Progressions In Criminology Theories

SE

R VE

D

1

IS

PROGRESSIONS IN CRIMINOLOGY THEORIES:

JU

ST

IC

E

Gary A McAvin

2

Progressions in Criminology Theories:

Introduction:

Bridging the gap between criminals and the unsuspecting public stands Law

R VE

D

Enforcement. The effectiveness of law enforcement is contingent upon several factors, of which are; one-training, and two-criminal knowledge, et al. The criminal/s usually knows they are

SE

going to commit a crime. The unsuspecting public is unaware of the criminals decision until it is usually too late. How can these criminals be deterred? How can they be identified prior to any

IS

criminal activity or commission of criminal acts? Where can the edge or deterrence factor be

E

found? The law-enforcement community must have tools to defeat or turn aside criminal

IC

activity. Of course; they have weapons and procedures for this purpose, but; is it enough? What

ST

would give them (the law enforcement community) the better or best advantage? Knowing and

JU

identifying the criminal prior to their act? Or; could newer technologies provide the edge law enforcement is looking for?

Law enforcement only has seconds to identify potential criminals. What can they look for in potential criminals? How can they identify criminal types? Will the scientific aspect of criminology be able to supply the answers? How can criminology assist on the ground lawenforcement officials? Would creating a profile help? Yes! Would creating a theory based upon qualitative and quantified data add anything to the formula? Yes! Would empirically substantiated results provide the necessary edge that law-enforcement needs to stay ahead of the criminal mind? Yes! Theories provide compelling standards on how the criminal both looks

3

(physical) and thinks (mental thought processes) but; can theories be improved upon? Have criminology theories changed since their inceptions?

Theories:

R VE

D

What are theories and how are they formulated, defined?

SE

Theory Defined:

“Some writers regard theory as a collection of concepts. Others say theory is an

IS

interconnected set of hypotheses. Other writers say theory is a set of concepts plus the

E

interrelationships that are assumed to exist among those concepts (Selltiz, Cook, and

IC

Wrightsman, 1976:16). Another way of viewing theory is as a system of explanation. Some

ST

professionals regard theory as a conceptual scheme, a frame of reference, or a set of propositions

JU

and conclusions. If we consult a dictionary, one of the worst places to look for a clear definition of theory, theory is a mental viewing, a contemplation, conjecture, a systematic statement of principles, or a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree (Guralnik, 1972:1475). All of these definitions of theory are true. Yet, no single definition above pulls together all of theory’s essential elements. Perhaps one of the clearer and more comprehensive definitions of theory may be gleaned from a synthesis of two definitions provided by Robert Merton (1957:9699) and the late theorist, Arnold Rose (1965:9-12). According to these social scientists, theory is an integrated body of assumptions, propositions, and definitions that are related in such a way so as to explain and predict relationships between two or more variables.” (Champion, 2000:36-37).

4

Now we need to invest some time in the sub categories of theory formulae, assumptions, propositions and definitions for clarity’s sake!

R VE

D

Assumptions:

First, let’s distinguish between assumptions and propositions. Assumptions are similar to

SE

empirical generalizations or observable regularities in human behavior (Merton, 1957: 95-96). For our purposes, assumptions are statements that have a high degree of certainty. These are

IS

statements that require little, if any, confirmation in the real world. Examples of assumptions

E

might be, “All societies have laws,” or “The greater the deviant conduct, the greater the group

Propositions:

JU

ST

IC

pressure on the deviant to conform to group norms.”

In contrast, propositions are also statements about the real world, but they lack the high degree of certainty associated with assumptions. Examples of propositions might be, “Burnout among probation officers may be mitigated or lessened through job enlargement and giving officers greater input in organizational decision making,” or “Two-officer patrol units are less susceptible to misconduct and corruption than one-officer patrol units.”

5

Definitions:

Other components of theories are definitions. Definitions of terms we use, definitions of the factors we consider significant in influencing various events, assist us in constructing a logical explanatory framework or theory. A common problem is that often, the same terms are

R VE

D

assigned different definitions by different investigators. If we use the term peer influence in a statement about delinquents and their delinquent conduct, how should peer influence be defined?

