Are Criminals Born or Made - Essay Example

Are Criminals Born or Made Introduction It has always been a difficult question to find an answer whether a criminal is born or is made out of circumstances. The crimes have begun at the start of human civilisation. Crimes and the relative punishments have been found to be an integral part of the human living when the societal form of human life was formed. However, it is difficult to identify precisely a definite date, from which the crimes became a serious problem for the society. Nevertheless, no specific solution has been found to tackle this problem. People have attempted to find different solutions like inventing sophisticated technical devices, working out various social development programmes, making psychological researches, which aim at preventing the crimes. In spite of the efforts in this direction, crimes continue to exist and it can be concluded that the crimes will continue to exist and this problem cannot be solved. In order to solve this problem it becomes necessary that the cause of the crimes or the reason why people commit crimes need to be analysed. Traditionally crime has been considered as associated with two domains by the specialists. The domains are the nature or the environment of the individuals including the family and the peers of the individuals. However, it must be noted that these specialists belong to different fields of science as the complexity and dynamics of crime extends to different areas, which are difficult to comprehend. Therefore, the statement “Are criminals born, or made?” can be considered as having wide ramifications and still is a subject that has invited many debates. Approaches to Criminology When reference is made to the science of criminology automatically, reference is made to different branches of science such as psychology, genetics, sociology etc. The main purpose of criminology is to deal with crimes and criminals and solve this social problem. The main approaches to deal with the problem of crimes and their resolution are the natural approach and the environmental approach. The environmental approach deals with the circumstances that made an individual to commit a crime and it does not consider the hereditary or family background of the criminal. Whereas the natural approach is sure that the nature of the criminal, his or her genes, and heredity are the main reasons that make him/her to commit the crimes. The latest developments in genetics have been successful in substantiating the environmental causes for people committing crimes and this has put away the theories about the heredity and genes being responsible for the crimes, which need to be proved scientifically. The theories relating to the presupposition of the heredity and genes are ambiguous and are to be established with a scientific base before they can be taken into account. On the other hand, the followers of the environmental approach also cannot deny the fact that the heredity and genetic causes play an important role in shaping the character of a person. They also contribute to the committing of the crime by the individuals. It is important that environment in which a person is born and brought up are considered while studying the crimes, as the environmental factors do have a large influence on the formation of the personality of the individual and the shaping of his or her characters. Even though this new approach is relatively young and new it is becoming more and more popular and deserves to be analysed thoroughly before any conclusion can be drawn from the approach. Scope and Role of Criminology According to Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) "criminology is the study of delinquency and crime with the goal of developing a body of knowledge including all the dynamics that surround crime and criminals to assist in their understanding of the phenomenon". Thus, the focus of the science of criminology is to evolve a deep understanding of crime, the reasons why people commit crimes and the nature of the people who commit crimes namely the criminals. It is a fact that it would be difficult to understand the crimes as a social phenomenon in general and all the details of the crime in particular as it affects the society, unless the causes that make the people commit the crimes. The question of whether the criminals are born or made has become an integral part of the science of criminology as soon as it started getting it transformed in to a serious science. Criminality – a Background The definition of a criminal includes a person who has committed an act of crime. Psychologists have developed many theories around the reasons as to the commitment of crimes by individuals. Genetic and environmental factors were identified as the two main explanations for the criminal nature and the development of criminality. Studies have been carried out to understand and explain criminal behaviour of individuals. By a comparisons of the chromosomes twin studies (Bartol 1998), Family Studies (Farrington 1991) and a study by Jacobs et al (1965) advocated criminals are born. On the other hand, studies have been undertaken to prove that criminals are made by environment and actions of society. Social learning theory by Bandura et al, substantiates this theory. Virkkumen (1986) studied biochemistry and Becker 1963 looked at labelling behaviour also contributed to the idea that criminals are born. Criminality from the sociological perspective can be defined as a human behavior, which is a deviation from the normal or acceptable behaviour patterns and norms of a society. A generic definition of criminality can be found in describing the