Essay on Psychology of Criminality: Justice, Human Behavior, and Social Relations

Introduction

A concern for justice is core to the fabric of all human societies and has been for a long time (Maschi & Dasarathy, 2019). Perceptions about justice prescribe the moral and cultural foundation of human behavior, the type of social relations, and the structure of all societies. Understanding the psychology of criminals is essential to not only punish crime but prevent a person from committing a similar crime. Social psychology deals with analyzing human behavior based on the interactions with others in society in addition to social contests of the behavior.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

According to Maschi & Dasarathy (2019), the American justice system is more oriented towards imprisonment as rehabilitation options for offenders as opposed to mental wellbeing, which only increases the likelihood of the person to re-offend. Social psychology may help understand the criminal behavior of a person, how it was acquired, triggered, and sustained or modified. Identification of personality variables may make it possible to determine individuals who are likely to commit a crime, sociopaths, psychopathic serial killers, and rapists (Maschi & Dasarathy, 2019). Rehabilitation, as opposed to imprisonment, will help in solving the prison problem that burdens the American justice system in terms of finance and resources and also decrease crimes.

The problem of wrongful convictions due to false witness accounts is another issue that affects the American justice system. The rate of wrongful convictions in the U.S is about 2% to 10% percent, which may seem low; however, the number is high given that the prison population in the U.S is more than two million (Lupária & Greco, 2020). In the past, judges depended on witnesses’ accounts to deliver judgments on whether a person is guilty or not. Social scientists have demonstrated studies concerning the accuracy of eyewitness-identification accounts used in criminal proceedings. Though witnesses can be confident that their memory is precise when identifying an accused, the malleable nature of human memory and visual insights renders testimony by eyewitnesses one of the most undependable types of evidence. Unlike the common perception that human memory is like a video recorder and can playback or forward; however, scientists state memories are reconstructed and not played back. Hence, human memory is subject to distortion and unreliable.

According to Kerr & Jung (2018), jury deliberation takes place when a jury in a trial in court goes to discuss the findings of the court in private and makes a decision on which argument to accept. Most states have a presiding juror who presides over the votes of jurors and communicates the verdict during the deliberation a bailiff guarantees that no one interacts with the jury during the proceedings. Jury deliberations play a crucial duty in the outcome of a case and encourage collective pooling of data and the rectification of mistaken conclusions. Critics argue it is not a sufficient way of determining the truth in the multifaceted urban culture of the twentieth century (Kerr & Jung, 2018). In addition, critics argue that jurors find it difficult to overlook inadmissible evidence; for example, the past convictions of a defendant, especially when the unacceptable offence is more emotional.

Persuasion is part of the judicial system, and trial lawyers use social psychology to cross-examine witnesses to validate their statements. Lawyers may employ misconception effect to incorporate false information in witness to find whether the witness includes the wrong information in their testimonies (Myers, 2015). Social cognition studies show that the information processing ability of human beings remarkable for their efficiency and adaptiveness. The mind’s premium on effective judgments makes our intuition more susceptible to misjudgment than we suspect, and we can form false beliefs. Hence justifies why jury needs witness accounts and lawyer trials so that they are not led by preconceptions, overconfidence, convinced by clear anecdotes and construct social beliefs and influence others to adapt to them. (Myers, 2015) Misleading interpretations, impressions, and ideas can lead to severe consequences, and any small bias can have great effects when the jury makes significant social judgments. The change I would make is to change the structure of the Supreme Court by establishing a supreme court comprised of a rotating panel of justices and to create an ideologically split Supreme Court to helping in restoring fair-mindedness to the judiciary.

Analyze the relationship you have with this dating partner in terms of social exchange theory (comparison level, comparison level for alternatives, rewards, and costs), and attachment style.

Conferring to Myers (2015), social exchange concept states that human beings engage in a cost-benefit analysis before they get into any relationship that they may have. Human beings measure the outcomes of the relationship and are involved in those relationships that they gain something in return. How we feel about another person depends on our perception of the balance between what we put into the relationship and what we get out of it and the kind of relationship we deserve. In my relationship with my partner, the rewards I get from investing in this relationship are internal. I have fun with my partner, she brings fascinating hobbies into my life, she is funny and good-looking, and she cares for me. Therefore she has increased my level of self –worth and always feels good.

