IT has become a common phenomenon and in fact worrisome, the ever increasing negative and retrogressive consequences of anti-social behavoiur in the society.

Obviously, because of its ravaging effects on residential and non-residential neighborhoods, governments at various regimes had been battling this social vice with all ingenuity at their disposal. Still it appears that a lot need to be done.

People’s understanding of what constitutes anti-social behaviour (ASB) is determined by a series of factors, including context, location, community tolerance and quality of life expectations.

It is seen as acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harrassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as (the defendant). Anti-social behaviour is viewed as noisy neighbours who ruin the lives of those around them, “crack houses” run by drug dealers, drunken “yobs” taking over town centres, people begging by cash point, abandoned cars, liter and graffiti, young people using airguns to threaten and intimidate or people using fireworks as weapons.

The United Kingdom Government said that it includes a variety of behaviour covering a whole complex of selfish and unacceptable activity that can blight the quality of community life. The Department for Communities and Local Government UK, states that they cover behaviour that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to an individual/s or the wider community.

For behaviour to be classed as “anti-social”, the court must decide as a question of fact whether it caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Those terms are given their ordinary meanings. In terms of the phrase “likely to cause”, this means that the applicant can prove anti-social behaviour without calling a witness who actually suffered harassment, alarm, or distress as a result of the defendant’s conduct. As a result of legal interpretations, further views state that it has been difficult for psychiatrists to derive criteria that would help them decide which offender are mentally ill.

The problem lies in the evolving conceptualization of mental illness. Medical professionals viewed mental illness as an absolute condition or status- you are either afflicted with psychosis or you are not. It continues to exert considerable influence upon psychiatrists practice. As applied to the criminal, it also leads to rigid dichotomies between the sick criminal and the “normal criminal”.

Mental functioning was conceptualized as a process. It may not be considered apart from mental health- the two exist on the same continuum. At various times in each of our lives, we move along the continuum from health toward illness.

For this reason, a diagnosis of “criminal” or “mentally ill” may overlook potentially important gradations in mental health and mental illness.

Estimates vary, but between 20 and 60 percent of states correctional populations suffer from a type of mental disorder. That in the 19th century was described by the French Pysician Philippe pinel as “Manie sans delire” (madness without confusion), by the English physician James C. Prichard as moral insanity, and by Gina Lombroso Ferrero as “irresistible atavistic impulses”.

Today such mental illness is called psychopathy, sociopathy, or anti-social personality- a personality characterized by inability to learn from experience, lack of warmth, and absence of guilt. From all indication, it is obvious that the issue of what constitute anti-social behaviour has to be seen holistically as itemizing them could lead to indefinite list.

Although data could not be available to ascertain the scope, but the ravaging effects of anti-social behaviour in the society remain crystal clear to every individual. This is because it cuts across all sectors of the society.

Crime concern, partnership support programme outlined causes of anti-social behaviour as follows-The risk factors in families, schools, communities, and personal risk identified as increasing the likelyhood of offending, equally contribute to an increasing risk of anti-social behaviour.

Studies suggest it may be helpful to distinguish between the cause of low level nuisance and very serious anti-social behaviour. With low-level anti-social behaviour lifestyle and perception differences may be underlying factor.

Perpetrators in more serious cases are likely to be experiencing multiple problems, often including poverty and severe mental health or addiction issues.

Mr. CHRISTIAN  IBEAKA, student, writes from Nnamdi Azikiwe Varsity, Anambra State.