Criminology

A Study with Special reference to Sociology

Submitted to: to: 2'# )nupam Ba3r4 :an;ab <ni6er'i7= >3andigar

5ni6er'i7 8n'9tu0 of *egal Studie(

Submitted By: By: Benant Noor Sing !o" No# : $%&$$

Cla'(: B)#**B+,- ./ Seme'01

Table of Contents Acknowledgement.................................................................................................................................i Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... ii Defining Criminology......................................................................................................................... 1 Nature and Scope of Criminology..................................................................................................... 2 Significance Of Criminology............................................................................................................. 3 Social-Structural Criminology............................................................................................... 4 Conflict School of Criminology............................................................................................. 4 Critical Criminology...............................................................................................................4 Feminist Criminology.............................................................................................................4 Social-Process Criminology................................................................................................... 5 Political Criminology............................................................................................................. 5 Theories Of Causation Of Crime...................................................................................................... 6 Sociological Theories f Crime...................................................................................................... ! Structural "#$lanations............................................................................................................... % &erton's Theory of Social Structure and Anomie ........................................................... % "(aluation of &erton's Theory ........................................................................................ ) &eaning of Su* culture...............................................................................................................+ ,asis of the Su* cultural Theory ......................................................................................... -. /alter &iller's Theory of Focal Concerns......................................................................-. 0imitations to the Focal Concerns Theory ......................................................................-&ulti$le Factor A$$roach......................................................................................................... -&o*ility................................................................................................................................ -1 Culture Conflicts.................................................................................................................. -1 Family ,ackground.............................................................................................................. -2 Political Ideology................................................................................................................. -4 Political Ideology................................................................................................................. -4 3eligion and Crime.............................................................................................................. -5 "conomic Conditions........................................................................................................... -5 "cology of Crime................................................................................................................. -! Influence of &edia............................................................................................................... -% Crimes In r!an "nd #ural "reas................................................................................................. 1$ Neigh!orhood Influences ................................................................................................................ 1% &i!liography......................................................................................................................................2'

Acknowledgement

At the (ery outset I owe my gratitude to none other *ut Almighty who is *elie(e is the s$iritual force *ehind all the creation. The efforts of my teacher &s. Anu$am ,ahri cannot *e forgotten4 for her $ersuasion and constant guidance throughtout the e#ecution of this $ro5ect. Further I would like to thank my family and friends for the strong moral su$$ort during critical moments of failure. I also owe my gratitude to the 6I0S 0i*rary for their readiness in $ro(iding the material.

Benant Noor Sing

Introduction
The word Criminology7 originated in -)+.. The general meaning of the term is 8the scientific study of crime as a social $henomenon4 of criminals and of $enal institutions. Prof. 9enny analy:ed and defined that Criminology is a *ranch of criminal science which deals with crime causation4 analysis and $re(ention of crime. Criminology as a *ranch of knowledge is concerned with those $articular conducts of human *eha(iour which are $rohi*ited *y society. It is4 therefore4 a socio-legal study which seeks to disco(er the causes of criminality and suggests the remedies to reduce crimes. Therefore4 it flows that criminology and criminal $olicy are interde$endent and mutually su$$ort one another. Thus criminology seeks to study the $henomenon of criminality in its entirety. The $ro*lem of crime control essentially in(ol(es the need for a study of the forces o$erating *ehind the incidence of crime and a (ariety of co-related factors influencing the $ersonality of the offender. This has e(entually led to de(elo$ment of modern criminology during the $receding two centuries. The $ur$ose of study of this *ranch of knowledge is to analy:e different as$ects of crime and de(ice effecti(e measures for treatment of criminals to *ring a*out their re-sociali:ation and reha*ilitation in the community. Thus criminology as a *ranch of knowledge has a $ractical utility in so far as it aims at *ringing a*out the welfare of the community as a whole. The $rinci$les of criminology ser(e as effecti(e guidelines for formulation of $enal $olicy. The modern clinical methods and the reformatory measures such as $ro*ation4 $arole4 indeterminate sentence4 o$en $risons4 and other correctional institutions are essentially an outcome of intensi(e criminological researches during the twentieth century. These measures ha(e sufficiently demonstrated the futility of dum$ing offenders inside the $risons and infliction of *ar*aric $unishments. Prof. ;illin has rightly o*ser(ed that it is not the humanity within the criminal *ut the criminality within the human *eing which needs to *e cur*ed through effecti(e administration of criminal 5ustice. &ore recently4 criminologists and $enologists seem to ha(e agreed that 8indi(iduali:ation of the offender should *e the ultimate o*5ect of $unishment4 while treatment methods4 the means to attain this end. The study of crime and criminal must $roceed on a scientific *asis *y carefully analy:ing (arious as$ects associated therewith and must necessarily suggest measures $ro$osed to su$$ress criminality. It must *e added that with new crimes emerging in the modern com$le#ities of life4 we seem increasingly concerned a*out the $ro*lem of crime. Today destructi(e acts of (andalism4 highway4 train and *ank ro**eries4 looting4 *om* *lasts4 ra$e4 illegitimate terrorist acti(ities4 white-collar crimes4 cy*er crimes4 ii

criminali:ation of $olitics4 hi5acking4 etc.4 are constantly increasing which ha(e $osed a $ositi(e danger to human life4 li*erty and $ro$erty. &odern criminologists4 therefore4 seem to *e seriously concerned with the $ro*lem of crime to $rotect the society from such anti-social acti(ities of criminals. It is for this reason that the two sister *ranches of criminal science4 namely4 criminology and $enology work hand in hand to a$$reciate the $ro*lem of criminality in its $ro$er $ers$ecti(e.

iii

Defining Criminology
Criminology may*e defined as <the scientific study of the causation4 correction4 and $re(ention of crime=. Criminology >from 0atin cr?men4 @accusation@A and ;reek -BCDEF4 -logiaG is the social science a$$roach to the study of crime as an indi(idual and social $henomenon. Although contem$orary definitions (ary in the e#act words used4 there is considera*le consensus that criminology in(ol(es the a$$lication of the scientific method to the study of (ariation in criminal law4 the causes of crime4 and reactions to crime >Akers 1...G.

Criminological research areas include the incidence and forms of crime as well as its causes and conseHuences. They also include social and go(ernmental regulations and reactions to crime. Criminology is an interdisci$linary field in the *eha(ioral sciences4 drawing es$ecially on the research of sociologists and $sychologists4 as well as on writings in law. An im$ortant way to analy:e data is to look at Huantitati(e methods in criminology. In -))54 Italian law $rofessor 3affaele ;arofalo coined the term @criminology@ >in Italian4 criminologiaG. The French anthro$ologist Paul To$inard used it for the first time in French >criminologieG around the same time.

