1. Incorporating the assumptions of one of the below learning theories (also feel free to research the online library, Internet etc. for information on these two theories), make an argument either for or against the insanity defense, that is, should it be allowed and or abolished…and specifically why?

Learning Theories:
– Social Learning Theory
– Sutherlands Differential Association Theory

2. Do you believe that ecological approaches have a valid place in contemporary criminological thinking? Specifically…why or why not?

Differential Association Theory

Differential Association Theory was established in 1939 by Edwin H. Sutherland who is known as the father of American Criminology, and the theory consists of the following nine postulates (Curran & Renzetti, 2001; Gordon, n.d; Hale, n.d.; Sutherland, 1947):

Key Postulates

1. Criminal behavior is learned.

2. Criminal behavior is predominately, albeit not always, learned through verbal communication.

3. Intimate personal groups are were most criminal behavior is learned

4. Learning criminal behavior includes all the facets of it, such as how to do and get away with it, learning the motives to do so, rationalization, and so forth.

5. Motives to commit criminal acts is learned, i.e. encouraged and or discouraged, from the legal codes.

6. Individuals become deviant after excessive exposure to codes favorable to criminal behavior.

7. This exposure or process of acquiring definitions, i.e. what is termed differential associations, may be different, i.e. in frequency, duration, intensity, and priority.

8. Process of learning criminal behavior is the same as any other type of learning, i.e. includes all the same mechanisms found in any other type of learning.

9. Criminal behavior is not in itself explained by a general definition of needs and values, i.e. it is far more than simply one steals because they need money.

Applying Those Assumption to Explain Crime

First, in applying his theory today Sutherland might very well change some of his postulates, and in particular #3 above. With this it has been noted (Curran & Renzetti, 2001) that based on the time of Sutherlands writing the influence of the media, i.e. television and print source, was not as influential as it is today.

Yet Sutherland, as have others since (Curran & Renzetti, 2001; Matsuedea, 1988), would likely use his theory to explain crime in suburban America today by first emphasizing the empirical data that has shown somewhat consistently that juveniles with more deviant friends are themselves more deviant (Bartol & Bartol, 2005). With this in mind, Sutherland would likely argue that the dominance of deviant acts is learned through a greater exposure to deviant individuals. Ultimately showing how suburban households in America are more and more becoming families where both parents’ work, and subsequently children are spending much less time with their parents, who historically/previously did much in the realm of instilling law abiding values to America’s youth. A void left and subsequently filled by other forces, such as peers, television stars, and so forth, which downplay the wrongness of certain actions, such as marijuana use or joy riding, and in many instances even condone them. In all, and as espoused by Differential Association Theory this move in who is doing the bulk of teaching values to America’s young, a time in life that Sutherland characterized as more important than that of adult life in regards to the influence of learning, is something that Sutherland would likely argue helps explain the crime in suburban America today.