Criminology Through The Eyes of Faith

The idea that knowledge can come from any place other than science is anathema to many within the modern intellectual community. This particular blog may even place me in bad standing among some of my future intellectual peers in academia, but I think it is an important and interesting topic to discuss (or at least for me). The fundamental question is "how can I rectify the ideas of criminological theory with my personal spiritual faith and worldview?"

To those who would point to science as the pinnicle of all knowledge and require that God be proven scientifically, I ask them to consider the deeper epistemology of their scientific knowledge. How do we really know what we know? Even if one does not believe in God, are there not common fundamental principles of logic that form a foundation for discovering any kind of knowledge, whether it be scientific knowledge or knowledge of God? I believe in the importance of people having a unifying worldview that they are able to articulate and apply to every area of their lives. So, I want to use this particular post to inject some thoughts stemming from my personal faith/worldview into this blog on the topic of criminology. As always, I'm looking for discussion and people to engage me on these topics.

When I was working on my undergraduate degree in sociology at a small Christian liberal arts school, I came across a series of books in my coursework that have always stuck in the back of my mind. I'm not sure if this is the correct title for the series of books, but I refer to them as the "through the eyes of faith" series. Each book in the series examined a different academic subject "through the eyes of faith". For example, as a sociology major I was required to read the "Sociology Through The Eyes of Faith" book. But I never came across a "Criminology Through The Eyes of Faith" book. In one of my last blogs, I mentioned that I've often wondered what my first book will be when I finish my Ph.D. work. I already talked about what may be my first book idea. My second book idea, though, would be a contribution to the "through the eyes of faith" series with a new book entitled "Criminology Through The Eyes of Faith". Here's some preliminary thoughts on how I would tie in ideas from criminological theory with ideas from my faith.

First, I believe that my faith is most consistent with the classical school of criminology (my affinity to social control theory will probably become more and more obvious as I blog more on this site). Specifically, many of the modern theories in criminology that grow out of the classical school tradition in criminology begin by turning the fundamental questions of positive criminology on their head. Positive school criminologists ask how individuals become criminal, or how one is "pressured into crime" (Agnew, 2006). Classical school criminologists reverse the important questions and ask why individuals obey the law or behave, given a natural human tendency to maximize pleasure over pain. This is consistent with the Biblical worldview that all humans are born with a sinful nature. Under the Biblical worldview, a person is not born as a clean slate, as is suggested by positivist criminology. The gravitation of the human will is towards "sin" from day one. This worldview is empirically supported implicitly in the work of Nagin and Trembley on childhood aggression. In their work, they find that when aggression is used as the dependent variable instead of state-defined criminal behavior, aggression does not peak in the late teens to early twenties like criminal behavior tends to do, but instead peaks at around two years old. So two year olds are the most aggressive in our society! This would be very difficult to observe if behavior like this must be learned in life instead of being part of an inherited universal human tendency. It seems from Nagin and Tremblay's findings that we have to explain the downside of that aggression curve after age two (i.e., why do most children decline in aggression after age two?).

This is where I think theories like routine activities theory, deterrence/rational choice theory, and social control theory come in. These theories all avoid looking for predictors of some positive compulsion towards criminal behavior. Instead they examine what keeps anyone from committing crimes. Routine activities theory suggests that something within the situation deters or prevents a criminal event from occuring(i.e., the lack of a suitable target or the defense provided by a "capable guardian"), even though the motivation for criminal behavior is always there as a constant. Deterrence/rational choice theory suggests that crime is prevented when the costs of a particular criminal event outweigh the benefits to a would-be offender. Social control theory suggests that the human "sin" tendency is contained by social institutions (both formal and informal) that carry some level of attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief on the part of the individual, for which he or she does not wish to jeoporadize losing through criminal behavior.

One theory that I particularly like is Gottfredson and Hirschi's Self-Control theory (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Recall from their theory that criminal propensity is analagous to low self-control, which is a character trait that all possess originally in life but that is contained by most, primarily through good parenting, by around the age of ten. Those who do not develop self-control after that age generally possess a fixed criminal propensity for the remainder of their lives (I do not like this aspect of their theory, since it denies the Biblical concept of redemption). Their definition of self-control (although I know this definition is debatable and has evolved even for Gottfredson and Hirschi) is something along the line of discounting future costs for short term gain. Does this not basically squarely fit with modern secularism. I was listening just today to a lecture by noted Presbyterian theologian R.C. Sproul on the topic of secularism. Secularism denies that there is any reality outside of our existence here and now on earth. This is the ultimate discounting of the future. Could a measure of a secularist worldview identify an association between this worldview and criminal behavior? Would this not in part fit with self-control theory? To me, the opposite of true self-control is self-worship, and self-worship is the hallmark of secular humanism.

Here's another concept that I think fits with my worldview. I was also reading a piece by Cook and Laub (2002) today on the downturn of the youth violence epidemic after 1993/1994. They examine period and cohort explanations for these macro-crime trends. Of course they are not the only to do so. My mentor Al Blumstein has done the same in his book on the crime drop. But I find the whole categorizaton of explanations by the label of "period" and "cohort" interesting. From my worldview, since the "sinful human nature" is universal, the only cohort effect that could ever really be expected to impact macro-crime trends in any meaningful way is simply the size of the cohort. One cohort should not be expected to be more or less "sinful" than another. Thus, I think period explanations for macro-crime trends, many of which are "routine activity" in nature, fit more clearly with a Biblical worldview.

I could continue this blog but let me just wrap up by suggesting one other thing. I don't like when I hear Christians basically say that criminology is a simple discipline because the explanation for crime is just "sin". I do indeed believe that sin is the root explanation for criminal behavior. But it is also the root explanation for health problems. And yet why do some sinners commit crimes while others don't and why do some sinners get cancer while others don't. We don't say to medical scientists that they should just accept "sin" as the answer to their inquiry. We don't hear Christians going around saying that sin causes cancer either; instead they say things like "smoking causes cancer". So to me the interesting thing for a Christian criminologist to figure out is why sin plays itself out in criminal behavior for some but plays itself out for others in other areas that are not criminally related.