Week 2 - Classical School (1767) Cesare Beccaria Punishment PDF

Week 2 - Classical School (September 17th): Cesare Beccaria on Crimes and Punishments ___________________________________________________________________________ Reading 1: Beccaria, C. (1767) “On Crimes and Punishments”. In: E. McLaughlin and J. Muncie (2013) (eds). Criminological Perspectives: Es...

Week 2 - Classical School (September 17th): Cesare Beccaria on Crimes and Punishments ___________________________________________________________________________ Reading 1: Beccaria, C. (1767) “On Crimes and Punishments”. In: E. McLaughlin and J. Muncie (2013) (eds). Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings (3rd ed., London: Sage), pp. 5-15. Summary: Cesare Beccaria believes that laws should be based on logic and human nature, not on the selfish desires of powerful individuals. He praises the Enlightenment for promoting knowledge and improving relationships between rulers and their people, as well as boosting trade through shared ideas. However, he is concerned that many punishments are still unnecessarily cruel, and criminal justice systems in Europe have not been reformed to be fair or effective. The origins of punishment: - Argues that punishment is a necessary part of society but they should be based on reason on reason + principles of human natures rather then the passions/interest of a few people - The origin of punishment is the social contract and the right to punish is not that of an individual but all of citizens/ their sovereign (person who has supreme power) Key terms: - Social contract (agreement where ppl give up a small portion of their freedom so that everyone can live safely/peacfully together) = punishments are apart of this agreement, where individuals surrender a small amount of freedom for collective safety and protect citizens by discouraging harmful acts - the freedom given up is only whats necessary to maintain order and safety - Purpose: The main goal of punishment is to prevent future crimes by discouraging people from breaking the law (deterrence). It’s not about revenge or punishing someone just to make them suffer (retribution). Punishments are meant to keep society safe and maintain peace by showing that breaking the rules has consequences. - Limits on punishment: Punishments should only be as harsh as needed to keep society safe. If they go beyond what’s necessary, they become unfair and abusive. Excessive punishment doesn’t add to safety and instead causes harm, making the justice system unjust. - Comparsion to natural laws: Beccaria compares society to the natural world, where balance is essential for survival. Just as nature operates within certain limits to maintain order, human society must also find a balance between personal freedom and the needs of the group. This requires reasonable and fair rules that protect everyone while limiting individual freedoms only as much as necessary for the common good. Principles of punishment: - Legislators as sole authority: laws must be crafted by legislators who represent the collective will of society - Only lawmakers, who represent the people, should decide on laws and punishments. This ensures that the rules reflect the will of society, not personal opinions. - Proportionality: Punishments should match the seriousness of the crime. If penalties are too harsh or too lenient, it confuses people about what is just and fair. - No judicial overreach: Judges must follow the law exactly and not add or change punishments based on their own preferences. This prevents unfair treatment and ensures consistency in justice. - Severity v utility: harsh punishments that don’t actually stop crime or help society are useless and harmful. Punishments should only be as severe as needed to keep people safe and deter crime. - Excessive punishments are counterproductive if they do not prevent crime or contribute to the public good. - No magistrate (who is a part of society) can, with justice, inflict punishments upon another member of the same society. Judges and the interpretation of laws: - Judges may only enforce laws, not interpret them as interpretation leads to: 1. an inconsistent application of justice 2. subjectivity influenced by personal biases, circumstances/passions 3. erosion of predictability meaning that laws will be unclear as well as the punishments to follow will be inconsistent which allows ppl to not predict what will happen if they break the law which undermines public trust in the legal system The Role of the Legislator Legislators must balance individual freedoms with societal welfare, acting as wise philosophers who craft humane laws. Laws should promote mutual respect, reduce harm, and encourage happiness within society. Obscurity and Accessibility of Laws Clarity of Laws: unclear or vague laws necessitates interpretation, which opens avenues for corruption and misuse. Accessibility: Laws written in complex or foreign languages marginalize citizens and concentrate power in the hands of an elite. Impact of Clarity: Clear, accessible laws reduce ignorance, increase compliance, and ensure fairness across all societal levels. Promptness of Punishment