Well, my title is, admittedly, too lofty—the fact is, no one knows where crime comes from (i.e. what the motivating factors behind criminal activity are.) But, that hasn’t stopped theorists from taking a crack at this question…
A caveat is in order: I am not an expert on criminological theory—not by a long stretch. But, it is something that interests me, insofar as people interest me, and the way that people behave interests me.
“Criminological theory” is a largely theoretical scientific field that examines the intricacies of crime, including why certain individuals commit crime. Although, this is in itself misleading: “why certain individuals” commit crime makes it sound as though there is a group or class of persons predisposed to commit criminal acts, when, in fact, I would argue that any person is capable of committing crime under the right circumstances. As such, what interests me in the field of criminology are not intrinsic factors (i.e. what “makes up” a particular person), so much as those factors that act externally upon an individual (and are largely outside the person’s control.)
Socioeconomic Disparity & Social Disorganization
First, I should note that socioeconomic explanations for the impetus of criminal behavior and social disorganization theory are actually two distinct theories. However, there is a great deal of overlap between them, so it makes some sense to treat them together here.
Socioeconomic disparity is, in my view, the biggest factor influencing criminal behavior. Indeed, McKay and Shaw of the Chicago School developed the theory of “social disorganization” as an explanation for crime: that social infrastructure fails to be able to control people and maintain order when a neighborhood is plagued by poverty or socioeconomic inequality. Consider that as a city spirals into poverty, many people begin to abandon that particular city; populations become heterogeneous; and the city becomes isolated from mainstream culture. The populations left in such cities are those who are already most disadvantaged because they cannot afford to “escape.”
What is the relationship between impoverished communities and a perceived inability to control people and maintain order? Or, put more precisely, what is it about run-down cities that communicates to the population that order has been broken? Here, the “broken windows theory” is instructive.
“Broken Windows” Theory
Wilson and Kelling, two social scientists who developed “broken window theory” provide the following example:
“Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Or consider a pavement. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of refuse from take-out restaurants there or even break into cars.”
So the basic thrust of the “broken windows theory” is that disrepair (broken windows, upswept sidewalks, abandoned houses) suggests that (1) no one cares enough to fix these things up, and (2) that there is no one in charge. The effect of abandoned buildings, broken windows, and general disrepair of the structures in the city sends a message of public disorder—that order has broken down, and that there is a lack of enforcement (for example, a lack of police.) The fear of public disorder—of a “wheels off” type of scenario—is a powerful thing.
And, in fact, the “clean up New York” effort of the Giuliani campaign was directly influenced by the idea that remedying small things—broken windows, graffiti, abandoned buildings, public drinking, etc.—could effect the city’s crime rate. An effort was begun around 1990 to clean up these seemingly insignificant features of the New York City landscape, though the success of this specific campaign’s relationship to the decline in the crime rate of NYC is debatable. (The crime rate fell across the United States during this time, not just in NYC.)
The important point about the “broken windows theory,” as I see it, is not so much the broken windows; instead, it is the perceived message that a broken window conveys—that no one cares; that order has been lost; that there is no enforcement mechanism in place.
“Private Property Created Crime”
Contemporary conceptual artist Jenny Holzer asserted that “private property created crime.” This brief phrase was included in a series of short textual pieces that Holzer displayed in public locations—this particular piece was created in 1982 and displayed on a large electronic sign in Times Square. And while Holzer’s work might not seem directly analogous to the work of Wilson and Kelling, or to the work of McKay and Shaw, it is an interesting idea.
At first blush, it might indeed seem true that “private property created crime”—i.e., that the establishment of MINE versus YOURS necessarily created certain property rights, and infringement of those rights was criminalized. For example: You commit a criminal offense if you trespass on my property when you have notice that you are not permitted to be on my property. This offense is predicated on the assumption that I have a superior interest in my property than you do; a greater right to be present on my property than you do. The same would be true if you decided to spray paint the side of my office with graffiti—I hold a greater right to do what I wish with my office than you do, so your act of graffiti infringes on my property rights, and is a criminal offense. This property is mine, and because it is mine and not yours, you commit an offense by messing with it.
But…what about public property? Public property is generally said to be held in trust for the use of all. We all “own” the public library or public park. But, if you were to spray paint the front door of the community center, it would still be a criminal offense—regardless of the fact that it is as much mine as it is yours, as it is anyone else’s.
In fact, it would be a felony, regardless of the amount of any damage. See TX PEN CODE s22.08(d)(1)-(2). Texas law provides that, $499 worth of damage by graffiti to a house is a Class B misdemeanor; but, $1 worth of damage by graffiti to a school, cemetery, community center, or public monument, is a felony.
Why?
Here, we connect back up with the “broken windows theory,” I suspect. Graffiti or damage to public property communicates a message of disorder; a lack of enforcement; that no person or government cares, or can stop the assault. This is a dangerous message, insofar as it undermines public confidence in Government (police, prosecutors, the justice system, politicians, etc.), and suggests that the Government is powerlessness. Because the message is dangerous, those who attempt to communicate such a message are punished more severely.
So how does this explain where crime comes from? It suggests that criminal activity often has (1) a socioeconomic basis; and (2) emerges from perceived abandonment of regulation or Order. That is, crime is often a reaction, not simply action.