The association between society's explanations for the causes of crime and delinquency and society's responses to crime and delinquency are not always obvious to the public, but clearly such an association must exist. We address issues based on the way we view issues. We do not have a bag of solutions from which we draw whatever happens to be at the top at the time. Rather, we look at what we think the problem is, and this always includes how we think the problem developed. We then create a solution that includes addressing the cause in order to reduce the problem in the future. In this regard, we attack both ends of the problem at once. When speaking of crime, we address the issue of punishment for the crime that exists while trying to address the causes of crime to reduce the future incidence of it.
However, the perception the public has of crime is not always clear, and the public does not necessarily consider the question of cause in a direct and specific fashion. Put another way, the public demands a response to crime based on the perception it has of crime at a given moment, and this perception changes over time. The public perception of the cause of crime is not necessarily rational. It is instead often based on emotional responses--when people are more afraid of crime, for instance, they demand a harsher response toward the criminal in terms of punishment. The general societal response to crime, however, is very much based on the prevailing view of the causes of crime.
Before considering the causes of crime, it would be proper to consider a definition of crime. To be a crime, an act must have seven ingredients that identify the act as a crime: the act requirement, the legality requirement, the harm requirement, the causation requirement, the mens rea requirement, the concurrence requirement, and the punishment requirement. The act requirement means that there must be a conscious interaction between mind and ...