Temporal Link: Swift punishment strengthens the mental association between the crime and its consequence, enhancing deterrence - This helps people mentally connect the crime with its consequences, making it more effective at preventing future wrongdoing Justice and Mercy: Delayed punishments lose their power to deter and instead become more about public spectacle than justice. Swift action is both fairer and more impactful. Minimal Detention: Keeping someone in jail before their trial should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, as it takes away their freedom before they are proven guilty. Certainty and Clemency Certainty Over Severity: It’s more effective to consistently apply fair and moderate punishments than to occasionally use very harsh ones. People are more deterred by knowing they will definitely be punished than by fearing extreme but rare penalties. Impact of Clemency(mercy): ○ Excessive use of pardons undermines the justice system and public trust. ○ Clemency should be embedded in the laws themselves, reflecting the legislature’s humanity, rather than being granted on a case-by-case basis. Proportion Between Crimes and Punishments Rational Proportions: Punishments must correspond to the crime's harm to society to preserve moral distinctions and enhance deterrence. Impact of Disproportion: ○ If minor and serious crimes are punished the same way, people lose faith in the fairness of the justice system. It also blurs moral distinctions, making it harder to see which actions are more harmful. ○ When severe and minor crimes have the same punishment, there’s no extra risk for committing a bigger crime. Offenders might choose greater offenses if the potential rewards outweigh the penalties. How to Prevent Crimes Beccaria advocates for prevention over punishment, emphasizing: 1. Clear and Unified Laws: Simplicity and accessibility reduce crime by promoting understanding and compliance. 2. Equality: Laws must serve the well-being of all citizens, not just privileged groups. 3. Promotion of Education: ○ Education fosters rationality, virtue, and enlightened decision-making. ○ Practical and moral instruction serves as a foundation for a virtuous society. 4. Rewards for Virtue: Publicly acknowledging and incentivizing good behavior strengthens societal cohesion and reduces criminal tendencies. 5. Societal Structures: ○ Magistrates (an official who has the authority to enforced laws) must observe laws rather than corrupt them.  ○ Fear should be directed at laws, not individuals, to prevent exploitation and injustice. Philosophical Context and Comparisons Beccaria aligns with Enlightenment ideals, advocating rationality, fairness, and human dignity in justice. Montesquieu: Beccaria builds on Montesquieu’s ideas but extends them to focus more on the practicalities of criminal justice reform. Critique of Despotism: Beccaria warns against the abuse of unchecked judicial power, advocating for systematic checks and balances. Uncertainty and Its Effects Negative Outcomes: ○ In passive societies, unclear laws foster ignorance and stagnation. ○ In active societies, they lead to distrust, corruption, and manipulative cabals. ○ In powerful nations, uncertainty causes oscillations between liberty and tyranny, destabilizing governance. Predictability as a Pillar: Stable and transparent laws are crucial for societal trust and order. The Importance of Education Focus of Education: Education should prioritize teaching useful and practical knowledge that helps people in real-life situations. It should focus on clear moral values and practical understanding rather than abstract or overly broad topics. Impact of Education: Knowledge helps people think rationally, making them less likely to commit crimes or be misled by manipulative individuals. Educated people are more likely to respect fair laws, challenge injustice, and contribute to a better, more ethical society. ○ Enlightenment promotes rationality, discourages criminal behavior, and reduces the influence of manipulative figures. ___________________________________________________________________________ Lily et. al. (2025) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences (8th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Read all of Chapter 1 Read the beginning of Chapter 2, only up until the section “The Positivist School: Criminal as Determined” (stop there) Chapter 1: Introduction to Criminological Theory Definition and Purpose of Criminological Theory Definition: Criminological theory provides a structured way to understand and explain why crime occurs, how it is distributed in society, and how systems of justice respond. Purpose: ○ To identify the causes of crime. ○ To predict criminal behavior based on patterns. ○ To inform effective policies for crime prevention and justice administration. Theories as Frameworks Explanation: Theories explain observable patterns in crime and deviance. Prediction: Help predict who is most at risk of offending or becoming a victim. Guidance for Policy: Theories underpin strategies for law enforcement, corrections, and prevention programs. Criteria for Evaluating Theories A good theory should meet the following standards: 1. Logical Consistency: Internal coherence without contradictions. 