CHAPTER I CONCEPT OF CRIME AND CAUSATION

A. INTRODUCTION

The causes of crime are one of the important phases of the crime problem that requires more
discussion, investigation and research and call for more social and Governmental action. Why a man
becomes criminal?--is a perennial question and scholars have sought to explain criminal behaviour for
many years. Prior to the eighteenth century, the explanations tended to be demonological (possession by
an evil spirit) or naturalistic (an affected brain).
As the various disciplines began to grow, particularly biology, anthropology, sociology, psychiatry,
psychology, statistics, the explanations soon shifted from rationalism to causes which exist in the
hereditary, constitutional, and psychological makeup of individuals as well as the causes which exist in the
physical and social environment of man.
The study of criminology targets why individuals commit crimes and why they behave in certain
situations. By understanding why a person commits a crime, one can develop ways to control crime or
rehabilitate the criminal. There are many theories in criminology. Some attribute crime to the individual;
they believe that an individual weighs the pros and cons and makes a conscious choice whether or not to
commit a crime. Others believe it is the community's responsibility to ensure that their citizens do not
commit crime by offering them a safe and secure place in which to live. Some argue that some individuals
have specific traits that will determine how they will react when put in certain negative conditions. Although
varied in thought, everyone can agree that unites. needs to be secured in a civilized society

Crime is not caused by a single factor. Crime is a highly complex phenomenon which changes
throughout cultures and through time. Activities that are legal in one country (such as alcohol consumption
in the United Kingdom) are sometimes illegal in others (strict Muslim countries, for example). As cultures
change over time, once uncriminalized behaviors can become criminalized (and then again decriminalized
– e.g. alcoholic beverages). There is therefore no simple answer to the question "what is crime? And
therefore, no single reaction to' what causes crime? Often different types of crime have their own separate
causes.

This Module provides an overview of some of the key criminological theories that seek to explain
the causes of crime. Each of the theories covered has its own strengths and weaknesses, has gaps and
may only be applicable to certain types of crime, and not others. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ theory. The
theories covered can be categorized into three main approaches: biological, psychological, and
sociological.

B. IMPORTANT POINTS TO PONDER

THEORY - Definition
> Any system of ideas arranged in rational order that produce general principles which increase our
understanding & explanations
> Derived from, and representative, of particular facts, but those principles are not dependent upon
the particular thing to be explained
> Foundation of criminology and of criminal justice
 Three Theories of Criminal Behavior
Historically, there are three broad theoretical models of criminal
behavior:
A) psychological
B) sociological
C) biological
All infer different methods of control, but it is difficult to completely separate the three categories as
it is generally accepted that all three of the factors play a role in the expression of behavior. Moreover,
psychological science consists of several disciplines including biological psychology and social psychology,
so psychological principles could be applied across all three domains.
However, there are some general principles associated with each of these paradigms that would
be associated with some spec* crime control policies: This results in admittedly narrow definition for each of
the categories, but it does simplify the discussion herein.

Psychological Approaches
There a many different psychological models of criminal behavior ranging from early Freudian
notions to later cognitive and social psychological models. We cannot review them all here. Instead, we will
list the several fundamental assumptions of psychological theories of criminality (and human behavior in
general). These are:
1. The individual is the primary unit of analysis in psychologicical theories:
2. Personality is the major motivational element that drives behavior within individuals.
3. Normality is generally defined by social consensus.
4. Crimes then would result from abnormal, dysfunctional, inappropriate mental processes
within the personality of the individual
5. Criminal behavior may be purposeful for the individual insofar as it addresses certain felt
needs.
6. Defective, or abnormal, mental processes may have a variety of causes, i.e., a diseased
mind, inappropriate learning or improper conditioning, the emulation of inappropriate role models, and
adjustment to inner conflicts. (Mischel, 1968)

