Why Dont People Commit Crime - Essay Example

Why Don’t People Commit Crime? Why Don’t People Commit Crime? Vast researches, studies and discussions have focused on crimes, whythey are committed and effective controls for this phenomenon. Crime in particular has varied definitions that are mainly derived from societal values and policies such as morality, legality and socio-political factors. According to Burke, moralists view crime as the reference to immoral doings1. However, the author observes that this definition is partial considering that some actions that are considered crimes are not necessarily immoral; these include tax evasion and crimes against humanity. The word crime basically refers to any action that contravenes the law. Again, Burke expresses discontentment with this approach because the word criminal alienates some law breakages and also because there are some crimes that appear more “real” than others such as murder, rape and theft. Due to the evolving nature of criminal laws, it is therefore correct to state that the definition of crime is a social construction which is determined by ongoing political processes2. Many theories have been propagated in relation to crime causality, motivation and deterrence. One of the core aims of criminology is to understand why offenders commit crime and how this can be controlled. In order to understand the reasons that deter crime commission, it is important to understand the drivers of crime commission or the concept of criminal behavior. Many scholars and theorists have offered vast explanations and theories regarding crime and criminal behavior. Criminology research has traversed academic and professional fields and some of the main contributors in this discourse include; psychologists, biologists, sociologists, legal philosophers and political scientists3. According to Burke, criminology theories have evolved with time due to social, economic and political changes in the world4. Over the years, a vast number of theories have been spurned and this paper cannot address or even define all of them. However, in a bid to evaluate and reflect on why people avoid crime, this paper will focus on two theories; right realism theory and left realism theory. On a general level these theories contrast although they offer similar insights in a subtle way. It is important to note that both theories address crime and criminal behavior thereby offering invaluable insight regarding our thesis; why people do not commit crime? Right Realism Theory Criminology theories have evolved over time due to various social, economic and political changes in the society. The right realism theory is an evolution of the rational actor theory5. The rational actor theory was one of the earliest criminology theories developed after the start of the modern age criminology age which expunged traditional spiritualist notions of crime6. The rational actor theory states that all people have free will to decide what to do in rational way; therefore people who commit crimes decide to do it freely just in other life choices. The right realism theory was founded on the notion that crime was rationally and freely instigated by the perpetrators. Right realists define crime and criminal behavior as selfish acts which are committed by witting individuals and this notion has led to the discrimination and mistreatment of marginalized groups such as drug users, New Age travelers and many others7. This means that an offender usually weighs the benefits of a crime against the costs or consequences and makes a rational decision to commit it depending on the perceived benefits. Right realists argue that crime commission occurs if the rewards of criminal behavior outweigh the gains of non-criminal behavior. In this light, right realists show no mercy for criminals and advocate for tough crime control measures. One weakness of right realism is that it fails to address other forms of crimes such as corporate crime and instead focuses on street crime leading to targeted marginalization of certain groups in the society8. The right realism theory hence answers our thesis question by proposing pragmatic measures that could deter rational crime commission choice9.The measures proposed by right realists are our main concern and they will help to answer the topic question. It is important to note that according to right realists, crime contributing factors include a motivated offender, a suitable target (property or victim) and the absence of capable guardian (such as police)10. The measures discussed below address all these factors in order to dissuade crime commission. Lack of Attractive Crime Commission Opportunities Right realism focuses on crime deterrence and reduction by offering a framework of pragmatic measures that can be implemented in this line11. One of the reasons why people do not commit crimes is because there are no viable opportunities for committing crimes. Right realists advocate for a comprehensive security model that is crime proof thereby making it an unsuitable target for criminal. The theory emphasizes on self protection guidelines including target hardening and impregnable situational security. These measures are aimed at deterring crime by offering potential criminals an unattractive target for crime commission. An example of this factor in play is given by prominent right theorists who argue that a broken window offers an attractive crime opportunity to an offender and hence in order to deter crime one should fix such disorders. Increased Chances of Detection Right realism advocates for a strict policing strategy that increases the chance of detection for offenders thereby eliminating attractive crime commission opportunities12. Another crime occurrence driver deterred by this approach is absence of capable guardian. People tend to commit even the simplest crimes if they cannot be detected and therefore they cannot be punished. This is evident in different criminal activities ranging from the “real” crimes such as theft to “soft” crimes such as running a street light. In both cases, offenders can commit the crimes and evade punishment if they are not detected and brought to justice13. Therefore, right realism advocates for multiple crime detection tools that will