2. Breadth of Scope: Ability to explain a variety of criminal behaviors and contexts. 3. Parsimony: Use of the fewest possible assumptions for explanation. 4. Testability: The theory can be empirically evaluated. 5. Empirical Validity: Supported by evidence and research findings. 6. Policy Implications: The theory should guide effective solutions to real-world problems Types of Criminological Theories 1. Macro-level Theories: ○ Focus on societal structures and large-scale influences (e.g., economic inequality, cultural norms). ○ Examples: Strain Theory, Social Disorganization Theory. 2. Micro-level Theories:  ○ Focus on individual behavior and decision-making processes. ○ Examples: Rational Choice Theory, Social Learning Theory. 3. Bridging Theories: ○ Combine macro and micro perspectives to provide a more integrated understanding of crime Historical Development of Criminological Thought 1. Pre-Classical Ideas: ○ Crime attributed to supernatural causes (e.g., demonic possession, divine punishment). 2. Classical School (18th Century): ○ Core Ideas: Humans are rational beings with free will. Crime occurs when benefits outweigh the risks. Laws and punishments should deter crime by being proportional and certain. ○ Key Thinkers: Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham. 3. Positivist School (19th Century): ○ Core Ideas: Crime is influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors, not just free will. Criminals can be "different" from non-criminals in measurable ways. ○ Key Thinkers: Cesare Lombroso, Émile Durkheim. 4. Contemporary Developments: ○ Shift towards integrated theories combining multiple perspectives. ○ Incorporation of sociological, psychological, and environmental insights. Theories and Policy Implications 1. Law Enforcement: ○ Theories influence practices like: Community policing (building trust with communities). Deterrence-based policies (e.g., "broken windows" policing). 2. Corrections: ○ Inform strategies for: Rehabilitation (addressing root causes like addiction or unemployment). Punishment (deterrence or incapacitation of repeat offenders). 3. Prevention: ○ Drive programs targeting: Socioeconomic inequality. Early intervention for at-risk youth. Situational crime prevention (reducing opportunities for crime). Importance of Context and Consequences Social Context: ○ Theories are shaped by their time and place, influenced by cultural, political, and economic conditions. ○ For example: Classical criminology emerged during the Enlightenment, emphasizing rationality. Positivism arose during the scientific revolution, emphasizing empirical study. Consequences: ○ Theories have practical implications: Influence on the fairness and efficiency of criminal justice policies. Ethical considerations, such as avoiding discriminatory practices based on theoretical assumptions. Themes in Criminological Theory Dynamic Nature: Criminological theories evolve as society and crime change. Interdisciplinary Approach: Draws on sociology, psychology, biology, economics, and political science. Tension Between Schools: Debates continue between deterministic approaches (positivism) and free will-based approaches (classical school). Jeremy Bentham’s Contributions to Criminology 1. Utilitarian Philosophy: ○ Bentham is a key figure in the Classical School of Criminology. ○ He developed the principle of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number", which suggests that laws and punishments should aim to maximize societal well-being. 2. Rationality and Free Will: ○ Bentham believed that individuals act based on rational calculations of pleasure and pain (hedonistic calculus). ○ People commit crimes if the perceived benefits outweigh the potential consequences (punishment). 3. Principle of Deterrence: ○ Punishment should deter future crimes by creating a strong association between criminal acts and unpleasant consequences. ○ Bentham emphasized that punishment should be: Proportionate: Fit the severity of the crime. Certain: Reliable enforcement increases its deterrent effect. Swift: The closer in time punishment follows the crime, the stronger the deterrence. 4. Panopticon Model: ○ Bentham proposed the Panopticon, a circular prison design allowing constant observation of inmates by guards. ○ Symbolically, the Panopticon represents how surveillance can control behavior without physical coercion. ○ This concept influenced modern ideas about surveillance, discipline, and social control. 5. Reforming Punishment: ○ Bentham rejected cruel or excessive punishments, arguing they were unnecessary and counterproductive. ○ Punishment, according to Bentham, should: Only be as severe as needed to prevent future crimes. Focus on deterrence rather than retribution or vengeance. 