INSECURITY AND INSECURITY AND KIDNAPPINGIN NIGERIA
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
For a study of this nature it will be expedient to review literature relevant to the topic.
2.1 The nature of kidnapping:
Kidnapping by nature is an acquisitive crime of a very high violent crime standing which is an offense against the value system of a society. Okonkwo (1980) opined that kidnapping is broadly inclusive in assault. He construed the nature of kidnapping in his comment as involving;
Any person who unlawfully imprison, and take him out of Nigeria, without his consent, or unlawfully imprison any person within Nigeria in such a manner as to prevent him from applying to a court for his release or from discovering to any other person the place where he is imprisoned, or in such a manner as to prevent any person entitled to have access to him from discovering the place where he is imprisoned.
From the line of thought of Okonkwo one would observe as Ugwu (2010) avowed that, there is a dehumanizing tendency involved in the crime of kidnapping as it often leads to the death of the victim. The view of Ugwu is essentially true because as the kidnapping crime is carried out in our country is usually beyond ransom taking, since death is usually a resultant consequence for those who cannot or whose people could not meet up with the often exorbitant amount called out for as ransom even after a disgracing bargain or negotiation.
Kidnapping as Schmalleger (1997) noted, as a criminal offense has “corpus delict” of a crime that is “body of a crime” because the needed element are present to establish the act as a crime. Yet, kidnapping is not a situational crime, as it has in sufficient proportion “mens rea and actus reas” the two essential element of a criminal act. Okonkwo (1980) comented on these two concepts when he opined that “mens rea” on one hand is the intention to commit a crime in other words the state of mind that accompanies a criminal act. While “actus reus” on the other hand means, the guilty act which is a necessary first feature of every crime in violation of the law.
Bryne and Taxman (2006) quipped that kidnapping is a choice, not an unavoidable response to hopeless environment. Farabee (2005) in support of this position threw more light, when he discarded the pervasive belief that kidnappers essentially have no choice but to resort to crime, as conveying a profoundly destructive expectation to them and to future criminals. Farebee concludes that this
mode of thinking or orientation undermine the criminal’s perceived ability to control their own destinies.
By its very nature therefore, kidnapping causes a disruption of order and decline of public security. No wonder, Ugwu (2010) opined that, the tactics employed to address the problem are not adequate in yielding the desired result and fruit. He concludes that the more the police strategize to track the kidnappers down, the more the criminals unleash their terror on the people (p.4). Terrorism as a violent act is intrinsically tied to kidnapping. Ugwu (Oral Interview, 2011) disclosed that, one have to be terrorized first of all before one succumbs to a kidnapping encounter. With Ugwu’s view it is glaring that a synergy exists between kidnapping and terrorism since it takes a measure of the latter to compel a person to fall victim to the former.
2.2 Theories of crime causation:
This section examines some criminological theories on crime causation, since a theory among other considerations is an explanation that can guide human behaviour. The under-explained theories are therefore used to make for better understanding of this research work.
Pre-theoretical Explanations: These constitute the earliest explanation for the causation of crime in human societies. There are two pre-theoretical explanations, they are demonology and naturalism. Vold (1958) cited in Igbo (2007) holds that primitive and pre-literate people believed that spirits inhibit and control individuals in ways beyond their comprehension in that they (the spirit)
take victims, direct or push them to engage in outlaw conduct often against their will.
On the other hand, Schmalleger (1997) a proponent of naturalism upholds that manipulation and control of natural events like the night, stars, moon among others will help reduce crime. The view of Schmalleger is incomplete because no recourse was made to social factors that can influence man to engage in crime in human society. The belief in demonology and naturalism brings control measures like flogging, incapacitation, purification, prayer and especially exorcism of such evil possessive spirits.
