Criminological Theories

UNIT 9 CRIMINOLOGY THEORIES

Structure
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Objectives
9.3 The Study of Criminology
9.4 What is Criminology?
9.5 Brief History of Criminology
9.6 Classical School of Criminology
9.6.1 Pre Classical School
9.6.2 Classical School of Criminology
9.6.3 Neo Classical School
9.7 Positive School of Criminology
9.8 Ecological School of Criminology
9.9 Theories Related to Physical Appearance
9.9.1 Phsiognomy and Phrenology
9.9.2 Criminal Anthropology: Lombroso to Goring
9.9.3 Body Type Theories: Sheldon to Cortes
9.10 Biological Factors and Criminal Behaviour
9.10.1 Chromosomes and Crime
9.10.2 Family Studies
9.10.3 Twin and Adoption Studies
9.10.4 Neurotransmitters
9.10.5 Hormones
9.10.6 The Autonomic Nervous System
9.11 Psychoanalytical Theories of Crime
9.11.1 Psychanalytic Explanations of Criminal Behaviour
9.12 Sociological Theories of Criminal Behaviour
9.12.1 Durkhiem, Anomie and Modernisation
9.12.2 Merton’s Strain Theory
9.12.3 Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory
9.13 Critical Criminology
9.13.1 Marxim and Marxist Criminology
9.14 Control Theories
9.14.1 Drift and Neutralisation
9.14.2 Hirschi’s Social Control
9.14.3 Containment Theory
9.14.4 Labeling Theory
9.15 Conflict Theories
9.15.1 Sellin’s Culture Conflict Theory
9.15.2 Vold’s Group Conflict Theory
9.15.3 Quinney’s Theory of the Social Reality of Crime
9.15.4 Turk’s Theory of Criminalisation
9.15.5 Chambliss and Seidman’s Analysis of the Criminal Justice System
5
Theories and Perspectives 9.16 Summary
in Criminal Justice
9.17 Terminal Questions
9.18 Answers and Hints
9.19 References and Suggested Readings

9.1 INTRODUCTION
Criminology is the scientific approach towards studying criminal behaviour. It
is an interdisciplinary science which includes sociology, psychology, biology
political science etc. There are different school of criminology like classical
school, positive school, ecological school etc. One of the oldest scientific
approaches in criminology theory emphasizes physical and biological abnormality
as the prominent mark of the criminal. Sigmund Freud coined the term
psycholoanalysis in 1896 and based an entire theory of human behaviour on it.
Later Ernest Jones delineated seven major principles of Freud’s approach within
the psychoanalytic perspective criminal and delinquent behaviours are attributed
to disturbances or malfuctions in the ego or superego. Then there was sociological
theory of criminology whose main propounde was Durkheim. Apart from these,
there is Control Theories and Conflict Theories of Criminology.

9.2 OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit, you should be able to:
• understand the crime and criminology;
• known various theoretical explanations of criminality; and
• discuss the dynamic interrelatedness in the formation and manifestation of
criminal and delinquent behaviour and various socio-cultural factors and
processes.

9.3 THE STUDY OF CRIMINOLOGY

Concern about crime and the need to develop effective measures to control
criminal behaviour have spurred the development of Criminology as an academic
discipline. This discipline is devoted to developing valid and reliable information
that addresses the causes of crime as well as crime patterns and trends and control
of crime. Criminologists use scientific methods to study the nature, extent, cause,
and control of criminal behaviour. Unlike media commentators, whose opinions
about crime can be coloured by personal experiences, biases, and values,
criminologists remain objective as they study crime and its consequences. The
field of criminology has gained prominence as an academic area of study due to
the constant threat of crime and the social problems it represents.

9.4 WHAT IS CRIMINOLOGY?

Paul Topinard, a French Anthropologist is said to have coined the termed
‘criminology’ in 1889 to differentiate the study of criminal body types within the
field of anthropology from other biometric pursuits. The word crime comes from
the Latin, meaning “accusation”, “charge” or “guilt” and logy means “ the study
of something”. Hence the term Criminology literally means “the study of crime”.
6
Criminology is the scientific approach to studying criminal behaviour. Sutherland Criminological Theories
and Cressey state “Criminology is the body of knowledge regarding crime as a
social phenomenon. It includes within its scope the process of making laws, of
breaking laws, and of reacting toward the breaking of laws…” The objective of
criminology is the development of a body of general and verified principles and
of other types of knowledge regarding this process of law, crime and treatment.
Sutherland suggested that criminology consists of three “principal divisions”
1) The sociology of law
2) Scientific analysis of the causes of crime, and
3) Crime control
Criminology is an interdisciplinary science which includes sociology, psychology,
psychiatry, biology, political science, social work, law, economics etc.

Self Assessment Question

1) What do you understand by the term criminology?
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

9.5 BRIEF HISTORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

During the middle ages (1200-1600), superstition and fear of satanic possession
dominated thinking. People who violated social norms or religious practices
were believed to be witches or possessed by demons. The witch doctor or medicine
man or shaman became the interpreter of supernatural happenings. The prescribed
method for dealing with the possessed was burning at the stake, Cruel torture to
extract confessions was in use and those convicted of violent or theft crimes
suffered extremely harsh penalties, including whipping, branding, maiming, and
execution, putting mask and dancing around the deviant victim, concoct a
nauseous potion made up of saliva, fingernails, feces, pimple pus, urine, nose
picking, hair and other obnoxious items and make the patent eat it, thereby making
his or he body intolerable for the demons. On occasions “a sacrifice to the gods
was made of a baby, a young virgin, a son or other persons in order to keep the
tribe on good terms with god and spirits”. This practice survived till 17th Century.
This was the spiritual explanation of crime and punishment.
The early Phoenicians and Greeks developed naturalistic explanations of crime
far back. Hippocrates provided a physiological explanation of thinking by arguing
that the brain is the organ of the mind. Plato said that the individual’s soul has
three elements i.e. reasons, desire and spirit. The spirit being the agent used by
reasons to overcome passion/desire. The lower part of irrational soul was located
in the body below the diaphragm and rational soul which is a better part located
in the heart and in mental faculties. Aristotle said that body and soul are different.
Man is good by nature but when he fails to follow the reasons, sin results.

7
Theories and Perspectives Thomas Hobbes concluded that all phenomenons were subjected to scientific
in Criminal Justice
laws including human behaviour. According to Rene Descartes “natural laws
governed not only events external to man but event occurring within him, so free
will becomes more important than divine law in crime causation”.

9.6 CLASSICAL SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY

9.6.1 Pre Classical School
The formalising of this concept into “crime” probably had its early beginnings
in the formalisation of court procedure at the Assize of Clarendon called by
Henry II in 1166 A.D. when the jury system was structured essentially as it remains
today. The construction of jails was approved, and the beginnings of classification
of crimes as felonies and misdemeanors appeared. In 1215, King John under
compulsion from his barons issued the Magna Carta as a symbol of a general
movement toward civil and constitutional rights.

9.6.2 Classical School of Criminology

Reasons behind the emergence of classical school of criminology:-
1) Just as Greek, Latin were first to communicate adequately in modern abstract
thinking, similarly, this school of thought was the first relative adequate
form or system of thinking in the area of criminology.
2) There may be many inconsistencies in the existing practices at that time.
3) Judges could introduce personal biases.
4) That’s why harsh punishments rather than equitable justice.

Criminology emerged in 1764 in “Essay on Crime and Punishments” “Dei delitti

e delle pene” by Beccaria. The motto was “Let the punishment fit from crime”.
Man is hedonistic- seeking pleasure and avoids pain and had sufficient free will
to choose between good and evil, when he knew what the consequences might
be. Focus of the classical school was on crime and adopted legal approach.

Self Assessment Question

2) Explain the reasons behind the emergence of classical school of
criminology.
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

Beccaria’s Recommendations
1) Laws are the conditions under which independent and isolated men get united
to form a society. People sacrifice and the sum of all these portions of liberty
sacrificed by each for his own good constitutes the sovereignty of a nation
and their legitimate depository and administrator is the sovereign. The
8
 tangible motives of punishment must be established against infractors of Criminological Theories
the laws.
2) Only the laws can decree punishments for crime; authority for this can reside
only with the legislator who represents the entire society united by a social
contract.
3) Judges in criminal cases cannot have the authority to interpret laws. For
every crime that comes before him, a judge is required to complete a perfect
syllogism in which the major premise must be the general law.
4) Basis of all social actions must be utilitarian concept of the greatest happiness
for the greatest number.
5) On the seriousness of crime he said that Crime must be considered an injury
to society.
6) There must be a proper proportion between crime and punishments.
7) The more promptly and the more closely punishment follows upon the
commission of crime, the more just and useful will it be.
8) One of the greatest curbs on crime is not the cruelty of punishments, but
their infallibility. The certainty of punishment, even if be moderate, will
always make a stronger impression than the fear of another which is more
terrible.
9) Prevention of crime is more important than the punishment, which means
that publishing the laws is very important.
10) Secret Accusations and tortures should be abolished in favour of humane
and speedy trial.
11) Purpose of punishment is to deter rather revenge.
12) Imprisonment should be widely employed and it should be improved.

Beccaria’s principles were used as the basis for the French Code of 1791. The
greatest advantage of this code was that it set up a procedure that was easy to
administer. As a practical matter, however, the Code of 1791 was impossible to
enforce in everyday situations, and modifications were introduced. These
modifications, all in the interest of greater ease of administration, are the essence
of the neo-classical school.
Problems in Classical School
1) Ignorance of Individual differences.
2) Significance of particular situation.
3) First Offender and repeaters were to be treated similarly on the basis of
criminal act.
4) Minors, idiots, insane and other incompetents were treated similarly.

9.6.3 Neo Classical School

Classical theory was difficult to apply in practice; it was modified in the early
1800 and became known as Neo-Classical theory-
9
Theories and Perspectives 1) Modification of the doctrine of free will which could be affected by
in Criminal Justice
pathology, incompetence, insanity or other conditions.
2) Acceptance of the validity of mitigating circumstances.
3) Modification of the doctrine of responsibility in such cases like insanity,
age etc.
4) “Knowledge and intent of man at the time of crime”.
5) Admission into court procedures of expert testimony on the question of
degree of responsibility.
More Developments in Criminology
In England, Jeremy Bentham (1723-80) was the greatest leader in reforms of the
criminal law. His Felicific Calculus or the idea that man’s objective is to achieve
the most pleasure and the least pain was central in the criminal law. William
Blackstone supported the work of the Bentham in preparation of English Criminal
Code. Like Beccaria, Bentham focused on the potential held by punishment to
prevent crime and to act as a deterrent for those considering criminal activity. He
suggested 11 different types of punishments.
1) Capital Punishment, or death penalty
2) Afflictive punishment, which includes whipping and starvation
3) Indelible punishment, such as branding, amputation and mutilation
4) Ignominious punishment, such as public punishment involving use of the
stocks or pillory
5) Penitential punishment, whereby and offender might be censured by his or
her community.
6) Chronic punishment, such as banishment, exile, and imprisonment
7) Restrictive punishment, such as license revocation or administrative
sanctions
8) Compulsive punishment, which requires an offender to perform a certain
action, such as to make restitution or to keep in touch with a probation
officer
9) Pecuniary punishment, involving the use of fines
10) Quasi-pecuniary punishment, in that the offender is denied services that
would otherwise be available to him or her.
11) Characteristic punishment, such as mandating that prison uniforms be worn
by incarcerated offenders.
Paul J.A.Von Feurerbach, a German Jurist gave a theory “Psychological –Course
or Intimidation (in order to conduct or influence) theory”:-
1) Protested vindictive (clear) Punishment (like same 14 years for theft, 5 year
if for need and greed etc.)
2) Reformed German Law
3) Publicity in all legal proceedings as a deterrent
4) Forerunner of Modern efforts in the field of Comparative Law and said “no
crime without law”, “no crime without punishment” and “no punishment
10 without crime”
Contribution of Classical School Criminological Theories

The heritage left by the classical school is still operative today in the following
principles, each of which is a fundamental constituent of modern day perspective
on crime and punishment.
1) Provides a justification for the use of punishment in the control of crime.
2) Rational Punishments
3) Written laws
4) Deterrent Principle
5) Equality before the Law

Self Assessment Question

3) Write a note on the contributions of classical school.
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

