KEY WORDS and PHRASES Classical Criminology – this approach to the study of crime focuses on a person’s free will and his cognitive ability (however rudimentary or simple it may be) to rationalise his actions using cost-benefit analysis. This theory is very policy oriented and concentrates on establishing and operating a criminal justice system that is rule-based, consistent and predictable. Punishments meted out by a system using this theoretical model are meant to deter the criminal and members of the public from committing crime. Deviancy – this encompasses conduct that is frowned upon by society, but is not illegal in the sense of breaching any criminal laws of that community. New Deviancy – this approach to the study of crime rejects that the criminal law represents the consensual values of a community. Rather, this theory argues that the criminal law is defined and used by the powerful in society (those who are wealthy, or have political, social and/or religious authority) to protect their interests. Panopticon – an architectural design (created by Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century) for a prison that allows the wardens to freely observe their inmates without the latter being aware when they are being monitored. This constant threat of being watched is used by the wardens as a tool to reform the offender. This method derives its theoretical strength from Classical Criminology. Positivist Criminology – this approach to the study of crime uses a deterministic argument to highlight that persons who commit “crimes” do so not out of freewill, but because of certain biological, sociological and/or psychological factors that they have no control over. Highly scientific in its methodology, punishment is not considered appropriate for these types of “criminals”. Rather, it advocates treatment and rehabilitation over punishment. Rule of Law – a constitutional principle, also applicable in Singapore, that asserts the supremacy of the law over arbitrary (or non-rule based) action. Within the context of the criminal justice system, a person accused of a crime cannot be charged for an offence that was not a law at the time the alleged guilty act took place and, if convicted, cannot be sentenced with punishment that the existing law does not allow for. Trial by Arms – where the victim and the alleged offender would fight with each other (or through their proxies) in a contest of armed combat, with the assumption that God would determine who was telling the truth by way of the outcome of such battle. A medieval form of criminal justice. Trial by Ordeal – where the offender’s protestation of innocence would be tested by putting him/her through a series of torturous ordeals, and if they survived because of God’s divine intervention, would only then be proclaimed innocent. Another medieval form of criminal justice. The Development of Criminology and the Study of Deviance as a Product and Response of its Time The classical study of crime and deviance by key figures like Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century took place during the height of the Age of Enlightenment, when the forces of social change were fomenting in revolution and reform across Europe and the New World. The European criminal justice systems of those times were primarily based upon an earlier medieval understanding of crime that linked such deviant conduct with sin and heavenly retribution. Innocence or guilt was determined by ascertaining God’s Will through trial by arms or by way of ordeal. Punishments were also often extremely barbaric and horrifying since they were supposed to mirror the types of punishment such offenders would likewise receive in “hell”. But such explanations of crime that were steeped in religious doctrine and spirituality were fast becoming unpopular among the educated and the increasingly wealthy middle class, particularly because the existing political systems governing European societies were based on those same reasons – monarchies that emphasised their divine right to rule. As the concept of democracy grew in favour among the masses, communities all over Europe and the colonies became more and more discontent with such forms of autocratic and totalitarian governance. It was in this hostile climate that classical criminology incubated and grew. In fact, when Beccaria first published his seminal work ‘On Crimes and Punishments’ in 1764, he did so anonymously in order to avoid being identified and punished by the authorities, both secular and religious, for to suggest reform of the criminal justice system at that time was tantamount to criticising both the authority of the ruling aristocracy as well as that of the Holy Catholic Church. Positivist criminology however developed during a totally different intellectual environment. Gone were the days when such rational and secular pursuits were discouraged in favour of the medieval-thinking status quo. Instead, the nineteenth century heralded the Age of Darwinism and of Science. Indeed, these developments greatly influenced the most prominent of criminologists of that period – Cesare Lombroso, a medical doctor – who is credited with attempting to place the study of crime and deviance on a firm scientific footing. In the spirit of evolutionary science, his work entitled the “The Criminal Man”, published in 1876, was a testament to his ambition of trying to move away from Beccaria’s ‘free-will’ doctrine (that men chose to commit crime) with a more deterministic biological explanation – that some men were “born” to commit crime because of their genetic dispositions. Thus, began the search for the “Criminal Man”, a man destined to a life of crime which Lombroso was confident could be identified by certain atavistic / biological markers or indicators which were measurable and consistent. The Link between Crime, Deviance and Political Philosophy – the Contributions of Classical Criminology As the previous exercise would have highlighted, classical criminology is primarily a philosophical approach to understanding crime. It is an “armchair” study of deviance that extensively uses Utilitarianism as the basis of its approach. The Link between Crime, Deviance and Political Philosophy – the Contributions of Empirical / Positivist Criminology Lombroso’s scientific approach however is an antithesis of Beccaria’s classical study. Lombroso’s concept of crime and deviance is one that is based upon biological determinism and has at its foundations, Social Darwinistic and positivistic roots. His “criminal man” is a “born criminal” – the genetic atavistic throwback. The Different Images of Crime and Deviance One of the primary difficulties that you will encounter when studying crime and deviance is the lack of consistency and clarity in terms of what is actually a “crime” and who is really a “criminal”. For most of you, this previous statement will probably make no sense at all. I can almost hear your thoughts right now – “What a strange thing to say! A crime is an offence. An offence is conduct that is prohibited under the law. A criminal is therefore a person who has committed an offence under that law. Simple!” The problem with this approach is that the label “criminal” and the conduct of “crime” carry with them a sense of immorality and evilness. And yet, clearly not all offences are immoral and not all criminals are evil. Would it be a surprise for you to note that Mahatma Gandhi was considered to be a criminal by the British colonial government in India? In fact, he was imprisoned on numerous occasions for breaching the law. Was he a criminal? And what about Nelson Mandela of South Africa? He was imprisoned for 27 years. Was he a criminal too? Is he currently being treated by South Africa and the worldat-large as a criminal or as a hero? During the Prohibition Years of the United States of America (1920-1933), the manufacture, transport, sale, possession and consumption of alcohol was prohibited under the Constitution and federal law. And yet, now, it would be inconceivable to think that drinking alcohol in America, home of the Budweiser and Jack Daniels, was ever an offence! This is where the problem lies. The nature of crime cannot be explained as simply a physical act/omission or phenomena. It cannot even be solely defined in terms of morality or ethics. It is a social construct and, hence, can be defined in various ways. “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” and the same can actually be argued of “crime” as well. What constitutes a crime may be analysed from a systemic perspective, where different actors within the criminal justice process exert varying influences over the outcome of whether a person and that person’s conduct eventually results in his being arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished as a criminal. For example, what is initially defined as a crime may fall within the authority of the legislature. However, the enforcement of those laws is carried out by the police, but the decision to prosecute will ultimately lie with the Public Prosecutor. The conviction and punishment, on the other hand, will be within the jurisdiction of the court. These social institutions are therefore collectively responsible for “creating” the crime but of course not of perpetrating the prohibited conduct. It has also been contended that these institutions may be “captured” by powerful groups within society in order for the criminal law to serve or protect their purposes and/or interests. As the preceding analysis has shown, because criminal behaviour and deviancy are social constructs, in the end we are left with often “conflicting images of crime”. For example, is crime perpetrated by evil or immoral men or is such deviant conduct driven by deterministic forces that hapless men have no control over? Is criminal behaviour limited to only those who are poor or can the “rich” and “powerful” commit crime too? Are terrorists no different from common criminals? Or is this merely an attempt on the part of the state to protect the status quo against forces of reform and change? SUMMARY In this unit, I have tried to contextualise the intellectual development of the classical and positivistic study of law and order as well as that of crime, from a historical, political, social and philosophical perspective in the hope that this will further deepen your understanding of the recommended text. Given its complexity, it is not surprising that criminal behaviour is far from easy to define, and there exists various ways of comprehending this social phenomena. It can be articulated as a reflection of consensual societal values as well as the outcome of conflicts between varying societal values as well as between different social interests and groups. Consequently, there are conflicting images of crime that cannot be resolved by simply appealing to traditional criminal law arguments. Criminal behaviour and its causes must therefore be accepted as a social construct, and not some immutable and objective phenomena. Deviancy Amplification – a process that is closely associated with Moral Panics. Deviancy amplification occurs when an initial criminal or deviant act (primary deviance) perpetrated by a person or a group is so sensationalised by the media that it generates enough public fear and concern to warrant greater scrutiny and action taken by the various criminal justice institutions within that community. When