Igbo (2007) discarded the pre-theoretical explanations as being mythical and unscientific because it is not possible to locate the part of the human body where such demons or evil spirits resides. Although, these cannot be proven otherwise, Igbo’s view tends to ignore or rather down play the true nature of man being a tripartite being with spirit, soul and body and in constant contact with the spiritual beings in the world. If knowledge of the African cosmology or world-view is anything to go by, it is worthy of note, that the living and the dead are residing in the same world and as such there exist a very high tendency for wicked or evil spirit to influence man’s life negatively.
With these pre-theoretical explanations, one wonders if the devil should not be presumed innocent until proven guilty on the last Day of Judgment. A situation where people blame demons as being solely responsible for all criminal behaviour is faulty in part as it limits an understanding of what man is in the social sense.
Choice Theory: A number of perspectives abound on choice theory as crime causation. According to Gaines, Kaune and Miller (2000) the basic tenet of crime is the result of rational choice made by those who want to engage in criminal activity for the rewards it offers. Siegel (2005) threw more light on choice theory when he affirmed that crime is a function of a decision making process in which the potential offender weighs the potential cost and benefits of an often illegal act. We are persuaded with Siegel’s outlook on crime causation because man considered from a Christian anthropological perspective is widely acknowledged a moral agent characterized with free-will and intellect (Iwe, 2005) and a subject of rights and responsibility. As thinking being, man is responsible for his actions and inactions provided he is knowledgeable in the issue or has an informed conscience that leads to such decision. Igbo (2007) agreed with the notion that free-will and hedonistic tendencies of man as a rational pleasure seeking animal that chooses what will bring pleasure and not pain or suffering. Agha (2010) observes that one desirable thing for man is pleasure or happiness to be sought by an individual.
To control crimes with this orientation in mind, severe punishment that will serve as adequate deterrent to intended offenders by making the crime unattractive to all potential criminals in societies.
Biological Theories: Biological theory is an aspect of trait theory. The proposition of this theory is that biological traits are able to control human behavior both individually and collectively. Gall cited in Schmalleger (1997) was the pioneer of
this theory. He propagated the idea that bodily constitution reflects personality. The notions of born criminal or atavism were major import in this area.
Gaines, Kaune and Miller (2001) assert that certain biological traits in individuals could lead toward criminal behaviour in a given set of circumstances. These traits were traced to a biochemical condition and genetics especially how it influences the brain. A fair knowledge of neuroscience (the science of the structure and function of the brain) will point to abnormalities on physical health which people suffer at their nascent and formative stage especially through child birth has been an influence on their behaviour to life. With these assumptions that crime trait is genetic and biological, solution or control measure are conceived as coming through the sterilization of criminal offenders/parents so that they will not continue to produce their kind.
From an ethical perspective, these theories can be debunked on the premise that offenders cannot be destroyed because it is believed that the tendency to commit crime resides in their genes and as such transferable to their young. Perhaps a number of factors contribute to crimes making a general human tendency though biological yet, not genetic nor transferable.
Psychological Theories: This is the second aspect of trait theories. It comprises of psychobiological and psychoanalysis theories. Psychobiological factors are mid- part or synthesis of core biological and psychological traits. Schmalleger (1997) avows that the emphasis is on the role of chromosomes in the determination of criminal behaviour. These biochemical factors are derived from dietary deficiency,
genetics that are hereditary among others. For Schmalleger, the control measure of psychobiological trait basis of crime causation is among other things the modification of body chemistry for a more desirable behavioural change.
One wonders from the comment of Schmalleger how deficiency in diet can lead to crime when we know that some if not all crimes work with opportunity and the criminal intent and time to actualize such pre-meditated thoughts. Psychoanalysis has Freud as its pioneer theorist. For Freud, humans possess inherent drives and urge that lead to criminal tendencies. Nwite (2010) observes that through the process of socialization, criminal tendencies are curbed by the development of inner controls learnt through childhood experience. The filial relationship that exists between a child and the parent was pin-pointed as a contributory factor to criminal behaviour. Opera (1998) agrees with Nwite when he asserts that a defective relationship between a mother and her child brings problem in the proper socialization of the child, with evidence in emotional disturbances that leads to the formation of maladjusted personality traits.
