Criminological Theories: A Flowchart PDF

Overarching Criminological Framework Individual Structural Social Processes Cultural Result of individual weakness Result of social forces beyond Result of interaction with...

Overarching Criminological Framework Individual Structural Social Processes Cultural Result of individual weakness Result of social forces beyond Result of interaction with No essential relationship between (eg.psychology, heredity, low the control of the individual, significant others, through which conditions (whether individual or Cause of intelligence) or making the such as the urban environment people learn to engage in, or social) and criminal activity. No Crime choice to do crime. or socio-economic background. avoid, criminal activity. In drift essential cause of crime. Crime Marxist theories see the and labelling theories, broader the effect of knowledge, culture capitalist organisation of society social processes are also and practice: It’s about how talk as the principal cause considered, such as law making, about and represent criminality, law enforcement and media law, society etc. Conservative and Consensual: Liberal and Consensual (with Liberal and Plural (with Radical and plural: see the social Presumed agreement about qualification): argue that there is qualification): see the possibility order as the outcome of conflict View of social values and the nature of structural breakdown in social of diverse social values and and struggle over resources Social Order crime. cohesion (eg. disorganised groups existing at once. (financial and cultural, for communities), but still tend to Definition of crime part of social example news media). value general social norms. interaction. Accept legal definitions of crime. But see Marxist and Conflict theories of crime. These theories tend towards the radical view of the social order. Demonological Social Ecology Social Learning Constitutive Theories Classical Anomie and Strain Differential Association Edgework and Cultural Positivist Sub-cultural theories Social Control Criminology Conflict Drift &Neutralisation Labelling Below is a very brief summary of the basic idea underpinning each theory. INDIVIDUAL Demonological Criminal behaviour is seen at the result of a supernatural force (i.e. God and a person’s lack of faith, or the overpowering strength of the Devil). Criminals seen to have been possessed by Satan, or to have willingly entered into a compact (agreement) with him. Classical This perspective holds that humans are essentially free-willed, and make decisions in a self-interested, hedonistic way (i.e. the maximisation of pleasure and the avoidance of pain). Several basic principles follow from this idea: if we are all free-willed, we are also equal in our capacity for decision making (whether legitimate or illegitimate); everybody is therefore a potential offender and so punishment must be about the offence rather than the offender. More recent revisions of classical theory include Rational Choice Theory (individuals make decisions among alternatives that are rational given the constraints of ability, time and information) and Routines Activity Theory (focuses on the social and physical context which shape offenders’ decisions to commit crime, including the organisation of urban space, work routines and leisure activities which open up new possibilities for crime to occur.) Positivist The underlying principle of positivism is that social behaviours can be examined, measured and tested scientifically, enabling the most accurate solution to social problems. Individual Positivism in criminology holds that there is some biological factor (e.g. cranial deformity) or psychological factor (e.g. personality characteristics such as extroversion) which predisposes a person to criminality, and which makes them fundamentally different from the rest of the population. STRUCTURAL Social Ecology Social ecology perspectives argue that it is not certain kinds of people who commit crime, but certain kinds of areas (which they saw as kind of eco-systems) that give rise to crime, or at least the opportunity for it. They saw the inner urban areas of the modern city as environments of disorganisation and transition, and a breakdown in the usual mechanisms of social control (such as community involvement). Anomie and Strain Here, crime is seen as the result of cultural shifts or upheavals. Durkheim argued that while crime is present to a certain degree in all societies (even the most saintly!), when things change rapidly – as with the industrial revolution – crime becomes excessive. This is because people lose their sense of place, and the norms and regulations controlling society become off kilter (Durkheim called this state anomie). Robert Merton developed this idea of anomie to describe the general condition of living under the “American Dream”, where there was a mismatch between the goals that were culturally idealised (wealth, ambition, education) and the means for people to achieve those goals. This mismatch produced strain (frustration) and led people to engage in illegitimate ways of achieving those goals. Sub-cultural theories Subcultural theories argued that delinquency was a solution to the structural and social marginalisation of certain groups from the mainstream. These perspectives came out of working with strain theory and attempting to understand in what ways the response to strain (by selling stolen goods, for example) might not just be an individual response, but a collective one. Subcultures formed as a result of a shared experience of strain. Criminality in these perspectives wasn’t simply about achieving monetary success, as Merton tended to emphasise, but also about expressing frustration (Cohen) and developing alternative networks of opportunity through gang membership (Cloward and Ohlin). Conflict The argument here is that in order to understand the causes of crime, we have to also understand the interests served and protected by the criminal law and the ways in which people in positions of authority use their power. Conflict criminology sees social institutions, such as the state or the market, as structures of power which tend to maintain social inequalities through their ability to criminalize certain behaviours over others. SOCIAL PROCESSES Social Learning Social learning argues that people learn to engage in criminal behaviour through interaction with intimate social groups (especially family, but also peers and the media). This learning includes being rewarded/punished for certain behaviours, observing what happened to others for engaging in certain behaviours and in having personal pride in certain behaviours, all of which go to giving some behaviours more meaning and worth than others. Differential Association Builds on social learning and suggests that doing crime is a learning activity like any other. It is dependent on association with others, specifically intimate others, and involves both the learning of techniques and attitudes about the activity being learnt (e.g. in shoplifting being unnoticeable or coming to believe that large department stores can ‘afford’ to lose to a few items) Social Control Social control posits that we are all capable of committing crimes and engaging in anti-social behaviour, but it is only by virtue of our bonds with others that we don’t. Strong social ties (close to family, school, community) mean that a person in more invested in what others think of them and are more likely to conform to collectively held values. Drift and Neutralisation Matza argues that gang members were not solely committed to their sub-cultural identity, but that they were able to drift in and out of that social group. This is because the social order is not consensual, is not made up of core or basic values. Rather, conventional and delinquent value systems tend to overlap (for example the emphasis on excitement and risk taking in mainstream culture and those who engage in trainsurfing). In addition, ‘techniques of neutralisation’ or rationalisation enable problematic activities (such as drug dealing) to be redescribed in a way that doesn’t threaten conventional values. Labelling This refers to the social processes through which certain individuals and groups name and classify the behaviour of others. Labeling theory argues that criminality as such doesn’t exist – behaviours only become deviant because they are so labelled. The idea here is that this naming (for example graffiti as ‘vandalism’ rather than ‘art’) sets in train a range of social reactions (being charged by police) where future activity is interpreted through the label of vandal, rather than artist (and so requiring ongoing surveillance by police, or being known to police). CULTURAL Constitutive The basic premise here is that crime and its control cannot be separated from the structural, cultural and political contexts in which it is located. In other words our understandings of crime, of ‘what is crime’ cannot be divorced from other social processes such as popular representations of crime (through film and TV), media technologies, law enforcement policies and the languages that we use to talk about crime. Constitutive criminology does not prioritise the social over the individual, but argues that they are fundamentally interrelated and mutually defining. Edgework and Cultural Criminology These perspective see criminal behaviour as the product of modern living. Edgework examines the ways in which deviant and/or risky behaviours might be a response to the alienating aspects of contemporary society, a way of finding the self through extreme behaviours. Cultural criminology is concerned with the nexus between cultural representations of crime and social/institutional responses to it.