Crime and Crime Prevention Strategy: Biological and Sociological Theories - Research Paper Example

Crime and Crime Prevention: Critically evaluate the biological and sociological theories and discuss how these contribute to the explanation for the occurrence of crime. 1. Introduction Criminological debate has propounded polarised theorem as to the most efficacious method to punish offenders within the criminal justice system. Whilst academics agree on the concept of “punishment” as a necessary means; they disagree on the “underlying reason that makes punishment appropriate and a justified response to social norm violations” (Carlsmith & Daley, 2002:284). However, from a moral perspective, the underlying question regarding punishment is clearly unanimous in asking “what justifies the infliction of punishment on people?” (Carlsmith & Daley, 2002). It is submitted that a central factor in this theoretical conundrum is the divergent biological and sociological theories pertaining to causality explaining the occurrence of crime. Moreover, the dichotomy between the biological and sociological theories for explaining causality in crime is further compounded by narrow legal principles defining crime within rigid concepts of “actus reus” and “mens rea” (Ellwood, 2004:165). This in turn has impacted crime prevention theory and appropriate modes of criminal punishment. For example, on the one hand, one line of argument propounds that the punishment’s primary purpose is to pay back harm caused as retribution for past crimes (Darley, Sanderson & LaMatnia, 1996; Kahneman, Schkade & Sunstein, 1998; Rossi, Waite, Bose & Berk, 1974). On the other hand, others claim that the central purpose is to prevent or reduce future crimes (Jeremy Bentham 1962); thereby implementing two diverging and broad justifications for the use of punishment of offenders. A common justification for offender punishment is rooted in the just deserts and retribution rationale; focusing on the individual offender whereby the “punishment” element of the sentence is proportionate to the moral wrong committed in proportion to “their internal wickedness” (Kant, 1952:397). However, it is precisely what constitutes “internal wickedness” in the occurrence of crime that has created polarity in sociological and biological theory pertaining to causality in crime. The relationship between law and social behaviour has always posed a difficult balancing act in ensuring notions of justice within an efficient criminal justice framework (Von Hirsch, 1976). This practical limitation in effective implementation of offender punishment highlights the intrinsic difficulty of adequately punishing morality in the criminal justice system, which is further compounded by the complex subjective variants with regard to what should be morally punishable as a crime (Sanders & Young., 2006). Conversely, the competing justification propounded is the deterrence rationale, rooted in the presumption that deterrence reduces the frequency and likelihood of future offences (Nagin, 1998). Deterrence theory further branches out into three limbs; namely socio-economic models and sentencing policy, incapacitation and rehabilitation(Bentham, 1962). The deterrence theory links to consequential and utilitarian theories often associated with Jeremy Bentham who argued that “general prevention ought to be the chief end of punishment, as it is its real justification” (1962: 396). As such, the deterrence theory focuses offender punishment being rooted in the public interest need to reduce crime outside of any considerations of retribution and moral culpability. Moreover, criminological theorem propounds that deterrence operates at various levels; namely individual or specific deterrence; which is focused on socio-political models creating an infrastructure geared towards deterrence. Prime examples of this include Weisburd et al’s (2006) discussion of spatial displacement policy and Wilson and Kelling’s Broken Windows paradigm for crime prevention. However, Carlsmith and Darley’s examination of the motivation underlying laypeople’s punishment through three targeted studies demonstrates a natural predisposition towards retribution, which arguably permeates deterrence theory diluting its primary objective by incorporating elements of “just deserts” (Carlsmith and Daley, 2002). Moreover, the varying results arguably highlight the inherent flaw in polarising deterrence and retribution theories in order to justify an all encompassing and conclusive preposition for how best to punish offenders within the criminal justice system and suggest that an interrelationship between the two should arguably be evaluated in considering how best to punish offenders; particularly in context of causality of criminal behaviour patterns in the first instance. For example, if we consider this contextually in light of recent drug policy in the UK, there is clearly a general presumption in sociological theory that drug addiction is a key contributory factor to the occurrence of crime. The literature review demonstrates that whilst empirical evidence clearly supports a link between drugs and crime, the use of drugs is one part of a complex process contributing to criminal behaviour (Stevens et al, 2003). Furthermore, the underlying weakness in asserting that drugs cause crime under the economic cause and effect model ignores the root question of causality. The focus of this analysis is to critically evaluate in context of competing biological and sociological theories, the causality of crime and crime prevention strategy. To this end, it is submitted as a central proposition in this paper that whilst both biological and sociological theories of causality are often considered in isolation, an understanding the interrelationship between both theories in the occurrence of crime is imperative in addressing appropriate crime prevention and offender punishment models within the criminal justice system. Therefore in discussing the biological and sociological theories, I shall firstly evaluate the debate regarding appropriate offender punishment and crime prevention, which is rooted in a sociological theory pertaining to causality in crime. This further correlates to the discussion in section 3 relating to the difficulty of applying sociological definitions of crime within the legal framework. In section 4, I shall consider how the sociological theories have impacted crime prevention strategy, followed by a comparative analysis of biological explanations of causality in section 5. 