An Interesting non-Kentucky Bourbon

Every once in a while, a delightful surprise reminds us why labelling and categorizing things according to some component of its composition is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Sometimes that reminder happens with an interpersonal interaction, sometimes it occurs when consuming media, and sometimes, when you least expect it, that reminder comes from remaining open-minded about trying different whiskeys. Sometimes that reminder comes from a not-so-delightful surprise as well. Enter Gentry, a bourbon from the Charleston, South Carolina area that should not, ever, be anywhere near your list.

Coming in around $40-50 per bottle, Gentry’s profile and character are simply not worth the expense (and not good unless your preference is bland, with a burn, that you prefer to mix, and then there are much less expensive options). This is where the reminder that labels are misleading, both literally and figuratively, comes to play, and serves as a reminder that we should always look beyond the label throughout all aspects of life. (I’ve written plenty of short snippets regarding labeling theory and the emphasis we place on the wrong things, but I may devote an upcoming article to the topic, so if you are interested, stay tuned).

Honestly, if you want a decent “mixer” bourbon, go for Old Forrester, Bullet, Jim Beam... all are drastically better than Gentry, are all good bourbons in their own ways, and are significantly less expensive.  

Early Neuropsychological Impairments Increase Risk of Antisocial and Criminal Behavior

Early Neuropsychological Impairments Increase Risk of Antisocial and Criminal Behavior

Jesse Hart

Masters Demonstration Project

School of Criminal Justice

University of Cincinnati

Originally Written: 15 October 2014

Research conducted over the past couple of decades has repeatedly illustrated the link between the brain and behavioral disorders, between genetic variation and antisocial behavioral patterns, and the interplay between biological characteristics and environmental influences in understanding and explaining human behavior (Beaver, 2009). Interestingly, criminological literature incorporating or examining such discoveries from other scientific fields, such as psychology, psychiatry, genetics, and biology, has been largely nonexistent until recent years, with biosocial examinations of antisocial and criminal behavior only beginning to emerge (Beaver, 2009).

The primary reason further research analyzing the biological and genetic basis of behavior and differences among individuals has been stagnant lies in the ethical concerns surrounding the possible abuse of such information, much like the utilization of selective phrenology and other supposedly scientific methods that were used to establish moral hierarchies between races and sexes in the past (Hatemi & McDermott, 2011). Biosocial criminologists are quick to point out that such concerns are an overreaction. The advocating of unethical eugenic measures is not the focus of biosocial criminology, and instead experts in the field focus on the improvement of the environment in an effort to increase the likelihood of healthy biological development throughout the early stages of the life course (Rocque, Welsh, & Raine, 2012). In effect, biosocial criminology provides for the study and use of crime prevention strategies instead of reactionary criminal justice strategies (Rocque et al., 2012).

Beginning with an examination of what the field of biosocial criminology encompasses, the primary focus for this paper will be the healthy development of the brain from conception through childhood. The final section will explore policies and practices that have already been shown to reduce antisocial and criminal behaviors as a result of influences from the biological sciences before delving into recommendations on future biosocial policies and programs derived from this emerging field.

Biosocial Criminology

Wright and Cullen (2012) describe biosocial criminology as a paradigm instead of as a theoretical perspective; the conceptualization of such a thought requires an understanding of the notion that biosocial criminology includes theoretical perspectives that are informed by biological research. In essence, biosocial criminology can be thought of as a field of study that includes that of traditional criminological thinking, but also includes open-mindedness about, and acceptance of, the ways in which genetic factors affect individual behaviors and the subsequent expression of those factors within social settings. For example, an individual’s genetic makeup affects their body’s ability to produce or break down neurotransmitters within the brain (i.e. serotonin, dopamine, etc.), and studies of aggressive behavior have linked manifestations of aggression to abnormal levels of dopamine and serotonin (Beaver, 2009). From such an example, biosocial criminologists acknowledge that the environment alone does not create the expression of aggression within individuals, but instead the development of aggressive behavior is partially driven by biological factors in conjunction with environmental influences.

Theoretically, three generalizable elements can be identified as the foci of biosocial criminology: biological variation, ontogeny, and interaction (Wright & Cullen, 2012). Biological variation refers, simply, to the processes of evolution and the subsequent differences in genetic traits and characteristics that result between the sexes, individuals, and groups of individuals; biosocial criminologists naturally are most interested in biological variations that are found to be related to antisocial and criminal behaviors (Wright & Cullen, 2012). Ontogeny, as defined by Wright and Cullen (2012), refers to the “origins and life-course development” of individual organisms (p. 246). Finally, interaction recognizes that humans do not exist apart from the social world, and therefore operations on and interactions with the environment must also be studied.

It is important to be very specific with the definition of biological and genetic factors as opposed to environmental influences when discussing biosocial criminology: biological factors are used to delineate genetic and physiological processes that occur within the individual, whereas environmental influences are those factors that affect individuals from outside the body (Beaver, 2009). This distinction becomes blurred when external influences are also biological in nature, such as the effects of alcohol or tobacco use by a pregnant mother on her developing child (Beaver, 2009).

Also of extreme importance is the role of gene-environment interplay, which is the concept of how variance in phenotypes, or the observable characteristics of an individual that result from the interaction of one’s genotype (i.e. genetic composition) and one’s environment, is created; there are three primary ways in which gene-environment interactions may be classified, which are gene X environment interactions (GxE), gene X environment correlations (rGE), and epigenetics (Beaver, 2009). At its simplest, gene X environment interactions refer to the presence and/or absence of a genetic risk and an environmental risk, with exposure to both greatly increasing the risk of a specified behavioral outcome (Beaver, 2009). Gene X environment correlations, on the other hand, refer to the processes in which the genotype affects the environment, albeit indirectly; this phenomenon is most easily understood with an example, such as a child being born with conduct disorder (CD) who evokes harsh forms of discipline from his/her parents and rejection by their peers (Beaver, 2009). Such an interaction of genetic differences evoking social reactions would be an example of one type of gene X environment correlation. Finally, epigenetics refers to the ways in which the epigenome, or chemical markers situated along strands of DNA, affect biological processes through the expression or non-expression of genes and how such expression is affected by environmental influences; put another way, epigenetic alterations occur when genes are turned “on” or “off” by environmental factors (Beaver, 2009).

Although the information covered above is brief, it sets the stage for understanding that many factors affect behavior through biological processes and environmental influences. Such recognition is the basis for biosocial criminology, and provides an illustrative foundation from which to delve further into how variation in a single component of the human body, the brain, greatly influences and affects behavioral outcomes.

Research Methods

Much of the biosocial criminology literature is derived from studies incorporating methods used by behavioral geneticists, such as twin-based research studies, adoption studies, and family studies (Beaver, 2009). In addition, technological advancements have made it possible to study the brain in ways never before thought possible. For example, Raine (2013) was the first criminologist to utilize brain-imaging technology to study the structural and functional differences in the brain, analyzing a sample of forty-one murderers in California in 1994 in his groundbreaking study. Using positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, Raine was able to measure metabolic activity in various regions of the brain simultaneously, with higher rates of metabolic processes occurring in those regions of the brain that were most active during the cognitive tasks assigned (Raine, 2013). Using a matched sample of controls, Raine (2013) discovered that murderers showed similar levels of metabolic activity to the controls in the occipital cortex (i.e., their vision was working perfectly) and significantly lower levels of metabolic activity in the prefrontal cortex after performing the cognitive tasks; in other words, the murderers’ prefrontal cortices were functioning poorly.

Other neuroimaging techniques have also been utilized to study the brain functions and structural composition of psychopaths and non-psychopaths, yielding interesting results. For instance, examining the limbic system in psychopaths and comparing to non-psychopathic controls, functional magnetic-resonance imaging scans (fMRIs) detected both structural and functional differences between the experimental and control groups; specifically, activity within the amygdala and hippocampus was reduced in the psychopath group, as was the volume of the amygdala reduced by seventeen to nineteen percent (Beaver, 2009).

Generally speaking, neuroimaging techniques provide most of the basis for recognizing the relationship between structural and functional differences in the brains of individuals who exhibit antisocial or criminal behaviors and the manifestation of such behaviors. Twin-based research and adoption and family studies have provided a wealth of information surrounding the identification of a heritable component to behaviors, as well as identifying the interplay between genetic predispositions and environmental influences (Beaver, 2009). In fact, behavioral genetics research, which is generally comprised of statistically comparing the relative effects of both genetic and environmental influences in twin-based research designs, is one of the primary areas of research from which much of the known information surrounding biological and environmental interactions and their correlates with human behavior has emerged (Tibbetts, 2014). It is important to note that no single research methodology exists when considering an examination of antisocial behavior through the lens of biosocial criminology, with research from multiple disciplines being incorporated into the field.

Brain Structure and Functioning: Theoretical Background

In order to understand how variations in brain structure and functioning affect behavior, it is first important to examine the structures and known functions of regions of the brain, the neurotransmitters involved in normal brain functioning, and the effect of certain neurotransmitters on behavior. Before proceeding, however, a word of caution is in order: some of the conclusions currently accepted are still preliminary, and subsequently are not well established (Wright, Tibbetts, & Daigle, 2008).

The limbic system of the brain, which is comprised of the amygdala, an almond-shaped emotion and partial memory center, and hippocampus, the primary memory center, is the section of the brain believed to be the most relevant in the formation of emotional responses and feelings related to survival (i.e. the fight or flight response) and social responses (such as jealousy and anger) (Wright, Tibbetts, & Daigle, 2008). Also of note, the hippocampus plays a key role in an individual’s ability to comprehend cause and effect relationships, and criminals have been found to lack proper functioning in the hippocampus, especially in violent offenders (Wright et al., 2008).

The pituitary is primarily responsible for releasing growth hormone during sleep states as well as important sex hormones during puberty; in conjunction with the hypothalamus, the pituitary regulates hormones that control emotional responses such as aggression (Wright, Tibbetts, & Daigle, 2008). The cingulate gyrus is the region of the brain that affects an individual’s ability to adapt and shift attention, with improper functioning resulting in an inability to handle negative emotions like anxiety or stress; the ventral tegmental region is the primary region for dopamine production, a neurotransmitter where abnormal levels of the chemical have been linked to antisocial and criminal behaviors (Wright et al., 2008).

