Taken alone a detective could consider all criminals must be teenagers and those associated with violence may be alcohol or drug abusers. Clearly we need to look further.
Genetic Theory.
Plomin (1990 cited in Hollin, 1992) provides a summary of our understanding of genes and behaviour:
‘Genes are chemical structures that can only code for amino acid sequences. The amino acid sequences interact with all of what we are and can thus indirectly affect endpoints as complex behaviour, but there is no gene for a particular behaviour’
If one goes a long with Plomin’s theory there is no point in looking for the ‘criminal gene’ as there is more to criminality than being purely hereditary this is supported by Blackburn (1993).
Blackburn (1993) studied genetic influences on criminality. He included a study of families, twins and adopted children.
This table reproduced from Hollin (1992) shows the effect of children from criminal and non criminal backgrounds being adopted by criminal and non criminal parents.
Adoptive parents study
Adoptive Parents
Biological Parents
Criminal
Non-Criminal
Criminal
24.5%
(n=143)
14.7%
(n=204)
Non-Criminal
20.0%
(n=1,226)
13.5%
(n=2,492)
The table indicates that when both adoptive and biological parents were criminal 25.4% of sons became criminal compared to only 14.7 % where only the adoptive parent was criminal, 20% when a biological parent only was criminal and 13.5 % when no parent was criminal.
It seems from this study to indicate and increased chance of following a criminal lifestyle if that is a parental trait however it is no means certain with less than 25% of children coming from a criminal background and into a criminal adoptive background going on to become criminals.
Hollin (1992) concludes ‘.. heritable factors appear to increase the likelihood of criminal behaviour’’ but adds
‘That is not to say that a heredity predetermines a life of crime; nor that the criminal will not be apparent in the absence of any heritable influence. The point is made, however, that with the ‘right’ genetic and environmental antecedents, there is a heightened risk of criminal behaviour’
Considering this theory alone it follows that almost 25% of criminals come from a criminal background. Which obviously indicates 75% of children from criminal backgrounds do not become criminal. It is dangerous therefore to target children of criminals as suspects for crimes purely on the basis of this theory.
Considering Genetic and Biological theory together may give a closer focus on who the criminal may be. There is still however a need to look further.
Personality theory
The theory of the development of criminal behaviour related to the psychological notion of personality was first proposed by Eysenck.
Eysenck believes that the personality of all humans can be described using three independent dimensions
Neuroticism, Psychoticism, and Extroversion
Neuroticism, On this scale neurotics are characterised by high levels of tension and anxiety, which is largely absent in a stable personality.
Psychoticism, Individuals who tend towards Psychoticism are aggressive , cold and impersonal.
Extroversion, Extroverts are lively and outgoing in their personality, seeking out ‘stimulation; introverts are withdrawn and private.
Eysenck 1977.(Criminological Perspectives)
It would appear using Eysenck’s theory that a neurotic, psychotic, extrovert is not a man to meet in the street. The usefulness of this theory to a detective in many cases is likely to be limited. It is likely to be difficult to identify an individual without detailed psychological examination.
Social Learning Theory Many biological, genetic and personality theories for criminal behaviour view humans as being subject to various forces. High levels of serotonin can be ascribed to biological or genetic factors. Certainly not a factor of deliberate choice by the individual concerned or one which he or she has control over.
Put simply Social Learning Theories view criminal behaviour as learned behaviour not the result of uncontrollable biological or genetic forces. Sutherland (1939) was an early supporter of this approach with his differential association theory. Sutherland took the view that crime is defined in the first instance by those with the power to do so . Once the definition of crime has been established there are those in society who break the rules and those who abide by them. Sutherland argues the explanation for this can be found in the notion of learning.
Hollin (1992) produced a 6 stage process of Sutherland’s approach;
1. Criminal behaviour is learned
2. The learning is through association with other people
3. The main part of learning takes place in close personal groups
4. The learning includes techniques to carry out certain crime and also specific attitudes and motives conducive towards committing crime.
