Why do people commit crimes
and what is a ‘typical criminal’? There is little doubt that some
commit a crime such as shoplifting out of desperation, especially when
food is concerned. Yet the same crime also attracts the attention of
organised gangs who steal to order and cost stores hundreds of millions
each year. The same crime but carried for different motives; one for
survival, the other to make as much money as possible for as little work
as possible. If caught, should each be treated the same as they
committed the same crime?
Various people have forwarded theories to explain why some people became criminals.
The oldest known explanatory model of behaviour is that of demonology. It
used to be thought that criminal behaviour was the result of a
possessed mind and/or body and the only way to exorcise the evil was
usually by some torturous means. The key was a focus on the individual
rather than his or her environment or any social forces.
Cesare Lombroso
was an Italian criminologist who in 1876 promoted the theory of
‘anthropological determinism’ that essentially stated that criminality
was inherited and that someone "born criminal"' could be identified by
physical defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage. Lombroso
believed that by studying someone’s physical features, you could
identify a potential criminal. Lombroso’s criteria for this were:
A large jaws, forward projection of jaw, low sloping foreheads; high
cheekbones, flattened or upturned nose; handle-shaped ears; large
chins, very prominent in appearance; hawk-like noses or fleshy lips;
hard shifty eyes, scanty beard or baldness and insensitivity to pain.
Lombroso finally concluded that a criminal would have long arms.
Lombroso's
studies of female criminality began with measurements of females'
skulls and photographs in his search for "atavism". He concluded that
female criminals were rare and showed few signs of "degeneration"
because they had “evolved less than men due to the inactive nature of
their lives”. Lombroso argued it
was the females' natural passivity that withheld them from breaking the
law, as they lacked the intelligence and initiative to become criminal.
Siegmund
Freud had his own views on what makes a criminal. Freud proposed that
much deviance resulted from an excessive sense of guilt as a result of
an overdeveloped superego. Persons
with overdeveloped superegos feel guilty for no reason and wish to be
punished in order to relieve this guilt they are feeling and committing
crimes is a method of obtaining such desired punishment and relieving
guilt. In effect, a person commits the crime so that they can get punished and thus relieve guilt – the guilt comes before the crime. According to this view, crime is not the result of a criminal personality, but of a poorly integrated psyche.
Freud
also identified the “pleasure principle”; that humans have basic
unconscious biological urges and a desire for immediate gratification
and satisfaction. This includes
desires for food, sex, and survival. Freud believed that if these could
not be acquired legally, people would instinctively try to do so
illegally. Freud also believed that people have the ability to learn in
early childhood what is right and what is wrong and though we may have
an instinctive nature to acquire what we desire, such nature can be
controlled by what is learned in our early years. He believed that
people primarily get moral principles as a young child from their
parents and that if these were missing because of poor parenting, that
child would grow up into being less able to control natural urges to
acquire whatever is needed.
August Aichorn is probably the best known neo-Freudian in criminology. Aichorn
felt that there were three predisposing traits that had to be present
before the emergence of a life of crime: the desire for immediate
gratification, placing greater desire on one’s personal desires over the
ability to have good relationships with other people and a lack of
guilt over one’s actions.
According
to Albert Bandura’s theory, delinquent and criminal behaviour is
learned via the same psychological processes as any other behaviour:
through learned and repeated exposure to rewards (reinforcements) that
support the behaviour. On the
flip side, behaviours that received no support or negative reactions are
not learned and therefore will not recur. Bandura believes that people
observe others’ behaviours and decide whether or not to adopt them.
Yochelson and Samenow put forward the theory of free will to explain criminal behaviour. This has five points to it:
• 1. The roots of criminality lie in the way people think and make their decisions.
• 2. Criminals think and act differently than other people, even from a very young age.
• 3. Criminals are, by nature, irresponsible, impulsive, self-centred, and driven by fear and anger.
• 4. Deterministic explanations of crime result from believing the criminal who is seeking sympathy.
• 5. Crime occurs because the criminal wills it or chooses it, and it is this choice they make that rehabilitation must deal with.
In
August 2011, some major cities in England experienced riots and
looting. The immediate explanation was that English cities were infested
with ‘feral gangs of youths’ – a perception gained from the clips shown
on television. However, while many of those prosecuted were young, they
were not exclusively young. Also they were not always from broken homes
or from a background of deprivation or unemployment. Some of those
caught, prosecuted and imprisoned had professional qualifications and/or
worked within professions such as teaching – the media highlighted the
example of a teaching assistant sent to prison whose primary task in his
school was to coach youngsters on acceptable behaviour.
It
is probably impossible to say what a typical criminal is – even if a
‘typical criminal’ exists. While there is a common perception that a
criminal is from a broken home, has suffered a deprived childhood, lacks
a good education etc, that would not include the likes of Dr Harold
Shipman, Bernie Madorff or the recent cases of former Members of
Parliament (both MP’s and Lords) who were sent to prison for breaking
the law.
Courtesy of Lee Bryant, Director of Sixth Form, Anglo-European School, Ingatestone, Essex
0 Comments