Nature versus Nurture: The debate

Nature versus Nurture: The debate A View of Two Fields of Thought: Nature versus Nurture A debate has been brewing in the field of education and philosophy for hundreds of years. Many intellectuals have pondered over this subject and have taken one side or the other, but to this day no definite answer exists. The battle of nature versus nurture, or rationalism versus empiricism, has so long been debated and has been addressed in so much literature that one would be hard pressed to find an educator who hasnt thought about this topic and considered the merits of each school of thought. This debate affects how educators view their students as well as how they believe children can be taught, so it is important to explore the history of each side and investigate the evidence so educators as well as parents can understand how to access their childs potential. In 380 B.C.E. Plato wrote a play titled Meno. In this work, he discussed through his characters how intelligence was based on recollection. This concept was derived from the idea that once a human being dies, his soul is reincarnated into another human being and that newly born person has all of the knowledge that his former life possessed. Therefore, Plato believed in the idea that knowledge was innate (Allen 165-174). He believed that people were divided into social or intellectual classes by the type of metal that supposedly ran through their souls. These metals were gold, silver, brass and iron and they were used to keep the social hierarchy in check. If someone were believed to have gold in their soul, they would theoretically govern the state and be of superior intelligence. Someone who had silver in their soul was seen as a warrior of the state and if someone was believed to have brass or iron in their soul, they were never meant for a high ranking position in the social spher e but to dwell on the earth as members of the lower class (Voegelin 230). The next great mind to enter the nature versus nurture debate came around in the mid 1600s. Rene Descartes created an entire school that is known today as the Cartesian school of thought. Descartes and his followers adopted the idea of dualism, meaning that the soul is separate from the body and that the soul does not have a physical manifestation (Gardner 33). This idea goes along well with the previously mentioned theories of Plato. In a dedicatory letter to the Sorbonne, Descartes attempted to prompt his literary work, Mediations on First Philosophy. This letter outlined Descartes key ideas concerning knowledge and dualism. He emphasized that all that is known about God is manifested in people, and to figure out those manifestations one must use reasoning, which takes place in the brain. Also throughout the letter Descartes made it a point to mention how people have certain aptitudes for different vocations, such as metaphysical studies or geometry; he also explored the idea that people can be intellectually gifted, as to say they were granted their intelligence from birth. Descartes had little evidence to support this reasoning beyond his heavy reliance on philosophy and his strong religious beliefs. Like Plato, he believed that the soul lived on after the body had expired (Descartes 3-11). As time moved on, the nature argument started to move away from the religious vantage point and more toward scientific research. Francis Galton would be among the first men who conducted such experiments. In Galtons book Hereditary Genius he stated the argument that the high reputation of a man could be used as an accurate assessment of high ability. He studied eminent men such as the Judges of England from 1660 to 1868 and also the Statesmen during the reign of George III. Along with these men, Galton also studied men of a wide variety of professions since he believed it was important to study many different grades of ability (Galton 2). He studied nearly 300 families and concluded that eminent men do tend produce eminent sons (307). From this conclusion, Galton set out to continue his research, only this time he wouldnt focus his attention on the biographies of successful men; he would continue his research with the study of twins. Through the process of sending out surveys to people who either were twins or those who were close relatives of twins, Galton found further support for his rationalist theories. At first he addressed a number of twins who were very similar from birth, and then he addressed those sets of twins who were dissimilar from the very beginning, which he considered more relevant to his cause. He presented several testimonies from parents of twins stating that even though the twins were nurtured the exact same way from the moment they were born, they showed great difference. A specific case stated that two male twins acted as compliments to one another. One boy would possess a certain set of qualities and attributes where as the other would be the polar opposite of his twin brother who had received the same nurture. Galton states that through all of his correspondences, he could not find one case where the twins started out different and were assimilated through nurture (Galton 391-406). Galton continued to study the issue of hereditary intelligence in many other books and journals, but one his most famous proposals was his ideas on eugenics. Because Galton believed that knowledge was inherited, he thought that it would benefit humanity if only intelligent people were allowed to reproduce. In â€Å"Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims†, Galton laid out his plan for how this process would go about happening. He went as far as to call this way of living a â€Å"new religion† that should be fully pushed upon people so they whole heartedly accept it (Galton ). We now know that for a period in history, Galtons ideas were successful and many people around the world were sterilized against their will as a way to attempt to breed the perfect human race (Dikotter). In Galtons later research he discovered â€Å"regression to the mean†, which is the idea that