Towards a Caribbean Criminology: Prospects and Problems

• Author: Richard R. Bennett and James P. Lynch
• Pages: 43-65

43

TOWARDS A CARIBBEAN CRIMINOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing trend in social science,

and specifically in criminology, of

establishing sub disciplines that focus on a

particular substantive area or research

question. As a result, there is an increase in

the number of journals and scholarly

associations whose purpose is to highlight

and report research findings in narrowly

defined sub areas within a discipline (e.g.

Division of Women and Crime, the Division

of International Criminology, and the

Division on Critical Criminology of the

American Society of Criminology). Often

these sub disciplines seem to be formed more

to provide a focal point for scholars and to

provide visibility for their concerns than for

any compelling intellectual reason. It is not

clear that these groups have contributed to

theory in any meaningful way. Indeed, this

‘ghetto-isation’ of likeminded people could

retard theory development by reducing the

scrutiny to which their arguments and

research findings are subjected. The counter

argument, of course, is that without this

separation minority voices would not be

heard in the discourse of the discipline. Thus,

the sociological importance of such

specialisation and its importance for

building theory, directing research, and

forming social policy are matters currently

under debate.

The purpose of this paper is to examine

the need for a sub discipline that focuses on

the Caribbean as a unique area of study in

criminology. We will briefly review the major

theories of crime, and then assess whether

the uniqueness of the Caribbean renders our

Towards a

Caribbean

Criminology:

Prospects and

Problems1

Richard R. Bennett and

James P. Lynch

Three

44

CRIME, DELINQUENCY AND JUSTICE

current theories inappropriate or incapable of explaining and predicting crime in

the region and whether a sub discipline of Caribbean criminology is intellectually

necessary. Finally, we will discuss some issues of crime in the Caribbean, what

further knowledge is required, and what the prospects of accessing and collecting

the necessary data in the region are.

MAJOR THEORIES

Major theories in criminology can be usefully grouped as being macro social

theories or micro social theories (Nettler 1984). The former, attempts to explain

changes in the level and the distribution of crime, across groups in society, while

the latter attempts to explain the occurrence of specific crimes or the distribution

of criminal motivation. In keeping with this focus, macro theories examine the

attributes of societies and their change over time while micro theories explore

the attributes of small groups and individuals. Within these two major groupings,

theories can be subdivided into conflict theories and consensus theories. Conflict

theories assume that law is largely a tool of elites used to maintain their advantage

(Quinney 1980, Young 1989, Young and Mathews, 1992). In contrast, consensus

theories assume that the law expresses the moral consensus in society (Nettler

1984). Consistent with these assumptions, conflict theories focus on the process

of marginalisation and how marginalisation contributes to the criminalisation of

activity and the use of coercion in response to crime (Chiricos and DeLeon 1992).

This coercion, of course, maintains the advantage of the elites. Consensus theories,

on the other hand, emphasise the socialisation process, since criminal activity is

the result of imperfect internalisation of societal norms.

Within these categories of theory a great deal of useful work has been done to

specify the unique conditions that result in marginalisation and coercion or in

more or less perfect socialisation. One of the greatest problems in building an

integrated theory of crime, however, is the limited amount of work that has been

done to link micro and macro theories in either the conflict or consensus schools.

Usually, scholars who take a micro focus assume certain macro social conditions

and vice versa. There are a few notable exceptions where macro social theories

have been linked with micro social processes to provide a cogent picture of how

society influences crime. One of these exceptions is the human ecology theories

of crime formulated by the Chicago School of Sociology. The other is development

theories.

The human ecology theories of crime mainly examine the influence of

urbanisation and immigration on the level and distribution of crime in areas

(Shaw and McKay 1969, Park et al. 1967, Bursik and Webb 1982). They link these

macro social factors to the process of socialisation through the concept of

disorganisation. Immigrants and migrants are drawn to the city by the promise

of jobs in industry. Since these recent arrivals are without resources, they gravitate

to the inexpensive and least desirable residential areas which are usually at the