9.7 POSITIVE SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Cesare Lombroso, proposed that criminals were biological throwbacks and used
the term “atavistic”. He studied troublesome soldiers and criminals in Italian
Prisons and identified following physical characteristics of a criminal:-
1) Slanting forehead
2) Long earlobes or none at all
3) A large jaw
4) Heavy supraorbital ridges
5) Excess hairiness or absence of hair
6) Extreme sensitivity to pain or lack of sensitivity to pain
On the basis of his research Lombroso emphasized the need for direct study of
the individual and his method was always objective and positive. Later he changed
his assumption and pursued the basic idea of cause as ‘a chain of interrelated
causes”.
Lombroso classified criminals into three major categories:
1) The born criminals (atavist or biological throwbacks);
2) The insane criminal;
3) Criminaloids – under certain circumstances they indulge in criminal
behaviour.
Unlike Lombroso who gave more attention to biological than the social factors.
Enrico Ferri gave more emphasis to the interrelatedness of social, economic and
11
Theories and Perspectives political factors. He argued that criminality can be explained by interactive efforts/
in Criminal Justice
factor:
1) Physical factors – race, geography, temp
2) Individual factors – age, sex, psychological variables
3) Social factors – population, religion and culture.
He said that crime can be controlled by social changes like subsidised houses,
birth control, freedom of marriage and divorce, public recreation facilities etc.
He attempted to integrate his positivistic approach to crime with political changes.
In his book Sociologia Criminale, he had only five classes:-
1) The born criminal or Instinctive criminal
2) Insane criminal (mentally ill)
3) Passion criminal (prolonged and chronic mental problems or an emotional
state)
4) Occasional criminal
5) Habitual criminal
Raffaelo Garofalo published the first edition of “Criminology” in 1885 in Social
Darwinian era. “How society could guarantee the survival of the fittest through
criminal law and penal practice” Society is a ‘natural body’. Crimes are offences
‘against the law of nature’ and Criminal actions are against nature. He got some
influence from the classical school and emphasized on reasoning. A natural crime
violates two basic human sentiments found among people of all ages:
• Pity – sentiment of revulsion against the voluntary inflictions of suffering
on others
• Probity – refers to the respect for the property rights of others
Pity and probity is present in advanced form in all civilized societies. Sometimes
physical abnormalities are present, sometimes not. True criminals lacked properly
developed altruistic sentiments, in other words, had psychic or moral anomalies
that could be transmitted through heredity.
Garofalo gave this classification
Table 9.1
Class Pity Probity Action

Murderer X X Would kill or steal when given

opportunity
Lesser Criminal √X √X Lacks sentiments either pity or
probity
Violent Criminals X √ Environmental factors like
alcohol
Thieves √ X Product of social factors
Cynics/sexual Criminals X √ Low level of moral energy
Society is a natural body (either adapt to the environment or be eliminated).He
reasoned that true criminal action revealed an inability to live by the basic human
12
sentiments necessary for society to survive, they should be eliminated, their death Criminological Theories
would contribute to the survival of the society. He suggested life imprisonment
or overseas transportation (exile) for lesser criminals –For him deterrence and
rehabilitation were secondary. He favoured ‘forced reparation’ and indeterminate
sentences and modeled on psychic characteristics of the offender. By giving
society or the group supremacy over the individual, Garofalo and Ferri were
willing to sacrifice individual rights to the opinion of ‘scientific experts’
Table 9.2: Comparison of Classical and Positive School

Classical School Positive School

Definition Legal Natural
Focus Criminal act Offender
Cause Rationality Pathology
Nature Voluntary Determined
Response to Crime Punishment Treatment
Crime Prevention Deterrence Diagnosis and Classification
Operation of Criminal Legal-Philosophical Scientific
Justice System
Criticism of Positive School
Crime is an essential product of social organisation but initially positive school
was ignoring the sociological aspect of criminal behaviour. Work of positivists
was not very statistically sophisticated. Conclusions about real or significant
differences between criminals and non criminals were in fact highly speculative.

Charles Goring (1913) studied 3000 English convicts and a control group of
normal males. And after 8 years, Goring confirmed his hypothesis that criminals
are biologically inferior. He did not find a physical criminal type.

Gabriel Tarde held that behaviour is learned including criminal behaviour and
proposed association and learning as explanations of crime in contrast to the
biological approaches of Lombroso. He referred the criminals as ‘Social
excrement’ and thought that Courts only function was to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused person and a committee of doctors should determine
the degree of his responsibility. He was also in the opinion that disposition should
be on a psychological basis only.

9.8 ECOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Ecological School of Criminology is also known as ‘The Chicago School of
criminology’. The members of the Department of Sociology, University of
Chicago attempted to pinpoint the environmental factors associated with crime
and to determine the relationship among those factors. Clifford R.Shaw worked
as probation and parole officer and became convinced that the problem of juvenile
delinquency had its origin in the juvenile’s detachment from conventional groups
rather than in any biological and psychological abnormalities.

Delinquency areas became the concern of Clifford R.Shaw (1929), who developed
the theory that delinquency rates are high in the center of Chicago and
13
Theories and Perspectives progressively lower at greater distances from the center and from industrial areas
in Criminal Justice
It became obvious that the rate of delinquency in various areas of the city and
different neighbourhoods varies widely and is tied to socio-economic and other
factors. The problems of adverse condition of urban living have been recognised
as coming from:
1) The economic insecurity and instability of urban social institutions ; and
2) Individual and social efforts to become adjusted to the requirements and
pressures of urban social and economic conditions.

Urban environmental influences promoting crime begin with the disorganisation

of families in the blighted areas of urban decentralisation. In the absence of
families in the blighted areas of urban decentralisation, poverty and emerging
attitudes toward nonconformity combined with the exodus of the conforming
middle class from the city to the suburbs intensify the social problems i.e. Suicide,
commercialised vice, irregular sex relations, illegitimacy, mob-mindedness, social
urban breakdown, such as congestion broken homes increasing complexity of
social relationships and crime and delinquency The effect of the community on
the individual is most apparent in the inner city, slum, and ghetto.

The concept of concentric circles throughout the city that describe where crime
and delinquency occur began when the University of Chicago sociologists began
studying delinquency and found that the areas of highest delinquency appeared
in or adjacent to areas zoned for industry and commerce (Shaw and McKay,
1969). In Chicago, they occurred close to the central business district and also
near the stockyards and the south Chicago steel mills. On the other hand areas of
low delinquency occurred in areas zoned for residential purposes. The concentric
circle idea arose when five were drawn at two-mile intervals from a focal point
at the center of the city. The social data drawn from these two-mile zones indicated
that the highest rate of community problems was in the central or first zone, and
all problems decreased gradually with the distance from the center of the city to
the outer or fifth zone.

Situational Context of Crime

The term “situation” refers to the immediate setting in which behaviour occurs,
and “situational analysis” refers to the search for regularities in relationships
between behaviours and situations. Neighbourhoods are one situational context
that can influence the occurrence of crime. These theories assume that there are
always people around who will commit a crime if given a chance. They don’t
explain the motivation to commit crime rather they explain the situations and
circumstances in which motivated offenders find that they have the opportunity
to commit a crime. Therefore, these theories sometimes are called “opportunity
theories of crime”. Hindelang argued that the routine activities of some groups
expose them to much greater risks of victimisation than others.

The Chicago school can be described as a gold mine that continues to enrich
criminology today. As Meier and Miethe state that there is a “symbiotic
relationship between conventional and illegal activities’ in such a way that
“victims and offenders are inextricably linked in ecology of crime”. Thus,
criminologists must look to the social contexts to understand the parallel processes
by which victims come to experience the risk of crime and offenders come to be
14 motivated to commit crime.
 Criminological Theories
9.9 THEORIES RELATED TO PHYSICAL
APPEARANCE
One of the oldest scientific approaches in criminology theory emphasizes physical
and biological abnormality as the distinguishing mark of the criminal. In this
approach criminals are viewed as somehow different, abnormal, defective, and
therefore inferior biologically. This biological inferiority is thought to produce
certain physical characteristics that make the appearance of criminals different
from that of non-criminals. Early criminologists studied the physical appearance
of criminals in an attempt to identify these characteristics. The real explanation
of criminal behaviour, in this view, is biological defectiveness and inferiority—
physical and other characteristics are only symptoms of that inferiority.

9.9.1 Physiognomy and Phrenology

Physiognomy deals with making judgments about people’s character from the
appearance of their faces. In 1775, John Caspar Lavater, in the book,
“Physiognomical Fragments”, systematised many popular observations and made
many extravagant claims about the alleged relation between facial features and
human conduct. For example, beardlessness in men and its opposite, the bearded
woman, were both considered unfavourable trait indicators, as were a “shifty”
eye, a “weak” chin, an “arrogant” nose, and so on. Such given classifications are
of little significance today. The principal importance of physiognomy lies in the
impetus it gave to the better-organised and logically more impressive view that
came to be known as phrenology.

Phrenology focused on the external shape of the skull instead of the appearance
of the face. Based originally on Aristotle’s idea of the brain as the organ of the
mind, phrenologists assumed that the exterior of the skull conformed to its interior
and therefore to the shape of the brain. Different faculties or functions of the
mind were assumed to be associated with different parts of the brain. Therefore,
the exterior shape of the skull would indicate how the mind functioned.

The eminent European anatomist Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828) is generally

given credit for the systematic development of the doctrines of phrenology, though
he did not originate or make much use of that term. In 1791 he started publishing
materials on the relations between head conformations and the personal
characteristics of individuals. Closely allied with Gall in the development of
phrenology was his student and one-time collabourator, John Gaspar Spurzheim
(1776-1832). It was Spurzheim rather than Gall who carried their doctrines to
England and America, lecturing before scientific meetings and stimulating interest
in their ideas.

Gall listed twenty-six special faculties of the brain; Spurzheim increased the
number to thirty-five. Their lists included faculties described as amativeness,
conjugality, philoprogenitiveness (love of off spring), friendliness, combativeness,
destructiveness, acquisitiveness, cautiousness, self-esteem, firmness,
benevolence, constructiveness, ideality, and imitativeness. These were said to
be grouped into three regions or compartments:-
1) “Lower” or active propensities,
2) Moral sentiments, and
15
Theories and Perspectives 3) The intellectual faculties.
in Criminal Justice
Crime was said to involve the lower propensities, notably amativeness,
philoprogenitiveness, combativeness, secretiveness, and acquisitiveness. These
propensities, however, could be held in restraint by the moral sentiments or the
intellectual faculties, in which case no crime would be committed. Character
and human conduct were thus conceived as equilibrium in the pull of these
opposite forces. Animal propensities might impel the individual to crime, but
they would be opposed by the higher sentiments and intelligence. Just as other
organs were strengthened by exercise and enfeebled by disuse, so were the
“organs” of the mind. Careful training of the child, and even of the adult, in right
living would strengthen the “organs” of desirable faculties and inhibit through
disuse the lower propensities with their concomitants of crime and vice.

The obvious scientific criticism of the phrenological theory of crime was that no
one was able to observe the physiological “organs” of the mind or their relation
to particular types of behaviour. The most serious obstacle to its acceptance by
the public, however, was the deterministic nature of its analysis. If human conduct
were the result of the organs of the mind, then people’s fate was in the hands of
their anatomy and physiology. This view was rejected and opposed by teachers,
preachers, judges, and other leaders who influenced public opinion, because it
contradicted one of their most cherished ideas, namely that humans are masters
of their own conduct and capable of making of themselves what they will. It was
the need to show that humans were still masters of their fate (as well as to respond
to criticisms of the fatalistic position implied by his earlier work) that led Gall to
publish his Des Dispositions innces de l’ame et de l’esprit du materialisme (1811),
in which he argued that phrenology was not fatalistic, that will and spirit were
basic and supreme in the direction and control of human behaviour.

9.9.2 Criminal Anthropology: Lombroso to Goring

Cesare Lombroso extended the tradition of physiognomy and phrenology by
studying all anatomical features of the human body, not merely the features of
the face or the shape of the skull. Lombroso went on to perform autopsies on
sixty-six male criminals, and he found that these had a significant number of
characteristics that were similar to primitive humans. He also examined 832
living criminals, both male and female, 390 non-criminal Italian soldiers, and
ninety “lunatics.” These studies were presented in his book, L’uomo delinquente
(The Criminal Man), which appeared in 1876. Some of the physical characteristics
that Lombroso linked to crime included deviations in head size and shape,
asymmetry of the face, large jaws and cheekbones, unusually large or small ears
that stand out from the head, fleshy lips, abnormal teeth, recording chin, abundant
hair or wrinkles, long arms, extra fingers or toes, or an asymmetry of the brain.
Many of these characteristics were said to resemble lower animals, such as
monkeys and chimpanzees.

However, a study by Charles Goring, begun in England in 1901 and published in

1913, was to some extent a response to Lombroso’s challenge. Goring’s study
was strictly a comparison between a group of convicts–persons convicted of crimes
and imprisoned – and a group of unconvicted persons who included university
undergraduates, hospital patients, and the officers and men of units of the British
army. Thus, no attempt was made to distinguish between “born criminals,” persons
16
with criminal tendencies, and normal persons. Also, Goring relied totally on Criminological Theories
objective measurements of physical and mental characteristics, where Lombroso
had objected to such total reliance, maintaining that many anomalies were “So
small as to defy all but the most minute research”. He argued that these could be
detected by the eye of the trained observer, but could not be measured. Finally
the study, as it evolved, went well beyond any attempt to prove or disprove
Lombroso’s theories, as Goring advanced his own theory of hereditary inferiority.