Haskell and Yablonsnky (1970) cited in Igbo (2007) maintain that psychoanalysis theory takes the position that criminal behaviour is a result of inner conflict, emotional problems, unconscious feeling of insecurity, inadequacy and inferiority. The researcher quite agrees with Haskell and Yablonsnky since they are not oriented towards exonerating the criminals as though they are helpless but rather contending with their emotions and drives to indulge in deviant act.
Alexander and Staub (1931) cited in Dambazau (2007) assert that the only difference between the criminal and the normal individual is that the normal man partially controls his criminal drives and finds outlets for them in socially harmless activities. They further concluded that the solution or control measure to eradicate unsocial behaviour is acquired through the process of education.
Education, world over, stands as an effective means of nurturing the human conscience through proper moral upbringing and training that can control the human mind on what to and not to do.
Sociological Theories: A number of perspectives make up the sociological theory on crime causation. They include among others; social process theories, social conflict theories and peace-making criminology.
Social process: It is a cluster of many theories. Okereke (2011) saw the strength of this theory in the proposition that criminality is a function of individuals socialization and thus can be reduced through right and proper socialization. According to Edwin (1939) family relations, educational experience, peer relations and institutional involvement and belief have effect in inducing people into crime or not. By necessity therefore, to avoid crime in people, the proper type of orientation and relationship pattern is required in all human social institutions and agencies since we are persuaded that nurture possess a greater sway on human conduct generally and crime specifically especially kidnapping.
Institutional involvement and belief is an aspect of social process theories. It sees the moral fiber of a person as emanating from the level of commitment one
maintains with a belief system. Siegel (2004) avowed that the people who hold high moral values and attend religious services would learn to distinguish right from wrong and eschew crime and other antisocial behaviour. This view holds water in contemporary societies as church attendance has a positive effect on youth’s involvement on crime.
Social control or bond theory is another aspect among the social process theories. The trust of this theory is based on the assumption that all people are all potential criminals and as such can violate the law ones the opportunity avails itself, especially as the excitement, reward and gratification makes the act a repeated one. According to Siegel (2004) social control theorist argues that people obey the law because their behaviour and passions are controlled by internal and external forces. These forces may include self control, commitment to conformity among others. Ugwuoke (2010) threw light on outer or external forces when he asserts that it prepares the individual for self discipline by supervision and punishment when they go wrong.
Social conflict theory: This is another sociological explanation for crime causation in societies. A number of figures and perspectives have been developed on this area. In all, Marx is a major proponent of this orientation. Siegel (2004) opined that the aim of social conflict theories is to explain the cause of crime from the economic and social context. Similarly, Schmalleger (1997) affirms that the basic tenet of this perspective is that conflict is fundamental aspect of social life itself; as
such it cannot be fully resolved. Schmalleger (1997) further opined that in social conflict perspective crime is;
The natural consequence of economic and other social inequalities...the stresses which arise between and within social groups as they compete with one another for resources and survival. The social forces which result are viewed as major determents of group and individual behaviour, including crime (P. 100).
Although, this view of Schmalleger holds water because it is borne of the mode of relationship that exists between the rich and the poor in capitalist economy that is based on class as the cause of crime, Yet, life is not limited to economic well being and forces of the market rather than of virtue and relationship with man and God.
However, Bonger (1916) cited in Igbo (2007) brought a greater clarity to Marxist social theory, when he posits that crime is an outcome of poverty from the poor and unemployed in capitalist oriented societies and as such he concludes that such societies are by their structure criminogenic. Nwite (2010) enthused that with an increasing gap between the rich and poor that creates people at the two extremes, the poor result to stealing from the rich to survive.
