Sociological causes and explanations

Answer

Crime and Deviance: A Sociological Perspective

This paper focuses on crime and deviance as a social problem. It is structured into three parts: Part 1 covers sociological causes, perspectives and explanations on Crime. Part 2 covers social factors contributing to the existence of the crime, while Part 3 concludes by discussing expert perspectives on potential solutions to crime. Drawing from theoretical and empirical evidences, this paper demarcates seven perspectives, namely, the Chicago School theory, left realism, subcultural theory, social control theory, right realism, and feminist and broken windows theory, as critical to explanations for causes of crime effectively dovetailing with social, cultural, structural, and political explanations of crime.

Numerous sociological studies attribute crime to external factors, as moderated by personal experiences around social and professional contacts. Seven theories on sociological causes of crime and explanations of crime are subsequently discussed. For instance, The Chicago School Theory (or social disorganization theory) draws from spatial analysis of residential places to delineate delinquency and truancy as integral features of deprived neighborhoods, characterized by poor “housing, poor health, socio-economic disadvantage and transient populations” (Hardyns & Pauwels, 2018). Overall, this postulation demarcates crime as a product of community undercurrents and not physiological or psychological factors.

Correspondingly, Left Realism (Relative Deprivation) theory attributes crime to socioeconomic hardships associated with relative deprivation. The principal postulation of this theory is that crime unduly impacts the less privileged members of society in comparison to their more influential peers (Winlow & Hall, 2016). Indeed, an enduring tenet of left realism is relative deprivation, a postulation that crime thrives on sentiments of unfairness and structural discrimination.  

The Subcultural Theory contends that materially deprived youth unable to attain middle-income status may resignedly abandon that quest for a new subculture (Brownfield, 2018). For instance, in school, in school settings, students will invariably strive to satisfy their colleagues, at the expense of their teachers. In effect, such students will pursue delinquent endeavors, including deviant behavioral patterns such as drug use, truancy, and disregard for authority. Brownfield’s postulations affirm the availability of differential prospects for youth from proletariat classes.

The Social Control Theory attributes the need for conformity (rather than transformation) as the key motivation of youth towards crime. While this theory fails to outline underlying foundations of crime, empirical evidence affirms its efficacy in explaining why individuals conform to societal laws. To put it differently, social control theory emphasizes “conformity rather than deviance” (Han, Kim & Lee, 2016). Fundamentally, the theory finds anchorage on the seminal theorizations of Travis Hirschi (1969), which predicts that people will generally stick to societal expectations as a result of strong social cohesions. In contrast, they will invariably pursue aberrant interests should the bonds be broken or weakened (Han, Kim & Lee, 2016).

Crime has also been delineated as an outcome of rational choice by means of which “individuals not only decide to commit crime, but decide when and where to commit crime” (Brooks, 2016). Right Realism theory (rational choice theory) perceives individuals as levelheaded beings with the capacity to make sensible, independent decisions, which extends to determination on whether to commit or not to commit an offense. Accordingly, Brooks (2016) argues that the final decision will inevitably be preceded by careful consideration of potential “benefits and disadvantages” connected to the act. Empirical evidence traces the origin of this theory the failure of available sociological theories arrest runaway crime as well as real origins of crime.

The feminist (gender) perspective dovetails with gender disparity to argue that crime is disproportionately carried out by males. Evidently, the feminist narrative cites social issues such as domestic violence, with men as perpetrators. In addition, it demarcates circumstances of such occurrences with particular emphasis on “gendered norms” and rules governing masculinity and femininity and the oppression they represent (Schulz, 2017). Effectively, this trajectory ties in with hegemonic masculinity, a mechanism through which male dominance is expressed.

The broken-windows theory designates neighborhoods with slight indications of disorder as potentially susceptible to widespread criminal incursion (Ren, Zhao & He, 2019). It also means that intensified sentiments of chaos elevates distress and weakens societal dominance over criminal elements. Lack of interest in communal security is effectively whittled down by preoccupation with personal security and sentiments of failure to produce the desired response associated with the task.

In addition to the theoretical evidences on the causes and explanations on crime, extant literature affirms the role of social factors to crime. Nonparametric studies by Wikström and Treiber (2016) have cited a number of studies that validate the hypothesis that socioeconomic deprivation positively correlates with heightened criminality. This view is corroborated by studies that suggest a strong nexus between socioeconomic status and criminal tendencies (Patel, 2018). However, while majority of repeat offenders tend to belong to economically disadvantaged families, many individuals from impoverished backgrounds do not always end up being perpetual lawbreakers. In fact, extant research data show weak statistical significance between the two variables (Wikström and Treiber, 2016).