The cerebral cortex is the largest and most evolved structure in the human brain, with the frontal lobe and prefrontal cortex being the region of the brain that has been most implicated in the development of antisocial and criminal behaviors (Wright, Tibbetts, & Daigle, 2008). A healthy frontal cortex is constantly communicating with other regions of the brain, is always receiving signals about such things as emotional impulses, and is responsible for the control of emotional impulses through rational decision-making processes (Wright et al., 2008). Notably, the frontal region of the cerebral cortex stays underdeveloped throughout the teenage years, and likely explains the tendency of adolescents to engage in impulsive behavior; also important to note, individuals who experience damage to the frontal lobe display a loss of ability to properly interact with others through social norms, loss of flexibility and adaptability in thinking, much greater likelihood of the expression of violent behaviors, lowered control of emotional impulses, feelings of indifference to the consequences of their behaviors, and severe mood changes (Wright et al., 2008).

Although multiple brain structures and their associated functions affect behavior in a complex fashion, it should be clear already that abnormal functioning in any one region could significantly impact multiple aspects of behavior. Similarly, differences in brain structure between individuals can also have a significant impact. Through the use of brain-imaging techniques, samples of psychopaths in studies conducted by Raine and colleagues showed reductions in the amount of grey matter volume in the prefrontal cortex, increases in the volume of white matter in the corpus callosum, increases in length and decreases in width of the corpus callosum, and reduced volume of the amygdala (Beaver, 2009). As another example of how structural differences can be indicative of antisocial behaviors, it is interesting to note that pathological liars have increased volumes of white matter in the prefrontal cortex (Beaver, 2009).

Clearly there is a strong link between brain functioning and structural development and the subsequent association with antisocial and criminal behaviors; empirically supported findings have shown that criminals have increased activity in the limbic system of the brain, resulting in strong emotional impulses, and reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, resulting in lowered rationalization and cognitive capabilities that serve to control emotional impulses (Beaver, 2009). In short, the ability for those who exhibit antisocial and criminal behaviors to control their impulses appears to be significantly reduced compared to those who do not exhibit such tendencies.

Brain Structure and Functioning: Deficits and Abnormalities

The human brain begins to form almost immediately after conception, continuing to grow, develop, and mature throughout the pregnancy, early childhood, on into adolescence, and into early adulthood; prenatal exposure to testosterone, exposure to toxins, malnutrition, and exposure to stress have all been found to alter early brain development in utero, and have subsequently been linked to antisocial behavioral outcomes (Beaver, 2009). Rocque, Welsh, and Raine (2012) emphasize that neuropsychological or cognitive deficits in childhood are the strongest correlates of antisocial and criminal behavior, with such deficits most often manifested as difficulty with planning and long-term goal attainment, lack of organizational skills, selective attention, difficulties inhibiting emotional responses, trouble conforming to social expectations and responsibilities, an inability to delay gratification, and difficulties adjusting to societal demands. Many of the aforementioned characteristics are similar to those identified by Raine (2013) in his research on the region of the brain most widely implicated in the development of antisocial phenotypes, and especially in studies of aggression and violence: the prefrontal cortex. In fact, Raine’s (2013) examination of how impairments to the prefrontal cortex affect behavior indicates a number of characteristics that, arguably, sound exactly like the behaviors Rocque et al. (2012) illustrate as correlates of later criminal behaviors, such as loss of control over emotional responses, engagement in risk-taking and rule-breaking behaviors, impulsivity and an inability to modify and inhibit behaviors properly, immaturity, poor social judgment, lacking problem-solving skills, and the loss of intellectual flexibility.

The link between neuropsychological and cognitive impairments and the development of antisocial or criminal behaviors cannot be ignored. Impairments to physical brain structures are not the only neuropsychological deficits to be strongly implicated in antisocial or criminal behaviors, however. Neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, have also been repeatedly linked to a variety of antisocial behaviors. In fact, serotonin has been the most consistently implicated neurotransmitter to affect a wide range of antisocial behavioral outcomes (Wright, Tibbetts, & Daigle, 2008). Similarly, monoamine oxidase, an enzyme that assists in the regulation of levels of neurotransmitters in the brain, has also been strongly implicated in the development of antisocial phenotypes (Wright et al., 2008).

Although all causes of variances in brain structure and functioning are not known to researchers as of yet, a number of risk factors have been identified through the use of the previously mentioned research methods. Prenatal exposure to a range of toxins, an overabundance of testosterone in the womb, malnutrition, complications at birth such as anoxia (oxygen starvation), abuse and neglect during early childhood, exposure to environmental toxins during early childhood, and delays in the acquisition of language are just some of the issues identified in studies that may lead to developmental impairments or damage to brain structure and functioning (Beaver, 2009). Before addressing existing polices and practices that have been shown to positively affect behavioral outcomes, it is important to emphasize the ways in which such risk factors affect brain development.

Perhaps no other setting lends itself to identifying and studying the biological underpinnings of behavioral development than the womb. The womb and amniotic sac may be thought of as a filtration system within the female body that surrounds and protects a developing child from the hazards of the mother’s environment as well as some hazards a mother may introduce, knowingly or unknowingly, into her body (Wright, 2014). Wright (2014) emphasizes that this concept of a highly effective, highly efficient filtration system must be kept in mind when considering the potential effects of the introduction of toxins into the developing embryo’s environment (i.e. the womb); research has shown that the placenta and blood-brain barrier are remarkably effective, which aids in explaining why the behavioral outcomes associated with prenatal exposure to a number of risk factors are highly variable.

Prenatal exposure to nicotine, typically through a mother’s use of tobacco products while pregnant, has been shown to affect the growth, structure, and functioning of the brain in animal studies; these studies have found deficits in the cerebral cortex and dysfunction in the production and regulation of dopamine and serotonin to be correlated with in utero exposure to nicotine (Wright, 2014). Further, magnetic resource imaging (MRI) studies of children whose mothers smoked while pregnant discovered reductions in the volume of cortical gray matter, which is highly associated with intelligence and overall brain health (Wright, 2014). Much like prenatal exposure to nicotine, prenatal exposure to alcohol has also been linked to developmental problems in offspring. Research has consistently linked such developmental issues as hyperactivity, learning deficits, conduct disorders, delinquency, and later criminal behavior to in utero exposure to alcohol (Wright, 2014).

Other toxins may become introduced into the womb unbeknownst to the mother. Perhaps the most intensively studied example to date is the introduction of lead into the bloodstream through a pregnant mother’s contact with lead-based paints, consuming water contaminated by lead pipes, or simply living in an environment where high concentrations of lead have developed as a result of commercial and/or residential applications (e.g. prior to changes in Federal Law, lead was an additive in gasoline and became widely distributed as a pollutant). Lead mimics an ion of calcium, resulting in the inability for the body to distinguish between particles of lead and calcium and, therefore, leading to the storage of lead in bones (Wright, 2014); the storage of lead in a pregnant woman’s bones becomes especially problematic as a result of the calcium needs of a fetus during the first trimester to form the skeletal system and for other neurological functioning, as some of the calcium is supplied from the soft areas of the mother’s bones and, if present, lead will also be passed to the fetus (Wright, 2014). Studies have shown that prenatal and postnatal exposure to lead is associated with a range of developmental problems, including lowered IQ, hearing and vision problems, difficulties with self-regulation, and deficits in fine and gross motor skills (Wright, 2014).

It is clearly apparent that prenatal and perinatal exposure to an array of biological risk factors is associated with a host of maladaptive behavioral outcomes, but it should also be emphasized that birth complications, the introduction of toxins during early childhood development, malnutrition, and especially childhood exposure to abuse and neglect are also highly correlated with the development of later antisocial behaviors and, in many instances, criminal outcomes (Beaver, 2009). Due to the relative infancy of contemporary biosocial criminology, however, much research must still be conducted to determine to what extent exposure to the aforementioned risk factors, as well as the multitude of potential additional risk factors yet unidentified that may be introduced through legal and illicit drugs, commercial chemicals, industrial pollutants, and other developments of modern society, impact brain development and functioning either directly (i.e. absorption into the bloodstream) or indirectly (i.e. affecting the expression of genes).

Applying Methods of Crime Prevention From the Biosocial Perspective

Rocque, Welsh, and Raine (2012) identify developmental prevention, which refers to the use of protective factors and the targeting of risk factors shown to affect human development through strategic intervention, as the newest and most relevant form of crime prevention when utilizing a biosocial approach. Family-centered, preschool and school-based, and nutritional programs have all been shown to help reduce antisocial and criminal behaviors in studies, though it is important to note that the earlier in the life course the intervention occurs the greater the likelihood of a positive outcome (Rocque et al.,2012).

As an example, the Nursing Family Partnership Program combines education with prenatal and perinatal care for impoverished, unmarried mothers, and has repeatedly shown positive results with regard to lower instances of abuse or neglect of the children born to the participants, as well as lowered incidents of risk-seeking or impulsive behaviors among said children (Wright & Boisvert, 2009). Expanding the scope of such a program to provide consistent, quality prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal care for mothers, healthcare for children until they enter the school system, and continuing to educate parents about those risk factors within the realm of their control while simultaneously educating the public about the dangers of environmental pollutants, toxins, and other substances that affect humans at the biological level, and especially during the early stages of embryonic development and early childhood, can substantially affect the prevalence of antisocial and criminal behaviors in future generations. In essence, the focus of a healthy society must start with a focus on ensuring the members of said society are also healthy.

