The presence multiple theories such as Strain Theory, Labeling Theory and Social Control Theory make it clear that no single theory fully explains the phenomenon of crime. Different theories are formulated from different perspectives, but they fail to achieve complete explanatory success. Scholars of this field refer to this condition as an etiological crisis, which has overshadowed criminology from around 1980 onward.
The theories such as Strain Theory, Labeling Theory and Social Control Theory, along with others such as Conflict Theory, Subcultural Theory, and Neo-classicism, created great turbulence in the field of criminology, which dominated it from 1950 to 1970. However, this turmoil or crisis did not emerge simultaneously in all countries; rather, it appeared at different times in different regions. As a result, not only criminologists but also the general public began to view the phenomenon of crime from multiple perspectives.
After the Second World War, experts holding different viewpoints were in complete agreement that the greatest cause of crime was social deprivation. Anti-social conditions give rise to anti-social behavior. Accordingly, the dominant thinking of that period came to be known as Positivism or Social Democratic Positivism, whose basic philosophy was that crime and other anti-social behaviors could be reduced through political measures that would eliminate social deprivation and bring about improvement in social conditions. However, this line of thought failed. All efforts to improve social conditions—such as the elimination of slums, raising educational standards, providing employment for all, and other welfare measures—proved unsuccessful. As the standard of living began to rise, the rate of crime—particularly those crimes reported to the police—continued to increase. For example, in England, where disposable income increased by 64 percent, the crime rate rose by more than double, i.e., 174 percent. This created a crisis in the search for the causes of crime, which experts termed an etiological crisis.
Its true picture was presented by the crime adviser to U.S. President Nixon, James Q. Wilson, in these words:
“If in 1960 someone had asked what measures society should adopt to reduce the crime rate, the answer would have been: by reducing poverty, improving educational standards, replacing dilapidated housing, encouraging social organizations, and establishing advisory councils for misguided youth, the crime rate could be reduced.”
The early period of the 1960s, after the war, was one of the greatest prosperity. Numerous programs were initiated for the poor, the youth, and offenders. Although the primary aim of these measures was not necessarily to reduce crime, they were far more substantial financially than what a serious thinker on crime might have expected.
Yet crime continued to increase. It did not increase slightly; rather, since 1930, its level rose rapidly, and in several categories it increased to such an extent that the country (the United States) had never before experienced anything like it.
All this happened in 1963. It was a year which, if described dramatically, may be said to be the year when that decade began to fall apart.
The explanation of this etiological crisis—or the denial of it—acted as a source of dynamism in criminology. The impact of this crisis was not the same in all countries. Its nature differed between developed and developing countries. As expected, in Japan, crime decreased alongside development, whereas in Latin America, quite the opposite occurred: with increasing poverty, the crime rate also continued to rise.
After the establishment of socialism, the pattern of crime in the Soviet Union was very different from that in the United States. In the welfare states of Western Europe, this crisis took on the form of a puzzle that was difficult to explain. In Britain, the etiological crisis appeared relatively late.
As a reaction, neo-classicism emerged, and positivism was reshaped in such a way that, instead of viewing crime at the social level, attention was once again focused on the individual. Thus, the question—why has the crime rate become so high?—began to be answered in the following ways:
No Comments