this occurs, the person or group that initially committed the crime / deviant act becomes increasingly marginalised or targeted by these state measures. This, in turn, causes them to commit even more crime (secondary deviance), thus “justifying” the need to suppress their activities in the first place. A vicious cycle is thereby created and, instead of reducing crime, tends to increase the levels of crime committed by this person or group. Moral Panics – a process whereby a particular crime is focussed upon by the media so as to generate widespread public opinion or hysteria against the perpetrators of that crime. This is usually followed by extreme social measures and sanctions taken out against those perpetrators or similar target groups. In theory, the mass media plays no formal role in the criminal justice system. It is supposed to merely disseminate information to the public about crime and the state’s official response to such crime. However, the works of Leslie Wilkins (1964) and Stan Cohen (1972) would strongly suggest otherwise. In their studies, the media is seen, in certain circumstances, as an agent of deviance amplification, where because of their capability of influencing public opinion, can generate moral panics and instil a fear of crime within the wider community. This public response may be entirely disproportionate to the actual seriousness of that particular crime or the risk of that particular crime occurring to them, but nevertheless because of the ensuing public outcry against the perceived “seriousness” of the situation caused by the media’s sensationalism, the state apparatus has no choice but to intervene and take harsh measures against the perpetrator or group that committed the initial crime or offence (what is called the primary deviance). Understanding the Nature and Role of the ‘Media’ within the Criminal Justice System Unfortunately, when this happens, instead of reducing the incidences of that crime, it actually escalates or amplifies it. This is either due to the fact that the media has now glamorised that offending behaviour (thus making such behaviour more attractive to some) or because the primary offender or the offending group has been so badly marginalised or punished by the criminal justice system, that they have no choice but to commit further crime (what is called secondary deviance) since they can no longer access the legal means of achieving their legitimate goals within their communities. For example, having a criminal record may prevent them from being able to get better paying jobs or into certain professions. Portraying an Image of Objectivity Some of the key reasons why the media is able to exert such a great influence over public perception and/or opinion are because of its perceived objectivity and independent character. In fact, there appears to be a widely-held assumption that if we read about something in the newspapers or learn about it from a news report on television, it has to true! This is, of course, an absurd notion on a number of counts. Firstly, the media report is only as accurate or reliable as the information or data that the reporter or journalist has relied upon. Thus, if the informational source is unreliable, incomplete, inaccurate or biased, then the news report will obviously suffer the same fate. Secondly, a media report should not be viewed in the same way as “photographic snapshot” of a particular event — i.e. what you see is what you get. News reports can never be completely objective. It should be noted that the journalist and his/her editor exercises considerable editorial discretion both in terms of the selection of the ‘crime’ story as well as its content. In this regard, the selection of which stories to run will depend upon some or all of the following factors: • immediacy; • dramatisation; • personalisation; • simplification; • titillation; • conventionalism; • structured access; • novelty events; • spectacle or graphic injury; and • involvement of children Even the “content” of such reports are susceptible to the subjective interpretations of the various journalists involved, as well as their editorial supervisors. Studies have tended to show that there is an over-representation of crime reports that feature sexual and/or violent offences. The Implication of the Media’s reporting of Crime Because “sex, violence and controversy sells newspapers!” it actually makes commercial sense for profit-run mass media companies to publish and sensationalise stories that people would be interested in reading and/or watching so as to boost sales and advertising revenue. This would be entirely acceptable if not for the fact that the media plays such a significant role in: • deviance amplification; • ‘moral panics’; • the shaping of public perceptions of crime and vulnerability; and • exerting undue influence over politicians, judges and/or juries. Summary It is clear that although the media has no formal role in the criminal justice system, its influence and impact in this area cannot be discounted. This includes its role in shaping public opinion, causing moral panics, as well as forming the community’s perceptions concerning the extent and levels of crime. Its strength lies in the fact that the mass media represents the primary vehicle in which the public receives information concerning crime as well as the state’s official response to such crime, and because of that many countries have had to impose various legal constraints on the press in terms of what it can and cannot publish. The press, however, sees itself as the “Fourth Estate” – the guardians of public interest and hence a safeguard and check against the state vis-à-vis the citizen. In this regard, the Singapore government has explicitly rejected such a role for the media here in Singapore. KEY WORDS and PHRASES Classical Criminology – this approach to the study of crime focuses on a person’s free will and his cognitive ability (however rudimentary or simple it may be) to rationalize his actions using cost-benefit analysis. This theory is very policy oriented and concentrates on establishing and operating a criminal justice system that is rule-based, consistent and predictable. Punishments meted out by a system using this theoretical model are meant to deter the criminal and members of the public from committing crime. Criminogenic factors – factors that predispose or make us more likely to commit crime or deviance. Positivist Criminology – this approach to the study of crime uses a deterministic argument to suggest that persons who commit “crimes” do so not out of free will, but because of certain biological, sociological and/or psychological factors to which they have no control. Highly scientific in its methodology, punishment is not considered appropriate for these types of “criminals”. Rather, it advocates treatment and rehabilitation over punishment. Key Features of Classical Criminology From your previous readings in this area, it should be clear to you what the key features of this theory are. Some of these would include: Social Contract as the basis of Social Order; The Rule of Law, as opposed to Arbitrary Rule; The concept of free will; Crime as a rational choice, and the nature of man being self-interested; Proportionate and Appropriate Punishment to fit the crime; Certainty of Punishment, as an effective deterrent to crime, To better appreciate the significance of these facets to Classical criminological theory, you should keep in mind that this approach was principally a response to the earlier medieval understanding of crime that linked deviant conduct with sin and divine retribution. As a result, punishments were usually horrifying since they were supposed to replicate the types of retribution such offenders would likewise receive in “hell”. Prison as a means of punishment was then generally limited to political prisoners, those awaiting trial and debtors. Key Features of Positivist Criminology If you have not already realized this, “positivism” is NOT a criminological theory at all. Instead, the term denotes the systematic use of scientific methodology in the study of the causes of criminal and deviant behaviour. In the same way that classical criminology (with its deep philosophical and humanist underpinnings) rejected the earlier spiritual and medieval concepts of crime and sin, positivist criminology (with its adoption of modern scientific methods and social Darwinism) similarly rejected these “earlier” classical notions of deviancy. Consequently, you will notice that certain key features to positivist criminology appear to be mirror images to classicism. These would include: Determinism; Crime is not a product of rational choice but, rather, due to factors over which the criminal has no control; Treatment, and not punishment; Appropriate and tailored treatment as an effective deterrent to crime. Modern Developments in Classical and Positivist Criminology The positivistic search for criminogenic factors continues even till today, with numerous studies suggesting biological (constitutional or internal) and/or sociological (external) predispositions to deviance. While criminogenic sociological factors will be discussed in greater detail in the succeeding chapters, a little should be said at this juncture about biological factors to crime. Try and recall what you previously learnt about Lombroso’s Criminal Man – the genetic throwback who was different from “us” – the “us” being law-abiding citizens. For a while, Lombroso’s approach was very influential but as time wore on, his insistence on reducing criminality to purely constitutional biological explanations was wearing thin in a society that was progressively becoming more modern and humanistic. And in the end, Lombroso himself had to modify his Criminal Man to include sociological factors when determining whether a person would or would not be more predisposed to committing an offence. The 19th and 20th centuries saw different groups within many Western societies fighting for greater civil and political rights. Unfortunately, these social reformers and activists were also labelled as “criminals” (in the same Lombrosian sort of way) by the powers-that-be who wanted to continue with the existing political system that was based on ethnicity, power, money and/or birthright. This was considered highly insulting to these so-called “criminals”, particularly because many of them were actually struggling for racial or gender equality in societies that discriminated against its own people because of the colour of their skin or the nature of their sex. Criminals? Hardly! They were certainly not “born-criminals” – genetic throwbacks from our prehistoric past. In this context, Beccaria’s classical understanding of deviance (the Rationale Man) made much more sense and seemed more intellectually appealing than Lombroso’s Criminal Man. And yet, the search for constitutional biological causes of criminality continues. Researchers conduct scientific studies everyday in the hope of finding that ONE (or two) biological factor/s that can be conclusively linked to criminal behaviour. This search has led them to consider the “usual suspects” – inferior race, genetic defects, heredity, low intelligence, hormonal and neurotransmitter imbalances, psychological trauma, hyper-masculinity and other biological or psychological causes. Each has had varying degrees of success in predicting potentially