Abstract:
Theories were developed over the years, as researchers and sociologists tried to explain the reasons why there is crime within the communities. These theories include the social bonds theory, the self-control theory, the power control theory, the control balance theory, the differential coercion theory, and the social support theory. Based on the theories, there are five realities behind the causation of crime: (1) that crime is caused by weakening bonds to the society; (2) that crime is the effect of having low self-control; (3) that crime is caused by occupational patriarchy; (4) that it is caused by the roles and statuses of people; and (5) that it is caused by coercion. To solve this, societies should create an environment that induces strong support and supervision to the youth sector, which will act as their guiding force.
Introduction
Overview
Crime is said to be a complex phenomenon that is going rampant in the United States over the course of history. Long ago, people of origins thought that crime was caused by spiritual demons, with the sinfulness of humans being inherited over time. After, it was believed that crime was attributed to the “defective biological constitution of inferior people” (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2015, p.4). Then, it was said that its main cause was the lack of equal opportunity between people in the society. By the 1960s, the theory was that people became criminals because they were poor and inferior, and they were denied equal opportunity to wealth, good health, and good life. There are a number of reasons why people become criminals, and it usually depends on the social context and the changes that go along with it, which causes people to experience life differently, and leading to a change in behavior.
Purpose & objectives
This paper will analyze and differentiate the different causes of crime, as based on the theories created under criminology. The following objectives are to be applied: (1) to explain what crime is, as well as the different types of crime; (2) to explain the theories behind crime; (3) to analyze the basic causes of crime; and (4) to recommend strategies that would best solve crime. In the end, it would be evident as to what are the common causes of crime, and what should be done to lessen, or even eliminate, the incidents of crime within the society.
Acts of Criminality
What is Crime?
Crime is defined as “an offence that merits community condemnation and punishment, usually by way of fine or imprisonment” (Legal Services Commission of South Australia, 2016, p.1). Criminal offences are often being prosecuted by the Commonwealth or by the State, in which it usually depends on the individual being prosecuted to take action to the administrative court. Others, on the other hand, begin to take criminal proceedings. In other matters, such as in the case of assault, it is treated as both a crime and a civil wrong, so that police officers have the power to prosecute the individual. The victim, on the other hand, has the power to take civil action for any type of injury being suffered. Meanwhile, there are three types of criminal offences: (1) simple offences; (2) minor indictable offences; and (3) major indictable offences (LSCSA, 2016, p.1). The court is chosen depending on the type of criminal offence that is being dealt with. A trial or a hearing will then take place when the defendant pleads as not guilty to the charge. If proven guilty, the defendant may either impose a fine, undergo a sentence of imprisonment, impose good behavior, order home detention, order community service, or do compensation, forfeiture, or intervention.
The White-Collar Crime
White-collar crime are “the crimes committed by professional people in the course of their occupations” (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2015, p.2). It is common enough to witness rule breaking in the working place during the course of work, within the work setting, in which the offender serves as an employee or worker. These are the principles that define the white-collar crime, termed as “crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” (Sutherland, 1949, p.9). This includes financial and physical abuse against patients, fraud by the doctors and pharmacists, corporate offending by a medical company, as well as drug theft committed by nurses. However, it is more usual that victims of white-collar crime fail to submit report to the police, mainly because there is not enough evidence, or they see the offence as not serious, or one that may be too costly. However, failure to report a white-collar crime will not create an official record of the crime.
illegal or socially injurious actions that result from a mutually reinforcing interaction between: (1) policies and/or practices in pursuit of the goals of one or more institutions of political governance; and (2) policies and/or practices in pursuit of the goals of one or more institutions of economic production and distribution. (Michalowski & Kramer, 2007, p.209)
Here, it is obvious that there are divergent inter-organizational relationships taking place, so that state-corporate crime may take several forms. Thus, this type of crime may take either of the two distinct forms: either it is a state-initiated corporate crime, or a state-facilitated corporate crime. Between these two distinct forms, the difference lies on whether the offender is employed by government, or whether there is failure by the government to restrain such deviant activities. State-corporate crimes can be massive and can have enormous political implications, as seen in terrorism and violations of human rights.
Theories behind Criminal Activity
Social Bonds Theory
According to Travis Hirschi, there are certain controls relating to personal and social perspectives, which lead to delinquency in the life of a youth. Delinquency occurs when the person’s bond to society weakens. According to Hirschi, there are four elements significant to a person’s bond to the society: first is attachment; second is involvement; third is belief; and the fourth and final is commitment (Intravia, 2009, p.7). The stronger these elements are, the more likely the person will be inhibited from acts of delinquency. On the other hand, the weaker these four elements are, the more likely the person will commit acts of delinquency. With attachment, the person is more likely to share relationships with significant others. With involvement, the person is more likely to be occupied and restrained due to conventional activities, which inhibits the person from acts of delinquency. With stronger belief, there will be stronger respect, which lessens the possibility for the person to commit acts of delinquency. Finally, with stronger commitment to conventional activities, the person is less likely to engage in delinquency, especially since the person has no desire to waste what he/she has acquired. By this, the person makes rational decisions by maximizing the profits and minimizing the costs or losses, as reflected in the rational choice theory.
