Criminology: Trends and Perspectives

Component-I (A) – Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator

Paper Coordinator, if any Prof. P.K Shajahan Professor, School of Social work, Tata
Institute of Social Sciences
Content Writer/Author (CW) Dr. Vijay Raghavan and Professor, Tata Institute of Social
Ms. Saie Shetye* Sciences, PhD Scholar*

Content Reviewer (CR) Prof. John Menachery Principal Matru Sewa Sangh Institute of
Social work, Nagpur
Language Editor (LE)

Component-I (B) Description of Module

Items Description of Module
Subject Name Social Work
Paper Name Fields of Practice in Social work
Module Name/Title Criminology: Trends and Perspectives
Module Id
Pre-requisites<Expected to know before Basic understanding about crime, judicial system,
learning this module>
Objectives
• To learn Defining crime and understand what
criminology is
• To Understand the actors involved in the occurrence
of a criminal act
• To Understand the causes of crime and the responses
to it

Key words Crime, Criminology, Criminological theories

1: Defining Crime

With a legal system in place, defining crime might be slightly less complicated. It would simply mean
any behaviour that violates the prevailing law. But the moot question is whether criminologists or
social workers restrict themselves to the legal definition. What constitutes a crime even in legal terms
may vary from one period to another or from one place to another, or one situation to another. Murder
may be allowed in a situation of war. Homosexuality, which was criminal in many parts of the world,
is no longer a crime. It is hotly debated even in India.

Legally speaking crime requires two components, an act or omission that violates the law- actus reus
and an intention to do the act- mens rea. The absence of either does not qualify as a criminal act.

Wayne Morrison (2009) identifies four frameworks using which crime is defined.

i) crime as a social construction- according to this perspective our concepts, crime is one of them, is
created in social interaction and once created it becomes symbolic and also a practical reality. This
perspective argues that crime needs to be recognized and the criminal identified and punished. This
process that we now take as natural is constructed. In simple words, crime occurs because some acts
have been labelled as crimes and our responses are based on that.

ii) crime as a product of religious authority/ doctrine- this framework looks as everything created by
God and messages from God were collected in books of authority like the Bible or Koran. Gods will
is seen as ultimate.

iii) crimes as a reflection of nation-state legality- 17th century onwards crimes have been understood
‘as an act or omission as defined by the sovereign authority in factual charge of a specific territory-
the nation state’ (p. 15).

iv) more recent concepts beyond the nation state- crimes are now defined by the nation states and
there can be a difference in what a crime is in two states. E.g. a state may see prostitution as a crime,
another may legalise it. The understanding of crime is now expanding with attempts to include human
rights and acts against humanity within the understanding of crime. There are also suggestions of
replacing crime with deviance so as to move beyond just the legal definition of crime (pp. 12-19).

1.1: Types of crime

Crimes are usually divided between two main categories, like even in the I.P.C.- crimes against
persons / Violent crimes and crimes against property. But such a segregation is not always possible,
hence the additional categories- public order crimes, political crimes, economic crimes / white collar
crimes, organized crime, environmental crime, cyber crime.
2: What is Criminology?

Probably the most popular definition of criminology was given by Edwin H. Sutherland in his book,
‘Principles of Criminology’ (1968) where he defined criminology as ‘the study of the entire process of
making laws, of breaking laws, and of reacting toward the breaking of laws’ (p. 1). Sutherland warns
us about narrow definitions of criminology and includes within its objectives ‘the development of
body of verified principles and other types of knowledge regarding this process of law, crime, and
treatment or prevention’ (p. 1).

Walklate (2007), in her book ‘Understanding Criminology’ concludes the first chapter with a list of
features of criminology.

These seven features are,

1. As a discipline it is held together by a substantive concern: crime.

2. This means that it is multidisciplinary in character rather than being dominated by one discipline.
As a consequence, in order to make sense of what criminologists might be saying it is important to
understand the conceptual apparatus with which they might be working.

3. Thus criminologists frequently disagree with each other.

4. Despite such disagreements, it could be argued that there is some consensus around some features
of what constitutes the crime problem, although much less agreement on how to ‘solve’ that problem.

5. Nevertheless criminologists have been historically (and still are contemporaneously) concerned to
offer some form of intervention in the policymaking process.

6. These features of criminology sometimes resonate with popular (common sense) thinking about
crime and sometimes challenge such thinking. Such tensions are a perpetual challenge for the
discipline.

7. These debates are taking place in a ‘late modern’ society increasingly preoccupied with crime, risk
and insecurity (p. 14).

This gives us a fairly good idea of what criminology is.

