The Causation of Crime: An Exploration Through Criminological Perspectives

Abstract: 

This study explores the social, cultural, and economic factors that drive individuals to commit criminal acts. It argues that crime is not just the result of personal choices or moral failings; rather, it often reflects the underlying inequalities and dissatisfaction present in society. Drawing on the theories of Durkheim, Merton, and Agnew, the study demonstrates how limited opportunities, emotional stress, and societal pressures can lead individuals to engage in deviant behavior. The article also discusses how those in power define crime and how labeling and stigma can trap marginalized individuals in a cycle of exclusion and repeat offenses. Instead of relying solely on punishment, it highlights the significance of rehabilitation and restorative justice, which focus on healing and reintegration. Ultimately, the paper concludes that reducing crime requires more than just legislation and punishment; it necessitates addressing inequality, strengthening communities, and providing equitable opportunities for all. 

Introduction: 

Crime should not be viewed merely as a result of personal ethics or logical choices; it is a complex event intricately connected to the social, cultural, and economic dimensions of human life. Beneath every criminal behavior lies a complex web of factors—systemic disparities, cultural norms, power dynamics, and learned behaviors—that shape individuals’ perceptions of opportunities, obstacles, and legitimacy. Durkheim (1895) argues that crime is not an unusual violation of order but rather a typical and essential aspect of society, emphasizing the moral limits that govern social life.1 Similarly, Merton (1938) suggested that structural constraints and limited opportunities often drive individuals to pursue deviant means to achieve culturally defined goals.2 Following this idea, Agnew (1992) expanded on the concept, noting that strain also arises from emotional and social frustrations that impede individuals’ ability to adapt. Together, these perspectives demonstrate that crime is not just a random occurrence; it reflects underlying societal tensions and serves as an adaptive response to structural limitations.3 

The Social Construction of Criminality: 

Crime does not exist independently; it derives significance from society’s definitions. What one nation or society perceives as a wrongdoing, another may tolerate or overlook. This indicates that an action is labeled as “criminal” not due to its inherent wrongness, but because those in authority determine it so. Individuals who create laws and dictate social standards frequently act to safeguard their own interests.4 Conversely, individuals from impoverished or marginalized communities tend to be monitored, evaluated, and penalized—not necessarily due to higher crime rates, but because society perceives them as more prone to criminal behavior.5 When a person is labelled as a criminal, that designation can stay with them for a lifetime. It influences their self-perception and the perception others have of them. Numerous individuals lose opportunities for employment, education, and societal respect, which can alienate them more from the community.6 This complicates their ability to alter their direction and may result in increased criminal activity. Consequently, punishment and societal judgment frequently foster a cycle in which deviance increases rather than diminishes. 

The Failure of Punishment and The Cycle of Deviance: 

Society frequently views punishment as a simple tool to prevent crime, but research indicates that punitive actions can produce extensive and occasionally counterintuitive consequences. When people are identified as criminals, the associated stigma can influence not just others’ views of them but also their self-perception, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where deviance becomes integral to their identity (Becker, 1963).7 This situation is exacerbated by social and economic exclusion: people from underprivileged backgrounds often encounter restricted access to education, job opportunities, and community support, complicating their reintegration into society and leading them to subcultures or groups where criminal activities are accepted.8 

Additionally, punitive systems do not function independently; they engage with structural inequalities and wider societal hierarchies. Policies and legal systems frequently unfairly focus on marginalized groups, perpetuating cycles of poverty, exclusion, and criminalization.9 Thus, crime is not only a manifestation of personal moral shortcomings but also a result of systemic forces and ingrained prejudice. Concentrating on punishment instead of tackling underlying issues like social inequality, insufficient opportunities, and community breakdown can unintentionally reinforce the deviant behaviors it aims to regulate.10 As a result, society’s reaction to crime—via labeling, social exclusion, and punitive measures—might inadvertently sustain the behaviors it criticizes, establishing a cycle where criminality is ingrained in both personal lives and social frameworks.11 

The Rule of Rehabilitiation and Restorative Justice: 

Acknowledging that punishment by itself frequently does not decrease crime, criminologists and policymakers have progressively highlighted rehabilitative and restorative approaches. Rehabilitation emphasizes tackling the fundamental social, economic, and psychological elements that lead to criminal actions by offering education, job training, mental health assistance, and community reintegration initiatives.12 Restorative justice enhances this approach by focusing on healing the damage between offenders, victims, and communities, promoting accountability while preserving social connections. Research indicates that these methods not only lower recidivism rates but also lessen the stigma associated with labeling, providing offenders with a viable route for reintegration. By focusing on personal requirements and structural disparities, these approaches show that society can more effectively decrease crime than with punishment alone.13 

Addressing Structural inequalities and Crime Prevention: 