Nature and Scope of Criminology

Criminology is an inter-disci$linary field of study4 in(ol(ing scholars and $ractitioners re$resenting a wide range of *eha(ioral and social sciences as well as numerous natural sciences. Sociologists $layed a ma5or role in defining and de(elo$ing the field of study and criminology emerged as an academic disci$line housed in sociology $rograms. Iowe(er4 with the esta*lishment of schools of criminology and the $roliferation of academic de$artments and $rograms concentrating s$ecifically on crime and 5ustice in the last half of the 1. century4 the criminology emerged as a distinct $rofessional field with a *road4 interdisci$linary focus and a shared commitment to generating knowledge through systematic research. re$lication. As a su*di(ision of the larger field of sociology4 criminology draws on $sychology4 economics4 anthro$ology4 $sychiatry4 *iology4 statistics4 and other disci$lines to e#$lain the causes and $re(ention of criminal *eha(ior. Su*di(isions of criminology include $enology4 the study of $risons and $rison systemsA *io-criminology4 the study of the *iological *asis of criminal *eha(iorA feminist criminology4 the study of women and crimeA and criminalistics4 the study of crime detection4 which is related to the field of Forensic Science. &uch research related to criminology has focused on the *iological *asis of criminal *eha(ior. In fact4 *io-criminology4 attem$ts to e#$lore the *iological *asis of criminal *eha(ior. 3esearch in this area has focused on chromosomal a*normalities4 hormonal and *rain chemical im*alances4 diet4 neurological conditions4 drugs4 and alcohol as (aria*les that contri*ute to criminal *eha(ior. Criminology has historically $layed a reforming role in relation to Criminal 0aw and the criminal 5ustice system. As an a$$lied disci$line4 it has $roduced findings that ha(e influenced legislators4 5udges4 $rosecutors4 lawyers4 Pro*ation officers4 and $rison officials4 $rom$ting them to *etter understand crime and criminals and to de(elo$ *etter and more human sentences and treatments for criminal *eha(ior. Criminologists also study a host of other issues related to crime and the law. These include studies of the Jictims of Crime4 focusing u$on their relations to the criminal4 and their role as $otential causal agents in crimeA 5u(enile delinHuency and its correctionA and the media and their relation to crime4 including the influence of Pornogra$hy. ne ultimate goal of criminology has *een the de(elo$ment of theories e#$ressed with sufficient $recision that they can *e tested4 using data collected in a manner that allows (erification and

Significance

f Criminology

The true effect of criminology u$on $ractices in the criminal 5ustice system is still su*5ect to Huestion. Although a num*er of commentators ha(e noted that studies in criminology ha(e led to significant changes among criminal laws in the (arious states4 other critics ha(e suggested that studies in criminology ha(e not directly led to a reduction of crime. In &c Cleskey (. 9em$4 4)- 6.S. 1%+4 -.% S. Ct. -%5!4 +5 0. "d. 1d 1!1 >-+)%G4 an indi(idual who had *een sentenced to death for a murder in ;eorgia demonstrated to the 6.S. Su$reme Court that a criminologistKs study showed that the race of indi(iduals in that state im$acted whether the defendant was sentenced to life or to death. The study demonstrated that a *lack defendant who had killed a white (ictim was four times more likely to *e sentenced to death than was a defendant who had killed a *lack (ictim. The defendant claimed that the study demonstrated that the state of ;eorgia had (iolated his rights under the "L6A0 P3 T"CTI M C0A6S" of the Fourteenth Amendment4 as well as under the "igth AmendmentKs $rotection against Cruel and 6nusual Punishment. The high court disagreed. Although the ma5ority did Huestion the (alidity of the findings4 of studyKs it held that the study did not esta*lish that officials in ;eorgia had acted with discriminatory $ur$ose4 and that it did not esta*lish that racial *ias had affected the officialsK decisions with res$ect to the death sentence. Accordingly4 the death sentence (iolated neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the "ighth Amendment. Criminology has had more of an effect when states and the federal go(ernment consider new criminal laws and sentencing $ro(isions. CriminologistsK theories are also often de*ated in the conte#t of the death $enalty and crime control acts among legislators and $olicymakers. In this light4 criminology is $erha$s not at the forefront of the de(elo$ment of the criminal 5ustice system4 *ut it most certainly works in the *ackground in the determination of criminal 5ustice $olicies. Sociology and Criminology uring the twentieth century4 the sociological a$$roach to criminology *ecame the most influential a$$roach. Sociology is the study of social *eha(ior4 systems4 and structures. In relation to criminology4 it may *e di(ided into social-structural and social-$rocess a$$roaches.

Social(Structural Criminology Social-structural a$$roaches to criminology e#amine the way in which social situations and structures influence or relate to criminal *eha(ior. An early e#am$le of this a$$roach4 the ecological school of criminology4 was de(elo$ed in the -+1.s and -+2.s at the 6ni(ersity of Chicago. It seeks to e#$lain crimeKs relationshi$ to social and en(ironmental change. For e#am$le4 it attem$ts to descri*e why certain areas of a city will ha(e a tendency to attract crime and also ha(e less-(igorous $olice enforcement. 3esearchers ha(e found that ur*an areas in transition from residential to *usiness uses are most often targeted *y criminals. Such communities often ha(e disorgani:ed social networks that foster a weaker sense of social standards.

Another social-structural a$$roach is the conflict school of criminology. It traces its roots to &ar#ist theories that saw crime as ultimately a $roduct of conflict *etween different classes under the system of ca$italism. Criminology conflict theory suggests that the laws of society emerge out of conflict rather than out of consensus. It holds that laws are made *y the grou$ that is in $ower4 to control those who are not in $ower. Conflict theorists $ro$ose4 as do other theorists4 that those who commit crimes are not fundamentally different from the rest of the $o$ulation. They call the idea that society may *e clearly di(ided into criminals and non-criminals a dualistic fallacy4 or a misguided notion. These theorists maintain4 instead4 that the determination of whether someone is a criminal or not often de$ends on the way society reacts to those who de(iate from acce$ted norms. &any conflict theorists and others argue that minorities and $oor $eo$le are more Huickly la*eled as criminals than are mem*ers of the ma5ority and wealthy indi(iduals. Critical criminology4 also called radical criminology4 shares with conflict criminology a de*t to &ar#ism. It came into $rominence in the early -+%.s and attem$ted to e#$lain contem$orary social u$hea(als. Critical criminology relies on economic e#$lanations of *eha(ior and argues that economic and social ineHualities cause criminal *eha(ior. It focuses less on the study of indi(idual criminals4 and ad(ances the *elief that e#isting crime cannot *e eliminated within the ca$italist system. It also asserts4 like the conflict school4 that law has an inherent *ias in fa(or of the u$$er or ruling class4 and that the state and its legal system e#ist to ad(ance the interests of the ruling class. Critical criminologists argue that cor$orate4 $olitical4 and en(ironmental crime are underre$orted and inadeHuately addressed in the current criminal 5ustice system. )eminist criminology em$hasi:es the su*ordinate $osition of women in society. According to feminist criminologists4 women remain in a $osition of inferiority that has not *een fully rectified *y changes in the law during the late twentieth century. Feminist criminology also e#$lores the ways in which womenKs criminal *eha(ior is related to their o*5ectification as commodities in the 4