Lombroso had asserted that criminals, compared with the general population,
would show anomalies (i.e., differences or defects) of head height, head width,
and degree of receding forehead, as well as differences in head circumference,
head symmetry, and so on. Goring, in comparing prisoners with the officers and
men of the Royal Engineers, found no such anomalies. There were no more
protrusions or other peculiarities of the head among the prisoners than among
the Royal Engineers. Goring also compared other characteristics, such as nasal
contours, color of eyes, colour of hair, and left-handedness, but found only
insignificant differences. He compared groups of different kinds of criminals
(burglars, forgers, thieves, etc.) on the basis of thirty-seven specific physical
characteristics. He concluded that there wee no significant differences between
one kind of criminal and another that were not more properly related to the
selective effects of environmental factors.

The one general exception to his conclusion was a consistent “inferiority in stature
and in body weight”. The criminals were one to two inches shorter than non-
criminals of the same occupational groups, and weighed from three to seven
pounds less. Goring was satisfied that these differences were real and significant,
and he interpreted them as indicating a general inferiority of a hereditary nature.
This interpretation agreed with his general thesis of hereditary inferiority (as
measured by comparisons of mental ability and various other indices of hereditary
influence) as the basis for criminal conduct.

9.9.3 Body Type Theories: Sheldon to Cortes

Some of the more interesting attempts at relating criminal behaviour to physical
appearance are the so-called body type theories. The body type theorists argue
that there is a high degree of correspondence between the physical appearance of
the body and the temperament of the mind. The book of William Sheldon, on
delinquent youth, is a good example of a body type theory. Sheldon took his
underlying ideas and terminology of types from the fact that a human begins life
as an embryo that is essentially a tube made up of three different tissue layers,
namely, an inner layer (or endoderm), a middle layer (or mesoderm), and an
outer layer (or ectoderm). Sheldon then constructed a corresponding physical
and mental typology consistent with the known facts from embryology and the
physiology of development.

Sheldon’s basic type characteristics of physique and temperament are briefly

summarized in the following scheme:

17
Theories and Perspectives Table 9.3
in Criminal Justice
Physique Temperament

1) Endomorphic:relatively great 1) Viscerotonic; general relaxation

development of digestive viscera;
tendency to put on fat; soft round-
ness through various regions of the
body; short tapering limbs; small
bones; soft, smooth, velvety skin.
of body; a comfortable person;
loves soft luxury; a “softie” but
still essentially an extrovert.

2) Mesomorphic: relative predomi- 2) Somotonic: active, dynamic,

nance of muscles, bone, and the person; walks, talks, gestures
motor organs of the body; large assertively; behaves aggres-
trunks; heavy chest; large wrists sively.
and hands; if “lean”, a hard rect-
angularity of outline; if “not lean”,
they fill out heavily.

3) Ectomorphic: relative predomi- 3) Cerebrotonic: an intrivent; full

nance of skin and its appendages,
which includes the nervous sys-
tem; lean, fragile, delicate body;
small, delicate bones; droopy
shoulders; small face, sharp nose,
fine hair; relatively little body
mass and relatively great surface
area.
of functional complaints, aller-
gies, skin troubles, chronic fa-
tigue, insomnia; sensitive to
noise and distractions; shrinks
from crowds.

Each person possesses the characteristics of the three types to a greater or lesser
degree. Sheldon therefore used three numbers, each between 1 and 7, to indicate
the extent to which the characteristics of the three types were present in a given
individual. Foe example, a person whose somatotype is 7-1-4 would possess
many endomorphic characteristics, few mesomorphic characteristics, and an
average number of ectomorphic characteristics.
Sheldon presented individual case histories, uniformly written according to a
rigorous case outline, of 200 young males who had a period of contact, during
the decade 1939-1949, with the Hayden Goodwill Inn, a small, somewhat
specialised, rehabilitation home for boys in Boston. He found that these youths
were decidedly high in mesomorphy and low in ectomorphy, with the average
somatotype being 3.5-4.6-2.7. Sheldon had earlier studied 200 college students
who were apparently nondelinquents, and had found that the average somatotype
was 3.2-3.8-3.4. The difference between these two groups with respect to
mesomorphy and ectomorphy is significant (p = 001).
The association between mesomorphy and delinquency was also found in a study
by the Gluecks, who compared 500 persistent delinquents with 500 proven non-
delinquents. The two groups were matched in terms of age, general intelligence,
ethic-racial derivation, and residence in underprivileged areas. Photographs of
the boys were mixed together and then visually assessed for the predominant
body type. By this method 60.1 per cent of the delinquents, but only 30.7 per
cent of the non-delinquents, were found to be mesomorphs. The analysis included
18
a study of sixty-seven personality traits and forty-two socio-cultural factors to Criminological Theories
determine which of these were associated with delinquency. The Gluecks found
that mesomorphs, in general, were “more highly characterised by traits particularly
suitable to the commission of acts of aggression (physical strength, energy,
insensitivity, the tendency to express tensions and frustrations in action), together
with a relative freedom from such inhibitions to antisocial adventures as feelings
of inadequacy, marked submissiveness to authority, emotional instability, and
the like.” They also found that those mesomorphs who became delinquent were
characterised by a number of personality traits not normally found in mesomorphs,
including susceptibility to contragious diseases of childhood, destructiveness,
feelings of inadequacy, emotional instability, and emotional conflicts. In addition,
three socio-cultural factors — careless household routine, lack of family group
recreations associated with delinquency in mesomorphs.
The Glueck study has been criticized because there was no control for the rapid
body changes that occur in adolescence, because the method of somatotype
involved only visual assessment and not precise measurements, and because the
delinquent population included only institutionalised youth. In an attempt to
overcome these problems Cortes used a precise measurements technique to
somatotype 100 delinquents, of whom seventy were institutionalised and thirty
were on probation or under suspended sentence. He also somatotype 100 private
high school seniors who had no record of any delinquency, and twenty
institutionalised adult felons. He found that 57 per cent of the delinquents were
high in mesomorphy, as compared to only 19 per cent of the no delinquents. The
mean somatotype of the delinquents was 3.5-4.4-3.1, and the mean somatotype
of the criminals was 2.8-5.4-3.1.
To determine whether body type was associated with temperament, Cortes had
seventy-three boys who were clearly classified as to body type (i.e., whose
predominant rating was at least 4.5 and exceeded the other two ratings by at least
one-half unit) describe themselves in terms of a set of traits associated with the
three temperaments. The results of this experiment show that there was a strong
tendency for boys with mesomorphic physics to describe their temperaments in
terms that Sheldon had called “somotonic”. Similarly, boys with endomorphic
physiques used “viscerotonic” terms and those with ectomorphic physiques used
“cerebrotonic” terms to describe their temperaments. This is exactly the
relationship predicated by Sheldon. This procedure was repeated with 100 college
girls and with the twenty convicted adult felons, with similar results. Finally,
using Mcclelland’s Test for Need for Achievement, Cortes found that mesomorphy
was associated with need for achievement (in Ach) and with need for power (n
Power). Cortes concluded.

Delinquents and possibly criminals differ from non-delinquents and non-criminals

in being physically more mesomorphic, more energetic and potentially aggressive
temperamentally, and in showing higher need for achievement and power
motivationally.

Cortes’s conclusion may be criticized on several counts. The small number of

subjects in the experiments makes such a broad generalisation at least somewhat
questionable. The differences in mesomorphy between the groups in this study
may reflect differences in socioeconomic class rather than in criminality, since
the non-delinquent group was from a private high school, and thus probably
19
Theories and Perspectives upper class, whereas most criminal and delinquent groups are predominantly
in Criminal Justice
lower class. The experiments did not actually measure the temperament of the
different body types, but measured self-perception of temperament, and no
theoretical case is made that those who perceive themselves as energetic
(mesomorphs) are more potentially aggressive than those who perceive
themselves as tense and anxious (ectomorphs). The study does not directly relate
delinquency and criminality to temperament and motivation. Rather, delinquency
and criminality are shown to be related to mesomorphy, and mesomorphy is
shown to be related to certain temperaments and motivations. The experiments
linking mesomorphy to the “energetic” temperament included only seven
delinquents and twenty adult criminals, an extremely small sample. It was found
that mesomorphy was related to a higher need for achievement, but no significant
differences between the delinquent and non-delinquent groups were observed.
Delinquents were significant higher in need for power than non-delinquents, but
no significant differences were found between body types of the non-delinquents.
This appears to be rather a mixed bag of results to support such a strong
conclusion.

9.10 BIOLOGICAL FACTORS AND CRIMINAL

BEHAVIOUR
Early biological theories in criminology took the view that structure determines
function — that it, individuals behave differently because of the fundamental
fact they are somehow structurally different. These theories tended to focus
strongly on inherited characteristics. Modern biological theories in criminology,
in contrast, examine the entire range of biological characteristics, including those
that are environmentally induced. In addition, modern theories do not suggest
that biological characteristics directly “cause” crime. Instead, they argue that
certain biological conditions increase the likelihood that an individual will engage
in maladaptive behaviour patterns (e.g., violent or antisocial behaviour), and
that those behaviour patterns can include actions that are legally defined as
criminal. Finally, modern theories increasingly focus on the interaction between
biological characteristics and the social environment, rather than looking solely
at the effects of biology itself. These are called biosocial theories of crime, and
most biological criminologists recognise that this is where the field must go in
the future.

9.10.1 Chromosomes and Crime

Normal males have one X and one Y chromosome which is an XY while normal
females have two X chromosomes, or XX. The sex of an individual is determined
at conception. Persons with normal male characteristics always have the Y
chromosome; females never have the Y chromosome. There have been many
abnormal combinations and mosaics and these sometimes cause difficulty in
defining roles in society for example an XXY may think he is female and may
have been brought up that way and yet find difficulty in accepting the female
role. Conversely the XXY may have been brought up as a male but have
reservations about the role this is why sex change operations are becoming more
common in modern society. The recent theory is that the presence of XYY
chromosomes in the male produces an overly aggressive “super male” who finds
himself in conflict with the law more frequently than do his XY brothers. Some
20
have suggested that this finding will revive the effort to look for the bad for the Criminological Theories
bad seed. The first finding of the XYY chromosome in the adult male (an
American) was reported in the English medical journal Lancet published in August
26, 1961.

Self Assessment Question

4) Write a note on chromoses and crime.
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

9.10.2 Family Studies

Explanations of human behaviour in terms of heredity go far back in antiquity
and are based on the common sense observation that children tend to resemble
their parents in appearance, mannerisms, and disposition. Scientific theories of
heredity originated around 1850 and were more extensively worked out over the
next fifty or seventy-five years. In connection with the development of the theory
of heredity, new statistical methods were devised by Francis Galton and his
students (notably Karl Pearson) to measure degrees of resemblance or correlation.
Charles Goring used these new statistical techniques in the analysis of criminality,
arriving at the conclusion that crime is inherited in much the same way as are
ordinary physical traits and features.

Goring found that there were high correlations between the frequency and length
of imprisonment of one parent and that of the other, between the imprisonment
of parents and that of their children, and between the imprisonment of brothers.
Goring argued that these findings could not be explained by the effect of social
and environmental conditions, since he found little or no relationship between
the frequency and length of imprisonment and such factors as poverty, nationality,
education, birth order, and broken homes. He also argued that these findings
could not be explained by the effect of example among people who were closely
associated with each other. For example, the imprisonment of one spouse could
not be explained by the example of the other spouse, since most of them were
already engaged in crime at the time they got married. Goring therefore concluded
that criminality (i.e., frequent or lengthy imprisonment) was associated with
inherited, but not with environmental, characteristics and recommended that to
reduce crime, people with those inherited characteristics not be allowed to
reproduce.

There are serious problems with each of Goring’s arguments. The most important
problem concerns the fact that Goring attempted to establish the effect of heredity
by controlling for and eliminating the effect of environment. To accomplish that,
it is necessary to have accurate measurement of all the environment factors
involved, which he obviously did not have. Goring dealt with only a few
environmental factors, quite imperfectly, and these were roughly measured. The
failure to measure environmental influence adequately has the result of
21
Theories and Perspectives overemphasising the significance of the influence of heredity. Later studies of
in Criminal Justice
the families of criminals have been faced with a similar problem. Ellis reviewed
these studies and found remarkably little evidence for the widespread belief that
crime tends to “run in the family”. The evidence that does not exist suggests that
it is less rampant than is commonly believed.

