The cause(s) of crime in Guyana
Jan 31, 2017 , http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....-of-crime-in-guyana/
Dear Editor,
President Granger on the 7th October 2016 pointed to his government’s determination to identify the cause of crime as it seeks to formulate its strategy for eliminating or reducing same. Only a few days before the Christmas holidays, the Kaieteur News carried a letter from a member of the religious community in which the reverent gentleman suggested some of the causes of crime. Later the reverend gentleman’s contentions were embraced in a letter from a member of the diplomatic community.
It should be of some interest to note that in both letters these gentlemen only addressed street crime. Nevertheless their offerings were/are useful.
The search for cause/s of crime is not new; indeed the early Romans felt that crime was high when the moon was in a specific position.
Astonishing as this might seem in the 1960s there were criminologists who focused on proving the relationship between the level of criminal activities and the weather. However, in more recent times criminologists have developed eight (8) major explanations for the cause of crime.
Most of these explanations are situated in biology, psychology, or sociology.
Biological theories stress a physiological or genetic basis for criminal behavior. The psychological explanations argue that offenders are sick and/or that criminal behavior is a conditioned response. Finally, sociological theories argue that criminals are products of their environment. Proponents of these various perspectives can point to convincing arguments in support of their claims. For example, recently I read of the Esthwick brothers in Guyana, all four of whom were known to the police.
Two were shot and killed, one by the police, the other shot in what seemed to have been an assassination by a person unknown. The other two brothers served prison time for committing various crimes. Those supporting the biological theory will see this family as support of their theory and see genetics as influencing their criminal behavior. However, we know that most brothers are as different as strangers can be in their character.
Psychological theories tend to rely on the work of Freud to explain the cause of crime. This new Freudian school holds that crime results from three conditions. These are (a) weak superego, (b) sublimation and (c) Thanatos (death wish). Space will not allow for a discussion of each of these, so I will briefly discuss one – the weak superego explanation.
The ID is the source of drives that are primarily sexual, the Ego offers the ID alternatives through which its desires can be satisfied and the Superego which is often associated with our conscious, makes the choice of which of the alternatives is presented should be used. Thus, if the Superego is weak a poor choice will be made. This approach is mostly used to explain sex crimes. So, for example it could be used to explain the behavior of Jaipaul Jitlall. Mr. Jitlall, according to the Chronicle News 5th January 2017, is accused of raping and killing a sick, elderly woman.
Of course, psychological theories also see other conditions as having an impact on criminal behavior, for example crimes committed by psychopaths and sociopaths. However, the truth is we still know so little about the mind that an evaluation of these theories is still very questionable.
The sociological perspective grew in its influence through efforts of the Chicago school of criminology in the 1940s and to this day offers the most popular theories on the cause of crime. Simply put, this perspective holds that the social environment can provide conditions conducive to criminal activity. For example, the belief that poverty gives rise to criminal behavior grows out of this perspective. The problem here is that for example, if poverty gives rise to crime why don’t most of the poor commit crimes?
Another theory based in sociology is differential association which argues that we learn criminal behavior from the company we keep. This theory is usually used in the study of gangs and white collar crimes. However, the stunning regularity with which we hear of priests all over the world committing crimes (with theft and sex crimes seeming to be their preferred criminal activities) suggests that this explanation for crime is insufficient.
Mr. Editor, the discourse thus far should have made a few things clear to readers. First, that there are strengths and weaknesses in all these explanations. Secondly that very often, different perspectives can be used to explain the cause of a given crime. Since there is no certainty on which explanation is the correct one how do we go about structuring a response to crime? Do we give all these theories equal weight and if we do can Guyana afford such a multi-faceted response that such a conclusion would demand?
Years ago, my old secondary school teacher – the late Kenneth Denny – said to me; “when there is no clarity on what should be done we must examine all the alternatives presented, conclude which one reason suggest is most applicable and implement same.” Perhaps, as we consider the causes for crime brother Denny’s advice is applicable. In my next offering I will deal with the approach that reason suggest we first embrace as the cause of a specific category of crime in Guyana and suggest some programs that such an understanding of crime would give rise to.
Claudius Prince