Explanation as to crime-causation

Criminologists differ in their views regarding crime-causation. Some criminologists support the

endogenous theory of criminality which is founded on the bio-physical consideration of

criminals. On the other hand, some other criminologists explain criminality in the terms of social

factors. Now, as per the above-mentioned discussion, there can be two main approaches as to

crime-causation:-

(A) Subjective approach or the psychogenic explanation of crime-causation,

(B) Objective approach or the socio-genic explanation of crime-causation

Psychogenic explanation of crime-causation :-The psychogenic explanation of crime-causation

tries to examine the nature of the criminals besides other aspects of his personality. They believe

that criminals differ from non-criminals in certain traits of their personality which develops

unusual tendencies in them to commit crimes under the situations in which the others do not.

This theory has eventually led to the evolution of typological school of criminology which

suggests that there are certain personality type of criminals who take to criminality because of

their heredity, psychopathic and bio-physical traits. Therefore, the psychogenic explanation of

crime-causation includes anthropological, biological, physiological and psychiatric study of the

offenders.

Sociogenic explanation of crime-causation :- Sociogenic explanation of crime-causation sees

criminal behaviour as socially acquired and hence, focus on the ways in which cultural and/or

social structural factors are crime-producing. Thus, social environmental influences or sub-

cultural socialisation experiences in family, class and peer group make it likely that some social

groups will be involved in criminal activity.

This theory assumes particularly that criminal behaviour can be meaningfully viewed as

homogeneous and therefore subsumed under some single explanatory umbrella, and that the

causes of this behaviour lie outside the actors’ control in peculiar genes, defective personality,

distinctive subcultural norms, or whatever. Individuals or groups commit offences because of the

peculiar forces acting upon them.

Lombrosian theory of crime-causation

One of the renowned Italian criminologists and anthropologists Cesare Lombroso made first

attempt to understand the personality of the offenders in physical terms.

He is also regarded as the originator of modern criminology.

He was the first criminologist who made an attempt to correlate the crime with the heredity of

criminal. After an intensive study of physical characteristics of criminals, he came to a

conclusion that “criminals are physically inferior in the standard of growth ,and, therefore

developed a tendency fore inferior acts.”

He further generalized that “criminals are less sensitive to pain, and, therefore they have little

regard for the sufferings of others.”

Through his biological and anthropological researches on criminals, he classified the criminals

into three main categories:-

(A) The atavists or hereditary criminals,

(B) Insane criminals and

(C) Criminoids

Atavists (attitudal or behavioral criminals) :-

Lombroso also termed them as “born criminals.” In his opinion, “the born criminals are of a

distinct type who cannot refrain from indulging into criminality and environment has no

relevance whatsoever to the crimes committed by atavists.”

He, therefore, considered these criminals as incorrigibles i.e., beyond reformation.

As regards these criminals, Lombroso gave following propositions:-

(1) These criminals are by birth a distinct type.

(2) These criminals can be recognized by stigmata pr anomalies such as asymmetrical

cranium, long lower jaw, flattened nose, scanty beard and low sensitivity to pain.

These physical anomalies do not in themselves cause crime; rather they identify the personality

which is predisposed to criminal behavior.

(3) Because of their personal natures, these persons cannot refrain from crime unless the

circumstances of life are unusually favourable.

Enrico Ferri, one of renowned Italian criminologists, disfavoured lombroso’s atavistic

approach. He said that it was erroneous to think that criminals are incorrigibles. He believed that

just as non-criminals could commit crimes if placed in favourable circumstances so also the

criminals could refrain from criminality in the healthy sorroundings.

Insane criminals :-

Those who resorted to criminality on account of certain mental depravity or disorder.

Criminoids :-

Those who are physical criminal type and had a tendency to commit crime to overcome their

inferiority in order to meet the needs of survival.

Some arguments in favour and disfavor of lombroso’s theory of heredity:-

(1) Argument in disfavor:- the modern researches have shown that hereditary influences have

little effect on criminality. As a result of persistent studies carried on in respect of

identical twins in western countries, it is now well established that when twins are

separated early in life and placed in the different environments, they behave differently in

their tastes and ways of life.

Argument to dispel this view:- Certain races, clans or tribes who are known to have

indulged in criminality for generation. For example, kanjars and lohars of rajasthan are

the nomadic tribes which habitually pursue criminal traits and take criminality as a mode

of life.

(2) Argument in disfavor:- It is not the hereditary instinct that motivates them to indulge in

criminal behavior but the real cause lies in the fact that they are brought up in the

criminal environment and the influence of family surroundings on them is so great that

they can hardly desist from criminal acts.