In spite of these shortcomings, the significance of Goring’s work should not be

underestimated. Whereas others had argued that crime was caused either by
environment or by heredity, Goring was the first to postulate that it might be
result of the interaction between the two, a view that is held by many
criminologists today. Although his findings emphasized hereditary factors, Goring
did not reject the influence of the environment as a cause of crime. He maintained
only that empirical evidence was required to support this view, and that such
evidence was not found in his study. His major contribution, however, was his
use of statistical methods in a comparative study of criminals and non-criminals.
Karl Pearson correctly pointed out that anyone who wished to refute Goring’s
arguments would have to adopt Goring’s methods to do so. Pearson concluded,
“Strange as it may seem, the contradiction of his conclusions would be a small
matter compared with the fundamental fact that Goring’s methods have ploughed
deeply the ground, and traced firmly the lines on which the scientific criminologist
of the future will be compelled to work.”

9.10.3 Twin and Adoption Studies

Studies attempting to address the hereditary bases of criminality by examining
traditional families have largely been abandoned, since it is essentially impossible
to disentangle the effects of nature (such as genes) from those of nurture
(environment). The study of the relative criminality of twins a clear-cut distinction
between identical and fraternal twins. Identical twins (monozygotic) are the
product of a single fertilized egg and have identical heredity; fraternal twins
(dizygotic) are the product of two eggs simultaneously fertilized by two sperms,
and therefore have the same relation as ordinary siblings. Differences in the
behaviour of identical twins therefore may not be attributed to differences in
heredity, and presumably similarities of behaviour could be attributed to their
identical inheritance. Obviously this need not be true, since the similarities could
be due to similarities in training. But any general tendency to greater similarity
of behaviour when heredity is identical sets up a strong presumption that the
similarity is due to the influence of heredity.

A number of investigators have used this approach in trying to determine the

role of heredity in criminality. One of the earlier and more dramatic of these
studies was that of the German physiologist Johannes Lange, published in 1929.
He found that, in a group of thirteen pairs of adult male identical twins, when
one twin had a record of imprisonment, the other similarly had been imprisoned
in 77 per cent of the cases; whereas in a comparable group of seventeen pairs of
fraternal twins, when one twin had been imprisoned, the other had a prison record
in only 12 per cent of the cases. In a matched control group of 214 pairs of
ordinary brothers of nearest age, when one brother had a prison record, the other
brother of the matched pair had a prison record in only 8 per cent of the cases.
Lange’s conclusion is seen in the dramatic title he gave his book, which translates
as “crime as destiny”. In similar studies a variety of results have been reported
but all tend to show greater similarity, of criminal behaviour among identical
22 than among fraternal twins.
A much broader study was done by Hutchings and Mednick, who examined the Criminological Theories
records of all non-family male adoptions in Copenhagen in which the adoptee
had been born between 1927 and 1941. First, the authors grouped the boys
according to whether they had criminal records, and then looked at the criminal
records of the biological fathers. A total of 31.1 per cent of the boys who had no
criminal record had biological fathers with criminal records, but 37.7 per cent of
the boys who had committed only minor offenses and 48.8 per cent of the boys
who themselves had criminal records had biological fathers with criminal records.
These figures indicate adopted boys are more likely to commit crime when their
biological fathers have a criminal record.

Walters performed a meta-analysis of thirteen adoption studies published between

1972 and 1989, finding significant evidence for heritability of crime and antisocial
behaviour. However, two limitations of adoption studies might be mentioned:-
1) In several of the studies, adoptive parents engaged in criminal behaviour at
much lower rates than the normal population. This makes it difficult to
generalise about the effects of family environment, and to examine the
interaction between environment and genetics in its potential joint influence
on behaviour.
2) Several studies found hereditary effects for petty and property offenses, but
not for more serious and violent offenses. But this result may reflect the fact
that petty and property offenders are more likely to be frequent offenders.
Thus, hereditary effects would be much easier to find with those offenders
than with serious and violent offenders, who commit crimes very
infrequently.

9.10.4 Neurotransmitters
Neurotransmitters are chemicals that allow for the transmission of electrical
impulses within the brain and are the basis for the brain’s processing of
information. As such, they underline all types of behaviour, including antisocial
behaviour.

Scerbo and Raine performed a meta-analysis of studies on the relationship

between neurotransmitter levels and antisocial behaviour. They reported that
twenty-eight studies, on average, found that antisocial people have significantly
lower levels of serotonin than normal people. Studies of norepinephrine and
dopamine did not show any overall differences in these transmitter levels across
the groups of subjects, but when only studies using a direct measure of
neurotransmitter functioning were considered, an effect of norepinephrine on
antisocial behaviour was also found. The authors concluded that it is important
to control for alcohol abuse when examining the effects of neurotransmitters,
since alcoholism itself is associated with differences in neurotransmitter levels.
Investigators also have isolated DNA from blood samples to identify specific
genetic features that may be involved in the link between neurotransmitters levels
and antisocial behaviour. Genetic defects in two neurotransmitters, dopamine
and serotonin, have been identified in violent individuals and certain types of
excessive and compulsive behaviours that are associated with violence.

23
Theories and Perspectives 9.10.5 Hormones
in Criminal Justice
Much research has been generated relating to the effect of hormone levels on
human behaviour, including aggressive or criminal behaviour. Interest in
hormones dates back to the mid-1800s, when biochemists were first able to isolate
and identify some of the physiological and psychological effects of the secretions
of the endocrine glands (hormones). Most recent paid to hormone levels and
aggressive or criminal behaviour relates to either testosterone or female
premenstrual cycles. The role of testosterone in the aggressiveness of many animal
species has been well documented, but a question remains as to whether
testosterone plays a significant role in human aggressive and violent behaviour.
Raine reviews some of this literature, finding mixed results. Effects of testosterone
on aggression are slight when aggression is measured using personality
questionnaires, but much stronger when behavioural measures of aggression are
employed.

Although most research on hormones and crime focused on males, some work
has examined the role hormones play in female crime, especially in connection
with the menstrual cycle. Biological changes after ovulation have been linked to
irritability and aggression. Research is mixed on the strength of this linkage, but
Fishbein’s recent review of the literature suggests that at least a small per centage
of women are susceptible to cyclical hormone changes, resulting in a patterned
increase in hostility. This patterned increase is associated with fluctuations in
female hormones and a rise in testosterone, to which some women appear to be
quite sensitive.

9.10.6 The Autonomic Nervous System

The ANS is especially active in a “fight or flight” situation, when it prepares the
body for maximum efficiency by increasing the heart rate, rerouting the blood
from the stomach to the muscles, dilating the pupils, increasing the respiratory
rate, and simulating the sweat glands. Lie detectors measure these functions and
use them to determine whether the subject is telling the truth. The theory is that,
as children, most people have been conditioned to anticipate punishment when
they tell a lie. The anticipation of punishment produces the involuntary fight or
flight response, which results in a number of measurable changes in heart, pulse,
and breathing rate, and, because sweat itself conducts electricity, in the electric
conductivity of the skin.

9.11 PSYCHOANALYTICAL THEORIES OF CRIME

Sigmund Freud coined the term psychoanalysis in 1896 and based an entire
theory of human behaviour on it. He observed that most patients talk freely
without being under hypnosis, and he developed the technique of free association
of ideas. By encouraging patients to say anything they had in their minds without
regard to relevancy or propriety, he found that disturbing events discussed with
anguish earlier could be discussed later with relative ease, and the sources of
psychological pain eventually surfaced into the consciousness, thereby losing
their crippling effect.
Ernest Jones delineated seven major principles of Freud’s approach:-
1) Determinism-psychical processes are not chance occurrences;
24
2) Affective processes have certain autonomy and can be detached and Criminological Theories
displaced;
3) Mental processes are dynamic and tend constantly to discharge the energy
associated with them;
4) Repression;
5) Intrapsychic conflict;
6) Infantile mental processes- the wishes of later life are important only as
they ally themselves with those of childhood;
7) Psychosexual trends are present in childhood.

The central idea of psychoanalysis was free association: The patient relaxed
completely and talked about whatever came to mind. By exploring these
associations the individuals was able to reconstruct the earlier events and bring
them to consciousness. Once the patient was conscious of these events, Freud
argued that the events would lose their unconscious power and the patient would
gain conscious control freedom in his or her life.

Freud later revised his conceptions of the conscious and unconscious, in a sense
redefining the conscious as ego, and splitting the unconscious into the id and
superego. Id was a term used to describe the great reservoir of biological and
psychological drives, the urges and impulses that underline all behaviour. That
includes the libido, the full force of sexual energy in the individual, as diffuse
and tenacious as the “will to live” found in all animals. The id is permanently
unconscious, and responds only to what Freud called “the pleasure principle”—
if it feels good, do it. The superego, in contrast, is the force of self-criticism and
conscience and reflects requirements that stem from the individual’s social
experience in a particular cultural milieu. The superego may contain conscious
elements in the form of moral and ethical codes, but it is primarily unconscious
in its operation. The superego arises out of the first great love attachment the
child experiences, that with his or her parents. The child experiences them as
judgmental, and ultimately internalises their values as an ego-ideal — that is, as
an ideal conception of what he or she should be. Finally, what Freud called the
ego is the conscious personality. It is oriented toward the real world in which the
person live (termed by Freud the “reality principle”), and attempts to mediate
between the demands of the id and the prohibitions of the superego.

Given this basic organisation of the personality, Freud explored how the ego
handles the conflicts between the superego and the id. The basic problem is one
of guilt: The individual experiences all sorts of drives and urges coming from
the id, and feels guilty about them because of the prohibitions of the superego.
There are a variety of ways the individual may handle this situation. In sublimation
the drives of the id are diverted to activities approved of by the superego. For
example, aggressive and destructive urges may be diverted to athletic activity.
Sublimation is the normal and healthy way the ego handles the conflicts between
the drives of the id and the prohibitions of the superego. In repression, in contrast,
those drives are stuffed back into the unconscious and the individual denies that
they exist. This may result in a variety of strange effects on behaviour. One
possible result is a reaction formation, such as when a person with repressed
sexual desires becomes very prudish about all matters. Another result might be
25
Theories and Perspectives projection, in which, for example, a person with repressed homosexual urges
in Criminal Justice
frequently sees homosexual tendencies in others.

Freud believed that these basic conflicts were played out in different ways at
different points of the life cycle. Of particular interest to him were the experiences
of early childhood. He argued that each infant goes through a series of phases in
which the basic drives were oriented around, first, oral drives, then anal drives
and finally genital drives. During the genital stage (around the ages of 3 and 4)
the child is sexually attracted to the parent of the opposite sex and views the
same-sex parent as competition. This is the famous Oedipus complex in boys,
and the comparable Electra complex in girls. If the guilt produced by these urges
is not handled adequately by the ego, it leaves a lasting imprint on the personality
that affects later behaviour. The major tool Freud used to treat these problems
was transference, the tendency for past significant relationships to be replayed
during current significant relationships. As the relationship with the analyst takes
on increasing significance in the patient’s life, the patient will tend to replay
with the analyst the earlier relationships that are presently generating with
problems. For example, if a patient’s problems stem from an earlier traumatic
relationship with a parent, the patient will tend to create a similar traumatic
relationship with the analyst. Treatment then consists of straightening out the
current relationship between analyst and patient, which has the effect of also
straightening out the earlier relationship the patient had with the parent.

9.11.1 Psychoanalytic Explanations of Criminal Behaviour

Psychoanalytic theory provides the basic orientation for psychoanalytic
explanations of criminal behaviour. Within the psychoanalytic perspective
criminal and delinquent behaviours are attributed to disturbances or malfunctions
in the ego or superego. The id, in contrast, is viewed as a constant and in born
biologically based source of drives and urges; it does not vary substantially among
individuals. Freud himself did not discuss criminal behaviour to any great extent.
He did, however, suggest that at least some individuals performed criminal acts
because they possessed an overdeveloped superego, which led to constant feelings
of guilt and anxiety. There is a consequent desire for punishment to remove the
guilt feelings and restore a proper balance of good against evil. Unconsciously
motivated errors (i.e., careless or imprudent ways of committing the crime) leave
clues so that the authorities may more readily apprehend and convict the guilty
party, and thus administer suitably cleansing punishment. This idea was
extensively developed by later Freudians. Criminality of this type is said to be
appropriate for treatment through psychoanalysis, since it can uncover the
unconscious sources of guilt and free the person from the compulsive need for
punishment.

