The Sociology of Crime - Report Example

CRIMES INTRODUCTION Nobody can deny the validity of the age-old adage no man is an island. Its truism is something that all human beings assume. As such, we tend to accept as given the reality of finding ourselves as “belonging to a particular family or clan”, “forming part of a specific group” and “being a member of a society”. This itemization of human beings’ groupings may not be exhaustive. However, one thing remains, fundamental and integral in human nature - human socialization or human social life for it is only within this particular favorable condition that human beings can maintain their existence (Adler, 1946, p26). As such, “social life became a necessity, because through the community and the division of labor in which every individual subordinated himself to the group, the species was enabled to continue its existence” (Adler, 1946, p. 29). However, human beings are confounded by a stark contradiction… As the human world moves towards the creation of a global village, where movement and access are encouraged, we are gripped with a grim actuality of a phenomenon known as “social exclusion”. It should be noted that there is a debate and controversy regarding the definitive meaning of social exclusion, but it is broadly defined as A process that deprives individuals and families, groups and neighbourhoods of the resources required for participation in the social, economic, and political activity of the society as a whole. This process is primarily a consequence of poverty and low income, but other factors such as discrimination, low educational attainment and depleted living environments also underpin it. Through this process people are cut off for a significant period in their lives from institutions and services, social networks and development opportunities that the great majority of society enjoys (Pierson, 2002, p. 7). With social exclusion being experienced by a group of people in the society, some have claimed that out of it we have created a component of our society, which may be referred to as “underclass”. The underclass being detached from the mainstream social institutions has fallen prey to criminalised behaviour since “they adopt anti-social behaviour and has values that seem to justify this behaviour” (Pierson, 2002, p6). Being such, contemporary society has come face to face with a problem that may posit as a threat to social cohesion – the relation of crime and the experience of the underclass. ON CRIMES “There is no society that is not confronted with the problem of criminality.” (Durkheim, 1950,p 11) Being such, it is but proper to ask, “what is crime?” Crime is a phenomenon that can be understood in two levels. One is via the notion that “crime is a legal category. The only thing that is alike in all crimes is that they are alike violations of law.” (MacIver, 1942, p 119) As such, a criminal is a “person who is assigned the status of criminal on the basis of the official judgement that his conduct constitute a crime” (Quinney, 1974, p. 5). On the other hand, crime is approached via second level – it being appreciated as a behavioural element. In this level, crime as a conduct does not necessarily involve “either the violation of a criminal law or the application of the legal category to the conduct” (Quinney, 1974, p.7). According to Sutherland (1940) “crime is a behaviour which is prohibited by the State as an injury to the State and against which the State may react, at least as a last resort, by punishment. The two abstract criteria generally regarded by legal scholars as necessary elements in a definition of crime are legal description of an act as socially harmful and legal provision of a penalty for the act” (p. 32). As such, it presents the idea that a “crime is only a violation of a criminal law and that in reverse it implies the idea that “if there is no criminal law then there is no crime.” (Quinney, 1974, p. 5) Although the legalistic definitions and interpretations of crime is very captivating, what is of predominant interests in Sutherland’s definition is the notion that crime is behaviour. If crime is a behaviour that is prohibited by the State then what makes it “wrong” is not the intrinsic “wrongness” perceived in the act itself nor on the innate “evilness” of the actor or doer of the action. But rather, it is made wrong on the supposition that “All social groups make rules and attempt, at some times and under some circumstances, to enforce them Social rules define situations and the kinds of behavior appropriate to them, specifying some actions as “right” and forbidding others as “wrong” (Becker, 1963, p 1 Italics added) THE RELATION The assumption that man is a rational animal gives the idea that human beings can think for themselves, make viable decisions using their reason, are free and without constraints as they do an act. This liberal apprehension of the human nature shows a path that may easily point the direct relation between crimes and criminals which is a criminal is a person who willfully performed an act that is deemed wrong by the State and being such deserves to be punished. However, things are not as clear-cut as this scenario. “Anne Power in her book Dangerous Disorder noted that in distressed housing estates there was a vacuum within the estates which tough boys sought to fill – too little work, too little cash, too few adult male workers and fathers... too many young boys outside the system…the vast majority of estates in difficulty had some empty property, abandoned land and unsupervised areas, inviting vandalism, fires, gangs, hideaways and other forms of trouble...”