Contemporary Criminology Theories and the Changing Conditions of the Post Modern Society - Essay Example

Contemporary Criminology Theories and the Changing Conditions of the Post Modern Society. Philosophers of science have long established the concept of causation. The reasoning behind the concept argues that a problem can be better tackled and/or alleviated by the understanding of the root cause(s). Borowski explained that the concept of causation is one of philosophical importance because of its intimacy to the explanation and understanding of a phenomenon or event and that the paramount aim of science entails identifying and systematically analysing causal relations that holds true in nature. Narrowing this concept down to the realm of criminology, Borowski quoted James Wilson has saying, "the only morally defensible and efficacious strategy for reducing crime is to attack its root cause (Borowski, 2). In the attempt to attack criminology from its root causes, scientist and philosophers, over time, have evolved countless theories, each theory seeking to better explain the logical causal reasoning behind crime and criminal motivation. Policies and programmes aimed at the reduction and prevention of crime have been, understandably, always based on one or more of these theories, with the utility of such policies and systems depending on the strength or weakness of such theories. This paper first reviews the concept and definitions of crime and criminology; it then examines some of the notable contemporary theories, Classicism, Individual Positivism, Law and Order Conservatism, Social Disorganization and Anomies/Strain theories. These theories selected to examine a broad theoretical perspective from individual to social theories and finally re-appraises the relevance of these theories and their compliance or otherwise with the conditions obtainable in a postmodern society. Criminology is an advanced theoretical field of study and should be differentiated from Criminal Justice, which focuses on the component of justice system such as courts, police and correction and/or rehabilitation facilities. Criminology embodies a wide array of theories and hypotheses seeking to explain the root cause(s) of criminal behaviours, the tendency towards and the pattern of criminal activities and also attempts a prognostic utility in the reduction and prevention of crime. Wikipedia online encyclopaedia describes criminology as a social phenomenon that includes the causes and consequences of crime, criminal behaviours as well as the development and effectiveness of policies and penal system. Criminology has a long history dating back to Lombroso; who is generally considered as the father of criminology, in the late nineteenth century. It has since become a separate field of study, completely divorcing itself from sociology, the parent social discipline. Over the years, criminology has developed its own method of thinking, analysis and hypotheses testing and has evolved theories that explain, in details, norms and values on which the society is based, what constitute crime and criminal behaviours against the society, and ideas, methods or policies that may be utilized in combating and reducing crime. Regardless of societal variance, each community or social group of people are guided by a set of established norms and belief system on which co-existence, mutual trust and family ties are based. Violation of these, in whatever form, constitute what is known as criminal behaviour. Crime may be seen from different perspectives, depending on the values of each society, crime against the individual or crime against the state. When the responsibility of dealing with crime, establishing guilt and appropriately punishing offenders is vested on the state authority, crime is seen as a violation of social order and thus an act against the state. But, when this responsibility is shared among every member of a community, criminal acts are therefore seen as offences against individuals, and the community, victim and offender inclusive, determines what appropriate sanctions the criminal act deserves. Nevertheless, what constitute criminal behaviours in both cases remain the violation of established social orders, values and norms; the only difference lies in who takes the responsibility for dealing with it and how the appropriate sanction is determined. Researchers and philosophers have always been biased towards explaining the causal and motivation factors involved in crime, as a significant step towards crime prevention and reduction. As Pascal has rightly said, "man has always been the most wonderful object of study to himself" (Ferri, 2). The constant changes and dynamism of the human nature has made explaining the causes of crime and crime prevention a herculean task. Theories easily become obsolete or almost irrelevant because they can no longer explain human behaviour. Several criminology theories come handy when assessing the root cause of crimes among a particular group of people, within an age group or when considered in the light of the social conditions and ideas obtainable in a particular time. But none seem to fully explain all that needs to be understood about crime, criminal activities and behaviours. Infact most theories only tend to explain the propensity