Sociological Explanation of Crime Causation - Essay Example

CRITICALLY EVALUATE ONE OF THE GROUPS OF THEORIES, WHICH SEEK TO ENHANCE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF CRIME AND WHICH ARE THEMSELVES FOCUSED UPON EITHER: SOCIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS Human race has had reasons for crime causation since the early days of man’s existence. While people have struggled to explain reasons for crime causation, theories have been advanced in an attempt to explain why crimes happen in society. These theories keep on shifting though their nucleus that remains the same. Early researchers mainly dwelt on the biological theories proposed by Cesar Lombroso who stated that criminals are born and that one can easily be a criminal due to stigmata of degeneracy evident in their bodily features. However, more recent theories seek to front crime as caused by a multiplicity of causes, most of them inherent in the larger society. As per Croall (9), there is no one way of looking at crime in society that can fully explain why crime usually takes place. More so, Croall asserts that “there is no clear cut history of which have predominated in distinct periods although some have more resonance at particular historical moment” Sociological theories explain crime as caused by disconnect within society and/or lack of core tenets of moral living. The major sub-theories within sociological explanation of crime include strain theory, labeling theory, control theory, social theory, and critical theories. All these sociological theories tend to explain crime in the context of the social environment that essentially includes the family, work places, the school, and other areas of the community that people tend to live in and interact. The only way that these theories seem to differ is in the way they focus on different aspects of the social environment occupied. While some focus on individual differences in crime, others tend to look at crime as a larger end-product of group differences in society. They later try to look at distinction in criminal activities in distinct communities so as to explain the causes inherent in the neighborhood with a higher crime rate that are absent or minimal in the areas with lower crime rates. A new frontier in crime causation, however, seeks to combine a number of the above theories, thus creating integrated theories. According to Arrigo (17), this theory, in essence, shows a link between several of the sociological causes giving rise to crime causation. Sociological theorists, however, portray crime as result of the social environment within which individuals correlate with others. This is shown clearly in the sub-theories of sociological theory as evident below. Strain Theory Strain theory as sociological theory of crime causation explains crime as a product of the pressure imposed on individuals or groups in order to achieve certain goals. When people become upset, they might take part in criminal activities to offload their stress. In addition, they might take such step in order to try to free themselves from the strain they are going through. For instance, if other people constantly bully someone, he/she might take it off on a weaker target, or one might resort to theft to reduce financial pressures (Goode & Yehuda, 1994 p 97). An earlier proponent of the strain theory was Robert K. Merton who came up with a paradigm where crime causation is explained as occurring or taking place due to a blockade between institutional means of achieving cultural goals. Merton further elaborates the institutionalized means as education leading to a good job while the cultural goals are money, family, and a status in society. Robert K. Merton deviance typology Merton came up with the typology to show the various relationships between institutionalized means and culturally accepted goals. The first group, according to Merton (1968), is that of those who accept both the institutionalized means and the culturally accepted goals. They are the conformists who struggle to attain the goals by following the means prescribed by society. The second group is that of the innovators. These are individuals who resort to other means (innovation) in order to achieve society’s accepted goals. Their innovations are criminal means that individuals use to earn money and gain status in society. The third group is that of the ritualists who follow the institutionalized means by trying to gain a good education and a good job but reject societal goals such as raising a family, earning status in the community and so on. Next are the retreatists who reject both the institutionalized means and the culturally accepted goals. The retreatists hence tend to ‘fall out’ of society and live their lives as vagabonds, tramps, and drunkards. Lastly are the rebellious that set their own means to achieve their own goals. This typology, in essence, means that only the conformists will tend to live their lives without engaging in crime. Another important aspect of this typology is that some of those who go into criminality do that not because their way to a crime-free life is blocked, but rather as a thrill seeking endeavor. There are two categories of strain: firstly people who prevent you from realizing a person’s goals or desires, and secondly people that deny you things you treasure and then giving you things that have no value. The big question thus arises: everyone encounters or experiences stress in his or her day to day-to-day life, but not everyone becomes a criminal. Why is this so? It is therefore important to note that the overriding factor is that strain leads to criminal tendencies for people who lack proper coping or adjustable skills and who lack adequate resources. More so, strain will lead to crime when the risks are low while the benefits of engaging in a criminal act are high. Social Learning Social learning is a theory that defines causes of crime as a learning process where erstwhile law-abiding people absorb criminal tendencies through their association and interaction with others, especially criminals. They are then motivated to crime and learn attributes that depict crime as good and beneficial. Drawing from differential theory proposed by Edwin Sutherland, social learning implies that teenagers learn to engage in criminal activities in a similar manner they learn to conform via socialization or interaction process. Primary interaction groups such the peers, school and family greatly influence people’s life because it is in these groups that people