3: Criminological theories

Theories of criminology are attempts to explain the causes of crime. In this section we discuss the
various theories in brief. Without the understanding of criminological theories, criminal justice social
workers may work with a myopic understanding of crime and criminals and this might reflect in their
response to crime.

The earliest explanations were that crime was the work of a demon. But we begin our discussion with
the classical theories.

3.1: Classical theories

The Classical school of criminology relates to the theorising of crime around the 18th century. Cesare
Beccaria in Italy and Jeremy Bentham in England are the most important names associated with this
period. Beccaria’s classical writing is ‘An Essay on Crime and Punishment.’

The classical school stressed on free will of a person in committing crime. People are considered as
rational decision makers. The hedonistic calculus which suggests that individuals choose to obey the
law or violate it on the basis of rational calculation of risk and pain versus the potential pleasure
derived from the act was important (Akers and Sellers, 2004). Hence a criminal justice system that
cannot guarantee a punishment will not be effective in controlling crime. This punishment must fit the
crime committed to act as a deterrent to future criminal activity by the person who may have
committed the act (specific deterrence) and also by others in the society (general deterrence).

One of Bentham’s ideas was the ‘panopticon.’ Miller and Miller (1987) state that this was not a prison
but an apparatus of surveillance. The idea of the panoptical was a circular building with a surveillance
tower in the centre. In Bentham’s idea this could be used to house not just prisoners but any unwilling
population.

Beccaria work can be seen in light of our present penal reforms. His most important work was ‘An
Essay on Crime and Punishment’ was first published anonymously in July 1764. The essay was a
critique of the administration of criminal justice during the time in Europe. He first put forth the idea
of a social contract, according to which laws were conditions for free and independent men to unite
and form a society. In order to enjoy security and tranquillity men sacrifice a part of their freedom.
And this freedom that is surrendered constitutes the sovereignty of a nation. The basis of punishment
was then to refrain men from encroaching on the freedom of other men as established in terms of the
law of a social contract (Monachesi, 1955, pp. 442). The punishments that were legitimate were only
those that were employed by the Sovereign to protect the sovereignty of all against the degradation of
a single individual (id. pp. 443). Beccaria goes on to state that punishments of crimes are established
by the law and the power to enact these laws was with the ‘Legislator’ who represented all members
of the society. These laws shall apply equally to all members of the society. The Sovereign can enact
the law but cannot judge whether any person has violated the terms of the social contract (Id. pp. 443).
Then we come to the role of the judges who determine whether a person had acted or not acted
contrary to the law. This determination should be based on rules of logic. Beccaria opined that judges
should merely work on applying the laws and not interpreting them. This he proposed, was to avoid
inequalities before the law and to prevent people from being at the mercy of ‘whimsical and venal
emotions of the magistrates’ (Id. pp. 444). Beccaria also writes that the laws should be written in
simple words for everyone to understand them. Beccaria also talks about punishments. Punishments
served to keep people within bounds and secure continued existence of the society. The punishments
should be proportional to the crime. The purpose of punishments should not be to torment the
offenders or undo the already committed crime but to prevent the offender from committing a crime
and to prevent others from committing a crime. The trial should be speedy and punishments should be
applied uniformly. He stressed on the certainty of punishment as opposed to the severity. He strongly
opposed capital punishment. He found it to be neither legitimate, nor necessary. From a deterrence
stand point he opined that death of an offender was only a passing spectacle which did not leave an
enduring impression on the witnesses of the execution. But penalties that continued over a period of
time and which were known to be continuous were more effective according to him. He also believed
the execution an act of violence and barbarity even if it was authorised by the law and went on to call
it a homicide (Id. pp. 446-447). Beccaria was against use of torture for extracting confessions. Finally,
he believed that prevention of crime was better than punishing them and one of the most important
ways of doing this was through perfecting the system of education (Id. pp. 448).

The classical school was criticized for being unable to explain every crime from the hedonistic
principle. Nor was there an explanation for juvenile crime. But present day penal reforms have been
influenced by the school of thought.