se# industry. thers using the social-structural a$$roach ha(e studied ;angs4 5u(enile delinHuency4 and the relationshi$ *etween family structure and criminal *eha(ior. Social(*rocess Criminology Social-$rocess criminology theories attem$t to e#$lain how $eo$le *ecome criminals. These theories de(elo$ed through recognition of the fact that not all $eo$le who are e#$osed to the same social- structural conditions *ecome criminals. They focus on criminal *eha(ior as learned *eha(ior. "dwin I. Sutherland >-))2N-+5.G4 a 6.S. sociologist and criminologist who first $resented his ideas in the -+1.s and -+2.s4 ad(anced the theory of differential association to e#$lain criminal *eha(ior. Ie em$hasi:ed that criminal *eha(ior is learned in interaction with others4 usually in small grou$s4 and that criminals learn to fa(or criminal *eha(ior o(er noncriminal *eha(ior through association with *oth forms of *eha(ior in different degrees. As Sutherland wrote4 @/hen $ersons *ecome criminal4 they do so *ecause of contacts with criminal $atterns and also *ecause of isolation from anti-criminal $atterns.@ Although his theory has *een greatly influential4 Sutherland himself admitted that it did not satisfactorily e#$lain all criminal *eha(ior. 0ater theorists ha(e modified his a$$roach in an attem$t to correct its shortcomings. *olitical Criminology( Political criminology is similar to the other cam$s in this area. It in(ol(es study into the forces that determine how4 why4 and with what conseHuences societies chose to address criminals and crime in general. Those who are in(ol(ed with $olitical criminology focus on the causes of crime4 the nature of crime4 the social and $olitical meanings that attach to crime4 and crime- control $olicies4 including the study of the *ases u$on which crime and $unishment is committed and the choices made *y the $rinci$als in criminal 5ustice. Although the theories of $olitical criminology and conflict criminology o(erla$ to some e#tent4 $olitical criminologists deny that the terms are interchangea*le. The $rimary focus $oints in the new mo(ement of $olitical criminology similarly o(erla$ with other theories4 including the concerns and ramifications of street crime and the distri*ution of $ower in crime-control strategies. This mo(ement has largely *een a loose4 academic effort.

!eori"

f Causation

f Crime

Psychologists argue that in order to do something a*out the crime $ro*lem4 we must first understand its causes. Their aims are in conformity with that of Criminologists7. The Huestions are aG /hy does crime ha$$enO *G /hat moti(ates $eo$le to commit illegal actsO Se(eral theories are ad(ocated to answer these Huestions For e#am$le in case of theft4 the *iological e#$lanations say that the thief has *ad genes and the $sychological e#$lanations may maintain that he has a $ersonality defect. 0ike wise the sociological e#$lanations may argue that he7s got in with a *ad crowd. These kind of e#$lanations led to different kinds of theoriesP I. ,iological theories of crime4 II. Psychological theories of crime4 III. Sociological theories of crime4 IJ. Social-Psychological theories of crime. Iowe(er4 no single theory can $ossi*ly *e a$$lica*le to all illegal acts and actors and therefore4 an e(aluation of the limitations of each theory is a$$ro$riate.

Sociological ?eorie' @f >rimA

These theories ado$t an o*5ecti(e a$$roach to e#$lain criminality. They em$hasi:e factors that affect many criminals in common. American criminologists $refer this a$$roach. They attri*ute criminality to the social conditions of the criminal. Crime- causation de$ends considera*ly on social interactions. At times $ersons (iolate the $ro(isions of law knowing fully well that they will ha(e to face $enal conseHuences for their acts. This $henomenon is more cons$icuous in times of $olitical strategy. For e#am$le in the freedom struggle of India &ahatma ;andhi and other national leaders *roke the laws made *y the "nglish and were im$risoned. Similarly4 cases of hunger strikes4 demonstrations of $rotests4 !

self-immolations all are glaring instances of deli*erate law (iolations *y res$onsi*le $ersons of the society. Sociological theories of criminal *eha(ior can *e e#$lained under three headsP Structural "#$lanations Su*-cultural "#$lanations &ulti$le Factor A$$roach

Structural +,planations
These arguments maintain that criminality is the result of structural defects in the society or family etc. Structural defects here mean the general *reakdown of normal social conditions. These e#$lanations em$hasi:e on the e#istence of fundamental ineHuality in the structure of the society. IneHualities are e#$erienced in the o$$ortunities to achie(e the goals (alued *y the society. In the society4 all $eo$le ha(e as$irations or goals to *e wealthy4 successful4 educated4 ho$e to $ossess material $ossessions such as nice clothes4 cars4 *ungalows4 all lu#uries. ,ut not e(ery*ody is ha(ing the o$$ortunities. Some ha(e greater o$$ortunities4 for instance4 *eing from affluent families ha(e greater chances to get good education. Some may ha(e greater a*ilities to achie(e their goals. Peo$le with good looks are more likely to achie(e goals through legitimate means. Some others4 who ha(e lesser o$$ortunities and cannot attain their thorough legitimate means4 may face a com$ulsion to rely on illegal means. -erton.s Theory of Social Structure and "nomie 3o*ert 9. &erton >-+2)G e#$lains this through his $o$ular e#$lanation of 8Social Structure and Anomie. Ie e#$lains the colla$sing of social conditions *rought *y se(ere economic conditions is res$onsi*le for criminal *eha(ior. Ie re5ects the notion that crime is an intrinsic and indi(idual *eha(ior. Ie looks *eyond the immediate $ersonal en(ironment of the criminals to the *roader conte#t of Social Structure and Anomie7 for e#$lanation of criminal *eha(ior. &erton *orrowed the term anomie from "mile Qurkheim a French sociologist. Qurkheim had studied the French and American culture after the Industrial 3e(olution. In his study he noted that economic crisis and a general *reakdown of the normal social conditions created 8deregulation of social and moral rules. This deregulation which he called 8anomie4 could lead to all sorts of social de(iance including suicide and crime. Anomie is a condition which e#ists when norms no longer control $eo$le7s *eha(ior4 when $eo$le no longer ha(e clear rules. /hen normlessness e#ists then controls on *eha(ior and as$irations cease to e#ist. &erton maintained that anomie is es$ecially likely to e#ist in a society where there is uneHual o$$ortunity and an em$hasis on material successA and he claimed that it can e#$lain a *road range of %

