2006-11-08 04:43:46 · 16 answers · asked by P.O. E 1 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
Neither one or the other... and both.
Your question is too vague.
If there were easy answers to 'crime' (as you call it) there would be no crime. Obviously it's alot more complicated than simply distinguishing between being a social or individual phenomenon. And to be honest - it's not really a phenomenon. It's been around forever. Scholars have unravelled much of the psychology behind crime (in it's various manifestations), they have written books, lectured endlessly and petitioned vigorously for our cultures to comprehend the depth of criminal issues.
Your question is lacking - but I hope we made you think a tiny bit deeper about it anyway. Next time extrapolate a little for us and we can discuss it to a greater extent!
All the best!
2006-11-08 07:32:36 · answer #1 · answered by quay_grl 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's the old "nature versus nurture" argument, isn't it?
These days the "nature" side of the argument seems to be winning. And I can see why.
Most people who are economically and socially deprived don't become criminals. And also if you look at people who have been adopted, they will tend to display the characteristics of their birth parents rather than their adoptive parents.
This is most clearly displayed in studies of twins separated at an early age. Though there are so few of these that caution is advised in interpreting the results.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't know, but that individual (genetic) causation of criminal behaviour is a much more popular theory than it used to be.
Having said that, it's still likely that being brought up in a good stable family may prevent innate traits turning into criminal behaviour.
And vice versa.
2006-11-11 13:52:08 · answer #2 · answered by mcfifi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so. Usually its a small minority of offenders that keep commiting the same crimes in an area, although you could argue this was down to the individual/s they are usually from a poor background with little respect for themseves, and have other problems (eg drug addiction). It is up to the individual to change but socially they feel unequal and outcast prob from society at a young age so dont hold the same respect for themselves or the law than most people.
2006-11-08 12:58:32 · answer #3 · answered by herbal ashtray 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hard to tell what you're asking. Are you asking whether some act that doesn't affect any other person can be a crime?
Or are you asking about causes of crime?
Legally, there are things that are crimes that don't effect others (such as drug laws and suicide). SHOULD they be crimes? This is a matter of some controversy; many would say no.
If you're asking about causes, then you're making a false assumption that all acts of crime are the same in their causes. That's a lot of disparate things to lump into one causal category.
2006-11-08 14:58:25 · answer #4 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As with most human phenomena, the answer is "a little of both". All humans (well, almost all, anyway) have innate urges to do the wrong thing from time to time. Most have the self-discipline to control these urges, while some don't. Society as a whole influences how well people can control (or choose to control) these urges, as well. When people feel like society has dealt them a bad hand or doesn't care about them, their sense of control my ebb.
2006-11-08 12:48:49 · answer #5 · answered by Peter 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it is in many respects. There seems to be periods where there is certain 'trends' appear in various types of crime. Some forms of crime of course are very isolated and unusual cases where it is an individual thing.
2006-11-08 12:52:20 · answer #6 · answered by TB 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is individual. People become criminals simply because they want to. There is nothing in society that causes them to. That is why they stop if you disadvantage them too much. A guy I know was thrown into a crocodile infested river after stealing something. He survived but has never done it again.
2006-11-08 16:31:39 · answer #7 · answered by instant M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course - without society there would be no law, ergo, no crime. Furthermore, the same action may be legal in one society and not in another, but the individual act remains the same.
2006-11-08 13:04:40 · answer #8 · answered by lickintonight 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In order to commit a crime, you have to break a law. Laws are developed by more than one person (social) so by definition crime can not be an individual phenomenon. You can not commit a crime against yourself because you can't make a law yourself.
2006-11-08 12:46:55 · answer #9 · answered by ksmpmjoll 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Crime is purely an individual matter. Society's rules are there for everyone and everyone has the ability to keep them if he wishes.
2006-11-08 12:56:02 · answer #10 · answered by migelito 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