Beaver (2009) summarized the concept succinctly: behavioral problems tend to emerge during childhood, prevention programs targeting youth reduce the likelihood of antisocial and criminal behaviors developing in youth, and prevention programs show greater effectiveness in reducing incidents of antisocial and criminal behaviors in chronic offenders compared to intervention or rehabilitation programs. Barnes (2014) also emphasizes the need for biosocial perspectives in crime prevention, noting that biosocial criminology provides a more thorough, in-depth look at how the mind, body, and environment interact to produce behavioral outcomes, and that it is far easier to manipulate and change environmental factors to influence outcomes than to attempt to manipulate genetic variables. Three primary foci are subsequently described as implications for policies and practices informed by biosocial perspectives: the elimination of toxins from the environment, improving pre-, peri-, and postnatal care, and the use of targeted interventions for high-risk individuals (Barnes, 2014).

A Note on Existing Policies and Practices

The usefulness of crime prevention strategies are underscored by the premise that crime response strategies, or the identification of and response to at-risk individuals after criminal behaviors have developed, represent missed opportunities that should be viewed through the lens of public health instead of criminal justice (Rocque, Welsh, & Raine, 2012). The classification of crime prevention strategies, therefore, fall into four general categories: developmental prevention, or targeting risk and protective factors discovered to affect human development; community prevention, or targeting social conditions and institutions that influence the development of offending behaviors; situational prevention, or targeting factors that influence opportunities to engage in criminal behaviors; and criminal justice prevention, which includes traditional incapacitative and rehabilitative strategies operated by criminal justice agencies (Rocque et al., 2012).

Among existing programs, the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) provides an example of the most well-known and studied health and nutrition program targeting pregnant women currently in operation. The program specifically targets those women who are in disadvantaged socioeconomic positions who are pregnant, and primarily relies on educating expectant mothers on topics ranging from proper prenatal and postnatal childcare, proper nutrition, and advice on avoiding toxins such as alcohol and tobacco during pregnancy (Rocque, Welsh, & Raine, 2012). Results of early trials showed significant improvements in decreasing instances of physical abuse and neglect of children by mothers participating in the program (29% of those participating were identified as perpetrators of such abuse or neglect, compared to 54% of the control group); also, in follow-ups at the age of fifteen with the children of those mothers who participated, incidents of violent or other major criminal acts were significantly lower than the children of those mothers in the control group (mean of 3.02 compared to 3.57) (Rocque et al., 2012). In another follow-up at age 19, girls born to participating mothers also had significantly fewer children of their own and less use of public welfare services, though limited effects of the program were observed in the boys born to participating mothers (Rocque et al., 2012).

Preschool and school-based programs, such as the Perry Preschool project in Michigan, targeted children in impoverished households and aimed to provide intellectual stimulation, increase analytical abilities, and increase later scholastic achievement (Rocque, Welsh, & Raine, 2012). In follow-up studies the program was shown to produce positive long-term benefits by the age of 19, with the experimental group participants being more likely to be employed, to have graduated from high school, to have attended collegiate or vocational training, and to be less likely to have been arrested (Rocque et al., 2012). Also of note, the latest follow-up of the participants, at age 40, showed that the experimental group had significantly fewer lifetime arrests for all crime types, significantly higher levels of educational achievement, better records of employment, and higher annual incomes than those in the control group (Rocque et al., 2012).

Nutritional effects on cognitive development have been studied for decades, and an ever-increasing body of research has demonstrated links between nutrition and cognitive deficits, brain functioning, and crime (Rocque, Welsh, & Raine, 2012). In fact, a study by Schoenthaler in 1983 (in Rocque et al., 2012) found that removing unhealthy foods from the diets of incarcerated youth significantly decreased incidents of antisocial behavior. Recently, the link between nutritional deficits and antisocial behaviors has been reexamined, with researchers discovering that Omega-3 fish oil, and more specifically Docosahexaenoc Acid (DHA) and Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA), can improve neurite outgrowth in the brain which, subsequently, results in larger dendritic branching and neuron development; in sum, these effects have demonstrated improved behavior and decreased aggression in experimental studies of the general population, with diets including seafood in pregnant mothers also being associated with higher cognitive functioning and reductions in antisocial behaviors in their offspring (Rocque et al., 2012).

Taken together, the above examples provide a basic framework for recommending new policies and practices aimed at addressing crime prevention from the perspective of public health instead of solely through the reactionary lens of the criminal justice system. It is important to note, however, that crime prevention alone is not a viable strategy, and the recommendations should be viewed as an augment to existing policies and practices in an effort to curb antisocial and delinquent behaviors from manifesting, with existing criminal justice policies and practices taking over in instances where prevention strategies fall short.

Recommendations for Policies and Practices

Societal health begins with the healthiness, or unhealthiness, of the individual members of that society. When examining crime and antisocial or delinquent behaviors, traditional criminological perspectives focus primarily on social programs and institutions due, primarily, to the social perception and definition of such behaviors. In reality, however, biosocial perspectives help illuminate the link between biological influences and social and environmental influences, which in turn drives the realization that viewing crime as a response to a multitude of risk factors, much like a doctor examining the conditions and risk factors promoting the spread of disease in a region, is more appropriate than viewing crime itself as the variable to be controlled or manipulated. A multi-faceted approach, therefore, is recommended when examining the potential for new policies and practices designed to address crime, especially when taking into account the summarized findings presented herein.

The SHIELD Program

For the purposes of discussion, the following recommendations for policies and practices to be implemented can be thought of as the four key components of a single program designed to strategically target crime and the development of delinquent or antisocial behaviors through an informed, biosocial and neuropsychological developmental prevention strategy. For simplicity, these recommendations will be referred to as the foundations of a new Societal Health and Involved Educational and Locational Development (SHIELD) Program.

Building on the research summarized previously, and the success of educational initiatives like the Nurse-Family Partnership, the first component of the SHIELD Program focuses on educating individuals on the genetic and environmental influences, along with risk and protective factors, that have been shown to impact behavior and human development. Although broad in scope, the educational component should be implemented through a combination of existing institutions and services, with material targeted at the individuals seeking said services. Expectant mothers, which would include couples attempting to conceive as well as individuals and/or couples in the early stages of pregnancy, should be educated about the effects of tobacco and alcohol use, environmental exposure to pesticides and other commonly used commercial chemicals, potential exposure to lead based on their environmental conditions, and other such toxins that have been shown to affect the developing fetus. Similarly, public marketing campaigns that encourage all individuals to seek out additional information about the impact of such toxins on neuropsychological development by speaking with healthcare professionals should be implemented, highlighting the need for understanding how such toxins may affect children from birth through adolescence. In addition to attempting to educate the entire population through mass marketing materials and programs, the institution of additional educational material in high school level biology classes that expose youth to the concepts of behavioral genetics will raise awareness of and receptivity to the educational component of the SHIELD Program as they age and mature.

At the elementary and middle school levels, however, the implementation of more intellectually stimulating assignments and projects throughout the peak developmental years can help provide long-term benefits to those youth who may have already been exposed to biological risk factors, as evidenced by the success of the Perry Preschool Project. In essence, removing the emphasis on standardized testing and supplementing core educational material with creative, analytical, and challenging projects and assignments increases the likelihood of encouraging greater growth and repair of potential neuropsychological deficits that may exist as a result of developmental impairments.

Coupled with educational guidance for society as a whole, targeted guidance for expectant mothers and couples attempting to conceive, general educational understanding and awareness for youth becoming adults, and targeted intellectual stimulation for children and adolescents, nutritional education and assistance becomes the second core component of the SHIELD Program. Although the educational component would be included in the aforementioned general educational component of the program, the inclusion of an expanded nutritional assistance program is semi-new territory. Modeled after the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Food and Nutrition Service, the nutritional assistance component of the SHIELD Program should target the distribution of nutritional supplements, such as Omega-3 fish oils, and vitamins to specific subsets of the population. Expectant mothers and couples attempting to conceive should receive prenatal vitamins and any recommended dietary supplements, at no cost, through healthcare professionals. Infants and children should receive multivitamins and recommended supplements until they begin to go through puberty, at which point the healthcare system should provide individualized nutritional counseling and recommendations for each adolescent to understand and follow, or not follow, at their own discretion.

Similar to the nutritional component outlined above, providing no-cost pre-, peri-, and postnatal care to all mothers, regardless of socioeconomic status or demographic variables, becomes the third core component of the SHIELD Program. Modeled after the success of the Nurse-Family Partnership, the expansion of the core ideas to all mothers allows this component to be the primary method of educational and nutritional component delivery of the SHIELD Program while simultaneously providing needed healthcare services during, and immediately following, pregnancy. Of all of the outlined recommendations, the enhanced pre-, peri-, and postnatal care component provides the most significant, and potentially the most effective, step in lowering the risks of neuropsychological deficits or abnormalities from forming in the developing child.

The final, and perhaps most difficult component of the SHIELD Program is the identification and neutralization of environmental toxins, and the restoration of contaminated environments. Recognizing that numerous substances, such as lead and commercially used chemicals, affect human development, the need for detecting and neutralizing the effects of such substances is paramount in creating a well-rounded crime prevention strategy based on reducing the risks associated with developmental impairments in humans. Restoration efforts should begin condemning locations identified as contaminated, barring new individuals from establishing a presence in such zones and offering relocation assistance to existing residents. Subsequently, once a location becomes vacant, the Environmental Protection Agency should oversee efforts to restore the location, while working with local contractors to reestablish housing and other communal buildings and properties in the newly decontaminated areas.

In essence, the SHIELD Program is designed to educate the entire population on the dangers posed to humans from environmental and genetic influences from conception through early childhood, target pregnant mothers and conceiving couples to provide educational and nutritional assistance, target pregnant mothers and children from birth through adolescence in the provision of needed nutritional assistance and healthcare, target children from preschool through primary and secondary school in providing intellectually stimulating and enriching content to attempt to combat neuropsychological deficits and genetic risk factors affecting brain functioning or structure, expose high school students to biosocial risk and protective factors through education, and work to ameliorate the effects of environmental contamination.

