THEORIES OF CAUSATION OF CRIME

Introduction

Psychologists argue that in order to do something

about the crime problem, we must first understand its
causes. Their aims are in conformity with that of
Criminologists‘. The questions are Why does crime
happen? What motivates people to commit illegal acts?

Several theories are advocated to answer these

questions for example in case of theft, the biological
explanations say that the thief has bad genes and the
psychological explanations may maintain that he has a
personality defect. Likewise the sociological
explanations may argue that he‘s got in with a bad
crowd. These kind of explanations led to different
kinds of theories:

I. Biological theories of crime,

II. Psychological theories of crime,
III. Sociological theories of crime,
IV. Social-Psychological theories of crime.

However, no single theory can possibly be applicable

to all illegal acts and actors and therefore, an
evaluation of the limitations of each theory is
appropriate.
Biological Theories Of Crime
The use of biological determinants in explaining crime
clearly contrasts with the sociological approach. The
biological emphasis may seek to discover common
physical characteristics among criminals. For example,

1
a study of thirteen men and two women convicted of
murder found that all had experienced severe head
injuries earlier in life and that twelve of them
displayed neurological problems of varying magnitude.
But more often this perspective focuses on genetic
inheritance, on chromosomal abnormalities, on
psychological irregularities or on constitutional (body
type) determinants. Biological explanations are
appealing for reasons:
1. they are simple, and
2. they attempt to distinguish clearly between the
criminal and the non-criminal.
For example, some people are tempted to believe that
criminals look different from the rest of us; we recall
that Shakespeare warned us to be wary of men who
had a lean and hungry look. And if check the Sunday
Comic strips, we find that the conventional burglar is
bald, wears a sporting cap that was fashionable in
1930, weighs 300 pounds and a jetting lower jaw,
broken nose, low fore head and isn‘t bright. But like
most of the simplified approaches, the biological
theories, at best, fall short of comprehensiveness.
Historical Background
With the development of scientific researches during
19th century certain French doctors were successful in
establishing that the real cause of criminality lay in
anthropological feature of the criminal. Certain
phrenologists also tried to demonstrate the organic
functions of brain and enthusiastically established a co
relationship between ‘criminality‘ and ‘structure and

2
functions of brain‘. This led to the emergence of
Positive School of criminology. The main exponents
of the school were three eminent Italian
criminologists, namely, Ceasare Lombroso (1836-
1909), Rafalo Garofalo (1852-1934), Enricho
Ferri(1856-1928). It is for this reason that this school
is also called the Italian School of criminology.
Of the several different biological explanations of
criminal behaviors, the following are important.
[Link] and Criminality, ( Ceasare
Lombroso)
[Link] (Body Type) Determinants,
(William Sheldon)
[Link] Interactionist View. (Wilson
and Herrnstein)

Genetics and Criminality: Ceasare Lombroso

Ceasare Lombroso is often referred to as pioneer of
the positive school or Italian school of criminology. He
was considered the father of ‘Modern Criminology‘
for he emphasized biological causes and correlates of
crime and set in motion a view point that remains in
more sophisticated versions, prevalent today. He was
an Italian psychiatrist who was a physician in the
Army. Basing on his observations, he published a book
titled ―The Criminal Man’ first published in 1876
and the recent edition in 1911. He adopted an
objective and empirical study of criminals through his
anthropological experiments. After an intensive study
of physical characteristics of his patients and later on

3
of criminals, he came to a definite conclusion that
criminals were physically inferior in the standard of
growth and therefore developed a tendency for inferior
acts. He further generalized that criminals are less
sensitive to pain and therefore they have little regard
for the sufferings of others. Lombroso‘s early
conception included his belief in the similarity of the
criminals could be savages, the insane and epileptic
persons, and he believed that criminals could be
distinguished from other people on the basis of
anatomical oddities, such as small craniums, big ears
and abnormal secondary sex characteristics. Lombroso
also believed women lacked the initiative to break
laws, and therefore crime by a woman was a deviation
from her basic nature.
Genetic Inheritance
At a later stage Lombroso himself was convinced of the
futility of his theory. The search for obvious physical
differences between criminals and non-criminals did
not work. In his later edition of his book (The Criminal
Man) hegave more credit to environmental influences
such as the climate and local laws. He extended his
theory of determinism to social as well as economic
situations of criminals. His focus shifted to an
approach proposing that certain inherited qualities
predisposed certain people to act in criminal ways.
How such genetic differences would be explained?
Pedigree Analysis
An analysis of ancestry done on certain families led
many readers to conclude that a propensity for crime

4
was inherited. But such analysis failed to separate the
effects of genetics and environment. Remarkable
contemporary examples of crime that runs in families
do little to resolve the question.
All in the Family
Effie Ramsey has ten sons. Nine are in prison. The
tenth one is in a hale way house for law violators. Most
of their crimes were of moderate severity, like robbery
and burglary and two of them were charged with first
degree murder. They average four criminal convictions
each. Authorities don‘t know exactly where the family
went wrong. The family was poor but always had food.
The ten brothers were raised by both parents living
together. In fact, one or the other of the parents
participated at almost all their sons hearings in
juvenile courts; they made sure that the boys attended
juvenile courts counseling sessions. Their mother was
cooperative with the police and often helped locate her
sons when they were wanted by law officers.
But the authorities said that the parents did not
supervise their children and the sons lacked role
models. Once the older brother turned to crime the
others followed. Despite the statistical improbability
that ten out of ten siblings would be law breakers, the
simplistic explanation that they had each inherited
criminal tendencies from their parents is less likely
than an explanation using social learning theory.

5
 Genetic Anomalies
Another explanation given to support the theory of
hereditary criminality is genetic anomaly such as an
extra chromosome, that might lead to mental
retardation or pathological behavior.
Some time before, research seemed to implicate one
particular genetic abnormality as a possible cause of
some cases of anti-social or criminal behavior.
Samplings of the genetic characteristics of men in
prisons in the United States, Australia, and Great
Britain showed that small percentage of these men,
but a significantly greater percentage in the general
population had an extra ‘Y‘ chromosome (Court-Brown
1968). The normal person has 46 chromosomes per
cell 22 pairs of regular‖ chromosomes, or autosomes,
and two sex chromosomes. In the female both sex
chromosomes are X‘ chromosomes; in the male they
are X‘ and Y‘. When the sperm fertilizes the ovum, the
zygote receives a X‘ from the mother and either a X‘ or
a Y‘ from the father. As the zygote begins its cell
division, a chromosomal abnormality may occur;
instead of producing two rows of 23each, the cell
division may leave an extra X‘ or Y‘ chromosome in one
row.
The aberrant XYY pattern, which was first identified in
Great Britain in 1961, seems to produce men who are
average in height, below average in IQ, and possibly
aggressive and ant-social in behavior. Since the Y‘
chromosome determines maleness‘, the idea developed

6
that the extra Y‘ chromosome constituted super male‖,
a person more aggressive and therefore potentially
criminal. If this is true then the incidence of XYY
abnormalities should be somewhat higher in prison
populations, and this did appear to be the case. The
rate has also been found to be slightly higher among
institutionalized mentally retarded males. However, as
research continued, these findings were largely
refuted.
Even if a relationship between XYY chromosome
makeup and conviction for crime be clearly
demonstrated, both theoretical and practical questions
would remain. For example;
 How does heredity interact with the environment
to produce anti-social behavior?
 Should a criminal be punished as severely if he
has a chromosomal abnormality?
In several murder trials the defendant was acquitted
or given a lesser sentence because of an XYY
chromosome abnormality.
Constitutional (Body Type) Determinants:
William Sheldon
A different approach to crime causation, but one still
linked to biological determinants is through a
typology of body physiques. A typology is
descriptive system in which all people are classified
into limited set of categories. The person‘s type
supposedly describes a central or overriding
characteristic of all aspects of individual‘s life.

