CHAPTER-II

CAUSATIVE FACTORS OF CRIME : REVIEW OF STUDIES

The causes of crime are one of the important

phases of the crime problem that requires more

discussion, investigation and research and call for more

social and Governmental action'*'. Why a man becomes

criminal ? Is a perennial question and scholars have

sought to explain criminal behaviour for many years.

Prior to the eighteenth century, the explanations tended
to be demonological (possession by an evil spirit) or
naturalistic (an affected brain).

As the various disciplines began to grow,

particularly biology, anthropology, sociology,

psychiatry, psychology, statistics, the explanations
soon shifted from rationalism to causes which exist in

the hereditary, constitutional, and psychological makeup

of individuals as well as the causes which exist in the

physical and social environment of man.

The traditional approach to causation of crime

in U.S.A. has been the socio-economic. Yet many
countries of the world like France, Italy etc. have
insisted that biological and constitutional factors are
 16

more influential in determining human behaviour. There

are still other criminologists who have tried to explain

criminal behaviour in terms of climatic condition,

topography etc. In the field of criminology opinions

have always differed, "reminding us once again that
2
Criminology is a vibrant field" . No criminologist
claims to have all the answers to questions about crime,
and most accept that the sorts of questions they ask are

not the only ones worth raising. It is because of

several theories of crime causation and explaining
deviant behaviour which have come up within a very short

span of few years and one wonders to see that there is

practically very little or no divergence at all in the

earlier and the later theories rather sometimes the

earlier and the later theories coinside at a point but

the -protagonists of the theories are not ready to accept

that they are one and the same in essence. Such

instances are several but to mention one of them let us

take poverty as a factor of crime causation. It is one of

the oldest theory of causes of crime propounded by

economic determinists, the Marxists, the early social

workers and the humanitarians. Sir Thomas More, an
English Philosopher Cum humanist found that the real
causes of qrowth of crime inspite of the severity of law

lay on the unequal distribution of landed property and a

shocking condition of agriculture. A discrepancy had

arisen between the abject misery of the masses, an

 17

injustice which cries to heaven and the demoralising

3
luxury of the rich . The radical criminology which is

very much prevalent now-a-days in U.S.A. speaks nothing

new except a twisted language and approach whose central

theme is that the crime is a rational response to the

capitalistic society and it is a "means of survival in a

4
society within which survival is never assured" . It is
all the same either to say poverty is one of the causes
of crime or to say that Capitalism which produces
economic imbalance or class conflict in the society is
an important factor of crime causation.

Inspite of all theoritical differences, it is

apparent that certain conditions are more favourable to
crime than others. Bad heredity, physical defect,

mental imbalance, mental defects, emotional insecurity,

.slum environment, poor education, criminal associates,

extreme poverty, broken home, drug addiction, influence

of media etc. are some stimulant factors of crime

causation. It is true any or all of these unfavourable
coditions will not inevitably drive a given person to

commit a crime under all circumstances. Conversely, any

one or all of the favourable conditions listed above may

not be gilt-edge insurance against person committing a
crime. Hidden factors that may tilt the scale either way
can never be eliminated from specific situations by all
5
the theories in the world .
 18

So far as we can trace, criminological

thinking has started from early sixteenth century the

proof of which was found in the writings of

philosophers, social reformers, lawyers and doctors of

g
that time to whom Bonger has described as
pre-criminologists. Since then several important
theories have been advanced by the leading
criminologists all around the world, a brief
reproduction of which is made here to highlight the
different aspects of criminal behaviour and crime
causation.

The Theory of the Classifical School of

Criminology :

The literature of criminology often refers to

the classical and the neo-classical schools of

criminological thought. These terms or labels are used

to designate some important ideas in the long history of
trying to understand and trying to do something about
. 7
crime .

A systematic study of criminology was first

taken up by the Italian Scholar Cesare Beccaria

(1738-94) who is known as the founder of modern
criminology. He laid greater emphasis on mental
phenomenon of the individual and attributed crime to
"free-will" of the individual. His free-will theory
 19

explains that since man is free to do as he pleases or

to make his own choices, he indulges in criminal

activities. It is of prime importance to prevail upon

him through teaching or by threats and rewards, to

conform to the sanctions of the society. The
"pleasure-pain" theory of a man's actions (hedonism) was

also included into the theories of the classical School

of Criminology. He argued that punishment should be

just severe enough to over balance the pleasure derived
from the illegal act, and punishment, being an evil
itself, should not exceed more then what is absolutely
necessary to produce the desired effect on the criminal

and the society. Despite the fact that Beccaria

belonged to or so to say the Chief exponent of the
School of free-will theory he was in search of the
causes as to why certain types of crimes were committed

by certain criminals. His importance lies not in the

immediate results it produced, but in the systematic

approach adopted to problems of crime and punishment for

the first time and the emphasis on pre-determination and

free will in criminal behaviour.

Neo-Classical School :

The free-will theory of classical school did

not survive for long as it was soon realised that the
classical approach has ignored certain factual
 20

situations and overlooked individual differences by

treating first offenders and habituals alike on the

basis of similarity of act or crime. The neo-classical

school ascerted that certain categories of offenders

like minors, idiots or insane persons should be treated

leniently as they are mentally immature and do not

possess the capacity of distinguishing between good or

bad. They reacted against the severity of classical
view of equal punishment for the same offence.

School of Criminal Anthropology :

Discussion under this heading will not be

complete unless we mention two other names namely,

Gambattista Della Porta of sixteenth century and Franz
Joseph Gall of eighteenth century alongwith Cesare

Lambroso. An early consideration of Criminal Biology is

to be found in the works of the Italian doctor Della

Porta. He empirically studied the prisoners of Neples,

both living and executed and found a co-relation between

certain physical characteristics and corresponding
8
mental characteristics .

Franz Joseph Gall is known as the founder of

Phrenology. From the very childhood he had a belief
that the persons who excelled in language or had
superior memories also seemed to have large prominent
 21

eyes and he thus became convinced of the biological

linkage between the constitution of the body and

significant forms of psychological and social

9
behaviour . He was a good brain anatomist who worked on

the hypothesis that clearly localised organs could be

found in the brain corresponding to definite mental
functions. He divided the brain into 26 different organs
each of which has some particular mental quality.

