1.
CLASSICAL
CRIMINOLOGY
Classical Criminology developed from
the great transformations of modernity. These were the industrial urban and
scientific revolutions that led to Enlightenment. Enlightenment thinkers
championed:
·
Anti-Clericalism
·
Rationalism
·
Legal and
Constitutional Reform
They were important for criminology
as before:
·
It was
believed the social world had more religious explanations and causes such as
being possessed by a demon. However upon the aftermath it introduced theories
that the social world has secular causes.
·
Promoted the
ideology of Progress where knowledge of human affairs would be used to reform
and improve society.
Classical Criminology is concerned
with explaining crime as a rational thing. Prior in the pre-modern world
spiritualism gave rise to specific methods of trials before in the Criminal
Justice System. Vold and Bernard
(1979) used the following examples
of Trial by Punishment, Trial by Ordeal and Compurgation. Rather than these
invalid methods Classical Criminology replaced them with naturalistic
explanations of crime.
The classical perspective was focused on reason and passion. A criminal
is defined as a person who places their passion before their reasoning. This
philosophical aspect argued that criminals have the “free will” to choose
either, so it was their own fault and that was what separated them from law
abiding citizens. It provides the first modern understanding of crime and
criminal justice.
The theory has however been criticized for being an over simplistic
understanding of deviant motives and not diagnosing the social roots of crime.
Beccaria (1738-1974) (Rational Choice Theory) – Was one of the most influential
classical criminologist who was concerned with explaining the “rationality” of
crime disregarding the spiritualistic approach. In “On Crimes &
Punishment” he claimed people are motivated by fear of punishment, moral
values and pleasure. Only by acting irrational to seek pleasures without
rational thought of punishment and values would cause crime.
Vold and Bernard, (1979) - Used the following examples of “Trial by Punishment, Trial
by Ordeal and Compurgation.” Rather than these invalid methods Classical
Criminology replaced them with “naturalistic” explanations of crime rather than
prior unreasonable and irrational “spiritualistic” or religious ones.
2.
DURKHEIM (1858-1917)
- FUNCTIONALISM AND CRIME
For functionalists, crime and
deviance is normal, inevitable and it’s also partially a good thing in society.
This is because crime and deviance performs functions that benefit society to a
certain extent. However they would argue that higher levels of crime are
dysfunctional to society where as minor rates of lower levels of crime slightly
benefit it. Durkheim’s functionalist contribution to the theory of crime and
deviance is that it is an “inevitable and normal process for all healthy
societies”. It performs essential functions such as:
- Function of
Punishment- for
those who break the norms and values. Such is for retribution to
those harmed and deterrence for those planning the act.
- Reminder- of what is deviant, criminal
and the inappropriate way to behave in society. These are performed during
degradation ceremonies that reinforce the collective conscious and
its social solidarity.
- Crime brings out Social
change in sick/unhealthy societies. It lets everyone become
aware of a social problem that needs to be resolved so new laws, policies
and behaviour is introduced within the change.
The 2 types of Society are:
- Mechanical
Society-
Emphasis on rigid conformity in lifestyle where everyone shares the same
culture, beliefs, works skills and likeliness. This society was pre-modern
where life was much simpler. (Such traditional and natural simplicity has
a lower natural rate of crime.)
- Organic Society- Focused on the emphasis on
modern industrial society where people are linked through law and
interdependence. Lifestyle is more complex and there is more individual
freedom of choice. People also have a diversity of different cultures and
different skills especially for the workplace. (The complexity and
diversity in this modern society has a higher natural crime rate.)
A Sick/Unhealthy Society, a society
in anomie = state of normlessness.
- A society that was too repressive that had no sense of
direction for its members.
- Lacked adequate roles for individuals.
- Lacked a Collective Consciousness.
- Pathological deviance is where crime above or below
norm as result of anomie:
Durkheim went on to explain that “functional rebels” played a large part
in enforcing social change. Change itself is likely to cause anomie which is
often needed for the greater good. They would function as those that went
against the norms and values of society seeing them as wrong or in need of
change. Common examples in the past were suffragettes and gays. Blacks too
fought for liberation. Activists and freedom fighter examples range from people
like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela for fighting against
the oppression of black civil inequality.
Durkheim (1893/1964b) defines
sociology as scientific study of social facts:
·
Social Facts- Crime is a social fact much like social
change. Durkheim explains that from a societal or structural perspective it is
a collective entity not an individual phenomenon and it is a fact that it will
occur in society regardless. It is a property of culture and social
organisation not people itself. It can only be controlled but not truly fixed
because there will always be those who disagree with the norms and want change.
