Nature Of The Violent Criminal Act example essay topic

According To Social Psychologists, How Do Victim, Offender And Third-party Interactions Impact Upon Criminal Outcomes? During the late 1940's, Sutherland (1947) advanced that explanations of crime and deviance are of either a situational or a dispositional nature. Additionally, he argued that of the two explanations, situational ones might be of the most importance. Hirschi & Gottfredson (1986) made a critical distinction in light of this issue, the distinction was between the terms crime and criminality. Crime, they proposed refers to 'events that presuppose a set of necessary conditions'. Criminality on the other hand refers to 'stable differences across individuals in the propensity to commit criminal acts' (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1986: 58).

They went on to point out that criminality is necessary, but is not a sufficient condition for crime to occur, since crime requires important situational inducements. Despite these propositions, social psychologists in the following decades tended to focus on dispositional theories of crime and deviance, that is, focusing on individual differences. There is a wealth of literature focusing on motivations and characteristics of criminal offenders (e.g. Cohen, 1955, as cited in Birkbeck & LaFree, 1993; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960), and a modest amount attending to the victims of crime (Cohen, Kleugel, & Land, 1981). However the suggestion is well documented (e.g. Hepburn, 1973; Athens, 1985; Luckenbill, 1977) that there is a need for research to focus on the sequential development and interactional dynamics of criminally violent situations.

This is based on the notion that violence is, at least in part, situation ally determined (Felson & Steadman, 1983). Symbolic interactionism is such a guiding approach in this field, so it is important to clarify what sets it apart from others in the area; there are two main important such points. Firstly, social interactionist theory focuses on the objective fact of situations (as overlooked by criminologists), and secondly their subjective definition by actors (as overlooked by both opportunity and experimental psychologists). It was Goffman (1967) who set the ball rolling as it were for symbolic interactionism. He uniquely emphasized the nature of the violent criminal act as important, instead of just the criminal actor. It was his notion of a 'character contest' that inadvertently proposed one of the first violent criminal behaviour theories of its kind.

An individual is said to demonstrate 'strong' character when they stand 'correct' and 'steady' in the face of adversity, and 'weak' character when he or she does not. He posited that a character contest is a special form of interpersonal action, since the confrontation involves (usually) both parties linked together in the common pursuit of demonstrating whose respective character is the strongest. Whoever wins the contest maintains honour and face and therefore positive self-image of self, whilst the weak character loses honour and face and is cast into a negative self-identity. Luckenbill (1977) examined 'situated transactions' as set out by Goffman (1967) in an attempt to specify the processes involved.

Luckenbill (1977) examined 70 transactions leading to criminal homicide; he reconstructed these transactions using all attainable accounts as resources. The analysis revealed that the transactions took a process ual form consisting of six stages. The fourth of these stages involves a 'working agreement' being forged between the major participants, favouring violent means by which to settle the dispute. However since Goffman's (1967) theory and Luckenbill's (1977) follow-up work provided such a major source of ideas for explaining interpersonal violence, it has been subject to much critical examination.

The notion of the 'working agreement' has proved the most controversial since participants in violent criminal situations do not typically agree that violence should be used in the resolution of a dispute (Athens, 1985). Even Luckenbill (1977) himself found that 14% of the offenders in his sample killed before the fourth stage i.e. before a working agreement could be forged between the two parties. Also Felson & Steadman (1983) declared that their findings on assaultive violent criminal acts cast serious doubt on Luckenbill's (1977) major conclusion that there is a working among participants appropriating the use of violence. Another fundamental criticism of character contests is that in reality, the meanings with which most violent criminal acts are instilled are very different from those of a character contest. Although the purpose of this essay is not to unduly dwell on the motivations of the offender, in the case of a character contest, displaying strong character maintains honour and face, that is, pride and no shame. This is not however the meaning with which criminal perpetrators often attribute their violent actions e.g. jealousy, hate, disgust (Athens, 1985).

Despite these major criticisms, Goffman's (1967) work provided a basis for a theory explaining both the nature of the violent criminal action and the actors. It is from this work that a more inclusive, complex theory of violent criminal behaviour was developed; the foundations of such a theory can be found in the Impression Management Approach (IMA). In accordance with Goffman's (1967) theory, IMA upholds that violent escalation occurs when an individual is cast into a negative situational identity and retaliates in order to save face. In addition, the basic determinant of aggression is believed to be perceived intentional attack (i.e. Luckenbill's 1977 stage two).

An insult is said toaltercast (or place) the target into a negative situational identity and it is through retaliation that an actor attempts to nullify that identity and alter cast the initial aggressor into an unfavourable identity. A variety of research methods have been employed in order to investigate symbolic interactionism. Evidence from observational studies of aggression on children (Rausch, 1965, as cited in Birkbeck & LaFree, 1993), participant observation (Horowitz & Schwartz, 1974), and the examination of homicide police reports (Hepburn, 1973; Athens, 1978; Luckenbill, 1977) have all demonstrated that retaliation manifests face-saving concerns. In his study, Felson (1982) relies on three different sample groups namely: ex-mental patients, ex-criminal offenders, and a third group thought to be representative of the general population.

One of his hypotheses predicted that participants would be more likely to verbally attack an antagonist during a conflict if they had been insulted themselves. Respondents were interviewed about incidents in which they had been involved at differing levels of severity. The self-reports were analysed and in support of the afore mentioned hypothesis, it was found that respondents were more likely to engage in verbal dispute (as opposed to be angry but do nothing) when they had been insulted. In a similar study Felson & Steadman (1983) found that victims of homicides were more aggressive than those of assaults i.e. the victims of homicides engaged in more identity attacks (p