Self-Control Theory
When it comes to Michael Gottfredson (1990, p.90), delinquency and criminal behavior are produced and controlled by self-control. As stated, “individuals with low self-control are more susceptible to pursue criminality and imprudent behavior” (Intravia, 2009, p.14). Self-control covers all types of criminal and non-criminal behavior, even acts of “smoking, drinking, use of drugs, gambling, having children out of wedlock, and engaging in illicit sex” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p.90). On the other hand, there are a total of six interrelated elements of self-control. First, individuals with low self-control are said to be impulsive. Second, they prefer easy or simple gratifications. Third, they are more likely to seek excitement, thrills, and risk. Fourth, they tend to be short-sighted. Finally, individuals with low self-control lack academic and cognitive abilities (Intravia, 2009, p.15). Unlike them, individuals who have high levels of self-control are more generous and sensitive to others, and they are not self-centered nor indifferent to the needs and wishes of other people.
Power Control Theory
For John Hagan and his colleagues, acts of criminality are caused by gender, in which males have a tendency to engage more in deviance and delinquency than those of females (Tsutomi et al., 2013, p.129). Inspired by both control and stratification theories, it explains crime as one that is inspired by occupational patriarchy. For this, the parent’s job or occupation has a lot to do with the types of criminal acts seen in males and females. They explained patriarchy as one that is reflected in the power dynamics of both the father and the mother, including their positions of power and authority within their household. Hence, a more patriarchal household reflects a father who is in a position of authority, and a mother who is without authority. On the other hand, a less patriarchal household is one, wherein both parents are in positions of authority, or both parents are employed but not in positions of authority. With patriarchy, one can determine the positions of authority within a family, and whether there exists a balance of power between the two parents ruling the household. However, it was discovered that females were more often the objects of parental control in more patriarchal households, in which the mothers tend to be the instrument of control.
Control Balance Theory
For Charles Tittle (1995), control remains to be “the central organizing concept of the discipline of sociology” (p.77). Based on definition, the term deviance refers to “any behavior that the majority of a given group regards as unacceptable or that typically evokes a collective response of a negative type” (Tittle, 1995, p.124). The main independent variable is the control ratio or “the degree of control that one can exercise relative to that which one experiences” (Braithwaite, 1997, p.78). As Braithwaite (1997) tried to explain,
If by virtue of the roles and statuses one occupies and the personal strengths one has, one has the potential to exert more control over others and their environment than others do in fact exert over oneself, then one has a control surplus. Obversely, a person who by virtue of lowly status has little potential to control but who actually experiences enormous control has a control deficit. (Braithwaite, 1997, p.78)
Thus, both surplus and deficit conduces deviance, in which crime in the suits reflects control surplus, while crime in the streets reflects control deficit. Therefore, there is control imbalance within the society, in which the imbalance becomes the common cause of crime and injustice. More so, people are induced to do criminal activity, as the result of the pursuit for autonomy, in which people desire to have control surplus instead of control deficit.
Differential Coercion Theory
For Mark Colvin, the causes of crime are reflected in the Marxist theory, in which class-based labor markets are coercive when exercising social control. This type of coercion produces social bonds and chronic delinquency, by which the micro and macro levels of influence produces both interpersonal and impersonal coercion. With interpersonal coercion, the main issue is reflected in the use of threat or force as well as intimidation, which induces compliance through fear (Colvin, 2000, p.5). With impersonal coercion, the issue is reflected in the use of force or potential for a removal of social supports (Colvin, 2000, p.5). This latter type is beyond individual control as brought by macro-level coercion, such as the economic and social pressure reflected in poverty, unemployment, and competition.
Social Support Theory
In the social support theory, the main issue revolves in increasing information that can broaden people’s understanding of the causation of crime. It reflects that to reduce crime, societies should engage in activities that “restrict the ability of potential criminals to break the law” (Makarios & Sams, 2013, p.161). Instead of focusing on the assertion of control over people in the society, this theory focuses more on the provision of services that can highly reduce the likelihood of criminal activities and involvement. This theory centers more on what the society can do for a person, which can be instrumental in the prevention of criminal acts and behavior (Makarios & Sams, 2013, p.161). Based on the theory, people who live in more supportive environments have less tendency to be engaged in criminal acts, and that the creation of families, neighborhoods, and friendship networks discourage criminal activity. Support may either be instrumental or expressive, but the main issue is that the social structure of societies create positive conditions that highly improve the behavior and perspective of individuals, which deviates from criminal behavior. Social support was proven to be negatively related to crime, and it can reduce the effects of the risk factors. This was proven in studies, wherein it was traced that those who were embedded in supportive social networks were less likely to develop mental health problems, resulting to less crime (Makarios & Sams, 2013, p.162). This can be controlled through moderation of individual propensities through the provision of environments highly conducive to mental development.