(3) Argument in disfavor:- Studies carried on by Goring, Healy, Scheldon and Glueck on

heredity as a factor of crime-causation indicate that it is difficult to establish any possible

co-relation between heredity and criminal behavior because it is practically impossible to

isolate heredity factor from other environmental factors.

It is significant to note that even Lombroso at a later stage modified his views regarding atavists

and said that certain persons by nature are criminal type and these persons are incapable to adjust

themselves with the society because of their mental deficiencies. And on the basis of this

hypothesis, mentally depraved criminals are classified into four categories under the Eglish

Mental Deficiency Act,1913 namely:-

(a) Idiots,

(b) Imbeciles,

(c) Feebleminded criminals and

(d) Morally insane criminals.

Mental Depravity :-

Mental depravity or insanity does not affect merely the institutional factors but also it

affects the personality of the individual as a whole including his desires and emotions.

This issue came up for the judicial consideration of the court in the historic M’naughten’s

case in the year 1843 which is a landmark decision on the insanity as a defence in the

English Criminal Jurisprudence.

Case of R. v. M’naughten, (1843) 10 cl. & f. 240:-

In this case, a political maniac m’naughten who wanted t o shoot british’s foreign

minister Robert Peel, instead killed his private secretary Drumond on 20 th Jan.1843 in daytime.

The killer was declared to be mentally insane by medical experts. This case involved two

important issues before the House of Lords:

(a) Whether an insane person is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong?

(b) Whether the plea regarding mental insanity should be readily accepted or not as a defence

to shield the criminal from penal consequences?

And the House of Lords, after careful consideration of these issues, held M’naughten not

guilty by giving him the benefit of mental insanity.

Their Lordships observed, “every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient

degree of reason to be held responsible for his crime until the contrary is proved. In order to

establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of

committing the act, accused was laboring under such a degree of reason from disease of

mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it , as

not to know he was doing what was wrong.”

Insanity under the Indian Penal Code:-

Under the IPC, insanity has been accepted as a defence to a charge of crime . Section 84 of

IPC gives immunity from criminal liability to a person who, by reason of unsoundness of mind,

is unable to know the nature of the act or in unable to know that what he is doing is either wrong

or contrary to law.

Psychiatric Explanation of Crime

Criminal behavior results due to some characteristic or trait of personality. This trait is in the

nature of a general pathological condition which exists prior to the criminal behavior and is the

cause of it.

The mental pathologies or theories have been classified in many ways. One of the simpler

classification includes three groups, namely,

(1)Mental defect or feeble mindedness,

(2)Psychosis or insanity,

(3)Neurosis

(4)Pathological conditions

Mental Defect Theory:-

This theory includes the following four propositions:-

(a) Almost all criminals are feeble minded.

(b) Feeble minded persons commit crimes in absence of specific inhibiting conditions.

(c) Feeble mindedness is inherited as a unit character in accordance with mendel’s law of

heredity.

(d) A policy of sterilization or segregation of the feeble minded is the only effective method of

preventing crime and of dealing with criminals.

Psychosis or insanity:-

This theory explains the role of psychoses in crime. This theory says, “ a person who is

insane at the time he commits a legally forbidden harm does not commit a crime.”

A person charged with a crime may defend himself in the court by showing that he was

insane at the time act occurred. This means, for example, that one who is insane at the time he

kills another has committed no crime.

‘Psychosis’ refers to a medical concept, while ‘insanity’ refers to legal concept. They both are

one and same thing.

Generally. ‘insanity’ is used to describe legally harmful behavior perpetrated under

circumstances in which the actor did not know the nature and quality of his act or did not

distinguish right and wrong.

Types of psychosis:-

There are two main types of psychosis

(a)organic psychosis and

(b) functional psychosis.

Organic psychosis deals with some serious mental and physical sufferings of a person

which affect the functioning of his mind. For example, traumatic psychosis [it results from brain

injuries by the accidents. The patients suffering from it get excited easily and be inclined to

crimes], encephalitis lethargica [sleeping sickness or an acute infectious fever affecting young

persons], senile dementia [a mental illness which may hit old age people], puerperal

insanity[this may occur in women during pregnancy or in post-pregnancy period. This may be

due to birth of an illegitimate child or may be the result of economic stress]

Functional psychosis deals with some functional deviations because of having certain

disease of mind. For example, paranoia [ the patients of it afflicted with delusions and imagine

himself to be mercilessly and continuously persecuted by his enemies, real and imaginary, and

the solution may appear to him to kill them for self preservation], manic-depressive psychosis [in

this sufferer undergoes alternating moods of elation or excitement and of depression or

melancholia], schizophrenia [this disease is also known as split mindedness. In this disease, the

sufferer feels a progressive deterioration and disorder of thought, emotions and conduct. It is

also marked by defect of judgement, peculiar mannerisms, delusions and hallucination and flight

into fantasies]

Neurosis

Neurosis deals with certain disorders of nervous system which cause a person to become to move

violently. For example, epilepsy in which a person becomes unconscious suddenly and violently

moves the parts of his body.