deviant behaviour, but none have been able to produce sufficient evidence to prove inevitability i.e., if someone possesses a particular biological or psychological defect, he/she will definitely commit crime. When associated causal factors (including sociological ones) are studied together, internal) and/or sociological (external) predispositions to deviance. While criminogenic sociological factors will be discussed in greater detail in the succeeding chapters, a little should be said at this juncture about biological factors to crime. Try and recall what you previously learnt about Lombroso’s Criminal Man – the genetic throwback who was different from “us” – the “us” being law-abiding citizens. For a while, Lombroso’s approach was very influential but as time wore on, his insistence on reducing criminality to purely constitutional biological explanations was wearing thin in a society that was progressively becoming more modern and humanistic. And in the end, Lombroso himself had to modify his Criminal Man to include sociological factors when determining whether a person would or would not be more predisposed to committing an offence. The 19th and 20th centuries saw different groups within many Western societies fighting for greater civil and political rights. Unfortunately, these social reformers and activists were also labelled as “criminals” (in the same Lombrosian sort of way) by the powers-that-be who wanted to continue with the existing political system that was based on ethnicity, power, money and/or birthright. This was considered highly insulting to these so-called “criminals”, particularly because many of them were actually struggling for racial or gender equality in societies that discriminated against its own people because of the colour of their skin or the nature of their sex. Criminals? Hardly! They were certainly not “born-criminals” – genetic throwbacks from our prehistoric past. In this context, Beccaria’s classical understanding of deviance (the Rationale Man) made much more sense and seemed more intellectually appealing than Lombroso’s Criminal Man. And yet, the search for constitutional biological causes of criminality continues. Researchers conduct scientific studies everyday in the hope of finding that ONE (or two) biological factor/s that can be conclusively linked to criminal behaviour. This search has led them to consider the “usual suspects” – inferior race, genetic defects, heredity, low intelligence, hormonal and neurotransmitter imbalances, psychological trauma, hyper-masculinity and other biological or psychological causes. Each has had varying degrees of success in predicting potentially deviant behaviour, but none have been able to produce sufficient evidence to prove inevitability i.e., if someone possesses a particular biological or psychological defect, he/she will definitely commit crime. When associated causal factors (including sociological ones) are studied together, the chances of predicting deviant behaviour actually increases. Nevertheless, this still does not account for ALL types of criminal behaviour, nor does it statistically prove inevitability. Notice that classical criminology does not have these same challenges. From this perspective, committing a crime is not limited to particular classes of “defective” people – anybody can perpetrate an offence. Man is viewed as a free moral agent capable of weighing the costs and benefits of committing a crime. If the benefits outweigh the costs (and this will include the risk of arrest and conviction, as well as the severity of the likely punishment), he may be more likely to commit the offence. As you continue your readings in this course, it should become obvious to you that the prevalence or dominance of a particular criminological approach will be highly dependent upon the political climate of that society in question. For example, the more conservative it is, the more likely a classical understanding of crime will be used. A society that is more welfare-oriented or socialist, however, will tend to gravitate towards a positivistic “treatment” model. To understand this point better, read Jones (2013: 87-89). Evaluation As highlighted previously, the political climate of a country often dictates the specific approach to crime and deviance chosen by the policymakers. Nevertheless, you should know the inherent limitations of both classical and positivist criminology, especially if you are attempting to implement crime prevention initiatives that are based on either of these approaches. In this regard, you should read Jones (2013: 79-80 & 87-89) and Joyce (2013: 4-5 & 7). (a) Limitations to Classical Criminology: Lack of empirical evidence to support theory; Overemphasis on rationality; Overly idealistic; Police and judicial discretion was excessively de-emphasised. (b) Limitations to Positivist Criminology Overly deterministic; Assumed that a crime was based upon the consensual values of society; Tended to criminalize the lower or working classes of society; Overly concentrated on “healing” or “treating” the offender; Justified pre-emptive intervention. Summary Having gone through the readings and the learning exercises, it will be apparent to you that these approaches, when placed side-by-side, are actually critical counterpoints to each other. That is, they represent mirror images of one another. Hence, their relative dominance in official crime control policy at any given time may be more an indication of the prevalent political values in that community than its relative merit. Each fits in better with particular political persuasions — classical criminology with conservative or liberal democratic politics — whereas positivist criminology ties in more closely with welfare or technocratic forms of governance. Sociological Theories of Crime KEY WORDS and PHRASES Anomie – can be primarily understood in two related ways. Emile Durkheim formulated the concept of anomie to mean a state of social indiscipline in which a person, during certain periods of rapid social change or economic upheaval, was no longer bound by social norms, and this may include the criminal law. For the second way of understanding anomie, see Strain Theory below. Control theories – in similar vein to Emile Durkheim, control theorists posit that crime is a natural occurrence in society. This is because everyone has an innate ability to commit crime. Humans are essentially self-interested and will commit an offence if it benefits him/her. Control theories seek to find out why people do not commit crime when they actually can. The answer appears to lie in our ability to effectively socialize or socially condition our young when they are at an impressionable age. The more socialized they are, the less likely they would be to commit crime in the future. See also Social Bond Theory and Individual Bond Control Theory. Delinquent subculture – Boys who have been marginalized because they are unable to achieve the middle-class values imposed upon them by society tend to gravitate towards other marginalized boys, creating gangs that act as a collective solution to their status frustration. Here, they would receive not only comfort but also a measure of dignity once again. To augment this, the gangs would also engage in a process of reaction formation – where middle-class values are overturned and replaced with norms and goals that these boys could easily achieve, what Albert Cohen described as the delinquent subculture. See also Status Frustration. Differential Association - Edwin Sutherland posited that crime is a learned behaviour – that people learn to commit crime when they are faced with an excess of definitions favorable to violation of the law. Drift Theory – According to Gresham Sykes and David Matza, delinquents drifted between conforming and non-conforming conduct, depending on the level of social control over them as well as their ability to rely upon the techniques of neutralization to justify their otherwise deviant behaviour. See also Techniques of Neutralization. Functionalist Argument of Crime – this refers to the contention that crime has a useful purpose in society, and that without crime (not excessive crime though), society would not be considered in a healthy state. Individual bond control theory – an approach undertaken by Travis Hirschi (together with Michael Gottfredson) when he modified his “social bond theory”. The “individual bond” paradigm downplays the sociological elements of his former theory. This latter approach suggested that people with low self-control would be more prone to perpetrating a crime should a suitable opportunity present itself. According to Hirschi and Gottfredson, this low self-control was due to poor training when young. Thus, good child-rearing practices adopted by parents may facilitate the socialization process within the close family unit. Bad parental skills are therefore an indirect cause of crime, whilst low self-control is the direct cause. Social bond theory – Travis Hirschi argued that certain factors facilitate the process of socialization. The more socialized a person is, the less likely he would be in perpetrating a crime. Hirschi originally argued that socially controlling a person’s behaviour through external (andstructural) means depended upon the interaction of four different elements (social bonds) and these are (1) attachment; (2) commitment; (3) involvement; and (4) agreement. Social disorganization – most closely associated with the Chicago School of Sociology. Crime occurs in part because of the way an urban area develops and grows. Certain urban areas or zones within the city will contain criminogenic characteristics that will make it more conducive for its inhabitants to turn to crime. Status frustration – In Albert Cohen’s delinquent subculture theory, status frustration refers to the frustration the lower class boys experience when they cannot acquire middle class status that society requires of them. Strain Theory – Robert Merton modified Durkheim’s concept of anomie to mean a state where there was a dissonance between the culturally approved goals of a society (i.e., being rich) and that of the culturally approved means of achieving those goals. That is, while everyone was encouraged to achieve particular goals in life through the use of legitimate means, not everyone had access to those legitimate means to achieve the said cultural goals. This dissonance between the cultural goal of being rich, and the structural limitations preventing everyone from achieving this cultural goal (what Merton calls “anomie”) causes “strain” within the community. This “strain,” in turn, produces a number of responses in people, some of which may be deviant and/or criminal. Techniques of neutralisation – David Matza argued that instead of positing a “delinquent subcultural” theory to explain the criminal acts of lower class boys, delinquents such as these actually use techniques of neutralization to rationalize and ultimately justify their criminal conduct, bringing it in line with mainstream middle class values. Hence, there is no “delinquent subculture”. Anomie and Strain Theory Robert Merton later applied this concept of anomie to formulate his “Strain Theory”. He observed that American society tended to extol the virtue of being successful and wealthy; living the “American Dream” by working or studying hard, and getting a good job or running a profitable