As published in the Volume 2(1) of Ramjas Political Review
Abstract
Crime and human deviance are important concepts to understand when we talk about maintaining ‘law and order’ in society. Through this paper, we will examine these values and understand their implication for our society. Through analysis of various theories and concepts, this paper aims to understand ‘what constitutes a crime?’, ‘why is it necessary for us to understand it?’, and how morality and law work together in tackling it. We will take up ideas from contemporary scholars such as Michael Sandel and Tom Gash to understand how we perceive crime and combat it with all the knowledge we have today. We will also explore some sociological theories such as the social disorganisation theory which tells us that a breakdown in society can lead to an increase in crime statistics. We will also examine the utilitarian theory by Jeremy Bentham, and analyse its implication in the state’s reaction to crime in general. Through this paper, we will examine the psychological, sociological, and political aspects of crime.
Keywords: Crime, Human Deviance, Policy, Morality, Social Disorganisation Theory
Why Does Understanding Crime Help? A Study By Tom Gash
When we talk about understanding crime, we are often faced with questions like ‘why must we understand it?’ and ‘how does it help policymakers?’ Understanding crime helps us identify its nature and causes, and identify its roots. Tom Gash, a prominent criminologist, talks about how research work on the same allowed policymakers to successfully lower criminal activity.
Human behaviour is much more malleable than we assume it to be, various criminologists along with policymakers have successfully reduced crimes by manipulating the behaviour of society. In 1993, Australia saw a 52 per cent decline in bar fights. This was done through simple ideas such as reducing happy hours in clubs and bars, barring the entry of drunk individuals, training the security to be welcoming instead of intimidating, and improving the transport system late at night (Gash, 2017). This success was achieved through the collaborative efforts of criminologists and policymakers who worked together to understand the nature of crime. It helped them in analysing the patterns and motivations that fueled the cases of assaults. It helped them devise a strategy (reducing happy hours, changing the hostile environment, and improving the transport system at night) that allowed them to address the root causes rather than just addressing the acts of crime.
Along with policymakers and criminologists, business owners have successfully saved their businesses from criminals by preventing the chance of a crime being committed too. An example of this could be the famous United States-based retail store 7/11 changing the layout of its store by moving the cash register to the front of the store, making the windows bigger, and the store brighter, and removing signage from the windows to allow more visibility of the store from outside. Through this, instances of a 7/11 being robbed fell by two-thirds (Gash, 2017).
From the above, it can be inferred that understanding crime plays a pivotal role in the formulation of effective policies aimed at deterring crime. It allows policymakers to understand the root causes of crime, and its social factors, and recognise how crime can manifest differently in different cultural contexts. Moreover, a nuanced understanding of crime allows policymakers to reassess the methods of intervention strategies. An example of this could be how law enforcement agencies leverage small-scale drug dealers to infiltrate and dismantle entire narcotics networks, rather than focusing solely on the arrest of these minor offenders. By examining the profiles of individuals most likely to engage in criminal activity, policymakers can devise protective measures that prevent vulnerable groups from entering the criminal sphere. This fosters a societal approach that emphasises on restoration of social harmony and rehabilitation rather than emphasising punishment.
Understanding Crime and Human Deviance
Fundamentally, to understand the role of the state we need to first set a definition for crime and human deviance. While the mere question of ‘what is crime?’ may seem easy to answer, it holds a lot of debate in the field of criminology. Many scholars such as Stephen Case (2017) stated in an interview that it is difficult to define crime as it is a social construct. There is no ‘perfect universally accepted’ definition of crime because the things that constitute criminal behaviour change. An example of this could be the decriminalisation of homosexual relations. While in the past there have been reservations regarding homosexuality, today in some countries it is an accepted form of relationship. Another problem that comes up when trying to define crime universally is due to cultural differences an example of this is that in Saudi Arabia apostasy is considered illegal (United States Department of State, 2023) while in India apostasy is not illegal and remains a free choice that an individual can make with regards to their religious preferences.
