Modern society consists of a wide variety of different social and economic components. But also from the sum of these components and factors, certain phenomena proceed, which are the logical outcome of the processes taking place in any society. One of the most striking in its manifestations is the phenomenon of crime. Crime has been accompanying human society since its inception. Hence, one can notice a specific correlation between the increase in the complexity of crimes and their number instead of the complication of social institutions. The people of antiquity had to deal with what in our time is a kind of everyday crime, such as murder based on domestic conflicts, theft and robbery. For such crimes, the court of a community, family, tribe or other local authority was sufficient. The code of ancient laws of Hammurabi, was a legislative document of the ancient Babylonians and demonstrated the phenomenon of both the rules of society of past eras and crimes with corresponding punishments. However, humanity has faced a whole range of new challenges over the past centuries, their bold decisions and outstanding results.
One such challenge was the Malthusian Trap, a situation familiar to preindustrial societies whereby population growth ultimately outstrips food and consumer goods growth. However, on the very eve of a new Malthusian cycle, an industrial revolution took place, the human population began to grow exponentially. Along with the sprawling cities, crime began to grow exponentially. Society has changed, and crime has changed along with it, but without a response from law enforcement, who adhere to the traditions and procedures used in the early days of preindustrial society. The new culture, as well as new types, motives and consequences of crimes and the criminals themselves, demanded a fresh look at crimes and those who commit them.
Thanks to this, at the end of the 19th century, the science of criminology was formulated. From that moment on, the law was protected not only by local authorities but also by expert criminologists. They ensured the analysis of behavior and the search for criminals and the presentation of a fair and reasoned verdict at their trial. Later, criminology became more complicated, touching, merging and adopting the experience and views of other sciences and philosophies. An excellent example of this is the new, relatively traditional criminology direction of profiling criminals. This historical context is necessary to understand both the foundation of the science of criminology, its origins and its methodology. Thus, understanding the origins of criminology, one can look at both traditional and classical approaches from the standpoint of a variety of factors leading to the commission of crimes by criminals.
When discussing the effectiveness of classical, traditional and modern criminology methods, one should start with the most essential and first theories that became the basis for the future science of criminology. And in this, we can most clearly say about the first principle underlying criminology, namely the idea of ​​genetic determinism in relation to criminals. This theory assumes that a criminal becomes a criminal and commits immediate crimes due to a genetic, hereditary predisposition to the crime itself (Cullen et al., 2013). Moreover, the theory assumed not a simple predisposition of the criminal to crime as a phenomenon of violation of social norms and laws, but also highlighted the idea of ​​everyone’s predisposition to specific offences. The theory that a person becomes a criminal is not due to external social, economic or personal factors. As criminologists began to think in the middle of the twentieth century, it now seems quite archaic. She is also seen as highly outdated as morally, ethically criminologists of our time, investigating crimes due to the psychological factor of each criminal. However, the latter is in many ways closer to the ideas of classical criminology, based on the determinism of genetics, since many mental problems of offenders are the result of hereditary trauma, diseases and pathologies. Nevertheless, one should consider the history and ideas of genetic determinism in criminology in order to understand what its importance is as a basis for the further development of the entire scientific field.
The first step is to consider the most influential person of that period, who influenced the whole of criminology, anthropology and a number of other areas with his research theories and punishments: Cesare Lombroso. For his time, Lombroso was more of an experimentalist who did not lose his scientific conservatism in the analysis of the methodology he proposed. A renowned Italian forensic psychiatrist and criminologist, Cesare Lombroso became the forefather and pioneer of a branch of criminology called hereditary or anthropological. The main features of this direction are: the method of natural science should be introduced into criminology, and the personality of the offender, his origin and body metrics should become the centre of the study (Cullen et al., 2013). The extensive statistical material collected by Lombroso served as an essential contribution to the development of social hygiene, criminal anthropology, and, in the short term, the sociology of crime. As a result of the generalization of the empirical data, Lombroso concluded that the backward socio-economic conditions of life in southern Italy led to the reproduction of anatomically and mentally abnormal types of people there. Lombroso considered them to be subjects of an anthropological variety, which found its expression in a criminal personality – a “criminal man.” Thus, Cesare Lombroso formulated the concept of a criminal person whose motives for committing offences are determined by his anthropology and genetics, expressed in physiognomy and body metrics.