towards crime and not the act itself. These have made the development of contemporary theories in pace with changing social conditions and ideas inevitable. In the early days of criminology studies and research, the Classical school of thought saw criminal behaviour as a misuse of free will; the ability to decide what is right and wrong. They posit that humans, by nature, generally seek pleasure and avoid pain. Weighing the benefits of every action against the cost. This school of thought argues that punishment of severe forms may deter people from crime, as the cost of criminal an actions would be seen to be more than the benefit. Though, this theory seems to be logical, it tend to ignore the possibility of irrationality and unconscious urge which is seen in some criminal act. Differing from this stance, the Positivist school of thought explain that criminal acts could be due to more than mere free will and that biological, psychological, social or some other determining factors may increase the susceptibility of some people towards crime. This group opine that factors such as physiological and genetical traits (biological positivism), poverty, education and social status (sociological positivism), and psychological factors like family ties and bonds (psychological positivism) and a host of other factors, play a significant determining role in criminal activities and may also place some people at a greater predisposition to crime than others. These two schools of thought exemplify the efforts that have gone into the attempts of explaining the causes and motives behind criminal behaviours and the attendant evolution of theories of criminology, each seeking to better explain the logic and rationality behind crime and hence constituting a vantage point for the reduction and prevention of crime and yet, each falling short of this goal. Nevertheless, it would be outrightly wrong to seek to discredit these theories, one and all, it would suffice to say that the very nature of man makes it virtually impossible for a set of theories to completely explain or predict behavioural patterns and motivational factors. Though, these theories fare better when examined collectively, instead of singling out each theory for scrutiny. Moreover, most of these theories when properly examined have been a good background for effective criminal policies, but just how effective and for how long is a topic for considerable debate. What follows is a detailed examination of the basis of some contemporary criminology theories and subsequently, the ideas of the post modern society and how these theories fare under the light of such ideas. Regardless of the diversity in philosophy and understanding, criminology theories may be conveniently seen under two headings; social and individual theories. Social criminology theories sought to locate the causes of crime within social factors and beyond the immediate control of the individual, while individual theories believe that the cause and motivation towards crime can be conveniently traced to within the offender rather than the society. The three major contemporary individual criminology theories are Classicism, Individual Positivism and Law and Order Conservatism (Mantle et. al., 10). Mantle and his colleagues explain that a straightforward introduction to these three individual criminology theories would be found in Young J.'s work 'Thinking Seriously About Crime'. He, therefore, utilised the framework presented in the paper to identify the meeting points and differences between these theories with respect to what they construed as the human nature, their explanation of the origin of social order, what constitute crime, the assumption of these theories on the extent and distribution of crime, what they understood to be the root cause and motives behind criminal behaviours and the utility of these theories for policy and implementation (11). Unarguably these three theories are of paramount importance in the current penal policies and system of the present society. Classicism. The Classicist theory places a great deal of focus on the seriousness of criminal activities. It concerns itself with the notions of individual right and is therefore to be found in the legal framework involved in sentencing individual offenders, an example is to be found in the UK legal system (Power of the Criminal Courts Acts 2000 section 79(2)(a)) for imposition of discretionary custodian sentences (Mantle et.al 11). For the classicist theorist, the independence of the individual is sacrosanct. Under this theory every human being is construed as a rational and logical being who has the power of free will and can of his own volition distinguish between right and wrong. This places all individuals at par with each other. The equality of the human race based on this ability to differentiate right from wrong. Thus each individual is obliged to enter into a contract with the state independently, which essentially involves giving up certain liberties in exchange for the state's protection. This individual-state contract is construed as the basis of social order and a violation of the terms of the agreement, in whatever ramification, constitute crime or criminal behaviour. This stand of the classicist on what constitute crime avails crime a legal outlook, concentrating