Criminology Task Name Phase 4 Individual Project Deliverable

Criminologytasknamephase 4 Individual Projectdeliverable Length100

Criminology task: Using the scenario provided about James T. Johnson, a 24-year-old construction worker and habitual burglar, analyze the influences behind his criminal behavior. Address whether James learned his behavior from his father, consider other contributing factors, and evaluate whether removal from his home during juvenile years might have prevented his criminal activities. Discuss James's statements about responsibility, and apply the theories of reaction formation, strain, and subculture perspectives, supporting all analyses with scholarly references in APA style.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Understanding criminal behavior requires a multifaceted approach that considers family dynamics, social environment, psychological factors, and broader societal influences. The case of James T. Johnson presents an opportunity to explore these dimensions through various criminological theories. This paper examines whether James's deviant conduct is learned from his father, considers other factors that could contribute to his criminality, and evaluates the potential impact of juvenile intervention. Additionally, it investigates his statements regarding responsibility and employs theories such as reaction formation, strain, and subculture perspectives to elucidate his behavior.

Family Influence and Behavioral Learning

One of the fundamental approaches in criminology involves understanding familial influences on criminal conduct. Social learning theory posits that behaviors are acquired through interactions with significant others, notably family members (Akers, 2017). In the scenario, James's father is implied to have engaged in criminal activities, and James himself admits that he "ended up just like his father." The pattern of family influence, especially modeling criminal behavior, supports the hypothesis that James may have learned criminality through direct observation and imitation (Bandura, 1977). Witnessing a parent engaged in illegal activities, and internalizing these behaviors as normative, increases the likelihood of the offspring adopting similar conduct, particularly when coupled with reinforcement and a lack of positive role models.

Further, the familial environment described—marked by ongoing fights and alcohol abuse—creates an unstable and potentially criminogenic atmosphere. Such environments correlate with higher chances of antisocial behavior among youth (Farrington, 2003). Children raised in environments with domestic conflicts and substance abuse often develop maladaptive coping mechanisms, which can include delinquent acts (Moffitt, 2006).

Other Contributing Factors Beyond Family

While family influence is significant, numerous external factors contribute to criminal behavior. Socioeconomic status, peer influences, neighborhood characteristics, and individual psychological traits can all impact the propensity to offend (Sampson & Laub, 1993). James works as a construction worker, suggesting some level of social integration and employment. However, his involvement in burglary indicates a potential strain between societal expectations and personal circumstances.

According to strain theory (Merton, 1938), criminal behavior results from the failure to achieve culturally approved goals through legitimate means. James's family mortgage to bail him out, his residence, and exposure to a criminal environment may produce feelings of frustration or relative deprivation—conditions conducive to criminal conduct. Additionally, association with peers engaging in deviant activities, possibly reinforced by earlier family modeling, could have provided James with opportunities and motives aligned with criminal behavior (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960).

Moreover, psychological factors such as impulsivity, low self-control, and substance abuse (as indicated by his mother's observations) are associated with criminal acts (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Substance abuse, in particular, impairs judgment and increases risk-taking, which may facilitate criminal conduct like burglary.

Impact of Juvenile Removal and Responsibility Shifting

Considering whether removal from his home as a juvenile could have prevented James's criminal involvement involves evaluating the efficacy of juvenile intervention programs. Research indicates that early intervention, in the form of family support, counseling, and mentorship, can reduce recidivism and redirect juveniles towards prosocial pathways (Lipsey & Derzon, 1998). However, the success depends heavily on the nature, timing, and intensity of such interventions.

Removing James from his home might not have automatically prevented his deviant trajectory. If environmental influences—such as exposure to family violence, substance abuse, and community criminogenic factors—persisted outside his family setting, the risk of criminal behavior could have continued. Nonetheless, a youth removed from a criminogenic environment, coupled with supportive intervention, has a higher chance of avoiding entrenched criminal careers.

Regarding James's denial or blame-shifting, his statements about responsibility seem partly motivated by defense mechanisms aimed at mitigating guilt or managing self-image (Rosenberg, 2018). He blames his mother and father, possibly as a way to externalize his actions and avoid self-blame. This aligns with psychological concepts where offenders deny responsibility to reduce cognitive dissonance associated with their behavior.

Application of Reaction Formation

Reaction formation is a defense mechanism where an individual unconsciously substitutes unacceptable feelings with their opposites (Freud, 1936). Applying this to James, his anger toward his mother and denial of personal responsibility may serve to mask underlying feelings of inadequacy, guilt, or shame.

For example, James blames his mother for his criminal behavior, possibly to preserve his self-esteem and avoid confronting internal conflict. His aggressive reactions and blame-shifting serve as outward expressions of internal struggles and unresolved resentment. Such behavior can be understood as reaction formation—reacting against feelings of guilt by asserting that external circumstances (his mother's actions) are primarily responsible.

Strain Theory and James’s Situation

Strain theory (Merton, 1938) posits that societal pressures and the inability to achieve culturally valued goals through legitimate means generate tension, which can lead to deviant acts. James's environment suggests a failure to achieve upward mobility or social acceptance through legitimate paths. His family's financial difficulties and involvement in criminal activities highlight how strain could push individuals toward deviance.

The theory also emphasizes that individuals under strain might resort to illegitimate means as alternative routes to success or status. James's burglary and selling stolen goods via the internet and pawn shops reflect adaptation to strain—attempts to obtain financial resources when legitimate opportunities are limited or inaccessible. His criminal activities thus serve as a response to structural disadvantages and the inability to achieve societal goals through acceptable means.

Subculture Perspective and Deviance

The subculture perspective (Cohen, 1955) suggests that groups or communities develop their own norms and values, which may oppose or diverge from mainstream society, thereby legitimizing criminal behavior for its members. In the context of James, his exposure to a subculture that normalizes criminality—possibly through family, peers, or neighborhood—can explain his participation in illegal activities.

If, within his social environment, burglary and selling stolen goods are collectively accepted or even encouraged, James’s behavior aligns with conformity to subcultural norms. Such perspectives emphasize that deviance is not merely an individual choice but often a group-defined response to social conditions, especially in marginalized communities (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960).

Research supports that subcultural values often promote criminal behavior as adaptive responses to social strain (Anderson, 1999). This perspective provides insights into how James’s environment might reinforce his criminal conduct, aligning with his shared cultural understanding of conduct as an acceptable or necessary means of survival or respect.

Conclusion

James T. Johnson’s criminal behavior appears to be the product of a complex interplay of familial influences, environmental factors, psychological mechanisms, and social norms. The modeling of criminal conduct by his father, combined with domestic instability and substance abuse, supports the idea that he learned deviant behavior from his family environment. While juvenile removal could have mitigated some risk factors, it alone would not guarantee prevention without comprehensive intervention addressing underlying social and psychological issues.

James’s attribution of blame reflects protective psychological mechanisms rather than true accountability, which can be explained through reaction formation. The application of strain and subcultural theories further elucidates how societal pressures and cultural norms within his environment facilitate his criminal activities. Recognizing these multiple dimensions is vital for developing holistic approaches to crime prevention and rehabilitation, emphasizing early intervention, supportive family dynamics, and addressing social inequities.

References

• Akers, R. L. (2017). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
• Cloward, R. D., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of subcultures. Free Press.
• Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key themes and future prospects. Criminology, 41(2), 221–255.
• Freud, S. (1936). The problem of resignation. S.E., 14, 265–278.
• Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
• Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). The effects of juvenile interventions on teenage delinquency: An overview of research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(4), 651–658.
• Merton, R.C. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682.
• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime and deviance over the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 377–399.