2. Debate Regarding Offender Punishment & Crime Prevention Deterrence theory is concerned with the consequences of punishment of other’s future actions and the central objective of this “rational choice model” is to reduce further crime and repeat offending by the threat of punishment (Zimming & Hawkins., 1995). As stated above, deterrence theory operates at an individual or specific level which will operate to prevent repeat offending patterns regardless of retribution (Bentham 1962). General deterrence is wider and operates at a political and social level in deterring society as a whole from committing crime (Carlsmith & Daley., 2002). According to this model, over-punishment or exemplary sentencing of one offender is justified as the end means of general deterrence. Additionally, at the social level, unemployment and other consequences arising as a result of convictions may act as a deterrent to others (Zimring & Hawkins., 1995). This dogmatic approach to “deterrence” is arguably undermined by Shapland et al’s argument that restorative justice works more effectively towards prevention of re-offending patterns (Shapland et al, 2004). Moreover, the utilitarian theory goes further than mere deterrence and effectively renders it impossible for the offender to re-offend, thereby serving the purpose of general deterrence justifications. However, the efficacy of the utilitarian approach is intrinsically linked to consistent enforcement by judicial authorities, who are given a degree of discretion under sentencing guidelines and practice notes, which have led to discrepancies in practice (Sanders & Young., 2006). The lack of consistency in sentencing offenders in like for like crimes undermines any notion of deterrence and further supports Carlsmith & Daley’s observations that notwithstanding empirical evidence demonstrating a preference towards deterrence theory in offender punishment; the psychology demonstrates that “individual sentencing decisions seemed driven by just desert concerns” (2002: 284). Furthermore, whilst the theoretical objectives of deterrence in serving the public interest is clearly meritorious, the dogmatic nature of this model’s operation in practice ignore the wider socio-economic factors involved in shaping criminal behaviour (Sanders and Young., 2006). For example, if we consider the deterrence theory specifically in context of criminological theory pertaining to the relationship between drugs and crime; the utilitarian deterrence theory clearly ignores wider factors at operation in causality of criminal behaviour, particularly in use of poly drugs such as heroin and cocaine (Hough et al 2000). Part of the deterrence rationale is based on creating socio-political models within the societal and legal framework, attempting to deter criminal activity, which is further justified by the central criminological theory that drugs cause crime (Sanders and Young, 2006). However, this ignores the complex machinations of causality in criminal behaviour, particularly if we consider the relationship between drugs and crime by analogy. For example, research suggests that the drugs cause crime model is inherently flawed particularly in relation to the use of poly drugs, which it is argued are linked more broadly with other complex social problems such as poverty, family breakdown and homelessness (Howard League 2000). As such, it has been suggested that: “There is no persuasive evidence of any causal linkage between drug use and property crime for the vast majority” (Hough et al 2000). As such the government’s focus on heroin and cocaine is flawed” (Hough et al 2000). Indeed, Bennett (1998) reported on the NEW ADAM development programme, carried out by Cambridge University (1998) in which 879 arrestees were interviewed and urine tested for illicit drug use. Although not intended to operate as a review of the drug-rime relationship in England and Wales, the results concluded that almost half of all arrestees reported a link between drug use and their criminal activity (Bennett 1998). This was further supported by the subsequent research of Holloway & Bennett (2004). Additionally, the 2004 survey results demonstrated that 71% of the interviewees had admitted to using heroin and cocaine in the same period as having committed an acquisitive crime (Holloway & Bennett 2004). The report also found that clients who had entered treatment for Heroin use, and who had failed to resist use, “were ten times more likely to commit other forms of crime, predominantly of an acquisitive nature” (Holloway & Bennett 2004). As a result, the Home Office response was to assert that: “The links between drug use and crime are clearly established. In fact, around three-quarters of crack and heroin users claim they commit crime to feed their habit. It is our priority to break this damaging claim”(Home Office, 2006). However, this “self survey data” has been criticised on grounds of questionable reliability of offender responses on grounds of the problematic nature of the “motivated interviewee” (Walton 2007). Accordingly, “the reality of the extent of drug use and the subsequent acquisitive crime cannot be easily identified via self-survey” (Walton 2007). Therefore, it has been propounded that the actual extent of the drug link to crime may be unrealistic (Walton 2007). Moreover, the Home Office’s use of statistical data to justify its policy decisions regarding drug related response arguably supports the economic compulsive theory by implication as the explanation for the correlation between drugs and crime. Fowler comments on the Home Office approach and asserts that “There is now a common assumption that problematic drug misuse is at the root of much crime” (Fowler, 2003: 31). However, other commentators argue that this “assumption” is inherently flawed, as other empirical research clearly demonstrates that illicit drug use is linked other forms of crime and that as such, the connection between the multifarious factors are complex, which undermines the veracity of Fowler’s statement. If this is considered by analogy, it would suggest that the deterrence theory is inherently flawed in ignoring the complexities of causality in criminal behaviour. For example, Auld (1986) argued that mass unemployment and low state benefits left a disaffected youth unable to satisfy their basic humanitarian needs, thereby creating an environment ripe for petty crime to secure “necessary funds” (Auld 1986). As such, it was this environment which led to direct contact with the machinations of the drug market, which would exist irrespective of any general model of deterrence intended to eradicate or reduce crime per se, which in turn is the central justification propounded for a penal system based on the deterrence theory. Indeed, by analogy, Case and Haines’ (2007) study of a sample of 3,088 people between the age of 11 and 16 in Wales reviewed risk factors with contextual reference to a study of frequency of factors impacting the sample. Their research is used to demonstrate risk factors and the relationship between risk factors for active property and violent offending according to gender specific and age specific groups. In undertaking the research, Case and Haines argue that the anti social behaviour and impulsivity is the most significant risk factor for offending by groups in this age group and that these results assert the need to address multi dimensional youth crime prevention programmes addressing multiple and composite