Peace-making Criminology: Peacemaking is an aspect of conflict perspective, a part of sociological theories of crime causation. Siegel (2004) has it that the earliest theorists that wrote on this perspective were Tifft and Surllivan. Later theorist of social conflict like Tifft and Sullivan (1989) cited in Siegel (2004), saw crime control as only possible through peacemaking and restorative justice. Siegel
(2005) threw light on restorative justice when he asserts that it involves using humanistic non-punitive strategies to right wrongs and restore social justice through the agents of crime control and members of the society at large. From this perspective, it seems that when a thorough distributive measure is employed in the transfer of wealth from the haves to the have not, then the problem of crime will be completely wiped out.
The main aim of peacemaking as a movement was to promote peace and a just human society. Moyer (2001) stated it that the lives and actions of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Junior provided the cultural and historical background for peacemaking criminology. For Moyer peacemaking criminology it is a more peaceful and compassionate response to individuals actions that the society popularly label as criminals. Quinney and Wildemen (1991:10) stated that peacemaking “criminology is based necessarily on human transformation in achievement of peace and justice …without peace within us and in our actions, there can be no peace and justice in our result. Peace is the way”.
Einstadter and Henry (1995) avowed that, peacemaking criminology offers a different means of framing and thinking about crime that breaks out of the current punitive context. And at the same time it brings into its discourse the voice of the victim, currently the most neglected element in the established justice system. The foundation of peacemaking criminology is that crime must not be seen as a war making venture as social arrangements can be made that can cater for the needs of all and sundry in the society. Vold, Bernard and Snipes (1998) conclude that
violent punishment can perpetrate and increase the violence of crime that not until people look away from violence in terms of punishment as the effective means of crime control, criminals would also do same.
The strength of peacemaking criminology lies at its de-emphasis on mere empirical approach on crime causation rather it applies non-violent models through a restorative justice framework. No wonder, Kathleen and Russ (1998) cited in Siegel (2004) disclosed that restorative justice models lies not on punitive strategies of crime prevention and control. The limitation of this social conflict perspective is the overwhelming emphasis on economic inequality as the causation of crime is grossly ineffective.
Economic Theories: The Marxist perspective is fundamental to the economic theories of crime causation. Clinard cited in Gibbons (1992) enthused that crimes are of entirely low class phenomenon to people who want to meet the basic needs of life. Siegel (2005) throws more light on this view when he stated that people at the lowest rungs of the social structure have the greatest incentive to commit crimes. In a similar note, Nduoma (2006) sees these basic needs of food, shelter and clothing as the propelling force that drive men to ignore the legitimate means of livelihood for unethical, immoral and of course illegitimate ways to satisfy their basic needs.
As a primary orientation, poverty is seen as the driving force for involvement in criminal activities. Gibbons (1992) had this in mind when he opined that people are basically “motivated to engage in crime because of
economic precariousness or other economic self-interest”. Chambliss (1976) in Okezie (2007) argues that greed, self-interest and hostility generated by the capitalist system, are motivating factors to crimes at all levels of society. Bonger in Opera (1998) sees capitalism as the “facilitating environmental condition” for crime. Igbo (2007) concludes that “it is generally assumed that poor people are potential criminals because of their desperate economic condition” in societies. On a dialectic note, Igbo (2007) admits that not all considered to be poor with whatever standard are engaged in crime. This is essentially true because crime as we observe it today seem a human tendency that cut across all social class and status, with the rich involved in all manner of dubious criminal activities often in their sphere of influence or comfort zone or place of work.
Developmental Theories: Perspectives under this theory are oriented towards controlling crimes through developmental designs or measures. Okereke (2011) disclosed that development theorist believe that the proper control of developmental factors which encapsulate the cause and continuation of criminal careers, will help in the control of crimes in society.
2.3 Nigerian socio-political and economic structures:
The name, Nigeria came as a convenient nomenclature for recognition of the “Niger-area” of West coast of Africa. Lands stretching from the colony of Lagos, Southern province and Northern protectorate were merged and placed under the direct control and administration of the British colonial Masters. With an unflinching persistence in the agitation for freedom and self governance by
patriotic nationalists, Nigeria finally gained her independence on October 1, 1960. This achievement marked an end to the political struggles between the colonialist and nationalist.