Before Lombroso, however, other ideas existed and developed, which later became the basis of criminology and influenced the society of their time. In the second half of the 18th century, Cesare Beccaria, a philosopher, scientist, humanist and one of the founders of criminology, published a book called “Dei delitti e delie pene” or “On Crimes and Punishments”. The essence of Beccaria’s views can be reduced to several principles that are important for the main topic of this work. He believed that committing a crime is a matter of free will, that people seek pleasure and avoid the unpleasant, that punishment is intimidating (Cullen et al., 2013). Those criminal laws should be widely publicized in the interests of uniformity and intimidation. But what was important was to articulate the concept that children and the mentally ill should not be treated like criminals (Cullen et al., 2013). Such separation of Beccaria criminals of adults and those in their right mind from children and the mentally ill influenced the further development of criminology, which studies these groups, taking into account their particular specifics. Thus, the methods of the classical approach to criminology differed in a certain
Based on the social role of crime, the next question is how material well-being and social status affect crime and criminals. And to this question, there are quite a few unusual and surprising answers on closer examination. Despite the widespread belief that crime is correlated with poverty, this is not entirely true. Of course, the prevalence and frequency of corruption are associated with a low standard of living, well-being, social status and other social factors. However, reality demonstrates that the rarity of crimes committed in wealthy communities correlates with their cruelty and complexity of motives, as well as methods of committing crimes.
A striking example is the serial killers in the United States, many of whom were not marginalized, but on the contrary, were respected members of their local communities. It was the wealthy, respected in their environment representatives of this particular kind of criminals who were the most organized and sophisticated in committing violence against their victims. In addition, in a prosperous environment, crimes motivated by domestic violence, child molestation, and other offences are often observed. However, given the smaller number in comparison with the poorer population, these offences are distinguished by the complexity of motivation and the difficulty of detecting them due to the social status of the criminals.
In addition, there is a widespread crime among the middle class, primarily centered on fraud, speculation and tax evasion. Thus, the bias of the more affluent population groups and socio-economic classes in committing offences is made towards increasing their capital by illegal means. This distinguishes the richer from, the poorer population, among which crimes of domestic violence or violence, both physical and sexual, are more common. The reason for this may well be considered the phenomenon of social status and capital. Poorer communities are not burdened with social class or extensive material benefits, which is why they do not see the same riskiness in committing more primitive and gross crimes. However, in wealthier and more prosperous communities, the situation is characterized precisely by the complexity of approaches to understanding, planning, committing and masking the consequences of committed offences. The risk of social status and capital loss, as well as a higher level of education, force wealthy offenders to approach planning thoroughly, and, as a result, solving such cases is more difficult for criminologists.
As can be seen from the phenomena described above, the desire for money, a vivid division into social classes based on economic factors is, in the end, a consequence of fewer planned crimes. These occur among the more prosperous and more chaotic and violent crimes among the less wealthy and poor. A striking example of this can be called the American dream as a phenomenon within North American culture. American culture is characterized by a strong emphasis on the goal of monetary success and a soft focus on the importance of legal means of achieving success. This combination of intense pressures to achieve financial success and soft restrictions on the choice of funds is an integral part of the dominant cultural paradigm – the American Dream. The American Dream directly contributes to crime by encouraging people to use illegal means to achieve culturally approved goals. The American Dream also has an indirect impact on offences related to the institutional balance of power in society. Criminologists explain that the pursuit of the American Dream and the overemphasis on monetary success in American society lead to severe high crime rates.
Since American society emphasizes economic gains far more than the use of legal methods to achieve these financial goals, there is increased use of illegal and more effective means, including violence, to achieve economic success. Other institutions in American society, including the family, schools, and the political system, that could soften this economic emphasis and provide moral leadership have been weakened by the overwhelming force of the American dream ideal. This creates a situation where the constant demand for financial gains breeds crime. Thus, one can understand that the phenomenon of the American Dream itself generates and aggravates the crime situation within society, being a solid social factor leading to criminal acts.
The factors described above allow us to look at the problem of crime from the fact that crimes are generated by social and class inequality. However, there is also an opinion that even the justice system itself, which directly judges citizens who have already committed a crime, is unfair in its essence. The US criminal justice system is often criticized for targeting the wealthy who can afford the best legal representation. A similar problem remains relevant for many developed legal systems since the times of ancient Athens and the Roman Republic of late antiquity. Even in those distant times, only the wealthiest citizens could afford good lawyers. Because of this, the results of litigation always ended, not based on justice, but based on who has more money for a good defender in court. When the quality of legal remedies is not uniform, any system that promotes equality of treatment is either too expensive or must limit the individual’s right to protection. Based on this, it can be seen that the justice system is unfair due to social and economic inequality and will be so without the creation of a series of measures that allow all citizens to have the right to equal protection.
