The fundamental question of ciminology is: why is it that some people commit crimes while others obey the laws of society? In answering this question, criminology presents the viewpoints of different experts. Various thinkers have provided different answers and proposed different causes of crime. When considered collectively, it becomes clear that research in criminology is proceeding along three parallel lines: biological, psychological, and sociological.
Biological research was further developed by the followers of Lombroso. They not only criticized Lombroso’s theories but also declared them incorrect, and on these lines they advanced further. Garofalo (1852–1939) distinguished between natural crimes and legal (police) crimes. Legal crimes included all those offenses that did not fall under the category of natural crimes. In his view, natural crimes violate two fundamental sentiments: altruism (i.e., deliberately harming others) and probity (i.e., violating the property rights of others). According to him, the importance of natural crimes lay in the fact that they were serious in nature and formed a category that unified criminal law with natural social processes. In his book Criminology (1885), he considered Lombroso’s theories inadequate because they did not explain natural crimes.
Enrico Ferri (1856–1934) moved somewhat away from purely biological lines of thought. According to him, the interaction among social, economic, and political factors constitutes the fundamental causes of crime. In his book Criminal Sociology, he expressed the view that crime can have multiple causes, including anthropological, physical, and social factors. On the basis of these factors, criminals are produced, and they can be divided into the following categories: born criminals, insane criminals, emotional criminals, occasional criminals, and habitual criminals. In his ideas, the classical influence appears quite weak.
For the sake of brevity, we ignore other experts such as Hooton and Sheldon, because many scholars are not satisfied with their methods of research and consider them unscientific. The theories developed along psychological and sociological lines will be discussed later. These will be examined from various aspects, such as the thinker’s views regarding human nature, their perspective on social organization, their ideas about the development of human nature, the causes of deviance or crime, and suggestions for remedying such deviance and bringing criminals back to the right path. In this regard sociological theory is very important.
Sociological theory:
The originator of this sociological theory is the well-known American criminologist Edwin Sutherland, whose brief introduction has already been mentioned earlier in connection with white-collar crime. Sutherland first published this theory in 1939, but after necessary revisions, it appeared again a few years later.
If the terminology of this theory is ignored, then in Persian it may be expressed as:
“Association with the righteous makes you righteous,
Association with the wicked makes you wicked.”
Another illustration is that short story in which the soil lying at the roots of a rose plant was asked, “From where did you acquire this fragrance?” It replied:
“The beauty of the rose affected me; otherwise I am the same soil that I was.”
The point simply is that, like many other theories in criminology and other sciences, this is not an entirely new idea or concept.
A French thinker, Gabriel Tarde (1912), proposed the idea that crime, like other professions, is also a profession and must be learned just like other occupations. In this theory, association or companionship with criminals is an important factor, which was a central theme in nineteenth-century criminological discussions on causes. Sutherland presented this idea in a more refined and systematic manner. He stated that criminal behavior is acquired through association with law-breaking individuals. This process of learning includes not only techniques of committing crimes but also attitudes, habits, and details that are conducive to anti-social activities. According to Sutherland, criminal behavior is not inherited, because all human behaviors derive their meaning only within a cultural environment, and all behaviors are acquired from one’s surroundings. Criminal conduct is just like law-abiding conduct and is learned through interaction with others.
The acquisition of a criminal identity or profession depends upon long experience. However, sometimes even a single experience can bring about a dramatic change in a person’s life.
Among American criminologists, despite its repetition of meaning and wording, this theory became quite popular, although it was also heavily criticized.
According to Wilson and Herrnstein, this theory does not explain why criminals and other wrongdoers leave non-criminals and their own family members and instead accept advice from criminal companions and adopt their association.
According to Hirschi, this theory ignores the problems of a solitary individual and the fact that many habitual offenders have not maintained connections with law-breaking groups. It also does not explain how such criminals get little or no opportunity for opposite (non-criminal) association.
According to Cressey, several components of this theory cannot be tested experimentally, although the theory itself is fairly acceptable.
This perspective is based on sociology. It divides the whole society into different categories:
This well-known sociological classification is not a theory of crime. Rather, it serves as a background for explaining crime and identifies those individuals who are likely to deviate or go astray. Conformists achieve the traditional goals of life through prescribed legal means, and therefore there is no likelihood of their deviation.
In contrast to them are the innovators. These people, in order to achieve their goals, adopt not only traditional means but also non-traditional methods. This category includes inventors, creators, and those who seek out new paths.
The third category consists of those people who strictly adhere to customs and traditions in order to achieve their goals.
The last four categories in this classification also include deviant individuals. In the United States, where wealth and prosperity are high but the crime rate is also very high, most deviant and law-breaking individuals are found in the category of innovators. American society considers material progress as the goal of life, but the structure of society is such that it does not provide every individual with the necessary means to achieve these goals. The inevitable result is that individuals do not have access to the required means, and under pressure they turn towards law-breaking and deviance.
Those who fail to achieve their goals, since they have fully internalized the norms of society, sublimate their objectives and remain aligned with society through rituals. According to Merton, this often occurs at the lower-middle-class level. It is the result of a strong attachment to rituals, and is reflected in the behavior of a fearful individual, such as a bank cashier.
In contrast to this is the category of retreatists. These are individuals who reject both the socially defined goals and the legal means of achieving them and withdraw. Although they remain part of society, they become detached from it. They strongly believe in the legality of means and cannot turn toward innovation. When they are unable to use legal means, they abandon both the goals and the means of achieving them, thereby freeing themselves from the moral conflict that arises from pursuing goals through legal means. This category includes the mentally ill, epileptics, chronic alcoholics, drug addicts, and vagrants.
The category of rebels includes those who reject both the socially prescribed goals and the means of achieving them. They seek to reconstruct society anew, define new goals, and base their attainment on capability. According to Merton, people in this category are heretics, deviants from tradition, and revolutionaries. They are often labeled as heretics, but if they succeed in their objectives, they are regarded as reformers and even as prophets.
On this basis, Merton formulated his theory of crime, which is called Strain Theory. Robert K. Merton’s Strain Theory explains that crime occurs when there is a gap between societal goals and the legitimate means to achieve them, pushing individuals toward illegal methods. It argues that unequal distribution of resources creates social pressure (anomie), especially among lower classes. However, the theory is criticized for being vague, hard to test, and unable to fully explain crimes among the wealthy or differences in individual behavior. To read in detail about Strain Theory, please click here.
Travis Hirschi’s Social Control theory argues that people are naturally self-interested, but strong social bonds (attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief) keep them from committing crime. Crime occurs when these bonds weaken and individuals detach from societal values and institutions. However, the theory is criticized for being one-sided and unable to explain why some people with weak social ties still obey the law. To read in detail about Social Control Theory by Travis, please click here.
Labeling Theory explains that deviance is not inherent in an act but is created by society through labels assigned to individuals. When a person is labeled (e.g., criminal or mentally ill), they begin to internalize and act according to that label, shaping their identity and behavior. However, the theory is criticized for explaining continued deviance rather than the initial cause of crime, and for overlooking deeper social and structural factors. To read in detail about labelling Theory, please click here.
Psychoanalytic theory explains crime as a result of unconscious psychological conflicts, where hidden desires or mental imbalance push individuals toward criminal behavior. It also suggests that crime can be a form of psychological disorder or expression of inner guilt. Additionally, laws themselves may provoke crime by creating forbidden desires or by triggering a subconscious urge for punishment. To read in detail about Psychoanalytic Theory, please click here.
No Comments