Criminological Theories 2024 PDF

CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES1 1 INTRODUCTION A key question for criminology is how to explain crime. In the past 150 years, criminologists – or scholars we would by today’s standards consider researchers of criminal behaviour – have tried to understand why people commit crimes or why they do not. Unders...

CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES1 1 INTRODUCTION A key question for criminology is how to explain crime. In the past 150 years, criminologists – or scholars we would by today’s standards consider researchers of criminal behaviour – have tried to understand why people commit crimes or why they do not. Understanding why a person commits a crime can help develop ways to control crime or rehabilitate the offender. It can assist in tailoring treatment for offenders, and appropriate punishments, and can help lawmakers enact legislation to address crime properly (O’Connor, 2004). If we understand why crime problems are happening, we can then formulate crime solutions. 1.1 WHAT IS THEORY? Theories are explanations to make sense of our observations about the world. We test hypotheses and create theories that help us understand and explain the phenomena. Theories are tentative answers to the commonly asked questions about events and behaviour: Why? By what process? How does it work? (Akers, Sellers, & Jennings, 2021). They are in essence generalizations to explain how two or more events or factors are related to each other and the conditions under which the relationship takes place (Williams & McShane, 2018). They explain why some people commit crimes and others do not, identify risk factors for committing a crime, and focus on how and why certain laws are created and enforced. If criminological theories are to be scientific, they must be judged by scientific criteria. The most important of these is ‘empirical validity’ or the extent to which a theory can be verified or refuted with carefully gathered evidence2. Note however that empirical validity does not mean that a theory must identify variables that always cause criminal behaviour to occur. Traditional causality in science is based on the premise that ‘cause X’ must precede and produce ‘effect Y’. To be a cause, X must be both a necessary condition (the absence of which means that Y will not occur) and a sufficient condition (so that Y always occurs in the presence of X). No criminological theory can meet these two traditional criteria of necessary and sufficient conditions. In social sciences, ‘probabilistic causality’ is more appropriate for assessing the empirical validity of criminological theories. The probabilistic concept of causation simply asserts that the presence of X renders the occurrence of Y more probable. That is, variations or changes in criminal behaviour are associated or correlated with variations or changes in the explanatory variables identified in the theory. The presence of the variables specified in the theory precedes the occurrence of crime and delinquency, thereby predicting when they are more likely to occur or reoccur. The stronger the correlations and associations, the greater the 1 This paper was NOT written as an academic publication but is composed of excerpts of existing texts, mostly from general criminology books and previous educational papers of prof. Spapens. For readability purposes, references have been kept to a minimum. This paper was compiled for educational purposes only and is not to be distributed. 2 Other scientific criteria that are important, but will not be discussed in this paper, are internal consistency (i.e. the theory has clearly defined concepts and its propositions are logical and consistent), scope (i.e., the more phenomena one theory can explain, the better), parsimony (i.e., the conciseness and abstractness of a set of concepts and propositions), testability (i.e., it must be possible to subject the theory to empirical falsification), and usefulness and policy implications (i.e., the theory must be useful in providing guidelines for effective social and criminal justice policy and practice). 1 theory’s empirical validity. This probabilistic concept of causality suggests that human behaviour is neither completely determined by external forces nor completely an outcome of the unfettered exercise of free-will choices. Rather, behaviour is best understood from the middle-ground perspective of “soft determinism” (Matza, 1964). Soft determinism allows for human agency and recognizes that various factors influence and limit actions, but leave room for individual choices that cannot be completely predicted. Criminological theories are abstract, but they entail more than ivory tower or armchair speculations. They are part of the broader social endeavour to explain human behaviour and society. Such understanding is vital for those who plan to pursue specialised careers in the law or criminal justice. Virtually every policy or action taken regarding crime is based on some underlying theory or theories of crime. It is essential, therefore, to comprehend and evaluate the major theories of criminology, not only for the academic or research criminologist but also for the legal or criminal justice professional (Akers et al., 2021). 1.2 CLASSIFICATIONS OF THEORIES Criminological theories explore various aspects of the offender and the crime providing a framework to understand the cause(s) of the criminal activity and identify risk factors that could have contributed to the criminal behaviour (Miller, 2012). Many theories have been developed throughout the years and there are many ways to classify them into broader categories, making it difficult to choose one overarching classification that fits all theories. Akers et al. (2021) refer to Edwin H. Sutherland’s (1947) definition of criminology to distinguish two types of criminological theories. Sutherland defines criminology as ‘the study of the entire process of lawmaking, lawbreaking, and law enforcing’. One major type of theory addresses the first and third parts of this process: the ‘making and enforcing of the law’ – often referred to as ‘theories of law and criminal justice’. These theories attempt to account for why we have the laws we have and why the criminal justice system operates the way it does. They often answer to question of how or why certain behaviours and people become defined and are dealt with as criminals in society. Why is a particular conduct considered illegal, and what determines the kind of action to be taken when it occurs? How is it decided, and who makes the decision, that such conduct is criminal? Theories try to answer these questions by proposing that social, political and economic variables affect the legislation of law, administrative decisions and rules, and the implementation and operation of law in the criminal justice system. The other type of theory explains ‘lawbreaking’ – referred to as ‘theories of criminal behaviour’. They try to answer the question of why social and legal norms are violated. This question has two interrelated parts: (1) Why are there variations in group rates of crime and deviance?3, and (2) Why are some individuals more likely than others to commit criminal and deviant acts?4. The first sub-question focuses on societal and group patterns and the second on individual differences. These two sub-questions are often referred to as ‘macro-theories’ and ‘micro-theories’. A theory that addresses broader questions about differences across societies or major groups in society is called a macro-theory. Conversely, one that focuses specifically on small-group or individual differences is considered a micro-theory (Alexander et al., 1987). Akers (1985), on the other hand, refers to theories 3 Examples of this question are: Why does the US have a higher crime rate than Japan? Why are crime rates higher is a particular part of the city? How do we explain the difference in drug use among different classes and groups within the same society? 4 Examples of this question are: By what process or under what circumstances do people typically reach the point of obeying or violating the law? Why does one person commits a crime and the other one does not, given the same opportunity? Why are some people more likely to pursue criminal careers? 2 within these two sub-questions as ‘social structural theories’ and ‘social processual theories’. Social structure theories then propose that the proportion of crimes among groups, cases, communities, or societies differ because of variations in their social or cultural makeup. Social process theories assert that an individual commits criminal acts because he or she has experienced a particular life history, possesses a particular set of individual characteristics, or encountered a particular situation. However, theories of criminal behaviour are often neither strictly structural nor processual, although each theory emphasizes one or the other. Burke (2009) has classified theories in different ‘models’, depending on how the theory views the ‘actor’ who commits the crime or exhibits criminal behaviour. He distinguishes three main models: the rational actor model, the predestined actor model, and the victimised actor model of crime and criminal behaviour. The rational actor model is mainly the perspective taken by the Classical School of Criminology. Central to theories within this model is that people have free will and make a rational choice to commit crime in very much the same way as they choose to indulge in any other form of behaviour. The predestined actor model is the predominant model to explain crime and criminal behaviour in the Positivist School of Criminology. Proponents of this perspective will try to explain criminal behaviour in terms of factors, either internal or external to the human being that (in part) determine people to act in ways over which they have little or no control. The victimised actor model is mainly found in Radical and Critical Criminology, and proposes that the criminal is in some way the victim of an unjust and unequal society. Thus, it is the behaviour and activities of the poor and powerless sections of society that are targeted and criminalised while the dubious actions of the rich and powerful are simply ignored or not even defined as criminal. Of course, it is also possible to categorise criminological theories according to the general scientific discipline from which the explanatory variables are drawn. The common classification is then: biological theories (explaining crime with one or more genetic, chemical, neurological or physiological variables), psychological theories (based on personality, emotional maladjustment, psychic disturbance, or psychological traits), social psychological theories (accounting for crime by reference to behaviour, self, and cognitive variables in a group context; cfr. social process theories), and sociological theories (explaining crime with cultural, structural, and sociodemographic variables; cfr. social structure theories) (Akers et al., 2021). However, some theories will draw from two or more disciplines to explain crime (e.g., biosocial theories, that focus on the interaction between biological and psychological or sociological factors). However, with all these possible ways of classifying criminological theories comes the issue that explanations of criminal behaviour have become increasingly complex as researchers have become aware that crime is a more complicated and perplexing matter than their criminological predecessors had previously recognised. As each tradition has developed there has been an increasing recognition by researchers of a need to address previously identified weaknesses internal the theoretical model. The solution has invariably encompassed recognition of the at least partial strengths contained within alternative approaches. Some more recent theoretical initiatives are impossible to locate in any of the different classifications, as they cross model or category boundaries by developing integrated theoretical approaches. However, discussing these integrated theoretical approaches is out of the scope of this paper. In this paper, we will focus on discussing the major criminological perspectives and theories. An attempt was made to structure these theories within the three models of crime and criminal behaviour proposed by Burke (2009). Of course, other authors might classify certain criminological theories differently. 