SE

[Ibid]

IS

Now that we have the base requirements for theory hypothesis, we can investigate former

E

criminologists and their theory formulations. In search of the criminal man, the trail sometimes

IC

becomes obfuscated by prejudice and personal opinion. Some of the basic theories operated with

ST

the premise (what we now call labeling/stereotyping) that certain individuals are atypical

JU

criminals because of their appearance. What can we learn from primitive criminological theories? Did these criminologists have facts to substantiate their claims? Not always! For the most part they were very observant!

How did people like DaVinci, Democritus, physicians of Egypt, Galen, Newton and others see the deeper things without the aid of modern scientific instruments? Were their powers of observation better than we may suppose or presume? Several theorists must be considered as we analyze their theories for viability today. Origins of the Classical School of Criminology reside in a theory composed by Cesare Beccaria, called “On Crimes and Punishment 1764”

6

Formal Deterrence Theory:

“Beccaria believed that the function of law was to promote justice (Young, 1984). In his 1764 essay On Crimes and Punishments, he formulated the following principles, which

R VE

D

represented a dramatic departure from how criminal law had previously been perceived (Vold,

SE

1970:18-22).

• Prevention of crime is more important than punishment for the crime committed. Punishment is

E

IS

desirable only as it helps to prevent crime and does not conflict with the ends of justice.

IC

• Desirable criminal procedure calls for the open publication of all laws, speedy trials, humane

ST

treatment of the accused, and the abolishment of secret accusations and torture. Moreover, the

JU

accused must have every right and facility to bring forward evidence.

• The purpose of punishment is to deter persons from the commission of crime, not to give society an opportunity for revenge. In addition, punishment must be certain and swift, with penalties determined strictly according to the social damage wrought by the crime. Therefore, celerity—the time-span between crime and punishment—is a key element in deterrence (van den Haag, 1986:100).

7

In short, Beccaria redefined criminality, prescribed fair treatment of individuals, and temporarily removed revenge and retribution as rationales for punishment.” (Vito & Holmes, 1994:75)

Beccaria’s Theory was a prototype of Deterrence Theory that is the cornerstone of the

R VE

D

contemporary criminal justice system’s response to criminals. (Winfree & Abadinsky 2003:36) We must remember that Beccaria was only 26 when his On Crimes and Punishments was

SE

published. Early criminologists utilizing only powers of observation (and measurements) deduced the criminal intentions of their time and recorded their results. This foundation in

IS

criminology was built upon by subsequent individuals using different criminology design

E

patterns or assumptions! Beccaria’s work was read and studied by the men of renown in his era.

ST

IC

His work had significant impact on future laws and decisions.

JU

“The whole question of “sanctions” (meaning both punishment and reward) was an absorbing one to the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The father of what came to be known as the Classical School of Criminal Law was Cesare Bonesana, Marquis of Beccaria. In 1764 Beccaria, then only twenty-six and barely out of law school, published in Leghorn, Italy, a slim volume entitled Essay on Crimes and Punishments. It appeared anonymously because the young author, a Milanese whose territory was then under the rule of Austria, feared reprisals if his authorship were known. Quite the opposite occurred. Beccaria was lionized; his slender volume was translated into all the languages of Europe. It was read as avidly by the Austrian Emperor Joseph II as by Sir William Blackstone, then a lecturer on the English law whose lecture notes would soon be published as Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.

8

Seldom has a single work had so galvanizing an effect on the legal thinking of an as did Beccaria’s essay.” (Rennie: 15).