However, his disciple Johann Christoph Spurzheim had

found 35 brain orqans and later phrenologists still
added few more to the list. Of fundamental importance

to criminologists was the "destructiveness" organ

(slightly over the ear) which was found to be associated
with violent criminal behaviour particularly murder.

Gall believed that the brain was the centre of thought;

specific brain area controlled different behavioural

activities; brain organs of greater importance were

greater in size and area; and the skull precisely and
accurately covered the criminal cortex so that organs of

disproportionate importance and disproportionate growth

and size produce concomitant protruberances on the

10
skull . Thus according to the phrenological theory
biological factors are much important in crime
causation.

Cesare Lombroso is too often referred to as

pioneer of the positive school or Italian School of

 22

Criminology. He marked physical difference between well

disciplined soldiers and those who were indisciplined,

troublesome and badly behaved. Later he investigated a

qroup of convicts and reached to a conclusion that

criminals were born and not made. He demonstrated the

physical inferiority of convicts as compared with people

generally and suggested that there was a definite

criminal type which could usually be identified by such

features as high cheek bones, a flattened nose, handle

shaped or sensible ears, and long Lower Jaw, excessive
hairiness or abnormal lack of hair1"''.

The Lombrosian theory consisted of the

following propositions :
(a) Criminals are by birth a distinct type.
(b) This type can be recognised by stigmata or

anomalies, such as asymmetrical cranium, long lower jaw,

flattened nose,, scanty beard and low sensitivity to

pain. The criminal type is clearly represented in a

person with more than five such stigmata, incompletely

represented by three to five and not necessarily

indicated by less than three.

(c) These.physical anomalies do not in themselves
cause crime; rather they identify the personality which
is predisposed to criminal behaviour and this
personality is either a reversion to the savage type -
an attavism - or else degeneration.
 23

(d) Because of their personal natures, such

persons can not refrain from crime unless the

circumstances of life are unusually favourable.

Lambroso adopted an objective and empirical

approach to the study of criminals through his
anthropological and biological experiments. He developed

a classification of criminals in the following way :

(1) Born Criminals,

(2) The insane Criminal,
(3) The criminal by passion including the
political "crank",
(4) The occasional criminal with three

sub-types :

(a) Psedo criminals, who are not dangerous,

and whose acts might be in defence of honour,

for mere subsistence, or committed under
unusual circumstance;

(b) Habitual criminals, conditioned to crime

by unfavourable environmental circumstances,

through free from criminal taint, and

(c) The criminaloids who hovers between the

born criminal and the honest man and who shows
12
upon examination,"atouch of degeneracy"
 24

The findings of Lombroso were seriously

challanged bv Charles Goring around the turn of the

Century, who. with his associates made a detailed study

of three thousand English prisoners for about 12 years

seeking to "clear from the ground the remains of the old

Lombrosian Criminology, based on conjecture, prejudice,
and questionable observations" 13 . Goring demonstrated
by actual anthropometric measurements of the physical

traits of English prisoners that the cranial and

skeletal characteristics of born criminals as observed
14
by hombroso did not apply to 3000 English convicts . In

addition. Goring found that "Weak mindedness” was

probably the most important factor in Criminality. His

findings also pointed to the fact that social conditions

had very little to do with criminality. Goring's

research, although, great exception can be taken with it

in regard to the questionable measure of

"Weakmindedness" and poorly specified measures of social
influence, is a model research in criminology.

After Lombroso it would be proper to discuss

here the theory of Raffaele Garofalo because he is also
considered a positivist alongwith Lombroso. He had
varied experience as an eminent jurist, a senator, and a

Professor of Criminal Law. He therefore, approached

crime and criminals in all together different plane from
his contemporaries. He rejected the classical theory of
 25

"free-will" as a cause of crime and stressed on the

environmental factors. According to him crime is an act

which offends the sentiments of pity and probity

possessed by an average individual and which are

injurious to the society. He emphasised that lack of

pity generates crimes against persons,while lack of

probity leads to crimes against property.

In his much famous book 'Criminology' he has

divided criminals into four categories, namely, (1)

'Endemic criminals' . - They are murderers who commit

offences as characteristic of their locality of crimes

out of passion, (2) "Criminals deficient, in probity" are

thieves, (3) "Lascivious criminals" perpetrate crimes

against chastity; and (4) The "Violent Criminals" are

affected by such environmental influences as "prejudices

of honour, politics and religion".

Among the chief contributions made by Garofalo

is the development of the thought that the motive that

moved the offender to commit the crime is one of the

most important elements to be considered in determining

what shall be done to protect society from future harm

from the same offender. Discover the motive and give

such treatment as will tend to change that motive, and

the first step has been taken toward so changing the

offender that he shall no longer be a menace to

. . 15
society
 26

The School of Criminal Biology :

About 1920 the School of Criminal anthropology

was also came to be known as School of Criminal Biology

and attention was not so much focussed upon specific

anatomical characterstics but rather upon a wider

constitutional base and an inherited predisposition

toward repetitive criminality. It will not be out of

place to mention here some short-citations to illustrate

the range of ideas of the school of criminal biology.

(a) Heredity aind Crime :

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
dispositions. Scientific theories of heredity
originated around 1850 and new statistical methods were
devised to measure degrees of resemblance or
correlation. Charles Goring^ used these new

statistical techniques in the analysis of criminality.

Goring had sought to deal with the problem of

the interrelation of heredity and environment by

adopting methods that would eliminate the effect of
 27

environmental factors. Another method, for dealing with

the same problem would be to control the hereditary factor.

The study of the relative criminality of twins is

suitable for the purpose, because in genetics there is a

clearcut distinction between monozygotic and dizygotic

twins. Monozygotic or identical twins are the products

of a single fertilized egg and have identical heredity;

dizygotic or fraternal twins are the product of the

simultaneously fertilized eggs 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. This may not be true in all

cases due to similarity in training and education, 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.