Sociological Approaches
Sociological and psychological principles of criminality are intertwined and technically not
independent. As With psychological theories, there are numerous sociological formulations of the cause
and control of criminality. We will define sociological notions of criminality as:
1. Attempting to connect the issues of the individual's criminality
with the broader social structures and cultural values of society, familial, or peer group.
2. How the contradictions of all of these interacting groups contribute to criminality.
3. The ways these structures cultures and contradictions have historically developed.
4. The current processes of change that these . groups are undergoing.
5. Criminality is viewed from the point of view of the social construction of criminality and its
social causes.
Traditional sociological theories proposed that crimes was a result of anomie, a term meaning
"normlessness" or a feeling of a lack of social norms; a lack of being connected to society. The term was,
made popular by Emile' Durkheim (1897) who originally used the term to explain suicide. Later sociologists
used the term to describe the dissociation of the individual from the collective conscience or the criminality,
resulting from a lack of opportunity to achieve aspirations or by the. learning Of criminal values and
behaviors. Therefore criminality results from the failure to properly socialize individuals and by unequal
opportunities between groups. Durkheim believed that crime was an inescapable fact Of society and
advocated Maintaining crime within reasonable boundaries.
A feature of sociological theories is that society "constructs" criminality. Thus, certain types of
human activity are harmful and are 'judged so by society . as a whole. But it is also true that there are other
behaviors recognized by society as "criminal" that do not result in harm to others and are therefore
criminalized without sufficient ground, these. are the so-called "victimless" crimes. These include drug use,
prostitution, etc. 'Therefore, according to this view (if carried to its extreme), 100% of the members of a
society are lawbreakers at Some point One of the sociological policy methods of crime control would be to
advocate for decriminalization of these victimless crimes or at least a vast reduction in their penalties
(Schur, 1965).

Biological Approaches
Biological theories of criminality basically purport that criminal behavior is the result of some flair in
the biological makeup of the individual. This physical flaw Could be due to...
1. Heredity
2. Neurotransmitter dysfunction
3. Brain abnormalities that were caused by either of the above, improper development, or
trauma (Raine, 2002)
Biological theorists would also endorse stricter penalties and better law enforcement techniques for
crime control, but there are several methods of crime control that .are specific to the biological theories of
criminality I will discuss these briefly here.

Psychosurgery: Brain surgery to control behavior has rarely been applied to criminal behavior.
Certainly much more common between the 1930's to the late 1970's there were over 40,000 frontal
lobotomies performed. Lobotomies were used to treat a wide range of• problems from depression, to
schizophrenia. However, while widely discussed as a potential treatment for criminal behavior a perusal Of
the literature could not find a court ordered case for a lobotomy as a sentence for a convicted criminal
bibotomies were also used for people who were considered an annoyance because the demonstrated
behaviors characterized as moody or they were children who were defiant with authority figures such as
teachers. The lobotomy, involves separating the prefrontal cortex from the rest of the brain either surgically
or in the case of the trans orbital lobotomy with a sharp ice-pick like instrument that was inserted in the eye
socket between the upper eyelid and the eye. In this method the patient was not anesthetized, not even
children. The psychiatrists hit the end of the instrument with a hammer to disconnect the nerves in the
frontal lobe of the brain. Afterwards behaviors were changed, but at a high price as you can imagine. Today
the lobotomy has fallen out of favor due medications used to control behavior, although some view the use
of medications as equivalent to a lobotomy (e.g., see Breggin, 2008). Psychosurgery appears to be an
option that will most likely not be put into use due to the stigma associated with it.

