Introduction
This article will
analyse the claim that ‘criminals’ are predisposed from birth to commit crimes.
This has always been an appealing topic in criminology because if we can
understand what causes people to commit crime, then we may be able to reduce
crime rates. If criminals are born, law abiding citizens can live in the comfort
of knowing that criminals are only capable of such evil crimes because they are
not ‘normal’ like the rest of the law abiding population. However we would risk
creating a sub-species of humans who are labelled ‘criminals’ even before they
have committed a crime and therefore could be falsely accused of potential crime.
As a result of this the foundational
principles of justice in the UK criminal justice system would be destroyed. In
this essay I will examine the question: To what extent is a criminal born not
made? from three perspectives. Firstly the philosophical perspective, whether
or not we have a fixed human nature and how that affects our ability to commit
crimes. Secondly, what exactly makes us commit crimes, and thirdly, the control
of our behaviour through training and whether we can change people who show the
characteristics of a criminal?
Is crime part of
human nature?
Philosophers
have been debating about human nature for centuries. In this book Leviathan[1],
Hobbes looks at the ‘state of nature’ a hypothetical situation before society,
where man is left without social order and hierarchy and concludes that ‘life
in a state of nature would be nasty brutish and short’. This encapsulates Hobbes’ view that humans are naturally
unsociable and will commit crimes in order to satisfy their own hedonistic
needs.[2] In
order to remedy this Hobbes explains that society provides safety by means of a
‘social contract’ whereby we agree to live in a social format in order to be protected
from the brutal state of nature we would otherwise be in. Hobbes goes on to
explain how in society we are controlled
by the sovereign, whom is a mortal god and keeps us in order, ensuring we are
stopped from committing the acts we would be naturally inclined to perform if
we were left in a natural state.
In terms of
whether criminals are born or made, Hobbesian philosophy suggests that everyone
has the ability to commit crimes and naturally we all would. Society saves us
from our own criminal instincts but still gives us the safety and security we
need to survive, the safety and security that in a state of nature would lead
to us committing crimes. It could be argued that we cannot test the theory
because we can never recreate a state of nature and find out exactly what
people would do if there were no laws or social hierarchy. However, in response
to this I would argue that in times of war and social collapse humans tend to
act in a more criminal and instinctive way as the social boundaries that once
confined our behaviour crumble. Plato
famously creates a similar thought experiment in ‘The Republic’[3]
called the Ring of Gyges whereby he postulates that if we could have a ring
that allows us to remain undetected we would commit crimes and immoral acts
because we would know that we cannot be punished for it. For me, the London
riots of 2011[4]
are a prime example of this. In 2011 riots began after a teenager was shot by
police in Tottenham. By the end of August millions of pounds worth of damage
had been done in arson attacks, lootings and acts of vandalism. The mob
mentality shown in these riots was a product of the belief that not everyone
could be arrested and stopped all at once. However, many people who had no
previous convictions later got arrested for rioting and police believe that
this was because of their false belief that they would go unpunished. Keir
Starmer QC argued, in an article for the Guardian, that it was far more
important to ensure that the rioters were punished quickly, so they knew that
they would not get away with their crimes, than it was to ensure they got
lengthy sentences.[5]
This is a very strong argument based on the classicist view that certainty in
punishment will act as a better deterrent than severe punishment because
criminals will know that they will be punished for criminal behaviour and this
is what makes them think twice about whether the crime really is worth committing.
Opposing Hobbes
is the famous Swiss philosopher Rousseau[6]
who argues that a state of nature would be a state of paradise. For Rousseau, man is naturally altruistic and society
creates the opportunity to be evil and commit crime by giving us land to
compete over and opportunities to fight for. Rousseau explained that when a man
first marked out a piece of land as his own the marking should have been torn
down and many crimes and wars would have been prevented by doing so. His
salient point is that we should have remembered that the fruits of the Earth
belong to everyone and claiming ownership and rights over the Earth leads to us
being taken out of our natural altruistic state and into a state of brutal
competition for survival over limited resources.
When applying Rousseau’s
philosophy to the question: To what extent is a criminal born or made, it is
clear that criminals are made by social and environmental conditions that
create situations where crime is effective or even necessary in order for
humans to be successful in society. For example the need to steal if we are
starving; the economics of society dictates that money is needed to pay for
food and food from the Earth is sold and not shared between humans. This
fundamental idea that crime is a result of environmental and social factors has
blossomed in modern times and will be covered in the next section when I
consider what makes humans commit crimes.
Can we overcome the
natural thirst for blood?