criminal act as a behavioural predisposition that is having a disproportionately favourable impact on the criminal activity of a person. The concept of criminality centres round the premise that the act or acts perpetrated by a person with a criminal intention represent the violation of the natural rights that are conferred on the individual either by birth or by law. The ideas on criminality take different connotations in different societies and therefore the definition of the term criminality has taken a wide frame. One point of view is that criminality is a political idea as compared to a normal way of human behaviour. Based upon the culture and political foundation of a society, some of the acts, which are immoral, may not be characterized as criminal and on the other hand, acts, which are moral, are classified as criminal acts. While pursuing such theories to explain criminality, it may be necessary to put into practice various sociological contexts to understand criminality. By following this approach, an honest attempt can be made to understand or explain criminality. This also enables one to arrive at some conclusion whether criminals are born or made. A number of explanations can be attributed for a person to commit crimes and the motives behind the purported actions of a person, which are criminal in nature. However, in order to provide the best explanation to the idea of crime and criminality it is necessary to determine which school of thought needs to be followed; classicism, biological/psychological positivism and sociological positivism. The general assumption is that In order for a person to commit a crime, he/she must break a law formulated by a particular government (Kohn, 2006). Different Theories of Criminality According to White and Haines (1996), the classical theory or classicism stresses the idea of notion of individual rights, the significance of free will and the follow up of rule of law (White and Haines, 1996). The theory advocates that humans have the tendency to be self-seeking and self interested, and therefore will decide their actions to follow their choice. Criminologists like Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham have contributed to the fundamentals of classical theory (Maguire, Morgan, Reiner, 1997). On the other hand, scientific study of criminals and criminal behavior form the basis of biological theories. However, the theories are loosely connected with the concept of criminality. Cesare Lombrosso, was the most acclaimed biological criminologist, who argued that criminals are essentially born, not made. Lombrosso advocated his theories based on the theories of evolution. He also attempted to classify different types of individuals based on racial and biological characteristics (Maguire, Morgan, Reiner, 1997). Psychological positivism is another theory that was closely associated with the classical theory. Psychological positivism bases its ideology on the mindset of the criminal. This gives rise to the idea of ‘criminal mind’ (Burke, 2001). Three broad categories of psychological theories of crime have been developed within the realm of psychological positivism. Psychodynamic and behavioral learning theories constitute the first two categories and cognitive learning theories form the basis of the third category. Eminent psychological criminologists like Sigmund Freud, Ivan P Pavlov, B.F. Skinner, Edward Tolman and Jean Piaget have made significant contribution to the theories of criminality (Burke, 2001). Sociological positivism is arguably the most logical theory of the four theoretical bases that encompass criminality. This theory recognises the social factors, which are purely external to the human being. According to the theory, the social factors place constraints on the individual’s choice of action. The circumstances surrounding the individual and the social pressure on him is considered while examining the criminality of the actions, rather than assuming the influence of other biological/psychological positivist factors (Gibbons 1979). Prominent sociological criminologist theories include the work Emile Durkheim. The following sections provide a detailed overview of the theories relating to criminality. Classical Theory of Criminality The school of classicism or classical theory, introduced in the eighteenth century provided the first naturalistic explanation of crime (Moyer, 2001). The intellectual movement taken place in the eighteenth century largely influenced classical theory and it helped superseding cruel punishments inflicted to the criminals in medieval Europe at that point of time (Gibbons, 1979). The classical theory was in prominence for close to a century. The theory later lost its popularity due to the introduction American criminologists and positivism. However, the classical theory retains its recognition since the theory is responsible for bringing remarkable humanitarian reform and the theory provided fundamental rationale for many criminal codes of the Western civilization (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). The eminent criminologist Cesare Beccaria is regarded as the father of classical criminology. The work of Beccaria includes a critical essay on administrative law, known as Dei deliti e delle pene (On Crimes and Punishments). This work evolved the central principles of the classical school of criminology, which were “practically all of the important reforms in the administration of criminal justice” (Beccaria, 1767). Jeremy Bentham, was another renowned contributor to the theory of classicism. His work was regarded as a modern version of Beccaria (White, Haines, 1996). According to Bentham humans