In the same Classical School of Criminology, Jeremy Bentham built upon Beccaria’s work and offered the following addition to crime deterrence. “In Britain, philosopher Jeremy Bentham

R VE

D

(1748—1833) helped popularize Beccaria’s views in his writings on utilitarianism. Bentham believed that people choose actions on the basis of whether they produce pleasure and happiness

SE

and help them avoid pain or unhappiness. The purpose of law is to produce and support the total happiness of the community it serves. Because punishment is in itself harmful, its existence is

IC

E

main objectives: (Siegel 2004:108)

IS

justified only if it promises to prevent greater evil than it creates. Punishment, therefore, has four

ST

1. To prevent all criminal offenses

2. When it cannot prevent a crime, to convince the offender to commit a less serious crime

JU

3. To ensure that a criminal uses no more force than is necessary 4. To prevent crime as cheaply as possible

Can we use the research and writings of Beccaria and Bentham today, or; are they ideas relegated to another place in time? Are theories only consigned to a particular historical period? Or; can we coalesce these older theories with the newer more scientific posits? What does modern criminology find useful in these theories from Beccaria’s On Crime and Punishments 1764 and Bentham’s Moral Criticism 1789? Obviously; good criminologists build on proven

9

assumptions, propositions and definitions! The foundation of the deterrence theory was strong and was given new life by Gibbs and Becker circa 1968 and; they found viability in this theory.

“Criminologists’ interest in deterrence theory waned in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The influential writings of Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and Cesare Lombroso,

R VE

D

whose contributions we explore in the next chapter, led to a positivistic revolution in explanations of human behavior. Criminologists shifted from the study of laws and punishments

SE

to the study of criminals, both in society and in its prisons, a locus they largely maintained until the 1960s. For 100 years criminologists took one path, and policy makers followed an entirely

IS

different one.

E

The 1960s brought about many changes in American society; ranging from desegregation

IC

to near political anarchy. In those tumultuous times two social scientists shifted criminologists’

ST

attention back to deterrence theory. In 1968, Jack Gibbs published “Crime, Punishment, and

JU

Deterrence,” in which he attempted to test the deterrence hypothesis. This was the beginning of perceptual deterrence studies. Also in 1968 economist and 1992 Nobel Prize winner Gary S. Becker published “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” a work that generated great interest in a perspective called cost—benefit analysis. With the publication of these two works, deterrence theory was once more on the agenda of criminologists. One irony in this rediscovery of deterrence is that positivistic criminologists began applying the scientific method in an attempt to reveal punishments’ deterrent effects.” (Winfree & Abadinsky 2003: 36)

Proof in point; that good criminologists build upon the foundation already laid in previous generations. We must remember the intelligence of ancient civilizations and the people

10

responsible for historical preservation. How could for instance; Democritus understand the theory of the atom unless he was extremely intelligent? It is not good investigative practice to dismiss former generations and their accomplishments.

R VE

D

Positivist Criminology:

SE

Nineteenth-Century Positivism:

“The classical position served as a guide to crime, law, and justice for almost 100 years,

IS

but during the late nineteenth century a change in the way knowledge was being gathered created

E

a challenge to its dominance. The scientific method was beginning to take hold in Europe. Rather

IC

than rely on pure thought and reason, careful observation and analysis of natural phenomena was

ST

being undertaken to understand the way the world worked. This movement inspired new

JU

discoveries in biology, astronomy, and chemistry. If the scientific method could be applied to the study of nature, then why not use it to study human behavior?” (Siegel 2004:6)

Biological Theory:

“The earliest “scientific” studies examining human behavior were biologically oriented. Physiognomists, such as J. K. Lavater (1741—1801), studied the facial features of criminals to determine whether the shape of ears, nose, and eyes and the distance between them were associated with antisocial behavior. Phrenologists, such as Franz Joseph Gall (1758—1828) and Johann K Spurzheim (1776—1832), studied the shape of the skull and bumps on the head to

11

determine whether these physical attributes were linked to criminal behavior. Phrenologists believed that external cranial characteristics dictate which areas of the brain control physical activity though their primitive techniques and quasi-scientific methods have been thoroughly discredited, these efforts were an early attempt to use a “scientific” method to study crime.”

