Every opinion I have expressed. Should not be understood as a statement, but as a question. Niels Bohr

The subject of criminology is extensive: criminality as a social phenomenon, crime as an individual behavioral act, the genesis of criminality, the mechanism of individual criminal behavior, certain types of crimes (violent, against property, organized crime, etc.), the identity of the offender, the victim of the crime, social reaction to crime, history criminology and the history of criminality, the methodology of criminology and methods of criminological research.

And yet, among the other questions (problems, topics) studied by criminology, three are fundamental: what is criminality? What is the genesis (causes, factors) of criminality? What to do with crimes (social control, punishment, prevention)?

Countless literature is available on all three issues, including the work of the author of these lines. It would seem that everything that could be said was said a thousand times (each author in his own way). At the same time, in recent years, both in Russian and in world literature, they are talking more and more persistently about the crisis of criminology and the need for new breakthrough ideas. It’s hard to disagree. The contemporary world of postmodern (post-classical, post-industrial) with its countless features makes us look at it differently [1]. At the same time, such principles of science as the relativity of knowledge and the polyparadigm in the conditions of postmodern uncertainty are preserved and “aggravated”.

Maybe I should take part in criminological polyphony?

Crime is normal, because society without a crime is completely impossible. Emil Durkheim

In recent decades, it has become clear to most criminologists: in reality, there is no object that would be “crime” (or “crime”) by its intrinsic, immanent, essential properties, sui generis per se. Crime and crime are relative, conditional concepts (“contractual”: as legislators “agree”), these are social constructions that only partially reflect some social realities: some people kill others, some capture other people's things (steal), some deceive others and etc. But the same maintenance actions cannot be recognized as crimes: killing an enemy in a war (feat!), killing by a sentence (capital punishment), killing in a state of necessary defense, mastering things by another court decision, deceiving the state of its citizens and etc.

The realization that many familiar social phenomena are nothing more than constructions, more or less artificial, “built” by society, developed in the social sciences in the second half of the twentieth century. [2]

Meanwhile, crime is not something natural, but the essence is a social construct, and according to Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677): “In the natural state there is nothing that would be good or evil admittedly. In the natural state, one cannot imagine crimes; it is possible only in a civil state, where by common agreement it is determined what is good and what is bad, and where everyone must obey the state. Thus, a crime is nothing but disobedience, punished as a result of this only by state law”. [3]

Later, Piterim Sorokin writes: “There is not a single act that in its content would be a criminal offense; and acts of murder and salvation, truth and falsehood, theft and gift, enmity and love, sexual uncrowdedness and temperance, etc. - All these actions can be both a crime and not a crime in different codes, depending on who they are committed, against whom they were committed, under what conditions they occurred. Therefore, to classify certain acts by their content as criminal offenses. a hopeless task.” [4]

And although with regard to our subject such awareness was still inherent in Ancient Rome (ex senatusconsultis et plebiscitis crimina exercentur - crimes arise from Senate and popular decisions), in modern criminology, the recognition of crime by a social construction came relatively late, but today it is shared by most foreign criminologists. [5,6,7,8,9,10] This is clearly stated by the German criminologists H. Hess and S. Scheerer: crime is not an ontological phenomenon, but a mental structure that has a historical and volatile nature. Crime is almost entirely constructed by regulatory institutions, which set norms and attribute certain values to actions. Crime is a social and linguistic construct. [11]

The Dutch criminologist L. Hulsman writes about this: “Crime is not an ontological reality. Crime is not an object, but a product of criminal policy. Criminalization is one of many ways to build social reality. ”

N.Christie (Norway) dwells on the fact that crime has no natural boundaries. It is a product of cultural, social and mental processes. And from here, it would seem, a paradoxical conclusion: "Crime does not exist".

The understanding of crime and crime as social constructs is substantiated in detail, and the process of such construction is considered in the Oxford Handbook of Criminology.

So, “the term crime is a label that we apply to behavior that violates the law. The key point is that the crime is generated by criminal law, which is created by people. Crime as such does not exist in nature; it's a fiction of people. “It’s like that. As well as the ideas of cultural criminology (J. Ferrell, D. Garland, C. Hayward, J. Young). Crime is a cultural product, an indispensable element of culture. Let's move on. More precisely, let us return to E. Durkheim: “Crime is a normal phenomenon, because a society without crime is completely impossible.” And now forward again: “criminal” behavior is “normal”, usually natural. What society (state, government) considers “criminal”, people constantly commit at all times.