The general conclusion of a similar topic as a class and social inequality from the point of view of criminology can be the idea embodied in the book by David Reiman, author of “The Rich Get Rich and the Poor get Prison”. More precisely, it is necessary to consider the general idea laid down in the book and the essence of “Critical Criminology” and criminologists who support this concept. When people to whom the people have delegated authority for the government and a fair legal tribunal retain their power through corporate donations, the result is inequality, devastation, and a colossal rise in crime. The more unjust the state treats its laws, the rights of the people and their will, the more the criminogenic environment spreads its influence on those around it. In a sense, critical criminologists are the heirs and modern successors of the ideals of Cesare Beccaria, who spoke of the state as a social contract between the government and the people. In such a society, there is a relationship between power and people. From which it follows that critical criminology seeks to create a fairer social connection between the state and the people, which has its positive effects on solving the problem of crime.
An excellent example of the development of such critical criminology views on crime and justice are two directions, namely transformative justice and restorative justice. Transformative justice is a political system and approach to responding to violence, harm and abuse. The idea is that the response to violence should be an appropriate response that does not create more violence. By participating in a harm reduction program, the program seeks to reduce human violence as such. TJ can be seen as a way to “get it right,” establish “the right relationship,” or together create a fair environment for perpetrators and victims. Transformative measures and justice do not rely on the state, as the state’s response to violence reproduces the violence and often traumatizes those exposed to it. Oppressed communities, which have already become the target of the state, suffer significantly from the conservative state approach. It is important to remember that while many people choose not to call the police, many communities cannot reach the police. There are many reasons for this fear, such as fear of deportation, persecution, government-sanctioned violence, sexual assault, previous convictions, or even inaccessibility. But the Restorative justice or RJ concept is also enjoyable.
In addition to trying to restore the victim and the community to their pre-crime conditions, RJ is also concerned with making the perpetrator operational responsibility rather than passive responsibility. This means that instead of being told that they committed a crime and then punished for their wrongdoing, offenders are asked to confess their offence and try to atone for it. From this point of view, RJ can be seen as a third option that goes beyond conservative retaliation and liberal rehabilitation. Essentially, it is an effort to rebuild victims, communities and offenders. Highly influenced by Richard Quinney and his writings regarding critical criminology and peacemaking criminology, TJ is aware of the world’s injustices and the need to spread peace. Thus, both systems are a logical consequence of the humanistic ideas of Critical Criminology and, striving for justice as such, help to solve the problem of the social factor in the occurrence of crimes.
A logical conclusion for analyzing the topic of restorative justice and transformative justice, as proceeding from the principles of critical criminology, will be a generalizing view of it from the position of the humanism. Cesare Beccaria said that punishment should have a preventive, a deterrent, not a punishing function. Ideas that the preventive effect might be a high likelihood of immediate, public punishment, rather than its severity. One can see in restorative justice and transformative justice a reflection of the principle of humanism, rejection of the vicious circle of violence, as well as the goal of preventive action on criminals before immediate strict, public and immediate punishment. Thus, modern criminologists find answers to questions that need to be addressed in the present by looking into the past. The inhumane, aggressive, violent and oppressive position of prisoners does not ultimately lead to commensurate punishment or atonement. This only leads to an increase in the criminal perception of the world, the prisoner’s antagonism to society, psychological trauma, and, as a result, to even greater violence.
Summarizing everything that has been written, one can judge that modern justice systems have changed, and, in addition to this obvious fact, it can be noted that it have changed for the better. Criminology, in fact, originated in the days when the institution of the Inquisition still existed in Europe, which preferred to lock people up after a quiet trial and then torture and kill them. Thanks to Cesare Beccaria, his predecessors and followers, the cruelty and injustice of the court eventually became a thing of the past. America today has come to one of the fairest systems of legislation and the maintenance of the fairest trial possible, based on its history. This cannot be compared with the horrors that occur in countries outside the Western world, where lawlessness and injustice rule the court and its laws. However, this work demonstrates that there must always be a place where law and order develop, where society becomes more just. Moreover, this place should be that where these ideals are upheld from the days of the Milanese humanist aristocrat Beccaria to the modern criminologist David Reiman and his colleagues in critical criminology. Citizens strive to make their society more open and honest, and humanity, justice and the desire to end the vicious circle of violence have shown themselves best in this.
Thus, the nature of crime is complicated by multiple variables that a commoner might easily miss. Maybe, for this reason, some concepts of criminology should be briefly overviewed for the general public to prevent, for example, lynching. Moreover, studying the law and psychotherapy essentials is valuable for the mass public since it might reduce the cases of the lack of preparedness when a criminal comes by. Crime, at the given moment of time, cannot be eliminated, but at least the criminology and the criminal justice can ensure the proper judgment.
Reference
Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (2013). Criminological theory: Past to present (5th ed.). Oxford University Press