Description
Incorporating the assumptions of one of the below learning theories (also feel free to research the online library, Internet etc for information on these two theories), make an argument either for or against the insanity defense, that is, should it be allowed and or abolished…and specifically why?
Learning Theories:
- Social Learning Theory
- Sutherlands Differential Association Theory
- Do you believe that ecological approaches have a valid place in contemporary criminological thinking? Specifically…why or why not?
1.
I have chosen to go with the social learning theory by Ronald L. Akers and Robert Burgess, both scholars who argued that criminal behavior is the product of normal learning. Akers asserted that criminal behavior is learned through social and non-social reinforcements, and that most learning of criminal behavior occurs while interacting with other people. Akers’ social learning theory implies that people are motivated to commit crimes and learn their skills to commit crime through the people whom they associate with. In simple terms, people learn new behaviors, values, and attitudes by direct experience and by observing other people’s behavior through positive or negative provocations.
Social learning theory suggests that learning is influenced by psychological factors such as observation, imitating, reinforcement, punishment, and goal oriented. Akers and Burgess believed that behavior, conforming or deviant, was a function of its consequences. Learning is a cognitive process that is learned through observation and as we learn we can extract information about the observed behavior and then make decisions based on the information obtained. Akers also proposed that all life experiences are not equal, therefore he believed that life experiences could be used to counterbalance negative factors in life. In general, social learning theory proposes that both criminal and conforming behaviors are acquired, maintained, and changed by the same process of interaction with others. The difference lies in the conforming or deviant direction or balance of the social influences, such as reinforcement, values and attitudes, and imitation.
I do not believe that the defense should be abolished, but I do think some reform of this defense is needed. This is mainly based on misuse of the defense and on errors based on court’s decisions on whether the defense is warranted. Mental disorders are typically unreported and not treated properly, therefore the implications that criminals don’t understand what they did or have done wrong is a defense that needs more consideration. An insanity defense should be utilized by those who are deemed unable to understand what they have committed the crime(s) and who lack the mental capacity to realize right from wrong. Impartial testing by trained professionals is a must.
2.
In my opinion, I do believe that ecological approaches have a valid place in criminology. Criminal behavior is known as a systematic process that involves interactions by individuals, society, and ecological factors that ultimately shape our lives. Urie Bronfenbrenner a famous psychologist studied behavior from the perspective of family and behavior from our participation at work or school. Bronfenbrenner theoretical position was that of development being a part of various forces-cultural, social, economic, political, and not necessarily focused on psychological needs (Cici, 2006). The ecological approach in criminology tries to establish why some people or groups are at a higher risk of violence or committing crimes, and it can’t define why others are more protected from violence. To understand how the approach works, first we must understand that violence is enhanced by interaction among many factors; the individual, the relationship, the community, and society. The ecological approach helps explain levels at which individuals are subjected to in regards to psychological, personality disorders which ultimately seem to predict youth and young adulthood within the family setting and lack of parental practices a factor that most often is attributed to individuals committing crimes. The ecological approach to crime is the study of one behavioral outcome of these processes, it also defines what might constitute the violation of rules of conduct defined in law. The approach is more of a focus on the roles of the environment which formulates to the development of individual’s tendency to participate in crimes.
In the article, “The Ecological Distribution of Community Advantage and Disadvantage” (Lynch, 2016) we are treated to an examination of ecological advantages and disadvantages across communities and the forgone conclusion is that not much research has been done to explore criminological injustices through the lack of polices. One of the factors that impacts community level advantages and disadvantages is related to the dispersion of justice because of the lack of concern towards communities dealing with environmental hazards based on racial, ethnic, and class composition (Lynch, 2016).
The social ecology of crime is the study of one behavioral outcome of these processes, the violation of rules of conduct defined in the law. It focuses on the role of the environment in the development of people’s propensity to engage in crime and their differential exposure to settings conducive to engagement in acts of crime. Although the label, “social ecology of crime” is often used about varied studies of cross-national, regional, intercity and urban-rural differences in crime, its prime focus has always been on researching and explaining variations in crime within the urban environment. It is not surprising to find that the most important theoretical and empirical contributions of this perspective originated from the study of urban areas.
References:
Blumoff, T. Y. (2015). Rationality, insanity, and the insanity defense: Reflections on the limits of reason. Law & psychology review, 39, 161-203. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1706579190?accountid=8289
Ceci, S. J. (2006). Urie bronfenbrenner (1917-2005). American psychologist, 61(2), 173-174. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.61.2.173
Daftary‐Kapur, T., Groscup, J. L., O’Connor, M., Coffaro, F., & Galietta, M. (2011). Measuring knowledge of the insanity defense: Scale construction and validation. Behavioral sciences & the law, 29(1), 40-63.
Lynch, M. J. (2016). The ecological distribution of community advantage and disadvantage: Power structures, political economy, communities, and green-state crime and justice. Critical criminology, 24(2), 247-262. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1007/s10612-016-9313-z
McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological review, 90(3), 215.