The Social Reality of Crime

Wilhelm Roepke

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351473859
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sozialwissenschaften
• Subtopic: Kriminologie

Richard Quinney's The Social Reality of Crime remains an eloquent and important statement on crime, law, and justice. At the time of its appearance in 1970, Quinney's theory not only liberated the field from a recitation of the practices of the police, courts, and corrections, it also represented a marked departure from traditional analysis which viewed criminal behavior as pathological. Quinney not only advanced criminological thought, he inspired scores of students of crime and criminal justice to reorient their perceptions of the justice system.The Social Reality of Crime swept the criminological community and motivated an entire generation of researchers to question definitions of crime and labels of criminality. The book's popularity quickly turned Quinney into a criminologist with an international reputation. Excerpts from the book's first chapter, which is devoted to the theory of the social reality of crime, are now routinely reprinted in anthologies on criminology and deviant behavior. The theory itself is discussed in most criminology textbooks.This new edition of The Social Reality of Crime will renew inspiration for Quinney's unique critical-social constructionist perspective that has been so significant to the development of theoretical work in the fields of criminology, social problems, and the sociology of law.

1

A Theory
of Crime

CHAPTER ONE

The Social
Reality of
Crime

The history of contemporary sociology is characterized by a progressive loss in faith — faith that anything exists beyond man’s imagination. We are consequently being led to new assumptions about our craft and the substance of our labors. New ways of attacking old problems are making this a dynamic period for sociology.

Perhaps in no other sociological realm is intellectual revisionism more apparent than in the study of crime. In these pages I will indicate how current thoughts and trends in the sociological study of crime can culminate in a theory of crime. The theory that I will present — the theory of the social reality of crime — rests upon theoretical and methodological assumptions that reflect the happenings of our time; it is meant to provide an understanding of crime that is relevant to our contemporary experiences.¹

ASSUMPTIONS: EXPLANATION
IN THE STUDY OF CRIME

Until fairly recent times studies and writings in criminology were shaped almost entirely by the criminologist’s interest in “the criminal.” In the last few years, however, those who study crime have realized that crime is relative to different legal systems, that an absolute conception of crime — outside of legal definitions — had to be replaced by a relativistic (that is, legalistic) conception. Many criminologists have therefore turned to studying how criminal definitions are constructed and applied in a society.

Two schools of thought have developed. Some argue that crime is properly studied by examining the offender and his behavior. Others are convinced that the criminal law is the correct object: how it is formulated, enforced, and administered. The two need not become deadlocked in polemics. The long overdue interest in criminal definitions happily corrects the absurdities brought about by studying the offender alone; the two approaches actually complement one another. A synthesis of the criminal behavior and criminal definition approaches can provide a new theoretical framework for the study of crime.

The theory I am proposing rests upon certain assumptions about theoretical explanation: these assumptions are in regard to (1) ontology, (2) epistemology, (3) causation, and (4) theory construction.

Ontology. What is the world really like? I mean, what is it we pretend to separate ourselves from when we go about our observations? I adopt a nominalistic position contrary to that of the positivists. Accordingly, I can accept no universal essences. The mind is unable to frame a concept that corresponds to an objective reality. We cannot be certain of an objective reality beyond man’s conception of it. Thus, we have no reason to believe in the objective existence of anything. We must, instead, formulate theories that give meaning to our experiences.²

Epistemology. Implied in the ontological assumption is the epistemological assumption that we as observers cannot “copy” anything that may be regarded as an objective reality, since we are skeptical of the existence of such a reality. Our observations, instead, are based on our own mental constructions, not on essences beyond our experiences. Expressed in a more romantic way: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Thus, our concern is not with any correspondence between “objective reality” and observation, but between observation and the utility of such observations in understanding our own subjective, multiple social worlds.

Causation. Much of criminological theory, based on positivistic assumptions, has sought to explain the “causes” of crime. That search continues, but the modem concept of causation employed in the philosophy of science is considerably different from that used by criminologists.³ The strategy toward causation that I propose for a theory of crime is consistent with the above assumptions about the world and the way in which we understand it, as well as with current usage in the philosophy of science. This strategy has three parts.

First, causal explanation need not be the sole interest of criminologists.⁴ The objective of any science is not to formulate and verify theories of causation, but to construct an order among observables. Explanations as generalized answers to the question “why?” may be presented in other than causal form. For example, explanations in terms of probability statements, functional relationships, and developmental stages can be formulated into propositions that do not depend upon causal explanation. A science of human social behavior is obviously possible without the notion of causation.

Second, a statement of causation does not necessarily state the nature of reality, but is a methodological construction of the observer: “Causes certainly are connected by effects; but this is because our theories connect them, not because the world is held together by cosmic glue.”⁵ The scientist who defines a causal relationship has to see that it is a construct imposed by himself in order to give meaning to a significant theoretical problem. Confused, we often inadvertently turn the causational construct into a description of reality.⁶ Initially a heuristic device, a methodological tool, causation does not necessarily describe the substance of our observations.

