barbaric form of punishment that should be gotten rid of. They believe no civilized nation should allow such sanctioned brutality. According to Ron Fridell, "capital punishment has been abolished in all of Europe and most of Latin America, as well as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The United States remains the only Western nation in which capital punishment is still practiced” (Fridell, 2004). Other people believe the death penalty is an effective and just way of punishing offenders for the most heinous of crimes.
The purpose of capital punishment is also a debated issue in the subject. Most people believe capital punishment is a good form of criminal punishment because it entices others to not commit crime because they will receive the same punishment. This is known as the deterrence theory. The theory of normative expressionism, however, suggests that capital punishment is simply a form of communication that serves to express a moral lesson to the criminal and others.
Another issue related to the subject involves whether or not capital punishment actually deters criminals from committing crimes. Most people believe the death penalty’s primary function is to deter others in the future from committing similar crimes. There is evidence that at times capital punishment does deter. However, there are those or cite evidence or opinion that the capital punishment does not achieve its desired effect.
The most influential text and source of many of the moral ideas of the world come from the Bible. The Bible outlines many of the crimes that are thought to be fundamentally wrong today. Also, the Bible provided ideologies and guidelines for the punishment of those who committed crimes, especially murder. The history of capital punishment can also be traced to this ancient text. The Bible says "Man was made like God, so whoever murders a man will himself be killed by his fellow man." This explains a lot of the history of the death penalty. In fact, James Megivern states that "The single most influential factor accounting for the early and widespread Christian acceptance of the death penalty was undoubtedly the Bible" (Megivern, 1997). Since the Bible is arguably the most influential text ever created, it is no surprise that a practice which was advocated and even encouraged as a form of punishment for criminals was accepted by a large number of people. The purpose of the death penalty to these early Christians was similar to the expected purposes of the death penalty today. Megivern writes "One function of the juridical death threat was to get people's attention, to lay down a solemn warning, to alert all to the extreme seriousness of certain misdeeds" (Megivern, 1997). This shows that as people have evolved and changed their ideas of capital punishment and their reasons for using capital punishment have tended to stay the same. However, it should also be noted that the texts were not to be taken completely literally. While serious crimes were should be punished with death, discretion should be used as to which cases deemed the ultimate punishment a necessity. Megivern again writes that the texts "articulate what the society's top values are and what is beyond the range of acceptable behavior in the ideal order” (Megivern, 1997).
Since the English began colonizing North America, the death penalty has been present. Megivern even points out that "By the time of the American Revolution, all of the colonies severe criminal codes. All except Rhode Island threatened capital punishment for ten or more crimes." It should also be pointed out that even Pennsylvania, which was founded by Quakers and had much more lenient and compassionate laws, had no objection in to the principle of the death penalty. It is therefore, no surprise that the issue of capital punishment has lingered in American debate. The death penalty has been practiced and performed as an acceptable form of punishment for over 200 years.
The death penalty has a history in the ideologies of human beings from the near beginning of their existence. However, the theories behind the death penalty should be described. The major theory and purpose behind the use of capital punishment is that of deterrence. Deterrence is a theory is based on the idea that the threat of punishment must be severe enough to counter the benefits or pleasures that the criminal would receive from the crime. In addition, the punishment must be administered swiftly so that potential criminals will see a clear cause-and-effect relationship between crime and punishment. It must also be recognized that there are two types of deterrence that keeps people from committing crimes. General deterrence is when a punishment commits other potential criminals from committing crimes. Specific deterrence on the other hand, deters someone who has already committed a crime from doing it again.
The theory of deterrence also that says that punishment should be quick and severe to entice others not to commit crimes. Fridell states that "The basic principles of deterrence are that punishments are necessary to deter crime and to encourage law abiding behavior. Those punishments must also be administered the state through due process of law rather than by individuals through vigilante action. Punishment must also fit the crime, with more serious crimes requiring more serious punishments" (Fridell, 2004).
From these statements many things can be inferred. First, capital punishment serves as a device to discourage certain forms of behavior by making the consequences of such actions unpleasant. Also, the fact that a government must be able to by law extend that punishment to criminals is a major factor. With the government’s ability to invoke this punishment comes a certain amount of legality and legitimacy. It ensures that the government recognizes that punishment as acceptable and also necessary to the betterment of the society. Lastly, it must be assumed that capital punishment as the most serious form of punishment also be extended to those who commit only the most serious crimes, that being murder. In this way the government recognizes that the sanctity of life is at an utmost importance and that the taking of this life is the most serious offense a person can commit.
The way in which capital punishment deters criminals is also very important. In 1790, minister James Dana told his New Haven, Connecticut, congregation that the purpose of capital punishment was ‘to strike terror into the minds of undetected criminals, youth and all persons watching.'" "Another man, John Whitley, was quoted as saying, ‘It's [capital punishment] a good, quick, violent death, and if you do it as soon as possible after the capital crime the message is clear: If you do that, you'll get this.'" Both of these things refer to the same basic idea. The application of capital punishment is supposed to strike fear and doubt into the minds of potential criminals. By realized the possible consequences of their actions, they are expected to be much less willing to commit such a crime.
The issue of deterrence may never be solved. There is factual evidence that seems to support either side of the argument. However, it is helpful to point out the other factors that seem to increase and decrease murder rates. Costanzo says that "other factors that influence murder rates are unemployment, probability of arrest and conviction, percent of the population between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four, per capita financial expenditures on the police force, and other factors” (Costanzo, 1997). He also states that none of these factors seem to affect the crime rate though none is major enough to completely cause major changes.
Question #3: Explain the implications that feminist criminology holds for our legal system.
Feminism has a history of resisting the patriarchy in which societal rights and responsibilities are allocated according to gender roles. Feminism advocates a criminal justice system that is blind toward sex and in which women and men are treated with respect, equal opportunities and consequences, and fairness. The war metaphor, which relies on domination and power, is antithetical to the feminist perspective. The feminist model suggests that the criminal justice system’s laws, biases, and personnel have been historically supportive of an unjust attitude that supports a privileged position in society for men. Feminists argue that the criminal justice system must be examined for sexist practices and chauvinistic attitudes in law enforcement, the courts, and correctional institutions. Most important, feminists want their share of the power, but contend that they would exercise it differently, repudiating the culture of domination that they believe is a large part of the masculine world (Fuller, 2010, pg. 550).
REFERENCES
Costanzo, Mark. Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997.
Fridell, Ron. Capital Punishment. New York: Benchmark Books, 2004.
Fuller, John R. (2010). Criminal Justice: Mainstream and Crosscurrents (2nd Ed.). Pearson Education Inc.
Lilly, J.R., Cullen, F.T., and Ball, R.A. (2007). Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences, 4th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Megivern, James J. The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey. New York: Paulist Press, 1997.