Over the years there have been various thinkers who have tried to get a universal understanding of crime, but have failed due to all the above-stated limitations. However, this does not mean that we cannot use the closest definition of crime. In an analysis done by Grant Lamond (2007), he tries to approach the question of ‘what is crime?’ through two approaches – a doctrinal account which states that the definition should cover all clear examples of crime and apply to all new laws that might come in the future. Another approach is the philosophical understanding of crime which can be done by understanding the sheer nature of crime itself. Another approach to understanding crime is to see them as public wrongs. This means that crimes do not only affect the victim of the crime but also the society as a whole (Lamond, 2007). There is more to this political thought but it will be deliberated upon in the later sections of this essay when we try to understand the state’s role in crime. While summarising his article on ‘What is Crime?’ Lamond (2007) concludes that crime is defined as a serious wrong-doing or action that warrants state-sanctioned punishment. This definition should not be confused with the idea that any action that violates conventional morality is a crime. A very simple example of this can be lying, while it is something that is not appreciated in society, unless it has to do something with fraud, bribery, or other legal implications, it does not warrant state-sanctioned punishment. This tells us how personal moral beliefs can be different from what constitutes a crime. The latter half of the definition underlines a crucial aspect of distinguishing between ‘crime’ and ‘human deviance’. Human deviance can be understood as an act that defies established social norms which range from social conventions or formalised laws. This understanding is crucial because while all instances of crime are acts of human deviance, not all acts of deviance are classified as criminal in nature.
Renowned French Sociologist, Émile Durkheim, gives us a deeper insight into this idea by suggesting that not all acts of deviance are necessarily negative and that some may even manifest positively. It can seem like the act is ‘deviant’ or ‘anti-social’ in nature but can serve a greater purpose that challenges the existing framework of morality in society. An example of this can be Martin Luther King Jr, who was initially viewed as a ‘deviant’ or ‘anti-social’ figure by Southerners, but today stands as a global icon of resistance. His willingness to challenge the status quo in society and advocacy for social change were instrumental. His idea of the Civil Rights Movement illustrates how he was a ‘deviant’ to society at that time but was not considered criminal in nature.
Therefore, we can conclude that crime and human deviance are different concepts and while all crime may be deviant, not all deviant activities are criminal in nature.
Why Do Crimes Happen in Society?
Before examining the state's role in addressing crime, it is crucial to first understand why crimes happen, in the first place. Understanding this is crucial, as it gives us a basis for formulating policies. Sociologists have categorised a few reasons for this, two of which are said to be the primary reasons for deviant behaviour.
First, the psychological aspect of committing a crime is unresolved conflicts within individuals which propels them towards social deviance. This aspect states that psychological turmoil in an individual’s mind can manifest itself in leading individuals to engage in criminal or deviant behaviour. While there are ongoing studies on this theme, this still remains a widely accepted notion. The sociological aspect states that the societal environment in which people are raised can shape an individual’s behaviour. For instance, if an individual lives in an environment, where wealth and respect are attained through illegitimate means, then it is highly possible that the individual may follow the same path (Hartney, 2023).
Emphasising the second aspect, it is important to understand a theory widely accepted and often put by sociologists to understand the role of the state when it comes to the negative angle of human deviance. Researchers at the University of Chicago were studying the growing effects of urbanisation, industrialisation, and social organisation. They believed that just as animals compete for space and existence, humans compete for scarce and desirable spaces (Kurbin, 2009). Crime was not the focus initially but Shaw and McKay, two researchers entered this study, and they applied it to studying delinquency. They defined the theory as the state of society where there is a breakdown in social control, which leads to various challenges such as an increase in crime, general deviances, socioeconomic discrepancies, degeneration of values, and much more (Kurbin, 2009). This is known as the Social Disorganisation Theory. This idea holds high relevance in the field of political sociology as it helps the state recognise the causes of crime, human deviance, and social disorganisation. With this, we can understand the role of the state and the fallacies in its working that cause this disorganisation.
