Essay on the Relationship between Socio-Cultural Patterns and Criminal Behaviour !
The general accountability of the cultural structure of society to criminal behaviour can be summarised as follows:—
1. The socio-cultural disparities prevailing in society between rich and poor or high or low castes compel the underprivileged to resort to criminality either to escape miseries and disgrace or to satisfy their basic needs. Thus, crimes in slums, broken homes, prostitution houses, gambling dens and violation of prohibition or drug laws are the natural consequences of such structural differences in society.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The crimes relating to property are generally committed by persons who are in quest of earning money without much labour or work. It is, therefore, obvious that lesser the disparity between different classes of society, lesser will be incidence of crime in that society. The impact of the twentieth century materialism is so great on human society that there has been an overall increase in the number of property crimes throughout the world.
The under-privileged who do not have much appreciation for accepted social norms on account of their bitter experiences, prefer to organise themselves into different anti-social groups and thus lend themselves into criminality.
2. Pattern setting by the privileged and influential groups of society such as the politicians, industrialists, lawyers, engineers, doctors, bankers, businessmen, etc., play an important role in appraisal of criminal behaviour by the persons belonging to under-privileged class. It is common knowledge that Indian society is fairly tolerant about the exploitative tendencies of top ranking businessmen and industrialist who quite often resort to white collar crimes and other illegal methods for their personal gain. Bribery, corruption, tax evasion, black-mailing and speculation are common among the persons of high social status.
It is well known that there is a great divergence between the prescribed Codes of ethics for the professional lawyers and their practise. The success and reputation of a lawyer depends largely on the number of cases won by him. This obviously requires great skill in arguing cases and defending the interests of clients by all possible means.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It often involves resort to unethical practices such as toutism, unfair bargaining with colleagues and other unfair tactics. These methods adopted by this prestiged class of society indirectly set pattern for the normal tune of the society. Since the criminals often remain in close contact with their counsel, the former are often influenced by the latter’s behavioural pattern and thus tend to learn unethical practices.
3. As regards the politicians who claim themselves to be custodians of society, less said the better. They do not even hesitate to make use of their political influence and contacts with high officials for their personal gain and are at times tempted to indulge in nefarious activities which are offensive and even anti-social in nature. More often than not, they resort to corrupt practices for their personal advantage.
At times they also seek the help of notorious offenders and anti-social elements to accomplish their political ends. Politicians very often violate the codes and ethics of their party, particularly at the time of polls. They indulge in all sorts of tactics and malpratices which are prohibited under the election laws.
Obviously, such conduct on the part of political leaders has an adverse effect on youngsters who tend to follow the same course of conduct to achieve success in their pursuits. This trend is well illustrated by the tension that prevails among the rival groups of students who contest elections for any office of the college or university unions. All sorts of unworthy means and foul tactics are adopted in fighting these elections.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
After the results are announced, there is face to face fight and the winning candidate is subjected to threats and assault by the defeated group. It needs no mention that these tactics are followed by the students because they observe the political leaders also resorting to similar tactics at the time of general elections. That apart, it is common knowledge, that political leaders themselves are patronising the students to fight elections in educational institutions on party lines.
It would be pertinent to refer to the historic case of former Prime Minister of India Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, to show how politicians use (misuse) their political position and power for their personal advantage by flouting law with impunity. He, with the help of his comrades successfully manoeuvered to purchase the right to remain in power to rule the country by bribing the Members of Parliament at the time of 10th Lok Sabha elections held in 1993. The Congress (I) party was short by 4 members for simple majority.
In February 1996, a complaint was filed with the CBI alleging that Shri Narasimha Rao along with three others hatched a criminal conspiracy to muster support of four Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MPs, namely, Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and Shalender Mehto and some others by bribing them to the tune of over three crore rupees.