Third, we must not use the causational construct as it has often been applied in physical science. Causative explanations of crime have tended in particular to be based on the mechanistic conception of causation. What is required in the explanation of crime, if a causative explanation is formulated, is a conception of causation that is attuned to the nature of social phenomena.

The world of social phenomena studied by the social scientist has meaning for the human beings living within it. The world of nature, on the other hand, which the physical scientist studies, means nothing to the physical objects. Therefore, the social scientist’s constructs have to be founded upon the social reality created by man: “The constructs of the social sciences are, so to speak, constructs of the second degree, that is, constructs of the constructs made by the actors on the social scene, whose behavior the social scientist has to observe and to explain in accordance with the procedural rules of his science.”⁷ As social scientists we may well conceive of a substantive causal process, as part of a social reality that is constructed by man, and distinct from the causal constructs formulated as methodological devices by the physical scientist. Thus, causation could be used substantively to explain crime in the special sense of social causation. To the extent that man defines situations, that is, constructs his own world in relation to others, the student of social life may conceive of a social causation as part of a social reality.

Theory Construction. The appropriate structure of a theory is far from certain in sociology. Many have worked toward establishing a research methodology, but little has been done about developing theoretical methods. Since we lack criteria for building theories, Homans has suggested that a theory must consist of propositions that state relationships and form a deductive system.⁸ But we cannot ignore explanations that may be formulated in forms other than the deductive. These may contain propositions which are not deductive, but which are probabilistic, functional, or genetic.⁹ Such propositions need not necessarily be deductive, in the sense that another set of propositions must be deduced from them in order for the original set of propositions to be regarded as a theory.

More important, propositions must be consistent with one another and must be integrated into a system.¹⁰ The conclusions drawn from one proposition must not contradict those derived from another, and any conclusions obtained from the theory must be derivable within the system. Other standards to be adhered to in constructing theories are: the propositions must be testable; their validity must be determined by subsequent research; and they must be useful, enabling us to understand the problem that inspired us to formulate the theory.

Within the theory that I am constructing are several propositions that are consistent and integrated into a theoretical system. One or more specific statements express in probability form the relationships within the proposition. Further, the propositions are arranged according to a system of proposition units. The propositions express relationships that are both coexistent and sequential. The theory thus assumes that patterns of phenomena develop over a period of time.¹¹ Each proposition unit within the theoretical model requires explanation, and each unit relates to the others. Ultimately, the theoretical system provides the basis for an integrated theory of crime.

ASSUMPTIONS: MAN AND SOCIETY
IN A THEORY OF CRIME

In studying any social phenomenon we must hold to some general perspective. Two of those used by sociologists, and by most social analysts for that matter, are the static and the dynamic interpretations of society. Either is equally plausible, though most sociologists take the static viewpoint.¹² This emphasis has relegated forces and events, such as deviance and crime, which do not appear to be conducive to stability and consensus, to the pathologies of society.

My theory of crime, however, is based on the dynamic perspective. The theory is based on these assumptions about man and society: (1) process, (2) conflict, (3) power, and (4) social action.

Process. The dynamic aspect of social relations may be referred to as “social process.” Though in analyzing society we use static descriptions, that is, we define the structure and function of social relations, we must be aware that social phenomena fluctuate continually.¹³

We apply this assumption to all social phenomena that have duration and undergo change, that is, all those which interest the sociologist. A social process is a continuous series of actions, taking place in time, and leading to a special kind of result: “a system of social change taking place within a defined situation and exhibiting a particular order of change through the operation of forces present from the first within the situation.”¹⁴ Any particular phenomenon, in turn, is viewed as contributing to the dynamics of the total process. As in the “modern systems approach,” social phenomena are seen as generating out of an interrelated whole.¹⁵ The methodological implication of the process assumption is that any social phenomenon may be viewed as part of a complex network of events, structures, and underlying processes.

Conflict. In any society conflicts between persons, social units, or cultural elements are inevitable, the normal consequences of social life. Conflict is especially prevalent in societies with diverse value systems and normative groups. Experience teaches that we cannot expect to find consensus on all or most values and norms in such societies.

Two models of society contrast sharply: one is regarded as “conflict” and the other, “consensus.” With the consensus model we describe social structure as a functionall...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Law & Society Series
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Introduction to the Transaction Edition
• Preface
• 1. A Theory Of Crime
• 2. Formulation Of Criminal Definitions
• 3. Application Of Criminal Definitions
• 4. Development Of Behavior Patterns In : Relation To Criminal Definitions
• 5. Construction Of Criminal Conceptions
• Index to Names
• Index to Subjects