Crime And Deviance: Definition And Causes

The definition of crime is “An action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law” (Lexico.com, 2020). For example, when looking at crime in the United Kingdom, there are specific laws which govern the way we conduct ourselves in our day to day lives. To take somebodies life is against the law in the UK. The crime committed by an individual when taking another person’s life is murder or manslaughter. Under UK law if you commit an offence such as murder you become criminally liable and can be prosecuted under judicial proceedings by a court of law.

When looking at deviance, like crime, it is behaviour that is frowned upon or considered outside of the social norms. “Deviance is any behaviour that violates social norms and is usually of sufficient severity to warrant disapproval from the majority of society.” (Harcourt, 2020) however, it is not punishable by law, unlike crime. For instance, if you were causing disruption in a class, this would be considered deviant. Causing disruption in a lesson would be frowned upon, but it is not a crime under law.

Within this report we will explore problems which may arise in defining crime and deviance, how this has changed over time and how this varies between countries and cultures. We will also look at what we believe causes crime and the theories behind those beliefs, and how the media coverage of crime impacts our perceptions.

Crime and deviance can vary greatly between countries and cultures. In some countries something that is governed by the law and considered a criminal offence is accepted and encouraged in others. For example, in the UK it is illegal to have more than 1 wife. If an individual were to marry more than 1 wife, they would be committing the crime of bigamy. They could be prosecuted and punished by the legal system. However, in most African countries such as Nigeria, Algeria and Kenya it is not a crime to be married to more than 1 wife, in fact it is encouraged. When defining deviance, the same variations happen between countries and cultures, what is considered socially acceptable in one country or culture, could be considered deviant in another.

There are many factors to take into consideration when defining crime and deviance, morals, cultures and changes over time all have an impact on interpretations of what is criminal and what is deviant. For instance, abortion used to be illegal in the UK. As people’s morals and public opinion on this matter have changed over time, it has become legal for a woman to abort a pregnancy up to the 24th week. This change was made to the law in 1967. Although some people still do not agree that women should have the right to abortion, as most of the society agree that it should form part of a woman’s basic human rights, this has become the law. In contrast countries such as Africa, or predominantly Muslim countries, still view abortion as a criminal act. This is because their moral and social norms vary greatly to that of the UK. There are many different situations you could draw on which would have the same outcome. Perceptions, moral values and politics all play a major part in shaping the laws that govern our societies and our perceptions on what is or isn’t deviant. “Simply put, crime is seen as an act against the community, which requires a legal punishment.” (Sparks, 2018)

There are many different causations of crime, but the three main theories that help us to understand what influences people to commit crime are; biological, psychological and sociological. When looking at each theory individually in relation to certain crimes, each theory, will have its own strengths and limitations.

Biological theories look at the individual as a ‘born criminal’. Lombroso’s work is a good example of this, and although it is now largely discredited it has led to continued research into biological theories. “Cesare Lombroso drew on the ideas of Charles Darwin and suggested that criminals were atavistic: essentially ‘evolutionary throwbacks’.” (Glasgow, 2020) Lombroso believed that criminals had distinctive features unlike that of their peers. He believed that criminals shared certain physical attributes such as big foreheads and receding chins. He proposed that criminals were born criminals and were a product of their biology. Although this has been discredited over the years, biological research into crime causation has continued from his work. More modern approaches to the biological theory have sought to look at the differences that could cause one to commit criminal acts, such as; poor nutrition, learning difficulties and intelligence. They seek to prove that in some way criminals are different biologically to their peers.

Psychological theories believe that criminal behaviour is the outcome of an individual’s thinking processes. “In particular they examine the processes by which behaviour and restraints on behaviour are learned. These processes often are conceived as being the result of the interaction of biological predispositions and social experiences.” (ink., 2020). There are many different perspectives of psychological theories. An example of one – behavioural theory. This perspective concludes that all behaviour is learned via our surroundings. Experiments such as “Bobo doll”, conducted by Albert Bandura sought to prove that children did indeed learn their behaviours from their adult counterparts and their surroundings. Psychological perspectives also believe that “…it is the person’s thoughts and feelings that dictate their actions. As such, problems in thinking can lead to criminal behavior.” (Study.com, 2003-2020)

Sociological theories try to explain criminal behaviour as being caused by their surroundings. They believe that family, peers, communities, schools etc all play a part in shaping criminal behaviour. Each perspective believes it is a different surrounding that influences criminal and delinquent behaviour and so research those accordingly. Examples of the different perspectives such as strain theory, social learning theory and control theory, look at the influences in an individual’s surroundings on their likelihood to commit criminal behaviour.

Strain theory is a good example of how social structure can shape criminal behaviour in individuals. Strain theory was originally explored by Robert K Merton in 1983. Merton believed that people were socialised into believing that they needed to achieve certain goals, by certain means. He concluded that, “Individuals made various adaptations in response to this strain, some of which were likely to lead to crime. The different adaptations were based on either accepting or rejecting the means and/or the goals:” (tutor2u, 2020). Merton drew up a table which displayed the different groups of individuals and the likelihood of them committing crime to achieve the goals set out socially. Although Merton did achieve explaining how social goals contributed to crime, he failed to explore why it was that certain groups of people didn’t have access to the means to achieve the goals or compare this to the groups that did. Robert Agnew went on to develop Merton’s Strain theory in 1992, this is known as the general strain theory (GST). “GST focuses on a broad range of strains, including the inability to achieve a variety of goals, the loss of valued possessions, and negative treatment by others. GST has been applied to a range of topics, including the explanation of gender, race/ethnicity, age, community, and societal differences in crime rates.” (press, 2015). Agnew gave a broader picture of different types of strains and goals which could be applied to each individual. These goals were no longer attributed to your class or income but stretched further to look at things like respect, independence and excitement. There is evidence to prove that strains identified in GST, contribute to an increased risk of criminal behaviour.