OAC Law Essay: Can Crime Be Cured?

Crime is a complex problem with complex causes. Ever since men formalized the first laws and customs, other men have been tempted to break them. Naturally, the authorities would try and influence society to follow their laws. Like medicine, dealing with crime revolves around prevention, rehabilitation and treatment. Here lies the rub. If criminality is determined at birth, efforts to rehabilitate criminals or prevent troubled youths from turning to crime are in vain. In this case, society should focus on locking up criminals to reduce the threat they pose to society and helping the victims. Perhaps in the future eugenics could eliminate the characteristics that create criminals. On the other hand, if criminal behaviour is caused by environmental factors, then it is conceivable that criminals can be unmade. Efforts to rehabilitate criminals and prevent criminal behaviour are of the utmost importance. The principles and attitudes regarding crime must reflect its cause, otherwise efforts are doomed to failure. To put it simply: are criminals born or made?

The famous Italian criminologist Lombroso was not the first criminologist to suggest the existence of biological factors affecting criminal behaviour, but he was a major advocate of the biological theory of crime. British criminologist Charles Buckman Goring largely discredited Lombroso’s theories with his painstaking research, published in his book The English Convict (1913). Through statistical analysis of the facial and other physical measurements thousands of convicts, Goring disproved the existence of the biological criminal type, with regards to physical features. Association with the policies of Nazi Germany discouraged studies into biological causes of crime. The Nazi regime made widespread use of pseudoscientific theories of racial superiority and inferiority to justify their barbaric treatment of minorities. Eventually, interest into biological causes of crime picked up again. Contemporary theories revolve around genetic or neurological factors as opposed to the physical ones that were investigated by criminologists of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. Biological, or more accurately biosocial, factors are divided into genetic and neurological categories.

Many studies have shown the unsurprising link between the criminality of parents and their children. This is unsurprising because a wealth of social factors affect the children of criminals; therefore a genetic link is difficult to prove through these studies. More sophisticated studies investigating genetic influences of crime often involve studying identical twins (natural clones) or adopted children (genetically dissimilar from family members). Case studies compare identical twins to fraternal twins (who are as related as regular siblings). The criminal behaviour of identical twins was found to have a degree of correlation twice as great as that of fraternal twins. Yet even these studies are not conclusive, since identical twins are much more likely to be brought up in similar social conditions than fraternal twins. Studies of the criminality of identical and fraternal twins who were raised apart are few as such circumstances are rare. Studies of adopted children found a stronger correlation of criminality between an adopted child and his or her biological parents as opposed to the adopted child and his or her adopted parents. This strengthens the suspicion that genes have an impact upon criminality, but that is all. Some prison inmates have been found with an extra “Y” chromosome, a so-called “super male”. This extra “Y” chromosome seems to cause violent and antisocial behaviour. Although “super maleness” is a genetic disorder, it is not known whether that trait may be inherited; it is most likely caused by a random mutation during pregnancy. Scientists have searched without avail for an alleged gene that causes criminal or violent behaviour. Overall, our understanding of the impact of genes on crime is sketchy at best.

The disappointment of the search for a genetic cause of crime has intensified efforts to find a neurological cause. The investigation of brain abnormalities has been helped by the development of sophisticated diagnostic techniques, such as CAT scans and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). There is a strong correlation to violent behaviour and an impairment of the frontal lobe of the brain. Brain abnormality and aggression are found together; where there is smoke there is fire. There have been instances of people acquiring violent tendencies after suffered a head injury (and presumably damaging their frontal lobe). Scientists have also discovered a link between imbalances in certain chemicals in the brain and aggression. It is believed that low levels of certain neurotransmitters (chemical messengers) can reduce the inhibition of violence by curtailing emotions such as empathy or sympathy. Low levels of specific neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, have been conclusively linked to antisocial behaviour.