While excessive guilt from an overdeveloped superego is one source of criminal

behaviour within the psychoanalytic framework, August Aichhorn, a
psychoanalytically oriented psychologist, suggested alternate sources for crime
and delinquency based on his years of experience running an institution for
delinquents. He found that many children in his institution had underdeveloped
superego, so that the delinquency and criminality were primarily expressions of
an unregulated id. Aichhorn attributed this to the fact that the parents of these
children were either absent or unloving, so that the children failed to form the
loving attachments necessary for the proper development of their superegos.
26
Aichhorn treated these children by providing a happy and pleasurable Criminological Theories
environment, so as to promote the type of identification with adults that the
child failed to experience earlier. He commented that most training schools
“attempted through force, through fear of punishment, and without rewards of
love to make the delinquent socially acceptable. Since most of their charges
belong to the type just described, they only exaggerated what the parents had
already begun and consequently they were doomed to failure.” Freud approved
of these techniques in his foreword to Aichhorn’s book, and concluded that they,
rather than psychoanalysis per se, were appropriate in the case of young children
and of adult criminals dominated by their instincts.

Aichhorn also suggested that other types of delinquents existed, including those
who, from an overabundance of love, were permitted to do anything they wanted
by overprotective and overindulgent parents. He did not find that there were
many of these, but they required different treatment techniques than the
delinquents created by the absent or excessively severe parents described above.
Finally, there also were a few delinquents who had well-developed superegos
but who identified with criminal parents. Again, these required very different
treatment techniques.

Criticism
Cleckley made the following comment:
In addition to these criticisms of psychoanalytic theory in general, several
criticisms also have been made about psychoanalytic explanations of crime. The
central assertion of this explanation is that at least some crime is caused by
“unconscious conflicts arising from disturbed family relationships at different
stages of development, particularly the oedipal stage”. This argument may apply
to some crimes that would appear “irrational”, but many crimes seem quite
conscious and rational and therefore not caused by unconscious conflicts. In
addition, as a treatment technique, psychoanalysis requires a lengthy and usually
quite expensive process that simply is not available to ordinary criminals. To
date, psychoanalysis has not been particularly useful in either understanding crime
or responding to it.

9.12 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF CRIMINAL

BEHAVIOUR
9.12.1 Durkhiem, Anomie and Modernisation
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) has been called “one of the best known and one
of the least understood major social thinkers”. Presenting his thought is no easy
take, “the controversies which surround this thought bear upon essential points,
not details”. For this reason it is best to approach his work by first considering
the political and intellectual climate century it evolved. Durkheim’s publication
of two articles as a result of these studies led to the creation of a special position
for him at the University of Bordeaux, where in 1887 he taught the first French
university course in sociology. In 1892 Durkheim received the first doctor’s degree
in sociology awarded by the University; of Paris, and ten years later he returned
to a position at the university; where he dominated sociology until his death in
1917.
27
Theories and Perspectives Durkheim’s theories are complex, but his influence on criminology has been
in Criminal Justice
great. The concept of anomie emerged with Durkheim in 1897 as the loss of
individual identification with one’s cultural group. Merton (1938) had considered
anomie as an explanation of deviant behaviour early in 1938. In 1949, he suggested
that the condition of anomie would be a good explanation for deviant behaviour
in any society. In 1955, he elabourated on anomie as central in juvenile
delinquency (Witmer and Kotinsky, 1955). Because criminal behaviour grows
out of a contradiction between the culture and the social structure and, in addition,
between the cultural values and the means provided for achieving them, the
individual dissociated from his cultural group may well exhibit deviant behaviour.
Merton further elabourated and refined this concept in 1957.

Durkheim’s analysis of the process of social change involved in industrialisation

is presented in his first major work, De la division du travail social (The Division
of Labor in society), written as his doctoral thesis and published in 1893. In it he
describes these processes as part of the development from the more primitive
“mechanical” form of society into the more advanced “organic” form. In the
mechanical form each social group in society is relatively isolated from all other
social groups, and is basically self-sufficient. Within these social groups
individuals live largely under identical circumstances, do identical work, and
hold identical values. There is little division of labour, with only a few persons
in the clan or village having specialised functions. Thus there is little need for
individuals’ talents, and the solidarity of the society is based on the uniformity
of its members.

Contrasted with this is the organic society, in which the different segments of
society depend on each other in a highly organised division of labour. Social
solidarity is no longer based on the uniformity of the individuals, but on the
diversity of the functions of the parts of the society. Durkheim saw all societies
as being in some stage of progression between the mechanical and the organic
structures, with no society being totally one or the other. Even the most primitive
societies could be seen to have some forms of division of labour, and even the
most advanced societies would require some degree of uniformity of its members.
Law plays an essential role in maintaining the social solidarity of each of these
two types of societies, but in very different ways. In the mechanical society law
functions to enforce the uniformity of the members of the social group, and thus
is oriented toward repressing any deviation from the norms of the time. In the
organic society, on the other hand, law functions to regulate the interactions of
the various parts of society and provides restitution in cases of wrongful
transactions. Because law plays such different roles in the two types of societies,
crime appears in very different forms. Durkheim argued that to the extent a society
remains mechanical, crime is “normal” in the sense that a society without crime
would be pathologically over controlled. As the society develops toward the
organic form, it is possible for a pathological state, which he called anomie, to
occur, and such a state would produce a variety of social maladies, including
crime. Durkheim developed his concept of “crime as normal” in his second major
work, The Rules of the Sociological Method, published in 1895, only two years
after The Division of Labor; he went on to develop anomie in his most famous
work, Suicide, published in 1897. These concepts will be explored in the following
sections.

28
Crime as Normal in Mechanical Societies Criminological Theories

Mechanical societies are characterised by the uniformity of the lives, work, and
beliefs of their members. All the uniformity that exists in a society, that is, the
“totally of social likeliness”, Durkheim called the collective conscience. Since
all societies demand at least some degree of uniformity from their members (in
that none are totally organic), the collective conscience may be found in every
culture. In every society, however, there will always be a degree of diversity in
that there will be many individual differences among its members. As Durkheim
said, “There cannot be a society in which the individuals do no differ more or
less from the collective type.”

To the extent that a particular society is mechanical, its solidarity will come
from the pressure for uniformity exerted against this diversity. Such pressure is
exerted in varying degrees and in varying forms. In its strongest form it will
consist of criminal sanctions. In weaker forms, however, the pressure may consist
of designating certain behaviours or beliefs as morally reprehensible or merely
in bad taste.

Durkheim argued that “society cannot be formed without our being required
making perpetual and costly sacrifices”. These sacrifices, embodied in the
demands of the collective conscience, are the price of membership in society,
and fulfilling the demands gives the individual members a sense of collective
identity, which is an important source of social solidarity. But, more important,
these demands are constructed so that it is inevitable that a certain number of
people will not fulfill them. The number must be large enough to constitute an
identifiable group, but not so large as to include a substantial portion of the
society. This enables the large mass of the people, all whom fulfill the demands
of the collective conscience, to feel a sense of moral superiority, identifying
themselves as good and righteous, and opposing themselves to the morally inferior
transgressors who fail to fulfill these demands. It is this sense of superiority, of
goodness and righteousness, which Durkheim saw as the primary source of the
social solidarity. Thus criminals play an important role in the maintenance of
social solidarity, since they are among the group of those identified by society as
inferior, which allows the rest of society to feel superior.

The punishment of criminals also plays a role in the maintenance of the social
solidarity. When the dictates of the collective conscience are violated, society
responds with repressive sanctions not so much for retribution or deterrence, but
because without them those who are making the “perpetual and costly sacrifices”
would become severely demoralised. For example, when a person who has
committed a serious crime is released with only a slap on the wrist, the average,
law-abiding citizen may become terribly upset. He feels that he is playing the
game by the rules, and so everyone else should too. The punishment of the criminal
is necessary to maintain the allegiance of the average citizen to the social structure.
Without it the average citizen may lose his over-all commitment to the society
and his willingness to make the sacrifices necessary for it. But beyond this, the
punishment of criminals also acts as a visible, societal expression of the inferiority
and blameworthiness of the criminal group. This reinforces the sense of superiority
and righteousness found in the mass of the people, and thus strengthens the
solidarity of the society.

29
Theories and Perspectives Crime itself is normal in society because there is no clearly marked dividing line
in Criminal Justice
between behaviours considered criminal and those considered morally
reprehensible or merely in bad taste. If there is a decrease in behaviours designated
as criminal, then there may be a tendency to move behaviours previously
designated as morally reprehensible into the criminal category. For example, not
every type of unfair transfer of property is considered stealing. But if there is a
decrease in the traditional forms of burglary and robbery, there then may be an
associated increase in the tendency to define various forms of white-collar
deception as crime. These behaviours may always have been considered morally
reprehensible, and in that sense they violated the collective conscience. They
were not, however, considered crime. Society moves them into the crime category
because criminal sanctions are the strongest tool available to maintain social
solidarity. Since the institution of punishment serves an essential function, it
will be necessary in any society.
Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes,
property so called, will there be unknown; but faults which appear venial to the
layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary
consciousnesses. If, then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will
define these acts as criminal and will treat them as such. For the same reason, the
perfect and upright man judges his smallest failings with a severity that the
majority reserves for acts more truly in the nature of an offense. Thus a society
without crime is impossible. If all the behaviours that are presently defined as
criminal no longer occurred, new behaviours would be placed in the crime
category. Crime, then, is inevitable because there is an inevitable diversity of
behaviour in society. The solidarity of the society is generated by exerting pressure
for conformity against this diversity, and some of these pressures will inevitable
take the form of criminal sanctions.
The abnormal or pathological state of society would be one in which there was
no crime. A society that had no crime would be one in which the constraints of
the collective conscience were so rigid that no one could oppose them. In this
type of situation crime would be eliminated, but so would the possibility of
progressive social change. Social change is usually introduced by opposing the
constraints of the collective conscience, and those who do this are frequently
declared to be criminals. Thus Socrates and Jesus were declared criminals, as
were Mahatma Gandhi and George Washington. The leaders of the union
movement in the 1920s and 1930s were criminalised, as were the leaders of the
civil rights movement of the 1960s. If the demands of the collective conscience
had been so rigidly enforced that no crime could exist, then these movements
would have been impossible also.
Thus crime is the price society pays for the possibility of progress. In a similar
way individual growth cannot occur in a child unless it is possible for that child
to misbehave. The child is punished for misbehaviour, and no one wants the
child to misbehave. But a child who never did anything wrong would be
pathologically over-controlled. Eliminating the misbehaviour would also
eliminate the possibility of independent growth. In this sense the child’s
misbehaviour is the price that must be paid for the possibility of personal
development. In this way Durkheim concluded his theory.
From this point of view, the fundamental facts of criminality present themselves
to us in an entirely new light. Contrary to current ideas, the criminal no longer
30
seems a totally unsociable being, a sort of parasitic element, a strange and Criminological Theories
unassimilable body, introduced into the midst of society. On the contrary, he
plays a definite role in social life. Crime, for its part, must no longer be conceived
as an evil that cannot be too much suppressed. There is no occasion for self-
congratulation when the crime rate drops noticeably below the average level, for
we may be certain that this apparent progress is associated with some social
disorder.

Anomie as a Pathological State in Organic Societies

To the extent that a society is mechanical, it derives its solidarity from pressure
for conformity against the diversity of its members. The criminalising of some
behaviours is a normal and necessary part of this pressure. But to the extent that
a society is organic, the function of law is to regulate the interactions of the
various parts of the whole. If this regulation is inadequate, there can result a
variety of social maladies, including crime. Durkheim called the state of
inadequate regulation anomie.

Durkheim first introduced this concept in The Division of Labor in Society,

where he argued that the industrialisation of French society, with its resulting
division of labour, had destroyed the traditional solidarity based on uniformity.
But this industrialisation had been so rapid that the society had not yet been able
to evolve sufficient mechanisms to regulate its transactions. Periodic cycles of
overproduction followed by economic slowdown indicated that the relations
between producers and consumers were ineffectively regulated. Strikes and labour
violence indicated that the relations between workers and employers were
unresolved. The alienation of the individual worker and the sense that his division
of labour was turning people into mere “cogs in the wheel” indicated that the
relation of the individual to work was inadequately defined.