Johannes Lange used this approach in trying to

determine the role of heredity in criminality. He found

that, in a group of 13 pairs of adult male identical

twins, when one twins had a record of imprisonment,the

other similarly had been imprisoned in 77 percent of

the cases; whereas in a comparable group of 17 pairs of

fraternal twins, when one twin had been imprisoned, the

other had a prison record in only 12 percent of the

 28

cases. It matched control group of 214 pairs of ordinary

brothers of nearest age, When one brother had a prison

record, the other brorhter of the matched pair had a

prison record in only 8 percent of the cases. The

conclusion was drawn that there must be an inheritance

of a tendency toward crime : in the majority of cases if

one identical twin was criminal, the other was as well

and, in the cases of fraternal twins, in the majority,

if one was criminal the other was not.

(b) Predisposition to Crime :

Dr. Adolf Lanz believed that family histories

of antisocial tendencies and traits are the key to know

whether predisposition to crime was inherited. The

presence of mental disease and ailments, hysteria,

epilepsy, neurotic traits, alcoholism, and suicide in

the familial and ancestral background is an indication

that the individuals of tHe present generation will have

difficulty in making adjustments. Such a back-qround

often leads to mental disorder, crime, prostitution,

vagabondage, quarrelsomeness, willfulness,

unsociability, homosexuality, perversities and drug
addiction. The frequency of antisocial behaviour in
family histories has much to do with the potency of
criminal predisposition. Accordig to Lenz, the
 29

individual can escape the consequences of latent

predisposition in favourable environments - environments
in which there are no clashes between hereditary traits
and tendencies and the scheme of life of the individual.

Lenz believed that, instead of criminal inclination, it

is the predisposition to mal-ad justment that is

inherited. Ancestors do not have to be criminal
themselves to impart a predisposition to crime; all the

other non-criminal, antisocial traits are sufficient to

17
show that a predisposition is being passed down

Franz Exner an outstanding exponent of

criminal biology believed that inherited predispositions
combined with adverse surroundings or environment are
the realities of Criminal behaviour. These
predispositions are "loadings" against the individual.
He found that reported incidence of mental
abnormalities, alcoholism and criminality in the family

is very high in case of offenders; higher for the

repeaters than the first offenders, higher for early

starting than for late-starting offenders. The

repeaters and early starters also display a much higher

proportion of weakmindedness, sexual perversion
psychopathic personality, and athletic physique than the
first offenders, late starters and occasional
18
offenders
 30

The chances of repeating crime or recidivism

increase with the number of previous arrests and the

interval between the last and next offence becomes

/ shorter as the number of previous crimes progresses.

The factors which separate the recidivists from
non-recidivists, the hardened from the occasional
criminals according to him are :

(i) Hereditary weaknesses in the family line,

(ii) -? Increasing tempo of criminality;

(iii) Bad conditions in the parental home t

(iv) Bad school progress (especially in deportment

and industriousness)

(v) Failure to complete studies once begun,

(vi) Irregular work (work shyness);

(vii) Onset of criminality before 18 ears of age,

(viii) More than four previous sentences,

(ix) Quick relapse into crime;

(x) Interlocal criminality;

(xi) Psychopathic personality (diagnosis of
institutional doctor);

(xii) Alcoholism;

(xiii) Release from institution before 36 years of

age; age;
(xiv) Bad conduct in the institution;
(xv) Bad social and family relations during period
of release 19
 31

The School of Criminal Sociology :

Enrico Ferri, a prominent positivist, held

that mere anthropological factors were not enough to

account for criminality. Besides these, other factors
such as, geographical, psychological, social and
economic factors play a vital role in determining
criminal tendencies in men. It is for this reason that
he is sometimes called the founder of criminal

sociology. The major contribution of Ferri to the field

of criminology is his "law of criminal situation". This

theory presupposes that the crime is the synthetic

product of three main types of factors : (1) Physical or
geographical (2) Anthropological; and (3) Psychological

or social. Thus he emphasised that criminal behaviour

is an outcome of a variety of factors having their

combined effect on the individual.

He classified criminals into five categories :

(a) Insane criminals (b) Born criminals, (c) Habitual

criminals (d) criminals by passion, and (e) Occasional
criminals. The first category of criminals consisted of
those who commit criminal acts due to congenital
reasons. The habitual criminals are influenced by social
and physical environments, also, though show attavistic
tendencies basically. Criminals by passions are those
who involve in commission of crime due to impulse, anger
 32

or jealousy and feel repentant in future. This

socio-economic factor: according to Ferri consist of

"the density of population; public opinion, manners and

religion; family circumstances, the system of education;

industrial pursuits, alcoholism, economic and political

conditions, public administration, justice and police

and in general legislative, civil and penal

• .... . „ 20
institutions

The theory propounded by Ferri is criticised

on the count that it can not explain for the majority of
people, juvenile and adult who live under unfavourable
conditions and did not become delinquent or criminal.
Then who is vulnerable to the pressure of a bad

environment ? The theory has no explanation to this

question.

American Sociologists before 1920 also views

adverse social conditions as causes of delinquency and

crime. The trend continued after 1920 and the dominant

thinkers like William I, Thomas, Edwin H Sutherland in

the field of sociological criminology in the United

States believed that social disorganisation is the main

cause of crime and delinquency. Von Hentig cited
certain social focus like economic condition such as

unemployment, inflations, and depressions, as well as

family discord and a broken family, marital status,
 33

illegitimacy, step children, orphanage experiences,

disorganised and deteriorated neighbourhoods which have

closer connection with criminal and delincraent

behaviour. He contended that "Criminal behaviour

springs from the interplay of two groups of forces : the

individual tendencies of human beings and many fold

forces operating from without" 21

The underlying assumption of the school of

criminal sociology is that unfavourable environmental
conditions influence the person - they force him into
delinquency and crime.

