Why Do We Need Different Methods to Measure Crime

In the twentieth century some scientists confirm biological reasons behind crime such as Hotton (1939) who argues that criminals have special physical characteristics coming down to the new generations through heredity. Others like Sheldon argue that criminals have special hard or strong body, different from normal people.

There are others who argue that a criminal gene causes criminal behaviour. Criminals, according to these theorists, have an extra male chromosome (Y), so instead of XY they are XYY.

Some argue that criminal behaviour has psychological or personality reasons, such as Eysenck who argues that people with low IQ are become criminals more than others. What supports this argument is that people with low IQ are less intelligent than others and may not differentiate between right and wrong.

However biological and psychological theories are not sufficient to define criminals, because not all criminals are coming under their categories and classifications, and not those who come are all criminals. They neglect social, economical and environmental causes of criminality and simply say that individuals are born bad and criminal.

Functionalism

Functionalists such as Durkheim argue that the society functions like an organic body; he compares social institutions such as: churches, schools, government, police and etc… to different parts of body, such as: heart, brain, back, lungs and etc…

Although Durkheim takes criminal analysis away from biological and psychological explanations, but, it can be argued, that he cannot explain the criminal behaviour of different groups of people, and cannot explain why some individuals commit certain types of crimes.

Another Functionalist is Merton who believes that a strain between our means and our goals causes crime, individuals can see the goals of society but they use different ways to achieve these goals including criminal ways. Although Merton’s contribution to criminology is significant, but still it can be argued that he cannot explain that there are different goals in society people struggling for them, not only one common goal.

Sub-cultural theory

Subcultural theorists are interesting in groups and gangs who commit not-for-profit crimes. Those people are gathering in special areas and committing crimes in groups, mostly for the pleasure of belonging to a group than for profit; such as football hooligans, drug users, alcohol abusers, teenagers and prostitutes. Burke affirms this idea by saying:

Cohen Proposed that adolescent gang members in fact stole for the fun of it and took pride in their acquired reputations for being tough and “hard”. [Burke, 2002, p. 114]

The motive behind the sub-cultures, it can be argued, that they feel they are not accepted in the society, so they form their own communities or groups. This argument supports what Merton said about the strain theory, because they struggle for acceptance in a “respectable society” but they cannot receive it.

The British sub-cultures are different from those of America because in Britain there are not so much guns as in America, as well as, the stronger effect of religion here and the structure of the classes and ethnicity, which are more complex in American society than in Britain.

Environmental theory

Environmental theory looks at crime from a physical environment. They investigate the possibility of environment in creating crime. Crime varies in different city zones, and those areas closer to the city centre are found with higher rates of crime.

Inhabitants of these areas are generally not socially organised, because they are mostly from other cultures or societies. Those people may have not any opportunity to learn anything but crime, because it is more coherent with their immediate needs.

This theory faces criticism because it can be argued that not all cites have the same structure of zones, and the current studies about these zones only depend on official statistics.

Conclusion

Crime is one of the most complex fields of study, it cannot be analysed in some statistics or studies. A layman may define crime as theft or violence and a policeman may define it as a threat to the society, while the media creates a big castle out of a small grain.

Despite all the studies about crime: crime statistics, policing and police researches, crime surveys and crime data; locally, regionally and nationally, the problem of hidden crimes and so-called the dark figure of crime remains. And crime is still, to a large measure, has many unknown and undiscovered sides and fields.

However the official statistics, self reported studies, local statistics and the British Crime Survey statistics are working hard to bring better results and they are getting closer in their estimations. It can be argued that better results can be obtained from reporting more crimes by the public; there is a sign of progress in this area also.