I have long noticed: “From our point of view, a person’s whole life is nothing but an ontologically undivided activity to satisfy his needs. I’m tired and drink a glass of wine or a glass of cognac, or I smoke "Marlboro", or I drink a cup of coffee, or I sniff cocaine, or I smoke a cigarette with marijuana. For me, all this is just a means to relieve fatigue, to cheer up. And why the first four methods are socially acceptable, and the last two “deviant”, and even criminal, punishable - there is the result of a social construct “here and now” (for a glass of wine is forbidden in Muslim countries, marijuana is allowed in the Netherlands, Czech Republic, some US states, tobacco was banned in Spain during the time of Columbus on pain of death, etc.). In other words, a person’s life activity is a flame, fire, some languages of which are recognized - justifiably or not very - as dangerous to others, and therefore are “put out” by society (in the case of moral condemnation) or by the state (in violation of legal prohibitions)” [12].

Let's go even further. Man is a representative of the biological genus Homo Sapiens, which exists along with thousands of other biological species - animals, birds, fish. True, man is the most predatory of all living creatures: “Man is the only species in which the struggle is destructive” (N. Tinbergen, Nobel Prize in Biology); “Man differs from animals precisely in that he is a killer” [13]. It is known that lions often kill lions, that female mantis (and often a spider) kill males, and that sometimes (not as often as humans) monkeys can kill one another in a fight. And why are people “worse”? If the killing of representatives of a kind happens in the animal world, then it is even more common in the world of people. It is known that animals often drag pieces of food from each other. And why are people “worse”? To steal from another (food, money, and clothes) is normal! Indeed, “property is a theft” in itself [14] in primitive society there was no concept of ownership. The peoples killed, but didn’t steal - there was nothing to steal, everything was common. Yes, the above is a definite hyperbole, but just a hyperbole, behind which lies the normality of everything that a person does - kills, rapes, steals, robs, deceives, etc., etc. Normality is not in the sense of good, right, but in the sense of - naturally, pervasively, exist.

I wrote and got scared: how many indignant denials will be sprinkled on me! And if you think about it? To think for a long time? Once again: the above is not an excuse for what is called a “crime” in most societies of people, but an understanding of the inevitability of all kinds of acts, deeds of people, including those that are very dangerous for others. Yes, I’m not alone: “Understanding crime as a special phenomenon is also in doubt. It is not opposed to society, but accompanies it”. Therefore, “the prevailing attitude towards crime must be demystified. Criminality should be studied and evaluated as having, like other phenomena, part of real behavior”. [15]

At the same time, the current criminal legislation of many countries, including Russia, is redundant and makes every citizen a criminal.

And maybe the largest representative of the criminal law of Germany, Professor H.-H. Jescheck, who raised the question of the abolition of criminal legislation incompatible with human and civil rights, is right? [16]. “In any case, the negative consequences of the existence and operation of the criminal law should be reduced to the extent possible” [15].

At least since the eighteenth century (C. Beccaria, I. Bentham) and in detail since the nineteenth century (C. Lombroso, J. Tarde, A. Quetelet and others) criminologists are trying to find the "cause" of the criminality. They look in biology and genetics (biological or anthropological direction), psychology (psychological direction), social factors (sociological direction).

Obviously, there is no and cannot be a single reason for a variety of crimes. You can find many factors - social, economic, political, demographic and even cosmic (the works of A. L. Chizhevsky), which to a greater or lesser extent correlate with the volume, dynamics, structure of certain types of crimes. I myself am interested and appreciate the established correlation dependencies of serious violent crimes on economic inequality (from K. Marx and P. Sorokin to S. Olkov, E. Olkova, I. Skifsky, E. Yuzikhanova).

But if crimes are “normal” actions, if each of us commits “crimes”. Can it be pointless to look for reasons, factors that determine exactly a criminality (crimes)? Do not the same factors determine drug addiction, suicide, prostitution [17] and scientific, technical, artistic [18] creation and the most ordinary actions of ordinary (but so different) people?

Again, I'm afraid - how many angry objections will fall on my head! For centuries, forensic investigators have sought the causes of crimes, how many have been found, but it seems they aren't there?!

I will explain. Of course, many of the factors identified by criminologists affect the state, trends and structure of crime. But the same factors affect other undesirable or desirable actions, any actions of people. Thus, the growth of economic inequality can lead to an increase in the number of violent and mercenary crimes, to drunkenness and drug use, to death (suicide), to creativity, simply to the poverty of some people and others to excessive wealth. The same social, economic, political, psychological and other factors affect any behavior of people. Therefore, are criminogenic factors criminogenic? Yes. But equally alcohol genic, narcogenic, suicidal, generating creative activity and everyday life.

One should give up hope associated with the illusion of control. Niklas Luhman

Social control over criminality (with the goal of its maximum reduction or "elimination") is one of the most pressing problems of modern criminal policy of states, world and domestic criminology. Is it possible to effectively “reduce” (“eliminate”!) what is objective social reality?