7
William H. Sheldon, a professor in Colombia
University tried to establish a relation ship between
body structure and behavior. He identified three basic
dimensions of body build. He developed his ideas from
the fact that life begins in the embryo which is made
up of three different tissue layers, namely, an inner
layer or endoderm, a middle layer or mesoderm, and
an outer layer or ectoderm. He co-related facts from
embryology and the physiology of genetic
development. He pointed out that the physiologically,
the endoderm gives rise to the development of viscera,
the mesoderm to bone, muscle and tendons of the
motor organ system, the ectoderm to connecting
tissues of nervous system, skin and related
appendages. He observed that a person‘s physical
structure may be dominated by the basic characteristic
s of any of these layers in varying degrees. The
variations in body build may lead to the following three
types of physical structures:
 Endomorphic Structure: The person high in
endomorph is soft, round and overweight. They
are persons with fatty or bulky body having short
tapering limbs, small bones, soft and smooth skin
and usually of a mild temperament and
comfortable persons.
 Mesomorphic Structure: Here the physique is
hard and muscled, as the athletic. The
Mesomorphic body is strong and tough. These
persons are strongly built with prominent muscles
and bones and connective tissue. Thus, they have
hairy chest and large wrists and hands. These
persons are temperamentally serious, active,
8
 dynamic often assertive and behave
aggressively.
 Ectomorphic Structure: The third variable is
characterized by a flat chest, a long thin body and
a little in the way of muscular development. These
persons are constitutionally lean and fragile with
delicate body, small face, sharp nose and fine hair.
They are sensitive by temperament and avoid
crowds.
Sheldon further asserted that these physical structures
were directly related to the temperament of the person
who committed crime. Thus, according to him
endomorphics are moody and accommodative by
temperament while the mesomorphics had a rigid and
some what serious temperament. The ectomorphics on
account of their delicate physical build up are often
shaky in their decisions and are short tempered.
From a comparison of 200 delinquents and 200 non-
delinquents Sheldon concluded that the mesomorphic
physique was more likely to manifest criminal
behaviors– that the aggressiveness of the mesomorph
along with his lack of inhibitory controls contributed to
criminality. Sheldon did not propose that a
mesomorphic physique was sufficient for crime, nor
did he neglect the environment as an explanation. But
he wished to advance recognition of the role of
biological determinants that he felt were being
neglected by criminologists at that time.
Limitations of Body Typologies

9
 Not all the mesomorphics are criminals and not all
criminals are mesomorphic. When we use a few
all- or- none categories, we force on nature an
over simplified scheme. Even if an individual can
with some accuracy, be described as basically
introverted type or aggressive type, such a
description is inadequate because of two reasons:
 It essentially ignores hundreds of other attributes
of the individual by selecting only one or a few to
use in categorizing that person.
 It assumes that two individuals put into the same
psychological category have the same attributes.
Almost always, we find that it is not a matter of
black and white; it is a question of shadings.
 When physique is proposed as direct cause of
criminal behavior, further problems emerge. Even
if there is a correlation between these two, it does
not necessarily mean that one causes the other.
For example, it is quite likely that, as children
males with mesomorphic physique were more
likely to find that aggressive and physical ways of
demanding what they wanted were the way that
―worked‖ when they find such ways as successful
to get their things done, as adults they are likely
to continue the same methodology of terrorizing
their peers. In that case Sheldon‘s findings should
be referred to as social learning theory
explanation rather than constitutional one.

Constitutional Interactionist View: Wilson &

Herrnstein

10
Two social scientists at Harvard University, James
Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein, deny the existence
of one gene that causes criminal behavior, but they do
conclude that some people have a predisposition
toward crime ―if they don‘t go in their directions‖.
Their book ―Crime And Human Nature‖(1985)
proposes three factors that contribute to crime:
 Social Environment: Broad societal values are
often neglected as explanations, but these
scholars believe that the shift in the culture of the
society valuing restraint and discipline to more
recent ―me first‖ orientation has exerted great
influence at the level of the individual and
contributed to the skyrocketing crime rate.
 Family Relationships: This is the second factor.
Parents who are uncaring, inconsistent in the
treatment of their children, or unskilled in
dispensing rewards and punishment contribute to
the eventual criminal behavior of their children.
That a child comes from a broken home or has
only a single parent is, they find, not particularly
influential; rather, it is the parent‘s failing to teach
children the consequences of their actions.
 Biological Makeup: It is the determinant and the
most controversial. Among the specific qualities
that they see as at least partly hereditary and as
influential are gender intelligence, impulsiveness
and body type.
i. Gender, as a correlate of criminal behavior, is
so obvious that its significance is often
disregarded. It is a well known fact that more
men than women are repeated law offenders.
11
 Throughout all countries where records are
kept, men are arrested anywhere from five
times to fifty times as often as women. Whether
this gender difference in criminal arrests results
from hereditary or socialization is impossible to
say, because these two factors inextricably
mixed.
ii. Intelligence: Wilson and Herrnstein‘s detailed
review of extreme research leads to the
conclusion that criminals have an average IQ of
92, about 8 points below the mean for the entire
population, and they believe this low IQ means
that criminals cannot think past ―short-time
horizons or may be cannot understand society‘s
rules or the consequences of their actions.
iii. Impulsiveness: These researchers note that
criminals may also be characterized as
impulsive; they have a ―short fuse‖, their
criminal acts often show little planning, and
they are less able to delay gratification than
most people. Such deviant behavior appears
early; often it is evident before age eight.
iv. Body Type: The last of the biologically
determined factors that make men more likely
to be offenders is an athletic, mesomorphic body
physique. Most of the research on which Wilson
and Herrnstein base this conclusion comes from
studies done back in the 1940s and 1950s by
William Sheldon and others.
Psychological Theories of Crime

12
A psychological explanation of crime can refer to a
variety of approaches and concepts. But as Nietzel
(1979) notes, these theories all share the basic belief
that crime is the result of some personality attribute
uniquely possessed, or possessed to a special degree,
by the potential criminal‖. In some variants of this
approach, the cause is an extreme one, such as a
mental illness or a personality disorder. Some of the
psychological approaches even rely on hereditary
determinants.
Psychologists have considered a variety of possibilities
to account for individual differences such as defective
conscience, emotional immaturity, inadequate
childhood socialization, maternal deprivation, poor
moral development etc.
They study how aggression is learned, which situations
promote violent or delinquent reactions, how crime is
related to personality factors and the association
between various mental disorders and criminality. Of
the several psychological explanations the following
are important ones:
[Link] Thinking Patterns,
[Link] Defects,
[Link] Explanations.

Criminal Thinking Patterns: Samuel

Yochelson & Stanton E. Samenow
13
These psychiatrists propose that, criminals
possess a different way of thinking; that is,
criminals operate out of a unique set of cognitive
patterns that, though internally logical and
consistent, is erroneous according to responsible
thinking. The consistent lawbreaker sees himself
and the world differently from the way the rest of
us see them.

Yochelson and Samenow psychiatrists at St.

Elizabeth‘s Hospital in Washington. D. C, reject
environmental explanations of criminality, such as
a broken home or unemployment. They claim
criminals are criminals people become criminals
as a result of a series of choices they start making
at an early age. It is these patterns that result in
criminality. Crime is like alcoholism:

Once a criminal always a criminal.

The psychiatrists saw the criminals they studied

as very much in control of their actions, rather
than being sick. These criminals were portrayed
as master manipulators who try to assign the
blame for their own behavior to others. For
Yochelson and Samenow, criminals simply don‘t
play the game the ways the rest of us do. They are
such inveterate liars that they can no longer
separate fact from fiction. They use words to
control and manipulate, not to represent reality.
Limitations of the Theory

14
 The psychiatrists based their conclusions on
intensive interviews with a relatively small
number of offenders, most of whom were
incarcerated hard core criminals or men who
were hospitalized after having been acquitted
of major crimes by reason of insanity. They
carefully portrayed one type of criminal, but
whether their analysis accurately represents
the majority of lawbreakers is doubtful.