Durkheim expanded and generalised his notion of anomie four years later with
the publication of his most famous work, Le Suicide. In it he statistically analysed
data that showed that the suicide rate tends to increase sharply both in periods of
economic growth. Whereas suicide in a time of economic decline might be easily
understood, the key question is why suicide would increase in a time of prosperity.
Durkheim proposed that society functions to regulate not only the economic
interactions of its various components, but also how the individual perceives his
own needs. Durkheim’s theory of anomie has been used as the basis for later
explanations of crime and a variety of other deviant behaviours. Because of its
importance in criminology and sociology, the theory is presented here at some
length, and in Durkheim’s own words.
1) No living being can be happy or even exist unless his needs are sufficiently
proportioned to his means. In other, if his needs require more than. Which
can be granted or even merely something of a different sort, they will be
under continual friction and can only function painfully.
2) In the animal, at least in a normal condition, this equilibrium is established
with automatic spontaneity because the animal depends on purely material
conditions.
3) This is not the case with man, because most of his needs are not dependent
on his body….A more awakened reflection suggests better conditions,
seemingly desirable ends craving fulfillment....Nothing appears in man’s
31
Theories and Perspectives organic nor in his psychological constitution which sets a limit to such
in Criminal Justice
tendencies….they are unlimited so far as they depend on the individual
alone…Thus, the more one has, the more one wants, since satisfactions
received only stimulate instead of filling needs.
4) A regulative force must play the same role for moral needs which the
organism plays for physical needs…. [Society alone can play this moderating
role; for it is the only moral power superior to the individual, the authority
of which he accepts…It alone can estimate the reward to be prospectively
offered to every class of human functionary, in the name of the common
interest.
5) As a matter of fact, at every moment of history there is a dim perception, in
the moral consciousness of societies, of the respective value of different
social services, the relative reward due each, and the consequent degree of
comfort appropriate on the average to workers in each occupation….under
this pressure, each in his sphere vaguely realises the extreme limit set to his
ambitions and aspires to nothing beyond….Thus, an end goal are set to the
passions.
6) But when society is disturbed by some painful crisis or by beneficent but
abrupt transitions, it is momentarily incapable of exercising this influence:
thence come the sudden rises in the curve of suicides which we have pointed
out above.
7) In the case of economic disasters, indeed, something like a declassification
occurs which suddenly casts certain individuals into a lower state than their
previous one. Then they must reduce their requirements, restrain their needs,
learn greater self-control….So they are not adjusted to the condition forced
on them, and its very prospect is intolerable.
8) It is the same if the source of the crisis is an abrupt growth of power and
wealth. Then, truly, as the conditions of life are changed, the standard
according to which needs were regulated can no longer remain the same;
for it varies with social resources…The scale is upset; but a new scale cannot
be immediately improvised. Time is required for the public conscience to
reclassify men and things. So long as the social forces thus freed have not
regained equilibrium, their respective values are unknown and so all
regulation is lacking for a time. The limits are unknown between the possible
and the impossible, what is just and what are unjust, legitimate claims and
hopes and those which are immoderate. Consequently, there is no restraint
upon aspirations….Appetites, not being controlled by a public opinion,
become disoriented, no longer reorganise the limits proper to them. Besides,
they are at same time seized by a sort natural erythrism simply by the greater
intensity of public life. With increased prosperity desires increase. At the
very moment when traditional rules have lost their authority, the richer prize
offered these appetites stimulates them and makes them more exigent and
impatient of control. The state of de-regulation of anomy is thus further
heightened by passions being less disciplined, precisely when they need
more disciplining.

Durkheim went on to argue that French society, over the previous100 years, had
deliberately destroyed the traditional sources of regulation for human appetites.
32
9.12.2 Merton’s Strain Theory Criminological Theories

Durkheim had analysed anomie as a breakdown in the ability of society to regulate

the natural appetites of individuals. Merton, in an article first published in 1938,
argued out that many of the appetites of individuals are not “natural”, but rather
originate in the “culture” of American society. At the same time, the “social
structure” of American society limits the ability of certain groups to satisfy those
appetites. The result is “a definite pressure on certain persons in the society to
engage in nonconformist rather than conformist conduct”.

Merton argued that because all persons cannot be expected to achieve the goals
of the culture, it is very important that the culture place a strong emphasis on the
institutionalised means and the necessity of following them for their own value,
these means must provide some intrinsic satisfactions for all persons who
participate in the culture. This is similar to the situation in athletics, in which the
sport itself must provide enjoyment, even if the person does not win. The phrase
“It’s not whether you win, its how you play the game” expresses the notion that
the primary satisfaction comes from following the institutionalised means (rules)
rather than achieving the goal (winning).
For certain groups, then, a severe strain on the culture values arises because:-
1) The culture places a disproportionate emphasis on the achievement of the
goal of accumulated wealth and maintains that this goal is applicable to all
persons, and
2) The social structure effectively limits the possibilities of individuals within
these groups to achieve this goal through the use of institutionalised means.
This contradiction between the culture and the social structure of society is
what Merton defines as anomie.

There are various ways in which an individual can respond to this problem of
anomie, depending on his attitude toward the culture goals and the institutionalised
means.

Merton’s Five “Modes of Adaptation”

1) Conformity
Merton recognises conformity as the most common type of the five modes. During
this mode, people strive to obtain success by the most pure conventional means
available.

2) Innovation
During innovation, Merton identifies a miniscule, but substantial change in the
perspective of the people whose mode is still in conformity and that of whom
has shifted to innovation. The people continue to seek success; however by
innovation they strive to obtain the success by taking advantage of illegal goals
available to them in place of less promising conventional means in order to
attain success.

3) Rebellion
Merton suggests that by the time people reach the mode of rebellion, they have
completely rejected the story that everybody in society can achieve success and
33
Theories and Perspectives have loomed into a rebellious state. They neither trust the valued cultural ends
in Criminal Justice
nor the legitimate societal means used to reach success. Instead, these people
replace such ideas with irrational objectives to include the violent overthrow of
the system altogether.

4) Retreatism
Identified by Merton as the escapist response of the five modes, retreatism occurs
when people become practically dropouts of society. They give up all goals and
efforts to achieve success because they view it as an impractical, impossible,
almost imaginary, and irrational possibility. Merton attributes this mode as the
one to which drug addicts, alcoholics, vagrants, and the severely mental ill
function because their reactions to not being able to obtain success by legitimate
means represses them from society.

5) Ritualism
During ritualism, the final mode, people realise that they have no real opportunity
to advance in society and accept the little relevance that they have. It is in this
mode that people concentrate on retaining what little they possibly gained or
still have in place of concentrating on a higher yield of success. They return to
adhering to conventional norms in hopes of maintaining the few possessions or
possible gains that they have attained. For many members of the urban lower
socioeconomic populous and disadvantaged minorities this period of short-lived
and slightly increased gains takes nearly a lifetime to obtain and to recognise its
worth in a modern industrial society.

9.12.3 Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory

The Theory of Differential Association proposed by Edwin H. Sutherland in
1939 in his third edition of principles of criminology was the first major
sociological theory of criminal behaviour to have attracted sufficient following
and generated sufficient discussion to constitute a viable approach to explaining
crime on the part of individuals. It has been considered to be the first purely
sociological theory that centered attention on the frequency, intensity, and
meaningfulness of social relations rather than on the qualities or traits of the
individuals or the characteristics of the external environment. Differential
Associations fits into the ecological approach of the Chicago School in that high
delinquency areas tend to have more delinquents because they associate with
more delinquents. The neighbourhood and gang phenomenon provides association
with others of similar interests and needs. The morphological development of
individual careers still goes from the small to larger and more complex activities,
whether criminal or otherwise.

Differential association refers to the patterns of behaviour to which an individual

is exposed. As such, it is not simply a “bad company” theory, although it has
been so interpreted on occasion. Its commonsense appeal has undoubtedly helped
to make it popular. Essentially, it says that crime is learned behaviour that is
imparted by other persons with whom one associates.

The Theory of Differential Association or Learning Theory

The theory of differential association was introduced by Sutherland in the
following form:
34
1) The processes which result in systematic criminal behaviour are Criminological Theories
fundamentally the same in form as the processes which result in systematic
lawful behaviour.
2) Systematic criminal behaviour is determined in a process of association
with those who commit crimes, just as systematic lawful behaviour is
determined as a process of association with those who are law-abiding.
3) Differential association is the specific causal process in the development of
systematic criminal behaviour.
4) The chance that a person will participate in systematic criminal behaviour
is determined roughly by the frequency and consistency of his contacts with
the patterns of criminal behaviour.
5) Individual differences among people in respect to personal characteristics
or social situations cause crime only as they affect differential associations
or frequency and consistency of contacts with criminal patterns.
6) Cultural conflict is the underlying cause of differential association and
therefore of systematic criminal behaviour.
7) Social disorganisation is the basic cause of systematic criminal behaviour.

The first theory of differential association proposed in 1939 indicated that crime
was basically due to social disorganisation, which resulted from the social
processes of mobility, competition, and conflict. In the 1947 revision of his
Principles of Criminology, Sutherland modified his theory by adding other
materials. His final theory of differential association had taken shape. It included
the following points:
1) Criminal behaviour is learned.
2) Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in the process
of communications.
3) The principal part of learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate
personal groups.
4) When criminal behaviour is learned, the learning includes:
• Techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very
complicated, sometimes very simple;
• The specific direction of motives, drives, rationalisations, and attitudes.
5) The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definition of
the legal codes as favourable or unfavourable.
6) A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable
to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law.
7) Differential association may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8) The process of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal
and anti criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved
in any other learning.

35
Theories and Perspectives While criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not
in Criminal Justice
explained by those general needs and values since non criminal behaviour is an
expression of the same needs and values.

9.13 CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY

The term “critical criminology” has been described as “an umbrella designation
for a series of evolving, emerging perspectives” that are “characterised particularly
by an argument that it is impossible to separate values from the research agenda,
and by a need to advance a progressive agenda favoring disprivileged peoples”.

9.13.1 Marxim and Marxist Criminology

Karl Marx (1818-1883) wrote in the immediate aftermath of the massive social
changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. In one lifespan
(approximately 1760-1840), the world as it had been for a thousand years suddenly
changed. Marx attempted to explain why those profound changes had occurred
when they did, and to give some sense of what was coming next. His theory
linked economic development to social, political, and historical change, but did
not deal with the problem of crime in any significant way.

The principal conflict that Marx presented in his theory, and on which the theory
is based, was the conflict between the material forces of production and the
social relations of production. The term material forces of production generally
refer to a society’s capacity to produce material goods. This includes technological
equipment and the knowledge, skill, and organisation to use that equipment.
The term social relations of production refer to relationships between people.
These include property relationships, which determine how the goods produced
by the material forces of production are distributed – that is, who gets what.

Production of the means of social existence involves, for Marx, three basic things:
A) The Forces of Production:
These “forces” involve such things as:
1) Land,
2) Raw materials,
3) Tools / Machines,
4) Knowledge (scientific / technical and the like),
5) People (or, more correctly, their labour).
In the above, all we are noting is that such things are necessary – at various
times in the social development of any society – if commodities are to be
produced.

B) The Relations of Production:

People cannot produce anything without entering into various social
relationships and this idea simply encompasses the different kinds of social
relationships into which people have to enter at various times in order to
produce commodities.
This involves both individual / personal relationships (for example, in the
36 Middle Ages the main productive relationship was between a Noble / Lord
 who “owned” land and the peasant / serf who worked on the land. In our Criminological Theories
(Capitalist) society, the main productive relationship is between an employer
and an employee) and, most importantly, group relationships.
In Capitalist societies such as our own, it’s possible to identify different
broad social groupings – groups of people who share a basically similar
position in the production process. Marx called these groups “social classes”
and we will look at their theoretical significance in more detail in a moment.

C) The Means of Production:

The third, very significant element, relates to those parts of the Forces of
production that can be legally owned — for example, in Capitalist societies,
land raw materials and, in some cases, Knowledge, but not such things as “people”.

According to Marx, different historical periods have different dominant means

of production:
1) In Feudal society, land was the most important means of production.
2) In Capitalist society, land is still significant, but the most important means
of production are things like factories, machines and so forth.
Marx argued that your relationship to the means of production objectively
determined your social class and, if we accept this idea for a moment, it follows
that he initially identified two great classes in Capitalist society:
a) The Bourgeoisie (Upper or Ruling class).
Those people (a minority) who owned the means of production.
b) The Proletariat (Lower or Working class).
Those people (the majority) who did not own the means of production.
For Marx, the concept of social class was of fundamental significance, precisely
because it could be used to explain the basis of social change (in a way that
contemporary theorists could not). Marx argued that all societies involved conflict
– sometimes open but more usually submerged beneath the surface of everyday
life – that was based upon fundamental inequalities and conflicts of interest.
Marx did not discuss the problem of crime or its relation to the economic system
at length, although he did address the subject in several passages. First argues
that Marx’s idea of crime centered on the concept of demoralisation, Marx
believed that it was essential to human nature that people be productive in life
and in work. But in industrialised capitalist societies there are large numbers of
unemployed and underemployed people. Because these people are unproductive,
they become demoralised and are subject to all forms of crime and vice. Marx
called these people the lumpenproletariat.

