Theory on Crime Causation

¶ … personal theory of crime causation at the start of the course.

I would attribute crime largely, although not totally to social conditioning / acculturation. I would also distinguish between serious and petty crime with serious crime more likely to issue from acculturation.

My reasons for saying so are due to the fact that our cultures prompt us to perceive the world and ethics in certain ways. There are some religious fundamentalist societies, for instance, that condone situations that other societies would condemn. A person growing up in an Islamic society may consider sainthood to be achieved by killing an enemy or by treating women in a certain way. Contemporary Western society would consider this a crime. Extreme Orthodox Judaism also practices violence as do Religious Zionists; their upbringing condones this. Shii'ism and the Jamaat-I-Islami are two of the foremost Islamic fundamentalism groups in South Asia who focus on nationalistic aims using their religion to power their struggle. They see assassination as nationalism -- heroic and commendable. Others call it terrorism.

Similarly, we have societies that see drugs as ways of gaining closeness to a spirit of bliss and sanctity, and other societies that see manhood as comprised of certain acts of machismo.

Furthermore, concepts of crime and deviance change according to era. At one time, for instance, colonialism (or imperialism) was seen as a virtue: Western nations benefitted the victims by 'educating 'them and teaching them Christ's way in life. The West affirmed that they were superior to these pagan primitives; that they knew what was best for them; and that they were helping them develop their country. Today, such colonialization may be seen as theft namely crime.

Racism, or sexual harassment, too is a crime today. These concepts did not exist in the '50s where the Ku Klux Khan could be more overt in their massacres and escape with little if no reaction.

The Hitlerian society -- the Third Reich -- saw it as imperative and constructive to rid their society of deviant forces. Communism believed it was ushering in a new world -- one much better than the former. They believed their villainous acts were reasonable. Nixon excused his betrayal as one that was necessary for the American nation, and many people excused Clinton's infidelity. Yet, in other perspectives, these are seen as crimes. Crime, therefore, is caused by enculturation in a certain society that sees 'crime' in a certain way. Its interpretation also varies according to who the perpetrator is, its context, and at which time in history the crime was committed. Clinton was just as dishonest as Nixon and as similarly betrayed the American nation by lying to them in regards to Monica. He retained his presidency. Clinton's act may have cost him his life in the Puritanical era of George Washington. It would almost certainly have cost him his job.

People brought up in these societies literally do not see their actions as crime. The indoctrination of the society, the era, the environment all collude into producing a different conception and many may even perceive their otherwise perceived villainous actions to be commendable.

This reminds me of the Manchurian candidate who was programmed to kill. He did not realize the repercussion of his actions. They were normal to him and he was heroic for fulfilling the challenging dictates of his superiors. All of us are programmed by our environments. What may be perceived as crime by others may be condoned by our society. And may also change in a different era to reflect crime. And the reverse may be true too: that which is condemned today may be applauded in the future. Crime causation, therefore, is very much a definition of what the society perceives as crime, but if one defines crime causation as acts of villainy and offense -- these are most times initiated due to societal and social programming.