criminological theory

[The Wrath]

I'm currently working on a Master's degree in Criminal Justice and I'm gonna have to start writing my thesis pretty soon. I'd like to write it on a macrotheory of criminal justice, but most of the macrotheories that I am familiar with are either Marxist or Anarchist in origin. Does anyone know of any good criminology writers who base their research in Capitalism, or should I just write a thesis debunking Marxist criminology?

[softwareNerd]

Check out this thread in the forum.

[The Wrath]

Thanks for the thought, but that thread seems to be more about society's reactions to crime, how it is defined, and how it is treated by the law.

The word "criminology" denotes a set of theories that try to explain the causation of crime and, although societies reactions are often a part of it, that is not what I'm looking for. For instance, Marxist criminology (something I've read quite a bit of) says, in a nutshell, that crime is caused by the Capitalist economic system. Conflict theory says it is caused by groups who compete for power and, when one of those groups gains power, it criminalizes the actions of the other groups. Anomie thoery says that crime is caused by social anonymity. Obviously, these theories are much more complex than the way I have them stated, but you get the general picture. I'm looking for a theory, or at least a writer, that expounds a Capitalist view of the causation of crime.

Edited February 13, 2005 by Moose

[softwareNerd]

Ok, now I understand...you mean like the topics in the books by Stanton Samenow (they used to be listed in Objectivist book catalogs).

[The Wrath]

I'm not sure who that is. Is he a criminologist?

[The Wrath]

Nevermind, just looked him up. Judging by the titles, his books are focused on what causes individuals to become criminals. Marxist, conflict, and anomie theories all focus on attributes of society, as a whole, that cause criminality, as a whole. I'm looking for something to counter Marxist and radical criminologies from a Capitalist point of view, on a large, societal scale. What causes criminality in individuals is a very interesting topic but, for my thesis, I'd rather discuss the broader societal causes, in a way that combats with Marxism and radicalism.

Edited February 14, 2005 by Moose

[Inspector]

Perhaps, articles where Ayn Rand mentioned that the welfare state creates institutionalized pressure-group warfare would be helpful to you?

[EC]

In Objectivism I don't think there are any "larger" societal causes to crime. Every individual has a choice to commit a crime or not. And that is all there is to it. If he points to "society" or his "conditon" he was born into and say, "That's why I did," refering to those or similar issues he is just rationalizing his actions.

Whether or not a given person commits a crime or not ultimately comes back to his choice to choose the immoral. No matter what his past his choices are solely his responcibility and can NOT be attributed to any other cause, i.e., society.

[The Wrath]

Perhaps, articles where Ayn Rand mentioned that the welfare state creates institutionalized pressure-group warfare would be helpful to you?

That's the approach that I'm looking for, but I can't base a thesis on the writings of someone who did no research in criminology. Do you know of any criminologists who base their research in that kind of perspective?

[The Wrath]

In Objectivism I don't think there are any "larger" societal causes to crime.  Every individual has a choice to commit a crime or not. And that is all there is to it. If he points to "society" or his "conditon" he was born into and say, "That's why I did," refering to those or similar issues he is just rationalizing his actions.

Whether or not a given person commits a crime or not ultimately comes back to his choice to choose the immoral. No matter what his past his choices are solely his responcibility and can NOT be attributed to any other cause, i.e., society.

Ultimately, yes, it is an individual choice, but that doesn't mean that society can't pull people in a certain direction. If that weren't the case, then Sweden would produce just as many wacko terrorists as Iran.

[AwakeAndFree]

In Objectivism I don't think there are any "larger" societal causes to crime.  Every individual has a choice to commit a crime or not. And that is all there is to it. If he points to "society" or his "conditon" he was born into and say, "That's why I did," refering to those or similar issues he is just rationalizing his actions.

Whether or not a given person commits a crime or not ultimately comes back to his choice to choose the immoral. No matter what his past his choices are solely his responcibility and can NOT be attributed to any other cause, i.e., society.

Objectivism is a philosophy, and as such doesn't tell us much about the specifics of criminology.

However, the same forces that drive history certainly drive people in some societies to commit more crimes than in other societies. Ideas, and mostly the ideas on morality, play a crucial role.

In a collectivist country like Russia, or a religious country like Iran, you are bound to have more crime and corruption than in a country like the United States, with its general respect for individual rights, including the right of property.

