Criminology - an Introduction Essay
Psychiatrists assess people for Anti-social Personality Disorder (APD) against a 'clinical' symptomology set out in a diagnostic manual 'DSM'. The symptomology basis of diagnosis focuses on 'effect' of the patient's mental health issues in relation to conduct or 're-action' to cause. By processing symptoms, professionals avoid or evade 'causation' and the patient is victimised or 'unequal' in society, which may include 'inequality' when the patient's own inability to deal with issues themselves. Many people who are diagnosed with mental illness (and many are misdiagnosed) never commit a crime, but such is the stigma associated with mental health, especially 'schizophrenia' - a person might as well have committed a crime. For those who do commit crime, and the higher rates of mental health are amongst prison and substance abuse populations, the issue remains why is the association with low socio-economic status and urban setting. D Hare's key symptoms :
'glib superficial; egocentric/grandiose; lack of remorse or guilt; lack of empathy; deceitful and manipulative; shallow emotions" ...
apply more appropriately to the affluent/professional strata as they cannot avoid or evade knowledge and training: eg 'Fred the Shred' fits Dr Hare's profile, but currently goes unprosecuted. As a 'pinstripe hoodie' Fred the Shred has caused more social damage than a hoodie on the street, some £26 billion impact on Scottish and global banking, yet in the face of unsurmountable controversy refuses to give up his contractual right to his £700,000 a year pension. This has the appearance of psychopathic leniency as there is no emotional colouring which would appear to be an 'attractive' quality if affluent / professional but contra street crime as it is more likely this group will be caught, not due to better policing skills and training, but due to a bias/prejudice subjectivity in society of criminal policy making to focus effort at the low socio-economic urban setting rather than white collar criminals.
Pyschoanalysis was developed by Sigmund Freud. Again, it is a symptom based diagnostic based on neurosis not psychosis. Psychodynamics is based on three areas of psyche between conscious and unconscious - id, ego, superego. Freud claims that the id and superego are in conflict placated by reality - ego. He claims the id is 'desire' and pleasure whilst superego somehow regulates by reprimand.
I do not concur with Freud's analysis. My knowledge is that the 'id' is good and 'nature' and therefore harmonious. If this is true then all three work in harmony not conflict when a person is 'good'. Why would your ego not accept a reality of being good? Why would you superego reprimand you for being good? What Freud is suggesting is that your 'id' can be bad. If 'id' is innate, then there cannot be choice, it is inherently good or inherently bad. I accept as valid 'id' is inherently good because we are meant to progress and not be disruptive in society. Therefore choice occurs at another level, but 'conscious' - for me the id is 'spirit' but the mind is not spirit but intellect. You cannot send an idea back once you receive it, therefore 'thought' is not 'idea', as that can be transferred and / or changed from good to bad. There is a material difference which has to have a reason. Freud's defence mechanism eg displacement - blaming someone else for your own fault - is a good example of why the 'id' cannot be in conflict as it would have to be innately bad per se. Freud states the defence mechanisms are 'ego' based in reality therefore it may be clever to blame someone else, it is not intelligent to do so - because it is disruptive of nature / id / good. The issues concerning crime relate to consciousness 'ego' - 'circumstances create consequences' which means choice located at ego not id. If the superego reprimands it does so because of ego, not 'id'. I have serious concerns in relation to Freud on psychosexual development. 'The little one's do what the little one's see'. Nature is inherent, therefore Freud's psychosexual reference is entirely normal child development as experience which I doubt bears any resemblance to anything other than every normal persons upbringing and is contextualised as hypothesis rather than based on informal analysis. Freud appears to be suggesting 'id' is responsible for crime, I disagree - 'ego' may be responsible for crime by conscious choice to do or omit doing, due to circumstances only.
Maslow's hierarchy based on degrees of need in relation to crime are that they occur when our needs are unmet. Why then can a person steal an apple but be processed as having stolen not the lamb but the sheep? New Labour put 3000 crimes on the statute book since 1997. Crime is formulaic and must be an 'offence' in law either based on a politically posited statute or judicially based in common law, ie murder.
The formula is:
A (mens rea) + B (actus reus) + C (offence) = Crime (full)
OR INCHOATE
A + 1 + C = (conspiracy) half crime
B + C = (attempt) half crime
Where crime is concerned it may be self preservation and I follow Thomas Hobbes (Philosopher)
The first right of man is to follow peace
The second right of man is to defend himself
Therefore under Maslows 'needs' hierarchy premis we are good until our needs are unmet, at which point we are motivated to commit crime - I cannot agree with this, if a person has no food, stealing a lamb is acceptable but stealing a sheep is not - the will to survive is strongest where the need is basic. However, raping someone because there is a desire for sex does not correlate to need but to self-restraint - therefore the crime is heinous because of a lack of need. There is always a choice, riot is not necessary in society where you can lobby your MP democratically, riot is therefore a social construct which is designed and concerted over another choice and methodological non-violent approach - Hobbes rule 1. Moreover esteem needs and self-actualisation needs, a person who has been harmed by activity which is a criminal offence is as much in the spotlight as the perpetrator - 'inequality' is not doing something which 'needs' to be done, ie reporting crime, turning up as a witness: whilst 'unequal' is what others do to you, bent cop, bent judge etc. Esteem and self-actualisation where they are wrongly premised will ultimately be exposed because the 'truth always surfaces'.
