Essay on the Social Disorganisation Theory of Crime !
Park and Burgers, of the Chicago School Professors defined social disorganisation as “the inability of a group to engage in self-regulation” in a social control formulation. More often than not, delinquency results from weak social bonds due to lack of institutional controls. The denial of the moral validity of laws provides a background for delinquents to their illegal behaviour.
It must be stated that every society has a culturally determined goal. May it be socialism, communism or any other form of social order. The members of society tend to follow the norms prescribed for attainment of the particular goal. In this effort, some persons succeed in exploiting their fellowmen while others deviate from the normal course of conduct and lend into criminality which is both harmful and offensive to society. Thus, the influence of general culture in some categories of crime is most direct and conspicuous.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Sutherland founded his theory of differential association of criminal behaviour on social disorganisation. He believed that crime and social disorganisation is an outcome of the accepted values of society. Another criminologist Healy attributed emotional imbalances to crime causation thus accepting the influence of association on criminals.
He pointed out that non-fulfilment of desires among children causes frustration and consequently they are psychologically disturbed. In an Endeavour to escape from these emotional imbalances, they are prone to become criminals. Sheldon also believed that the innate tendencies of men such as short temperedness, delayed maturity, etc., are a source of crime-causation. W.A. Bonger however, locates criminality in poor and deplorable economic conditions and capitalistic order of society.
According to Marxist theory, all human behaviour is determined by economic factors. Frederick Engels corroborated this fact and attributed increase in the incidence of crime in England during the first half of the nineteenth century to the abject condition of proletariat due to class exploitation. The concept that crime occurs due to exploitation of the poor by the rich finally led to the evolution of the theory of radical criminology in the western world.
An appraisal of divergent views on crime and criminals brings us to the conclusion that each one of these theories explains only a few types of crime while it does not have an answer for certain other kinds of crime. Healy and Sheldon’s views give no explanation for the incidence of white collar crimes which are otherwise satisfactorily answered by W.A Bonder’s economic theory and the theory of differential association propounded by Sutherland.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It may, therefore, be inferred that the cultural theory of crime being tentative and founded on social value considerations, can answer every behaviour whether criminal or non-criminal, and offer a satisfactory explanation for all crimes.
It has been generally accepted that every criminal is a product of his own personality as also his peculiar social experiences of the general culture. This implies the acceptance of laws of ’cause and effect’ in human behaviour and denial of the free will theory of the classical school. The view that crime is a result of the interaction of multiple factors seems to be more logical to explain the crime causation.
It must, however, be noted that if reliance is placed on free will’ concept of criminality, it will mean that every individual is free to act as he likes and under these circumstances, prevention of crime will be rather impossible. Conversely, if the conditions which extenuate crime can be known, they can help in eliminating crimes or at least minimising them to a considerable extent.
Moreover, the background of crime has a direct bearing on penal policy inasmuch as the penal programme is aimed at rehabilitation of offenders through adequate means. It must be stated that criminals as a class comprise a large variety of persons who may be adult or child, male or female, shrewd or ignorant, mentally sound or emotionally disturbed, white collar criminals or those committing predatory crimes, prostitutes, pimps and many other types of offenders.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Each of these categories of criminals are a product of peculiar circumstances and, therefore, punishing them may not serve the desired purpose. It would, therefore, be prudent to re-shape the penal policy on sound principles of reformation of offenders so that the object of punishment is fully accomplished. This approach will perhaps be the most fitting contribution to the cause of penal justice.
Robert K. Merton, in his interesting study on social theory and social structure observes that social structure strains the cultural values considerably and when cultural regulation of behaviour weakens, it furnishes a breeding ground for criminality. Referring to the problem of criminality in United States, Donald Taft aptly observed that criminal patterns are products of general culture and are vitalised by historical and social processes.
Austin T. Turk has asserted that social conflict and social disorganisation was an inevitable and unescapable part of social life. If there was no social disorganisation, it would be indicative of the fact that the individuals are being excessively controlled or coerced by those who are in power. On the contrary, too much conflict and extreme disorganisation would also not be conducive for the progress of society.