are rational beings and therefore they all act out of free will. He advocated the purpose of lawmaking is to achieve happiness for the majority of people and this idea is contained under his idea of ‘utilitarianism’ (Moyer, 2001). Modern criminological thinking evolved out of the classical school dismissing the earlier theories advocating crime to be a supernatural phenomenon (Moyer, 2001). Crime is explained with clarity to some extent by classicism. However, since criminal acts are influenced by several other factors they all need to be considered while examining crime. The analysis cannot be based simply on individualistic actions, as sometimes we are bound to make choice out of compulsion but not out of our wish. Biological Positivism Positivism as a science that offered criminological explanation of crime emerged to shadow classicism. Scientific understanding of crime and criminality is at the base of biological positivism. The theory postulates the manner in which several factors and forces beyond the immediate control of individuals shape the acts of crime. The theory explains and bases its ideologies on the biological distinction between the ‘normal’ and the ‘deviant’ (White and Haines, 1996). Cesare Lombroso acknowledged, as the founder of positive criminology was the first one to popularise the theory that criminal and deviant individuals are the way they are because of their biological composition (Burke, 2001). Lombrosso, a renowned criminal anthropologist found this school of thought. He is considered as the father of criminology. He was of the opinion that people are born criminals and only their inherent nature forces them to commit crimes. The views of Lombrosso on the study of criminology are purely deterministic. This is the reason Lombrosso "viewed criminals as being a more primitive form of human, influenced much by Charles Darwin's writings on evolution" (Williams and McShane 1993). Lombrosso believed that the criminals possessing an innate predisposition to criminality are distinct from the ‘normal’ people and they should be considered as a special species. Lombrosso regarded these people as presenting themselves in a middle position between the modern cultured citizens and the primitive uncivilized people. Based on a social Darwinian perspective Lombroso adopted a classification of individuals and placed them in various stages of development (Moyer, 2001). According to Lombroso, there are certain characters that indicate an atavistic person. It is observed, that an atavistic person “is said to possess physical, psychic, or functional qualities of remote and more primitive ancestors” (Moyer, 2001). Lambroso adopted the classification of these individuals as ‘born criminals’ and based on the classification he contended that; ‘the criminal is born, not made’ (white, Haines, 1996). Lombroso classified criminals into four different groups. Born criminals were included in the first category, and were distinguished from other by their physical atavistic characteristics (Burke, 2001). Insane criminals or criminaloids formed the second and third groups. This group includes those individuals who are inclined to commit crimes in any available opportunity. However, these categories also characterize the individuals with traits that influence them to adopt criminal behavior (Burke, 2001). The final category encompasses criminals of passion. This category is developed based on the premise that crime is usually motivated by feelings of anger, love or honor. Despite the supremacy of the theory at one point of time, the current day criminologists find the approach of Lombroso to crime as more simplistic and not too strong. The theory had its opposition and became unpalatable for many in the context of the mid-twentieth century because of the happening of instances of mass systematic extermination of certain groups. Since these exterminations happened due to the factors, like for example, ethnicity, sexuality or their health, which did not corroborate the views of Lombroso (Burke, 2001). Therefore, biological positivism could not provide a plausible or logical explanation for individuals committing crimes. Psychological Positivism Psychological positivism is another theory that is trying to explain criminality associated closely to biological positivism. Psychological positivism is founded on the premise that the mind is responsible for acts of crime and criminality. This theory has given rise to the idea of ‘criminal mind’ (Burke, 2001). Psychological theories of crime have been divided into three broad categories. The first category of psychodynamic theory was propagated by Sigmund Freud. Freud, through his influential work on the psychodynamic theory made this category popular. Freud asserts “sexuality is present from birth and has a subsequent course of development is the fundamental basis of psychoanalysis”. This idea has provoked much conflicting viewpoints and controversies (Burke, 2001). According to Freud, three different components constitute the personality of individuals. The first one is the id. “Id” is the primitive biological drives that steer and form the basis of human behavior (Maguire, Morgan, Reiner, 1997). The id is defined as the “unconscious aspect of personality that leads the individual to seek self-gratification” (Brown, Esbensne, Geis, 1991). The second component is the superego or ‘the conscious’. The superego though operates in the unconscious, consists of values that are internalized in to the human through one’s early interactions. These interactions are usually with their parents. It is the superego, which constitutes the moral and ethical standards of society (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). The third element is the “ego” or the “conscious personality”. The ego is placed in the middle between the id and superego. The function of ego as a force is to mediate and to arbitrate between the pulls that id and superego exerts. The ‘normal’ person was identified by Freud to possess three elements that constitute a “balanced conflict” (Burke, 2001). Behavioural learning theories constituted the second category. This theory emerged through the works of eminent criminologists like Ivan. P. Pavlov, and B.F. Skinner. Pavlov was the one who studied the process involved in simple, automatic animal behaviors like the salivation on eyeing the food (Burke, 2001). Through various tests conducted in this direction, Pavlov found that responses that occur spontaneously to the natural (or unconditioned) stimulus, could be made to happen (conditioned) to a stimulus that was previously neutral. He worked on the process of turning on a light just before bringing the food and feeding the animal. Slowly by constant practice the animal started salivating when the light it turned on irrespective of the fact there is food or not. This process is termed as extinction (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). While Pavlov concentrated on the automatic behaviors being shaped in response to stimuli, B.F Skinner studied the principle of active learning, which was an extension of Pavlov’s work. The study of Skinner worked on some action on the part of the animal in order to result in a reward or punishment. (Burke, 2001). The study found that learned behaviors are far more resistant to extinction provided during the process of learning the reinforcement has been used only occasionally (Burke, 2001). This theory has some practical validity. Consider the example, that once money is money put into a ticket machine and the machine does not deliver the ticket, people will simply stop putting the money into the machine. On the other hand, many people continue to put money into the slot machines despite the fact that they stand only a scant chance to get a prize (Burke, 2001). Cognitive learning theory is the third category, which has based its development in a fundamental critique of the predestined actor model. According to Edward Tolman and Jean Piaget, “by observing the responses that individuals make to different stimulus conditions, it is possible to draw inferences about the nature of the internal cognitive processes that produce those responses” (Brown, Esbensne, Geis, 1991). The works of these psychologists advocated the importance of the organizational process in the activities of perception, problem solving and learning. The theory postulates that individuals were predisposed to organize information in particular ways (Maguire, Morgan, Reiner, 1997). Sociological Theories of Criminality Out of all theories developed, Sociological school of thought has been considered extremely influential. Many of the present day renowned criminologists have found the sociological theory as the most logical, common sense, and, offering at least partial explanation of crime and criminal behavior (Kohn, 2004). The sociological school essentially does not accept the individualist explanations of crime propagated by other theorists. The theory recognizes crime as a socially constructed occurrence. The theory however “acknowledges the threat it places on the continuance of the given society and thus needs to be controlled” (Freund, 1969). Emile Durkheim is considered as the founding father of academic sociology in France. Durkheim has been quite influential in advocating varied sociological theories. Durkheim offered two central arguments, which explain the growth of crime and criminal behavior (Burke, 2001). Firstly, Durkheim suggested the encouragement of a state of unbridled ‘egoism’, which is tangentially opposed to “the maintenance of social solidarity and conformity to the law” (Burke, 2001). For example, one of the Durkheim’s studies on suicide empirically proved that the rate of incidence of suicides varies depending on the predominance of Catholic or Protestant in a country. The point Durkheim tried to drive home was that individualistic actions or psychological factors are not in a position to offer any plausible explanation for suicides as according to him it is a ‘social’ phenomenon (White, Haines, 1996). The second point of the theory raised the suggestion of the possibility of inefficient regulation. This is understandable as the theory evolved at a time when rapid modernization was taking place and it was not the time, when new forms of control have not been in place to replace the older regulations and practices which could ensure solidarity, less appropriate now (Burke, 2001). The sociological school pinpoints the role of offending in criminality, which was not considered in the psychological and classical theories. The sociological theory acknowledges that the nexus between lack of opportunity, alienation and criminal behavior is of considerable significance in the current economic climate when youth unemployment is high. It is also relevant in a situation when the inequalities and divisions between the rich and the poor are on constant growth path (White, Haines, 1996). The sociological theory does not squarely make the criminal or the individualistic action responsible for crime. The theory considers the impact of other factors in attributing a coherent and logical explanation of crime. Other views on Criminals The other view is that “crime is largely or entirely the by-product of poverty, racism, broken families and other social disturbances” (John