著者
土井 隆義
出版者
社会学研究会
雑誌
ソシオロジ
巻号頁・発行日
vol.33, no.2, pp.61-76,188, 1988

The sociology of crime has provided a number of explanations about motives for crime up to this day. As the basis of these theories, there is the background-hypothesis which assumes that the individual is motivated to crime previous to concrete offences as a result of the internalization of unfavorable social environments. But this background-hypothesis doesn't notice the view that the reality of motives is constructed through the social interaction process where actors request explanations of behaviour. This particular view is a result of advancements of the sociology of knowledge, especially as promoted by C. W. Mills early work and his followers'. The motives for crime cannot be exceptions to this result, because the reality of crime is also socially constructed.<br> The labelling theory is the most appropriate of all theories to approach the study of the motives for crime from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge. This is so because it succeeded in introducing the conception of relativity into the definition of crime and made it quite clear that a definition of crime is constructed through the prosesses of interaction where actors demand categories of deviance. Of couese, in relation to the motives forcrime, the current labelling theory shares the above background-hypothesis with other theories of crime , which is evident in the problem which treats the increasing motives for crime as a never ending vicious circle. It is an extension of the cultural learning theory. However, it is possible for the motives of crime to be removed from the realms of this background-hypothesis by virtue of the labelling theory, if implications in the concept of a definition of crime are put into the perspective of motives for crime.<br> Accordingly, it is very fruitful to examine the possibility of studying motives for crime from the perspective of 'a definition of crime' as it occurs in the labelling theory. Such examination leads to a study of motives for crime as seen from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge, because it enables us to step back and reinterpret our attitudes in relation to the motives for crime in daily life. In short, labelling of criminal acts involves the construction of mitives for crime and the imputation of them to the actors. Therefore, it is possible to say that the motives for crime reveal themselves, not before concrete criminal acts, but after them. And they must be treated not as mental facts but as social facts, because we construct the motives for crime within the paradigms of the interpretation of acts in daily life, based on a common perception of the meaning of human behaviour.
著者
土井 隆義
出版者
日本犯罪社会学会
雑誌
犯罪社会学研究 (ISSN:0386460X)
巻号頁・発行日
no.38, pp.78-96, 2013-10-15

日本の少年犯罪の摘発件数は,2003年から減少を続けている.分母に少年人口を置いても,それは同様である.本論考は,この現象に寄与していると考えられる要因のうち,統制側の摘発態度の変化の可能性については保留し,少年側の心性の変化の可能性から説明を試みたものである.犯罪社会学において,逸脱主体の動機形成に着目した犯罪原因論には,伝統的に大きく2つの流れがある.1つは社会緊張理論であり,もう1つは文化学習理論である.そこで本論考は,この両者の視点から現在の日本を観察し,それらの理論が自明の前提としていた社会状況が,いまや見られなくなっていることを明らかにした.逸脱行動は,社会緊張がもたらすアノミーに晒されることによってノーマルな日常世界から押し出され,逸脱文化への接触とその学習によって逸脱的な下位世界へと引き込まれることで促進される.そうだとすれぼ,社会的緊張が弛緩し,また逸脱文化も衰退してくれば,それだけ逸脱行動への促進力は削がれることになる.それが現在の日本の状況である.現在,そのような状況が見られるのは,すでに日本が前期近代の段階を終え,後期近代の黎明期を迎えているからである.そして,この時代の特徴の一つといえる再埋め込みへの心性から派生した新たな宿命主義が,この現象をさらに背後から促進している.犯罪の多くは不満の発露であり,不満の多くは希望の裏返しだからである.
著者
土井 隆義
出版者
日本犯罪社会学会
雑誌
犯罪社会学研究 (ISSN:0386460X)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.13, pp.102-121, 1988 (Released:2017-03-30)

This paper studies the mechanism of the construction of an offender's motive during criminal investigation and prosecution as a statement by which to interpret his acts. Motives are constructed after the fact as interpretations of acts and are attributed to the actor. The criminal investigation and prosecution process adapts concrete offenses to abstract categories of crime. This process is a public ex post facto interpretation of offensive acts. Therefore an offender's motive is constructed during the criminal proceedings and is attributed to him. In other words, an offender's motive is not a psychological fact which existed at the empirical scene of the crime, but a product which is spun out of the communication between a representative of authority and a deviant actor. From this standpoint, the suspect's confession, the report of the criminal investigation and the trial in criminal court are analyzed. As an actor is an interpreter of his own acts, the confession of a motive by a suspect must be viewed not as venting a pre-existing psychological fact but as an attempt to account for his offensive conduct. This work is done under the case-solving-frame furnished by the investigator in the interrogation process, so the statement of motive constructed in this situation is constrained by the view of the authorities. Furthermore, the statement of motive fixed in the report of the investigation cannot be reduced to the suspect's past mental state at the scene of the crime, because the spoken words in the confession are transformed into written words in the report, and the information is limited by this conversion. Therefore the verdict in court is given not to the act itself but to the concept which was granted to it during the investigation. Since the offender's motive does not belong to the past empirical world, this verdict is actually a technical simplification of the multiple reality of the crime. The work of achieving a verdict is also a search for the motive of the suspect according to 'taken-for-granted ideas.' Thus the offender, an object attributed a deviant motive, comes to be categorized as the anonymous person type "criminal."