6. Ethics in Law: ○ Bentham advocated for transparency and fairness in legal systems. ○ He believed laws should be clear and accessible so people can understand what is allowed and prohibited, reducing arbitrary enforcement. Week 3 - Rational Choice and Routine Activity Theories (Sept. 24th) __________________________________________________________________________________ Cohen, L. E. & Felson, M. (1979). “Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach”. American Sociological Review, 44: 588–608. http://ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2094589 Introduction Objective: The paper introduces the "Routine Activity Approach" to analyze trends in crime rates, emphasizing the circumstances under which crimes occur rather than the characteristics of offenders. Core Argument: Crime requires the convergence of three elements: 1. Motivated offenders: Individuals willing to commit crimes. 2. Suitable targets: Persons or property vulnerable to criminal activity. 3. Absence of capable guardians: Lack of individuals or mechanisms to prevent crimes. Key Hypothesis: Changes in routine activities, particularly the dispersion of daily activities away from households and families, increase opportunities for crime. Paradox in Crime Trends Crime rates for violent and property crimes increased significantly between 1960 and 1975, despite improvements in economic and social conditions (e.g., higher education levels, reduced poverty). This paradox suggests that structural and societal changes, rather than individual motivations, contribute to rising crime rates. Routine Activity Approach Focus: Examines how everyday activities and societal structures influence the opportunity for crime. Key Concepts: ○ Routine activities: Regular patterns of daily life, including work, leisure, and household tasks. ○ Human ecological theory: Highlights the role of space, time, and the organization of community activities in shaping crime opportunities. Elements of Predatory Crime Predatory crime: Direct-contact illegal acts where offenders take or damage the person or property of another. Three Essential Conditions: 1. Motivated offenders: Criminal intent is taken as a constant. 2. Suitable targets: Reflect the visibility, value, and accessibility of potential victims or property. 3. Absence of capable guardians: Includes police, neighbors, or protective measures. Impact of Social Change on Crime 1. Increased Opportunities for Crime: ○ Shift of routine activities away from home (e.g., more women in the workforce, higher college enrollment) creates opportunities for crime. ○ More unattended homes and increased public interactions provide easier targets. 2. Technological Advances: ○ Innovations (e.g., portable electronics, automobiles) make goods more accessible and appealing for theft. 3. Social Disorganization: ○ Weakened community ties reduce informal guardianship and increase crime. Empirical Evidence Victimization Studies: ○ Risk of victimization is higher in non-household settings and during activities away from home. ○ Individuals in single-adult households or employed outside the home face greater risk. Temporal Trends: ○ Crimes peak at times when guardianship is weakest (e.g., during work hours for residential burglaries). Macro-Level Trends Post-World War II changes in routine activities correlate with crime trends: ○ Increased labor force participation by women and young adults. ○ Higher rates of travel and leisure activities outside the home. ○ Greater circulation of goods and people in society. Parallel Property Trends: ○ Growth in consumer goods markets (e.g., automobiles, electronics) correlates with increased theft rates. Findings on Crime Composition Types of Crime: ○ Daytime burglaries increased more than nighttime ones. ○ Personal offenses by strangers rose more significantly than those by acquaintances. Victim-Target Suitability: ○ Portable, high-value goods like electronics and vehicles are disproportionately targeted. Conclusions Crime is heavily influenced by societal structures and routines, not just individual motivations. Changes in the organization of daily life (e.g., work, travel, and leisure) create more opportunities for crime by increasing target availability and reducing guardianship.  Effective crime prevention must address these structural factors, focusing on reducing opportunities rather than solely targeting offenders. Implications The study offers a framework for linking legal and illegal activities, emphasizing how social and technological changes impact crime rates. Encourages policy responses that enhance guardianship and reduce vulnerabilities created by changing routines (e.g., improved home security, community monitoring). ________________________________________________________________________________ Elaboration on Rational Choice and Routine Activity Theories Both Rational Choice Theory and Routine Activity Theory focus on crime as a product of decision-making and opportunities, emphasizing situational factors rather than individual predispositions. Rational Choice Theory Core Principles: Origin: Developed from economic models of decision-making and influenced by classical criminology, particularly Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Crime is viewed as a rational choice, where individuals weigh the costs and benefits of their actions before committing a crime. Assumes that offenders: ○ Are rational agents who make deliberate decisions. ○ Aim to maximize personal gain while minimizing risks (e.g., punishment, capture). ○ Consider situational factors such as the ease of access, potential rewards, and likelihood of apprehension. Key Components: 1. Bounded Rationality: Decisions are not always perfectly logical due to limited information or cognitive biases, but they are still goal-directed. 