socially de(iant *eha(ior. &erton e#$lains that society esta*lishes institutionali:ed goals N usually understood to *e financial success which society em$hasi:es and reinforces. To achie(e these goals there are Rsocially structured methods7 which can *e called 8means. /hen such goals are o(er em$hasi:ed and highly $raised *ut the 8means to achie(e them are una(aila*le to a considera*le $art of that $o$ulation then anomie is likely i.e. when success is *locked *y the una(aila*ility of 8meansS indi(iduals e#$erience strain and show two kinds of reactions4 either they must ad5ust their as$irations downward or de(ise alternati(e routes to achie(e goals. In such an en(ironment de(iant *eha(ior is wide s$read. According to &erton4 fi(e modes are ado$ted *y the $eo$le to achie(e goalsP -. Conformity4 1. Inno(ation4 2. 3itualism4 4. 3etreatism4 and 5. 3e*ellion. Conformity is a $ath taken *y most $eo$le4 e(en if they reali:e that the means to achie(e their goals are restricted. Inno/ation is where a $erson acce$ts a goal *ut re5ects the acce$ted4 legitimate means to achie(e the goal. For e#am$le4 a child wants a ,icycle4 the legitimate means are to ask $arents or grand$arents or sa(e money *y doing a $art time 5o* etc. If all these means are not a(aila*le an alternati(e4 inno(ati(e means may *e chosen such as theft7. In #itualism4 a $erson continues to follow the institutionali:ed means such as hard work and thrift *ut looses sight of the goals or re5ected them. This may descri*e the so called rat- race4 in which $eo$le work diligently in socially a$$ro(ed ways *ut ha(e no ho$e of success in achie(ing their goals4 or no longer identify with long term goals. In #etreatism4 *oth goals and means are re5ected. The retreatist7s res$onse to an ina*ility to reach goals is to dro$ out4 or to Huit trying. This may lead to e#treme retreatist *eha(iour such as alcoholism4 drug addiction or (agrancy. #e!ellion is an o$tion for $eo$le who re5ect the a$$ro(ed goals and means to achie(e them for new goals and means. 3e*els and re(olutionaries are disa$$ointed indi(iduals who (iew acce$ted goals as unattaina*le or undesira*le and socially a$$ro(ed means of reaching them as demeaning or unworka*le. Therefore4 these $ersons su*stitute new4 socially unacce$ta*le goals and means4 such as redistri*ution of wealth through socialist $olitical structure.

+/aluation of -erton.s Theory The strain $ers$ecti(e de(elo$ed *y &erton and his followers has influenced *oth research and theoretical de(elo$ments in criminology. Tet4 as $o$ular as this theory remains4 it has *een Huestioned )

on a (ariety of grounds. ,y concentrating on crime at the lower le(els of the socioeconomic hierarchy4 for e#am$le4 it neglects crime committed *y middle and u$$er Nclass $eo$le. ther critics Huestion whether a heterogeneous society does ha(e goals on which e(eryone agrees. Some theorists argue that some su*cultures ha(e their own (alue systems. If this is the case4 we cannot account for de(iant *eha(ior on the *asis of &erton7s cultural goals. ther im$ortant Huestions raised are4 if we ha(e an agreed u$on set of goals4 is material gain the dominant oneO If crime is a means to an end4 why is there so much of useless4 destructi(e *eha(ior4 es$ecially among teenagersO Mo matter how it is structured4 each society defines goals for its mem*ers. For e#am$le4 the 6nited States is not only the society in which $eo$le stri(e for wealth and $restige. Tet4 while some $eo$le in the other cultures ha(e limited means for achie(ing goals4 not all these societies ha(e high crime rates. Two such societies NUa$an and Swit:erlandVare among the most de(elo$ed and industriali:ed in the world. Although the 6nited States has Huite a *it in common with them4 it does not share their (ery low crime rates. Qes$ite the many critical assessments4 strain theory4 as re$resented *y &erton7s formulation of anomie4 has had a ma5or im$act on the contem$orary criminology. 2.1. Su* cultural "#$lanations The second ty$e of sociological a$$roach focuses on su* cultural e#$lanations4 with em$hasis on the discre$ancy in the norms for different grou$s.

-eaning of Su! culture

A su* culture is su*-di(ision within the dominant culture that has its own norms *eliefs and (alues. Su* cultures ty$ically emerge when $eo$le in similar circumstances find themsel(es isolated from the main stream and *and together for mutual su$$ort. Su* cultures may form among mem*ers of racial and ethnic minorities4 among $risoners4 among occu$ational grou$s4 among ghetto dwellers. Su* cultures e#ist within a larger society4 not a$art from it. They there fore share some of its (alues. Me(ertheless4 the life styles of their mem*ers are significantly different from those of in the dominant culture. According to Al*ert Cohen4 an American Sociologist4 de(iant *eha(ior is su$$orted *y su* culture. A su* culture of criminals has its own norms which stand o(er against the norms of the larger grou$ >the dominant cultureG. The de(iance does not a$$ear unusual or a*normal from their $oint of (iew. Indeed4 most su* cultures ha(e a (ague notion that the larger society is un5ust and corru$t. Im$ortant ty$es of de(iant *eha(iors are 5u(enile delinHuency4 drug addiction4 and crime against $ersons and $ro$erty etc. The la#ity of norms the anonymous nature of cities and multi$le standards of *eha(iors are often res$onsi*le for it.

 &asis of the Su! cultural Theory Strain theorists >structural e#$lanationsG e#$lain criminal *eha(ior as a result of the frustrations suffered *y lower class indi(iduals de$ri(ed of legitimate means to reach their goals. Cultural de(iance theorists assume thatP Indi(iduals *ecome criminal *y learning the criminal (alues of the grou$s to which they *elong. In conforming to their own grou$ standards4 these $eo$le *reak the law of the dominant culture. These two $ers$ecti(es are the foundations of the su* cultural theory. Miet:el >-+%+G e#$lains that the su* cultural theory is *ased on the fact that there is a lack of agreement *etween norms of different grou$s. Ie descri*es as followsP The su* cultural $ers$ecti(e holds that the conflict of norms4 which engenders criminal *eha(ior4 is due to the fact that (arious ethnic or class grou$ings of $eo$le adhere to cultural $atterns of *eha(ior that are inconsistent with the dominant in5unctions against certain ty$es of crime. These illegal $atterns of *eha(ior are su$$orted *y the $articular su* cultural norms that actually e#ert $ressure toward de(iation from the consensual norms underlying the criminal law. ;angs4 for e#am$le4 $ossess norms a*out how to *eha(e. For some young $eo$le4 the gang takes the $lace of $arents as the gi(er of norms4 e(en when the $arents attem$t to instill their own (alues. 0alter -iller.s Theory of )ocal Concerns This theme of cultural conflict is made salient in 0alter -iller.s Theory of )ocal Concerns1 21%3$4 which attri*utes the criminal acti(ities of lower- class adolescent gangs to their attem$t to achie(e the ends that are (alued in their culture through the *eha(iors that a$$ear to them to *e the most feasi*le means of o*taining those ends. Thus4 adherence to the traditions of the lower class is essential. &iller la*els them as trou*le4 toughness4 smartness4 e#citement4 fate and autonomy. For e#am$le4 lower-class *oys $ick fights to show their toughness4 and they steal to demonstrate their shrewdness and daring.

