Does postmodernism result in crime?

Does postmodernism result in crime?

By J.E. Sahetapy

JAKARTA (JP): It is a real tragedy that crime in general has
flourished in the post-modern society, while at the same time man
has shown his capacity to use science and technology to
facilitate a really good life.

Criminologists have written thousands of pages about the
causes of crime, theorizing in almost every direction, searching
for any clue in every corner in society, daring to question the
policy of the government and trying to analyze its power elite,
which in certain countries are immune from the legal apparatus.
They consider man as having failed to use morality and religion
to control his behavior, because religion has been adopted by its
followers merely as a ceremonial function.

R. Rorty (1991) and A.C. Zijderveld (1993) noted: "We have
become so open-minded that our brains have fallen out". Dit geeft
aan leiding tot de gerede vraag: "How do we come to our senses
again?" This is the impact of postmodernism where honesty and
integrity are labeled as conservatism.

In the meantime, the fundamental change of mentality related
to morality and ethics has reached a remarkable level. Collusion
and its many ramifications -- such as corruption, tax frauds by
big corporations, pollution of the environment by big factories
owned by certain exclusive groups with access to the highest
levels in policy making, dumping of toxic waste locally or
through import from foreign countries, labeling those who are
critical of government policies as dissidents or communists or by
any other negative names -- have engineered the law in such a way
that Indonesia does not adopt "rule of law" but "rule by law" or
"rule above the law".

Solidarity to whom and for what? When policy does not relate
across the board, it exists exclusively only in terms of money.
Even in street crimes, the infamous expression of "your money or
your life" has changed to "your money and your life", and towards
a female victim "your chastity". The actor or the criminal has
been placed in such a situation that every factor can influence
him.

Behavior is the result of "the combined assumptions of
maximizing behavior, market equilibrium and stable preferences"
(Bruisma/Van de Bunt, 1993). The rational subject then
becomes the home economicus, so that the perpetrator
theoretically cannot be distinguished from any other person.

Hans Boutellier (1993) considered that after the positivistic
change of behavior to perpetrator and sociological change of the
perpetrator to sociological environment, it is time now to look
more closely for a moralistic approach to crime problems,
especially since the government or the power elite are engaged in
a disguised form of deviant behavior themselves, not to say in
crime. This transformation means a normative correction which
took place in the 1960s and 1970s not only in Europe but also
elsewhere.

But in this context, it is not only the morality of the common
people or the society, but also the morality and the ethics of
those who are in power or who govern the state. Therefore, it
seems that morality should be considered as a manipulative
variable. The perception that the state or its actors are beyond
the reach of the law makes "criminal law (only) a celebration of
morality" (Boutellier, 1993).

Consequently, the "rule of law" can not be enforced. The legal
apparatus and the penal code are reserved and preserved only for
those who are classified as marginal or those who live in the
periphery of society or for those who are labeled as dissident.

The post-modern man does not consider any more whether this is
good or right, but how he feels toward this problem.

To get an answer which, he thinks, justifies his action or
behavior, he will look at conduct in higher places. He will
compare the legal action of the state apparatus or those who
wield and abuse it or disguise it because it is illegal.

So when the rational perpetrator makes his decision, it is not
because the norms are vague, but because if those who are in
power can do it, why can he not do it too? The next step is to
calculate how he can evade the law or set up collusion as a
service provider.

The rhetoric which has a moralistic tone from the powers who
govern through remote control saying: "Do what I say, not what I
and those in my close surroundings do", has been morally
manipulated by almost every institution, state or private
enterprise, including the legal apparatus and the courts for
better or worse.

Causes clbres legal cases, which usually have been
engineered by the legal apparatus for unknown motives, other than
that those who are in power do not want to lose their reputation
or lose face, whether they are directly or indirectly involved,
or for the sake of esprit de corps, a scenario based on collusion
is set up, also as a service provider. Greed in the form of "the
greenback" is of course sine qua non.

The mass media, who are usually eager to publish for their own
benefit, are fully aware of the "telephone culture" where
government officials sometimes call editors and tell them to
print or not to print certain stories and its consequences, and
eo ipso do their best to disseminate the truth or whatever it
considers morally responsible, usually using euphemistic phrases.

In such a case it is not surprising to consider such a society
or state and its power apparatus as being like a rotten fish. And
a rotten fish begins to stink not from its tail but from its
head. The fundamental problem then, is, who has the courage to
cut out the rot? Nobody dares.

Even those who wear stars upon their shoulders do not have the
courage to tell the truth. Later, after they retire, then they
begin to sing a different tune from the one when they were in
power. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Where the norms disappear and legal compliance can not fulfill
its function in self-fulfilling prophecy, crime such as collusion
will manifest itself in several dimensions, such as in abuse of
power regarding human rights; corruption in almost any state
agency without exception; the absence of independence in courts;
collusion in the form of disguised extortion for those going into
business; business monopoly related to nepotism and its cronies;
no transparent legal action against environmental polluters; and
illegal dumping of toxic waste.

It is of course difficult to distinguish between "crime in
business" and "the business of crime".

Vincenzo Ruggiero (1996) remarks quite aptly that "Often, 'the
crimes of the powerful' are only vaguely conceptualized, perhaps
because the words crime and powerful, when perceived with equally
moralistic tones, end up coinciding."

Therefore, it is understandable that while power tends to
corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton),
nobody gives up power voluntarily, except in a truly democratic
society where the "rule of law" is the hallmark.

The writer is a professor of law at Airlangga University,
Surabaya.