Yet neurological impairments are not always an accurate guide to the likely criminality or antisocial behaviour of a person. The link between low levels of serotonin and violent behaviour is largely confined to alcoholics. Disorders of the frontal lobe may be a result of violent behaviour (e.g. frequent brawling). The greatest limitation of many neurological tests is that they are indirect and usually rely upon the results of neuropsychological tests, i.e. the results depend upon the responses of the subjects. Often people do not understand their motives or they may not express them clearly, or they might even be tempted to hide facts from the researcher or lie. These tests may not reveal the existence of a brain abnormality or an imbalance in the level of chemicals of the brain. Any disorders that are discovered cannot be attributed to a certain part of the brain either. These limitations severely limit the usefulness of many studies about the neurological causes of crime. Hence many scientists have welcomed the development of advanced brain imaging techniques to diagnose and locate abnormalities within the brain. On the whole, the link between neurological impairments and crime is stronger than that for genetic causes, but it is still far from conclusive. Biological explanations of criminality are limited to violent crimes.

Psychological explanations of criminal behaviour are prevalent in contemporary criminology. In essence, there is not a physical disorder that causes criminals, but an emotional flaw. There are three main schools of thought in the area of psychological causes of crime. First there are theories regarding moral development (or lack thereof). Next are theories of social learning. The final school are theories that focus upon personality.

Modern moral development theories owe much to the efforts of Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Piaget identified four stages of cognitive development during a person’s life. The first occurs from birth up until the age of two. During this period of a child’s life, he or she experiences the world mainly through their senses and personal experience. The second stage occurs from the ages two through seven years. At this point, the child begins to learn and understand objects and concepts outside their immediate experience. During this time children are egocentric and are unable to grasp the concept that other people may not share the reality they perceive. Logical thought is developed from the ages of seven to twelve. Beginning in adolescence, children begin to learn abstract concepts and think about the future in a logical way. Cognitive development is very closely linked with moral development. When children are very young, a superior being gives rules to them. Then they learn they can create and manipulate the rules. Finally, the child learns abstract rules and their importance. In the mid-1960’s, an American psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg, developed a parallel set of stages of moral development. At the beginning, children strive for the twin goals of maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain. The needs of others are only considered in terms of furthering the above goals. As children grow older, they learn (or ought to) respect for authority. The primary goals remain the same, but they achieve them in a more sophisticated manner by seeking the approval and avoiding sanction of authority. A child’s moral development is complete when he understands the importance of law in providing benefit for all. Principles such as liberty and justice are formalized within the child’s mind.

There is evidence to support the hypothesis that moral development is sequential; moral development begins with the imposition of external rules and progresses to an internalized set of rules. Though criminologists have not found an unambiguous relationship between moral development and later criminal behaviour. Comparisons of delinquents and non-delinquents by sociologists have found differences in the moral development between the two groups, but the difference is not immense and the findings not conclusive.

Social learning theories are focus upon the interaction of the subject and the people around him, as opposed to a step-by-step process as mentioned in the above paragraphs. Much like Pavlov’s dogs, a child’s code of behaviour is shaped by the response from figures of authority to his actions. The application of sanctions or rewards tells the child what behaviour is acceptable and what is not. Eventually this system becomes ingrained and the person will follow his code of conduct even in the absence of an authority figure. There is a fairly strong body of evidence to support the social learning theory of criminal behaviour. Empirical evidence demonstrates that delinquents are often brought up in a manner different from non-delinquents. The behaviour of delinquents is often conditioned through erratic or lax discipline. This is unsurprising, as the inconsistent or flawed messages sent by erratic or lax discipline would be expected to imprint a flawed moral code upon the child. Delinquent children become delinquent adults; without a moral code, they feel no obligation to follow accepted norms. Delinquents may also found in families with overly strict discipline. This could be explained by the phenomenon that the abuse of power by the figures of authority would diminish the child’s respect for them and the rules they set out. Most studies on social learning do not spell out what should be done, but what should be avoided. This is most likely because parents hate to be told how to raise their own children. Social learning theory is a promising segment of criminology.