3.2: Biological theories

The nineteenth century saw a shift towards biological positivism. Cesare Lombroso was probably the
most important early biological theorist. In his classic ‘The Criminal Man’ in 1876 he describes the
physical traits of a born criminal. His analysis was based on his studies in Italian penitentiaries. He
revised this over five volumes and added the physical features to a born criminal. He said that many
of the characteristics of the savage races are seen in born criminals. He called this ‘Atavism’. He lists
these down in great detail. Some of these reproduced here from the third volume titled, ‘Crime: Its
causes and remedies’, are low cranial capacity, retreating forehead, thickness of bones of the skull,
large ears, crispy hair. But to the physical features he also added traits like laziness, absence of
remorse, impulsiveness which rarely get mentioned. He saw specific characteristics in the cranium,
brain, face, body, skin of atavism and criminals. He also noted motor anomalies, sensory anomalies
and psychic anomalies. He argued that atavism could explain why criminals relapse to criminal
behaviour and the inefficacy of punishments (Lombroso, 1911, pp.365-369). But atavism is a small
section of this book which also looks at geographical and social causes of crime. Alcoholism is seen
as a major cause. Lombroso dedicates a whole section to temperature and heat. But these factors were
only stimuli and the root causes for Lombroso remained biological.

Charles Goring published ‘The English Convict’ in 1913. He compared prison inmates with soldiers,
university undergraduates, professors and hospital patients. He found no statistically significant
difference between behaviour and some 37 physical traits to prove Lombroso wrong. He did find the
atavism theory wrong but he also found some significantly different traits between civilians and
criminals. Like in his sample prisoners were shorter and thinner than civilians and also seen to be of
lower intelligence (Akers and Sellers, 2004, pp.47-48).

Willian Sheldon is another influential name from this school of thought. He gave the theory of
Somatotypes. The endomorph was chubby and round and not criminal. The ectomorph was skinny,
frail and also not criminal. But the mesomorph was heavy and muscular and criminal (Carrabine et. al,
2009).

3.3: Psycho-biological theories

Patricia Jacob and a group of scientists published a paper in Nature in 1965 about the XYY
chromosomes in males and violent behaviour (Jacob et.al, 1965). The paper suggested that XYY
chromosomes made super males and associated them with criminal behaviour. These findings have
been refuted by recent researches.

Other theories under this category have included linking of serotonin levels to impulsive behaviour or
the imbalance between dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin being linked to criminal behaviour.

Another set of theories here link genes to criminal behaviour. Mednick (1983) found evidence of
criminal behaviour linked to genes to crime. They studied a group of non-familial adoptions in
Denmark between 1924 and 1947. Biological parent’s recidivism had an effect on the convictions of
the sample adopted children. Akers and Sellers (2004) write about Mednick’s work stating that
Mednick hypothesized that the susceptible individual inherits an autonomic nervous system (ANS)
that is slower to be aroused or react to stimuli. The people who inherit a slow ANS learn to control
aggression and anti-social behaviour slowly or not at all. Similar studies in Sweden and America have
found very small, or insignificant differences in criminal traits that could be attributed to inherited
traits.

3.4: Psychological theories

Psychologists have explained criminal behaviour as the outcome of defects in childhood development,
trauma, personality, learning, etc. We discuss some of the significant theories here.
Hans Eysenck explained predisposition to criminal behaviour like predisposition to certain mental
disorders. Crowther (2007) explains that Eysenck was interested in the interaction between the social
environment and human nervous system. He used tests like the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
Revised (EPQ-R) to identify personality traits on a continuum between introversion and extraversion
(E) and neuroticism (N) and psychoticism (P). E, P and N were the three major components of
personality. It is theorised that introverts form conditioned responses more quickly and more strongly
and hence extraversion is positively correlated to anti-social behaviour. Eysenck believed that because
of certain mechanisms in the central nervous system make extroverts different from introverts. People
towards the extraversion end of the introvert-extravert continuum require high levels of stimulation
from their environment and hence may indulge in law breaking (Bartol and Bartol, 1986, pp. 35).
Neuroticism deals with intensity of emotional reactions. On the opposite end of this continuum are
psycotics who are stable. Eysenck states that emotionality can serve as a drive, push a person to
behave in a certain way that is not natural to them. It can drive mindless or habitual behaviour that the
person might have acquired. They are thus more likely to indulge in criminal behaviour (Id. Pp. 40).
Psychoticism is characterised by cold cruelty, social insensitivity, unemotionality, disregard for
danger, troublesome behaviour, dislike for others. Psychotics are hostile. This will also be a striking
characteristic in criminal behaviour (pp. 40). Eysenck’s theory needs a great deal more of empirical
research.

Sigmund Freud is one of the most influential names in psychology. Freudian psychoanalytic
explanations of delinquency focus on an individual’s emotional development from childhood. Freud
divided human psyche into three parts- id, ego and super-ego. Id worked on the pleasure principle and
is impulsive. Ego develops in humans a little later in life when we learn control. Ego is the rational or
conscious part of the mind. The super-ego is the moral part of the mind. Psychoanalytical explanation
of delinquency sees it as a conflict between the id, ego and super-ego. The reason for this is abnormal
maturation, or a poor early relationship with mother or father, or fixation at a stage of emotional
development or repressed sexuality or guilt (Akers and Sellers, 2004).