The Special Judge designate on the basis of records came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to justify framing of charges and to initiate prosecution of all the above named persons under section 120B of I.P.C. read with Section 7 and Section 12 or 11 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The accused pleaded privilege and immunity under Article 105(2) as they alleged that the act was related to voting in Parliament. The Special Judge rejected the plea of the accused on the ground that the alleged charges were for giving and taking bribe outside Parliament and voting was not under adjudication at all. The revision petition filed by the appellants against the said order of the Special Judge having been dismissed by the Delhi High Court, the accused moved the Supreme Court Constitution Bench of five Judges.
The Supreme Court by majority of 3: 2 allowed protection against criminal prosecution under Article 105(2) of the Constitution conferring privileges to MPs and held that they are not answerable to Court of Law for alleged conspiracy and bribe giving and taking.
However, Justice Dr. Anand and Justice Agarwal delivering a dissenting judgment upheld the High Court’s finding that there was no justification in making a distinction between ‘takers’ and ‘givers’ of bribe. The Court observed that clauses (2) and (3) of Article 105 confer privileges on MP to secure full freedom to member while participating in Parliament’s proceedings in House but it certainly does not extend to case of bribery or corruption by a MP.
It is submitted that the judgment in Shri Narasimha Rao’s case nullifies the very basis of anti-corruption law and there seems no moral, ethical or legal basis to allow MPs immunity for such illegal acts which if committed by a common man would make him liable to be punished severely.
The case of A.R. Antuley v. Union of India, may also be cited to show how corruption got bogged down in appeals, cross appeals, petitions and reviews. The entire case lingered on for eight long years from 9th June 1980 to 29th April 1988 wherein the resourceful and manipulative litigant resorted to the strategy of delay and petition applications to court raising hyper-technical issues.
Commenting on the findings of the case Professor Upendra Baxi wrote, although he did not intend to “attribute any improper motive to the Supreme Court Judges”, he would surmise that the “political complexion of the case could not have been distant from the judicial mind”. The case amply demonstrates how resourceful litigant can frustrate litigation for corruption against him and how he can benefit from rigid technicalities of the court procedure.
It would also be pertinent to refer to the impeachment motion brought against Justice Ramaswamy on 10th May 1993 to show how precepts of morality and ethical values were thrown to winds by the Parliamentarians in power despite the fact that the Supreme Court had approved the charges against Mr. Justice Ramaswamy.
The Congress Party in power, by sheer political strategy of abstention from voting on impeachment motion, saved him from being condemned. It is rather unfortunate that for the first time in the history of Indian Judiciary a Judge of the Apex Court was put in the dock accused of corruption and abuse of power and the Parliament unheeded by public opinion, got him scot-free. It is, however, a different matter that subsequently he decided to resign on 13th May, 1993.
4. On the industrial front, better bargaining capacity of labour unions against their employers often leads to violence and clashes. These trade unions use all kinds of pressure tactics to compel the employers to concede to their demands. Such tensions generally lead to offences such as assault, battery, intimidation, looting, arson, blockades, gheraos and destruction of property.
5. It is significant to note that in modern complex society there are certain circumstances which though not looked with favour, are nevertheless allowed to persist and which finally help in creating background congenial to criminal behaviour. Thus, in the context of Indian society, free-intermingling of women with men was not looked with favour till late forties of this century.
But the impact of modernisation, westernisation, women education, financial handicaps of the family and matrimonial problems of girls have virtually forced Indian women to take up outdoor jobs shoulder to shoulder with men and at times they are compelled to submit to the lustful wishes of their male counter parts and bosses much against their wishes. This eventually has led to multiplicity of sex crimes.
Despite distinct guidelines having been laid down by the Supreme Court for the protection of working women against sexual harassment by their male bosses or colleagues at the working place in the historic Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, case, most of such incidents still remain unreported or undetected due to the honour and dignity of woman victim involved therein.
The foregoing discussion amply demonstrates that on account of interacting group relations in society, these prestiged groups set both types of patterns, namely, social as well as anti-social, which eventually provide a general moral tune for the society.
It, therefore, follows that social culture emanates from the patterns and behaviours which persons learn by their association with different social institutions such as family, school, religion, neighbourhood, playmates, friends and colleagues. It is for the criminologist to devote proper attention to the influences of these social groups and sub-groups which ultimately determine the cultural status of a given society.