Costs, Benefits, and Assessment

Due to the heavy emphasis on education and awareness, most of the costs incurred by the SHIELD Program would arise from the nutritional assistance, provision of needed healthcare, and environmental remediation components of the program. Estimates of the cost of criminal offenses in the United States in 2007 were placed at $15 billion in economic losses to victims and $179 billion in government expenditures (McCollister, French, & Fang, 2010). Although the number for government expenditures includes the costs of operating the criminal justice system, reductions in crime would result in the redirection of funds from programs and institutions that would be no longer necessary into the SHIELD Program.

The benefits of lowering crime and increasing the healthiness of society cannot be overstated. Reducing incidents of aggressive behavior and reliance on federally run social welfare programs, and subsequently redirecting available funds to the SHIELD Program as needed, should significantly reduce the overall expense to society while simultaneously creating a healthier, safer environment for future generations. Economically, the bulk of the cost would arise from environmental restoration efforts, though the benefits of providing healthy, safe environments for continued generations of families to reside should not be taken lightly. It is recommended that a full cost-benefit analysis be undertaken prior to implementing the SHIELD Program, with open discourse on the provisions herein providing guidance in the development of an implementation strategy for each individual component over the span of five years.

In order to gauge the success or failure of the SHIELD Program, multiple measures must be utilized. Prior to implementing any component, required participation and categorization of detected criminal offenses with Unified Crime Reports must be unanimous across all law enforcement agencies. In addition, all healthcare systems must implement basic behavioral and risk assessments for all patients, with follow-up assessments performed every five years. Ethical concerns should dictate that all identifying information of these assessments be destroyed once coded into a unified reporting system, with compiled data providing snapshots of the presence or absence of risk factors in the population over time.

Unfortunately, no direct measures of success or failure are easily provided, though the use of self-reported crime and victimization surveys should continue to provide reasonable estimates of whether the SHIELD Program is effective over a five to ten year span.

Conclusion

Utilizing a multifaceted approach to target protective factors in neuropsychological and developmental health, in addition to increasing public awareness of biosocial influences on behavior, are the core components of the policy recommendations outlined herein as the basis for the proposed SHIELD Program. Building such a strategic, focused program draws heavily on concepts shown to be successful through existing programs, like the Nurse-Family Partnership and Perry Preschool project, while simultaneously taking into account findings from studies in behavioral genetics, psychology, education, and criminology. In addition, the recommendations outlined in the proposed SHIELD Program align with the three primary ways in which biosocial risk factors are able to be targeted by preventive strategies according to Beaver (2009): the education of parents, and especially pregnant mothers, about the importance of a healthy pregnancy, the provision of adequate prenatal healthcare for parents, and the provision of postnatal education and support of new parents in understanding the risk and protective factors identified as influential during early childhood development. Similarly, the components of the SHIELD Program align with the policy implications suggested by Barnes (2014): the elimination of environmental toxins, such as lead, the improvement of pre-, peri-, and postnatal care for children, and targeted interventions for high-risk individuals through school-based educational programs.

The first step in preventing crime is to address the underlying biological and environmental influences that cause deficits or abnormalities in brain structure and function. Given that the earlier in the life course the intervention occurs the more likely the success of the intervention, the SHIELD Program is designed to begin with the very first stages of human development. Although the initial costs of the program may be high, the long-term health of society as a whole relies on the successful implementation of efforts to reduce the development of antisocial and delinquent behaviors that lead to criminality. In short, societal health must begin with ensuring the healthy development of the members of society.

References

Beaver, K. M. (2009). Biosocial criminology: A primer (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Barnes, J. C. (2014). The impact of biosocial criminology on public policy: Where should we go from here? In M. DeLisi & K. M. Beaver (Eds.), Criminological theory: A life-course approach (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., & Fang, H. (2010). The cost of crime to society: New crime-specific estimates for policy and program evaluation. Unpublished Manuscript Submitted for Peer Review, Published Version found in Drug Alcohol Depend., 108(1-2), 98-109. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.002. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835847/

Raine, A. (2013). The anatomy of violence: The biological roots of crime. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Rocque, M., Welsh, B., & Raine, A. (2012). Biosocial criminology and modern crime prevention. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(4), 306-312. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.05.003

Tibbets, S. G. (2014). Prenatal and perinatal predictors of antisocial behavior: Review of research and interventions. In M. DeLisi & K. M. Beaver (Eds.), Criminological theory: A life-course approach (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Wright, J. P. (2014). Prenatal insults and the development of persistent criminal behavior. In M. DeLisi & K. M. Beaver (Eds.), Criminological theory: A life-course approach (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Wright, J. P., & Boisvert, D. (2009). What biosocial criminology offers criminology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(11), 1228-1240. doi:10.1177/0093854809343140

Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2012). The future of biosocial criminology: Beyond scholars’ professional ideology. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28(3), 237-253. doi: 10.1177/1043986212450216

Wright, J.P., Tibbetts, S.G., & Daigle, L.E. (2008). Criminals in the making: Criminality across the life course. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Hacking - Does Self-Control Theory Explain Participation in the Hacking Subculture?

Hacking: Does Self-Control Theory Explain Participation in the Hacking Subculture?

The proliferation of automated tools and access to information and guides through online resources provide youth with ample opportunities to become acquainted with the tools and techniques of hacking. Low self-control is a risk factor for engaging in delinquent behaviors, including an inability to consider the long-term ramifications of participating in an array of hacking techniques. Further, the interaction of low self-control and opportunities to learn about and engage in hacking activities can account for the disproportionate number of young males engaging in such behaviors, as well as the lower prevalence of older hackers.

The General Theory of Crime, or Self-Control Theory, cannot completely explain such behaviors without modifying Gottfredson and Hirschi’s concept of crime itself. Computer hacking requires more planning and knowledge than Gottfredson and Hirschi’s original conceptualization of crimes requiring little or no skill or planning, providing immediate and easy satisfaction of simple desires, and resulting in pain for the victim (Buker, 2011).

The core definition of crime aside, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime shows some support in explaining general cybercrime and significant support for explaining crime and delinquency. In light of easy access to guides and information exposing youth to computer hacking, the General Theory of Crime can subsequently account for involvement in the hacking subculture when minimal modifications to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s suggested characteristics of crime are made.

Computer Hacking

The definition of hacking has undergone a number of changes over the past few decades, from a positive label attributed to an individual whose innovative use of technology or software modifications yielded benefits to others to the negative connotation currently defining the activity of hacking as the unauthorized access and use of computer systems (Yar, 2013). This second definition, which is further defined as the act of unauthorized access, redesign, or reconfiguration of a computer system to alter its intended function or gain access to information (Bachmann, 2010), conceptually illustrates the framework of computer hacking with which the criminal justice system is concerned.

According to Marcum, Higgens, Ricketts, and Wolfe (2014), computer hacking includes such activities or behaviors as breaking into a computer system or network, the development or use of viruses or other malware, the destruction or alteration of files, the theft of services through technological methods, credit card fraud, and the infiltration of software systems. It should also be noted that there are some activities that are often attributed to hackers, but do not require unauthorized access to computer systems (Yar, 2013). For instance, the use of software to target a server or set of servers and flood those systems with requests in an effort to deny access by legitimate users of the system, also known as a denial-of-service attack, does not require an individual to first break into the target system.

Although Hollywood and the media often portray hackers as individuals who are able to sit at a computer and break into any system on a whim (Yar, 2013), the reality of how hackers achieve their goals is quite different. Some techniques certainly involve the use of computers and an individual’s knowledge of a computer system to exploit vulnerabilities and gain access, but the most common methods utilized are generally simpler or more indirect. Marcum et al. (2014) discuss the use of “brute-force attacks,” wherein someone simply attempts to break into a system by guessing passwords, “shoulder surfing,” wherein someone watches their victim enter a password or personal identification number, and social engineering, wherein someone poses as someone else in order to have a victim provide information that assists the hacker in gaining access to a system, as examples of some of the varied methods utilized by hackers.

Richet (2013) reaffirms the difference between media portrayals of hackers and reality in his examination of how many youth become involved in such activities, citing the low barrier to entry as a result of the formation of hacking communities on the Internet and the dissemination of information throughout such communities as one of the key changes of the past decade or so. As a result of easier access to information about hacking and the development of automated tools that allow individuals to engage in such behavior without advanced technical knowledge, casual hacking has become a normal idea and component of life for most youth (Richet, 2013). In fact, the most common reasons cited for engaging in hacking activities are fun and curiosity (Richet, 2013).

Yar (2013) also emphasizes the lower barrier to entry associated with hacking, noting the prevalence of automated tools that are available to scan networks and locate vulnerable systems and to establish remote control of said systems, tools for creating viruses and worms, tools for capturing and decrypting passwords, and tools for automating denial of service and brute-force attacks against systems.

As a result of the secretive nature of the hacker subculture, it is difficult to ascertain generalizable information about the average offender (Marcum et al., 2014). It is also difficult to measure the extent to which hacking is, or is becoming, a significant criminological issue. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that computer hacking is a serious issue, and that the problem is increasing at an alarming rate (Bossler & Burruss, 2011).

A General Theory of Crime / Self-Control Theory

Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi developed a general theory of crime, also referred to as self-control theory, which attempts to explain all criminal and deviant behaviors. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, two key components predict the probability of an individual’s choice to engage in a criminal act: an individual’s measure of self-control and the presence of an opportunity (Moon, McCluskey, & McCluskey, 2010). In essence, individuals commit criminal or deviant acts as a result of their inability to resist temptation in the presence of opportunity, and therefore engage in acts that carry long-term consequences that are greater than the short-term benefits (Bossler & Burruss, 2011).

It should be noted that crimes, as defined by Gottfredson and Hirschi, are stimulating, dangerous, or thrilling, require little planning or skill, result in a victim’s pain or discomfort, provide immediate, easy, and simplistic satisfaction of an offender’s desires, and supply few or insufficient long-term benefits (Buker, 2011). In addition to criminal activities, individuals possessing low self-control also tend to partake in other deviant or antisocial behaviors, such as smoking and drinking (Buker, 2011).