Learning theories have also attempted to explain crime. The most influential names here are John
Watson, B. F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov. Pavlov conducted some famous experiments on conditioning
where a dog learned to salivate at the sound of a bell anticipating food. This happened because earlier
the food followed the bell. But even when later food did not follow the bell, the dog continued
salivating. The dog had learned to respond to a previously neutral stimulus (bell) when paired with
another stimulus (food) that would elicit a response. This is classical conditioning. Another kind of
learning is when a particular behaviour is learnt because that behaviour may be rewarded. This is
instrumental learning. The basic tenet of applying learning theories to crime is that criminal behaviour
can be learnt and unlearnt. For Watson, psychology was the science of behaviour. For Watson, hugely
influenced by Pavlov, behaviour could be controlled, predicted through this understanding. Skinner
went further to classical conditioning to an additional type of conditioning. His basic tenet is that
people do things to avoid punishment and get rewards. He calls rewards reinforcement.
Reinforcements are anything that increase the probability. Reinforcement can be positive or negative.
Through positive reinforcement a certain desirable behaviour can be repeated and in negative
reinforcement an unpleasant event is avoided as a consequence of certain behaviour (Bartol and
Bartol, 1986). In this way criminal behaviour can be learned and reinforced based on the
reinforcement it brings with it. The society, culture and environment shape whether a particular
behaviour is good, bad or neutral through the reinforcement.

3.5: Psycho-social theories

Early learning theorists Pavlov, Watson and Skinner experimented in laboratories with animals.
Social learning theorists have gone further to place emphasis on cognition or thinking and
remembering. This group of theorists stress on the importance of learning through observing and
listening from the social environment (Bartol and Bartol, 1986). Albert Bandura is an influential
figure associated with this school of thought. He believed that an individual acquires ways of doing
something by watching others do it and direct reinforcement may not be necessary. These others are
called models. The process is known as modelling or observational learning (Id. pp. 85). Edwin
Sutherland, the most influential criminologist of the 20th century gave the Differential Association
Theory based on social learning. This theory first was given by him in the book Principles of
Criminology with seven step process of learning. In the fourth edition of this book (1947) he made
them nine. Donald R. Cressey (after Sutherland’s death) revised future editions of the book.
Sutherland takes us through the process by which a particular person becomes engaged in criminal
behaviour.

i. Criminal behaviour is learned.

ii. Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of
communication.
iii. The principal part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal
groups.
iv. When criminal behaviour is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the
crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple; and (b) the specific
direction of motives, drives, rationalizations and attitudes.
v. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of legal codes as
favourable and unfavourable.
vi. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of
law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law.
vii. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
viii. The process of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal and anti-criminal
patterns involves all the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
ix. While criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by
those general needs and values since non-criminal behaviour is an expression of the same
needs and values. (Sutherland and Cressey, 1968, pp. 77-79).

Sutherland identified the sixth principle as that of differential association. When persons become
criminal, they do so because of contacts with criminal patterns and also because of isolation from anti-
criminal patterns.

Burgess and Akers gave the Differential Association-Reinforcement theory. Their main purpose was
to make explicit the learning process in Sutherland’s theory. For this Akers relied on four concepts-
differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation. Differential association
here refers to direct (through interactions with people engaging in certain kind of behaviour) and
indirect interactions (with distant reference groups). An individual is exposed to certain norms on the
basis of such interactions. Definitions are the meanings a person attaches to given behaviour.
Differential reinforcement refers to ‘the balance of anticipated or actual rewards and punishments
that follow or are a consequence of behaviour.’ And imitation refers to ‘engagement in behaviour
after the observation of similar behaviour in others.’ (Akers and Sellers, 2004).

3.6: Sociological theories

Sociological theories shifted the understanding of crime from the individual to understanding crime
within the society. Crime was seen as normal in a society and something that was a normal reaction to
changes within a society. This perspective emerged in the 19th Century and continues today. Émile
Durkheim following a functionalist perspective noted that crime served a certain purpose in the
society. Durkheim’s focus was on maintaining equilibrium and understanding solidarity in a society.
This mechanical solidarity was maintained through collective conscience. Here, when crime occurs it
disturbs the equilibrium of the society, law produces solidarity and brings together people to punish
the deviant. This coming together to respond to deviance is what brings people together (Moyer,
2001, pp. 57 and Carrabine et. al., 2009, pp. 69). In case of larger and heterogeneous societies
organic solidarity is produced by division of labour only if it is spontaneous. When the division of
labour is forced, a state of ‘anomie’ occurs. Law again produces solidarity here (Moyer, 2001, pp. 58).
Deviance also encourages social change by pushing society’s moral boundaries (Carrabine et. al.,
2009).
Durkheim later also studied suicides in Western Europe. In his work Suicide (1951), he revived the
concept of anomie. He came up with four types of suicide- egoistic, altruistic, anomic and fatalistic.
Durkheim’s analysis of suicides was based on the society’s influence on an individual. Here anomic
suicides were committed by individuals who were integrated into the society but were there were
abrupt transitions that caused loss of regulation in their life like some kind of distress.

