Is a universal explanation of crime possible or desirable? By Christopher Rowe

The purpose of this essay is to explore the prospect of a united explanation of crime and to demonstrate whether or not this is a possibility as an outcome. The question is addressed by the review and analysis of secondary literature collected concerning different criminology theories, these theories are then criticised, and the author draws conclusions. The essay begins by giving a brief explanation of the history of criminological theory. Classicism and positivism are among the theories described and criticised during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This provides the essay with a foundation to begin making an argument. The development of Neo-Conservatism is briefly scrutinised and also the development of positivism throughout the twentieth century is explained describing the elements of the theory, such as determinism and rehabilitation, the theory is dismissed using critique from different authors and paves the way for a new way of thinking, and this is explained in the form of left and right realism. These subjects are explained in detail and are given a full critique, which leads to the work being concluded. The essay will argue in favour of a universal explanation of crime being desirable and the conclusion supports this, whilst acknowledging that each theory does bear significance at certain stages of their policies. This essay question is very significant because in creating an appropriate understanding of why people commit criminal offences, several contingency theories can equally be created in order to combat, control or reduce crime as a whole.

Criminology, as a field of academic study, is held together by a substantive concern: crime (Walklate, 1998). It can be suggested that a prescribed development of criminology is very recent, however there are significant historical theories that do have some similarity. This is important when trying to understand modern criminological theories. In order to scrutinise theories that are suggested to be a universal explanation of crime it is important to discover their origins. Maguire M (1997) states that many criminologists were people with backgrounds in medicine or psychiatry, for whom the central goal was to understand and explain, and hence point the way to ‘treatment’ for the ‘criminality’ of individual offenders, this possibly suggests that they were not creating a science of criminal behaviour. However Reid, S T (1991) does state that their contributions to criminology are immense, and for this reason will be used as a foundation for the argument of this essay.

The Classical school of criminology is associated with Ceesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, their theories of crime were devised in the eighteenth and nineteenth century (Reid S T (1991). It is obvious that social conditions have somewhat changed since the nineteenth century and it is important to understand that this will play a part in the theories produced by Beccaria and Bentham. The Classical Schools underlying philosophy was free will. It was maintained that behaviour is purposive and is based on hedonism, the principle of this is that human beings choose those actions that will give pleasure and avoid those that will bring pain (Reid, S T 1991) thus it was believed that each crime should be assessed and the punishment should be of greater pain than the pleasure endured during the act, and as stated by Muncie J (2004) as a result classicism looks to the prevention of future crime. Deterrence is based on the premises of affording rational, self-interested individuals good reasons not to commit crimes (Muncie J 2004). This means that the punishment must be one that can be calculated, thus, this theory is based on equal treatment for all.

The neoclassical school is a form of revisionism of the classical school of thought. Reid, S T (1991) suggests that neoclassical criminologists flourished during the nineteenth century and although it was not a scientific school of criminology it did explore issues of causation. The neoclassical school considered the types of criminal behaviour best explained by the classical school and what types of criminal behaviour the model is inadequate to give explanation. Reid, S T (1991) also states that the classical and neoclassical schools were based on philosophy and armchair thinking, not on actual research, but they have however influenced the thoughts and policies of Europeans as well as Americans.

The positive school like the classical school had its origins in Italy, and was founded by Cesare Lombroso (Reid, S T 1991). The positive school differed from the classical because they focused on the constitutional rather than the legal approaches to crime. Reid S T (1991) suggests that the positivists rejected the harsh legalism of the classical school and substituted the doctrine of determinism for that of free will. Schafer S (1969) states that the emergence of the positive and classical schools symbolised clearly that the era of faith was over and the scientific age had begun.

As previously stated Reid S T 1991 suggests that historical contributions to criminology are immense. This is a belief that is not shared by every criminologist, Garland D (2002) whilst acknowledging the classical and positivist schools of criminology as playing a small but significant role in shaping the horizons and reference points of contemporary criminology states that it makes little sense to claim that these eighteenth century thinkers possessed a ‘criminology’, given that they made no general distinction between the characteristics of criminals and non-criminals, and had no conception of research on crime and criminals as a distinctive form of inquiry. Garland D (2002) gives the positivist school a little more credit by suggesting that they at least they have the merit of having been the self-description of a school of criminologists. Garland’s study would suggest to the author that these supposed universal theories of crime are somewhat irrelevant, however Buckland et al (2004) believes that Garland’s definition of criminology, as an empirically grounded scientific understanding is too restrictive. But still garlands critique is of classicism and positivism are of when they were at their foundation stage and it is important to demonstrate how theories of understanding crime have developed, even if this is only a mild development it is essential to scrutinize, and also to demonstrate other theories with appropriate critique.