learn what to do. However, this differential association does not always have to be direct contact with the teaching agent because one can learn criminality via the media such as newspapers or television. In this case, the learning comprises modeling, beliefs, and differential reinforcement through which information is learned and digested by individuals (Williams, 2001 p. 41-43). Juveniles are taught how to go about criminal activities through reinforcement and the punishment they receive for behavior exhibited. It, thus, follows that a crime will most likely occur when it is frequently motivated or encouraged and poorly punished, and results in large amount of motivation by way of approval or financial gain and it is more likely to be motivated or encouraged rather than an alternative action. This motivation can thus be positive or negative. For instance, a parent who encourages her child to keep someone’s property they came with from school might actually be positively reinforcing the behavior by implying to the child that there is nothing bad with stealing. On the contrary, if the parent scolds the child and makes them take the property back, he/she would be negatively reinforcing the child’s behavior towards criminality by implying that stealing is bad and contrary to societal virtues. The learning does not necessarily end at reinforcement; attributes that encourages crime are are also taught. Therefore, it is vital to note that most people are taught from an early age that crime is not acceptable and that we should not engage in it. People, therefore, internalize this concept and it makes them prevent criminal activities. On the other hand, criminals believe that there is nothing wrong with crime. During interaction with their peers or friends, they pass to them such beliefs, thus making those engaging in crime lack the guilt that accompanies wrongdoing. In a move to justify their behavior, they make crime look more attractive and desirable. It is, thus, self-evident that one is more inclined to a criminal lifestyle if he/she is exposed to more beliefs encouraging crime than beliefs against crime. The learning also involves a lot of imitation of criminal models. This is more prevalent if the criminal is someone whom the learner likes and respects. Control theory While strain theorists and social learning theorists start from the premise ‘Why do people engage in criminal activities?’ control theorists start from a different premise of trying to explain why people do not engage in criminal behaviors. Evidently, everyone needs money and the best things in life, and stealing is much more appealing than working. But, why do most people conform? While social learning and strain theories tend to focus on the factors driving people towards criminality, control theory does the opposite and looks at the factors that bind people and keep them from committing crime. Modeled entirely on Travis Hirschi’s control theory, control theorists state that people do not take part in crime due to controls placed on them. According to the control theory, things such as direct control, internal control and stake in conformity that are placed on individuals makes them avoid engaging in criminal activities. Direct control implies the physical watching over by an agent that deters one from engaging in criminality. These range from the family members, schoolteachers all the way to the police. However, the family is the major form of direct control since it is the closest to one and thus tends to monitor one on every aspect of life. Most families have sanctions for anyone who goes contrary to the tenets of good behavior. More so, criminal behaviors are in most cases viewed as a reaction to emotional humiliation (Goode & Yehuda, 1994 p 24). The second aspect of social control is stake in conformity. This essentially implies that any one is likely to get nothing by engaging in criminal activities. Those with high stakes in conformity tend to avoid crime. For instance, someone who has worked all his life building a reputation at the work place would not easily dare engage in criminality since he/she would lose the trust cultivated over a long time. Finally, internal control is also a major component of social control. Labeling theory Labeling theory critiques efforts directed and implemented towards containing and controlling crime in society. According to this theory, society tries to deter criminal activities by placing sanctions on those people who engage in these undesirable acts; instead of them eliminating the problem of crime, they end up labeling these people as criminals, which the society adopts and it remains in the minds of the people. Those who are criminals are tagged or labeled as criminals and they positively accept the tag and continue with their activities. The theory states that as the society tries to curb criminal tendencies in the society, its efforts to contain and curb crime often has the effect of encouraging and increasing crime. Those people who go through correctional cycle are always tagged as criminals by the society. The aftermath is that the society sees these individuals as criminals and bad people in society – the notion that increases and encourages the likelihood of a series of crime for different reasons. According to Goode and Yehuda (1994), those people who are labeled as criminals in society often have problem getting formal employment, which in turn increases or precipitates their level of stress and strain and decreases their level of stake in conformity, thus resorting to crime as the only way of making it in life. In addition, tagged or labeled people realize that conventional people in society are not willing and ready to interact with them and as a result, they opt to associating with other criminals. This in turn reduces their association and bond with good or conventional people and adapt social leaning of criminal activities. It is also important to note that labeled individuals depict themselves as criminals and tend to act in accordance with this self-concept. References Arrigo, B 1998, Social Justice/Criminal Justice: The Maturation of Critical Theory in Law, Crime, and Deviance, Wadsworth Publishing, London. Croall, H 2011, Crime and Society in Britain, Longman Group United Kingdom. Goode, E & Yehuda, N B 1994, Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance, Blackwell, Oxford. Valier, C 2002, Crime and Punishment, Longman, London. Williams, K. S 2001, Textbook on Criminology, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Read More