on the criminal act itself rather than the actor. With this arrangement, the state is placed in a position to determine who breaks what law and also accorded the responsibility of deciding guilt and the form and level of an appropriate punishment. Punishment and sentencing is thus seen as a private affair, between the state and the offender, taking recourse to public display only in a bid to show fair play and due process. According to the classicism the goal of punishment is reductivism. Reduction and prevention of crime via deterrence. In accordance with this stance, punishment is dispensed in line with the two principles of Proportionality and Parsimony (restraint), though; the later has never been accorded its intended prominence, albeit, for the sake of clarity, it is necessary to acknowledge that the "classicist theory aligns itself with both retributivism and reductivism" (Mantle et. al 13). The centre point of the classicist theory is its tendency to dissociate the criminal act from the actor. It does not concern itself with the actor, his history, personal or social circumstances. Rather it believes that the seriousness or otherwise of a criminal act should be dispassionately appraised and then matched with an appropriate amount or type of punishment in accordance with a set standard or social structure. Thus from the classicist approach, the outcomes of a criminal act tend to be quite predictable and this outcome, which in most cases, is the aim of the classicist approach, is to affect the offender's future. To make sure he does not violate the social order or criminal law in future, irrespective of what his past and criminal motivations are. Individual Positivism. Individual Positivism, in contrast to classicism, underpins much of the rehabilitative work of the probation system, in that in believes the cause of crime is an internal factor/problem beyond the control of the offender. Individual Positivism theorist contend that crime is a result of the insufficient or ineffective socialisation or 'schooling' of the offender in the values, norms and belief system of the society. The poor socialisation of the offender may be due to individual incapacity, the inability or ineffectiveness of the family in providing proper socialisation (bonding and family ties) or a wider societal influence. Individual Positivism embraces cognitive behavioural programmes. It believes that a person's antecedent determines behaviour; therefore, the solution to crime and criminal behaviour should be one of treatment and restoration instead of punishment. And for those who, for one reason or the other, are incapable of achieving satisfactory level of socialisation and behavioural restoration, treatment may be replaced by containment. The major shortcoming of this theory as analysed by its critiques is the tendency to medicalise crime and also the tendency for a misuse by people in charge. Individual Positivism sees crime from a social perspective, though with respect to each individual. The offender is not willingly choosing to violate social order and/or criminal laws as the classicist would contend but is just not completely capable of understanding these norms. Therefore, the individual positivist seeks to reintegrate the offender properly and effectively into the social structure. This aim is achieved through a rehabilitative process, where the offender is made to better understand social order and thus effectively 'socialising' him. The three point aim of rehabilitation is to encourage the offender, through mediation, to: Own the responsibility for their crime Become aware of the effect of their crime on the victim Reassess their future behaviour in the light of this knowledge And the rehabilitative process seek to achieve these goals through individual or group therapy delivered by a professional who possess the required expert knowledge and skills, this could be a probation officer, prison psychologist or a social worker. Though, it is imperative to state, here, that with increasing tendency towards toughness and punishment in penal policies, the stand of individual positivist on treatment and rehabilitation is becoming less likely to be accommodated within present penal policies and political agenda. Instead, incapacitation or containment is becoming an important aspect of current policies and often involve custodial sentences, especially where issues of public protection is paramount. Law and order Conservatism. Law and Order Conservatism in contrast to both positivist and classicist approach, sees individual 'wickedness' as the root cause of crime. Conservatism theory acknowledges the presence of self interest; the pursuance of pleasure and avoidance of pain, in every individual. But it contends that individuals are suppose to curb this drive for self gratification. It encourages discipline, sacrifice and allegiance to social authority. Thus crime is reduced and social authority is respected by replacing self-interest with the general interest, which is enshrined in traditional values. Using this concept as a yardstick, offenders are therefore seen as individuals who are unwilling to protect the common interest due to their drive for personal gratification. They are seen as wicked and therefore deserving of a severe and harsh punishment