An individual, living in a society, has to be influenced by society and at the same time influences it. The interaction between the individual and society is very much interesting. A large portion of discussions in sociology and political science have been dedicated to this interaction and yet there are different controversies existing and need much elaboration. Those who exaggerate the role of society in the making of an individual believe that all that an individual does is dictated to him or installed in him by the society. An individual personality is considered as the outcome of his social, political and economic role and status. While on the other hand the ones who amplify the role of an individual, describe that most of the traits in the individuals and their actions are chosen by themselves. They are much authoritative in taking their own decisions and the role of society is not a dominant one.
The same analysts see the different social phenomena and processes in their own ways of thinking. For example, crime is one of the major social evils, mostly committed by individuals both individually and in the form of groups. Who commits crimes? Is it the individual dictated and conditioned by a society who does it? Or is it the individual, enjoying free-will, who opts it as one of the different choices available for him?
The thinkers who believe that the role of society is decisive in building the character of an individual suggest that the society prepares crimes and the criminals commit them. They believe that it is social, political, religious and economic conditions within a society that make the individuals criminals. To understand their view it would be better to study an example. Suppose a person steals money and becomes a thief. According to these thinkers, the person stole money because he was compelled by his economic conditions. He might have had financial problems and have been incapable of providing basic requirements of life to his family members, or he might have some children who because of poverty have been suffering by any illness while the society is ready to cure them only if their father is able to pay some money. Therefore, the father is left with no other option but to become a criminal. Such thinkers suggest that the destinies of the individuals are determined by their social circumstances and they do not have any freewill.
On the other hand, the thinkers of the opposite groups suggest that it is individual’s own personality that is responsible for any sort of crime as they believe that human beings are gifted with reasoning power and the capacity to make their own decisions. They have their own minds and they know what is best for them. They, in every social circumstance, have their own options. If an individual, in their perspective, commits a crime, it is by his choice and freewill and the society cannot be blamed for it. Regarding the above example they comment that in the challenges that are set for him by social circumstances he has different options to choose from, stealing is not the only option. He can find the same money in a legitimate way without committing any sort of crime. Therefore, they consider an individual responsible for the crimes that take place within a society.
Now, the punishments suggested by these two schools of thoughts for the crimes that take place are different as well. The ones who consider society responsible for the crimes suggest better social improvements and amendments. They suggest that the system should be developed in such a way so as to reduce discrimination and violation, which will result in decreasing the conditions that may compel the individuals to commit crimes. Therefore, they are opposed to strict punishments that are suggested by law and order system.
The others believe that strict disciplinary actions should be taken against the criminals and they should be punished severely so that an example may be set for other individuals who might to choose to commit such crimes. The severe punishment suggested for an individual by them is with the reason that as a criminal’s own individuality is the reason of the crime, therefore, it must be targeted.
Both the views are in fact the two extremes and it is not reasonable to consider only one of them as true. The social phenomena and the processes are the outcome of the interaction between the individual and the society. This interaction involves the contribution by both of them. The individuals do not only react to the social circumstances rather they process them in their mind and their frames of references and then give a response. Therefore, the actions committed by individuals are not just the reflection of the social circumstance rather they are the outcomes of their thinking that is developed after striving to understand the social circumstances. The actions taken by individual as a response to very negative circumstances may be very much positive and sometimes they may be negative; there is not a definite rule that would suggest that negative circumstance would cause individuals to respond negatively. Therefore, it is not just the society, neither it is the individual alone that must be considered responsible for the crime; rather it is the interaction between the both that generates crimes and other actions.
Suggesting that both society and individuals are responsible for the crimes requires that there must be amendments at both the levels in order to stop crimes from happening. The society needs to develop its systems and the individuals need to improve their personalities. And both these have to have happen simultaneously; there is no priority in this regard. The political, social, religious and economic systems must be guided towards the prosperity of the individuals instead of their suffering and discrimination and on the other hand the individual personality traits must be enlarged so as to the make them understand and face the challenges that may be introduced by the society and make better decision in response.