Criminal Behavior and Toxic Environment

Abstract

Crime and society appear as two inseparable concepts. In defining crime and attempting to uncover its causes, it is crucial to consider social concepts and processes. Since crime is defined through actions, it can be considered a dynamic phenomenon rather than a static one. This dynamism allows crime to manifest itself differently across societies and over time. Consequently, individuals, in regulating their behaviors throughout their lives, are primarily influenced by their families and environments. In terms of ensuring social welfare, penalties determined by laws alone are not sufficient. Hence, arises the necessity of crime prevention before it occurs. By implementing improvements in the environmental and societal domains, this imperative becomes more attainable. Consequently, the examination of social and environmental factors has increasingly been integrated into crime prevention programs. In this section, information regarding the relationship between the environment, society, and criminal behavior has been provided. Furthermore, the effects of a toxic environment on individuals’ inclination toward crime have been thoroughly examined within a theoretical framework, and the discussed topics have been debated in a manner that would contribute to the momentum of studies revealing the social and environmental dynamics of criminal behavior.

1. Introduction

Crime has been a reality in human societies for centuries, and the propensity to commit crimes is determined by the complex interaction of various factors. Among these factors, the individual’s social environment holds great importance. Nowadays, it is widely accepted in the scientific community that environmental factors can influence individuals’ behaviors. The social environment encompasses many aspects such as family, friends, education, economic status, and neighborhood, and plays a significant role in the occurrence of crime. In this section, we will examine the information provided by forensic sciences to understand the impact of the social environment on criminal behavior.

2. Socialization and crime

Crime and society are inseparable concepts that intersect. Therefore, it is valuable to approach the definition of crime and its causes within the framework of social concepts and processes. One of the best ways to define crime is by understanding human nature. The sense of ownership forms a starting point in humans. They have determined that moment of existence as a reference point and from then on, they have developed a sense of responsibility to protect and preserve their existence. This is where socialization emerges. A person, due to their ownership, feels threatened by another person and subsequently realizes that the same threat could apply to the second person, leading to the need for the determination of a third party. This need gave rise to the concept of “social contract” [1]. Socialization and the sense of ownership in humans are nearly simultaneous concepts.

The establishment of rules and the acquisition of the concept of ownership can exhibit a continuity. One of the crucial justifications is the association of these rules with values. Only through such association can a system of rules be constructed. The persistence of the social contract relies on the preservation and continuity of rules that best reflect the values that hold society together. The concept of value is inherently intertwined with human existence. There is no value that contradicts human existence. In this regard, if a perpetrator of murder attempts to explain the motive of the crime based on their own constructed values and seeks forgiveness on those grounds, the plea should be rejected in order to safeguard the continuity of both society and human existence. While these crimes may lack a foundation in a specific value, there exists a value upon which the punishment for such crimes is based. Thus, engaging in a value-oriented debate is deemed unnecessary and perilous, as it would divert attention and potentially jeopardize the legal framework. The assumption that values lack objectivity at certain points signifies the underlying acceptance that underpins such debates. However, within the process of socialization, it is vital to refrain from tampering with and preserve values in their original form. Otherwise, the formation of society becomes unattainable or, if achieved, unsustainable. In the process of socialization, crime is met with ethical sensitivity and punishment. Nonetheless, certain assumptions may attribute a reward-oriented value to the explanation of crime causation. This raises the question: “Is the subject of debate the crime itself or its motives?” The differing definitions of crime in the present compared to the past prompt the inquiry into the extent of the malleability of the concept of crime, as actions previously considered criminal and subject to penalties are no longer regarded as such today. Does this variability in the concept entail hypocrisy, or are the factors that contribute to this variability responsible? Rather than reaching such weighty conclusions by posing further questions, it may be more fruitful to identify discussion topics worthy of contemplation.