9.14 CONTROL THEORIES

9.14.1 Drift and Neutralisation
The concept of drift occurs when a lower class young person finds it unnecessary
to make a definite commitment either to delinquency or to legal conformity. He
or she may “drift” in an unidentified area between these two opposing commitment
37
Theories and Perspectives and making use of extenuating circumstances to justify delinquency. Many
in Criminal Justice
persons, especially in the lower socioeconomic class, take advantage of the fact
that criminal laws may not be rigidly enforced and that considerable discretion
is left to police and courts in their application. Consequently, the delinquent
extends the legal boundaries to the extenuating circumstances that fit his or her
own situation and justify the delinquency behaviour. The group or gang can then
expand its concept of self defense to cover aggressive attacks on another gang
under the implicit justification that the other gang is threatening the attacking
gang. Because of the uncertainty in the application of the law, an individual or
gang may drift delinquency without any definite decision or commitment having
been made. Most delinquents eventually drift out of this delinquency as they
mature; only a limited number of juvenile delinquents become committed to an
adult life of crime.

Matza repudiated positivistic theory and expanded the concept of neutralisation

in making it a key element in drift. Neutralisation allows drift because it is process
by which the delinquent is freed from the moral bind of law. Hindelang (1970)
pointed out that because delinquents are more committed to their misdeeds than
are non delinquents, the concepts of drift and neutralisation are not necessary for
delinquency.

The concept of neutralisation was originally developed by Sykes and Matza.

According to this theory, a person is able to rationalise himself out of the moral
bind of his childhood development and justify his delinquent behaviour. Sykes
and Matza (1957) identified five types of neutralisation:
1) Denial of Responsibility – The person learns to view himself as more acted
upon than actor – he is the victim of circumstances.
2) Denial of Injury – The person feels that nobody is really hurt by his actions–
auto theft is “borrowing” and gang fighting may be seen as a private duel.
3) Denial of the Victim – The injury is not seen as wrong in view of the
circumstances (assaults of homosexuals and other who have been seen as
“out of place”. “ He asked for it”).
4) The Condemnations of the Condemns – The person sees condemns as
hypocrites, deviants in disguise, impelled by personal spite; by attacking
others, the wrongsness of his own behaviour is confused.
5) The Appeal to Higher Loyalties – Sacrificing demands of larger society
may be neutralised by the demands of smaller groups for loyalty, fidelity,
and protection.

Sykes and Matza indicated that delinquents’ value system is not consistently
opposition to the dominant social order; however, they are able to situational
qualify behavioural norms in which they believe, which allows them to engage
in disapproved behaviour. Much delinquency is essentially an unrecognised
extension of defenses to crimes, in the form of justifications for deviance that
are seen as valid by the delinquent.

Reckless and Shoham (1963) identified norm erosion as supplementary to

neutralisation. In this process, norm erosion is a “give” in moral and ethical
resistance. Drug use and alcohol, cheating on examinations, taking things from
38
store counters, extramarital sex behaviour, and similar deviations can be attributed Criminological Theories
to norm erosion. Norm erosion and neutralisation represent a diminution of inner
containment, thereby facilitating involvement in deviation and criminal behaviour.

The forms of justification for deviance are seen as valid by the delinquent but
not by the legal system or society as a whole. The criminal law itself already
includes a major component of what has been called “flexibility”, in that many
rules are not held to be binding under all conditions.

Self Assessment Question

5) Write a note on Drift and Neutralisation.
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

9.14.2 Hirschi’s Social Control

Hirschi’s social control theory calls for policy implications that would strengthen
a person’s bond to society and thus give them strong reasons not to break the
law. They would decide not to break the law because they either have to much to
lose, little time to break the law because of legitimate involvement in non-criminal
activity, because they feel bonded with other members of society and are too
attached to victimise those people. or perhaps because they believe in and respect
the laws which prohibit them from breaking the laws. All of these ideas are the
elements of social bonding which Hirschi believes to prevent people from
engaging in criminal behaviour.

One of Hirschi’s bonding elements is attachment or the idea of how strong one is
tied to the needs and interests of others. Most criminologists make the association
that attachment relies on the role of the family including the family factors that
may or may not leave a person with the sense of attachment. Programmes that
would encourage a person’s sense of attachment would have to help families
become closer and form environments healthy to a growing child. Perhaps family
counselling services would assist in addressing the problems that sometimes
exist within certain family environments. For example, some programmes might
address problems such as child abuse or drug use that occurs within a
dysfunctional family. Perhaps free parenting classes as well as drug rehabilitation
programmes are the answer to this problem. Society should also find ways to
encourage parents to stay together thereby eliminating the problems that may
arise in single family homes where a mother or father figure are not present.
Programmes that would encourage a more normal functioning family might help
with delinquency among our youth.

The next variable Hirschi identifies as important to the formation of bonding

between a person and society is commitment. The large majority of criminologist
tends to associate commitment with peer relationships. It is thought that children
that have trouble developing a significant amount of normal peer relationships
39
Theories and Perspectives tend to have trouble identifying with others and will often develop significant
in Criminal Justice
disciplinary problems. Programmes to help these youths would have to find away
to help the child learn how to develop normal relationships with their peers.
Perhaps at a young age children should be involved in things like summer camps
that would allow them to have enjoyable experiences in a large peer group setting.

Another important factor outlined in Hirschi’s theory is involvement. Involvement

pertains to the amount of time spent with regards to school and recreational
activities. According to Hirsute, someone who is deeply involved with school or
recreational activities develop a mind set were their goals become so important
to them they are afraid to become involved in criminal activity out of fear that
their goals would be hindered. Parents and teachers should make strong attempts
to stress the importance a strong education on a young child. Helping a struggling
student develops academic strengths and to work on their academic weaknesses
could help children feel like they have the ability to meet the high standards that
have been set for them. After school tutoring as well as fun activities that might
make school more fun for children might be the answer. Parents and schools
should also set up reward systems for students who meet certain academic goals
they are more than capable of realising. Perhaps if children are given incentives,
they will be more likely to become academically involved in school.
Recreationally parents and teachers should encourage kids to become involved
in after school sports activities. Even if a child is not particularly athletically
gifted coaches should be able to find a place on the team for any child. Sports
can help a child develop admirable qualities like teamwork and sportsmanship
and may also give them an outlet to display their frustrations.

The final element important to the development of a strong social bond is Belief.
A strong belief in society can be developed by making a child understand the
importance of morals and values to the structure of a good society. This can be
achieved from good parenting as well as good teaching. Children need to
understand that there are certain rules and values they need to live by in order to
become a healthy adult. Parents must teach children what these rules are and
deliver the consequences if the rules are broken. Children must be disciplined to
the point were they come to the realisation that the long term consequences
outweigh the short term benefits of breaking the rules. this means stricter parenting
and strong consequences from educators to students who decide not to follow
the rules.

Hirschi’s social control theory has been a widely studied and widely accepted
theory in the field of criminology. In fact, it is the official theory accepted by the
Department of Justice. While Hirschi does have many critics is must be said that
his theory may be one of the most important theories in the field of criminology.

9.14.3 Containment Theory

Containment theory, as proposed by W.C. Reckless (1961), is based on an inner
control system and an outer control system. Pushes and pulls toward delinquent
or conforming behaviour, both internal and external, are basic to containment
theory. If inner pushes and outer pulls are toward delinquent behaviour, then
delinquent behaviour will result. Inner containment involves good self-control,
ego strength, well developed superego, high frustration tolerance, high resistance
to diversions, high sense of responsibility, goal orientation, ability to find
40
substitute satisfactions, and tensions-reducing rationalisations. Outer containment Criminological Theories
is the structural buffer in a person’s immediate social world that holds him or her
within the social norms. The presentation of a consistent moral front, existence
of a reasonable set of social expectations, effective supervision and discipline of
children, provision for a reasonable scope of activity, opportunity for acceptance,
outlets for the expression of tension and frustration, identity and belongings are
all factors in containment. Inner and outer containment apparently occupy a central
position between the pressures of the external environment of a person and his
or her inner drives.

Environmental pressures may be conditions associated with poverty or

deprivation, conflict, external restraint, minority-group status, limited access to
success in an opportunity structure, and other stresses. Distractions, attractions,
temptations, patterns of deviancy, and advertising are some of the pulls of the
environment.

External containment can consist of an effective family life, interest in the

activities of the community, membership in organisations, and good companions.
Internal containment involves the control of drives, motives, frustrations,
restlessness, disappointments, rebellion, hostility, feelings of inferiority, and
freedom of expression; it involves the ability to withstand the pushes and pulls,
to effectively resolve conflicts to divert individuals from exciting risks and enable
them to stay out of trouble. Internal containment is more important in a mobile,
fluid society because alienation makes it hard for persons to participate in the
group life that has the potential to hold them in line.

A similar theory was proposed by Belly (1945) that categorised as :

a) Personal factors that enfeeble self-control:
1) Inherited or acquired physical and physiological handicaps; e.g., in physique,
stature, deformities, and defects.
2) Physical injury or disease; e.g., accidents, occupational or other, tuberculosis,
syphilis.
3) Inherited or acquired mental handicaps; e.g., feeblemindedness, psychopathic
personality.
4) Mental and psychosomatic disorders; e.g., psychosis, psychoneurosis, mental
conflicts, emotional disturbances.
5) Personal disorganisation from excesses; e.g., sex, alcohol, narcotics,
gambling.
6) Character structure: e.g., ignorance, naivete, inadequate life organisations.
b) Social factory that enfeeble social control:
1) “Sick” societies; e.g., Great Britain and its mining community.
2) Inherent defects in economic order; e.g., poverty, unemployment, depression,
aggression, exploitation.
3) Urbanisation; e.g., mobility, anonymous life in cities.
4) Changing mores in group conflict; e.g., with regard to sex, use of alcohol,
tobacco.
41
Theories and Perspectives 5) Family disorganisation; e.g., death of a parent, divorce, nonsupport, faulty
in Criminal Justice
discipline, incompatibility, internal conflict.
6) Community and neighbourhood disorganisation; lawless gangs.
7) Overlapping and conflicting governments; e.g., municipal, town, country,
state, federal.
8) Inherent limitations of the criminal law, substantive and adjunctive; e.g.,
obsolete, unenforceable, and conflicting laws.
9) Maladministration of the criminal justice; e.g., the breakdown of law
enforcement, prosecution, and the courts; incompetent administration;
corruption in patrol administration; organised crime and racketeering.
10) Inadequate education activities; e.g. amount, quality and rigidity of secular,
religious, and vocational instruction.
11) Inadequate avocation facilities; e.g., unwholesome leisure interests,
commercialised amusements.
12) Opinion making and control; e.g., press, film, radio, television.
13) Interpersonal and inter group conflict; e.g., ethnic, religious, economic.
Reckless (1973) elabourates on his theory in a chapter called “The Pressures
and pulls behind Involvement in Crime,” presenting seven tests of validity
as follows:
1) Containment theory is proposed as the theory of best fit for the large middle
range of cases of delinquency and crime. It fits the middle-range cases better
than any other theory.
2) It explains crimes against the person as well as crimes against property, that
is, the mine run of murder, assault, and rape as theft, robbery and burglary.
3) It represents a formulation which psychiatrists, psychologists, and
sociologists, as well as practitioners, can use equally well, these entire experts
look for dimensions of inner and outer strength and can specify these
strengths in their terms. Differential association and/or pressure of the
environment leave most psychiatrists and psychologists cold and an emphasis
on push theory leaves the sociologists for the most part cold. But all of the
experts can rally around inner and outer weaknesses and strengths.
4) Inner and outer containment can be discovered in individual case studies.
Weaknesses and strengths are observable. Containment theory is one of the
few theories in which the microcosm (the individual case history) mirrors
the ingredients of the macrocosm (the general formulations).
5) Containment theory is a valid operational theory for treatment of offenders:
for restructuring the milieu of a person or beefing up his self. The most
knowledgeable probation workers, parole workers, and institutional staff
are already focusing to some extent on helping the juvenile or adult offender
build up ego strength, develop new goals, internalise new models of
behaviour. They are also working on social ties, anchors, supportive,
relationships, limits, and alternative opportunities in helping to re-fashion a
new containing world for the person.
42
6) Containment theory is also an effective operational theory for prevention. Criminological Theories
Children with poor containment can be spotted early. Programmes to help
insulate vulnerable children against delinquency must operate on
internalisation of stronger self components and the strengthening of
containing structure around the child.
7) Internal and external containment can be assessed and approximated. Its
strengths and weaknesses can be speechified for research. There is good
promise that such assessments can be measured in a standard way.

Containment theory is a balance between inner pushes and outer constraints and
can account for all behaviour, including criminal behaviour. The breadth of
containment theory tends to negate the importance of narrow approaches used in
crime control and in treatment programmes because the pushes and pulls include
poverty, unemployment, guilt feelings, criminal subcultures, mass media, and
many other factors not controlled by known treatment methods. Like many other
theories, there are so many uncontrollable variables that it cannot realistically be
tested. Consequently, they can be examined in a prediction model much more
easily than in a treatment model.

