To What Extent Is Criminal Behaviour Influenced by Environmental Factors - Literature review Example

To what extent is criminal behaviour influenced by environmental factors? Discuss with reference to at least two social theories of crime. Prior to the emergence of the environmental school, criminologists had focused on overly-simplified biological and physiological explanations, locating crime within the individual. For example, positivist theorists like Lombroso1 argued that pathology was located in the individual, and could be identified and even predicted by studying ‘body type’. Clearly, these theories do not explain criminal or deviant behaviour sufficiently well – for example, they have nothing to say about crimes of ‘strict liability’ where committing the actus reus without mens rea is sufficient to label one a criminal; e.g. being unable to afford to pay one’s Council Tax. Environmental criminology seeks to answer such questions as ‘why is there more crime in urban areas?’ Early theorists of the Chicago School argued that it was possible to predict where crime would take place based upon the city’s configuration, rather than a particular individual. The theory of ‘social disorganisation’ is built largely upon the work of Park and Burgess, ‘The City’ published in 1925. 2 Not only does the term ‘social disorganisation’ attempt to explain and understand deviance, it also attempts to explain why the manner in which a society is structured can exacerbate such behaviour - akin to Marxist theories, but without the political overtones. Following World War I and the Great Depression of the 1930s there was greater geographic mobility into the cities and away from rural areas as more people became economic refugees. Chicago’s population exploded from 4,100 inhabitants in 1833 to over 2 million by 19103 making it a live laboratory for study. For the first time researchers were encouraged by Professors such as Robert Park to ‘go get the seat of your pants dirty in real research.4’ Throughout the 1920s and 1930s environmental criminology researchers took themselves where ‘criminals’ hung out – such as non-middle class bars and restaurants – crucially developing the tools now known as qualitative research methods. ‘These sociologists and criminologists went into bars, inside gangs, and into the inner sanctums of deviant populations to find out what constituted their realities.’5 Cities such as Chicago became rapidly over-crowded. Researchers of the time noticed that crime rates also increased. What was remarkable was that even when convicted criminals moved away from cities, the crime rate did not fall significantly. A question of interest at the time was, could it be possible that certain areas of a city were ‘criminogenic’? Could certain areas of a City be pathological, leading to a ‘flight or fight’ response? Could crime be an instinctive and natural defensive response to an unnatural and potentially harmful environment? Park and Burgess introduced the notion of modern cities having clearly identifiable zones, each with its own moral norm. Burgess argued that all cities radiated out in concentric circles from the city’s business centre (referred to as ‘downtown’), through the ‘zone of transition’ – mainly populated by low income groups with little vested interest in maintaining their low-rent neighbourhood – through to the zone of worker homes, the ‘bungalow’ section populated by the chattering classes, and finally stopping at the ‘commuter zone’. In short, the closer one lived to ‘downtown’ the more likely one would be a perpetrator or victim of crime. Researchers began to study individuals and groups within their ‘natural’ environments, attempting to explain everyday activities within a criminological framework. Hence they looked at poverty, birth and mortality rates, crime statistics, welfare records, indeed anything which might be relevant in determining the motivation for certain anti-social behaviours, including life-histories using observation and in-depth interviews. Whilst the initial impetus was primarily academic, the pragmatic, hands-on nature of the research had a concrete impact on policy initiatives. 6 Qualitative research of this type primed deeper understanding into such phenomenon as drug-abuse, prostitution and gang-culture, especially amongst young persons, for example the research conducted by Downes.7 . Researchers came to some far-reaching conclusions about ‘anomie’a and its causes. City-dwellers tended to develop more fragile and transitory relationships, undermining the centuries’ old rituals of social bonds of closer, more rural communities. There were fewer reasons to adhere to societal ‘norms’ without the watchful eyes of interested, concerned and possibly blood-related, neighbours. The interpretation of the evidence led to the conclusion that if one felt ‘unstable’ within one’s community then there would be no natural impetus to take part in it – leading to social disorganisation, as more and more people ‘opted-out’. The environmental school of theorists argued that if their observations and assumptions were correct, crime could not be satisfactorily explained as being due to biological or psychological abnormalities located within the individual. Wider society had a role to play. For example Robert Merton alleged that the disparity between accessing the means of success for different social groups led to strain which in turn led to the pursuit of attaining goals through illegal means.8 Indeed, crime was a normal response to an abnormal environment characterised by disgusting accommodation, poor sanitation and poor enforcement of mores, as well as a higher rate of illegitimate and abandoned children suggesting poorly transmitted social skills, all of which reinforces the strain on the next generation, leading to repetition. Those early researchers were followed by devotees such as Shaw and McKay who were researchers at Chicago’s Institute for Juvenile research. Their studies9 examined more than 56,000 juvenile cases recorded over 30 years (between 1900 and 1933) focusing on the relationship between delinquency and geography. The results suggested higher incidences of juvenile delinquency near city centres, particularly within the ‘zone of transition’. However, it was Sutherland10 who succeeded in ‘depathologising’ social disorganisation theories. Until his research into ‘differential association’ there had been a philosophical fallacy that the observed deviant/criminal behaviour had meaning and coherence to the so-called deviant/criminal and that criminality existed solely within the under-resourced classes of citizens. Sutherland succinctly argued that there was no statistically significant difference between the goals and desires of deviants