human beings tend to move toward the average no matter how above or below average their parent s are. This discovery disappointed his hopes of breeding the perfect human race (Galton â€Å"Regression†). Another interesting contributor to the nature argument was Cesare Lombroso. In his book, â€Å"Crime, its causes and remedies†, Lombroso attempted to lie out the naturally occurring tendencies of a criminal. He studied groups of people in Europe and came to the conclusion that features such as hair color, skull size and facial structure were indicators that a person was innately criminal. He also determined that race was a factor in finding naturally born criminals as well. He used the Jewish people as an example for his race theory. He said that Jews were much less likely to commit crimes compared to the gypsies, who he believed where in the same socioeconomic class. Lombroso wrote about schooling as well. He believed that if a student in elementary school displayed the characteristics that he had categorized as criminal then the student should be taken away from the other children and be caught in a way to discourage the innate criminality from surfacing (Lombroso). Much more recently, Charles Murray has addressed this debate and has strongly lobbied for inherited intelligence. In the book â€Å"The Bell Curve† written by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, these men aimed to prove that Americas growing inequality was due to the fact that skilled labor was much more valuable today than unskilled labor. Because both Herrnstein and Murray believed that IQ directly correlated with skill, they believed that the gap between people in society will only continue to grow as unskilled jobs fade away (Murray bell curve). In an article written by Murray published in the Wall Street Journal, he claimed that a persons IQ is directly connected to their intelligence and that that number cannot possibly change no matter what kind of education is given to that student. Through his investigation, he found that when someone tried to raise their IQ, it only went up an average of about 8 points as after time progressed, the number returned back to what it had originally been. Considering the national assessment of educational progress scores, 36% of all fourth graders were below the standards of basic achievement in reading; Murray stated that this number should be considered acceptable since 36% of fourth graders, according to the normal distribution, have IQs lower than 95. He even made the bold claim that if you argue that an IQ test doesnt determine intelligence, then G, someones natural intellectual ability, does (Murray Newspaper). The other side of the nature versus nurture debate lies with those who believe nurture is the predominate cause of intelligence and personality. A few years after Descartes died, John Locke came forward with his views on rationalism verses empiricism. He thought it was wrong to believe a small child had any innate ideas, and he is well known for his theory that a mind is like a blank, white piece of paper that parents and teachers can write on as they see fit to shape and mold the child into adulthood. Locke believed that ideas came from two places: first from sensory information and second from reflections (115spiral). In Lockes â€Å"Essay Concerning Human Understanding† he attacked the theory of innate knowledge by assuming that if there were innate principles in the human mind, everyone would agree on these principles. Because not all people agreed, it proved to Locke that there were in fact no innate principals at all. Also, in what seems like a direct attack at Descartes , Locke argued the innateness of God to be fictional because there are cultures all around the world that do not recognize any god at all (Locke). Around the same time as Locke, George Berkeley achieved recognition for his theories on empiricism as well. Berkeley believed that the mind was what everything in existence revolved around and that matter did not actually exist, thinking that all things in the world were composed of ideas (Flage). He thought that all things were either sensations or perceptions and one can only know what one sees. Berkeley believed that when a person looks at something, they only see the appearance of the object and not the real qualities which arent perceivable to anyone. Human senses are the only way people can understand the things in the world (Berkeley 193-215). The third well know empiricist of the time was David Hume. Hume believed that what was in the mind could be broken down into basic sensations. He theorized that thinking was just a byproduct of disconnected sensations and ideas were like vague copies of distinct perceptions or impressions and everything past those ideas and perceptions were unnecessary to explore (D. Murray 11-12). Years later in the late 1800s, John Watson published a book called Behaviorism. He presented a thesis about human instincts and discussed what human beings are born being able to do. He claims that those functions are in fact not instincts as instincts were defined at the time. He claimed that everything that people had initially thought were instincts were actually learned behaviors that came about as a result of training. On this evidence, he stated â€Å"that there is no such thing as an inheritance of capacity, talent, temperament, mental constitution and characteristics† (Watson 75). He believed that if a child has a father that is a good swordsman, the child will only become a good swordsman if the father nurtures him to be so, not just because he has his fathers genes. He supported this idea by referencing all the different customs and tendencies of people all across the world and how they all differ due to their culture and environment (74-75). One relevantly recent phenomenon is the Flynn Effect, which is describes as significant increases in IQ over time. This effect has been attributed to a variety of factors such as â€Å"improved nutrition; increased environmental complexity; and family, parental, school and methodological