Analysis
The Basic Causes of Crime
Usually, sociologists say that the basic causes of crime can be attributed to poverty, low self-esteem, parental neglect, or alcohol/drug abuse. However, based on the theories being presented, the following seemed to be more apparent when reflecting over the basic causes of crime. First, crime is caused by a weakening bond to the society in terms of attachment, involvement, belief, and commitment. Second, crime is caused by having low self-control, which makes the person more impulsive, short-sighted, seeks excitement and risks, lacks academic and cognitive abilities, and prefers easy or simple gratifications. Third, crime is caused by occupational patriarchy, in which the parent’s occupation reflects the type of criminal activities susceptible to males and females. Fourth, crime is caused by the roles and statuses of people, which allows them to exert more control over the others and thus, commit crime. Fifth, crime is also caused by coercion in both the micro and macro levels, using threat and intimidation, or potential to remove social supports. Finally, crime is also caused by the degree of social support that a person receives from the society or the environment, which reduces the likelihood of engaging in criminal activities or involvement. In the overall, it appears that the causes of crime are induced by “the nature of the neighborhood [and] not the nature of the individuals within the neighborhood” (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2015, p.40). This is witnessed in places that reflect rapid, concentrated urban growth, with a mixture of racial groups in places reflecting high levels of economic poverty.
Basic Strategy in Solving Crime
In Chicago’s court, it was discovered that crime was more rampant in slum neighborhoods regardless of the ethnic/racial group residing in the neighborhood. Since it was the nature of the neighborhood that induces criminal acts, neighborhood organizations are very important in reducing crime within a community. This is true, especially in communities highlighted by zones of transition, wherein the families appear to be more strained or broken apart. There is rapid urban growth, with groups of people moving in and out of the community, with a high level of heterogeneity as well as poverty. There is social disorganization in such places, and more likely, the youth sector does not receive enough support from societal organizations, their families, peers, and their neighborhood. To reduce crime, the youth sector should receive strong support and supervision for them to have a more wholesome development in the changing environment. They should receive social control that would act as a guiding force, for them to stop acts of delinquency and criminal activity. It would also do good to create organizations that would strengthen or heighten the youth’s attachment, involvement, and commitment to their neighborhood, and strengthen their respect and belief to themselves and their neighbors, most especially to their family and friends. People should have more options on how to exert self-control, so that regardless of their gender and status, they will not be intimidated by threat, which induces criminal behavior.
Conclusion
South Central Los Angeles was once known to be the area for drug lords as well as drive-bys. Since last year however, the murder rates landed to barely a third of what they once were in the 1990s, reflecting a “nationwide decline in crime” (Howe, 2015, p.1). It began rising in the 1960s, with unprecedented peaks in the 1980s and early 1990s, and it wasn’t until 1995 when the climb gave way to a series of decline (Howe, 2015, p.1). Nowadays, however, crime rates were said to have fallen when the Millennials entered their prime age bracket for doing criminal activity. By 2013, the U.S. National Victimization Survey measured a decline of 71 percent from 1994 (Howe, 2015, p.1). It was at this time that many of the youth sector were moving to larger cities, where violence reduced the most. Lost Angeles, for example, experienced a 90 percent reduction in murder rate since 1992 (Howe, 2015, p.1). In spite of the fact that there were high gun crimes in this area, the economic conditions greatly improved, and with this came the depletion of slum neighborhoods and the rapid improvement of livelihood, which lessened the rate of crime. With improvement in the nature of neighborhood, crime rate was greatly reduced, as the livelihood of the citizens reflected effective social control for a more crime-free environment.
References:
Braithwaite, J. (1997). Charles Tittle’s control balance and criminological theory. Theoretical Criminology, 1(1), 77-97.
Colvin, M. (2000). Crime and coercion: an integrated theory of chronic criminality. New York, NY: Palgrave. Print.
Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Print.
Howe, N. (2015, May 28). What’s behind the decline in crime? Forbes Magazine. Retrieved April 28, 2016 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/05/28/whats-behind-the-decline-in-crime/#591bbade7733.
Intravia, J. (2009). The roles of social bonds, personality, and rational decision-making: An empirical investigation into hirschi’s “new” control theory. University of South Florida Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved April 28, 2016 from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3022&context=etd.
Legal Services Commission of South Australia. (2016). “What is a crime?” Law handbook. Retrieved April 28, 2016 from http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch12s01.php.
Lilly, J.R., Cullen, F.T., & Ball, R.A. (2015). Criminological theory: context and consequences (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Print.
Makarios, M.D., & Sams, T.L. (2013). “Social support and crime.” In F.T. Cullen & P.Wilcox’s, The Oxford handbooks in criminology and criminal justice (pp.160-187). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Print.
Michalowski, R.J., & Kramer, R.C. (2007). “State-corporate crime and criminological inquiry.” In H.N. Pontell & G.L. Geis’ (eds.), International handbook of white-collar and corporate crime (pp.200-221). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. Print.
Sutherland, E.H. (1949). White collar crime. New York, NY: Hold, Rinehart & Winston. Print.
Tittle, C. (1995). Control balance: toward a general theory of deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Print.
Tsutomi, H., Bui, L., Ueda, M., & Farrington, D.P. (2013). The application of criminological theory to a Japanese context: Power-control theory. International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, 6(4), 128-144.
