1.5 What Causes Crime?
Let’s go back to the COVID-19 and crime example again in the Chapter Overview. What are some factors that may have led to the increase in crime following the start of the pandemic? Notice we are talking about what “may have” caused crime because we can’t completely prove it—it’s just a theory. Those factors that criminological theories state may have led to an increase in crime are criminogenic factors, meaning they are something that increases the likelihood of crime occurring when they are present.
For example, schools having to move to remote learning forced kids to do online schooling from home and to miss the social interactions, positive adult relationships, targeted instruction and support, structure, safety, and meals that school typically provides. The loss of any one of these things could be criminogenic for some kids, but let’s focus on just one: food insecurity.
Families with food insecurity at home often rely on free or reduced-priced lunches and often also breakfasts from schools. When the pandemic began and schools closed, there was a time when children went hungry because they did not have enough food at home. Food insecurity is a significant criminogenic factor under any circumstances, but especially when part of the larger problem of a world-wide pandemic. What might families or youth do when they are hungry and have no access to food they can afford? In this circumstance, food insecurity is a criminogenic factor because it increases the likelihood of crime occurring.
1.5.1 Activity: Criminogenic Factors and the Courts
Defense attorneys may try to use criminogenic factors to explain away the crime committed by their client. To be clear, neither of the following defenses or claims are backed by any criminological theories or research. Here are a couple of extreme examples:
People of the State of California v. Daniel James White
San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor and Gay Rights Activist Harvey Milk were assassinated in their offices in 1978 by Daniel White. Mr. White’s attorneys claimed he had been struggling with depression as was evidenced by his consumption of large amounts of Twinkies—and only Twinkies—in the days leading up to the murders. As a result, although facing the death penalty if found guilty of the two counts of murder with which he was charged, the jury convicted him only of voluntary manslaughter. His sentence ended up being 8 years in prison. This infamous case has since become known as “the twinkie defense.”
State of Texas v. Ethan Couch
In 2013, sixteen-year-old Ethan Couch was charged with four counts of manslaughter after stealing his father’s truck, driving to Wal-Mart to steal beer, driving drunk, injuring 9 people, and killing 4 pedestrians. His attorneys claimed Couch suffered from “affluenza” (which is not a medically recognized condition). As a result of being raised in an extremely wealthy family and being spoiled, the defense claimed he could not recognize the consequences of his actions. Ethan Couch was sentenced to 10 years of probation. His case has become known as “the affluenza defense.”
Discussion Questions
- What do you think of these defenses? Can Twinkies and affluenza be considered criminogenic factors?
- If extreme wealth and sugar overload really are considered criminogenic factors, what could be done to intervene and stop criminal behavior as a result?
1.5.2 Licenses and Attributions for What Causes Crime?
“What Causes Crime?” by Taryn VanderPyl is licensed under CC BY 4.0.