business. Unfortunately, living this materialistic “dream” was, in reality, only open to some members of the community. Not everyone could access the finite number of legitimate opportunities within society to succeed in this way, e.g., through top-class education or obtaining financial loans from banks. This dissonance between the cultural goal of being rich, and the structural limitations preventing everyone from achieving this cultural goal (what Merton calls “anomie”) causes “strain” within the community. This “strain” in turn produces a number of behavioural responses in people, some of which may be deviant in nature because that may be the only way such people can achieve the cultural goal of being wealthy since access to the legitimate means have been closed off to them. (c) The Functionality of Crime Strangely enough, Durkheim did not view crime as being necessarily “evil”. Instead, he argued that the existence of some crime occurring within the community was in fact a sign of a healthy society! This will sound counterintuitive to many of us – “Crime is good? How can that be?” Durkheim’s explanation is actually simple. Firstly, crime is necessary for change. Just think of the great social reformers in history. Buddha, Jesus, Prophet Mohammad, Socrates and Nelson Mandela were all labelled deviant or criminal (or both!) by the existing political establishment; yet, without their public contributions, life as we know it would be radically different today! Without crime, society would remain stagnant. Without growth, society would eventually die. Secondly, crime has an educative or pedagogical use. Society’s official response to crime (i.e., arrest, prosecution and punishment) is an important tool that can be utilized to reinforce in us social norms and values. When a criminal’s misdeeds and punishment are published in the mass media, it highlights and reminds us as to the kind of behaviour society expects of us. Thirdly, it strengthens the social bonds between us because we are all given a chance to condemn the same errant behaviour; this creates a sense of solidarity within the community. There is therefore an underlying CONSENSUS built among us. The criminal law and the criminal justice system reflect this consensus. Fourthly, crime is inevitable. Durkheim pointed out that even in a society made up of saints there would still be “crime” although these “criminal acts” in question would probably not be considered “criminal” to us “sinners”! In such a “holy” society, what would be considered minor infractions (for example, rudeness) to us would be elevated to the status of crimes by these saintly men and women. The threshold of acceptable conduct for these pious men and women would be correspondingly lower than ours. Because the regulation of conduct is a common feature of every non-anarchic community or society, crime will therefore be an inevitable fact of life. What constitutes a “crime” however may differ from society to society. American Sociological Approaches to Crime In the tradition of Durkheim’s and Merton’s positivistic approach, others also began examining the potential causes of crime, not from a constitutional/internal individualistic perspective, but from an external sociological point of view. Some of the most prolific researchers in this area came from the United States, and in particular, from the University of Chicago. The Chicago School of Sociology contributed much to the study of social disorganization and differential association. After examining their theories, we will then study the substantial intellectual efforts undertaken by the subcultural theorists who sought to find a cause for crime outside of the individual’s biological or psychological constitution of the criminal. Chicago School: (a) Social disorganization This approach is also known as ecological/environmental criminology because it seeks to explain deviance by examining the “natural” way in which cities develop. Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay studied the relationship between a city’s level of development and its crime rate. They discovered that certain areas within the American city of Chicago were more prone to crime than others. Dividing the city into concentric circles, they were able to isolate the crime-ridden area to the geographical band immediately enveloping the Central Business District (CBD), what they called a “zone of transition”. According to Shaw and McKay, these people living in the zone of transition were more likely to commit crime, not because of some internal/constitutional biological or psychological cause but due to the criminogenic features of their community. This zone was characterized feature of every non-anarchic community or society, crime will therefore be an inevitable fact of life. What constitutes a “crime” however may differ from society to society. 5.2 American Sociological Approaches to Crime In the tradition of Durkheim’s and Merton’s positivistic approach, others also began examining the potential causes of crime, not from a constitutional/internal individualistic perspective, but from an external sociological point of view. Some of the most prolific researchers in this area came from the United States, and in particular, from the University of Chicago. The Chicago School of Sociology contributed much to the study of social disorganization and differential association. After examining their theories, we will then study the substantial intellectual efforts undertaken by the subcultural theorists who sought to find a cause for crime outside of the individual’s biological or psychological constitution of the criminal. Chicago School: (a) Social disorganization This approach is also known as ecological/environmental criminology because it seeks to explain deviance by examining the “natural” way in which cities develop. Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay studied the relationship between a city’s level of development and its crime rate. They discovered that certain areas within the American city of Chicago were more prone to crime than others. Dividing the city into concentric circles, they were able to isolate the crime-ridden area to the geographical band immediately enveloping the Central Business District (CBD), what they called a “zone of transition”. According to Shaw and McKay, these people living in the zone of transition were more likely to commit crime, not because of some internal/constitutional biological or psychological cause but due to the criminogenic features of their community. This zone was characterized by a transient migrant population attracted to the area because of cheap housing. Both the social and physical conditions within this zone were dismal – people only lived there in order to work and earn enough money so that they could move to the more affluent outer bands of the city. This social and physical decay of the community (or “social disorganization”) created an environment which made its inhabitants more prone to committing crime and other deviant behaviour. Furthermore, it did not matter whether the population was transient or not – the criminogenic sociological factors remained, and because of this a “criminal culture” was created and could be transmitted across the generations such that newly arriving immigrants would find themselves equally “compelled” by their socially dysfunctional community to commit crime. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Working Class Zone – Zone 3 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Residential Zone – Zone 4 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Commuter Zone – Zone 5 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (b) Differential association Read Jones (2013: 95-97); Joyce (2013: 20-21). Studying how much influence our primary social groups have on our behaviour, Edwin Sutherland put forward a strong thesis concerning the reasons why we commit crime, particularly white collar crime or crimes of the wealthy. He posited that crime is a learned behaviour. We learn to commit crime when we are faced with an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law. But what does that really mean? The answer is quite simple - if we associate with people who are prone to committing crime, then depending upon how much time we spend with these “criminals”, the quality of time we spend with them, the amount of respect we have for them, how impressionable are we, etc, it may be possible for us to learn to commit crime as well – to learn the various techniques, motives, drives, rationalizations and attitudes that facilitate or are favourable to the commission of offences. Like Durkheim, Sutherland views deviance from a non-biological internal perspective, and instead searches for the criminogenic factors found in external factors – like the influence of our social groups over our behaviour. Deviant subcultures Read Jones (2013: 136-139); Joyce (2013: 16-17). Merton’s strain theory lends itself very readily to the next theoretical approach that we will be examining: delinquent subculture. In constructing his theory, Albert Cohen combined Durkheim’s anomie and Merton’s social strain theory (strain in relation to “status” and not to material wealth) to create the concept of “status frustration” in order to explain the underlying cause of deviance. Studying the behaviour of a group of young boys from working class backgrounds, Cohen discovered that they actually accepted the middle class cultural goals, values and norms that wider society adhered to, but unfortunately could not live up to its demands of self-reliance, deferred gratification and respect for property because the institutional means to achieve them were not available to those from the working class. As a result, even though they tried to achieve success according to those middle class yardsticks, they unfortunately failed miserably. And with that failure came frustration – status frustration – the inability to acquire middle class status. To seek solace, these boys then gravitated towards each other creating gangs that acted as a collective solution to their status frustration. Here they would receive not only comfort but also a measure of dignity once again. To augment this, the gangs would also engage in a process of reaction formation – where middle class values were overturned and replaced with norms and goals that these boys could easily achieve, what Cohen described as the delinquent subculture – one that was non-utilitarian, negativistic, malicious and short-term hedonism. It should be noted that each of these theories can be considered a critique of another theory. Some theories are more blatant in its criticism or rejection of a counterpart theory, for example, positivistic individualism vis-à-vis classical criminology. Others are more subtle, like that of Merton’s strain theory with Durkheim’s anomie; here, strain theory can be considered an enhancement or improvement on the older theory. Cohen’s delinquent subculture is clearly a critique of strain theory, and yet, still retains many of the fundamental concepts of Merton’s work in his own approach to deviance. These are the subtleties that you should look out for at this level of study. For an evaluation of Merton’s Strain Theory:Read Jones (2013: 117-127) and Joyce (2013: 18-19). For an evaluation of Social Disorganisation Theory:Read Jones (2013: 100). For an evaluation of Differential Association