In 1810, German physicians Gall and Spurzheim[7]
conducted experiments in phrenology[8] to
try to discover how the shape of the skull linked to a person’s criminal
tendencies. Gall and Spurzheim believed that the human mind was made up of
different faculties, each represented in a different area of the brain. They
hypothesized that each of the areas of the skull were proportional to the
person’s propensities. They believed that the skull fitted around the brain so
by feeling the shape of the criminal’s skull they could measure the area of the
skull that overlies the corresponding area of the brain and work out their
personality traits. A large area meant that the criminal used that faculty
extensively and a smaller area meant that faculty was less prominent in that
particular criminal. They then used these findings to construct diagrams of the
criminals’ skulls and list their natural tendencies. The findings were not
meant to reveal that certain criminals had certain tendencies that they could
not change; in fact Gall and Spurzheim believed that even natural inclinations
towards traits such as aggression could be combatted by strict training and
will power. Their main conclusion was that natural tendencies to commit crime
can be found using phrenological methods and that the criminals with larger
measurements in areas that represented the aggressive, violent and angry
faculties were physically pre-determined to be criminals if they did not
receive training to overcome their natural inclination, towards crime. Although
phrenology is now an obsolete science Gall and Spurzheim’s assumption that
personality traits can be found in localized parts of the brain is considered a
foundation of neuroscience
 |
| Phrenology diagram- as used by Gall and Spurzheim. Image source: https://sites.google.com/site/physiciki/Home/pseudoscience/period-2/phrenology |
Early positivism
shared a belied in determinism[9].
Determinists believe that crime is a caused by individual, social or
environmental factors depending on the context. For example, poverty is more
likely to cause someone to steal food or possessions to sell for money than any
natural instinct. While determinism is an important position, in modern
criminal justice systems it is rejected on the grounds that if the person who
commits a crime, such as stealing, only did so because of a social factor and
not through their own free will then punishing them for an external factor they
had no control over is unjust. Punishment, on the contrary appeals to more
common sense ideas of responsibility.
There are two
main categories of determinism: hard determinism[10]
and soft determinism[11].
Hard Determinism is the belief that all of our choices to act are already
pre-determined. For example a thief’s desire to steal is determined by a
multitude of factors including the fact he has stolen in the past and gained
respect from his peers in doing so and he enjoys the thrill of stealing and the
possibility of getting caught. If hard determinism is right, then the criminal
justice systems of modern democratic societies face huge issues because it
means that criminals are being punished despite having no choice but to commit
crime and no free will to overcome these predetermined factors.
Soft determinism
combats the issues associated with having no free will by arguing that our
choices are only pre-determined to an extent. We will have past experiences and
preferences but ultimately we can override these determinations and make the
complete opposite choice if we want to. Therefore, although the thief may enjoy
the thrill of stealing, the risk associated with getting caught and the respect
he receives from his peers for getting away with the crime, he still has enough
free will to be able to choose not to commit the crime at all and seek thrills
and respect from another legal activity. Soft determinism therefore allows
determinism as a theory to be correct but still allow criminals to be punished
because their crimes are a partially a result
of free will. Neither hard nor soft
determinists would go as far as to say that criminals are born but hard
determinists would argue that they cannot be held responsible for their crimes
because they were caused by external forces that they cannot resist, whereas
soft determinists would argue that criminals are made because they retain the free
will to be able to act on determinist factors or not.
Finally I shall
consider Bentham’s Utilitarianism[12].
Bentham believed that humans are naturally hedonistic and will do whatever makes
them happy. He formulated a hedonic calculus[13]
whereby the person weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of an action
before deciding which choice to make. If hedonic calculus is accurate, it
suggests that criminals are rational human beings like law abiding citizens who
think carefully about the consequences of their actions. Bentham then suggested
a normative theory of utilitarianism whereby people should act for the greatest
good of the greatest number. This is the primary underpinning of modern
democratic criminal justice systems. Criminals are punished because they are
rational human beings who chose to break the law and need to be rehabilitated
or deterred so that in society the greatest good can be done for the greatest
number. However, it should be noted that Bentham’s utilitarianism was a
normative theory not descriptive and so just because people should do the
greatest good for the greatest number does not mean that in practice they
actually do. If someone acts selfishly and commits a crime that hurts more
people than it helps, Utilitarian’s argue that they should be punished because they put their hedonistic
needs before those of society.
How can we control the urge to commit crime?
In this final section I will consider how we control the urge
to commit crime. Lombroso’s theory of avatism[14]
argued that criminals are born and are essentially evolutionary throwbacks that
resemble ancestral forms of life. This theory of avatism states that criminals
usually have ancestral characteristics such as large ears, thick lips and large
eye orbits. Criminals who commit crimes in acts of passion have something in
their natural temperament that makes them instinctive and primitive and these
impulses cannot be changed. This theory, although in its physical sense is
outdated and disproven, has led to further experiments about the physicality of
criminals. For example, Sheldon[15]
conducted experiments that linked a large physical build to higher chance of
committing crime. More recently, in the 1990s with the torture and murder of
Jamie Bulger[16]
committed by 2 boys aged 10 and 11 there has been a new urge to discover
exactly how a child so young could be capable of such evil.