Chemical methods of control: The use of pharmacological treatments to try to control crime has
been ongoing in two major areas: chemical castration for sex offenders and pharmacological interventions
for drug or alcohol addicts. However, addicts can stop the medication and return to use. Sex offenders
areclosely monitored and there is some evidence that this policy has been efficacious. Sometimes mentally
ill people in the criminal justice system been ordered to take medications to treat their mental illness. Other
pharmacological interventions to control crime seem plausible and . are being investigated, but do not,
appear to have been widely used..
 Others: Deep brain stimulation is used for some disorders latch as Parkinson's disease, but has yet
been investigated for criminal behavior. Biological theorists have advocated changes in diet to deal with
criminality (Burton, 2002) and better relations between parents. There is also the famous genetic XYY
combination that was Once thought to be a marker for a criminal type, but as it turned out these individuals
were found to be less intelligent or more likely to have learning difficulties as opposed to being criminal
types. While there are many studies indicating a connection between antisocial personality disorder or
criminal behavioral and heredity, there are no policies being implemented to advocate for selective
breeding, genetic testing etc. for criminals.

C. ELEMENTS OF A THEORY: EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES

Theories are explanations of a natural or social behavior, event, or phenomenon. We must apply
the scientific criteria to test our theories. Akers and Sellers (2013) have established a set of criteria to judge
criminological theories:

1. Logical consistency: is the basic building block of any theory. It refers to a theory’s ability
to “make sense”. Is it logical? Is it internally consistent? Are the theoretical constructs, propositions,
boundary conditions, and assumptions logically consistent with each other? If some of these “building
blocks” of a theory are inconsistent with each other (e.g., a theory assumes rationality, but some constructs
represent non-rational concepts), then the theory is a poor theory.

2. Scope: A theory’s scope refers to its range, or ranges, of explanations. Does it explain
crimes committed by males AND females? Does it explain ALL crimes or just property crime? Does9 it
explain the crime committed by ALL ages or just juveniles? Better theories will have a wider scope or a
larger range of explanation.

3. Parsimony: Parsimony examines how much of a phenomenon is explained with how few
variables. A parsimonious theory is concise, elegant, and simple. There are not too many constructs or
hypotheses. Simply put, parsimony refers to a theory’s “simplicity”.

4. Testability/ Falsifiability: A good scientific theory needs to be testable too. It must be open
to possible falsification. “Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it or to refute it. Testability is
falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to
refutation than others; they take, as it were, greater risks…One can sum up all this by saying that the
criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability” (Popper, 1965, pp.
36-37).
British philosopher Karl Popper stated in the 1940’s that for theories to be valid, they must be
falsifiable. Falsifiability ensures that the theory is potentially disprovable, if empirical data does not match
with theoretical propositions, which allows for their empirical testing by researchers. In other words,
theories cannot be theories unless they can be empirically testable.

5. Empirical validity: After many tests and different approaches to research, those theories
supported by evidence have empirical validity. Thus, according to Gibbs (1990), the verification or
repudiation of a given theory through empirical research is the most important principle to judge a theory.

6. Usefulness: all theories should suggest how to control, prevent, or reduce crime through
policy or program. The premise of a particular theory will guide policy-makers. For example, if a theory
suggested that juveniles learn how to commit crime through a network of delinquent peers, policymakers
will try to identify juveniles at-risk for joining delinquent subcultures.

D. SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATIONS TO CRIME CAUSATION

Crime does not evolve from any single source. There can be several reasons behind a
person’s criminal behavior or multiple origins of crime. The theorists in criminology have tried to explain
these reasons through several theories.

Demonological/Pre-Scientific

is one of the earliest theories in criminology. In the ancient times, people believed that evil spirits
or demons entered the human soul and made people commit sins. This was the earliest explanation given
regarding crime and criminal behavior. Terms like demons, witches and windigo were used for people
who had turned criminals under demonic influence. The society thought that it all happened due to evil
spirits. Supernatural powers were considered the best explanation behind crime and sin then. It was
believed that a person did not commit crimes of his own free will but because he was under the influence of
evil.
Still, demonology is not a suitable or proper explanation for criminal behavior since instead of
relying on real factors, there are unreal or mythical facts in its foundation. Several theories have followed
demonology that provide newer and better perspectives on crime. However, demonology has not still
grown totally irrelevant. In many parts of the world, people still believe in the existence of evil spirits. Such
people or communities try to explain sinful or criminal behavior as the wrongdoings of Satan. Also in the
ancient times, science and technology had not advanced as much and therefore, everything evil was
committed under the influence of demons and satanic powers. Due to a lack of education, no proper
explanation was available for criminal behavior.