R VE

D

[Ibid]

What can we determine from these theories that began using scientific methods to study

SE

criminology? Exact measurements and astute observations were used to determine the criminal possibility; as the search for the “Born Criminal” took a new dimension! Positivists believed

IS

that there were specific indicators for defining a criminal. Now the attention was directed

E

towards behavior patterns, body types, head size and shape and other physical factors that were

ST

IC

significantly identifiable in criminals but; not in the norm of society, or so it was posited.

JU

Would Physiognomists be able to determine facial distinctions as identifiers? Can the skull provide clues, or; answers to what resides within? Phrenology was the forerunner of brain mapping or neuroimaging. Spurtzheim assisted Gall in his studies. Gall eventually charted 27 different regions of the skull and attributed numbers and physical possibilities to each one. For instance; Location 1. Amativeness=impulse to propagation (we call it the arousal of feelings of sexual desire today) Location 2. Conjugal love=Tenderness to the offspring, or parental love. This process was mapped and studied by phrenologists, and still is today! But is this theory useful today? Yes! But only the premise! Because of this exterior expedition, interior brain mapping (neuroimaging) became a study and is now accepted intelligence that is scientifically provable.

12

And; before we pass this point; it might be of interest to consider the face recognition software now being integrated into antiterrorist applications. Considering Physiognomy and the theory behind it; can it be that this is only a progression now found in this newer identification theory? Another facial distinctions theory built upon the older theory of Lavater? Is there

SE

same processes that are used for fingerprint searches.

R VE

D

correlation between the two? With this technology, face identification can be utilized in the

Face recognition next in terror fight:

IS

By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY

E

“WASHINGTON Homeland Security leaders are exploring futuristic and possibly

IC

privacy-invading technology aimed at finding terrorists and criminals by using digital

ST

surveillance photos that analyze facial characteristics.

JU

The government is paying for some of the most advanced research into controversial facerecognition technology, which converts photos into numerical sequences that can be instantly compared with millions of photos in a database. Facial-recognition research was sought to enable federal air marshals to surreptitiously photograph people in airports and bus and train stations to check whether they were on terrorist databases. The air marshals disavowed the technology to focus on identifying suspects through methods that don't use cameras.” (www.usatoday.com)

“Until just a few decades ago, it was very difficult to detect, non-invasively, physiological signals from the brain. However, the discoveries in physics, the evolution of

13

information technology, and the invention of non-invasive biomedical technologies in the last decades of the twentieth century transformed this scenario and created numerous opportunities for studying the brain in living subjects. The authors trace the extraordinary evolution of brain imaging techniques (magnetic resonance imaging, emission tomography, and? functional neuroimaging?) in the second part of the twentieth century. Not only have these methods had a

R VE

D

remarkable clinical impact, they have also been outstanding research tools in the field of the neurosciences. In their most recent applications, they are employed in the quest to uncover the

SE

neuronal substrate of the human mind.” (www.pubmed.com)

IS

Can we correlate the foundational theories of Gall, Spurtzheim, and Lavater et al; and

E

apply them to this new scientific information? There are distinct correlations applicable to

IC

today’s criminology understandings. Galls, Spurtzheim, were forerunners of brain mapping, and;

ST

Lavater with his facial recognition possibilities. His theory is now being utilized in fast face scan

JU

applications. Although only given a glimpse of their potentiality, these theorists laid foundational possibilities even they could not perceive in their era.

Historically; knowledge seemingly comes at specific periods in the spectrum of human intelligence. There are periods of illumination called; “Enlightenment” and periods of darkness when no intellectual discoveries are made called; “The Dark Ages.” Since the enlightenment, criminology has advanced from the so-called primitive form, i.e. Classic, to the most advanced era in time; now! Most of the criminology theories and techniques were discovered in the Twentieth Century. Science now provides new investigative proficiencies unparalleled in history.

14

Biological Determinism:

Cesare Lombrosco an Italian physician was one of the first to take the scientific approach

R VE

D

to the study of criminal man. Lombrosco advanced the theory that physical traits were indicative of criminality. He believed that criminality was inherited from generation to generation.