I disagree that you can be 'motivated' to commit crime mainly because crime must be a regulated offence and what is a crime today is not a crime yesterday or necessarily tomorrow. All crime is subject to judicial reasoning and judges are provided 'equity' to act in the 'interests of justice', an element of discretion to differentiate subjectively where the harshness of objective reality stealing a lamb when it was possible to steal the sheep (metaphor) that taking of nature's bounty is at all a crime in time of need as a 'natural law'. There are three things that are inherent needs, breathing, food and water - there should be no issue of crime associated with a motivation of need to survive, other than 'defence of self'.
Psychological Social Learning Theory relates to conditioning or learning. Learning by association as in Pavlov Dogs experiment where expectation is aroused by external stimuli causes me concern that a negative state of conduct would be used to induce a 're-action' and thereby be used to a designed 'harmful' purpose which is not normal. In the case of Pavlov's dogs it is normal to salivate at the prospect of food, but not a bell and no food. Crime relates to 'circumstances and consequences'; therefore to design the crime, implement it and await the expected 're-action' is social construction. 80,000 people in prison in the UK costs approx £31,000-£45,000 each. A person on the dole costs approx £12,000 each. That the social injustice is apparent and can actually be a reason for crime is a socially engineered societal negative, rather than socially engineered societal positive leading to good, safe and just communities. If you build a ghetto housing scheme should you be surprised if you have a ghettoised crime community because of an inability to be architecturally aesethetic!
Concerning Skinner's experiments rewarding animals or birds for learning a conduct is normal life behaviour, if you put your hand in the fire it gets burned, you do it once, you learn not to do it again, you therefore learn 'good' and self-restraint through reason and what is bad. Vice versa if you reward bad conduct, as currently seen in our upper echelons of society in the UK, at some point there will be consequences ie fat cat politics (greed) = global recession by design or even war if society goes completely savage. Fortunately, there are more good people in this world than bad.
Likewise, observational learning through modelling - Bobo dolls. Following orders is wholly different from learning by observation. Again, circumstances equals consequences and observing crime and getting away with it may lead to further criminal acts unless reprimanded but does not explain re-offending. People are fickle and inherently good. It is circumstances that dictate the consequences and if they are socially constructed, by subjective concerted and orchestrated practices it should not be a surprise at the resultant consequence. Where there is a real societal problems is (a) misplaced focus on 'effect' not 'cause' and (b) failing to apply offences which are criminal objectively to all societal strata.
Essay Word count 1586 - June 2009
DISCUSS
'glib superficial; egocentric/grandiose; lack of remorse or guilt; lack of empathy; deceitful and manipulative; shallow emotions" ...
apply more appropriately to the affluent/professional strata as they cannot avoid or evade knowledge and training: eg 'Fred the Shred' fits Dr Hare's profile, but currently goes unprosecuted. As a 'pinstripe hoodie' Fred the Shred has caused more social damage than a hoodie on the street, some £26 billion impact on Scottish and global banking, yet in the face of unsurmountable controversy refuses to give up his contractual right to his £700,000 a year pension. This has the appearance of psychopathic leniency as there is no emotional colouring which would appear to be an 'attractive' quality if affluent / professional but contra street crime as it is more likely this group will be caught, not due to better policing skills and training, but due to a bias/prejudice subjectivity in society of criminal policy making to focus effort at the low socio-economic urban setting rather than white collar criminals.
Pyschoanalysis was developed by Sigmund Freud. Again, it is a symptom based diagnostic based on neurosis not psychosis. Psychodynamics is based on three areas of psyche between conscious and unconscious - id, ego, superego. Freud claims that the id and superego are in conflict placated by reality - ego. He claims the id is 'desire' and pleasure whilst superego somehow regulates by reprimand.
I do not concur with Freud's analysis. My knowledge is that the 'id' is good and 'nature' and therefore harmonious. If this is true then all three work in harmony not conflict when a person is 'good'. Why would your ego not accept a reality of being good? Why would you superego reprimand you for being good? What Freud is suggesting is that your 'id' can be bad. If 'id' is innate, then there cannot be choice, it is inherently good or inherently bad. I accept as valid 'id' is inherently good because we are meant to progress and not be disruptive in society. Therefore choice occurs at another level, but 'conscious' - for me the id is 'spirit' but the mind is not spirit but intellect. You cannot send an idea back once you receive it, therefore 'thought' is not 'idea', as that can be transferred and / or changed from good to bad. There is a material difference which has to have a reason. Freud's defence mechanism eg displacement - blaming someone else for your own fault - is a good example of why the 'id' cannot be in conflict as it would have to be innately bad per se. Freud states the defence mechanisms are 'ego' based in reality therefore it may be clever to blame someone else, it is not intelligent to do so - because it is disruptive of nature / id / good. The issues concerning crime relate to consciousness 'ego' - 'circumstances create consequences' which means choice located at ego not id. If the superego reprimands it does so because of ego, not 'id'. I have serious concerns in relation to Freud on psychosexual development. 'The little one's do what the little one's see'. Nature is inherent, therefore Freud's psychosexual reference is entirely normal child development as experience which I doubt bears any resemblance to anything other than every normal persons upbringing and is contextualised as hypothesis rather than based on informal analysis. Freud appears to be suggesting 'id' is responsible for crime, I disagree - 'ego' may be responsible for crime by conscious choice to do or omit doing, due to circumstances only.
