Midterm Exam Review - Theories PDF

Spiritualism Spiritualism The creation of penitentiaries. - Penitentiaries constructed to inspire true regret for their sins (“penitents/penance”) - Impact of Enlightenment values/scientific methods - Spiritualistic explanations cannot be tested scientifically or validated empirically...

Spiritualism Spiritualism The creation of penitentiaries. - Penitentiaries constructed to inspire true regret for their sins (“penitents/penance”) - Impact of Enlightenment values/scientific methods - Spiritualistic explanations cannot be tested scientifically or validated empirically Penitentiaries were made to inspire this regret or remorse for their actions. How did they do this? Isolation. Self-reflection. The use of labour where prisoners would be put to work on strict schedules often in isolation from each other/unable to speak to each other. The idea that through labour a human being is able to cleanse themselves of their wrong behaviour and arrive at a place where they are ready to accept their actions and seek forgiveness. This idea of penance still lasts today in our modern criminal justice system The degree to which someone confesses their wrong can affect the sentence they are given. Spiritualists fell out of favour due to the age of enlightenment. Intellectual and philosophical movement: The move towards the use of “scientific” methods and pursuit of knowledge via reason. Separation of church and state, constitutional government, scientific revolution etc. How do we go about engaging in the scientific method? - Observation - Experimentation/questioning/hypothesis Spiritualism lost favour due to the difficulty in testing these hypothesis Classical School The Classical School: Criminal as Calculator The Classical School is an ideology that offenders are reasonable because they use their reason/free will when deciding whether or not to commit crime. Crime is a reflection that individuals make. Aligns with values of the enlightenment. People are rational actors who can weigh the cost and benefits of committing a crime as well as the punishment if engaging in said behaviour. - Emphasis on the criminal as capable of calculating their actions - free will to do what they please - when they choose to commit crime, they are giving in to their hedonistic, pleasure-seeking impulses Cost-benefit analysis Very particular understanding of the criminal mind Beccaria Cesare Bonesana Marchese di Beccaria On Crimes and Punishment (1764) Founders of the classical school and formed the basis for a lot of democracies to come. - Published anonymously due to fear of persecution - Immense political and lasting influence The social context of Beccaria’s life played a major role in his thinking Born in a well off family. The CJS of Beccaria’s Europe was deeply unjust, used to maintain power in an extremely hierarchical society. Unequal and unjust; especially to those in “lower classes” - Few privileged people ruled over entire populations - without checks and balances within the system. - Not based on any core or guiding systems that they were accountable to. - No rationales that would underline determination of crime and punishment. - Once arrested, the accused had few legal protections; once guilty, punishments were severe Secret trials could be held / the accused would not know any of the evidence provided. Acted in accordance with the monarchy. The spectacle of public punishment: Reinforces the power of the persons whose able to make those decisions Beccaria’s Reformation - Twofold problem: - Complete control of law by elites and its use to brutalise and suppress populations and - Lack of rational analyses of criminal law. There are no underlying principles that govern law as specifically criminal law Part of his project then was to rationalise the law. Replacing with clear discernable principles of law. He knew that laws were kept unclear and vague so people have difficulty understanding and assessing law which leads to difficulty resisting the law. - Project was to: - dismantle purposely unclear, imprecise, and opaque laws - rationalize the law and limit its use - establish underlying principles Beccaria’s Argument His argument can be summarized as the following: 1. To escape war and chaos, individuals gave up some of their liberty and established a contractual society 2. Because criminal laws placed restrictions on individual freedoms, they should be restricted in scope 3. The presumption of innocence should be the guiding principle in the administration of justice  4. The complete criminal law code should be written and should define all offences and punishments in advance. 5. Punishment should be based on retributive reasoning because the guilty had attacked another individual’s rights 6. The severity of the punishment should be limited and should not go beyond what is necessary for crime prevention and deterrence 7. Criminal punishment should correspond with the seriousness of the crime, the punishment should fit the crime, not the criminal 8. Punishment must be a certainty and should be inflicted quickly (R v. Jordan 2016) 9. Punishment should not be administered to set an example and should not be concerned with reforming the offender 10. The offender should be viewed as an independent and reasonable person who weighed the consequences of the crime 11. The aim for every good system of legislation was the prevention of the crime (not punishment) The Influence of the Early Scholars - Ideas inspired revolutions and the creation of entirely new legal codes - French Revolution and the U.S. Constitution both influenced by the Beccaria and the Classical School - Expectation that the law should be impartial and specific, that punishment should be for crimes instead of criminals, and that that all citizens should be treated fairly and equally ⭐ Problems with the Classical School - Can all criminal behaviour be explained by hedonism? - What about aggravating and mitigating circumstances? - Did not consider differences between adult and juvenile offenders - The idea of "rational man” lacks complexity - Did not fully answer the question of what caused crime Routine Activity Theory & Rational Choice Theory Routine Activity Theory & Rational Choice Theory Share Classical School’s framework of understanding offenders The core understanding of offenders being rational actors. Offenders as active participants in their crime; making choices and seizing opportunities. They can be put under opportunity theories What is an opportunity? There is no crime where there is no opportunity. For a crime to occur, the opportunity for that crime has to occur. - Concerned with crime (not criminality) and crime as an event Routine & Rational Choice: Not so interested in criminality such as motivations behind crime or what creates the criminal mind - they are focused on understanding crime as a discrete event. An event that occurs in a particular place and at a particular time. - Crime as what is occurring in the present situation - Seeks to understand why crime events occur (vs. why people are “criminal”) - Offenders are active, thinking participants in their crimes; they make choices Routine Activity & Rational