There are three levels of explanation in the study of deviant and criminal behaviour. A first level of explanation is concerned with the existence of the many different forms of human behaviour that occur in any society (Becker, 1963). Biology may contribute towards an explanation of this diversity, but it can never provide the whole explanation. It is always necessary to take account of processes of socialization (Becker, 1963). Biological theory of crime, arguing that any association between physical characteristics and their behaviour can be explained(Young 1999). According to Young, lower working class children who are more likely to be involved, in the crime, are also by virtue of diet, continual manual labour, physical fitness and strength, more likely to be mesomorphic (Young 1999, 387).Young claims that males chromosome could lead to behaviour that to others it would look odd, and this differences may exclude them from normal social life, which in turn may lead them to crime. However according to Kelly, behaviour attributed to biological causes may not necessary lead to crime. The biochemistry of the body may affect behaviour as he points out for example A Diabetic person, without recent insulin injection may become tense, short tempered, but his behaviour does not constitute a criminal act( Haralambos 1999). A second level of explanation is concerned with the variation in norms between social groups, as manifested particularly in cultural and subculture differences (Becker, 1963). Lea and Young stress out that crime is only one aspect, though generally a small one, of the process of cultural adaptation to oppression. Unlike Gilroy, they see West Indian crime as a response to condition in Britain rather than as a continuation of traditions from the West Indies (Lea el at.1999, 428). Socialization takes place within particular social groups, and it is the norms of these groups that provide the standards for the identification of particular kinds of behaviour as criminal (Becker, 1963). The third, and final, level of explanation is concerned with the ways in which particular individuals are identified as criminals by others and so come to develop a criminal identity. This is a matter of social reaction and control (Becker, H,1963).
In addition to understand social construction of crime, it is very important to look back at historical theoretical periods, which plays an important roles in revitalising past discoveries, putting new stress on the interpretation of events and relating these to current happenings(Jock Young, 307).
First of all I would like to look at Marxist theory, where he sees crime being endemic in the social order. According to Marxism, men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please: they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directed encountered, given and transmitted from the past (Marx, 1969,p.360). Marxist frameworks have developed a Marxist theory of crime. From Marx perspectives crime is seen largely as the product of capitalism, with criminal and antisocial behaviour indicative of the contradictions and problems inherent in the capitalist system (Marsh, 1997, 519). The basic motivation of capitalism, such as emphasis on materialism and self- enrichment, encourage self-interested, anti-social and, by implication, criminal behaviour (Marsh, 1997, 519). Marxist s argues that business crime is largely ignored by the legal system. There are some well publicized exceptions, but these tend just to reinforce the impression that criminals are mainly from the working classes and that business criminals are not ‘real’ criminals – they are just doing what everyone else does (Marsh,1997,519). Marxist arguments suggest that capitalism produces the conditions that generate criminal behaviour. According to him, crime occurs because of economic deprivation and because of the contradictions that are apparent in capitalist society. Working-class crime is a rebellion against inequality and against the system that uses the legal process- including the Law, the police, courts and prison as weapons in a class war(Marsh, 1997, 522).