Mental Deficiency and Crime Causation :

The next most popular explanation based on

individualistic traits is in terms of mental deficiency

in criminals. Various studies have been made in this

regard to establish a nexus between mental deficiency

and criminal behaviour by conducting experiments in

psychological laboratory on the persisting problem of

retardation due to individual differences and introduced

the concepts like "mental age" and "Intelligence

Quotient" (IQ) and its influence on criminal behaviour.

Henry H. Goddard found mental deficiency in almost half
of all criminals while Goring was convinced that mental
deficiency was a major cause in all criminal behaviour
 34

except the ones requiring some cleverness as in the case

of fraud. However,Mary Woodward examined all the

studies pertaining to the relation between low

intelligence and crime and was convinced that low

intelligence does not play any significant role in

22
delinguency . It is better to say that low
intellignece hasno direct connection with
crime-causation but such people find it difficult to
adjust in the society and sometimes they do not
understand all the repurcussions of their acts.

Other psychogenic approaches links criminal

behaviour to mental states, especially mental disease,
mental disorders, pathologies and emotional problems.

Evidence in support of such a connection came from

research on personality defects and disorders in

delinquents, on mental disease in prisoners, on parent

child interactions, on the psychopathic personality and

its causin sociopathic personality, and on the

sub-conscious (or unconscious) represession of drives

, . . 23
and desires

Recent psychological studies, however, restate

the classicial school phvlosophy in analysing criminal
behavour. Yochelson and Somenow in their recent venture
to change the behaviour of 240 hard-core criminals in

St. Elizabeths hospital in Washington for a period

 35

exceeding a decade record in their much famous book that

criminal behaviour is a manifestation of the offenders

exercise of free-will, rather than of environmental

influence :

"It is not the environment that turns a man

into a criminal. Rather, it is a series of
choices that he makes starting at a very early
age.....There is a continuity in his thinking
and action regardless of setting.... Crime

does not come to him; he goes to it. . . . He

seeks out other delinquents..... By the time he

is apprehended, he has more than likely

committed hundreds if not thousands, of

offences.... The excitement that is involved

2a
(in crime) is what is important" *.

Modern Sociological Theories :

The Lombrosian theory dominated criminological

thinkig for a pretty long period so to say upto the
early 20th century. Various facts came up later and
sociologists started to survey various social and
environmental conditions within which crimes generate.
The sociological approach does not subscribe to the
positivists view that offenders are generally abnormal
biologically or psychologically, and does not seek to
 36

identify the causes as, if they are enclosed within the

25
body of the offender

(a) Anomie and modernisation :

After the great French Revolution of 1789

*

there was rapid industrialisation of the french Society.

Speaking of these revolutions (viz. French revolution

and Industrial revolution) Nisbet has observed that, "in

terms of immediacy and massiveness of impact on human

thought and values, it is impossible to find revolutions

of comparable magnitude anywhere in human history 2 6

Emile Durkheim, a prominent French Sociologist and

philosopher observed the rapid social change and took it

as the basis of his theory which speaks that in a

progressive society, where rapid.social change is bound

to occur, normlessness or anomie is produced which is

the cause of several maladies including crime.

Durkheim explained his theory taking into

consideration the two forms of society namely mechanical

and organic. Mechanical societies are characterised by

the uniformity of lives, work and beliefs of their
members. All of the uniformity that exists in a society,
that is, the "totaity of social linenesses" or the
27
"collective conscience" . In every society there will
always be a degree of diversity in that there will be
 37

many individual differences among its members. Durkheim

suggested that there can not be a society in which the

individuals do not differ more or less from the
collective type. To the extent that a particular
society is mechanical, its solidarity will come from the
command for uniformity against this diversity. Such
command is exercised in varying deqrees and in varying

forms. In its strongest form it will consist of

criminal sanctions. 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, (for example strikes and
labour violence in industries is indicative of

inadequate regulation in matters of employer and

employee relationship) there can result a variety of

social maladies, including crime. Durkheim called the

state of inadequate regulation anomie.

Theories of crime and delinquency emphasising

social structure have sought to explain crime as normal
rather than abnormal or pathological social behaviour.

By normal sociologists mean that something is a

characteristic feature of social life. If crime is
normal, why it is not distributed evenlv throughout
society ? This is the basic question underlying social
structural theories of crime. These theories have sought
to explain variations in rates of criminality; that is,
 38

in criminality as an attribute of a population rather

than as a characteristic of an individual^2 8 .

(b) Strain Theories :

Robert K. Merton has extended and elaborated

on Durkheims notions of anomie, making it the central
29
feature of a strain theory of crime . He pointed out

that many of the appetites of individuals were not

necessarily "natural", but rather were "culturally

induced". Social structure could limit the ability of
certain groups to satisfy those appetites. This would
mean thatthe social structure itself might exert a

definite pressure on some segments of society to engage

30
m non-conformist rather than conformist behaviour
The culture of any society defines certain goals it
deems worth striving for. There are many such goals and
they vary from culture to culture. Explaining Merton's
theory Void maintained that the most prominent culture

goal in American society is to acquire wealth and

American culture encourages this goal far beyond any
31
intrinsic rewards the goals itself might have

Cultures also specify the approved norms or

institutionalised means, all individuals are expected to
follow in pursuing the culture goals. Some of such
approved means to achieve the end are hard work,
honesty, sincerityf education, efficiency etc. The
 3.9

person who acts according to these methods, receives

little social reward for it, unless he or she also

achieves at least a moderate degree of wealth as a

result. But the person who achieves wealth even if it

is not by the approved means,still receives the social

rewards of prestige and social status. This situation

places a severe .strain on the approved norms or the

lawful means, particularly for those persons who cannot

achieve wealth through their use.

The strain is felt severe among persons in the

lower economic group because the ability to accumulate
wealth is limited not only by the talents and efforts of
the individual but also by the social structure. Only
the most talented and the most efficient individuals
from this economically backward group can ever think of
accumulating wealth through permissible means. For the

rest whole this possibility is simply not realistic, and

therefore,the strain can be most severe.

However, the strain is least apparent among

those in the upper-class, in which, employing the same

lawful means, a person of average talent can achieve a

degree of wealth with only reasonable effort.

