Social
Consciousness and the Growth of Crime
By Miroslav Scheinost,
In my presentation I would like to attempt to make
some brief contemplation over the possible reference of the rapid increase of
crime rate that occurred in the
In the period between 1990 and 1993 a new era of the
development of delinquency launched by the steep increase of the number of
registered crimes. This number tripled in 1993 in comparison with 1989; in 1989
the number of registered crimes was 120 768, in 1993 398 505
offences. Also the structure of crime changed - the percentage of property
crimes increased from approximately 50% in 1989 up to 82% in 1993. In 2000 it
was still 73 %. Only after 1993 the increase of delinquency started to slow
down but, nevertheless, it continued until 1999 when the number of registered
crimes reached 426 thousands. Despite the following moderate decline the
general level of registered crime has never decreased to the original level. In
2004 the number of registered crimes was 351 thousands.
Younger men prevailed among offenders. 63% of all
known offenders in 1993 were young people aged up 30 years including 7% share
of children up 15 years and 11% share of youngsters from 15 up 18 years. About
8% of women shared on the registered criminality in the beginning of 90´s and
this percentage, however low, slightly rose as well. The share of habitual
offenders (recidivist) in the total of all known and prosecuted offenders
significantly decreased (41% in 1991, 33% in 1993; only since 2000 the share of
recidivists has increasing again; in 2004 it makes 45, 2%). It means that more
and more first-time-offenders participated in commitment of crimes.
It was a serious phenomenon, which meant that to an
increasing extent people with no previous criminal record began after 1989 to
engage in crime. Their number was prevalent in all age groups, yet there was a
predominance of younger people. People of high qualification and organizational
ability were among them as well. They probably created a basis or a core of the
development of our qualified "domestic" organized and economic crime.
The question arises about reasons of this development.
Jan van Dijk and Patricia Mayhew concluded in the
study "Criminal victimisation in the industrialised world" that high
crime rate is the price that should be paid for the life in the rich, urbanised
and democratic society (VAN DIJK, MAYHEW 1993).
It is truth that the level of crime rate reached in
the CR in the beginning of 90´s was not an extraordinary one in comparison with
the state of crime in Western European countries. But there is still a question
why we in the
There were more substantive factors that without any
doubt played their role. Most generally said the background for these changes
of the shape of crime was created by profound transformation of the society.
Probably each post-revolutionary situation bears signs of certain commotions
and tensions that affected the systems of social regulation and control.
Revolutions, more often than wars, are accompanied by an upsurge of criminality
that often escapes the efficient social control.
The basic transformation of economic system was
connected with enormous property shifting due to wide and quick privatisation
of previous state property and to restitution of the part of this property to
the original owners or to their descendants. The formation of market economy
run very quickly, almost frantically, the capital was redistributed and newly
accumulated under the legislation being behind this development and being
transformed rather ex post that ex ante. Transformation of law enforcement
authorities, institutional as well as personal, and their overburdening caused
the temporary weakening of their efficiency. Very strong population wave
of youngsters born in 1974-1975 reached in the beginning of 90´s the age limit
of penal responsibility that is 15 in the CR. Opening of economy and borders
was of course the condition sine qua non for democratic changes of the society
but in the same time it enabled the penetration of criminal activities and
criminals from abroad. Thus, many criminogenic
factors met together in this time and each of them may be put under the
criminological analysis.
The object of our interest in this case is the
influence of social consciousness that was affected by changes in the system of
social patterns of behaviour and values.
The classical concept of E. Durkheim´s
theory of anomia is more or less recollected every
time when the processes of transformation in the post-socialist countries,
including the
From this point of view we may interpret the
development of crime in the CR and perhaps in some other post-socialist
countries as a result of following processes:
1.
Crime
as a product of the process of social disintegration that stems from the
transformation of society. This disintegration manifests itself both in the
form of disorganisation of social institutions and social relations and in the
form of disorientation, i.e. as change of social values and patterns when the
old ones became to be relative and impugned. This may explicate the part of
criminality of youngsters and first-time-offenders.
