News Headlines

By Sarah Maple

With the continuing rise of criminal justice and criminology degree courses, the debate of why certain individuals are more likely to commit a criminal offence than others is being discussed by more students and in increasing depth. Yet, can we really predict who is set for a life of crime and efficiently intervene in order to make the community, or country, or world a safer place to live in?

Understanding why individuals commit crime, and being able to estimate who (or what kind of people) will become criminals is something that has underpinned criminology since it was founded in the 18th Century. For example, Cesare Lombroso was one of the first to adopt a scientific approach in the field and proposed that the physical features of each person was an indicator as to the likelihood that they will commit crimes in later life.

Of course, the idea that large jaws or high cheekbones could be related to criminality is dated today, but the notion that common characteristics - although more environmental, such as family dysfunction and poverty - can be spotted in those likely to commit offences later in life is something that certainly still exists in 21st Century criminology.

It is prevalent also in the Labour government's approach to youth crime and crime prevention, which puts identifying whether youths are likely to offend, and intervening when necessary, at the forefront of the agenda to cut crime. Yet, there are a number of risks associated with such prediction and intervention - with so-called 'false positives' arising when children are wrongly singled-out as having the potential to commit crime but never do, and 'false negatives' referring to children wrongly being deemed low-risk.

Data published in the report, 'Risky people or risky societies? Rethinking interventions for young adults in transition' by Richard Garside focuses on the risks involved in predicting and intervening - and highlights research conducted in the US which showed that one in 10 homicide offenders was correctly identified, while false negatives and false positives were very high.

With minimal data showing the benefits of 'nipping youth crime in the bud', prediction and intervention looks set to be a major part of criminology studies in the future - and this is perhaps one of its most appealing aspects. There are reasons for crime, but the best methods for stopping it may not simply be targeting individuals - but may instead come from larger social changes.

Sarah Maple writes for Kaplan Open Learning about police officer careers and business management courses.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sarah_Maple
http://EzineArticles.com/?Criminology-and-Criminality---Can-We-Predict-Who-Will-Offend-in-the-Future?&id=3502900