2. Situational Context: Crime occurs when opportunities are perceived as favorable in specific situations. 3. Opportunity Structure: The availability of targets and absence of deterrents heavily influence the decision to offend. Applications: Used in crime prevention strategies like target hardening (e.g., locks, surveillance cameras). Influences policies like deterrence-based punishments (e.g., mandatory minimum sentences). Critiques:  Overemphasis on rationality neglects emotional, psychological, or impulsive crimes. Limited in explaining crimes of passion or those committed under severe social or economic pressures. Routine Activity Theory Core Principles: Developed by Cohen and Felson (1979), this theory emphasizes how routine activities create opportunities for crime. Crime occurs when three elements converge: 1. Motivated Offenders: Individuals with the intent and ability to commit crimes. 2. Suitable Targets: Persons or property that are vulnerable and attractive. 3. Absence of Capable Guardians: Lack of people or measures (e.g., security systems, neighbors) to deter crime. Key Insights: 1. Focus on Opportunity: Unlike Rational Choice Theory, it takes offender motivation as a constant and explores how societal changes impact opportunities for crime. 2. Daily Routines and Crime: ○ Changes in work, leisure, or household activities increase crime opportunities. ○ For example, women entering the workforce in large numbers led to more unattended homes, increasing burglary risks. 3. Temporal and Spatial Analysis: ○ Crime is tied to when and where people engage in specific activities. ○ Example: Daytime burglaries increase because homes are empty during work hours. Applications: Influences crime prevention strategies like situational crime prevention: ○ Enhancing guardianship (e.g., community watch programs). ○ Reducing target suitability (e.g., using security systems or reducing cash handling). ○ Altering routines to decrease offender-target convergence. Critiques: Overlooks broader social, economic, and psychological factors that influence criminal behavior. Assumes static motivations for offenders, ignoring developmental or contextual changes. Comparison of Rational Choice and Routine Activity Theories Aspect Rational Choice Theory Routine Activity Theory Focus Decision-making by offenders Opportunities for crime in social routines  Key Mechanism Weighing costs and benefits Convergence of offender, target, and absence of guardian Assumptions about Rational agents with purposeful Motivation is constant; focus on Offenders actions opportunity Scope Micro-level (individual Macro-level (social structures and decision-making) routines) Prevention Strategies Increase costs (punishments) and Enhance guardianship, reduce reduce benefits (target value) opportunities Integration of Theories Both theories are complementary in understanding crime. Routine Activity Theory highlights the opportunities for crime, while Rational Choice Theory explains how offenders evaluate those opportunities. Together, they form a robust framework for designing policies that address both situational factors and offender decision-making processes. If you’re interested in a deeper dive into their applications or examples, let me know! Lily et. al. (2025) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences (8th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Read all of Chapter 14 Restorative Justice Restorative justice is a theoretical framework that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime, rather than punishing the offender. This approach emphasizes the importance of victim-offender mediation, restitution, and community involvement in the justice process. The authors discuss the key principles of restorative justice, including: 1. Focus on harm: Restorative justice focuses on the harm caused by crime, rather than the punishment of the offender. 2. Victim-offender mediation: Restorative justice involves mediation between the victim and offender to address the harm caused by the crime. 3. Restitution: Restorative justice emphasizes the importance of restitution, or making amends, for the harm caused by the crime. 4. Community involvement: Restorative justice involves the community in the justice process, rather than relying solely on the state. The authors also discuss the different types of restorative justice, including: 1. Victim-offender mediation: This type of restorative justice involves mediation between the victim and offender to address the harm caused by the crime. 2. Restorative circles: This type of restorative justice involves a group of people, including the victim, offender, and community members, coming together to discuss the harm caused by the crime and work towards a resolution. 