However, social exchange theory gives us as apperception of the kind of relationship we deserve (Myers, 2015). Although the relationship is rewarding, there are costs associated with being in the relationship in terms of things I do not like about my partner. For example, my partner is somehow needy, she continually seeks me out, she frequently calls wanting to do things, and she is clingy and gets upset if I tell her I need some space. Furthermore, I require a relationship with less commitment. Thus, I have to weigh between the cost and benefits of being in the relationship.

Hence, conferring to the social exchange model, human beings will pursue alternative choices than they have (Myers, 2015). Yes, my partner treats me well, but I often think about my colleague at the office. Since I do not like some of the partner’s behavior, I always have imagined how it would feel to date somebody else. My colleague is very attractive and has suggested we go for a date. However, I do not want to be close to another person. My colleague asked me out for a date is an example of social exchange theory, because in this test if I say yes, then my colleague gains the reward and is likely to ask for more in the future as they expect similar results.

Hence, from this dilemma, one of the conclusions of the social exchange concept is the purpose of self-disclosure is that humans are selfish. The theory emphasizes more on communication, which is vital in self-disclosure. I have been unable to communicate my feelings to my partner, and I require a less committed relationship. From this scenario, Relational Dialectics theory is manifested, which is caused when two individuals of erratic differences stay in a relationship. It asserts that as uncertainty increases, the liking reduces, and people in a relationship begin liking other strangers. When it reaches a point where the cost to benefit ratio is low, the social exchange theory gives us a basis to dissolve the relationship.

Consider the social cognitive cause of prejudice, specifically the idea of the activation of stereotypes. How does the activation of stereotypes explain prejudiced behavior? Summarize Devine’s research on automatic and controlled processing of stereotypes, and how it can explain prejudicial behavior. How does the justification-suppression model of prejudice explain how prejudice works? How does the illusory correlation explain prejudicial thinking? When you consider the meaning and research behind all of these theories, what conclusions can be drawn about your ability to change stereotypical beliefs?

According to Myers (2015), activation of stereotype explains prejudice behavior in that as human beings; we tend to simplify our environment by categorizing objects into groups. Humans find it efficient and easy to depend on stereotypes, particularly when they are pressed for time, preoccupied, fatigued, emotionally aroused, or when they are too young to appreciate diversity. Hence, based on this, stereotypes are sometimes perceived as a beneficial ratio of information acquired to the expended effort or represent a cognitive efficiency, or as energy-saving tactics of making hasten judgments and guessing how others will act or think (Myers, 2015). Independently, such categorizations are not considered prejudice; however, they not only provide a basis for prejudice, but they are also necessary for prejudice. Conferring to the social identity theory, individuals who keenly sense their social identity will often concern themselves with accurately grouping people as “us” or “them.”

According to Patricia Divine’s research, three studies investigated basic beliefs acquired from a theoretical concept founded on the dissociation of automatic and controlled procedures implicated in prejudice (Devine, 1989). Study One backed the premise of the model that high and low prejudice people have equal knowledge of cultural stereotypes. The model implies that the stereotype is automatically triggered when a member of the stereotyped group is around, and low prejudice response needs a measured inhibition of the automatically triggered stereotype (Devine, 1989). Study 2 focused on automatic stereotype activation on the assessment of stereotype behaviors done by a person of unspecified race. According to the model, when the ability of the subject to closely monitor the activation of stereotype is excluded, both low and high prejudice, individuals portray corresponding stereotype evaluations of vague conduct. Study 3 evaluated the response of low and high-prejudice subjects’ in a consciously in a thought-listing task. Conferring model’s findings, only low-prejudice individuals hindered the activation of corresponding stereotypes ideas and substituted them with beliefs of equality and stereotype negations.

According justification-suppression model (JSM), prejudicial responses are not inevitable (Myers, 2015). The motivation to escape from prejudice can make individuals modify their actions and thoughts. When a self-conscious person gains knowledge on the gap between how they should feel and how they exactly feel, he or she will have a sense of guilt and attempt to constrain their prejudicial response.

According to (Myers, 2015), Illusory correlation is the observation of a relationship where none exists or opinion of a more robust relationship. When human beings expect to find a substantial connection, they tend to associate random happenings easily. Stereotypes are often activated through the categorization of people or objects into groups (Myers, 2015). Illusory correlation relation provides a basis of stereotyping, suggesting that individuals might form stereotypes concerning a group basically as an outcome of the way their minds usually process information concerning the universe.

From the above theories, it shows how difficult it is to change stereotypes because it is deeply implanted in the nature of human beings. Human beings have a natural predisposition of categorizing objects or people, and therefore even if a person tries to inhibit stereotypes, inhibition often switches off because prejudice is internal.