While talking about social disorganisation, Turk distinguishes between cultural norms and social norms. According to him, cultural norms set out what behaviour is or is not expected while the social norms represent what the actual behaviour in society is. For the authorities in power, the cultural norms are usually reflected in laws framed for the society and social norms are the enforcement of those laws. These social norms represent the actual behavioural patterns of the subjects.
Cohen and Felson (1979) hold that in order to eliminate crime, there is need to address three conditions, which generate criminality, namely, (1) to disintegrate the pool of motivated offenders; (2) tap the suitable targets which provide opportunity for crime; and (3) ensure effective guardianship for children and youth.
They contend that the social disorganisation theory essentially relates to place rather than people and, therefore, to understand it, focus must always be on the surroundings or ecology of the place. Cohen founded his theory of social disorganisation on the following assumptions:—
(1) Crime and delinquency are caused primarily by social factors which he terms as environmental determinism.
(2) Crime figure is reflected better in field work rather than the Government official statistics.
(3) The city i.e. place or location is the perfect natural laboratory for crime study.
(4) The components of social structure are unstable and varying depending on socio-economic and political conditions of the region.
(5) Lower strata of society is worst affected by these instabilities; and
(6) Human nature is basically good but subject to vulnerability and inability to resist temptation.
The disjuncture between cultural and social norms not only induces conflict, but also leads to social disorganisation which eventually provides ground for law breaking and criminalisation of individuals.
In the Indian context, the impact of socio-cultural taboos of Indian society on criminality is more or less direct and conspicuous. The Indian society being complex and competitive, there is considerable conflict which often takes the form of crime. Besides the criminals, exploitative tendencies are rampant among non-criminals as well which reflect criminogenic elements in their general culture.
This accounts for considerable increase in crime and at the same time ineffectiveness of punitive agencies to combat crime. The only remedy that seems in sight is need for public awakening through sound education particularly in rural areas. An integrated educational programme with emphasis on legal literacy may perhaps be useful to inculcate respect for law and rightful conduct among the people in general and the rural masses in particular.
Thus, there is need for greater emphasis on prevention rather than punitive measures. Thomas Fuller rightly observed, “to punish and not to prevent is to labour at the pump and leave open the leak”. It must be borne in mind that criminality is a curable deviance because every man is born good and it is only because of the stresses and strains of modern age that may lend him into criminality.
The criminal is not only a mentally depraved or emotionally disturbed person but also a victim of unfavourable circumstances. Diverse factors, such as physiological, psychological, social, cultural, environmental and economic, are responsible for his anti-social behaviour. He, therefore, needs individualised treatment just like a sick person.
With a view to ensuring effective reformation of criminals, their categorisation according to the gravity and nature of the offence is utmost necessary. Dr. M.J. Sethna has suggested classification of criminals into four broad categories from the point of view of their treatment and correction as follows:—
1. Psychotic and neurotic offenders need treatment without the necessity of any punishment;
2. Hardened and habitual offenders need to be reformed while being punished;
3. White collar criminals need to be punished without any treatment; and
4. The first offenders, traffic law-violators etc. need neither punishment nor treatment, but simply admonition or release on probation.
The above categorisation of offenders, besides being most scientific and logical, is based on sociological analysis of crime and provides a sound basis for working out strategies for crime prevention and reformation of criminals. It is based on the sound assumption that human nature is complex and it is not possible to comprehend it fully. It has, however, been realised that all human beings do not respond similarly to a given situation.
Thus, two individuals may commit the same crime, but each act differs from the other in its social, economic, psychological and environmental ramifications. This basic understanding has led to the innovation of individualised treatment methods of offenders for their resocialisation and rehabilitation in the community. Treatment reaction to criminals should be commensurate with the societal reaction to crime.
As rightly pointed out by Durkheim Emile, criminality persists in all societies and it is impossible to have a society totally devoid of crime. Therefore, all societies generate some rules and provide penal sanctions for their breach. He further argued that crime originates in society and is a fundamental condition of social organisation.
The changes and progressive shift in societal norms and economic standards necessitate simultaneous change in laws and rules. However, when there is sudden change in power, wealth or factors of control, the societal norms are often overthrown resulting into lawlessness and multiplicity of crimes. The state of lawlessness existing at the time of abrupt social change disrupts normalcy and people’s behaviour is more likely to move in the direction of crime and criminality.