SE

(Lombrosco’s theory is not one I want to pursue, but; what progressions that come after; is where modern interests lie.) And; following Lombrosco’s physical characteristics pattern were others

IS

that applied physical features as indicators for criminality. Goring’s “defective intelligence”

E

findings; Hooten’s physiological inferiority characterizations; and then we come to William

IC

Sheldon’s Somatotypes theory. But; Sheldon built his work, research and theory on the work of

JU

ST

others.

Biological Theory:

“Body types and crime. The search for a constitutionally determined criminal man did not stop with Goring’s (1913) conclusions. Kretschmer (1925) took up the theme as the result of his study of 260 insane people in Swabia, a southwestern German town. He was impressed with the fact that his subjects had definite types of body builds that he thought were associated with certain types of psychic dispositions. First published in German in 1922 and translated into English in 1925, Kretschmer’s study identified four body types: asthenic, athletic, pyknic, and some mixed unclassifiable types. He found asthenics to be lean and narrowly built, with a deficiency of thickness in their overall bodies. These men were so flat-chested and skinny that

15

their ribs could be counted easily. The athletic build had broad shoulders, excellent musculature, a deep chest, a flat stomach, and powerful legs. These men were the 1920s counterpart of the modern “hunks” of media fame. The pyknics were of medium build with a propensity to be rotund, sort of soft appearing with rounded shoulders, broad faces, and short stubby hands. Kretschmer argued that the asthenic and athletic builds were associated with schizophrenic

R VE

D

personalities, whereas the pyknics were manic-depressives.” (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2003:22-23)

SE

“Kretschmer’s work was useful in Mohr and Gundlach’s report published in 1929-30 on the various body types cataloged by Kretschmer. [Ibid] Ten years later Earnest A. Hooten

IS

followed this same line of research and offered, “criminals are inferior to civilians in nearly all

E

their body measurements.” [Ibid] This search continued into the 1940s and 1950s with William

IC

H. Sheldon changing the research paradigm away from adults to delinquent male youths. He

ST

produced an index that subjected the juvenile to degrees of troubles. With the extreme, (score of

JU

10) calling for institutionalization and lower scores, (6) implying various degrees of adjustment possibilities. Sheldon also categorized body types into three classifications, endomorphs, mesomorphs, and ectomorphs. Each type had different physical features. These features were used as an adjunct to possible criminal tendencies and potential.” [Ibid]

The problem with body typing resides in the potential for change. Will a mesomorph always remain a mesomorph? Changes take place in all three body types. Several factors for example can be considered. Body types can be altered by conditioning programs and diets. Heavy weight lifting can change a body type from thin, or overweight, into a very muscular type. Also; overweight people can lose weight, develop an exercise routine and subsequently change

16

their appearance also. Consider the programs allowed in prisons for routine exercise. These programs (if they are weight lifting oriented) can definitely alter body types; and; all three of Sheldon’s body types can be altered, and very significantly at times. It is known by cessation of weight lifting programs you can become obese in a matter of time; from mesomorph to endomorph in a short time for some. At one time, these body types could be useful for quick

R VE

D

identification by patrolling police officers, but; now the paradigm is changing. Something that the general public is probably unaware of, took place in criminal typing; and this could be cause

SE

for concern!

IS

“Efforts to connect body shape and behavior were not limited to crime alone. In 1995, it

E

was revealed that between the 1940s and the 1960s, Hooton and Sheldon had been involved with

IC

a eugenics experiment that took “posture photos” of freshmen as they entered some of the

ST

nation’s most prestigious Ivy League schools including Harvard University, Yale University, and

JU

Wellesley College. They were pursuing the now discredited idea that body shape and intelligence are somehow connected & Some of “America’s Establishment” photographed for the experiment included New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, former president George H. W. Bush, New York Governor George Pataki, University of Oklahoma President David Boren, and television journalist Diane Sawyer. Although some of the photographs had been destroyed since the experiment was ended during the late 1960s, in 1995 the Smithsonian museum in Washington, D.C., still had as many as 20,000 photographs of men and 7,000 photographs of women. Since then, the photographs have been destroyed (“Naked Truth Returns,” 1995; “Naked Truth Revealed,” 1995; “Smithsonian Destroys,” 1995).” (Criminology Theory, Lilly, Cullen, Ball, 2003:24)

17

This can be problematical in wrongful applications of criminology technology. In the not too distant past; the unsuspecting public was the subject of eugenic studies that ended in tragedy. Strong oversight should accompany all advanced technologies of this genre.

