SOCI 250 Review Document - PDF

SOCI 250 Review Doc October 28th, 2023 Chapter 1, Section 1.1: What is Crime? ​ Text definition: A socially constructed concept defining certain behaviours as requiring formal control and social intervention. ○​ Crime is a generic term used to re...

SOCI 250 Review Doc October 28th, 2023 Chapter 1, Section 1.1: What is Crime? ​ Text definition: A socially constructed concept defining certain behaviours as requiring formal control and social intervention. ○​ Crime is a generic term used to refer to a wide range of acts that have been defined as “wrong” or “anti–social”. ○​ Used to be a private matter where people seeked retribution themselves. ○​ In time, crime became a social phenomenon and criminal justice systems replaced the personal pursuits of justice. ​ There isn’t a formal definition, however, all legal definitions share one characteristic: a crime is a violation of a criminal law. Without forbidding an act, there is no crime. ○​ Crime is a normative concept—one based on moral norms or values. ​ Crime vs Offence (In Canada): ○​ Indictable offences: a serious offence such as assault, theft over $5,000, robbery (with or without a firearm), or murder. ○​ Summary offences: a less serious offence, such as theft under $5,000, impersonating a police officer, or taking a motor vehicle without consent. ​ Crime is a general term referring to any infraction of the law. ​ Offence (summary or indictable) refers to a specific infraction. ○​ Conventional vs non–conventional crimes: ​ Conventional: ​ Illegal activity committed by individuals or small groups involving some degree of direct or indirect contact (e.g. robbery, motor vehicle theft, and break–and–enter). ​ Non–conventional crimes: ​ illegal activity that due to its unconventional nature, isn’t pursued by the criminal justice system. ○​ Other examples include: ​ Transnational crime (e.g., human trafficking, terrorism offences), ​ White–collar crime (e.g., insider trading, fraud), ​ Offences against public order (e.g., vice crimes such as drug possession, underage sex, pornography).  ​ Deviance: ○​ Behaviour that violates a social or moral norm but is not necessarily prohibited by law, e.g., butting in line at a supermarket or certain sexual practices. ​ Decriminalization: ○​ The reduction or removal of criminal penalties attached to an act without legalizing it. ○​ The concept of crime is relative: what is defined as crime can vary with time and location. ○​ Crime is also evolutive: what comprises crime can change, taking different forms and meanings over time. The Crime and Deviance Hierarchy: ​ Former U of T criminology professor John Hagan’s crime hierarchy diagram: Bottom to top: ​ Social diversions: ○​ Minor forms of deviance, such as unconventional dress or the use of offensive language, which are generally considered relatively harmless and are not subject to regulation. ​ Social deviations: ○​ Consists of behaviours considered disreputable in specific social settings (e.g., swearing at a police officer or in court), and these behaviours are regulated. ​ Conflict crimes: ○​ Activities that aren’t universally considered crimes, although they are legally defined as such, e.g., procuring the services of a sex worker.  ​ Consensus crimes: ○​ Activities that are generally considered very harmful; therefore, there is strong support for sanctioning and controlling them. Section 1.2: What is Criminology? ​ Criminology: ○​ An interdisciplinary science that studies criminal behaviour, crime causation, crime prevention, and the punishment and rehabilitation of offenders. ○​ A criminologist is a behavioural scientist who specializes in the identification, classification, and description of criminal behaviour. ​ Interdisciplinary approach: ○​ In criminology, an interdisciplinary approach is taken—the integration of knowledge from a variety of disciplines to formulate theories of criminal behaviour. Section 1.3: The Canadian Criminal Justice System in Canada. ​ Canadian criminal justice system consists of three institutions: ○​ The police, ○​ The courts, and ○​ The correctional/prison system ​ Functions of the Criminal Justice System: ○​ The main functions of the criminal justice system are as follows: ​ To investigate criminal offences as defined in the Criminal Code; this is primarily the responsibility of the police; ​ To lay charges as defined under the Criminal Code; the police usually administer this function. ​ To prosecute the accused in court, under the law; this role is performed by “the Crown”; ​ To determine guilt or innocence, either by a judge or (for more serious crimes) a judge and jury; ​ To sentence those found guilty, within the upper and lower limits prescribed by the Criminal Code; and ​ To administer how the criminal justice system works. Section 1.4: Historical Overview. ​ Origins of Criminology: ○​ Enlightenment period of the 18th century: ​ Classical school of thought held that criminals act out of free will. ​ Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham argued for penal reform on humanitarian and philosophical principles. ○​ The term entered scientific discourse in Europe in the late nineteenth century.  ​ Paul Topinard and Raffaele Garofalo studied punishment and the treatment of criminals. ​ Writers of this time were more interested in reforming criminal law than the causes of crime. ​ This classical school of criminological thought assumed that criminals were rational beings, essentially hedonistic, and that the certainty of punishment would serve as a deterrent to their criminal behavior. ○​ Early 20th Century: ​ Maurice Parmelee published the first criminology textbook. ​ Edwin H. Sutherland’s Principles of Criminology, which reinforced the influence of sociologically oriented positivism. ​ Between 1930–1950, an alliance was forged between criminology and sociology departments in North America. ○​ Other central figures in the discipline’s history in Canada include: ​ John Edwards, who established the Centre for Criminology at the University of Toronto in 1960; ​ Tadeusz Grygier, who started the criminology and correctional administration program at the University of Ottawa in 1967; and ​ Ezzat Fattah, who established Simon Fraser University’s criminology program in 1975. ​ Denis Szabo, referred to as the “founding father of Canadian criminology, and who launched the criminology program at the Université de Montréal in 1960. ○​ Criminologists are no longer concerned with penology (the study of how crime is punished) or the sociology of law, and it is increasingly recognized that their field of study is, by nature, interdisciplinary. Section 1.5: Sub–Areas of Criminology ​ Criminal Statistics: ○​ Researchers rely on crime data to understand and predict criminal behaviour and assess the impact of crime prevention or intervention programs. ○​ Scientific evidence is data that can be repeatedly observed and measured to test theories for their validity and reliability ​ Sociology of Law: ○​ Concerned with the origins of law and legal thought and is closely aligned with critical criminology. ○​ Specialists in this area examine how various economic, political, and social forces have influenced the formalization of social control and social order. ○​ Also concerned with exploring central themes of social order, social conflict, and power relations as they pertain to law. ​ Theory Construction: Etiology ○​ Concerned with understanding the causes of crime, its rates and trends, and predicting behaviour, whether of groups or individuals. ○​ Interdisciplinary and there are a variety of criminological theories and theoretical orientations. ○​ Theories can be grouped according to their disciplinary orientations. ​ Types of Criminal Behaviour: ○​ The use of criminal typologies is a way of trying to understand and organize criminal behaviour. ○​ With advances in theory and research methodologies, many criminologists believe that different types of crime have different causal explanations. ○​ Criminologists interested in criminal typologies often attempt to explain how and why different types of criminals commit different types of crimes. ○​ Cesare Lombroso, who identified such typologies as “the born criminal”, the “criminals by passion”, “criminaloids”, and others. ​ Disciplines like sociology and psychology have developed criminal typologies based on their respective disciplinary perspectives. ​ Mark Totten’s Gang Life (2014) offers an insightful overview of the diversity of gang life and activity in Canada using first–person accounts. ​ Don Gibbons (1979) was among the first to develop criminal typologies for both juvenile and adult offenders. Totten’s typologies are largely person–centred, while Gibbons’s typologies are mostly crime–centred. ​ Law Enforcement, Judiciary, and Corrections: ○​ The criminal justice system consists of three formal elements: police, courts, and corrections. ○​ How these elements fulfill their tasks—detecting crime, dealing with criminals, and protecting society—has been the subject of much research. ​ Victimology: ○​ Study of the relationships between criminals and their victims. ​ Also includes the scientific study of the relationship between the victim and the criminal justice system. ○​ The system can also make victims of innocent people wrongfully convicted of a crime. ○​ Origins can be traced back to the early work of Lombroso and Garofalo, who recognized the importance of the victim’s relationship to the crime they suffered and to the offending individual.  ○​ Hans von Hentig, a pioneer of victimology, posited that many victims contribute to their own victimization through their lifestyle, mannerisms, or other forms of behaviour and expression. ​ He concluded that the relationship between the offender and the victim is “much more intricate than the rough distinction of criminal law”. ○​ Landau (2014), Wemmers (2017), and Fattah (2020) all point out how victims can be further victimized by the system itself if it allows insensitive questioning by police, harsh cross–examination in the courts, or the withholding of evidence until a case is resolved. ○​ The state can be viewed as an offender if it fails to provide sufficient protection for the victim or to restrain or deter the criminal through some fault in the social control network. Section 1.6: Disciplinary Perspectives: ​ Biology: ○​ The possibility that certain human traits are biological, or “hard–wired”, or that certain crimes are a function of chemical, genetic, and/or neurological aberrations. ​ Economics: ○​ Many studies have identified links between unemployment, economic recession, capitalism, and crime. ​ Is crime a function of competition for limited resources and/or social status and power? ​ Do people who “have everything” commit as many crimes as those who do not? ​ Geography & the Environment: ○​ Criminologists seeking to predict crime have developed sophisticated models and theories based on a wide range of environmental factors, from barometric pressure and phases of the moon to the physical appearance and layout of a business, residence, social area, or community. ○​ What is unique about this line of inquiry is that the findings can often be used to proactively prevent crime. ​ Political Science: ○​ Political decisions regarding criminal justice have a direct impact on the community at large. ​ Psychology: ○​ Study of the mind and behaviour. ○​ Criminologists with an interest in psychology look at differences in personality and mental characteristics between criminals and others. ○​ These criminologists focus on how individual criminal behaviour is acquired, evoked, and maintained.  ​ Sociology: ○​ Sociology is the study of human interaction; it examines the effects of such interaction on behaviour and the forces (such as values, norms, mores, and laws) that underlie regularities in human behaviour. ○​ Dominant criminological perspective in North America. ○​ In essence, sociologists are interested in culture and social structure. Crime is a social phenomenon. Section 1.7: Interdisciplinary Criminology. ​ The roots of criminology lie in two schools: classical and positivist. ○​ Criminologists recognize that criminal behaviour is the product of both free will and deterministic forces. ​ Criminology should be seen as an interdisciplinary science, drawing on many research disciplines in its search for explanations of criminal behaviour. ​ C.R. Jeffery argued in the journal Criminology in 1978, criminology should be seen as an interdisciplinary science, drawing on many research disciplines in its search for explanations of criminal behaviour. ​ Jeffery recalls being baffled by the failure of his mentors (among them Edwin Sutherland) to see that human behaviour was far too complex to be reduced to a single explanation. ​ However he then “heard about a strange man,... B.F. Skinner”, who helped galvanize his search for a different perspective from which to study crime and criminality—an interdisciplinary perspective. ○​ An interdisciplinary approach attempts to take all perspectives into account, integrating the competing notions of crime as a product of free will and a product of various external and internal factors. Section 1.8: Putting Theory into Practice. ​ As practitioners of an “applied” social science, criminologists use their data and theoretical perspectives to formulate workable solutions to existing problems. ​ Governments must rely on the theoretical guidance of criminologists when making policy decisions. ​ Criminologists must accept the ethical responsibility they have when they engage in criminological inquiry and must be sensitive to the implications of their findings on policy creation. Chapter 2, Section 2.1: Public Perceptions of Crime: ​ How we form our opinions of reality has been the subject of numerous philosophical debates and social science studies. ​ The perspective, or frame of reference, we choose is influenced by the way we have been socialized, by our individual psychological makeup, and even by such biological factors as diet and environmental conditions. Section 2.2: General Methods of Knowing: ​ Rationalism: the principle that some kinds of knowledge are innate, while others can be acquired through reasoning, independent of experience. ○​ René Descartes. ​ Empiricism: the principle that knowledge is acquired only through experience. ○​ John Locke and David Hume. ​ German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that we do not know reality. Instead, our minds form appearances of reality, and our ways of acquiring knowledge are simply the mental filters through which the mind processes and constructs our reality. ​ Paradigm: framework or set of underlying assumptions. ​ There can be no single objective truth—only multiple theories reflecting the different beliefs held by scientists—then reality can consist of various paradigms. ​ Paradigm shift: ○​ When the prevailing model is overwhelmed by new findings, the discipline experiences a paradigm shift. ○​ As we have gained more pragmatic knowledge about crime and criminality, we have seen such a shift towards a more interdisciplinary approach. ​ Criminology forms a knowledge base, which becomes the foundation for formulating or testing theories, making policy recommendations, and issuing social and political responses to criminological concerns. Section 2.3: Acquiring Knowledge on Crime: ​ Logical Reasoning: ○​ We often form conclusions based on what we believe to be logical speculation. ○​ However, our reasoning may be undermined by such factors as limited knowledge, personal bias, and our capacity to ignore contradictions in our thinking. ​ Authority: ○​ When an authority says something is so, we often accept it as fact. ○​ Using an expert to affirm our belief lends credibility to it. ​ Consensus: ○​ We often rely on the wisdom of our peer group. ○​ However, the people who make up that group are likely to be people who have come together because they share a common view. ​ Observation: ○​ Seeing things for ourselves instead of relying on second–hand information or the opinions of others. ​ Past Experience: ○​ Most common source of support for our supposition(s) (i.e., hypotheses).  ○​ We draw on prior instances or events that confirm our assumptions and attempt to modify incongruent elements. ○​ Studies have shown that information that is consistent with our expectations is more easily remembered than information that is not. ​ These five “naïve” methods of acquiring information—logical reasoning, authority, consensus, observation, and past experience—can result in misconceptions because they are not objective or methodological in their approach. ​ By contrast, scientific inquiry relies on the collection of measurable data from representative samples and rigorous testing of hypotheses using prescribed research methods. ​ The scientific method of inquiry is circular; knowledge is a process of continually retesting and refining our understanding of a given phenomenon. Section 2.4: Factors that Shape Public Perceptions of Crime. ​ Personal knowledge: ○​ Public has a voice in decisions about the administration of criminal justice. ○​ Government has a personal stake in responding to the public’s will. ○​ Public perception can dramatically impact the criminal justice system. ○​ Most Canadians have limited knowledge of actual crime rates, tend to overestimate the incidence of violent crime, and are ill-informed about other key aspects of criminal justice functions. ○​ Public perception of risk varies by age, gender, occupation, lifestyle, and other personal attributes. ○​ Net widening: the process by which the state expands its control over behaviour through changes to sentencing laws and administrative policies. ○​ Most Canadians have little confidence in either the courts (too slow in delivering justice and too lenient in sentencing) or the prison system (not doing a respectable job of rehabilitating offenders). ○​ Women tend to feel less safe when alone at night and seniors are more fearful of being victimized than younger people. ​ Seniors’ fear levels reflected their fragility and vulnerability due to declining health, reduced income, and misperceptions of actual risk. ​ Seniors are more likely to be victimized at or near their homes than other age groups. ​ Older people are less likely to be victims of crime than younger age groups. ​ People aged 65 and older made up 16% of the Canadian population in 2013, they were victims of just 3% of all violent crimes and about ½ of these involved minor assaults. ​ The Mass Media: ○​ Much of what people come to think about current events comes not from direct experience but from media reports. ○​ In many respects, these media reports, with the exception of those broadcast via social media, reflect our conventional methods of knowing. ○​ The media’s presentation of crime and violence may affect public perceptions as well as behaviours. ○​ Research suggests that media reporting is not reflective of actual crime rates. ○​ Moral panic: widespread exaggerated public concern over issues associated with morality ​ News media have sometimes been accused of causing moral panic by publishing sensationalistic accounts of such issues. ○​ Many TV programs and video games contain violence in one form or another, whether physical, verbal, or (occasionally) symbolic. ○​ Albert Bandura demonstrated a link between watching and performing violence through a process known as vicarious reinforcement. ○​ It’s natural to believe that violent media content has some influence on our perceptions and performance of violence although the findings have been neither conclusive nor wholly consistent. ○​ Using the media, various criminal justice system agencies have