cmy3701 Theories of crime Summary

Theories of crime Summary 1. Classical and positivist theories 2. Radical criminology 3. Labelling theory 4. Constitutional theories 5. Genetic Explanations 6. Environmental explanations Classical and positivist theories The classical theorists believe in the concept of free will when explaining crime. If the rewards for being a criminal are greater than the retribution it would bring then criminal behaviour seems more likely. This theory would predict that extreme punishments such as flogging or death would deter people from all crimes. Cesare Beccaria in the 18th century successfully argued that the punishment should fit the crime. Excessive punishments could be counter productive as a criminal would reason that if they were to be hung for stealing a sheep they might as well commit more serious offences such as murder and robbery. Jeremy Bentham, the British philosopher of the early eighteenth century, justified punishment in terms of its being able to prevent further crime rather than encouraging it. Why would Bentham, if he were alive today, argue that the Bulger killers should not go to an adult prison? Classical theory was prominent in the late 18th and 19th Centuries but positivist theories then became popular instead. Since the 1970s there has been a resurgence of interest in the classical theory of crime, with many people calling for harsher punishments. Positivist theories have been criticised for failing to discover the causes of crime and to develop effective strategies for controlling crime. Positivist theories discount the role of free will; instead it takes into account factors such as genetic transmission, personality, learning and moral development. The sociological perspective is also taken into account. Emphasis is placed on anomie (a lack of moral standards in society) and strain resulting from poverty imposed by a rigid class structure. Strategies to reduce crime would involve treatment at an individual level or intervention at a social level. Radical Criminology Radical criminology was first proposed by Taylor et al. (1973) who based his views on the Marxist position. No act is naturally immoral or criminal; definitions of crime are socially determined, reflecting current social values. Crime is therefore seen as socially determined. Criminal law is designed to suit the purposes of the wealthy and powerful. Those without money result to crime in order to enjoy the luxuries of the wealthy. The wealthy also commit crime in order to gain further wealth. However because the legal system flavours the wealthy they are less likely to be arrested and punished. The solution to crime would occur at economic, political and social levels. If wealth was redistributed then any crime that occurred would be the result of individual psychopathology. Labelling theory Labelling theory accords well with radical criminology as it sees criminal behaviour as being defined by society. People without power are labelled by those with power (for example judges, parents, police and, teachers, etc.). Behaviour is not seen as right or wrong rather as a deviant behaviour. This argument applies not only to criminal behaviour but also to other groups in society that have been labelled, such as alcoholics, the mentally ill, the deviant, etc. There are two consequences of labelling - the creation of stigma and the modification of self image (Gove 1975). Stigma refers to the public attitude of condemnation and the subsequent exclusion of the criminal. The criminal is seen as a person to be avoided and treated with suspicion. The criminal is barred from certain types of employment, the family may make them unwelcome, the police may give them an undue amount of attention. The modification of self-image comes about because of the stigma the criminal experiences. We have a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby the individual becomes the person so described by the label. The label becomes a role and the individual changes that life to suit that role. More crimes are committed and the individual forms an identity, that of the criminal along with all its associated values, Attitudes, and beliefs. Lemart (1951) calls this process deviance amplification. Any intervention such as punishment or treatment simply reinforces the individual's perception, that of being a criminal. Arguments against labelling theory would be its failure to specify how some individuals started on a path of crime and that some crimes, such as rape and murder, are universally judged as wrong. Becker (1963) says that deviance is a normal part of adolescent life. Such behaviour is labelled deviant and the adolescent then sees himself as a ‘deviant’, which encourages him to continue his deviant behaviour into adulthood. The initial deviance might be some minor theft (primary deviance) and this through labelling turns into more serious crime (secondary deviance). Secondary deviance is when the adolescent accepts the label and follows the deviant lifestyle (Lemert, 1972). Labelling theory cannot explain all criminal behaviour but might help to explain crime amongst the lower economic social groups.