Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
EX-CRIMINAL TRIBES AND CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES The existence of about two hundred groups of ex-criminal tribes numbering nearly six million population is a peculiar phenomenon in the Indian sub-continent. Traditionally the criminal tribes were said to be following the criminal occupations such as stealing, robbery, dacoity, etc., for their livelihood and hence they were called Criminal Tribes. The Criminal Tribes were wandering from village to village and looting the villagers. The Government was unable to control these groups and as such the Government of India under British rule passed the Criminal Tribes Act in 1871 with a view to control the wandering criminal tribes. Since then organized crime as a group phenomenon was recognized. Whoever belonged to such tribes, both children and adults, irrespective of sex, whether guilty of crime or not, were considered to be criminals. The Act was amended a number of times with a view to control and wean the criminal tribes away from their nefarious acts. After India became a Republic, the C. T. Act was felt to be against the spirit of the Indian Constitution and new Indian ideals, and consequently the C.T. Act was repealed in 1952. In its place, the Habitual Offenders Act was passed. With the repeal of the C.T. Act the tribes came to be known as Vimukta Jatis or Denotified Tribes. But while the legal stigma hitherto attached to the tribals was removed, the social stigma, in fact, has continued ever since. The phenomenon of crime as it occurs among the ex-criminal tribes is peculiar in Y. C. SIMHADRI* a number of ways: (1) criminal behaviour is transmitted from one generation to another, (2) the criminal tribe as a whole accepts criminal activities as its traditional occupation and consequently (3) the law recognizes tribal crime as a group phenomenon. In what follows is an attempt made to examine the validity or non-validity of the existing criminological theories to explain the behaviour of the criminal tribes. BIOLOGICAL Lombroso affirmed that the criminals were born and inherited the qualities of criminality from their parents. As an example he cited the criminal tribes of India (Wolfgang, 1960:209). He emphasized the strength of congenital impulsiveness as the main causal factor in the occurrence of crime. He refuted the then prevailing theory of "free will". Subsequently, however, the Lombrosian theory was criticized by Tarde (Vine, 1954) and Goring (Driver, 1957). In India a study was conducted by Mazumdar on various castes including criminal tribes. He found no differences of blood groups and physical features among the different caste groups including criminal tribal groups. To quote Kapadia: "Mazumdar observes that there is a progressive broadening of the head from the Eastern to the Western districts of U.P. among the vagrant and criminal sections of the tribal population showing perhaps assimilation of a brachy-cephalic element. But the few measurements that he was given * Dr. Y. C. Simhadri is lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Social Work, Andhra University, Waltair, Andhra Pradesh. Hereafter it is called C. T. Act. 108 Y. C. SlMHADRI viz., the Habura 73-71, the Bhatu 74-83 and the Dom 73-79 (Criminal Tribes) show that these groups are dolichocephals and closely resemble their counterparts — the Parriyan 72 (Risley) the Chenchu 73-80 (Indian Census 1931) in South India" (Kapadia, 1952:110). As Venugopalarao stated, "In common parlance, they (Criminal tribes) are called the hereditary criminals of India but we have no convincing proof that criminality is passed from father to son biologically" (Venugopalarao, 1962:24). Thus biological theories do not seem to stand critical tests any more. ECONOMIC Traditionally it is surmised that criminality is a function of poverty. Bonger (Van Bemmelen, 1955), systematically linked criminality with poor economic conditions. Similarly, Biswas (1960), Gillin (1931) and Bruce (1969) linked tribal criminality with economic factors. Biswas studied criminal colonies in the Delhi State. He found that their expenditure exceeded their income; as a result, they were forced to commit crime in order to compensate their deficit budgets. Gillin describes graphically the deplorable conditions under which the tribals were forced to commit crimes. He stated: "It is easy to see that the bulk of the population lives on the verge of starvation most of the time. Let a famine come along and millions die unless they are assisted by government or relief organizations. Under such conditions, which have extended over decades, there is small wonder if whole families and tribes have resorted to criminal methods to get a living" (Gillin, 1931:106). The following description further describes the situation: "When the first batches were brought into the settlements, most of the men were clad in rags. The women had hardly enough clothing to cover their shame and children