risk factors, targeting appropriately upon specific sub groups of the youth population. In considering substance abuse, Case and Haines further argue that contributory factors to causality demonstrate that “those factors exerting the most influence upon youth drug use were: anti-social behaviour/attitudes, drug related behaviour/attitudes, negative thinking, psychological problems and behavioural problems” (2007). Additionally, from a prevention and punishment strategy perspective, Olson and Dzur acknowledge the interrelationship between various causal factors and refer to the fact the a “democratic” participatory framework within the restorative justice paradigm enables both the victim and offender to address issues such as causality in the mediation and one on one conferencing, which in turn promotes rehabilitation (Olson & Dzur, 2004). This in turn would appear to be more effective in preventing re-offending. Indeed, Burr (1987) argued that in the South London area that was the focus of her study, it was the existing crime culture dominating the local populace which predisposed a vulnerable youth to heroin use in particular to finance their habits. This pre-existence of established networks for “fencing stolen goods” led to increased heroin addiction and as such, “the deviant value system made thieving acceptable behaviour and ….use of heroin was an extension rather than a cause of their delinquent behaviour” (1987 Burr:350). These two differing criminological models provide “corrective viewpoints to conventional view of drug addiction causing crime” (Seddon 2000). Auld et al. focus on the importance of appreciating the socio-economic context whilst Burr focuses on “socio-cultural and sub-cultural” elements (Seddon 2000). Their differing strengths are rooted in adopting a contextual approach which “eschews medical or monocausal explanations” (Seddon 2000). However, it is commented that they are not without their limitations. Firstly, as discussed above there is evidence that a significant proportion of offenders are not actually involved in crime prior to drug use (Parker and Newcombe 1987, Bean and Wilkinson 1988) which is not accounted for in either Auld or Burr’s assertions regarding causality in occurrence of crime. However, this criticism in itself is arguably flawed as the majority of studies rely on conviction records “which only pick up a fraction of actual offences it is difficult to assess the size of this group” (Hammersley 1989 p1032). Secondly, it has been commented that not all individuals living in the socio-economic environment reported by Auld and Burr necessarily become involved in drug abuse and crime and as such, the actual process by which these socio-economic factors explain causality of crime link remains unclear. As such, this arguably lends itself to the “just desert” theory justification for offender punishment in considering moral culpability and implementing a punishment to “fit” the crime. However, the retribution theory is not without its limitations. Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore the fact that both models are linked to the “method in which causality is conceptualised” in sociological based criminological theory regarding causality in crime (Seddon 2000). As such, “the mechanical nature of their analyses highlights the need for a better understanding of causality” (Seddon 2000) which highlights the inherent flaw of the deterrence model (Rossi, Berk & Campbell., 1997, & Rossi, Waite, Bose, & Berk., 1974). Moreover, deterrence initiatives implemented in the criminal justice system are clearly inefficient if they fail to take account of the socio-economic factors underlying causality in criminal behaviour. Simultaneously, it is further arguable that retributive punishment of offenders can only be effective if intrinsically linked with considerations of causality (Tyler, 1990). Furthermore, Walker’s assertions that “naïve beliefs both in the effectiveness and the ineffectiveness of a policy of deterrence have been replaced by the less exciting realisation that some people can be deterred in some situations from some types of conduct by some degree of likelihood that they will be penalised in some ways; but that we do not yet know enough to enable us to be very specific about people, the situations, the conduct, or the likelihood or nature of the penalties” (N. Walker., 1985); reiterates the need to evaluate the interrelationship with causation and socio-economic factors in order to consider how best to punish offenders. For example anti-deterrent punishment models are often referred to as labelling effects (Andenaes., 1996) . However, labelling theory in criminology argues that catching and punishing offenders labels and stigmatises them as criminals which in itself renders law abiding behaviour difficult due to the social labelling and lack of acceptance. Moreover, Braithwaite argues that it is precisely this concept of “shame”, which the restorative justice system operates against as reflected by the sentiment of the Home Office Report 2003 (Braithwaite, 2003). This in turn highlights the need to consider the complex machinations of causality in criminal behaviour as part of the continued development of the deterrence theory in the punishment of offenders. Moreover, the severity of punishment model ignores the possibility that removal of one problem could be replaced with another type of crime, which is further supported by observations of incapacitation (Carlsmith & Darley., 2002). For example, in the case of Sargent (1975), Lawton LJ commented that there are “offenders for whom neither deterrence nor rehabilitation works. They will go on committing crimes as long as they are able to do so. In those cases the only protection which the public has is that such persons should be locked up for a long period” (1975). Alternatively, rehabilitation and restorative justice is the final limb of the prospective theories for offender punishment, and it is argued to be the most ambitious development of the penal theory (Andenaes., 1996)). The ultimate goal of rehabilitation is to achieve conformity through positive change and motivation as opposed to through fear created by the imposition of severe deterrence models (Andenaes, 1996). Whilst empirical evidence remains inconclusive as to the efficacy of this, it is intrinsically going to suffer the same problems of motivational interviewing, further compounded by the inherent complexities of social background and causality in criminal behaviour. For example, if we again consider the drugs and crime relationship analogy, the link between increased levels of drug use and crime could be attributed to the fact that “success” in crime execution provides necessary monies to fund the drug use. These parallels between developments of “drug careers” might actually suggest that both are in fact “symptoms of broader delinquent behaviour which is cause by other factors (such as family and employment)” (Seddon 2000). On this premise, Seddon argues that it is necessary to further develop the causal links between drugs and crime to “move beyond generating new but unproven hypotheses” (Seddon 2000). This proposition further highlights the flaws in the retribution theory and suggests that notions of morality may be limited in covering the broad range of triggers which contribute to criminal behaviour. This further highlights the need to consider the factors highlighted by Seddon at the stage of sentencing in order to consider the best way to punish offenders going forward. 