In this blog post, we’ll examine whether crime stems from an individual’s innate disposition or from environmental factors, drawing on various case studies and modern criminological research.
Most of us have probably heard the story of Jean Valjean, the protagonist of ‘Les Misérables’, at least once during our childhood. Starving and unable to afford bread due to his poverty, Jean Valjean eventually steals a loaf, which leads to his imprisonment. After his release from prison, however, he starts a new life, performs acts of kindness, and becomes a figure of social respect. The question we must consider here is whether Jean Valjean stole the bread because of an inherently evil nature. If he had not been poor and had had enough money to buy bread, would he have committed the same crime? If not, we should not view crime as merely a personal issue; rather, we must identify the root causes that left him with no choice but to commit such a crime to prevent similar crimes from recurring.
The approach that attributes the cause of stealing bread to Jean Valjean’s character is called the dispositional approach; this is the traditional perspective that seeks the cause of behavior in an individual’s character or nature. Conversely, attributing the cause of crime to circumstances is called the situational approach. Let’s apply this concept to everyday life rather than to crime. For example, if a non-smoking woman develops lung cancer, the dispositional approach would attribute the illness to a family history that increases her genetic risk of cancer. In contrast, the situational approach does not attribute the cause to genetics but rather to environmental factors such as secondhand smoke from a spouse or family member, air pollution, or occupational exposure.
A prime example of a crime arising from a constitutional cause is the case of Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy was a handsome man with a good reputation among those around him, yet he was a serial killer who murdered numerous women. Such criminals are commonly referred to as psychopaths. According to modern research, psychopathy cannot be explained solely by damage to the prefrontal cortex; rather, it is known to result from a complex interplay of functional differences in various brain regions involved in empathy and emotional processing, genetic factors, and experiences during development. Such individuals generally lack the ability to empathize with others’ emotions and tend to feel less guilt.
An example of a crime resulting from situational causes is the Rwandan Genocide. At that time, the Hutu carried out a large-scale massacre targeting the Tutsi, another ethnic group. Rape occurred during this process, and people even killed neighbors with whom they had exchanged friendly greetings just the day before. The reason the Hutu committed such brutal crimes was likely not simply because they were inherently evil. Before the crisis, the Hutu were ordinary people as well. It cannot be assumed that if the situation were reversed and the Tutsi were placed in the same circumstances, they would have behaved completely differently from the Hutu. This demonstrates that collective violence cannot be explained solely by an individual’s evil nature but can be influenced by the social environment, political incitement, and group pressure.
However, before discussing how to approach crime, there is a question we must first consider: Can we clearly distinguish whether a crime stems from a temperamental issue or a situational one? Even in the case of Ted Bundy, we cannot definitively state that his childhood environment had no influence whatsoever on the development of his criminal tendencies. Furthermore, there were certainly Hutu people who did not commit murder. Ultimately, crime is often difficult to explain by temperament or environment alone. However, since genetic factors or innate traits are difficult to change in the short term, the areas where society can intervene to prevent crime lie primarily in environmental factors. Therefore, efforts to address the causes of crime by taking a situational approach remain highly significant.
The effectiveness of this approach can be seen by examining cases where crime has been interpreted from a situational perspective rather than a temperamental one. A prime example is the Broken Windows Theory. This theory posits that if minor forms of disorder—such as broken windows in buildings or neglected graffiti—are allowed to persist, they can lead to greater disorder and crime. This theory has had a significant impact on urban and public safety policies in the United States, leading to the implementation of measures such as the removal of subway graffiti and the improvement of public spaces. However, in modern criminology, debate continues over whether the decline in crime rates is actually due to these environmental improvements or to other factors, such as increased police presence or changes in economic conditions. Nevertheless, the point that efforts to improve the environment and maintain community order can have a positive impact on crime prevention continues to receive attention.
One might argue that the effect of a situational approach on reducing crime rates is limited, and that changing one’s disposition is the only way to reduce crime. In particular, in the case of psychopaths, if genetic factors are present, the risk of crime within the same family may increase; therefore, it could be argued that crime cannot be reduced through environmental improvements alone. However, modern research views criminal behavior as emerging from the interaction between genetic and environmental factors. In other words, even if a genetic predisposition exists, the likelihood of crime can be reduced if appropriate education, socialization, a stable home environment, and social support systems are in place. Therefore, efforts to improve the environment remain a crucial means of crime prevention.
If one cannot be certain that they would not commit a crime if placed in the same situation, then one cannot be certain that they would commit a crime either. This raises the question of whether the cause of crime can truly be attributed solely to circumstances. Let’s examine the case of a criminal who committed theft while living in a disadvantaged environment. Since theft is a clear criminal act, the offender will be punished, reflect on their actions, and vow never to steal again. However, if their circumstances do not improve no matter how hard they try after being released from prison, there is a possibility that they will eventually steal again. To prevent this person from reoffending, individual reflection and effort alone are insufficient; social support is needed to address environmental issues such as poverty, unemployment, and social exclusion. As this illustrates, the reason we must approach criminal behavior based on circumstances rather than temperament is not simply to determine whether the cause of crime lies in temperament or circumstances. It is to analyze the causes of crime from a new perspective that goes beyond the traditional temperamental approach and to find more fundamental solutions to reduce crime rates.
If crime is influenced more by circumstances than by an individual’s temperament, one might argue that individuals should not be held responsible for their actions. However, two conditions must be met to exempt individuals from criminal responsibility when imposing punishment. First, the circumstances surrounding the crime must be completely identical. Second, under those same circumstances, everyone—without exception—must commit the same crime.
However, these conditions have limitations. First, regarding the first condition, it is practically difficult for a situation to be completely identical. This is because even if the circumstances leading to the crime are the same, the individual’s prior environment can influence the current crime. Therefore, there is no clear criterion for determining where to begin considering the situation, and if one were to take into account the circumstances prior to the specific moment the crime occurred, a perfectly identical situation would be virtually impossible. The second condition also has the limitation that it is difficult to verify the truth or falsity of the proposition. This is because it is impossible to place everyone in the exact same situation, and even if they were, the proposition would not hold true if there were even a single exception.
Due to these limitations, a cautious approach is necessary when fundamentally changing the current legal system. Furthermore, the ultimate purpose of imposing punishment on offenders is not only retribution but also reducing the likelihood of recidivism through rehabilitation.
The Stanford Prison Experiment, widely known in social psychology, is often cited as an example demonstrating how circumstances can influence human behavior. However, recent criticism has been raised regarding the research methodology and the issue of researcher intervention. Nevertheless, this experiment prompts us to consider that humans can exhibit unexpected behavior within specific social contexts. While people may commit crimes depending on the situation, external intervention that helps them recognize such behavior as wrong is also crucial. This is the role of the police, and it is also the reason why offenders are punished and isolated from society for a certain period. However, these measures alone are not sufficient, because crime is both an individual problem and a societal one. If the environment does not change, similar crimes may continue to occur. Therefore, it is necessary to approach crime from a situational perspective and make efforts to change those circumstances. This is the essence of welfare policy and one of the important roles the state must fulfill. We must all take some responsibility and reflect on the social conditions that have placed an ordinary person in a situation where they had no choice but to commit a crime.
