In this blog post, we’ll examine whether crime stems from an individual’s innate disposition or from environmental factors, using various examples.
Most of us have heard the story of Jean Valjean at least once in our childhood. Starving and unable to afford bread due to his poverty, Jean Valjean eventually steals some, which leads to his imprisonment. Later, Jean Valjean escapes from prison, adopts a new identity, and builds a reputation for doing good deeds. The question we must consider here is whether Jean Valjean stole the bread because of an inherently evil nature. If he had not been poor and had had enough money to buy bread, would he have committed the same crime? If not, we should not view crime merely as an individual problem; rather, we must identify the fundamental causes that left him with no choice but to commit such a crime to prevent similar crimes from recurring.
The approach that attributes the cause of stealing bread to Jean Valjean’s character is called the dispositional approach, which is a traditional perspective that seeks the cause of behavior in an individual’s character or nature. Conversely, the approach that seeks the cause of crime in the situation is called the situational approach. Let’s apply this concept to everyday life rather than crime. For example, if a non-smoking woman develops lung cancer, the dispositional approach would attribute the illness to a family history, suggesting she carries genetic DNA predisposed to cancer. In contrast, the situational approach would attribute the cause not to genetics but to secondhand smoke from her spouse or family members.
A prime example of crime arising from constitutional causes is the “Ted Bundy” case. “Ted Bundy” was a handsome man with a good reputation in his community, yet he was a murderer who killed 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 resulting from situational causes is the Rwandan genocide. The Hutu brutally murdered members of the Tutsi tribe, indiscriminately targeting men, women, and children. This included rape, and even the killing of neighbors with whom they had exchanged friendly greetings just the day before. The reason the Hutu committed such brutal murders was likely not because they were inherently evil. Before this crisis, the Hutu were likely ordinary people. We cannot be certain that if the situation were reversed and the Tutsi were placed in such circumstances, they would not have committed murder just as the Hutu did.
However, before discussing how to approach the issue of crime, there is a fundamental question we must first consider: Can we truly distinguish whether a crime stems from a constitutional disposition or from situational factors? In the case of “Ted Bundy,” we cannot definitively conclude that his childhood environment had no influence on why he became a psychopath. Furthermore, there were undoubtedly Hutu people 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 would be far more efficient to approach crime from a situational perspective and address the root causes.
Examining cases where crime has been interpreted from a situational perspective rather than a dispositional one reveals its effectiveness. A prime example is the “Broken Windows Theory.” This theory posits that a car with a broken window is more likely to be vandalized or broken into than one without. The key 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 City subway system led to a sharp drop in crime rates. Just as people are more likely to litter on a dirty street than a clean one, improving the subway environment by keeping it clean reduced violent crimes and lowered the number of serious crimes. This case demonstrates that crime rates can be sufficiently reduced through environmental improvements alone.
One might argue that the reduction in crime rates achieved through situational approaches is minimal, and that changing one’s disposition is the only way to reduce crime. Specifically, 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 those genes are eliminated. However, as mentioned earlier, crimes stemming from temperamental issues, such as those involving psychopaths, are also mostly caused by situational factors, such as improper socialization during childhood. Therefore, crime prevention through a situational approach is the best strategy.
If one cannot be certain that they would not commit a crime when placed in the same situation, they cannot be certain that they would commit a crime either. This raises the question of whether we can definitively attribute the cause of crime to circumstances alone. Consider the case of a criminal who committed theft due to a disadvantaged environment. Since theft is a clear criminal act, he will go to prison, where he will reflect on his actions and vow never to steal again. However, if his circumstances do not improve no matter how hard he tries after his release, he will eventually steal again. To prevent this person from committing crimes again, personal reflection and effort alone are insufficient; assistance at the national level is needed to improve their impoverished circumstances. As this illustrates, the reason for approaching criminal behavior based on circumstances rather than temperament is not simply to determine whether the cause of crime lies in temperament or circumstances. It is to analyze the causes of crime from a new perspective, moving beyond the traditional temperamental approach, in order to find fundamental solutions to reduce crime rates.
If crime is influenced more by circumstances than by an individual’s temperament, one might argue that individuals should not be held responsible for their actions. However, two conditions must be met to avoid holding individuals accountable for their crimes when imposing punishment. First, the circumstances surrounding the crime must be completely identical. Second, under those same circumstances, everyone must commit the same crime without exception.
However, these conditions have limitations. First, the first condition faces the limitation that a completely identical situation cannot exist. This is because even if the immediate circumstances leading to the crime are the same, prior environmental factors can influence the current crime. Therefore, there is no clear criterion for determining where to begin considering the situation, and if one were to consider circumstances prior to the specific moment the crime occurred, a perfectly identical situation would be virtually impossible. The second condition is limited by the fact that it is impossible to determine whether the proposition is true or false. This is because it is impossible to place everyone in the exact same situation, and even if they were, the proposition would be false if even a single exception occurred.
Due to these limitations, changing the current legal system could be problematic. Furthermore, the ultimate goal of punishing criminals is to reduce the likelihood of recidivism through rehabilitation. It is said that when Professor Philip George Zimbardo, who proposed the “Broken Windows Theory,” conducted the “Stanford Prison Experiment,” he himself—who played the role of a guard—was unaware of the violence exhibited by the participants. It was only after an outsider who happened to witness the experiment pointed this out that the professor realized his mistake and was able to halt the experiment. Just as in this case, while people may commit crimes depending on the situation, external intervention may be necessary for them to realize that their actions constitute a crime. This is the role of the police and the reason why criminals are punished and isolated in prison. However, this measure alone is insufficient. This is because crime is not a problem of the individual but a problem of the situation. If the environment does not change, the same crimes will continue to occur, and there will be no progress. We need to approach crime from a situational perspective and make efforts to change those circumstances. This is what welfare entails, and it is the responsibility of the state. After all, it is the responsibility of all of us that an ordinary person was placed in a situation where they had no choice but to commit a crime.