Theory:Read Jones (2013: 97-100). For an evaluation of Subcultural Theory:Read Jones (2013: 144-145) and Joyce (2013: 19-20). Drift Theory Leaving that aside for the moment, I would like to draw your attention to a very fascinating critique of “delinquent subculture”. David Matza and Gresham Sykes in their ‘”Drift Theory” argued that there was no “delinquent subculture” at all. There was in actual fact only a “subculture of delinquency”! Now let that statement sink in for a while…. Delinquent subculture (NO!) Subculture of Delinquency (YES!) Puzzled? I am not surprised. One of the reasons why Drift Theory is so enduring is because of its subtle complexity and sophistication of argument. Basically, Matza was rejecting the notion that delinquent gangs created a whole new set of values and cultural goals for themselves i.e., creating a “delinquent subculture”. Instead, these so-called “new” values and cultural goals were in reality merely subterranean values and goals that co-exist with the conventional middle class values and goals of society in general. Thus, the search for thrills, excitement and adventure (values and goals that usually characterize a “delinquent subculture”) are not really deviant values or goals at all. Instead, they are “leisure” values that many within mainstream society also accept and encourage. These values become “deviant” (in a loose sense of the word) only when they are pursued at the wrong time or under inappropriate circumstances. But even when such subterranean goals are pursued inappropriately or inopportunely, these delinquents should not be seen as “rejecting” mainstream values. From their perspective, there is no issue of guilt, not because they adhere to a complete different subculture, but because they can reconcile any guilt they might be feeling through “techniques of neutralization” that rationalize and ultimately justify the conduct, bringing it in line with mainstream values. For example, if they committed rape or sexual assault (deviant), they would “blame the victim” by arguing that she was dressed in such a way that she was “asking for it” (not deviant). Five techniques of neutralization were used: Denial of responsibility; Denial that injury had been caused; Denial that the victim was really a “victim”; That those who condemned their actions were hypocritical; and That they committed those acts because of some higher loyalty or calling. Furthermore, Sykes and Matza observed that if there was truly a delinquent subculture, there should be a consistency and permanence in the behaviour of these delinquents and yet there was no such regularity in their offending conduct. Sykes and Matza therefore posited that these delinquents drifted between conforming and non-conforming conduct, depending on the level of social control over them as well as their ability to rely upon the techniques of neutralization to justify their otherwise deviant behaviour – hence, Drift theory. Control and Social Bond Theories Read Jones (2013: 225-227, 234-237 & 240-243) Another group of theories that represent a major critique of the strain and subcultural schools of thought are the control theories. In similar vein to Durkheim, control theorists posit that crime is a natural occurrence in society. This is because everyone has an innate ability to commit crime. Mankind is essentially self-interested and will commit an offence if it benefits him/her. Thus, the question is not “Why do we commit crime?” but rather, “Why do we NOT commit crime?”. Read Jones (2013: 227-229) and Joyce (2013: 22). Social control theorists would suggest that externally imposed social controls can effectively prevent a person from committing an offence. An example of such a theory would be Travis Hirschi’s social bond – a paradigm that concentrates on the factors which facilitate the process of socialization. The more socialized a person is, the less likely will he perpetrate a crime. Hirschi originally argued that socially controlling a person’s behaviour through external (and structural) means depended upon the interaction of four different elements (social bonds): Attachment; Commitment; Involvement; and Agreement Read Jones (2013: 229-234). If these bonds are weak, there will be a higher probability that this person will commit an offence. However, Hirschi would later collaborate with Michael Gottfredson to modify his “social bond” theory to create a much simpler “individual bond” approach that downplays the sociological elements of his former theory. This latter approach suggested that people with low self control would be more prone to perpetrating a crime should a suitable opportunity present itself. According to Hirschi and Gottfredson, this low self control was due to poor training when young. Thus, good child-rearing practices adopted by parents may facilitate the socialization process within the close family unit. Bad parental skills are therefore an indirect cause of crime, whilst low self control is the direct cause. Strain and subcultural factors play not part in this. For an evaluation of Control Theories: Read Jones (2013: 238-242). Conflict criminology – the study of crime and deviance where criminal justice public policy is a reflection of the interests and values of the powerful of that society or of an entrenched patriarchic social system. Consensus criminology – the study of crime and deviance where criminal justice public policy is based upon a general consensus of values/ideology within that society. Labelling theory – a combination of social psychology with that of symbolic interactionism. This thesis suggests that a person labelled or stigmatized by the State as a criminal would come to accept this description of him and gravitate towards similar others – these were Howard S. Becker’s “Outsiders”. Edwin M. Lemert continued this argument by distinguishing between two different types of deviancy. The first is what he calls “primary deviation”, which is usually the first act of deviance committed by the criminal. This first offence may be transitory, i.e., it may be a one-off occurrence. However, if the State successfully labels him/her a criminal, then this permanent and official form stigmatization may cause him/her to perceive themselves in such a light because that is how the public now perceives them – a convicted criminal – and go on to behave in a way that is consistent with this new self-image. Consequently, the criminal will be prone to commit more crime, what Lemert describes as “secondary deviation”. See also Symbolic Interactionism. Left Idealists – (also known as Left Utopians) are Marxist criminologists who completely reject the existing capitalist system and advocate its replacement with that of communism or socialism in order to provide for a more just and equitable distribution of wealth, power and influence within the community. They are termed “idealists” or “utopians” because of the improbability involved in implementing their criminal justice policies within society. Also see Marxist Criminology. Left Realists – are also Marxist criminologists, some of whom were originally Left Idealists. In order to re-invent themselves, a number of Left Idealists began to take crime “seriously” after examining the results of a number of crime victim surveys which showed that poor people were being badly victimized by crime. Left Realists no longer focused on crime and the criminal law as merely instruments used by the ruling capitalists to protect their interests in society. They also stopped actively seeking for the replacement of the existing capitalist system in favour of communism or socialism. Their efforts were now directed towards preventing the poor from being victimised by crimes that they suffered or feared from most (like street crime) while still retaining some semblance of their conflict and Marxist roots, by seeking other less radical ways of achieving social justice within the community. Also see Marxist Criminology. Marxist criminology - Fredrick Engles argued that because capitalism allowed the middle and upper classes of society (also called the “bourgeoisie”) to exploit the working class (also called the “proletariat) with impunity, the latter would resort to crime as a form of rebellion or retaliation against such mistreatment. In fact, because capitalism fosters an unfettered spirit of competition within society, the proletariat would commit offences not only against the bourgeoisie but would also offend against members of their own class. See also Left Idealism, Left Realism and New Criminology. New Criminology – (also known as Radical Criminology) an influential Marxist / Labelling school of criminology that emanated from Great Britain. Although made in the mould of the Left Idealists, it rejected social determinism and argued instead for free will. Its roots in labelling theory are evident in its study of the way the working class are put through the process of criminalization and stigmatization by the State. Their policy analysis still advocated for a replacement of the existing capitalist system with a more socially just scheme. Symbolic Interactionism from a criminological point of view – such theorists would argue that any behaviour is value neutral until it is labelled by those who come into direct or indirect contact with it as “deviant”. The debate between Conflict and Consensus Models of Criminology The concept of consensus has already been briefly touched upon when we examined the issue of Durkheim’s “functionality” of crime. These schools of consensus criminology (which also includes the classical approach) argue that the criminal law is a reflection of a consensus within society that particular behaviour or conduct is inappropriate or wrong. Consequently, the State must act in such a way so as to give effect to this consensus because it is supported by society as a whole. This assumption of consensus was later challenged by the symbolic interactionists or labelling theorists who asked us to pause and consider a very pertinent question: “Who makes the rules, and why?” This query became a rallying cry for all those who did not believe the criminal law and the State really upheld the interests of society as a whole. They instead posited a “conflict” model of criminology – one where society was considered to be a mixed bag of various interests and values. In these circumstances, no real consensus could be reached. Consequently, the criminal law and the State were merely reflections of the interests of those who were powerful enough within society to take control of the national legislative agenda as well as the organs of government. Nevertheless, in order to give themselves (i.e., the powerful and wealthy) a veneer of legitimacy and respectability, a fiction had to be created – this fiction was the consensus argument. From this perspective, conflict criminologists (which include Radical, Critical, Marxist and Feminist theorists) seek to show that the State is controlled either by the powerful or the wealthy; or by the capitalists or the patriarchy. Conflict Criminology Although not officially part of the conflict criminology tradition, symbolic interactionism and labelling theory nonetheless played a very important role in fuelling this movement’s intellectual inception. Its exclusion from this group is, in part, due to the fact that it did not attempt to make any serious and concerted effort to uncover the relationship