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory, individuals possessing low self-control exhibit such behaviors as seeking instant gratification, insensitivity to others, and limited cognitive skills (Moon et al., 2010). Further, Gottfredson and Hirschi suggest that low levels of self-control also predispose individuals to analogous activities such as smoking, drinking, drug use, gambling, promiscuity, and having children out of wedlock (Donner, Marcum, Jennings, Higgens, & Banfield, 2014).

The general theory of crime has received significant empirical support, with research linking low self-control to academic dishonesty, bullying, illicit sexual activity, drunk dialing, risky driving, digital piracy, and other forms of both traditional and online deviant behaviors (Donner et al., 2014). In fact, Buker (2011) states that the validity of the relationship between self-control and the commission of criminal acts is largely settled, with the primary focus of further inquiry lying in understanding the formation of self-control. Further, Pratt and Cullen’s (2000) meta-analysis of self-control theory shows, on an absolute level, self-control is an important predictor of criminal and analogous behaviors.

Gottfredson and Hirschi posit that the parental socialization process is the primary factor contributing to an individual’s development of self-control, and that levels of self-control remain relatively stable over time; studies from multiple disciplines, including criminology and psychology, indicate that parenting practices are a factor in the development of self-control, but the effect is moderate and not the sole determinant as originally posited (Buker, 2011). Turner and Piquero (2002) note that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s statement regarding the stability of self-control is often misunderstood by criminologists as the development of an absolute, fixed level that remains constant once developed; to the contrary, Gottfredson and Hirschi clearly note that individuals can, and often do, experience absolute changes in levels of self-control over time (Turner & Piquero, 2002).

In sum, support for self-control theory has been demonstrated across a wide range of disciplines, though Gottfredson and Hirschi’s focus on parental socialization as the de facto component driving the development of self-control in individuals is not supported. Buker (2011) states that the formation of self-control, and therefore the underlying component of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory, is more complex than originally thought. The nature and development of self-control is tied to parental socialization processes, effective parenting, and several biological and social structural factors affect the development of self-control (Buker, 2011).

Application of Self-Control Theory to Computer Hacking

Moffitt’s (1993) work in exploring the development of antisocial and deviant behaviors in juveniles, leading to the understanding that the majority of youth engage in antisocial behaviors and subsequently desist from further such behaviors as they age, has become a core tenant in criminological literature. Although the root causes of engaging in such behaviors is still debated, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime, or Self-Control Theory, provides a solid framework from which to examine the development of delinquent behaviors in youth. In fact, self-control theory has already received empirical support for the theory’s primary argument that individuals with low self-control are more likely to engage in deviant and/or criminal behaviors (Moon et al., 2010).

Focusing on computer hacking and its associated subculture, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s other argument that low self-control coupled with ample opportunity creates the environment in which deviant behavior occurs, becomes readily apparent. The decision to commit a crime, in this case the hacking of a computer system, relies on an assessment by the potential offender of several factors; such factors include, but are not limited to, cursory assessments of the risks and costs of the opportunity presented, self-awareness of the offender’s ability to perform the hack and attain their desired goal, and the availability of a suitable target for the desired goal to be attained (Richet, 2013). Youth, especially teenagers, tend to have lower potential for earning wealth as well as fewer opportunities for the obtainment of income, which leads to a greater propensity to discount risks and future ramifications of their actions when examining the potential opportunities and benefits to be gained from computer hacking (Richet, 2013).

Understanding that low self-control and the availability of an opportunity are the primary two components of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theoretical framework is the first step in understanding the explanatory power of the general theory of crime as applied to computer hacking. However, there must also be a greater understanding of both components individually in the face of seeming contradictions between the idea of technologically savvy individuals with the patience and skills to break into computer systems and the idea of individuals with low self-control who engage in more traditional street crimes.

The barriers to hacking now, as opposed to even a few years ago, are much lower and less complex (Richet, 2013). Hacking communities have formed and disseminated their knowledge through the help of the Internet, in addition to creating automated tools available freely to anyone (Richet, 2013; Yar, 2013). As Yar (2013) expresses, such tools allow even the inexperienced novice to create and execute a cyber-attack. Further, Bossler and Burruss (2011) detail the ease with which a sub-sect of hackers, referred to as ‘script kiddies,’ are able to utilize such tools to obtain the immediate gratification they seek without understanding the underlying technology. More than half of all data breaches investigated by authorities have been shown to require little or no skill, and to be capable of being carried out by the use of such tools (Bossler & Burruss, 2011). In short, ample opportunity exists for youth to become involved in the hacking subculture with minimal effort, presenting greater opportunities for offending.

Holt, Bossler, and May (2010) found that low self-control positively correlates with the commission of cyber deviance in general, with three factors relating to the measurement of opportunity also showing significant correlations to engaging in cyber deviance: spending time on the Internet for non-school purposes, possessing greater technological skills, and having personal access to a computer. Similarly, Bachmann (2010) found that two of the six components that comprise measures of low self-control, rational thinking styles and propensity to engage in risky behaviors, showed significant importance in predicting success in hacking endeavors (it should be noted that the other four characteristics were not measured as a part of the study). Impulsiveness and shortsightedness also play a role in the engagement of individuals in hacking behaviors, with such characteristics blinding the offender to the ramifications of such a breach of trust as well as insensitivity to the amount of effort required on the part of the targeted victim(s) to attempt to prevent such behaviors (Marcum et al., 2014). Finally, an empirical test of the general theory of crime to explain a wide range of computer related criminal behaviors found that low self-control showed a significant positive relationship to the commission of such acts (Moon et al., 2010). Summarily, the combination of low self-control and relatively easy access to hacking tools and guides provides youth a perceived low-risk opportunity to engage in risk-seeking behaviors that provide near-instant gratification of desires (Richet, 2013).

As illustrated, hackers tend to possess personality characteristics linked to measures of low self-control. In addition, hacking behaviors are illustrative of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s conceptualization of risk-seeking, impulsive, shortsighted behaviors. Finally, such behaviors often manifest themselves in youth, and especially in adolescent males (Moffitt, 1993). Logically, technological advancement has made the knowledge and tools necessary for a generation of inherently technologically savvy youth to engage in behaviors that have become as accepted and ingrained in their daily lives as downloading music onto an iPod (Richet, 2013). It should subsequently become apparent that the decision to engage in computer hacking presents an appealing outlet for youth by providing cognitive challenges coupled with the thrill of overcoming barriers and gaining access to computer systems, which in turn creates greater risks that perpetuates the cycle of increased thrill and excitement with each successful hack (Bachmann, 2010). In essence, the instant gratification of an easy thrill initiates the offender into a subculture where greater risks and challenges may present themselves, but the initial gateway into computer hacking begins with an impulsive act based on easily accessible information and tools that launch the offender along a journey wherein the long-term risks are easily ignored or perceived to be low.

Critical Analysis of Self-Control Theory as an Explanation for Computer Hacking

Although low measures of self-control can explain the initial engagement in computer hacking among youth, there are exceptions that must be taken into account. For example, Gottfredson and Hirschi have argued that offenders do not specialize and that offenders committing different types of criminal activity, such as white-collar crime, are the same individuals who engage in traditional street crimes (Bossler & Burruss, 2011). Similarly, individuals who can generally be distinguished from street criminals based on such characteristics as technical knowledge, cognitive ability, greater organization or focus, and other such characteristics commit cyber-crimes. Bossler and Burruss (2011) go on to report findings from Benson and Moore that identify self-control as unrelated to corporate offending when studying offenders in higher levels of an organization, that such crimes are not necessarily simple, and that many such offenses require detailed planning and the ability to examine future consequences and activities. Much like white-collar offenders, computer hackers are not necessarily the same types of individuals as those who engage in street crimes, hackers involving higher levels of technical skills and knowledge typically possess higher levels of self-control, and the classification of “hacker” most likely contains a mixture of individuals with both high and low levels of self-control; further, the available literature on hackers and the hacking subculture includes instances of hacking crimes that required high levels of preparation, technological mastery and learning, and a focus on long-term benefits (Bossler & Burruss, 2011).

Interestingly, and much as explained previously, Bossler and Burruss (2011) found that individuals with lower levels of self-control were more likely to engage in the hacking subculture and, subsequently, learn techniques and methods from other hackers. In effect, low self-control predisposes individuals to become involved with the hacking subculture in the presence of an opportunity to learn and apply hacking techniques. It should also be noted, however, that individuals who were not exposed to easily accessed information and guidance from other hackers required high levels of self-control to learn such techniques and methods on their own, which stands in stark contrast to the core tenets of self-control theory (Bossler & Burruss, 2011). In fact, the association with other hackers lends credence to an interaction between both self-control theory and social learning theory, with low self-control appearing to explain the mingling of like-minded individuals possessing low-self control within virtual environments as well as the effect of deviant peer associations enhancing the effects of low self-control, thereby causing individuals to pursue cyber deviance and cybercrime (Holt et al., 2010).

Donner et al. (2014) report strong links between low self-control and the decision to engage in an array of cybercriminal activities, including hacking into unauthorized systems. Given lower measures of self-control coupled with access to hacking knowledge and associations with other hackers, one could simply declare partial support for self-control theory in explaining computer hacking. However, Gottfredson and Hirschi declare crime to be simple, that anyone could commit any crime if they so choose, and that nothing in a criminal offense requires the sharing or support of individuals through knowledge transmission or social support (Bossler & Burruss, 2011). It should be obvious that these statements cannot apply to computer hacking and the surrounding subculture, even though low self-control certainly factors into explaining the initial involvement in said subculture. Therefore, the general theory of crime must be modified and expanded in order to adequately explain certain specialized crimes such as computer hacking, and the interactions between low self-control and social learning must be explored under the auspices of one overarching theoretical framework.

