In order to understand why individuals commit crimes it is important to understand the hierarchical nature of social structures. Social structures are the result of the context that is created by the State (Rothbard, 1964). The State sets rules that regulate behavioral interaction between the individuals that reside within its borders. The social context is thus created as a series of mandates passed down from the State to moderate behavioral interactions between individuals (See Rothbard, 1964; Hayek, 1944).
Natural Law predates an individual and upon birth their behavior becomes self-regulatory. It thus follows that self-regulation is heavily reliant on their own knowledge and predisposition in reaction to stimuli in their surrounding environment (Bandura, 1989). It would be simplistic to imply that individuals exercise autonomous agency only, just as it would be equally simplistic to imply that individuals only exercise mechanical agency (Bandura, 1989). According to Social Cognitive theory, individuals exercise personal agency as an interdependent process of predisposition, experience, and surrounding environments (Bandura, 1989; Bandura, 2006). Bandura (1989) further notes that cognitive processes affect thought patterns that can become either self-aiding or self-hindering (p. 1175). Put another way; individuals possess traits they are born with. Those traits help them to navigate the environment in which they are placed, and they use those traits to interact with that environment (Bandura, 1989). Human agency requires individuals to regulate their behavior by exercising self-appraisals, as well as appraisals of their surroundings. Individuals are also capable of setting goals for themselves through self-efficacious processes (Bandura, 1989).
Praxeology is another way of explaining human agency. It is a concept that asserts human action as essential to life processes of an individual and that human action requires individuals to act in order to fulfill a need to assuage a discomfort or change in their present situation (Mises, 1947; Rothbard, 1962). The fact that a person acts to change their present circumstances and to improve upon them is broadly deemed to be a rational action; that is, purposeful behavior designed to modify present circumstances (Mises, 1947 and Rothbard, 1962).
Because an individual’s life is driven by a series of self-sustaining actions, it follows that individuals are the drivers of their own actions and those actions must allow them to produce things that will sustain their lives. It thus follows that individuals are producers, economic beings whose self-sustaining actions are driven to advance their own lives (Mises, 1947). Because individuals are economic beings, it follows that they are also social beings.
Individuals however, are not born with an imprint of what rules of conduct are or should be. Rules of conduct become a learning process for individuals and as they learn their conduct may become more stable as they make their way through their life course. Some however, display marked symptoms of behavior that is detrimental to their interaction with the group (See Moffitt, 1993; Rutter, 1996). Others become influenced by their immediate peer group to engage in behavior that may bring for them prestige (Moffitt, 1993). Moffitt (1993) suggested in her dual taxonomy that some juveniles who were deemed Adolescent “Limiteds”, that they engaged in delinquent behavior as a result of obtaining adult benefits which improved their prestige among their peer group.
It is understood that unwritten rules and norms of behavior mediate everyday interaction of individuals living within this context (Rutter, 1996; Mises, 1947; Massoglia & Uggen, 2010). Because individuals are cognitive and social beings, they also can select the environments in which they choose to live (Bandura, 1989 and Bandura, 2006). As Laub & Sampson (2003) illustrated, some of the men that were a part of the Glueck study who failed to desist from criminality continued to persist in the environment that had previously proven toxic to them. This does not necessarily mean the selection process is entirely their own. Social context is driven by a multitude of other factors.
Social customs and norms among social groups differentiate themselves from codified laws that govern the social group overall. The system that Laub & Sampson (2003) distinguished in their work is known as a system of formal and informal social controls. Formal social controls are those mediated by the State and its punitive mechanisms, and informal social controls are those non-codified rules of behavior that govern everyday interaction between individuals as members of an immediate social group (Laub & Sampson, 2003). For example, individuals can become vested with social capital in things such as 1) Marriage, 2) Employment 3) Peer networks etc. (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 1993 and Massoglia & Uggen, 2010). These informal controls act as checks on individual’s behavior to keep them bonded to his community/environment.
Individuals do not live in a state of nature; however, individuals form their communities voluntarily. It was asserted earlier their environments are influenced by the hierarchical nature of formal community order and organizing. The State organizes society from the top down (Rothbard, 1964). Despite what adherents of social disorganization might assert, communities in reality are not organized spontaneously or without the influence of the State in their affairs (Cullen & Agnew, 2011). In explaining the concept of social disorganization adherents of the Chicago school imply that the State is necessary to organize society (Cullen & Agnew; and Shaw & McKay, 1942). It further implies that without the State exercising its hand in community affairs the community left to its own devices will become crime ridden and chaos will ensue (Rothbard, 1964). The individual persists in this environment in spite of peers, and in spite of the State’s role in their affairs (Bandura, 1989 and Bandura 2006).
The State is actively involved and is the surest progenitor of the social context that individuals must live in and navigate through (Rothbard, 1964; Hayek, 1944). If there are areas of social disorganization within the State and the State is necessary to organize society, surely it must follow that the State assumes a measure of responsibility for the disorganization in communities and thus the crime that ensues (Cullen & Agnew, 2011; Shaw & McKay, 1942). As Rothbard (1964) states, “an ideological camouflage” becomes a common theme in political discourse in which people living under the umbrella of the State assert that, “We are the Government”, and “the government is us.” This misconstrued concept of linking lives through State policy ostracizes those who would fall out of favor with social norms and pit the few versus the many under the ideological camouflage that Rothbard (1964) previously discussed. The Rousseuian belief that linked the lives of individuals living under the often undefined floating abstraction known as the “Social Contract” or “We are the Government” became a common myth floated amongst the community to explain “rule of law” and the benevolent nature of the State (Rothbard, 1964). The idea of a majority rule to make laws that officiate individual behavior became known as just, and institutions with punitive powers were established to monitor the behaviors of individuals and if necessary to punish them when they have acted outside of its dictates (Foucalt, 1975; Rothbard, 1964).