·
Durkheim
(1893/1964a): persistence of social facts explained by functionality to
society.
Criticisms- It’s a basic
metanarrative and theoretical approach to understanding crime but it is too
simplistic and deterministic. It doesn’t stress out specific factors that could
cause crime because its main emphasis is on social change or its prevention as
to why crime occurs. There are many other theoretical approaches that could
build on this base understanding. Factors that should be taken in are age,
gender, sex, ethnicity, environmental location, thrill seeking and era. Such a
theory could have been more applicable at its time, it’s out of date and it
doesn’t explain the types of crime committed but simply crime as a whole.
For Durkheim, as a
generalisation to resolve crime:
·
Moral
regulation (professional associations/codes of ethics, elected representative
bodies overseeing industrial relations)
·
Equality
of opportunity (overcome ‘anomie of injustice’)
3. MERTONS
STRAIN THEORY (1938)
Adapted from Emile Durkheim’s functionalist
perspective, this theory explains that people are more likely to react and
commit crime because of certain strains due to structural factors and
influences within society on their lifestyle. Strain itself means the stress
gained from pressures exhibited through daily life and in a society this would
be perceived from a structural point of view. This creates a gap between
cultural goals so normal means of obtaining those goals are broken. Things that
can cause strain on people range from employment, education, family life,
consumerism, conforming to norms, isolation and marginalisation. The reasons
why people are strained or rather stressed from the harshness of capitalism are
because they cannot obtain their cultural goals as opposed to those who can. (Unlike
Durkheim’s basic explanation of anomie, Merton’s strain theory suggests that
society is always in a state of normlessness.)
There are two types of strain:
·
Structural Strain- The process by which the way
society is structured and organised causes people stresses resorting to crime.
·
Individual Strain- The process by which the way
the individual perceives society resorts them to criminal acts.
Theory of Anomie- Instead Merton’s strain theory suggests that
society is always in a state of normlessness. It’s just how people deal with it
and adapt to its state.
However, Merton explains that crime breeds
in the gap between what people want to achieve and what they are able to
achieve.
5 Adaptations- The strain theory has 5 adaptations which are conformity, innovation, retreatism, ritualism
and rebellion. Each adaptation
represents a path that people will most likely take based on the strain
induced.
§
Conformity- The most common, people accept cultural goals and the normal
means of obtaining such goals. (Career based jobs like Lawyer/Doctor)
§
Innovation- People manage to accept cultural goals but don’t conform to the
normal means of obtaining such goals. (May resort to crime, drug trafficking)
§
Ritualism- People accept the rules of the cultural goals but abandon goals
of success.
§
Retreatism- Reject the cultural goal and the normal ways of obtaining them.
§
Rebellion- These are people who decide to create a new success and bring in
new rules. A revolutionary attempt to change society.
Merton (1938) identifies 2 ideological components of American culture:
• Materialism
(‘money-success’)
• Meritocracy
(‘equality of opportunity, through ability or hard work.’)
Merton (1968:200): States:
·
‘The
cardinal American virtue, “ambition”,
ultimately promotes a cardinal American
vice, “deviant behaviour”’
Thus American society produces
intense pressures to deviate.
Criticisms-
Evaluating, Merton’s strain theory is basically more focused on the ideology of
money success, social class and relative deprivation. This is why it can be
criticized for not exploring concepts such as the fact people commit crime for
thrill seeking purposes, genetics and psychological trauma. It also ignores
white collar and corporate crime because in secrecy, wealthy businessmen or
bankers have broken such laws regarded as those living the “American Dream”
thought generally to conform to the normal means of such attainment.
4.
MARXISTS
VIEWS OF CRIME AND DEVIANCE
This is a
theory that sees capitalist society as being divided into two classes, the
working class and the ruling class who own the means of production. The working
class are exploited because their alienated labour is used for the interests of
profit. For traditional Marxists, the structure of society explains crime.
Marxists emphasize that crime is an inevitable part of capitalist society.
Unlike Durkheim who explains crime as a “healthy part of all integral
societies” Marxists disagree and believe crime is mainly caused due to class
conflict and the exploitation of one class. This is because capitalist society is
criminogenic and alienates the working class. This alienation leads to
frustration and aggression which resorts to crime. If this was not the case
then crime rates would be minimal. They view crime as having 3 elements:
·
Criminogenic Capitalism- The nature of capitalism in society causes
crime.