Therefore, it is logical that at the same time as the beginning of a new period in the history of mankind - the era of postmodern - the realization of the “crisis of punishment” comes [19]. Punishment intended to fulfill the function of deterrence, reduce crime, is inefficient, does not fulfill the tasks assigned to it! [20,21,22] 

This is quite convincingly said by domestic authors. “The implementation of the criminal law can become completely intolerable for society, blocking other social processes. A reasonable decrease in the amount of legal violence can more likely protect the interests of the country. Punishment is an obvious expense and implicit benefit. One should take into account the well-known properties of criminal law, consisting in that it is an extremely costly and highly dangerous means of influencing social relations” [23]. And again: "Without a doubt, punishment is a reaction to a perfect evil, but in this sense, punishment is the same evil” [24].

“The crisis of punishment” is manifested, in particular, in the fact that [1] the most severe punishments in the history of mankind (including qualified death sentences - burning alive, pouring hot lead into the throat, etc.) did not “liquidate” crime; [2] from the end of World War II to the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, the crime rate increased throughout the world, despite all the efforts of the police and criminal justice (and from the end of the 1990s to the beginning of the 2000s it decreased) in all countries, regardless of the activities of law enforcement agencies; [3] the relapse rate is relatively constant for each country (and in Russia it has increased over the past ten years from 25% to 54%, which indicates the complete ineffectiveness of the punishment). In addition, according to psychologists, a long stay in isolation leads to irreversible changes psyche (of course, not in the best direction).

Punishment in Russia, as in other countries, does not achieve any of the goals listed in Part 2 of Art. 43 of the criminal code. The concept of social justice is extremely vague. From whose point of view is justice - the accused, the victim, their relatives, the court, the prosecutor, the lawyer, various groups of the population with different ideas about justice? Correction of anyone is impossible by punishment. Be it the punishment of a child, subordinate or person who committed a crime. As the entire historical experience of mankind testifies, neither a general warning (people committed, commit, and will commit crimes) nor a special warning (as evidenced by the relatively constant or increasing proportion of recidivism) is effective.

At the same time, mankind and each country individually are not ready today to abandon criminal prosecution and punishment. Consequently, the problem arises of improving the system of punishments and minimizing their harmful consequences.

A few words about the death penalty. The death penalty is murder, a crime unacceptable by the state. C. Beccaria wrote about this back in the 18th century: “The death penalty cannot be useful. It seems ridiculous to me that the laws. Which prohibit and punish murder, themselves commit it and, in order to avert citizens from killing, they themselves prescribe it” [25]. B. Shaw called the death penalty "the worst kind of murder". And the Russian professor M.N. Gernet believed that the death penalty is "the institution of legal murder” [26]. The death penalty should be permanently excluded from the list of punishments. More and more states are taking this path. By 2018, the death penalty has been abolished by law in 106 countries and another 36 are not actually applied (142 countries in total). The death penalty remains in 58 countries.

With the abolition of the death penalty, deprivation of liberty becomes the “highest measure”. And the use of deprivation of liberty should be minimized (if the world is not ready to abandon it). “All the shortcomings of the prison are known. This is known to be dangerous, if not useless. And yet no one “sees” what to replace him with. This is a disgusting decision, which is obviously impossible to do without” [27]. As the experience of many European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, shows, an understanding of the “crisis of punishment” and the inefficiency of imprisonment should entail the following consequences.

As a rule, imprisonment can only be used for violent crimes and only for adults.

The term of imprisonment, as a rule, should not exceed two to three years. So, in most countries of Northern and Western Europe, the term of imprisonment is calculated in weeks and months (and by no means decades)! For example, in 2016, according to information provided at the European Conference of Criminologists, the average prison term in European countries did not exceed 1 year 8 months. In Japan, only 3-5% of all convicts are sentenced to imprisonment (85% are sentenced to a fine), and the term of imprisonment usually does not exceed two years. A real reduction in the terms of imprisonment is all the more necessary in postmodern society, which, along with other features, is characterized by the acceleration of time. If 10-20 years ago a convicted person, freed from prison, returned to the familiar world, today, having served “only” five to six years, he found himself in a completely unfamiliar situation: his previous job was occupied by robots, one children alone in China, another in the USA, drones rush around the city, and drones above the house, instead of money and a passport, some card. How to survive in a completely unusual world?

And, perhaps, the most important thing: the conditions for serving a sentence of imprisonment should not be repressive, but aimed at re-socializing, re-adaptation of convicts, training them in new professions or raising their professional level. Prisoners should live in normal, human, familiar conditions, be provided with high-quality nutrition, modern medical care, the ability to use modern technical means (telephone, computer). And this is not just good wishes, but a reality carried out, for example, in the countries of Northern and Western Europe.