In a study by Gottfredson M et al (1990) the classical approach was re-visited and a modern version of the classical conception of crime was produced, this study discussed Bentham’s original classical formation of the four general sources of pleasure and pain, physical, political, moral, and religious, referred to here as sanction systems. Despite the extensive review of the classical approach Gottfredson M et al (1990) argue that the classical view presupposes the ready availability of draconian penalties inconsistent with the values of liberal democratic societies and misapprehends the nature of people with high crime potential. As a result, the penalties available to the state are largely redundant, acting mainly on potential offenders already deterred by previous learning social sanctions.

Neo-Conservatism is a similar theory to classicism regarding free will and deterrence, but as stated by Muncie J (2004) it is informed by notions of moral culture, moral decline, and parental permissiveness. Murray C (1990) believes that crime is a symptom of declining moral standards epitomised by 1960’s permissiveness, welfare dependence, liberal methods of child-rearing, family breakdown, illegitimacy, single parenting and the lack of effective means of discipline. Collectively, these factors have been instrumental in the development of a dependant, demoralised and dangerous underclass. This can be seen as a contemporary conservative view and this is supported by the Neo-conservatism believe that crime can never be eradicated only reduced, by concentrating on high crime areas. Muncie J (2004) states that Neo-conservatism stresses the need for strong government and social authoritarianism in order to create a disciplined and hierarchical society in which individual needs are subordinate to those of the nation.

The classical conception of human behaviour, with its emphasis on choice in the service of self-interest, eventually gave way to a positivist conception of human behaviour (Gottfredson M et al 1990). As previously stated positivism uses the scientific principle of determinism rather than the metaphysical idea of free will. The key features of positivism are suggested by Muncie J (2004) as the assumption that criminality is different to normality, the abandonment of rationality as a casual factor, and that criminals are abnormal, their actions are in breach of a held harmony in society. Other features of positivism include a scientific approach to predicting crime, as Muncie J (2004) states establishing a ‘cause and effect’ when particular criminogenic factors can be identified, also the belief that crime is not chosen by the offender therefore attempting to limit the rationale to commit crime in a bid to eliminate anti-social behaviour. In a study by Muncie J (2004) it is suggested with regard to the believes of positivists that human beings, including criminals, do not act of there own free will but are compelled to act by powerful internal or external forces and by circumstances beyond their control, thus if behaviour is the result of antecedent causes then the individual cannot be held responsible for their actions. This shows that positivism is in favour of rehabilitation rather than the retribution or deterrent theories of neo-conservatism and classicism.

Biological positivism accepts the states definition of crime and uses science as a view of causation. Gottfredson M et al (1990) state that the ultimate contribution of biological positivism so far has been to illustrate some mere correlation between biological variables and crime rates. It has also produced little in the way of meaningful or interpretable research. In this case this must represent a failure for the goals of biological positivism. In a study by Gottfredson M et al (1990) three types of positivism are discussed, psychological, economic, and social. Some aspects of the study reject that choice can cause human behaviour, Gottfredson M et al (1990) states that all that is missing from the methods of positivism is the misguided notion that science favours particular substantive theories of human behaviour and the equally misguided notion that specific causes belong to specific disciplines. Positivism relies on the theory that treatment rather than punishment of an offender should be the responsibility of the criminal justice system, and this applied correctly can prevent criminals from reoffending. There has however been wide spread critique of rehabilitation, in a study by Muncie J (2004) whist referring predominantly to the work of Martinson, it is suggested that critique of rehabilitation came from evaluations which suggest that different types of treatment made little or no difference to the subsequent reconviction rates of offenders. This critique is based on actual research.

In a study by Maguire M (1997) it is stated that throughout the twentieth century British criminology has been dominated by what has since been widely, and often disparagingly, referred to as the positivist tradition, but recently the task of understanding and explaining crime has been interpreted in a variety of new ways such as interactionism, radical criminology, and socio-legal studies.