Robert Merton later applied the concept of anomie to criminology. Merton’s focus was on cultural
goals and individual means available to people from various sections of the society to achieve them.
When there is an imbalance between the goals and means, anomie occurs. There were 5 modes of
adaptation in such a case- Conformity, Innovation, Ritualism, Retreatism or Rebellion. In conformity
people follow conventional means to achieve goals. Some sections of the society may not always have
access to the means, like the poor. Hence, they will come up with innovative ways to achieve them.
For example, drug peddling to become rich (Carrabine, et. al., 2009). There is rejection of social
values to achieve the goals. Ritualism is when the lack of means is accepted to the point of giving up
on the social goals and compulsively abiding by institutional norms (Moyer, 2001). Retreatism is
when both goals and means are rejected and a person drops out of the pursuit. Moyer (2001) gives an
example of drug addicts or alcoholics here. Finally, in rebellion the means and goals are rejected but
they are replaced by some others. Those who adopt this strive for larger structural changes. Merton
was critiqued from various sections. The feminists critiqued him for being unable to apply this theory
to women. He was also critiqued for making criminals passive agents that are acted upon. But he did
influence sub-culture theories.

Albert Cohen argued that crime occurs when there is a conflict between middle class values and
working class values. In his book ‘Delinquent Boys’ published in 1995, he described activities of
delinquent as nonutilitarian, malicious and negativistic. Delinquent sub-culture provided alternative to
achieving middle class status that they cannot achieve from the available means. But the question of
not all working class youth adopting criminal means brings us to the work of Richard Cloward and
Lloyd Ohlin. They accepted that there can be legitimate as well as illegitimate means (Walklate,
2007). They stressed on opportunities available in specific neighbourhoods which may vary and the
resultant sub-cultures. These were of three types. The criminal sub-culture shows the greatest
resistance. Criminal means are accepted as means of achieving goals. The conflict sub-culture is
dominated by violent behaviour. Here conventional forms of social organization fail. The third was
the retreatist sub-culture where which results from breakdown relationships (Moyer, 2001).

The Chicago School is another influential school of thought in Sociology as well as Criminology. The
focus here was on micro level studies of gangs. The earliest influential study was by Fredrick
Thrasher published as ‘The Gang’ in 1927. He studied 1313 gangs and concluded that gangs came to
be formed in slums where large number of children came together in a crowded and limited area
(Moyer, 2001). He suggested that gangs develop from spontaneous playgroups, when they begin to
incite disapproval and opposition, develop a group consciousness and become a conflict group
(Raghavan, 2010). He categorised gangs into diffuse gangs, solidified gangs and conventionalized
gangs.

Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay contributed heavily to ecological studies of delinquency. They
mapped presence of juvenile gangs in the city of Chicago. They found that delinquency was most
common next to zones of industry and commerce where there were decreasing residential populations.
These were also areas of low rent and where low income families lived and deteriorated buildings.
These were areas where immigrants lived with the least access of daily necessities. There was a wide
diversity of norms and thus gave rise to delinquency when coupled with greatest deprivation (Moyer,
2001). Shaw and McKay also contributed to the Chicago Area Project which attempted to improve
community life to reduce delinquency. Shaw and McKay were pioneers in contributing to policy and
theory through their work.

In 1967, Robert Park, Ernest Burgess and Roderick McKenzie came up with the concentric zones
theory. Where there were 5 concentric zones like a bullseye. The one in the centre was the business
district, followed by the zone of transition where recent immigrants resided in deteriorating housing,
then the working-class zone, the residential zone and commuter zone- the suburbs. Most crime was
seen in the zone of transition where immigration resulted in competing norms which resulted in social
disorganization (Walklate, 2007).

In today’s world the Chicago school has outlived its purpose. Raghavan (2010) opines that concentric
zones do not exist anymore in cities. The cities are developing newer patterns of growth and decay,
especially in the context of globalization. Carrabine et. al. (2009) explains the concept of ecological
fallacy which is another drawback. The theory is unable to explain why some people in the more
likely zones become criminals and some don’t.