factors† (Daley 215). All of these components of the Flynn affect were at first criticized for focusing on only industrialized and urban areas, but a group of people from the University of California went to Kenya to help strengthen the Flynn Effects environmental explanations (215). The study took place in the Embu District of Kenya. The first research was done in 1984 and then again in 1998 with two different groups of children. The researches administered three tests to the group of children they were studying. The tests were: the Ravens Progressive Matrices, the verbal meaning test, and the digit span test. It was determined that the second group of children in 1998 scored higher than those in 1984, proving that the Flynn Effect was definitely present. To explain these increases the researchers looked to see if the environmental factors had changed during the 14 years. Nutrition became better, which is represented by the increase in kilocalories and protein from 1984 to 1998 as well as a decrease in children who had an insufficient caloric intake. The environment also became more complex, with the addition of a few televisions as well as a majority of parents reporting to have read a newspaper or magazines at least once a week. Both of these factors had not existed in the community during the 1984 study. In addition, family size decreased in Kenya, which allowed the households to spend more on the individual children and the family structure shifted from nuclear families to single parent households run by the mother. Parental education and literacy also increased during the 14 years, going from 26% of mothers reporting no schooling in 1984 to only 8.7% in 1998. Schooling didnt change much during the time period, but there was an increase in the number of children who attended Sunday school, so this could be seen as an extra day of schooling. The health of the children didnt improve and the hemoglobin counts actually worsened over the time period, but the most severe causes of anemia decreased from 1984 to 1989 (217-219). The main impacts on the children according to this study were parental literacy, family stature and health. All of the children in the study belonged to the same tribe so the researchers believed this to be proof that the environment a child is raised in has much affect on his or her intelligence (219). One of the most recent empiricists is Geoffrey Canada. Canada grew up in inner city New York but moved to Long Island with his grandparents in his early teens. He graduated from high school and went to college and then attended graduate school at Harvard University. Canada eventually became the CEO and president of Harlem Childrens Zone. Currently, the program spans 97 blocks in New York City and caters to nearly 8000 students. He whole heartedly believes that with the right amount of guidance and direction, the struggling students in inner cities can learn to appreciate learning and to increase their intelligence through their environment in the classroom (Moore). In Paul Toughs book â€Å"Whatever it takes: Geoffrey Canadas quest to change Harlem and America† the program is described in great detail and it shows how the lives of the children have been adjusted to foster learning (Tough). The programs success became evident in 2009 â€Å"when its charter school, the Promise Academy, eliminated the achievement gap for math between average black students and white students in New York City† (Moore). The debate over nature versus nurture spans back to when philosophy was predominantly the way of explaining the acquisition of knowledge and continues in more recent times with scientific evidence consisting of facts and numbers giving support to one side or the other. Both the recent and historical back and forth between great scholars helps each individual, be they parent or educator, come to their own personal conclusions of whether nature or nurture is the more dominant factor contributing to a persons knowledge and IQ. Works Cited Allen, R.E.. Anamnesis in Platos Meno and Phaedo.The Review of Metaphysics13 (1959):165-174.JSTOR. Flage. 29 Mar. 2010. Berkeley, George. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. sax: Indypublish.Com, 2003. 193-215. Print. Daley, Tamara, Shannon Whaley, Marian Sigman, Michael Espinosa, and Charlotte Neumann. IQ on the Rise: The Flynn Effect in Rural Kenyan Children . Psychological Science 14 (2003): 215-219. JSTOR. Flage. 30 Mar. 2010. Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Volume II). New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. 3. Print. Dikotter, Frank. Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics. The American Historical Review 103 (1998): n. pag. JSTOR. Flage. 29 Mar. 2010. Flage, Daniel. George Berkeley (1685-1753). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . James Madison University, 4 Apr. 2004. Flage. 28 Mar. 2010. . Galton, Francis . Regression Towards Mediocrity in Hereditary Stature. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 15 (1886): n. pag. Jstor. Flage. 2 Apr. 2010. Galton, Francis. The History of Twins, as a Criterion of the Relative Powers of Nature and Nurture. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 5 (1876): 391-406. JSTOR. Flage. 29 Mar. 2010. Galton, Francis. Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims. The American Journal of Sociology 10 (1904): n. pag. JSTOR. Flage. 28 Mar. 2010. Galton, Sir Francis. Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry Into Its Laws and Consequences (Classic Reprint). asdbjsadjkas: Forgotten Books, 2009. Print. Gardner, Howard, Mindy Kornhaber, and Warren K. Wake. Intelligence: Multiple Perspectives. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1995. 33-36. Print. Herrnstein, Richard J., and Charles Murray. Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book). 1st Free Press Pbk. Ed ed. New York City: Free Press, 1996. Print. Lombroso, Cesare. Crime: Its Causes and Remedies. 1918: Legal Classics Library, A Division Of Gryphon Editions, 1994. Print. Moore, Jina. Empathy is his superpower / The Christian Science Monitor CSMonitor.com. The Christian Science Monitor CSMonitor.com. N.p., 7 Sept. 2009. Flage. 