Choice Theory – Opportunity Theories - Criminal opportunities occur in the context of the everyday lives that both offenders and victims lead. Opportunities for crime emerge from the everyday; the mundane everyday activities that people engage in. - Emerge from routines of people as they go about their daily lives (Routine Activities Theory) - Offenders make choices based on these opportunities (Rational Choice Theory) Rational Choice Theory (Opportunity Theories) Rational Choice Theory Clarke, Cornish, and Derek The fundamental concern is rationality. Rationality is used to understand the criminal event. - Rationality guides criminal choices. - We reason ourselves into and out of crime. Offenders or crime is the outcome of individuals making concrete choices. Crime is the outcome of rational calculus If we trace the choices that an offender makes we’re able to trace this rationality we are able to understand that crime does make sense. Criminal Decisions 1. Whether or not to commit a crime 2. Whether or not to select a specific target 3. How frequently to offend 4. Whether or not to stop offending - Focus on how offenders think, what choices they make at what step of criminal act - How can this knowledge better predict/prevent crime? - Decisions that offenders make are rational, but they are a bounded rationality Bounded Rationality theory says that rational behaviour has its limits, which are based on the knowledge the person making the decision has at the time Bounded rationality - Offenders are not calculators - Choices may be limited/lacking in planning and intelligence  - But not irrational. Made with purpose - Situational crime prevention - By studying how offenders make decisions, steps can be taken to reduce opportunities for offenses to occur - Harsher punishments - If every crime involves choice, responsibility factor is heightened - It offenders are rational, we appeal to their rationality What does rational choice theory give us? It allows us to look at offenders. We take their choices seriously. We pay close attention to the choices that they make. We connect those decisions to their behaviour. However, the same tendency does also lead to overcorrecting in that area. Critiques ** Is rationality a testable theory? From a scientific perspective, can we have a workable definition of rationality that is observable that we can use as a scientific standard? Decision is a complex process, prone to irrationality Decision making is much more complex/irrational than just “pleasure v pain” and decisions based on measuring pros and cons. What about crimes lacking in rationality? Ex. murder on impulse or because of a high emotion. Decision to offend shaped by various forces (outside of rationality) Role of heuristics Heuristics: Form around information that we can grab quickly that is apparent to use that guide our decision process. (Ie. You have a trip planned to Montreal and you don't know whether you're going to take a plane or drive, you then find out a plane has crashed on the exact same journey – leading to you driving rather than flying.) This choice is irrational because you are more likely to get into a car accident than a plane accident. But, it feels like the better choice. Routine Activity Theories (Opportunity Theories) Routine Activities Theory: Opportunity and Crime Lawrence Cohen & Marcus Felson (1979) To understand crime patterns, must look to distribution of opportunities + access to opportunities ( Explains geographic distribution of crime/why offending occurs ) We need to look at the distribution of opportunities We also need to understand individuals' access to these opportunities. Ergo, decreasing opportunities for offending will naturally reduce crime If we want to prevent crime the focus needs to be on decreasing these opportunities. Shifts understanding around the distinction between offenders and non-offenders Appears as if often that there is a specific circumstance that gives rise to the “criminal mind”; could be biological or mental. We are not criminals or offenders. - Difference lies in opportunity It lies in if the opportunity presents itself; if given the right circumstance any one of us could seize said opportunity and act upon it. Motivation to commit criminal acts takes the right convergence of elements How we can think of the place or the role of victims of crime; - Shifts attention from offender to potential victims - What can everyday people do to prevent crime? It gives people the initiative to police themselves and their environment to reduce the risk of being a victim of crime. (Ie. Sticking to well populated areas, not being out after dark etc.) - Increasing/decreasing risk Felson: Each successfully completed violation minimally requires an offender with both criminal inclinations and the ability to carry out those inclinations The motivated offender. - Needs to actually have the opportunity to act on these inclinations. - Criminal events require a motivated offender who has the opportunity to act on those motivations. Elements of Opportunity What makes the target appeal to an offender? 1. There must be a person/object providing a suitable target for the offender - Suitable Target: V.I.V.A, Visibility & Access. 2. There must be an absence of guardians capable of preventing violations Just through their presence they decrease the access to crime. - Capable of preventing crime through presence 3. There must be a convergence of time and space A coming together of a particular time & in a particular space. Motivated offender meets suitable target, where there is absence of a guardian/controller When we have all of this coming together we have the chemistry for crime; like a formula. Controllers Anyone who discourages crime Similarly; a controller is anyone who has the capacity to intervene and discourage crime from actually happening. He understands crime as this convergence; things coming together. The controller's role is to protect whoever they are assigned to. Who would be a handler/controller for an offender? Ie. A parole officer, someone with a close personal relationship with the offender. Their role is to supervise the offender's behaviour. Who are the controllers for the victims of crime? The capable guardians; The house sitter, the cameras, the friends who walk you home. Their presence discourages crime. Who are the controllers for places? The front desk worker, security guard etc. Major determinant of time/space convergence are the routine activities of people in society - Everyday activities - The mundane, everyday of life - “Illegal activities feed on routine activities” (Felson) - Crime driven not by pathology/abnormality in society, but by its normal organization Routines of offenders matter as much as routines of potential victims Where they go, where they live all connect to their ability to commit crime. Commit crimes in familiar places, with suitable targets Developed cognitive maps; they map out where there is an absence of a guardian etc. Using everyday routines to identify criminal opportunities Routine Activities Theory: Policy Implications - Focus is on manipulation of physical environment/blocking opportunities - Actual changes to the