Homework answers / question archive / Part 1: Do you believe that the criminal propensity/career paradigm or the life course perspective is the more accurate explanation of the age-crime curve? Or, do you agree with Moffitt that it could be both? Why? Based on Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy Theory, did you experience a maturity gap in adolescence? Looking back, did it affect your behavior? How? Based on Sampson & Laub’s AGToISC, have you experienced any key life events/turning points that affected your behavior? How? Which do you think is the better explanation of crime in general? Why? part 2: Jennifer: I agree with Moffitt that it could be both because I think that adolescents engage in crime at an early age because they are easily influenced

Part 1: Do you believe that the criminal propensity/career paradigm or the life course perspective is the more accurate explanation of the age-crime curve? Or, do you agree with Moffitt that it could be both? Why? Based on Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy Theory, did you experience a maturity gap in adolescence? Looking back, did it affect your behavior? How? Based on Sampson & Laub’s AGToISC, have you experienced any key life events/turning points that affected your behavior? How? Which do you think is the better explanation of crime in general? Why? part 2: Jennifer: I agree with Moffitt that it could be both because I think that adolescents engage in crime at an early age because they are easily influenced

Law

Share With

Part 1: Do you believe that the criminal propensity/career paradigm or the life course perspective is the more accurate explanation of the age-crime curve? Or, do you agree with Moffitt that it could be both? Why? Based on Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy Theory, did you experience a maturity gap in adolescence? Looking back, did it affect your behavior? How? Based on Sampson & Laub’s AGToISC, have you experienced any key life events/turning points that affected your behavior? How? Which do you think is the better explanation of crime in general? Why?

part 2:

Jennifer:

I agree with Moffitt that it could be both because I think that adolescents engage in crime at an early age because they are easily influenced. If those around them are engaging in criminal, they will be more likely to do so as well. They begin to stop engaging in crime once they begin getting into adult hood because then they mature. Some may even mature before they are technically adults. I do believe that I experienced a maturity gap in adolescence in the sense that I think I matured sooner than other individuals do. I have two younger siblings and although we did have our parents to raise us, they also worked so in a sense I had to mature sooner in order to be able to help my parents out with chores around the house and take care of my siblings. I had to be and act older than I was. It did not affect my behavior I just think it helped me stay out of trouble because I knew that afterschool I could not go mess around because I had to go home and watch over my siblings. It helped me avoid any troubles I could've gotten myself into.

I do think that in a sense DLC theories do offer new understandings of crime in the sense that they explain how some children only engage in criminal activity when they are young and once, they get older they don’t engage in crime anymore because they reached a maturity level. When in some cases children who are younger engage in criminal activity both when they are adolescents and when they are adults. It interesting to think about what is different between both occasions why do some only commit crime as children and other start as children but continue to do it when they are adults. In my opinion understanding why people desist from crime is as important as understanding why they start committing crime in the first place. It's important to know what lead them to begin committing crimes but what happened that lead them to stop because that very important. If something leads them to stop it can help us understand why other are committing crimes and help them stop. That is why I think both are just as important to know and understand.

In my opinion I do think DLC theories are strong enough to be considered general theories of crime. They are able to analyze and explain crime in adolescences and how maturity helps them stop committing crime. It also always to understand why it's important to know the why someone committing crime and what occurred that made them stop. I think they would be interesting theories and they provide information that I didn’t hear in any of the other theories. I don’t really think that any theory is better than the others because I believe they both provide a great explanation of different aspect of crime.

Part 3:

Kamryn:

1. DLC theories can be integrated theories too because they promote the concept that criminality is stable over a life course. Social learning theories and labeling theories are integrated into these development theories this week. It makes sense that some of these theories are integrated together because they both follow the same idea that human interactions can be causative factors in creating criminals. Age-graded informal social control theory shares the same idea as Hirschi's theory for why there are changes in crime over a life course. However, they (Sampson & Laub) did not agree with Hircshi that criminality was permanently set. I believe it's okay to integrate these theories together because it strengthens them and challenges them at the same time.

2. The DLC theories do offer new ideas and that it the concept that there are life changing events that can change a persons criminality. Key events such as higher education, marriage, children, death, illness ect. These things can all change someones life around. I do not believe that non-developmental theories make DLC theories redundant because they challenge the idea that criminality is set permanently for offenders. It's very important to understand why people desist from crime because it allows CJ professionals to see how recidivism can decrease or increase. Things such as higher education can be a life changing factor and if programs were implemented into prisons, there could be a significant decrease in recidivism rates.

3. I personally liked Belsky's theory of conditional adaptation because it attempts to explain how sociological factors can fit into criminal behavior. This theory is a good explanation of crime because it says that traumatic experiences in child hood can trigger early adolescence. Children observe to learn while growing up and if they are always seeing family members do illegal things or immoral things, they too will begin to do the same. How a child is treated and talked to will also determine whether or not they commit crimes. I least liked the somatotypes theory because it did not make sense why body types would determine if someone commits crime.