Assessing crime from a universal perspective is a rational and accurate method to define it. In this context, crime encompasses behaviors that pose a threat to societal welfare and are consequently prohibited by laws. Laws also entail the application of penalties and sanctions when criminal behavior occurs. In determining these penalties and sanctions, individuals’ psychological and physical vulnerabilities are taken into consideration, while social and environmental factors are excluded. Examining and explaining a criminal act from the perspective of the individual perpetrator moves beyond the universality of crime and imparts subjective and individualistic interpretations. These subjective interpretations shed light on the motives behind the crime rather than its definition. Providing clarity within a universal framework not only prevents biases but also aids in understanding crime’s causes and effects for both the offender and the victim. However, the legal system often encounters a dilemma at this juncture. While there may not be overt biases, another factor comes into play: the mental state of the offender or, more precisely, the mental state and socioenvironmental circumstances in which the crime was committed. Incorporating psychological assessments that consider the offender’s mental state during the crime, without disregarding it, prevents the imposition of biases and upholds impartiality. Furthermore, evaluating the social and environmental factors that influence the offender’s condition and are considered risk factors for criminal behavior contributes to crime prevention and the establishment of societal welfare. Consequently, investigating social and environmental characteristics is not only relevant for determining guilt or innocence in the judicial process but also for incorporating crime prevention programs into the broader scope of maintaining social order.

The process of socialization, initiated alongside the emergence of property, has also brought about the existence of crime. Therefore, it is crucial to approach the explanation of crime within the framework of the socialization process. One of the reasons for this is the inseparable nature of crime and society as two interconnected concepts. Since crime is an action in itself and its definition is constructed based on actions, it can be asserted that crime entails a dynamic position rather than a static one. This dynamism enables it to assume different forms across societies and time, distancing itself from stagnation. There is no single universal definition of crime worldwide. In other words, crime is approached from various perspectives by different individuals due to the presence of diverse norms. Each norm establishes its own conception of crime. While it is not feasible to encapsulate crime within a single definition, it is important to address the following questions that arise when discussing crime:

• Why do individuals commit crimes?

• Who falls under the category of criminals?

• Is criminality an innate trait or an acquired behavior?

• Can an individual be compelled to commit a crime against their will? In other words, can someone be coerced into criminality involuntarily?

These questions can be expanded upon, and it is crucial not to overlook them. Employing a theoretical framework while tackling these questions will lead us to more accurate outcomes.

Until the 18th century, there were no comprehensive penalties in place to correspond to the crimes committed in France. What mattered more was whether the criminal act was committed against the monarchy or the Church. The penalties imposed for crimes were not determined based on societal considerations but rather appeared arbitrary. This situation has been extensively discussed by numerous intellectuals who advocated for an examination of both the nature of the crime and the punishment from a sociocultural perspective. One prominent figure whose ideas have had a lasting impact and are still referenced today is Cesare Beccaria. In his renowned work “On Crimes and Punishments,” published toward the end of the 18th century, Beccaria put forth fundamental principles that shed light on potential definitions. Beccaria argued that crimes should be met with penalties defined by laws. In this regard, he made reference to Rousseau’s previously mentioned “Social Contract.” This becomes clear from the following two statements of Harcourt about Beccaria’s theory:

“The law should only establish penalties that are explicit and necessary, and an individual should only be subject to punishment according to a law that was established, publicly declared, and applied in accordance with legal procedures prior to the commission of the crime.”

“There can be no crime or punishment in the absence of law” [2].

The emerging ideas in the 19th century shifted the focus from the act of crime to the individual who commits it. According to these ideas, punishment should be tailored to the offender rather than the offense itself. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the individual’s psychological state and the process of socialization before discussing the crime. In this context, during the period when industrialization was on the rise and modern societies based on individualism were forming, a prevalent notion arose that emphasized the need to evaluate the offender from sociological and psychological perspectives before administering punishment. Examples of such practices include “probation” and “good behavior discounts.” Probation entails the execution of a sentence within the community and aims to reintegrate the offender into society. Developing countries, in their ongoing process of socialization, often emulate the justice systems and practices of developed countries, potentially compromising their own systems.