Psychopathic personality

This theory is often designated a waste basket category into which not otherwise explicable

criminal behavior is tossed. Broadly, it refers to a group of mentally abnormal individuals who

do not fit into the categories of psychosis, neurosis or mental deficiency.

The term ‘ psychopathic personality’ was first used by Koch in the year 1988.

Michael Craft describes certain characteristics of psychopathic offenders:-

(a) Affectionless or lack of relation with others.

(b) Disregard of community or group standards with anti-social behavior on a verbal,

acquisitive, personal or sexual plane.

(c) Apparent absence of guilt feeling and failure to learn by punishment.

(d) Emotional liability and immaturity, leading to short-circuit relations with immediate

pleasure, satisfaction or unpremeditated violence.

(e) A lack of foresight.

(f) Undue dependence on others.

Psychoanalytic theory of crime-causation

As per this theory, “offenders lend into criminality on account of certain functional

deviations and mental conflicts.”

This theory was given by Mr. Sigmund Freud.

He said that mind is composed of three parts and they are:-

(a) Id,

(b) Ego and

(c) Super Ego

Id:- it consists of certain original instincts, tendencies or impulses which are possessed at

the time of birth. In other words, it generates basic biological and physiological urges and

impulses in a person such as affection for kith and kins, sexual desire, hunger etc.

Ego:- it refers to conscious personality of which the individual is aware, i.e., although the

desire for sex and hunger are the basic urges of person, yet he is all the time conscious

that only the righteous means to fulfill these desires can protect his personality and any

deviation from normal course shall cast aspersions on his personality.

Super Ego:- it is the force of self-criticism and control inherent in every person.

As per Sigmund freud , “ there occurs a constant conflict between these three parts, i.e.,

id, ego and super ego.”

He says, “Crime is a substitute of the symbolic behavior of a person. For example, the

desire to commit suicide is resulted out of the feeling of the inferiority, frustration,

depression or anxiety which has been generated through the non-fulfillment of any of the

basic urges of men. Again, theft is committed out of the sense of financial inferiority and

to get rid of the feelings of spite and dependence etc.”

Sociological criminology

This approach seeks to explain the phenomenon of criminal behavior with reference to

the factors which exist outside the personality of the offender. This approach looks upon

the criminal behavior as a result of social interations.

This theory says, “ there are some persons who do not conform to established norms and

traditions prescribed by the law. These persons do not adjust themselves within the

normal standards of society and are more or less indifferent to societal norms.”

For example, law says that nobody should harm others. But in spite of this fact, we can

see many individuals who indulge in such kind of anti-social activities. The reason for

such a deviant conduct is to be found in the fact that either these persons have seen their

parents or other members of the family indulging in such activities or they are

encouraged by somebody to do so.

Raffaele Garofalo was the first criminologist who attempted a sociological definition of

crime.

He defines crime as an act which offends the basic sentiments of pity and probity of the

society.

Sociologists assert this fact that every crime involves three essential elements:-

(A) Rules, regulations that are made by the law makers to follow by the members of the

society.

(B) Conflict of interests between the members of society due to environmental variations.

(C) Use of force or coercive measures by the offenders.

Sociologists contend this fact that like any other social behavior, the criminal behavior

also results from certain environmental conditions, therefore, the variations in crime-rate

are due to variations in social disorganization under different systems.

One of the renowned criminologist Sutherland says, “variations in mobility, cultural

conflicts, family background, ideologies, population, density, employment and

distribution of wealth etc. have a close-bearing on crime-causation.”

Theories of deviant behavior:-

Basically , there are two main theories which deals with deviant behavior of a criminal in

the light of sociological factors and these are:-

(a) Differential Association Theory and

(b) Theory of Anomie

Differential Association Theory:-

This theory was given by Prof. Sutherland. As per this theory, “ criminal behavior is

a product of learning in interaction with other persons.”

The chief characteristics of this theory are:-

(a)Criminal behavior is learnt and not inherited.

(b) The process of learning criminal behavior operates through the interaction of

criminal with other persons and his association with them.

(c)The greatest influence is that of his intimate personal groups which moulds his

conduct in many ways.

(d)Criminality in human society can best be explained through Sutherland’s principle

of differential association which says or presupposes that there are two types of

association in the society i.e.,

[1] criminal and

[2] anti-criminal.

Both these forces are constantly counteracting. And criminal behavior results in

when the circumstances favourable to violations of law outweigh those which are

unfavourable to law-breaking.