3 2 THE RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL OF CRIME AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR During the 17th and 18th centuries, a range of philosophical, political, economic and social ideas were developed and articulated that fundamentally critiqued the established order and its religious interpretation of the natural world. This marked the beginning of the Classical School of Criminology. Classical criminology refers primarily to the 18th century writings of Cesare Beccaria in Italy and Jeremy Bentham in England. Both were utilitarian social philosophers who were primarily concerned with legal and penal reform rather than with formulating an explanation of criminal behaviour. The basic premise in classical criminology is that people have free will and make the choice to commit crime in very much the same way as they choose to indulge in any form of behaviour. All individuals choose to obey or violate the law by a rational calculation of the risk of pain versus potential pleasure derived from an act. People are fundamentally hedonistic and will pursue a course of action if the outcome is perceived to offer more pleasure than pain. In contemplating a criminal act, they take into account the probable legal penalties and the likelihood that they will be caught. If they believe that the legal penalty threatens more pain than the probable gain produced by the crime, they will not commit the crime. This is called the deterrence doctrine. The traditional classical assumption behind this argument is that the amount of pleasure or gain derived from a particular crime is the same for everyone. Therefore, punishment should fit the crime, not the individual. The law should strictly apply the penalty called for a particular crime, and the penalty should not vary by the characteristics or circumstances of the offender. In later years, neo- classicists did, however, recognize that children, the insane and the ‘feeble-minded’ were less capable of exercising free choice and thus less responsible for their actions5. The key principles in the deterrence doctrine are: Proportionality: Punishment must be in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. The more serious or harmful the crime, the more the individual stands to gain from it. Therefore, the more serious the crime, the more severe the penalty should be to deter it. Certainty: Refers to the probability of apprehension and punishment for a crime. To deter people from crime, people need to know that punishment will most definitely follow. Celerity: Refers to the swiftness with which criminal sanctions are applied after the commission of a crime. If crime is quickly followed by a punishment, people will be more deterred from committing crime. The rational actor model went out of fashion as an explanatory model of crime and criminal behaviour at the end of the 19th century, and was replaced predominantly by the predestined actor model (see chapter 3). It nevertheless continued to inform criminal justice systems throughout the world. Furthermore, these classical ideas have seen a resurrection during the 1970s and 1980s. Below, we will briefly discuss two contemporary rational actor theories: the rational choice theory and the routine activities theory (or opportunity theory). 5 The outcome of the neo-classical school was that sentences became more individualised, dependent on the perceived degree of responsibility and on mitigating circumstances. Furthermore, it was then recognised that a particular punishment would have a differential effect on different people, and as a result punishment came increasingly to be expressed in terms of punishment appropriate to rehabilitation. It is in the neo-classical school that we can observe the beginnings of the recognition that various innate predisposing factors may actually determine human behaviour, which is a significant perception that was to provide the fundamental theoretical foundation of the predestined actor model of crime and criminal behaviour. 4 2.1 RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY Rational choice theory is based on the ‘expected utility principle’ in economic theory. The expected utility principle simply states that people will make rational decisions based on the extent to which they expect to maximize their profits or benefits and minimize their costs or losses. Some criminologists began in the 1980s to refer to this economic model of rational choice as part of the movement to expand the deterrence doctrine beyond legal punishment. The theory is proposed as a general, all-inclusive explanation of both the decision to commit a specific crime and the development of, or desistance from, a criminal career. The decisions are based on the offender’s expected effort and reward compared to the likelihood and severity of punishment and other costs of crime. When the expected utility of a crime is greater than the utility of a noncriminal alternative, it is predicted that the crime will be selected. However, the benefits don’t have to only be material: it may also be rational to commit a crime because it is exciting or fun, offers prestige, sexual gratification, or the opportunity to dominate others (Newburn, 2007). The key premises of rational choice theory can be summarised in the following five propositions (Burke, 2009): 1) Most criminals are normal-reasoning people. The mode of reasoning used by all adults – with perhaps the exception of the mentally ill – is rational. 2) Rationality is a mode of thinking in which individuals are able to accurately distinguish means and ends: what they want and the means available to them for obtaining those ends. 3) For each of the different means available to them, rational actors are able to calculate the likely costs (things they do not want to happen) and benefits (how many or how much of their ends they can achieve) of following a course of action. 4) If the benefits outweigh the costs, do it. If the costs outweigh the benefits, don’t do it. 5) It is not necessary to consider prior causes, antecedents and structures. All that matters are the rational judgements and calculations facing a given person, with their particular set of ends and preferences, in a given situation. If we interpret the theory as there being some kind of ‘pure’ rationality, i.e., that an offender chooses to commit a crime with full knowledge and free will, taking into account only a carefully reasoned, objectively or subjectively determined set of costs and benefits, then this rational choice theory has virtually no empirical validity. The main problem of rational choice theory is known as “bounded rationality”. The purely rational calculation of the probable consequences of an action is a rarity, even among the general conforming public. There are thus some ‘boundaries’ to this assumed rationality. Studies show that offenders do try to avoid capture, but their actions and assessments of the risks tend to be very unrealistic, even to some extent irrational. They are unable to make reasonable assessments of the risks of arrest, do little planning for the crime, and are uninformed about the legal penalties. Moreover, rather than thinking of possible negative consequences of their actions, offenders report thinking primarily of the anticipated positive consequences. They simply believe that they will not be caught and refuse to think beyond that point. From a rational choice perspective one would expect criminals to choose to commit crimes which offer the best rewards in terms of costs and benefits, but in practice they do not. Instead, criminals based their choices on opportunities they have access to; their knowledge, past experiences, and capabilities; the conditions that characterize and are created by the social situations in which they find themselves; and the measures taken by victims and authorities to prevent them. 5 Thus, modern rational choice theorists have developed models of partial rationality that incorporate limitations and constraints on choice through lack of information, moral values, and other influences on criminal behaviour. For example, Cornish and Clarke (1986) have argued that a sequence of choices has to be made instead of just one simple choice and that these choices are influenced by several social and psychological factors that individuals bring with them to the situation. These factors can be understood as ‘criminal motivations’, which incline or dispose individuals, more or less, towards criminality (Newburn, 2007). Thus, although modern rational choice theorists often refer to the “reasoning criminal” and the “rational component” in crime, they go to great lengths to point out how limited and circumscribed reasoning and rationality are. The empirically verified models in the literature are based on the assumptions of a fairly minimal level of rationality. This broadening of the rational choice theory, however, makes it a different theory. This “wider” model, which assumes limited rationality and leaves room for “soft incentives” as well as tangible and intangible constraints found in informal social networks, assumes a level of rationality that is indistinguishable from that expected in other theories under the predestined actor model. 2.2 ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY Deterrence and rational choice theories are considered micro-level theories because they emphasize the factors that influence the decision to commit a crime at the level of the individual offender. Other micro-level explanations contextualize offender decision-making by taking into account not only the perceived costs and benefits of offending but also the specific (micro-level) conditions under which these costs and benefits are most likely to occur. Crime opportunity theories identify crime- generating situations or circumstances related to both the timing and the location of crime events. It is based on 10 principles (Barlow & Kauzlarich, 2009): 1) Opportunities play a role in causing all crime. 2) Crime opportunities are highly specific. 3) Crime opportunities are concentrated in time and space. 4) Crime opportunities depend on everyday movements of activity. 5) One crime produces opportunities for another. 6) Some products offer more tempting crime opportunities. 7) Social and technological changes produce new crime opportunities. 8) Crime can be prevented by reducing opportunities 9) Reducing opportunities does not usually displace crime. 