Do Criminals Exist?
Revisiting Are Criminals Real?
In March 2023, we wrote a brief article asking whether criminals exist. We’ve reproduced the text in full and reflected further on our work.
Are people who commit crimes criminals? Labels or categories have the power to influence how we understand and how we treat one another. Labels matter.
In the past decades, social critics have raised society’s consciousness regarding the power of labels. Among the first issues targeted were gendered words (for example, police officer v.s. policeman). Similarly, categories are not neutral; they carry assumptions. For example, adulthood grants people of certain ages rights and responsibilities. Efforts to problematize categories stem from the realization that specific categories imply constructs of normality. Therefore, someone different is abnormal.
There are two possible dangers of assigning people to certain categories. First, it can reduce a person to a single dimension. Second, ascribing people to specific categories suggests people in that category are all the same. REACH is an organization that advocates for people with disabilities. They urge people to “avoid labeling” groups of people as “handicapped, the disabled, the deaf, the retarded, the learning disabled.” Instead, they suggest “a person who has multiple sclerosis, people with disabilities”, and so on. Other organizations and professionals have made similar recommendations.
These critics want to recognize people’s humanity and that there may be as much diversity within one of these groups as in any other human grouping. Nevertheless, there still may be merit in the use of categories and labels. Generalizations may be necessary to function efficiently.
What does this all have to do with criminals?
Current scientific research suggests that a person who commits crimes may suffer from some sort of disease or physiological predisposition. While the word “criminal” means a person who has committed a crime, it carries a constellation of assumptions. Is it possible that by calling people who commit crimes, criminals, we are reducing them to a single or a series of acts?
We do not mean to exculpate those who have committed crimes, or reduce the severity of their actions.
We simply question the effect, if any, of calling them criminals. Does it change how we prosecute them? Does it make prison systems more punitive rather than restorative? Does it eliminate the possibility of redemption?
Does this label matter? Are people who commit crimes rightly called criminals?
What do you think? Let us know in the comments.
It has been over a year since we wrote that column. Since then we have had countless conversations about crime, criminality, and we have written some forty plus articles on related subjects.
Looking back, we think we may have been too enthusiastic about scientifico-medical developments that connect certain features to criminal behavior. If anything, our work consistently supports four observations:
Currently, scientific, medical, or technological solutions to social problems remain incredibly alluring. However, we have written that the overzealous pursuit of these solutions (whether surgical or environmental) has harmed many. We urge caution when adopting such measures.
The deeper the assumptions made, the harder they are to stop, and the more permeating their effects are.
Very well-intentioned individuals may also cause harm.
Several issues related to crime and the justice system are far more complex than they may appear. Reform seems urgent.
We still think that the term criminal is deeply problematic.
As we suggested earlier, it reduces individuals to a single or a collection of actions.
Secondly, it eliminates nuance and uses the same label for individuals who committed different crimes. These are distinctions worth making and would help put better programs and policies in place. Moreover, it would help communities better welcome those who have reformed.
Third, do criminals ever cease to be criminals? If a person serves their sentence, should they be fully welcomed into society? We wrote about a volleyball player who served time for statutory rape and the controversy surrounding his participation in the 2024 Olympics.
Fourth, we worry about erroneous convictions and how these may affect individuals who have been erroneously labeled criminals. Many convictions rely on what we now know to be unreliable eyewitness accounts and/or on forced confessions. A man in Japan was recently released after sitting on death row for over fifty years. Robert Worth’s article in The Atlantic claimed that Japan’s police force often obtains confessions through coercion, and their conviction rate is close to 99%.
Fifth, making decisions about convictions, parole, early release, and assessing whether people have rehabilitated is difficult. In an article, we discussed that decisions on whether to grant parole, or release people are not easy. Looking at recidivism rates may help policymakers figure out what kinds of interventions reduce the likelihood that a person may re-offend. Or reveal which screening systems work best. Do the motivations behind a crime matter? Does it matter if someone assaults someone else because of their skin color, sexuality, etc, or is assault, assault? Perhaps people who commit hate crimes are more likely to re-offend (an empirical question!)*.
Sixth, we think our biggest flaw was not problematizing definitions of crime. There are several instances where criminalized acts are currently seen as normal. In our recent column, we discussed the American criminalization of homosexuality, and last year, we wrote an account of Samuel Cartwright that supported the criminalization of enslaved people seeking freedom.
We should think deeply about what we criminalize and why.
In short, people do commit crimes. Some of these individuals commit several crimes. The category criminal may be a helpful heuristic, but using it uncritically can obfuscate reality rather than represent it, rendering efforts to reduce crime ineffective.
*This line of argument originated through a discussion via comments/notes with
.
Nice article, guys, & very reflexive (to use a modish term). I wish more academics would follow your example. Thanks, too, for the shout out!
Nice work! To add to the conversation, I wonder if you've had a chance to review criminology/sociology work on labelling theory or stigmatization? I think it would add to your analysis. It addresses questions such as whether being labeled a criminal itself increases the chances of reoffending.