Introduction

Crime in society shows the failure of the government to maintain law and order but it’s not
always the government that breaks the law. Laws are broken by individuals who are not
abstract entities of society. The reason for committing a crime can be different for every
individual; there can be differences in the sociological, economical, psychological and, to
some extent, biological development of a person that become the cause of crime in society.
Crime has been part of human civilisation since ancient times. Manu, the composer of
Manusmriti, recognises some of the crimes, like assault, theft, robbery, false evidence,
slander, criminal breach of trust, cheating, adultery and rape. Since then, the ambit of the
word crime has reshaped into its modern form and has become a part of every transaction,
whether it be social, economic, financial, domestic or intellectual.

What is a crime
Crime has become a part of human society. Generally, crime can be defined as an act made
punishable by law. Legislatures pass several laws to regulate affairs and criminalise certain
acts, omissions or commissions. Once such activities are criminalised, all those who indulge
in them are said to be criminals. It certainly means that if ‘X’ is the offence that has been
made punishable by the State at a certain point in time, then the person who is doing any act
of such kind is a criminal. The state has prime responsibility for stating what is right or wrong
in the country. What is wrong in one place cannot be illegal in another.

Whereas crime can also be understood as a conflict between individuals and society. Years
ago, Aristotle said that “man is a social animal,” but while we move forward and see that
every criminal activity is a result of a conflict between the will of the individual and the will
of society, there has been a consistent pattern of deviant acts done by men, acts that are
against the will of society. These acts proved that man has not yet learned to socialise with
each other even at the present modern age, that man is not a social animal but a gregarious
one, and that a perfectly social man is still in the making.
Thus, there is no definite definition of crime; it is a very complex phenomenon, especially in
this modern age, where changes occur across cultures, cultures change over time and
behaviours that were not criminalised get criminalised (for example, the ban on alcohol in
Bihar).

Sociological Theories of Crime

The sociological approaches show how external social factors contribute to the occurrence of
crime in society. These approaches study the effect of external factors on individuals, for
instance, the influence of the close person, peer groups, and Family. Sociological theories of
crime offer insights into how social structures, cultural influences, and environments
contribute to criminal behaviour.
Differential Association Theory (Edwin Sutherland, 1939)

Differential Association Theory, developed by Edwin H. Sutherland, explains that crime is

learned through social interactions, particularly with close peers or family members. People
adopt criminal behavior when they are exposed to more attitudes that favor breaking the law
than those that oppose it. The likelihood of engaging in crime depends on the frequency,
duration, and intensity of these associations.

It include that crime is learned, not inherited, and peer influence is critical. The theory
emphasizes the role of social relationships but has been criticized for neglecting individual
traits and broader social factors like poverty.

Criticism: It doesn't explain spontaneous criminal acts or crimes committed by individuals not
strongly associated with criminal peers.

2. Subcultural Theories

The Subculture Theory of crime explains how certain groups develop values and norms that
differ from mainstream society, often encouraging criminal behavior. It suggests that
individuals, particularly from marginalized or lower socioeconomic backgrounds, form
subcultures in response to social frustration and blocked opportunities, leading to alternative
pathways to status and identity through deviant acts.

The theory emphasizes group dynamics, suggesting that individuals commit crimes to gain
approval or status within their subculture, and it often focuses on youth gangs and urban crime.
However, it has been criticized for overemphasizing lower-class crime and being too
deterministic.

Criticism: It may overemphasize the role of lower-class subcultures, neglecting deviant

behaviours among other social classes.

3. Ecological (Social Disorganization) Theory

Social Disorganization Theory explains crime as a result of environmental factors rather than
individual traits. It argues that high crime rates are found in neighbourhoods where social
structures break down due to poverty, residential instability, and lack of social cohesion. In
such communities, weak social bonds prevent residents from exerting informal social control,
allowing crime to thrive.

Key contributors, Shaw and McKay, found that crime persisted in disorganized areas regardless
of population changes, suggesting that it is the environment, not the people, that drives criminal
behaviour. The theory emphasizes the importance of community structures in preventing crime
but has been criticized for overemphasizing urban areas and downplaying individual factors.

Criticism: It can overlook individual agency and the role of personal choice in criminal
behaviours.
4. Anomie (Strain) Theory (Émile Durkheim and Robert Merton)

Anomie Theory explains crime as a result of a breakdown in social norms and the strain
individuals feel when they cannot achieve societal goals through legitimate means. Developed
by Durkheim ,the theory suggests that societal pressure to succeed, especially financially,
leads some people to engage in criminal behavior when legal opportunities are limited.

Individuals adapt in various ways to this strain, including conformity (accepting the goals and
means), innovation (accepting the goals but using illegitimate means), ritualism (rejecting the
goals but conforming to the means), retreatism (rejecting both goals and means), and rebellion
(creating new goals and means). Merton's theory explains different forms of deviant behaviour,
including both petty crime and more serious acts of rebellion or innovation.

