The Behavioral theory of crime

The argument

The behavioural theory of crime explains criminal conduct as something learned rather than something a person is born with or driven to by social conditions in the abstract. What it places importance on is the individual's direct environment, and specifically how that individual interacts with it. Crime, on this account, is a behaviour like any other, acquired through the ordinary processes by which people pick up behaviours from those around them. The theory identifies two routes by which the learning happens. The first is direct and personal: a close family member or friend rewards the behaviour in some way, and the reward need not be material — approval, status within a group, or the simple absence of disapproval will serve. What matters is that the conduct is followed by something the person values, which makes its repetition more likely. The second route is observational. An individual who sees a behaviour glorified in a film or television series they admire receives a version of the same lesson at one remove, with the admiration for the source supplying the endorsement that a friend's approval would otherwise provide. Proponents regard the theory as well supported rather than merely plausible. Research published in the Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment holds that the learning perspective provides valuable tools for understanding crime and delinquency, precisely because its principles are general ones that apply to behaviours of every kind. That generality is treated as a strength: a theory of crime that turns out to be an application of how people learn anything at all requires no special mechanism peculiar to offenders. Because criminal behaviour is learned by the individual from their environment in this way, the theory places the cause of crime with the individual.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Many argue that this theory is not necessary valid because there are so many people who have become criminals even without any criminal influence in their lives. This would indicate that criminality is not a learned behavior in all cases.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A theory that locates the cause in a person's environment and associations does not support the position it is filed under: if criminal behaviour is learned from others, the cause lies in the social surroundings, which is the rival position in this debate. [Rejecting P2] No evidence is offered for either mechanism, and the media claim is among the most contested in criminology, where the research has not established that exposure to depicted crime produces it. [Rejecting P3] The quotation says the learning perspective provides valuable tools for understanding crime, which is a claim about its usefulness rather than a finding that it explains criminality — and the counter notes offenders with no criminal influence to learn from, which the theory as stated cannot accommodate.