Sutherland’s work who also came from the same school has been discussed elsewhere.

3.7: Restraint Theory/ Social Control Theories

Control theories believe in free will in criminal behavior and hence internal and external controls to
prevent crime. We discuss briefly, the work of some pioneers of this school of thought.

To begin with Walter Reckless and Simon Dinitz who studied Columbus Ohio to understand what
could contain youth from delinquent areas from becoming delinquent. They first studied 125 ‘good
boys’ to conclude that parental supervision and self-concepts as ‘good boys’ had insulated them from
becoming delinquent. In a second group that were likely to become delinquent parental guidance was
again found to be important. Mothers of these boys did not know the what their sons were doing.
Reckless in 1961 called his theory the Containment theory (Moyer, 2001). Here he argues that there
were control factors that were internal and external to an individual which he called containment.
Reckless stressed more on inner containment as compared to external factors. These inner
containment factors included favourable self-concept, goal orientation, frustration tolerance and norm
retention (Burke, 2009). Outer containment is the structural buffer in the immediate social and family
surroundings consisting of a consistent moral ideology, norms, goals and expectations, effective social
control, scope for alternatives, opportunity for acceptance, identity and a sense of belonging. Along
with these containments, there are push and pull factors that interact with their containments. The
push factors are individual factors such as hostility, personality and aggressiveness. The pull factors
include environmental factors such as poverty, poor family life and deprived education. (Raghavan,
2010). He noted that control theories were multidisciplinary as opposed to other theories that did not
cross disciplinary boundaries (Moyer, 2001).

For Travis Hirschi, delinquent acts were a result of breaking of bond between an individual and the
society. For Hirschi there are four elements to this bond- attachment, commitment, involvement and
belief. Attachment was the connection between a person and another or a person and the society
(Moyer, 2001). Strong attachments encourage conformity (Burke, 2009). Commitment is the
commitment to rules of the society. Involvement refers to involvement of a person to conventional
work and actions and less time for nonconventional behaviour. For the final element, control theories
argue that delinquents and non-delinquents share the same beliefs and values unlike sub-culture
theories which argue about different values. Hence the question here is why are the rules violated?
Here Hirschi borrows the concept of neutralization from David Matza (Moyer, 2001). Matza argues
that delinquents use some techniques of neutralization to justify their delinquent act even if they
believe in the larger social norms. The five identified techniques of neutralization were, denial of
responsibility (I didn’t mean it), denial of injury (I didn’t really harm him), denial of victim (he
deserved it), condemnation of the condemners (they always pick on us), and appeals to higher
loyalties (you’ve got to help your friends) (Burke, 2009). These were mere excuses and not
explanations. Matza built on the techniques of neutralization theory to propound his drift theory. The
conversion from a mere possibility to an actual delinquent act is based on the free will factor. In other
words, he/she must choose to commit the act. Rather than a rejection of societal values (as posited by
the sub-culture theorists), the delinquent ‘drifts’ in and out of crime based on free will and the ability
to rationalize through techniques of neutralization (Raghavan, 2010).

Gottfredson and Hirschi went on to propound the General Theory of Crime. Their starting point was
the answer to ‘what is crime?’ rather than ‘why do people offend?’ They defined crime as ‘acts of
force or fraud undertaken in pursuit of self-interest’. These were poorly thought and based on the
hedonistic principle. They linked low self-control to criminal behaviour. Self-control was attributed to
child-rearing practices – monitoring behaviour, recognizing deviant behaviour and punishing such
behaviour (Raghavan, 2010). This grand theory had many lacunae. One being the issue of bias as
most of the offenders in their theory were non-while.

Control theories have been critiqued for not explaining how strong the bonds need to be and also
because the bonds can become repressive.

3.8: Interactionist School

This school of thought explains crime as a result of social reaction of an individual. The focus is on
the individual or the group. There is a focus on labels, or the effect of labels on a person’s behaviour.
Frank Tannenbaum in 1938 in Crime and the Community suggested that an individual becomes
deviant because of a tagging process. An individual may become involved in some deviant behaviour.
This behaviour is dramatized by the society and thus creating a label, even when for the most part the
individual may remain non-deviant. But because of the labelling the individual may incorporate the
deviant label in his or her identity (Moyer, 2001, pp. 164-165). Edwin Lemert took this understanding
further and conceptualized primary and secondary deviance. Primary deviance was occasional deviant
behaviour that is excused and may be socially accepted. Secondary deviance is the reaction to severe
social response to acts of primary deviance. This is the result of primary deviance and penalties that
increase with each deviance till the point of accepting deviant social status (Moyer, 2001, pp. 167-
168).