Conclusion

Similar to white-collar crime, computer hacking is a specialized type of crime that may require some knowledge, planning, or skill that separates the offender from the traditional street crime offender. Although low self-control adequately explains initial involvement in the hacking subculture, especially in the context of relatively simple access to an abundance of guides and automated tools and social networks providing support and additional information, the general theory of crime falls short of explaining the development and commission of criminal acts by hackers with advanced skill and knowledge (Bossler & Burruss, 2011). It is more likely that two classifications of hacker exist: youth who become involved with the hacking subculture without enhanced skills and technical knowledge whose involvement in such activities is explained by Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime, and those hackers who possess technological skills, knowledge, and cognitive prowess whose involvement in the hacking subculture cannot be explained by low levels of self-control. Further research should investigate the interplay of low self-control with social learning theory in light of the fact that deviant peer associations predict involvement in computer hacking activities more reliably than low self-control alone (Holt et al., 2010).

References

Bachmann, M. (2010). The risk propensity and rationality of computer hackers. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 4(1), 643-656. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/870326323?accountid=2909

Bossler, A.M., & Burruss, G.W. (2012). Cyber Crime: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 1-1977). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-323-2

Buker, H. (2011). Formation of self-control: Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime and beyond. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(2011), 265-276. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.03.005

Donner, C.M., Marcum, C.D., Jennings, W.G., Higgens, G.E., & Banfield, J. (2014). Low self-control and cybercrime: Exploring the utility of the general theory of crime beyond digital piracy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34(2014), 165-172. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.03.005

Holt, T.J., Bossler, A.M., & May, D.C. (2012). Low self-control, deviant peer associations, and juvenile cyberdeviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 37(3), 378-395. doi:10.1007/s12103-011-9117-3

Marcum, C.D., Higgens, G.E., Ricketts, M.L., & Wolfe, S.E. (2014). Hacking in high school: Cybercrime perpetration by juveniles. Deviant Behavior, 35(7), 581-591. doi:10.180/01639625.2013.867721

Moffitt, T. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701.

Moon, B., McCluskey, J.D., & McCluskey, C.P. (2010). A general theory of crime and computer crime: An empirical test. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(2010), 767-772. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.05.003

Pratt, T.C., & Cullen, F.T. (2000). The empirical status of gottfredson and hirschi's general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931-964. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220711584?accountid=2909

Richer, J.L. (2013). From young hackers to crackers. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 9(3), 53-62. doi:10.4018/jthi.2013070104

Saunders, I. (2007-05-27). 7 Virtual cultures. The year's work in critical and cultural theory, 15(1), 128-145. doi:10.1093/ywcct/mbm007

Turner, M.G., & Piquero, A.R. (2002). The stability of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2010), 457-471. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(02)00169-1

Yar, M. (2013). Cybercrime and society (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California. SAGE Publications.

A Dual-Classification of Antisocial Individuals

In 1993, Terrie Moffitt posited the theory that juvenile delinquents as a population of study are comprised of two distinctly different types of individuals: the life-course-persistent antisocial individual and the adolescence-limited antisocial individual. Moffitt's theory provides a number of insights into the nature of delinquency, as well as important implications for juvenile justice policy and procedure.In order to best understand the implications of Moffitt's theory for juvenile justice policy and practice, it is best to begin with an overview of the differences between the two types of antisocial individuals presented and the difficulties inherent in distinguishing between the two groups. In summarized form, life-course-persistent antisocial individuals are those whose behavioral problems begin in childhood, remain consistent through adolescence, and persevere through adulthood. Adolescence-limited antisocial individuals, however, go through a temporary, situationally behaviorally problematic period that generally occurs between the time of pubescent maturity and young adulthood. It is important to note that, according to Moffitt (1993), adolescent newcomers to antisocial behaviors, despite a lack of prior experience, equal their preschool-onset peers with regards to the variety and frequency of laws broken as well as the number of times referred to juvenile court. Therefore, based on the commonly used indexes of adolescent delinquency, and when viewed through cross-sectional studies by researchers, the two groups become indistinguishable.With regards to distinguishing between the two groups, especially as related to the way in which antisocial youth are seen by the juvenile justice system, it becomes imperative to obtain knowledge of an adolescent's behavior from early childhood through the current time-frame. Without such knowledge, a differential diagnosis between the two types of antisocial individuals is impossible, and successful intervention and treatment then becomes less likely depending upon the type of offender and the sanctions imposed. As an example, many adolescence-limited youths will receive sanctions that will serve to maintain their delinquent behaviors instead of providing them with opportunities to “age out” of their delinquent behavior, such as incarceration, an interrupted education, the formation of a drug habit, or teen parenthood. In addition, interventions with life-course-persistent adolescents are typically met with lackluster results due to their proclivity to turn positive opportunities into ways in which they can maintain continuity with their antisocial behavior. An example of this behavior includes turning residential treatment programs into opportunities to learn from and associate with criminal peers.Further exacerbating the need to gain knowledge of an adolescent's pre-adolescent behavior when taking into account juvenile justice practices, Moffit explains that adolescence-limited youths' antisocial behavior is normative, not abnormal. In fact, Moffitt references a study by Farrington, Ohlin, and Wilson in 1986 in which it is stated that four fifths of males have some contact with police for a minor infringement during their adolescent years. Based on self-report data, it is statistically abnormal to refrain from engaging in some type of antisocial or delinquent behavior.The aforementioned data points provide interesting insights into the nature of delinquency among adolescents. Approximately five percent of offenders have been repeatedly shown to be responsible for around fifty percent of known crimes. Moffitt's taxonomy suggests that this five percent is primarily comprised of life-course-persistent adolescents, and that these youth act as the gateway to delinquent behavior for adolescence-limited youths. It should be noted, however, that the theoretical causes for delinquent behavior between these two groups is quite different. Life-course-persistent antisocial individuals exhibit a number of characteristics that suggest psychopathology, with the root causes being related to subtle or underlying cognitive or neuropsychological deficiencies that become problematic through physical, social, and environmental influences. Adolescence-limited antisocial individuals, on the other hand, develop problematic behaviors as a result of a lack of socially ascribed maturity at a time when they develop biological maturity, and look to delinquent behavior as a way of achieving mature status.Taking into account the summarization provided, juvenile justice policies and practices must be flexible enough to account for two distinctly different types of antisocial individuals when considering sanctions. Such flexibility can only be achieved by successfully compiling data on juvenile offenders from as early in the life course as possible, preferably using multiple types of risk assessments from different sources, such as parents, caregivers, and educators. In addition, to truly intervene successfully in the lives of potential life-course-persistent antisocial persons, possible social, environmental, and physical influences must be identified when assessments indicate possible neuropsychological or physical deficiencies that have been shown to be linked to the development of criminal behavior. Such assessments would provide historical data regarding the levels of antisocial behaviors exhibited in youth across their developmental years and into adolescence, and would assist the juvenile justice system greatly in forming intervention and treatment plans that prove most successful without increasing the likelihood of antisocial continuity.SourcesMoffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701.

Trends in Juvenile Delinquency and Justice

Author's Note: I started graduate school, so a lot of my writing time is impeded by having to actually write for classes. Once my essays are complete and graded, I'll post them here so that you all at least have something to read if I do not get to write other pieces for fun for a little bit. Enjoy!

---

Public perception and concern over the emergence of a new breed of juvenile delinquent, namely the violent predator, fueled Snyder's analysis of the Maricopa County juvenile population in 1998. This study resulted in some very interesting findings, especially with regards to the effectiveness of the system and the types of offenses committed by youths. In addition, Snyder's findings help shed light on ways to reevaluate, and potentially improve, the policies and practices of the juvenile justice system.The Maricopa County study looked at the “graduating classes” of officially recognized juvenile delinquents from 1980 to 1995. These cohorts were identified by using the entire youth population that turned eighteen and aged out of the juvenile system in their respective years. In all, 151,209 youth were identified as officially recognized by the juvenile system during this timeframe, which accounted for a combined 325,259 referrals to the court. Three categories of offenses were used to identify each juvenile career type: nonserious nonviolent offenses, serious nonviolent offenses, and violent offenses.In order to best understand what Snyder's findings mean, it is important to note some of the key statistical data that provide the basis for interpreting the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system and the potential ways in which reevaluating policy and practice are affected. The average age at which a youth's first delinquent offense occurred remained fairly constant across all sixteen cohorts, and ranged between 15.2 and 15.8 years of age. The average number of referrals to the system increased from 1980 to 1995 by approximately 55%. It is important to note that this increase in referrals is greater than the increase in the size of the groups, which means that the 1995 cohort had more referrals per career than the 1980 cohort. Finally, a large majority of youth referred to the system, approximately 60% in fact, were referred only once.While the preceding data alone does not present a complete understanding of Snyder's findings, it does provide a baseline from which further analysis yields interesting insights. In examining the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system the rate of recidivism provides the most important data point. In addition to noting that the majority of youth were referred only once, only 1% of the population studied was referred more than once for violent offenses. This indicates that successful intervention by the system early in the career of an offending youth is absolutely critical in preventing further delinquent activities. Snyder also found that each referral to the system increased the likelihood of an offender being referred for a violent offense. This further emphasizes that early, successful intervention is crucial in lowering violent crime among the juvenile population, and provides a clear goal in reevaluating the practices and policies related to intervening in the careers of juvenile offenders as early as possible.As noted earlier, the number of referrals from 1980 to 1995 increased, with the proportion of chronic offenders averaging 13% in the eighties and 17% in the nineties. The records show that this increase was a result of more chronic offenders, not more active, serious, or violent offenders. This increase could be explained by the expanded reach of the juvenile justice system, as Snyder mentions, but could also indicate a growing trend of unsuccessful intervention the first time a youth is referred to the court. Since chronic offenders of any type (nonserious, serious, and violent) only made up 14.6% of the entire population studied, or 22,112 of the 151,209 cases studied, and the proportion of chronic offenders averaged 17% at its peak, the explanation that a larger number of juveniles involved in repeat referrals as a result of an expanded reach of the system makes the most sense.These points illustrate that rethinking intervention strategies in an effort to lower the number of referrals among juveniles should be an ongoing process. One flaw easily recognized in understanding the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system, however, is that no clear data is available on how many juveniles are not referred to the courts or who are referred directly to the adult justice system due to changes in policy and law. In order to best understand whether the juvenile justice system is actually largely meeting its goals as Snyder indicates, another study that tracks these same cohorts across the rest of their careers up to the present is necessary. In addition, analysis of intake records for the adult court system over the same time-frame should be studied to ensure additional juveniles were not overlooked in the original study.Overall, Snyder's findings indicate positive trends in juvenile justice and delinquency. Continued expansion of programs designed to intervene in the lives of at-risk juveniles, as well as expansion of programs designed to intervene at the point of first contact with the juvenile system, are cornerstones of an effective, proactive approach to lowering both initial referrals and repeat referrals to the courts. It is clear, however, that sufficient data on juvenile delinquency does not exist at present.Sources:Snyder, H.N. (1998). Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders—an assessment of the extent of and trends in officially recognized serious criminal behavior in a delinquent population. In: Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. (Eds), Serious & violent juvenile offenders: risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Relationship Strength

There have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds (and another few thousand) of articles about building and maintaining strong relationships. Typically the same rhetoric is involved (trust, communication, social circles, etc.) and the article praises the merits of maintaining these key traits in order to survive the apocalyptic world of separation/break-ups/divorce. While there are some pieces in each of these articles that are based on solid advice, the portion that each article typically lacks is the most important part: the how/why.