Ideas are key, and you can definitely find a correlation between a country's educational system, its stated ideals, and its levels of crime.

[The Wrath]

Objectivism is a philosophy, and as such doesn't tell us much about the specifics of criminology.

However, the same forces that drive history certainly drive people in some societies to commit more crimes than in other societies. Ideas, and mostly the ideas on morality, play a crucial role.

In a collectivist country like Russia, or a religious country like Iran, you are bound to have more crime and corruption than in a country like the United States, with its general respect for individual rights, including the right of property.

Ideas are key, and you can definitely find a correlation between a country's educational system, its stated ideals, and its levels of crime.

Couldn't have said it better myself. So, can you recommend anyone?

[BurgessLau]

I'm currently working on a Master's degree in Criminal Justice and I'm gonna have to start writing my thesis pretty soon.  I'd like to write it on a macrotheory of criminal justice, but most of the macrotheories that I am familiar with are either Marxist or Anarchist in origin.  Does anyone know of any good criminology writers who base their research in Capitalism, or should I just write a thesis debunking Marxist criminology?

I have two preliminary questions before possibly making a suggestion:

1. What is "crime" -- according to your own, objective definition?

2. What causes crime, in your own theory?

[The Wrath]

In my opinion, crime is anything which the law defines as crime. That isn't the definition used by everyone, but it's the one I use.

The second question is one that I'm hoping to answer in my thesis. I believe that all theories (yes, even Marxist ones) have truth to them, but I have yet to decide which one I give the most credence.

Edited February 14, 2005 by Moose

[Dufresne]

Ok, now I understand...you mean like the topics in the books by Stanton Samenow (they used to be listed in Objectivist book catalogs).

Dr. Hurd interviewed Stanton Samenow. The interview is available as streaming audio here.

[BurgessLau]

In my opinion, crime is anything which the law defines as crime.  That isn't the definition used by everyone, but it's the one I use.

So, by this definition, (1) someone living in Nazi Germany was a criminal if he bought bread on the black market, and (2) a man living in Toronto today who murders another man to get his CD-player, are both criminals.

What I am getting at is this: Have the propounders of the various theories specified particular kinds of societies that their theories apply to, or are they proposing theories that apply universally even to essentially different societies?

The second question is one that I'm hoping to answer in my thesis.  I believe that all theories (yes, even Marxist ones) have truth to them, but I have yet to decide which one I give the most credence.

The same question applies to you: Will your theory attempt to cover all societies, even if they are essentially different; or only a certain type of society (such as one with a mixed economy and mixed political environment)?

In summary, in trying to find a "cause of crime," do you think it might make a difference what the nature of the crimes are and what the nature of the society is?

[DavidOdden]

I'm looking for a theory, or at least a writer, that expounds a Capitalist view of the causation of crime.

I don't see much hope for such a theory, because the causes of crime are too varied. For example one reason why people commit crimes is that they undertake ordinary actions which they are unaware are crimes. Sometimes this arises because of the plethora of laws which no citizen can hope to know and which cannot be subsumed onder one easily applicable concept. Or, it could be because the action has not yet been deemed to be against the law but then the law is reinterpreted after the fact and held to be applicable (e.g. Mortensen v. US and the expanded application of the Mann Act). And of course there are uncomputable crimes such as violation of anti-trust laws where the criminal actions cannot be objectively defined and you know that you are guilty only if a jury says you are. Also, I don't see much reason to think that there is a single explanation for murder on the one hand, and tax evasion or violating OSHA regulations on the oher; or, violating laws in Iran and North Korea which oblige citizens to turn in critics of the government to the secret police for punishment.

I think it would be more fruitful to be concerned with a better-defined question, such as "Why do some people behave immorally?" or "Why do some people violate the rights of others?".

[The Wrath]

So, by this definition, (1) someone living in Nazi Germany was a criminal if he bought bread on the black market, and (2) a man living in Toronto today who murders another man to get his CD-player, are both criminals.

All of the authors that I have read have focused on crime in Western countries, mostly in America. As I said, not everyone uses that definition...that definition is used by Classical theorists like Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria. From what I can tell, this is the model that most closely fits with Objectivism, although it still has some differences.

