CRI205 Practice Questions PDF

[CRI205 Practice Questions] **Differential Association Theory** Differential Association Theory emerged in the late 19^th^ and 20^th^ centuries during a time in which criminological thought was dominated by theories attributing crime to biology and psychological traits. This theory, developed by E...

[CRI205 Practice Questions] **Differential Association Theory** Differential Association Theory emerged in the late 19^th^ and 20^th^ centuries during a time in which criminological thought was dominated by theories attributing crime to biology and psychological traits. This theory, developed by Edwin Sutherland, argued that individuals are not inherently criminal, but rather deviant behaviour is learned through the behaviours and motivations of others. This is dependent on the frequency, priority, duration, and intensity of the relationships promoting criminal behaviour. Some critics, however, posit that the theory underestimates personal choice. This theory can explain instances of white-collar crime, as corporate crime often includes instrumental business practices that are passed down from employers to employees. This normalizes criminal behaviour within the work setting, thus causing employees to act in deviance. Crime prevention programs, specifically those that target at risk youth who may be subjected more frequently to criminal behaviour, is a way in which this theory can be applied in practice. **Neutralization Theory** Developed by Sykes and Matza, Neutralization theory emerged in the 20^th^ century to explain how individuals engage in criminality by temporarily suppressing their morals and sense of guilt. The theory highlights that there are five techniques to neutralization. First, the denial of responsibility, in which offenders will argue that their actions were influenced by causes beyond their control, such as bad parenting, poverty, and peer pressure. Offenders may also minimize the harm they caused, which is called denial of injury. Denial of the victim occurs when individuals justify their criminal actions by blaming their victims, claiming they deserved it for one reason or another. Offenders can also condemn their condemners, by claiming that, since the system is unfair, biased, or unjust anyways, their actions aren't that big of a deal. Lastly, offenders may appeal to a higher loyalty, claiming their deviance was for a greater cause or loyalty to a group. Critics of the theory argue that neutralization does not account for career criminals, who are fully committed to deviance. The theory can explain cases of juvenile delinquency, as young offenders may justify their petty crimes as harmless, or blame external forces, such as peer pressure. Community programs, such as Neighbourhood watch, apply the theory in practice, by fostering a sense of accountability and reducing opportunities for offenders to rationalize their behaviour as harmless. **Social Control Theory** Early criminological theories often sought to explain the causes of criminal behaviour, however, in the 1960s, Hirschi wanted to explore why people abstained from crime. He claimed that people are capable of committing crime because humans are generally very self-interested, but that we naturally conform to societal norms due to strong social bonds. He claims there are four elements to social bonds. The first being that strong attachment fosters care among others' opinions, discouraging deviance. Secondly, the more committed someone is to achieving societal goals, the less likely they are to commit crime. Participation and involvement in conventional activities also reduces the likelihood of deviant behaviour. Lastly, strong belief in societal roles discourages deviance. Since Hirschi's theory focuses on individual relationships and personal bonds, critics argue that his theory neglects societal and contextual factors, such as social structures and systemic influences, that may be catalysts for crime. Hirschi's theory also assumes universality, without regard for differing norms and values across groups and cultures. This theory can explain criminality within gangs and deviant subcultures, as weak bonds to conventional institutions may push individuals toward deviant peer groups, where thy form new attachments and commitments. Rehabilitative approaches, aimed at reintegrating offenders into society by fostering new and healthy social bonds is a way in which this theory is applied in practice. **Labelling Theory** As part of the broader intellectual shift of understanding crime through symbolic interactionism, labelling theory emerged in the mid 20^th^ century, with a focus on how individuals become identified as deviant based on their behaviour. These identifications become labels, which individuals internalize, and, as a result, start acting in accordance with their assigned label. The theory is critiqued as critics posit that it does not take into consideration why people engage in deviant acts before they are labelled. Marginalized communities and Juvenile delinquents are explanations in criminality for this theory, as racial minorities and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to be labelled deviant, and young people are more likely to commit minor offences that may lead them to be labelled as delinquents. In practice, decriminalization could work to combat this theory, as the decriminalization of minor offences, for example, the legalization of marijuana, reduces the likelihood of individuals being labelled as deviant, and therefore do not feel obligated to act in ways synonymous with the label. **General Theory of Crime** Developed by Hirschi and Gottfredson, the general theory of crime proposes that low self-control is the primary cause of criminal behaviour. They