Maslow's hierarchy based on degrees of need in relation to crime are that they occur when our needs are unmet. Why then can a person steal an apple but be processed as having stolen not the lamb but the sheep? New Labour put 3000 crimes on the statute book since 1997. Crime is formulaic and must be an 'offence' in law either based on a politically posited statute or judicially based in common law, ie murder.
The formula is:
A (mens rea) + B (actus reus) + C (offence) = Crime (full)
OR INCHOATE
A + 1 + C = (conspiracy) half crime
B + C = (attempt) half crime
Where crime is concerned it may be self preservation and I follow Thomas Hobbes (Philosopher)
The first right of man is to follow peace
The second right of man is to defend himself
Therefore under Maslows 'needs' hierarchy premis we are good until our needs are unmet, at which point we are motivated to commit crime - I cannot agree with this, if a person has no food, stealing a lamb is acceptable but stealing a sheep is not - the will to survive is strongest where the need is basic. However, raping someone because there is a desire for sex does not correlate to need but to self-restraint - therefore the crime is heinous because of a lack of need. There is always a choice, riot is not necessary in society where you can lobby your MP democratically, riot is therefore a social construct which is designed and concerted over another choice and methodological non-violent approach - Hobbes rule 1. Moreover esteem needs and self-actualisation needs, a person who has been harmed by activity which is a criminal offence is as much in the spotlight as the perpetrator - 'inequality' is not doing something which 'needs' to be done, ie reporting crime, turning up as a witness: whilst 'unequal' is what others do to you, bent cop, bent judge etc. Esteem and self-actualisation where they are wrongly premised will ultimately be exposed because the 'truth always surfaces'.
I disagree that you can be 'motivated' to commit crime mainly because crime must be a regulated offence and what is a crime today is not a crime yesterday or necessarily tomorrow. All crime is subject to judicial reasoning and judges are provided 'equity' to act in the 'interests of justice', an element of discretion to differentiate subjectively where the harshness of objective reality stealing a lamb when it was possible to steal the sheep (metaphor) that taking of nature's bounty is at all a crime in time of need as a 'natural law'. There are three things that are inherent needs, breathing, food and water - there should be no issue of crime associated with a motivation of need to survive, other than 'defence of self'.
Psychological Social Learning Theory relates to conditioning or learning. Learning by association as in Pavlov Dogs experiment where expectation is aroused by external stimuli causes me concern that a negative state of conduct would be used to induce a 're-action' and thereby be used to a designed 'harmful' purpose which is not normal. In the case of Pavlov's dogs it is normal to salivate at the prospect of food, but not a bell and no food. Crime relates to 'circumstances and consequences'; therefore to design the crime, implement it and await the expected 're-action' is social construction. 80,000 people in prison in the UK costs approx £31,000-£45,000 each. A person on the dole costs approx £12,000 each. That the social injustice is apparent and can actually be a reason for crime is a socially engineered societal negative, rather than socially engineered societal positive leading to good, safe and just communities. If you build a ghetto housing scheme should you be surprised if you have a ghettoised crime community because of an inability to be architecturally aesethetic!
Concerning Skinner's experiments rewarding animals or birds for learning a conduct is normal life behaviour, if you put your hand in the fire it gets burned, you do it once, you learn not to do it again, you therefore learn 'good' and self-restraint through reason and what is bad. Vice versa if you reward bad conduct, as currently seen in our upper echelons of society in the UK, at some point there will be consequences ie fat cat politics (greed) = global recession by design or even war if society goes completely savage. Fortunately, there are more good people in this world than bad.
Likewise, observational learning through modelling - Bobo dolls. Following orders is wholly different from learning by observation. Again, circumstances equals consequences and observing crime and getting away with it may lead to further criminal acts unless reprimanded but does not explain re-offending. People are fickle and inherently good. It is circumstances that dictate the consequences and if they are socially constructed, by subjective concerted and orchestrated practices it should not be a surprise at the resultant consequence. Where there is a real societal problems is (a) misplaced focus on 'effect' not 'cause' and (b) failing to apply offences which are criminal objectively to all societal strata.
Essay Word count 1586 - June 2009
DISCUSS
posted by Lesley McDade at 2:01 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home