Final Destination? Exploring the Social Determinants of Crime

"The greatest mistake in our approach to crime is believing that criminality exists in isolation from the social ecosystem that produces it. We cannot meaningfully separate the offender from the conditions of deprivation, exclusion and trauma that shaped their journey through our systems." - Professor Stan Gilmour

Determinism in a World of Punishment

The question of free will has long troubled philosophers, but recent advances in neuroscience, as articulated by Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, carry profound implications for our understanding of crime and justice. Sapolsky's work suggests that our actions, criminal or otherwise, are determined by a complex web of biological, developmental and environmental factors spanning "one second before to a million years before."

In the UK, where prison populations have reached record highs and reoffending rates remain stubbornly elevated, these scientific insights should prompt a fundamental reconsideration of our approach to crime. The prevailing narrative of personal responsibility continues to dominate our criminal justice system, despite mounting evidence that socioeconomic and neurobiological factors play decisive roles in criminal behaviour.

The Reality of Crime and Victimisation

A left realist perspective demands that we acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: crime is not merely a social construct or moral panic, but a tangible reality that disproportionately affects working-class communities. As Jock Young and John Lea argued, the victims of street crime are often from the same disadvantaged backgrounds as the perpetrators. Any intellectually honest approach must reckon with both the harms caused by crime and the social conditions that generate it.

When we dismiss crime as merely a product of labelling or moral panic, we invalidate the legitimate fears of those who experience its effects most acutely. The residents of estates in Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow who face daily intimidation, theft or violence are not suffering from false consciousness; they are responding rationally to their material conditions.

The Illusion of Desert

The notion that criminals "deserve" punishment rests on increasingly shaky scientific ground. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs); including abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction, increase the likelihood of adult antisocial behaviour by approximately 35% per ACE. Meanwhile, the biology of prefrontal cortical function helps explain why, "at life's junctures, some people consistently make the wrong decision."

This is not to suggest a crude determinism that renders the justice system meaningless. Rather, it invites a more sophisticated framework that acknowledges the complex web of causality underlying criminal behaviour. The question becomes not whether someone deserves punishment, but what interventions might effectively reduce harm whilst acknowledging the profound influence of social determinants.

Intersectional Vulnerabilities and Criminalisation

The deterministic framework becomes even more nuanced when viewed through an intersectional lens. Individuals do not experience disadvantage along a single axis, but rather through the complex interaction of multiple social identities and positions. A young Black woman with mental health challenges in a deprived neighbourhood faces a constellation of vulnerabilities that shape her life chances in ways quite distinct from those faced by a white male counterpart in similar economic circumstances.

The criminal justice system reflects and reinforces these intersectional disadvantages. Women with histories of abuse and trauma are criminalised for survival strategies like drug use or involvement in prostitution. People with learning disabilities are processed through courts ill-equipped to accommodate their needs. Muslims face surveillance and suspicion under counter-terrorism policies. Each of these dynamics represents not just discrimination but a form of structured vulnerability that increases the likelihood of criminalisation.

Sapolsky's deterministic approach, when combined with intersectional analysis, reveals that what appears as individual "choice" occurs within highly constrained circumstances that vary dramatically across social groups. The pathways to offending, and the institutional responses to it, are shaped by these intersecting forms of disadvantage.

The Perils of Liberal Determinism

However, embracing determinism without careful consideration risks producing unintended consequences. "Liberal determinism"; the well-intentioned application of deterministic principles to criminal justice reform, can create its own problematic outcomes if not thoughtfully implemented.

First, there is the risk of creating a new form of fatalism. If criminal behaviour is seen as entirely determined by factors beyond individual control, we may inadvertently foster a sense of inevitability that undermines efforts at prevention and rehabilitation. Individuals with difficult backgrounds might be viewed, or come to view themselves, as destined for criminality, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Secondly, deterministic approaches could lead to troubling forms of preventive intervention. If we believe we can identify those "destined" for criminality through biological or social markers, we risk implementing intrusive monitoring or restrictions on those who have committed no crime. Such predictive policing raises serious ethical concerns about civil liberties and could exacerbate existing patterns of discrimination.

Thirdly, pure determinism might undermine the moral agency that remains essential to both personal development and community restoration. Even within a framework that acknowledges causal constraints, maintaining a space for personal reflection, moral reasoning and the capacity to change remains vital. Complete removal of responsibility could paradoxically limit individuals' ability to author new narratives for themselves.

A Rights-Regarding Framework

A rights-regarding approach offers a valuable corrective to these potential pitfalls. By centring the dignity and fundamental rights of all individuals, regardless of their circumstances or behaviours, it provides moral grounding without resorting to simplistic notions of desert or blame.