What I am getting at is this: Have the propounders of the various theories specified particular kinds of societies that their theories apply to, or are they proposing theories that apply universally even to essentially different societies?

The same question applies to you: Will your theory attempt to cover all societies, even if they are essentially different; or only a certain type of society (such as one with a mixed economy and mixed political environment)?

Mine will attempt to cover only American society.

In summary, in trying to find a "cause of crime," do you think it might make a difference what the nature of the crimes are and what the nature of the society is?

Yes, it will absolutely make a difference...that's why I plan to focus on our society. Now, there are certain things that I don't really think should be crimes (drug use, prositution) that are still defined as crime. Even including those in my definition, I think I'm safe, because victimless crimes are committed at a higher frequency among the same people who are more likely to committ murder and burglary.

[The Wrath]

I don't see much hope for such a theory, because the causes of crime are too varied. For example one reason why people commit crimes is that they undertake ordinary actions which they are unaware are crimes. Sometimes this arises because of the plethora of laws which no citizen can hope to know and which cannot be subsumed onder one easily applicable concept. Or, it could be because the action has not yet been deemed to be against the law but then the law is reinterpreted after the fact and held to be applicable (e.g. Mortensen v. US and the expanded application of the Mann Act). And of course there are uncomputable crimes such as violation of anti-trust laws where the criminal actions cannot be objectively defined and you know that you are guilty only if a jury says you are. Also, I don't see much reason to think that there is a single explanation for murder on the one hand, and tax evasion or violating OSHA regulations on the oher; or, violating laws in Iran and North Korea which oblige citizens to turn in critics of the government to the secret police for punishment.

I think it would be more fruitful to be concerned with a better-defined question, such as "Why do some people behave immorally?" or "Why do some people violate the rights of others?".

A lot of what you said is true but, at the same time, there are lots of theories that have tried to do exactly what you're saying can't be done. Marxist theory, for example, says that crime is caused by the lower class committing crimes to fulfill it's basic needs, like food and health care. It also says that the ruling class creates laws that it knows will hold down the lower class, thus defining them as criminals. Now, any half-way intelligent Marxist theorist will admit that there will always be crime, even in a Marxist paradise. So, even if the class conflict is ever resolved, it will not completely eliminate crime. Macrotheories usually try to determine what is the biggest factor in causing crime. I'm looking to do that from a Capitalist perspective because, as you look around at the collectivist world, it does seem that crime is more prevalent. I don't have any stats to back that up right now (that's what I'd like to look for) but I'm pretty sure it's true. Although America has an unusually high murder rate...that could possibly ruin my whole idea of Capitalism decreasing crime.

As a side note, I'd just like to point out that violation of anti-trust laws are not crimes. They are merely violation of regulations. That's something the Marxists I have read are fond of pointing out. They point out that many things done by the upper-class, which do great harm to society, are not actually defined as crimes, but are considered violations of regulations.

I like your last sentence, except that then I am faced with the sticky situation of defining "morality" and "individual rights." While I agree with Objectivism about the nature of these definitions, I can't write a criminology thesis that argues for Objectivism, unless that argument is based on research dealing with criminology. I really shouldn't get that philosophical...all of my claims have to be based on the research I have done.

Edited February 14, 2005 by Moose

[DavidV]

I'm currently working on a Master's degree in Criminal Justice and I'm gonna have to start writing my thesis pretty soon.  I'd like to write it on a macrotheory of criminal justice, but most of the macrotheories that I am familiar with are either Marxist or Anarchist in origin.  Does anyone know of any good criminology writers who base their research in Capitalism, or should I just write a thesis debunking Marxist criminology?

I highly recommend reading Judge Posner's "Economic Analysis of Law." The book contains an excellent treatment of the law from an economic perspective. Beware: Judge Posner is a game-theory utilitarian, but that detracts only slightly from the quality of his ideas.

Edited February 14, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[Inspector]

You could do an examination of the effect of laws which criminalize things which are not initiations of force and their overall effect on society's respect for the law (i.e. prohibition, 55mph speed limits, etc).

It has been argued that such was the rise of organized crime in America, and also the source of the general hostility of the non-criminal and the policeman to each other.

I have seen this aspect covered even in non-Objectivist circles, so it may be easier for you to find material.

