Copycat Crimes: Its relation to sociology, biology and psychology
Research in all fields is very important in helping us to understand how the world works around us. Data can be examined and presented in many different forms. As a researcher or observer, you still need to look at things objectively at times. Unfortunately, sometimes data is lacking and often data needs retheorized and tested again since it can change over periods of time. Sociology is one of those where culture and our media influences come into play a lot and some patterns only have truly only begun to be established. Crime, media, and technology have been continuing to influence patterns of behavior over centuries but as of the twentieth century, we are only now really beginning to understand more of these patterns, which also leaves the need for more research to be conducted.
I choose to present a hypothesized peer-reviewed article on copycat crimes. Currently as of this article’s publishing in December 2016 they are waiting for the studies to be validated or rejected. In this case, the researchers are using empirical observations from previous related research. They utilized crime concepts across several biology, sociology and psychology theories to develop their own theory on why copycat crimes need to be evaluated differently and how these established patterns they noticed were affected based on what is presented by the media. They began using 23 previously established theoretical concepts rooted in these fields of study. They are doing qualitative research that can’t easily be answered by numbers. It requires an understanding of an individual level as well as large scale due to the all dependent variables.
Until recently copycat crimes weren’t looked at as separate entity from criminology itself or looked at much from a sociological perspective, despite being considered a social phenomenon. So, the research is a bit understated currently and is a prelude to studies in progress. This article examines ways to ask questions going into the future while utilizing the connections that were established so far from hypothesis and reviewing concepts stemming from related theories. While I’m not going to discuss all concepts of those fields of study in detail or all 44 hypothesized questions presented on how to proceed with further research, I will highlight important points that stood out to me in this article will state that the 3 facets to keep in mind are: criminogenic media, the copycat offenders themselves and the settings of the copycat.
Highlights of this article and Key points
What is a copycat crime? In terms of this article, it’s important to see a copycat crime as a crime committed that was imitated initially by someone else. Even if the person established a new crime by changing details in pattern or behavior, it is a form of imitation and “role play”. The actions of the criminal must have incorporated a large part of crime they’ve seen presented within the media into their own offense.
Note: Items such as riots, school shootings, and terroristic acts also were included in these behavioral patterns.
Crime could be real or a fictionally presented crime presented in the media. Audio, visual, print and newer media forms make up the media presence considered.
Questions to consider: It is believed that criminal behavior is a learned social behavior. If so how does the media affect a person’s willingness to commit a copycat crime?
Imitation: This stems across the studies of biology, sociology, and psychology and is a necessary element of copycat crimes meaning we copy the beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral patterns of others.
Theory of mind- The understanding that imitation is a part of the normal socialization process. It also allows for an understanding of failed attempts at a crime and an idea of how to correct them.
Self-efficacy- Most important factor in learned social model theory. Does the copycat think they can get away with it and how they perceive their own ability? Will they be rewarded even if short-term by (money, status, or gang entry) and how do they perceive a punishment if negative.
Note- Copycats tend to underestimate what their punishment would be based on the media presentation. There simply is what the media presents, what the criminal observes and what the real punishment is. Observations will vary based on media, exposure length and can coincide with methods meant also to deter crime, which can also be counterintuitive.
Hypothesis highlights
Unsuccessful crimes should produce the least amount of copycat crimes
Crimes producing strong emotions even if portrayals of them will produce more copycat crimes
The media’s representation of similarities in criminals and relatability of consumer will produce more crime from those groups. (How similar are their age, race, and gender.) I’m especially interested to see how this turns out in future sociological based studies on crime and race.
Crimes portrayed as “heroic” or made to look appealing with high status or a reward or some sort will produce more copycats.
Pre-established offenders will adopt new methods of behavior due to “risk of arrest” and look for methods and techniques to reduce risk in the future.
Several characteristics of copycat offenders
High intelligence= Learning the steps of criminal process or act
Lower Intelligence= The ones who agree the crime is a good idea
Lower social status, low social mobility, less education, and being less empathetic are more likely to become a copycat. Many have lower self-esteem, low self-control, and often seek rewards or have high dependency needed for an easier task.
Location factors to consider
Family and neighborhood settings affect crime level more than cultural setting due to establishing the criminals reward vs punishment notion.