solicited public support for things like more police officers, better funding and programs like crime stoppers. ○​ The media is a social and political instrument in the fight against crime. ​ Crime and the Media: Theoretical Explanations: ○​ Conflict theory: a theoretical perspective that views crime as a natural product of a society that promotes competition and, hence, social and economic disparity. ​ The media were responsible for conveying an image of rapidly increasing crime rates. ○​ Left realism: a theoretical perspective that aims to better understand the implications of crime control policies rather than the causes of crime. ​ The media play a significant role in society in crime control policy because they decide what is worthy of public consumption. ​ Official State Knowledge: ○​ Within the criminal justice system, there are three primary sources of official data: ​ The police, ​ The judicial system, and  ​ The corrections system. ○​ Required by law to produce information, typically in the form of statistics and mainly to measure their performance. ​ The collection and dissemination of this information are thus a form of public accountability. ​ Much of the statistical and general information used by the media and criminologists comes from these sources. ​ Juristat: a regular publication of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, considered the most authoritative source of criminal justice statistics in Canada. ​ Limitations of Official Data: ○​ Reliability: the likelihood that an observed relationship between two or more variables can or will be observed in a consistent manner. ○​ Validity: the likelihood that the relationships observed and measured are real. ○​ Sampling: the process of selecting a group of research subjects who are representative of the entire population under investigation. ○​ Random error: an error in data collection that was unforeseen. ○​ Systematic error: an error in data collection that the researcher has been able to predict. ○​ Crime funnel: a metaphor referring to the decreasing number of crimes processed at successive levels of the CJS. ​ Theoretical Knowledge and Crime: ○​ Theoretical concepts are supposedly based on scientific verifiable and reliable observations. ○​ Operationalization: defining criminological concepts or phenomena in such a way that they can be observed and measured scientifically. Section 2.5: Ethical Dilemmas in Criminological Research ​ Research endeavours rely on funding that comes from government sources. ​ The paradigm shift in criminology has influenced not just what criminologists’ study, but the angle of criminological inquiry. ​ Criminologists must not only be aware of the ethical implications of sharing their findings, but they must also be prepared to defend their work in the light of public scrutiny. Section 3.1: Why Criminologists Need Data: Five Key Purposes. ​ Description: describing criminal phenomena. ​ Explanation: explaining crime patterns and trends. ​ Evaluation: determining how the CJS is working. ​ Risk assessment: calculate the relative risk of being victimized. ​ Prediction: preventing crime. Section 3.2: Official Sources of Crime Data: ​ Police Statistics: ○​ Most frequent source of official crime data. ○​ Dark figure of crime: crime that goes undetected, unreported, or unrecorded, and is not included in official sources. ​ UCR: A system providing a continuous historical record of crime and traffic statistics reported by every police agency in Canada since 1962. ​ CCJS: The agency responsible for collecting and compiling crime data on a wide range of criminological and criminal justice topics. ○​ Divided into three categories: ​ Summary offences: maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $5,000 (unless a different penalty is specified). ​ Indictable offences: a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and no maximum fine. ​ Hybrid offences: consist of crimes such as impaired driving and theft under $5,000, which the Crown may choose to prosecute as either summary or indictable. ​ Judicial Statistics: ○​ CCJS reports have focused on themes such as hate crime, homicide, young offenders, family violence, and home invasion rather than providing general summaries of crime across Canada. ​ Correctional Statistics: ○​ Data on people being held in federal and provincial corrections facilities, including age, sex, offence, and prior convictions. ○​ In 1856, correctional statistics became a standard component of criminal statistics. ​ What Do Official Data Measure? ○​ From a social constructionist perspective, official statistics are collected primarily to meet the collectors’ own needs and thus tend to reflect the collectors’ attitudes regarding what is essential. ○​ While crime data offer interesting descriptive information, they do not explain why changes occur. This is where scientific inquiry and theoretical knowledge come into play. ​ Factors Affecting Crime Data: 1.​ Media Coverage: a.​ Media coverage of crime can influence crime courts. Focusing on certain crimes or crises draws public attention and affects the reporting rates. Media coverage can be a barometer of public opinion.  2.​ The Dark Figure of Crime: a.​ The portion of crime that goes undetected, unreported, or unrecorded — may fluctuate over time and even within settings because of changes in variables such as police enforcement practices, victims’ willingness to report their victimization, and public attitudes towards the criminal justice system. 3.​ Changes in Recording Procedures: a.​ Among the reasons for under–or over–reporting are the following: i.​ Changes in the number of police forces/officers. ii.​ Changes in police/court administration. iii.​ Changes in the legal definition of crime. iv.​ Changes in the population base. v.​ Changes in public reporting patterns. ​ CCJS: ○​ Set out to reorganize national data collection methods to meet both federal and provincial needs. ○​ These data are now gathered by the CCJS and published in the Juristat bulletins. ○​ Some recent issues have been devoted to the following topics: ​ Family violence in Canada. ​ Homicide in Canada. ​ Police–reported cybercrime in Canada. ​ Verdicts of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in adult criminal courts. ​ Police–reported hate crime. ​ Family law cases in the civil courts. ​ Police resources in Canada, and ​ Shelters for abused women in Canada. ​ The following are among the key limitations of the CCJS: ○​ There is no national information on court decisions. ○​ There are inconsistencies in the way provinces report, as well as count, their crime incidents. ○​ Data on crime incidents, arrests, charges, convictions, and dispositions lack depth. Reports provide little insight into crime and criminal behaviour. ○​ There are no reports on white–collar crime, organized crime, victimless crime, or other types of non–conventional crime. Section 3.3 Unofficial Sources of Crime Data ​ Unofficial crime data: Crime data not collected by official criminal justice agencies, including self–report studies, victimization surveys, and field  observation data, usually used to elucidate existing official data and verify the validity of official sources. ​ Victimization data: ○​ Most incidents of victimization never came to the attention of police. IN 2014, 31% came to the attention of the police. ○​ Victimization surveys are used to tap into the dark figure of crime. ​ Limitations of Victimization Surveys: ○​ Respondents may forget about crimes — especially less serious ones. ○​ Respondents may be mistaken as to when the incident occurred. ○​ Respondents may not feel comfortable disclosing specific facts and/or details. Respondents may not fully understand the questions. ○​ There may be variations in how different social groups of respondents reply to the questions; for example, studies indicate that better–educated respondents have better recall. ○​ Conducting such surveys tends to be both time–consuming and costly. ○​ Acquiring stable estimates of less common crimes requires large samples, which add to the already high cost. Self–Report Data: ○​ Self–report studies: Surveys in which individuals are asked to voluntarily disclose whether they have ever committed an offence. ○​ Such unofficial crime data can shed light on undetected and underreported types of crime (e.g., sexual assault). ○​ In Canada, self–report surveys have been limited and tend to focus on youths and adolescents. ​ Limitations of Self–Report Studies: ○​ Respondents may mistrust the interviewers. ○​ Respondents may not answer truthfully because of embarrassment. ○​ Those who feel a deep sense of guilt may not disclose their behaviour. ○​ Respondents may exaggerate the truth, especially if they’re young. ○​ Respondents may have forgotten. ​ Observational Data: ○​ Qualitative Research: research designed to study characteristics that cannot be measured or counted. ○​ Pioneered by Max Weber, who emphasized the importance of understanding how individuals interpret their own actions and the actions and reactions of others. ○​ Weber called this approach Verstehen (Weber’s term for the effort to understand both the intent and the context of human action).  ○​ Field observation: the objective is to collect data (i.e., observe people or conduct interviews) about a phenomenon in the environment in which it occurs. ○​ Participant observation: involves a researcher taking part in the activity or social group under study. ○​ Observation enables data collection on at least three levels: ​ The activity itself, the activities surrounding them, and their meaning; ​ The dynamics of the participants and their interrelationships; and ​ the setting in general. ​ Limitations of Observational Techniques: ○​ Data is subjective because the type of information gathered depends on the observer’s biases, personal interests, and mental and physical limitations. ○​ Sample sizes tend to be considerably smaller and as a result, there is no allowance for generalizations beyond the study group. ○​ Some observational techniques are used in ways that have raised serious ethical questions. ○​ More labour intensive than administering victimization or self–report surveys. Section 3.4: Validating Findings. ​ Triangulation: The use of multiple data sources or research methods to investigate a topic in order to produce more reliable findings). Section 3.5: How Data is Used: ​ Correlation: a statistical relationship between two or more variables. ​ Positive Correlation: A direct correlation in which an increase in one variable is associated with an increase in the other variable. ​ Negative Correlation: A direct correlation in which an increase in one variable is associated with a decrease in the other variable. ​ Causality: the idea that one event is the result of one or more other events). ​ Hypothesis: an idea or assertion about a phenomenon, a situation, or a relationship between variables that a researcher sets out to prove or disprove. ​ The General Aims of Research: 1.​ Discovery: a.​ To the uninitiated, research findings sometimes seem to state the obvious. b.​ In addition to verifying the “obvious”, researchers often seek to understand expectations of the apparent rule.  2.​ Demonstration: a.​ It wouldn’t be enough to simply state your claim: you would need to put it to the test—that is, you would need to demonstrate it. b.​ For example, a growing body of literature has demonstrated that restorative justice, because it is community–centric, has some enduring success in rehabilitating offenders. 3.​ Refutation: a.​ While science provides objective tools to test ideas and gradually move closer to the truth, it can also be used to refute existing beliefs. 4.​ Replication. a.​ The more frequently you can confirm an observation, the greater will be its predictability and consistency. b.​ Academic journals are full of studies that replicate previous studies using different participants, different settings, and/or additional measures. Section 4.1: Victimology: ​ Victimology: a subfield of criminology that focuses on the relationship between victims and perpetrators of crimes, against the backdrop of the public goods, such as the criminal justice system). ​ Benjamin Mendelsohn began developing a typology of victims and first recognized the importance of the victim. ​ Marvin Wolfgang credits Hans Von Hentig for drawing attention to “the role of the victim in the duet of crime”. ○​ Hans Von Hentig: ​ A German criminal psychologist strongly opposed to Nazi social and political ideology, Hentig left Germany for the US in the late 1930s. ​ He wrote an article suggesting that in some cases “the victim … contributes amply to the commitment of the crime”. ​ In his seminal book, The Criminal and His Victim (1948), he used a sociobiological perspective to explain the relationship between criminal and victim. ​ Hentig identified several “general classes of victims” — among them women, ethnic minorities, the young, the elderly, and people with mental and physical disabilities — and observed that they tended to share certain physical characteristics with the perpetrators of the crimes committed against them. ​ He believed that understanding the role of the victim in crimes could result in more effective crime prevention. ​ His views were championed by other pioneers in victimology, including Stephan Schafer, Willem Nagel, Ezzat Fattah and Jo–Anne Wemmers.  ​ The World Society of Victimology, since 1982, has presented an annual award in his name to the person who has made a significant mark in victimology. ​ David Fraser, a top Canadian privacy lawyer, brought to light victim–blaming around sextortion — when a person threatens to distribute another’s private and sensitive material if they don’t provide money, images of a sexual nature, or sexual favours. ​ The study of victimology gained formal recognition in 1985 when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. ○​ The UN declaration recognized the plight of millions of victims around the world. ○​ The recognition was further bolstered by substantial evidence garnered from the introduction of victimization surveys worldwide. ○​ Irvin Waller of the University of Ottawa was instrumental in drafting this declaration, and his passion for the rights of victims is reflected in four recent books that call for a realignment of criminal justice budgets to direct more resources towards victim support. Section 4.2: Victimization Surveys: ​ Became the dominant method of inquiry in the 1950s. ○​ Advantages and Disadvantages: ​ VS data helps determine the prevalence of several types of victimization (e.g. violent, sexual, and property crimes), they tell us nothing about the number of perpetrators — only the UCR offers such data. ​ Canadian researchers Evans and Leger (1979) enumerated several of the benefits of victimization surveys, which offer superior insight into: ​ The extent and distribution of selected crimes — victimization surveys generate data that provide a more complete picture of crime, including the dark figure, than may be possible using official sources. ​ The impact of selected crimes, such as injury and cost to victims (e.g. financial, emotional, and physical) — such information isn’t available through the UCR. ​ The risk of victimization — the VS unearths information not only on factors that contribute to a person’s risk of being criminally victimized but also on the perceived risk; and ​ The victim’s perception of the functioning and effectiveness of various aspects of the criminal justice  system can be contrasted with the perceptions of non–victims. ​ Canadian Victimization Surveys: ○​ Canadian Urban Victimization Survey (CUVS) in the early 1980s which involved telephone interviews with some 60,000 randomly sampled respondents in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax/Dartmouth, and St. John’s. The survey covered seven categories of crime: ​ Assault. ​ Sexual Assault. ​ Motor–vehicle theft. ​ Household theft (i.e., B&E). ​ Theft of personal property. ​ Robbery (i.e., theft under threat of force) and ​ Vandalism. ○​ In 1988, Statistics Canada included a victimization survey in its General Social Survey (GSS), replacing the CUVS and introducing a more standardized and consistent format for gathering victimization data. ○​ Data on perceptions of personal safety were collected in 1988 and 1993, and on victimization in 1999. ○​ In 2000, Stats Canada switched to an annual GSS survey, but it focused on a different topic each year (e.g., health and well–being, work and education, social support, victimization). ○​ Today’s surveys are conducted by random–digit dialling (RDD) and computer–assisted telephone interviewing (CATI), which are cost–efficient and only take approximately 45 minutes to complete. ○​ The 1993 cross–Canada Violence Against Women Survey (VAWS): (A 1993 survey of Canadian women aged 18+, which examined women’s safety inside and outside the home, focusing on issues such as sexual harrassment, sexual violence, physical violence, and perceptions of fear) was desinged to overcome the limitations of traditional survey techniques in uncovering the nature and complexity of violence against women in intiamte partner relationships. ​ About ½ of the respondents reported having experienced at least one incident of violence since the age of 16; the perpetrators were typically males who were known to them. ○​ The VAWS has been the only national study of its kind in Canada, but issues related to violence against women in Canada — such as fear of crime, stalking, sexual assault, and spousal violence — were also explored in the 2006 GSS and as part of the Victims Services Survey in 2009–2010.  ○​ Since 2001–2002, the federal government has conducted annual surveys on family violence. ​ In 2019, Statistics Canada stated that just under one in five (19%) Canadians aged 15 and older reported that they or their household had been a victim of a crime in the past 12 months. ​ However, at the time, the victimization rate had declined steadily since 2004 when just over 25% of Canadians reported having been a victim of a crime. ○​ Victimization of Indigenous Peoples within families is disproportionately high compared to the general population, particularly in regard to domestic violence: ​ Indigenous women are more likely to experience both physical and sexual abuse by a partner than non–Indigenous women. ​ Indigenous women are twice as likely to report being victimized by a domestic partner, and most make repeated reports of abuse. ​ Abuse reported by Indigenous women is often more violent than for non–Indigenous women, and Indigenous women are nearly twice as likely to be victimized through assault with a weapon, beating or strangulation, threats involving a firearm or knife, or by being forced into committing sexual acts. ​ Most Indigenous women who report being victims of violence have realistic fears for their safety; they are more likely than non–Indigenous women to be killed because of intimate partner violence. ​ Dickson–Gilmore (2014, p.422) points out: ○​ In the [Indigenous] context … violence is truly a family experience, directly affecting partners, parents, children, the extended family, and dependent elderly. The impacts of living within the stress of violence, control, and scattered chaos implicit in intimate partner and family violence are inter–generational and present significant obstacles to the health, well–being, and self–determination of [Indigenous] families and communities. Thus, dealing with his crime is one of the compelling human and policy issues facing [Indigenous] and non–[Indigenous] governments today. ​ International Crime Victims Survey: ○​ Conducted six teams between 1989 and 2005, when the final comprehensive cycle was completed in 80 countries.  ○​ The following data highlights findings from the various survey cycles in which Canada has participated: ​ Between 1989 and 2004–2005, Canada, the United States, Australia, and several European countries showed a downward trend in victimization rates. ​ Consistent with the official crime rates, self–reported rates of vicitmization have declined since 2000. ​ Based on a secondary analysis of the ICVS data, the first crime to show a decline was car theft, followed by B&E. Because the drop in reported crime was pretty universal, the analysis of van Kesteren et al. (2014) undermines claims that declines in individual countries can be attributed only to their efforts in areas such as law enforcement, the judiciary, corrections, or economic conditions. A more nuanced explanation is required. ​ ICVS findings over several cycles show no evidence to suggest that prior victimization leads to fear of crime among Canadians. ​ Jan Van Dijk is attempting to standardize how data is recorded to make surveys consistent between countries. Section 4.3: Victim Characteristics: ​ Age: ○​ According to the 2019 General Social Survey, just under 20% of Canadians above age 15 reported having been the victim of a criminal incident in the previous 12 months. ○​ Young people aged 15–24 had the highest rates of vicitmization, while those 65 and older had the lowest across all major categories. ​ Perreault and Brennan (2010) reported that “people between the ages of 15–24 were almost 15x more likely than those aged 65 and older to report being a victim of a violent victimization.” In accordance with lifestyle theory and routine activity theory, there also appears to be a strong correlation between lifestyle, age, and victimization. ​ For example, adolescents and young adults tend to stay out later at night, frequent public places such as bars and restaurants, and hangout in groups far more than other adults. ○​ Brillon (1987) reported that fear of crime seemed to increase progressively with age. ○​ Weinrath and Gartrell (1996) reported similar trends in their Alberta–based study, and a more recent study by Ogrodnick (2007) reinforced the findings. ​ Ironically, as noted earlier, Perreault and Brennan (2010) report that those 65 and older are at considerably lower risk of being victimized than younger age groups. Again, consistent with  lifestyle theory and/or routine activities theory, physical, financial, and social circumstances may lead the elderly to feel more vulnerable than they are. ○​ In 1984, the Badgley Report showed that people were more commonly victims of sexual abuse in the home than previously thought and that children are more likely to be sexually abused by people known to them, including family members, than by strangers. ​ Gender: ○​ According to the 2019 GSS and consistent with 2011 UCR data, women in Canada are more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault and theft, while men are more likely to be victims of crimes such as robbery and assault. ​ Overall, women were more likely to be victimized than men by a margin of 212 versus 187 per 1,000. ​ A preponderance of the evidence shows that sexual assaults and spousal violence are dramatically under–reported to the police. ○​ Before 1983, Canadian law did not recognize rape within marriage: a person could not be charged with sexual assault of their partner. The law (like society in general) treated women as men’s property. Since then, intimate partner violence (IPV) has garnered much–need attention. ○​ Hoff (2001) reported that over a five–year period of study, 8% of women and 5% of men experienced IPV and that the incidence rate for men had increased over the study period. ​ Hoff found that men tended to report IPV far less than women and that this likely reflected social norms. ​ To report is to run the risk of societal stigma, secondary vicimtization, and further assault by the partner; it can also have negative implications for children and family stability, although not reporting IPV can have similar consequences. ​ Household Income: ○​ The GSS includes a summary of victimization according to household income. The 2009 data showed Canadians with household incomes above $100,000 are more likely (237 per 1,000 households) to have their houses vandalized or broken into. The higher a household’s income, the more inviting its contents are to prospective offenders. ○​ The rate of victimization among those in the higher income brackets was one–and–a half times greater than among those with household incomes under $20,000. ○​ In 2019, violent victimization rates were reported as very high amongst those with a family income of less than $40,000 per year, yet households with higher income (greater than $120,000 per year)  reported both higher levels of personal property theft and household victimization. ​ Marital Status and Sexual Orientation: ○​ The effect of marital status on the risk of victimization varies by crime type. On the one hand, marriage and childbearing are turning points in life that decrease the risk of both criminality and victimization for many types of crime because of associated changes in lifestyle. Although marriage can increase the risk of other types of vicimization (e.g. intimate partner violence), the 2009 GSS showed higher violent victimization rates for single people and those in common–law relationships than those who were married. ○​ Other groups with higher rates of violent victimization included Indigenous Peoples and self–identified LGBTQ2+ people. LGBTQ2+ individuals experienced victimization at a rate 2.5x times higher than heterosexual individuals. ○​ The 2019 GSS data showed that violent victimization correlates with sexual orientation, with a greater risk of victimization correlates with sexual orientation, with a greater risk of victimization experienced by those identifying as non–heterosexual with bisexual people, specifically, experiencing a higher victimization rate. ​ Race and Ethnicity: ○​ Studies in Canada and the US have shown correlations between non–White ethnicity and certain types of victimization (such as violence and property crime). ○​ Indigenous women and Black people are disproportionately more likely to be street–checked (i.e., carded) than non–Indigenous and non–Black people. ○​ For example, a 2021 report on racial profiling details that Black people in Vancouver accounted for 5% of police street checks while only representing 1% of the total population. ○​ The situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada with respect to victimization is particularly troubling. It includes criminal victimization and over–representation in the criminal justice system and systemic social problems, including poverty, high unemployment, poor education, substance abuse, and family disintegration. ​ The origins of these adverse conditions have often been traced to historic policies of the Canadian government, such as the policy of forcibly removing Indigenous children from their families and placing them in residential schools. The last residential school closed just over 25 years ago, in 1996, and the social consequences persist, with Indigenous Peoples still all too often victims of racial discrimination and secondary victimization by the justice system. ​ Repeat Victimization: ○​ “Born criminal” was coined by Cesare Lombroso in the late 1800s. Are there likewise born victims? Similarly, criminologists have noticed that some people seem particularly prone to experiencing victimization. ○​ Aromaa (1974) found that 25% of victims of violence were repeat victims. More recently, argued that, based on the results of their extensive study, the best predictor of future victimization is past victimization. In fact, 4% of victims experience 44% of offences. ​ It’s not impossible to become a repeat victim simply by chance —- to be in the wrong place at the wrong time more than once. This dispels the myth that crime is uniformly distributed. ​ Accidents of birth also give greater plausibility to the notion of the born victim, as those who grow up in certain socio–economic circumstances do have a greater likelihood of being victims of crime. ​ For this reason, the term “born a victim” has been replaced in more recent criminological literature by such concepts as “predispositions”, “propensities”, “proneness”, and “vulnerability”. In many instances, repeat victimization involves an interaction among factors such as age, sex, personality, occupation, and perhaps most important, lifestyle. Offenders also tend to choose targets based on prior knowledge they gained and the associated risk and reward of a particular offence. ​ Victim Precipitation: Blaming the Victim? ○​ Victim Precipitation Theory (The theory that some people make themselves targets for victimization through their actions or inaction). ○​ Mendelsohn’s typology, the “correlation of culpability (imputability)”, focused on the extent of the victim’s contribution to the crime. He identified six victim types, including “completely innocent” victims, such as children or those victimized while unconscious, and “simulating/imaginary” victims, such as those who are paranoid, senile, or otherwise detached from reality. ○​ Schafer (1968) argued that Von Hentig’s typology was more sophisticated because it recognized the interaction of biological, psychological, and sociological factors that contribute to victimization. In effect, Von Hentig proposed that victims are not “born” but “made”. Examples of his types include: ​ Young victims, who because of their age tend to be weak and inexperienced both physically and intellectually and therefore at increased risk of certain crimes such as sexual assault or kidnapping; ​ Female victims, who tend to be physically weaker than male offenders;  ​ Minority victims, who are subject to racial