Howard Becker is another theorist we consider under this school of thought. He is a second generation
Chicago school sociologist. His influential work was ‘Outsiders’ in 1963. Walklate (2007) explains
that there were two strands to his work. One was, how was a certain behaviour labelled as deviant and
the other was to understand the effect of the labelling process. Deviance for him was not the act but
the application of rules to an offender. He constructed a fourfold typology of possible labels- falsely
accused, pure deviant, conformist, secret deviant. The conformist here is not a deviant and neither
labelled, while the pure deviant is labelled as well as deviant. But the falsely accused is only seen as a
deviant without having done a deviant act and the secret deviant is a deviant who no one sees as
deviant (Moyer, 2001). Becker argued that deviance is created by audience reactions. He refers to
three analytically distinct aspects of group reactions: the making of rules, the application of rules and
the labelling of particular individuals as deviants or outsiders. He questioned how one group imposes
rules on others and who is a deviant is the outcome of the labelling process (Raghavan, 2010).

Goffman influenced the growth of criminology on sixties and seventies. He wrote of total institutions
which included prisons, de-addiction centres, custodial institutions. These housed large number of
‘like situated individuals’, cut off from wider society for substantial period of time. Together, they
lead an enclosed, formally administered life. Every person living in total institutions has a moral
career, which includes a pre-patient, an in-patient and the ex-patient phase. Through these three
phases in his life, the individual goes through a process of questioning of his earlier identity, a re-
defining of his identity and an irrevocable change in his identity (Raghavan, 2010). His other major
work was ‘Stigma’ in which he defined stigma as “attributes that are deeply discrediting’ to an
individual, and consisting of three types – abominations of the body (physical deformities), blemishes
of individual character (societal labeling through records of unemployment, imprisonment, mental
illness, homosexuality, etc. and as being weak-willed, treacherous, dishonest, etc.) and tribal stigma
of race, nation and religion (contamination of all members of the particular family through lineages).
Individuals do not automatically become stigmatized; there must be a language of relationships that
identifies the individual as not being normal. Again, through a process of interaction between the
individual and the social audience, a person is first stigamtised and then he or she becomes what the
stigma implies. Once stigma is acquired, it is very difficult to overcome it” (Moyer, 2001, p. 180-181).

Walklate (2007) explains that the labelling theories greatly impacted criminology. They led to the
examination of the criminal justice system and how the system can focus attention on a particular
group of people and leave out the secret deviants.

3.9: Conflict theories and Radical theories

Here the focus is on the stratification within the society and crime. These theories dominated the
seventies and the eighties. Richard Quinney is the most important figure of this school. For the radical
school the focus is on political economy of capitalism and crime. Radical school is more specific than
conflict theories. For both these schools of thought, society is characterised by conflict between
groups. Conflict criminology draws from labelling theories and see crime as defined by the agencies
of the criminal justice system. For conflict school, conflict is analysed in terms of segments or groups
instead of class.

Bernard (1981) lists the common principles of the two schools from three sources- Chambliss and
Seidman's analysis of the relationship of values to the enactment of laws, and was influenced by
Vold's theory of group conflict and by Quinney's theory of the social reality of crime.

1) One's "web of life" or the conditions of one's life affect one's values and interests. 2) Complex
societies are composed of groups with widely different life conditions. 3) Therefore, complex societies
are composed of groups with disparate and conflicting sets of values and interests. 4) The behaviour
of individuals is generally consistent with their values and interests. 5) Because values and interests
tend to remain stable over time, groups tend to develop relatively stable behaviour patterns that differ
in varying degrees from the behaviour patterns of other groups. 6) The enactment of laws is the result
of a conflict and compromise process in which different groups attempt to promote their own values
and interests. 7) Individual laws usually represent a combination of the values and interests of many
groups, rather than the specific values and interests of any one particular group. Nevertheless, the
higher a group's political and economic position, the more the law in general tends to represent the
values and interests of that group. 8) Therefore, in general, the higher a group's political and
economic position, the less likely it is that the behaviour patterns characteristic of the group
(behaviours consistent with their values and interests) will violate the law, and vice versa. 9) In
general, the higher the political and economic position of an individual, the more difficult it is for
official law enforcement agencies to process him when his behaviour violates the law. This may be
because the types of violations are more subtle and complex, or because the individual has greater
resources to conceal the violation, to legally defend himself against official action, or to exert
influence extralegally on the law enforcement process. 10) As bureaucrats, law enforcement agencies
will generally process easier rather than more difficult cases. 11) Therefore, in general, law
enforcement agencies will process individuals from lower rather than higher political and economic
groups. 12) Because of the processes of law enactment and enforcement described above, the official
crime rates of groups will tend to be inversely proportional to their political and economic position,
independent of any other factors (such as social or biological ones) that might also influence the
distribution of crime rates (p. 366-367).