The state’s role over the years has evolved to maintaining social order and ensuring the protection and well-being of the members of society. When the state fails to fulfil these fundamental duties, society descends into breakdowns as mentioned by Shaw and McKay in their social disorganisation theory. This chaos can lead to prevalent social issues such as patriarchy, substance abuse, lack of general social values, safety and security concerns, et cetera (McCartney & Parent, 2015). The studies conducted by Shaw and McKay show that in areas that lack social cohesion and proper access to essential resources like jobs, education, housing, and security have given rise to inequalities and weakened social frameworks resulting in social disorganisation and crime. A statistical example of this would be London where 40 per cent more crimes were recorded in areas that were income-deprived than those in areas of least income depravity at 10 per cent (Bureau of Trust for London, 2024).
The absence of effective governance can lead to major problems such as poverty, violence, challenges in education, and healthcare, and lack of economic opportunities, leading people into further marginalisation, which pushes them towards crime. The state’s role as mentioned above has evolved to ensure the well-being of the members of society which includes tackling such problems through investment in social welfare programmes, community development initiatives, education, healthcare, et cetera. Society also holds responsibility for helping the government succeed in their initiatives by creating an inclusive environment for all members of society.
Why Does the State Intervene?
As previously mentioned in the above sections, the state plays a significant role in maintaining the social order. To get deeper insight into this function of the state, it is essential to consider the nature of the state itself. To put it more simply, ‘why does the state intervene in matters of crime and social unrest?’
To understand this question, we can refer to Lamond’s (2007) analysis regarding the nature of crime. He mentions two insights into this theme, with contributions by Robert Nozick and Lawrence Becker. Robert Nozick states that when an injury is inflicted on a victim due to negligence, society views it as an unfortunate occurrence, whereas, he states on the contrary that when there is an intentional attack, not only the victim suffers harm but the event also instils fear within the public. This fear is one of the reasons why the state enters into the equation. Lawrence Becker tries to modify this concept by asserting that crimes lead to social volatility which means that there is disruption in the societal structure. This disruption then leads to distrust among people and compels them to take steps such as limiting social interaction and self-defence. To prevent this disruption, the state steps in to restore this order and fulfil its duty to prevent further disruption (Lamond, 2007).
Lamond (2007) expands on this by stating the various implications of how crime is perceived and differs in responses. He notes that while fear is one of the genuine reactions to crime by the public, not all criminal acts provoke the same reaction. For example, in cases of bribery, Lamond argues that the general public reacts to it with frustration or discontent but rarely with fear. This is because, while these are harmful crimes, they are less likely to put people in immediate danger of death. He also highlights that fear can arise even in the absence of an actual crime. He gives an example of a large group of football supporters gathering for a match, which may instil fear or uneasiness in people even when laws are not being broken. This perceived fear, he states stems from not an imminent attack but rather from the fear that an attack could occur on them and their loved ones. It is also important to note that even in situations where fear is based on perception rather than reality, the state holds the responsibility to ensure the safety of the public. In this particular case, it holds the responsibility to minimise the risk of altercations and other public disturbances regardless of whether a crime is being committed or not. By doing so, the state helps to alleviate public anxiety and uphold social order.
Understanding the Morality on Which the State Should Operate
To answer this question, we will begin by exploring the philosophical reasoning behind the morality of the state. Michael Sandel (2009), in his lecture ‘Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?’ delves deeply into this topic. In the lecture, Sandel explores various concepts put forward by past thinkers to help us understand how the morality of the state can be viewed through different lenses. According to Sandel (2009), there are two approaches to examining the morality of the state: consequential and categorical.