prejudice and are often victims of hate crime; and ​ “Tormentor victims' ', who actively provoke others to lash out against them. ○​ Not surprisingly, empirical research along these lines has been controversial. In 1958, Wolfgang found that in approximately 25% of violent incidents ending in homicide, the victim had unwittingly played a role in instigating the sequence of events. ○​ Amir (1971) found similar proportions and drew parallel conclusions regarding sexually assaulted women. ​ Secondary Victimization: ○​ Refers to insensitive, victim–blaming, and trauma–compounding attitudes and behaviours by social sector and justice system workers towards victims of violence. This often results in a reluctance among victims to either trust the service provider or seek further help, especially in cases involving sexual assaults and domestic violences. Both women and men who report being victims of sexual assault or domestic violence indicate having more traumatic and stigmatizing experiences with law enforcement and the court system than victims of other types of crimes. ○​ The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime (2005, p.6) notes there are a considerable number of ways that a victim’s experience may be compounded into secondary victimization: ​ The person’s experience may be blatantly rejected as criminal victimization. ​ Police or other criminal justice personnel may act intrusively or inappropriately towards the victim. ​ The process of criminal investigation and trial (decisions about whether to prosecute, the trial itself, the sentencing of the offender, and his or her eventual release) can be both confounding and harmful to the victim. ​ The victims perceive difficulties in balancing her/his rights with those of the accused or offender. ​ Criminal justice processes and procedures do not consider the victim’s perspective. ​ The hurried schedule of the emergency room may affect a sexual assault victim’s privacy or sense of dignity. ​ Doctors may not recognize or acknowledge signs of spousal abuse. ​ Spiritual leaders may attempt to guide victims into paths of forgiveness or accommodation before they are ready or against their wishes. ​ The media are involved in intrusive or inappropriate investigation, filming, photographing, and reporting.  ○​ One may assume that these examples of secondary victimization are typically exhibited by criminal justice personnel such as police, lawyers and judges; however, many victims report experiencing these types of actions by victim services workers, victim compensation system, refugee assistance organizations, and professionals in the mental health system. ○​ Of further concern is the relationship between a sexual assault or domestic violence victim’s emotional demeanour and their credibility: victims who exhibit emotional behaviours such as crying or sobbing are considered more believable than victims who are calm, numb, or emotionless. Non–emotional victims are more likely to experience secondary victimization than emotional victims. ○​ Some of the most notorious cases of secondary victimization involve missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada. Since the 1980s, over 2,000 Indigenous women have been murdered or reported missing across Canada, but media coverage of their victimization has been alarmingly minimal. ​ Dawn Lavell–Harvard, past president of the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC), notes that Indigenous women are more likely to go missing and be murdered because perpetrators are more likely to get away with the crime. Section 4.4: Theoretical Models and Victim Typologies: ​ Lifestyle model: ○​ Lifestyle model (The theory that people’s lifestyle habits and patterns of behaviour can put them at a greater risk of being victims of crime). ○​ Model (The theory that people’s lifestyle habits and patterns of behaviour can put them at a greater risk of being victims of crime). ​ They suggested that the risk of victimization is significantly correlated with lifestyle. Put quite simply, the more active and social you are, the greater your risk of being victimized, particularly if you engage in certain types of activities. ​ Brownridge (2010) used the theory to explain Indigenous men’s elevated risk of being subjected to more violent victimization relative to non–Indigenous men in Canada. ○​ The lifestyle model shares many similarities with opportunity models of offending, which attribute the risk of crime/victimization partly to demographic, social, and economic conditions or situations. For example, young people who go out to a bar are at greater risk of being assaulted than those who are camping with their parents. ​ Three related hypotheses have been derived from the lifestyle model:  1.​ The equivalent groups hypothesis suggests that the offender and victim share certain characteristics. This hypothesis seems most valid in relation to personal victimizations. GSS data indicate that victims and their offenders are typically close in age. 2.​ The proximity hypothesis suggests that some people place themselves at risk by choosing a high–risk lifestyle (e.g. frequenting certain bars or hanging out with gangs). Such individuals do not actively encourage their own victimization but make bad choices. 3.​ The deviant place hypothesis asserts that some areas are simply more conducive to criminal activity than others. For example, if you were not intoxicated but missed your bus stop late at night and ended up in an area of nightclubs and gang–related activity, your risk of experiencing some form of victimization would increase regardless of any precautions you might have taken. ​ Routine Activity Theory: ○​ Another conceptual model popular in victimology is routine activity theory, or RAT (The theory that the risk of vicitmization increase when there is (1) the presence of motivated offender(s), (2) an availability of suitable targets (i.e., victim or victims), and (3) the absence of “capable guardian(s)” (i.e., someone who could intervene to prevent the crime from being committed). ○​ This theory posits that any crime requires the convergence of three elements: ​ The presence of a motivated offender or offenders; ​ The availability of a suitable target (i.e., a victim or victims); and ​ The absence of a “capable guardian” (i.e., someone who could intervene to prevent the crime from being committed). RAT also applies to victims because it focuses on the routine activities of both parties. ○​ RAT also applies to victims because it focuses on the routine activities of both parties. Several parallels can be drawn between RAT and lifestyle theory. For example, criminals typically do not create criminal opportunities; rather, they come across them during their day–to–day activities. In the context of victimization, this suggests that differential risk of victimization is primarily a function of differential exposure to offenders. ○​ Fattah suggested that specific elements of lifestyle theory and RAT should be combined to assess the relative contribution of factors such as opportunity, individual risk factors, motivated offenders, exposure and associations, dangerous times/places, dangerous behaviours,  high–risk activities, defensive and avoidance behaviours, and structural/cultural proneness. As of 2021, researchers have not taken up the challenge. Why might this be? Section 4.5: From Theory to Practice: The Emergence of Victims’ Rights. ​ In 2003, the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for justice endorsed a renewed version of the 1998 Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime. ​ It wasn’t until 2015 that the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime enacted the Victims Bill of Rights Act. ○​ The Act includes four main rights for victims: ​ The right to information; ​ The right to protection; ​ The right to participation; and ​ The right to restitution. ○​ As per the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985): ​ Victims of crime should be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect. ​ The privacy of victims should be considered and respected to the greatest extent possible. ​ All reasonable measures should be taken to minimize inconvenience to victims. ​ The safety and security of victims should be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process, and appropriate measures should be taken when necessary to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation. ​ Information should be provided to victims about the criminal justice system and the victim’s role and opportunities to participate in criminal justice processes. ​ Victims should be given information, in accordance with prevailing law, policies, and procedures, about the status of the investigation; the scheduling, progress, and final outcomes of the proceedings; and the offender’s status in the correctional system. ​ Information should be provided to victims about available victim assistance services, other programs, and assistance available to them, and on obtaining financial reparation. ​ The views, concerns, and representations of victims are important in criminal justice processes and should be considered in accordance with prevailing law, policies, and procedures.  ​ The needs, concerns, and diversity of victims should be considered in the development and delivery of programs and services and in related education and training. ​ Victims should provide information about available options for raising their concerns when they believe these principles have not been followed). ​ Victim Impact Statements: ○​ Victim Impact Statements VIS (a statement presented by the victim (or a spokesperson) during the sentencing phase of a trial to inform the court of the personal impact of the offender’s behaviour). ○​ Provincial cabinet in each province directs how a VIS is to be prepared. ​ Victim Assistance Programs. ○​ Victim Compensation and Restitution: ​ In 1968, Schafer observed that no country exists “where a victim of crime enjoys the expectation of full compensation or restitution for the injury, harm, or loss he suffered”. ​ In Canada, crime victims have the right to seek financial redress. The right for victims to receive “compensation” from the court for property loss as a result of a crime has been in the Criminal Code since its inception in 1892. ​ Today, the court can issue a restitution order requiring an offender who has been found guilty to financially compensate victims for their losses resulting from the offender’s crime: this is restitution. ​ By contrast, and after a slight amendment by the government, compensation refers to payments made directly by the state to victims to compensate for financial and non–financial losses such as pain and suffering. ​ The Canadian government enacted the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (Bill C-32) in April 2015. ​ Court Services: ○​ Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime endorses the provision of services required to assist victims and address their (special) needs concerning attending court and dealing with the criminal justice system process in general. ​ Victim Service Programs: ○​ As of 2018, every province and territory in Canada offers a victim/witness assistance program. The programs vary in nature and organization, depending on local needs, conditions, and resources. Consider the Calgary Police Service’s Victim Assistance Support Team (VAST), which includes: ​ Volunteer support 24/7: Programs include hospital and home visits, court accompaniment, restitution requests, victim impact statements (VIS), court preparation, and trauma support.  ​ Requested information: such as whether an arrest has been made, when the case will be tried, how to file a VIS, and how to report additional stolen property. ​ Possible referrals to services such as counselling agencies, distress/crisis lines, the public trustee, and the medical examiner’s office. ​ Public Education: ○​ The Federal Department of Justice supports various provincial and territorial initiatives designed to inform the public about the law and how it affects them. ○​ Specific victim assistance projects offer information and assistance to certain types of victims. ​ Crisis Intervention: ○​ Specialized assistance to counter the negative impact — emotional, psychological, and/or financial — of such crimes as domestic abuse and human trafficking, and from secondary victimization (e.g., the insensitive treatment by the police, courts, counsellors, etc). ○​ Organizations that deal with victims of crime offer empathy, understanding, and validation of victim’s feelings of anger and hurt. Victim–Offender Reconciliation Programs: ​ Reflect the growing influence of the restorative justice movement. Section 4.6: The Future of Victimology: ​ In 2000, Fattah (2000, p.39) predicted that victimology would slowly move beyond the simplistic notion of “an innocent victim and a guilty offender… to the more realistic and defensible view of two human beings caught in a web of intricate social relationships and human emotions”. ​ To this we might add Landau’s observation that “home, schools, and communities, must be more central sites for reform … as it is here where victimization, criminalization, and the conditions that create and sustain them are most powerful”. ​ Canada’s Bill C-32 is the Federal government’s focus on victims’ rights. ​ Canadian criminologist Brian Maclean used a critical criminological perspective to argue that the study of victims can represent an excuse for the state to increase social control by increasing the public’s awareness about their prospective risk of being a victim of a crime. Section 5.1: The Classical School: ​ The Roots of Penal Reform. ○​ Classical school of criminology (a perspective premised on the belief that potential criminals, as rational beings capable of free will, will be deterred by the threat of swift and severe punishment). ​ The Enlightenment: ○​ The Renaissance brought the spread of more rational, scientific, and humanistic ways of thinking. ○​ By the 18th century, traditional doctrines of absolute obedience to authority were increasingly challenged, as were the prevailing concepts of justice. ​ Beccaria’s Key Ideas: ○​ Beccaria embraced the concept of free will, arguing that most potential offenders would be deterred if three basic conditions were met: ​ Certainty of punishment; ​ Swiftness of justice; and ​ Fair penalties proportionate to the severity of social harm done. ○​ Beccaria’s doctrine is characterized by four general principles: equality, liberty, utilitarianism, and humanitarianism. ​ Equality: ​ Beccaria believed that all offenders must be treated equally, without consideration of personal character or motive. ​ Liberty: ​ Beccaria believed that “only the law can decree punishment for crime” ​ Utilitarianism: ​ The purpose of punishment should not be individual retaliation and retribution but “to instil fear in other men” to deter crime. ​ Humanitarianism: ​ Punishment should be fair but humane. ​ An Enduring Influence: ○​ Jeremy Bentham developed the philosophy known as utilitarianism (the concept that any law should be of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people), ○​ According to the doctrine of utilitarianism, punishment is justified if it prevents more social harm than it produces. ○​ People as rational beings will seek pleasure and avoid pain. ○​ Felicific calculus: a quasi–mathematical formula for calculating how much pain was needed to dissuade someone from committing an offence. ​ Jeremy Bentham: ​ A leading proponent of the doctrine of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham was a central figure in a reform movement that helped mitigate the severity of punishments for offenders, abolish usury laws, and remove the “exclusionary laws of evidence” so that evidence could not be introduced if it violated a  defendant’s constitutional rights. Bentham was instrumental in introducing principles of crime prevention into the judicial process. ​ In 1799, Bentham embodied his ideas on penal reform in a prison design he called the Panopticon, literally, an “all–seeing” facility. Bentham believed this would allow for constructive supervision and reform by conditioning prisoners to control their own behaviour. ​ Evaluation of the Classical School: ○​ Williams and Hawkins (1986) found that the fear of arrest could act as a deterrent, especially when linked to three indirect social costs of an arrest: ​ Commitment costs (an arrest may harm future opportunities, such as employment). ​ Attachment costs (an arrest can result in harm to personal circumstances); and ​ Stigma (an arrest can damage one’s personal and/or public image). ​ Deterrence Theory: ○​ Refers to the belief that the threat of punishment can prevent people from committing a crime. ○​ Maintains that behaviour is governed by its consequences. ○​ Research on deterrence has been inconclusive, at best. ○​ Rates of recidivism (reoffending) among both adults and young offenders across Canada and internationally are discouraging for those who believe in the ability of a first punishment to deter further criminal acts. ○​ The classical perspective failed to acknowledge individual differences, motivation, and situational circumstances. ​ Michel Foucault, perhaps the most influential modern–day revisionsit on the subject of punishment, argued that punishment should not be seen simply as “the independent development of legal or economic institutions”, but rather as part of an integrative and/or interdisciplinary framework. ​ In other words, punishment is an interrelationship of power, knowledge, and the body that is affected by factors such as economics, social development, political ideologies, and transformations in mass communication. ​ Hermann Mannheim summarized the problem with the classical perspective when he described it as “too static and sterile to guide future progress”. Section 5.2: The Positivist School: ​ A school of criminological thought who adherents use the scientific method to measure behaviour and advocate rehabilitation over punishment. ​ Embraced by Lombroso, the “father” of modern criminology, and his contemporaries Garofalo & Ferri. Lombroso and his contemporaries: ​ Biological determinism: a doctrine that denies free will while maintaining that our decisions are decided by predictable and/or inherited causes that influence our character. ​ Atavism: a biological condition supposedly rendering an individual incapable of living within the norms of a society; they were seen as evolutionary throwbacks. ○​ Lombroso believed that the cause of atavism was hereditary. ​ Cesare Lombroso, Father of Modern Criminology: ​ Born in Verona, Italy, Cesare Lombroso obtained a medical degree at age 24 and volunteered as an army physician. ​ In his free time, he decided to take anatomical measurements of soldiers from different regions of Italy. In the process, he found a positive correlation between those who had tattoos and those who were involved in some infraction of either military or civilian law. He later obtained permission to study people with mental health issues and began to solidify his theory of criminality. Many of his ideas and observations were first published in L’uomo Delinquente (The Criminal Man) in 1876. By its fifth edition in 1896, the book had expanded from 256 to 1,903 pages and attracted international acclaim. ​ At the University of Turin, with the assistance of his students, Garofalo and Ferri, Lombroso refined his general theory that criminals could be distinguished from non–criminals by various physical anomalies, which he considered to be atavistic or degenerate in origin. With William Ferrero, he also wrote the first book on women criminals, The