From Classical to Integrated Approaches

Introduction

Criminal theories aid in the understanding of crime and the criminal justice system by covering criminal and deviant behaviour, breaking the law and patterns of criminal activity. Early criminological theories such as the classical, positivist and Chicago began in the mid-18th century and were applied until the mid-twentieth century (Krohn and Eassey, 2014). These early theories have been criticised for being superficial and incapable of addressing modern world’ problems. For instance, the classical theory has been seen as limiting judge’s discretionary powers and based on a simplistic assumption of the ability to exactly measure individual’s conception of pain and pleasure. Because a theory is a plausible explanation of given reality, theoretical approaches in criminology have evolved to reflect the changes in the society. As a result, integrated theories developed by combining concepts and central propositions from two or more prior theories into a single theory. The Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential (ICAP) theory is an example of such theories that combines social control and social learning theories to provide a more complete and accurate explanation of crime or delinquent behaviour.

Why the ICAP theory?

Farrington (2005) and Zara (2010) explain that the ICAP theory was fundamentally designed to explain offending by lower class males which was largely based on the finding of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD). ICAP theory proceeds on the assumption that people with high Antisocial Potential are more likely to commit many different types of antisocial acts, including various offences. The ICAP theory identifies risk and protective factors that affect the development of long-term antisocial potential and situational factors that affect short-term antisocial potential. According to CSDD, risk factors that predict long-term childhood offending include low intelligence, family poverty, family criminality, poor child rearing, large family size, hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention deficit and disrupted families. However, the model has been criticised for not covering protective factors on persistence, desistance and de-escalation (Farrington and McGee 2017:15). Measures of antisocial behaviour such as dishonesty and aggressiveness do not actually cause offending but they predict they aid in prediction of offending.

On the authority of ICAP theory, interaction between individuals and the social environment has a direct consequence on the commission of offences and other aspects of antisocial behaviour (Farrington, 2017). Energizing factors like being angry, bored, frustrated or drunk have been found to short term antisocial potential. Further, research shows that the existence of criminal opportunities can increase the antisocial potential which may in turn cause a person to actively pursue criminal opportunities and victims. A person with either high or low level of antisocial potential will commit a crime based on cognitive processes such as considering the subjective benefits of such an act. Subjective benefits that may either motivate or discourage the person from committing a criminal offence includes, the possibility of stigmatisation, disapproval parents, encouragement from peers, likelihood and consequences of being caught, and the material goods to be stolen (Hemphill et al., 2015). Although there are persons who will offend because of long-term exposure to criminal activities and environment, it is still not clear why some people offend simply because of the way they think and make decisions when faced with criminal opportunities.

An independent test of the ICAP theory in 2009 in the Netherlands revealed that it was indeed effective. The researchers found that long-term individual, family and school factors related with serious delinquency and the chances of serious delinquency increased with the number of factors. It follows that the theory supposes that an increase in long-term antisocial risk factors and situational factors increases the probability of commission of crime among offenders. In another longitudinal survey of the development of offending and antisocial behaviour by CSDD, the researchers measured risk factors in boys of age 8-10 (Farrington, 2003). They measured a number of risk factors including socio-economic, family, and individual causes of offending. The study concluded that large families, low junior school achievement, impulsive factors and poor parental supervision were significant independent predictors of high Anti-social Attitude (AA) scores. Interestingly, some of the results were contradictory and implied that conviction of a parent was not a significant independent predictor of high AA scores despite the common generalisation as a risk factor.

The ICAP theory suggests that people from low income areas, the unemployed and those who are unsuccessful at school tend to engage more in antisocial behaviour (Havard and Clarke, 2016) .it further implies that males from this category of people are more likely to commit crimes to achieve material gains. In essence the theory suggests that poverty and poor performance in school are motivating factors for criminal tendencies in people and the desire to be rich may fuel the situation. Relatedly, the integrated theory also looks at factors that preclude an individual from engaging in antisocial behaviour or offending. In this regard, the theory suggests that the older a person gets the lesser the likelihood of impulsiveness and frustration. Other factors such as marriage, moving to a new location and steady employment may reduce the likelihood of offending because these factors will likely change the interaction of an individual with his family and the society in general. Further, social and individual reasons can decrease offending opportunities and change decision making by reducing the subjective benefits of offending since the risks of being caught will be higher than the possibility of separation from the family or partner.

Admittedly, the ICAP theory has been very influential in the identification of factors that may affect future criminal and antisocial behaviour in relation to short term and long term risk factors. In this regard it has been instrumental in the development of programs that are concerned with the prevention and reduction of offending in communities. However, it appears that the theory largely focuses on the theme of risk factors concerning offenders and neglects or gives less attention to factors that reduce offending. Additionally, there is evidence that some of the people that exhibit the risk factors under the ICAP theory but do not later go on to commit crimes (Webster et al., 2006). Evidence based studies like these tend to suggest that the ICAP theory is either flawed or inconclusive in its findings and assumptions. The theory does not adequately explain why some people are likely to engage in crime, commit deviant acts or exhibit antisocial behaviour, as compared to other people who do not. This weakness is associated with the fact that the research is exclusively focuses on males from working class backgrounds. Therefore, the research cannot be applied to the behaviour of females in relation to commission of crime and deviant acts.