We must not forget that deprivation of liberty in itself is a heavy punishment that cannot be tightened by the conditions of serving.

Mankind today is not ready either to abandon the criminal law or to refuse punishments, in particular, such ineffective and “harmful” ones as imprisonment. Therefore, the challenge is to reduce the harm from punishment. “An important indicator of the danger of the state is the degree of penitentiary control over citizens: does the state often apply criminal penalties” [24].

Of course, all of the above does not mean a refusal to further study criminality, its genesis, and social control over it. Rather, the opposite. All those doubts about the widespread views on these social phenomena that have been expressed above make even deeper, more thoroughly, more critically, delve into their study. Yes, as long as humanity exists, its representatives will commit acts recognized by compatriots as harmful and unacceptable (“crimes”). Yes, people will look for methods and ways to minimize extremely undesirable acts and develop various types of creativity.

The further development of criminology (however, like most sciences) is the task, first of all, of young researchers who are not burdened with a load of professional knowledge.

1. Gilinskiy Y. Crime and Social Control in the Postmodern Society. In: Plywaczewski E, Guzik-Makaruk E. Current Problems of the Penal Law and Criminology. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo CH. Beck. 2017.
2. Berger P, Luckmann T. The Social Construction of Reality. 1966.
3. Spinoza B. Featured Works. M: Gospolitizdat. In Russian.1957.
4. Sorokin P. Person. Civilization. Society. M. in Russian. 1992.
5. Barkan S. Criminology: A Sociological Understanding. - New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. 1997.
6. Caffrey S, Mundy C. The Sociology of Crime and Deviance. Greenwich University Pres. 1995.
7. De Keseredy W, Schwartz M. Contemporary Criminology. Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1996.
8. Gregoriou Ch. Constructing Crime. Palgrave Macmillan. 2012.
9. Hester S, Eglin P. Sociology of Crime. NY, L: Routledge. 1992; 27- 46.
10. Muncie J, McLaughin E. The Problem of Crime. SAGE. 1996; 13.
11. Hess H, Scheerer S. Was ist Kriminalität? Kriminologische Journal. Heft 2. 1997.
12. Gilinsiy Y. Criminology: Theory, history, empirical basis, social control. 4th ed. SPb: Alef-Press in Russian. 2002.
13. Fromm E. Anatomy of human destructiveness. M: Republic in Russian. 1994
14. Proudhon P. What is property – SPb in Russian. 1907.
15. Zhailnsky AE. Selected Works. Criminology. M: WSE in Russian. 2014.
16. Jescheck H. Lehrbuch des Strafrechts. Allgemeiner Teil. 4 Aufl. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot. 1988.
17. Gilinskiy Y. Deviantology: sociology of criminality, narcotizm, prostitution, suicide and others deviance. 3rd ed. – SPb: Alef-Press in Russian. 2013.
18. Gilinskiy Y, Isaev N. Creativity as positive deviance. SPb: Alef-Press in Russian. 2015.
19. Mathisen T. the Politics of Abolition. Essays in Political action Theory. Scandinavian Studies in Criminality. Oslo-London. 1974.
20. Albanese J. Myths and Realities of Crime and Justice. Third Edition – Apocalypse Publishing. 1990.
21. Garland D. The Culture of Control. Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford University Press. 2003.
22. Rotwax H. The Collapse of Criminal Justice. NY: Random Hose. 1996.
23. Zhalinsky AE. Criminal law pending change. Theoretical and instrumental analysis. 2nd edition. M: Prospect. 2009.
24. Romashov R, Tonkov E. Prison as the City of the Earth. SPb: Aleteja in Russian. 2014.
25. Beccaria C. Crime and Punishment. 1939; 308.
26. Kelina SG. Death Penalty: Pros and Cons. M: Juridical Literature. 133 in Russian. 1998; 133.
27. Foucault M. Oversee and Punish: Birth of a Prison. M: Ad Marginem in Russian. 1999; 339.
28. Christie N. A suitable Amount of Crime. NY-L: Routledge. 2004
29. Garland D. The Culture of High Crime Societies. Some Preconditions of Recent “Law and Order” Policies. The British Journal of Criminology. 2000; 40: 347-375.
30. Hulsman L. Critical Criminology and the Concept of Crime. Contemporary Crisis.1986; 10: 63-80.
31. Maguire M, Morgan R, Reiner R. the Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 2007.
32. Robinson M. Why Crime? An integrated Systems Theory of antisocial Behavior. NJ: Pearson. Prentice Hall. 2004.