Choose A Theory Of Causation: Do You Agree Or Disagree?
Choose A Theory Of Causation Do You Agree Or Disagree With the Theory
Choose a theory of causation. Do you agree or disagree with the theory? Why or why not? Why do people commit crimes and behave the way they do based on your theory? What is being done to prevent criminal behavior?
What social programs/individualized treatments does your theory promote to reduce crime? If there are no programs/social programs/individualized treatments which would you implement? Any relevant current issues that fit your chosen theory? The objective in writing your Research paper is to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the Crime and Delinquency discipline, concepts, trends, theories and developments discussed in this course. The final paper should be submitted in APA format, double-spaced, 12-font, and will be 6 PAGES in length, not including the title page, and reference page.
Students need to at least cite 5 scholarly/reliable references to support your paper. Must be submitted as an MS-Word document ending either in .doc or .docx.
Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
The question of causation in criminal behavior is central to understanding why individuals commit crimes and how society can effectively prevent such conduct. Among various theories, the Deterministic Theory of Causation, specifically the Biological Positivist Theory, offers significant insights. This paper will analyze whether I agree or disagree with this theory, explore its implications for criminal behavior, and examine current interventions aligned with its principles.
Overview of the Biological Positivist Theory
The Biological Positivist Theory posits that criminal behavior is rooted in biological or genetic factors beyond an individual's control. Originating in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with scholars like Cesare Lombroso, the theory suggests that certain physical or genetic traits predispose individuals to criminality (Lombroso, 1876). Modern research extends this argument, indicating that genetic mutations, neurochemical imbalances, or brain abnormalities may influence propensity toward criminal acts (Raine, 2013). Advocates assert that understanding biological underpinnings can lead to more effective interventions that address these innate factors.
Agreement or Disagreement with the Theory
I partly agree with the Biological Positivist Theory, recognizing both its merits and limitations. Biological factors certainly contribute to behavior, but they do not wholly determine criminality. For example, studies have identified correlations between neurochemical imbalances and impulsivity, which can lead to criminal acts (Swanson et al., 2019). However, environmental factors such as upbringing, socioeconomic status, and peer influences also play crucial roles. Overemphasizing biology risks ignoring personal agency and social context, potentially leading to deterministic views that diminish responsibility.
Why People Commit Crimes Based on This Theory
According to this theory, individuals are predisposed to criminal behavior due to biological factors. Those with genetic mutations or neurochemical imbalances may experience heightened aggression, impulsivity, or diminished self-control. For instance, abnormalities in the prefrontal cortex are linked to poor impulse regulation, increasing the likelihood of engaging in criminal acts (Raine, 2013). Such predispositions, combined with environmental triggers, may culminate in criminal conduct, emphasizing a complex interplay rather than mere choice.
Preventive Measures and Social Programs
The Biological Positivist approach advocates for early identification of at-risk individuals through genetic or neurological screening. Social programs focused on medical treatment, psychological counseling, and pharmacological intervention aim to mitigate biological predispositions. Programs like cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) tailored for individuals with impulse-control issues are promising. Additionally, community-based programs promoting mental health awareness and access to medical care are aligned with this theory's preventive principles (Fazel & Grann, 2006).
Implementing New Interventions
Beyond existing programs, I would recommend integrating genetic counseling and neurological assessments into juvenile justice systems to identify at-risk youth early. Specialized treatment plans combining medication, therapy, and social support could address biological vulnerabilities more effectively. Creating multidisciplinary teams—comprising medical professionals, social workers, and educators—would foster holistic interventions aimed at reducing recidivism linked to biological predispositions.
Current Issues Related to the Theory
Recent advances in neurotechnology and genetics have intensified debates about ethical considerations surrounding biological interventions. The use of brain imaging to predict criminal behavior raises concerns over privacy and stigmatization (Parens & Johnston, 2017). Moreover, disparities in access to healthcare may exacerbate inequalities if biological risk assessments are misused or unevenly distributed. These issues highlight the importance of ethical frameworks guiding the application of biological causation theories.
Conclusion
While acknowledging the significant role of biology in criminal behavior, I believe it should be integrated with social and environmental considerations rather than viewed as determinative. The Biological Positivist Theory offers valuable avenues for early intervention, emphasizing medical and psychological treatments. Societal efforts should focus on comprehensive prevention strategies that respect individual rights while addressing biological vulnerabilities. Continued research and ethical oversight are essential to balance scientific advancements with human dignity.
References
- Fazel, S., & Grann, M. (2006). The association of mental disorders and violent crime: A meta-analysis of 225 studies. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 188(3), 169–177.
- Lombroso, C. (1876). L'uomo criminale. [The Criminal Man]. Turin: Bocca.
- Parens, E., & Johnston, J. (2017). Ethical issues in neurointerventions for criminal behavior. Neuroethics, 10(2), 255–271.
- Raine, A. (2013). The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime. Pantheon Books.
- Swanson, J., et al. (2019). Neurochemical correlates of impulsivity and aggression. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 44(4), 250–260.
- ...