 The criminal thinking patterns theory does

not explain how these choices are made in the
beginning.
 All criminals may not have a tendency to
repeat or continue the same pattern of
behavior.

Personality Defects

Many lay persons explain the cause of crime

as some form of personality defect in the
offender. Taken to its extreme degree, this
explanation forms the basis for theories that
attributes a basic anti-social nature of the
criminal. This conception of psychopathy has
a long history. Generally, it refers to persons
who have frequent and repetitive criminal
activity. More recently, the focus has been on
the underlying unsocialized character, the
lack of conscience that brings such persons
into repeated conflict with society. They are

15
 unable to learn from experience or feel guilt.
They lack loyalty to individuals, groups, or
society‘s values. As Nietzel observes, they
are grossly selfish, callous, and irresponsible.
Hey tend to blame others or to offer plausible
rationalizations for their behavior. All this
combines to give them an arrogance that can
lead to their down fall and capture.

According to Goleman, about 80% of

psychopaths are men. The person
characterized by a personality disorder, or
psychopathic personality, is relatively easy to
identify but very difficult to rehabilitate.
Fortunately, psychopaths account for a very
small percentage of law violators. However,
they commit a disproportionately large
percentage of violent crimes, and their acts
are such that they attract massive publicity.
For years, researchers have sought some
physical or physiological characteristics that
distinguish psychopathic personalities from
others. A study concluded in 1987, has shown
that psychopaths seem to have an unusual
and characteristic pattern of brain
organization, in that the neurological centre
that controls language demonstrates signs of
irregular development.
Psychoanalytic Explanations
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the founder of
psychoanalysis, suggested that criminality may result

16
from either an over active conscience or too weak
conscience. In treating his patients, Freud noticed that
those who were suffering from unbearable guilt
committed crimes in order to be apprehended and
punished. Once they had been punished, their feelings
of guilt were relieved (a way of punishing themselves).
Sigmund Freud’s Psychoanalysis: The id, ego, and
superego. The Warring Components of the
Personality:
In 1920, when he was nearly 65 years old, Freud
proposed a new conception of the personality, one that
contained three systems- the id, the ego, and the
superego. These systems do not exist physically; they
are only concepts, or ways of looking at personality.
The id is the only part of the personality that is present
at birth. It is inherited, primitive, inaccessible, and
completely unconscious. The id‘ contains two kinds of
instincts:
 The life instincts, which are sexual instincts and
biological urges such as hunger and thirst, and
 The death instinct, which accounts for our
aggressive and destructive impulses. The id‘
operates according to pleasure principle; that is,
to seek pleasure, avoid pain, and gain immediate
gratification of its wishes. The id‘ is the source of
the libido, the psychic energy that fuels the entire
personality; yet the id‘ cannot act on its own. It
can wish, image fantasize, demand.

17
  The ego is the logical, rational, realistic part of
the personality. The ego‘ evolves from the id‘ and
draws its energy from the id‘. One of the ego‘s
functions is to satisfy the id‘s urges. But the ego‘,
which is mostly conscious, acts according to the
reality principle. It must consider the constraints
of the real world in determining the appropriate
times, places and objects for gratification of the
id‘s wishes. The art of the possible is its guide, and
sometimes compromises must be made, for
example, a chicken sandwich instead of fish curry.

When the child is age 5 or 6, the superego the

moral component of the personality is formed. The
superego has two parts:

 The conscience consists of all the behaviors for

which we have been punished and about which we
feel guilty;

 The ego ideal contains the behaviors for which

we have been praised and rewarded and about
which we feel pride and satisfaction. At first the
superego reflects only the parent‘s expectations of
what is good and right, but it expands over time to
incorporate teachings from the broader social
world. In its quest for moral perfection, the
superego sets moral guidelines that define and
limit the flexibility of the ego‘.
The psychoanalytic theory of criminality attributes
delinquent and criminal behavior to a conscience so
overbearing that it arouses feelings of guilt or so weak
18
that it cannot control the individual‘s impulses and to a
need for immediate gratification. For example, in
Richard‟s case, Richard was six when he committed
his first delinquent act: he stole a comic book from the
corner drug store. Three months before the incident
his father, an alcoholic, had been killed in an
automobile accident. After that, his mother became
unable to care for the family, and had abandoned the
children. For the next ten years the state welfare
agency moved Richard in and out of foster homes.
During this time, he actively pursued a life of crime,
breaking into houses during day light, and stealing
cars in the night. By age 20 while serving a ten year
prison sentence for armed robbery, he had voluntarily
entered psychoanalysis. After two years Richard‘s
analyst suggested three reasons for his criminality:
 Being caught and punished for stealing made him
feel less guilty about hating his father and mother
for abandoning him.
 Stealing did not violate his moral and ethical
principles.
 Stealing resulted in immediate gratification and
pleasure, both which Richard had great difficulty
resisting.
Richard‘s psychoanalyst suggested that Richard‘s
anger over his father‘s death and his mother‘s
abandonment created unconscious feelings of guilt
which he sought to relieve by committing a crime and
being punished for it.
The psychoanalyst also offered an alternative
explanation for Richard‘s persistent criminal activities
19
his conscience was perhaps not too strong but too
week‖.
The Conscience, or Super ego was so weak or
defective that the ego‘(which acts as a moderator
between super ego‘ and id‘) was unable to control the
impulses of the id ( the part of the personality that
contains powerful urges and drives for gratification
and satisfaction) because the super ego is essentially
an internalized personal image, developed when
the child assumes the parent‘s attitudes and moral
values, it follows that the absence of such an image
may lead to an unrestrained id and thus to
delinquency.
Psychoanalytic theory suggests yet another
explanation of Richard‘s behavior—an insatiable need
for immediate reward and gratification. A defect in the
character formation of delinquents drives them to
satisfy their desire at once, regardless of the
consequences. This urge, which psychoanalysts
attribute to the id‘, is so strong that
relationships with people are important only so long as
they help to satisfy it. Most analysts view delinquents
as children unable to give up their desire for instant
pleasure.
Sigmund Freud‘s influential theory about the
development of personality provides a different
explanation for criminal acts. Freud hypothesized that
the three sets of forces:
 The selfish, irrational ones,
 The rational forces, and
20
  The moralistic one
are always struggling for control of behavior. He
believed that the criminal suffers from a compulsive
need for punishment to alleviate the guilt feelings.
Other psychoanalysts, especially Franz Alexander
emphasize the inability to post pone immediate
gratification in the criminal, who has never come to
internalize the reality principle.
One of the reasons that psychoanalytic theory has had
such an influence is its comprehensiveness as a
description of the nature and processes of human
personality. In spite of criticism, three basic principles
still appeal to the psychologists who study criminality
are:
 The actions and behavior of an adult are
understood in terms of childhood development.
 Behavior and unconscious motives are
intertwined, and their interaction must be
unraveled if we are to understand criminality.
 Criminality is essentially a representation of
psychological conflict.

Limitations to Psychoanalytical Theory

1. Though it is a thorough explanation it is very

difficult to test or validate the theory through
empirical work.
2. The actual patterns of criminal conduct
usually differ generally from Freud‘s
explanation. Law breakers go to extremes top
21
avoid detection. This fact makes his
hypothesis of that criminal suffers from a
compulsive need to be punished and be
cleansed from their guilty feelings.

Sociological Theories of Crime

These theories adopt an objective approach to

explain criminality. They emphasize factors
that affect many criminals in common.
American criminologists prefer this approach.
They attribute criminality to the social
conditions of the criminal. Crime- causation
depends considerably on social interactions.
At times persons violate the provisions of law
knowing fully well that they will have to face
penal consequences for their acts. This
phenomenon is more conspicuous in times of
political strategy. For example in the freedom
struggle of India Mahatma Gandhi and other
national leaders broke the laws made by the
English and were imprisoned. Similarly, cases
of hunger strikes, demonstrations of protests,
self-immolations all are glaring instances of
deliberate law violations by responsible
persons of the society. Sociological theories of
criminal behavior can be explained under
three heads:
 Structural Explanations
 Sub-cultural Explanations
 Multiple Factor Approach

22
 Structural Explanations

These arguments maintain that criminality is the

result of structural defects in the society or family
etc. Structural defects here mean the general
breakdown of normal social conditions. These
explanations emphasize on the existence of
fundamental inequality in the structure of the
society. Inequalities are experienced in the
opportunities to achieve the goals valued by the
society. In the society, all people have aspirations
or goals to be wealthy, successful, educated, hope
to possess material possessions such as nice
clothes, cars, bungalows, all luxuries. But not
everybody is having the opportunities. Some have
greater opportunities, for instance, being from
affluent families have greater chances to get good
education.