physical aspect of a space to block criminal opportunities. This theory is not interested in rehabilitation. - Situational Crime Prevention Strategies Gives us individuals/non offenders very concrete tools that we can use in our everyday lives to diminish the chance of us being victims of crime. The key focus becomes; how can we prevent that intersection of time & space of offenders that lacks the space of guardianship? Reduce reward? - Preventing intersection of time/space of offenders and targets that lack guardianship - Control behaviour through environmental design - Reduce opportunities for crime through increasing risk and reducing reward ⭐ Policy Implications Situational Crime Prevention Strategies Increase effort to commit crime Increasing risk of committing crime Reduce rewards of committing crime Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) This idea that we can design out crime; the ways in which we construct a space will have a natural outcome of reducing criminal opportunity and therefore crime. We want to design a space where we are promoting guardianship. - “Designing out crime” - Urban planners can apply routine activity theory principles to public spaces to minimize opportunities for crime - Space can be designed to promote capable guardianship and reduce suitable targets Criticisms Displacement effect Whether they actually produced what is called a displacement effect; We are just displacing crime from one place and putting it somewhere else. What may appear as a decrease in crime rate is actually just a displacement effect. Failure to attend to structural forces shaping opportunity Fails to explain what actually structures these opportunities. We are focusing on pragmatic solutions which create blind spots in theory when it comes to looking at equality and power imbalance. We are just looking at the opportunity and not what actually produces these opportunities. Positivist School - Lombroso (Early Positivism) - Credited with founding “modern criminology” - Criminal Man’s (1876) biological theory of crime - Developed interest in biological explanations as army physician - Claimed diseases contributed to mental/physical deficiencies which could result in violence/homicide - Measured 3,000 soldiers to document physical differences - Found tattooing to be a distinguishing characteristic of criminals He argued that tattooing belonged to primitive/less civilised cultures “Criminal Man” (1876) - People are born with biological predisposition to criminality - Those who fell “lower in evolutionary hierarchy” more likely to be predisposed including southern Italians and people with African ancestry - The criminal “type” is a distinct physical type from non-criminals We can observe and measure physical differences between offenders and non-offenders - Visible, observable, measurable differences Lombroso and Darwinism - Writing in a social & political context is fundamentally changing the way we understand human behaviour. Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species Depends on whether their characteristics are favoured within their environments. The more favoured your phenotype is in your environment the more likely you and your offspring will survive. (Concept of natural selection.) Social Darwinism - The lives of human beings in society can be defined through the struggle of survival of the fittest. EXAMPLE: Those who are poverty stricken are more likely to be involved in criminal behaviour. If you are poor you have a natural weakness while if you are richer you have a natural fitness that has allowed you to occupy that role in society. You have an innate ability to survive. Lombroso’s Criminal Man - The criminal as an evolutionary/genetic throwbacks to earlier, more primitive forms of human evolution - Retaining physical indicators of degeneracy - Race as an indicator of evolution - Criminal as atavistic (Latin term: ancestor) Lombroso’s Criminal Man Four major categories of criminals: 1. Born criminals: People with atavistic characteristics 2. Insane criminals: Idiots, imbeciles, paranoiacs, epileptics, and alcoholics 3. Occasional criminals/criminaloids: Explained by opportunity 4. Criminals of passion: Commit crime because of anger, love, or honour. Are propelled to crime by an irresistible force Policy Implications: Social Darwinists - Approaches rooted in Darwin/Lombroso/Biological Determinism - Survival of the fittest approach means “letting nature take its course” - Scientifically justified methods of containing/eliminating criminal types from society Eugenics Movement His data was used to limit immigration from those countries that his data showed that showed higher criminal tendencies. Similar kinds of data used to pass sterilisation laws; the goal being reducing the number of “future offenders” by cutting them off biologically.. Biosocial Theories Biosocial Criminology Is trying to bring together biological explanations with elements of the social environment to understand how human behaviour is shaped. - Biology has made a comeback in ‘biosocial criminology” (1990s onwards) - Biosocial theorists focus on how biological/genetic traits interact with the environment to shape human behaviour. - Careful to avoid the classist/racist legacy of biological crime. - Criminologists integrating genetics, neuroscience, and sociology to produce general theories of crime Neuroscience & Neurological Theories - Major neuroscientific theories of criminality include: - Reward dominance theory: reward centres of their brains are more powerful than inhibitory (limit) systems in criminals - Seizuring theory: seizures higher among offenders (not a new theory) Neuroscience & Neurological Theories - Long history of tracing criminal behaviour to brain abnormalities Case of Phineas Gage (1848) - Loss of left frontal lobe, damage to prefrontal cortex (PFC) - PFC = decision-making, judgement, impulse control, interpreting emotional cues, etc - Damage results in problems with social behaviour (children) and inability to control inappropriate behaviour (adults) - Reduced PFC activity implicated in violence and aggression ⭐ Critiques Biases in objects of study They are not interested in white-collar criminals–those who are involved in financial crimes. There is a bias inherent to the study. - Interested in biology of certain kinds of criminals, and not others - Reasserts problematic assumptions associated with biological determinism Do biological models of crime produce effective policies? - Early intervention approaches - Incorporation of biological considerations into risk-need-responsivity models - Efficacy of programs measured against implications of biological approach (determinism) Durkheim / Anomie Emile Durkheim Founder of sociology – first to introduce society as an object of scientific study That society can be a measurable and empirical study. Positivist (view of society) and Functionalist (view of crime and punishment) He is a functionalist who understands crime and punishment as having a function in society. - Anomie (A sense of normlessness) Durkheim’s Study of Society Durkheim is not only interested in individuals but also in society itself. He was interested in the