4 Apr. 2010. . Murray, Charles. Intelligence in the Classroom Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them. . Wall Street Journal n/a (2007): 1-3. Print. Murray, D.W.. What is the Western Concept of the Self? on Forgetting David Hume. Ethos 21 (1993): 11-12. JSTOR. Flage. 30 Mar. 2010. Tough, Paul. Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canadas Quest to Change Harlem and America. New York: Mariner Books, 2009. Print. Voegelin, Eric. The La. Plato. 1 ed. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2000. 230. Print. Watson, John. B.. Are There Any Human Instincts?. Behaviorism. San Diego: West Press, 2008. 74-75. Print. Theories of Crime and Gender: Research Study Theories of Crime and Gender: Research Study Crime Gender __________________________________ Contents (Jump to) Introduction    Why Gender? Why Crime? Ground Rules – Laying the Foundation for a Thorough Discussion: Feminism Sociological Motivation Offenders – Women who Violate the â€Å"Norm† Victims –   In their â€Å"natural† place†¦ In the System – The Influence of Dominant Social Structures Paradigms Field Perspective – A Short Experimental Inquiry into Current Perceptions about Women Violent Crime The Verdict – Moving Forward with Facts†¦ and assumptions References __________________________________ Appendix A Research Surveys Appendix B Annotated SPPS Output Appendix C Raw Data Introduction Why Gender? Why Crime? The answer to the question posed above could be any one of the following: In the tradition of Sir Edmund Hillary in referring to why he climbed Mt. Everst, simply, â€Å"Because it is there†. In the modern tradition of rhetoric, â€Å"Why not?† In ‘typical’ answer one might expect, because both are compelling, engaging topics in which virtually everyone has a vested interest in and both are issues fundamental to the social and political fabric of modern life. The truth is simply â€Å"all of the above† with a heavy emphasis on #3. These topics have the fortune of being both broad and â€Å"loaded†. It is broad in the sense that both subjects, in and of themselves, is the subject of the life’s work of numerous notable academians as well as that of many law enforcement, social service and legal professionals. Without question, the subjects, especially gender, is loaded with emotion. While many might believe that feminism is a wasted effort to redirect attention and funds, others pursue the topic with all the righteous vigor of that associated with the abolition of slavery. The topics of gender and crime would be much easier to cover if, like a traditional Venn diagram, there were but a small area of overlap. In contrast, the two subjects seem to only grow when combined. With this in mind, a logical treatise on the subject is yet possible by presentation with a logical stepwise progression through fundamental theoretical perspectives followed by the systematic treatment of each key stakeholder. Following this, original research will be reviewed and discussed in light of the foundations laid. Based on these findings, additional lines of inquiry to tease out further salient differences and issues will be proposed. Ground Rules Laying the Foundation for a Thorough Discussion: Feminism Sociological Motivation Feminism It becomes quite apparent with on a cursory review of literature that crime is a man’s arena. Unanimously, researchers agree that the overwhelming majority of crime is committed by men and that gender is the strongest predictor of criminality (Messerschmidt 1997, p. 1; Belknap 2001, pp. xii, 5-6; Heidensohn 1997, p. 491). In itself, this begs the question of why this is the case. Though any answer to this question falls short of the answer to the ‘whole’ question, it is enough to pique interest and to begin a line of inquiry into the simple matter, given the roughly 50/50 gender distribution, why must is be the case that men commit more than ten times the crimes that women do (or are they just not caught?). The simple fact that most crimes are committed by men and not by women creates questions as to the reasoning behind this. Though seemingly far from what might be considered a typical feminist agenda, the issue of crime and gender is indeed a fundamental issue of gender and, therefore central to the thoughts of feminism. In assigning a feminism interest to the issue of gender and crime, additional complications arise due to the multiple perspectives of feminism within its own ranks. While the uninitiated might label all feminists alike, this is not the case as there are five major division within the overall perspective of â€Å"a woman-centered description and explanation of human experience and the social world† (Belknap 2001, p. 16). Below is a table listing each major faction and the outlook regarding key issues: Label Perspective Liberal feminism Believe that women’s access to equality in education, employment and â€Å"public† things in general are blocked by generally accepted (but wrong) principles, policies and laws. Marxist feminism Disciples of this division are most concerned with class and economic inequalities. Socialist feminists Take issue with Marxist’s in that they insist that it is not class alone but also instilled systems and that perpetuate inequalities. Radical feminists Another reaction against Marxist feminism that again goes beyond it in that they emphasize patriarchal systems as sources of inequality and, of all the factions, this one is the most likely to â€Å"hold individual men, rather than society, responsible†. Post-modern feminists Advocates of a multiple perspective view in that the issues that any woman faces are different based upon class, race, age, etc. (Belknap 2001, pp. 16-17) Though feminism is a diverse and sometimes, even divisive, arena, each ‘faction’ has a belief that men and women should receive equal treatment under the law and in society in general. Criminology, with its overwhelming use of masculine models, theories and subjects has largely attempted to impose