to teach them a moral lesson and to serve as a general deterrence for others who may be tempted to offend. One major point of variance of the conservatist concept is its broader outlook on crime and criminal activities. It goes beyond the legal definition of crime that the classicist portrays and does not seek to cover up criminals on the pretence of social defects as the positivist does. It takes a wider look at criminal behaviours and tend to include other anti social activities, that although, technically speaking, may not be considered as crime, also violates social norms and values, in its definition of crime and criminal behaviours, thereby strengthening social and community ties. This perspective may be better understood, when it is realised that the core of the conservatist concept is the believe that crime arise as a result of the breakdown of traditional and legal authority bringing forth individual vileness. Therefore, violation of social order in whatever form, constitute a reason for deserving punishment, even if not technically a crime, in order to preserve and strengthen law, order and community ties and to serve as a general deterrence to others from following such precedence. With such a stance, toughness and severe punishment becomes the cornerstone of policies based on this theory. Despite the fact that law and order conservatism is a strong feature in public discourse about the causes and rate of crime and how the society is supposed to respond to criminal activities, the theory does not seem to enjoy much attention in academic criminology, when contrasted with either the classicism or the individual positivism theories. While assessing the three individual criminology theories and their relevance in the present society's policy and agenda, Mantle and his colleagues draw the similarity and differences between these theories thus: Although classicism, individual positivism and conservatism are similar in their shared individual focus, they differ in terms of their notion of what, specifically, causes crime. Classicism presents the offender as making the wrong choice; positivism draws attention to internal factors beyond the control of the transgressor; and law and order conservatism looks to individual 'wickedness' as the cause of crime. The three theories are similar in their view of the origins of social order. Each theory assumes a consensus, albeit from different sources. Classicists posit a set of equal contracts between the individual and the State; positivists suggest that consensus has its roots in a common socialisation; and law and order theorists emphasise the role of tradition (12). Finally, before closing the discourse on these individual criminology theories, it is imperative to state, that though, this three theories are each of significant value in the current penal policies and system, they do not exist in a complete state and do not exert influences as individual forces. Each of these theories has its own history, which is often very long and complex and as such encompasses several sub types with different emphases, strength and weakness. But they constitute a more relevant set of theories in the present societal conditions when seen and considered together as an entity, one complementing the other. Social Criminology Theories. Social Disorganisation and Anomie/Strain theories are two of the major social contemporary theories. They both seek to locate the cause of crime within the society's structure outside the will and person of the individual offender. According to Akers, both social theories have evolved from different theoretical and research traditions but they share a common theme and understanding. The meeting point of both theories is the understanding that social system, which could be the society, community or social group, is said to be organised and integrated when amongst its members there exist; an internal agreement on social norms and values, a strong bond and cohesion, and an uninterruption of smooth, orderly social interruption. Conversely, a social system that is devoid of social cohesion or integration, social control or suffers malalignment of its members is described as a 'Disorganised Society'. Therefore, 'social order, stability and integration are conducive to conformity, while disorder and malintegration are conducive to crime and deviance' (Akers, 159). Both social theories, argue therefore, that the lesser the level of cohesion, solidarity and integration within a social system, the higher will be the resultant rates of crime and deviance. These may be seen, therefore, as the core values of these social theories. Social Disorganisation Theory This theory is also known as the Chicago School of thought, since it was first developed by sociologist at the University of Chicago and the Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago in the 1920s during their study of urban crime and delinquency. The studies showed that crime rates and delinquency was higher in areas or communities of disadvantaged people. Most of these societies or group were characterised by physical decay, poor housing, broken families, high rates of illegitimate births, and unstable heterogeneous population with low income, education and occupation. The outcome of the studies led the Chicago sociologist