[JMeganSnow]

I like your last sentence, except that then I am faced with the sticky situation of defining "morality" and "individual rights."  While I agree with Objectivism about the nature of these definitions, I can't write a criminology thesis that argues for Objectivism, unless that argument is based on research dealing with criminology.  I really shouldn't get that philosophical...all of my claims have to be based on the research I have done.

Research into philosophy doesn't qualify? All knowledge is interconnected. If you attempt to isolate criminology in a vacuum you will be reduced to one of two states: attempting to draw conclusions that are based on speculation and thin air (i.e. that are completely arbitrary), or parroting what others have said.

In order to demonstrate Mastery of your subject (which is what a Master's thesis is all about, no?) you should be able to draw information from a variety of disparate subjects and integrate it into a unified whole. Rejecting potential sources because they aren't precisely what you wanted accomplishes nothing.

Personally, if I were evaluating a Master's thesis, I would be much more impressed if the author managed to pull information from many different areas and come up with a coherent thesis regarding it.

[DavidOdden]

A lot of what you said is true but, at the same time, there are lots of theories that have tried to do exactly what you're saying can't be done.

Right, but note that they try to unify the causes of crime, but they do not succeed in doing so. Crimes are often committed by the upper class (economic crimes, esp.), so in the long run the Marxist story fails because it makes no testable predictions and thus does not qualify as a theory. The failure of Marxists to come up with anything resembling a theory of crime is because they are bound to an a priori view of society where no facts are relevant. A natural law perspective, such as Objectivism, has a huge advantage over legal positivism including especially the Marxists because for them, law is arbitrarily stipulated and the notions of "success" or "failure" are uninteresting to them. because there is no objective measure of success (since they are thorough-going subjctivists).

As a side note, I'd just like to point out that violation of anti-trust laws are not crimes.  They are merely violation of regulations.  That's something the Marxists I have read are fond of pointing out.  They point out that many things done by the upper-class, which do great harm to society, are not actually defined as crimes, but are considered violations of regulations.

This must be assuming a particular definition of "crime" vs. "regulation". Is there some independent justification for the distinction? Speaking of anti-trust, the federal laws against monopolies certainly read to me as though forming a monopoly is a crime (since prison time is possible, among other things).

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Compare that to US drug laws:

Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000

Yes, that was one sentence. I take it that Marxists have redefined "crime" so that it refers to something completely different from what "crime" actually refers to, i.e. violation of the law.

I like your last sentence, except that then I am faced with the sticky situation of defining "morality" and "individual rights."  While I agree with Objectivism about the nature of these definitions, I can't write a criminology thesis that argues for Objectivism, unless that argument is based on research dealing with criminology.  I really shouldn't get that philosophical...all of my claims have to be based on the research I have done.

You don't necessarily have to defend a particular natural law POV, since they arbitrarily stipulate a legal positivist POV. Tit for tat -- you can focus on rights protecting laws vs. "social good" laws. Inspector's suggestion is a very good one. I don't know what research you've done already, but I'd suspect that you could easily show that the causes of crime are radically different, when it comes to rights violations vs. social meddling type laws.

[The Wrath]

That last thing you just said actually sounds like a pretty good suggestion...I'll have to think about that. As for what I've done so far...absolutely nothing. I'm still in the process of picking a topic, and all of the suggestions in this thread sound helpful.

I'm not trying to avoid philosophy, per se...it's just that my thesis is going to be about the causes of crime and, since I'm not trying to create an all-encompassing theory of everything, it would be superfluous to bring too much abstract (i.e. non-researchable from a sociological standpoint) philosophy into it. Thus, I don't plan on making any arguments for a certain ethical system.

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions.

[EC]

That last thing you just said actually sounds like a pretty good suggestion...I'll have to think about that.  As for what I've done so far...absolutely nothing.  I'm still in the process of picking a topic, and all of the suggestions in this thread sound helpful. 

I'm not trying to avoid philosophy, per se...it's just that my thesis is going to be about the causes of crime and, since I'm not trying to create an all-encompassing theory of everything, it would be superfluous to bring too much abstract (i.e. non-researchable from a sociological standpoint) philosophy into it.  Thus, I don't plan on making any arguments for a certain ethical system.

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions.

How can you even judge something to objectively even be a crime if you don't base those judgement on a "certain 'ethical' system"?