Further criticism is levelled against the theory on the basis that it cannot be replicated to other groups such as the upper class, rural areas and females. Indeed, the society is a combination of different classes and genders but the study only focuses on males in the working class category. This aspect of the theory and the Cambridge Study limits the applicability of the theory to other sections of the society. For instance, it is questionable whether risk factors like large families would still be relevant in a study based in the rural area populations. It is possible that young women may have different risk factors for engaging in crime and deviant behaviour because of gender differences.

Additionally, the ICAP theory overlooks the influence of neighbourhood on offending, a factor which has been proven through research to correlate to likelihood of offending and deviant behaviour. Interestingly, Zara (2010) argues that although ICAP theory explains crimes committed by males from a working class background, it can be extended to other categories such as middle and upper class offenders, females, white collar crimes, violence and other different social and cultural contexts. This assertion by the author is controversial given the differences in these categories of people, groups and phenomena.

In view of the Farrington explanation of the ICAP theory, it conceptualises offending and antisocial behaviour by working class males as psychological problem rather than a social problem. In fact, Farrington implies that stability in criminal behaviour is pegged on the individual rather than the surrounding environment. In this context, Sonya Buffone (2012) launches a scathing attack on the ICAP theory and labels it as psychological model of antisocial behaviour rather than a theory of crime and delinquency. At the outset the author advocates for the use of structural and social processes to study crime and delinquency with a view of developing programmes to reduce offending. The theory fails to explain its connection with other theories and models hence, it tends to downplay the importance and the contributions of other pre-existing theories in reduction of crime and deviant behaviour. While other sociological models acknowledge the role of social structures in deviant and antisocial behaviour, ICAP theory overlooks the place of race, composition of communities or schools. Instead, the theory overemphasizes and simplifies the psychological determinants of delinquent behaviour which are complex social processes.

One major controversial assumption of the ICAP theory is the stability in antisocial behaviour. In contrast, research indicates that most antisocial children do not become antisocial adults. As a result Buffone argues that scholars should focus on developing integrated theories of crime that allow for marrying of different hermitical perspectives with the aim of complimenting integrative approaches. Unlike, Farrington, other authors that advocate for the psychological approach to antisocial behaviour recognize and acknowledge that structural processes are also important risk factors when analysing antisocial behaviour and offending. A closer look at the ICAP theory reveals that it is either largely influenced by the control and strain theory or it in some aspects similar to either of the two. For instance, Farrington argues that energizing factors like desire for material goods and status become risk factors when poor children adopt illegal means of achieving such goals by engaging antisocial behaviour and delinquency. Similarly, the strain theory proposes that large segments of the population resort to unconventional means of achieving their desires and goals because of limited or no access to institutionalised means (Lilly et al., 2011). Therefore, Farrington has a similar concept but takes a different direction by attributing the desires for material good and status that lead to delinquency to psychological factors such as self-control.

There are studies that have gone further to explore specific long-term and short-term risk factors for serious delinquency (Van der Laan, Blom and Kleemans, 2015). In particular a study found that short-term factors like the absence of guardians and having used alcohol or drugs before the offence contributed to serious delinquency.

Nevertheless, long-term risk factors are still more significant in distinguishing between different levels of delinquency. The above study supports the ICAP theory in that its findings demonstrate that an accumulation of risk factors in different domains increases the likelihood of delinquency. Additionally, situational factors have a special effect on serious delinquency. However, there was no evidence to support the correlation between short-term and long-term risk factors. Interestingly, critics still maintain that empirical risk factor approach as above does not explain why there are individuals who offend but others other under similar risk factors do not actually offend or continue their criminal career. This is another weakness of the ICAP theory because it fails to explain the anomaly in behaviour under similar circumstances.

There are authors that have posited that Farrington’ theory actually integrates several variant theories like control, strain and learning, with different problem focus. This view departs from the earlier discussion that criticised ICAP theory for undermining other theories. It appears that authors have different opinions regarding the integrative nature of the ICAP theory, with one camp comprehending it as all-inclusive while the other considering it as an exclusive theory. However, Robinson (2004) suggests that Farrington’s use of risk factors and prevention method of theorising does not result in true theory integration. He explains that the ICAP theory does not contain all aspects of constituent theories. This view is similar to the one advanced by Buffone, who similarly does not agree with the integration element of the theory. Generally, the theory offers valid explanations for delinquency but has some inconsistencies in the analysis of both short-term and long-term factors.