structures within society and how society has a structure of its own. The idea is that society has a coercive kind of force; society pressures individuals to behave in certain ways. Relationship between social structures and individuals ↓ Social facts - Aspects of social world external to individuals - Observable, measurable - Social norms/values as social facts - Shape social behaviour of individuals in society (constraint, coerce) How we act, how we think, how we feel – it doesn't come from us but from society. Society as an influence to our understanding of the world. These norms come from → “Collective consciousness/conscience” The social context that we live in influences us all in a social factor (not individually) - A common way of understanding/behaving in society - Binds us together, persist over time What binds societies together? Where can we find it? Durkheim states that what binds us together is Social Solidarity. Durkheim’s belief: Changes to the organisation of society potentially lead to the breakdown of society. These massive changes would lead to the disintegration of society. Laws around punishment: lets us know what the society's norms and values are. How we define crime and our reactions to it, tell us what forms of solidarity we have. - Penal law as a lens to better understand forms of solidarity Mechanical Society and Mechanical Solidarity Mechanical society & Mechanical age have to do with pre-modern society. Characterised by likeness and similarity Small-scale societies are engaged in rural labour. Idea: We will all be very similar to each other, not be geographically mobile. - Solidarity through homogeneity (likeness) - we are more similar than we are different. - Strong collective conscience Mechanical Society and Law What does this kind of society mean for law? It will function primarily to protect this likeness and similarity of the group. Crime and the Collective Conscience - Crime is an offence to the collective conscience (this is what makes a crime a crime) - We define crime by the collective response it evokes At its core, it has the characteristic of shocking the collective conscience. ⭐ The Function of Crime 1. Boundary-setting function Through criminal action, we can reaffirm the boundaries of society - creating boundaries around what is normal, deviant, etc. 2. Group solidarity function The idea is that crime strengthens the group & who is the outlier. Coming together to express dislike of criminal actions strengthens and affirms our solidarity. 3. Adaptive Function New crimes allow society to change its boundaries and adapt to new behaviours. Changes in social values and expectations, such as decriminalisation of crimes 4. Tension-reduction function - Punish “until all passion is spent” Punishment is a means of reaching our limit of passion; punishment will often go beyond the individual due to these passions. Organic Society and Organic Solidarity Organic society is a modern industrial society, the main difference being labour division. Increasing and deepening differences with people. - Evolution of “modern” societies - Increasing differences and dissimilarity - Impacts of the Industrial Revolution - Division of Labour We’re going to see law no longer focused on punishing. Modern law is no longer mainly punitive; punishment plays a lesser social role. A rationalisation of law; our collective consciousness is not as strong. A crime across the board is no longer a crime to the collective consciousness; our response to crime will no longer be as passionate and emotional as one of a mechanical society. When looking at crimes such as those that bring harm to children, brings to the surface the passion that we have in our system of punishment. - Found in retributive concern to make the punishment fit crime and language of courts re: denunciation - Sentencing of Michael Rafferty (2012) - “You have snuffed out the life of a beautiful, talented, vivacious little girl …in the trustful innocence of childhood,” Heeney said, seething with anger. “Only a monster could commit an act of such pure evil. You, sir, are a monster.” (Justice Heeney) The language in this quote shows passion. A shock to our collective consciousness. Organic Society and Anomie - The decline in collective conscience in organic society People are let loose from the constraints that would limit them from antisocial behaviours; a society with increased antisocial behaviour will erode our shared sense of solidarity. Breakdown = state of anomie, or “normlessness” Anomie Societies reach an anomic state when social norms are unclear, vague, lacking in sufficient strength to regulate behaviour. - People feel untethered to the collective consciousness and enter a state of ‘normative confusion’ - Societies in anomic states experience more criminal activity (and crime also drives anomie) - Crime is a social fact, but excessive crime creates anomie. Classical Strain Theory - Robert Merton’s Social Structure and Anomie (1938) - Develops into several theoretical strands Merton’s Social Structure and Anomie (1938) America as a particular kind of society – role of the “American Dream” What is the “American Dream”? Financial success, Cultural homogeneity around the goal of “The American Dream” (i.e. economic success) - High rates of conformity around shared cultural goal - Powerful social forces that propel ppl towards that goal How does the American Dream Lead to Crime? Why are poor people less likely to have access to legitimate means? Social structure prevents/limits access to achieve cultural goal - Denies equal opportunity to achieve goal legitimately or non-criminally - Greater emphasis on goal means lesser emphasis on the means - Disproportionately impacts poorer groups/individuals - Individuals more likely to pursue goal through whatever means necessary Disjunction/disconnect between means and goal. - Produces strain, frustration, stress - Pressure for deviance All of these factors work together to create a pressure for deviance.  ⭐ Merton’s anomie does not only arise from normlessness, anomie occurs where there is that disconnect between cultural goals and our ability to achieve those cultural goals. Socialization to desire economic success yet we do not all have the opportunities to achieve these goals. Critiques How much emphasis he places on economic success. Cultural goal of economic success - Does not account for the role of diversity and differences in values. - People have very different evaluations of success. - Is tension (strain) necessarily more pervasive in “lower-classes”? ** Insists that strain is more pervasive among the lower-class. Institutional-Anomie Theory Messner and Rosenfeld’s “Crime and the American Dream” (1994) - Limitation in Merton’s anomie theory - Institutional anomie theory. - Hyper-focus on only one social institution (the economy) misses the interrelation between the economy and other social institutions Account for and understand the parallels by the institutional structures that become infected by the economic sphere; it overtakes other institutional spheres it creates an imbalance. - Strong cultural emphasis on money paralleled by institutional structure dominated by the