R VE

D

Behaviorism and Learning Theory:

SE

Theories by Pavlov and Skinner revealed the conditioned response in learning. You can train dogs (Pavlov) and people (Skinner et al) to respond accordingly.

IS

“Behaviorists see all behavior as resulting from learned responses to distinct stimuli. As noted by

E

Skinner, when some aspect of behavior (animal or human) is followed by a certain type of

IC

consequence—a reward—it is more likely to recur. The reward is a positive reinforcer. However,

ST

a reward becomes a positive reinforcer, and punishment becomes a negative reinforcer, only

JU

when actually influencing behavior in a specified manner. These concepts form the basis for operant conditioning, whereby behavior patterns are shaped incrementally by reinforcement. (Winfree & Abadinsky 2003:136)

Can we apply this premise to behavior modification procedures? For example if we posit; the child learns via family, peer groups, environment, observation, and social settings, et al, can we produce the proper input for the expected outcome? If criminals learn to be criminals; what must change? The learning environment or conditions of learning must change or be adjusted. In order to change or modify criminals you must go to the source of their criminality; the mind! I cannot subscribe to criminality that is not learned somewhere!

18

“The behavioral psychologist operates from a radically different perspective than the therapist oriented toward the psychoanalytic model. The focus is on specific behavior, which is the end result of the values, attitudes, interests, skills, and basic personality patterns of the individual.

R VE

D

The basic principle underlying behaviorism is that all behavior is learned. The father of behaviorism, John B. Watson, believed that the purpose of psychology is to understand, predict,

SE

and control human behavior (Bartol, 1986:79). B. F. Skinner, a dominant figure in behaviorism, felt that there is nothing emotionally or morally wrong with persons who commit crimes. Rather,

IS

they are simply responding to rewards and punishments within their environments. Thus,

E

behavior is repeated if it is rewarded; conversely, behavior that is not rewarded is not repeated.

IC

According to the behaviorists, behavior can be changed through either positive or negative

ST

interactions with the environment. Because the personality develops through the interaction of

JU

the unique biological and social forces that make up the learning process, the viability for change comes from the person making rational decisions based on what is pleasing. Thus, all behavior can be studied and predicted if the positive reward system driving it is efficient enough.” (Vito & Holmes 1994:128)

Now; if we consider the premise posited by Watson, that all behaviors are learned, how can we change the behavior patterns in criminals? Can we use various deterrence sanctions, reward and punishments? Can we treat prisoners like Pavlov’s dogs with positive or negative reinforcement? If they learned it; they can unlearn it and; or; change! But; what if the criminal wants to be-a criminal? Dr. Samenow blames criminal behavior on-criminals!

19

Psychological-Psychoanalytic Theories:

“Although by the middle 1970s psychoanalytic theory had lost considerable standing and was to come under considerable attack by the early 1990s, partly because of new evidence

R VE

D

suggesting that Freud had either misjudged or actually suppressed much of his critical case material and partly because of sharp feminist critiques, Yochelson and Samenow (1976)

SE

published a popular book, The Criminal Personality, arguing that crime is the result of pathological thought patterns constituting a “criminal mind.” Offenders were described in the

IS

traditional language of psychopathy as manipulative, calculating, and largely immune to

E

traditional efforts to treat them. ..Still, by the 1980s, the notion that the criminal must be

IC

characterized by some pathological mentality, if only it could be identified, had gained more