-.

Ta!le 1.1 -I55+#.S 6)OC"5 CONC+#NS7 O) 5O0+#( C5"SS C 5T #+ S. No "#+" Trou*le 1 Toughness D+SI#"&5+ 0aw-a*iding *eha(ior Physical $rowessA skillA 8masculinity fearlessnessA *ra(eryA daring A*ility to outsmart4 du$e4 gaining money *y 8witsSA shrewdnessA ND+SI#"&5+ 0aw-(iolating *eha(ior /eaknessA ine$titudeA effimacyA timidityA cowardiceA caution ;ulli*ility4 8cona*iltySA gaining4 money *y hard workA slownessA dull- wittednessA (er*al maladroitness ,oredomA 8deadnessSA safenessA samenessA $assi(ity Ill-omenedA *eingA 8unlucky Presence of e#ternal constraintA $resence of strong authorityA de$endencyA *eing 8cared forS

Smartness

4 5 !

"#citement ThrillA riskA dangerA changeA acti(ity Fate Autonomy Fa(ored *y fortuneA *eing 8lucky Freedom *y e#ternal constraintA freedom from su$er ordinate authorityA inde$endence

5imitations to the )ocal Concerns Theory The theory of focal concerns a$$lies to a restricted range of crimes. It does not crime *uy indi(iduals not socially disad(antaged4 such as a *usiness man or stock *roker. The key conce$ts are (ague as in the case of structural e#$lanations. Iow do these cultural standards originateO Iow are they transmitted from generation to generationO And how do these standards control the *eha(ior of any one indi(idualO According to Miet:el4 the most trou*lesome conce$t is the central one that is4 the su* culture. Some critics re5ect the assum$tion of (alue differences among grou$s. For e#am$le4 some sociologists suggest that American society is really not as culturally di(erse as the theory im$lies.

-ultiple )actor "pproach

Qes$ite re$eated attem$ts on the $art of criminologists $ro$ounding different (iews to formulate a singular theoretical e#$lanation for criminal *eha(iour4 no hy$othesis could answer the issue satisfactorily. "(entually4 the sociologists made use of Rmulti$le-factor a$$roach7 to e#$lain the causation of crime. The su$$orters of this (iew *elie(e that crime is a $roduct of a com*ination of a (ariety of factors which can not *e narrated in terms of general $ro$ositions. This (iew finds su$$ort from the writings of eminent American criminologist /illiam Iealy4 e#$ressing his (iews on multi$le causation

--

theory4 Pro. Iealy o*ser(ed that it is not one or two factors which turn a man delinHuent *ut it is a com*ination of many more factorsW say eight or tenWW which cumulati(ely influence him to follow criminal conduct. Ie4 howe(er4 agreed that all the factors associated with a $articular crime may not ha(e eHual im$ortance as a cause of that crime. The e#tent of their influence on crime may *e in (arying degrees4 some e#erting greater influence on the crime while the others4 the least. ,ut this theory has *een (ehemently critici:ed *y Al*ert Cohen on the ground that it offers no single e#$lanation which can e#$lain crime causation. &oreo(er4 it is fallacious to *elie(e that crimes generate only in de$lora*le surroundings. The greatest shortcoming of the multi$le factor a$$roach to crime according to Cohen is that the adherents of this theory confused factors7 with those of causes7 of crime. From the foregoing analysis it is e(ident that sociologists consider crime as a $roduct of en(ironmental de(iations and (arying social conditions. The inter-relation *etween criminality and some of these conditions may *e discussed under the following headsP 1. -o!ility8 The ra$id growth of industriali:ation and ur*ani:ation in recent years has led to e#$ansion of means of communication4 tra(el facilities and $ro$agation of (iews through $ress and $latform. ConseHuently4 human interaction has gone *eyond intimate associations with increased chances of mo*ility. &igration of $ersons to new $laces where they are strangers offers them *etter o$$ortunities for crime as the chances of detection are considera*ly minimi:ed. &o*ility4 therefore4 ser(es as a $otential cause of social disorgani:ation which may result in de(iant *eha(iour due to lack of family control. 2. Culture Conflicts8 In a dynamic society social change is an ine(ita*le $henomenon. The im$act of moderni:ation4 ur*ani:ation and industriali:ation in modern dynamic society may sometimes result in social disorgani:ation and this may lead to culture conflicts *etween different sections of society. The difference may *e *etween old and new (alues4 local and im$orted (alues and traditional (alues and the go(ernment im$osed (alues. Criminality arising out of cultural conflict theory has *een well e#$lained *y Shah and -c9ay through their Cultural Transmission theory of crime which was a dominant criminological theory of the 1.th century. The theory sim$ly states that 8traditions of delinHuency are transmitted through successi(e generations of the same inha*itation in the same way as language and attitudes are transmitted.S The ina*ility of local communities to a$$reciate the common (alues of their residents or sol(e commonly e#$erienced $ro*lems causes tension leading to de(iant *eha(iours. This is how criminal traditions get em*edded into the functioning of a community and they co-e#ist alongside -1

con(entional (alues. Sutherland has termed this $henomenon as 8differential social disorgani:ation which is more common with lower-class neigh*orhoods. Ie attri*utes three main causes for the culture conflict4 namely4 >-G residential insta*ilityA >1G social or ethnic heterogeneityA and >2G $o(erty. The shift of $o$ulation due to migration or immigration Huite often affects the crime rate of a gi(en $lace. The culture conflict *etween inha*itants and immigrants results in de(iant *eha(iour. In a recent study 3uth and Ca(an found that "skimos who were free from the $ro*lem of crime until recently4 now freHuently indulge into de(iant *eha(iour such as4 loitering4 drunkenness and se#-offences due to their migration to ur*an areas and social contact with non-"skimos. 3. )amily &ac9ground8 Sutherland holds that out of all the social $rocesses4 the family *ackground has $erha$s the greatest influence on criminal *eha(iour of the offenderA the reason *eing that children s$end most of their time with their $arents and relati(es within the family. Children are a$t to im*i*e criminal tendencies4 if they find their $arents or mem*ers of the family *eha(ing in a similar manner. The institution of family is e#$ected to cater to the *asic needs of the children. Therefore4 the child should feel that he en5oys a certain $ri(ilege and $rotection in his family and that he is lo(ed and liked *y his $arents and mem*ers of the family. This feeling of security4 warmth and reliance makes children to lean the (irtues of lo(e4 res$ect and duty towards others. Thus4 it is through the institution of family that the child unconsciously learns to ad5ust himself to the en(ironment and acce$ts the (alues of life such as res$ect for others4 faithfulness4 trustworthiness and co- o$eration through his own life e#$eriences. It4 therefore4 follows that a child *rought u$ in a *roken family is likely to fall an easy $rey to criminality. 0ack of $arental control o(er children due to death4 di(orce or desertion of $arent or their ignorance or illness may furnish soothing ground for the children to resort to criminal acts. Again4 freHuent Huarrels amongst $arents4 undue domination of one o(er the other4 ste$-motherly treatment with children4 freHuent *irths in the family4 immorality of $arents4 misery4 $o(erty or unwholesome family atmos$here and the like may also lead to the neglect of child and finding no adeHuate outlet for his talents4 he may tend to *ecome criminal in his life. To add to the a*o(e list4 unem$loyment4 low income or $arent7s continued long a*sence from home for the sake of li(elihood is some other causes for child delinHuencies. After a careful study of the family *ackground of a num*er of delinHuents4 Donald Taft deduced the following generali:ations which are significant from the $oint of (iew of crime causationP -. &o*ility among criminals is far greater than those of non-criminals. In other words4 delinHuents change their $lace more freHuently than the law-a*iding $ersons. 1. The delinHuents usually $refer to stay away from their family4 $arents and homes. 2. The homes of delinHuents are often ill-maintained4 insanitary and dis$lay $oor standard of li(ing. -2