and non-deviants. Instead, he noted that ‘…a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law….’11 This was landmark thinking at the time. Sutherland seemed to be suggesting that criminal behaviour was a rational learned response through social interaction over an extended period of time, providing the offender with a ‘morally’ acceptable solution to life’s perceived difficulties regardless of race, creed or colour. Such behaviour is not inherited or invented, but transmitted socially. Indeed, according to Sutherland such behaviour had so much value that it was passed along from one generation to another and was observable across all social classes, not just the impoverished living within the ‘zone of transition’. Studies by Tennenbaum12, Becker13 and Lemert14 sought to show that crime and deviance were co-dependent with societal reactions. These Interactionists argued that since individuals gain a sense of self through interacting with others, if we label people as deviant then this reinforces and exacerbates criminality since they begin to act-out the label. The criminal justice system itself is seen as being responsible for amplifying deviance. The impact of sociological thinking within criminology cannot be overstated. The work of social disorganisation theorists such as Shaw and McKay15, Thrasher16 and Sutherland17 has led to major policy changes in the manner in which crime is discussed, countered and legislated. At administrative, legislative and enforcement levels, there is more emphasis on equal access and opportunity, more censorship of discrimination based upon social exclusionary practices or perceived inferiorities of gender, race, creed or colour. For example, the work of Robert Agnew, which emphasised the psychological impacts of Merton’s strain theory, has led to the promotion of social justice in criminal policy.18 This post-dated Cohen’s 1950s studies into excluded minorities, resulting in ‘status frustration’ theories (including Messerschmidt’s offending to ‘do masculinity’ (1993) ideas19) which focused on the manner in which ‘lower-class’ males celebrated their own abilities out of anger and frustration with the middle-class behaviour, dress and educational styles valued in society which they could not emulate – leading ultimately to a conflict of values, and being labelled ‘criminal’ by the prevalent class.20 This was a major shift away from purely causal explanations of crime. Qualitative research seemed to provide more ‘meat’ or insight into the attitudes and value systems underpinning all human behaviour, deviant or otherwise. It seemed to be a natural progression within the field of criminology that in order to ensure thoroughness of research, both qualitative and quantitative methods are utilised. Whilst there is no empirical proof of environmental theories of criminal and deviant behaviour they remain highly influential with UK policy makers, criminologists and urban activists. There are initiatives seeking to ‘reform’ residents, garnering more interest and involvement at ‘grass-roots’ level. The underlying belief still relies upon the philosophies of the Chicago School, which strongly indicate that the stronger the attachment to a system of beliefs, the stronger the conformity. Critique There is no doubt that criminology has benefited from environmental theories of emphasis on crime as an indicator of economic power and so forth. Yet we must also accept that emphasising the locality of crime ignores much else.21 Theoreticians such as David Matza22 consider such approaches to be overly-deterministic. He argued that individuals rationalise away feelings of guilt/shame using Techniques of Neutralisation. Noticeably, he argued that ‘criminals’ drift in and out of deviating from socially accepted norms. Following on from this, why is it that all people who experience the ‘zone of transition’ - claimed to exist by environmental criminologists - do not exhibit criminal behaviour? Could biological or psychological factors indeed still have a part to play, for example in the studies of such luminaries as Freud and Jung with regard to psychology? What of Eysenck’s studies into personality profiling?23 Hirschi’s theories regarding ‘control, were highly influential throughout the 1960s and beyond, in which he argued that ‘delinquent acts result when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken.’24 If the individual has no attachment, commitment, involvement with society it is harder for that individual to endorse and enforce societal norms. By 1990 Hirschi had moved toward arguing that self-control was more important in determining whether an individual will commit crime – placing emphasis on socialisation, parenting and familial links.25 Essentially, the death-knell of ‘social disorganisation’ theory as a dominant theory was sounded by its tendency to mix cause and effect.26. Not only have environmental theories been brought into disrepute by their apparent lack of awareness of other theories, but they have also been attacked due to their lack of objectivity. Environmental theorists such as Cressey argued that his first objective ‘was to give an unbiased and intimate picture of the social world of the typical taxi-dance hall’27 whilst Howard Becker28 warned against becoming contaminated by ‘personal and political sympathies’. Environmental theorists assumed that the criminal statistics and other data upon which they relied could be taken at face value. This led them into a fallacy of expecting to find deviant/criminal behaviour only amongst the socially excluded. Taking a critical look at the areas in which environmental theorists specialised, Tierney pointed out that there was no attempt to analyse organised crime or class power struggles despite the overwhelming reasons to do so in that period.29 Conclusion Whilst one should not forget the contribution such theorists made to the development of empirical sociological research methods, their major contribution was an improved understanding of cities and the impact of cities upon crime rates. Emile Durkheim for example once remarked upon the magical properties of Parisian railway stations, which somehow stripped previously rural economic refugees of their morality as soon as they alighted. b Environmental theorists have enhanced and refined research tools, as well as leading city planners and citizens themselves to think more inclusively. 30 We can thank the Chicago School for theories related to control and subcultures. The study of cities and crime remains important for criminology.31 Indeed, the theories discussed herein have assisted modern day criminologists to recognise that crime cannot be discussed as simply a biological artefact or a product of freewill. References Read More