Understanding Social Rules and Criminal Behaviour

Think about how automatically you say "please" and "thank you" - that's a norm in action. Norms are simply the expected behaviours society teaches us, whilst values are the bigger principles behind them (like politeness being important). Your school's behaviour code or the police oath are examples of moral codes - formal rules that guide specific groups.

Deviance isn't always bad - it's just anything that differs from normal. Saving someone's life is deviant behaviour, but so is getting a face tattoo or starting a fight. Society uses sanctions (both rewards and punishments) to keep everyone in line.

For behaviour to be legally criminal, you need both actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). However, some strict liability offences like drink driving don't require mens rea - society deems them so dangerous that intent doesn't matter.

Key Insight: Not all deviance is criminal, and not all criminal behaviour feels "wrong" to the person doing it - like speeding on an empty motorway.

How Society Defines Crime

The law recognises different levels of seriousness in crimes. Summary offences (like basic assault) get dealt with quickly in Magistrates Court, whilst indictable offences (like murder) require the full drama of Crown Court proceedings.

Formal sanctions range from police cautions to life imprisonment, but there are hidden consequences too - certain convictions can bar you from jobs or land you on specialist monitoring registers.

Here's where it gets interesting: crime is socially constructed, meaning society decides what counts as criminal. These decisions change dramatically across cultures, over time, and depending on circumstances.

Take polygamy - perfectly legal in 58 countries (often due to religious traditions) but banned in most Western nations. Adultery remains illegal in many Muslim-majority countries and surprisingly, 21 US states, whilst being perfectly legal in the UK.

Key Insight: What's criminal in your country might be completely normal elsewhere - laws reflect cultural values, not universal truths.

Cultural Differences in Criminal Law

Homosexuality laws showcase how dramatically criminal definitions vary globally. It's legal across Europe and the Americas, but male homosexuality remains illegal in 72 countries. The reasons are telling: religious influence, public opinion (95% support banning it in Egypt), and sexism $female homosexuality is legal in more places because some societies don't believe women can experience same-sex attraction$.

Cannabis laws are equally varied. While the UK threatens 5 years for possession and 14 for supply, Portugal has legalised personal use, and Canada permits medical supply. Countries with stronger emphasis on individual freedom tend toward legalisation, viewing drug use as victimless or believing people should have autonomy over their bodies.

Some lawmakers see legalisation as a practical crime-fighting tool - taking cannabis away from criminal suppliers whilst enabling better support for users.

Key Insight: Countries prioritising individual liberty versus social control create vastly different drug laws, showing how political philosophy shapes criminal justice.

How Laws Change Over Time

Laws evolve as societies mature and attitudes shift. Homosexuality in the UK went from completely illegal to full equality: legalised in 1967 $age 21+$, reduced to 18 in 1994, then equalised at 16 in 2000. The Wolfenden Report, campaigning groups, supportive politicians, and human rights arguments all drove these changes.

Portugal's drug revolution shows how crisis can spark radical reform. Facing Europe's worst heroin addiction rates by 1999, Portugal decriminalised personal drug possession in 2001. Instead of prison, users get rehabilitation support - saving the country 18% in costs whilst treating addiction as a health issue.

Gun control in the UK demonstrates how public tragedy drives legal change. The Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996) massacres created such public outcry that handguns were banned entirely by 1997. Campaigns like Snowdrop gathered 750,000 signatures from bereaved parents and supporters.

Physical punishment has steadily declined - capital punishment ended in 1965, corporal punishment in schools finished in 1999, though parental smacking remains legal with restrictions.

Key Insight: Laws change when public opinion, expert evidence, and political will align - often triggered by shocking events that demand reform.

How Laws Apply Differently

Even identical laws get enforced differently depending on circumstances. Moral panics - like the 2011 London riots or 1960s Mods and Rockers clashes - create public fear that leads to harsher sentences than normal, designed to deter future offenders.

Typifications show how police stereotypes affect law enforcement. Research by Chambliss found middle-class "saints" were treated more leniently than working-class "roughnecks" for identical behaviour. Cicourel and Piliavin's studies revealed that police decisions on stop-and-search were influenced by someone's class, ethnicity, age, and attitude toward officers.

The age of criminal responsibility (10 in England and Wales) dramatically affects outcomes. Under-10s can't be charged regardless of what they've done. Ages 10-17 face Youth Courts with detention limits, whilst over-18s face full adult consequences including prison.

Homicide defences show how circumstances matter legally. Loss of control, diminished responsibility due to medical conditions, or automatism (involuntary acts) can reduce murder charges to manslaughter or provide complete defences.