4. The family life of most delinHuents is usually disru$ted and their $arents are either dead4 se$arated or di(orced. 5. "#$erience has shown that most of the delinHuents are su*5ected to $hysical $unishment *y the $arents in their childhood. ConseHuently4 they hardly show any res$ect for the mem*ers of their family. !. A large $ercentage of criminals are usually hostile and indifferent towards their *rothers and sisters. %. QelinHuents are encouraged to follow criminality in their homes in either of the following waysP aG The $arents may not themsel(es *e associated with the criminal act *ut they might deli*erately a(oid $re(enting their children from indulging into criminal acts. *G Children may learn criminal $atterns through the $rocess of imitation. They *egin to learn similar *eha(iour from their $arents or other mem*ers of the family. cG The $arents who ha(e em*raced criminality as a way of life like those of $rofessional thie(es4 $ick$ockets4 $rostitutes4 etc. often train their children for the (ocation. It is4 howe(er4 true that a re(erse $rocess may also o$erate where criminal $arents take all ste$s to ensure that their children do not follow their foot-ste$s and kee$ away from criminality. To take an illustration4 it is often seen that $rostitutes usually take care to kee$ their children away from the du*ious $rofession so much so that they take all $recautions to ensure that their children do not e(en come to know that their mother is a $rostitute. So also4 most of the notorious dacoits $refer to dissuade their children from following similar criminal traits and $ro(ide them *est education for an u$right and honest li(ing. This change in their attitude is $erha$s due to the im$act of education and social transformation in recent decades. Those who disagree with the influence of family surrounding on criminality may argue that this hy$othesis is incorrect *ecause cases are not wanting when $ersons *rought u$ in most down-trodden and de$lora*le family situations ha(e *ecome most useful mem*ers of the society and ha(e held $restigious $ositions. It may *e noted that family is only one of the multi$le factors affecting criminal *eha(ior. Therefore4 if a child li(ing in degraded family situations finds other surroundings fa(ora*le to his u$right growth4 he ada$ts himself to those norms and e(entually *ecomes a law a*iding citi:en. Thus if other conditions of the child remain conduci(e to his u$right li(ing4 the e(il influences of degenerated family are held in check *y other stronger forces. :. *olitical Ideology8 It is well known that the Parliamentarians who are law-makers of the country are also $oliticians. They succeed in mo*ili:ing $u*lic o$inion in the desired way through the media of $ress and $latform -4

and finally enact suita*le laws to su$$ort their $olicies. Thus $olitical ideologies gain strength through legislati(e $rocess there*y directly influencing the criminal $atterns in a gi(en society. The li*erali:ation of a*ortion law4 $rotection of women against (iolence including harmful traditional $ractices4 etc. are some of the e#am$les to show as to how the conce$t of criminality changes with the changed ideologies of the $oliticians and the go(ernment in $ower. /ith the change in ideologies what was unlawful and illegal till yesterday may *ecome lawful and legal today and (ice (ersa. The lawmakers 5ustify these changes for the good of the society kee$ing in (iew the changing norms of ci(ili:ation and culture. Again4 $olitical changes in a country may gi(e rise to new $olitical offences. The e#cessi(e interference of $oliticians in e#ecuti(e functions of the ;o(ernment weakness the morale of the administrators as well as the $olice4 with the result there is s$ontaneous growth in crime-rate. 3. #eligion and Crime8 The changes in religious ideologies also ha(e a direct *earing on incidence of crime in a $articular region. It has *een rightly said that morality can *est *e $reser(ed in a society through the institution of religion. The *ond of religion kee$s $ersons within their limits and hel$s them to kee$ away from sinful and criminal acts. The declining influence of religion in modern times has tended to lea(e men free to do as they like without any restraint or fear. ConseHuently4 they do not hesitate to resort to criminality e(en for $etty materialistic gains. Qes$ite the fact that all religions s$eak of communal harmony and $eaceful co-e#istence4 most wars on this earth are fought in the name of religion. The war *etween Iran and IraH for o(er eight years4 the wars in 0e*anon4 and the continuing fight *etween Catholics and Protestants in Morthern Ireland and e(en terrorist acti(ities in India are *eing carried out in the name of hidden religious o(ertones. These di(isi(e forces contri*ute considera*ly to the incidence of murder4 mass killing4 destruction of $u*lic and $ri(ate $ro$erties and other anti-social *eha(iour. 6. +conomic Conditions8 "conomic conditions also influence criminality to a considera*le e#tent. Present day industrial $rogress4 economic growth and ur*ani:ation ha(e $araly:ed the "thio$ian domestic life. The institution of family has disintegrated to such an e#tent that control of $arents o(er their wards has weakened thus lea(ing them without any sur(eillance. 6nder the circumstances4 those who lack self-control fall an easy $rey to criminality. The need for economic em$owerment of women leads to em$loyment of women and their other outdoor acti(ities. This in turn enhanced the o$$ortunities for se# crime. Again crimes such as hoarding4 undue $rofiteering4 *lack-marketing4 etc.4 are essentially an outcome of economic changes. Mow-a-days money is the $aramount consideration to assess the social status of a $erson in society. Crimes in higher circles of society can easily *e wi$ed off through money. 6nem$loyment among the youths is yet another cause of increase in crime rate. If the energies of these young $ersons are $ro$erly -5

