Tweet
Here's a paper I wrote for a class...let me know what y'all think.
Garland Hummel
Social Psychology Paper #2
Criminal Justice
‘Crime and Punishment’ for the Social Psychologist
In the book’s chapter on criminal justice, a great deal of time is spent trying to describe and examine the factors at work in a criminal act; what makes a criminal, as well as sociological explanations for the behaviors of bystanders and witnesses to crimes. The chapter opens up with an account of the murder of Matti Baranovski, a fifteen-year-old boy who was beaten to death by a group of older teens masked in balaclavas. The Baranovski murder, like that of Catherine Genovese in 1964, raises some rather disturbing questions about people’s willingness to help others.
In the case of Baranovski, several cars drove by the area while he was being kicked about the head and neck until a blow finally severed his carotid artery, one of which stopped but sped off after hearing something that made her believe a firearm was involved. In the Genovese murder, thirty-eight people admitted to hearing her cries for help- not a single person intervened. These are prime examples of what social psychologists have dubbed the “bystander effect”, a behavioral phenomenon in which people are less willing to help when other people are standing by. This lack of action can be explained through the “diffusion of responsibility”, when people are in a situation where they can remain in anonymity (unseen in a car or an apartment off the street), they are likely to believe somebody else will do something, or should do something in their stead.
But what about the criminals? The masked murderers of Baranovski had allegedly been out on the town looking for a fight with a rival gang. The deindividuation offered by their balaclavas and their itchy knuckles from missing the fight (frustration-anxiety model) may have played a role. Their deviancy training, that is egging each other on, was a mode of social facilitation, a major player in their group violence.
Still, this begs the question- what makes people violent? The biological/ physiological model looks at structural problems, the social model looks at contributing environmental factors such as inequality and poverty which lead people to criminal acts or criminal groups as a survival or social mechanism, and the cognitive model looks at things such as Bandura’s “social learning theory”. The social learning theory ties into the social ecological perspective (people interacting with their environment) on criminal behavior and states that people learn from interacting with their environment, or from others modeling behaviors. Essentially, violence and criminal actions stem from a multitude of factors, some a priori within an individual, and others stemming from learned or environmental factors. (In my humble opinion, I don’t find the bobo doll experiment completely satisfactory in pointing out the etiology of antisocial personality disorder).
The ultimate goal of psychology within the frame of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate offenders. Psychologists wish to identify issues, explain them, and then seek a means to control them. This includes introducing more humane features in our correctional facilities and the institution of different programs to help people change to the point they can be readmitted into society. This, again in my humble opinion, doesn’t account for organic problems that contribute to persistent parts of people’s personalities nor the very nature of correctional facilities, which by far and large are institutions that foster “deviancy training”, basically higher education for criminal behavior.
In my mind, as the everlasting optimist, the only thing people can do to cut down on crime is to create defensible space, and to act in other’s defense instead of sitting in fear or making an assumption about another’s heroics. The rehabilitation of serious violent offenders is something that should be considered solely on a case-by-case basis. It is a moot point to look at causal determinants of people’s actions, even from a hard determinist perspective, wherein a person cannot be logically held accountable for their actions, they have still shown an ability, nay a propensity, to engage in some sort of behavior that requires some sort of punitive action to curb it happening in the future (behavior modification) or to simply be separated from society. This isn’t to say there shouldn’t be a reform of the justice system to a therapeutic community, which would cut down on the “deviancy training” and perhaps, maybe, lead to rehabilitation.
Garland Hummel
Social Psychology Paper #2
Criminal Justice
‘Crime and Punishment’ for the Social Psychologist
In the book’s chapter on criminal justice, a great deal of time is spent trying to describe and examine the factors at work in a criminal act; what makes a criminal, as well as sociological explanations for the behaviors of bystanders and witnesses to crimes. The chapter opens up with an account of the murder of Matti Baranovski, a fifteen-year-old boy who was beaten to death by a group of older teens masked in balaclavas. The Baranovski murder, like that of Catherine Genovese in 1964, raises some rather disturbing questions about people’s willingness to help others.
In the case of Baranovski, several cars drove by the area while he was being kicked about the head and neck until a blow finally severed his carotid artery, one of which stopped but sped off after hearing something that made her believe a firearm was involved. In the Genovese murder, thirty-eight people admitted to hearing her cries for help- not a single person intervened. These are prime examples of what social psychologists have dubbed the “bystander effect”, a behavioral phenomenon in which people are less willing to help when other people are standing by. This lack of action can be explained through the “diffusion of responsibility”, when people are in a situation where they can remain in anonymity (unseen in a car or an apartment off the street), they are likely to believe somebody else will do something, or should do something in their stead.
But what about the criminals? The masked murderers of Baranovski had allegedly been out on the town looking for a fight with a rival gang. The deindividuation offered by their balaclavas and their itchy knuckles from missing the fight (frustration-anxiety model) may have played a role. Their deviancy training, that is egging each other on, was a mode of social facilitation, a major player in their group violence.
Still, this begs the question- what makes people violent? The biological/ physiological model looks at structural problems, the social model looks at contributing environmental factors such as inequality and poverty which lead people to criminal acts or criminal groups as a survival or social mechanism, and the cognitive model looks at things such as Bandura’s “social learning theory”. The social learning theory ties into the social ecological perspective (people interacting with their environment) on criminal behavior and states that people learn from interacting with their environment, or from others modeling behaviors. Essentially, violence and criminal actions stem from a multitude of factors, some a priori within an individual, and others stemming from learned or environmental factors. (In my humble opinion, I don’t find the bobo doll experiment completely satisfactory in pointing out the etiology of antisocial personality disorder).
The ultimate goal of psychology within the frame of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate offenders. Psychologists wish to identify issues, explain them, and then seek a means to control them. This includes introducing more humane features in our correctional facilities and the institution of different programs to help people change to the point they can be readmitted into society. This, again in my humble opinion, doesn’t account for organic problems that contribute to persistent parts of people’s personalities nor the very nature of correctional facilities, which by far and large are institutions that foster “deviancy training”, basically higher education for criminal behavior.
In my mind, as the everlasting optimist, the only thing people can do to cut down on crime is to create defensible space, and to act in other’s defense instead of sitting in fear or making an assumption about another’s heroics. The rehabilitation of serious violent offenders is something that should be considered solely on a case-by-case basis. It is a moot point to look at causal determinants of people’s actions, even from a hard determinist perspective, wherein a person cannot be logically held accountable for their actions, they have still shown an ability, nay a propensity, to engage in some sort of behavior that requires some sort of punitive action to curb it happening in the future (behavior modification) or to simply be separated from society. This isn’t to say there shouldn’t be a reform of the justice system to a therapeutic community, which would cut down on the “deviancy training” and perhaps, maybe, lead to rehabilitation.
Comment