Before delving into the topic any further, one other piece must be understood: what makes a relationship good? Simply stated, a good relationship is one where the couple has a strong sense of each of them as individuals, as well as a strong sense of the two of them as one unit. Further, a good relationship is also one wherein the couple shares a feeling of connectedness, of safety and security, and a desire to make the other happy while maintaining the distinct understanding that each person is responsible for their own feelings (an observation that often goes ignored, with significant others blaming themselves for the way their partner feels).

To summarize further, a good relationship is one where two people feel connected to each other, feel safe and secure with each other, and share a desire to make each other happy.

This leads to the question of "how do we form such a relationship?" There are three basic pieces that every successful/strong relationship must possess, otherwise it will not last: trust, commitment, and vulnerability. For the sake of clarity, each of these is defined briefly here:

• Trust - the feeling and knowledge of relying on another, and knowing that person is honest, caring, and supportive of us.
• Commitment - the simple understanding that no matter what happens, we are in this together.
• Vulnerability - the openness and sharing of the genuine, emotional self.

Trust

Building trust, especially when a person's past is full of situations or scenarios where trust has been broken, is perhaps one of the most difficult things to accomplish. Try not to target the big topics exclusively and remember that often the small things accomplish more than they get credit for. For instance, the simple act of calling or texting a significant other when running late, regardless of the reason, lets that person know that you understand their desire to make certain you are safe and that you want to alleviate fear. Taking a moment to send a message during the day letting your significant other know you are thinking of them is too often overlooked as a method of reassurance.

Maintaining boundaries that the two of you agree upon is also vital, such as being alone with a person that your significant other might view as an uncomfortable arrangement or scenario. This one can be tricky depending upon the dynamics of the relationship and the societal norms you and your partner hold, but the idea remains consistent: if it causes unease or uncertainty between you and your significant other, it is not worth placing yourself in the situation. The clichéd examples of being alone with a member of the opposite sex by heterosexual men and women fall into this category. If it is a long-standing friendship in question, talk about it with your significant other and make certain they are comfortable with the relationship before it becomes a source of uncertainty or unease. Understanding commitment, and having that knowledge and security that comes with true commitment, goes a long way toward generating and maintaining trust.

Commitment

All too often commitment is forgotten as a necessary and vital part of forming, maintaining, and enjoying a strong relationship. Marriage is supposed to be our ultimate expression of commitment to another, and yet in today's society it is often ignored or tossed around as a buzz word instead of being an honest and heartfelt decision. To make a commitment, and thereby to be committed to another, means that two people have decided that they will proceed through life from a specific point in time until one or the other is no longer present. In short, "we are in this together, no matter what happens."

To commit to another is not a decision or action to be made lightly, and it is something that should only be broken under the most dire of circumstances (such as an abusive relationship, or a relationship wherein one's life is threatened). Knowing that one has placed their full trust in another, and has chosen to stand with their significant other no matter what happens throughout life, is absolutely necessary for a person to lower their defenses and become vulnerable.

Vulnerability

Vulnerability, like trust, is difficult for many people to willingly pursue (especially if their trust in another was broken at some point in their past), and yet it is perhaps the one aspect of interpersonal relationships that absolutely must be present for a relationship to thrive. This is also the one area that tends to be most difficult for logical thinkers (and from a gender stereotype perspective, males) to understand and accomplish.

Being vulnerable means you are willing to tell your significant other how you feel, without placing blame or deflecting your feelings onto something else. For example, being willing to say "I feel hurt" instead of "You hurt me." In essence, you provide a window for that person to see into your heart and mind in a way that allows the two of you to talk about both of your feelings, and how to go about the pursuit of positive feelings instead of negative ones.

While none of these are exhaustive analyses, they should provide a starting point for being able to build a healthy, strong relationship. To read more about this topic, the following two articles are another good place to begin (and are the articles that prompted this exploration into what is necessary to form a strong, enriching relationship).

Sources For More Reading

• How to Prepare for Being in a Good Relationship (World of Psychology)
• 3 Keys to a Strong Relationship (World of Psychology)

Gender Discussions

Preface:

Over the course of the past few weeks, I have seen a number of comments talking about wanting to know more about women's rights, women's views, or how women are viewed with regards to the political campaigns in the United States Presidential race. I normally try to avoid referencing politics at all here, but the topic reminds me a lot of a couple of things I have discussed in the past and that, as I see it, bear repeating (I highly recommend you look at the post Ethnicity, Gender, and Privilege that I previously wrote). Note that this is not a piece where I am discussing the state of equality or inequality between any groups, be it based on gender, race, age, height, weight, eye colour, hair colour, or any other descriptor that one can use. With that out of the way, I hope you'll join me for an interesting discussion.

Gender Discussions:

The key point I made in my previous post was that introducing a descriptor or characteristic of a person or group into a discussion immediately renders that discussion invalid with regards to rights, policies, laws, or other official statements. Note that general discussion is not included in this list, and that is because the understanding of a group requires examination of the differences between groups. Using the examples of the right to vote and the opposition to affirmative action, I presented the idea that these regulations were not only a source of inequality, but also reaffirmed bias in discussing these topics.

Let's take the concept a bit further today. When we discuss policies, laws, procedures, or rights, we tend to draw from our own experiences in an effort to present balanced discussion. This is normal behavior, but it also introduces an immediate lack of objectivity in the discussion. This is the reason sociologists and psychologists warn about the dangers of classification and labels, and yet we continue to approach topics as though we are all different species instead of merely posessing differing physical traits. Yes, there is a difficulty in explaining cultural and socio-cultural differences without examining those traits, but for the purposes of politics, rights, and laws these differences should be relatively negated when viewing the entire populace as a single classification: human.

Think about it this way, which of the following is actually an example of complete equality, and which ones introduce room for bias:

• The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged to any citizen of the United States who has reached the legal age of majority.
• The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged to any citizen of the United States, regardless of race, gender, or age, as long as they have reached the legal age of majority.
• All citizens of the United States, whether male or female, shall not be denied the right to vote upon reaching the legal age of majority.

The only one that is written from a purely unbiased perspective is the first in the list. Once we start talking in terms of equality, instead of talking in terms of categories, then we might actually start making progress. Until then, welcome to continued inequalities and biases based on the labels we ascribe ourselves every day.

I get that people are concerned about the policies and issues they see as a result of someone viewing them through the lens of inequality. I understand the reason the feminist movement exists, and applaud the efforts taken in trying to promote viewing all people as equal. The issue, though, is still the same as it has been since day one: we still discuss topics through categories and labels. Until that changes, we will never have true equality.

The Religion Problem

Introduction

No title really seemed to fit quite perfectly, but the "problem" of religion is as good a title as any for the concept of deciphering the issue with distinguishing between religious beliefs, religious practices, spiritual beliefs, and life philosophies. Many describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious" or "believers in a faith, but disillusioned with the institution." There is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed when a person is forced to contradict themselves in order to describe their belief in something, and that is the "religion problem."

Background

The Advanced English Dictionary defines religion and faith using the same definitions, though faith also encompasses a couple of other definitions not included for religion. How is it, then, that we have grown to use the two as though they can be (and often are) mutually exclusive? Part of the issue lies in the inappropriate use of English in general, as we struggle to find a way to explain concepts that are difficult to grasp or define in everyday language. Part of the issue lies in the use of "religion" in a manner that encompasses more than just what the definition actually entails. Yet another part of the issue lies in trying to categorize everything as either a religion or a philosophy, without accepting that a lot of things are not quite so simple to categorize. Perhaps most concerning of all, though, is the apparent issue that religious institutions have created a divide among those who share their core beliefs.

Core Issue: Manifest Destiny versus Free Will

Most debates surrounding the concept of being spiritual or religious tend to center around the difficulty with believing that our story is written, from birth to death, for us. This debate takes a number of forms, and is further compounded by examinations of nature versus nurture from the scientific realm. Generally speaking, we tend to state that those who classify themselves as religious believe in an all-powerful, all-encompassing deity who controls everything about our lives. Traditionally religious teachings emphasized these aspects of God, rendering those who questioned manifest destiny uncomfortable at best or categorized as outcasts at worst. Those who identified with the concept of being spiritual tend to accept that there is a deity who is responsible for the creation of life, but did not accept the notion of manifest destiny.

Core Issue: Rituals versus Belief

Other debates take a more intimate approach and focus on the personal beliefs and feelings of each person. These debates tend to center around the idea that traditional religious organizations have become burdened with simply going through the motions and no longer try to examine and understand the doctrine associated with their belief. We see this all too often in typical churches, where there is a default structure of service and a message based on nothing but the reading and scholarly interpretation of scripture. Again, those who classify themselves as spiritual tend to question the personal application and interpretation of such teachings, wanting to form an understanding of the writings and their meaning instead of simply accepting what someone tells them is right or wrong. This same debate is seen in discussions regarding morality and ethical behavior; as society grows more aware of other views and attempts to become more open-minded in accepting cultural differences, we also tend to question things that are "preached" instead of "explained."