channeli:ed4 surely the crime rate among this age grou$ will decrease. It has *een generally acce$ted that there is a strong relationshi$ *etween criminality and economic or income ineHuality as also *etween crime and unem$loyment. ,ut $o(erty $er se >inX*y itselfG is not the sole cause of criminalityA it is only a ma5or factor in crime causation. It is the social disorgani:ation which accounts for criminality among the $oorest and not their $o(erty. 6ndou*tedly4 there is close relationshi$ *etween unem$loyment and criminality and $articularly4 accounts for an un$recedented rise in $ro$erty crimes and a conseHuential increase in the arrest rate of 5u(eniles and youth. Those who are 5o*less or ha(e less secure em$loyment such as casual and contract workers4 are more likely to *e in(ol(ed in $ro$erty crimes. Analy:ing the im$act of economic conditions on criminality4 Prof. Iermann &annheim o*ser(ed that if we lea(e aside traffic offences4 three-forth of the time and energy of the criminal law administrators of the world shall ha(e to *e de(oted to economic crimes. Focusing the im$ortance of economic factors in the causation of crime4 he $ointed out that $o(erty contri*utes *oth directly and indirectly to the commission of crime. Iowe(er4 $o(erty alone may not *e a direct cause of crime *ecause other factors such as frustration4 emotional insecurity and non-fulfillment of wants often $lay a dominant role in gi(ing rise to the criminal tendency. The &ar#ist theory has em$hasi:ed that all human *eha(iour is determined *y economic factors. Su$$orting this (iew4 Fredrick "ngels attri*uted increase in the incidence of crime in "ngland in mideighteenth century to the de$lora*le economic condition of the workers due to class e#$loitation. /.A. ,onger also ado$ted the same a$$roach in e#$laining crime causation and asserted that a criminal was a $roduct of ca$italistic system4 which created selfish tendencies. In such a system each $erson tries to e#tract ma#imum from others in return of the minimum from himself. Thus4 ,onger identified many e(ils in the ca$italistic systems which were res$onsi*le for generating crimes. In fact4 the theory of 3adical Criminology is *ased on this conce$t which further e#$lains that crime occurs due to the e#$loitation of the $oor *y the rich. ;. +cology of Crime8 "cology is the study of $eo$le and institutions in relation to en(ironment. To$ogra$hical conditions also affect the incidence of crime in a $articular region or locality. After a series of researches "nrico Ferri4 the eminent Italian criminologist analy:ed the crime inde# of his country and concluded that in the same country the crime rate (aries considera*ly from one region to another. Some ty$ical crimes are more $eculiar to a $articular region than other $arts of the country. Similar o*ser(ations were made *y criminologists in France4 "ngland and 6.S.A. which sufficiently esta*lished the influence of ecology on crime. It is well known that (iolating of customs4 e#cise and drug laws are more common in *order areas and coastal regions than in $lains. Illegal felling of trees and (iolation of forest laws is an e(ery -!

day occurrence in forest regions. The im$act of ecology on crime can a$$arently to *e seen in dacoit-infested forest regions where o$$ortunities for esca$e and a(oid detection are $lenty. Similarly4 $ilgrim $laces are the *reeding ground for all sorts of anti-social acti(ities such as cheating4 stealing4 e#$loiting4 etc. The $ro$onents of ecological theory attri*ute social disorgani:ation as the main cause of criminality. They therefore *elie(e that treating or $unishing the indi(idual offenders would do little to alle(iate the $ro*lem and the solution is to *e found in making efforts to sta*ili:e the social organi:ation and $romoting community feeling4 $articularly among youths. As Qurkheim rightly $ut it4 8the o(erall disorder and disorgani:ation4 social and $ersonal4 shifts *eha(iour in the direction of crimeS. The regional com$arisons of crime rate in different $arts of the country sufficiently indicate that certain crimes are $eculiar to a $articular location. It can4 therefore4 *e inferred that ecology of crime consists in the study of influences such as neigh*orhood4 $o$ulation4 to$ogra$hical factors4 etc.4 on criminals considered from the $oint of (iew of location. Commenting on this as$ect4 Qonald Taft o*ser(ed that <ecology of crime may *e studied in terms of location of criminal or residences of delinHuents or some su$$osed influence u$on crime which has distri*ution in terms of s$ace and to$ogra$hy=. Ie further o*ser(ed that criminals are often mo*ile and there seems to *e a causal relationshi$ *etween location of delinHuency and the criminal. It may4 howe(er4 *e $ointed out that ecology of crime need not *e confused with the $ro#imity of crime and social conditions. The $redominant consideration in the ecology of crime is to$ogra$hical conditions of different regions and their im$act on causation of crime $eculiar to those $laces. Thus ecology is undou*tedly one of the multi$le factors of crime causation. $. Influence of -edia The im$ortance of mass media in influencing human mind has *een re$eatedly em$hasi:ed *y some e#$erts. "#$erience has shown that tele(ision and films ha(e the ma#imum im$act on the (iewers due to com*ined audio-(isual im$act. &ost of serials or films shown on tele(ision or cinema halls de$ict scenes of (iolence which ad(ersely affect the (iewers4 $articularly the young *oys and girls who often tend to imitate the same in their real life situations. The rising incidence of 5u(enile delinHuency is essentially the result of e(il effect of (iolence and (ulgarism and undesira*le se# e#$osures de$icted in mo(ies or tele(ision. 0ikewise4 $ornogra$hic literature also has an unwholesome influence on the im$ressiona*le minds of the youth which generates criminality among them. &ost criminologists *elie(e that films and tele(ision are ma5or contri*utors to (iolent *eha(iour. A sur(ey conducted *y the ,roadcasting ;rou$ of the Iouse of 0ords indicated that e#$osure to media (iolence was closely linked with aggressi(e *eha(iour. ,ut Iagell and Mew*ury o$$osed the (iew that there was a link *etween (iolent media images and criminality after finding that $ersistent offenders watch films or tele(ision far less than non-criminals. ;illin has e#$ressed dou*t a*out any real link -%

*etween media (iolence and criminality. According to him films4 T.J. and other media teach methods of (iolence to those who are already susce$ti*le to them *ut it does not go further than that. Me(ertheless4 it would *e seen that in recent years the media has a $owerful effect on $u*lic $erce$tions of the dangers $osed *y $articular e(ents4 actions or *eha(iors. The emoti(e $ower of the media may4 howe(er4 sometimes lead to illogical and ill-concei(ed conclusions. At times4 it may *e noticed that crime de$iction in the media is deli*erately distorted to su$$ress reality. Again4 there may *e occasions when an act committed *y an influential $erson or a $olitician may not *e gi(en co(erage or condemnation des$ite *eing *latantly criminal or anti-social.