Some may have greater abilities to achieve their

goals. People with good looks are more likely to
achieve goals through legitimate means. Some
others, who have lesser opportunities and cannot
attain their thorough legitimate means, may face a
compulsion to rely on illegal means.

Merton‟s Theory of Social Structure and Anomie

23
Robert K. Merton (1938) explains this through his
popular explanation of Social Structure and Anomie‖.
He explains the collapsing of social conditions brought
by severe economic conditions is responsible for
criminal behavior. He rejects the notion that crime is
an intrinsic and individual behavior. He looks beyond
the immediate personal environment of the criminals
to the broader context of ‘Social Structure and Anomie
for explanation of criminal behavior. Merton borrowed
the term anomie from Emile Durkheim a French
sociologist. Durkheim had studied the French and
American culture after the Industrial Revolution. In his
study he noted that economic crisis and a general
breakdown of the normal social conditions created
deregulation of social and moral rules. This
deregulation which he called anomie, could lead to all
sorts of social deviance including suicide and crime.
Anomie is a condition which exists when norms no
longer control people‘s behavior, when people no
longer have clear rules. When normlessness exists
then controls on behavior and aspirations cease to
exist. Merton maintained that anomie is especially
likely to exist in a society where there is unequal
opportunity and an emphasis on material success; and
he claimed that it can explain a broad range of socially
deviant behavior. Merton explains that society
establishes institutionalized goals usually understood
to be financial success which society emphasizes and
reinforces. To achieve these goals there are socially
structured methods which can be called means. When
such goals are over emphasized and highly praised but
the means to achieve them are unavailable to a
24
considerable part of that population then anomie is
likely i.e. when success is blocked by the unavailability
of ―means‖ individuals experience strain and show two
kinds of reactions, either they must adjust their
aspirations downward or devise alternative routes to
achieve goals. In such an environment deviant
behavior is wide spread. According to Merton, five
modes are adopted by the people to achieve goals:
1. Conformity,
2. Innovation,
3. Ritualism,
4. Retreatism, and
5. Rebellion.
Conformity is a path taken by most people, even if
they realize that the means to achieve their goals are
restricted. Innovation is where a person accepts a
goal but rejects the accepted, legitimate means to
achieve the goal. For example, a child wants a Bicycle,
the legitimate means are to ask parents or grand-
parents or save money by doing a part time job etc. If
all these means are not available an alternative,
innovative means may be chosen such as theft In
Ritualism, a person continues to follow the
institutionalized means such as hard work and thrift
but looses sight of the goals or rejected them. This
may describe the so called rat- race, in which people
work diligently in socially approved ways but have no
hope of success in achieving their goals, or no longer
identify with long term goals. In Retreatism, both

25
goals and means are rejected. The retreatist‘s
response to an inability to reach goals is to drop out,
or to quit trying. This may lead to extreme retreatist
behaviour such as alcoholism, drug addiction or
vagrancy. Rebellion is an option for people who reject
the approved goals and means to achieve them for new
goals and means. Rebels and revolutionaries are
disappointed individuals who view accepted goals as
unattainable or undesirable and socially approved
means of reaching them as demeaning or unworkable.
Therefore, these persons substitute new, socially
unacceptable goals and means, such as redistribution
of wealth through socialist political structure.
Evaluation of Merton‟s Theory
The strain perspective developed by Merton and his
followers has influenced both research and theoretical
developments in criminology. Yet, as popular as this
theory remains, it has been questioned on a variety of
grounds. By concentrating on crime at the lower levels
of the socioeconomic hierarchy, for example, it
neglects crime committed by middle and upper class
people.
Other critics question whether a heterogeneous
society does have goals on which everyone agrees.
Some theorists argue that some subcultures have their
own value systems. If this is the case, we cannot
account for deviant behavior on the basis of Merton‘s
cultural goals.
Other important questions raised are, if we have an
agreed upon set of goals, is material gain the dominant

26
one? If crime is a means to an end, why is there so
much of useless, destructive behavior, especially
among teenagers?
No matter how it is structured, each society defines
goals for its members. For example, the United States
is not only the society in which people strive for wealth
and prestige. Yet, while some people in the other
cultures have limited means for achieving goals, not all
these societies have high crime rates. Two such
societies Japan and Switzerland are among the most
developed and industrialized in the world. Although
the United States has quite a bit in common with them,
it does not share their very low crime rates.
Despite the many critical assessments, strain theory,
as represented by Merton‘s formulation of anomie, has
had a major impact on the contemporary criminology.
Sub cultural Explanations
The second type of sociological approach focuses on
sub cultural explanations, with emphasis on the
discrepancy in the norms for different groups.
Meaning of Sub culture
A sub culture is sub-division within the dominant
culture that has its own norms beliefs and values. Sub
cultures typically emerge when people in similar
circumstances find themselves isolated from the main
stream and band together for mutual support. Sub
cultures may form among members of racial and
ethnic minorities, among prisoners, among
occupational groups, among ghetto dwellers. Sub

27
cultures exist within a larger society, not apart from it.
They therefore share some of its values. Nevertheless,
the life styles of their members are significantly
different from those of in the dominant culture.
According to Albert Cohen, an American Sociologist,
deviant behavior is supported by sub culture. A sub
culture of criminals has its own norms which stand
over against the norms of the larger group (the
dominant culture). The deviance does not appear
unusual or abnormal from their point of view. Indeed,
most sub cultures have a vague notion that the larger
society is unjust and corrupt. Important types of
deviant behaviors are juvenile delinquency, drug
addiction, and crime against persons and property etc.
The laxity of norms the anonymous nature of cities and
multiple standards of behaviors are often responsible
for it.
Basis of the Sub cultural Theory
Strain theorists (structural explanations) explain
criminal behavior as a result of the frustrations
suffered by lower class individuals deprived of
legitimate means to reach their goals. Cultural
deviance theorists assume that:
 Individuals become criminal by learning the
criminal values of the groups to which they
belong.
 In conforming to their own group standards, these
people break the law of the dominant culture.
These two perspectives are the foundations of the sub
cultural theory.

28
Nietzel (1979) explains that the sub cultural theory is
based on the fact that there is a lack of agreement
between norms of different groups. He describes as
follows:
he sub cultural perspective holds that the conflict of
norms, which engenders criminal behavior, is due to
the fact that various ethnic or class groupings of
people adhere to cultural patterns of behavior that are
inconsistent with the dominant injunctions against
certain types of crime. These illegal patterns of
behavior are supported by the particular sub cultural
norms that actually exert pressure toward deviation
from the consensual norms underlying the criminal
law.‖
Gangs, for example, possess norms about how to
behave. For some young people, the gang takes the
place of parents as the giver of norms, even when the
parents attempt to instill their own values.
Walter Miller‟s Theory of Focal Concerns
This theme of cultural conflict is made salient in
Walter Miller‟s Theory of Focal Concerns, (1958)
which attributes the criminal activities of lower- class
adolescent gangs to their attempt to achieve the ends
that are valued in their culture through the behaviors
that appear to them to be the most feasible means of
obtaining those ends. Thus, adherence to the traditions
of the lower class is essential. Miller labels them as
trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fate and
autonomy. For example, lower-class boys pick fights to