Nwaobi (nd.) asserts that, independent Nigeria is the single largest geographical unit in West Africa. According to CBN (2000) Nigeria occupies an area of land 923,768 square kilometers, with longitude 30 and150 East and latitude 400 and 140 North. With rain forest and savanna as the two vegetation zones, Nigeria lies within the tropics.
Yet, the political history of Nigeria is pathetic, perhaps “African”. With sit tight regimes coupled with totalitarian suppression of ethnic minorities and the relative poor, many lives have been terminated due to the excesses of political office holders. After a long interchange of military-civilian rule, constitutional democracy was once more restored in 1999 with the military relinquishing power that saw the Olusegun Obasanjo administration. Spuy and Rontsch (2008) maintained that the elections held in 2003 and 2007 were characterized as falling short of international standards as a result of the way the polls were handled. Recently, the Nation had a general election in 2011 with Professor Attahiru Jega, the seeming “saviour” of the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) and reports also came from some localities on the recorded failure due to electoral malpractice. Spuy and Rontsch after their comparative study on Police and Crime Prevention in Africa observed that in Nigeria “the political system as a whole is notorious for its instability, corruption, inefficiency and brutality” because of the excesses of the political elites.
Economically, the political structure of Nigeria has controlled the outlook of material progress in the country. World Bank (1996) cited in Nwaobi (nd.) observed that at birth, Nigeria’s economy was fairly diversified with various agricultural products that supported 75 percent of the population, provided 68 percent of GDP and 78 percents of Exports and supplied the people with 94 percent of their food before the dwindle in agricultural sector. Nwaobi further stressed that the decline of agriculture as a result of the growing burden of taxation. Within this period, agriculture was central to Nigeria’s economic life. At the mid1960s, oil had gradually become the driving force for Nigerian economic structure. Oil extraction and refining is the life sustaining means of the Nigerian industrial sector. It employs over 10% of the labour force and 34% contribution to GDP (http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/nigeria/structure-of-econo- my.html).
The oil sector experienced a drastic and incremental change in the working population but had a far less impact on the total national product. This disparity in the number of work force and the return to the Nation’s economy is an indication that the country had not sufficiently subdued and annexed the enormous material wealth in her environment.
Anyanwu, Oyefusi and Dimowo (1997) disclosed that, the political economy of Nigeria is a reciprocal and dynamic interaction of (state and market) the pursuit
of wealth and power. The socio-economic and political structures otherwise called the political economy of the Nigerian state have been declared faulty on several occasions by many a scholar as a very porous economic make-up. Excessive oil dependence, agrarian negligence and a poor use of scientific method in the production of goods and services have reinforced these challenges. Reasons for this judgment are based largely on evidences from stratification, inequality and poverty among others that have culminated at a very high rate of corruption on the part of working class people and crime on part of the often jobless youth in recent times.
Otite and Ogionwo (2006) observed that, social stratification is a near universal phenomenon in organized human societies. Although, the level of involvement may vary from one society to another, yet, it serves as a functional necessity for social effectiveness. Barker (2005) averred from a sociological Perspective that, stratification is construed as the classification of persons into groups based on shared socio-economic conditions… a relational set of inequalities with economic, social, political and ideological dimensions.
The Nigerian society like most of African societies is highly stratified. Social classification in traditional Nigerian society was previously viewed as Odedele and Egotanwa (1999) opined that it is based on power, wealth, number of wives and children, religion, race, land ownership, while that of our modern society is based on wealth, education, position, income, life style and residential
location. From Odedele and Egotanwa one can observe that in Nigeria the stratified groups can be reduced to class, status and power.
Gidden, Duneier and Appelbaum (1999) from an anthropological view point, assert that the three aforementioned classes of a stratified society can be explained as people who share common characteristics without necessarily interacting with each other; these characteristics can be changed through hard work and lastly perhaps these changes come slowly. This social reality in Nigeria brings to mind the issue or concept of social mobility (often of labour). Odedele and Egotanwa (1999) hold that, the movement from one social class to another is not restricted in Nigeria provided one possesses the required and desirable qualities as power, property, and education and of late one can include “connections”.