3. Restorative conferencing: This type of restorative justice involves a meeting between the victim, offender, and community members to discuss the harm caused by the crime and work towards a resolution. Reintegrative Shaming Reintegrative shaming is a theoretical framework that emphasizes the importance of shaming the offender, while also providing opportunities for reintegration into the community. This approach was developed by John Braithwaite and is based on the idea that shaming can be a powerful tool for controlling behavior. The authors discuss the key principles of reintegrative shaming, including: 1. Shaming: Reintegrative shaming involves shaming the offender for their behavior, rather than ignoring or condoning it. 2. Reintegration: Reintegrative shaming emphasizes the importance of reintegration into the community, rather than isolating the offender. 3. Community involvement: Reintegrative shaming involves the community in the shaming process, rather than relying solely on the state. The authors also discuss the different types of reintegrative shaming, including: 1. Shame-based reintegrative shaming: This type of reintegrative shaming involves shaming the offender for their behavior, while also providing opportunities for reintegration into the community. 2. Guilt-based reintegrative shaming: This type of reintegrative shaming involves inducing feelings of guilt in the offender, rather than shame, as a way of promoting reintegration into the community. Comparison of Restorative Justice and Reintegrative Shaming The authors compare and contrast restorative justice and reintegrative shaming, highlighting the similarities and differences between the two approaches. Similarities: 1. Focus on harm: Both restorative justice and reintegrative shaming focus on the harm caused by crime, rather than the punishment of the offender. 2. Community involvement: Both approaches involve the community in the justice process, rather than relying solely on the state. Differences: 1. Approach to shaming: Restorative justice does not involve shaming, while reintegrative shaming emphasizes the importance of shaming the offender. 2. Focus on reintegration: Reintegrative shaming emphasizes the importance of reintegration into the community, while restorative justice focuses on repairing the harm caused by the crime. Conclusion The authors conclude that restorative justice and reintegrative shaming are both important theoretical frameworks for understanding crime and its consequences. While they share some similarities, they also have some key differences. The authors argue that a combination of both approaches may be the most effective way to address crime and promote community safety. Key Terms 1. Restorative justice: A theoretical framework that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime, rather than punishing the offender. 2. Reintegrative shaming: A theoretical framework that emphasizes the importance of shaming the offender, while also providing opportunities for reintegration into the community. 3. Victim-offender mediation: A process in which the victim and offender meet to discuss the harm caused by the crime and work towards a resolution. 4. Restitution: The act of making amends for the harm caused by a crime. Week 4 - Biological and Biosocial Theories (Oct. 1st) _________________________________________________________________________ Lombroso, C. (1876) Criminal Man. (Trans. by M. Gibson and N. Rafter) Durham: Duke University Press, 2006, pp. 43-57. Summary: Cesare Lombroso’s Criminal Man lays the foundation for the biological and anthropological study of criminality. Lombroso argues that criminal behavior is determined by physiological and psychological abnormalities, emphasizing inherited traits, physical features, and atavistic characteristics that link criminals to earlier stages of human evolution. Introduction Context: ○ The justice system debates punishment without addressing the nature of the criminal. ○ Judges focus on crimes as isolated incidents, while reform advocates emphasize recidivism (as high as 80%) and systemic weaknesses. ○ Lombroso challenges conventional views, suggesting that most criminals lack free will and are biologically predisposed to criminality. Objective: ○ To determine whether criminals belong to the same category as healthy or insane individuals or form a distinct group. ○ A scientific, empirical approach is necessary to study physical and psychological attributes of criminals. Criminal Anatomy and Atavism Study of Criminal Skulls: ○ Lombroso examined 66 criminal skulls from various Italian museums and collections. ○ Findings include: Many skulls showed anomalies such as microcephaly (abnormally small craniums). Cranial sutures were often irregular, sometimes remaining open into old age, suggesting developmental abnormalities. Features like a median occipital fossetta (indentation at the skull base) were interpreted as atavistic, linking criminals to primitive humans and non-human primates. Comparison to Insanity: ○ Criminal skulls showed more abnormalities than those of insane individuals. ○ Lombroso found parallels between criminals and "inferior" racial groups, which he believed shared features with prehistoric humans. Physiognomy of