Thus according to Merton when there is a focus

on the goals to the virtual exclusion of the norms and
 40

when the socially approved means for obtaining these

goals are not equally available to all, many will turn

to unapproved and unacceptable means in order to achiev.e

these goals. As this process of attenuation continues,

the society becomes unstable and there develops what

Durkheim called "anomie".

(c) The Theory of Delinquent Sub-Cultures :

During 1940s to the beginning of 1960

lower-class criminality received considerable

sociological interest and a number of theories were

advanced purpoting to explain high deviant behaviour

particularly by the lower-class people. These theories

mainly focussed on what is called "delinquent

sub-culture". Richard A. Cloward and LLoyd F. Ohlin

define delinquent subculture as "one in which certain

forms of delinquent activity are essential for the

performances of the dominant roles supported by the

sub-culture. It is the central position accorded to

specifically delinquent activity that distinguishes the

delinquent sub-culture from other deviant

subcultures"
3?

Albert K.Cohen used strain theory to explain

urban, lower class, male gang delinquency. He found that

most delinquent behaviour occurred in gangs rather than

 41

individually, and the most of it was non-utilitarian,

33
malicious and negetivistic . This type of delinquency

in contrast to adult crime, seemed to serve no useful

purpose because he observed that juvenile gangs often

commit crimes without any purpose. It could not be

explained by Martons theory. Cohen believed that these

actions were methods of gaining status among the

delinquent's peers, but why " a claim to status in one

group and a degrading blot in another" 34 . He concluded

that gangs have a separate culture from the dominant
culture,with a different set of values for measuring

status.

Cohen conceived of two fold status, one

achieved status, which is earned in competition with

ones own age and sex group, and the other, ascribed
status, which is acquired by virtue of one's family such

as when one's father is an important person.

Competition for achieved status normally takes place

within the school. Status in school was judged on the

basis of values like ambition, responsibility,

achievement, rationality, courtesy, ability to control

physical aggression, constructive use of time and
respect for property.

A lower class youth who has no ascribed status

by virtue of his family and who typically loses in the
competition for achieved status is placed under a severe
 42

strain. He cannot fulfil his desires and aspirations

which are generally of middle class values. He realises

that their socialisation experiences have not prepared

them for the challange. It is that dispairity between
what lower class youth are led to want and what is

actually available to them is the source of a major

problem of adjustment. Hence, they choose to react

against the mainstream culture of the society.

(d) Differential Association Theory :

Differential Association theory as an

explanation of . criminal behaviour is based on the

premise that criminal behaviour is learned in the same

way that any other behaviour is learned. Like all

behaviour, crime is learned from friends and associates
and is often influenced by the areas in which one lives.
Most criminal associations are of an intimate group

nature, such as juvenile gangs, adult criminals or

business organisations. A person becomes criminal by

intimate association with others who present favourable

definitions of criminal behaviour. The content of this,

learning includes the techniques of committing the

offence, specific rationalisations and motivations. The

importance of the criminal association and consequent

learning depends on how early these contacts start, how

frequent they are, over how long a period and the extent
 43

to which certain favourale models, such as one's best

friend engages in criminal behaviour.

Differential Association Theory has been

propounded by Edwin H. Sutherland. The main outlines of

Sutherlands contributions are found in the various

editions of his Introduction to criminology but in the

third edition of the book, published in the year 193 9,

he made a more systematic and formal presentation of his

theory and further expanded and clarified it in the

fourth edition which appeared in 1947. The theory

consists of the following nine points.

1. Criminal behaviour is learned or stated

another way criminal behaviour is not

inherited.

2. Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction

with other persons in a process of

communication.....

3. The principal part of the learning of criminal

behaviour occurs within intimate personal
groups.

4. When criminal behaviour is learned, the

learning includes -
(a) techniques of committing the crime, which
are sometimes very complicated and sometimes
 44

very simple; and

(b) the specific direction of motives, drives,

rationalization and attitude.

The specific direction of motives and drives

is learned from definitions of the legal codes

as favourale or unfavourable.

A person becomes delinquent because of an

excess of definitions favourable to violation
of law.

Differential association may vary in

frequency, duration priority and intensity.

The process of learning criminal behaviour by

association with criminal and anticriminal
patterns involves all of the mechanisms that
are involved in any other learnina.

While criminal behaviour is an expression of

general needs and values it is not explained
by those general needs and values, since
non-criminal behaviour is an expression of the

same needs and values 35

 45

Southerland 's theory of differential

association may be counted as one of the most influential

contributions to modern criminology because it focuses
on how individuals come to engage in criminal behaviour

as well as gives a compatible explanation of variations

in crime rates. The major criticisms of this theory are

: that the language used to describe the theory are

neither precise nor clear; that the concpet of

"definitions favourable to law violation" can neither be

studied nor tested; that the theory completely ignores

personality traits of the offender and that the theory

does not explain the "differential response" patterns

that emerge when different individuals are exposed to

3 (5
the same situations . Daniel Glaser, one of the critic

of differential assocation theory has suggested the term

"Differential Identification" in place of differential

assocation and was of the opinion that "a person pursues

criminal behaviour to the extent that he idenfies

himself with real or imaginary persons from whose

perspective his criminal behaviour seems acceptable.
Such a theory focuses attention on the interaction in
which choice of models occurs including the individuals
interaction with himself in rationalizamg his conduct 37.

(e) The Self Concept Theory :

One of the major contributors to theory and

research linking self concept with delinquent and

 46

criminal behaviour has been Walter C. Reckless. It is

based on the argument that the individual confronted by

choices of action, will feel a variety of "pulls" and

"pushes". The nulls are environmental factors - such as

adverse living conditions, poverty, lack of legitimate

opportunities,abundance of illegitimate opportunities or

family problems that serve to pressure the individual
away from the norms and values of the dominant society.

The pushes take form of internal pressures - hostility,

biopsychological impairments, aggressiveness, drives or

wishes - that may also divert the individual away from
actions supported by the dominant values and norms.