The wide gap between the rich and poor, the minimal presence of a middle class as conditioned by the socio- political and economic structure that Nigeria has maintained over time has instilled a beggarly and highly dependent mode of relation between the haves and have not in the country. When this relationship is not favourable to the “have not’s” they device all forms of tact to capture the wealth of the “haves” often in default of moral norms and laws. Owo (1994: 103) saw one of the consequences of stratification as a condition when “those at the lower rung of the social ladder suffer the inequities and injustices of the system”. In worst case scenario, crime and criminality are the outcome. No wonder, Odedele and Egotanwa (1999) conclude that stratification in Nigeria has led to division, oppression and crime.
Weate (2010) avows that some people are born to own and control a household; others are born to clean it up in perpetuity. This statement speaks volume on the nature of inequality and social exclusion in the country. Anyacho (2005) added from a Marxist view point regarded both political and economic inequalities as having their origin in their economic structure, since the economic structure determines the levels of participation of the individual members in the life of the society. This view of Anyacho is one sided, since from this perspective, all evils and crimes (including kidnapping) in the society emanate from the struggle among the rich to acquire more wealth and among the poor to survive.
In Nigeria today, inequality –the gap between the rich and the poor– is quite high and often widening (http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/poverty-around- the-world), with a direct relevance to relative poverty and consequence for a deteriorating social cohesion and increasing crime and violence. The nature of relationship between members of various social groups as reflected in social inequality is seen in the level of economic development among the people. Economic equality and equality of opportunity are the two classes of inequality prevalent in the Nigerian society. Otite and Ogionwo (2006) gave a detailed description of these concepts, when they view the formal as the extent to which people in different classes are equal or unequal in terms of income, wealth, status, power and influence in the community. The latter was explained as the extent to which people born into any social class have an equal chance of moving to a higher social class.
The notion that individuals are not selected for occupational and other social positions on the basis of their achievements goes a long way to pinpoint to the fact that Nigerian society is striving in inequality. Worthy of mention is the fact that violence is more common in more unequal societies. The major reason why violence is more common in more unequal societies like Nigeria according to The Equality Trust (nd.) is often triggered by people feeling looked down, disrespected and loss of face. As a result of these inequitable social and occupational mobility and poor political representation the end point of these deprivations is a culmination at alienation and subsequently crime (Messner and Tradiff, 1986).
It is no fallacy that poverty in Nigeria is both widespread and increasing by the day; of particular concern to most socio-religious thinkers is the outcome of high-level of political and economic agitation created by poverty, which of no doubt as Odumosu (1999:1) opined, breeds “the stage for criminal activities- particularly official corruption, robbery and dealings in illegal goods and services” and of late the violent crime of kidnapping. Since poverty carries alongside with it a debilitating threat to economic and social stability, citizens in the country are in most cases disenfranchised and politically frustrated. United Nations (1997) with their long wealth of experience earned through involvements in human problems world-wide had looked beyond the traditional definition of poverty, when they observed that human poverty is more than income poverty. They further stated that it is the denial of choices and opportunities for living a tolerable life. Sen (1999) in
a similar line of thought affirms that poor people live without fundamental freedom of action and choice.
The socio-political structure of Nigeria has provided a platform for the poor people as World Bank (2001) asserts, to continue in destitution and penury as they are often exposed to ill treatment by institutions of the state and society and are powerless to influence key decisions affecting their lives. Nwaobi (nd.) reflecting on the condition of poverty in Nigeria, gave a broad categorization of the areas challenges linger on for the less placed. When he asserts that the poor face extreme vulnerability to ill health, economic dislocation, and natural disasters. He views Nigerians as being poor and that this poverty is reflected on inequality in income, assets, in control over public resources and in access to essential services as well as a pervasive insecurity reflected through social exclusion. Social exclusion is both a cause and consequence of poverty. This social exclusion can best be understood through the political economy of Nigeria. Social Development Direct (2009) maintains that, Nigeria’s near complete economic dependence on oil has enabled elites to capture and control the nation’s wealth, excluding the large majority of the population, many of whom live in poverty. The World Bank (1996) was perfectly in order when it asserts that, Nigeria is rich and the people are poor.