10) Focused opportunity can produce wider declines in crime. The most well-known version of opportunity theory is known as Routine Activities Theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979). According to this theory, there are three main categories of variables that increase or decrease the likelihood that persons will be victims of personal or property crime: a) A motivated offender b) A suitable target for criminal victimization c) The absence of a capable guardian The main proposition in the theory is that the rate of criminal victimization is increased when there is a “convergence in space and time of the three minimal elements of direct-contact predatory violations”. That is, the likelihood of crime increases when there are one or more persons present who are motivated to commit a crime, a suitable target or potential victim is 6 available, and an absence of formal or informal guardians who could deter the potential offender. Guardianship is to be taken broadly: capable guardians can be ‘formal’ guardians, such as police officers, but can also be ‘informal’ guardians, such as other citizens, oneself, friends, family, or even strangers. The theory derives its name from the fact that Cohen and Felson (1979) began with the assumption that the conjunction of these elements of crime is related to the normal, legal, and “routine” activities of potential victims and guardians. They state that “the spatial and temporal structure of routine legal activities should play an important role in determining the location, type, and quantity of illegal acts occurring in a given community or society” (p. 590). Routine activities are then “recurrent and prevalent activities that provide for basic population and individual needs... formalized work, as well as the provision of standard food, shelter, sexual outlet, leisure, social interaction, learning, and childbearing”. They hypothesized that daily activities related to work, school, and leisure, places more people in particular places at particular times, which both increases their accessibility as targets of crime and keeps them away from home as guardians of their own possessions and property. The central message of opportunity-rationality theories is, first, that crime cannot be understood apart from the nature and distribution of opportunities for both criminal and noncriminal behaviour, and second, that when criminals find themselves in situations in which they have opportunities to commit crime, the decision to do so (or not) is a rational one. There has been some criticism on this theory. Firstly, research on RAT tends to focus on target suitability and the absence of guardianship, but not on the concept of ‘the motivated offender’. The theory tends to assume that the motivation to offend is universal. Thus, because all persons are potentially motivated to commit crime, can the presence of a motivated offender simply be assumed from the presence of any person? If so, how does the theory distinguish between circumstances in which a motivated offender is present and those in which there is not? Secondly, the theory seems to apply well to standard petty crimes, and property crimes and violence in particular, but less to victimless crimes and crimes of omission (e.g., corporate crime). In these latter cases, defining what is a ‘suitable target’ is problematic, because there is, for instance, no material object involved to steal, or a person to commit violence against. 3 THE PREDESTINED ACTOR MODEL OF CRIME AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR The Classical School, with its rational actor model, retained a virtual monopoly on the study of crime until the latter part of the 19th century. By the 1870s, the classical theory, which upheld the belief that persons rationally calculate pleasure and pain during the exercise of free will to commit or refrain from crime, began to give way to a more ‘positivist’ perspective. This marked the beginning of the Positivist School or Criminology. Positivist theories on crime and criminal behaviour focused predominantly on identifying differences between those who are ‘criminals’ and those who are ‘non- criminal’. The emphasis is on the study of criminal behaviour, and causes of crime, rather than on the creation of laws or the operation of criminal justice systems. Positivists thus focus on causality, on tangible and quantifiable ‘objective knowledge’. Different from the classicists is that they use scientific and empirical methodologies, from which quantifiable data could be produced. The Positivist School is based on a predestined actor model of crime and criminal behaviour: behaviour is not rational, but for many reasons involuntary and not a matter of choice of the offender. Proponents of this perspective fundamentally reject the rational actor emphasis on free will and replace it with the doctrine of determinism. From this positive standpoint, criminal behaviour is 7 explained in terms of factors, either internal or external to the human being that cause - or determine – people to act in ways over which they have little or no control. The individual is thus in some way predestined to be(come) a criminal. The Positivist school encompasses a wide range of theoretical perspectives, which can be found in different scientific disciplines. In what follows, we will classify the positivist theories into biological theories, psychological theories, social process (or social psychological) theories, and social structure (or sociological) theories. 3.1 BIOLOGICAL AND BIOSOCIAL THEORIES 3.1.1 The early ‘hard’ biological theories The early biological perspectives proposed that crime is not a rationally reasoned behaviour, but rather the result of inborn abnormalities. The most important of the early biological theories, the one from which nearly all other biological theories stem, was first introduced by Cesare Lombroso in 1976 in his most famous work “L’Uomo Delinquente” (The Criminal Man). Lombroso was the first criminologist who assumed that biological factors affected a person’s propensity to commit crimes. He based his ideas on the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin and theorised that it was possible to identify criminals by studying their physical appearance and comparing it with ‘normal’ people. Lombroso is considered by many as the founding father of criminology as he was the first to use empirical methods to investigate his ideas, although his work was both theoretically and methodologically flawed. Lombroso observed the physical characteristics (head, body, arms and skin) of Italian prisoners and compared them to Italian soldiers. From these comparisons, he concluded that criminals were physically different from law-abiding citizens and that these differences demonstrated the biological causes of criminal behaviour. He believed that certain physical features – which he called stigmata (e.g. asymmetry of the face, large monkey-like ears, receding chin) – identified the convict in prison as a “born criminal”. The born criminal is an atavism, Lombroso theorised, a throwback to an earlier stage of human evolution. He has the physical makeup, mental capabilities, and instincts of a primitive man, and is, therefore, unsuited for life in a civilised society and, unless specifically prevented, will inevitably violate its social and legal rules. Lombrosian theory became dominant in European and American criminology and penology, although his theory and his findings were later falsified. Nevertheless, the Lombrosian notion of criminal inferiority was widely promoted and is also found in other early biological theories. In all of these theories, the central proposition was that criminals, at least the most serious and dangerous ones, were born, not made; they were criminal by “nature” rather than “nurtured” into criminality by their social environment. Criminals did not simply behave differently from ordinary people, they were inherently different with an inferior or defective biology that determined their criminal behaviour. By the 1950s, biological theories in criminology had been thoroughly discredited. These biological theories seldom withstood empirical tests and often espoused simplistic racist and sexist notions that easily crumbled under closer scrutiny. Traditional biological criminology was viewed as simplistic, 8 untestable, illogical, and often based on ideological biases. The early biological theories often served as intellectual justification for unjust and repugnant policies of exclusion and eugenics6. Since then, thinking about biological explanations of criminal behaviour therefore remained suspect for decades. For a long time, there was great reluctance to resort to biological explanations in criminology and those who tried were subject to smear campaigns. 3.1.2 Modern biosocial theories From the last three decades of the 20th century to the present times, modern biosocial theorists have rejected the kind of strict biological determinism characteristic of the early Lombrosian theory. These more recent and current biological explanations are founded on newer scientific discoveries and technical advances in genetics, brain functioning, neurology, nutrition, and biochemistry. Because of this, explanations of crime that focus on or include biological variables have come to occupy a new place of respectability in criminology. Although they must still contend with methodological problems and questionable empirical validity, theories that emphasise biological causes of crime are taken more seriously today. Modern biological explanations are compatible with “mainstream” criminological theories that rely on psychological and sociological factors. For these reasons, researchers prefer that their theories be known as “biosocial” rather than “biological” theories of crime. Most modern biosocial theorists take a new course with the assumption that behaviour, whether conforming or deviant, results from the interaction of the biological makeup of the human organism with the physical and social environment. “There is no nature versus nurture, there is only nature via nurture” (Walsh, 2000, p. 1080). Therefore, no specific criminal behaviour is inherited or physiologically preordained, nor is there any single gene that produces criminal acts. Behavioural potentials and susceptibilities, they propose, can be triggered by the interaction of environmental and biological factors. These potentialities have different probabilities of actual occurrence, depending on the environments the individual encounters over a period of time. Few biological factors in crime are viewed today as having fixed and immutable effects. Rather, they interact with and may be affected by the physical and social environment. “As a rule, what is inherited is not a behaviour; rather, it is the way in which an individual responds to the environment. It provides an orientation, predisposition, or tendency to behave in a certain fashion …” (Fishbein, 1990). The emphasis in biosocial theories has shifted from the earlier speculation over physical stigmata, body type, and constitutional makeup of the ‘born criminal’ to the current focus on research in neurobiology, which includes biochemistry (e.g., nutrition, male and female hormonal balances, metabolism) and neurophysiology (e.g., brain functions, central and autonomic nervous systems, physiological arousal levels, neurotransmitters) and genetics (e.g., behavioural genetics, heritability, molecular genetics). It would however take us too far to discuss all these different topics in this introductory class on criminological theories. 3.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES There are few psychological stand-alone theories on crime and criminal behaviour. However, concepts and variables from a range of psychological approaches can be found in other theories, such as 6 Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population, historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior (e.g., the Nazi regime in Germany, segregation in the USA). 