29
show their toughness, and they steal to demonstrate
their shrewdness and daring.
MILLER‟S “FOCAL CONCERNS” OF LOWER-
CLASS CULTURE
[Link] AREA DESIRABLE
NDESIRABLE

1 Trouble Law-abiding Law-

behavior violating
behavior
2 Toughness Physical Weakness;
prowess; ineptitude;
skill; effimacy;
masculinity timidity;
cowardice;
fearlessness
caution
; bravery;
daring
3 Smartness Ability to Gullibility,
outsmart, conabilty;
dupe, gaining,
gaining money by
money by hard work;
wits; slowness;
shrewdness; dull-
wittedness;
verbal
maladroitne
ss
4 Excitement Thrill; risk; Boredom;
danger; deadness;

30
 change; safeness;
activity sameness;
passivity
5 Fate Favored by Ill-omened;
fortune; being
being ucky unlucky
6 Autonomy Freedom by Presence of
external external
constraint; constraint;
freedom presence of
from super strong
ordinate authority;
authority; dependency
independen ; being
ce cared for

31
 Limitations to the Focal Concerns Theory
 The theory of focal concerns applies to a restricted
range of crimes. It does not crime buy individuals
not socially disadvantaged, such as a business
man or stock broker.
 The key concepts are vague as in the case of
structural explanations. How do these cultural
standards originate? How are they transmitted
from generation to generation? And how do these
standards control the behavior of any one
individual?
 According to Nietzel, the most troublesome
concept is the central one that is, the sub culture.
Some critics reject the assumption of value
differences among groups. For example, some
sociologists suggest that American society is really
not as culturally diverse as the theory implies.
Multiple Factor Approach
Despite repeated attempts on the part of
criminologists propounding different views to
formulate a singular theoretical explanation for
criminal behaviour, no hypothesis could answer the
issue satisfactorily. Eventually, the sociologists made
use of multiple-factor approach‘ to explain the
causation of crime. The supporters of this view believe
that crime is a product of a combination of a variety of
factors which can not be narrated in terms of general
propositions. This view finds support from the writings
of eminent American criminologist William Healy,
expressing his views on multiple causation theory, Pro.
Healy observed that it is not one or two factors which
32
turn a man delinquent but it is a combination of many
more factors say eight or ten which cumulatively
influence him to follow criminal conduct. He, however,
agreed that all the factors associated with a particular
crime may not have equal importance as a cause of
that crime. The extent of their influence on crime may
be in varying degrees, some exerting greater influence
on the crime while the others, the least. But this theory
has been vehemently criticized by Albert Cohen on the
ground that it offers no single explanation which can
explain crime causation. Moreover, it is fallacious to
believe that crimes generate only in deplorable
surroundings. The greatest shortcoming of the
multiple factor approach to crime according to Cohen
is that the adherents of this theory confused factors
with those of causes of crime.
From the foregoing analysis it is evident that
sociologists consider crime as a product of
environmental deviations and varying social
conditions. The inter-relation between criminality and
some of these conditions may be discussed under the
following heads:
Mobility
The rapid growth of industrialization and urbanization
in recent years has led to expansion of means of
communication, travel facilities and propagation of
views through press and platform. Consequently,
human interaction has gone beyond intimate
associations with increased chances of mobility.
Migration of persons to new places where they are
strangers offers them better opportunities for crime as
33
the chances of detection are considerably minimized.
Mobility, therefore, serves as a potential cause of
social disorganization which may result in deviant
behaviour due to lack of family control.
Culture Conflicts
In a dynamic society social change is an inevitable
phenomenon. The impact of modernization,
urbanization and industrialization in modern dynamic
society may sometimes result in social disorganization
and this may lead to culture conflicts between different
sections of society. The difference may be between old
and new values, local and imported values and
traditional values and the government imposed values.
Criminality arising out of cultural conflict theory has
been well explained by Shah and Mckay through their
Cultural Transmission theory of crime which was a
dominant criminological theory of the 20th century.
The theory simply states that traditions of delinquency
are transmitted through successive generations of the
same inhabitation in the same way as language and
attitudes are transmitted. The inability of local
communities to appreciate the common values of their
residents or solve commonly experienced problems
causes tension leading to deviant behaviours. This is
how criminal traditions get embedded into the
functioning of a community and they co-exist alongside
conventional values. Sutherland has termed this
phenomenon as differential social disorganization
which is more common with lower-class
neighborhoods. He attributes three main causes for

34
the culture conflict, namely, (1) residential instability;
(2) social or ethnic heterogeneity; and (3) poverty.
The shift of population due to migration or
immigration quite often affects the crime rate of a
given place. The culture conflict between inhabitants
and immigrants results in deviant behaviour. In a
recent study Ruth and Cavan found that Eskimos who
were free from the problem of crime until recently,
now frequently indulge into deviant behaviour such as,
loitering, drunkenness and sex-offences due to their
migration to urban areas and social contact with non-
Eskimos.
Family Background
Sutherland holds that out of all the social processes,
the family background has perhaps the greatest
influence on criminal behaviour of the offender; the
reason being that children spend most of their time
with their parents and relatives within the family.
Children are apt to imbibe criminal tendencies, if they
find their parents or members of the family behaving
in a similar manner. The institution of family is
expected to cater to the basic needs of the children.
Therefore, the child should feel that he enjoys a
certain privilege and protection in his family and that
he is loved and liked by his parents and members of
the family. This feeling of security, warmth and
reliance makes children to lean the virtues of love,
respect and duty towards others. Thus, it is through
the institution of family that the child unconsciously
learns to adjust himself to the environment and
accepts the values of life such as respect for others,
35
faithfulness, trustworthiness and co-operation through
his own life experiences. It, therefore, follows that a
child brought up in a broken family is likely to fall an
easy prey to criminality. Lack of parental control over
children due to death, divorce or desertion of parent or
their ignorance or illness may furnish soothing ground
for the children to resort to criminal acts. Again,
frequent quarrels amongst parents, undue domination
of one over the other, step-motherly treatment with
children, frequent births in the family, immorality of
parents, misery, poverty or unwholesome family
atmosphere and the like may also lead to the neglect of
child and finding no adequate outlet for his talents, he
may tend to become criminal in his life. To add to the
above list, unemployment, low income or parent‘s
continued long absence from home for the sake of
livelihood is some other causes for child delinquencies.
After a careful study of the family background of a
number of delinquents, Donald Taft deduced the
following generalizations which are significant from
the point of view of crime causation:
1. Mobility among criminals is far greater than those
of non-criminals. In other words, delinquents
change their place more frequently than the law-
abiding persons.
2. The delinquents usually prefer to stay away from
their family, parents and homes.
3. The homes of delinquents are often ill-maintained,
insanitary and display poor standard of living.

36
4. The family life of most delinquents is usually
disrupted and their parents are either dead,
separated or divorced.
5. Experience has shown that most of the
delinquents are subjected to physical punishment
by the parents in their childhood. Consequently,
they hardly show any respect for the members of
their family.
6. A large percentage of criminals are usually hostile
and indifferent towards their brothers and sisters.
7. Delinquents are encouraged to follow criminality
in their homes in either of the following ways:
a. The parents may not themselves be associated
with the criminal act but they might
deliberately avoid preventing their children
from indulging into criminal acts.
b. Children may learn criminal patterns through
the process of imitation. They begin to learn
similar behaviour from their parents or other
members of the family.
c. The parents who have embraced criminality
as a way of life like those of professional
thieves, pickpockets, prostitutes, etc. often
train their children for the vocation. It is,
however, true that a reverse process may also
operate where criminal parents take all steps
to ensure that their children do not follow
their foot-steps and keep away from
criminality. To take an illustration, it is often
seen that prostitutes usually take care to keep
their children away from the dubious
profession so much so that they take all