deter crime and also capture evidence or offenders in the act thereby dissuading criminal activities14. In this light, right realists insist that in order to deter crime in the society, effective policing measures should be complemented with surveillance systems and neighborhood watch schemes. A comprehensive approach is suggested to this factor of deterrence whereby right realism seeks to identify crime prone areas and criminal behavior trends based on criminology surveys and other research data. Right realism has identified and acknowledged the fact that most of the crime occurs in poor neighborhoods and thereby emphasize that both victims and offenders tend to originate from the same communities. However, right realism focuses on the issue of crime prevention without dwelling on causality. Therefore, right realism identifies poor neighborhoods and poor individuals as potential criminals and thus uses this information to monitor and detect crime more effectively. In this case, right realism contrasts with left realism because it ignores the underlying causes that contribute to this vivid conclusion regarding poverty and crime commission. All in all, right realism offers a deterrent factor on why some people do not commit crime because they are being watched by crime prevention authorities15. This approach has been highly criticized as the main cause for discriminatory policing activities aimed at poor and marginalized neighborhoods and communities. Increased Perception of Detection This is a technique that is advocated as sub-strategy for increased detection. It involves creating and sustaining a belief that offenders are most likely detected in any criminal context. Right realism advocates for this technique because it creates a sense of moral responsibility in the community largely due to fear of being “caught in the act”. According to Burke, this technique can be implemented through rigorous policing activities16. This technique is also visible in modern security models such as the London CCTV system which is renowned for having “eyes” in almost every corner of the city. Right realism advices that this technique can be very effective in controlling criminal behavior in disorderly occurrences such as riots and strikes. Heavy police presence complemented with “informal guardians” such as neighbors and surveillance cameras offers unattractive crime environments while also acting as capable guardians thereby dissuading people from committing crimes. Definite Punishment According to Burke, one of the main solutions offered by right realism in a bid to deter criminal behavior is the existence of definite punishment for a given crime. This solution is especially effective as reason why people do not commit crimes because it contains the threat of severe, certain and swiftly imposed punishment. This factor can be considered as the main reason why people do not commit crime according to right realism. Right realism aims to eliminate the three factors that constitute crime commission; motivated offender, suitable target and absence of capable target. Arguing from the rational and selfish criminal choices point of view, right realism proposes tough punishment methodologies for all offenders. Right realism aims to eliminate one of the main causes of crime; motivation to commit a crime17. Right realism is entrenched in the argument that criminals or offenders make rational choices to commit crimes based on cost and benefits review just like in ordinary life choices. Offenders weigh the costs of committing a crime which in this case are quantified in terms of fines and jail times against the benefits of the crime such as stealing an automobile and decide the benefits outweigh the costs thereby committing the crime. This argument invokes serious considerations regarding the costs associated with committing a particular crime versus the benefits of the crime in context18. This is why right realism insists that pragmatic measures should be implemented and enforced in order to increase the costs of crime as compared to the benefits thereby ensuring that people do not commit crimes19. According to Burke, right realism takes an objective analysis on criminal arrests, conviction and subsequent imprisonment. Right realism lays special emphasis on conviction and imprisonment more than arrests. Prominent right realists insist that the certainty of punishment is the overriding factor as compared severity if any crime deterrence framework is to succeed. The theory observes that offenders initially decide to act commit a crime based on the probability of a prison sentence more than the length of the sentence20. Therefore, criminal behavior becomes more pronounced if the justice system appears to delay previous criminal incidents or is improbable regarding conviction and imprisonment. Right realists insist that the sentimental approach applied to convictions by judges who argue that prison sentences don not deter crime is irrational and ineffective in crime deterrence21. They advocate for fixed-term prison sentences ignoring other factors such the age of the offender, rehabilitation options and reasons for crime commission. Left Realism Theory Left realism theory contrasts sharply with right realism theory although the two theories bear some subtle similarities. According to Young, left realism focuses on the reality of crime and this involves evaluating its causation, nature and impact22. Left realism considers the ‘square of crime’ which describes four elements in crime, which are; the offender, the victim, state agencies and public reactions23. Burke observes that unlike other criminology theories especially the right realism theory, left realism is not an evolution or integration of earlier theories resulting in a stronger comprehensive criminology tool. Left realism tries to assess the validity of the various elements that constitute crime and criminal behavior in bid to reduce crime practically by addressing the root causes in an appropriate and meaningful way24. This theory starts by stating that crime is a real issue that should be addressed and then proceeds due acknowledge the various types of crimes including corporate crime and predatory crime. One proponent of left realism, Young observes that