these models upon female crime, crime victims and system-issues in an effort to explain how and why female crime occurs. Though these models are insightful and useful, they do not fully explain male or female criminology. Consequently, the utilization of the feminist perspective may be quite useful in not only generating models for female offenders but able to shed light on what went wrong with male criminals. This feminist viewpoint is different from other perspectives in the following ways: Gender is not a natural fact but a complex social, historical and cultural product related to but limited to any biological basis for sex. Gender and gender relation create and sustain fundamental order in social life and institutions. Gender relations are based upon masculine and feminine constructs in which men are viewed are socially, politically, and economically dominant over women. The production of knowledge is gendered in that men produce it from their point of view. Women and women’s issues should be at the center of attention and inquiry. (Belknap 2001, p. 13) With the realization that half of the planet’s population is female, the duration of the dominance ‘typical’ perspectives becomes even more curious. Thus, in consideration of crime and gender, the feminist perspective can be enlightening both for the perspective on the majority as well as to provide novel insight into female-committed crime as well as how it is possible that approximately 93% of the [female] populate are ‘crime-free’. Were we able to find this mystery female ‘ingredient’ (is it butterflies?) and, were it able to be instilled, socialized, taught, administered or cultivated in any way in the other half of the population, the world would be virtually crime-free. An example of how the feminist perspective has already fundamentally changed the view of society at large is in regards to rape. Clearly a violent crime, [male] researchers had, prior to the emergence of the feminist perspective, simply gathered data on this crime in the same way that did not fully capture the reality of situation. Specifically, the number of rapes committed each year was reported based upon statistics gathered from police records, a source that is contingent upon a crime being reported and how a crime is defined. As it would turn out, many â€Å"rapes† are not reported and further, the legal definition of â€Å"rape† may not exactly fit the reality of a victim who may have been forced to have sex (Belknap 2001, p. 20). Sociological Motication: Why People Commit Crime There are a number theories as to why crimes are committed. Clearly, there are crimes of passion and as many other reasons as there are unfulfilled desires of the heart. Despite the overwhelming possibilities, there emerge a few predictable bases as well as other â€Å"systematic† rationale for deviant behavior. Without engaging in the broadest of philosophical arguments as to what constitutes â€Å"right† and what separates this from â€Å"wrong†, a key tenet to lawbreaking that we should accepts is that of â€Å"mens rea† or, â€Å"guilty mind†. This Latin phrase is central in that we excerpt from our discussion those who commit a crime â€Å"by mistake, under duress or while insane† (Hampton 1990, pp.1). Consequently, of the millions of crimes committed, it becomes imperative to study the matter to determine to cause and ultimately to prevent their commission in the first place as those who commit such acts do so willfully, with at least s ome idea of the potential penalties and with the knowledge that harm is likely or, depending on the crime, is certain to occur to persons or property though this will be presented not from a individual psychological perspective but rather that of a large scale sociological perspective. Early criminologists believed primarily believed that crime was a ‘class’ problem, an issue that was confined for the most part to lower socio-economic strata (Lynch 1996, pp. 4, 8-9). This view point is still widely held and, as regression goes, still has significant explanatory power though there are other variables in the equation. As criminologist evolved in their thinking, questions of gender and race began to be considered. Messerschmidt, in Crimes as Structured Action (1997), indicates that each of these variables is more than a simple binary-type factor that someone either has or does not. In the same way that feminists recognize different feminist experiences, Messerschmidt puts for a theory of structured action. Similarly, in this model, each factor is contextual and has a relational aspect with regards to the other factors. For example, in some circumstances, one may be a â€Å"male†, in others, and â€Å"African-American† while yet in others â⠂¬Å"working class†. These identities are constructed through social interaction and existing social structures such as church, home, work, etc. Defined in broader terms, social structures are those â€Å"regular and patterned forms of interaction over time that constrain and channel behavior in specific ways† (Messerschmidt 1997, p. 5). These social structures are created by culpable people and perpetuated by the same. In essence the perspectives that one accepts and endorses, even if implicitly, one also perpetuates, even in cases in which one ‘just goes along with it’ as ultimately, there is an accountability that people take on themselves when they choose to construe themselves as a certain way in a specific situation (Messerschmidt 1997, pp. 4-6). Though it is something of the ‘American way’ and reminiscent of some versions of Arthurian legend that a person who is ‘good’ or works ‘hard enough’ is not limited in their ability to achieve success as the world sees its, there seems to be a great correlation between one’s race, class, neighborhood, gender and other key factors as to how one’s life choices play out. This view is specifically termed the â€Å"structured life course† and indicates that ones choices about any given matter are often not so much a function of a true individual choice but are frequently arise of a function of nearly inevitable consequences caused by political, social or economic forces that serve to either increase of decrease the likelihood of any particular act (Lynch 1996, pp. 6-7,15; Messerschmidt 1997, p. 7). In support of this, consider the following facts: 34% of all families living under the poverty line are headed by single female workers. 