Personal Journey and Interpretations

While this is certainly not even close to an all-encompassing discussion of the topics, the background above should help understand the observations and thoughts that follow.

I grew up in a traditional baptist church, and over time I explored a number of other environments when I became disillusioned with the traditional teachings and views presented. Eventually I left traditional settings behind and pursued self-study, looking at various religions and philosophies from all around the world in search of something that made sense. During that time I began to accept that I fell into the "spiritual, but not religious" crowd and tried to understand what it was that made me reject the traditional notions of any deity, and I found that the primary issues I could not seem to resolve internally lay in the realm of disagreement with moral and ethical choices throughout life versus the concept of manifest destiny.

I've often used the example of describing two different people to provide a basic idea of this dilemma: person one who lives in a manner that most accept as good and just, trying to help others and live according to the teachings of their faith, and person two who lives in a manner that most would consider vile, doing everything possible to hurt others and satisfy their desire for destruction. Person one commits a single act of violence in defense of a loved one, and feels no remorse and asks no forgiveness. Person two lies on their deathbed and asks for forgiveness, seemingly wanting to right the wrongs they have committed over their lifetime. According to traditional views, person one would be condemned while person two would be saved, and this has always been a point of view I could not accept.

While there are many ways to approach the above example, and a number of ways to justify or explain either side, the point is simply to think about what it truly means to be spiritual or religious. It isn't to attend services at an institution or to preach to others at every opportunity; it isn't to proclaim that one person is right and another person is wrong, and it certainly isn't to judge or condemn another person. The true goal of any religious organization, and therefore the definition of what it should mean to be religious or spiritual, is the acceptance and understanding of a deity and their guidance on how to make the difficult choices we face. To this end it should be fairly obvious that there exists, on many levels, a fundamental problem with religion as we have grown to define it through various institutions.

Social Karma

Karmic justice is often used as an expression of one "getting what they deserve" or "reaping what they sow." More often than not, the phrase is used when one person feels wronged by another and hopes for some sort of vengeance. While understandable how this mentality has proliferated common thought, it is a misguided interpretation at best. Karma is an elegant idea, and is perhaps best summarized in the following excerpt:

The Pali term Karma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as Karma. It covers all that is included in the phrase "thought, word and deed". Generally speaking, all good and bad action constitutes Karma. In its ultimate sense Karma means all moral and immoral volition. Involuntary, unintentional or unconscious actions, though technically deeds, do not constitute Karma, because volition, the most important factor in determining Karma, is absent. (source - http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm - Removed direct link due to being flagged for malware by Google.)

This leads to the principle of "social karma," and applies to every interaction between people. While it may seem a bit redundant, the focus for this concept lies in the realm of social interaction, and not other deeds, thoughts, or actions that apply only to the self. This ties in with the previously posted concept of social reciprocity, but takes it a step further. In essence, the idea is to create a space that welcomes others, whether virtual or physical, and conveys the moral and ethical mindset and ideals of the creator of said space.

The challenge becomes simplistic at this point: do you convey an attitude of "people get what they deserve" in your sphere of influence, or do you convey the attitude of "this is how I want the world to be, and so this is how express myself?" In other words, do you look for others to seek you out and join in your endeavors because of your statements and actions, or do you simply state that others will reap the consequences of their statements and actions?

This approach is the way I have attempted to grow a community around each iteration of weblog that I have created. Up until now it has been quite successful. With Renegade Noble I am starting to see an upward trend in people who view the site, but I still haven't broken that magical barrier of silence from most visitors. Honestly, I'm not sure if it is really feasible to create that conversational atmosphere here, but I will not stop trying. It may be that the assorted topics here are too diverse, or that I simply have not hit upon that one topic that really draws someone in to comment. It may be that those who do visit simply read and go about their day, uninterested in the concept of conversation through a blog interface. Regardless of the root cause, I still adhere to the concept described above: I will continue to create a place wherein the expression of ideas, the discussion of topics, and the overall feeling of being able to freely converse is maintained.

I would like to request some feedback as well, especially in an effort to try to break that magical silence:

• What draws you to Renegade Noble?
• What topics interest you?
• What makes you take the time to comment on something?
• Is the site easy to navigate, and can you find what you are looking for?
• Is there anything else you would like to say?

Feel free to comment here, or email me, or seek me out on Twitter... all of the assorted ways to contact me can be found at the top and bottom of the site, and hopefully are showing up properly in the RSS feed.

Perspectives

Introduction

Tragedy. Grief. Despair. These all seem to come in massive waves that threaten to cause a rift in the minds of many Americans, pushing us further toward a mindset that asks what has become of the world in which we live. Often we take it a step further, asking if there is any hope of a brighter, happier future any longer. It is easy to get caught up in the tales of horror, of sorrow, and of sheer frustration born of seeing long-winded, naive or uninformed diatribes concerning any conceivable topic and feel that these are the darkest of times. The world is not that simple, though, and in becoming so focused on darkness we lose sight of all the stars that threaten to break through the black veil of night.

We live in a society that is, without the slightest doubt, of our own design. We have allowed things to happen or not happen. We have chosen to speak out on matters of lesser import, and leave those massive concerns for other people. In essence, we continue to sow the seeds of discord, of blame, and of outright stupidity, and expect that what we reap is something different.

We look at others and see differences and flaws and belittle them, instead of celebrating the differences that provide us with unique perspectives and ideas. We mock or laugh at those who do not see things from our point of view, instead of taking a moment to try to understand why our views differ. We look at others and judge them, instead of accepting them into our world and finding common ground. We shun those who do not meet our standards, instead of accepting them as fellow men and women of a world that shapes us all differently.

Regardless of one's faith, religious views, political ideas, standards, thoughts, or feelings, we are all human. We are all walking upon the Earth and trying to survive through the uncertainty that life brings. In the midst of it all, we are all also making horrible choices as often as we make decent ones.

Extrospective

This week alone has illustrated the above poignantly, but the focus should not be on any single incident or time frame. All throughout the history of the United States these concepts have been illustrated time and again, and yet we still stand complacently by while various members of our society become overly vocal. We watch as events unfold and express our concerns, our thoughts, our feelings... all the while turning inward to manage our own lives and neglecting to act on our concerns, thoughts, and desires for bettering our community, area, state, or nation.

It only takes a simple act of compassion, of reaching out, to profoundly impact a life, and yet we often just walk on by the socially awkward coworker without a word, or fail to muster up the courage to walk up to the gorgeous blonde and just say hello. All too often we get trapped in the stereotypes of the nation, and avert our eyes or path from that Muslim ahead instead of smiling and saying good day. Even worse, we fall prey to the vileness that permeates many of our societal peers, turning uncertainty and a lack of understanding into outward signs of bigotry, hate, fear, and misplaced anger.

Even in light of all that is wrong with our society, there are those who try to stand up and be heard. To be counted among the people who say they will not be silenced and will not stop trying to make a difference. We look at them with contempt, believing them to be fanatics of some sort or another because they choose to act. In short, we even do what we can to make those acts of kindness, the spreading of something good, out to be just another fad or to have an ulterior motive.

We take it even further at times, and resort to irrational arguments and name calling in an attempt to make someone appear to be unintelligent, all because they stood up for an ideal. On the flip side of that, though, all too often those people who stand up for an ideal are the ones who fall prey to the same issues already outlined above, just from the opposing perspective.

Introspective

I spent many years exploring the darkest depths of internal suffering and disillusionment with the world. I looked at things objectively and analytically, and when I felt that that perspective failed I turned to examining my life through the senses and emotions. Neither approach works independently of the other, yet both are necessary in order to effectively change. I examined religious beliefs, practices, and philosophies in an attempt to make sense of everything around me, and I explored the sciences when I felt that religion fell short.

In the end, none of the above are perfect explanations. We must believe in something, whether it is simply in the idea of hope or in the comfort of a deity, whether in the explanation of things through scientific discovery and observation or the objective analysis of the world much like one would examine a puzzle, it is faith in something that drives us forward. For some it is simply confidence and belief in their ability to touch the lives of others, for some it is a complete and unwavering faith in God, and for still others it is any of a massive range of other reasons. This is the beauty of our humanity, and the underlying difficulty with finding agreement among those with differing views. Regardless of what we believe in, or choose to place our faith in, we should all be able to agree on bringing change to the world in which we live.

I place my faith in God, yet that does not mean I feel I should blindly say that God will take care of everything. My life here is still my responsibility, and my actions and inaction, my thoughts and opinions, my feelings and desires, and the path I choose to walk in this world are all things for which I must accept accountability. I have been fortunate enough to understand that life is not only what we make of it, but what we allow others to make of it. My faith, in short, is not a crutch upon which I hope that things will work out, or upon which I can lean and say "please provide for me," but is instead the reason that I know that I have the strength to face this world and make a difference.

I mentioned, briefly, my struggles with trying to understand this world and my examinations of the darkest time of my life. Eventually I saw myself through the lens of an objective bystander, and realized that it was not who I wanted to be. I made the decision to change, and to crawl back from the depths of despair and become the person I am today. Knowing the power of choice, of belief in oneself, and of the strength inherent in us if we simply choose to believe in something, I want to challenge each of you: choose to make a difference in the life of another person.

Conclusion

I chose to write this piece without citing examples or sources for a reason. We tend to look only at the issues cited and debate the nuances around those examples, rather than focusing on the overarching issue. Further, we look into our perception of the facts presented instead of looking at the ideals examined, which only leads to further clouding the issues and creating semantic debates. It is with these ideas in mind that I challenge us all to do our part in bringing about change in our area, be it the community, the region, the state, the nation, or even the world. No focus is too small or too large unless we allow it to keep us from trying.

My goal with this post is to illuminate the things that we must focus on in order to change things, and to realize that change does not mean perfect agreement or harmony among so many varied social and cultural backgrounds.