upto twelve years of age or so, were stark naked" (Gillin, 1931:107). But the economic determinants do not explain why other groups which have been living below the level of hand to mouth existence were not also criminals. In India Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are equally poor, if not poorer, do not resort to crime. It seems sound to think, then, that poor conditions may be a necessary but not a sufficient cause. The poor economic background as a causal factor is unacceptable on two grounds: (1) all persons with similar economic background do not resort to criminal activity, and (2) in the same family, all persons may not become criminals even if they are poor. Further, in economically developed countries with high crime rates, such as the U.S.A., reduction of poverty has not necessarily reduced criminal behaviour. However, it should be conceded that the economic factor is a necessary but not a sufficient cause of crime among the tribals. SOCIAL STRUCTURE Sociologists like Merton (Merton, 1967: 131-160) and others explained deviance in terms of social structure. Merton derived his theory of deviance from Durkheim's concept of anomie. American society, according to Merton, emphasizes certain "dominant-success goals" which are culturally prescribed, but the (Institutional) means for achieving these goals are not always available. As a result, certain individuals deviate from the normal means in order to achieve the cultural goals. It is the restriction of the use of approved means to achieve the prescribed cultural goals from a considerable part of the population (Merton, 1967:133) that produces deviance. Specifically, Merton mentioned that in the U.S.A. the lower classes were placed relatively in a more disadvantageous position than were the upper EX-CRIMINAL TRIBES AND CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES classes. The American culture evenly prescribes goals irrespective of economic background, but socially structured means are unevenly distributed. The disjunction between means and goals brings about deviance. This is primarily a structural interpretation of deviant behaviour in which the impact of economic factors is recognized when it is said that the lower classes tend to be more deviant. Patrick (1968:247) applied Melton's theory to criminal tribes of India, particularly to Mang Garudi. He observed that criminality of the Mang Garudi was a function of the Indian social structure in that "They (Criminal tribes) experienced certain conventional aspirations of Indian society (desire for status, respect and subsistence) but were lacking in socially structured means by which they could realize those aspirations. The situation in which they were engulfed was one of normlessness or 'anomie' " (Patrick, 1968: 247). The efficacy of the means-ends schema to explain the criminal behaviour of criminal tribes in preindependent Indian society which was based mainly on ascribed status is doubtful, but it is certainly useful to explain the criminality among the criminal tribes in postindependent India (Rangarao and Simhadri, 1972). Under the Constitution of India the democratic principles such as equality, liberty, etc., irrespective of caste, creed, colour or origin are professed but the means to achieve them are not equally available to all. As a result, the sections, be they criminal tribes or handicapped groups, which cannot achieve the common goals, may take to criminality. However, this theory does not explain the criminality of a particular group over an extended period of time. 109 But the delinquent justifies his deviance by rationalizing that it is in conformity with the norms of his subcultural group. Further, the authors maintain that for the delinquents their actions are not so dangerous as to jeopardize the general society. Since the criminal tribes think that it is their Kulavrithi (Caste or tribal profession) guilt feelings do not arise. As reported in the study of an Andhra village (Simhadri, 1972) the criminal tribes never felt guilty of their criminal behaviour. Further, a given tribe by transforming itself into a caste group feels that thieving or committing a crime is the legitimate occupation of its caste. It may be, however, observed in the village that not all tribals are criminals. Therefore, the theory of "neutralization" does not explain the behavioural pattern of all those who do not commit crimes. DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION Sutherland formulated a theory called "Differential Association" (Sutherland, 1947:6-7). According to him criminal behaviour is learned like other kinds of behaviour-learned in association with others according to the frequency, intensity, priority and duration of contacts. Crime thus is a social phenomenon and not a biological, or climatic phenomenon (Cressy, 1955:43). In other words, the theory emphasized association as a necessary condition for learning criminal patterns of behaviour. An excess of contacts and associations of this kind causes criminality. The ratio between definitions (situations) favourable to law and those unfavourable to law determines whether or not a person becomes criminal. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unTECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION favourable to violation of law. Sykes and Matza (1957) believe that many This theory seems relevant in explaining delinquents do experience feelings of guilt. criminal behaviour among tribes. Each tribe 110 Y. C. SlMHADRI restricts social contacts of its members to (Kvaracens and Miller, 1959:68-69). This itself and as such criminal behaviour, as all idea is somewhat pertinent to us. A criminal other behaviours, is transmitted from one tribe which as a social group has been generation to another. In India, social following criminal behaviour for generations groups, be they castes or tribes, tend to live transmits its behavioural pattern from one together in a geographical area. The conse- generation to the other. It is a socioquent physical and social distance between historical accident that criminality became lower castes and upper castes is wide and a part of the profession of these tribals. the possibility of their mixing is minimal. Once the criminal activities became part of Tribals, particularly criminal tribals, do not the tribal culture, such culture intrinsically have many contacts with others. When there became law-violating and the deviant culis no chance of having contacts or associa- ture is transmitted from one generation to tion with other social groups there is no the other. possibility of learning the values of other But this theory does not explain as to castes or social groups. Naturally, tribals why in the same delinquency area some learn their own values which are imme- children do not commit crimes. Studies diately around them. As such the tribal conducted by Reckless (Reckless et al: 1957 family is the training ground for its children a & b) explained this discrepancy. They to learn criminal behaviour. One of the found differences in self-conception as functions of the family as explained by the reason for certain children residing in Haikerwal was to begin to teach the tricks a delinquency area turning out to be delinof the trade (crime) the day a baby was quents and for others not becoming delinborn (Haikerwal, 1934:166). quents of a slum area. The authors concluded: "Conception of self and others is the differential response component that LOWER CLASS CULTURE MILIEU AND helps to explain why some succumb and CONTAINMENT THEORY others do not, why some gravitate toward Miller and Reckless propounded theories socially unacceptable patterns of behaviour called "Lower class culture Milieu" and and others veer away from them" (Reckless, "Containment theory" respectively. The 1957 b). Reckless found out from his study former is cultural in nature and the latter that both in criminally-oriented neighbouris socio-psychological. Miller's (1958:9) hoods and non-criminally-oriented neighthesis may be reduced to three main pro- bourhoods, criminals as well as delinquents positions: 1. the lower class is characterized were the product of development of a unique by distinct values, which undermine the concept of "self" and the conception of legal codes, 2. these vary markedly from the "good" or "bad". Such a unique self-concepmiddle-class values, and 3. the result is that tion develops in the early stages of an indiviconformity with certain lower-class values dual's participation in community life. may automatically result in violation of the Persons who develop an inner feeling law. As Miller puts it, "engaging in certain that they are good would continue to be cultural practices which comprise essential good and conform to the conventional even in their adulthood, elements of the total life pattern of lower- society class culture automatically violates certain whereas those who develop a feeling that they are "bad" would be discouraged and legal norms" (Miller, 1958:9). In other words, the lower class way of try to be aloof from the conventional life, as such, is intrinsically law-violating society and develop deviance. Among 111 EX-CRIMINAL TRIBES AND CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES criminal tribes, criminal behaviour was hitherto accepted as a conventional behaviour in terms of tribal culture. In modern times, having come into contact with the larger society, the tribals are trying to imbibe the values of the larger society. With the result, the tribals have come to realize that their behaviour is not acceptable to the larger society. Though Reckless said that his containment theory was not good enough for the explanation of traditional criminal behaviour of the tribals as it is in the changing context of the contact of the tribals with the larger society and tribals imitation of the larger culture, the theory seems to be good enough to explain the occurrence of crime. CONCLUSION The biological theories could be ignored as they are no more tenable. Social scientists who concentrate on economic factors are of two types: those who say that economic factors alone are responsible, and those who say that economic factors may be a necessary cause, but not a sufficient cause. Of the two, the latter is Biswas, 1960 Bruce, 1969 Cohen, 1955 Cressy, 1955 P. D. George. K. Albert. R. Donald. Driver, Edwin D. 1957 Gillin, John Lewis. 