Theories of crime
Crime has always been a part of the human society; unfortunately individuals were often involved in crime and it was widely discussed. Why does crime attract so much attention? Moreover, what can be called a crime? At different times, various behaviors were considered a crime. For instance, it was illegal to sell or drink alcohol during Prohibition in the USA so Prohibition gave rise to all types of illegal behaviors which in other countries were not seen as crimes. Another example would be the Soviet Union, where it was illegal to be involved in any kind of business; therefore, occupations like manufacturing and selling goods privately were considered illegal and people were prosecuted. In fact, it is always the perspective a person chooses that defines how one looks at crime and at life in general. In the same way each of four theories of crime - biological, feminist, labeling, and conflict theory - sees and focuses on a part of a bigger picture.
Biological theories of crime explain criminal behaviors by examining characteristics of individuals. Previous or earlier research endeavors attempted to understand the relationships between biology and behavior focusing on something that could be observed and researched. For example, having studied the statistical data, Adolphe Quetelet argued that criminal behavior was the result of society’s structure, while Cesare Lombroso concluded that people with certain physical malformations, e.g., specific cranial features, were examples of biological throwbacks to earlier evolutionary stages and therefore were “born criminal”. (“Criminology”, 2016) However, modern biological theories are looking inside, into the chemical and structural specifics of human bodies and recognize the two way relation between internal (or biological) and external (or sociological) factors. Contemporary biosocial theories propose there might be a genetic predisposition for certain behaviors in contrast to earlier biological theories and their implication that behaviors were hereditary. For example, Matt Ridley (2003) notes that genes
are devices for extracting information from the environment. Every minute, every second, the pattern of genes being expressed in your brain changes, often in direct or indirect response to events outside the body. Genes are the mechanisms of experience. (p. 248)
These scientists believe that increasing awareness of how people’s genes can pass along their behavioral characteristics can bring us closer to preventing undesirable behaviors.
Another theory of crime, labeling theory, describes criminality as a result of society’s reaction to the individual. The theory argues that an individual, when convicted of a crime, is labeled a criminal and in this way gets a criminal identity. When this individual returns to the society, he or she continues to be seen as a criminal and is thus rejected by the general public, the law abiding people, while being accepted by other criminals (or delinquents). Therefore, he or she becomes more and more used to criminal behavior patterns and more isolated from the law abiding persons. In fact, according to labeling theory studies, this can have far-reaching consequences for deviants’ social identity. They develop a powerfully negative label, a stigma, and it considerably changes their self-concept. In this way people might find it easier to live with the label than to fight it.
While labeling theories focus on social identity and self-concept, conflict theories state that those in power pursue their own self-interest by enacting and enforcing criminal laws. According to conflict theory, powerful and wealthy citizens are more willing and likely to obey the law because it seems to serve their interests. In addition, even if they do break the law they can easily avoid being punished or charged if compared to poor people. Crime looked at by conflict theory assists in making sense of inexplicable lapses of logic, explaining different understandings of crime, for example, “What is crime?” For example, shoplifting is considered to be a crime and is prosecuted; on the other hand, if an employer does not pay his or her employees in time or does not remunerate them adequately, it is punished by administrative sanctions. Moreover, if an individual uses drugs, the society sees it as a crime; however, it only concerns intoxicants “favored by the poor, the young, subcultures, or racial/ethnic minority groups”. The use of alcohol, tobacco or prescribed medication, which are also intoxicants but “favored by the respectable middle to upper classes” is not criminally prosecuted and not seen as a crime. (Preston, 2009, para 18)
While conflict theory focuses on the powerful and the poor, the feminist theory, which only recently started being recognized focuses on gender issues. However, it may be better to speak about “feminist theories” in the plural. These are methodologies focusing on a wide range of questions connected with women and crime, which include, for example, programming in prisons for women or women prisoners and their special needs. Feminist theories are not homogeneous; they include the focus on equal opportunities for women, the focus on class relations and capitalism as the source of women’s oppression, socialist feminists’ connection of male domination as connected with politics, and the radical feminist focus. However, what all these different feminist approaches have in common is their focus on the ways in which the gendered structure of society is related to crime.
Upon familiarizing with the different theories of crime I have come to the conclusion that each of them addresses specific issues. For example, biological theories investigate how people’s genes can pass along their behavioral characteristics; feminist theories focus on complex relationships between gender and crime; labeling theories consider the issues of stigmatization and the affect that deviance has on an individual’s social identity; and conflict theory, among other things, researches the connection between poverty and crime, as well as power and crime. My understanding of crime was especially affected and enhanced by getting familiarized with the labeling theory. In fact, I was deeply impressed by the far-reaching consequences of stigmatization, by the concepts of primary and secondary deviance, as well as retrospective and projective labeling. Finally, I do believe that crime cannot be understood through the lenses of one theory of crime because each theory seems to focus on a segment or two of a bigger picture, I am confident that in order to have a better understanding of reasons for deviant behavior and in order to find a way to prevent deviant behaviors one needs to consider the issue of crime and criminology from different angles.
References
Criminology. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/science/criminology
Paternoster, R., Bachman, R. (2013). Labeling theory. In Criminology. Oxford Bibliographies. DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780195396607-0078
Ridley, M. (2003). Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human. Harper Collins; New York.
Preston, K. (2009). Crime and Conflict Theory. Retrieved from http://attackthesystem.com/crime-and-conflict-theory/