3.10: Feminist criminology

Criminology is a fairly male dominated academic discipline. The concern with women and crime
began in the latter half of the 20th century. Different feminist perspectives influence criminology.
Feminist criminology emerges from the fact that most criminal theories focussed on male offending.
Liberal feminism concerns itself with the subordination of women within the larger unequal social
structure. Liberal feminist research has concerned itself with issues like chivalry and its influence on
under reporting of female criminality. Another issue of research has been the treatment of females
within the criminal justice system. Women’s experiences as victims of crime and the sexist practices
have been issues of concern. Radical feminism focuses more on the men’s oppression of women
rather than the social conditions. Their focus has been on sexuality and its control and crime. They
prefer the word survivor as opposed to victim of sexual assault. Socialist feminism concerns itself
with the interaction of sex, class and race. For this stream of thought, criminology must take into
consideration patriarchy as well as capitalism and their effects on human behaviour. Postmodern
feminism, has had relatively little impact on criminology yet (Walklate, 2007).

Schur’s major work in 1965 in the interactionist tradition, Crimes Without Victims, is discussed here.
focused on creation and enforcement of crimes such as abortion, homosexuality and drug abuse,
which were victimless acts (according to him). An important contribution of Schur was his association
of gender with deviance, whereby he pointed out how women were labelled and stigmatized with
value judgments such as ‘aggressive’, ‘bitchy’ or ‘hysterical’, damaging their reputation, inducing
shame and lowering their life chances. Through his work, Schur aided the development of feminist
criminology. The major criticism against Schur’s work is his concept of crime without victims –
whether such a construct exists (Raghavan, 2010).

3.11: Emergent/ Critical theories

Over the last couple of decades, criminology has moved in yet another direction. Some of the
developments associated with this are capitalist means of production, globalization, restructuring of
labour markets and much more of casual labour, changes in structure of the family, decreasing family
size and family breakdown, technology, impact of electronic mass media.

Jock Young in his book ‘The Exclusive Society’ explores three kinds of divisions- economic (where
people are excluded from labour market), social (where people are excluded from civil society) and
the expansion of the criminal justice system (which excludes more and more people from daily life).
We have moved to the society that excludes and everyone is becoming a potential deviant (Carrabine
et. al., 2009).

Post modernism looks at meanings in the contexts rather than grand theories and hence the presence
of the field of criminology itself comes into question. Michel Foucault is an influential figure from
this school of thought whose main focus is not crime rather the state’s response to it. In Discipline and
Punish he traces the evolution of punishment and the harm to the body. His focus is also on power of
the state and surveillance. His work focuses on how power operates in modern society (Carrabine et.
al. 2009)

Risk Society is another emerging concept. The idea here is that crime is simply a matter of
opportunity and not any specific abnormality or disposition. Hence policies shifted from individual
offenders to tackling criminogenic situations. Hence the cctvs in many public places. The argument
here is not of increased risk but rather of the responses to the risk.

David Garland says that the ‘culture of high crime societies’ has led to the development of two
contradictory criminologies – criminology of the self and criminology of the other. The former views
the offender as a rational consumer of a society where crime is a normal, common aspect of modern
life. It views crime as an outcome of normal social interaction and a risk to be calculated, both by the
offender and the victim, rather than as norm violation caused by individual pathology or faulty
socialization (Raghavan, 2010).
4: Implications for criminal justice social work:

We have included here an overview of different schools of thought about crime. The purpose here was
not to jot down an exhaustive list of theories but to acquaint the reader with the different schools of
thought so as to help the reader place a social worker within the CJS. Social work being concerned
with intervention one needs to understand crime as an outcome of larger social inequalities. It is also
important to understand the State’s role in how crime is defined and responded to.

In the end, the need to review criminological theories here stems from the fact that these theories
influence the policies of the criminal justice system. The understanding of crime has always shaped
how we treat the offenders, juveniles and the vulnerable communities or how we as a society react to
crime and the fear of crime. Criminal justice social work is shaped by this understanding. Today we
see a need for counsellors, or the focus on rehabilitation is the outcome of our understanding of crime
and it’s causes. In the next module, we also add to this, the understanding of crime victimization.