9 behavioural, neuro-psychological and developmental approaches (e.g., behavioural learning theory is part of the theoretical base for social learning theory). 3.2.1 Personality trait theory In personality theory, the problem lies in abnormal, inadequate, or specifically criminal personalities or personality traits that differentiate delinquents and criminals from law-abiding people. One version of personality theory explains criminal and delinquent behaviour as an expression of such deviant personality traits as impulsiveness, aggressiveness, sensation-seeking, rebelliousness, hostility, and so one. Personality trait psychology is fairly broad in scope from minor delinquency to serious criminal behaviour, but because the list of deviance-producing traits is rather long, it is not parsimonious. The personality trait theory assumes that a person’s personality traits correlate with the risk of offending7. Currently, the so-called ‘Big Five’ model is widely used to assess personality traits. The model comprises five dimensions: extraversion (energetic and sociable), agreeableness (ability to get along with others), conscientiousness (ability to resist impulse), neuroticism (negative emotions and irrationality) and openness (willingness to engage in new experiences). Some individuals are exceedingly compliant, self-disciplined, and easy to get along with in terms of their basic nature, characteristics that personality psychologists would recognise as high conscientiousness and high agreeableness. Such individuals tend to do very well in life and experience success in their family relationships, their school and work careers, and their ability to lead a crime-free life. Most individuals – comprising the bulk of the population – also do fairly well in terms of their ability to get along with others and regulate their conduct. Although they are not as ascetic as the former type of person, they nevertheless are able to regulate their conduct appropriately in most situations and in accordance with societal demands (Van Dijk et al., 2018). A fairly small number of individuals, certainly less than 5 per cent of the human population, are generally noncompliant, have difficulty regulating their conduct, and face many hardships due to their unwillingness and incapacity to get along with others. Those who show antisocial and criminal behaviour are found more often to be self-centred, impulsive, defiant, mean, inconsiderate and short- sided (DeLisi, 2019). According to a meta-study, these traits strongly correlate with a lack of agreeableness and conscientiousness in the Big Five model. The three other dimensions in the model showed only a very weak relation with antisocial behaviour. 7 Please note: these are mostly correlation, not causations. Everybody exhibits certain personality traits to a larger or lesser degree. Studies on personality traits can mostly indicate which personality traits are more common among a certain group of offenders, but little empirical support can be found that these personality traits ‘cause’ crime. 10 3.2.2 Personality type theory A related version claims that criminal and delinquent offenders differ from law-abiding persons in basic personality types. Conformity reflects a normal personality. Serious criminal violations spring from an aberrant personality variously labelled a psychopathic, antisocial, or sociopathic personality. These labels are applied to a self-centred person who has not been properly socialized into prosocial attitudes and values, who has developed no sense of right and wrong, who has no empathy for others, and who is incapable of feeling remorse or guilt for misconduct or harm to others. Personality type theory is more parsimonious than personality trait theory in its postulating a single personality type (under which is subsumed a number of antisocial traits or characteristics) as the explanation of criminal behaviour, but has a more limited scope, applying mainly to the most serious and persistent offenders. Robert Hare is the chief proponent of psychopathy as a theory of criminal behaviour. According to Hare, psychopaths are entirely self-centred “social predators” who, although capable of being charming, manipulate others for their own purposes and lack any conscience so that they feel no guilt, remorse, or regret for their antisocial behaviour or the harm they do to others. Hare preferred the term psychopath over sociopath because he believed that “psychological, biological, and genetic factors (beyond social forces) also contribute to the development of the psychopathic syndrome”. He took the position that the psychopathic personality is formed through the “interplay between biological factors and social factors... provided in part by nature and possibly by some unknown biological influences on the developing foetus and neonate” (Hare, 1999, p. 173), and proposed that biological factors work against normal socialization and formation of conscience, whereas poor parenting and parental abuse affect the development of psychopathy. The theory does not propose that all psychopaths are criminals or that all criminals are psychopaths. Generally speaking, recent research has identified psychopathy to be significantly associated with a versatile criminal career, life- course-persistent offending and violent crime. 3.3 SOCIAL PROCESS THEORIES Humans are social animals and most of us like to have friends to share our time with and to help us navigate life. We need some social support from our friends, parents, and teachers in order to develop emotionally and intellectually. For many years, social scientists have been able to show that our relationships with intimate others substantially impact our values, beliefs and behaviour. Criminologists are especially interested in the manner in which friends, parents, teachers and other significant people teach us lessons about obeying or disobeying rules. Social process theories recognise that not all people exposed to the same social structure (cfr. social structure theories) engage in the same behaviour, nor do people who come from dissimilar social environments necessarily behave differently. Social process theories are concerned with how individuals acquire social attributes through interaction with others. They take on a social psychological approach to crime and criminal behaviour and view crime as a function of socialization processes through interaction with others. In the next sections, we will briefly introduce two of the key groups of social process theories: social learning theories, and social bonding and control theories. 3.3.1 Social learning theory Social learning theory has been used to refer to virtually any social behaviouristic approach in social science, principally that of Albert Bandura. As a general perspective emphasizing “reciprocal 11 interaction between cognitive, behavioural and environmental determinants” (Badura, 1977), variants of social learning can be found in a number of areas in psychology and sociology. In the field of criminology, however, social learning theory refers primarily to the theory of crime and deviance developed by Ronald L. Akers. It is a behaviouristic reformulation of Edwin H. Sutherland’s differential association theory of crime. It is a general theory that has been applied to a wide range of deviant and criminal behaviour, and is one of the most frequently tested (and empirically validated) theories. 3.3.1.1 Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory Edwin H. Sutherland proposed Differential Association Theory as an explanation of individual criminal behaviour. According to this theory, criminal behaviour patterns are acquired through processes of interaction and communication, just as are other behaviour patterns. Sutherland wanted it clearly understood that criminal behaviour was not the result of biological or psychological pathology, but rather was one possible outcome of normal interactive processes. The theory has the following nine premises: 1. Criminal behaviour is learned. 2. Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. 3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal groups. 4. When criminal behaviour is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple, and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. 5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favourable or unfavourable. 6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law. 7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. 8. The process of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. 9. Although criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, because noncriminal behaviour is an expression of the same needs and values. So, criminal behaviour is considered to be learned in a symbolic interaction with others, mainly in primary or intimate groups. Although all nine statements constitute the theory, it is the sixth statement that Sutherland identified as the principle of Differential Association. The theory explains criminal behaviour by the exposure to other’s definitions favourable to criminal behaviour, balanced against contact with conforming definitions. Although one expects that law-violating definitions are typically communicated by those who have violated the law, it is possible to learn law-abiding definitions from them, just as one can be exposed to deviant definitions from law-abiding people. The 7th principle in the theory makes it clear that the process is not a simple matter of either criminal or noncriminal association, but one that varies according to what are called ‘the modalities of association’. That is, if persons are exposed first (priority), more frequently, for a longer time (duration), and with greater intensity (importance) to law-violation definitions than to law-abiding definitions, then they are more likely to deviate from the law. 12 Certain shortcomings were identified with this early version of differential association theory: the language is imprecise, the theory is untestable because major variables such as ‘definitions (un)favourable to law violations’ cannot be measured, the theory deals with the acquisition and performance of behaviour but leaves out any mention of personality traits or other psychological variables, and the theory does not explain the fact that people often respond differently to the same situation. 