Leo). Certain environmental conditions have been identified to help breed crime. These conditions are quite independent of the heredity or genes of the individuals committing the crimes. According to these theorists, no individual is born with the intention of committing crime. They advocate that certain compulsive situations or circumstances the individuals are made to face, they derive the tendency to commit certain acts of crime. It is not always the inherent characters, which makes a man criminal but social issues like child abuse, unemployment and other environments, which make the life of an individual unbearable convert him into criminal to indulge in crimes. For instance, Children who have been subjected to abuse are most likely to transform into criminals since such abuses create enormous anger and hatred in them while they grow. They are not in a position to deal with the emotions of such anger and hatred cohesively. According to a paper published by “Science”, magazine criminals are not made but some individuals are vulnerable and prove to be better materials for being converted in to criminals because of their inborn qualities (Ronald Bailey, 2002). The results of the study show that apart from the genetic absolution, the environment in which the people grow also matters in deciding the criminality in the minds of the individuals. The study reveals that the balance of brain chemicals can be modified by childhood maltreatment and can be tempered by social institutions. The criminals are punished not out of vengeance for the crimes committed by them. The punishments are also meant to deter others from committing crimes. By inflicting punishments the social institutions try to alter the brain chemicals and hence most of the social institutions aim to maximise the pro-social brain chemicals in the criminals so that they are prevented from involving themselves in engaging in doing further crimes. Even though the social institutions cannot altogether prevent the crimes from happening they can to some extent isolate the criminals and rehabilitate their moral behaviour. Conclusion The four different schools of thought have provided varying explanations to the behaviour of individuals to commit crimes. Classicism identifies the free will of the individuals be responsible and hence places entire responsibility on the criminal for their acts. Biological positivism on the other hand, finds the factors and forces beyond the control of the individual to be responsible for the criminal acts and to this extent differs from classicism. This theory therefore suggests that the criminal is born, not made. Psychological positivism relies on the concept of criminal mind and makes the human mind as the one responsible for the commission of crimes. Finally, the sociological school does not accept the individualist explanations of crime and it considers social factors surrounding the criminal providing the most common sense explanation of crime. A review of the above theories brings out the fact that classicism, biological and psychological positivism are heavily flawed to different degrees and it is very difficult to establish any consistency among them. However because of the views expressed the sociological school or sociological positivism is considered to be minimally flawed and therefore provides a coherent, realistic, logical and the best explanation of crime. Latest developments in the science focus on arriving at a solution to the issue of crimes and criminals and finding an answer as to whether the criminals are made or born. The new approach is that it is neither the environment nor the heredity and the genes fully, which determine the criminal character of the individuals and is something in between. It is a combination of both the environmental factors and the natural explanation of the formation of criminality in individuals. “This theory is based on the idea that both genes or heredity and a person's environment interact and influence the development of personality and the main traits of character resulting, in some cases, in the development of a person with antisocial or even criminal behavior” (Lloyd Johns, 2006). However, in recent years it has been acknowledged that criminals have some degree of choice. They can choose to imitate the behaviors of others or choose not to. There also may be a number of variable factors to influence this choice and hence, it can be concluded that crime is not destiny, which is inevitable, and criminals are made and not born. References Beccaria, C. (1767) An essay on Crimes and Punishments, J. Almon, London Brown. S.E, F. Esbensne, G Geis, ‘Criminology- Explaining crime and its context’, Anderson, Ohio1991 Burke. R.H, ‘An introduction to Criminal Theory’, Willan, UK 2001 Freund, S. (1969) The sociology of max weber, vintage books, NY Gibbons, D. (1979) The Criminological Enterprise: Theories and Perspectives, Prentice Hall, New Jersey Gottfredson. M.R and T Hirschi, ‘A general theory of crime’, Stanford, California 1990 John Leo ‘Are Criminals Born Not Made’ Time Magazine Online Lloyd Johns (2006) ‘Are Criminals Born or Made’ Article Alley Kohn. M, ‘a reason for everything’, Faber, London 2004 Maguire. M, R Morgan, R Reiner, ‘The Oxford Handbook of criminology’, Oxford, Oxford 1997 Moyer. I, ‘Criminological Theories’, Sage, California 2001 Ronald Bailey (2002) ‘Born to Be Wild’ Reasononline White. R and F Haines, ‘Crime and Criminology’, Oxford, London 1996 Wilson, J.Q. & Herrnstein, R.J. (1985) ‘Crime and Human Nature’ New York: Simon & Schuster   Williams, F. P & McShane, M. D. (1993) ‘Criminology Theory: Selected Classic Readings’ Cincinnati: Anderson Read More