But it is not all people who feel such pulls

and pushes become delinquents. This situation is

explained by Reckless by bringing the concept of "inner

and outer containment". Inner containment consists

mainly of self components, such as self control, good

self concept, ego strength, well developed super ego,
high frustration tolerance, high resistence to
diversions, high sense of responsibility, goal

orientation, ability to find substitute satisfactions,

tension-reducing rationalisations, and so on. These are

the inner regulators.

Outer containment represents the structural

buffer in the persons immediate social world which is

able to hold him within bounds. It consists of such
 47

items as a presentation of a consistent moral front to

the person, institutional reinforcement of his norms,

goals and expectations, the existence of a reasonable

set of social expectations : effective supervision and

discipline (social controls) provision for reasonable

scope of activity (including limits and

responsibilities) as well as for alternatives and safety

valves, opportunity for acceptance, identity and

belongingness. Such structural ingredients help the

family and other supportive groups contain the
individual 38 .

In Reckless's view, it is the inner

containment, particularly, the self-concept, that
insulates a person from criminal involvement.

Therefore, indirectly he is of the view that

unfavourable socialisation process is the prime cause of
39
criminality

The Economic Theories :

The attempt to establish a causal relationship

between crime and economic factors is not new. For some
people, crime is nothing else than reaction against

economic injustice. Modern Criminology which seeks to

link criminal behaviour with economic factors owes a lot
 48

to Karl Marx, the nineteenth century philosopher.

According to Marx the mode of economic

production - the manner in which relations of production

are organised - determines in large part the
organisation of social relation that is, the structure

of individual and group interaction. He believed that

those who own and control the means of production are in
a position to control the lives . of others. They have
the power and a controlling hand in law making process.
Even their ideas find place in the formulation and
implementation of moral and legal norms.

In advanced capitalistic societies, two great

classes are identifiable namely Bourgeoisie that is the
capitalists and the proletariat, sellers of their

ability to work. Inevitably, the interest of those two

classes are bound to collide, because capitalism has a

tendency to produce poverty in the mass;it exDloits the
labour to make more and more profit. It is the root of

all hostility . between the two classes viz. the

management and the labour.

Kerl Marx's economic theory and his arguments

were applied by William Bonger to explain the scene of

Crime in Capitalistic society. He demonstrated that the
criminal was a product of a capitalistic system, which
 49

instead of promoting altruistic tendencies among members

of the society created selfish tendencies. He felt that

criminal law as one instrument of coersion, is used by

the ruling class to protect its position and interests.

It is principally constituted according to the will of

"the dominant class and hardly any act is punished if it

does not injure the interest of the dominant class" 40

Bongers empirical data demonstrated that

almost 79 percent of the Crimials belong to
non-profitable class. Hence, there is a co-rrelationship
between poverty and delinquency. The capitalistic
economy speaks of concentration of wealth in few hands
and unfathomable misery of the rest. The situation

worsens when the capitalists resort to hoarding and

monopolistic traits thus creating artificial price rise.

This in turn stops production which ultimately results

into unemployment of labour and consequently the

offences against property and undesirable behaviour such

as alcoholism, vagrancy, frustration and violence etc

record an upward trend.

There is yet another danger of the

capitalistic economy which contributes to enormous

increase in crimes. The employment of children and

women furnishes breeding ground for criminality despite
effective legislative restrictions banning their
 50

improper utilization in industrial establishments.

Employment of children is in itself a potential cause of

crime because a child who earns his wages does not know
how to spend it properly. Consequently he is apt to

spend out his money on undesirable ways such as

gambling, drinking, wamanising and so on. These

mischievious habits ultimately drag him into the

criminal world.

Capitalistic economy encourages competition in

business which ensures good quality product and low cost
of production, no doubt, but this also encourages,
unsuccessful enterpreneurs to resort to other vices such

as infringement of trademarks, copy right etc. This

increases crime rate.

Bonger's analysis has a number of major

weaknesses. First he saw a direct causal link between

crime and poverty. He did not attach any importance to

mental disorder or crime committed by passion. 41 His

assertion that poverty is an essential condition of

crime because a man is always prepared to do anything to

get relief from his miserable economic condition seems

untenable in the light of the fact that even the
wealthiest persons who are big industrialists,
businesssmen or financiers, often resort to dishonest
means such as falsification of account, blackmarketing,
 51

tax-evasion, smuggling, illegal traffic in Drugs,

narcotic substances etc. despite their huge earnings.

The reverse is also true that very poor persons do not

commit crime despite of their poverty and misery. Barnes

42
and teeters put it this way - "Poverty alone is rarely

a cause of crime. This is evidenced by the courage,

fortitude, honesty and moral stamina of thousands of

parents who would rather starve then do wrong and who

inculcate this attitude in their children. Even in
blighted neighbourhoods, where poverty and wretched
housing conditions prevail, crime and delinquency in the

majority of residents is non-existent".

Radical Criminology :

A new perspective of criminology gradually

gathered momentum during 1970s in America which was

popularly known as the radical criminology. The

observations of David M.Gordon and Richard Quinney

illustrate this new perspective. They hold like Bonger

that capitalism itself providesas with vital clue to why

the crime scene looks as it does in the Capitalist West.

According to Gordon, the radicals view most

crime as a rational response to the structure of
institutions, including the legal, on which capitalistic
societies are based. crime is "a means of survival in a
society within which survival is never assured". Gordon
 52

found three types of crime in America as the best

examples of this rationality : "Ghetto Crime",

"Organised Crime", and "Corporate (or white collar)

crime". These types offer a chance of survival status
or respect, in a society geared to competitive forms of
social interaction and characterised by substantial
inequalities in the distribution of social resources,
power and so on. 43 .
. .
wealth, political

44
Gordon observed in American society (which
he felt as a characteristic of capitalistic society)
that the Government tries to ignore certain types of
crimes most notably corporate and white collar crime,

while it incessantly concerns itself with crimes among

the poor. The Government in capitalistic society exists

primarily to serve the interests of the capitalist
class, and preservation of the system itself is the

priority. Secondly, eventhough the offences of the poor

tend to harm others who are poor, they are collectively

viewed as a threat to the stability of the system and

the interest of the ruling class.