(e)The association with regard to criminal behavior and anti-criminal behavior may

vary in respect of its duration, priority or intensity.

Criticism of Sutherland’s theory of differential association :-

It is often argued that Sutherland’s theory of Differential Association , as an

explanation of crime-causation, has only a theoretical significance because it lacks

reality. Some of major criticisms of his theory are:-

(1)Contact does not make all the persons criminal:- It is said that all those

persons who come into contact with criminals do not become criminals

themselves.

Once initiated, why does not criminal behavior increase indefinitely until

everyone is a criminal?

Sutherland answered it that they do not become criminals because of

counteracting contact with anti-criminal groups. He further said that the measures

taken by anti-criminal group organization, as a result of the threat of crime posed

by the opposite group, are effective enough to curb the delinquent tendencies.

(2) It can’t be extended to all crimes:- The differential association theory can’t be

extended to all crimes. Thus, it has been said that the theory does not apply to

rural offenders,

white collar criminals,

the perpetrators of personal crimes,

irrational and impulsive criminals,

occasional, incidental and situational offenders,

murderers and non-habitual criminals,

persons who commit the crimes of passion and

men whose crimes were perpetrated under emotional stress.

(3)The differential association theory does not adequately take into account the

personality traits, personality factors, or psychological variables in criminal behavior.

Theory of Anomie:-

The literal meaning of the term “anomie” is normlessness. The concept of “anomie” was

formulated by Emile Durkhiem, a leading sociologist.

He used the word ‘anomie’ in particular to explain the behavior which he referred to as

anomie suicide.

He says, “ Human beings have unlimited needs, desires and ambitions, the only control

to these being provided by the society and public opinion which lose much of their

efficacy in the times of economic changes and moral stresses and strains. A high rate of

both suicide and homicide is to be found in an anomie-ridden society.”

On the other hand, Robert K.Merton explains his theory of anomie in the following

words: “Delinquency is a response to the unavailability of conventional or socially

approved routes to success, and is characteristic of lower-class persons since the social-

structure strains the cultural values, making action in accord with them readily possible

for those occupying certain status within the society and difficult or impossible for

others.”

The term ‘anomie’ was used by Merton for a condition in a social system when cultural

regulation of behavior is weakened. In other words, what is encouraged in the society is

success and so goals are more important than the means to achieve those goals. Merton

gives example of sports and games in this respect. He says, ‘winning a match is more

important than the spirit of game.”

Radical criminology

Radical criminology has its origin in rebellion and protests by students, workers and poor

in the industrialized countries of the west in sixties.

It is a general opinion that criminal law and its administration function in the interest of

the capitalist class as a part of the state’s repressive apparatus.

Radical criminologists do not focus on the crime and the criminal, but the processes that

go in the making of crime and its administration, thereby imparting a kind of critical

content of criminology.

Radical criminology can well be explained through various conflict and group interest

theories and the prominent among them are as follows:-

(1)Sellin’s Cultural Conflict Theory:- This theory was presented in the year 1938 by

Thorsten Sellin.

He explained the causation of crime on the basis of cultural conflicts between the

various groups of the society.

As per him, “ Conflicts between the norms of divergent cultural groups may arise in

the following situations:-

(a)when the law of one cultural group is extended to cover the territory of another.

(b)when members of one cultural group migrate to another.

(2)Vold’s Group Conflict Theory or group interest theory:-

In his book “theoretical criminology” (1958), George B.Vold propounded his

theory based on conflicts among various interest groups.

The process of law making and its enforcement reflects the will of the majority

power groups. Therefore, criminal behavior is the behavior of minority power groups

lacking sufficient power to promote and defend their interests and purposes in the

legislative process.

(3)Quinney’s Theory of Social Reality of Crime:-

Richard Quinney sought to study the problem of crime and criminality with focus

on the conflict of groups in the context of various institutions- political, economic,

religious, kinship, educational and public.

He says, “criminal behavior is a behavior that conflicts with the interest of the

segments of the society that have power to shape the public policy.”

(4)Turk’s theory of criminalization:-

He tries to define the conflict with the use of “sophistication” factor.

He says, “conflict is

most probable if the subjects are highly organized and relatively unsophisticated,

less probable if they are unorganized and unsophisticated,

still less probable if organized but sophisticated and

least probable if unorganized and sophisticated.”

The word ‘sophistication’ here means knowledge of patterns as to the behavior with

others which is used to attempt to manipulate them.

(5)Chambliss and Seidman’s analysis of criminal justice:-

They say, “every detailed study of the emergence of legal norms has consistently

shown the immense importance of interest group activity.”

They further say, “higher a group’s political and economic position, the greater

is the probability that its views will be reflected in the laws.”

Public interest in criminal justice is represented only to the extent that it

coincides with the interest of existing power groups.