-)

Crim" In #rban And $ural Areas

"cological as$ects of crime can *est *e demonstrated *y an analysis of a (ariety of crimes o$erating in ur*an as well as rural areas. &any crimes which are common in ur*an areas are unknown to rural setting. The concentration of industry and commercial acti(ities in ur*an region has gi(en rise to the $ro*lems of immigration4 mo*ility of $o$ulation and scarcity of residential accommodation. The a(aila*ility of Huick means of trans$ort in cities offers *etter o$$ortunities for delinHuents to esca$e detection and arrest. The incidence of 5u(enile delinHuency4 sho$ lifting4 $etty thefts and se#ual offences are more common in slum areas and $o(erty-stricken homes. That a$art4 the recurrence of white collar crimes4 *ank-offences4 frauds4 em*e::lement4 racketeering>a system of organi:ed crime that is traditionally in(ol(ed in e#tortion of money from *usinessmen *y intimidation4 (iolence or other illegal methodsG and the like are mostly confined to ur*an regions. Con(ersely4 some crimes are e#clusi(ely confined to rural areas and they rarely occur in cities. Thus the thefts of cro$s and cattle4 arson and tres$ass are $redominately the offences of rural setting. Commenting on the incidence of crimes in ur*an and rural regions Qonald Taft o$ines that the num*er of crimes committed in rural areas are far fewer than those committed in ur*an cities *ecause of the greater homogeneity of rural $o$ulation4 lesser mo*ility and a*sence of adeHuate o$$ortunities for the criminal to esca$e. ;reater mo*ility due to migration and immigration of la*our4 o(ercrowding in ur*an dwelling4 the a*sence of effecti(e family or community control and lack of constructi(e influences are the main causes for multi$licity of crime in ur*an regions. The rural migrants in new cities are una*le to easily ad5ust to the im$ersonal heterogeneity of ur*an life. They are no longer controlled *y the traditional norms and family loyalties. They *ecome restless $ersons without associates. In the words of Qurkheim4 they *ecome small $articles in that world of 8disorgani:ed dustS. Thus heterogeneity of ur*an life destroys their earlier congenial social relationshi$s4 creating a social (acuum which $ro(es to *e a fertile ground for criminality. 6nder such conditions4 (iolence and crime $roliferate. Again4 the inha*itants of rural areas are *y nature sim$le and law-a*iding as com$ared with their ur*an counter$arts4 $ro*a*ly *ecause of illiteracy and their modest li(ing. &oreo(er4 limited contact with outside world kee$s them unaware of the technicalities of criminal life. It is generally *elie(ed that crimes relating to $ro$erty are $redominantly committed in ur*an areas while those against $erson are more common in rural regions. Iowe(er4 this hy$othesis does not seem to *e wholly correct. Pro$erty crimes are as common in (illages as in towns. 0ikewise4 crimes relating to $erson are as ram$ant in cities and towns as in rural areas. -+

Neig%bor%ood In&uenc"
Meigh*orhood Influences also ha(e much to do with the nature of crimes in a $articular locality. Thus thickly inha*ited areas4 town and cities offer freHuent o$$ortunities for se# offences and crimes relating to theft4 *ootlegging4 *urglary4 kidna$$ing4 cheating4 and deceit and so on. Cases of $ick-$ocketing are common in railway stations4 *us stands and other halt $laces. Thefts of footwear are too common in tem$les and worshi$ $laces in India. "cological study of $risons further re(eals that certain ty$es of crime are $eculiar to the $rison-life. For e#am$le4 homo-se#uality is common among the $risoners *ecause of their ina*ility to resist *iological needs due to the de$ri(ation of family life. That a$art4 the con(icts Huite often indulge in mutual fights and Huarrels in an attem$t to show their muscle $ower and esta*lish dominance o(er other $risoners in regard to their skill in criminality. Jiolent offenders generally resort to destruction of $rison $ro$erty and offend $rison authorities on $etty issues. Another significant feature of these delinHuent areas is the location of certain anti-social institutions in the neigh*orhood. These include $rostitution houses4 gam*ling dens4 *rothels and similar other du*ious institutions. These areas of (ices are delinHuency- ridden and offer a fertile ground for organi:ed criminals. The inha*itants of near*y locality are easily influenced *y these (icious acti(ities and thus lend themsel(es into the life of criminality. /.I. Thomas4 the famous sociologist of the Chicago School asserted that ina*ility of a neigh*orhood to sol(e its $ro*lems together leads to social disorgani:ation leading to unconscious moti(ations for crime. Ina*ility of a grou$ to engage in self-regulation turns them towards delinHuency. &ore recently4 there has *een a tendency to correlate certain $laces of recreation with the ecology of crime. The cinema theaters4 swimming $ools4 s$ort grounds4 and race courses generally offer a fa(ora*le atmos$here for delinHuencies. ,ut this is rather an o(ersim$lification of facts. As a matter of fact4 the freHuency of crime in these $laces has little to do with their location. In fact4 it is the en(ironmental and not the ecological influence which generates crime in these $laces. &oreo(er4 there are Huite a large num*er of law-a*iding mem*ers of the society who do not *ecome criminals e(en after coming into contact with delinHuents in these $laces of recreation and entertainment.

1.

'ibliogra(y
&oo9s8 -. Adler4 &. 0. >1..-G. 8 criminologyS 4 th ed. Mew TorkP &c ;r aw-Iill com$anies. 1. Sutherland4 ". I. >-+2+G8Princi$les of Criminology=. Philadel$hiaP U.,. 0i$$incott4 2. ;ottfredson4 &. and T. Iirschi. >-++.G 8A ;eneral Theory of Crime=. CAP Stanford 6ni(ersity Press4 4. Carrington4 9erry4 and 3ussell Iogg4 eds. 1..1. 8Critical CriminologyP Issues4 Qe*ates4 Challenges=. Portland4 re.P /illan Pu*lishing. 5. 0andau4 >1..1G. <0aw4 Crime4 and "nglish Society=4 -!!.--)2.. Cam*ridge 6ni(ersity Press4 $. --). !. Jold4 ;. ,ernard4 T. and Sni$es4 U. >-++)G 8Theoretical CriminologyS4 #ford. 6ni(ersity $rers. #fordP %. 0awrence S. /rightman- California 8Psychology and the 0egal SystemS4 1nd ed. ,rooksXCole Pu*lishing Com$any. ). Iirschi4 Tra(is. >-+!+G. 8Causes of QelinHuencyS4 ,erkeleyP 6ni(ersity of California Press. >Transaction Pu*lishers re$rint editionG. IS,M .-%!5)-.+... +. /ilson4 L. Y Ierrnstein4 3ichard. >-+)5G. 8Crime and Iuman Mature=4 Mew TorkP Simon and Shuster. "rticles8 -. Iirschi4 Y ;ottfredson4 &. >-++2G. 8CommentaryP Testing the ;eneral Theory of Crime@. Uournal of 3esearch in Crime and QelinHuencyS4 1. Akers4 3onald 0. >-++.G. @3ational Choice4 Qeterrence4 and Social 0earning TheoryP The Path Mot Taken@. Uournal of Criminal 0aw and Criminology. )->2G4

1-