Those who advocate classical psychoanalysis attribute crime to childhood traumas and provide an explanation based on an enduring and unchanging pattern resulting from these traumas. If there is a disturbance in the individual’s personality structure, it is believed to remain constant, predisposing the individual to a propensity for committing crimes based on the effects of early traumas. This notion prevailed from the late 19th century until the mid-20th century. The U.S. justice and legal system are founded on psychoanalytic determinism, which has spurred widespread acceptance and thorough investigation of theories pertaining to crime. In situations where the individual is unaware of the specific circumstances and conditions surrounding the crime, the attribution of the offense is tied to the contextual factors of its occurrence. However, under the conditions of the “here and now,” the principle of the presumption of innocence is granted to the offender independent of causation. With the emergence of the Behaviorist School, confidence in this perspective, which emphasizes the role of the environment and learning, has somewhat diminished. The psychoanalytic approach prominently features a reductionist viewpoint where the environment is held entirely responsible, suggesting that erroneous learning is a byproduct of environmental influences.

Sociology adopts a multidimensional approach to the study of crime. This approach encompasses social theories rooted in extensive research and the paradigms derived from these theories. Through these paradigms, an effort is made to elucidate the phenomenon of criminal behavior. Sociology posits that crime emerges as a byproduct of socialization, whereby society serves as the catalyst, shaping and providing the conditions for the manifestation of criminal acts [3]. Within the realm of sociological theories, three fundamental axes can be identified:

1. Theories pertaining to social structure.

2. Theories focusing on social processes.

3. Theories centered around social conflict.

2.1 Theories pertaining to social structure

These theoretical frameworks commonly examine the structure and function of society. The theories proposing that the emergence of crime is attributable to the structure and function of society also argue that crime is socially constructed in accordance with societal conditions. Despite variations, all crimes are rooted in the origins of social order and functioning. These approaches encompass subapproaches, including explanations based on environmental factors and subcultural influences. This demonstrates the formation of a foundational framework based on functionality. Through these classifications, social structures can be thoroughly analyzed, thereby establishing the recognition of crime as a product of social dynamics. Durkheim associates society with crime and presents crime as a direct consequence of social functionality. Moreover, he highlights the notion that a crime-free society is nonexistent.

2.2 Theories focusing on social processes

In a manner similar to social structure theories, social process theories encompass various sub-theories that function as distinct subsystems. These sub-theories not only contribute to the overall framework but also enable a nuanced evaluation of intricate aspects. The constituent sub-theories, such as “learning theories,” “control mechanisms approach,” and “labeling theory,” endeavor to qualitatively elucidate crime by examining it through diverse dimensions. Importantly, the underlying premise that crime is a social consequence remains constant throughout these discussions.

2.3 Theories centered around social conflict

At the core of these theories lie conflicting elements within the structural functionality of society. It is crucial to recognize that such conflicts serve as pivotal components in the process of societal change. The presence of conflicts is essential for facilitating social transformation. Through conflicts, viable resolutions are generated, leading to social cohesion and comprehensive functioning. These conflicts can manifest at both individual and societal levels. The aggression instinct ingrained in human existence, coupled with its universal acknowledgment and validation, elucidates the individual facet of conflict. On the other hand, the motivations that instigate the mobilization of existing groups within society exhibit variation. These variations stem from diverse expectations and demands. Consequently, disparities in expectations and demands give rise to conflicts within the societal framework. In the context of these conflicts, inequality emerges as a crucial element. When examining conflicts from an individual standpoint, it becomes apparent that they originate from the individualistic nature intrinsic to social dynamics. Conversely, when conflicts unfold at the societal level, economic factors come into play in defining the nature of crime. An exemplification of this notion can be observed in the higher crime rates prevalent in socioeconomically disadvantaged strata within society. This phenomenon can be attributed to the disruptive influence of economic disparities, ultimately culminating in the manifestation of crime.

Ultimately, while these approaches provide explanations for crime, none of them can singularly encompass crime within a unified definition. This is inherent in the nature of crime, which is a complex phenomenon requiring comprehensive examination from multiple angles. Which definition can adequately capture crime in its entirety? The most insightful answer is presented by Karl Menninger in his book “The Vital Balance.” Menninger’s concept of the “Biopsychosocial Holistic Approach” enables us to perceive and define crime in an integrated manner. This approach allows for a multidimensional and multi-institutional analysis of both the criminal act and the offender, while also facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the holistic repercussions. By adopting this holistic perspective, we can delve into the intricate layers of crime and gain a more nuanced comprehension of its multifaceted nature.