Criminals Physical Characteristics: ○ Criminals often exhibit distinctive facial and bodily features, including: Protruding jaws (prognathism). High cheekbones, wide faces, and strong jawlines. Thin beards and dark, abundant hair. Abnormalities in ears (e.g., "jug ears") and skull shape. ○ Specific traits are associated with different crimes: Thieves: Small, wandering eyes; thin beards; sloping foreheads. Rapists: Delicate features, sparkling eyes, and swollen lips. Habitual murderers: Large, hawk-like noses, broad cheekbones, and developed canine teeth. Arsonists: Childlike appearance with soft skin and thick hair. Femininity in Criminal Women: ○ Female criminals were observed to exhibit masculine traits, such as strong builds and virile appearances. ○ Prostitutes were noted for thick hair and pronounced cranial abnormalities. Anthropometry and Regional Variations Criminal Measurements: ○ Studies of 832 living criminals revealed: Regional differences in height and weight, with criminals generally taller and heavier than non-criminals in certain areas. Criminals often exhibited weaker physical strength compared to healthy individuals, attributed to prison conditions and idleness. Cranial and Physiological Variations: ○ Criminals had smaller average cranial capacity than healthy individuals but larger than the insane. ○ Skull asymmetry and traumatic lesions were common. Racial Comparisons: ○ Lombroso controversially linked European criminals to "primitive" groups such as Australian Aboriginals and Mongols, using this as evidence of atavism. Criminal Typologies Born Criminals: ○ Lombroso identified "born criminals" as individuals with physical and psychological traits reflecting atavism. ○ They were inherently predisposed to crime due to biological inheritance. Occasional and Habitual Criminals:  ○ Occasional criminals committed crimes due to external pressures or circumstances. ○ Habitual criminals developed a propensity for crime through repeated offending. Insane Criminals: ○ Those whose crimes were linked to mental illness, distinct from the innate predisposition of born criminals. Critique of Traditional Justice Ineffectiveness of Punishment: ○ Lombroso argued that traditional punishment fails to address the root causes of crime, which are often biological or psychological. ○ The justice system should consider the physiological and hereditary factors influencing behavior. Conclusions Key Findings: ○ Criminals exhibit distinct physical and psychological traits that separate them from healthy individuals and the insane. ○ Many of these traits, such as cranial abnormalities, reflect atavistic throwbacks to earlier stages of evolution. Implications: ○ Lombroso’s work called for a reevaluation of criminal justice, advocating for approaches tailored to the biological and psychological characteristics of offenders. ○ His ideas paved the way for the development of biological and positivist criminology. Impact and Legacy Lombroso’s theories were groundbreaking in their time, shifting the focus of criminology toward scientific study and away from purely moral or philosophical frameworks. However, his work has been heavily criticized for its deterministic and ethnocentric assumptions, particularly its reliance on outdated racial theories and its overemphasis on physical characteristics. ________________________________________________________________________ Lily et. al. (2025) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences (8th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Read Chapter 2 (from section “The Positivist School: Criminal as Determined” to end of chapter) Read Chapter 15 Chapter 2: The Positivist School: Criminal as Determined The Positivist School of criminology emerged in the late 19th century, led by Cesare Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, and Raffaele Garofalo. This school of thought posits that crime is caused by factors outside of an individual's control, such as biology, environment, and social conditions. Key Ideas: 1. Biological Determinism: Lombroso argued that certain physical characteristics, such as a large jaw or a sloping forehead, were indicative of a "born criminal." This idea was later discredited, but it laid the foundation for the concept of biological determinism. 2. Environmental Determinism: Ferri and Garofalo argued that environmental factors, such as poverty, poor living conditions, and lack of education, contributed to an individual's likelihood of committing crime. 3. Social Determinism: The Positivist School also emphasized the role of social factors, such as family, peer groups, and social norms, in shaping an individual's behavior. 4. The Concept of "Atavism": Lombroso introduced the concept of "atavism," which refers to the idea that certain individuals are born with characteristics that are similar to those of their ancestors, making them more prone to crime. 5. The Role of Heredity: The Positivist School also emphasized the role of heredity in shaping an individual's behavior, arguing that certain traits and characteristics are inherited from one's parents. 