3.3.1.2 Aker’s Social Learning Theory Sutherland asserted in the 8th statement of his theory that all the mechanisms of learning are involved in criminal behaviour, but he did not explain what these mechanisms of learning were. These learning mechanisms were further specified by Ronald Akers (and initially also Robert Burgess) in his social learning theory, applying it to criminal, delinquent, and deviant behaviour in general. Social learning theory is not an alternative to Differential Association Theory. Instead, it is a broader theory that retains all of the differential association processes in Sutherland’s theory (albeit clarified and somewhat modified) and integrates it with differential reinforcement and other principles of behavioural acquisition, continuation and cessation. Akers explicitly identified the learning mechanisms as those found in modern behavioural theory. He retained the concepts of differential association and definitions from Sutherland’s theory but conceptualised them in more behavioural terms and added concepts from behavioural learning theory, mainly that of operant conditioning - a view that argues that certain behaviour is learned because past examples have been rewarded. Akers proposes that the learning of criminal behaviour takes place through a specific sequence of events. The process starts with the differential association of the individual with other persons who have favourable definitions of criminal behaviour and they thus provide a model of criminal behaviour to be imitated and differential reinforcements for that behaviour. Thus, primarily differential association, definitions, imitation and differential reinforcement explain the initial participation of the individual in criminal behaviour. Imitation refers to the engagement in behaviour after the observation of similar behaviour in others. Whether the behaviour modelled by others will be imitated is affected by the characteristics of the models, the behaviour observed, and the observed consequences of the behaviour. The observation of salient models in primary groups and the media affects both prosocial and deviant behaviour. Differential reinforcement refers to the balance of anticipated or actual rewards and punishments that follow or are consequences of behaviour. Whether individuals will refrain from or commit a crime at any given time (and whether they will continue or desist from doing so in the future) depends on the past, present, and anticipated future rewards and punishments for their actions. The probability that an act will be committed or repeated is increased by rewarding outcomes or reactions to it (e.g., obtaining approval, money, food, or pleasant feelings) – positive reinforcement. The likelihood that an action will be taken is also enhanced when it allows the person to avoid or escape aversive or unpleasant events – negative reinforcement. Punishment may also be direct (positive) in which painful or unpleasant consequences are attached to a behaviour, or indirect (negative), in which a reward or pleasant consequence is removed. Just as there are modalities of association, there are modalities of reinforcement – amount, frequency, and probability. The greater the value or amount of reinforcement for the person’s behaviour, the more frequently it is reinforced, 13 and the higher the probability that it will be reinforced (as balanced against alternative behaviour), the greater the likelihood that it will occur and be repeated. Thus, after the individual has commenced offending behaviour, differential reinforcements determine whether the person will continue with that behaviour. Social learning theory is one of the most empirically tested criminological theories. Research quite consistently finds strong to moderate relationships between the social learning variables and delinquent, criminal and deviant behaviour. 3.3.2 Social bonding and control theories Some proponents insist that control theory is entirely different from all other theories of crime because rather than trying to determine why some people deviate from social and legal norms, it asks: Why does anyone conform? Why don’t we all violate the rules? The answer offered by control theory is that we conform because social controls prevent us from committing crimes. Whenever these controls break down or weaken, deviance is likely to result. Control theory argues that people are motivated to conform by social controls but need no special motivation to violate the law. That comes naturally in the absence of controls. This ‘natural motivation’ assumption does not necessarily refer to inborn tendencies to crime. Rather, it refers to the assumption that there is no individual variation in motivations to commit crime; the impetus toward crime is uniform or evenly distributed across society. Because of this uniform motivation to commit crime, we will all push up against the rules of society and break through them unless we are controlled. Thus, control theorists assert that their objective is not to explain crime, but to explain why we do not commit crime. However, not all control theorists simply assume that everyone is equally motivated to deviate, nor do all confine themselves only to the problem of identifying influences toward conformity. Some control theorists have specifically incorporated the crime-motivating factors of personality, social environment, or situation into their own theories. Consequently, there is really not much difference between control theories and other theories in the type of questions about crime that each tries to answer. Whatever their other differences, all theories of crime, including control theory, ultimately propose to account for variations in criminal and delinquent behaviour. 3.3.2.1 Early control theories Albert J. Reiss (1951) provided one of the earliest applications of the concept of control to criminology by attributing the cause of delinquency to the failure of “personal” and “social” controls. Personal controls are internalized, whereas social controls operate through the external application of legal and informal social sanctions. Nye (1958) later expanded on this and identified three main categories of social control that prevent delinquency: a) Direct control, by which punishment is imposed or threatened for misconduct and compliance is rewarded by parents. b) Indirect control, by which a youth refrains from delinquency because his or her acts might cause pain and disappointment for parents or others with whom one has close relationships. c) Internal control, by which a youth’s conscience or sense of guilt prevents him or her from engaging in delinquent acts Nye recognised that direct controls could be exercised through formal or legal sanctions, but he emphasized informal, indirect controls in the family. 14 At about the same time, Walter Reckless (1961) proposed the “containment” theory of delinquency and crime. His containment theory was built on the same concepts of internal and external control, which Reckless termed “inner” and “outer” containment. Reckless went beyond this, however, to include factors that motivate youth to commit delinquent acts (i.e., “pushes” and “pulls” toward delinquency). The basic proposition is that these inner and outer pushes and pulls will produce delinquent behaviour unless they are counteracted by inner and outer containment. When the motivations for deviance are strong and containment is weak, crime and delinquency are to be expected. Outer containment includes parental and school supervision and discipline, strong group cohesion, and a consistent moral front. Inner containment consists primarily of a strong conscience or a “good self-concept”, which renders one less vulnerable to the pushes and pulls of a deviant environment, is the product of socialization in the family, and is essentially formed by age 12. 3.3.2.2 Hirschi’s social bonding theory All of the earlier control theories were superseded by the version proposed by Travis Hirschi (1969). His control theory is usually referred to as social bonding theory. His social bonding theory, and his self-control theory proposed with Michael Gottfredson (see next section), are what most criminologists today mean when they refer to control theory. Hirschi formulated a control theory that brought together elements from all previous control theories and offered new ways to account for delinquent behaviour. His theory begins with the general proposition that “delinquent acts result when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken”. There are four principal elements that make up this bond – attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. The stronger these elements of social bonding with parents, adults, teachers, and peers, the more the individual’s behaviour will be controlled in the direction of conformity. The weaker they are, the more likely it is that the individual will violate the law. The four elements are viewed by Hirschi as highly intercorrelated: the weakening of one will probably be accompanied by the weakening of another. Attachment to others: The individual’s affective involvement with conventional others (e.g., parents, teachers, friends), including sensitivity to their thoughts, feelings, and desires. The more insensitive we are to others’ opinions, the less we are constrained by the norms that we share with them; therefore, the more likely we are to violate these norms. Hirschi claims that it does not matter to whom one is attached, that determines adherence to or violation of conventional rules. Even for the juvenile attached to delinquent friends, the stronger the attachment to those friends, the less likely he or she will tend to be delinquent. Commitment: The extent to which individuals have built up an investment in conventionality or a “stake in conformity” that would be jeopardized or lost by engaging in law violation or other forms of deviance. The greater the commitment, the more one risks losing by non- conformity. Involvement: Deviance is in part a matter of opportunities to deviate. The more one is involved in conventional things (e.g., studying, time with family, extracurricular activities), the less likely he will become involved in non-conforming pursuits. Belief: A common value system within the society or group whose norms are being violated, especially beliefs that laws and society’s rules in general are morally correct and should be obeyed. When an individual’s belief in the moral validity of norms and laws is weakened, the more likely he is to violate them. Hirschi’s social bonding theory has generally received support in empirical research: the weaker the bonds, the higher the probability of delinquency. However, the element of ‘involvement’ does not 15 show significant effects. Indeed, involvement is the weakest part of the theory, because generally, the fact that a person’s time is consumed by study, work, family or sports, does not imply that there is no time or opportunity left to commit crimes. Another remarkable finding was that delinquency is most strongly related to associations with delinquent friends, a finding not anticipated by the theory. Other research has found that attachment to peers leads to conformity only when the peers themselves are conventional. Contrary to what Hirschi hypothesized (see bullet point on ‘attachment to others’), those who are strongly attached to delinquent friends are themselves more likely to be delinquent, a finding more in line with social learning theory than with social bonding theory. 