Major Theories of Crime Causation - Term Paper Example

Major Theories of Crime Causation [Cultural Deviance theory and Critical Criminology] Crime is a feature of all kinds of human society and there are various ways that scholars have sought to theorize and explain how and why it arises in the ways that it does. This is an important task, because knowing what causes crime is one factor which must be taken into account when dealing with the consequences of crime, including the effects on victims, the effects on those engaged in criminal activities and all the systems and processes of criminal justice. This paper considers just two major theories of crime causation: the cultural deviance theory and the theory that is called “critical criminology.” The basic elements of each theory are described, and then the two theories are compared, bringing out similarities, differences and any potential improvements that could be made to enhance each theory. Cultural deviance theory is a subset of a bigger range of theories which all have to do with the structure, or more exactly, the stratification of human society. Stratification is the way that objects are arranged in layers, such as in ancient rock formations, for example, and in society the term refers to the economic or social classes that exist in human societies. There are always some people who have a lot of wealth and power, and these people represent the upper classes. They enjoy prestige and privileged access to many of the benefits of society. Below this layer are those who are comfortable and can access some but not all of the advantages that a society offers, and at the bottom of the heap are the poor, who very often struggle to meet basic needs and are excluded from many of the benefits of society. The proportion of the population in each stratum can vary according to the culture and the history of different places. Some countries, like the USA and most of Western Europe has a very large middle class, while others, like India, have a huge lower class. In all societies it has been noted that the classes at the bottom of this hierarchy tend to have more crime. Economic disadvantage, therefore, is a factor which can lead to greater levels of crime. Lack of wealth results in an environment where people do not have the spare income to spend on keeping the place in order, and this means that disorganization and chaos is more likely to occur. Middle and upper class communities take more pride in their local area because they have invested a lot of resources in their homes, for example in buying or renting nice properties and making their gardens and houses neat and clean. People who struggle to put food on the table do not have the luxury to look after their neighbourhood, and crime develops in the neglected public spaces. In this context there is much less to lose, and so there is a greater tendency to opt out of constructive community efforts. People do not become attached to the place, or their neighbors and in fact “Residents in crime-ridden neighborhoods try to leave at the earliest opportunity.” (Siegel, 2007, p. 126) Life in an economically disadvantaged area is stressful and results in a culture forming in which those who are not able to move out and up into a more advantageous layer of society find ways of adapting to their environment. The cultural disadvantage theory observes that lower-class people have different values than middle and upper class people. They do not try to compete in conventional arenas like education and employment, but seek success in different ways, and measured by different standards. So for example instead of working through an apprenticeship and starting a long term career, lower class people set their sights on the values of the street: being tough and streetwise, doing deals and gaining income in ways which demand street wisdom rather than conventional submission to rules. The usual authority figures such as parents, teachers, police, are seen as influences to be rejected, in favor of a kind of rebellious autonomy. In this world view crime plays a big part, because it allows access to some of the benefits of the higher levels of society, such as wealth and the esteem of peers. Scholars like Albert Cohen view this as a delinquent sub-culture because it takes the middle class norms and turns them upside down. (Siegel, 2007, p. 140) This theory is can therefore be explained in terms of a reaction to the dominant middle class values of modern society. According to cultural deviance theory, the people in lower classes who resort to crime are deliberately setting themselves against mainstream society, and opting out of the values and aspirations that the majority work so hard to maintain. The theory of critical criminology shares some of the views about the lower classes that are present in the cultural deviance theory in so far as it agrees that exclusion from middle class opportunities causes a shift in values amongst those who are excluded. It goes much further than this, however, and proposes that there are inbuilt political and ideological factors in society which lead to this result. Using ideas derived from Marxist analysis of society some critical criminologists have pointed out that it is only natural that people should object to a system such as capitalism which is inherently unfair to some people. Instead of labelling those who resort to crime as “deviant” the critical criminologists seek to find the origins of crime in the systems and structures that create unfairness in the first place: “the crimes of the helpless – burglary, robbery and assault – are more expressions of rage over unjust economic conditions than actual crimes.” (Siegel, 2007, p. 174) It is clear that these two different theories see the origin of crime as being in different places: the cultural deviance sees crime as resulting from an opting out of a largely reasonable society, and implies that efforts should be made to curb the deviance and encourage compliance on the part of those who are engaged in criminal activities. This kind of reasoning would propose investment in the areas which are economically weak, and bridging programs to enable people to “buy into” the concerns of the mainstream. Critical criminology, on the other hand, sees the origin of the crimes not in those who commit them, but in the part of society which has unfairly grabbed all the resources and actively excluded the poor from access to them. Factors such as racism, sexism and exploitation of working class people are, under this analysis, the true causes of crime, and this is where intervention should take place if one follows this line of reasoning. Critical criminology points out that there is an imbalance in the way that society views crime: corporate crime, for example, is tolerated because it is largely hidden from view. One can think of disasters like the BP oil spill, for example, which caused eleven worker deaths and damaged the economic prospects of individuals and businesses over hundreds of miles of coastal territories in the South West of America in 2010. (Crooks, 2010) The way this is described as an “accident” by the press and the company disguises the responsibility that corporate entities have for the care and welfare of people who are affected by the race for ever greater profit through industrialization. In the view of critical criminologists, this sort of negligence is a standard feature of capitalism, and it results in conflict in society, and the criminalization of those affected, instead of the ones who caused the problems. Of the two theories, critical criminology is the most useful because it evens out the balance between the poor and oppressed, and the people and organizations who exploit others. Perhaps a better understanding of these theories in governments and society would result in a reduction in exploitative practices, and this in turn would reduce the rage and conflict in parts of society that are excluded. Both theories are valid and useful, but critical criminology reaches more deeply into original causes. References Crooks, E. (2010). BP: The inside story. Financial Times Magazine July 2nd. Available online at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4e228e56-84ae-11df-9cbb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1IdflFuWD Siegel, L.J. (2007) Criminology: The Core. Cengage Learning. [chapter 6 and chapter 8] Read More