to the conclusion that high crime rates in such population cannot be due to biological or psychological defects, rather, the crime rates could better be seen as the normal response of a normal people to abnormal conditions. Thus under the wrong societal influence, criminal and delinquent traits are developed, later seen as part of the social norm by offenders and transmitted from one generation to the next. The understanding behind this theory led to the development of the Differential Social Organisation proposed by Edwin Sutherland in the 1940s. He argued that the increase in crime observed in such disorganised societies, is not so much about social disorganisation, but social organisation around a different set of norms and values. This theory emphasizes that crime as behaviour is learnt through exposure to different conforming and criminal patterns. However, more recent theories such as the Modern Social Control Theory, has pointed out that social disorganisation as evident from economic conditions and urban ecology are not direct causes of crime and delinquency, instead, they compromise informal controls within the social system, thus allowing higher rates of crime to occur. From this stand, it may be argued that the absence or breakdown of informal social control is a key point of the social disorganisation theory. The informal social control which are believed to be compromised during social disorganisation include; peer associations and attitudes, social bonding, as evident in family supervision and religious ties, and self control or impulsivity. Anomie/Strain Theory. The Anomie or strain theory seek to provide an explanation for the high crime rates found not only in the lower class urban areas, but also in the lower class and minority group in general (Akers, 164). The term Anomie was first used by Emile Durkheim, one of the founders of sociology, to describe a state of 'normlessness' or lack of social order in a social system, as the absence of a norm excludes the possibility of a crime. In Durkheim's opinion, when there seems to be no guiding social order or legal authority, definitely no act would constitute a violation of order or crime. However, Robert Merton further applied this principle to a condition observable in modern industrial societies, especially as epitomised by the United States of America. The theory suggest that mainstream culture, as seen in America, is filled with dreams of opportunities, freedom and prosperity and that a an integrated social structure must strike a balance between such cultures of goals and accomplishment with an equal social means of achieving these goals. People buy into the dream and culture of high aspirations and it becomes a powerful cultural and psychological driving force, but without the approved social means of achieving these aspirations. Merton therefore applied the term Anomie to describe this obvious dichotomy between what the society has made her citizens to expect and what these citizens could actually achieve. The logic behind this is that, when success goals, competitiveness and social aspirations are high and worth is judged by material and monetary success, the norms governing the achievement of these goals, and by extension the society at large, becomes severely weakened, producing a normless society that Durkheim conceived. The failure to achieved aspired goals may be a sort of psychological stress or strain that could induce deviance or lead to criminality and illegitimate means to achieve the aspired objectives. Another derivation of the Anomie theory is the Cloward and Ohlin Differential Opportunity and Delinquent Subculture theory. This theory drew from the Anomie Theory of Merton and the Cohen's Subculture theory, on the one hand and from Social Disorganisation and Differential Association theories on the other. The Differential Opportunity and Delinquent Subculture theory seem to combine the logic in all four theories drawing a common sense out of them. It argues that the denied access to legitimate opportunities to lower class individuals in achieving their high held aspirations does not automatically open doors of illegitimate opportunities to him. Following the precedence of the Social Disorganisation and Differential Association theories Cloward and Ohlin focussed more on the cultural transmission of delinquent and deviant traits in lower urban class areas and went on to establish the importance of the availability of illegitimate opportunities in increased crime rates associated with denied access to legitimate means of achieving societal inspired goals and aspirations. They further argued that motivation and the aspiration to succeed by themselves cannot account for either conforming or deviant behaviours, they believe that the individual must also be exposed to a deviant or conforming "learning environment that allows him to learn and perform the requisite skills and abilities" (Akers, 168). Post Modern Society Post modernism is not a word that can be clearly contained in a clear cut definition due to its broad scope and lack of a vivid defining characteristics. However, according to Thomson, "post modernism and its attendant characteristics tend to be driven by three major contemporary events viz: the decline of the left with the accompanying intellectual