Dambazua (2007) observed that, poverty may either be a remote or indirect cause or an immediate or direct cause to criminal behavior especially violent crimes that are remotely caused by poverty. Little wonder, people who suffer from poverty, either relative or absolute, experience various forms of deprivations such
as insufficient food, illiteracy, inadequate shelter, disease, lack of remunerative employment, exploitation and worst of all security of life and property. A situation when people who are willing and able to work (the unemployed) suffer from increase in price level (inflation) of essential goods and services due to lack of income sources, coupled with inadequate measures of income redistribution to alleviate or totally ameliorate their plights, they often take their destiny in their hands and wrath non-violent and violent economic crimes in form of deceit, sales of fake goods, pilferage, account manipulation, stealing, armed robbery, property snatching and of recent inclusion the kidnapping crime.
2.4 Theoretical Framework:
The multi-factor crime causing theories and the Nigerian socio-political and economic structures, all point to one basic issue and recurrent decimal and that is ‘injustice’. The theoretical framework adopted for this work is that of Peacemaking Criminology with a Restorative Justice model. Reasons for this decision are pitched on the salience of the sociological approach that has reflected various dimensions of crime causation based on the ideology that any long-lasting framework and strategy must be peaceable for the control of crime in society.
Religion as one of the enduring social institutions and agent of social control will cooperatively work with other agencies to intervene in the amelioration of crimes. The target is a form of social remediation through an emphasis on good governance, motivation of the criminal justice system agents especially the police for the restoration and re-integration of offenders and victims in kidnapping cases.
The strength of this framework is on the peaceful orientation and approach to crime in the prevention, detection and punishment or correction of offenders by uprooting the potential sources of discontent, injustices and deprivation which are basis for crime and replacing them with a distributive justice mechanism through the allocation of resources.
2.5 Patterns of violent crime in Nigeria: The need to give a comprehensive list of existing violent crimes will be pertinent to sharpen our minds on specific areas to look at in this aspect of our work. A wide range of classification has been made on violent crimes by Haralambos and Holborn (2004), Schmalleger (1997), Giddens, Dunceier, Applebaum (2005) with recurrent omissions from their typologies. Okereke (2011) compiled a more detailed and comprehensive list of violent crimes as including; Murder, Arson, Kidnapping, Rape, Armed Robbery, Terrorism, Cultism/Ritual offences, Vandalism, Bunkering, Hate crime, Assault and Battery, Sexual Abuse, Child Abuse and Workplace Violence.
From the afore-listed types of violent crimes enumerated by Okereke, a wide range of criminal activity is evident and takes place in Nigeria. Oluyinmi (2004) had opined that criminality is part and parcel of human nature and society, since no society can claim to be completely free of crimes. Yet, the current rate of violent crimes in Nigeria is alarming and of increasing concern to Nigerian Citizens and the Government. Although, it is a well known fact that societies that have witnessed war often experience a high rate of crime and criminal activities. This is especially true of Nigeria where after the Nigeria-Biafra encounter, arms
proliferation of various types were made available in towns and even villages across the nation.
Patterns of violent crimes here imply the ways, methods of operation and the structure that is exhibited and utilized during violent crimes in Nigeria. These patterns constitute a well planned task, mode of approach and execution that can be known through observation because of their recurrent patterns. They are under- explained:
The use of firearms or guns: The proliferation of arms and ammunition in Nigeria has of no doubt propagated the nefarious activities of the criminally minded citizens. The high rate of armed robbery, murder, terrorism and especially kidnapping is a pointer to the widespread use of lethal violence.