According to Walklate S (2003) post to the 1950’s a continuing rising crime rate combined with worldwide recession paved the way for a different manner of thinking in relation to crime. This different manner of thinking was characterised primarily by the re-emergence of a focus on the causes of crime as lying within individual processes rather than social ones, and this as suggested by Walklate S (2003) is arguably where a range of criminological ideas which might be loosely labelled right realism first emerged, such ideas include Socio-biological explanations, rational choice theory, and the routine activity approach.

Socio-biological explanations suggest that factors such as age, sex, intelligence, personality and body type can construct a reason behind criminal behaviour. Also as stated by Walklate S (2003) psychological behaviourism also plays a part. According to this theory individuals learn to respond to situations in accordance with how their behaviour has been rewarded and punished on previous occasions. This suggests that social origins can coincide with these factors. Rational choice theory as stated by Beed et al (1999) became inherently probabilistic, dependant on peoples beliefs about what they thought would happen in making choices, and the probability that these results would occur. Rational choice theory is dismissed by the author as being an explanation of crime, and is believed to be more involved in crime management or crime prevention, this is based on issues of security and risk management and criminals having less choice to commit crime etc. This is supported by Gibbons (1994) who believed that rational choice theory constitutes neither a new nor general explanation of crime since elements of attributing the ability to make choices and decisions to criminals and criminal behaviour are present in a range of criminological perspectives. The routine activity approach suggests that criminals are much like normal people. Walklate S (2003) states that offenders are ordinary people who commit ordinary crimes who respond to the supply of criminogenic situations in which they find themselves. They are not abnormal nor do they possess any special sense of motivation. It can be stated that these are a variety of different forms of right realism, but they do share the same goals, such as understanding that crime is a real problem, hence ‘realism’ and the fact that they are focused on the role of the individual attempting to use individual variations to prevent crime. It can also be suggested that right realism primarily focuses on the preservation of social order. In a critique of right realism Walklate S (2003) states that the politically conservative implications of this work are clear. Given these common concerns, it is also clear that the conservative policy implications of these theories have been pursued with greater vigour in a time of more right wing politics and economics than the more liberal implications which might follow from the work discussed here. The recognition of this intertwining of the political and academic highlights a source of criticism for this kind of criminology. As do some other theories of criminology right realism is highly associated with policy making, because of this crime is seen as a social problem which clarifies support for dealing with that problem. Further to the previous criticism Walklate S (2003) states that because of this, post-modernists would argue that the presumption of such unity is highly problematic given the increasing importance attached to difference and diversity in the modern world. Recognition of difference and diversity, therefore, renders the traditional relationship between criminology and the policy-making process a highly problematic, if not a dubious, one. From this statement it suggests to the author that right realism is of little sagacity at all.

The new left position had its origins in the 1960’s and was said to be very similar to the right. Young J states that this is because it also downplayed the level of crime, portrayed the offender as a victim of the system, and stressed a multi-culturalism of diversity and struggle where radicalism entailed the defence of the community against the incursions of the state, particularly the police and the criminal justice system. Left realism emerged during the particular political space in the mid 1980’s. Young J (1997) states that left realist criminology, as its name implies, is radical in its criminology and realistic in its appraisal of crime and its causes. The realistic approach discussed here is what distinguishes left realism from left idealism. Walklate S (2003) states that in left idealism neglects the problem of the cause of crime. Left realism suggests that crime occurs through certain core elements of society such as class and gender, and also through values such as competitive individualism and aggressive masculinity (Young J 1997). Left realism involves several tasks such as realistically appraising the problem of crime, deconstructing crime into its fundamental components, critically examining the nature of causality, being realistic about the possibilities of intervention, and, above all, fully understanding the changing social terrain in which we now live (Young J 1997). Walklate S (2003) offers three sources of criticism which reflect a major underlying tension deeply embedded in the left realist project, a question of methodology, a question of policy, and a question of feminism. Methodology has been a source of criticism for positivism because of its knowledge gathering process. This can also be said for left realism, because as Walklate S (2003) states this theory starts from the position that we should take seriously those issues which people define as being serious and develop an understanding of social problems as people experience them, but such experiences can be unobserved and unobservable, yet are real in their consequences. This suggests that in order to investigate the social world it is necessary to go beyond the appearance of social reality. The methods used to gather such information is mainly reliant on surveys, this puts pressure on the policy making process because it is this information that might be used to formulate crime prevention policies. Walklate S (2003) states that this raises questions concerning how such a process might be implemented and more general questions concerning the kinds of policies, which might be put in place. The question of feminism is also a criticism of the research strategy used by left realists, Walklate S (2003) states that much of the actual impact of crime on women is trivialized and hence concealed. This concealment is then compounded by the levels of sexual harassment which women experience every day, which, given the relative powerlessness of women, makes them more unequal victims and therefore vulnerable. All of these processes are framed by the way in which crime is ultimately constructed within a particular set of social relationships: patriarchy. Left realists will argue that the surveys used have the relevant questions to which can uncover such information, however it is the opinion of this author that whilst a good level of information on incidents can be obtained, such results are not guaranteed through the use of surveys. Walklate S (2003) states that tension has been articulated by a number of different writers in terms of the assumptions, which underpin the left realist use of the concept of crime and the role of a discipline called criminology. It is a tension which is constituted primarily in the binary relationship which is presumed to exist between modernism and postmodernism, a relationship which it is argued fundamentally challenges the possibility of there being something called criminology at all.