despair, the rejection of the western philosophical tradition of industrialism, scientism and liberalism and an interpretation of global transformation in political and economic wise" (Thomson 2). However, the most distinct feature of the post modern society is the rejection of the universality of reason, hence the concept of universal right or wrong inherited from the Enlightenment era. The philosophers of the enlightenment era argued that the world could be better understood and both truth and justice could be discovered on the basis of the universal principle of reason. That applying scientific principles to social life would uncover the laws of the society and make human life predictable and social engineering achievable and practical. However post modernist see the claim to universality of reason as ethnocentric and not serving the purpose of the general good. Therefore truth, falsehood and justice are seen as relative terms. Each culture and society possess its own standards for judging right and wrong and none could boast of a more secure foundation or basis compared to the other. From this stance, all social practices and cultures are seen to be valid and equal, each merely a variation that is neither superior nor inferior. This relativism in societies, communities and cultures appears to be the major driving factor in the post modern society. Its main weakness, however is that it offers no basis for evaluation and in extreme ramifications, relativism becomes an apology for all kinds of practices that violate our sense of human and social rights (Thomson 3). From the foregoing, it is apparent that the post modern society is tending more towards social systems and sub cultures and rejecting the universality of reason and purpose. It is therefore putting each society, community, culture or social group of people in charge of their own affairs, limiting what is acceptable norm, principles of right and wrong and what constitute crime or appropriate response to criminal behaviour within the realm of the culture and social structure of each individual society. The implication of this for crime prevention and reduction is that cause, motives and/or response to crime adopted by every social system is acceptable as long as it achieves the objectives of that particular culture. No approach to crime is therefore, generally wrong or right, superior or inferior as long as it satisfies the immediate interests of the society. Under such as understanding it would be near impossible to collectively assess if the contemporary criminology theories are in pace with the changing conditions of the present society. But when these theories are disentangled and examined one after the other, each theory may then be assessed for its compliancy with present conditions and its utility in the modern penal system and political agenda. Also, the dynamism of the human nature ensures that no vacuum is ever left in the social structure. Human beings, by nature, will always seek to explain, understand and analyse events and conditions either collectively; forming a body of knowledge as seen in scientism and philosophy, or individually as seen in sub cultures and communities. Seen from this perspective, it would be easier to affirm that, whatever the conditions of the society, there would always be contemporary and dynamic theories that will seek to explain human behaviours, conforming or deviant, and always chart a course for easier methods of solving each and every human difficulty. The theories of criminology are constantly changing and are always seeking to better explain and stay in tune with present societal conditions. The only difference in these contemporary theories discussed will be in their level of effectiveness and relevance to the particular policies in place. Finally, though, none of the contemporary theories discussed could well boast of superiority or perfection, they all keep tending towards perfection with the studies and input of modern scientist and philosophers and when these theories are allowed to complement each other they stand a better chance of achieving the objectives of the founders. Works Cited Akers, Ronald L. Criminological Theories; Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. Florida: Christine S. Sellers, University of South Florida, 2004. Borowski, Allan. "The Dangers Of Strong Causal Reasoning In Policy And Practice : The Case Of Juvenile Crime And Corrections." Jan 2001. Australian Institute Of Criminology. 6 Jan 2006. Ferri, Enrico. Criminal Sociology. New York: Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (electronic version), 1999. Mantle, Greg. Darrell Fox. Mandeep K. Dhami. "Restorative Justice and Three Individual Theories of Crime." Internet Journal of Criminology IJC (2005). 6 Jan 2006. Pratt, John. "Sex Crime And The New Punitiveness." 14 April 2000. Institute of Criminology, Victoria University, New Zealand. 6 Jan 2006 Thomson, Anthony. "Post-Modernism and Social Justice." June 1997. Acadia University. 6 Jan. 2006. < http://ace.acadiau.ca/soci/agt/constitutivecrim.htm> Walker, John. Monika Henderson. "Understanding Crime Trends in Australia." Jan 1991. Australian Institute of Criminology. 6 Jan 2006. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. "Definition of Criminology." 6 Jan. 2006. Read More