CHAPTER 1

Chapter 1: What Is Criminology?

The Theme of This Book
This book builds upon a social policy theme by contrasting two operative perspectives now popular in American society, and in much of the rest of the world. One point of view, termed the social problems perspective, holds that crime is a manifestation of underlying social problems such as poverty, discrimination, the breakdown of traditional social institutions, the poor quality of formal education available to some, pervasive family violence experienced during the formative years, and inadequate socialization practices that leave young people without the fundamental values necessary to contribute meaningfully to the society in which they live. Advocates of the social problems perspective, while generally agreeing that crime and violence have reached epidemic proportions, advance solutions based upon what is, in effect, a public health model which says that crime needs to be addressed much like a public health concern.

Proponents of this perspective typically foresee solutions to the crime problem as coming in the form of large-scale government expenditures in support of social programs designed to address the issues that lie at the root of crime. Recently, for example, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, commenting on a shooting rampage that occurred on a Long Island, New York, commuter train, told a gathering of the nation's mayors that '[v]iolence affects all of us. It must be thought of as a public health crisis that requires public health solutions like polio in the 1950s and AIDS today.'(1) Shalala called violence "not just a criminal justice but also a public health problem because it's preventable."

Those who advocate a social problems perspective often look to legislatively enhanced social, educational, occupational, and other opportunities as offering programmatic solutions to the problem of crime. The social problems approach to crime is characteristic of what social scientists term a macro approach because it portrays instances of individual behavior (crimes) as arising out of widespread and contributory social conditions which enmesh the unwitting individual in a causal nexus of social forces transcending his or her ability to control. In December 1993, in response to growing national concerns about crime and violence, President Clinton appointed a federal task force to study the issues involved. Commenting on the president's initiative, Health and Human Services Secretary Shalala concluded, "[r]ebuilding civil society is very much a part of what we need to talk about. It's a complex issue that requires a very comprehensive solution. We're going to see what the government can do. It may be laws. It may simply be inspiring different parts of our society to take their own responsibilities. In the end, it will be communities organizing, community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood."(2)

A contrasting perspective lays the cause of crime at the feet of individual perpetrators. This point of view holds that individuals are fundamentally responsible for their own behavior, and maintains that they choose crime over other, more law-abiding, courses of action. Perpetrators may choose crime, advocates of this perspective say, because it is exciting, it offers illicit pleasures and the companionship of like-minded thrill-seekers, or because it is simply less demanding than conformity. This viewpoint, which we shall call the social responsibility perspective, tends to become increasingly popular in times when the fear of crime rises. Advocates of the social responsibility perspective, with their emphasis on individual choice, tend to believe that social programs do little to solve the problem of crime because, they say, a certain number of crime-prone individuals, for a variety of personalized reasons, will always make irresponsible choices. Hence, advocates of the social responsibility approach suggest crime reduction strategies based upon firm punishments, imprisonment, individualized rehabilitation, increased security, and a wider use of police powers. The social responsibility perspective characteristically emphasizes a form of micro analysis that tends to focus on the individual offender and his or her biology, psychology, background, and immediate life experiences. A note about wording is in order: although this perspective might also be termed the "individual responsibility perspective" since it stresses individual responsibility above all else, we've chosen to call it the "social responsibility perspective" instead, since it holds that individuals must be ultimately responsible to their social group and that they should be held accountable by group standards if they are not.

In recent years the social responsibility perspective has come to the forefront of national thinking. Examples of a new conservatism in our nation's approach to criminals abound. In 1993, for example, the U.S. Senate, in sending its version of the crime bill to the House of Representatives, called for expansion of the federal death penalty from a handful of offenses to fifty-two crimes.(3) Similarly, California Governor Pete Wilson announced his support for state legislation that would repeal the state's sweeping 'Inmate Bill of Rights.' Governor Wilson focused extensively on ending conjugal visits for California inmates, a practice whereby incarcerated individuals are allowed sexual contact with their spouses inside of the prison environment. California¹s Inmate Bill of Rights became law in 1975 and granted sweeping civil liberties to inmates, including conjugal visits and the right to challenge any visitation regulations. It also prevented officials from enforcing grooming standards or blocking inmates from receiving any literature, including pornography. In an attitude reflective of today's growing conservatism, Wilson said, ³It is outrageous that we cannot prevent convicted child molesters and other sex offenders from receiving hard-core pornographic material.(4)
Summary
At the start of this chapter "crime" was simply defined as a violation of the criminal law. Near the end of this chapter we recognized the complexity of crime, calling it an "emergent phenomenon." Crime was effectively redefined as a law-breaking event whose significance arises out of an intricate social nexus involving a rather wide variety of participants. As we enter the twenty-first century, contemporary criminologists face the daunting task of reconciling an extensive and diverse collection of theoretical explanations for criminal behavior. All these perspectives aim to assist in the understanding of a social phenomenon that is itself open to interpretation and runs the gamut from petty offenses to major infractions of the criminal law. At the very least, we should recognize that explanations for criminal behavior rest on shaky ground insofar as the subject matter they seek to interpret contains many different forms of behavior, each of which is subject to personal, political, and definitional vagaries.
Discussion Questions
Note: you may be requested by your instructor to e-mail the answers to these questions to his or her office. If so, be sure to add your name (or other identifying information) to your answers, since your e-mail address may not tell your instructor who you are.

Click here for e-mail homework form!

What is crime? What is the difference between crime and deviance? How might the notion of crime change over time? What impact does the changing nature of crime hold for criminology?

Do you believe that doctor-assisted suicide should be legalized? Why or why not? What do such "crimes" as doctor-assisted suicide have to tell us about the nature of the law and about crime in general?

Describe both the social responsibility and social problem approaches to the study of crime. How might social policy decisions vary between these two perspectives?

Describe the various participants in a criminal event. How does each contribute to a definition of the significance of the event?

What do criminologists do? Do you think you might want to become a criminologist? Why or why not?

Notes
(1) "Clinton-Crime," Associated Press wire services, December 9, 1993.

(2) "Clinton Task Force to Act Against Violence," Reuters wire services, December 9, 1993.

(3) Nat Hentoff, "Justice Blackmun Reconsiders the Death Penalty," Washington Post wire services, December 11, 1993.

(4) "Wilson Calls for End to Inmate Rights," United Press wire services, Western edition, December 10, 1993.

Back to Criminology Today Home Page
Back to Chapter Links

Legal Statement