9.14.4 Labeling Theory

Labeling theory is apparently based on the concepts developed by Frank
Tennenbaum in 1938, Lemert in 1951, Becker in 1963, Turk in 1969, and
Quninney in 1970. According to this concept, nothing is criminal, but certain
things have been so defined and labeled by society. Persons become criminal
primarily on the basis of visibility of offending behaviour and the labeling process
by the system of criminal justice. Scharg (1971) identified steps in the labeling
process: -
1) No act is intrinsically criminal but is made so by the law.
2) Criminal definitions are enforced in the interest of powerful groups by their
representatives, including the police.
3) A person does not become a criminal by violating the law, but by the labeling
process by which authorities confer this status upon him.
4) Dichotomizing people into criminal and non criminal categories is contrary
to common sense and empirical evidence.
5) Only a few persons are caught in violation of the law, while many may be
equally guilty.
6) While the sanctions used in law enforcement are directed against the total
person and not only the criminal act, the severity and consequences of the
penalty vary according to the characteristics of the offender.
7) Criminal sanctions also vary according to other characteristics of the offender,
such as minority groups, transients, the poorly educated, residents of
deteriorated urban areas, and other factors.
8) Criminal justice is based on a stereotyped concept of the criminal as a willful
wrongdoer who is morally bad and deserves condemnations.
9) Once labeled as a criminal, it is difficulty for an offender to “live down” the
label and restore himself to respected status in the community.
43
Theories and Perspectives As Tannenbaum pointed out in 1938, the dramatisation of evil or the heralding
in Criminal Justice
of famous and well-known criminals proclaims criminal careers at least as one
way of gaining public attention and, further, develops a reputation that keeps the
individual in the criminal role. Al Capone, for example, would hardly have been
accepted to study for the priesthood.

The point of the labeling theory is that is the social definition of crime and deviance
that makes certain things criminal and deviant. Becker (1963) has indicated that
deviance is not a quality of the act but a consequence of the application by others
or rules and sanctions so that the person may be labeled as deviant. Sociologists
are less interested in law than are lawyers, so sociologists focus greater attention
on the informal mechanisms of social control beyond the narrow.

According to Crease and Ward (1969) the labeling process can be identified on
the basis of the following:-
1) In the eyes of the child, behaviour that is proper as play may include breaking
windows, climbing over roofs or, generally “raising hell”.
2) Demands for suppression of the “bad” behaviour are made on the child by
community members, sometimes including parents.
3) In the face of this reaction by adults, the child may feel that an injustice is
being done to him and, more importantly, that his community and perhaps
his parents consider him different from “good children”
4) Parents, police, and others may then scrutinize and look with suspicion
upon all of the youngster’s activities, his companions, his speech, and his
personality, thus reinforcing the definitions of him as “bad”.
5) Once the child discovers that he has been defined as bad and that even his
efforts to be good are interpreted as evidence of his badness, he may become
even more “predisposed toward individualised crime” or even more closely
integrated with his play group, which has been redefined as a “delinquent
gang.”
6) Once the community has defined a youngster as bad, it knows how to cope
with him; it does not, in fact, know how to deal with him until it defines
him as bad.
A good example of labeling that appears frequently in the criminal justice system
occurs when somebody indicates that a person “looks like” a homosexual. Indirect
evidence in the form of a rumour is frequently translated into decision making
regarding the treatment of individuals so labeled. It is easy and dangerous to
stereotype people in this manner. In modern society, the social significance of
labeling becomes increasingly dependent upon circumstances social and personal
biography, and the bureaucracy of the organised agency of control.

Police officers have been given considerable discretion in apprehending youths;

and it has been observed that certain youths, particularly from minority racial
and think groups or those dressed in the style of “toughs” were treated more
severely than others for comparable offenses. This discretion is practiced by
juvenile officers as an extension of the juvenile court philosophy. The observations
made by Piliavin and Briar in this study indicate that the official delinquent is
the product of social judgment and that how this judgment is accepted by the
police is critical in the prevention or initiation of a delinquent career.
44
The “Self-fulfilling prophecy” that emerges from labeling was discussed by Criminological Theories
Merton (1957). But whether a persons becomes delinquent because he has been
so labeled or whether a competent expert has made a correct diagnosis and
prognosis is a central question stereotyping, generally at the point where in
grouping within the delinquent gang and out-grouping through the rejection of
the gang by society makes the deviant behaviour manifest and attracts the attention
of society.

Labeling in delinquency control programmes is dangerous. In the first place, it is

not clear in terms of results whether doing something is better or worse than
doing another. Second, because developments in the juvenile field are leading to
a category of people who are “in need of service” rather than “ delinquent” the
implication that labeling is a legal category makes a difference in the way juveniles
might be treated.

9.15 CONFLICT THEORIES

In the consensus view, society is said to be based on a consensus of values among
its members, and the state is said to be organised to protect the general public
interest. To the extent that societies are composed of groups with conflicting
values and interests, the organised state is said to mediate between these
conflicting groups and to represent the values and interests of society at large.
The basic argument of conflict criminology is that there is an inverse relation
between power and official crime rates: people with less power are more likely
(a people with more power are less likely) to be officially defined and proceeded
as criminals.

9.15.1 Sellin’s Culture Conflict Theory

In 1938, Thorsten Sellin presented a criminology theory focused on the conflict
of “Conduct norms”. Conduct norms are cultural rules that require certain types
of people to act in a certain ways in certain circumstances. Sellin defined “Primary
cultural conflicts” as those occurring between two different cultures. These
conflicts could occur at border areas between two divergent cultures; or, in the
case of colonisation, when the laws of one culture are extended into the territory
of another, or, in case of migration, when members of one cultural group moves
into the territory of another. “Secondary cultural conflicts” occur when a single
culture evolves into several different subcultures, each having its own conduct
norms.

9.15.2 Vold’s Group Conflict Theory

Vold’s theory is based on a view of human nature that holds that people are
fundamentally group involved beings whose lives are both a part of and a product
of their associations. Groups are formed out situations in which members have
common interests and common needs that can best be furthered through collective
action. New groups are continuously being formed as new interests arise, and
existing groups weaken and disappear when they no longer have a purpose to
serve. There is a more or less continuous struggle to maintain, or to improve, the
place of one’s own group in the interaction of groups. Conflict is therefore one
of the principal and essential social processes in the continuous and ongoing
functioning of society. The conflict between groups seeking their own interests
45
Theories and Perspectives is especially visible in legislative politics, which is largely a matter of finding
in Criminal Justice
practical compromises between antagonistic groups in the community. The general
situation of group conflict gives rise to the familiar cry “There ought to be a
law!”

9.15.3 Quinney’s Theory of the Social Reality of Crime

Richard Quinney’s theory of “the social reality of crime” expressed in six
proportions.

a) Definition of Crime
Crime is a definition of human conduct that is created by authorised agents
in a politically organised society.

b) Formulation of Criminal Definition

Criminal definitions describe behaviours that conflict with the interest of
the segments of society that have the power to shape public policy.

c) Applications of Criminal Definitions

Criminal definitions are applied by the segments of society that have the
power to shape the enforcement and administration of criminal law.

d) Development of Behaviour patterns in relation to criminal Definitions

Behaviour patterns are structured in segmentally organised society in relation
to criminal definitions, and within this context persons engage in actions
that have relative probabilities of being defined as criminal.

e) Construction of Criminal Conceptions

Conceptions of crime are constructed and diffused in the segments of society
by various means of communication.

f) The Social Reality of Crime

The social reality of crime is constructed by the formulation and application
of criminal definitions, the development of behaviour patterns related to
criminal definitions, and the construction of criminal conceptions.

9.15.4 Turk’s Theory of Criminalisation

Austin Turk proposed a conflict analysis of how power groups achieve authority
and legitimacy in society. Turk argued that social order is based in a consensus-
coersion balance maintained by the authorities. Turk’s theory of criminalisation
specified “the conditions under which cultural and social differences between
authorities and subjects will probably result in conflict, the conditions under
which criminalisation will probably occur in the course of conflict, and the
conditions under which the degree of deprivation associated with becoming a
criminal will probably be greater or lesser. Turk first distinguished between
cultural norms and social norms. Cultural norms are associated with verbal
formulations of values (e.g. the law as written), and social norms with actual
behaviour patterns (e.g. the law as enforced) Turk argues about three factors-

46
1) The primary factor will be the meaning the prohibited act or attribute has Criminological Theories
for the first line enforcers (i.e. the police), and the extent to which the higher
level enforcers (i.e., the prosecutors and judges) agree with the evaluation
of police.
2) The second factor affecting criminalisation will be the relative power of the
enforcers and resisters.
3) The third factor affecting criminalisation rates is “realism of the conflict
moves”, which relates to how likely an action taken by the subjects and
authorities may improve the potential for their ultimate success.

9.15.5 Chambliss and Seidman’s Analysis of the Criminal Justice

System
Chambliss and Seidman analysed that how consensus perspective and the conflict
perspective provide radically different versions of how the criminal justice system
actually functions. They describe power of the state as “a value neutral framework
within which conflict can be peacefully resolved”. Chambliss and Seidman
maintain that “the higher the group’s political and economic position, the greater
is the possibility that its views will be reflected in the laws”. The authors
summarize their theory in the following points:

The agencies of law enforcement are bureaucratic organisations. An organisation

and its members tend to substitute for its official goals and norms of the
organisations ongoing policies and activities, which will maximise rewards and
minimise the strains on the organisation. The goal substitution is made possible
by:
1) The absence of motivation on part of role occupants to resist pressures
towards goal substitution.
2) The pervasiveness of discretionary choice permitted by the substantive
criminal law, and the norms defining the role of the members of the
enforcement agencies.
3) The absence of the effective sanctions of the norms defining the roles in
those agencies.

Law enforcement agencies depend for resource allocation on political

organisations. It will maximise rewards and minimise strains for the organisation
to process those who are politically weak and powerless, and to refrain from
processing those who are politically powerful. Therefore it may be expected that
the law enforcement agencies will process a disproportionately high number of
the politically weak and powerless, while ignoring the violations of those with
power.

9.16 SUMMARY
• The study of criminology is a separate discipline devoted to developing
valid and reliable information which deals with the causes of crime as well
as its trends and the ways of controlling crime. The classical school of
criminology found to be difficult to apply in practice and hence modified
and known as classical theory. But even in the modern day philosophy of
47
Theories and Perspectives crime and punishment, we see the imprint of classical school for example,
in Criminal Justice
the principle of equality before law written laws etc. Then there developed
positive school & ecological school of criminology. Some early theories of
even held the view that it is the structure of a person which defines. function
that, individuals behave differently beacuase of the fundamental fact they
are somehow structuraly different. Modern biological theories on the other
hand examines the entire range of biological characteristics.

9.17 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1) Write a note on classical school of criminology.
2) Compare classical and positive school of criminology
3) Write a note on ecological school of criminology.
4) What are the criticisms for psychological theory?
5) Write a note on the theory of Differential Association.

9.18 ANSWERS AND HINTS

Self Assessment Questions
1) Refer to Section 9.4
2) Refer to Sub-section 9.6.2
3) Refer to Sub-section 9.6.3
4) Refer to Sub-section 9.10.1
5) Refer to Sub-section 9.14.1
Terminal Questions
1) Refer to Section 9.6
2) Refer to Sub-section 9.7
3) Refer to Sub-section 9.10
4) Refer to Sub-section 9.11.3

9.19 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

1) Coffery; A.R. (1974), Administration of Criminal Justice: A Management's
System Appr.
2) Cohn and Udolf; R.(1979), The Criminal Justice System and its Psychology
3) David; M (1967), Jurisprudence
4) Dwivedi; Jawhar Lal, Evolution of Criminal Justice Administration in India.
5) Gardiner; J.A. (1975), Crime and Justice
6) Iyer; V.R.K. (1980), Perspective of Criminiology: Law and Social Change.
7) Joel Samaha; (1988), Criminal Justice
8) Johnson; E.H. (1978), Crime, Correction and Society

48
9) Mehrajuddin; (1980), Criminal Justice System: Crime, Police and Criminological Theories
Correction. The Academy Law Review. Vol. IV Nos. 1 & 2.
10) Mehrajuddin; (Jan-Mar 1981), Crime and Correctional. Civil and Military
Law Journal Vo. 17, No. 1
11) Mehrajuddin; (Mar 1981), The Administration of Criminal Justice System;
Srinagar Law Journal, Vol. III
12) Mehrajuddin; (1984), Crime and Criminal Justice System in India.
13) Mehrajuddin (July 1984), Community Participation in Social Defense. Indian
Journal of Criminology. Vol. 12 No.2
14) Mehrajuddin; (1988), Criminogenic Effects of the Penal Institutions: A
Critical Analysis Applied Criminology, Bonn, Germany.

49