Theories of Crime Causation

¶ … Causes Crime? There are many different theories out there as to what actually is the singular cause of crime. Some say crime is caused by poverty or by society. Others claim the cause is jealousy or adversity. Some blame crime on the breakdown of the family unit or racial discrimination. Theories include: alcohol abuse, drug abuse, economic factors, mental disease, and poverty, to name a few.

Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy Analysis states, "One of the basics of liberal dogma is that poverty is the root cause of crime and terrorism. In the liberal worldview, people do not kill and steal because they are evil, but because they are deprived of material things." Still, many arguing that poverty is the leading cause of crime. If this were true, there would have be more crime in poorer nations. History also contradicts this theory. The crime rate in the United States actually rose during the long period of real economic growth in the early 20th century. The crime rate dropped in the Great Depression when incomes dropped. When incomes rose, so did the crime rate. During the recession of 1982, there was a slight dip in crime, not an increase. Thus, while poverty may contribute to crime, it is not the primary cause of crime.

Television has also been accused of being the cause behind crime. Evidently watching someone commit a crime on TV or watching violence creates a need to act violent. This theory is insulting to our intelligence. In preschool our children learn the difference between real and imaginary, between right and wrong.

The breakdown of the family unit has some merit as a theory. A child raised in a single parent home in a neighborhood where this is common, reaches out to others like himself. Without the influence of a father at home, the child becomes more and more aggressive. The mother is tired and quick to loose her temper as she struggles to be both mom and the sole financial provider of the "family." The child acts up to get the mother's attention. This behavior continues and worsens as the child. He reaches out and the gangs are there with open arms. Then he experiments with alcohol and drugs. Slowly he begins to commit crimes. The older he gets, the more violent the crimes become. Somewhere in this cycle his teenage girl gets pregnant, they split and the cycle repeats itself as she is now left to raise a child alone. This theory of family breakdown has merit; however, the boy in the above example still could have chosen to help his mother, to study hard and to break the cycle.

The lack of police protection is also argued as a contributing factor to high crime rates. According to the Natural Law Party, increased police patrols in major cities in the United States have had little effect on crime rates. Washington, D.C., for example, has the highest police/population ratio in the nation -- and one of the highest violent crime rates.

The struggle for power - or control - is a popular theory as well. Andrew Johnson was investigated for conspiring with John Wilkes Booth to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. There are also those who believe Lincoln's murder was the result of a Confederate plan. The assassination of John F. Kennedy was political in nature. Hitler strived for power over his countrymen.

Some criminals - it is theorized - simply enjoy the thrill of the chase. Billy the Kid is a perfect example. Newspapers followed his activities and virtually made him famous. William Bonney chose to become Billy the Kid. He chose the life of notoriety.

Did these factors -- the lack of police protection, poverty, political gain, the thrill, television, the breakdown of the family unit - cause crime? Or did they just plant the seed?

Crime, in my humble opinion, is caused by man's lack of self-control. Plain and simple. Humans have always had a hard time mastering self-control. What makes us different than the beasts is our free will and our ability to choose. We can choose to commit crimes or we can choose to walk away from it and find a different path.

Eve chose to pick the apple off the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam chose to eat of that apple. No one forced Eve to take the apple. The serpent merely suggested it. He planted the seed. Eve in turn did not force Adam to eat the apple. She merely suggested it. Peer pressure. She planted the seed.

The free will theory is not new. It has been around for centuries, since at least the late 1600s in fact. Humans are hedonistic, that is we tend to act in terms of our own self-interest. This free will theory became the basis for classical criminology, which sought an emphasis on free will and human rationality. Founders and followers alike of the Classical School were not interested in studying criminals. They preferred to study the law-making and legal processing. Crime, it was believed, was activity engaged in out of total free will and that individuals weighed the consequences of their actions.

Philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. That is exactly the point! We are responsible for our own actions. Our actions are not chosen by the gang we belong to or the husbandless mother raising us or the discouraged teachers at the poorly funded public school. We choose our actions freely. We choose our own course of action. We make our own choices.

Two roads diverged in the woods, and I - I took the one less traveled upon, and that has made all the difference," wrote poet Robert Frost.

From that first biblical moment, as soon as Eve took of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, we lost the battle against crime. Sin begets crime. Eve - like Frost in his poem - had two choices. Two roads diverged in the woods. Two choices were offered in the Garden of Eden. Eve - she chose the path of sin, of crime and of destruction. Imagine the wonderful world we might live in today had she chosen the other path.