Child murderers
have always been somewhat of a phenomenon to criminologists, as they are in the
unique situation of still being young enough to have not learnt much about which
behaviours are socially acceptable, but enough to know what their natural
instincts tell them to do and what they have learnt from their social
environment. Bandura[17]
created an experiment whereby he claimed that crime is a result of internal
processes, in the experiment a group of children were shown a video of an adult
attacking a ‘bobo’ doll and the other group of children were not shown
anything. When placed in a room with the doll, the children who saw the video
began violently attacking the doll and the children who saw no video were far
more passively playing with the doll. For Bandura, this proved that a tendency
to commit violent crime is a result purely of a child’s instinct to copy a parent
or other adults and therefore to control this behaviour we should be monitoring
adult’s behaviour around young children and controlling the level of violence
they see from role models such as TV character, sportsmen and other children.
Finally, famous
classicist Beccarria[18]argued
that criminals are completely rational people like everybody else, this led to
the creation of rational choice theory whereby it is believed that crimes will
be committed if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The notorious case
of R v Ahluwalia[19]
supports this theory. In Mrs Ahluwalia’s case she was systematically beaten
and raped by her husband over a number of years until one night she doused him
in petrol and set fire to the bed he was sleeping him, killing him. This case
demonstrates clearly that even murderers make rationale choices. Mrs Ahluwalia
decided that a life possibly in prison away from her family and friends would
be worthwhile, given that the alternative was a future filled with abuse and
rape at the hands of her husband. Classicists
would argue that one way to deter criminals is to make punishment a certainty
so that would-be criminals are less likely to deem the advantage of committing
a crime is more worthwhile that the certain punishment they will receive.
Conclusions
To conclude, the
claim that some individuals are born potential criminals in that they have
natural instincts that sway towards aggression and violence holds great appeal.
This is an internal process not linked
to their physical build. However, even assuming that someone is naturally
inclined towards a life of crime their social and environmental surroundings
can mean they will not act on their primitive urges. Links between crime and
the criminal’s physical appearances such as that suggested through the science
of Phrenology has been outdated by modern psychology which shows no link
between brain physicality and crime. However, ongoing experiments looking at
the link between high levels of hormones such as testosterone and high tendency
towards violence[20] suggest
that these people are more likely to commit crimes, but again this can be
controlled by will, therapy and training. The argument that criminals are
rational is very strong and cases such as that of Mrs Ahulwalia suggest that even
in crimes of passion they have weighed up the good that will come from
committing the crime against the bad. Changes to the law, influenced by classical
criminology such as ensuring that punishment is certain, would mean that people
would be less likely to find the advantages crime outweigh the disadvantages and
so crime would be reduced.
[1] Thomas
Hobbes, Leviathan (first published 1651, Penguin 1985)
[2]Julia
Driver ‘The History of Utilitarianism’ (Stamford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,
27 March 2009) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/
accessed 26/03/14 at 16:45
[3]
Plato ‘The Republic of Plato’ (translated by Cornford, first published Oxford
University Press 1941) Book 2: Ring of Gyges
[4]
London Riots- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14439970
[5] //www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jul/03/riot-prosecutions-sentences-keir-starmer
[6]Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, ‘Discourse on Inequality’ 1754( first published by Marc-Michel Rey in 1755)
[7] Franz
Josef "On the Functions of the Brain and of Each of Its parts: With
Observations on the Possibility of Determining the Instincts, Propensities, and
Talents, Or the Moral and Intellectual Dispositions of Men and Animals, by the
Configuration of the Brain and Head, Volume 1." (1835 Marsh, Capen & Lyon)
[8]The
Encyclopaedia Britannica: Phrenology http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/458369/phrenology
accessed on 16/03/14 at 17:27
[9], Peter
Van Inwagen ‘An essay on Free Will’ (Oxford University Press 1983)
[10] Richard
Doubles The Non-reality of Free Will (1995): Hard Determinism
[11]
Ibid: Soft Determinism
[12] Julia
Driver ‘The History of Utilitarianism: Section 2: The Classical Approach’
(Stamford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 27 March 2009)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/ accessed 26/03/14 at 17:41
[13] Hedonic
calculus http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html accessed on 26/03/14
at 18:00
[14] Cesare
Lombroso ‘Crime, Its Causes and Remedies’ translated by Henry Horton (Little
Brown and Company 1911)
[15]Arraj,
‘Tracking the Elusive Human Volume 1: Part II: W.H. Sheldon's Somatotypes’ Inner
Growth Books LLC 1988
[16]Scott,
‘Death of James Bulger’ http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/bulger/1.html
accessed 25/3/14 14:35
[17]Saul
McLeod ‘Bobo Doll experiment’ published
2011: Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment
http://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html accessed 21/03/14 at 17:35
[18]
Becarria ‘On Crime and Punishments’ (first Published in Italian in 1764)
English Translation 2000 University Press Cambridge
[19] R
v Ahluwalia [1993] 96 Cr App R 133
[20] Book,
Starzyk and Quinsey ‘The relationship testosterone and aggression: A meta
–analysis’ Aggression and Violent Behaviour: A Review Journal, Vol 6, Issue 6, 579-599