ST

favor, with many different psychological characteristics suggested as the origin of crime.” (Lilly,

JU

Cullen & Ball, 2002:217)

“Criminals cause crime—not bad neighborhoods, inadequate parents, television, schools, drugs, or unemployment. Crime resides within the minds of human beings and is not caused by social conditions. Once we as a society recognize this simple fact, we shall take measures radically different from current ones. To be sure, we shall continue to remedy intolerable social conditions for this is worthwhile in and of itself. But we shall not expect criminals to change because of such efforts. Only if society knows who the criminal is can genuine progress be made in fighting crime. Here, I shall propose still another approach to the crime problem, a method of dealing with criminals

20

that has had positive results and therefore offers a ray of hope. It begins with holding the criminal completely accountable for his offenses. This is to say that a person is responsible for having committed a crime, regardless of his social background or the adversities that have confronted him. However, the fact that a criminal commits crimes out of choice should not result only in locking him up for he will emerge from prison still a criminal. Just as he has chosen a life

R VE

D

of crime, so a criminal can make choices in a new direction and learn to lead a responsible life. This is not an attempt to resuscitate rehabilitation under another name, for all the traditional

SE

rehabilitative programs in the world will be of no use unless the criminal changes his

IS

thinking.” (Samenow, 1984:6) (Emphasis Mine)

E

If we follow this train of thought; we can arrive at possibilities. Today we have the

IC

technology to effect change. We have mind altering drugs that can change the mental state of

ST

individuals. And; these drugs are found on the street as well as in the pharmaceutical. If we can

JU

apply the advances of mind altering technologies on willing participants, changes can be realized. If the criminal wants to change; they can. Also of use is subliminal mind altering processes, now; I suggest this type of therapy on a willing criminal base. Volunteers only! A control group could be established composed of criminals that really want to change. These people could be used in a controlled scientific experimental basis (control group) and then tested for results. What do we know about subliminal programming?

“Subliminal therapy has been used for many decades, dating back as far as the early 1900's. The first recorded use of subliminal messages was seen in the form of whisper therapy, in which a therapist whispers suggestions to the patient in hopes of subconsciously persuading the

21

patient to improve his/her behavior. In the whisper therapy example, the therapist whispers the suggestion to the patient at a level inaudible to the conscious mind; or at a time when the patient is not expecting it. If the patient is unaware of the suggestion because it is below his/her level of awareness, the suggestion will be entered into the subconscious mind. Though use of subliminal messages was not recorded until the twentieth century, research began

R VE

D

much earlier. The research of Suslowa in 1863 demonstrated that there is a threshold between conscious and subliminal that was seen through the use of "subliminal electrical stimulation."

SE

The patient was administered electrical impulses at different levels of intensity, and brain activity was observed to change at the specific threshold point. This border between the conscious and

E

IS

subconscious varies slightly from person to person.”

IC

Is there validation for this process? Consider the following: “Currently, not much is

ST

being done to curb the use of subliminal messages in advertising and daily use. In Australia and

JU

Britain, the use of subliminal advertising has been banned with severe consequences for those who disobey the strict laws. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States will now revoke a company's broadcast license if the use of subliminal messages is proven. Subliminal message usage has also been banned for all members of The National Association of Broadcasters. In a Nevada court case, the judge ruled that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and press does not extend as far as subliminal messages (Pratkanis200).” (http://library.thinkquest.org/)

If the FCC will revoke a station’s license for intentionally using subliminal messaging, this would validate it authenticity, wouldn’t you think? Ok! Say this works! If scientists would

22

utilize this process to go below the conscience level of communication to the sub-conscience, could change be affected? We are looking for things that can change behavior patterns. Another technology that can change/alter mind states is found in neuroscience and

R VE

D

psychoacoustics.