37
 precautions to ensure that their children do
not even come to know that their mother is a
prostitute. So also, most of the notorious
dacoits prefer to dissuade their children from
following similar criminal traits and provide
them best education for an upright and honest
living. This change in their attitude is perhaps
due to the impact of education and social
transformation in recent decades.
Those who disagree with the influence of family
surrounding on criminality may argue that this
hypothesis is incorrect because cases are not wanting
when persons brought up in most down-trodden and
deplorable family situations have become most useful
members of the society and have held prestigious
positions. It may be noted that family is only one of the
multiple factors affecting criminal behavior. Therefore,
if a child living in degraded family situations finds
other surroundings favorable to his upright growth, he
adapts himself to those norms and eventually becomes
a law abiding citizen. Thus if other conditions of the
child remain conducive to his upright living, the evil
influences of degenerated family are held in check by
other stronger forces.
Political Ideology
It is well known that the Parliamentarians who are
law-makers of the country are also politicians. They
succeed in mobilizing public opinion in the desired way
through the media of press and platform and finally
enact suitable laws to support their policies. Thus
political ideologies gain strength through legislative
38
process thereby directly influencing the criminal
patterns in a given society. The liberalization of
abortion law, protection of women against violence
including harmful traditional practices, etc. are some
of the examples to show as to how the concept of
criminality changes with the changed ideologies of the
politicians and the government in power. With the
change in ideologies what was unlawful and illegal till
yesterday may become lawful and legal today and vice
versa. The law-makers justify these changes for the
good of the society keeping in view the changing
norms of civilization and culture. Again, political
changes in a country may give rise to new political
offences. The excessive interference of politicians in
executive functions of the Government weakness the
morale of the administrators as well as the police, with
the result there is spontaneous growth in crime-rate.
Religion and Crime
The changes in religious ideologies also have a direct
bearing on incidence of crime in a particular region. It
has been rightly said that morality can best be
preserved in a society through the institution of
religion. The bond of religion keeps persons within
their limits and helps them to keep away from sinful
and criminal acts. The declining influence of religion in
modern times has tended to leave men free to do as
they like without any restraint or fear. Consequently,
they do not hesitate to resort to criminality even for
petty materialistic gains. Despite the fact that all
religions speak of communal harmony and peaceful co-
existence, most wars on this earth are fought in the

39
name of religion. The war between Iran and Iraq for
over eight years, the wars in Lebanon, and the
continuing fight between Catholics and Protestants in
Northern Ireland and even terrorist activities in India
are being carried out in the name of hidden religious
overtones. These divisive forces contribute
considerably to the incidence of murder, mass killing,
destruction of public and private properties and other
anti-social behaviour.
Economic Conditions
Economic conditions also influence criminality to a
considerable extent. Present day industrial progress,
economic growth and urbanization have paralyzed the
Ethiopian domestic life. The institution of family has
disintegrated to such an extent that control of parents
over their wards has weakened thus leaving them
without any surveillance. Under the circumstances,
those who lack self-control fall an easy prey to
criminality. The need for economic empowerment of
women leads to employment of women and their other
outdoor activities. This in turn enhanced the
opportunities for sex crime. Again crimes such as
hoarding, undue profiteering, black-marketing, etc.,
are essentially an outcome of economic changes. Now-
a-days money is the paramount consideration to assess
the social status of a person in society. Crimes in
higher circles of society can easily be wiped off
through money. Unemployment among the youths is
yet another cause of increase in crime rate. If the
energies of these young persons are properly

40
channelized, surely the crime rate among this age
group will decrease.
It has been generally accepted that there is a strong
relationship between criminality and economic or
income inequality as also between crime and
unemployment. But poverty per se (in/by itself) is not
the sole cause of criminality; it is only a major factor in
crime causation. It is the social disorganization which
accounts for criminality among the poorest and not
their poverty. Undoubtedly, there is close relationship
between unemployment and criminality and
particularly, accounts for an unprecedented rise in
property crimes and a consequential increase in the
arrest rate of juveniles and youth. Those who are
jobless or have less secure employment such as casual
and contract workers, are more likely to be involved in
property crimes.
Analyzing the impact of economic conditions on
criminality, Prof. Hermann Mannheim observed that if
we leave aside traffic offences, three-forth of the time
and energy of the criminal law administrators of the
world shall have to be devoted to economic crimes.
Focusing the importance of economic factors in the
causation of crime, he pointed out that poverty
contributes both directly and indirectly to the
commission of crime. However, poverty alone may not
be a direct cause of crime because other factors such
as frustration, emotional insecurity and non-fulfillment
of wants often play a dominant role in giving rise to
the criminal tendency.

41
The Marxist theory has emphasized that all human
behaviour is determined by economic factors.
Supporting this view, Fredrick Engels attributed
increase in the incidence of crime in England in mid-
eighteenth century to the deplorable economic
condition of the workers due to class exploitation. W.A.
Bonger also adopted the same approach in explaining
crime causation and asserted that a criminal was a
product of capitalistic system, which created selfish
tendencies. In such a system each person tries to
extract maximum from others in return of the
minimum from himself. Thus, Bonger identified many
evils in the capitalistic systems which were responsible
for generating crimes. In fact, the theory of Radical
Criminology is based on this concept which further
explains that crime occurs due to the exploitation of
the poor by the rich.
Ecology of Crime
Ecology is the study of people and institutions in
relation to environment. Topographical conditions also
affect the incidence of crime in a particular region or
locality. After a series of researches Enrico Ferri, the
eminent Italian criminologist analyzed the crime index
of his country and concluded that in the same country
the crime rate varies considerably from one region to
another. Some typical crimes are more peculiar to a
particular region than other parts of the country.
Similar observations were made by criminologists in
France, England and U.S.A. which sufficiently
established the influence of ecology on crime. It is well
known that violating of customs, excise and drug laws

42
are more common in border areas and coastal regions
than in plains. Illegal felling of trees and violation of
forest laws is an every day occurrence in forest
regions.
The impact of ecology on crime can apparently to be
seen in dacoit-infested forest regions where
opportunities for escape and avoid detection are
plenty. Similarly, pilgrim places are the breeding
ground for all sorts of anti-social activities such as
cheating, stealing, exploiting, etc.
The proponents of ecological theory attribute social
disorganization as the main cause of criminality. They
therefore believe that treating or punishing the
individual offenders would do little to alleviate the
problem and the solution is to be found in making
efforts to stabilize the social organization and
promoting community feeling, particularly among
youths. As Durkheim rightly put it, ―the overall
disorder and disorganization, social and personal,
shifts behaviour in the direction of crime‖.
The regional comparisons of crime rate in different
parts of the country sufficiently indicate that certain
crimes are peculiar to a particular location. It can,
therefore, be inferred that ecology of crime consists in
the study of influences such as neighborhood,
population, topographical factors, etc., on criminals
considered from the point of view of location.
Commenting on this aspect, Donald Taft observed that
“ecology of crime may be studied in terms of location
of criminal or residences of delinquents or some
supposed influence upon crime which has distribution
43
in terms of space and topography”. He further
observed that criminals are often mobile and there
seems to be a causal relationship between location of
delinquency and the criminal. It may, however, be
pointed out that ecology of crime need not be confused
with the proximity of crime and social conditions. The
predominant consideration in the ecology of crime is
topographical conditions of different regions and their
impact on causation of
crime peculiar to those places. Thus ecology is
undoubtedly one of the multiple factors of crime
causation.
Influence of Media
The importance of mass media in influencing human
mind has been repeatedly emphasized by some
experts. Experience has shown that television and
films have the maximum impact on the viewers due to
combined audio-visual impact. Most of serials or films
shown on television or cinema halls depict scenes of
violence which adversely affect the viewers,
particularly the young boys and girls who often tend to
imitate the same in their real life situations. The rising
incidence of juvenile delinquency is essentially the
result of evil effect of violence and vulgarism and
undesirable sex exposures depicted in movies or
television. Likewise, pornographic literature also has
an unwholesome influence on the impressionable
minds of the youth which generates criminality among
them.