65% of all females in the work force are either single, widowed, divorced, separated or married to men earning less that $15,000/year. African Americans earn, on average, 64% of what whites earn.  ½ Of African American children grow up in poverty. The wealthiest 1% possess 42% of the wealth in America. Most millionaires are born, not made. Class affects where you grow up, how you grow up, the quality of schools you attend (from elementary through college), occupational choices, career path, whom you marry and the cycle begins again with your children. (Lynch 1997, p.11, 12, 16) An additional explanation for the problem of crime that has the potentiality to build upon the precept of the structured action theory is the theory proposed by Hirschi and Gottfredson in A General Theory of Crime (1990) in which they posit that the critical variable in an individual choosing to commit a crime is that of â€Å"self control†. With the exception of a very few acts, the overwhelming majority of crimes are â€Å"trivial and mundane affairs that result in little loss and less gain† (Brannigan 1997, p. 405). Further, the authors suggest that crimes, though usually unplanned, are the result of deliberate (though poor) choices and incur a degree of recklessness or offensiveness that is variable to the extent of the â€Å"underlying criminality† of the individual. The degree of â€Å"criminality† is closely related to this extent to which they are impulsive and, according, have low self-control. In terms of their character or behavior, this has a number of outcomes which contribute to the ‘downward spiral’: a need for immediate gratification, the â€Å"utilization of simple means†, i.e., pay without performance, sex without marriage or commitment, justice or revenge without court costs or delays, etc., biases towards risky and exciting activities, little interest in â€Å"skilful or sophisticated criminal planning† and, insensitivity to the pain of others (Brannigan 1997, p. 406). From these behaviors, additional consequences follow such as tendencies to: smoke, drink, use drugs, gamble, have children out of marriage and engage in risky, illicit sex, be impulsive and insensitive, physical (i.e., not ‘intellectual’), short-sighted, and nonverbal (Brannigan 1997, p. 406; Storvall, E., L. Wichstrom, H. Pape Nova. 2003, p. 194) The character trait that produces this string of products is produced (or not) in the first six to eight years of childhood (Brannigan 1997, p. 410). During this period, the institution of the family is particularly important as a person is socialized and receives the psychological grounding that produces good impulse- and self-control. Without discounting either the structured action theory, life course theory or the general theory of crime (low self-control), a discussion of criminal behavior would not be complete without a discussion of life cycle theory of Sampson Laub. In the life cycle theory, the idea of internal and external factors in the commission of crime is viewed within the perspective that criminality is a function of age. In this theory, it is noted that, â€Å"the patterns of offending over [an individual’s] life cycle commonly follow an age curve – a peak†¦ which rises throughout the late adolescence and which declines into early adulthood†. Interestingly, the level of the crest of criminality varies with the race and gender of the offender as well as, accordingly, with those that can be labeled â€Å"high- or low-frequency† offenders (Brannigan 1997, p. 409). With this in mind, Brannigan points out, many programs that are aimed at curbing crime or rehabilitating o ffenders will commit grievous errors if the assumption is made that a certain regimen is effective that fails to account for this â€Å"invariant† feature (Brannigan 1997, p. 410). Another model, social capital or social bond theory, names the additional external factor of positive or negative social pressures in the form of relationships and so-called â€Å"social capital† that exists in the form of a steady job, a good marriage and other stabilizing (or not) relational bonds that influence criminality (Brannigan 1997, p. 411; Belknap 2001, p. 47, Batton 2004, p. 430; Giordano, Cernkovich Rudolph 2002, p. 990). The fundamental approach of this theory is on what induces most people and nearly all females to obey the law. Because of this, it is a distinctly feminist approach in light of the overwhelming data indicating that crime is, in nearly all cases a male issue. In all, there are a number of approaches that one can justifiably take to explain why people commit crimes. Though each one can be viewed as a separate proposition, it does not seem to be a crime to simply use each for what it is, that is, a partial representation of a broad and complex topic. In light of this, it seems to be a reasonable approach to posit a de facto theory by which race, class and gender, in combination with internal self-control and external relational factors work together to create real and virtually real structures and courses that interact over the course of a person’s life span to create a seemingly complete, reasonable and accurate explanation for most criminal acts. Viewed contextually, combinations of such risk factors as being male, having a corrupted network of friends could be overcome by being raised in a caring family environment with other ‘insulating’ factors. Similarly, a moment of poor impulse control could begin a process that quickly spirals out of control. Offenders Women who Violate the â€Å"Norm† In summary of women as principal agents in the commission of a crime, a few general trends become obvious: women commit a very small portion of all crimes, about 4-7% in the US and UK, the crimes they do commit are, on average, fewer, less