(Pierson, 2002, p 16). This description of the physical environment of hard-pressed areas in England presents to us the limited and hideous options that the underclass have to deal with as they struggle, literally struggle, to survive. Their option, violence in the midst of violence. This raises the crucial point which I intend to make – the presence of the underclass should not be seen as the primordial contributory factor for the rise of crime in the contemporary period nor should it be seen as an unimportant factor in the analysis of the rise of crime. This point is made on the basis that the author strongly holds that there is no single theory, no unitary explanation, no one all encompassing analysis of the connection between crimes and the underclass. Instead, what the author proposes is a seeing through to all the variables – internal factors of the individual (biological, psychological and spiritual dimensions) and external factors (Society, norms, value system, religion, family, institutions and the likes) that may be deemed contributory to the relation between crime and underclass. This is similar with the principle of multiple causation and I strongly support the idea that “rejecting the principle of multiple causation implies denying the possibility of any change in the social structure, in this view, nothing causes anything.” (Hirschi & Selvin, 1966 p 140) This is adhered to on the basis that in the perusal of crimes it is simply impossible to separate and detach the actor from the action which he/ she has undertaken. Thereby, implying the idea that people in the underclass though outside any political system and institutions should still be seen as individuals who are capable of making life-changing decisions. Even if the concept of human beings capable of entering a “rational discourse” is archaic “classical writers in criminological thought man can control their destiny” (Quinney, 1974, p 46) and can have a directed relation with the State. Still, it affords us the means with which we will be able to see people in the underclass not as non-entities but rather as human beings who are experiencing non-life enhancing situations. This guiding assumption is of paramount importance inspite of the fact that there is a dominant intellectual trend that holds the idea that certain physical and genetic make up technically predisposes some human beings to delinquency, to criminal behaviour. Central in the positivists thought is the notion that the “criminal was born criminal” (Quinney, 1974, p 59). This kind of determinism is technically not healthy the moment that you apply it to social sciences with the specialised topic on human behaviour. Not because human beings are erratic but because the movements of human beings are not like the movement of the stars in the physical sciences. In employing the methodology of hard sciences in the understanding of criminal behavior, one then is lead to believe that the human actor is universally governed by a law of nature that can be charted as it is being observed. In fact scholar like Cohen (1942) supports the “scientific study of social problems”(p 126). Indeed, it seems to be a good formulation and explanation of the ‘apparent” universal characteristics of crime. However, it should be kept in mind that what makes crime universal is not the kinds of crimes being committed. Rather, the universality of crime is owed to the notion that the “ …norms of criminal law and its sanctions do exert some measure of effective control over human behaviour; that this control is increased by moral, conventional and traditional norms; and the effectiveness of control norms is variable” (Tappan, 1947, p 47). Likewise, the positivism of Lombroso is different with “biopsychosocial theory of delinquent and criminal behavior”. Different in the sense that under this particular theory a “criminal and delinquent behavior are the result of a negative imbalance within the individual in the interaction between (a) the expressive forces of his psychological and biological charateristics and (b) the normative forces of familial, religious and sociocultural factors” (Cortes & Gatti, 1972, p 189). While in Lombroso’s positivistic, biological criminology, there is no hope for reform. It technically passes the guilt of crime to anybody except the doer. This manner of appreciating the connection between the physical set-up and criminal, delinquent tendencies is a bit astonishing. Studies by leading experts in the field like Hirschi, Leftkowitz West, Cole and many others affirm the hypothesis that “mesomorphs [who] describe themselves as energetic, assertive, reckless, extroverted of action, impulsive and so on all of which are temperament traits found more often among delinquents than nondelinquents” (Cortes & Gatti, 1972, p.191). Both positivism and determinism present to us a viable and scientific analysis and interpretation of criminal behaviors. However, the failure of positivist school and determinism to take into account the decision making ability of human beings and the tendency to see men and women as specimens and organisms in a controlled laboratory marks the ineptness of this particular school in laying down the etiology