Social Problem vs. Social Responsibility
I am a Criminology student at a local Illinois University, and I've been over these general theories of criminality more times than I care to admit. At the base of all studies in this field, from which further study and assessment is built, there are the two components of the age-old argument. Are the actions of a criminal Society's Fault or their own. Are you a social problem or social responsibility theorist.
Citing a classic case, that of Richard Speck, the murderer/rapist who was found guilty of assaulting and killing a group of 8 nursing students in Chicago, IL, July 14th 1966. Richard did not have a comfortable home life, and had managed to rack up 37 arrests on his record before the age of 20. At that age, he married a 15 year old girl named Shirley Malone and the two fathered a child together. He was violent and physically/emotionally abusive towards her, threatening to kill her or harm her for not having dinner ready on time. When the fateful year '66 arrived, he was separated from his makeshift wife and followed what remained of his family back to Monmouth, IL. Eventually, as is known today, Mr. Speck was arrested, tried, and convicted for the slayings that occured in that Chicago Dorm Hall 42 years ago. He died in prison of heart trouble 19 years into his sentence.
Of course, this is a classic and widespread story of a man driven mad by a lifestyle that never was nurturing or supportive. With the fact that Speck did, in fact, grow up in a broken home said, could this make room for sympathy for a man outwardly so cold and heartless? Note that I do Not believe, nor is it logical to believe, that this justifies his actions. That because he had a hard time of it, and was ill in one way or another, Exempts him from blame is not my point. If a person who grows up in a normal, caring family environment, doesn't it make sense that they will grow up to be normal, decent people? Is the adverse true? Commonly, yes. But as in all criminological study, there Are exceptions to every rule.
Citing a much more recent case, in Waycross, Georgia, 3rd Graders between the ages of 8 and 10 were exposed in a plot to harm, or possibly do worse, to their teacher; following a scolding she had given them to not stand on the chairs of their desks. A pupil tipped school staff off to this plan, saying that a child had brought a weapon to school. The 'gang' (I use that word lightly mind you) of children, which numbered somewhere around 9 or 10, were found to be carrying handcuffs, duct tape, and a broken steak knife, among other things, with them that day. According to sources, they intended on knocking the teacher out with a crystal paperweight, tieing her up, and stabbing her.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g84E-NqKavdkNfL6nv-ixkYQFiSgD8VPBR8G2
Were the children intending on Killing the woman? Most likely no, say the sources. But could it have happened accidentally? Of course. And, now, we come back to the question of social problem vs. responsibility.
Between these two varying stories, who is to blame. Social responsibility believers often theorize that because the Decision was Made to Commit a Crime, fault cannot be laid on anything or anyone but the offender. It is deeply rooted in the Free-Will actions of a right and conscious-minded individual, with little to no consideration of what others may see as extenuating circumstances - such as mental illness. Historically, Responsibility Theorists have also birthed the idea of certain people simply coming into this world, evil. That they were born with something different, something physiological or psychological that cannot be surpassed - which, as you may or may not be thinking, is almost contradictory to its own concept. The belief of no excuses. And, as you may or may not have guessed by now, I am a social problem follower in a heavy way.
Socal Problem Theorists take into account that a person can be, and people are on a daily basis, corrupted. They understand mental illness drives those it has incapacitated morally and logically, and that therapy and improvement in one's social surroundings, among other things, is sometimes necessary or essential to problem solving. Once again citing Richard Speck's case and his actions. If he had grown up in a more balanced environment, had the nuturing, the peace, the stability in his family that we all hope to have, and generally have - would he have done what he did? From a social problem standpoint, from my standpoint, no. If a person's mind is trained correctly, unless physiologically a problem is pre-existing of course,(always exceptions), chances are Far Greater that a person will be morally, subjectively, logically, religiously etc. Opposed to the murder of another human being - or the rape, or the assault, or the robbery. Once again it brings back the same ideal - If a fairly normal home life, a comfortable home life, is provided, commonly the person will grow up in a normal way. Is the opposite also true?
As you can see there are many ways to take this argument, and I've heard opinions from both ends of the spectrum. There are children who have come from comfortable homes, who have murdered another, younger child for what seems like no reason at all. Not even enjoyment, entertainment, etc. Then there are men like Charles Manson who made a lifelong career of crime, hopped from Orphanage to Orphanage and really had no positive influences to look up to. Where one thing seems obvious, there are always exceptions.
What are you, a Social Responsibility or Social Problem Theorist? Are you Both? What drove Richard Speck to murder, to all his previous convictions in his juvenile years? Was it his choice, therefore the blame lies on him? Or is there some understanding considering he was born into an uncaring home? What explains the 3rd Graders, Children ages 8 to 10, plotting to severely harm or possibly Murder their teacher for being reprimanded? What has changed in our schools, our society, our children, etc - to make them even remotely Think along those lines? I'm curious of all your opinions on this rather open subject.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Dwn
April 8
Edit | Reply
Personally
I believe much of the fault lies in the modern definition of child abuse. Children who misbehave should in fact be subjected to discipline in the extent necessary to correct behavior, It perhaps should start light, but escalate continuously until either it is successful regardless of what extent becomes required, or it becomes obvious the child can not be corrected, in which case imprisonment , and isolation from society becomes the last option. It is a relatively new cultural phenomena that this is not the casePlease register or login to comment! It's totally free