severe and less likely to be â€Å"professional† or repeat offenders, women form a very small portion of prison populations. (Heidensohn 1997, pp. 491-492) Further, in all crimes except rape, the factor of gender becomes even more disparate as men are not only far more likely to commit a crime, they are even more likely to be a victim (Batton 2004, p. 423). According to 2000 statistics, men accounted for 89.6% of murder arrests and commit suicide at approximately 4x the rate of females (Batton 2004, p. 425). Though women commit far fewer crimes, some authors note that the rate of growth of female offenders is growing at a faster rate than that of males (Heidensohn 1997, pp. 494-496). Despite this, it is important to keep in perspective comparatively diminutive population of female offenders and that a large increase in the relative rate may yet still be quite a small number in absolute value. In regards to our ‘wholly unified’ theory as a composite of ‘all with predictive power’, a review of homicide data from 1960 – 2000 indicates that as female work for participation increased, the rate of murders committed by females has decreased. This suggests that as women gain greater power through increased penetration of established social structures, this has reduced the stress and frustration and subsequent ‘out-of-control’ feeling that can lead to lethal consequences. This finding is in contrast to male homicide rates that, during the same period, either stayed the same or increased, while workforce participation also remained constant (Batton 2004, p. 452). One theme that seems to emerge across studies of deviant behavior in females and males is the tendency of females to reports higher internal sources of problems than males (Storvall, E., L. Wichstrom, H. Pape Nova. 2003, p. 200; Batton 2004, pp. 428-429). Examples of this would be depression, stress from â€Å"success† in breaking through social structures or stress in being frustrated by them. This suggests the possibility that the specific motivations behind the commission behind criminal acts may be more internally driven for females and more external for males. In support of social bond theory are findings from research on female juveniles who socialize in three predominantly different setting with regards to support structures in the form of relationships and friendship networks. In this research, the greater the extent of the female-dominated friendship bonds, the less the extent of property crimes. This effect was greatest in â€Å"school females† and progressively weaker with â€Å"school males† and â€Å"street females† and virtually nonexistent for â€Å"homeless males† (McCarthy, Felmlee, Hagan 2004, p. 805). In regards to women who do commit crimes, particularly violent crimes such as domestic abuse or murder, they do so very much as men seem to do. For example in the case of domestic violence, both women and men were â€Å"equally likely to have used severe violence and inflicted severe injuries†¦, to have previously committed violence against nonintimates, and to have been using drugs or alcohol at the time of their arrest† (Busch Rosenberg 2004, p. 49). Victims In their â€Å"natural† place†¦ Despite males being victims of crimes more than females, no discussion of gender and crime would be complete with out a discussion of women as victims of crimes. Indeed, this fact may even be surprising to many that would think that ‘female’ is synonymous with being weaker and more vulnerable. Though women may not be, on average, physically as strong as men, the image is clearly more powerful than reality and this may propogate the well-documented fact that women, despite being a victim less, fear being a victim more (Belknap 2001, p. 206). There are however, certain crimes that are notably perpetrated almost exclusively against women. The most heinous of these is rape and no legitimate discussion of gender and crime would be complete with its omission. Rape is a crime typically committed against women and, in all likelihood, is committed far more than it is reported. While it is the case that it does disproportionately affect women with figures of 34% of Native American women, 18 % of white women, and 19% for African American indicating that they have been victimized (Belknap 2001, p. 218). An additional study surveyed 930 women randomly who gave responses indicating that 44% had been â€Å"victims of a completed or attempted rape† with 24% indicating a rape did definitively occur. Yet another study indicates that up to 53% of women experiencing some form of sexual assault (Belknap 2001, p. 231). TO put this into perspective, if you are a man, chances are 50/50 that your mother, your wife and your daughter has or will be sexually assaulted. If this was a female issue, it seems that the widespread dissemination of information such as this might affect matters. Though the incidence of any rape is too high, reporting and data gathering on this is itself a confounding issue, due in largely to the twin factors of social pressures to not report a shameful experience and the often uncertain definition of what actually constitutes â€Å"rape† or â€Å"sexual assault†. Also, there is likely the disproportionate reporting of certain types of rape such as the stereotypical â€Å"stranger assault† in which it is more socially acceptable to be a ‘victim’ (Belknap 2001, p. 233). The experience of being violated in the way of a rape is often difficult for women to admit, knowing that they may likely bring negative attention to themselves in the form of â€Å"victim blame† or potentially even with the threat of additional violence. Until comparatively recent times and not until the advent of the feminist influence was there much sympathy in the ‘system’ for rape victims (Belknap 2001, p. 215). Additionally, many of rapes are not the stereotypical ‘man in the bushes’ crime but are committed in situations that are â€Å"fuzzy†. Circumstances involving former consensual partners such as ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands or in scenarios where consent might have been