Richard Quinney's analysis sets down in more

detailed fashion some of the major theoretical arguments
of radical criminology. He advanced six propositions
that make up a critical Marxian theory :
 53

1. American society is based on an

advanced capitalistic economy.

2. The state is organised to serve the

interests of the dominant economic

class, the capitalist ruling class.

3. Criminal law is an instrument of the

state and the ruling class to

maintain and perpecuate the existing

social and economic order.

4. Crime control in capitalist society

is accomplished through a variety

of institutions and agencies

established and administered by

governmental elite, representing

ruling class interests, for the

purpose of establishing domestic

order.

5. The contradictions of advanced

capitalism - the disjunction between

existence and essence - require that

the subordinate classes remain

oppressed by whatever means

necessary, especially through the

coersion and violence of the legal

system.
 54

6. Only with the collapse of

capitalist society and the creation

of a new society based on socialist

principles, will there be a solution
45
to the crime problem

On the matter of crime he presents another

series of propositions which are :

1. The official definition of crime :

Crime as a legal definition of human

conduct is created by agents of the

dominant class in a politically

organised society.

2. Formulating definitions of crime :

Definitions of crime are composed of
behaviours that conflict with the
interests of the dominant class.

3. Applying definitions of crime :

Definitions of crime are applied by

the class that has the power to

shape the enforcement and

administration of criminal law.

 55

4. How behaviour patterns develop in

relation to definitions of crime :

Behaviour patterns are structured in
relation to definitions of crime,

and within this context people

engage in actions that have relative
probabilities of being defined as
criminal.

5. Constructing an ideology of crime :

An ideology of crime is constructed

and diffused by the dominant class

to secure its hegemony.

6. Constructing the social -reality of

crime : the social reality of crime
is constructed by the formulation
and application of definitions of

crime, the development of behaviour

patterns in relation to these
definitions, and the construction of
an ideology of crime4^.

Radical criminology has stirred up

considerable debate which tells us that the emergent
perspective is something to be reckoned with. According
to the recently formed union of radical criminologists,
 56

"the real criminals governs this society (America) and

are protected by its laws" 47 . Sometimes people feel

that in India the position is no different.

Multiple Causation theory of Crime :

The multiple crime causation theory in

criminology grew, out of the discrepancies and arguments
attending the single factor (or single set of like

factors) approaches of the early days. Ferri and many

other early criminologists envisaged the shortcomings of
the single factor approach and identified several
criminogenic factors in their own work. But the

multifactor approach gained its momentum from the

research efforts of Williniam Healy, Cyril Burt, the

Gluecks, Matza etc.

William Healy made a case study of 823

repetitive juvenile delinquents and indicated that he
found an average of 3.5 factors per case
(such as an
48
abnomral personality, broken home or bad companions)
and a list of 138 distinct delinquency factors. He
demonstrated that theories of the causation of
delinquency must embrace a multiple factor rather than a
single factor approach. He too found that mental
abnormality was the most frequent cause of delinquency,
and that a "defective" house condition was the next most
frequent cause 49 . Cyril Burt pursued a similar
investigation and found about 170 delinquency factors
 57

which he classified into nine major categories^®.

Regarding multifactor approach he said : "crime is

assignable to no single universal source, not yet to two

or three; It springs from a wide variety and usually

from a multiplicity of alternative and converging

influences. So violent a reaction, as may easily be

conceived, is almost everywhere the outcome of a

concurrence of subversive factors. It needs many coats
of pitch to paint a thing thoroughly black. The nature

of these factors and of their varying conbinations,

differ greatly from one individual to another.

This is infact a multiple causation theory

that can throw considerable light on the complex subject

of crime causation. No one can commit to a particular
theory of crime causation in any part of the world

because the causes of crime are legion. The Gluecks

also are of the view that "the multiple factors approach

is much more illuminating and much more' in accord with

the variety of original natives involved in crime, the

variety in the behaviour patterns of the acts and mental

states and mechanisms in the single legal concept of

51
"crime"

Albert K. Cohen criticises multifactor

approach as the advocates of that theory did not believe
in integrated theories of criminality. They are
 58

confused with factors and causes of criminality. He

argues, not only do factors have no intrinsic crime

producing qualities, but they should not be confused

with causes. Causal power cannot be assumed on the

basis of a discovery that a certain factor, or

combination of factors, shows a statistical association

with crime.

Despite its short-comings, the raultifactor

approach has remained, a major research orientation in
. 5 2 '.
criminology

Summary :

In this chapter review of some of the major

theoretical perspectives on crime was made and the

gradual development of criminology upto the present was

taken note of. The early perspectives emphasised crime

as behaviour and sought explanations in characteristics
of individual offender. Criminals were presumed to be
different from other people and were regarded as

biologically inferior.

Gradually the sociological ideas took

precedence and the search for causes led to
investigation of the social environment. In

sociological criminology the impact of social structure

on group life is seen first of all in order to find the
 59

cause of crime. Thus theories of delinquent subcultures

came wherein it was believed that crime is an accepted

and supported aspect of a way of life. Sutherland's
differential association theory speaks of learning of
criminal behaviour through interaction.

The social structural and early social process

theories shared in common the view that crime is
"normal" rather than a pathological condition. The

criminal, furthermore, is not morally defective but is,

instead, much like anyone else. The fact that some
seaments of the population have higher crime rates than

others reflects not a tendency toward "moral

defectiveness" but different social experiences and
conditions.

The labeling theorists took the view that

crime is nothing more than a label attached to conduct
and people and what needs to be explained is variations
in labeling behaviour. Crime came to be thought of as a
status applied to behaviour, not as a particular kind of

act.

The conflict theories of 1960s drew attention

away from crime as behaviour and toward the activities

of those in a position to impose the label criminal.
Radical, critical criminology, an off-shoot of the

conflict perspective, has adopted a largely Marxian view

 60

of social relations in capitalistic societies. The

emphasis is on the exercise of power in defence of

ruling class interests and the status quo.