This framework acknowledges that even within deterministic constraints, people remain rights-bearers whose autonomy and dignity must be respected. It recognises the rights of victims to have harms acknowledged and addressed. It upholds the rights of the accused to fair treatment and due process. And crucially, it emphasises economic, social and cultural rights that address the root causes of crime and victimisation.

The right to adequate housing, to healthcare (including mental health support), to education and to meaningful work are not abstract aspirations but practical necessities for creating safer communities. When these rights are systematically denied to certain populations, the conditions for criminal behaviour flourish.

A rights-regarding approach also highlights the problematic nature of criminalisation itself. Many behaviours currently addressed through the criminal justice system -particularly those related to substance use, mental health crises, or immigration status, might be better understood as rights violations requiring social support rather than punitive intervention.

The Square of Crime: A Left Realist Framework

Left realism offers a valuable corrective to both punitive conservatism and na?ve liberal determinism. The "square of crime" proposed by Young and colleagues; which considers the complex interactions between offenders, victims, the state, and the public, provides a more nuanced framework for understanding criminal behaviour.

Under this model, crime emerges from the interplay of relative deprivation, subculture formation, and the breakdown of informal social controls. Young people in marginalised communities experience both material deprivation and status frustration, while lacking legitimate avenues for achievement. The weakening of community bonds, through austerity, housing policy, and labour market precarity, further erodes informal mechanisms of social control.

This analysis demands that we take both crime and its root causes seriously. It rejects the right-wing fixation on individual pathology, but also challenges left idealism that downplays the real harms of criminal victimisation or places excessive faith in structural transformation alone.

Social Gradients in Crime:

From Educational Disinvestment to Judicial Enmeshment

Just as life expectancy can vary by decades depending on one's birthplace and family circumstances, so too does the likelihood of involvement with the criminal justice system. Growing up in areas of concentrated disadvantage dramatically increases one's probability of arrest and imprisonment. The criminal justice system reproduces and reinforces these social gradients, with the most disadvantaged experiencing the harshest penalties.

The pathway from educational disinvestment to judicial enmeshment represents one of the most pernicious mechanisms through which social inequality reproduces itself. In communities suffering from austerity and neglect, schools become underfunded, overcrowded, and unable to provide adequate support for students with complex needs. Zero-tolerance disciplinary policies then function as conveyor belts, transforming educational challenges into criminal justice problems. Young people, particularly those from racial minorities and those with disabilities, find themselves subject to escalating levels of surveillance and punishment, from school exclusion to court involvement to incarceration.

Consider the stark disparities in the UK system: individuals from Black, Asian and other Minoritised Ethnic backgrounds are disproportionately represented in the prison population, whilst those from privileged backgrounds frequently avoid custodial sentences for similar offences. These patterns reflect not differing propensities toward criminality, but rather systemic biases in policing, prosecution and sentencing.

Towards a Realist, Rights-Based Response

What might a new vision for criminal justice look like? It would combine practical interventions to reduce crime with structural reforms to address its root causes, while respecting the dignity and agency of all involved.

In the immediate term, this might include:

• Targeted interventions developed through genuine consultation with affected communities, particularly those who face intersectional disadvantage
• Investment in youth services and community centres that offer alternative pathways for young people at risk of offending
• Substantive efforts to address drug dependency, mental health issues, and housing insecurity among those caught in cycles of reoffending
• Diversion programmes that route individuals away from the criminal justice system and toward appropriate support
• Restorative justice processes that centre repair of harm rather than retribution

Longer-term, it demands more fundamental changes: reducing income inequality, creating meaningful employment opportunities, addressing systematic racism within institutions, and restoring dignity to communities hollowed out by deindustrialisation and austerity. These structural changes are not abstract ideals but practical necessities for crime reduction.

Scotland's Violence Reduction Unit offers one instructive model, treating violence as a public health issue rather than simply a criminal justice matter. By targeting the root causes (e.g., poverty, trauma, substance misuse) while respecting the dignity and agency of those involved, the initiative has achieved significant reductions in violent crime without relying on simplistic determinism or ignoring the real harms of violent offending.

Conclusion

Future generations may indeed marvel at our current understanding of human behaviour. However, the emerging science of human behaviour demands that we move beyond both simplistic notions of blame and na?ve applications of determinism.

A left realist perspective offers a path forward that neither excuses harmful behaviour nor ignores its social and biological determinants. It demands that we take seriously both the harms of crime and the profound injustices that generate it. It recognises the complex, intersecting disadvantages that shape pathways to offending. And it upholds the fundamental rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their circumstances or behaviours.

By acknowledging the complex interplay of determinants while preserving space for human dignity and agency, we can develop more effective and humane responses to harmful behaviour. Only by addressing both the immediate harms of crime and the structural conditions that generate it can we hope to create communities that are both safer and more just.