Successful crime prevention necessitates tackling the structural disparities that frequently contribute to deviant behavior. Socioeconomic disadvantages, restricted access to quality education, insufficient healthcare, and limited job opportunities result in environments where crime can thrive. By enacting policies that address these systemic challenges, including educational and vocational programs, social welfare efforts, and community development projects, societies can lessen the pressures that drive individuals to criminal activity.14 Interventions rooted in the community, such as mentorship programs, youth engagement efforts, and local support networks, enhance social cohesion and offer constructive alternatives to deviance.15 Research in criminology shows that proactive, preventive approaches targeting social and structural factors related to crime are more successful in decreasing criminal behavior than depending solely on punitive actions. Recognizing crime as an indicator of larger social disparities ultimately shifts attention from punishment to prevention, underscoring the need to combine social reform with law enforcement for creating safer and more just communities.16 

Conclusion: 

Crime is not merely a result of poor decisions or lack of values—it frequently mirrors the environment individuals inhabit. When chances are scarce and disparities are profound, dissatisfaction and marginalization can steer people towards journeys they never meant to pursue. As theorists such as Durkheim, Merton, and Agnew highlight, crime frequently arises from the stresses and tensions of daily life, rather than solely from malicious intent. Society contributes to perpetuating this cycle; when an individual is branded a “criminal,” that designation can stick with them indefinitely, isolating them from employment, educational opportunities, and social acceptance. Consequences alone cannot resolve this issue. In reality, it usually exacerbates the situation by tearing individuals apart rather than assisting them in reconstructing. Genuine transformation occurs when we address the foundations—poverty, discrimination, and missed opportunities—and substitute judgment with empathy. By reinstating fairness, empathy, and inclusion in our systems, we can create a society where fewer individuals are driven to crime initially 

Books and Journals: 

1. Emile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (trans. W D Halls, Free Press 1982)
2. Robert K Merton, ‘Social Structure and Anomie’ (1938) 3 American Sociological Review 672
3. Robert Agnew, ‘Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency’ (1992) 30 Criminology 47
4. Émile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (Free Press 1895); Robert K Merton, ‘Social Structure and Anomie’ (1938) 3 American Sociological Review 672.
5. Loïc Wacquant, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (Duke University Press 2009); Devah Pager, ‘The Mark of a Criminal Record’ (2003) 108 American Journal of Sociology 937.
6. Kai T Erikson, Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance (Wiley 1966); Ken Plummer, The Rule of the Law: A Sociological Introduction (Routledge 1979).
7. Devah Pager, ‘The Mark of a Criminal Record’ (2003) 108 American Journal of Sociology 937; Kai T Erikson, Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance (Wiley 1966).

Online Sources: 

8. Sherry Lynn Skaggs, ‘Labeling Theory’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 13 September 2025) <https://www.britannica.com/topic/labeling-theory > accessed 4 October 2025
9.  Saul McLeod, ‘Social Construction of Crime & Deviance’ (Simply Psychology, 2025) <https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-construction-of-crime.htm> accessed 4 October 2025
10. Ross L Matsueda and Maria S Grigoryeva, ‘Social Inequality, Crime, and Deviance’ in Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality (Springer 2014)<https://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/Papers/Inequality.pdf >accessed 4 October 2025

Reference(S):

1 https://monoskop.org/images/1/1e/Durkheim_Emile_The_Rules_of_Sociological_Method_1982.

pdf2 https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686 

3 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x 

4 https://www.britannica.com/topic/labeling-theory?utm_source=chatgpt.com

5 https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-construction-of-crime.htm 

6 https://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/Papers/Inequality.pdf 

7 H S Becker, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (Free Press 1963).

8 É Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (Free Press 1895); RK Merton, ‘Social Structure and Anomie’ (1938) 3 American Sociological Review 672. 

9 L Wacquant, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (Duke University Press 2009); D Pager, ‘The Mark of a Criminal Record’ (2003) 108 American Journal of Sociology 937.

10 KT Erikson, Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance (Wiley 1966); K Plummer, The Rule of the Law: A Sociological Introduction (Routledge 1979). 

11 RL Matsueda and MS Grigoryeva, ‘Social Inequality, Crime, and Deviance’ in K Bruinsma and D Weisburd (eds), Handbook of the Sociology of Crime and Deviance (Springer 2015) 45.

12 KT Erikson, Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance (Wiley 1966); K Plummer, The Rule of the Law: A Sociological Introduction (Routledge 1979). 

13 L Wacquant, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (Duke University Press 2009). 

14 RL Matsueda and MS Grigoryeva, ‘Social Inequality, Crime, and Deviance’ in K Bruinsma and D Weisburd (eds), Handbook of the Sociology of Crime and Deviance (Springer 2015) 45.

15 L Wacquant, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (Duke University Press 2009). 

16 D Pager, ‘The Mark of a Criminal Record’ (2003) 108 American Journal of Sociology 937; KT Erikson, Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance (Wiley 1966).