of crimes are its biggest error. Likewise, current trends in the studies of biobehavioural shows that inspite of the sophistication of the gadgets that are now being employed in the analysis of the brain and its neural impulses, of human physiology, they are still supporting the idea that “criminals are born criminals.” Thereby, downplaying the important principle that a human being is usually perceived as a person that is enable and capable of making decisions that can either enhance or diminish life. In like manner, the moment that we start dealing with the intrapersonal life of the criminal we are to assume that we are not only referring to the genetic makeup rather we are also referring to the psycho-cognitive element of the individual person. This highlights the fact that the reality of human nature lies not solely in the apprehension of man’s physiology but also of man’s intellectual and spiritual aspect for man is a creature to be understood holistically. Thus, requiring that we look into the unique individual’s psychic life not as a mapped categories of balance and imbalances but that what it presents is the intertwine and interplay of factors that may be contributory to the relation between crime, criminals, deviants and the underclass. The environment where the actor finds himself in should be given the same importance and weight as that of the actor himself. This presents the fact that environment is not be discounted as a non-integral factor in the analysis, which means, that the State which is supposed to be created for the protection of the lives, properties, and persons of all its citizen should in all its powers address all social inequality that breeds and yields the creation of underclass. One is only to be blamed if one yields to a false dilemma wherein the individual thinks that there is no hope for him. The author is not claiming that the sole reason for the inequality is social injustice (though I cannot help but think of it in that way) still what comes to the fore is the idea that society should not be off the hook. For it should be remembered that what marks a criminal from a non-criminal is not the eugenics or the nature of the human being but rather the “labeling” (Becker, 1963, p 21) that society itself has marked those who are deviant from its standards. Since, “Moral indignation against deviants serves to purge the righteous from a sense of their own sins and unworthiness and helps sustain their moral identity… it is against the ground of criminal deviance that the righteous achieve the comforting affirmation of their normality.” (Box, 1971, p 53) Furthermore, just as Society as a whole is responsible for crimes and deviancy. Other institutions and organizations such as religion, family, educational institutions, media and the likes, moral norms, traditions, culture, belief system, value system and the likes are as much responsible as the individual person is and are basically to be appreciated as contributory factors in the conditioning and development of the individual, whether he/she be delinquent or not. In the end, crimes and criminals, delinquents are indeed related just like to sides of one coin is related. However, crime and the underclass, their relation is not necessary, only accidental. This is strongly supported based on the study conducted by David Povey, Anna Upson and Krista Jansson (2005) which showed that “the BCS showed statistically significant falls in domestic burglary and vehicle thefts compared with interviews in the year to June 2004. The number of crimes recorded by the police fell by two per cent in April to June 2005 compared with the same period in the previous year. Within this total there was a six per cent increase in violence against the person but increases in recorded violence continue to reflect the improved police recording of crime and more proactive policing of violence problems.” (p 1). This is made without referring to any social class. And on the claim mad by Clark and Wenninger (1962) that “neither the Nye-Short study nor that of Dentler and Monroe revealed any significant difference in the incidence of certain illegal or deviant behaviours among occupational-status levels.” (p 452). CONCLUSION Crime has been with men since the beginning. Underclass is a phenomenon that haunts the contemporary period. To claim that the rise of crime in our period is to be attributed to the presence of the underclass is a strawman fallacy. Since, even if hypothetically speaking, there is no underclass there will still be crimes. In addition we are basically denying the bigger problem – the inequality and inequitable distribution of social goods that created social exclusion. Second, criminal behavior is not something that can be attributed to a particular kind of class. It is a fallacy that is known as hasty generalization and ad hominem. Deviancy is something that can happen to any body in any class. It is not the turf of one particular class, of the poor in our society. In fact, we are now contending with white-collar crimes. Therefore, what is it in the lower class that our images of this sector of our society are muggers and outlaws? Nothing but image! What we have failed to address is the truth the lower class is more susceptible in committing crimes because society has failed to open opportunities that may enhance their existence, sustain their growth, open their chances in life. Third, to claim