The theory focuses on structural inequality and how social conditions like poverty contribute
to crime, but it has been criticized for overemphasizing economic goals and ignoring individual
differences.

Criticism: It can be too focused on economic success and may not account for crimes unrelated
to material wealth.

Summary

• Differential Association Theory focuses on crime as a learned behavior from peers.

• Subcultural Theories highlight how certain marginalized groups create their own
value systems that can support criminal behavior.
• Ecological (Social Disorganization) Theory links crime to environmental factors and
the breakdown of community structures.
• Anomie Theory emphasizes the strain between societal goals and the means available
to achieve them as a driver of deviant behavior.

These sociological theories collectively provide a framework for understanding how social and
environmental contexts contribute to criminal behavior.

Positive Theories of Crime-

The positive school of criminology came into existence in the late 19th century and it rejected
the free will and rationalism theory of classical school.The main Jurist of this school was
Lombroso, enrico ferri and Garafalo. This school is also known as Lmbroso theory on
criminology, Positive theories of crime focus on the idea that criminal behavior is determined
by various biological, psychological, and social factors rather than free will or moral choice.
The positive theories of crime, includes Constitutionalism, Morphological Theory,
Psychological Theory, and Psycho-Analytic Theory of crime
Constitutionalism-

Constitutionalism, as part of the positive school of crime, asserts that biological and physical
characteristics influence criminal behavior.

The theory suggests that genetics and innate traits predispose individuals to criminality,
implying that some people may be "born criminals." It examines the link between physical
attributes (e.g., body type, facial features) and criminal tendencies, with William Sheldon's
somatotypes categorizing individuals as ectomorphs, endomorphs, or mesomorphs.
Mesomorphs are often associated with a higher likelihood of aggression and crime.

Criticism- Critics argue that it overlooks social, economic, and environmental influences on
crime. The theory is seen as deterministic, reducing personal responsibility by suggesting
behavior is largely influenced by biology and Labelling individuals as "born criminals" can
lead to stigmatization and discrimination.

Morphological Theory-

Morphological Theory, part of the positive school of criminology, posits that physical
characteristics and anatomical traits are linked to criminal behavior. Key points include:

The theory suggests that certain physical attributes (e.g., body shape, facial features) may
predispose individuals to criminality. It categorizes individuals based on their physical
characteristics, implying that some types may be more likely to engage in criminal activities.
While emphasizing physical traits, the theory acknowledges that environmental factors can
also impact behavior.

Criticism- The theory oversimplifies the complexity of criminal behavior by attributing it

primarily to physical characteristics, neglecting social and psychological factors. Its
deterministic nature undermines personal responsibility by implying that physical traits
dictate behavior. Labeling individuals based on physical characteristics can lead to
discrimination and stigmatization.

Psychological Theory in the positive school of crime focuses on how mental processes,
personality traits, and behavioral patterns contribute to criminal behavior.

Certain traits like impulsivity, aggression, and low empathy may predispose individuals to
crime. Underdeveloped moral reasoning can lead to a lack of understanding of the
consequences of one’s actions. Criminal behavior can be learned through reinforcement,
where individuals perceive benefits from their actions without facing adequate punishment.
Disorders such as personality disorders or depression can increase the likelihood of criminal
behavior. Family, peer relationships, and socio-economic conditions also play a role in
shaping behavior.
Criticism:
The theory may oversimplify crime causes by focusing too heavily on individual psychology.
Emphasizing mental health issues may divert attention from broader structural factors contributing
to crime.

Psycho-analytic theory-

Psycho-Analytic Theory within the positive school of crime utilizes principles from
psychoanalysis to explain the criminal behavior.

Criminal behavior is influenced by unconscious desires and unresolved internal conflicts that
individuals may not be aware of. Freud's model suggests that the instinctual desires, ego
(rational mediator), and superego (moral values) interact to shape behavior. A weak moral
values may fail to inhibit criminal impulses. Individuals may use mechanisms like
rationalization and repression to cope with guilt and anxiety related to their criminal actions.
Early relationships and experiences significantly influence personality and moral
development, with negative experiences potentially leading to criminal behavior.

Criticism-The theory is often criticized for lacking scientific validation. Concepts related to the
unconscious are challenging to measure. Critics argue it may neglect social and environmental
factors influencing crime. It suggests limited control over actions, potentially undermining
personal responsibility.

Summary

Positive theories of crime, including Constitutionalism, Morphological Theory,

Psychological Theory, and Psycho-Analytic Theory, emphasize that criminal behavior is
influenced by biological, physical, psychological, and social factors rather than solely by free
will. While these theories provide valuable insights into the determinants of criminal
behavior, they have faced criticism for oversimplifying complex interactions between
individual characteristics and environmental influences.