When we consider consequential morality, where the morality of an action is judged by its outcomes, the rightness or wrongness is determined by the consequences it produces. Sandel illustrates this through the very famous trolley problem. In this hypothetical scenario, a trolley is going down a track towards five workers who will be killed if the trolley stays in its current path. However, there is an option to switch the trolley onto another track, where one worker is present. A consequentialist would choose the idea of killing one person over five considering the idea that more lives are being saved as a consequence. On the other hand, categorical morality emphasises more importance on principles and duties rather than consequences. To illustrate this, Sandel (2009) modifies the trolley problem, where instead of changing track, you stand on a bridge with a large man who, if pushed onto the tracks, is assumed to be heavy enough to stop the train. While he would die, the five workers on the track would be saved. A categorical thinker here would argue that it is always wrong to kill an innocent person even if doing so would prevent greater harm in society. In this situation, it would violate the duty of not harming others.
Sandel (2009) refers to this consequential approach as utilitarianism, a concept introduced by Jeremy Bentham. The idea of utilitarianism aims to promote the general welfare of the population as a whole. Criticism of utilitarianism is also noted by Sandel (2009). One significant critique is that utilitarianism can sometimes justify the morally objectionable. Sandel gives an example of this with the practice of Christians being thrown to the lions in the Colosseum in ancient Rome. While it did provide entertainment to the Roman public, does it make it morally acceptable? .
In terms of crime, these ideas put forward by Sandel can be correlated to the state’s approach to crime and justice. In the consequentialist perspective, the state’s goal may be to address crime by ensuring the greatest welfare for society as a whole. These may be strict laws, heavy punishments, and even controversial ideas such as mass surveillance. Within this idea, it can be assumed that the sacrifice of a few individual freedoms could be justified if, in the long run, it results in safer and social order. When we view crime through the categorical lens, the morality of the state must also consider principles of justice, fairness, and individual rights. Even if harsh measures prove to reduce crime, they might violate moral principles that stop unjust treatment or infringement of human rights. Categorical morality emphasises that the state should uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals.
While it seems as if both approaches are at odds, both can be used hand in hand to guide the state's actions in addressing crime. A balanced approach would allow considering both the outcomes of its policies (consequentialism) and the principles of justice and fairness (categorical morality). To put this into perspective, an individual who commits a crime categorically must be punished to uphold the moral duty to ensure justice which in this case we will assume to be sentencing to imprisonment, while a consequentialist perspective would want them to go to jail and keep them off the streets so that in the long run, they might not get the opportunity to commit the crime and get a chance to rehabilitate themselves.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we see that the overlapping of crime, human deviance, and morality of the state showcases the complexities of maintaining social order while upholding ethical principles. Crime, which is often viewed as an act of deviance, not only disrupts the fabric of community life, but also challenges the moral legitimacy of the state, which bears the responsibility of creating and enforcing laws. The state responds with its justice mechanism to deter, punish, and rehabilitate with fairness. The state acts not only as an enforcer, but also as a guardian of value and promoter of the common good and individual rights.
References
Bureau of Trust for London. (2024). Crime and income deprivation. Trust for London.
Case, S. (2017, March 28). What is crime? [Video]. Oxford Academic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2lIcZPW6oU
Gash, T. (2017, July 13). Manipulating the Moments that Turn Us Into Criminals | Tom Gash | TEDx Athens [Video].
Hartney, E. (2023, May 1). Deviant Behavior: Definition, causes, and types. Verywell Mind.
Kubrin, C. E. (2009). Social Disorganisation Theory: Then, Now, and in the Future. In Handbook on Crime and
Deviance (pp. 225–227). essay, George Washington University.
Lamond, G. (2007). What is a Crime? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 27(4), 609–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqm018
McCartney, S., & Parent, R. (2015, April 17). 2.9 Social contract theory. Pressbooks.
Sandel, M. (2009, September 4). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? Episode 01 “THE MORAL SIDE OF
MURDER” [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
Saudi Arabia - United States Department of State. (2023, December 7). United States Department of State.
The author, Naman Raj, is a student at Ramjas College, Delhi University.
Comments