·
The State and Law Making- That R/C have the power to change laws for
their own benefit and the W/C end up committing crimes because these benefits
exploit them.
·
Ideological functions of Crime and Law- Used to appear for the benefit of the W/C
through false class consciousness but it is rather for the protection of
capitalism and to blind them from the truth.
Chambliss (1973) - The Marxist thinker illustrates the
ideology of control over the laws from the capitalist class. For example, when
British colonies settled in East Africa they forced them to do labour work
through dominant ideologies by establishing new laws for taxes. Not working on
plantations for the capitalist class meant no wage and not paying taxes was a
criminal offence. Chambliss emphasizes how a class system was formed taking
over a trade based economy adding its own regulations for its own interests in
which case would benefit the ruling or capitalist class.
Reinman (1979) The Rich Get Richer and the poor Get Prison
book shows that crime committed by higher or ruling class people is less likely
to be treated as a major criminal offence by the Criminal Justice System.
Examples are Health and Safety Violations, Corporate, White Collar and Tax
Evasion. Often such crimes cost the economy far more as those who work for a
living lose out severely being cheated off but petty street crimes like often theft
resorts to worse penalties. It is also the type of crime that is not overlooked
at more even though its dangers are a small damage to the economic fabric of
society. Offenders spend much time in prison for such petty mistakes whilst
often Corporate, White collar and Tax Evading criminals of the type receive
little punishment if they are found out even though the Criminal Justice System
doesn’t monitor them as such.
2. Marx
on crime under capitalism
For Karl Marx (1818-83) capitalism made up of ‘base’ (economy) &
‘superstructure’ (politics & ideology)
•
‘Base’
(controlled by capitalists) determines ‘superstructure’
(including law & criminal justice)
•
Within
‘base’ capitalist owners (of production) exploit non-owners
(wage-workers) for the means of generating profits.
So, for Marx (Marx & Engels,
1965) crime:
•
Product
of state power expressing capitalist class interests
•
Indicator
of alienated labour
•
Carried
out by the most marginal and excluded members of the working class
(lumpenproletariat)
5.
POSITIVISM
AND CRIMINIOLOGY
The positivist views of criminology
steered away from the theoretical approach that crime was merely a rational
action. It focused on the role of social science predicting social laws that
explained how human behaviour was governed. The quantitative methodology and
statistical evidence provided from them was seen as vital for explaining crime.
Positivist explanations of crime became
influential because of the impact of Darwinism, the legitimisation of
inequality in society and the medicalization of criminology. They assessed
society through structural differentiation taking to note, race, biological and
social differences that caused law breaking behaviour.
Darwinism- This is the transmutation thesis of
species and evolution of society. In sociology, this refers to explaining how
society has evolved over time socially, economically, rationally,
technologically and through many various other factors important for it to
function over time. Positivists value this concept because they attempt to
uncover underlying laws that have established modern society.
Von
Hentig (1948) The Criminal and his Victim
- “It was Hans
Von Hentig’s influential chapter that largely awoken criminologists to also
assess the fact that the victim played an important role in understanding and
discovering crime. For example without the victim reporting or making a
complaint then the criminal justice system would never be able to trial the
offender. Thus, victim’s role in the criminal process is just as important as
the offender, the court proceedings and the evidence to suggest law breaking
actions.”
Lombroso, C. (1876) Criminal
Man. (Biological Positivism) – Cesare Lombroso, the Italian Doctor devised a theory of the
criminal man. He was very influential for the biological studies of crime and
deviance and remains widely argued the founder of criminology. The Book relates
to the original edition but is revised and improved.
He explained
that a criminal bares biological traits that are separate from other normal
people. These traits are atavistic meaning they bare traits from a previous
non-evolved primitive age making them more likely to act savagely, violently
and irrationally. Criminals tend to have biological features that distinguish
them from the norm with include large eye sockets, enormous jaws and razor like
teeth. They would also attain characteristics from atavism such as
insensitivity to pain, a lack of moral sense, acute eyesight, an absence of
remorse and impulsiveness. With these features in hand, the criminal could
easily be identified and separated from society. He used research methods that
observed the size of the human skull to back up his theory.
It was
Lombroso’s work that influenced following policies that had many people
lobotomized and sterilised in order to destroy this biological reproduction and
create a criminal free society. This was because with the elimination of
reproducing an atavistic man then crime would eventually disintegrate. However
his theory was widely disregarded for being too simplistic and lacking
statistical comparisons between criminals and non-criminals for reliable
evidence. His theoretical explanations were disregarded throughout Europe but
were widely accepted in the United States where sociological studies of crime
predominated.
