Why Joe Became a Criminal?
===========================


Wolran Kim
July, 2012



Where there are laws, there are also crimes. Law is a rule of behavior established by a political authority and backed by state power. Crime is any action that contravenes the laws established by a political authority. However the law is only a guide to the kinds of norms that prevail in a society. How Joe became a criminal? The Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso believed that criminal types could be identified by the shape of the skull. According to his theory, Joe’s brain was set up as a criminal.

I agree with his idea to some measure, because Joe’s growth environment offered sufficient factors to cause him to be a criminal: lack of love, a father who lives with crime and alcoholism, a mother who is negligent of her son’s education because of her long working hours, lack of essential education for a growth period, isolation from society (disruption of schooling and exclusion from neighbors), and economic privation. There are four sociological approaches that have been developed to interpret and analyze deviance: functionalist theories, reinforcement theories, conflict theories, and interactionist theories (labeling theories). I want to explain Joe’s criminal behavior using three of the theories associated with crime and deviance.

First, functionalist theories see crime and deviance resulting from structural tensions and a lack of moral regulation within society (Giddens, Duneier and Appelbaum). Joe’s home environment was equipped with a variety of criteria which promotes structural tensions. Joe must have always been anxious and scared while he stayed at home alone. The presence of parents and physical contact are absolutely necessary for growth which is the basis of social life. His parents often drank alcohol when they were home, and his mom was working long hours. His father’s job was selling marijuana, and little Joe grew up witnessing an illegal means of subsistence.

Joe’s home was worse than a home of deficiency, and the opportunity to learn moral values and standards was deprived.
Emile Durkheim believed both crime and deviance to be inevitable and necessary elements in modern societies. According to him, people in the modern age are less constrained by social expectations than they were in traditional societies. Because there is more room for individual choice in the modern world, nonconformity is inevitable. Joe reached the very obvious conclusion of being a criminal through a settled route while his family, school, and society abandoned him in the social structure of capitalism.

Robert Merton modified the concept of anomie to refer to the strain put on individuals’ behavior when accepted norms conflict with social reality. In his everyday life, Joe was growing in chaos losing all social common values and moral standards while watching his father’s illegal activities. The background of Joe’s psychology was filled with anxiety, self-loss, and weakness. He is the innovator among Merton’s five reactions: conformists, innovators, retualists, retreatists, and rebels. Joe can accept society’s values, but not limitations. Therefore he uses illegitimate or illegal means to follow them.

Second, control theories posit that crime occurs as a result of an imbalance between impulses toward criminal activity and the social or physical controls that deter it. Many types of crime are a result of situational decisions—a person sees an opportunity and is motivated to act (Giddens, Duneier and Appelbaum). Joe sees an opportunity through his father and his friends, and he is motivated to act. According to Travis Hirschi, Joe followed four types of bonds that link people to society: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. He naturally attached to illegal and immoral behaviors, emotionally and socially to his father who did not accept conventional norms. Joe decided to drop out of school when he got picked up for shoplifting at age 16.

This gave Joe plenty of time to engage in more criminal activities, so he spent his days stealing and selling marijuana. Hirschi’s approach suggests that delinquents are often individuals whose low levels of self-control are a result of deficient socialization at home or at school. People with low self control have distinguishing personalities such as simplicity, impulsivity, preferences of risky behaviors and physical activity, and explosive character. According to Hirshi, self-control is formed through home education during childhood. Joe’s home education was nil to obtain self-control.

Third, symbolic interactionist theories work based on the labeling theory. Howard S. Becker interprets deviance not as a set of characteristics of individuals or groups, but as a process of interaction between deviants and nondeviants. Deviance is found not in the act, but in the response, in the label applied. Therefore persons with the greatest social and economic power place labels on those with less social power. The labels that create categories of deviance thus express the power structure of society (Giddens, Duneier and Appelbaum).

How would Joe’s crime be dealt with if his parents were in high positions, economically or socially? He would be released with a misdemeanor or fines sponsored by the power of his lawyers and economic strength, instead of being incarcerated for eight years as a sinner. Labeling theorists neglect the processes that lead to acts defined as deviant, and it is not clear whether labeling actually does have the effect of increasing deviant conduct. Murder could be self-defense depending on the social position or economic power of the criminal in reality. Law, a fair yardstick, never applies fairly between people who control and people who are controlled. White-collar criminals often cower behind a shield with money and political power. Criminals often are victims of adverse environments and social issues.

There is no society without crime just as there is no perfect human. We can create a better society through interpretation of the cause and subject, although crimes and criminals occur inevitably every day. Interpretation and clarification of issues are continued as a way to solve the problems. All of these three theories of social structure are persuasive and have sufficient evidence such as Joe, with his marginalized group, included his situations of the home environment and prison. These theories have fully explained how criminals are influenced by bad environments.

However, it is impossible to describe how excellent youths come
from the same bad environments. We need another explanation of the factors to avoid the risks of crime because young people who grow up in disadvantaged environments are not all criminals. According to past studies, most juvenile delinquents are from defect families and poverty. However, according to a recent study, many youths from middle-class and normal states of home constituents are involved in criminal troubles. Juvenile delinquency is more impacted by function of the family rather than family structure plausibly.