argued that most crimes are impulsive, and are committed by individuals seeking immediate gratification. This theory is criticized, as people argue there is an overemphasis on self-control, while ignoring social and individual factors that are also important determinants of crime. The theory itself posits that self-control is developed by the age of 10, which has been proven false by many researchers, who propose that different life events can also influence self-control, past the age of 10. This theory is most effective for understanding crimes such as drug use and petty theft, as those crimes are usually rooted in impulsivity and immediate gratification. The theory can be applied in practice through measures such as crime prevention. CPTED (Crime prevention through environmental design) is a strategy to reduce offending by manipulating the built environment. This could include anti-homelessness infrastructure. **Critical Criminology** Critical Criminology developed in the 1960s and 1970s in the context of growing social movements, including civil rights, feminist, and anti-colonial movements. Critical Criminology argues that law and the criminal justice system often serves the interests of the elite or ruling class. As the framework heavily focuses on offenders and injustices within societal structures, critics argue that the theory can leave out discussions of victim blaming, and harm caused to the victims. The theory explains criminality through social control. For example, white collar crime is often underreported or lightly punished because it is not seen as violent, despite having harmful impacts on people at mass. This reflects how the criminal justice system panders to the elite classes. This is applied in practice by the challenging of power dynamics, as it connects deeply to prison reform, and human rights movements such as Black Lives Matter. **Marxist Theory** Marxist theory, developed from the ideas of Karl Marx, emphasizes how the criminal justice system primarily serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful, while criminalizing actions that could threaten capitalist interests. This theory is criticized as critics argue it lacks practical solutions, or clear recommendations for policy reforms. This can explain criminality through the criminalization of the poor -- the criminal justice system disproportionately targets the working class, while often ignoring crimes of the elite. Marxist argues that the criminal justice system criminalizes behaviours that threaten capitalist systems, such as unions, labour strikes, and protests. Because these behaviours are often criminalized, it is difficult to apply this theory into practice, thus it most often appears through social movements. **Left Realism** After the failings of radical perspectives like Marxism, and traditional leftist critiques of criminology, Lea and Young aimed to address the relationships between crime, social inequality, and social control in a practical way. This theory has been critiqued, however, for its overemphasis on social order. By focusing on maintaining social order through community policing and crime control, underlying structures of power and inequality within society. This theory explains criminality through structural causes of crime, highlighting that crime cannot be merely understood as the result of individual choice; it is rooted in social structures. This theory is applied in practice through crime prevention programs that address the root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and social exclusion. **Feminist Criminology** Feminist Criminology is an approach that addresses the subordinate position of women within society, and how this is reflected on female victims, and female offenders alike. Feminist Criminology emerged along with the 2^nd^ wave Feminism movement in the 60s and 70s. Its emergence showcased how laws and criminology as a whole were male-centric, which made significant leaps within the criminal justice system. There were changes to rape laws, legal responsibility began to be shifted towards targeting johns instead of sex workers, self-defence laws, such as the Battered Women Defence, were recognized as legitimate by the supreme court in 1990. **Myth of Neutrality --** The false idea that systems and frameworks are objective, fair, and unbiased, when they are deeply rooted in power dynamics and systemic inequalities **The 60s Scoop** The 60s scoop marked a continuation of colonial efforts to assimilate Indigenous peoples into mainstream Euro-Canadian society, alongside residential schools. These efforts were rooted in the belief that Indigenous cultures and lifestyles were inferior or harmful. Thousands of Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities by child welfare agencies and placed into predominantly white foster homes and adopted by white families **Starlight Tours** This was a practice carried out by Canadian police officers, particularly in Saskatchewan, in which police would arrest Indigenous individuals, drive them to remote areas, and abandon them in freezing temperatures. These incidents were reported mainly in the 1990s and early and often lead to severe harm or death from hypothermia. Neil Stonechild, a 17-year-old Indigenous youth, was found frozen to death on the outskirts of Saskatoon in 1990. His death was initially dismissed by police, which sparked outrage, specifically within Indigenous communities. Stonechild's face disappeared from the media for about 10 years until two more aboriginal men were found frozen to death on the outskirts of Saskatoon within one week. In 2003, the provincial government agreed to repeated demands that they call an inquiry into Stonechild's death. **Colten Boushie** On August 9^th^, 