3.3.2.3 Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Self-Control Theory Hirschi later moved away from his classic social bonding formulation of control theory and collaborated with Michael Gottfredson to propose a theory of crime based on one type of control only: self-control. They present self-control theory as a general theory that explains all individual differences in the “propensity” to refrain from or to commit crime, including all acts of crimes and deviance, at all ages, and under all circumstances. The theory states that individuals with high self-control will be “substantially less likely at all periods of life to engage in criminal acts”, whereas those with low self-control are highly likely to commit crime. Taking rational choice theory as a starting point, Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that crime, as any other behaviour, turns on the likelihood that it will bring pleasure. Low self-control will lead to criminal behaviour when opportunities are available, but it can be counteracted by circumstance and, therefore does not “require crime”. This means that the circumstances have to be right before the lack of self-control will produce crime. Gottfredson and Hirschi however do not specify whether these circumstantial factors are external controls that make up for this lack of self-control, stronger positive motivations to commit the crime, or positive motivations to refrain from crime. The source of low self-control is ineffective or incomplete socialisation, especially ineffective child- rearing. Parents who are attached to their children, supervise their children closely, recognize the lack of self-control in their children, and punish deviant acts will help to socialize children into self-control. Schools and other social institutions contribute to socialization, but it is the family in which the most important socialization takes place. Since they assume that socialization into self-control is formed in childhood and remains relatively stable from the age of 10, Gottfredson and Hirschi consider peer groups to be relatively unimportant in the development of self-control. Low self-control not only explains crime but also explains ‘analogous behaviour’, such as smoking, drinking, drug use, illicit sex, … All are seen as alternative “manifestations” of low self-control. The theory hypothesizes that low self-control is the cause of the propensity toward criminal behaviour. However, the testability of this explanation is called into question by the fact that they do not define self-control separately from this propensity. They use “low” or “high” self-control simply as labels for this differential propensity to commit or refrain from crime. They do not identify operational measures of low self-control as separate from the very tendency to commit crimes that low self-control is supposed to explain. The propensity toward crime and low self-control are treated by them as one and the same, causing an untestable tautology. The hypothesis is true by definition: low self-control causes low self-control. Nevertheless, some studies have managed to test the theory in a non- tautological way (e.g. Gramick et al., 1993), by developing operational measures of self-control that are separate from measures of criminal behaviour or propensity towards crime. Although some research contradicts the theory, on balance the empirical evidence supports the theory. Low self- control must be considered an important predictor of criminal behaviour, but studies do not support 16 the argument that self-control is the sole cause of crime or that the “perspective can claim the exalted status of being the general theory of crime”. 3.4 SOCIAL STRUCTURE THEORIES Instead of looking at individualist explanations, social structure theories look for explanations of criminal behaviour in the environment in which people live. These theories take on a macro-level approach. They see crime not only as acts engaged in by individuals but also as a pattern of activities that characterizes an entire community. As such, these theories attempt to identify differences between communities, collectivities, or social categories with higher and lower rates of crime. This perspective should not be confused with that of the victimised actor model (see chapter 4), which proposes that it is the weak and powerless who are defined as criminal and targeted by the rich and powerful in an inherently unequal and unfair society. Social structure theorists recognise that crime is a socially constructed entity but at the same time acknowledge that it poses a real threat to the continuance of that society and thus needs to be controlled in some way. Nevertheless, social structural theories of crime are almost exclusively theories of lower-class crime. Crime is an unexceptional consequence of economic, social, and political disadvantage. This common thread reflects an assumption that is made about human nature: human beings are basically good people. When they become ‘bad’, it is because they are pushed or pulled into crime by adverse conditions. If the lot of the lower classes was improved, there would be less crime. 3.4.1 Social disorganization theory Social disorganisation theory was first developed in the studies of urban crime and delinquency by sociologists at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s. These ‘Chicago studies’ plotted out the residential location of those youths who had been referred to juvenile court from different areas of Chicago. These studies were grounded in a theory of urban ecology by Robert E. Park, which viewed the city as analogous to the natural ecological communities of plants and animals. Ernest Burgess first examined the process of urban expansion, observing that cities do not expand only at their outermost edges; instead, various areas inside the city expand radially, creating pressure on surrounding areas to expand further outward themselves. Burgess’s centric zone theory depicted the city as a target, consisting of a series of concentric rings. Each ring or zone was delineated by a different function or pattern of activities. In Burgess’s theory, as the city grows, each inner ring invades the ring that immediately surrounds it, setting off the process of invasion, domination, and succession. Burgess (1925) demarcated five different rings, or zones, that comprised the city. These were the Central business district (zone II), the Transitional zone (zone II), the Working-class housing zone (zone III), the Middle-Class housing zone or residential zone (Zone IV), and the Upper-class housing zone or commuter zone (Zone V). Using Burgess’s concentric zone map of Chicago as a template, Shaw and McKay examined the geographic distribution of delinquent boys (i.e., boys under age 17 who had had contact with the police, the juvenile court, and/or a juvenile correctional institution) across the city. They found that the distribution of delinquents around the city fit a pattern. The rates of delinquents were highest near the inner city and decreased outwardly toward the more affluent areas. The inner-city neighbourhoods maintained high rates of delinquency over decades, despite the racial and ethnic makeup of the population in those areas undergoing substantial change. The same pattern of declining rates of delinquents as the distance from the inner-city neighbourhood increased was found within each racial or ethnic group. 17 Their most striking finding was that delinquents were concentrated in or near an area of the city zoned for industry or commerce, designated as a zone in transition. In addition to industrial encroachment, this zone in transition was characterized by physical decay, poor housing, incomplete and broken families, high rates of illegitimate births and infant death, and an unstable, heterogeneous population. The residents were at the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale, with low income, low education, and menial employment. The remarkable co-occurrence of juvenile delinquency with adult crime, truancy, mental illness, poverty, population change, and ethnic heterogeneity within specific neighbourhoods suggested that a common factor characterizing these neighbourhoods was responsible for delinquency. These community characteristics, primarily racial/ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility, and poverty, were interpreted collectively as social disorganization. Simply put, social disorganisation is the inability of a community to regulate itself. Social organisation is maintained by a group’s commitment to social rules. When this commitment breaks down, social control breaks down. Shaw and McKay believed that this breakdown in social control could occur through ecological changes, such as when communities experience rapid population change through social mobility and migration. They noticed that newcomers to the city first settled in neighbourhoods close to the city centre, where all sorts of problems – not just crime, but also poor health, poverty, and bad housing – were concentrated. As soon as immigrants settled, they moved to better areas and were replaced by subsequent newcomers. Thus, problems in ‘bad’ neighbourhoods persisted. Shaw (1931) theorised that in the process of city growth, the neighbourhood organisations, cultural institutions, and social standards in practically all areas adjacent to the central business district and the major industrial centres were subject to rapid change and disorganization. The gradual invasion of these areas by industry and commerce, the continuous movement of the older residents out of the area and the influx of newer groups, the confusion of many divergent cultural standards, and the economic insecurity of the families, all combine to render difficult the development of a stable and efficient neighbourhood for the education and control of the child and the suppression of lawlessness (Barlow & Kauzlarich, 2009). Despite the variety of theoretical interpretations of the correlation between community characteristics and crime, the idea that socially disorganized neighbourhoods foster crime through their diminished ability to maintain informal social control over the behaviour of their residents is now the most widely accepted interpretation of Shaw and McKay’s data. Shaw and McKay emphasized the importance of neighbourhood organisations in allowing or preventing offending behaviour by children and young people. In more affluent communities, parents fulfilled the needs of their offspring 18 and carefully supervised their activities but in the zone of transition families and other conventional institutions – schools, churches, and voluntary associations – were strained, if not destroyed, by rapid urban growth, migration and poverty. Left to their own devices, young people in this zone were not subject to the social constraints placed on their contemporaries in the more affluent areas and were more likely to seek excitement and friends in the streets of the city. They also linked their findings to Sutherland’s Differential Association theory: disorganised neighbourhoods help produce and sustain ‘criminal traditions’ that compete with conventional values and can be ‘transmitted down through successive generations of boys’ (Shaw & McKay, 1972). Thus, young people growing up in socially disorganised inner city slum areas characterised by the existence of a value system that condones criminal behaviour could readily learn these values in their daily interactions with older adolescents. On the other hand, youths in organised areas – where the dominance of conventional institutions had precluded the development of criminal traditions – remain insulated from deviant values and peers. 