In contemporary society, there is an observable trend toward an increase in the prevalence and individualization of criminal behavior. This shift in perspective is rooted in the growing acceptance of the notion that individuals possess an inherent inclination toward criminality across various circumstances. The individualization of criminal acts prompts individuals to exert additional efforts in order to construct personalized justifications for their offenses. Within this context, professionals working in the field of forensic sciences bear a significant responsibility. To enhance the objectivity of their duties and assessments, it becomes essential for multiple professionals within the same domain to engage in concurrent evaluations. This approach minimizes the margin for error, thereby ensuring that the rights of both the offender are safeguarded and any attempts at deceptive manipulation are thwarted. It is important to emphasize that the objective is not to impede the exercise of legal rights by the perpetrator but rather to elucidate the underlying reasons and motivations behind the commission of the crime.

The identification of attributes that contribute to and precipitate criminal behavior remains a subject of ongoing discourse. Matters of contention include the accuracy of ascertaining these attributes through appropriate methodologies and the generalizability of their findings. Consensus has not yet been reached on these issues. Following the assessment of individuals who have engaged in criminal acts using psychological measurement tools, certain shared characteristics have been observed, including:

• A distinct propensity toward novelty-seeking behavior.

• A notable absence of concern for the well-being of others.

• A relatively low expectancy of reward in relation to their attitudes and behaviors.

While these traits may align with those already delineated for antisocial personality disorder, a direct causal link cannot be unequivocally established solely through the utilization of scientific methodologies. Due to methodological limitations inherent in many studies, the findings may not consistently provide conclusive evidence regarding the actual existence of a genuine problem.

Consequently, premature and unwarranted generalizations may arise. Although acknowledging their limitations, numerous studies or investigations tend to support the debated biases concerning the relationship between crime and Antisocial Personality Disorder. However, considering crime theories that contend the necessity of relating criminal behavior to other constructs, it exceeds the intended scope to assert that criminal acts are exclusively driven by personality disorders. It is essential to recognize crime as a multifaceted phenomenon that extends beyond the confines of individualistic explanations.

3. The relationship between social and environmental risk factors and crime

The causes and emergence of crime are intricate subjects, wherein an individual’s social milieu assumes a pivotal role. Studies reveal that individuals inclined toward criminal behavior tend to reside in low socioeconomic strata, encounter familial issues, and associate themselves with peer groups that foster delinquency. The impact of the social environment on crime emanates from the amalgamation of several factors affecting an individual’s personality development, values, attitudes, and social norms.

The theory of social disorganization emerges as a causal factor explaining the relationship between the social environment and crime [4]. According to this perspective, neighborhoods characterized by disorder, wherein homelessness, disadvantaged groups, and increased racial diversity coexist, engender deteriorating living conditions for individuals, leading to diminished social cohesion and weakened social control. Furthermore, frequent instances of relocation and migration are also regarded as risk factors for crime [5].

The residential neighborhood and environmental factors exert influence on the risks associated with crime. Individuals residing in neighborhoods marked by infamy, high crime rates, or limited access to social services may exhibit a proclivity toward criminal conduct. Factors such as neighborhood security measures, availability of social services, and community support can prove efficacious in tackling crime.

Research indicates that increasing crime rates are generally more prevalent in disadvantaged and low-income neighborhoods. Such neighborhoods often exhibit signs of social disorder and low collective efficacy. For instance, factors such as the absence of strong social bonds among individuals, weak neighborhood relationships, and a lack of effective control mechanisms for sustaining common societal goals can contribute to an increase in crime rates [6].

