http://corporatemangementsolution.com
Advertisement
http://corporatemangementsolution.com
|
|
Pakistan Social Justice Group |
|
|
RESPECT OTHERS' RIGHTS AND DO JUSTICE |
|
Rate of crime and antisocial behaviors have been increasing in Pakistan but very little is written about it in print media from the perspective of human psychology to understand reasons of crime and antisocial behavior. This essay is an endeavor in this direction. The article does not provide direct solutions but offer food for the thought for our policy makers dealing with crime and antisocial behavior. Crime and anti-social behavior are criticized and despised in all societies; but, loathing and scorning do not provide with solution to the problem unless we ponder on some crucial questions. It is important to question that those people who indulged in criminal and antisocial behavior, are they born with this disposition? What are the factors that encourage people to commit crime or adopt antisocial behavior? How far first and second order change policies are effective in reducing the rate of crime and antisocial behavior? Mannhiem defines Crime as an action that can be prosecuted by the legal authorities whereas antisocial behaviors are annoying for others but cannot be prosecuted by the state, e.g. excessive smoking. A crime is antisocial behavior, but, antisocial behavior is not a criminal action unless it is forbidden by the law. The concept of crime and antisocial behavior varies from country to country, culture to culture and time to time. Heider asserts that individuals' behaviors are either attributed as part of their personality (Dispositional) or as a forced response due to external factors (Situational). Therefore Elias says that a crime can be attributed into four categories (a) blame the concerned institution (b) blame the offender (c) blame the victim (d) and blame the society's political- economic system. The Geneticists investigations on genes provide some evidence that genetic make up has influence on our behavior and researchers have tried to study the crime and anti-social behavior from this angle. Chritiansen twins’ study reflects that more serious crimes are committed by identical twins than the non-identical. According to Forssman, those males who have more X chromosomes than normal run the risk of becoming antisocial. Prins disagrees to the said findings and argues that twin studies results are inconclusive. He further says that there are many individuals with chromosomal abnormality but they are still law-abiding citizens. Those who believe in genetics effects on behavior must find reasoning for the following queries: (a) Why do studies show that most of the people who involve in such
activities are between the age of 12 and 30?
Since geneticists do not give conclusive explanation to the said questions, thus, we have little evidence to believe that crime is the result of inherent qualities. Weiten's work also shows that family and general environment play major roles in determining our behavior than genetics. The criticism against geneticists suggest that we should look for reasons of criminal behavior and antisocial in other perspectives of psychology. According to Psychoanalytic perspective, we are driven by energies and our behaviors depend upon how they are channeled. These energies demand an outlet so that a person can function properly. If the energies do not get a proper outlet it could have devastating effect on the individuals. The behavioral school of thought claims that our all behavioral patterns are learned and our behavioral patterns are strengthened depending on the type of reinforcement. Social learning theory says that our behavior are not only results of direct reinforcement, rather our responses are strengthened due to the vicarious learning. Baron & Kepner found in his experiment that the group of subjects who watched aggressive behavior had administrated more shocks than those who did not watch the aggressive model Bronfenbrenner argues that all perspectives, except geneticists view, reflect that we operate in and are influenced by micro, meso, exo, and macro environments that play a significant role in shaping our behavior patterns. Many studies suggest that economic factors such as unemployment and socioeconomic inequality, and a lack of feeling of belongingness to someone or/and improper social support are among the prime reasons for maladjustment, criminal and antisocial behavior. Freud, Piaget, Erickson, Craig and Goetting and other renowned psychologists have emphasized parental, spouse and companion love and affection that help to pass successfully stages of growth, adjust with the environment and overcome on miserable patches of the life. Jeffery mentions that social pathology increases in those people who are without love, affection, social acceptance and self appreciation. Harlow findings support the argument that social deprivation and lack of attachment to someone cause highly emotional problems and increase difficulties in adjustment in environment. Rutter and Giller's investigation shows that inconsistent and uncaring parenting is one of the reasons for delinquency. Similarly, parental criminality is considered as another factor of child delinquent behavior by them. It is said that social isolation has been a land mark of social pathology. The studies also reflect that a need of attachment and love change with human beings as they age. For example, need to attach with the opposite gender gets stronger from adolescence and parental love is less required. Human needs are changed and the process is termed as hierarchy of needs in psychology. How