2.
Crime
as a rational choice of adaptation strategy, i.e. as deliberate and intentional
breaking of law. This behaviour stems from a rational evaluation of potential
risk and benefit connected with opportunity offered by the new social situation
(see Merton´s concept of deviant behaviour as an
innovative reaction in the frame of adaptation strategy). This explanation may
be adequate for criminality of new professional offenders – entrepreneurs in
crime.
3.
Crime
as a routine activity being a common part of lifestyle. This behaviour is
related to the subculture connected with classical social background of crime. Criminogenic potential of this background could be enhanced
by the growth of social problems caused by transformation. This explanation may
hold for the criminality of some marginal groups as of Romanies,
part of migrants, homeless people, traditional criminals etc. (LUBELCOVA 1998)
As far as conditions for existence and development of
criminality are concerned, one has to take into account the state of moral and
legal consciousness of the society before the year 1989. It was a society in
which for years the individual was not considered and brought up as a unique
individuality but, in contrast, as a subordinate part of a collective and, at
the same time, an object of a permanent manipulation and affection from the
side of power. Limits within which the individual was permitted to act freely
were rather narrow and the responsibility for his/her acts was relatively
small. The individual’s dependence on the state was considerable and resulted
in a lower responsibility for oneself. In principal,
power was superior to the law, which resulted in the biased application of law
and, thus, in legal relativism and nihilism.
A large part of society remained remarkably resistant
to these effects. Nevertheless, it were the real conditions of life in the
previous regime that eroded morals of society and made the traditional values
relative without being able to replace them, especially in the later period, by
anything positive. The moral crisis manifested itself mainly by a weakened
responsibility for oneself and one's behaviour and, thus, by a decrease of
self-respect, of the ability of self- reflection, and of respect to basic human
values. In a certain part of society, the values linked with consumerism have
become stressed. These values that under the conditions of the deficit economy
took on sometimes absurd features were connected with various practices
enabling the people to satisfy these consumer's demands, including the trend to
make the relations between people non-committal, based not on friendship but on
purpose and exchange of mutual favours. At the same time, a general indifference
was spreading, together with resignation on public matters and apathy resulting
from feelings of powerlessness and no prospect (OSMANCIK 1992).
A fundamental
change of the political and socio-economic basis of social structure entered
into this situation. The problem does not seem to consist in the decay of
official ideology to which the very substantial part of public opinion in the
Czech country has always maintained a reserved attitude. What has collapsed was
a system of values and standards of daily life. The deep-rooted truths,
personal everyday experience and routine rules of the practical behaviour were
no more valid.
After 1989
the model of social success based on principle of competition and high
performance, on the ability to gain ground on market, on achievement of high
material standard, was presented as a desirable and positive one for the new,
democratic and market-oriented society (VLACIL 1992). This model itself can be
and was positively motivating for a significant part of population, but on the
contrary it can operate as criminogenic factor if the
effort to accomplish its demands is not regulated through moral and legal
consciousness and turns into tendency to fulfil it for whatever price. The
incapability to follow its demands may also marginalise certain social groups
and cause their subsequent frustration especially if they compare their true
situation to the primary high level of positive and optimistic expectations of
promising future. This positive expectation in relation to the future was
characteristic for the substantial part of Czech society after 1989.
Based on the inquiry carried out in
l992 45,4% of citizens anticipated in their near future gradual improving of
their situation, l,5% rapid improving, 39,6% moderate positive changes and only
l2,3% gradual and l,3% rapid worsening of situation (SVITKOVA 1992). By inquiry
in February l994 it was found that 33% of citizen anticipated the improving of
life conditions until one year and 64% within five years. Model of desirable
behaviour was supported by the general belief that the opportunity to assert
oneself has improved – this opportunity was assessed as very good by 59% of
questioned people in October 1992 and as better in comparison with the
situation before 1989 by 58 % of people. 36% of respondents awaited this
opportunity to keep getting better within following three years (REZKOVA 1992).