3. Just Deserts and Problematic Legal Definitions of Causality With regard to the just deserts theory, this principle was extrapolated by Andrew Von Hirsch, who asserted that “in everyday thinking about punishment, the idea of desert figures prominently. Ask the person on the street why a wrongdoer should be punished, and he is likely to say that he “deserves it” (1976). This assertion is primarily rooted in Kant’s work on autonomy(Kant 1952). As such, the purpose of punishment is to remove an unjustly gained advantage from offenders. Moreover, the deterrence theory is rejected whereby punishment must fit the individual crime. It is argued that this theory works towards providing a fair justice system by distributive justice in punishing individuals to the extent of the advantage that they gained (Von Hirsch, 1976). However, this theoretical ideal is inherently flawed as notions of “deserves” and fits the crime is subjective and therefore left to judiciary discretion to determine what fits, which again undermines the concept of retribution in its theoretical sense (Holstein & Miller, 1990; Mirlees- Black; 2002). Moreover, the proportionality aspect of the just desert theory sits uneasily with the notion of extreme punishment and deterrence and addressing causality in crime (Sanders and Young, 2006). Accordingly, whilst the theoretical justifications of both deterrence and retribution models are clearly meritorious, the above analysis demonstrates that neither is entirely satisfactory as an all encompassing method of offender punishment. On the one hand, whilst the severe punishment infrastructure of politically shaped deterrence models clearly represent the public interest in tackling crime, the evidence that such models are effective as deterrent measures remain inconclusive. Moreover, the deterrence theory models are clearly dogmatic in ignoring the interrelationship between causality in criminal behaviour and it is submitted that this should form the focus of future criminological development of the deterrence theory in context of offender punishment within the penal system. It is further submitted that until the interrelationship between causality and deterrence is evaluated further, any such general deterrence theory model based on social factors is inherently limited in efficacy and consideration must be given to the interrelationship between sociological and biological theory, which will be considered in further detail below. 4. Broken Windows & Spatial Displacement A central theme in the debate on community policing has focused on the widespread notion that an increase in visible community policing will significantly reduce crime and the cycle of “broken window” disorder (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Indeed the correlation between the symbolic broken window societal malaise and community policing has contributed to numerous US Government driven initiatives to increase on foot policing (Klockers, 1988). By analogy in the UK, the Home Office consideration of the relationship between certain areas, community and crime in the “Impact of the Priority Estates Project” (1993) highlighted the link between victimisation in certain housing estates, crime and the social context. The report argued that the residential environments are vandalised and poorly maintained to improve conditions and fuelled a criminal environment. Additionally, with regard to the Priority Estates Project in attempting to reinforce police presence, the report concluded that ultimately, its findings were complex and support of positive effect on crime of increased on estate policing. Additionally, the report suggested that there was worrying evidence of how crime can grow on hard pressed estates particularly those which house substantial numbers of poor residents. Conversely, it has been asserted that “Community policing is an oxymoron, for if the police could serve the whole community then there would be little point in having a police at all with” (Waddington, 1999, at p.223). To this end, Waddington asserts an inherent flaw in the broken windows theoretical ideal regarding the efficacy and true value of community policing. In essence, the broken window theory symbolises the proposition that if a window is left un-repaired, it will provide the trigger for other windows breaking, creating a correlative domino effect (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). The broken window is effectively a microcosm and representative of disorder through labelling and the disorderly elements multiply once the community behaviour changes (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). They become fearful of groups or leave and therefore the neighbourhood is left open to colonisation by disorderly elements (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). From a criminological perspective, the theory, Wilson and Kelling’s theory seeks to look outside criminological convention in considering causality in crime. The “Broken Windows” paradigm in criminological theory was fuelled by the 1970s New Jersey “Safe and Clean Neighbourhoods Program” drive for foot patrol policing style. Whilst the empirical results of the Police Foundation indicated that the foot patrol project did not actually result in a reduction of crime, Wilson and Kelling felt that the foot patrol project still resulted in safer neighbourhoods on grounds of an overlooked fear of “being bothered by disorderly people. Not violent people, nor, necessarily criminals, but disreputable or obstreperous or unpredictable people” (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). To this end, the essence of Wilson & Kelling’s broken windows argument is that foot patrol officers “elevate, to the extent they could, the level of public order in these neighbourhoods”. Moreover, Wilson & Kelling utilise this argument of maintaining order to highlight the differing notions of community fear. For example, they expressly refer to the fact that public order is as important to communities as the fear of “real” crime. To this end, the high presence of foot patrol police officers is symbolically and practical important in maintaining order. Furthermore, Wilson and Kelling argue that the maintenance of order directly correlates to crime “at the community level, disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence” (1982) Wilson & Kelling’s extrapolation of the correlation between community disorder and crime is what