It is essential to examine why people commit a crime to appropriately determine how crime should be handled and prevented. Several theories have emerged, seeking to explain why people break the law. Criminologists continue to explore these theories to identify the best solutions that will ultimately reduce the types and levels of crime in the society. The various criminology theories include choice, classical, conflict, labeling, critical, life course and positivist approaches (Anderson & Anderson, 2014). According to criminologists, the environment is a significant factor, contributing to criminal activities among people. Some also argue that individual traits determine how people behave in certain adverse conditions. The study of criminology is primarily concerned with why individuals commit crimes, and why they act in certain situations.
The choice theory refers to the general belief that people choose to break the law, in light of the opportunities before them. As such, the people breaking the law weigh the benefits against the punishment and decide whether to proceed or not. This particular cost-benefit analysis focuses primarily on the idea that all people have the choice to proceed with their actions. However, if an action involves a punishment, people may choose to forego it. This process implies that if the gains from are more beneficial compared to the punishment involved, an individual can consider taking the risk. The classical theory is more or less similar to the choice theory. It posits that people usually think before they proceed with a criminal action. As such, when one breaks the law, it is because he or she decided that it is beneficial to commit a crime. In this case, the individual commits the offense from his own free will, considering the likely benefits from the act (Hagan, 2010). From the two theories, it is clear that people break the law to take advantage of some lucrative opportunities presented by the choices before them.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The conflict theory, on a different spin, posits that crime results from the societal conflicts involving different social classes. Ideally, laws commonly arise from the need to resolve disputes in the society, rather than a consensus. Thus, the theory recognizes that the fundamental causes of crime are the economic and social forces that operate within society. As such, the typical criminal justice system and criminal law are believed to protect the rich and the powerful social elites from the poor. The influential people in the society seek to impose standards of morality and ethical behavior on the poor. In this case, the criminal laws separate the powerful from the poor who could potentially steal from others. Therefore, the theory suggests that the social and economic forces operating within a given society are the driving force for a crime.
Critical theory is another vital principle that seeks to explain why people break the law. According to critical theory, the elite of the society decide the rules and the definition of a crime, while the poor commit crime as a way of disagreeing with the same laws that were established to restrain them. Critical criminology view crime as a product of oppression of workers, and other less advantaged groups in the society. Therefore, the theory suggests that people break the law as a form of resisting oppressive laws.
The labeling theory is another criminology theory that posits that individuals become what others expect him to become. In this particular context, the problem arises from calling a crime a crime and a criminal a criminal. This theory holds that deviance is not particularly inherent to an act, but it rather focuses on the tendency of the elites to negatively label those seen as deviant from standard cultural norms (Bursik, 1988). Therefore, labeling of individuals may significantly alter their behaviors, often towards the negative. The theory suggests that people break the law based on how the society has labeled them.
The life course theory seeks to assess and analyze individuals’ lives within social, structural and cultural contexts. The life course approach focuses on how early events influence an individual’s future decisions and events such as disease incidence and engagement in crime. Therefore, theory suggests that the lives of individuals are connected to historical and socioeconomic contexts in which the lives unfold. The historical and socioeconomic events and roles normally constitute the total of an individual's actual experiences (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Thus, the theory suggests that an individual’s disposition towards or against a life of crime is shaped by the events in his or her life.
The positivist theory rejects the notion that every individual makes a rational choice to break the law. Instead, the approach posits that some individuals are low in social acceptance, intelligence, and that causes them to commit a crime. As such, the positivist theory proposes that those who break the law cannot morally comprehend the wrongfulness of their actions. As such, the individuals who violate the law have their minds affected in a certain way and cannot make a conscious and rational choice to abide by the law.
In conclusion, it is demonstrable that many reasons have been put forward by criminology theorists to explain why people break the law. The theories offer various explanations relating to criminal behaviors of people in the society. The arguments provide clear examples that can help criminologists to develop frameworks for efficiently reducing the types and levels o crime in the community.
References
Anderson, J. F., & Anderson, R. (2014). Criminological Theories . Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Bursik, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology , 26 (4), 519-552.
Hagan, F. E. (2010). Introduction to criminology: Theories, methods, and criminal behavior . Sage.
Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American psychologist , 55 (1), 79.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & society review , 37 (3), 513-548.