between the criminal law and criminal justice policy (i.e., social reaction to crime) with that of political power and interests. But that does not diminish or detract from the valuable contributions made in the area of criminology, and hence is considered in detail below. Symbolic Interactionism and Labelling Theory Symbolic interactionism questions our easy acceptance of what we think the criminal law really is. As previously discussed in Chapter 1, we noted that the criminal law is a social construct – that crime is in the “eyes of the beholder”. This approach essentially comes from symbolic interactionism and it forces us to likewise reassess our assumptions that the criminal law and criminal justice policy are reflections of a consensus within society that particular conduct or behaviour is unacceptable. In this regard, interactionism theorists would argue that any behaviour is value neutral until it is labelled by those who come into direct or indirect contact with it as “deviant”. This then begs the following question: “Who is empowered in our society to label such conduct as deviant?” Consensus theorists would argue that the State is empowered to do so because it acts in the interests of the common good – that such behaviour is considered by the majority as being unacceptable and wrong. Conflict theorist would counter-argue that it is the State that is empowered to do so; however, this is not achieved through consensus but rather, is a product of the political and social conflict that transpired between the various interests groups within the community. The “winners” of this conflict will determine whether a particular behaviour is labelled as deviant by the State. An interesting school of thought arose out of a combination of social psychology with that of symbolic interactionism. It created labelling theory, a thesis that suggested a person, once labelled or stigmatized as a criminal by the State, would come to accept this description of him and gravitate towards others who were like him – these were Howard S. Becker’s “Outsiders”. Edwin M. Lemert continued this argument by distinguishing between two different types of deviancy. The first is what he calls “primary deviation”, which is usually the first act of deviance committed by the criminal. This first offence may be transitory, i.e., it may be a one-off occurrence. However, if the State successfully labels him/her a criminal, then this permanent and official form stigmatisation may cause the him/her to perceive themselves in such a light because that is how the public now perceives them – a convicted criminal – and go on to behave in a way that is consistent with this new self-image. Consequently, the criminal will be prone to commit more crime, what Lemert describes as “secondary deviation”. Ironically, it is the stigmatising actions of the criminal justice system that cause a primary offender to commit even more crime after he/she has been punished for the first offence. Non-Marxist Theories of Conflict Read Jones (2013: 182-188). This is a fascinating range of different theses (also called Critical Criminology) each arguing that the consensus approach does not adequately take into account the epic struggles that occur within a community before the State takes action on any particular issue. Social reaction, from this context, is an outcome of, for example, a clash of cultures (see Thorsten Sellin’s work), interests (see George Vold’s work), powers and authority (see the works of Ralf Dahrendorf and Austin T. Turk); and politics (see especially the early works of Richard Quinney and William J. Chambliss – these authors however adopted a decidedly Marxist analysis in the latter part of their academic careers). Marxist Criminology – is there really such a thing? This is a difficult question to answer. The answer is yes, but it should be noted that Karl Marx himself did not really write much about crime. It was actually left up to others like Fredrick Engles and Willem Bonger to explain criminality from a Marxist perspective. So if you are searching for an answer to deviance from Marx’s own works, then you will be sorely disappointed, and to that extent, there is no “Marxist” criminology per se. There is nonetheless a body of “marxist” criminology. (Perhaps it should be written with a lower case “m” as above!) Fredrick Engles argued that because capitalism allowed the middle and upper classes of society (also called the “bourgeoisie”) to exploit the working class (also called the “proletariat) with impunity, it was not surprising that the latter would resort to crime as a form of rebellion or retaliation against such mistreatment. In fact, because capitalism fosters an unfettered spirit of competition within society, it was equally unsurprising that the proletariat would commit offences not only against the bourgeoisie but would also offend against members of their own class! Likewise, Bonger, concluded that because capitalism bred greed and egoism within society, this allowed the rich to become richer without caring whether the poor and socially marginalized were becoming even poorer and more marginalized as a result. In his opinion, capitalism was not interested in inculcating altruism or morality as social values, since these were not important for the employment of the working class in the factories. Without these social values to restrain criminal conduct, the working class (particularly the lower levels of the working class i.e. the “dangerous classes” or the “lumpenproletariat”) would be predisposed to perpetrating crime, both against the rich as well as the poor. This sorry situation was even more aggravated because the State (being controlled by the bourgeoisie) tended to criminalize the greed of the working class but not of the rich. Crime committed by the lumpenproletariat was therefore a product of the criminal justice system as well as a response to it. After Bonger’s work, we did not see any significant development in Marxist criminology for about 50 years until the contributions of Quinney and Chambliss (in the 1970s) who used their earlier research in conflict criminology as a platform to now advocate a Marxist analysis of crime. Quinney argued that the existing criminal laws and justice system lacked legitimacy and hence were invalid because they only served the interests of the ruling capitalist class. Crimes committed by the capitalists in such a system were all but ignored. Crimes committed by the working class however were pursued with a vengeance! Chambliss was also of the view that crime was only “crime” when it suited the ruling capitalists, which basically allowed the rich to commit offences without fearing any State action. Both Quinney and Chambliss (though the latter moderated his Utopian sentiments later on) argued for a complete rejection of the existing capitalist system and advocated its replacement with that of communism or socialism in order to provide for a more just and equitable distribution of wealth, power and influence within the community. In such a system, crime would be a thing of the past. Another important source of Marxist research came from Great Britain in the form of the “New Criminology” or Radical Criminology school of thought. Although made in the mould of the Left Idealists, it rejected social determinism and argued instead for free will. Its roots in labelling theory are also evident in its study of the way the working class are put through the process of criminalization and stigmatization by the State. These protagonists (Ian Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young) suggested that diverse types of conduct committed by the working class were criminalized by the powerful within society in order to protect their entrenched interests. One way of addressing the crime problem is to first accept that capitalism inevitably creates widespread social and economic inequality among the people. Hence, only by radically transforming the basis upon which society is built upon (for example, through the use of a socialist economic system), can such inequalities be levelled out, and tolerance over diversity take root. With such tolerance, there will no longer be a need to criminalize the conduct of others who are “different” (particularly because the gap between the powerful and the not-so-powerful has now been considerably reduced or even completely filled) and hence a “crime-free” society can be created. Unsurprisingly, the prospect of these policy solutions being implemented is remote indeed and because of that, scholars like Quinney, Chambliss and the New Criminologists have often been described somewhat euphemistically as “Left Idealists” or “Left Utopians”. Left Realism – Crime is Real! Left Realism represents an attempt by certain quarters within the Marxist criminology camp to remain relevant after the immense influence they exerted during the tumultuous era of the Vietnam War in 1960s and 70s. In the years following this conflict, both the United States and Great Britain experienced a political backlash, where power shifted back to the more conservative forces within these two countries. In these circumstances, Marxist criminology suffered greatly from a lack of appeal not only among the political elites, but also from the masses. In order to re-invent themselves, a number of Left Idealists began to take crime “seriously”. They no longer argued that crime and the criminal law were mere instruments employed by the ruling capitalists to protect their interests in society. Rather, through the use of local crime victim surveys (for example, the Islington Crime Surveys conducted in England), these researchers suddenly discovered that ordinary people – poor working class people – were actually suffering from a significant amount of crime. Consequently, they then put their considerable intellect into creating a theory that could both prevent the poor from being victimized by crimes that they suffered or feared most from (like street crime) whilst still retaining some semblance of their conflict and Marxist roots. Jock Young, now a former New Criminologist, is one of the foremost Left Realist of this school. He posited that the problem of crime should be understood as an interaction between four components (called the “Square of Crime”): the offender; the victim; the agencies of formal control; and finally the informal control exercised by the general public Left Realists have also argued that there is a fundamental cause of crime – that of Relative Deprivation. Relative deprivation can be felt both in good times, when the economy is booming, as well as in bad times, when the economy is suffering from a recession, and is normally experienced most profoundly among the poor. Hence, the poor are most likely to commit crime. The ultimate goal of the Left Realists is to advocate for a political and economic system that provides justice and equality to every member of the community. But till this is achieved, Left Realism contends itself with trying to find practical ways and means to avert further criminal victimisation of the poor, particularly through multi-agency crime prevention initiatives. Patriarchy and the failure of the Criminal Justice System – Feminist viewpoints Read Joyce (2013: 34-38). This is certainly one of the more interesting perspectives falling within the conflict umbrella of criminology. These feminist researchers seek to uncover and understand