**Sometimes thinking on this is divided into two camps: Biological causes of crime and societal causes of crime.** - [Strain theory](https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0005.xml), first developed by sociologist [Émile Durkheim](https://iep.utm.edu/durkheim/), posits that the social structures and cultural values of society put pressure on people to commit crime. Increasing disparities between the rich and the poor, contemporary capitalism that emphasizes material success, and the demolition of the welfare state are a few examples. Any kind of strain theory acknowledges that only a small portion of all possible strained individuals are likely to engage in crime. - [Biological causes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640871/) of antisocial/criminal behavior are posited to occur in neurobiological mechanisms that spur the actions of crime. These include: - Blunted autonomic functioning, where the body isn't aroused as easily in such things as heart rate and sweating - "Failure to cognitively associate physiology responses with emotional states," which can lead to psychopathy as it can impair emotional intelligence - Structural impairments in the prefrontal cortex, which controls higher-level thinking activities such as impulse control, moral reasoning, and decision making - Amygdala maldevelopment, which can lead to an inability to recognize distress cues from others - Higher striatum volumes, which can cause a rewarding mechanism for antisocial behavior - Gene and environment interactions, which are mentioned [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640871/). - Where these two camps of crime causation merge is interesting and makes cases messier to explain. If someone is predisposed to criminal activity due to the particular structural functioning of their brain and neurobiological responses, but they are introduced to a society in which there is never any strain upon them to live up to some pressure of cultural values, will they still commit crimes? Perhaps sometimes yes, sometimes no.

**Radical criminology states that crime is caused by capitalism** • Radical criminology argues that crime is defined under the terms of the ruling class, which it distinguishes from the rest of society. Originating from [Marxist theory](https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/sociology/crime-and-deviance/marxism-and-crime/), radical criminologists contend that the concept of crime and the policing of it is a form of social control that maintains elitist power over the subject classes. Critics argue that that this definition is ["not necessarily reflect(ive of) the interests of those who are powerless or those at the bottom end of society"](https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/criminology/what-crime). • This argument states that capitalism causes (and benefits from) crime. Capitalism relies on [economic discrepancies](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23124193?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents) within society, that leads to the elevation of some and the exploitation of others. Convicted criminals are rarely from the 'ruling class' because of the nature of capitalism: Jeffrey H Reiman argues that [“the more likely a crime is to be committed by higher class people, the less likely it is to be treated as a criminal offence”](https://www.sociologystuff.com/download/49c49b68-5097-11e9-a6f2-bfea9af49687/). As laws are created by those in power, he suggests that these are shaped in regard to their interests. In addition, the judicial system penalises subject-class criminals more harshly than ruling-class criminals. This maintains and widens the power dynamic between the ruling class and the rest of society.

I'm not too sure on this one, I've gone with mixed because society, in general, has a collective understanding of morality and understands what is right and wrong. The only thing being that no matter how a society is set up there will be crime, even in lawless areas there will be a understanding of what you can and can't do. There will always be people who are going to break the rules. I think that in the better constructed societies there will most likely be less crime, but that is not how I interpret the question... I see the question more about the existence of crime rather than the rate.