Exposure early on to law abiding models helps diffuse some copycat behavior
Societies with crimes seen as “rewarded” or sporadically inconsistent and have punishment/rewards that vary greatly will have a higher rate of copycat offenders.
I encourage anyone interested to go look at the full article if this is of interest you. It was a bit long but an interesting read. It will indeed be interesting to see how new media and increased immersion in all forms of it alters criminal behavior and copycat crimes especially combined with new social scripts presented.
Sources:
Surette, R. (2016). Copycat Crime and Copycat Criminals: Concepts and Research Questions. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 18(1), 49-78. Retrieved November 30, 2017, from http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol18is1/4%20Raymond%20Surette.pdf
ISSN 1070-8286
Book Citation: Conley, D. (2017). You may ask yourself: an introduction to thinking like a sociologist. New York: W.W. Norton.
Extremely flexible, Fully customizable WordPress Multi-Purpose theme to fit your demanding needs. You no longer need to be a professional developer or designer to create an awesome website. Easily create a stunning community, company presentation or membership website. Let your imagination run wild and create the site of your dreams. KLEO has all the tools to get you started.
However, there were those who did not fall under the mob mentality, meaning the Lindholm argument isn’t a complete one in this case. The obvious exception is that not all of the girls in the reported schools were afflicted by the “disease.” More than that, however, medical professionals refused (in most cases) to accept that the children were actually ill, resorting to their reasoning, rather than their emotional and animal responses. Specifically, Nelson Pereira, director of the National Institute of Medical Emergencies, went on the record to dismiss the case, proving that he did not fall under the spectrum of mob-mentality. So here, we have two contradictory cases where the neocortex was not suppressed under a mob mentality.
Arthur Miller, Charles Lindholm, and Brian Levack all give explanations for cases of mass hysteria. In The Crucible, Miller shows his audience how panic can be manipulated to benefit those who create and perpetuate it. Lindholm believes that mob-mentality spreads as it does due to the neurological structure of the human brain. Levack, however, provides an explanation that is neither biological or dismissive of an event’s validity.
He holds that in such cases (medieval demoniacs, puritan girls in colonial Salem, or modern students who follow a soap opera), the “victims” of the hysteria are acting out social roles that have been created for them by society. They are not making their situations up, nor are they at the whim of a predetermined action of the brain. In the case of the Strawberries with Sugar virus, this social role theory provides a better explanation of what happened, and ends up qualifying Miller and, most importantly, Lindholm’s mob-mentality theories.
Looking further at Levack’s argument, it becomes apparent that in all three cases (the Portuguese students, the demoniacs, and Miller’s characters), the afflicted and the observers were following a variant of a universal social script established for teenagers in times of trauma. As seen in The Crucible, the young women of Salem act out to gain power and some control over their own lives while existing within a strict theocratic society. Abigail in particular uses her newfound influence in an effort to play out her forbidden romantic fantasies, and the town officials follow their roles by colluding with her false accusations. John Proctor alone serves as the token qualifier to Lindholm’s argument amidst the hysteria. This script was prevalent throughout Europe in the early modern era, and when Reverend Hale brings his weighty books to Salem, he plays his part by exacerbating a long established fear of witches. Levack presents their origins in apocalyptic scriptures, taking the origin of the social script to the very root of Christianity itself. From then on, demoniacs, often teenage girls dealing with illicit desires and societal pressure, turned to widely circulated pamphlets and stories recounting the latent social scripts.
In modern times, the script is adapted on the surface but primarily remains the same. The Catholic Church, no longer the primary purveyor of indoctrination, has been replaced by television dramas as a means of conveying the roles teens are supposed to play. In this case, the script followed was a literal screenplay for a soap opera, but the messages behind the teens acting are relatively similar to that of the demoniacs. Today, teens find their expected behaviors broadcast straight to their homes nightly - everything from how to deal with stress to how to deal with sexual desires is directly played out on television. As was the case with the Strawberries with Sugar virus, some teens will cathartic consumption of this media too far and mimic the behaviors what they’ve seen on TV. As Levack asserts, they are ultimately, whether consciously or unwittingly, playing out social scripts.