underpins their “Broken Windows” paradigm as a justification for the efficacy of on foot policing. Indeed, they expressly assert that “Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left un-repaired all the rest of the windows will soon be broken” (1982). Wilson and Kelling further argue that the maintenance of order is vital to the link between society and crime. They posit that if a community falls within the broken windows archetype, this fuels the “breakdown of community controls”. To this end, it is the societal and breakdown of community order that creates a breeding ground for serious crime, which fuels their argument that “the essence of the police role in maintaining order is to reinforce the informal control mechanisms of the community itself” (1982). Accordingly, Wilson and Kelling’s Broken Windows theory proposes the following two central arguments: 1) Socio-legal and criminological theory focuses on affects of crime on the individual and ignores the importance of the impact of crime and the importance of public order on community; and 2) The lack of communal order creates urban community decay, which in turn breeds crime. This therefore justifies increased community on foot policing. This in turn correlates to the spatial displacement theory and Weisburd et al’s (2006) investigation refers to evidence that point in favour of the proposition that growing police presence can impact crime through a focus on crime mapping of criminal hotspots. Nevertheless, they assert the point that “many scholars have noted that such approaches risk moving crime or disorder to other places where programs are not in place, termed spatial displacement” (2006). Moreover, Weisburd et al highlight the point that crime mapping of increased police presence in certain criminal hotspots can actually result in the crime being pushed outside of the area of targeted interventions. Accordingly, their study attempts to address the gaps in research regarding the controversy of hotspot crime interventions and spatial displacement. They considered this in relation to certain cities and they further argued that “quantitative findings indicate that, at least for these two crime markets involving drugs and prostitution, crime does not simply move around the corner. Indeed, this study supports the position that the most likely outcome of such focused crime prevention efforts is a diffusion of crime control benefits to nearby areas” (2006). Additionally, they assert the point that there needs to be caution in how some desist from criminality on grounds of hot spot interventions than others and that there may be overall crime prevention benefit because such adaptations often require greater effort, which reduces the actual level of offending of specific individuals (2006). Therefore, whilst the broken windows model is significant on one level, it is inherently limited in solely acknowledging street crime as a source of criminal activity and how disorder and order are defined in this context (McLaughlin, 2002). Moreover, from a social policy perspective, an understanding of the relationship between community and certain types of crime is vital to the “police idea” due to its resultant impact on both criminal justice and policy (McLaughlin, 2003). Moreover, the broken windows thesis is all too ready to accept the state and media defined concepts of crime and means that disorder and crime are viewed as synonymous with the streets (Waddington, 1999). Additionally, the broken windows model appears to look to a proposed solution without considering causality for the “broken windows”. Therefore under the broken windows thesis, it is the community which appears to define order and disorder. However, Duncan argues that the inherent flaw of this is that if the social or community rules define situations and the behavioural traits appropriate to them, anyone acting or appearing to look as if they are outside those norms will be labelled a criminal and invite police interest (Duncan, (1976) in Wetherell, 2002). However, this clearly lends such policing susceptible to abuses of power through labelling, with a detrimental effect on the very “broken” community the Wilson and Kelling’s ideal of policing is intended to protect. For example, the extensive stop and search powers of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are often used disproportionately against ethnic minorities. Moreover, in the 1990s, Jefferson and Walker highlighted that in Leeds, men of black origin were more often stopped in white areas, which indicates that community norms will influence police procedures regardless of whether there is actual criminality (Jefferson & Walker, 1992) Whilst police authority is essential to the officer’s role in law enforcement, the problem of resistance and what constitutes excessive force further compounds the issue as to limits of police power (Fitzgerald, 2006). This clearly produces a tension between maintaining order, human rights and police powers and ignores the risk of police abuses of power in practice, which clearly undermines the efficacy of the broken windows theory in practice. Moreover, this arguably turns the broken windows theory on its head and indicates cyclical nature of the theory as when one “enemy” is defeated it is transferred onto a new criminal element (Goldblatt, 1998). . Moreover, in the majority of cases, the police brutality has been directed towards minorities, poor, political dissidents, and members of the counterculture (Smith, 2008), highlighting a pattern of violent behaviour unrelated to any stress or circumstance related resistance (Goldblatt, 1998). To this end, the broken window microcosm is slightly naïve in ignoring complex nature of policing and arguably facilitates police abuses of power by enabling arbitrary decisions to be made based on criminal stereotypes. Indeed, the success of on foot back to basics policing is inherently dependent on the subjective make up of the police, who often seek to define criminality through stereotypical labelling (McLaughlin, 2002). For example, Wilson and Kelling recognise the failure of their theory lies in establishing who is actually criminal (1982). Moreover Goldblatt & Lewis argue that increased community policing does not reduce crime rates per se (1998). Therefore, whilst the broken windows theory clearly has merit in providing a foundation from which to evaluate policing strategy, it is submitted that the inherent flaw of the model is the failure to address causality in occurrence of crime. Wilson and Kelling focus on a somewhat arbitrary solution to an extremely complex problem. Indeed, Kelling and Wilson’s own acknowledgment that the theory fails to adequately address the determination of criminality arguably turns the theory on its head particularly in light of the evolution of criminological thought. Furthermore, it is submitted that failure to consider causality in the complex backdrop of community disorder, the broken windows model arguably facilitates abuses of power through subjective policing which panders to prejudicial stereotypes. As such, it is submitted that the continuing evolution of criminological theorem should evaluate the interrelationship between causality of crime and disorder within a community and the impact of policing strategy in the area going forward. As such, Wilson and Kelling’s theory fails to reflect the reality of criminological reality that notwithstanding community disorder, the broken windows are not repaired simply by virtue of community policing. This in turn emphasises the need to further consider causality and highlights the need to evaluate the interrelationship between sociological explanations for occurrence of crime with biological theory, which I shall now consider. 