Spiritual vs. Natural Explanations

Spiritual explanations for crime is primarily attached into religious beliefs and superstitions and
there is a strong adherence with the divine intervention. Even at present, some religious individuals and
groups still attribute crime to the influence of the devil and to sinful human nature. The problem with this
theories is that, because spiritual influences cannot be observed, they cannot be proved. Thus these
theories cannot be considered scientific.
Natural Explanations for crime were rooted in people’s ideas about the nature of reality in the
physical world based on observations of nature but were not scientific. For example, the natural world was
thought to include inherent good and evil, and crimes often were regarded as crimes against victims or
against God. Seeking explanations for crime in the natural world provided a basis for the development of
legal definitions and treatment of crime. Natural explanations of crime make use of objects and events in
the material world to account for what happens

E. FOUNDATIONAL THEORIES

1. Classical Theory
This theory of crime can be found in the works of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Cesare
Beccaria was an Italian criminologist and Jeremy Bentham was from England. The basic concept
underlying this theory was that the humans did not act according to God’s will or under the influence of any
other supernatural power. They acted as per their own free will. They acted after having judged the rewards
and punishments of an act. Any individual has the ability to calculate the outcome of his own actions and
can consider the pleasure and pain to result from his activities. Every person can judge his gains and
losses before trying to act in a specific manner. Based on his judgement, a person can avoid the acts that
he thinks would result in a loss for him, his family, society or nation.
An important strength of this theory is that it considers both juveniles and insane people as unable
to commit crimes since they cannot rationally calculate the outcomes of their actions.

Summary Points of Classical Theory

The following are the assumptions to Bentham:
1. People have free will to choose how to act and what to do.
2. Deterrence is based upon the ontological notion because a human being is any of the following:
a. Hedonist- It refers to a person who only seeks pleasure and avoids pain.
b. Rational Calculator- It refers to person’s weighing up the costs (pains) and benefits (pleasures of
the consequences of each of his action) before committing any act.
3. The swifter and certain the punishment, the more effective it is in deterring criminal behavior.
4. Punishment (of sufficient severity) can deter people from committing crime because the cost
(penalties) outweighs benefits and severity of punishment should be proportionate to the crime.

Arguments About The Classical Theory

1. Unfair- it treats all men as if they were robots without regard to the individual differences
and the surrounding circumstances when the crime is committed.
2. Unjust- having the same punishment for first offenders and recidivist.
3. The nature and definition of punishment is not individualized.
4. It considers only the injury caused no the mental condition of the offender.

2. Neo-classical Theory
This theory accepted the fact that crime is committed in accordance with the free will of man but
the act of committing a crime is modified by some causes that finally prevail upon the person to commit
crimes. These causes are: pathology, incompetence, and insanity or any condition that will make it possible
for the person to exercise the free will entirely.

3. Positivist Theory
It is an application of science; criminal behavior is caused by internal and external factors. It
presumes that criminal behavior is caused by internal and external factors outside of the individual's
control. Scientific method was introduced and applied to study human behavior. Positivism can be broken
up into three segments which include biological, psychological and social positivism. It maintained that
crime as any other act is a natural phenomenon and is comparable to disaster or calamity.

The Holy Three of Criminology (Positivist Trio)

1. Cesare Lombroso (1836-1909)

- was an Italian criminologist and founder of the Italian School of Positivist Criminology. Regarded
as the "Father" of Criminology and has the largest contributions to biological positivism through scientific
approach, insisting on empirical evidence, for studying crime concepts drawn from physiognomy, early
eugenics, psychiatry and Social Darwinism, Lombroso's theory of anthropological criminology essentially
stated that criminality was inherited, and that someone "born criminal"' could be identified by physical
defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage, or atavistic. He wrote a book entitled “The Criminal man” in
1876.