Another interesting aspect of the ICAP theory is the evidence by some researchers that suggest that depressive symptoms are linked with delinquency and offending (Ritakallio et al., 2008). In contrast, there are studies that have found no evidence to support the above assumption that depression in linked with delinquency and offending. However, there are a number of studies that have correlated some long-term risk factors and delinquency. For instance, Hirschfield and Gasper (2011) acknowledges that engagement in school is crucial for academic performance and school completion. In this regard, the authors explore the relationship between student engagement and delinquency and whether the former impacts the latter. Their research focused on 4,890 inner-city Chicago elementary school students and categorised types of engagement as cognitive, behavioural and emotional. The study concluded that the different categories of engagement had a connection with the delinquency of various students. In particular, they realised that emotional and behavioural engagement predict decreases in school and general delinquency.

Separately, a related study that examined the correlation between academic performance and delinquency found contrasting findings (Felson and Staff, 2006). The authors found that the grades that adolescents got from school did not influence their delinquent behaviour. Therefore they concluded that the relationship between delinquency and performance was a false one with no evidence to back it. Basically, this study attributes delinquency to individual differences such as self-control and not social bonds. On one hand the study supports the ICAP theory and on the other hand, it contradicts previous studies that show that there is a relationship between academic engagement or performance and juvenile delinquency. Overall, the major factors put forward as predictors for antisocial behaviour are peer, family, school and community domains. Take a deeper dive into Knife Crime in London with our additional resources.

Conclusion

In the end, the ICAP theory is fundamental in the development of programmes and reduction of crime especially among juveniles. The theory clearly distinguishes between long-term and short-term antisocial potential. While long-term AP refers to between-individual differences, short-term AP refers to within-individual variations. It follows that people with high antisocial potential tend to be more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviour. It is further assumed that people who have high antisocial potential will continue engaging in antisocial behaviour and delinquent acts and may even offend in the course of their life. This assumption, as shown above has been shown to be questionable s evidence suggests that there are people who exhibit antisocial behaviour but never continue or engage in delinquents behaviour or offending. Further. There are questions as whether the theory can be used to explain delinquency and offending in females and other categories of people or even the possibly that it adequately explains why people commit crimes. In this regard, it is clear that the theory has both strengths and weaknesses related to certain aspects, efficacy and plausibility. Nonetheless, the strengths and usefulness of the theory outweigh the criticisms levelled against it. It remains to be one of the most influential theories in understanding social order and disorder in different communities around the world.

Bibliography

Buffone, S., 2012. Towards an integrative theory of crime and delinquency:

re-conceptualizing the Farrington theory. International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, 5(2).

Farrington, D.P., 2003. Developmental and life‐course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues‐the 2002 Sutherland Award address. Criminology, 41(2), pp.221-225.

Farrington, D.P. ed., 2017. Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending. Routledge.

Farrington, D.P., 2017. The integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory. In Developmental and Life-course Criminological Theories (pp. 105-124). Routledge.

Felson, R.B. and Staff, J., 2006. Explaining the academic performance‐delinquency relationship. Criminology, 44(2), pp.299-320.

Havard, C. and Clarke, J., 2016. Discovering Disorder: Youth and Delinquency.

Havard, C. and Clarke, J., 2016. Discovering Disorder: Youth and Delinquency.

Hemphill, S.A., Heerde, J.A., Herrenkohl, T.I. and Farrington, D.P., 2015.

Within-individual versus between-individual predictors of antisocial behaviour: A longitudinal study of young people in Victoria, Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(3), pp.429-445.

Hirschfield, P.J. and Gasper, J., 2011. The relationship between school engagement and delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(1), pp.3-22.

Lilly, J.R., F.T. Cullen and R.A. Ball. (2011). Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences (5th ed.) Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

Ritakallio M, Kaltiala-Heino R, Kivivuori J, Rimpela M. Brief report: Delinquent behaviour and depression in middle adolescence: A Finnish community sample. Journal of Adolescence. 2008; 28(1):155–159.

Robinson, M. (2004) Why Crime? An interdisciplinary Approach to Explaining Criminal Behaviour. Carolina Academic Press.

Van Der Laan, A.M., Blom, M. and Kleemans, E.R., 2009. Exploring long-term and short-term risk factors for serious delinquency. European Journal of Criminology, 6(5), pp.419-438.

Webster, C., MacDonald, R. and Simpson, M., 2006. Predicting criminality? Risk factors, neighbourhood influence and desistance. Youth justice, 6(1), pp.7-22.

Webster, C., MacDonald, R. and Simpson, M., 2006. Predicting criminality? Risk factors, neighbourhood influence and desistance. Youth justice, 6(1), pp.7-22.

Zara, G. (2010). “Farrington, David P.: The Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential Theory”. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.). Encyclopedia ofCriminological Theory (pp. 313–32

Looking for further insights on A Critical Analysis from the Criminal Justice System Perspective? Click here.