The State also becomes the arbiter of social stigmas that become associated with individuals who act outside the law. Stigmas such as “societal leper”, “sociopath” or “career criminal” serve to isolate individuals acting outside the law ,and to pit them against their peer group and community (Gottfredson & Hirschi; Massoglia & Uggen, 2010; and Foucalt, 1975; Maruna, 2001). The punitive mechanism of the State serves to interrupt lives and an individual’s development as they traverse through their life course. Of course there are some individuals who remain obedient to the rules of conduct that are set by the State.
Crime exists somewhere in between human agency and State power. Certainly it would be overly simplistic and dismissive to lay blame entirely on the State without any accountability given to the individual; however the individual exists within the context the State sets to moderate behavior. In addition, the State’s role can become toxic to an individual’s environment by it’s over-regulating behavior. As it was written, peer groups serve to be a strong social mechanism that informally moderates behavior of individual and is a powerful deterrent for individuals who engage in criminal activity (Laub & Sampson, 2003). It should be noted however that the more laws the State passes to moderate such behavior, the more likely and probability that an individual will engage in criminal activity (Hayek, 1944). Human beings have the ability to be self sufficient and self-efficacious (Bandura, 1989 and Bandura, 2006). In spite of the State, individuals still remain free to choose the environment and make the choices that affect their life course. Some literature implies that these choices begin early in the individual’s life course (See Moffitt, 1993; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Whether or not the individual persists ultimately depends on how the State modifies the behavior through rehabilitation or other punitive sanctions. It certainly is a frightening prospect to consider the balance and implications of behavioral modification when analyzed at its extreme. Early identification of what is deemed antisocial that place lifelong markers on individuals may be an efficient way to predict crime (or at least more efficient than practices currently being used by both the State and criminologists); however, marking individuals as being criminal may set the stage, and perhaps engage a domino affect that may have implications for an individuals future as he traverses his life course (See Massoglia & Uggen; Rutter, 1996; Moffitt, 1993; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1987).
Historical literature implies that the context that individuals exercise with their personal agency is consistent with the idea that individuals are economic beings and are moved to constantly act to improve their circumstances. In reviewing the literature it is safe to say that the State is culpable with the creation of the criminal. It is not simply the activities of the individuals to engage in criminal activity, or to persist or desist from criminal activity. Certainly the State can have a measurable rate of success through positive interventions by offering military service as a means for poor and disadvantaged juveniles in order to escape toxic environments plus government intervention with offerings such as the GI Bill, military service, etc. (Elder, 1993 and Laub & Sampson, 2003). Although these amenities are available to the individual as they traverse through their life courses the paradoxical branding that can occur can equally devastate their future (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 1995).
The State sets the context prior to the individuals contact with the justice system. First, individuals are accountable to their family, nominally their parents. They enter grade school and an additional layer is added to social controls, and the bonds they make with their respective communities. As the individual grows older and more accountable, the justice system becomes more and more of an ever-present fact of life. As the individual navigates their life course trajectory they must face the growing social expectations of age appropriate behavior (Rutter, 1996). These expectations from their parents, from their school, and/or from their community, and perhaps most powerfully: expectations from their peer group may have a long term effect of their life course trajectory (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Rutter, 1996; Massoglia & Uggen, 2010). All of these informal norms that the individual faces are overseen by the State who exercises a final punitive function, moderated by constant surveillance of the community and a final monopoly of power to direct the life course of individuals (Foucalt, 1975; Massoglia & Uggen, 2010).
It should come as no surprise that should the State become involved in an individual’s life course, the issue of branding and interruption becomes a factor in affecting future life course trajectories (Massoglia & Uggen, 2010). Certainly this does not imply that the individual does not exercise a rational choice nor should it imply that the State determines those choices for the individual (Laub & Sampson, 2003). The State whom exercises a monopoly on punitive measures and use of force over its citizens who violate norms of behavior and codified law, also becomes the sole arbiter of policies that may impact future life course trajectories (Travis & Petersilia, 2001). Mass incarceration which is the result of punitive sentencing guidelines as well as draconian drug laws, have a specific impact on individuals who begin to engage in criminal activity as well as whether or not they will recidivate criminal activities in the future. Furthermore, since the State can interrupt an individuals life by creating a “rap sheet” (criminal history), incarcerate (delay employment opportunities), it can be said that the State’s interruptive nature in everyday life for the individual plays a powerful role in future choices the individual may make (Laub & Sampson, 2003).
It has been stated that the more the State encroaches in the lives of individuals, the more likely those same individuals will be likely to commit a criminal act (Hayek, 1944). The State is the catalytic progenitor of social context, through which human agency is exercised (Bandura, 1989; Bandura, 2006). Although it would be a mistake to presume that the State should be completely and arbitrarily stripped of its sole monopoly on moderating and regulating individual behavior, it would be equally mistaken to dismiss a measure of culpability when examining the policies and punitive functions the State enacts to regulate that behavior.