Female Offender. ​ Evaluation of the Positivist School: ○​ Critiques of deterministic explanations. ​ Weakness of methodology. ​ Limited application to the understanding of white collar crime, organized crime, and political crime; ​ A general fear that positivist–based policies will be intrusive and possibly lead to totalitarianism; and ​ Failure to distinguish clearly between the roles of environment and heredity. Section 5.3: The Rule of Law versus Science: ​ The CJS is based primarily on classical legal doctrine. ​ The decisions of police, lawyers, and judges are based on the law, not on the behavioural sciences. ​ There is no common model of criminal justice by which the three elements of the CJS operate towards a common goal through common strategies. Section 5.4: The Neoclassical School: ​ Assumes free will and believes that some accused offenders should be exonerated or treated leniently considering situations or circumstances that make it impossible to exercise free will. ​ Endorsed most principles of the classical school with two fundamental differences: ○​ Rejected the rigidity of the classical system of punishment. ○​ Called for discretion—the power of an authority to exercise his or her judgement in a particular case instead of having to follow specific rules. ​ Just deserts: the premise that an individual who commits an offence chooses to do so and therefore deserves to be punished accordingly for it. ​ Plea bargain: an arrangement between the defence and prosecution in which the accused agrees to plead guilty in return for some benefit, such as a reduced sentence. Section 5.5: Towards an Integrated and Interdisciplinary School of Thought: ​ Most criminology programs in Canada are staffed by people from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds. ○​ Have the capacity to offer interdisciplinary training focused on prevention. ​ Prison Reform: ○​ Alexander Maconochie. ​ Reward: prisoners must earn their release through industrious labour and good conduct. ​ Individual influence: if it is to offer constructive support, a prison should not have more than 300 inmates, or 100 for more serious offenders. ​ Gradual release: prisons should provide for gradual release (e.g., through halfway houses). ​ Post–release supervision: there should be strict supervision after discharge. ○​ John Haviland: Designs prisons to reform rather than confined inmates. ○​ John Howard: Instrumental in establishing prisoner advocacy groups.  ○​ Charles Lucas: maximum vs minimum sentences; system for the classification of inmates based on their moral improvement; separation of adult and young offenders. ​ Modern Law Enforcement: ○​ Sir Robert Peel ​ The power of the police depends on public approval of their actions and behaviour. ​ Maintaining the respect of the public means securing their co–operation to respect societal laws. ​ The police must demonstrate absolute impartiality, courtesy, and friendly good humour. ​ The police must use minimal force when trying to restore and/or enforce the law. ​ Legal Reform: ○​ Isaac Ray argued that the legal definition of insanity was so limited in scope that lawyers were ill–equipped to assess mental disorders and that expert medical testimony was required in cases involving insanity pleas. ○​ moral insanity: a form of mental illness in which the offender’s ability to reason is temporarily interrupted. It is the basis of modern verdicts of temporary insanity or “not criminally responsible” for offenders whose crimes were the product of mental illness). ○​ In Canada, the M’Naghten Rule underpins the designation of not criminally responsible because of mental disorder (NCRMD). ○​ Created in 1992 and assigned to offenders found not guilty of a crime due to mental illness. ○​ Individuals found to be NCRMD are sentenced to custodial forensic psychiatric facilities where they receive ongoing care by psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, and other staff who assist in stabilizing and rehabilitating the individual. ​ Criminalistics: ○​ Criminalistics: the science of crime detection and investigation, including such areas of specialization as weapons and DNA analysis. ○​ Alphonse Bertillon: ​ First to apply this anthropological technique to law and criminology. ​ Refined the process of photo identification (i.e., the mug shot). ○​ Hans Gross wrote that every criminal case should be treated as a scientific problem. ○​ He provided detailed descriptions and illustrations for investigative strategies based on medicine, ballistics, chemistry, anthropometry, fingerprinting, and serology, among other areas. ○​ Modern crime investigation techniques can be traced to Gross’s pioneering work, including DNA matching, fingerprinting, photo  identification, voiceprint identification, hair and fire analysis, and crime scene analysis. ○​ These techniques fall into the broad category of criminalistics known as forensic science, which is essentially “the application of science to law”. ​ (New) Social Defence Movement: Humanistics Criminal Policy? ○​ Social defence: term used by the Italian legal scholar Enrico Ferri, who argued that punishment should be based on individual and social considerations. ○​ Punishment should not be applied for its own sake, but for the sake of society. ​ Neopositivist School: ○​ An approach to criminal justice popular between the 1930s and 1960s, which focused on the development of rational penal policy, emphasizing the systematic resocialization of offenders through treatment and rehabilitation. ○​ Social defense recognizes that the state has a right to protect itself and society against individuals who choose to break the law. ○​ Also speaks to the need to protect the rights of citizens—including offenders—against the potential arbitrariness of the courts. ​ Structural Explanations: ○​ Sociology is still the dominant discipline in criminology. ○​ Sociology is the study of social structures, collective representation, and social behaviour or action. ○​ Two central questions in the study of criminology: ​ Why do crime rates differ across locations and over time? ​ Why do crime rates differ according to the key dimensions of structured social inequality? ○​ Auguste Comte: ​ The founder of sociology. ​ Instilled in sociology the notion that human behaviour is a function of forces beyond the control of the individual (i.e., forces of social structure). ○​ The sociological perspective generally asserts that individuals are socialized into the existing social structure as they internalize society’s norms or social expectations; this generally promotes conformist behaviour. ○​ What a given society considers acceptable is defined through two types of norms: ​ Prescriptive norms (telling us what we should do). ○​ Some norms are informal, there are no written laws defining them. ○​ As societies become more complex and develop more formal structures, it becomes necessary to convert some norms into formal laws. ○​ Émile Durkheim: ​ One of the founding fathers of sociology. ​ Structural functionalism: asserts that all social structures work together to promote a stable and harmonious society. ​ Sees individual behaviour as the product of the social environment rather than intrinsic traits. ​ Believed that human groups will always make rules, and that every group will have some members who break some of the rules—that is, engage in crime and/or deviance. ○​ Theories of social order can be classified in terms of three paradigms: ​ Consensus. ​ Conflict. ​ Symbolic Interactionism. ○​ Consensus: ​ Functionalist paradigm ​ Society as a set of interrelated parts that contribute to the overall functioning of the whole. ​ Collective conscience. ○​ Conflict: ​ Marxist paradigm. ​ Society as an assortment of disparate groups competing for power and resources. ​ Society’s most powerful define what or who is deviant, typically in a way that best satisfies their own interests. ○​ Symbolic interactionism: ​ Gabriel Tarde. ​ Less about social order and more about social processes through which criminal behaviour is learned. ​ E.g., imitation and interaction. ○​ The social–structural tradition looks for the root causes of crime in social institutions such as family, religion, and the economic, education, and political system. ○​ Ecological school of criminology studies how elements of the physical and social environment interact to create a criminal environment. ○​ Concentric–circle theory suggests that cities develop from the inner city to the suburbs in a predictable series of concentric rings, each of which encompasses a particular set of social and environmental characteristics. ○​ Zone 2, the transitional zone, is plagued with crime. ○​ A sociological theory that sees deviance and crime as consequences of a breakdown of social control in environments characterized by social and economic instability. ○​ Four elements contribute to social disorganization: ​ Low economic status.  ​ Ethnic diversity. ​ High mobility. ​ Family disruption. ○​ A sociological theory that sees deviance as a socially learned behaviour that is transmitted through successive generations, especially in disorganized urban settings. ○​ Durkheim’s anomie: a state of deregulation, breakdown, or normlessness in society, usually attributed to decreased homogeneity. ○​ Two propositions are central to Durkheim’s thesis: ​ Social organization is necessary to keep undesirable human tendencies in check. ​ Where social order breaks down and social norms lose their influence, anomie develops, and crime increases significantly. ○​ Sees emotional turmoil and conflict as resulting from individual's inability to achieve socially approved goals through legitimate means. ○​ He identified five distinct “modes of adaptation” to the goals and means approved by society: ​ Conformity. ​ Innovation. ​ Ritualism. ​ Retreatism. ​ Rebellion. ○​ Conformity: C