1931 Glaser, D. 1956 Haikerwal, B. S. 1934 Kapadia, K. M. 1952 The more acceptable. The theories of Sutherland, Miller, and Reckless in combination very well explain the persistence of criminality among the criminal tribes. Sutherland's theory is applicable in the first instance, due to its generic explanation of learning of behaviour, criminal or noncriminal, with close contacts with associates in the family, neighbourhood and tribes. Miller's theory explains that a particular cultural milieu which is intrinsically law-violating is transmitted from one generation to the other. In the case of criminal tribes by historical accident criminality became a part of their culture and in this way tribal culture became intrinsically criminal and the deviant culture is passed on through generations in the same cultural group. There are some who conform to the norms of the larger society but they are deviants in terms of traditional criminal tribal culture. As per Reckless's theory the individuals who come into contact with the larger society develop their "selves" as "good" or "bad" and accordingly either conform to their traditional values and social norms or deviate from them. REFERENCES Ex-criminal Tribes of Delhi Slate, Delhi: University of Delhi. The Slranglers: The Cult of Thuggee and its overthrow in British India, New York. Harcourt, Bruce and World Co., Inc. Delinquent Boys: A Culture of the Gang, New York: the Free Press of Glencoe. "Application and Verification of the Differential Association Theory" Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 4 3 : 43-52, May-June. "Charles Buckman Goring" The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 47, 5, Jan-Feb. Taming the Criminal, New York: The Macmillan Co. "Criminality Theories and Behavioural Images", American Journal of Sociology, 6 1 : 433-444, March. Economic and Social Aspects of Crime in India, London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd. "The Criminal Tribes of India", Sociological Bulletin, I. II (March) 24. Y. C. SIMHADRI 112 Kvaracens, W. C. and Miller, W. B. 1959 Mamoria, C. B. 1957 1960 "Delinquent Behaviour Culture and the Individual" Washington, D. C.: National Education Association 68-69. Mannheim, H. (ed) 1960 Matza, David. 1964 Merton, K. Robert 1967 Miller, W. B. 1958 Patrick, A. Clarence 1968 Pioneers in Criminology, Chicago: Quadrange Books, Inc. Rangarao, K and Simhadri Yedla. 1972 Reckless, et al. 1956 Reckless, et al. 1957 Reckless, et al. 1957 Reckless, W. C. 1960 Simhadri, Yedla 1972 Sutherland, H. Edwin. 1947 Sykes, A. Gresham and Matza, David. 1957 The Report of the All India Inquiry Committee 1949 Van Bemmelen, J. M. 1955 Venugopalarao, S. 1962 Vine, Margaret S. Wilson 1954 Vold, B. George 1958 Wolfgang, Marvin, V. 1960 Tribal Demography in India, Bombay: Kitab Mahal. Social Problems and Social Disorganization, Allahabad, India, Kitab Mahal. Delinquency and Drift, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: The Free Press. "Lower class culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang quency" Journal of Social Issues, 14, 3, 5 - 19. "The Criminal Tribes of India, with special emphasis Mang Garudi: A preliminary Report", Man in India, July-Sept. 248. "Denotified Tribes and the Larger Society", Voluntary xiv 4 & 5 July-Oct. 32-33. Delinon the 48. 8 Action, "Self-concept as an Insulator Against Delinquency" American Sociological Review, 21: 744-746. "Self-component in Potential Delinquency and Non-Delinquency" American Sociological Review, 22: 566-570. "The Good Boy in a High Delinquency Area", Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 48: 18-25. "The Crime Problem", 3rd Ed. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts. "Ex-Criminal Tribes of India: A Community Study", a Ph.D. thesis submitted in 1972 to Case Western Reserve University (Department of Sociology) Cleveland, Ohio. U.S.A. Principles of Criminology, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. "Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency", American Sociological Review, 22 December, 664-670. Criminal Tribes of India. "Willem Adriaan Bonger, 1876-1940", The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 46, 3 Sept-Oct. Facts of Crime in India, New Delhi: Allied Publishers. "Gabriel Tarde" in Journal of Criminal, Criminology and Police Science, 45, 1 June. Theoretical Criminology, New York: Oxford University Press. "Cesare Lombroso" in Hermann Mannheim (ed), Pioneers in Criminology, Chicago: Quandrange Books, Inc. The Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. XXXIV, No. 2, (July 1973)