5. The learning experiences will vary in frequency and importance for each individual
6. The process of learning criminal behaviour is no different from learning any other behaviour
Backburn (1993) describes this as ‘perhaps the most psychologically complete mainstream theory in criminology’
The Social Leaning Theory appears to support the argument of prisons being a learning ground for criminals. Each of the points 1-4 above are likely to be available daily to an offender incarcerated within a secure environment. The acceptance of this theory for use in crime reduction initiatives is likely to be more valuable than an investigation involved in detecting crime.
Strain Theory
The strain theory argues that crime is a social phenomenon. (White and Haines 2000).
Rather than looking at aspects of personal psychology or individual biological traits Strain Theory argues that crime is socially induced.
‘People are more likely to engage in crime when they cannot get what they want through legitimate channels’ Agnew.R, Found in Sage p.293
the Strain Theory appears to support the power of peer pressure.
Robert Merton (1938) developed the first major Strain Theory of crime. He argued (Sage p.293) that people in the USA were encouraged to pursue monetary success. He believed ‘lower class’ individuals were often unable to achieve this through lawful means. The ‘Strain’ came from the frustration and potential to reach their goal through illegitimate channels. Merton specified the likely outlet for this frustration being theft, prostitution and drugs (dealing or taking). This theory may help to identify why a person has committed a crime. It is of limited use alone to identify who has committed
a crime.
Cognitive interview
A study in Britain by George in 1991 (Found in Ainsworth 1995) claimed that detectives in Britain elicited 55% more information from witnesses than before they had training in cognitive interview techniques.
The Cognitive Interview technique was primarily developed by two American psychologists Ronald P. Fisher and R. Edward Geiselman.
The cognitive interview technique promoted strongly in the UK by Dr Eric Shepherd is a technique which has been developed to assist witnesses to recall as much information as possible from their memory.
According to Ainsworth, the cognitive interview focuses on two major components; Memory and communication. The eyewitness must firstly retrieve from their memory all the details of the event, secondly translate the memory into a form of words to be communicated to the interviewer. The central component and crucial to the whole technique is guided retrieval. To try and gain the information in a structured and orderly way.
Anxiety and stress can interfere with accurate recall (Ainsworth 1995) thus one of the primary objectives for the successful interviewer is to be able to reduce or overcome the anxiety a victim or witness is feeling.
Caution needs to be used when utilising this technique with victims of traumatic crimes says Ainsworth as often recalling the details of the crime can also be a traumatic event.
The value of this technique is obvious where witness evidence is an important part of a case. The value of that evidence in the increase of detection of crime is a logical result.
Conclusion
The identification of an offender for any particular crime is in the absence of an immediate confession often a complex task. To understand why offences are committed and by who they are ,in general terms committed is likely to be a significant help.
The biological theory gives us potential links between age profiles, lifestyles and criminals. Alone it is of little use in detecting singular or series of crimes. Similarly the Genetic theory gives an indication of the propensity of a person to commit a crime. It gives no indication of the type of crime and therefore in isolation is of limited use.
The Personality theory gives an indication of the complex nature of personalities of individuals. It may give an indication of the type of crime likely to be committed but only after detailed psychological examination. Not something which is readily available to the detective.
The Social Learning theory is to the layman eminently understandable. We learn to count and spell at school, we learn trades at work or college. Criminal behaviour surely is another skill to be learnt? The understanding of this theory is an assistance to an investigator and ultimately likely to be more use in the reduction of rather than detection of crime.
The Strain Theory argues why people commit crime but does not directly assist the identification of an offender.
Cognitive Interview Techniques are a useful method of eliciting information from witnesses which may otherwise be missed. It is of extreme importance in detecting crimes particularly where the evidence is witness focused.
Taken together the psychological theories of crime have value in identifying why a crime has been committed. To that extent they are useful in reducing crime and identifying crime reduction and social improvement opportunities. Their uses to identify an offender for a particular crime or crimes are limited other than the use of cognitive interview techniques as discussed.
David Withers
