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.