2016, Boushie and four friends drove onto Gerald Stanley's rural property near Biggar, Saskatchewan, after a day of drinking and swimming. Boushie and his friends had a flat tire, they drove onto Stanley's help in seek of assistance, however, the defence posited that they were attempting to steal. Gerald Stanley confronted the group, and he retrieved a handgun. During the confrontation, Stanley shot Boushie while he was sitting in the SUV, he claims the gun went off by accident during a struggle. Stanley was charged with second-degree murder, but on February 9^th^, 2018, he was acquitted of all charges, sparking outrage across Canada. Defense lawyers were able to exclude all Indigenous candidates from the jury pool, resulting in an all-white jury. **Post-Modern Theory** Post-modern theory is an umbrella term that argues that there is no objective, single "truth" about crime or justice. Instead, they are seen as social constructions that fluctuate across different time periods and cultures. It emerged alongside a broader movement called postmodernism, which challenged the grand narratives of modernist thought, arguing that power was socially constructed and contextual. Critics argue that postmodern criminology is over theoretical, offering dew concrete solutions to address crime or improve justice systems. Postmodern theory explains how criminality is a label applied by those in power, rather than being a fixed quality. When it is applied in practice, it calls for penal reform, such as reducing reliance on incarceration, and instead addressing inequalities faced by marginalized groups head on. **Objective-Legalist Approach** This approach emerged as part of a larger positivist movement, which sought to apply scientific methods and objective measurements to the study of human behaviour. The theory focuses on the legal definitions of crime as its foundations. Many critics argue that this theory dismisses institutional power dynamics and inequalities, resulting in a blind faith in the law. The theory focuses on legal codes and crime statistics as its explanations for criminality. It assumes that crime can be measure objectively by the number of offences and prosecution. **Social Constructivism** Social Constructivism criticizes the idea that crime is a universal category and instead focuses on how certain actions or groups come to be defined as criminal. As a result, critics say this causes vagueness in the definitions of crime. By placing so much importance into crime being socially constructed, the identification of criminal behaviour may become blurry. We see criminality explained by this theory through white collar crime explanations. As corporate crime is often underrepresented and rarely penalized, the elite classes can often dodge prosecution purely due to their wealth and status. This emphasizes how groups become defined as criminal, as lower-class individuals may face much harsher punishment for less severe crimes. **Social Disharmony** Social Disharmony describes the lack of cohesion, unity, or mutual trust within a community. It explains how criminality is a byproduct of inequality, and how individuals who are victimized are often the same people who must commit crimes in order to achieve societal goals. Social Disharmony also uses laws as social control, highlighting how positions of power can craft legal definitions synonymous with their own interests, often at the expense of less powerful groups **The Centric Zone Model** Developed as part of the Chicago School of Sociology, describing how cities grow and are structured in terms of social and economic dynamics. The Zone of Transition is an area that surrounds the central business district, it contains deteriorating housing, factories, and is home to recent immigrants and low-income populations. It experiences both social and physical decay. Because this zone is characterized by poverty, which contributes to social disorganization, the community has weak abilities to regulate behaviour, which leads to higher crime rates. **Haggerty -- Modern Serial Killers** Haggerty proposed that serial killers are a modern phenomenon, he emphasized this by attributing six factors as preconditions to serial killing. The first, media representation, emphasizes how the mass media plays a crucial role in creating a celebrity culture around their crimes. As a result of serial killers gaining celebrity status, troubled individuals may idolize these killers and want to emulate their crimes. This was not possible in pre-modern times. The second precondition to serial killing is anonymity. Haggerty posited that, as the modern age brought a society of strangers -- meaning we do not know our neighbours as well as we used to due to the saturation in big cities -- there thus created a certain anonymity for carrying out anti-social behaviour, such as serial killing. In modern societies, individuals are more inclined to focus on the most effective methods to achieve their goals, often without considering the moral or ethical implications of their actions. This causes precise planning and logic in acts of criminality, often for the cases of serial killers. Modern societal attitudes and beliefs can devalue certain groups of people, often labelling them as less worthy or human, making them more vulnerable to violence. Opportunity structures also contribute to the modern phenomenon of serial killing, as marginalized groups often reside in unsafe places, making them easier targets for violent acts. Lastly, the modern idea that society can be socially engineered creates the idea that individuals can create a society that fits their perceived conditions, which can result in individuals wanting to rid society of particular people, whom they deem to be less worth or human