economy The over-emphasis on one institutional sphere can cause imbalance between/problems in others Society primarily shaped by economic interests = penetration of economic logics in other social institutions - Economy allowed to dominate without restraints because norms of other institutions are weakened - Less power and less ability to regulate behaviour. Norms and values that come from the economic institutional sphere: 1. Competition 2. Pursuit of profit 3. Success at the cost of other things Crime indirect consequence of dominance of economy over other sectors 1. Family (reproduction, care/support of persons in need of help) 2. Education (imparting norms and values) 3. Politics (monitoring, collective goals) 4. Economy (production and distribution of economic goods) Typology of Adaptations [Merton’s Anomie]  Mode of Adaptation Cultural Goals Institutionalized Means Conformity (N-D) + + Innovation (D) + – Ritualism (D) – + Retreatism (D) – – Rebellion (D) ± ± Agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST) Agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST) Strain: A reaction to perceived negative aspects of one’s social environment Three sources of strain: 1. Failure to achieve positively valued goals 2. Actual or anticipated removal of positively valued stimuli 3. Actual or anticipated presentation of negative stimuli Magnitude, duration, and recency of strain matters. Objective Strains Events/conditions disliked by most members of a group Subjective Strains Events/conditions disliked by people experiencing them Why do some people respond to strain with crime/deviance? Strain + Variables = leading to or away from crime Critique & Elaboration of GST - GST does not tell us which strains are criminogenic and why - What are the characteristics of strains that are more likely to lead to crime? Factors increasing likelihood strain will prompt criminal adaptation: 1. The strain is high in magnitude 2. Strain is seen as unjust 3. The strain is caused by/associated with low self-control 4. The strain creates pressure/incentive to engage in criminal coping ⭐ Policy Implications Merton and Anomie/American Dream - Reducing the allure of “economic success”? Institutional Anomie Theory - Lessen economic pressures and increase satisfaction with lower economic status than others - Political/media emphasis on other spheres to compensate for overemphasis on economy Strain Theory (Classical and GST) - Increase legitimate opportunities (means) - Programs to provide disadvantaged with educational resources, job training, and equal access to occupations - Prison rehabilitation programs - Delinquency prevention programs (relevant to next week as well) Factors increasing likelihood strain will prompt criminal adaptation: 1. The strain is high in magnitude 2. Strain is seen as unjust 3. The strain is caused by/associated with low self-control 4. The strain creates pressure/incentive to engage in criminal coping Subcultural Theories Lack of access to legitimate means → connection to crime. - Crime/deviance products of delinquent subcultures - Subcultures offer opportunities for those denied achievement via legitimate means (i.e. the “working-class) - Functionalist theory Subcultures are a solution to the issue of disconnect between means & goals. - Strain theory explains origins of subcultural groups. Groups provide: - Opportunity - Reduction (of strain) - Resistance Albert CohenSubcultural Strain Theory Cohen wants to understand non-utilitarian crime. - Deviance as individual response to strain vs. group response (delinquent gangs) Delinquent Boys: the Culture of the Gang (1955) These groups come about due to a collective kind of strain; the inability of young people to achieve middle-class status. This is different from Merton’s strain. If you are a working class boy/youth, you will actually desire middle class status. - However, this group is likely to bump up limitations in their quest to achieve this status. - Strain from striving for (unattainable) higher status This unattainable status fosters a deep sense of frustration; frustration that comes from always striving for status but constantly being denied or cut short. Why is higher status unattainable? - “Lower-class” families lack ability to socialise children to enter ”middle-class” - Must compete by “middle-class” measuring stick, but lack skills to do so - (Lack of) Schooling results in low status and low self-respect Lack of adequate controls around the child, poor communication skills, more likely to have an ability to delay gratification (look for quick type of fixes). Lack the skills to perform academically. More likely to fail school which adds to that “low-class” in society; Low self respect and esteem. Resolve frustration by rejecting mainstream values We are going to develop our own values and operate by those. Develop different norms/values as means to achieve recognition They have a function. Alternative values that allow them to achieve the status they are lacking in mainstream society. - Form delinquent subcultures with others like them - Other young boys are experiencing the same type of problems and form groups, delinquent subcultures. - Juvenile criminals are members of delinquent subcultures - Subcultures: sub-systems of society with their own attitudes and norms that contradict the norms/morals of mainstream society Oppositional status that values everything that the system does not. Albert CohenSubcultural Strain Theory - Form subcultures to create attainable status - Internalisation of middle-class norms (conflict) - Reactive Formation: object with abnormal intensity to what they want but cannot attain - Inversion of value systems Characteristics of Delinquent Gangs - Acts are non-utilitarian - Acts are random, pleasure-seeking, hedonistic, involve little to no planning - Group autonomy is a central feature - Group loyalty Evaluating Cohen Is delinquent behaviour always purposeless? Other theorists argue that these youth gangs mimic these adult group gangs; they are calculated, make moves for money Eventually the delinquency twindles out. Fails to link theory to social class and gender Young girls experience that as well and to a further degree. - How do we explain middle-class deviance/subcultures? It is more focused on crime as a middle class phenomena. It does not give room for discussion of upper class crime. Richard Cloward & Lloyd Ohlin’sSubcultural Theory Cloward and Ohlin’s Delinquency and Opportunity (1960) Argue there are different kinds of subcultures What are the characteristics of one subculture v another? - Different subcultures respond in different ways to strain/lack of opportunities - Specific factors influence development of different subcultures This lies in neighbourhoods in which these subcultures emerge. They develop this idea of differential opportunity; We select our adaptation to strain depending on the illegitimate means that are available to us. - (Ie.) Rich people, the illegitimate means that are available is money. - This shapes their adaptation; easier to embezzle or defraud. Selection of adaptations depends on the availability of illegitimate means (vs. access to legitimate means – Merton and