Reference no: EM132258167

Writing prompts

1. Proponents of biological theories of crime are going to have very different ideas about effective crime control policies than those of people who support the "classical" or rational choice theory of crime. Compare and contrast the kinds of policies each theory would propose.
For example, how would each group of theorists presume to lower the crime rate? How would each explain why someone might commit a murder? How would each explain why someone might commit a burglary? Critique the policies advanced by biological theorists from the perspective of the classical theorists. What kinds of criticisms would the classical theorists have of these policies? Now critique the classical theorists from the perspective of the biological  theorists. Which school of thought in criminology do you think explains crime better? Why do
you think this?

I have included some readings that are critical of the biological perspective, and some that are more amenable. Draw liberally from these readings and the lecture throughout this essay.

2. a. If there is merit to what the proponents of biological theories assert, then there are important implications for the criminal justice system. For example, determining culpability-or the extent to which someone is responsible for the crimes they commit-is an issue. Drawing on the readings and lecture, address the problem of culpability. How does our current system of criminal justice treat this problem? Is this treatment adequate and based on sound principles? Why or why not? How should our system of criminal justice treat this problem? What kind of adjustments, if any, should be made? (You may need to do a little bit of outside research and web sleuthing to get some ideas here. The various readings should give you some cues for keywords to search on.)

b. Of all the examples used in the reading or lecture, which one provides the best evidence that sometimes people aren't culpable for what they do? Why do you think this? Which example is the least convincing? Conclude by making an overall assessment of the utility of biological
theories and your ideas about their merit and utility. As always, you should draw on the readings and the lectures to buttress your points.

3. a. Think about the arguments that John Paul Wright and Mark Alden Morgan make about the relevance of race to the study of crime. Why do they say that most criminologists are misguided in their approach to race? Some of the other readings and the lecture reach conclusions that are different from those that Wright and Morgan make. How do these readings and lectures rebut or amend some of the assertions that Wright and Morgan make? What are some of the most  convincing points in favor of a "social construction" view of race and crime? Draw on the readings and lecture in your answer.

b. The chapter entitled "Theoretical Perspectives on Race and Crime" was written by two African-American criminologists. (Judging from the comments in the discussion board, some of you might be surprised to know this.) The authors of this chapter go through a variety of theories that attempt to deal with racial disparities and crime. Which of these theories do you think best explains the disparities we discussed in the lectures? Which are the least convincing? Say why you think the way you do.

c. Is there anything else you want to say about our week examining race and crime?

4. What is the most interesting or important thing you've learned in this second section course?