Social disorder is associated with the conformity of society to norms and values and the weakening of social control. Factors such as economic problems, unemployment, low educational levels, and limitations in accessing social services can influence the formation of social disorder in disadvantaged neighborhoods. In such neighborhoods, the lack of effective collective mechanisms to address the needs and problems of the community can contribute to the spread and perpetuation of crime. It has been observed that these deficiencies and areas of intensified crime are predominantly micro-level geographical locations, namely streets [7]. Neighborhood crime is believed to be an ecological stressor that can lead to behavioral avoidance [8]. Neighborhood crime can be perceived as a threat and a source of anxiety that affects people’s daily activities. This situation can lead individuals to avoid walking in the streets or participating in social activities. People living in unsafe neighborhoods may experience a constant stress response due to the risk of crime. Furthermore, a meta-analysis study has shown that individuals’ mental health is directly affected by high crime rates in their environment [9]. This stress response and mental health issues can manifest in symptoms such as hypervigilance, restlessness, fear, and worry. People may seek protection against crime and prefer to confine themselves to their homes to ensure their safety. Consequently, neighborhood crime can lead individuals to refrain from participating in social activities and engage in behavioral avoidance. Additionally, neighborhood crime can also result in a decrease in social and physical activities. People may avoid going to parks, sports fields, community centers, or other public spaces. This can reduce individuals’ social interaction and societal engagement. Avoidance of being active can narrow individuals’ social networks, leave them devoid of community support, and lead to isolation. This process can perpetuate a cycle of crime. In neighborhoods with high crime rates, individuals’ preference for behavioral avoidance and social isolation can weaken community solidarity and control mechanisms. This can further contribute to an increase in crime rates and the spread of insecurity. It is plausible that neighborhood crime, as an ecological stress factor, leads to behavioral avoidance and a decrease in participation in social activities. People living in unsafe neighborhoods may refrain from being active and experience social isolation due to the threat and anxiety caused by crime. This situation can weaken community solidarity and control mechanisms, thereby contributing to an increase in crime rates.

On the contrary, social cohesion is intricately linked to neighborly collaboration, solidarity, and the presence of social control mechanisms. Strong bonds among neighbors can serve as a potent instrument for attaining collective objectives, conforming to norms, and deterring criminal activities. Proficient inter-neighbor social cohesion holds the potential to curtail crime rates within residential enclaves. Consequently, collaborative endeavors, the establishment of communal objectives, the implementation of security measures, and the cultivation of a positive social milieu stand to contribute significantly to the mitigation of criminality.

Studies have investigated the nexus between the built environment, urban planning, societal well-being, and crime, particularly within the realm of physical conditions [10, 11]. The presence of green spaces in residential and neighborhood settings not only fosters conducive physical environments that facilitate social interaction and sociability but also serves as reparative, invigorating, and tranquil surroundings on an individual level [12, 13, 14]. In their study, Ambrey and Shahni (2017) observed a positive association between the availability of green spaces in the surrounding environment and community well-being, whereas they identified a negative association between community well-being and neighborhood crime rates [15]. Furthermore, their findings suggested that the relationship between green spaces and well-being could be influenced by local crime rates. Hence, it would be erroneous to assert that crime rates do not diminish the favorable psychological impacts engendered by green spaces in this particular context.

Both the educational level and economic status of both individuals and the living environment are crucial factors in the influence of the social environment on crime. A low level of education, unemployment, and insufficient economic resources contribute to an elevated risk of engaging in criminal activities. Conversely, a socially cohesive environment characterized by higher education levels and economic prosperity can mitigate the inclination toward criminal behavior by expanding individuals’ alternatives and future prospects.

In conclusion, the escalation of crime rates is observed to be more prevalent within disadvantaged and low-income neighborhoods, as well as areas characterized by social disarray and limited collective efficacy. This phenomenon is intricately linked to factors encompassing economic hardships, constraints in accessing social services, indistinct societal objectives, and deficiencies in social control. Neighborhood crime, in view of its multidimensional nature and ramifications on societal well-being, presents itself as a pertinent public health concern [16]. Establishing social harmony, fortifying neighborly relations, and harnessing the effective utilization of social control mechanisms hold potential for ameliorating crime rates.

