Mental Perspective of Crime and the Criminal - Essay Example

The making of a criminal from different perspectives. If one were to ask what the definition of crime was, there would be an infinite number of answers. This query has no single answer. This is because crime defies one single explanation and is further ratified by personal opinion and thinking. What you and I think is a crime, may not be an earthshaking event for a third person from another community or culture... The word’ crime’ comes from the Latin word ‘crimen’ meaning ‘judgment’. A general view of crime is that it is an offence of any kind against an individual or the state, which is punishable by law. This naturally adds layers to the meaning of crime. An offence per se would have to be at a level that penetrates social consciousness and is against the moral fiber of the society that we have created and that we live .The perpetrator of the crime is the criminal. (Francis T Cullen) Let us examine the various views that could possibly further our mental perspective of Crime and the criminal. The Classical school Cesare Beccarria and Jeremy Bentham have propounded the classical school theory in which an individual is assumed to be rational to begin with. However,any such individual caught when committing a crime is held up by societal laws as an example ..The wrong-doer is punished publicly so as to deter future crimes.Any person contemplating a similar crime will be aware of the consequences if caught and will restrain himself from such wrongdoing.In this theory there are two ways of looking at it; the wrongdoer is punished so severely by the law that he in effect will never repeat the offence. This is a specific deterrence. By being held up for a crime and public punishment given should technically act as a general deterrent. However, we have seen that although theoretically,this is a very rational outcome,it does not touch upon the instincts, greed and lack of morality in the individual which pushes hime to commit a crime regardless of the consequences .There is no latent fear of the law evident in that there is an upswing in the crime graph today inspite of the system of law dispensing painful punishments. (Keel 1997) The Classical school does not factor in emotional cues ,environment and education,which translates into a lack of morality,uninformed decisions and an instant gratification urge that drives an offender.The decision to engage in crime is deemed as rational by the wrongdoer because his thinking is not in line with the so called social conscience. It can therefore be argued that the Classical school although propounding that deterrence is the key factor to quell crime,it does not factor in the unconscious drive of the human mind. (Akers,Cullen and Agnew) Rational Choice theory: In this view point suggested by Cornish and Clarke(1986) crime is described as an event that occurs based on the needs of the offender.the offender’s point of view is hinged on the willingness to take a risk to acquire certain personal gain.The wrong doer actually meticulously targets his victim and weighs his chances of getting caught versus the possible punishment intended for such criminals. If the risk seemingly does not outweigh the value of the target, the offender decides to go ahead.This flawed thinking gives a huge leverage to the criminal looking for personal gain at all costs. Akers points out that crime prevention should be linked to the rational choice theory as it counters the skewed balance.When the acquisition comes with a higher degree of risk and somehow outweigh the rewards of crime,there will be a lesser degree of crime.As the name suggests,this is directly linked to the supposed inherent rationality of an individual. This leads to the the question as to how we can tar the general thinking populace with the same brush.A criminal is differentiated from the public in that the amoral nature of his intent coupled with the need for instant gratification is what leads to his contemplating and executing a crime.Crime is an opportunity based proceeding.(Cullen and Agnew) Strain theory and anomie. The initial strain theory advocated by Robert Merton, an American Sociologist, is one that has its basis in the expectations of people as opposed to what their actual achievements towards realizing these said expectations were. As the social structure of opportunity is unequal,it is obvious that a large number of people would be denied their desires. The anomie as we understand it is when the society has certain expectations from its citizens and what the citizens actually contribute back to society. Such idyllic equal opportunity does not exist and therefore the citizens turn to crime for gaining some measure of their wish fulfillment. Robert Agnew revised this theory to include some moderation which was more in keeping with the real situation.Agnew is more thorough in the addition of the variou s variables thatt could lead to the escalation of criminal tendencies. The general idea in Agnew’s theories is that when people are treated badly the repercussions are enormous as the trajectory is society feeling the whiplash. Delinquency as we know it is not restricted to any particular class or social sub culture. If we were to measure the various aspects of strain we can observe two different ways of measurement. These are the subjective in which the person concerned speaks for himself directl as to whether he likes or dislikes the turn of events. The second way,which is the objective way is to find out from the person what circumstances he would dislike without touching directly on personal circumstances.the information so gathered is then analyzed .(Cullen and Agnew,Akers) Basically speaking the strain is induced due to a lack of personal achievement in some sphere,be it money,status and respect and autonomy.This leads to a futile anger fuelled by their perception of what they ought to have gained as a fair measure instead of the actual outcome.This anger is channelled into a criminal act and escalates from there. All negative circumstances have to be taken into account so that an objective analysis can be done.Sometimes a build up of negative relations can be triggered by lack of family, loss of a loved one or the break up of a relationship.This intensifies anger and translates into a futile swipe at perceived social statutes. The three main factors that an individual broadly desires can be classified as money which is a measure of social acceptability, and status and respect which is an ego boost.The third criterion is autonomy or the ability to exercise self control over one’s baser instincts.This is a singular problem with adolescents and the lower class because of their position in society. Money is converted to assets like a home.cars etc and the lack of this sometimes overrides reason ,so as to make a person act upon his greed and commit a need based crime. To draw conclusions from this theory one is hard pressed not to notice that an individual tone is not set,but rather a general assumption had been made.There are individuals who have had bitter experiences and are none the worse psychologically for having weathered their personal crises.It should not be automatically assumed that crime begets crime as we will now see . (Ronald L Akers and Christine S Sellers) Positivism:Biological and Psychological When we speak of biological positivism, we are given to understand that certain individuals with particularly unsuitable traits propagate these traits when they have children.At one point of time,eugenics in the U.S. advocated the sterilization of those individuals who they felt would breed unsuitable progeny who would further destabilize the core of society with their criminal ways. This is a very blinkered assumption as there are thousands of so called stable people whose children who have turned into juvenile delinquents. On the other side,some children of hardened criminals have chosen not to follow the parental path but conduct themselves as model citizens.So,genetics cannot be a single defining factor as it is made out to be. On the psychological side, it was believed that psychologically unfit people turned more naturally to crime as their mental balance was questionable at best. Whether mentally unbalanced, or retarded, psychological disturbances were said to push an individual even closer to committing crime, even if he had no such inclination to begin with. With mentally deficient or psychologically unstable criminals , normally untestable assumptions are made and situational factors are ignored. (Akers, Cullen and Agnew) Different views on what constitutes a crime are bandied about. Reasons galore are given for turning people into criminals. No doubt all these theories have their origins in some degree of truth.However,the individual motivation to turn to crime is a very personal motive.Whether inspired by psychosis., greed or just following another’s example, ultimately the desire for crime comes from within.Criminals are made,not born. Reference: 1. Cullen FT and Agnew R, Feb 2007. Criminological Theory: Past to Present. Oxford University. Read More