given to point or scenarios that escalate out-of-hand but involved consent for some degree of sexual activity cloud the judgment not only police, prosecutors, and juries but the minds of victims as well. Regardless of the relationships of the victim to the offender who is convicted, Scully, indicates that none of them felt â€Å"guilt† regarding their proven actions. This finding corroborates the findings and predictions of the self-control theory as postulated by Hirschi and Gottfredson in which perpetrators are insensitive to others (Belknap 2001, p. 234). An additional crime that is typically thought of as one in which females are victims is that of domestic violence in which up to 23% of women reporting an incident with this over their lifetimes (Heidensohn 1997, p. 495). This is yet another situation in which there are social structure pressure as well as the familiar problem of definition. In regards to the degree of activity needed to constitute a â€Å"crime†, one study indicates that none of the men that completed a survey on the matter defined a number of listed incidents as a â€Å"crime† while 39% of the surveyed women identified them as such (Heidensohn 1997, p. 495). Clearly, a difference of opinion exists. This difference of opinion, though not justified, is nicely illustrated by research that indicated victims of domestic violence â€Å"justify† it and that the perpetrators â€Å"excuse† it. Specifically, regardless of the degree, women, who comprise 95% of the victims of this crime, either underreport the incidents or the severity of the incidents and men use excuses such as frustration, anger or intoxication to avoid or deny responsibility and justifications to deny â€Å"wrongness† (Belknap 2001, p. 268). In the System The Influence of Dominant Social Structures Paradigms The criminal justice system can be seen as part of the contextual framework that provides for the perpetuation of existing social structures. It can also and has been the cause of much positive change. In this irony of a duality of roles lie specific examples of how these can occur. An example of this occurs in the recently discussed situation of domestic violence. Following an incident, any incident, the police are typically the ones called to address the situation which, according to some view domestic disturbance calls frustrating because they feel they are â€Å"fighting crime†. Additionally, these types of calls can be among the most dangerous due to the unknown risks and the possibility to the police becoming involved with a very emotional perpetrator who may have the perspective that the police are ‘invading the sanctity of his home’ (Belknap 2001, p. 292). On arrival, police may find a situation for which they are untrained to deal in the case that skills such as mediation may be required. Additionally, many calls for assistance are made to prevent or in anticipation of a ‘situation’. If the police defuse the situation by their presence, the situation still exists when they leave†¦ it has only been deferred (Belknap 2001, p. 293). If the police are potentially unprepared to deal with a situation, the courts represent an additional layer of structure that imposes constraints on behaviors. For example, there is a good chance that a matter may not even go to judgment due to either plea bargaining or the defendants refusal to prosecute, sometimes to fear of retribution, sometime with false hopes but always in denial of the sequence of events that has begun (Belknap 2001, p. 294). Another component is the ‘system’ of the courts that merits identification is that of sentencing in cases in which women are offenders rather than being the victims. Though part of the reason the women’s prison population is far smaller than that of men is that far fewer women commit crimes. Despite this, with regards to sentencing for similar crimes, 20% of men convicted go to prison whereas only 5% of women do (Heidensohn 1997, p. 503). One reason for this is postulated to be that of â€Å"chivalry†. This phenomena is marked by the application of stereotypical, broadly-held and socially reinforced belief that one should ‘be nice’ to women (Heidensohn 1997, pp. 503-504). Of final note with regards to the idea of factors within the system that affect the issue of crime and gender are the patterns of employment of women within the ‘system’. In terms of women who are employed either in law enforcement or in the prison system, there are firstly comparatively few with women occupying 9% of police positions, 11.5% of corrections facilities and 20% of attorneys (Belknap 2001, pp. 357-358). This is again reflective a social system that reflects male dominance and a continuing male perspective that is, slowly, adapting to the influence of feminism. Field Perspective A Short Experimental Inquiry into Current Perceptions about Women Violent Crime To test for statistically significant variances with regards to perception of crime, a short survey (Appendix A) was administered to a group of 44 students comprised on 22 males and 22 females. Respondents were asked to read two brief crime scenarios and then recommend a sentence for the perpetrator. The two scenarios were identical with the exception that one involved bodily harm. The results of this survey indicated virtually indistinguishable responses with regards to gender with either case. Despite this, both male and female responders were significantly more likely to sentence more harshly the perpetrator who involved the use of bodily harm by an average of approximately 4.5 months. Utilizing a 2-tailed test, this was significant at the plonger sentence (H0 = sentenceA B) and not just simply a different sentence. With this in mind, the results were significant at the weaker p,0.10 level, a result that would likely change were the sample size larger. The Verdict Moving Forward with Facts†¦ and assumptions While the above experiment did not clearly showing gender differences that might have been expected, it is important to keep in mind that the crime involved property, a likely neutral proposition for which shared social