Criminology

Introduction

            Andrew Luster was born in 1963 and was raised up in California at a place called Malibu and he attended school in Los Angles. He was a psychiatrist and an heir to Max factor cosmetics wealth. It was in 2000 after a scholar from a native university reported of a case where she was raped at Luster’s home and that when the police arrested Luster (Donovan 2016). As the police started their investigation, they identified some of the videotapes that he had taken while assaulting these women. The police officers found the videotapes as they were searching the offender’s house. He was therefore charged with sexual harassment, raping and drugging and also videotaping the assaults. He later paid a one million bail where he was released but was expected to return to court in January of 2003 so that he could defend himself against all those charges. However he failed to appear in court and he vanished. Though in absentia, the court convicted him and sentenced him for one hundred and twenty four years in prison (Zanotti et al 2006).  It was at this time that a movie was made basing on him and his victims where it was supposed to end with a picture of the real Andrew Luster along with a request to the public to help search and notify the police officers if anyone should see him. Soon after he was captured the movie was re-written so as to integrate his capture. He was however incarcerated and according to the California law he was to serve 85% of his sentence before being considered for a release since his actions harmed others (Donovan 2016). He later filed for a petition in 2009 which was reviewed by another court on appeal and his sentence was reduced to fifty years while his conviction remained the same.

 

The court sentenced him for forty eight years in prison for the raping’s and two years for the drug connected charges where he used GHB drugs (Smalley 2003). He was also charged $40 million to pay to the civil lawsuits’ victims where he sold most of his assets so as to pay them and he was declared bankrupt (Zanotti et al 2006).

Evolutionary theory

            It is quite essential to examine the rationale behind why offenders commit crime and how crime should be handled and prevented. There are so many theories that have emerged over time and the exploration of more theories both individually and as a group are continuing. Criminologists are therefore seeking for better solutions that would eventually reduce types and levels of crime. Evolutionary theory is an approach both in the social as well as in the natural knowledge and studies the psychological arrangement from the contemporary evolutionary viewpoint. The theory pursues to realize the hominoid psychological characters are changed adaptations. The theory argues out that the human conduct is the product of mental adaptations that have changed to explain repeated difficulties in human inherited surroundings (Quinsey 2002). The theory has two categories based on the gene-based evolution where one of the categories is the crime specific and it pertains to the cases of rape, spouse murder and assaults and child abuse. The other category involves the two common theories of criminal and antisocial behaviors and assumes that these crimes are attributed by the variation in genes. The theory therefore assumes that natural selection has taken part in the human populations hence opening up reproductive niches for the individuals who victimize others. The theory focuses on the hormone known as testosterone as the main cause of aggression and criminality and is used during the times of competition. Therefore the male gender is regarded more the most aggressive than female and this explains the reason behind high male crime rates.

This mainly happens to the teens and the mid-aged males due to the increase in testosterone. The theory thus concludes that human race has evolved while the traits and physical characteristics have become embedded (Quinsey 2002). It is some of these traits that have made people to become violent and inclined to compel crimes. The power of this theory is that it expounds on the high violence rates and the aggregate variation in sexual category in the crime rates. The weakness of this theory is that there is no testability to the cognitive and the assumptions made in the theory (Siegel 2012).

            Andrew Luster actions can be attributed to mental aberration and disturbance in the personality. He seems to be disturbed and mentally ill because of the current American generation that has grown up watching films and television shows that depict the violent criminals as mental disrupted activity and physical abnormality. The generation that is there shows that the occurrence of these activities is as a result of the mental disruption (Siegel 2008).

The fact that Luster is a male explains the reasons behind his aggressive behavior to the three females whom he raped. The fact that he is unmarried makes him to have a low status and thus causes him to commit his crimes. His low status that results to his antisocial behavior is also attributed to him being childless. This is an indication that he did not have legitimate relationships and this explains his rape actions that is his reproductive approach that accelerated the propagation of his rapist’s posterity. According to the evolutionary theory, his low status contributed to him undertaking these risky activities that made him to commit crime after another crime so as to try to improve his status and reproductive success (Quinsey 2002).

 

 

 

Conclusion

            It is therefore important that the law should formulate and implement policies that enable male gender to pursue status through the non-violet mechanisms that does not affect other people. Understanding the reasons as to why Luster committed these crimes in his late adolescent age has enabled us to see the relation between the social disadvantage that he had and the selection pressure that he was faced with as a male species in the ancestral environments. If he had a family that is a wife and children probably he would have been able to have a higher status thus he would not have committed this crime. As crime rates vary with time and space it only means the best way to reduce the violence is through understanding of the culture evolutionary progression as it will help in shaping the norms concerning the violence and the antisocial conduct. Strong adaption of the media has rapidly brought about unsafe future and has resulted to increase in risk taking crimes and competition that lead them to behave in a mental disrupted manner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

            Donovan, P. (2016). Drink Spiking and Predatory Drugging: A Modern History.

            Quinsey, V. L. (2002). Evolutionary theory and criminal behaviour. Legal and criminological psychology, 7(1), 1-13.

            Siegel, L. J. (2008). Criminology: The core. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

            Siegel, L. J. (2012). Criminology. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

            Smalley, S. (2003). 'The Perfect Crime'. Newsweek, 141(5), 52.

            Zanotti, I., & Rotman, E. (2006). Extradition in multilateral treaties and conventions. Leiden [u.a.: Nijhoff.