contemporary criminologists have abandoned other crime prevention strategies such as rehabilitation preferring punishment and surveillance (right realism) leading to socio-behavioral deficiencies25. Left realism identified and acknowledged criminal statistical similar to those observed by right realism; that is victims and offenders are mainly from similar societal contexts. Left realists began by trying to understand crime, its context, effects and influences by drawing on the relationship between the offender and the victim26. They observed that most of the people who live in high-crime areas suffer various individual offences that they may not report to the police27. In addition to these offences, these people also suffer other criminal ills such as indiscriminate vandalism, sexual harassment and a vulgarity; all these vices when combined lower the individual’s quality of life and heighten despair28. Left realists propose some crime deterrence and prevention strategies which offer insight on this issue and hence answer our thesis question regarding why people do not commit crimes. Social Deprivation The key cause of crime according to left realism is social deprivation29. Social deprivation refers to a sociology and social psychology concept that describes a condition where the individual maybe objectively deprived and in which case the individual may also feel or perceive his or her deprivation in relation to others in the same social class or in different social classes. This crime causation factor is identified as one of the most powerful crime drivers because it occurs throughout the social structure and also because it can be applied to all sorts of crime30. Relative deprivation refers to the gap occurring due to the inherent expectations possessed by people in different social classes and the existing reality in their lives. Left realists observe that the high levels of crimes among Afro-Caribbean males in Britain is because they develop expectations similar to those of surrounding cultures and hence believe they are entitled to a fair share of the “economic cake31.” These young men resort to crime when they realize they cannot achieve their dreams legitimately due to inappropriate social factors such as discrimination and marginalization. This argument indicates that relative deprivation usually occurs due to discrimination and marginalization creating subcultures. In this context, left realists identify discrimination as one of the core social causes of relative deprivation. According to Young, crime can be controlled by offering good jobs, appropriate housing and community facilities thereby eliminating unfair inequalities in the society32. Discrimination and Marginalization Marginalization and discrimination are two terms that can be used interchangeably in sociology and they ultimately result in relative deprivation33. Marginalized individuals and groups refer to individuals and groups who are relatively deprived socially, economically and even politically. These individuals can be marginalized on the basis of any social discrimination factor such as race, ethnicity, social status and sexual orientation. Due to the fact that marginalized groups lack a coherent communication system and clear-cut life goals, they resort to violence and crime to sustain their needs, furnish their ego and also to capture the attention of the status quo. Left realists suggest that one of the reasons why people do not commit crimes is because they have clear goals which can be achieved legitimately unlike marginalized groups. They also have organizations such as trade unions which can fight for their demands and hence unlike marginalized groups they do not have to riot. Police Excesses Left realists insist that police excesses cause crime in different contexts. According to Burke, police harassment of minority and marginalized groups causes resentment which develops into rage and violence34. The author also indicates that “military style policing” hinders public cooperation while aggressive policing leads to crime increment because it brutalizes crime prone areas35. This means that one of the reasons why people do not commit crimes is because they enjoy appropriate police activities and hence have no reason to resent the police but instead cooperate to create sustainable security systems. Conclusion Crime and criminal behavior studies embody the field of criminology aiming to solve crime causation and prevention. The two realist theories have offered valuable albeit contrasting perspectives regarding crime causation and prevention methodologies. It is important to highlight some of the similarities that are inherent in both theories. Firstly, both theories perceive and treat crime as a real problem that needs to be addressed36. Secondly, both theories disapprove the conventional crime control approach involving public-police cooperation37. Thirdly, both theories offer realistic solutions to crime and criminal behavior while highlighting contemporary limitations. Finally, both theories advocate for exhaustive research on the crime and criminal behavior issue in order to achieve meaningful guidelines on the issue38. Bibliography BURKE, R. H., An introduction to criminological theory (Cullompton: Willan, 2005). BURKE, R. H., An introduction to criminological theory (Routledge, 2013). GIBBONS, D. C., Talking about Crime and Criminals (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1994). HINDELANG, M. J., GOTTFREDSON, M. R. and GAROFALO, J., Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1978). WALKLATE, S., Understanding criminology: Current theoretical debates (McGraw-Hill International, 2007). WILSON, J. Q., Thinking About Crime (New York: Basic Books, 1975). WILSON, J. Q. and HERRNSTEIN, R. J., Crime and Human Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985). YOUNG, JOCK, ‘The failure of criminology: the need for a radical realism’, in R. Matthews and J. Young (eds.), Confronting Crime (London: Sage, 1986). YOUNG, JOCK, ‘Ten points of realism’, in J. Young and R. Matthews (eds.), Rethinking Criminology: The Realist Debate (London: Sage, 1992). YOUNG, JOCK, ‘Incessant chatter: recent paradigms in criminology,’ in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). Read More