44
Most criminologists believe that films and television
are major contributors to violent behaviour. A survey
conducted by the Broadcasting Group of the House of
Lords indicated that exposure to media violence was
closely linked with aggressive behaviour. But Hagell
and Newbury opposed the view that there was a link
between violent media images and criminality after
finding that persistent offenders watch films or
television far less than non-criminals. Gillin has
expressed doubt about any real link between media
violence and criminality. According to him films, T.V.
and other media teach methods of violence to those
who are already susceptible to them but it does not go
further than that.
Nevertheless, it would be seen that in recent years the
media has a powerful effect on public perceptions of
the dangers posed by particular events, actions or
behaviors. The emotive power of the media may,
however, sometimes lead to illogical and ill-conceived
conclusions. At times, it may be noticed that crime
depiction in the media is deliberately distorted to
suppress reality. Again, there may be occasions when
an act committed by an influential person or a
politician may not be given coverage or condemnation
despite being blatantly criminal or anti-social.
Crimes in Urban and Rural Areas
Ecological aspects of crime can best be demonstrated
by an analysis of a variety of crimes operating in urban
as well as rural areas. Many crimes which are common
in urban areas are unknown to rural setting. The
concentration of industry and commercial activities in
45
urban region has given rise to the problems of
immigration, mobility of population and scarcity of
residential accommodation. The availability of quick
means of transport in cities offers better opportunities
for delinquents to escape detection and arrest. The
incidence of juvenile delinquency, shop lifting, petty
thefts and sexual offences are more common in slum
areas and poverty-stricken homes. That apart, the
recurrence of white collar crimes, bank-offences,
frauds, embezzlement, racketeering(a system of
organized crime that is traditionally involved in
extortion of money from businessmen by intimidation,
violence or other illegal methods) and the like are
mostly confined to urban regions. Conversely, some
crimes are exclusively confined to rural areas and they
rarely occur in cities. Thus the thefts of crops and
cattle, arson and trespass are predominately the
offences of rural setting. Commenting on the incidence
of crimes in urban and rural regions Donald Taft
opines that the number of crimes committed in rural
areas are far fewer than those committed in urban
cities because of the greater homogeneity of rural
population, lesser mobility and absence of adequate
opportunities for the criminal to escape. Greater
mobility due to migration and immigration of labour,
overcrowding in urban dwelling, the absence of
effective family or community control and lack of
constructive influences are the main causes for
multiplicity of crime in urban regions.
The rural migrants in new cities are unable to easily
adjust to the impersonal heterogeneity of urban life.
They are no longer controlled by the traditional norms
46
and family loyalties. They become restless persons
without associates. In the words of Durkheim, they
become small particles in that world of ―disorganized
dust‖. Thus heterogeneity of urban life destroys their
earlier congenial social relationships, creating a social
vacuum which proves to be a fertile ground for
criminality. Under such conditions, violence and crime
proliferate.
Again, the inhabitants of rural areas are by nature
simple and law-abiding as compared with their urban
counterparts, probably because of illiteracy and their
modest living. Moreover, limited contact with outside
world keeps them unaware of the technicalities of
criminal life. It is generally believed that crimes
relating to property are predominantly committed in
urban areas while those against person are more
common in rural regions. However, this hypothesis
does not seem to be wholly correct. Property crimes
are as common in villages as in towns. Likewise,
crimes relating to person are as rampant in cities and
towns as in rural areas.
Neighborhood Influences
Neighborhood influences also have much to do with
the nature of crimes in a particular locality. Thus
thickly inhabited areas, town and cities offer frequent
opportunities for sex offences and crimes relating to
theft, bootlegging, burglary, kidnapping, cheating, and
deceit and so on. Cases of pick-pocketing are common
in railway stations, bus stands and other halt places.
Thefts of footwear are too common in temples and
worship places in India.
47
Ecological study of prisons further reveals that certain
types of crime are peculiar to the prison-life. For
example, homo-sexuality is common among the
prisoners because of their inability to resist biological
needs due to the deprivation of family life. That apart,
the convicts quite often indulge in mutual fights and
quarrels in an attempt to show their muscle power and
establish dominance over other prisoners in regard to
their skill in criminality. Violent offenders generally
resort to destruction of prison property and offend
prison authorities on petty issues.
Another significant feature of these delinquent areas is
the location of certain anti-social institutions in the
neighborhood. These include prostitution houses,
gambling dens, brothels and similar other dubious
institutions. These areas of vices are delinquency-
ridden and offer a fertile ground for organized
criminals. The inhabitants of nearby locality are easily
influenced by these vicious activities and thus lend
themselves into the life of criminality.
W.I. Thomas, the famous sociologist of the Chicago
School asserted that inability of a neighborhood to
solve its problems together leads to social
disorganization leading to unconscious motivations for
crime. Inability of a group to engage in self-regulation
turns them towards delinquency.
More recently, there has been a tendency to correlate
certain places of recreation with the ecology of crime.
The cinema theaters, swimming pools, sport grounds,
and race courses generally offer a favorable
atmosphere for delinquencies. But this is rather an
48
oversimplification of facts. As a matter of fact, the
frequency of crime in these places has little to do with
their location. In fact, it is the environmental and not
the ecological influence which generates crime in
these places. Moreover, there are quite a large
number of law-abiding members of the society who do
not become criminals even after coming into contact
with delinquents in these places of recreation and
entertainment.
Social-Psychological Theories of Crime
Social-psychological explanations of criminality view
the criminal behavior, as a learned one acquired
through a process of social interaction. Sometimes
they are referred to as Social-process theories, in
order to draw attention to the processes by which an
individual becomes a criminal. These explanations
bridge the gap between the unqualified
environmentalism of the sociological theories and the
narrow individualism of the psychological and
biological approaches. Thus, they stress those
reciprocal transactions between people and their
social environments that would explain why some
people behave criminally and others do not.
Social-psychological theories can be divided into two
categories:
 Control Theories,
 Learning Theories.
Control Theories

49
Control theories assume that the motive to deviate is
relatively constant across people, and hence people
will frequently behave antisocially unless they are
trained not to. Some never form attachments or bonds
with significant others, so that necessary controls are
never internalized. There are two important theories
under these explanations.
Control theory, developed in the 1960s and 1970s,
attempts to explain ways to train people to engage in
law-abiding behavior. Although there are different
approaches within control theory, they share the view
that humans require nurturing in order to develop
attachments or bonds to people and that personal
bonds are key in producing internal controls such as
conscience and guilt and external controls such as
shame. According to this view, crime is the result of
insufficient attachment and commitment to others.
Hirschi‟s Model (1969)
The sociologist Travis Hirschi has developed his own
control theory that attempts to explain conforming, or
lawful rather than deviant, or unlawful behavior. He
stresses the importance of the individual's bond to
society in determining conforming behavior. His
research has found that socioeconomic class has little
to do with determining delinquent behavior, and that
young people who are not very attached to their
parents or to school are more likely to be delinquent
than those who are strongly attached. He also found
that youths who have a strongly positive view of their
own accomplishments are more likely to view society's
laws as valid constraints on their behavior.
50
His explanation stresses four control variables, each of
which represents a major social bond:
 Attachment,
 Commitment,
 Involvement, and
 Belief.
These variables explain the social bondage i.e.
attachment to others in the society. Particularly, young
people are bonded to the society at several levels.
However, the extent and strength of such bondage
differ in the following ways:
 The degree to which they are affected by the
opinions and expectations by others.
 The payoffs they receive for conventional
behavior, and
 The extent to which they subscribe to the
prevailing norms.
As represented in the work of Travis Hirschi, the
Social Control Theory proposes that exploiting the
process of socialization and Social Learning Theory
builds self-control and reduces the inclination to
indulge in behaviour recognized as antisocial. It is
based on Functionalist theories of crime and proposes
that there are three types of control:
 Direct: by which punishment is threatened or
applied for wrongful behaviour, and compliance is
rewarded by parents, family, and authority
figures.
 Indirect: by which a youth refrains from
delinquency because his or her delinquent act
51
 might cause pain and disappointment to parents
and others with whom he or she has close
relationships.
 Internal: by which a person's conscience or sense
of guilt prevents him or her from engaging in
delinquent acts.