Several studies have established the influence of cultural factors to crime and deviance. Over the years, systemic discrimination have been regularized, legitimized, and defended as integral mediators of crime and collective control. In so doing, prevalence of crime has been unfairly demarcated as “racially/ethnically-based events” (Patel, 2018). These dynamics have mostly been entrenched through sentiments surrounding the concept of “black criminality”, a popular association of black Americans with heightened criminal activity.

From antiquity, crime has also been attributed to structural causes. Proposed by Emile Durkheim, structural theorists perceive crime as disintegration of social norms and a product of radical social transformation (Agnew & Brezina, 2019). The theory suggests that crime thrives on incongruence between cultural aspirations of a people as evidenced by wealth and status on one hand, and the structural mechanisms (education, employment) for attaining them. Evidence from sociological data show that the resultant agitation between “means and goals” as the main reason that perpetuate use of illegitimate methods to attain success (Agnew & Brezina, 2019).

Politics has also been identified as a cause of crime, particularly through the lens of policing in indigenous communities. Reviews of longitudinal studies stretching from precolonial to modern times, Cunneen (2020) suggests that marginalized groups bear the greatest burden of incarcerations and police brutality, and are subsequently more likely to display deviant behavior. For instance, the studies show that the Aboriginal, Islander, and Torres Strait people are up to 27 times likely to be apprehended, and 16 times more likely to be imprisoned in comparison to the privileged white population (Cunneen, 2020).

                A number of sociologists and experts have offered interesting perspectives on potential solutions to crime. In recent times, sociological experts have called for expansion of crime-reduction roles beyond the justice system. Situational crime prevention (SCP) is a sociological approach that advocates for extension of crime-reduction functions beyond the justice system. Cross-sequential studies by Freilich and Newman (2017) have alluded to SCP’s limited application to law, as it mainly pertains to “anticrime effort in governance”. This approach calls for meticulous scrutiny of particular crime varieties to discover the underlying facilitators of their Commision (Freilich & Newman, 2017). Subsequently, proposed interventions will be tailored for specific situational factors. Theoretically, going beyond the justice system is effective as it takes away the offender’s drive to commit crime (Freilich and Newman, 2017).

Some studies have argued for the deployment of closed-circuit television (CCTV) in the fight against crime. Findings from systematic reviews and meta-analysis of the impacts of CCTV surveillance cameras on crime by (Piza, Welsh, Farrington & Thomas, 2019) associate the former with “a significant and modest decrease in crime”. The cameras were found to be most effective in open spaces and car parks. CCTV cameras were also linked to considerable decrease in crime incidences on inhabited spaces as well. The impact was particularly noteworthy especially in CCTVs with “active monitoring” and those fitted with “multiple interventions” to augment the cameras.

Further systematic reviews by Weisburd, Farrington and Gill (2017) identify seven potential solutions to crime. Developmental and Social Prevention (community‐based interventions) anchored on “deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation” of felons as a strategy to curtail disruptive behavior (Weisburd, Farrington & Gill, 2017). Similarly, Community Interventions, involving a spectrum of approaches ranging from public participation and involvement and “correctional and reentry services for adjudicated offenders” has been viewed as critical to the war on crime and behavioral disorders at community level (Weisburd, Farrington & Gill, 2017). Situational prevention strategies focused on criminal activities and the manner of interaction between the “immediate environments” in which the criminals operate and the likelihood of commission of crime has been identified. Prevention approaches considered include, mitigation of susceptibilities in domiciliary and industrial settings to alter the behavioral patterns of prospective felons, would be victims, and their custodians to preclude the possibility of crime. The policing approach achieved through law enforcement and apprehension of criminals is still popular, yet they have yielded mixed result. Finally, sentencing (deterrence) accomplished by sentencing of criminals by a competent court, through legal processes remains popular as probable solutions to crime.

Overall, postulations from seven theories such as the Chicago School theory, left realism, subcultural theory, social control theory, right realism, and feminist and broken windows theory, offered varying explanations regarding causes of crime. In addition, the foregoing discussion affirms the dovetailing of the aforestated theories with social, cultural, structural, and political explanations of crime.