5. Biological Theory for Causality in Crime The biological explanations for causality in crime are intrinsically complex and inherently dependent on the nature of the crime, a full discussion of which is outside the parameters of this paper. Accordingly, in highlighting the proposition that sociological explanations for causality should not be considered in isolation to biological explanations, I shall contextually focus on biological theory in relation to serial killing. The very definition of “serial killing” has proved problematic within the confines of narrow legal definitions of murder. Moreover, serial killing adopts multifarious forms brought on by many different states of mind (D, Wilson. 2001). Holmes attempted to define serial murder as consisting of repetitive killings where the relationship between victim and the offender is that of stranger or slight acquaintance, and the motivation to kill and apparent motives are lacking (R, Holmes, & S Holmes 2001). However, it is submitted at the outset that this is not entirely accurate, as motivation and apparent motives although not extrinsically obvious, are nevertheless prevalent and inherently shrouded in backdrop of interlinking of complex causal triggers (A, Alexandrovich & D, Wilson 1999). For example, criminologist Eric Hickey’s database research on the demographics of serial killing highlights that 88% are male and 85% Caucasian and average age of 28.5 (E, Hickey. 2006). In terms of victim selection, Hickey’s empirical research further demonstrates that 62% target strangers exclusively and another 22% kill at least one stranger (E, Hickey. 2006). Additionally, 71% of the killers operated in a specifically targeted location or area, rather operating in multiple locations. Moreover, Wilson further refers to the “cooling off period” and patterns of similarity in the method of killing (D, Wilson. 2001). Reference is made to serial killer Wayne Gacy who would gag victims with their own underwear in order that they would die in their own vomit (J. Silverman, D. Wilson, 2002). Notwithstanding criminological observations regarding parallel trends in serial killer behaviour, scientific findings regarding physiological causal factors remain inconclusive to describe the motivations behind the actions of a serial killer (Vronsky 2004). Indeed, the attempts of social science, biological and criminological theory to explain differences between male and female violence in context of serial killers further highlights the flawed attempt to propound a conclusive and all encompassing rationale to explain the actions of serial killers (Vronsky 2004). From a lateral perspective this observation reiterates the need to consider the interrelationship between sociological and biological theories for causality, which will vary according to the nature of the offence. For example, whilst recent reports in science have found discrete locations in intricate systems that serve as a human moral compass which in turn lead to changes in the brain (Vronksy 2004); a physiological explanation for the acts of serial killers within the confines of neurology sits uneasily with concepts of morality and emotion and social profiling entrenched within criminological theorem propounded as explanations for the behavioural triggers motivating serial killing. This is further compounded by the fact that the three central criminological theories of biological trait, organised/disorganised and psychodynamic are difficult to reconcile with neurology. From the criminological perspective, the central theory pertaining to the conduct of serial killers is the background causes crime model (M, Foucott 1977 & D Wilson, 2001). This involves the interdependence of offender history, particularly in adolescence (D, Wilson 2001). Wilson argues that virtually all serial killers come from dysfunctional backgrounds involving sexual or physical abuse, drugs or alcoholism and their related problems (D, Wilson, 2001). Indeed, studies of known serial killers have demonstrated parallel similarities since infancy citing in particular background triggers such the interrelationship between infancy, childhood and relationships with the killer’s mother. (Vronsky 2004). As such, the background causes crime model undermines any notion of neurology or being born evil (T. Mathiesen, 2000). However, the inherent flaw in this theory is that it ignores cogent evidence pointing to the significant role that physiological factors play in influencing behavioural patterns in serial killers (Vronsky 2004). Accordingly, it is submitted that rather than continue to focus on developing polarised justifications for serial killer behaviour, the development of criminological theory should consider its interrelationship with scientific theorem to move towards a clearer explanation of serial killer behaviour. Nevertheless, the “attachment theory” role within infancy is crucial to the personal development of the child. For example, emotionally, infancy is central to the proper development of the adult personality (Vronsky 2004). Indeed, it has been propounded that the first twelve months are critical to the development of emotions such as remorse and affection (A, Alexandrovich & D, Wilson. 1999). Moreover, failure to attach or bond through adequate attention and physical touch during this time period, has demonstrated increased risk of personality disorder development in later life (Canter. 