This blog post examines whether the cause of crime lies in an individual’s innate disposition or stems from environmental factors, using various examples.
The story of ‘Jean Valjean’ is one most people have heard at least once in their childhood. Starving and unable to afford bread due to poverty, ‘Jean Valjean’ steals a loaf and is subsequently sentenced to prison. After escaping prison, ‘Jean Valjean’ adopts a new name, performs acts of kindness, and builds a reputation for good deeds in society. The question we must consider here is whether ‘Jean Valjean’ stole the bread because of an inherently evil nature. If he hadn’t been poor and had enough money to buy bread, would he have committed the same crime? If not, we must not view crime solely as an individual problem. We must find the fundamental cause of why he had no choice but to commit such a crime to prevent similar crimes from recurring.
The approach attributing the cause of stealing bread to ‘Jean Valjean’s’ character is called the dispositional approach. This is a traditional perspective that seeks the cause of behavior in an individual’s character or nature. Conversely, finding the cause of crime in the situation is called the situational approach. Let’s apply this concept to everyday life, not crime. For example, if a non-smoking woman develops lung cancer, attributing it to a family history and genetically inherited cancer-prone DNA is a dispositional approach. Conversely, attributing the cause to secondhand smoke from a spouse or family member’s smoking, rather than genetics, is a situational approach.
A prime example of crime stemming from a constitutional cause is the ‘Ted Bundy’ case. ‘Ted Bundy’ was a handsome man with a good reputation among his peers, yet he was a serial killer responsible for the murders of dozens of women. Such individuals are called psychopaths; they are said to have damage to the frontal lobe or neurological disorders and lack the ability to empathize with others’ emotions.
An example of crime arising from situational causes is the Rwandan genocide. The Hutu tribe brutally murdered members of the Tutsi tribe indiscriminately, regardless of age or gender. This included rape and killing neighbors who had greeted them warmly just the day before. The Hutu did not commit such brutal murders because they were inherently evil. Before this crisis, Hutus were likely ordinary people. If circumstances had changed and Tutsis found themselves in this situation, we cannot be certain they wouldn’t have committed murder just as the Hutus did.
However, before discussing how to approach crime, there is a fundamental question to consider first: Can we truly distinguish whether a crime stems from a dispositional issue or a situational issue? In the ‘Ted Bundy’ case, we cannot definitively state that his childhood environment had no influence on him becoming a psychopath. Likewise, there were undoubtedly Hutus who did not commit murder. However, since personality is innate, there are limits to preventing crime through acquired effort.
Therefore, rather than focusing on causes that are difficult to change, it is far more efficient to approach crime situationally and address the root causes. Examining cases where crime was interpreted from a situational perspective rather than a temperamental one reveals its effectiveness. A prime example is the ‘Broken Windows Theory’. This theory states that a car with a broken window is more likely to be vandalized or broken into than one without.
The core point of this theory is that neglecting minor crimes can lead to major crimes. A successful application of this theory is the case where simply removing graffiti from the New York subway system drastically reduced crime rates. Just as people tend to litter more easily on dirty streets than clean ones, improving the subway environment by keeping it clean reduced violent crimes and decreased the number of serious offenses. This case demonstrates that improving the environment alone can significantly reduce crime rates.
One might argue that the reduction in crime rates through situational approaches is minimal, and that altering temperament is the only way to reduce crime. Particularly in the case of psychopaths, if damage to the prefrontal cortex is hereditary, crime rates within the same family would be higher. Therefore, it could be argued that crime will not decrease unless that gene is eliminated. However, as mentioned earlier, even crimes stemming from dispositional issues like psychopathy are mostly caused by situational factors, such as poor socialization during childhood. Therefore, crime prevention through situational approaches remains the best strategy.
If we cannot be certain that someone would not commit a crime when placed in the same situation, we also cannot be certain that they would commit one. This may raise the question: Can we definitively attribute crime to situational causes? Consider the case of a criminal who committed theft due to an unfortunate environment. Since theft is a clear criminal act, he will go to prison, vowing never to steal again and reflecting on his actions. However, if his circumstances do not improve no matter how hard he tries after release, he will likely steal again. To prevent this person from reoffending, personal reflection and effort alone are insufficient; national-level assistance to improve their impoverished environment is necessary. As this illustrates, the reason we must approach criminal behavior based on circumstances rather than temperament is not simply to determine whether the cause of crime is temperament or circumstance. It is to move beyond the traditional temperamental approach and analyze the causes of crime from a new perspective, seeking fundamental solutions to reduce crime rates.
If crime is more influenced by circumstances than by individual temperament, one might argue that responsibility for an incident should not be placed on the individual. However, to avoid holding individuals accountable for crimes when imposing punishment, two conditions are necessary. First, the circumstances surrounding the crime must be completely identical. Second, under identical circumstances, everyone must commit the same crime without exception.
However, these conditions have limitations. First, the first condition faces the limitation that completely identical situations cannot exist. Even if the circumstances leading to the crime are the same, the prior environment could influence the current crime. Therefore, there is no clear standard for where to begin considering the situation, and if one considers circumstances prior to the specific moment the crime occurred, perfectly identical situations are practically impossible. The second condition has the limitation that the truth or falsity of the proposition cannot be determined. It is impossible to place all people in the same situation, and even if they were placed in the same situation, the existence of even a single exception would render the proposition false.
Due to these limitations, changing the current legal system could be problematic. Furthermore, the ultimate goal of imposing punishment on criminals is to reduce the likelihood of recidivism through rehabilitation. When Professor Philip George Zimbardo, who proposed the ‘Broken Window Theory,’ conducted the ‘Stanford Prison Experiment,’ he himself, who played the role of a guard, reportedly failed to recognize the participants’ violent tendencies. It was only through the intervention of an outsider who accidentally witnessed the experiment that the professor realized his mistake and halted the experiment. Thus, while individuals may commit crimes under certain circumstances, external intervention may be necessary for them to recognize the criminal nature of their actions. This is the role of the police and the reason for imposing punishment and isolating offenders in prison. However, this measure alone is insufficient. Crime is not an individual problem but a situational one. If the environment remains unchanged, the same crimes will continue to occur, and no change will happen. Efforts are needed to approach crime from a situational perspective and change those circumstances. This is welfare, and it is the state’s responsibility. After all, it is also our collective responsibility that an ordinary person was placed in a situation where they had no choice but to commit a crime.
