TOWARD
EXPLANATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMES
By Prem Misir, Ph.D.
PART 1
Juvenile crimes
Two
examples of the violent horrors
The legal situation in the US
Control systems
Bonds with society
Techniques
of neutralization
The upsurge in crime in Guyana has prompted
me to examine the nature and possible causes of some violent
crimes, starting with juvenile violence, as many of these
violent acts may be traced to several behavioral antecedents,
one of which could be violent juvenile behavior.
There was a time when innocence was associated with childhood,
and when kids could only do harmless things. No more can this
be the case. The spate of teenage violence in the United States
over the last few years has transformed this innocence into
a teenage nightmare. We will now try to understand killings
in Guyana through explanations of violent crimes in the US.
Juvenile
crimes
The Jonesboro schoolyard killings snuffed out the lives of
four girls and one teacher. Schoolyard shootings included
25 murders in 5 years from 1993 through 1998 in Grayson, Kentucky;
Amityville, New York; Redlands, California; Blackville, South
Carolina; Lynnville, Tennessee; Moses lake, Washington; Bethel,
Alaska; Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Stamps,
Arkansas; and Jonesboro, Arkansas. In 1997 alone, 9 fatal
schoolyard shootings occurred. The average age of these teenage
killers is 15. These add up to 11 multiple killings, all commiitted
by boys from rural areas. The Shabazz tragedy of the Malcolm
X family, too, has sharpened the spotlight on violent crimes
executed by teenagers.
Traditionally, teenagers mainly committed
property crimes. But the increase of violent crimes among
juveniles (persons under 18) induced the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) to analyze arrest rates of juveniles for
violent crimes. Teenage arrests for murder and non-negligent
manslaughter increased by 14 percent in 1990, and continue
to rise to 15 percent in 1995. For other violent crimes (aggravated
assault and robbery), teenage arrests increased from 16 percent
in 1990 to 19 percent in 1995.
Two
examples of the violent horrors perpetrated by
teenagers follow:
1). A 12 year-old pleaded guilty to arson and murder, thereby
confessing to killing his babysitter, aged 53, but denied
that he did it to see how it feels like to kill somebody.
2).Harvard University denied admission to Gina Grant in 1995,
after having learnt that she beat her mother to death with
a candlestick.
The
legal situation in the US
Both the House of Representatives and the Senate pushed through
a bill to enable teenagers to be tried as adults, and which
is now law. This law would only provide federal funding to
those states that would allow prosecutors and not judges to
determine whether a teenager should be tried as an adult.
Some criminologists have referred to these violent teenagers
as “superpredators" to signal the intensity and
frequency of teenage violence.
There are no age restrictions in 27 States in prosecuting
a juvenile as an adult – Alaska, Arizona, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Washington, Waskington,
D.C., West Virginia, and Wyoming. Age 14 is the
minimum age at which a child can be tried as an adult in 17
states - Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
No juvenile under 15 can be prosecuted as an adult in Louisiana,
under 13 in Illinois and North Carolina, under 12 in Colorado,
under 10 in Vermont, and under 7 in New York.
Control
systems
We can look for easy targets to explain these gruesome juvenile
killings. One easy target is television. But the American
society has always historically been violent. The media merely
reflect this societal violence. By overly focusing on television
as a cause for teenage killings, we seek answers and solutions
in the wrong places.
Juveniles still are under the protection
of the family that is the primary agent for socializing the
child. It plays a significant role in determining how the
child copes with the larger society. The family is saddled
with facilitating the juvenile's personality to take on the
meanings of culture and opportunities of society, and directs
it into functional behavior. When this functional behavior
emerges, the family can be assured that it has solidified
its social control over the child's upbringing.
Reckless (1971), a pioneer of social control
theory, argues that every person is driven toward deviance.
There are two controls - inner control system, and the outer
control system. The inner control system is the person's capability
to resist pressure and includes inner morality like conscience,
and what is right from what is wrong. The outer control system
comprises groups, such as, family, friends that influence
an individual to stay away from deviant behavior. When outer
controls function effectively, the individual operates within
the rules. We now can see the importance of the family as
an outer control system in the juvenile years.
Bonds
with society
When a person experiences bonds with society, the more powerful
are their inner controls (Hirschi, 1969). These bonds have
to do with attachment, commitments, involvements, and beliefs.
If these control systems are not strong, the person might
be driven toward unacceptable behavior. About 20-25 percent
of juveniles in the U.S. has histories of delinquency, and
the lack of social control is a frequent condition for delinquency
(a necessary, but not a sufficient cause). The social control
theory is just one of several theories attempting to explain
delinquent behavior. Later, we shall explore other theories
to explain delinquency.
Techniques
of neutralization
Many criminals (both teenagers and adults) believe that their
criminal acts are logical and rational. To do this, they develop
techniques of neutralization that enable them to justify illegal
or deviant behavior, according to Matza (1957). The following
mechanisms represent the forms for techniques of neutralization:
denial of responsibility – criminals claim that they
are not responsible for their actions; denying the injury
– criminals claim that their actions cause no harm;
denial of the victim – criminals claim that the victim
deserves what he/she receives; condemnation of the authorities
– criminals claim that those in authority are deviant;
and appealing to higher principles – criminals claim
that they are complying with rules that are better than those
that exist. Criminals use these techniques to violate the
rules of society without experiencing moral unworthiness.
TOP
|