Obviously we have not yet reached the point

where we can hold any single theory to the explanation

of crime. One reason is that people do not agree on what

we mean by crime, the phenomenon to be explained. We

only achieve an incomplete grasp of the crime scene if

we treat crime as either behaviour or status but not

both. To understand the crime scene we must ask not

only why certain activities, people and groups come to

be labeled criminals, but also why people engage in such

activities. We need to understand not only why armed

robbery is a crime, and when armed robbery is reacted to

in certain ways, but also why some people commit armed

robbery and others donot. A theory of criminology that

focuses only on crime as status, and on the processes

and effects of conferring that status is as inadequate,

in my view as one that focusses only on why and how

people behave in ways defined as criminal.

 REFERENCES

Criminology and Criminal Administration,

J.P.S. Sirohi, 3rd Edn., 1988, ALA.

Introduction to criminology, Hugh D.Barlow.

2nd Edn., Little Brown & Company, Boston,
Toronto.

Utopia (London, 1516).

See David M. Gordon, "Capitalism, class and

crime in America, Crime and Delinquency 19
(1973) pp. 163-86.
See also Quinney "Criminology" pp. 37-91.

Barnes and teeters, "New Horizons in C-

riminology, 3rd Edn. 1966 pp. 118-119.

Criminality and Economic conditions, 1916.

Little Brown & Co., Boston.

Theoritical Criminology, George B.Vold p.18.

His main work "De humana Phisiognomia" (1986).

Further reading Leonard savitz et al., "The

origin of Scientific Criminology : Franz
Joseph Gall as the first Criminologist" in
R.F.Meier edited "Theory in Criminology :
Contemporary Views" Sage Publication, 1977.

Ibid at page 43.

In the "Archieved" Anthropologic Criminelle,

Lyons, June 1906.
 62

12. Barnes and Teeters, "New Horizens in

Criminology" 3rd Edn. pp. 126-127.

13. The English . Convict : A Statistical Study

London, 1913, p.18.

14. The Crime Problem, Walter C.Reckless,

p. 378-379.

15. E.Roy Steken's Introduction to the English

Version of "Garofalo's criminology", p.XXI.

16.. Charles Goring, The English Convict. His

majesty's stationary office, London, 1913 :
reprinted by Patterson Smith, Montclair
N.J.1972.

17. Adolf Lenz ' Die Bedeutung der

Kriminal-biologie" taken from "The Crime
Problem" Walter c.Reckless p. 380.

18. Franz Exner, Kriminologie (Berlin, Springer

Verlag, 1949) p. 115-120 taken from Walter
C.Reckless, The Crime Problem p.382.

19. Ibid.p.382.

20. Enrico Ferri, Criminal Sociology (New York,

Appleton, 1896), p.53.

21. Hans Von Hentig, Crime : Causes and Conditions

(New York, Me Graw-Hill, 1947) pp. 203-209-320

22. "The role of low intelligence in delinquency"

British Journal of delinquency, vol.5 pp.
(281-303), 1955..
 63

23. For Psychogenic approaches please refer :

Theoretical Criminology, Void (1958), David
Abrahamsen : The Psychology of crime(New York::
: Columbia University Press, 1960) and Gordon
P.Waldo and Simen Dinitz, "Personality
attributes of the criminal : An analysis of
research studies 1950- 1965", Journal of
research in crime and delinquency 4 (1967) pp.
185-202.

24. The Criminal personality, Vols. 1 and 2 (New

York : Jason Aronson, 1976, 1977).

25. Ahmed Siddique, Criminology : Problems and

perspectives, Eastern Book Co. 2nd Edn. 1983.
p. 42.

26. Robert A. Nisbet, Emile Durkheim, Prentice

Hall Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1965 p.20.

27. Durekheim, Division of Labour p.80.

28. Hugh D. Barlow, Introduction to Criminology,

2nd Edn. Little Brown 1981 p.34.

29. "Social Structure and anomie" American

Sociological Review 3 (1938) pp. 672-82.

30. Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social

Structure, The Free Press, Glencoe, 111, 1968,
p.186.

31. George B. Void,Theoretical Criminology, p.186.

32. Delinquency and opportunity : A theory of

Delinquent gangs. (New York : Free Press
1960).p.7.
 64

33 . Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys : The Culture

of the Gang. The Free Press, New York, 1955.

34. Ibid.p.27.

35. Sutherland and Crasey, 'Criminology' p.81-82.

36. Sheldon Glueck, Theory and fact in Criminology

A criticism of Differential Association
"British Journal of Delinquency 7(1956) pp.
92-109.

37. Criminality theories and Behavioural Images.

American Journal of Sociology 61 (1956) pp.
433-44.

38. Reckless, The Crime problem 5th Edn.

(Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, 1993)
pp. 55-56.

39. Walter C.Reckless and Simon Dinitz,

"Pioneering with self concept as a
vulnerability factor in delinquency "Journal
of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police
Science, 58 (1967) p.515-23.

40. William Bonger, Criminality and Economic

Conditions (Boston : Little,Brown, 1916) pp.
379-80.

41. Austin A. Turk's introduction to the 1969 Edn.

of "Bonger1s Criminality and economic
condition" may be referred for a review of
criticism of Bongers' Theory.
 65

42. Barnes & Teeters, "New Horizons in

Criminology" 3rd Edn. p.148.

43. Hugh D.Barlow, "Criminology", Little Brown and

Company, Boston, Toronto, p.56.

44. David M.Gordon, "Class and the economics of

Crime".

45, Quinney* Critique of Legal Order, p.16.

46. From Quinney, Criminology pp. 37-41.

47. Taken from Introduction to Criminology,Hugh D.

Barlow p.59.

48. The Individual Delinquent : A text book and

prognosis for all concerned in understanding
offenders. (Boston : Little Brown, 1915).

49. Ibid. pp. 130-131.

50. The Young Delinquent (London : University of

London Press, 1925).

51. Theory and Fact in Criminology, British

Journal of Delinquency, Vol.7 (Oct. 1956) p.
108.

52. Stephen Schafer, Introduction to Criminology

(Reston Publishing Co. 1976) p. 85.