The final theory that will be examined is the personality theory. Austrian physician Sigmund Freud pioneered research into emotional development. Freud postulated that humans undergo a constant struggle between the conflicting desires of the id and the superego. The id is the self-interested wants of a person. The superego is the sum of a person’s conscience and moral attitudes. When a person is an infant, the id dominates the child’s psyche. As the child grows up, the superego develops and comes into conflict with the id. Eventually equilibrium will be reached between the id and the superego. The person will balance the competing needs of the individual and society, between self-gratification and self-denial. Emotional and mental problems develop when a proper balance cannot be reached. Scientific studies have found little evidence to support the contention that certain personality types are more prone to criminal activity.

The environment is widely believed to play an important role in the formation of criminal tendencies. In many ways, social and environmental causes are intimately related to psychological ones already discussed. Environmental factors such as poverty and broken families are almost certainly important. French sociologist Gabriel Tarde stated that the causes of crime are inherently social. Criminal behaviour is the result of imitation. Therefore, a child growing up in an impoverished family with a history of crime is likely to live a similar life as an adult. If one does not learn from history, he is doomed to repeat it. The breakdown of social bonds creates feelings of alienation and frustration.

Another related theory postulates that crime is the result of a failure of society. As mentioned in the social learning theory, the society’s reaction to the actions of an individual shape his behaviour, much as a parent’s response determines the moral development of a child. Humans are essentially rational beings, all motivated by self-interest. If a society rewards or inadequately punishes undesirable behaviour, then people will be tempted to break those laws. On the other hand, if desirable behaviour, such as hard work or honesty, is rewarded, and undesirable behaviour punished, people will be less likely to break the law. Even though poor people are more likely to commit crimes than people who are better off, criminals are still a minority. Therefore people must not just be inclined towards criminal behaviour, but they also must learn such behaviour. Crime cannot be solved with policing alone, and neither can paying everyone off solve it. Dealing with crime according to the social-structure theory requires a carrot and a stick method. The social-structure theory of crime went into decline in the 1960’s, as scientists ignored community factors in favour of sub-cultural or economic ones.

The sub-cultural theory differs from other theories by stating that different social groups have different sets of values. Therefore criminal behaviour does not arise when a person is improperly socialized; rather they were socialized in a group with flawed values. This model studies why people do not commit crimes, as opposed to why they do. There is a great deal of empirical evidence to support this theory; studies have shown that delinquents differ from non-delinquents from the groups they belong to, as well as the different internal codes of ethics.

The economic explanation of crime tries to find a link between privation and criminal behaviour (especially property crimes). This theory mainly seeks to explain why a disproportionate number of poor people commit crimes. Poor people would seek to alleviate their poverty by stealing from others or engaging in illegal activities. Those with socialist leaning might be tempted to assume the criminal justice system is a tool of the ruling elite to repress the lower classes.

The social implications of the causes of crime are immense. If criminal behaviour is an inherited trait, a person’s criminality can be determined by the history of their parents. This evidence could be used in court to destroy the reputation of the accused or a witness. Eugenics programmes could be devised to prevent criminals from having children that are likely to follow in their footsteps. Conditions such as brain abnormalities can be diagnosed and preventative measures taken. Or people could take extra caution to avoid damaging those parts of the brain. If crime is inborn, we should question the need for deterrence and rehabilitation in our justice system.

On the other hand, if crime is learned, society would require a different response. Some people blame society and phenomena such as violence in the media for causing criminals. The problem is not so much the media, as bad parenting. Emphasis should be placed upon the role of the parent in determining a person’s character. Perhaps parents should be licensed? If the roof of crime lies in the structural flaws of society, then society must be changed. Laws should be strengthened and enforcement beefed up. People also must be given decent opportunities to rise through society and better their lot.

Crime does not have a single, distinctive cause. Most of studies look at violent or property crimes; confidence crimes are another set of problems. There is evidence to support the thesis that crime may be caused by a combination of all the above factors. Crime is a highly emotive issue, making it a tempting vehicle for special interest groups to hijack. Police forces use crime statistics to press for budget increases while parents’ organizations lobby against violence and sex on television and in videogames. Crime is a complex issue and complex answers are needed to solve it.