SE

The Scientific Research Behind

IS

Acoustic Brainwave Entrainment:

E

“David Krech, University of California at Berkeley psychologist predicted almost

IC

twenty-five years ago: "I foresee the day when we shall have the means, and therefore,

ST

inevitability, the temptation, to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of all people

JU

through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain." That day may very well be here now, and the gentle altering of brain wave patterns using sound may be the easiest, most potent, and safest way to do it. Acoustic Brainwave Entrainment uses sound technology to entrain brain wave patterns, giving us the ability to influence and/or create tranquility, pain control, creativity, euphoria, excitement, and focused attention, relief from stress, enhanced learning ability and problem solving ability, increased memory, accelerated healing, behavior modification, and improvements in mental and emotional health.” (http://www.neuroacoustic.com/acoustic.html)

23

Today; believe it or not; technology exists that can change brainwave patterns and thought processes. This could prove effective in Criminal Justice if applied. Criminal mind states must be changed at point of origin-within. If this technology could be applied in control groups across the criminal spectrum, results could be studied and verified as to validity. Something must be found or we will continue to process and warehouse our criminals. Nothing

R VE

D

seems to have any lasting effect on criminals because it is applied to the wrong location-external,

SE

rather than-internal, the seat and origin of all affections, good or evil.

IS

Conclusion:

E

If we make the assumption that effective changes reside within our capabilities; via

IC

modern mind altering technology, it becomes our responsibility to implement such. It has

ST

become paramount to find and implement new workable procedures to reduce the criminal

JU

behavior. Deterrents work if applied swiftly and consistently, albeit; the outcry against severe sanctions (death penalty) will restrict and minimize severe sanctions, emboldening the criminal to continue harsh acts of criminality upon the unsuspecting public.

Putting into propositional form the concept of changing criminal behavior from within, could gain substantial support, providing the test results were empirically validated. This would require beta testing at several penal locations, and perhaps the worst criminals could be in the initial control groups. If proven empirically, this could become policy followed by application. Although; strictly on a volunteer basis because of ACLU type organizations.

24

Definitions of terms we use, definitions of the factors we consider significant in influencing various events, assist us in constructing a logical explanatory framework or theory. Defining the problem of deterrence and providing useful solutions can change the criminal paradigm. What is the overall problem? Finding answers for societies burgeoning criminal problem. Criminals no longer fear harsh sanctions as they once did. Their probability of even

R VE

D

getting apprehended for their crimes is; infinitesimally small. The solution resides in change. Changing the criminals desire to commit crimes and to become beneficial instead of detrimental,

JU

ST

IC

E

IS

SE

can be accomplished with the proper theories and applications thereof!

25

References: Champion, Dean J. (2000). Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology (Second ed., Vol. 1) (Marion Gottlieb. Neil Marquardt, Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall, Inc. (Original work published Prentice-Hall, Inc) Lilly, Robert J. & Richard A. Ball. (2002). Criminological Theory Context and Consequences

R VE

D

(1st ed., Vol. 1) (Vonessa Vondera. James Westby, Ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc. (Original work published 2002)

SE

Rennie, Ysabel Fisk. (1978). The Search For Criminal Man (1st ed., Vol. 1) (Dinitz. Conrad, Ed.). N/A, Canada: D.C. Health and Company. (Original work published D. C. Health

IS

and Company)

E

Samenow, Stanton E. (1984). Inside the Criminal Mind (1st ed., Vol. 1) (Samenow, Ed.). New

IC

York: Time Books, a Division of Random House. (Original work published Time Books)

ST

Siegal, Larry J. (2004). Criminology Theories, Patterns, & Typologie (1st ed.) (Horne. Whitney,

JU

Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Vito, Gennaro F. & Holmes, Ronald M. (1994). Criminology Theory, Research, and Policy (1st ed., Vol. 1) (Brian Gore, Ed. et al.). Belmont, CA: International Thompson Publishing. (Original work published 1994) Winfree, L., Thomas & Abadinsky, Howard (2003). Understanding Crime Theory and Practice (1st ed., Vol. 1) (Massicotte. Horne, Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-10-facial-recognitionterrorism_N.htm (Neuroimaging: a story of physicians and basic scientists.) (www.pubmed.com)