Walter Reckless‟s Containment Theory (1961)

Walter C. Reckless developed one version of control
theory, called containment. He argued that a
combination of internal psychological containments
and external social containments prevents people from
deviating from social norms. In simple communities,
social pressure to conform to community standards,
usually enforced by social ostracism, was sufficient to
control behavior. As societies became more complex,
internal containments played a more crucial role in
determining whether people behaved according to
public laws. Furthermore, containment theorists have
found that internal containments require a positive
self-image. All too often, a sense of alienation from
society and its norms forms in modern individuals,
who, as a result, do not develop internal containment
mechanisms.
Reckless proposes two types of containments.
According to him it is largely external or outer
containment –that is, social pressure-- that controls
crime. If a society is well integrated, with well- defined
social role and limits on behavior, effective family
discipline and supervision and reinforcement for
positive accomplishments, crime will be contained. But
52
if the external controls weaken or disappear, restraint
of crime becomes increasingly a matter of internal
restraints, or the individual‘s superego. Thus a positive
self-concept becomes an insulator against delinquency.
The presence of robust inner containment is inferred
from the following indicators:
 A good self-concept,
 Self-control,
 Ego strength,
 Ability to tolerate frustration,
 Active goal direction,
 Ability to find substitute satisfactions,
 Tension reducing realizations, and
 Retention of norms.
Reckless suggests that the probability of deviance is
directly related to the extent to which internal
pushes, (such as need for immediate gratification,
restlessness and hostility) external pressures (such
as poverty, unemployment, and blocked opportunities)
and external pulls are controlled by one‘s inner and
outer containment.
The primary containment factor is found in self-
concept, or the way one views oneself in relation to
others and the world as well. A strong self-concept,
coupled with some additional inner controls (such as a
strong conscience and sense of responsibility) plus,
outer controls, make delinquency highly unlikely.
Evaluation of the Reckless Theory

53
Sociologists like containment theory because it is a
good in-between view,are neither rigidly
environmental nor entirely intrapersonal. But
containment theory explains only a part of delinquent
or criminal behavior, as even its own advocates such
as Hirschi. Another criticism is that the terminology
used is vague and poorly defined. It is also difficult to
test the theory empirically.
Learning Theories
As a type of social-psychological approach, learning
theory focuses on mechanisms by which criminal
behavior is learned. One example is Edwin H.
Sutherland‘s (1947)
Differential Association Approach: Edwin
Sutherland
Edwin H. Sutherland (1883–1950), a U.S. sociologist
and criminologist who first presented his ideas in the
1920s and 1930s, advanced the theory of differential
association to explain criminal behavior. He
emphasized that criminal behavior is learned in
interaction with others, usually in small groups, and
that criminals learn to favor criminal behavior over
noncriminal behavior through association with both
forms of behavior in different degrees. As Sutherland
wrote, "When persons become criminal, they do so
because of contacts with criminal patterns and also
because of isolation from anti-criminal patterns."
Although his theory has been greatly influential,
Sutherland himself admitted that it did not
satisfactorily explain all criminal behavior. Later

54
theorists have modified his approach in an attempt to
correct its shortcomings.
According to Sutherland‘s theory, criminal behavior
requires socialization in to a system of values
conducive to violating the law; thus the potential
criminal learns definitions‖ (the actions that define)
that is favorable to deviant behavior. If these
definitions of the criminal acts as acceptable are
stronger than the definitions unfavorable to deviant
behavior, then the person is likely to commit a criminal
act. Sutherland was suggesting that the difference
between those who break the law and those who don‘t
lies not in their personal fiber but in the content of
what they have learned‖. For example, all of us value
money, but some of us acquire it legally, others
illegally. What is relevant is the values we place on
specific behaviors by which to obtain money. But these
definitions need group support; crime will not persist
in the absence of sub culture of violence.
But it is not necessary to associate with criminals
directly. Children might learn pro-criminal definitions
from middle-class parents, by watching their father‘s
pocket too much change or hearing their mother boast
about exceeding speed limit.
Postulates of the Differential Association Theory
1. Criminal behavior is learned.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with
other persons in a process of communication.
3. The influential aspect of the learning of criminal
behavior occurs within intimate social groups.

55
 4. When social behavior is learned, the learning
includes:
a. Techniques of committing the crime, which
are sometimes very complicated, sometimes
very simple, and
b. The specific direction of motives, drives,
rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is
learned from definitions of the legal code as
favorable or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an
excess of definitions favorable to violation of law
over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency,
duration, intensity, and priority.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by
association with criminal and anti-criminal
patterns involves all the mechanisms that are
involved in any other learning.
9. Although criminal behavior is an expression of
general needs and values, it is not explained by
those general needs and values, since non-
criminal behavior is an expression of the same
needs and values.
Merits of the Theory
This theory has survived because of its broad scope
and its ability to organize masses of research findings.
The theory is admirable with respect to its attempt to
explain crime in places where it would not, on first
blush, be expected—for example, among law breakers
who grew up in affluent environments and who were

56
granted their material wants. Because they commit
crime by learning from the peer group etc.
Criticism of the theory
Many researchers have attempted to validate
Sutherland‘s differential association theory. Others
have criticized it. Much of the criticism stems from
errors in interpretation:
 Some critics ask why it is that not everyone in
heavy and prolonged contact with criminal
behavior patterns becomes a criminal. For
example, Correctional Officers in Prisons,
Police Officers etc. They come in to contact
with more criminal associations than non-
criminal ones. How do they escape from
learning to be law-violators themselves?
The answer is, of course, that Sutherland does
not tell us that individuals become criminal by
associating with criminals or even by
association with behavior patterns. He tells
us, rather, that a person becomes delinquent
because of an ―excess of definitions favorable
to violation of law. The key word is
―definitions.
 The theory does not explain all types of
criminal behavior. It has difficulty in
explaining crimes of passion or impulsive
violence.
Social Learning Theory
This theory emphasizes the interaction between person
and environment, in a quest not so much to learn why
57
people violate the law but, rather, to identify the
conditions under which they might do so. Development
of a particular orientation, criminal or non-criminal,
reflects an accumulation of reinforcements in a variety
of situations. Patterson (1980) claims, children do not
out grow extreme anti-social behavior, they remain
deviant unless they are punished.
But other social learning theories are more positive,
proposing that child-reasoning practices can be
influential, in that the child learns adult behavior
patterns, values, and anxieties through observing the
experience of the adulthood. However, the interaction
between children and their parents can be a two-way
street, in which each changes the behavior of the
other.
Imitation, or modeling, serves social-learning theory as
one useful way to explain the development of certain
kinds of behavior. Bandura and Walters (1963)
showed that personality traits such as aggression or
dependency can be learned through watching others
and seeing what kinds of rewards or punishments they
receive for their actions. Responses that lead to valued
outcomes (or positive reinforcement) are likely
immulated.
But the learning that takes place may be influenced by
the situation in which it occurs or by the specificity of
reinforcements, or rewards. Individuals learn to
discriminate one situation from another. Bandura, in
studying the behavior of highly aggressive boys, found
that it was often stimulus-bound. Some of these
children had parents who punished the child when he
58
displayed aggression toward them; at the same time,
these parents characteristically acted aggressively
themselves and encouraged their child to do so with
his peers. This pattern of behavior produced boys who
are showed little aggression at home but a great deal
at school.
In contrast to the differential association type of-
psychological approach, some advocates of social-
learning theory see children as active participants in
their own socialization holding that delinquents are, in
fact, capable of establishing behavior patterns to be
followed by others. Gerald H. Patterson (1980)
concludes from his research:
―Antisocial children train their parents. The antisocial
behavior typically has an impact; they are very
effective in training adults and peers alike to cease
making demands. He child does not have to do chores
or to conform to house rules. Similar techniques are
used by the child to train teachers and adults in
general to believe that it is not necessary for [the
child] to go to school or to achieve a reasonable level if
he or she does attend.

59