4. Family and crime

The family represents the closest and most influential social sphere wherein individuals forge their primary relationships and experience profound effects. As the individual’s initial social context, the family exerts a significant influence on the propensity to engage in criminal conduct. Empirical investigations have consistently demonstrated that intrafamilial abuse, neglect, suboptimal parenting attitudes, and domestic violence contribute to an elevated risk of criminal involvement. Moreover, it has been duly noted that individuals predisposed to criminality often originate from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds characterized by limited financial resources, unemployment, and educational deficiencies. Conversely, the presence of robust familial dynamics, encompassing healthy communication patterns, an affectionate milieu, consistent disciplinary practices, and supportive interfamily relationships, serves to attenuate the proclivity for criminal behavior. Additionally, the existence of psychopathological disturbances within parental figures has been duly acknowledged as a salient risk factor pertaining to the perpetration of unlawful acts by juveniles.

4.1 Intrafamilial abuse and neglect

Intrafamilial abuse and neglect refer to situations where individuals, be they children or adults, experience physical, emotional, or sexual harm at the hands of family members, or their basic needs are inadequately met. These forms of maltreatment can have long-lasting effects. In this regard, intrafamilial abuse and neglect are significant factors that contribute to an individual’s inclination toward criminal behavior. Experiences of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse during childhood, coupled with instances of neglect, emotional deprivation, and unmet basic needs, can trigger a propensity for criminal conduct. Such adverse experiences may impede the individual’s ability to cope with problems such as low self-esteem, anger, and aggression, thus increasing their susceptibility to engaging in criminal activities. Furthermore, a history of violence within the family is a notable social factor involved in the development of criminal behavior [17]. Bandura’s theory on the association between modeling violent behavior and aggression suggests that the presence of violent behavioral attitudes, particularly within the family, heightens the likelihood of individuals exhibiting aggressive behaviors toward all sectors of society in their later years. This is because Bandura posits that aggression is a learned behavior, and he has empirically substantiated this notion through a variety of experimental studies [18]. The impact of intrafamilial abuse and neglect on criminality can be shaped by various influencing factors. For instance, the duration, intensity, and frequency of abuse or neglect are significant considerations. Additionally, factors such as the environment in which the abuse or neglect occurs, socioeconomic status, parental attitudes, and intrafamilial communication can also exert an influence. To comprehend the relationship between intrafamilial abuse, neglect, and criminality, it is crucial to consider these factors.

4.2 Parental attitude and discipline

Parental attitudes and disciplinary practices significantly shape a child’s behavioral development and have implications for their inclination toward criminal tendencies. An affectionate, supportive, and warm parental attitude fosters the satisfaction of a child’s emotional needs, mitigates the emergence of destructive behaviors during adulthood, and facilitates healthy socialization processes [19]. Conversely, an excessively strict, authoritarian, and discipline-oriented parenting style can contribute to a child’s susceptibility to engage in delinquent activities. Such a parenting approach may engender feelings of diminished self-worth, impair social adaptive skills, and internalize deviant values.

One perspective accounting for the association between parenting attitude and criminal and aggressive behaviors pertains to the insufficiency of deterrent reactions exhibited by the family toward the child’s inappropriate conduct. In the absence of appropriate inhibitory responses from parents or a lack of consistency in the inhibitory reactions displayed by parents towards repetitive aggressive behaviors, the manifestation of adverse behaviors escalates and may become ingrained as habitual behavioral patterns [20]. Another explanation is grounded in attachment theory, which posits that the establishment of a secure attachment bond during the parent-child relationship in early childhood fosters the development of effective problem-solving skills and reduces the likelihood of experiencing behavioral problems in adulthood [21].

Children and adolescents exhibit delinquent behaviors that primarily originate from their upbringing in the family environment and are subsequently influenced by both their immediate surroundings and interactions with peers. Social learning theory postulates that delinquent behaviors emerge through learning acquired within social groups. Moreover, inadequate parental reactions and attitudes towards children’s negative and maladaptive behaviors can manifest as a deficiency in self-control during their adulthood [22]. Furthermore, individuals who experience harsh and violent reactions from their families during early childhood tend to replicate these behaviors in similar ways in their later interactions with others.