Key Insight: The same criminal act can result in vastly different outcomes depending on who commits it, when, and under what circumstances.

Early Biological Theories of Crime

Biological theories suggest criminals are born different from law-abiding citizens. Cesare Lombroso pioneered this approach, claiming criminals were atavistic - evolutionary throwbacks with primitive features like enormous jaws, long arms, and reduced pain sensitivity (explaining their tattoos).

While Lombroso's facial feature theory proved wrong and his methods were racist, he deserves credit for first studying crime scientifically using objective measurements rather than just moral judgements.

William Sheldon focused on body types, identifying three categories: mesomorphs (muscular), ectomorphs (thin), and endomorphs (fat). He found convicts were more likely to be mesomorphs, arguing their assertiveness and physical strength suited criminal activity.

The Glueck study supported this - 60% of offenders were mesomorphs. However, this could work backwards: maybe criminality creates the muscular build through needing physical toughness, rather than the build causing crime.

Key Insight: Early biological theories established scientific criminology but often confused correlation with causation - just because criminals share certain traits doesn't mean those traits cause crime.

Genetic Theories of Crime

Genetic theories suggest specific genes cause criminal behaviour. Twin studies compare identical twins (sharing 100% DNA) with non-identical twins (sharing 50%). If genes determine criminality, identical twins should both be criminals if one is.

Christiansen found 52% concordance for identical twins versus 22% for non-identical twins. Ishikawa and Raine found similar patterns (44% vs 21%). This suggests genetic influence, but why isn't it 100% for identical twins if genes truly control behaviour?

Adoption studies compare children to both biological and adoptive parents. Mednick found sons were 20% more likely to have criminal records if their birth parents did, versus only 14.7% if adoptive parents did. This supports genetic influence while controlling for environment.

Jacob's XYY study examined men with an extra Y chromosome ("supermale syndrome"), causing explosive tempers, hyperactivity, and antisocial behaviour. Prison studies found XYY in 7 out of 196 inmates - much higher than the general population rate of 1 in 1000.

However, XYY men might be overrepresented in prison due to lower intelligence making them easier to catch, rather than the syndrome directly causing more crime.

Key Insight: Genetic studies show intriguing correlations but can't prove genes directly cause crime - environmental factors and detection bias complicate the picture.

Brain Injuries and Biochemical Factors

Brain injuries can dramatically alter personality and behaviour. Phineas Gage's famous case proved this when a metal pole destroyed his frontal lobes in 1848. Previously friendly and considerate, he became aggressive, profane, and antisocial - so changed that he wasn't allowed around women or children.

This case disproved the vital force theory (any brain part can perform any function) and supported localisation - different brain regions control specific functions. Frontal lobe damage particularly affects impulse control, risk assessment, and rule-following behaviour.

Biochemical factors also influence criminal behaviour. Testosterone peaks at the same ages as male crime rates, and is linked to violent offences. Female hormones during menstruation, pregnancy, or postnatal periods can affect mood and self-control - the courts recognise these as partial defences for crimes like infanticide.

Substance abuse plays a massive role - Saunders found alcohol involved in 1000 daily arrests, whilst Flanzer linked it to 80% of US family violence cases. Alcohol reduces inhibitions and self-control, making criminal behaviour more likely.

However, Schalling found testosterone led to verbal rather than physical aggression, suggesting environmental factors matter too.

Key Insight: Brain injuries and biochemical factors can influence criminal behaviour, but they're rare causes that usually require environmental triggers to result in actual offending.

Psychodynamic Theories of Criminal Behaviour

Individualistic theories focus on psychological rather than biological causes of crime. Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis argued that early childhood experiences shape personality and future behaviour through three competing elements.

The id seeks immediate pleasure and is completely selfish. The superego provides our moral conscience and sense of right and wrong. The ego tries to balance these conflicting demands. Problems arise when the superego develops abnormally.

A weak superego means less guilt about antisocial actions and no remorse after committing crimes. A harsh superego creates such anxiety and guilt that people commit crimes seeking punishment. A deviant superego develops in families where crime is normalised, so criminal behaviour doesn't trigger guilt.

This theory highlights how family socialisation affects criminal development and has influenced policies requiring schools to actively promote anti-crime attitudes.

Critics argue it's unscientific - you can't objectively prove unconscious mental processes exist, and psychoanalysts' interpretations are highly subjective. The theory also can't explain why some people from criminal families never offend, whilst others from law-abiding families do.

Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory extended these ideas, focusing specifically on early mother-child relationships.

Key Insight: Psychodynamic theories emphasise how early family experiences shape criminal tendencies, but they're difficult to prove scientifically and can't account for all criminal behaviour patterns.