The Expansion of the Latent Trait Theory in Criminology

The Theory on Family Influences with Crime

Based on the Latent Trait Theory

Throughout the lifetime of an individual, there are several factors and/or life situations such as family influence that may trigger a life of crime. This idea stems from the idea of Latent Trait Theory, which suggests that there are several people with our populations that possess a characteristic that controls their need to commit crimes. Aside from the Latent Trait theory, there are three theories that correlate to the latent trait theory. One of the theories is the life course theory, which examines the lifespan of a person devoted to a life of crime. Another theory is integrated theory, which suggests that there are multiple factors that can be the cause to an individual turning to crime. The third theory is age-graded theory, which focuses on social influences on crime such as family and employment.

The latent trait theory is utilized within the criminal justice field as a framework to examine the mindset of offenders. Siegel, Ph.D indicates that people with latent traits are more likely to “choose crime over non-crime and the opportunity for crime mediates their choice” (285). It is suggested by this theory that there is a master trait or characteristic during birth or soon after that remains unchanged throughout the lifespan of the offender. This means that a potential offender can develop this mindset depending on the surrounding influences within his/her environment. Aside from social variables, there is also the possibility that the potential offender could have inherited the unchanged trait from his/her parent(s), which relates back to family influences. While latent traits are considered as a link to potential crime, it is also important to understand that not all latent traits are connected to crime.

There are several latent traits that can influence a potential offender into pursuing a life of crime. Siegel Ph.D suggests that these traits include “low IQ, impulsivity and personality structures” (285). Of the three, I find it interesting to see that low IQ has been indicated as a latent trait to trigger crime offenders. Not every offender will possess low IQ as Siegel indicates with the article because it varies from case-to-case. Marginalizing individuals based on intelligence level does not help in properly assessing the psyche of each criminal. On the flip side, it is also a valid point to be made since there are several individuals who don’t valve intelligence and resort more to action than through wits. Low IQ is not the strongest correlational variable for offenders to commit crimes but it should not be ruled out from the assessment itself.

Aside from Low IQ, there is also impulsivity and personality to consider as latent traits for crime offenders. The best way to define impulsivity in context with crime is the urge to commit a crime at an instant. This definition does have its limitations since that same urge could be based on social pressures or other stressors. Regardless of the origins of these urges, it is still a trait to consider because there are criminals out there who demonstrate destructive behavior from a young age. This leads us to the third latent trait for crime offenders, which is personality structure. This trait focuses on how one’s personality is developed from childhood to adulthood and investigate the likelihood of committing a crime in the future. Depending on the upbringing, it is possible for an individual to be influenced by his/her surroundings, which is why it is important to create positive environments at a young age so that they don’t grow up to become criminals.

In relation to the latent trait theory, there are three theories that are like this trait theory. The first theory similar to latent trait is the life course theory, which suggests that events occurring over the lifespan of an individual can create criminal choices. Thornberry indicates that there is evidence that “antisocial and criminal behavior are relatively stable over long periods of the life course” (134). This theory has its limitations since each criminal is a case-by-case variation. For example, there can be moments where an individual could decide to rob a bank out of desperation to support his/her family and has no other resource to utilize at that moment. This is not justifying bank robbers but the motive to rob can be influenced by the need to provide for loved ones. The life course theory develops over the span of one’s life but moments of desperation to commit a crime does not reflect an individual’s life course.

The second theory that is related to latent trait theory is integrated theory, which indicates that multiple theories within criminology can be utilized to assess different elements of delinquent behavior. Krohn and Eassey indicated in their article that it has been historically known for “most criminological theories have focused on relatively specific factors or processes that are suggested to explain either criminal behavior or the distribution of crime” (p.1). This theory has served as the topic of discussion regarding the development of theories that look to combine concepts within criminology. With so many concepts and theories in the field of Criminology, it becomes vital to integrate theories with one another to develop multiple perspectives.

The last theory that is similar to latent trait theory is Age-graded theory, which says that the relationship between early delinquent offenses and later adult deviant behavior is not produced through individual characteristics. There are three components that make up the framework for this theory. First, there is a contextual structure that is mediated by both family and school social controls, which can be the precursor to delinquency within childhood and/or adolescence. Second, antisocial behavior from childhood to adulthood seem to remain stable throughout this timeframe. Finally, the social bonds between family and employment can aid in explaining the concept of criminality over the life span.

With these three theories taken into account, I developed a theory that is integrated from the various concepts/theories regarding delinquent behavior. The theory that I created suggests that “Within an individual’s life cycle, the draw to crime can stem from various social and cultural factors including their relationships with family”. I feel that one of the most influential areas of an individual’s lifespan involves the importance of family dynamics and their effect on personality. In most cases, when a child is born, the first set of people that the child is exposed to is his/her family. Their influence can impact your worldview and can lead to a life of crime depending on the groupthink of the family. This theory that I developed attempts to encompass how family can be a major influence in one’s life.

An example of an offender that correlates to my theory is when someone joins a gang and goes through initiation by committing a crime as part of the experience. The way that this theory relates to this example is through the presence or non-presence of family. In some cases, people who look to join gangs probably does not have a family to look up to and the streets became their “family”. There are other cases where family members are gang members themselves and influence the individual to join the gang to be “a part of the crowd”. This instance demonstrates the impact of family and how it can influence someone to turn to a life of crime.

In conclusion, there are latent traits that correlate to delinquent behavior that can be developed from childhood to adulthood. The way that we navigate through those traits will depend on our social, cultural and family factors. However, these same factors can also be a predictor to the likelihood of committing a crime. Therefore, it is vital to better assess the mindset of a criminal because there can be misconceptions of the individual’s motive. Not every criminal has the intent to become an offender, which is why understanding the distinction of criminal and non-criminal will make the difference in better defining what a criminal truly is without prejudice.