4.3 Family values and social norms

The family serves as an environment where individuals acquire values and social norms. Family values shape the understanding of right and wrong and influence adherence to accepted social norms, thus being considered a fundamental factor influencing personality development. While family values represent the beliefs, values, and attitudes learned within the family context, social norms represent the behavior rules accepted and expected by society. Positive family values, such as ethical conduct, sense of responsibility, and empathy, can have a mitigating effect on the inclination toward criminal behavior. Additionally, the adoption of values within the family environment, such as healthy communication, love, and support, can contribute to deterring children from engaging in delinquency. Social norms, on the other hand, represent the behavior rules established and accepted by society to maintain social order and promote harmonious coexistence among individuals. Crime arises from the violation of societal norms. The condemnation and punishment of crime by society demonstrate the deterrent effect of social norms on criminal behavior. If society tolerates behaviors inclined toward criminality as norms, families may tend to conform to these norms and teach their children to embrace criminal actions. Furthermore, negative family values that normalize violence, aim for unjust gains, or encourage antisocial behaviors can contribute to individuals’ propensity for criminality. The relationship between these two concepts and crime is further elucidated within the frameworks of social learning theory and social control theory. Social learning theory asserts that children’s adoption of values learned from their families can either draw them closer to or distance them from criminal behavior. Social control theory, on the other hand, suggests that individuals’ inclination toward crime varies according to their adherence to social norms and values [23].

4.4 Family structure

Family structure refers to the characteristics, organization, and interactions within the familial environment where individuals reside. It can exert an influence on the propensity for criminal behavior. Understanding the impact of family structure on criminal inclination is of paramount importance for crime prevention and the establishment of a safer societal milieu. Empirical evidence suggests that single-parent households, divorced families, or pervasive intrafamilial conflicts contribute to an increased likelihood of criminal tendencies [24]. Such family structures may also be associated with adverse socioeconomic conditions, thereby restricting a child’s access to a supportive social network. Furthermore, when parents exhibit low levels of attentiveness and communication toward their children due to interparental conflicts, it can augment an individual’s inclination toward engaging in criminal activities [25]. The process of parental separation and divorce generates stressors for both mothers and fathers, which, in conjunction with ensuing mental health problems, impairs the quality of parent-child communication. Consequently, children may experience emotional and behavioral difficulties [26].

One other crucial point addressed by studies examining the relationship between family structures and crime is the notion of extended family structure. The extended family structure signifies a setting in which a child is raised amidst numerous relatives and across multiple generations. This family arrangement can engender distinct experiences for children in terms of social support, role modeling, and intrafamilial dynamics. Consequently, children may benefit from an expanded social support network and the presence of diverse role models within their upbringing milieu. These factors have the potential to shape a child’s social competencies, behaviors, and values. Children who grow up in an extended family structure may draw advantages from elements such as the reinforcement of familial bonds, the establishment of social support networks, and the existence of positive role models. Such circumstances can exert a mitigating influence on the propensity for criminality. However, the impact of an extended family structure on a child’s inclination toward criminal behavior exhibits a complex relationship. The efficacy of this type of family structure in diminishing a child’s proclivity for crime is contingent upon factors including the quality of intrafamilial communication, the extent of familial conflict, and the prevalence of criminal tendencies within the family unit.

5. Friendship groups and social norms

The social environment of individuals encompasses social norms that either encourage or deter criminal behavior. Involvement in delinquent friendship groups can facilitate an individual’s adoption of crime-related behaviors. Studies have shown that adolescents exhibiting antisocial behaviors tend to have a greater number of antisocial peers [27]. Individuals associated with delinquent friendship groups are prone to imitating and seeking approval for criminal behaviors. The prevalence of antisocial behaviors within friendship groups can increase an individual’s propensity for engaging in criminal activities. Another judgment in this regard is that due to the perception of crime as a group activity, individuals involved in criminal and violent behaviors are inevitably connected to peer groups that exhibit similar tendencies. Furthermore, research has found evidence suggesting that peer victimization during childhood contributes to criminal behavior in adulthood. The development of internalizing behaviors like depression and externalizing behaviors like aggression as a result of peer victimization leads to a tendency toward criminality in adulthood. The increased risk of future criminal involvement is significant for both the perpetrators and victims of bullying. Children who experience direct or indirect exposure to violence and those who exhibit repetitive aggressive behaviors and bullying are at risk of persisting in such negative behaviors in later stages of life. To address these risks, studies advocate for examining antisocial behaviors among school-aged children and developing necessary treatment and support programs for children identified as exhibiting such behaviors [28].

