Crime is defined as deviant behavior against criminal law. However, there is no universal agreement on what constitutes a crime. Some argue crime is socially constructed and depends on how societies interpret actions. In the Caribbean, there is debate around whether the region needs its own crime theory. While some argue theories may not fully capture Caribbean contexts, others believe mainstream theories can still apply when considering cultural and economic factors influencing local crime patterns and rates. Overall, the document discusses debates around defining crime and the need for region-specific crime theories.

1. Crime is deviant behaviour which is against the criminal law. Such behaviour is controlled through the use of public
sanctions which are enforced by agencies of social control such as the police, magistrates, prison and judiciary. Despite the
legal definition of crime, defining crime is not a straightforward task because there is no universal agreement in society as
to what is criminal. Sociologists argue that crime is socially constructed, that is, the definitions of crime often depend on
how society interprets particular actions. The Marxist Croall (1998) points out that there is often a very narrow borderline
between what is regarded as “criminal” and “normal, legal or illegal”, e.g. many people “borrow” items from work and
frequently break the speed limit but would not define themselves as criminals.
Among Caribbean sociologists, there is the question of whether the region needs its own theory of crime. While some
sociologists have accepted this notion, most have refuted the idea.
Arguments supporting that the Caribbean should have its own theory of crime
(a) Croall argues that there is a historical separation among countries in the manner in which they view crimes. She argues
that as in the United Kingdom abortion, homosexuality and blasphemy have all been defined as crimes in the past. It means
therefore that what was once considered crimes in developed countries are no longer viewed as such. As most theories of
crime were written to support the developed world, it means that the Caribbean region lags behind. The Caribbean has
been shaped significantly after its Post Independence Era. Most of the things that are now legal in the metropole are not in
the Caribbean.
(b) There is always this belief that crimes are culturally defined. In that most societies would probably see the same crimes,
but they are interpreted and treated differently because of the culture of that particular society. As crimes are therefore
culturally defined, the Caribbean should have its own theories of crime.
(c) It is evident that most theories of crime offer explanation as to the motives of crime. As crimes are socially constructed,
Croall provides that crimes will be caused for different reasons within different societies. It is evident that poverty is one of
main reasons for crime and violence in the Caribbean societies, as opposed to reasons of minority, labelling (discrimination)
or capitalism as in developed countries.
Arguments against the notion that the Caribbean should have its own theory of crime
Caribbean sociologists have used mainstream theories to examine the Caribbean region, and though there are some cultural
and social differences, the theories have applied perfectly well. Hence, there is the argument that the Caribbean should not
have its own theory of crime:
(a) Caribbean sociologists may argue that though there have been some changes in the laws and patterns of crime in the
metropolitan countries, the Caribbean regions were indeed deeply influence by their metropolitan counterparts. It means
therefore that it needs not creating our own theories of crime, but rather amending our laws to suit our crimes.
(b) For most parts, the theories of crime merely offer reasons why people would commit crimes. As there are unique
reasons in the Caribbean due to our culture and economic problems, it means not that prominent theories of crime cannot
be used to explain such outbreaks of crime. For example, Merton’s theory of crime provides Caribbean sociologists with an
understanding of the expectations of society and its failure to provide provisions for people to achieve such expectations.
This goes hand in hand with poverty. Furthermore, even if we were to develop our own theory, we would still use the work
of prominent sociologists. Hence, it is a waste of time.
(c) Croall (1998) provides the notion that crime is a relative concept. She adds that though this is true, major crimes
normally have universal agreement. Hence, murder in Barbados, is murder in Jamaica as it is murder in India and murder in
Australia. It goes then to show that no society necessary needs its own theory of crime. If there should be any difference
pertaining to crimes in different countries, this difference would be seen in the pattern of crime, rather than the type of
crimes or the motives of crime.