the experiences of women who have been victimized by a criminal justice system that was designed by men, for men, and enforced by men. Their central argument rests on the fact that society is built upon a patriarchal system which institutionalizes the discrimination and domination of women by men. Read Jones (2013: 246-256). This discrimination takes many forms. For example, feminist scholars argue that because the traditional criminological theories are all male-oriented, any explanations from these schools of thought concerning the criminality of women will necessarily be ill-conceived. Men and women are different and hence you cannot generalize what may be right for men, and use that same male yardstick for women as well. Read Jones (2013: 256-259). According to Freda Adler and Rita James Simon, modern feminist criminology is rooted in “female emancipation” i.e., freedom from social and cultural roles imposed upon women by the patriarchal system. Radical feminism, on the other hand, concentrates on the power relationships between men and women, and how female criminality must always be studied in this context male domination. Evaluation As stated in the previous chapter 5, each of those theories can be considered a critique of another theory. The same holds true for the theories discussed here in Chapter 6. Of course, some are more blatant in criticizing or rejecting a counterpart theory, for example, feminist perspectives vis-à-vis traditional “malestream” (this is a play on the word “mainstream”) criminology. Others are more subtle, like that of New Criminology and with traditional Marxist and labelling theories. Once again, these are the subtleties that you will have to look out for at this advanced level of study. For an evaluation of Symbolic Interactionism and Labelling Theory: Read Jones (2013: 163-167). For an evaluation of the Non-Marxist Theories of Conflict: Read Jones (2013: 194-198). For an evaluation of Marxist Criminology: Read Jones (2013: 198-200). For an evaluation of Left Realism: Read Jones (2013: 213-217). For a brief evaluation of Feminist Criminological Perspectives: Read Jones (2013: 259-260). Administrative criminology – is primarily concerned with crime prevention and the offence (as opposed to the offender). It is not at all interested as to why a person commits a crime. Like classical criminology, it assumes that the criminal is self-interested, rational and possesses free will. Consequently, Administrative Criminology includes Rational Choice Theory as well as Routine Activities Theory. See also Conservative Criminology. Conservative criminology – (which includes Right Realism and Administrative Criminology) is mainly interested in law and order issues. It seeks to maintain social order through the criminal law and the criminal justice system. To that extent, conservative criminology is very much aligned with centre-right to right-wing groups within a society’s political spectrum, where the preservation of social order is paramount. See also Right Realism and Administrative Criminology. Right Realism – (also known as the “New Right”) represents a rejection of Left Idealism, as well as both strain and subcultural theories. Its classical foundations of having a criminal who is considered to be a free moral agent, is loosely augmented by taking into account the person’s constitutional or internal factors (i.e., biological constitutional positivism) and the level of his/her social conditioning (i.e., socialization). Consequently, socio-economic structures are not considered to be causes of criminality. The interaction between the constitutional factors and the level of social conditioning, can affect a person’s free will to decide whether to commit or refrain from committing a crime. See also Conservative Criminology and Administrative Criminology. Conservative Models of Deviance and Crime Control Conservative criminology is mainly interested in law and order issues. It seeks to maintain social order through the criminal law and the criminal justice system. To that extent, conservative criminology is very much aligned with conservative political thought, where the preservation of social order is paramount. Like classical criminology, it considers the criminal a free moral agent, capable of choosing to do right or wrong. Consequently, conservative criminology tends to reject socio-economic causes of crime that are said to be deterministic (i.e., you are destined to commit crime because of the physical environment or socio-economic or socio-political system that you live in). Strangely, enough though, it has been known to accept certain positivist biological explanations of criminality, particularly when it is linked to ethnicity and low IQ. The upholding of the law as well as of morality are important policy goals for conservative criminologists, and social institutions (for example, schools and religion) as well as the family unit are considered to be primary tools to social or socially condition members of the community so as to respect the law and not to commit offences. Conservative criminology would include Right Realism (or the “New Right”) as well as Administrative Criminology. Right Realism Read Joyce (2013: 26-34). Right Realism or the “New Right” represents a rejection of Left Idealism, as well as both strain and subcultural theories. James Q. Wilson, Richard Herrnstein and George Kelling were at the vanguard of this school of thought. Its classical foundations of having a criminal who is considered to be a free moral agent, is loosely augmented by taking into account the person’s constitutional or internal factors (i.e., biological positivism) and the level of his/her social conditioning (i.e., socialization). Consequently, socio-economic structures are not considered to be causes of criminality. The interaction between the constitutional factors and the level of social conditioning, can affect a person’s free will to decide whether to commit or refrain from committing a crime. The main features of Right Realism in the United States are: Conduct that is criminalized by the State is still a crime regardless of the type of behaviour that is being prohibited; and “Street crime” is the most important of offences to study. The main features of Right Realism in the Great Britain are: Criminals should be properly punished for their offences; Anti-social behaviour and not just criminal conduct should be regulated by statute (hence by the State); and Society should be re-moralized. Administrative Criminology Administrative criminology is concerned with crime prevention and the offence (as opposed to the offender). It is not at all interested as to why a person commits a crime but more so on why a criminal chooses a particular victim or a particular target at a particular time. Like classical criminology, it assumes that the criminal is self-interested, rational and possesses free will. Consequently, Administrative Criminology includes Rational Choice Theory as well as Routine Activities Theory, both of which will be considered in some detail Read Jones (2013: 208-210). Perhaps the most controversial criticism of Right Realism is its persistent search for some constitutional or internal biological factor to augment the concept of free will in the criminal. This search has unfortunately led some of these scholars to suggest that certain races (for example, African-Americans and Hispanics) are not as intelligent as the others (for example, Caucasians and Asians), and consequently this inhibits their ability to rationally consider the pros and cons of committing a crime. Alternatively, their lower IQ levels causes frustration and a high drop out rate at school. This, in turn, results in members of these races being unable to get good jobs due to a lack of formal educational qualifications. In these dire circumstances, an opportunity to commit crime becomes very attractive and such a person may choose to perpetrate the offence. Thus, lower IQ levels have both a direct and indirect impact on a person’s free will to choose between committing and refraining from committing an offence. Summary Conservative criminology is clearly in diametric opposition to Left Idealism. Furthermore, because this approach rejects socio-economic causes of criminality, it can also be seen as a critique of strain and subcultural theories. Interestingly though, Right Realism still attempts to merge aspects of classical criminology with that of Lombroso’s constitutional or internal biological factors. This has caused some problems because of the difficulty in reconciling classical free will with positivism’s biological determinism. There has also been some negative publicity over the identification of certain biological stigmata or deficiencies in particular races, thereby singling them out as being potentially deviant, especially when social conditioning has been weak. Administrative criminology, on the other hand, accepts a purely classical free will, without needing to augment it with any constitutional factors. It does not concern itself with the causes of crime but rather concentrates exclusively on crime prevention. Crime Prevention KEY WORDS and PHRASES Community Safety or Community-oriented Crime Prevention – these initiatives merge Situational Crime Control measures with Social Crime Control programmes, and adds a state agency–community partnership dimension to such collaborative projects. See also Crime Prevention, Situational Crime Control and Social Crime Control. Crime Prevention – the phrase “Crime Prevention” within criminological literature refers to Situational as well as Social Crime Prevention measures that avoid using constitutional or internal causes of crime in its efforts to suppress criminal behaviour. This approach views people as rational human beings who weigh the risks and preventive factors present in society against the associated benefits when faced with the opportunity of committing an offence. Crime prevention initiatives are thus deployed to arrest the development of initial criminal behaviour or to avert recidivism by targeting the problem of crime at various levels i.e. primary, secondary or tertiary. These programmes either reduce the number of crimes occurring or decrease the seriousness of offences by impacting upon the opportunity to commit these crimes in the first place. See also Situational Crime Control and Social Crime Control. Primary Level Crime Prevention – these initiatives attempt to prevent crimes from happening in the first instance, and will include both situational crime prevention initiatives and social crime prevention measures. Primary level prevention therefore tries to pre-empt the problem of crime generally and takes into account both social criminogenic factors like unemployment, poverty and poor/no educational qualifications; as well as situational factors, for example, building design and physically vulnerable targets. See also Secondary Level Crime Prevention and Tertiary Level Crime Prevention. Secondary Level Crime Prevention – these initiatives attempt to prevent crime from being committed by particular persons who fall within high risk groups, for example, children who come from broken homes or who have dropped out of school; families on State welfare assistance programmes; or those living in broken down communities. Research suggests that people from such groups may have a higher tendency to commit crime