2005). Indeed, Vronsky argues that there may be signs that the child has a psychopathic personality by the age of 2 (Vronsky 2004). However, the nature of diverging explanations begs the question as to whether this can solely be attributed to the background causes crime model within criminological propounded theorem or alternatively neurology, which in turn highlights the need to consider the interrelationship between the two models. It is further argued that an infant develops a sense of only itself and it is the very nature of isolation, which breeds the fantasy world (D, Wilson., 2001). Indeed, Wilson’s research in this area continuously focuses on the role of fantasy as a central parallel trend in serial killing (D.Wilson, 2001). This appears to be further bolstered by findings that serial killers demonstrate a distinct absence of a range of emotions such as sympathy, remorse and affection (Holmes, 2001). Moreover, a key parallel between serial David Berkowitz, Joel Rifki and Kenneth Bianchi was that they were adopted and neglected during the vital attachment period between 0-2 years as identified by Vronsky (2004). Additionally, Wilson argues that the failure to bond in conjunction with other socio-economic factors leads to increased isolation of the killer. The isolation often perpetuates into a cycle of bullying whereby the killer becomes the victim whereby, the role of fantasy develops into “secret aggressive fantasies”. For example, serial killer David Berkowitz asserted that “It was a mysterious force working against me. I felt bothered and tormented, “Die Schmutz [Yiddish for the “dirty one”]” (Vronsky 2004). Another common characteristic is the relationship of the serial killer with their mother. The mothers often tend to breed males that hate females (D Wilson, 2001), which is further evidenced by the Ipswich murders. Moreover, Freud argues that males try to reach a stated of autonomy with their mother, and failure to do so results in the development of inner rage (B, Masters. 1985). However, this has created polarised debate with feminist criminological theorem undermining the assertion that maternal bonding assists in the creation of serial killer (Silverman & Wilson 2002). Nevertheless, empirical research does indeed demonstrate a high proportion of serial killers having difficult relationships with their mothers (Vronsky 2004). Moreover, childhood trauma has also been linked to serial killers. For example, empirical research demonstrates that mental and physical trauma has long lasting effects upon an individual (Aynesworth 1999). Furthermore, 42% of convicted serial killers tested by Aynesworth were said to have suffered from psychological abuse and sexual abuse. Scientific theory has indicated that psychopathic behaviour fuelled by abuse is related to the brain’s defence mechanism, which clearly contrasts with criminological theory. The criminological background causes crime model has been developed further into the following three main threads of criminological theorem explaining the acts of serial killers; 1) Biological trait theory; 2) Organised/Disorganised theory; and 3) Psychodynamic theory. The biological trait theory rooted in biological conditions that may control human behaviours, which is the closest criminological research comes towards reaching a compromise with scientific theory. It has uncovered neurological and physical abnormalities that may begin in prenatal stage, which in turn has demonstrated links between impairment of executive brain function and aggression (Canter, 2005). Many serial killers discussed have been labelled with a neurological disorder, with many repetitive killings demonstrating a link with chemical imbalances and movements in the brain (Canter 2005). Another criminological theory is psychodynamic theory. This is based on the evolution of the unconscious personality in early childhood, which will influence behaviour for the rest of one’s life (Vronsky 2004). Indeed, Freud argues that humans develop three aspects of their personality in the early stages of personal development; namely, identity, ego and superego (Vronksy 2004). The identity is primitive, supplying underlying primal needs such as food and sex. The ego is a guide that is aligned to societal norms and the superego develops values and morals (Canter 2005). Under the psychodynamic theory, serial killers are overwhelmed by their id and negative experiences create a weak ego, thereby facilitating negative and aggressive fantasies. Alternatively, another central criminological theory is the organised/disorganised typology of serial killers (Canter 2005). This theory indicates that serial killers will fall into one of two categories; namely organised or disorganised offenders. Through the evaluation of the crime scene, victims and forensic evidence it is possible to conclude personality and behavioural characteristics (Canter 2005). For example, the organised offender’s habits are deciphered from the crime scene as an organised offender. Often, the attack is meticulously planned and no fingerprints or evidence is left (Vronsky 2004). However, it has further been argued that the organised offender is reacting to a stressful trigger event, which in turn would suggest that the organised/disorganised element is linked to extrinsic factors and perhaps intertwined with the biological trait theory. In contrast, the disorganised killer leaves crime scene in disarray often leaves incriminatory evidence. It is further argued that the disorganised offender is socially inadequate and below intelligence and struggles with parallels to the social control theory (D, Wilson 2001). However, it is again submitted that this is inherently intertwined with other complex background factors which facilitate the condition and a predisposition to a certain condition. For example, many universal traits appear to include disorganised thinking, bipolar mode disorders, a feeling of resentment, sexual frustrations and a wild imagination (D, Wilson 2001). In a chart of serial killers, with a review of childhood development characteristics the three most frequently reported behaviours included daydreaming, compulsive masturbation and isolation (D, Wilson 2001). 6. Conclusion The above analysis demonstrates that it is impossible to determine conclusively how best to describe causality in the occurrence of crime. For example, whilst the empirical evidence clearly demonstrates parallel trends regarding the background of serial killers, it is far too dogmatic to assert the background causes crime model without further examination of its interrelationship with other factors. Indeed, the influence of background factors discussed in the psychodynamic theory would suggest that certain biological traits may predispose an individual to psychopathic tendencies and serial killing when contrasted with others who had suffered the same background triggers yet do not develop the same tendencies. Indeed, the inherent flaw in the criminological theory is the failure to account for why there are a significant proportion of individuals who are not serial killers yet suffered from the same background triggers. Accordingly, whilst background triggers cannot be ignored, it is submitted that the interrelationship between the multiple theories must be considered if we are to ascertain how best to describe causality as evidenced by the contextual discussion of serial killers in murder. Indeed, causality in criminal conduct is an essential element in effective offender punishment under the retribution theory, which is further highlighted by Carlsmith and Daley’s studies of the psychology of punishment. If mitigating and aggravating factors are taken into account in considerations of moral culpability under the retribution theory, it necessarily requires a consideration of the