Tuesday, 12 May 2015

TURNING TO CRIME - Evaluation points

UPBRINGING - FAF:

Situational perspective (S=Useful for government to change people’s circumstances, W= Reductionist, doesn’t consider other approaches)
Nurture perspective (S= Easier to change than biology, W= Ignores biology)
Determinist explanation (S= May encourage rehabilitation rather than punishment, W= Ignores freewill, how can we punish people for something they didn’t choose)
Reductionist (S= Easier to understand, helps us to determine causality and importance of individual factors, W= Ignores dynamic of relationship between factors, e.g. nature and nurture, so may not be valid)
Runs in families; not necessarily upbringing.
For maximum validity, studies testing this explanation need to be longitudinal (S=more in-depth, track development, W=attrition rates, observer bias, ethical issues)

COGNITION - GYP:

Dispositional/individual perspective (S=suggests therapy may be useful,
W= Maybe difficult to generalise to larger population)
Deterministic as it suggests that cognitions determine behaviour but we
have some freewill over our cognitions (S=more holistic, W=to what extent
can we blame the individual for crime?)
Cognitions aren’t observable (S=more complex, subjective, accepts that
people have individual differences, W=subjective, non-scientific, may be
invalid)
Somewhat more holistic as cognition can be influenced by situation as well
as nature and nurture (S=likely to be valid as it looks at a variety of factors,
W=still reductionist in that biology and upbringing tend to be overlooked,
may not enable causality so may be less useful)
Relies on self-report (S=allows for attitudes and cognitions to be accessed,
qualitative and quantitative data, W=validity may be poor due to demand
characteristics, lying, and misinterpretation etc.)

BIOLOGY - BRD:

Deterministic (S= follows scientific laws e.g. physics, more objective, more
valid and so less chance of researcher bias and may encourage medical
treatment rather than punishment, W=ignores freewill, how can we punish
people for something they didn’t choose)
Reliance on correlation (S=more ethical than manipulating biology,
W=causality; how do we know whether brain dysfunction /genes/serotonin
is a cause or result of criminal behaviour? When nature and nurture
influence together?
Reductionist (S=easier to understand, helps us to determine causality and
importance of individual factors, W=ignores dynamic of relationship
between factors, may not be valid)
Nature approach (S=more scientific, observable, objective, W=harder to
rehabilitate, reductionist as does not consider environmental factors.

No comments:

Post a Comment