in the future. See also Primary Level Crime Prevention and Tertiary Level Crime Prevention. Situational Crime Control – theories under this approach generally have classical criminological roots that emphasise the fact that a criminal is a rational person who is capable of applying some form of cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether to commit an offence or not. As such, situational crime control initiatives affect the motivations of a criminal or a potential criminal by diminishing the attractiveness of the opportunity to perpetrate a crime. This may be achieved through: (1) Target Removal; (2) Target Hardening; (3) Target Devaluation; and (4) Target Surveillance. See also Social Crime Prevention. Social Crime Prevention – under this approach, social conditions are studied with the purpose of identifying both high risk as well as protective factors. Put simply, high risk factors are social conditions that are criminogenic in nature. Protective factors are the opposite – i.e., its presence within society tends to insulate or protect its members from committing offences. Thus, social crime prevention initiatives try to eliminate or reduce high risk factors and/or create or reinforce protective factors within the community. These factors may fall within the following categories: (1) the Individual; (2) the Family; (3) the School; (4) Life events; (5) the Community; and (6) Culture. See also Situational Crime Prevention. Tertiary Level Crime Prevention – these initiatives attempt to prevent “known criminals” from re-offending and will include specific measures taken by the criminal justice system to prevent potential recidivism. Other initiatives taken to prevent their re-offending can also fall within social crime control. See also Primary Level Crime Prevention and Secondary Level Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Read Joyce (2013: 71-72). The phrase “Crime Prevention” within criminological literature is unfortunately not self-explanatory. It does not simply refer to initiatives that “prevent crime” per se. It is something much more than that. “Crime Prevention,” in this context, should be understood as a movement – a seismic shift in official criminal justice policy and academic thought brought about by the apparent failure of rehabilitative measures to prevent the offender from re-offending (i.e., offender recidivism), as well as the public perception of increasing crime rates coupled with spiralling police detection figures during the 1970s and 1980s in the United States and Great Britain. Consequently, this rehabilitation ethos was abandoned and even public reliance upon the police was reduced. Both were replaced by a growing criminological and State policy groundswell that focused less on the offender and on the ability of the police to protect the public, and more on preventing crime by reducing the opportunities to commit such offences. Instead of bothering about the positivist constitutional or internal explanations of criminality which the rehabilitation approach concentrated on, many crime prevention theorists sought to design practical day-to-day solutions which either reduced the number of crimes occurring or decreased the seriousness of its consequences by impacting upon the opportunity to commit these crimes in the first place. Such preventive measures usually target the problem of crime on three different levels. These are as follows: Primary; Secondary; and Tertiary Primary Level Crime Prevention These initiatives attempt to prevent crimes from happening in the first place, and will include both: Situational crime prevention initiatives; as well as Social crime prevention measures Primary level prevention therefore tries to pre-empt the problem of crime generally and takes into account both social criminogenic factors like unemployment, poverty and poor/no educational qualifications; as well as situational factors, for example, building design and physically vulnerable targets. Secondary Level Crime Prevention These initiatives attempt to prevent crime from being committed by particular persons who fall within high risk groups, for example, children who come from broken homes or who have dropped out of school, and families on State welfare assistance programmes or those living in broken-down communities. Research suggests that people falling within such groups may have a higher tendency to commit crime in the future. As such, social crime prevention measures taken at this level require effective “early intervention” that would include initiatives that may even take the child out of the broken familial home and placed in foster care in order to provide him/her with a stable family environment. Like primary level crime prevention, these secondary level measures are also designed to prevent crime from happening in the first place, but this time targeting smaller but particularly higher risk groups. Tertiary level crime prevention Unlike the previous two, these tertiary level initiatives attempt to prevent “known criminals” from re-offending and will include specific measures taken by the criminal justice system to prevent potential recidivism. Other initiatives undertaken to prevent their re-offending can also fall within social crime control. As highlighted earlier, there are at least two different forms of Crime Prevention initiatives – Situational Crime Control and Social Crime Control. A third form, Community Safety or Community-oriented Crime Prevention, adds the state agency–community partnership dimension to the previous two initiatives. All three initiatives will be discussed further in the succeeding sections to this chapter. Situational Crime Control has a number of different theories formulated under its umbrella. That said, a common thread among these various theories lies in its classical criminological roots which emphasised the fact that a criminal was a rational person who was capable of applying some form of cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether to commit an offence or not. As such, situational crime control initiatives affect the motivations of a criminal or a potential criminal by diminishing the attractiveness of the opportunity to perpetrate a crime. For example, this may be achieved through: • Target Removal; • Target Hardening; • Target Devaluation; or • Target Surveillance. Besides this classically-inspired approach, other crime prevention theorists adopted a positivistic sociological solution to the problem of crime – what they called Social Crime Prevention. Here, social conditions are studied with the purpose of trying to identify both “high risk” as well as “protective” factors. Very simply, “high risk” factors are social conditions that are criminogenic in nature while the presence of “protective” factors within society tends to insulate or protect its members from committing offences. Thus, social crime prevention initiatives try to eliminate or reduce high risk factors and/or create or reinforce protective factors within the community. These factors may fall within the following categories: the Individual; the Family; the School; Life events; the Community; and Culture Consequently, instead of concentrating on crime as an opportunity like their situational crime prevention counterparts, social crime prevention theorists argue that their efforts go deeper; in fact, it goes to the very “root” cause of crime. Summary Classical and positivist sociological explanations of criminal behaviour had lost some favour during the 1960s and 1970s when rehabilitative solutions to deviance (championed by positivist constitutional theorists) were the rage among members of the academia and criminal justice policy-makers. The pendulum however swung back in favour of the classical theorists during the second half of the 1970s and 1980s, under the guise of the Crime Prevention movement. In a sense, this movement through Community-oriented Crime Prevention brought together strange bedfellows – Classical Criminology and Positivist Criminology. And yet, certain studies have shown positive results! Further studies, however, will still have to be conducted in order to determine their true value in preventing deviance and recidivism. The Traditional Aims of Punishment The appropriateness of the type of punishment, however, is heavily dependent upon answering the following question: him/her. In Singapore, depending upon the offence committed and which court is hearing the matter, the sentencing options available to the presiding judge would include: The Death penalty; A Prison sentence; Caning; Fines; Reformative Training; Corrective Training; Preventive Detention; Probation Order; and other Community-based sentences. The Traditional Aims of Punishment The appropriateness of the type of punishment, however, is heavily dependent upon answering the following question: What is the punishment intended to achieve? Traditionally, there are four pillars to this answer, and they are as follows: Deterrence; Incapacitation; Rehabilitation; and Retribution. Inherent in these various justifications for punishment is also the concept of “denunciation” – that punishment is an outward expression of the community’s disgust and disapproval of that deviant behaviour. Of late, “Restorative Justice” has gained considerable currency within criminal justice policy circles particularly in relation to juvenile delinquents. Restorative Justice prides itself in seeking new ways to not only rehabilitate the offenders but, more importantly, to “reintegrate” them back into society thereby ensuring that recidivism or re-offending rates are kept low among this group of offenders. This is done by implementing programmes that: Reject retribution as a guiding principle of punishment; Replace the State with the Community when implementing the restorative measures; Empower the other key stakeholders like the victim and offender, instead of emasculating them like the traditional criminal justice system does; Involve the victim in the decision-making process; Involve the offender in the decision-making process; Foster a constructive dialogue between the offender and the victim; Repair the harm caused to the victim and the community-at-large; and Reintegrate the offender back into the community. Read Joyce (2013: 272-275). Restorative Justice is not without its critics and many have questioned its efficacy as well as the unrealistic levels and nature of participation the victim and community need to play in its programmes. Summary Singapore’s criminal justice system is essentially made up of both local and foreign elements that have been meshed together by accident of fate as well as by human design. Its colonial roots, although English in lineage, are actually deeply influenced by the colonial Indian experience. In modern times, however, Singapore’s criminal justice system has tended to eschew from its English and Indian counterparts by rejecting the “due process” approach in favour of the “crime control” model to address the problem of criminality and deviance. Consequently, criminal justice policy, processes and institutions in Singapore are all geared towards operational efficiency, and the protection of the victim and the community as a whole. Jones, Stephen. 2013. Criminology (5th ed.). New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Joyce, Peter. 2013. Criminal Justice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.