that the rise of crime is to be attributed to the presence of the underclass is to misjudge, misappropriate, show prejudice to the sorry plight of these people. The twisted notion that if one is poor, one is criminal is a bias that needs to be shaken off from the value and belief system that we hold onto. Nevertheless, it is also mistaken to hold that the presence of underclass do not in any way contribute to the rise of crimes. We now that the quagmire which they find themselves in are factors and constraints that are conducive in committing crimes specially burglary, robbery and petty theft. Poverty, lack of stable male figure, violence, and other similar situations that are normally seen and experience in the community of hard-pressed areas. But then, is it enough to claim that because of it these people are more drawn in committing crimes? I would like to see it not as normality on the part of these people because they are outside the mainstream but because they are pushed to the limits of human existence. As stated at the start of this paper, the communal life is integral part of human existence since it is the favorable condition with which human existence can be sustained. Now, the moment that you let people live outside the mainstream, how can we expect them to live a humane life?, how can we expect them to be within our standards of what is supposed to be normal? This position does not wish to remove the burden of responsibility from the crimes being committed by people in the hard-pressed or in the lower class nor do we intend to give justification for their felonious acts. On the other hand, what we intend to do is to see a hand in hand, cooperative endeavour as our community addresses the problem of crimes. REFERENCE LIST: Adler, A. (1942) Understanding human nature. New York: Greenberg. Box, S. (1971). Deviance, reality & society 2nd edition. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Cortes, Juan and Gatti, F.M. (1972). Delinquency and crime: a biopsychosocial approach empirical, theoretical and practical aspects of criminal behaviour. London: Seminar Press. Ensley, C. (1996). Crime and society in england 1750 – 1900 2nd edition. London: Longman Group. Nettler, G. (1974). Explaining crime. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Oatman, E. ed. (1979). Crime and society. New York: THE HW Wilson Company. Phillipson, M. (1974). Understanding crime and delinquency: a sociological introduction. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Pierson, J. (2002). Tackling social exclusion. London: Routledge. Quinney, R. (1974). The problem of crime. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. Radzinowicz, L. and Wolfgang, M. (1971). The criminal in society. London: Basic Books Inc. Reckless, W. (1961). The crime problem 3rd edition. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts INC. Shelley, L & Vigh, J. ed. (1992). Social changes, crime and the police. UK: Harwood Academic Publishers. Wolfgang, M., Savitz, L. & Johnston, N. (eds) (1970). The sociology of crime and delinquency. London: John Wiley & Sons. B. ARTICLES Becker, H. (1966). Evolving norms of deviancy” In Leon Radzinowicz & Marvin E. Wolfgang. The criminal in society. New York: Basic Books Inc. pp 21-25. Clark, J. and Wenninger, E. (1950) “Social Class and Delinquency.” In Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz & Norman Johnston (eds) The sociology of crime and delinquency. London: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 451 – 462. Cohen, A. (1951). “Multiple Factor Approaches”. In Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz & Norman Johnston (eds) The sociology of crime and delinquency. London: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 123 – 126. Durkheim, E. (1950). “ The Normal and the Pathological.” In Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz & Norman Johnston (eds) The sociology of crime and delinquency. London: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 11 – 14. Hirschi, T. and Selvin, H. () “False Criteria of Causality”. In Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz & Norman Johnston (eds) The sociology of crime and delinquency. London: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 127 – 140. MacIver, R. (1942). “ Social Causation” In Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz & Norman Johnston (eds) The sociology of crime and delinquency. London: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 119 – 122. Miller, W. (1958). “ Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency.” In Marvin E Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz & Norman Johnston (eds) The sociology of crime and delinquency. London: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 351 – 363. Sutherland, E. (1945) “Is ‘White Collar Crime’ crime?” In Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz & Norman Johnston (eds) The sociology of crime and delinquency. London: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 31 – 39 Tappan, P. (1947). “ Who is the Criminal?” In Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz & Norman Johnston (eds) The sociology of crime and delinquency. London: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 41 – 48. C. ELECRTRONIC SOURCE Povey, D, Upson A &Jansson K. ( 2005) “Crimes in England and Wales: Quarterly Update to June 2005.” www.homeoffice.gov.uk.org. Accessed on October 15, 2006. Read More