these needs are fulfilled influence self-efficacy and self-actualization. It is also said that our perception is influenced how these needs are fulfilled or remain unfulfilled. If one feels that others are better off in a society then it can develop cognitive dissonance or/and feeling of relative deprivation. Actions of individuals, as a matter of fact, depend upon how feelings of relative deprivation, cognitive dissonance and optimism are handled. If a person is optimist that his/her self-improvement effort can change the situation, then the choice will be different from criminal or/and anti-social behavior. Porter and Lawler affirm that a person shall put more efforts if he/she expects that his/her effort can bring positive change. In other words, a person possibly remains loyal to the system if he/she is satisfied and optimist about the system. However, a person passiveness for injustice should not be interpreted as loyalty to the system but it can be a state of learned helplessness - a belief of loss of control on the factors which are affecting one's life. Dissatisfied persons can adopt other severe or mild responses such as Exit and Voice instead of passively living with the feeling of helplessness. Different options within Exit and voice strategies are available to individuals which can be employed to show dissatisfaction with the society and state. For example, suicide is one of the intense responses of Exit strategy showing dissatisfaction with the environment. Similarly antisocial and criminal behaviors can be taken as voice responses by individuals to show their dissatisfaction to the external environment. It is not possible for any state and society to eradicate crime and anti-social behavior completely. However, states and societies can either emphasize first or second order change policies to control the rate of crime and anti-social behavior. Penny says that the first order change policy solves immediate cause which does not bring paradigm change in the system. It detects and corrects an error without questioning or altering the underlying values of the system. Regarding the second order change policy, Penny argues that it means choosing options among competing sets of paradigms to replace the existing paradigms to bring change in values. First order change policy includes punitive preventions such as fines, house arrests and imprisonments in jail and so on. Although William's investigation shows high effectivity of imprisonment that 80 percent of persons coming to prisons for the first time never return, Prins rejects his claim on the ground that we do not know how many really committed the crime and the intensity of the crimes. The other studies also show that the punishments are not proper tools to reduce high rate of crime from any system. It is argued that the cost of prison has been increasing but large numbers of prisoners show little improvement and they re-offend quickly on their release. Masters and Jeffery contend that punitive measures have not reduced the crime rate and criminal justice is totally destructive of human beings, human dignity and human freedom. Researchers also point out that aggression generally begets aggression. Though, punitive measures carry some benefits, for example, work as a deterrent effect, develop sense of responsibility through fear, provide psychological satisfaction to the victim and carry vicarious effects, they are unable to correct the situation permanently and hardly touch the actual cause of the problem. Social preventions are considered as a second order change policy. Social preventive measures include actions such as addressing economic stresses, homelessness, school alienation family breakdowns, environmental redesign and situational prevention (e.g. closed circuit television). Though Social preventive measures are also criticized by researchers but they are better rated at the same time. However, it is also stressed that the effectivity of the social preventions heavily depends upon how they are designed and implemented. Therefore, it is suggested that social preventive options should be assessed systematically before implementing. The studies recommend that social scientists form different fields must be included while developing second order change policies and should not be only left to public bureaucrats or technocrats. Jeffery emphasizes participation of social scientists in the process of decision making as he is of the opinion that bureaucrats have little idea about theory and research. It is also said that the second order change demands change in perception in policy makers and administrators. A policy of handling criminal and antisocial actions will be influenced how the crime is perceived and the blame is attributed. Elias asserts if the blame for the increased crime is assigned to the offender then it is more likely that the response will be on increasing punitive measures. Second order change is only possible when society understand its responsibilities. It is appropriate here to quote Charles Manson what he said in the court, "you and people like you created me. You created this garbage. Now you want to get rid of it." The statement carries a great message for policy makers, reformers, intellectuals and people dealing with society. So far our society is concerned, deteriorating ethical standards and values are pushing more and more people to adopt criminal and antisocial behavior. The current excessive materialistic, selfish, non-cooperative and exploitative approach can only lead to produce more crooks and delinquents than dignified and law-abiding citizens. 15 June 2004
|
|
