Violent Crime Throughout History Criminology Essay

Violent abuse Throughout History Criminology EssayFrom the beginning of military personnel life, slam-bang offensive has been an issue that indian lodge has had to deal with. Violent crime destroys the lives of innocent slew. In order for stud to live in peace, it is important that society finds a path to decrease convulsive wicked demeanor. Society continu all(prenominal)y puts restraints in place as a means of deterring knockdown-dragout crime. These restraints argon ground on theories as to how ruby-red look is derived and controlled. Before we can successfully deter venomous behavior, we must first understand the minds of those that invest these crimes. kindly organizational theories suggest that the criminal mind evolves from its environment. Statistically, there is some original statement to this, because crime is more dominant in urban, low income geographic areas with rickety community controls. Theorists, Clifford Shaw and Henry Mckay (1972), Note the s tage for multiple authors, described amicablely disorganized neck of the woodss as brimming with attitudes and values conductive to delinquency and crime, which generated pathways to pornographic crime. tender disorganization is described by social scientist, Robert Bursik (1988), this is the citation format for a single author as the capacity of a neighborhood to regulate itself through and through formal and informal moldes of social control. This criminal behavior sometimes becomes idle and is passed down from cardinal generation to the next, which provides the continuation to its comparable geographic location.Violent criminal behavior is prevalent in areas that eat up a high rate of crime. Marvin Wolfgang (1958) found that around non-premeditated homicides, not caused by mental disease or defect, occur mostly among members of certain social groups living in certain neighborhoods. He also attributed most perpetrators as universe young, nonwhite, lower- furcate males who share a value system, that conduct norms of a subculture of violence. (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1967, p. 276) If the quote is more than 40 words or more you do not use quotes. You block the quote, starting on a reinvigorated bend and indenting five spaces from the left margin on each line and double spacing. When quoting, always provide the author, year, and specific page citation in the text, and include a complete reference in the reference list. most perpetrators value their social status in the community more than human life. Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) explained the thoughts of some perpetrators as its either him or me.Violence is used as a means of survival in some disorganized neighborhoods. This makes violent crime extremely hard to attack.Social organizational theories lend hurt to many different ways of deterring and combating violent crimes. Community policing can be directed to those areas that provoke many violent crimes reducing social rowdiness at the neigh borhood level. Such neighborhoods can form groups, and separate themselves from gangs and violent crowds, categorizing such behavior as deviant and unacceptable to society. Gerald Suttles (1968) referred to such communities as defended neighborhoods. The Wilson and Kelling, (1982) broken window theory also reflects ways of deterring crime by cosmetically cleaning up a disorganized community, to instill felicitate in its inhabitants. Some communities are also installing gates and guards to withstand the criminal element out. All of these verifications are effective ways to combat violent crimes, but none will entirely eliminate them.Although statistics decidedly reinforce social organizational theories, they unimpeachably undermine a persons fall by the wayside will to commit a violent crime. There are people that come from disorganized communities that become successful and do not turn back to crime, just as there are murderers and rapists that come from high class neighborho ods. Violent criminal behavior is not always passed down through generations. If a persons environment is answerable for the crimes that they commit, why is a person punish for their crimes? Is violent behavior a byproduct of ones environment, or is it the behavior knowing or is its consequences not learned from their parents, peers, teachers, etc.? These are all questions that we push to find answers to that would help future endeavors in combating and deterring violent crime.Social dish TheoriesHere we are given notice that the topic is changing intimatelyTheories that explain criminal behavior as learned behavior are considered social attend theories. According to sociologist Edwin L. Sutherland (1950), criminal behavior is learned and most learning occurs within intimate personal groups. This has become known as the differential association theory. According to Ronald Akers (1985), learned criminal behavior is acquired or conditioned by the effects, outcomes, or consequenc es it has on the persons environment. This is accomplished through a persons punishments and reinforcements (rewards or avoided punishments). F. Ivan Nye (1958) described criminal activity from juvenile delinquents as being attributed to family-level punishments and restrictions, affection with parents, their conscience, and the availability of the means to gratify needs. Recently, young males are responsible for a good portion of not only crimes, but violent crimes.Violent crimes are a true concern to the public. Social motion theories suggest that violent behavior may be learned from a persons peers or parents. aggroup members form close-knit groups and may influence their peers to commit violent crimes. These theories also suggest that a child learns behavior from his or her parents. This can attribute to domestic violence, which has been proven to be spread from one generation to the next in many cases. According to social process theories, children must learn that violence is deviant in society and they must have proper enate guidance and reinforcement from peers. matchless way to combat violent criminal behavior is through the social attach theory. According to Travis Hirschi (1972) The bond of affection for conventional persons is a major deterrent to crime. A social bond is the forces in a persons environment that connects them to society and its morality. The social bond theory is based on such profound elements as attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. This theory can be applied by parental guidance, affection, and by incorporating community programs for children. Law enforcement officials can interact with troubled children, having a positive influence on them. DARE, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, and GREAT, Gang Resistance Education and Training are two examples of programs based on social process theories. Although effectiveness is debated, with some refinement, these programs may possibly have a profound effect on criminal behavi or amongst juveniles. Social process theories offer some good ideas behind the cause of criminal behavior and ways to correct or deter it, but they definitely dont cover all crimes, especially some of those considered to be violent.Social process theories do not give much account for individual motives as to why crimes are committed. They do little to explain crimes of passion, and other violent crimes committed by people that were never exposed to such criminal behavior as a child. Travis Hirshci (1969), suggests that criminality is more or less(prenominal) naturally present, that it requires socialization for its control. Social learning theories suggest that criminal behavior is learned rather than naturally present.ConclusionYour paper should end with a conclusionusually your summary and any opinion of your findings. (avoid writing in the first person)Although different, social organizational and social process theories are same in some aspects. Social organizational theories e xplain criminal or violent behavior as a product of ones environment. This is true in a way that the criminal behavior is learned through the people which surround them, which reflects views of social process theories. Sheldon Glueck (1950) refers to this as birds of a feather flock together. People are influenced by their surroundings either positively or negatively. This attributes to their upbringing. Statistics prove that someone from a good upbringing is less plausibly to become involved in crime. Criminal behavior leads to violent crime. One is very rarely present without the other. One example of this is that people on drugs will do what ever can to get a fend for of drugs. When the regard for themselves and others diminishes, violent crime will occur. Both of these sets of theories are true in many aspects about the cause of crime. They both also provide us useful ways of combating and deterring crime. All theories are useful, but no one theory successfully explains all cr iminal behavior and the silk hat way to deter it. In order to successfully deter violent crime, we must look at all of these theories and combat crime from all angles. Once we better understand the minds behind violent crime, we will do better in combating and deterring it.