Criminologists often complain that they do not control their own dependant variable, that the definition of crime is decided by political-legal acts rather than by scientific procedures. The state, not the scientist, determines the nature or definition of crime (Gottfredson M et al 1990).

There are many theories of crime that will attempt to explain why a person chooses to become a criminal, this essay has explored a select few, every time a theory is created it is inevitable that it will have flaws and will be criticised post to its publication. This essay has demonstrated this through exploring and giving full explanations of understanding crime theory and more importantly an extensive critique of such work. All different theories explored in this essay provide a good argument according to the beliefs of the authors, it is however going to be impossible for all such theorists to agree on one particular approach, they can and have, however at some stages agreed on some common grounds. Classicism represents free will and hedonism, but was created at a time where the social conditions were completely different from that of todays. Also a strong criticism of classicism is that it is based around assumptions and not of any real research. Positivism uses the scientific principle of determinism rather than the metaphysical idea of free will. This theory has similar arguments to classicism against its policies but has developed somewhat from the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The theories main flaw is its support for rehabilitation, which has received heavy critique for being unreliable. Right realism is based around three ideas, Socio-biological explanations, rational choice theory, and the routine activity approach which are all centred around realistic approaches to crime and the individual using individual variations to prevent crime. The theory is flawed by its political implications and the problematic relationship between ‘difference and diversity’ and the policy making process. Left realism is the most recent of the theories discussed in this essay and in the opinion of the author the most interesting. The theory involves several tasks such as realistically appraising the problem of crime and possible intervention, examining the nature of causality, and the understanding of changing social issues. The ultimate problem with left realism is the methodology of their work, in order to gain experience of incidences the left realism method is to use survey which has been highly criticised from a variety of angles that have been expressed in this essay. This conclusion of so-called understanding crime theories suggests to the author that a universal theory of crime is by all means desirable but by no means possible.

References:

Beed C, Beed C (1999) ‘International Journal of Social Economics’ A Christian Perspective on Neoclassical Rational Choice Theory, Volume 26, No. 4, pp 501 - 520

Buckland G, Wincup E (2004) ‘Researching Crime and Criminal Justice’ in Munice J, Wilson D (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Limited

Garland D (2002) ‘Of Crimes and Criminals: The Development of Criminology I Britan’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Third Edition, Oxford University Press

Gibbons D.C (1994) Talking about Crime and Criminals, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall

Gottfredson M, Hirschi T (1990) A General Theory of Crime, Stanford California, Stanford University Press

Maguire M (1997) ‘Crime Statistics, Patterns, and Trends: Changing perceptions and their Implications’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Second Edition, Oxford University Press

Muncie J (2004) ‘Contemporary Criminology, Crime and Stratergies of Crime Control’ in Munice J, Wilson D (eds), Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Great Britain, Cavendish Publishing Limited

Murray C (1990) The Emerging Underclass, London, Institute of Economic Affairs

Reid, S T (1991) Crime and Criminology Sixth Edition, USA, Saunders College Publishing

Schafer S (1969) Theories in Criminology: Past and Present Philosophies of the Crime Problem, New York, Random House

Walklate, S (1998) Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates, Buckingham, Open University Press

Walklate, S (2003) Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates Second Edition, Buckingham, Open University Press

Young J (1997) ‘Left Realist Criminology: Radical in its analysis, Realist in its policy’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R (eds), The Oxford Hand Book of Criminology Second Edition, Oxford University Press