Social class and crime: Crime as an expression from the less well to do in society has taken a recurrent pattern in Nigeria. No wonder, Siegel (2005: 40) enthused that “traditionally crime has been thought of as a lower-class phenomenon. After all, people at the lowest rungs of the social structure have the greatest incentive to commit crimes”. These general assumptions that people among the lowest- class or simply put “the poorest” are most likely to commit more crime is borne out of official crime statistics (Gaines et al: 2001).
A look at many a crime statistics has induced debates and deep reflection from social thinkers as whether crimes are more carried out by the poor on one hand or whether it is the high rate of police concentrate on areas with more poor that leads to such result on the other hand. In the view of Siegel (2004) police may
devote more resources to poor areas and as a result apprehend more persons there. Siegel’s view calls for more scrutiny on official crime statistics since the police may be more likely to officially arrest and prosecute the relative poor than the middle and upper class.
The ecology of crime shows that crimes are by no means new in Nigeria. A number of studies conducted in the 1960’s through the early 90’s indicate the rapid increase in crime rate especially violent crimes. These realities in mind characterized the view of Igbo (2007: 150) when he asserts that “crimes of diverse descriptions have continued to increase by leaps and bounds, thus underscoring the assertion that Nigeria has a crime problem”. The records that reveal these increase is by no means accurate as published crime statistics were probably grossly understated, because most of the country was virtually under-policed (http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/nigeria/nigeria166.html).
2.6 The nexus between religion and crimes:
This sub-theme is pitched on the border of morality in society. Although, it is regrettable to note that contemporary researchers have paid little or no attention on the relationship between religion and crime to see the nature of influence that exists between them and that is why there has been this lack of explanatory consensus.
Religious beliefs and practices which often carry alongside with it divine backing, form the basis as a formal sanction agent for social control because of their concern for the common good of man in organized society. Ogbu (2007)
noted that religion constitutes a pattern of common beliefs, which provides firm basis for group solidarity, subsumed values and provides a meaningful code for social action. Religion thrives as an agent of crime control in traditional and even contemporary societies, since it is a provider of values, norms, rules and regulations. Opera (1998) saw morality, sin (religion) and law as undistinguished in primitive and complex modern societies.
Law as a generic concept is highly rooted in morality and morality in turn according to Onyeidu (2001) is an intrinsic phase of religion in its expression and characteristics. It therefore follows simple logic that religion, morality and law are interrelated. Iwe (2003) equated these three concepts and opined that they are inseparable and indispensable social trinity for the integral pursuit and achievement of the common good of man and society.
Religious beliefs and practices which often carry alongside with it divine backing, form the basis as a formal sanction agent for social control because of their concern for the common good of man in organized society. Ogbu (2007) had quipped without any sense of equivocation that, religion constitutes a pattern of common beliefs, which provides firm basis for group solidarity, subsumed values and provides a meaningful code for social action. Religion thrives as an agent of crime control in traditional and even contemporary societies, since it is a provider of values, norms, rules and regulations.
According to Onah (1996: 66) “the term crime would imply violating some civil law which may not have divine backing as such, that is to say, laws made by
human beings to guide society. Onah further concludes that in grading or qualifying sin, the word crime comes in, both in human and divine laws. Crime as an inherent deformity in human nature is a clear indication of man’s refusal to be (regenerated) born again (http://franschhoekimpact.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/the- impact-of-crime/). Iwe (2003:13) had rightly observed “that man as a being naturally endowed with the faculties of intellect and free will, is universally acknowledged as a rational free being conscious of himself and what he does and answerable for the same”. This comment by Iwe will cause one to wonder as Siegel (2005) enthused, if acts deemed socially harmful or dangerous that are socially defined, prohibited and punished under the criminal law can be pardoned on a man with faculty of intellect and free will. The criminal law which is but one aspect of law is of necessity in direct relationship with religion. Therefore, little would one wonder as the Law library (2011) has reported that the influence of religion on crime and the criminal justice all through the ages has been of major importance throughout history