In the ever-evolving landscape of today’s society, the pervasive presence of the internet and technological devices has become an inseparable facet of our daily lives. While this advancement has undoubtedly yielded positive implications, it has also brought forth a host of detrimental outcomes. The widespread utilization of the internet has ushered in a paradigm shift in interpersonal communication among children, transitioning from face-to-face interactions to the vast realm of the virtual world. Consequently, instances of violent behavior have also taken on a novel guise, persistently manifesting through the medium of the internet and various technological tools. The escalating migration of children’s recreational activities to online platforms, coupled with the amplified reliance on technology and online systems due to prevailing pandemic circumstances, has given rise to the emergence of a nascent phenomenon known as cyberbullying. Tokunaga provides the following definition for cyberbullying: “Any conduct perpetrated by individuals or groups via electronic or digital media with the recurrent intent of transmitting hostile or aggressive messages for the purpose of inflicting harm or distress upon others” [29]. This definition underscores the absence of any discernible demarcation between traditional peer bullying and its cyber counterpart. The advent of cyberbullying has precipitated a global confrontation with the darker underbelly of the internet and technological advancements within societies at large. In this context, the prevalence and increase of violence and crime can be observed in both short and long-term processes associated with cyberbullying. Due to the difficulties in controlling online communication, its 24/7 accessibility, low emotional reactivity, continuous replicability, and high permanence, there is an increase in the risk and prevalence of violence and crime. Additionally, the challenges in controlling it make it harder to prevent recurring acts of violence and crime. Similar to traditional bullying, children who engage in cyberbullying have been found to exhibit characteristics such as low academic achievement, disregard for moral norms, low empathy, greater social isolation, inadequate parental supervision and support regarding internet usage, and other related factors [30].

6. Conclusions

Risk factors that contribute to the escalation of criminal behaviors individuals encounter throughout their lives have been the focal point of crime research in the existing literature. These studies have examined crime-related risk factors within the framework of individual, environmental, and social elements [31, 32]. The individual risk factors associated with crime can be listed as inclinations toward aggressive behaviors, low empathy abilities, attention deficits, prior criminal experiences, antisocial attitudes and judgments, low levels of cognitive functioning, weak social adaptability, high impulsivity levels, and low self-control and alcohol/substance abuse [33, 34, 35]. The research conducted has integrated crime-related social risk factors under the umbrella of an individual’s interaction with their family, school environment, peers, and other social contexts [36, 37]. Lastly, environmental risk factors can be explained by variables such as residing in criminogenic neighborhoods, living in deprived and unfavorable conditions, and associating with vulnerable groups in relation to criminal activities [38].

Numerous risk factors that are considered significant in relation to crime have been identified, and it is evident that these factors can be modified through effective interventions and preventive measures. This has the potential to prevent situations that jeopardize the well-being of individuals and society at large. Additionally, it is envisaged that such preventive efforts will contribute to the global reduction of crime and violence, which are recognized as pressing public health concerns. Consequently, a pivotal aspect of crime prevention initiatives involves elucidating the risk factors associated with criminal behavior.

Various elements, including family dynamics, peer group influences, educational factors, economic conditions, neighborhood characteristics, and societal influences, play influential roles in shaping an individual’s propensity for engaging in criminal activities. However, it is important to note that an isolated examination of these risk factors may not yield comprehensive insights, and instead, a comprehensive evaluation that considers their cumulative impact would be more conducive to effective action. Extensive research conducted over the years indicates that individual risk factors alone do not exert significant independent effects on criminal behavior. Hence, understanding the interaction and synergistic effects of multiple risk factors is pivotal in enhancing the predictive capacity for criminal conduct.

In light of the foregoing, it is paramount to comprehend the role of familial, societal, and environmental contexts in order to develop efficacious strategies for crime control. Consequently, fostering a supportive, secure, and equitable social environment becomes imperative for crime prevention and the promotion of societal well-being.