Cohen) Different kinds of access to different forms of crime and deviance for people who are located at different points in society. Whether strained youth turn to crime depends on exposure to criminal subcultures - Adult subcultures who provide this opportunity for training for criminal activities. Differences in neighbourhoods. - Criminal subculture–organized slum. Hierarchal, run like a business. These adults who are already there teach the youth. - Subcultures provide opportunities/training for and in crime Contemporary Subcultural Theory Developed to account for adult involvement in criminal subcultures and gangs Focus remains on male-dominated subcultures (youth and adult) Has to do with the idea that at the core of these subcultures it is a way of understanding masculinity; characteristics of honour, respect, etc Young and adult men can achieve masculinity through violence. - Key component of violent subcultures is concept of masculinity - Violence as a resource for accomplishing masculinity Specific strains characterising communities contribute to development of violent subcultures. Overlap between youth gangs and adult gangs. Individuals develop collective solutions through criminal subcultures with distinct norms/values. Specific strains relevant to adult gangs as well; men will come together through the subculture to develop these alternative norms and values. The Chicago School of Criminology & Differential Association The Chicago School of Criminology: Theory in Context Focus on city of Chicago, high-crime neighbourhoods At the time of study; Chicago had distinct characteristics. - Chicago was one of the most diverse and intensely urbanised cities in N.A. - Population and urban growth from mid-18oos onwards. A lot of immigration from mainly European countries. Economically deprived neighbourhoods that emerged in the inner core of chicago. Populated by newcomer groups: New immigrants. Arrived impoverished and the situation became worse in Chicago as the only work that was available was low paying and very difficult. - Urban crowding: The impoverished workers were forced to live close to the factories that they worked in. Chicago’s Inner-Core Neighbourhoods No social services or police services available to people. Not a lot of infrastructure in that sense for these communities to grow. - Communities “left to their own devices” - Less capable of organising to solve community problems due to poverty, heterogeneity (people coming from different places; religion, culture etc making it difficult to share social values), and transiency (constantly shifting populations). Delinquency and crime reached highs - state of anomie Soaring delinquency rates and little community controls to regulate this behaviour. Cities as ecosystems - Urban spaces form into “natural areas and systems” - Different social groups interact within ecosystem and share similar social characteristics Concentric Zone Model Zone I: Central Business District (The Loop) In the centre; we find the oldest part of the city. This is where you find a lot of business and factories. Zone II: Zone in transition Economically-deprived/tenement housing Least-desirable area “melting pot of the poor, immigrant, destitute, and criminal” (Burgess) The least desirable area in the city to live in. (Tenement housing, overcrowding, people who suffer from discrimination.) Zone III: “Working Class” Zone Second-gen. immigrant families Area ppl. move to once they can leave Zone II People who don’t have a lot of money but still work in the loop; less crime because they are physically further from Zone II. Zone IV: Residential Zone - Single-family homes - Middle-class Education, yards, etc. Zone 5: Commuter Zone The suburbs Where the rich reside. (Bigger homes, sources of entertainment.) People will go to the loop for work and also entertainment. Luxury of living in a stable environment. The zone itself is what is criminogenic Forces for crime found in structure/organisation of city itself Pushed that it is not individualistic but the neighbourhoods themselves are criminogenic. The nature of the neighbourhood, not individuals within the neighbourhood, determines involvement in crime - Neighbourhood organisation the main factor determining juvenile delinquency - variations in delinquency across areas is a result of the degree of social organisation or disorganisation in the neighbourhood Socially Disorganised Neighbourhoods Breakdown in community’s social institutions (Families, schools, churches or political groups) If there is a breakdown or that they were unable to form there is an inability to regulate and control behaviour. Inability to have order to each other. - Institutions no longer effective in maintaining social order and control One kind of dominant value system that is present; the difference is that in socially disorganised areas there are competing unconventional value systems. In organised neighbourhoods they can push back against the unconventional values. Unconventional values flourish in disorganised neighbourhoods. - Difference lies in disorganised neighbourhoods having competing value systems (subcultural theory)  - Disorganised neighbourhoods lack the consensus/uniformity needed to counteract unconventional (deviant) values Factors leading to crime/delinquency: 1. The organisation of a neighbourhood (dis/organised); 2. The extent to which there is a breakdown of social institutions of control and 3. Exposure to a criminal culture that causes youth to be drawn into crime and creates high rates of delinquency Edwin Sutherland: Differential Association The idea that criminal behaviour is learned through social interactions; the more someone is exposed to criminal values there is likely a successful convenience of criminal definitions and attitudes. - Criminal behaviour is also learned through social interactions - The inner city is characterised by conflict between a conventional culture and a criminal culture that each promote their own “definitions” The more closely associated you are with criminal definitions, the more likely you are to engage in crime (and vice versa) Differential Associations: Nine Propositions 1. Criminal behaviour is learned 2. Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication 3. The principle part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal groups 4. When criminal behaviour is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalisations, and attitudes 5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of legal codes as favourable and unfavourable 6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to the violation of law 7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity 8. The process of learning criminal behaviour by association involves all the mechanisms that are involved in other learning 9. While criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values (non criminal behaviour is not an expression of the same needs and values) ⭐ Critiques Chicago School Why do most youth in the “worst areas” not offend? They experience everything we are talking about; experience with close encounters with criminal values. Why don’t they offend? - Why do some youth in the “best areas” offend? - They did their research for businesses in the area. - Influence of industry and business on development of theory  - Why not advocate for lessening the influence of business in residential Zone II? Tackle the problem of business and industry? Limited to biases and people who support the research as well. Differential Association Correlation is not causation We don’t know if interactions with others cause crime; it could be people who already have delinquent attitudes may seek out others who partake in delinquency. Why do youth age out of crime? Research shows that young offenders tend to age out of crime; no explanation. If they still have those same associations should they not still behave as criminals. - How to empirically test “learning” and “association” (re: favourable/unfavourable criminal definitions?) How do we characterise associations? How would you amount that? How does the learning occur if it's rooted in these associations? Control Theory(ies) Move from “why do people commit crime” to “why DON’T people commit crime. For all human beings crime is a gratifying kind of behaviour. It can be rewarding; as human animals we are naturally inclined to seek pleasure As well as the predisposition to be selfish. Motivation is key. Whether it is from strain, pressure from peers, etc. - “Control” approach to crime remains a dominant perspective - “Control” vs. “Learning” theories Main theoretical premises: - Crime is gratifying, fun, enjoyable, and rewarding - Humans are predisposed to seek pleasure - Most of us control our natural instincts towards crime - Control via “social bonds” to prosocial values, people, and institutions - Crime and delinquency will occur UNLESS behaviour is controlled (weakening/breaking down of bonds) Prosocial reinforcements in societies; kinds of institutions and values that foster altruistic feelings in a child. Behaviour is controlled and conformed by these social bonds. - Same vice versa. Early Control Theories:Techniques of Neutralization Gresham Sykes and David Matza, Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency, (1957) Allow for norms to temporarily suspended and their controlling effects neutralized Leaves youth free to deviate, without rejecting the underlying norms of control ⭐ Early Control Theories:Techniques of Neutralization 1. Denial of responsibility 2. Denial of injury  3. Denial of the victim 4. Condemnation of the condemners 5. Appeal to higher loyalties Social bond theory (1960s) Self-control theory (1980s) Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency (1969) - Factors restraining people from crime are the controls society exerts over individuals - Differences/variations in social controls (not motivations) explain criminal behaviour We all have the same motivation to offend, it is ingrained in us, so we must look for explanations through social control. - Control resides in a person’s ties to social bonds - Stronger the bond, less likely to commit crime - Weaker the bond, the more likely to commit crime Level of psychological affection for prosocial people/institutions - Emotional closeness youth have with adults (esp. parents) - Greater levels of social control. They are going to care about disappointing them and avoid behaviour that does so. - Intimate communication - Affectional identification with parents - Perception of care - Time spent together - A sense parents know what they are doing/where they are Produces direct and indirect controls Direct controls: your parents are in the room with you and if they see you doing something wrong, they discipline you; “get their behaviour back into line.” Indirect controls: You have a strong attachment to your parent even when physically separated from the parent; “I can't engage in this behaviour because my parents won’t like it” The Social Bond of Commitment - Stake in conformity/conventional behaviour - Time/energy spent investing in valued social relationships/positive social goals It has a lot to do with investment; how much time and energy have you put into getting an education, building a business, being an active community member etc. The Social Bond of Involvement - Time spent in conventional/structured activities - Less time to plan/commit delinquent acts - Denial of access to criminal opportunities makes delinquency less likely The Social Bond of Belief - Acceptance of moral validity of society’s value system  - How attached a person is to rules, laws, norms of society - Range in depth/power of belief - Strong belief = strong bond - Weak belief = weak bond - Everyone, including deviants, recognize validity of dominant values - But some do not feel bound to them due to weak belief/bond - Either give no real meaning to them (just words), or use techniques of neutralization ⭐ Critiques Inconsistent findings from tests of this theory Research shows that there is a connection to social bonds and offending but it is not as strong or the main cause for criminal behaviour. Inverse relationship at play. Assumption that we are all similarly motivated (hedonistic and pleasure seeking); however, motivations change and vary from person to person. Self-Control Theory Michael Gottfredson & Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (1984) There is one factor that can account for all criminal behaviour; this one factor is self control. Accounts for all deviant, criminal and reckless behaviour. It is a factor that manifests over the course of a person's life. Self-control is the underlying factor accounting for involvement in crime (general theory) - Manifests across social groups and across a person’s life (general effects) A person’s level of self-control is a persistent underlying trait and is stable across their life course. Not about the bond itself or combination of bonds; it is now about self control. In early childhood we look to see if a child can exhibit self control. - Move from control as rooted in person’s relation to society to control lying within individual - To be found in early childhood (can a child exhibit self-control? Have parents instilled self-control?) - Self-control, or lack thereof, endures. Explains why offenders engage in analogous behaviour Hirschi’s 4 Social Bonds - Attachment; Commitment; Involvement; Belief Labelling Theory Deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’. The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label - Socially constructed label. - The effects of being labelled as an “offender.” - Labelling plays an important role in shaping future offending. Self fulfilling prophecy Labelling theory looks into what the forces are that construct a criminal label. Analysing law as not just a given but something that is socially constructed. Allows to beg the question why certain behaviours are deemed criminal. Criminal laws are not given – they are socially constructed The state is the primary labelling agent; because of the power of the state and what it has at its disposal (CJS) it is the primary agent in labelling theory. Criminal labels have “self-fulling prophecy” effects Consequences of labelling produce and entrench crime “ The Social Construction of Crime - No behaviour is innate or inherently criminal - Definitions depend on social processes that produce and determine behaviour as criminal “The social construction of crime” People who came together with enough power to shift our definition of something (ie. the legalisation of marijuana in canada) from a criminal act to a non criminal act. It’s about the context and the label that we apply to these circumstances. Criminal labels exceed “criminal behaviour” - Effects of criminalization: individuals/groups “turned into criminals or treated as criminals”, irrespective of charge or disposition - Criminal label applied, even when people have not committed crime - Leads to criminalization of behaviours and individuals/groups, separate and apart from any criminal act Labelling as Criminogenic: Early Theory Frank Tannenbaum, Crime and Community (1938) State intervention is criminogenic because it “dramatises evil” The idea that through the act of arresting a young person, parading them in public–this actually reinforces offending behaviour and further entrenches a person into a criminal life. The delinquent status is held up for public scrutiny. Given specialised treatment, separated from the public, guards around them & dressed a certain way. This leads the young person to identify as a criminal and take on that label. - Being caught & punished reinforces deviant behaviour, rather than diminishes it - Delinquent status held up for public scrutiny Tannenbaum’s “Dramatization of Evil” Youth is forced into association with others similarly defined, further exposed to criminal values. Through that association they learn more criminal values, new sets of experiences that add to that self conception of themselves as criminals. Opens up to “new set of experiences that lead directly to a criminal career” Add to that self-conception of themselves as a criminal. Best policy would be to refuse dramatisation Shift focus from deviant behaviour to encouraging desirable behaviour Labelling as Criminogenic: Early Theory Edwin Lemert, Social Pathology (1951) - Process by which person’s behaviour leads to labelling and exclusion from society 1. Primary Deviance - Behaviour that violates norm, but with no long-term consequences - Does not elicit strong social reaction; is quickly forgotten - Individual isn’t labelled as/ hasn’t internalised label of “deviant” 2. Secondary Deviance - Occurs because of reactions to primary deviance As deviant behaviour is repeated or becomes persistent, our reaction to that behaviour is likely to become stronger and more punitive. If continued deviance produces reactions strong enough to cause stigma we are in the realm of secondary deviance. - Continued violations of norms produce societal penalties strong enough to cause stigmatisation - Norm-breaking that becomes expected part of person’s character (internalisation of label) The “Moral Entrepreneur” Who are these dominant members of society? “Moral Entrepreneurs” establish new perceptions/labels of deviance through moral campaigns They are the people who create the rules and enforce the rules. Enough power to campaign to have certain deviant behaviour outlawed. Becker: Deviant Label as “Master Status” - Occurs in 5 stages He argues that once deviant behaviour has been detected and the label is established the deviant label acts as a master status and cancels out all identities. 1. Person is labelled as deviant by the public 2. Person is rejected by social groups 3. Person turns to more deviant behaviour as response to labelling and rejection 4. Official state sanctions drives person further into crime and criminal career 5. Deviant label becomes “master status”, determines identity and social relationships - Shaming is central to social control, can both increase and decrease crime - Shaming is central part of punishment - condemns and invokes remorse Disintegrative Shaming - Stigmatizing - No effort to reintegrate offender to society - Excludes offender, outcast, cut off from conventional relationships  - Reinforces criminality Reintegrative - Disapproval with attempt to reintegrate - Makes inappropriateness of misconduct known, but offers opportunities to restore offender - Forgives and accepts offender back into society - Reinforces conventional social bonds; strengthens prosocial influences - Reduces criminality Shaming is central to social control, can both increase and decrease crime Shaming is central part of punishment - condemns and invokes remorse Potential of lessening recidivism; If one feels deep regret they will likely not want to commit the act again as to not feel such distressing emotions again. However, there are versions of shaming that can increase criminal activity: Labelling and “Moral Panics” “Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media. Sometimes the object of the panic is...novel and [sometimes] something which has been in existence... but suddenly appears in the limelight. Sometimes the panic passes...and is forgotten, except in folklore and collective memory; at other times it has more serious and long-lasting repercussions and might produce such changes as those in legal and social policy or even in the way the society conceives itself.” Characteristics of a “Moral Panics” - Fear of a threat/evil that threatens well-being of society - Panic can be based on “new” issue, or recurrent ones - Invokes and presents object/subject of “panic” through use of stereotypes - Can pass quickly, or extend its effects to change law, politics, society - Involves various actors, working together Key Actors in a “Moral Panic” 1. Folk Devils 2. Rules/Law Enforcers 3. Politicians 4. Moral Entrepreneurs 5. Media  6. Public Stages to the “Moral Panic" 1. Something or someone is defined as a threat 2. Mass media frames & disseminates narratives around folk devils and threat Normalizes the behaviour; amplification by media. - threat is depicted in easily recognisable forms - “deviancy amplification spiral” (Cohen) 3. Public attention and concern grows rapidly, reaching crescendo Overflow of attention; causes authority to respond with harsh intervention. 4. Authorities and social institutions respond 5. Panic dies down and/or produces in social changes Moral Panics: Deviance Amplification Spiral Moral Panics: Media and Deviance Amplification Spiral - Deviant/criminal act occurs - May be illegal, or “morally objectionable” behaviour - Media presents event as “new threat” - Narrative confirmed via borderline examples that would have gone unnoticed previously (confirms trend) Prior to the panic the incidents that are reported would have gone unnoticed. - Sensational aspects reported, less sensational aspects ignored - Creates folk devil Media attention compels CJS to take action - Resources dedicated (more than is warranted by the act)  - Harsher sentences passed by judges - Politicians pass new, harsher laws to deal with threat - Responses by those in authority reinforce public's fear Moral Panics: Examples Music and Crime - Music as criminogenic/obscene (“gangsta” rap, drill music, rock music) - Campaigns by moral entrepreneurs to save youth from effects - Criminalizing and stereotyping effects - Should lyrics be admissible evidence of culpability/intent in criminal cases?