Four Categories of Criminal (According to Lombroso)

1. Atavist- known as born criminal
2. Insane criminal- refers to alcoholic, kleptomaniac, nymphomaniac, and child molesters.
3. Criminaloid- Criminaloids were further categorized as "habitual criminals", who become so
by contact with other criminals, or other "distressing circumstances" (criminal by passion hot-headed and
impulsive persons who commit violent acts when provoked).
4.
5. Criminal by Passion- Lombroso referred to a person who committed a crime motivated or
because of anger and love and honor.

The Theory of Criminal Man

In November 1872, Lombroso performed an autopsy on the body of Giuseppe Villela, a 70-
year old Calabrian brigand, whom he had examined in prison the previous year. The autopsy revealed an
anomaly in cranial structure, a smooth concavity the occipital area described as the median occipital
fosette.
The discovery of fosette convinced Lombroso that this anomaly is NOT present in normal
individuals, but only in skulls of madmen and is “proof” that criminals are born.

Stigmata Related to an Atavistic Criminal:

1. Deviation in head size and shape from type common to race and region from which the criminal
came.
2. Asymmetry of the face.
3. Eye defects and peculiarities.
4. Excessive dimensions of the jaw and cheek bones.
5. Ears of unusual size, or occasionally very small, or standing out from the head as to those of a
chimpanzee.
6. Nose twisted, upturned, or flattened in thieves, or aquiline or breaks like in murderers, or with a
tip rising like a peak from swollen nostrils.
7. Lips fleshy, swollen, and protruding.
8. Pouch in the cheek like those of some animals.
9. Chin preceding, or excessively long, or short and flat, as in apes.
10. Abnormal dentition.
11. Abundance, variety, and precocity of wrinkles.
12. Anomalies of the hair, marked by characteristics of the opposite sex.
13. Defects of the thorax, such as too many or too few ribs, or supernumerary nipples.
14. Inversion of sex characters in the pelvic organs.
15. Excessive length of arms.
16. Supernumerary fingers and toes.
17. Imbalance of the hemisphere of the brain (asymmetry of the cranium).

The Female Offender 1901

Most women are not criminal those that are, are most often occasional criminals but, some women
are atavistic criminal.
 2. Enrico Ferri (1856-1929)
A student of Lombroso, believed that social as well as biological factors played a role, and held the
view that criminals should not be held responsible for the factors causing their criminality were beyond their
control.
He argued that criminal behavior could be explained by studying the interaction of a range
of factors. He observed:
 First, physical factors in relation to crime such as race, geography and temperature.
 Second, individual factors in relation to crime such as age, sex and psychological
variables.
 Third, social factors in relation to crime such as population, religion and culture.

3. Raffaele Garofalo (1852-1934)

An Italian jurist and a student of Cesare Lombroso. He rejected the doctrine of free will and
supported the position that crime can be understood only if it is studied by scientific methods. He attempted
to formulate a sociological definition of crime that would designate those acts which can be repressed by
punishment. These constituted "Natural Crime" and were considered offenses violating the two basic
altruistic sentiments common to all people, namely, probity and pity.

Types of Criminal by Garofalo

a. Murderer- This refers to a criminal who kills another person and is satisfied from
vengeance or revenge. This type of criminal totally lacks both pity and probity and kill whenever opportunity
arises.
b. Violent Criminal- This criminal lacks pity and can be influenced by environmental factors
such as consumption of alcohol or the fact that criminality is endemic to criminal’s particular population.
c. Deficient Criminal- It refers to a person who commits crime against property like thieves
and robbers.
d. Lascivious Criminal- It refers to a person who commits crime against chastity like acts of
lasciviousness, seduction, adultery and the like.