On the other hand the comparison of inquiries results between 1989 and 1992
showed that the number of people having feelings of fear, uncertainty and worry
grew up four times (TUCEK 1992).
It means that the positive expectation along with the
belief in possibility of the self-assertion prevailed, but was accompanied by
indispensable incidence of worries and uncertainty. Both these phenomena stem
from the re-structuralisation of society and from
redistribution of social statuses. These processes opened on the one hand new
and great possibilities, on the other hand they brought the aggravated burden
on the norms of behaviour and, thus, on the level of moral and legal
consciousness and internalised values.
The liberal orientation that asserts supremacy and
responsibility of citizen became predominant. Emphasis was radically
transferred from the society to the individual. To some extent, at least at the
level of ideology, market mechanisms were "absolutised"
and the opinion that free competition of individual activities in the maximal
space automatically leads to the general welfare was strengthened. New social
harmony was thought to be created on the basis of assertion of individual
interests. (VLACIL 1992). It was the
total contrast in comparison with the official model from the previous period.
Conditions for appearance of deviant behaviour were
naturally growing. Universality of new patterns need not be a significant
advantage in case when new disposable means were not offered to all social
actors. The conformity cannot survive long without reward. If the high level of
positive expectation meets with problems in fulfilling them, the risk of
socio-pathological form of solution is naturally growing.
People who were entering the open space of individual
liberty often had weakened moral standards. Some groups were characterized by a
relatively strong orientation to consumerism and high aspirations accompanied
by impatience and wish to accomplish a rapid mobility. Not all of them were
capable of fulfilling their ambitions in keeping with the law.
Volatile social conditions, relaxed controls, unreadiness to the democratisation of society and opening
up to the world, the upheaval of value system, and an inherited ethical deficit
in society - all this contributed to the misuse of social changes by criminal
elements, and by other people who have lost all their normal scruples against
engaging in criminal activity. One of the consequences of these social
processes also was that some social groups become marginal, and they were not
able to fulfil the requirements of the accepted social model. It results in
their feelings of frustration.
Knowledge based on research findings shows that the
state of social consciousness in the first phase of radical transformation
contained some risky factors that contributed to the possibility of asocial
behaviour. Among them we may mention the high level of positive expectations
and high aspirations based on the desirable model of social success on the one
hand in combination with relative impatience, eagerness and weakened moral
norms as a result of moral devastation and unfulfilled consumer aspirations of
previous period on the other hand. As a certain catalyser could operate growing
and mainly more visible social differentiation and the fact that not all people
were capable to reach their goals and aspirations or to fulfil the new social
model of success by the socially conform way.
The rise in the crime rate which emerged after 1989
can unquestionably be attributed to many causes; however, the state of anomy
cannot be ignored.
REFERENCES
Lubelcová, G., Kriminalita v kontexte sociálnej transformácie na
Slovensku /Crime in the context of social
transformation in
Osmančík,O., et al., Násilná kriminalita
/Violent Crime/. ICSP,
Rezková, M., Možnosti uplatnění schopností před listopadem 1989, dnes a zítra /The
opportunity to exert the personal abilities in 1989, today and tomorrow/. Sociologické aktuality 9/1992.
Statistics of the Czech Police
Svítková, T., Vzpomínky na budoucnost
/Remembrance of the future/. Sociologické aktuality 5/1992
Tuček,M., Vše jde
tak, jak má jít? /Everything O.K.?/. Sociologické aktuality 10/1992
van
Dijk, J.J.M., Mayhew, P., Kriminální
viktimizace v industrializovaném světě
/Criminal victimisation in the industrialised world/.
Vláčil, J., Paradoxy české privatizace /Paradoxes
of the Czech privatisation/. Sociologické aktuality 8-9/1992
* Dr Miroslav Scheinost
is Director of the Institure of Criminology and
Social Prevention, Praha