interrelationship between background causality and crime commission. Furthermore, whilst the theoretical ideal of fairness under retribution theory is sound, the practical reality undermines this ideal due to the uncertainty in justifying the parameters of what constitutes an unfair advantage. Moreover, the inconsistency in sentencing and ad hoc judicial subjective determinations of morality further undermines the objectives of the retribution theory, which conflicts with equality and justice. Herein lies the fundamental problem of offender punishment under both models; the effective punishment of offenders is inherently linked to consistent and effective enforcement and failure to consider the interrelationship between sociological and biological theorem in causality. This in turn is arguably the inherent flaw in the broken windows and spatial displacement models of crime prevention, which look towards the solution without an adequate understanding of causality for the occurrence of crime. Bibliography Alexandrovich, A. & Wilson, D. The Longest Injustice. Winchester: Waterside Press, 1999 Andenaes, J The General Preventative Effects of Punishment. 114 U.Pa. L Rev. 949, 1996 Auld, J., D., Dorn and N. South. “Heroin now: bringing it all back home”. Youth and Policy Volume 9, 1984 Auld, J., D., Dorn and N. South, “Irregular work, irregular pleasures: heroin in the 1980s, in R. Matthews and J. Young (eds), Confronting Crime, Sage London, 1986 Bean, P, and C, Wilkinson. Drug Taking, crime and the illicit supply system British Journal of Addiction 83: 533-9, 1988 Bennett, T. Drugs and Crime: The results of Research on Drug Testing and Interviewing Arrestees, Home Office Research Study No.183, 1998 J. Bentham., Principles of penal law. In John Bowring (Eds)., The Works of Jeremy Bentham (p.396). New York. Russell and Russell, 1962 Burr, A, Chasing the dragon; heroin misuse, delinquency and crime in the context of south London Culture, British Journal of Criminology, Volume 27: 4, pp.333-57, 1987 D. Canter Commentary: Confusing operational predicaments and cognitive explorations. Applied Cognitive Psychology Volume 19, 2005 K. Carlsmith., and J. M. Darley. Why Do We Punish? Deterrence and Just Deserts as Motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Volume 83, No.2, 284-299, 2002 Case. S.., & Haines, K. Offending by Young People: A Further Risk Factor Analysis. Security Journal, 20 (1): 96-110, 2007 J.M. Darley., K.M., Sanderson & P.S. LaMatnia. Community standards for defining attempt: Inconsistencies with the Model Penal Code. American Behavioural Scientist. Volume 39: pp.4050-420, 1996 Duncan B. L. (1976) in Wetherell, M. Group Conflict and the social psychology of racism. Identities, Groups and Social Issues. London Sage Publications, 2002 Ellwood, C. Sociology and Modern Social Problems. Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Fitzgerald, S. Police Brutality. Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, 2006 Foster & Hope. Housing, Community & Crime: The Impact of the Priority Estates Project. Retrieved at www.homeoffice.gov.uk, 1993 accessed November 2009. M. Foucoult., Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1977 Fowler, L. Drugs, Crime and the Drug Treatment and Testing Order. London NAO, 2002 Gerald Gardiner. The Purposes of Criminal Punishment. Modern Law Review 117, 1958 Goldblatt, P., & Lewis, D (1998) in McLaughlin E. Key Issues in Police work. Controlling Crime, London: Sage Publications, 2000 Hammersley, R., & V Morrison. Effects of polydrug use on the criminal activities of heroin users. British Journal of Addiction, Volume 82: pp.899-906, 1987 Hammersley, R., & V Morrison. The relationship between crime and opoid use, British Journal of Addiction Volume 84: pp.1029-43, 1989 Hickey, E. The Myth of a Psychiatric Crime Wave. Carolina Academic Press, 2006 Holloway, K and Bennett, T. The results of the first two years of the NEW ADAM Programme, London: Home Office. Available at www.homeoffice.gov.uk , 2004 R. Holmes, & S. Holmes, Murder in America.London: Sage, 2001 Home Office: Drug Treatment and Testing Order: Background and Issues for Consultation: London: Home Office, 1997 Home Office Drug Strategy London: Home Office, 2005 Home Office. Drug Related Crime: London: Home Office, 2006. Hough, M. Drug User treatment within a criminal justice context. Substance Use and Misuse Volume 31: p.895-926, 2002 Andrew Von Hirsch. Doing Justice – The Choice of Punishments (Report of the Committee for the Study of Incarceration), 1976 D. Kahneman., D. Schkade., & C.R. Sunstein. Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. Volume 16: pp.49-86, 1998 I. Kant., (1952). The science of right. (W. Hastie, Trans). In R.Hutchins (Ed.) Great books of the Western world: Volume 42: pp.397-446. Chicago Press. B.Masters. Killing for Company, London: Arrow Barby, 1985 T.Mathiesen. Prison on Trial. Winchester: Waterside Press, 2000 McLaughlin, E. Key Issues in Police Work: Controlling Crime. London Sage Publications, 2002 D.Nagin.. Deterrence and incapacitation. In M. Tonry (Ed)., The handbook of crime and punishment (pp.345-368). New York Oxford University Press, 1998 P.H. Rossi., E.Waite., C.E. Bose., & R.E. Berk. The seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and individual differences. American Sociological Review. Volume 39: pp.224-237, 1974 A. Sanders., & R. Young, Criminal Justice. 3rd Edition LexisNexis, 2006. Seddon, T. Explaining the Drug-Crime Link: Theoretical Policy and Research Issues. Journal of Social Policy Cambridge University Press, 2000 J. Silverman, & D. Wilson. Innocence Betrayed: Paedophiles, the Media and Society, Cambridge. Pollity Press, 2002 Stevens, A., Berlo, D., Kerschi V., Oeuvray K., Ooyen, M., Steffan M., Heckman W., & Uchtenhagen, A. Summary Literature Review: The International Literature on Drugs, Crime and Treatment. QCT Europe Project: European Institute of Social Services, 2003 T. Tyler.,Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990 P. Vronsky The Method and Madness of Monsters. Penguin, 2004 Waddington, P. A.J In McLaughlin E Key Issues in Police Work: Controlling Crime. London Sage Publications, 2002 Walton, K., The DTTO: Concerns for the Future. Sage London, 2007 Weisburd, D., Wyckoff, L. A., Ready, J., Eck, J. E., Hinkle, J. C., & Gajewski, F. Does Crime Just move around the corner? A controlled Study of Spatial Displacement and Diffusion of Crime Control Benefits. Criminology 44(33): 549-592, 2006. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. Broken Windows: The police and neighbourhood safety” in McLauglin E, Muncie J., and Hughes G., (2002, 2nd Edition) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings. London Sage Publications. Wilson, J.The Police and their problems: A Theory. Public Policy, 12, 1975 D. Wilson. What Everyone in Britain should know about Crime and Punishment. Oxford University Press, 2001 F.E. Zimring., & G. Hawkins. Incapacitation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995 Read More