Sheldon (1949) - Similarly distinguished 3 main types of human physique in the 20th
century. These were the:
•
Mesomorphs
(hard muscular types)
•
Ectomorphs
(thin fragile types)
•
Endomorphs
(round fleshy types)
He claimed that the mesomorphic types
were the body types correlating with characteristics associated with
delinquency. The ectomorphs the thin fragile types were the ones likely to
avoid crime and take less risk.
Most noted influenced policies from Positivist Criminology
•
Studies
by Beckwith elaborate on the Medical
and Surgical Interventions (e.g. Sterilisation and Lobotomisations)
•
1911-30:
64,000 prisoners & mental patients in US forcibly sterilised in order to
get rid of the criminal trait.
•
Similarly,
Allen explains how policies were
enforced to incapacitate and eliminate the biological selection deemed as
criminals.
•
On
the plus side it introduced indeterminate sentencing and rehabilitation which
promoted the ideology that the criminals needed to be re-socialised because of
their biological tendencies.
6.
SOCIAL
DISORGANIZATION (ESSAY EXEMPLAR)
The Social Disorganisation Theory is
largely one of the most important theories developed by the Chicago School of
Sociology. It is heavily related to ecological theories and focuses
tremendously on the structure of society. It has been used countless times to
explain crimes rates in different areas of society or due to specific zones
that are characterised by specific traits such as the Central Business District
and Residential Areas. One of the key studies assessed by the Chicago School is
the Burgess Model which many social disorganisation theorists have used to
build knowledge upon as seen in Burgess
(1925). The model was created by the sociologist Ernest Burgess and it is
also largely referred to as the Concentric Zone Model. It’s one of the earliest
theoretical models to explain crime’s relation to urban structures. By urban
structures it takes into account the quality of buildings, the environment,
land distribution space, population density and deterioration. The Concentric
Zone Model suggests that there are 5 key zones within a society like Chicago.
Cities sprawl out of the 1st zone which is the Central Business District. This
zone is the commercial heart of a city containing business headquarters. The
2nd zone is referred to as the zone of transition. In this zone, the model’s
theory suggests it is the zone where crime is more likely to occur and that
statistically crime rates should be the highest there. As people move out of
this zone to further zones in a city, crime rates will decline. Many theorists
have used the model to criminally evaluate crime in specific zones based on
such aspects. It has had its reliability tested by many theorists such as Shaw and McKay. Also many more have
used it to build on the existing knowledge of the social disorganisation theory
and to compare and contrast its work with their own key studies such as Morris, Hyot, Baldwin and Bottoms. It’s
safe to say that this model currently remains one of the most influential and
dominant models used today.
Supporting the reliability of the Burgess Model’s contribution to the
social disorganisation theory, Shaw and
McKay (1942) studies of delinquency prove its accuracy. They found higher
crime rates at the inner city zones of Chicago concluding that there was a
definite spatial pattern based on concentric circles in the inner city zones.
Perennial high crime areas were more likely to exist within these zones. Their
explanation for high crime rates in this location was that population changes
there were rapid. People were constantly moving in and out of this zone. This
specific zone was also characterized by specific traits such as conflicting
demands, rapid population change, dilapidation and multiculturalism. New
immigrants largely settled in these areas because housing cost or rent was
cheapest there. They explain delinquency as a natural outcome of economic
competition for desired land space. In similar context, Baldwin and Bottoms (1976) analytical study of English Sheffield
Estates found that crime is most likely to occur in poorer areas located closer
to the city centre. This interrelates with the Burgess Model suggesting zone 2
the zone of transition and the zone after the CBD is where crime is at its
peak. The comparative study of the two assessed estates were the Gardenia and the
Stonewall Estate which were separated by a dual carriageway. The Stonewall
Estate would represent zone 1 and the Gardenia Estate would represent zone 2.
In the study taken in 1971, the
Gardenia Estate’s crime rate was 3 times
higher than the Stonewall Estate which is detailed evidence to support the
concentric zone model (Evans et al, 2002: 127). Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) Broken Window’s theory illustrated by
Kelling et al (1982) examines the
notion of deterioration certain neighbourhoods prohibit. Such deterioration
when not taking notice of environmental factors such as vandalism, litter or in
other words “broken windows” makes an area crime prone. It creates a sense or
culture of carelessness, tolerant attitudes and ignorance towards crime.
