Full Answer Section

• Economic Conditions: Levels of poverty, unemployment, income inequality, and access to resources significantly influence how people understand crime. During economic hardship, theories emphasizing strain, lack of opportunity, or the need for survival might gain prominence. Conversely, in times of prosperity, focus might shift towards individual failings or the breakdown of social bonds.
• Political Structures and Power Dynamics: The distribution of power, the nature of governance, and the legal system all shape the definition and understanding of crime. Critical theories, for instance, often emerge in social contexts marked by significant power imbalances, arguing that laws and their enforcement reflect the interests of the dominant groups.  

• Cultural Beliefs and Traditions: Cultural norms, religious beliefs, and historical experiences can influence how societies perceive and react to crime. Some cultures might emphasize shame and community-based solutions, while others might prioritize punishment and individual accountability.  

• Technological Advancements: New technologies can both create new forms of crime (cybercrime) and alter our understanding of existing ones. The social context of widespread internet access and digital interaction necessitates the development of theories that address these evolving criminal landscapes.  

• Media Representation: The way crime is portrayed in the media significantly shapes public perception and, consequently, can influence the development and acceptance of certain crime theories. Sensationalized or biased reporting can lead to the prioritization of certain explanations over others.  

• Historical Events and Social Movements: Major social upheavals, wars, or civil rights movements can challenge existing social structures and lead to the re-evaluation of established ideas about crime. For example, the Civil Rights Movement in the US highlighted the role of systemic inequality in crime and deviance.  

From a Personal Standpoint:

Living in Kisumu, Kisumu County, Kenya, my ideas about the causes of crime are likely influenced by several aspects of this specific social context:

• Socioeconomic Realities: Witnessing firsthand the levels of poverty, unemployment, and income disparities in Kisumu inevitably shapes my understanding of crime. I am more inclined to consider theories that emphasize economic strain and the lack of legitimate opportunities as significant contributing factors. The daily struggles for survival might lead me to see some forms of crime as a consequence of systemic inequalities rather than purely individual choices.
• Community and Social Structures: The strong sense of community and the role of extended families in Kisumu might lead me to consider social disorganization theories or theories focusing on the breakdown of social bonds as relevant. Observing the strength or weakness of local institutions and their impact on social control could influence my perspective.
• Cultural Norms and Values: Kenyan culture places a strong emphasis on respect, communal harmony, and traditional values. Deviations from these norms and the erosion of these values, possibly due to modernization or urbanization, might lead me to consider social learning theories or theories focusing on the transmission of criminal behavior and norms.  

• Experiences with Law Enforcement and Justice System: My perception of the effectiveness and fairness of the local law enforcement and justice system will undoubtedly influence my views on crime causation. If there is a perception of corruption or inefficiency, I might be more critical of purely individualistic explanations and consider the role of systemic issues within the justice system itself.
• Media Portrayal in the Local Context: The way crime is reported in Kenyan media outlets and discussed within the community will also shape my understanding. The focus might be on specific types of crime prevalent in the region, and the explanations offered might align with local cultural beliefs or political narratives.

Therefore, my social context in Kisumu likely predisposes me to consider a more holistic view of crime causation, one that takes into account the interplay of economic factors, social structures, cultural influences, and the functioning of the justice system, rather than solely focusing on individual pathologies or rational choices in isolation.

2- Perceptions of Crime Causation and Alignment with Schools of Thought

My current perception of what causes crime does not fall neatly into either the classical school or the positivist school in isolation. Instead, it leans towards an integrated perspective, acknowledging elements of both while also recognizing the limitations of each.

Here’s why:

• Elements of the Classical School: I recognize that individuals possess a degree of rationality and can make choices, including the decision to engage in criminal behavior. The idea that individuals weigh the potential costs and benefits of their actions resonates with my understanding, particularly for certain types of crime. The concept of deterrence, a key element of the classical school, also seems plausible to some extent. The presence of laws and potential punishments likely influences some individuals’ decisions.  

• Elements of the Positivist School: However, I strongly believe that individual choices are not made in a vacuum. My social context in Kisumu, as discussed earlier, highlights the significant influence of social factors (poverty, inequality, lack of opportunity), biological and psychological factors (though less emphasized in my immediate observations, I acknowledge their potential role), and environmental factors (community disorganization, exposure to violence) in shaping behavior, including criminal behavior. The positivist emphasis on identifying the causes of crime beyond free will aligns with my inclination to look at the broader societal context.

Why not solely one school?

• Limitations of the Classical School: Relying solely on the classical school’s emphasis on free will and rational choice seems insufficient to explain the complex patterns of crime I observe. It often overlooks the significant constraints and influences that individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds face, limiting their “choices” in reality.
• Limitations of the Positivist School: While acknowledging the importance of causal factors, I am wary of a purely deterministic view of crime. Individuals, even in challenging circumstances, still possess a degree of agency. Reducing crime solely to predetermined factors risks overlooking the role of individual responsibility and the potential for change.

Conclusion:

My perception of crime causation aligns most closely with a perspective that integrates elements of both the classical and positivist schools. I believe that individuals make choices, but these choices are significantly shaped and constrained by their social, economic, and environmental circumstances. Understanding and addressing the root causes of crime, as emphasized by the positivist school, is crucial for effective crime prevention. However, the classical school’s focus on individual responsibility and the potential for deterrence also holds some relevance in shaping legal frameworks and individual accountability. Therefore, a balanced approach that considers both individual agency and the broader social context provides a more comprehensive understanding of why crime occurs.