3.4.2 Anomie and Strain theories The roots of anomie and strain theory can be traced back to Emile Durkheim, who is regarded by many as a founder of the sociological study of crime and law. His most lasting contribution to criminology was the introduction of the concept of ‘anomie’. Durkheim defined anomie as a social condition in which normlessness prevails. More specifically, anomie exists when systems of regulation and restraint in society have diminished so much that individuals suffer a loss of external guidance and control in their goal-seeking endeavours. The structure regulating social relationships is disrupted, and social cohesion and solidarity are undermined. Durkheim argues that anomie is more likely during periods of rapid social change, when traditional norms prove ineffective in regulating human conduct. Anomie theory has much in common with social disorganization theory. Although each evolved from different theoretical and research traditions, both propose that social order, stability, and integration are conducive to conformity, whereas disorder and malintegration are conducive to crime and deviance. A social system (a society, community, or subsystem within a society) is described as socially organised and integrated if there is an internal consensus on its norms and values, a strong cohesion exists among its members, and social interaction proceeds in an orderly way. Conversely, the system is described as disorganized or anomic if there is a disruption in its social cohesion or integration, a breakdown in social control, or malalignment among its elements. Both social disorganization and anomie theories propose that the less solidarity, cohesion, or integration within a group, community, or society, the higher the rates of crime and deviance. What makes anomie theory different from social disorganization theory is the mechanism by which disorder and malintegration produce higher crime rates. Social disorganization theory proposes that disorder and rapid change weaken a community’s or neighbourhood’s ability to control its members’ behaviour and allow for the development of criminal and deviant values in conflict with conventional values, thus increasing the probability of crime and delinquency in those places. Anomie theory proposes that malintegration specifically weakens the moral hold that laws and norms have on members of society, but crime is not likely to result unless this condition is also coupled with limited or blocked access to economic goals. This anomic structural condition is said to produce a strain on those within the system; one or more of the ways people adapt to that strain takes the form of criminal or deviant behaviour. Furthermore, whereas social disorganisation theory is explicitly focused on variations in crime rates among neighbourhoods or local communities, anomie theory takes a much broader view, emphasizing variations in culture and structure that produce variations in crimes rates in different societies. 19 3.4.2.1 Merton’s strain theory American sociologist Robert K. Merton took Durkheim’s notion of anomie and made it a central feature of his strain theory of crime. According to Merton, a state of anomie exerts pressure on people to commit crimes. While all societies establish institutionalized means or rules, for the attainment of culturally supported goals, these means and goals are not always in a state of harmony or integration. The way the society or group is organized interferes with the attainment of valued goals by acceptable means for some of its members. A condition of anomie or strain therefore exists. Merton applied this Durkheimian approach to the condition of modern industrial societies, especially in the United States. Merton saw a strong cultural emphasis on success-oriented goals in America. This emphasis on material success was held up as the goal all Americans should aspire to, the “American Dream”. Of course, this success is supposed to be achieved by an honest effort in legitimate educational, occupational, and economic endeavours. Societal norms regulate the approved ways of attaining this success, distinguishing them from illegitimate avenues to the same goal. However, not all segments of society could realistically expect to have material success if they followed the rules of the game. The acceptable routes to success – a good education, a good job, the ‘appropriate’ background, promotions, and special skills – typically were not the routes open to the lower classes. They are socialized to hold high aspirations, yet are relatively blocked off from the conventional educational and occupational opportunities needed to realize those ambitions. Strain is essentially the disjunction or lack of fit between socially desirable goals and the socially acceptable means to achieve those goals. Although some people may revert to illegitimate methods to cope with strain caused by a gap between their aspirations and what they can achieve legitimately, others may respond differently. Merton identified five “logically possible, alternative modes of adjustment or adaptation by individuals” to the societal condition of strain: a) Conformity: This is the most common response. One simply accepts the state of affairs and continues to strive for success within the restricted conventional means available. b) Innovation: This is the most common deviant response: one maintains a commitment to success goals but takes advantage of illegitimate means to attain them. Most crime and delinquency, especially income-producing offences would fit in this response. c) Rebellion: This is also a deviant mode, in which one rejects the system altogether, both means and goals, and replaces it with a new one, such as a violent overthrow of the system. d) Retreatism: This refers to an escapist response: one becomes a societal dropout, giving up on both the goals and the effort to achieve them (e.g., alcoholics, drug addicts, vagrants). The difference with ‘rebellion’ is that the means and goals are not replaced with new ones. e) Ritualism: Here one gives up the goals and the struggle to get ahead, but continues to support and follow the socially approved means. Merton’s theory of course also has several weaknesses. It does not explain why at the individual level a person chooses one method of adaptation to cope with strain instead of another. Also, the theory does not explain whether different segments of the population or different cultures are likely to select 20 different adaptations. The theory may also be criticized because of the vagueness of the term ‘strain’. In practice, it will be hard to find an adult who does not experience some type of strain caused by doubts about being able to reach short or mid-term goals. ‘Blowing off steam’ every once in a while seems to be a more response than the coping mechanisms identified by Merton. 3.4.2.2 Deviant subculture theory Albert Cohen (1955) observed that previous research has tended to focus on the process through which individual young males had come to adopt deviant values and had either ignored – or taken for granted – the existence of deviant subcultures or gangs. By analysing the structure of such subcultures, Cohen argued that juvenile offending was rarely motivated by the striving for financial success proposed by Merton. In contrast, he argued that adolescent gang members in fact stole ‘for the fun of it’ and took pride in their acquired reputations for being tough and ‘hard’. The gang – or subculture – seemed to offer possibilities for ‘status’ and the acquisition of respect that are denied elsewhere. Cohen suggested that high rates of lower-class delinquency reflect a basic conflict between the lower- class youth subculture and the dominant middle-class culture. The delinquent subculture arises as a reaction to the dominant culture, which is seen as discriminating against lower-class people. Told in school and elsewhere to strive for middle-class goals and to behave according to middle-class values, lower-class youth find that their socialization has not prepared them for the challenge. Cohen’s version of anomie or strain theory is in basic agreement with Merton’s theory because both perceive blocked goals as producing deviance-inducing strain. However, rather than the inability to gain material success, in Cohen’s view, it is the inability to gain status and acceptance in conventional society that produces the strain. Status in conventional society is achieved by meeting commonly accepted middle-class standards of dress, behaviour, scholastic abilities, and so on. Lower-class youths, especially boys, cannot always meet these standards. As a result, their “status deprivation” produces “status frustration”. The delinquent subculture is then a collective response to this frustration. Since these young males are involved in a process of interaction with others who are faced with the same difficulties, a mutually agreed solution may be reached and a separate subculture with alternative norms and values with which young males can relate is formed. In this way, they can achieve status and respect for involvement in all the things the dominant culture rejects. The criteria for acceptability found in this subculture can be met by lower-class boys, who gain status in delinquent gangs by adhering to “malicious” and “negativistic” values in opposition to conventional standards. Cohen’s delinquent subculture theory has attracted its share of criticism not least because he failed to base his theoretical formulation on empirical data and, indeed, all attempts to test it have failed and it can be argued that it is inherently untestable. Furthermore, studies showed there was no real basis for the assertion that the young working-class male experiences ‘problems of adjustment’ to middle-class values. They observe that middle-class values are simply irrelevant to young working- class men because they have absolutely no interest in acquiring status within the dominant social system. Their aspirations are thus not frustrated. They simply resent the intrusion of middle-class outsiders who try to impose their irrelevant way of life upon them. 4 THE VICTIMISED ACTOR MODEL OF CRIME AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR A major criticism of the predestined actor model tradition has centred on its acceptance of conventional morality and criminal laws as self-evident truths. In other words, if a particular action is defined as a crime, it is necessarily wrong because the state decreed it to be so. 21 The victimised actor model of crime and criminal behaviour provides a challenge to the predestined actor notion of determined human behaviour and its uncritical acceptance of the socio-political status quo. Thus, the victimised actor model proposes that the criminal is in some way the victim of an unjust and unequal society and it is the behaviour and activities of the poor and disadvantaged that are targeted and criminalised while the actions of the rich and powerful are simply ignored or not even defined as criminal. Because this victimised actor model comprises so many different theories, we will limit the discussion to some of the most well-known theories: labelling theories, Marxist theories, and some theories under the umbrella of critical or radical criminology. 4.1 LABELLING THEORY Labelling theory, or the societal reactions approach, gained immense popularity in the fields of crime and deviance during the 1960s. Before labelling theories achieved prominence, most criminologists had a non-problematic conception of crime. Criminal behaviour was simply a form of activity that violates the criminal law. Once crime was thus defined, theorists could concentrate on their main concern of identifying and analysing its causes. This whole approach was far too simplistic for proponents of the labelling perspective who argued that what is defined as ‘criminal’ is not fixed but varies across time, culture and even from one situation to the next. From this perspective, the conventional morality or rules and criminal laws in any given society should be studied and questioned and not merely accepted as self-evident. 4.1.1 Labelling as a process of symbolic interactionism Labelling theory as an explanation of criminal and deviant behaviour is derived from general symbolic interactionism theory in sociology. In symbolic interactionism, an individual’s identity and self- concept, cognitive processes, values and attitudes are seen as existing only in the context of society acting, reacting, and changing in social interactions with others. Labelling theorists fundamentally argue that no behaviour is inherently deviant or criminal, but only comes to be considered so when others confer this label upon the act. Thus, it is not the intrinsic nature of an act, but the nature of the societal reaction that determines whether a ‘crime’ has taken place. Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders. We are or become what we think others think we are. If significant others interact with someone as if he or she were a certain type of person with certain characteristics, then a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy may be set in motion, so that the person comes to take on those same characteristics. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules or sanctions to an ‘offender’. The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label (Becker, 1963). Becker (1963) also argued that rules – including criminal laws – are made by people with power and enforced upon people without power. Thus, even on an everyday level, rules are made by the old for the young, by men for women, by whites for black, … It is often not the inherent harm of behaviour or its pervasiveness that prompts changes in the law, but rather the concerted efforts of sufficiently motivated and powerful social groups to redefine the boundaries of what is considered acceptable and legal. Agents of control, who function on behalf of the powerful in society, impose the labels on the less powerful. The designation of an individual as criminal or deviant is, thus, not directly determined by whether or not he or she has actually violated the law or committed the deviant act. Even for the same law-violating behaviour, individuals from less powerful groups are more likely to be 22 officially labelled and punished than those from more powerful groups. Branding persons with stigmatizing labels, labelling theorists conclude, results more from who they are than from what they have done. Although labelling theorists do not claim that stigmatizing labels inevitably lead an individual to become more deviant, their core position is nevertheless that labelling persons as deviant and applying social sanctions to them in the form of punishment or corrective treatment increases or “amplifies”, rather than decreases, deviance. The central point of the labelling perspective, then, is that the disgrace suffered by people who are labelled as delinquent or criminal more often encourages than discourages future deviant behaviour. The stigmatization of deviants puts them at high risk of behaving according to the label, playing out the role of a deviant, and developing irrevocably deviant self-concepts. In labelling theory, this deviant role and self-concept provide the principal link between the stigmatizing labels and future deviant behaviour: “The first dramatization of the “evil” which separates the child out of his group … plays a greater role in making the criminal than perhaps any other experience. … He now lives in a different world. He has been ‘tagged’. … The person becomes the thing he is described as being.” (Tannenbaum, 1938). 4.1.2 Moral panics The labelling perspective has also been applied at the group level and a useful tool in this context is that of the ‘deviance amplification’ feedback or spiral (Wilkins, 1964) where it is argued that the less tolerance there is to an initial act of deviance, the more similar acts will be defined as deviant. This process will give rise to more reactions against ‘offenders’ resulting in more social alienation or marginalisation of deviants. This state of affairs will generate more crime by deviant groups, leading to decreasing tolerance of deviants by conforming groups. Deviance amplification feedback is central to the phenomenon know as ‘moral panic’. This concept, introduced by Stanley Cohen in 1972, broadly refers to the creation of a situation in which exaggerated fear is manufactured about topics that are seen (or claimed) to have a moral component (Ben-Yehuda, 2009). In his study, Cohen (1973) focused on two youth groups that emerged in the mid-1960s in England, the ‘mods and rockers’, and analysed how mass media representation and the response of the police and courts created a deviancy spiral. It began with exaggerated and distorted mass media accounts of inter-group fighting and acts of criminal damage that happened over the Easter bank holiday weekend in 1964. Misleading images of mods in conflict with rockers were conjured up, and soon the mass media were explaining the behaviour by situating it within the context of a generalized understanding of the ‘problem with today’s youth’: too much money, boredom, lack of discipline, and so on. The sense of outrage communicated by such misrepresentation had set in motion a series of interrelated responses. First, there was increased public concern about the issue, to which the police responded by increasing their surveillance of the groups in question. This resulted in more frequent arrests, which in turn appeared to confirm the validity of the original media reaction. Second, by emphasising the stylistic differences and antagonisms between the groups, the press reaction encouraged polarisation and further clashes between the groups. Various moral entrepreneurs call for action to be taken against these groups and usually pronounce that current controls are inadequate. These entrepreneurs also exaggerate the problem to make local events seem ones of pressing national concern and an index of the decline of morality and social standards. The extension of control leads to further marginalisation and stigmatisation of deviants which in turn leads to more demands for police action and so on into a deviancy amplification spiral. The study showed how societal reactions were instrumental in creating ‘folk devils’, a demonized and stigmatized section of society. Of course, the ‘panic’ in ‘moral panic’ is only a metaphor and has 23 nothing to do with physical panic. Moral panics are characterized by speeches, sermons, preaching, negotiations, arguments, debates, legislation, law enforcement priorities, agenda setting and the like, all focused on moral issues. Cohen’s concept of moral panic refers to exaggerated alarm among members of a society in response to a group or condition perceived to be posing a threat to that society’s moral well-being (Tierney, 2009). As illustrated in the study of Cohen, a moral panic starts when something or someone is defined as a threat to values. Next, the threat is depicted in an easily recognisable form by the media and creates a rapid build-up of public concern. The authorities or opinion makers respond to the ‘threat’. Finally, the panic recedes or results in social changes, which may include new legislation. The media play three roles: a) they exaggerate and distort the situation at hand, b) they predict escalation of events in terms of frequency and threat, and c) they use symbolisation (e.g., the outward appearance or certain characteristics of the group) to negatively portray the group and associate them to delinquency and disorder. Today, researchers interested in moral panics examine the symbolic core of cultures and also investigate the realm in which people’s cognitive maps are formed, and the discourses within which they construct their worldviews and behaviour. Morality plays a significant and essential role in these constructions and reconstructions. Differences between right and wrong, proper and improper behaviour, and good and evil are all preferences of different moral systems. Moral panics help draw the moral boundaries between different symbolic-moral universes. Additionally, studies also pointed out that we need to rethink possibilities for the generalizability of moral panics in societies that have become fragmented and multicultural. The original model seemed to have assumed a more or less monolithic moral culture. But what happens to moral panics in multi-cultural societies where morality itself is constantly contested and negotiated? 4.2 MARXIST THEORIES 4.2.1 Marxist theory of law and criminal justice Marxist theory has an interest in explaining both law and criminal justice and endorses a power-elite model of society in which social, economic, and political power has been concentrated in the hands of a small ruling class in highly industrially developed democracies. In Marxist theory, capitalism is a two-class system composed of the ruling class that owns the means of production (the capitalists or the bourgeoisie) versus the proletariat, the workers or masses who have only their labour to sell. The capitalists’ monopoly on the means of production allows them to also control the political state. This 24 political power is used to manipulate the legal and criminal justice system to promote the interests of the capitalist class and to perpetuate its position of power. Repressed by this system, the masses or workers have no power whatsoever to reverse or modify their oppression. This situation will remain until they become organized for revolution, take power into their hands, overthrow the government, and destroy the capitalist economy. After this revolutionary period, the proletariat will establish a socialist system that will ultimately evolve into a class-free communist system in which there will be economic and social equality, justice will prevail, the political state will wither away, and the law will be unnecessary. Thus, in Marxist theories, all real power and authority are considered exclusive to the ruling class, whose primary goals are to maintain power and continue the existing capitalist order. In pursuit of these goals, capitalists promote interests that are antithetical to those of the proletariat, trampling the rights and aspirations of the masses. The law may appear to operate in the interests of the whole society, but in reality, it is structured to serve only the interests of the ruling elite. The criminal justice system is then used against, rather than for, the people. The criminal justice system is designed not to protect society against crime but, along with other institutions of the capitalist state, to repress the people. However, this theory of the political state as only and always an instrument of the capitalist class has experienced strong criticism from other criminologists, who proposed a slightly alternative model of Marxism. In this perspective, the state was not viewed as totally under the dominion of the ruling elite, and the law not always as just an instrument for the promotion of their interests. In the short run, then, the state may be autonomous. Much of the law and the criminal justice system do not automatically mirror the interests of the capitalists. Indeed, many laws may be passed that are directly counter to capitalist interests. Moreover, the structural model does not propose that this capitalist class is an entirely monolithic group. There may be internal factions within it that clash with each other. Particular laws and policies may promote the interests of some ruling class members yet work against the interests of others. 4.2.2 Marxist theory of crime Karl Marx wrote virtually nothing about criminal behaviour, and many Marxist criminologists have long recognized that there can be no purely Marxist theory of crime. Most Marxists concentrate on criminal law and the criminal justice system, and thus, have less to say about the causes of criminal behaviour. The first systematic application of Marxism to the aetiology of crime was offered by the Dutch criminologist Willem Bonger (1876-1940), who hypothesized that crime is produced by the “capitalistic organization of society”. Private ownership of the means of production, as well as the profit motive found in capitalist society, induces “egoistic tendencies”, encourages greed and selfishness, and fails to promote “social instincts” that would otherwise preven