Community members need to be stricter in attitudes otherwise criminals will
sprawl in the area or be attracted to it. The theory also suggests that
maintenance and monitoring of urban environments should stop further vandalism,
deterioration and a cultural shift into more serious crimes in such areas. By
doing this it would prevent further social disorganisation, a factor which
damages the fabric of society stopping it from functioning properly. A
methodology or system for tackling crime in these locations could be “Zero
Tolerance Policing” (Punch, 2007).
It’s perceived as the police “getting tough” on crime where punishments aren’t
necessarily based on the severity of the crime or the circumstance of the
individual. Rather, punishment issues follow specific patterns, rules and
methods that are designed to deter people from committing the act in the first
place. For example, the upcoming “3 strikes and you’re out” policy is a typical
example of this and will be enforced even if offenders only executed minor or
petty crimes.
However the Concentric Zone Model and its supporting studies can be
criticized for being too simplistic, deterministic, and failing to acknowledge
the aspects other ideological perspectives or models such as Hoyt’s Sector
Model. Hoyt’s Model (1939) follows
an ideology of sectors. Concentric zones are disregarded and it explains that
sectored areas of a city are cut apart from each other much like a pie and each
with specific attributes. For Hoyt, this is how urban cities develop and
sprawl. It accepts that there is a Central Business District point but unlike
the Burgess model it takes into account that transportation plays a major role
in social stability due to people having to travel to work or to specific
institutions. For example, a rail line or major highway to a city would likely
have most of its businesses centred on it and coming directly out of it. This
means a city develops in sectors and not concentric zones where one section of
the city could be rural whilst another one could be more industrial. Moving on,
using models that give fixed explanations ignores many social factors that are
connected to crime. You could disregard the Burgess Model and Hoyt’s Model as
well because not taking into account the lifestyle, leisure or activities
engaged by the public would give little supporting evidence of validity.
Perceiving social disorganisation in the form of leisure, Hobbs (2003) with the aid of Lister’s
work explains the recent growth and trend in pubs and night clubs. Night life
gathers huge numbers of young people to the Central Business District into
these pubs and clubs where they are largely focused. Their studies reveal that
around ¾ violent incidents occur in urban areas from 9am to 3pm on the weekend.
This is a time period where those being social can be influenced to be
anti-social due to alcohol substances and the fact that they are influenced by
peer groups. You could also criticize the Burgess Model for being accurate in
one city but not others. Each city has its own individual characteristics and
the Burgess Model is too Americanized. To elaborate social disorganisation
through his work in a postmodern city that has constantly socially changed,
been improved and updated especially physically, socially and technologically
then such a model would be ineffective. Putting this in the form of a British
perspective, Morris (1957) study in
Croydon “The Criminal Area: A Study in
Social Ecology” does just that. It shows us that the Burgess Model isn’t
very applicable among British cities which are more complex than what the model
portrays. He reveals that delinquent influences within the environment which is
much more common among the lower classes is the cause of higher crime rates, he
explains it this way rather than the characteristics of the physical
environment itself acting as a visual image that socially constructs criminals.
It also assesses the social interactions in small localised sections of society
largely focusing on the explanation of how a combination of housing policies
and low social class play a massive role in influencing crime rates there. In a
way you could speculate that his ideas support the fundamental notion of
criminals socially constructing their environments rather than the environments
socially constructing them.
In summary, the Burgess Model is a traditional model that many social
disorganisation theorists largely reflect ideas from. However, the model is
outdated and too simple ignorant of many social factors and physical aspects in
society such as transport, leisure, culture, current technological
advancements, housing policies and social class. Time is something that is
vital in crime and I believe although Hobbs
(2003) and Lister’s contribution to the theory doesn’t show a true full
metanarrative of the social disorganisation of crime, they have the most
accurate explanations. They explain how crime is likely to occur in specific
areas in the city either in the Central Business District or near it at
particular times most likely in the weekend late at night. Also, even though
the Burgess Model and Hoyt’s Model contradict one another, they try to explain
a generalised overview of crime using models that are fixed when crime itself
is unpredictable in nature. The social disorganisation theory itself is too
complex to be examined through a specific ideological system and these
theorists have made such attempts. This is why I feel that the social
disorganisation theory is only relatively valuable to understanding crime. Its
explanations are in broken limitations and its arguments supporting crime rates
are diversified unlike Marxism or Functionalism which although has theorists
that present different perspectives for the cause, they all support the same
system or established principle.