6. The Concept of "Degeneracy": Lombroso also introduced the concept of "degeneracy," which refers to the idea that certain individuals are born with physical or mental defects that make them more prone to crime. 7. The Role of Brain Structure: The Positivist School also emphasized the role of brain structure in shaping an individual's behavior, arguing that certain brain abnormalities can contribute to an individual's likelihood of committing crime. 8. The Concept of "Cerebral Anomalies": Lombroso introduced the concept of "cerebral anomalies," which refers to the idea that certain individuals are born with brain abnormalities that make them more prone to crime. Criticisms and Limitations: 1. Oversimplification: The Positivist School has been criticized for oversimplifying the complex causes of crime. 2. Lack of Empirical Evidence: Many of the theories and concepts developed by the Positivist School were not supported by empirical evidence.  3. Determinism vs. Free Will: The Positivist School's emphasis on determinism has been criticized for neglecting the role of free will in shaping an individual's behavior. 4. Racism and Bias: The Positivist School has also been criticized for its racist and biased views, particularly with regards to the concept of "atavism" and the idea that certain racial or ethnic groups are more prone to crime. 5. Lack of Consideration for Social and Economic Factors: The Positivist School has been criticized for neglecting the role of social and economic factors in shaping an individual's behavior. Chapter 15: Restorative Justice and Reintegrative Shaming Restorative justice is a theoretical framework that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime, rather than punishing the offender. Reintegrative shaming is a related concept that emphasizes the importance of shaming the offender, while also providing opportunities for reintegration into the community. Key Ideas: 1. Restorative Justice: Restorative justice involves a process of mediation between the victim, offender, and community members to address the harm caused by the crime. 2. Reintegrative Shaming: Reintegrative shaming involves shaming the offender for their behavior, while also providing opportunities for reintegration into the community. 3. The Importance of Community: Both restorative justice and reintegrative shaming emphasize the importance of community involvement in the justice process. 4. The Role of Shame: Reintegrative shaming emphasizes the importance of shame in promoting positive behavior change. 5. The Concept of "Reintegration": Reintegrative shaming involves the idea of reintegration, which refers to the process of reintegrating the offender back into the community. 6. The Role of Apology: Reintegrative shaming also emphasizes the importance of apology in promoting positive behavior change. 7. The Importance of Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative justice and reintegrative shaming often involve victim-offender mediation, which can be a critical component of the process. 8. The Role of Community Service: Restorative justice and reintegrative shaming often involve community service, which can be a way for the offender to make amends for their behavior. Week 5 - Durkheim on Crime and Punishment (Oct. 8th) _________________________________________________________________________ Durkheim, E. (1893) “Division of Labour, Crime and Punishment” In K. Thompson (2004) (ed.) Readings from Emile Durkheim, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 19-42. Summary: Emile Durkheim’s Division of Labour, Crime, and Punishment explores the evolution of social solidarity through the increasing complexity of the division of labor. Durkheim connects social order to the types of law and solidarity that govern societies, identifying key concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity, the role of collective consciousness, and the regulation of society through law. Introduction Central Question: How does the division of labor create social solidarity while also increasing individual autonomy? Historical Context: The division of labor, recognized since antiquity, gained prominence with theorists like Adam Smith, emphasizing its role in economic and societal progress. Significance: Durkheim seeks to understand how specialized societal functions shape social cohesion and contribute to moral and structural integration. Mechanical Solidarity Definition: Based on shared beliefs, values, and common consciousness among members of a society. Features: ○ Dominates in simpler, traditional societies where individuals perform similar roles. ○ Strong collective consciousness governs behaviors and minimizes individuality. ○ Repressive laws are prevalent, punishing those who deviate from societal norms as a means of upholding collective values. Key Example: Traditional, small-scale communities where social cohesion arises from uniformity. Organic Solidarity Definition: Derives from the interdependence of specialized individuals and institutions in complex societies.  Features: ○ Found in modern, industrialized societies with a highly developed division of labor. ○ Collective consciousness becomes less dominant, allowing for greater individuality. ○ Restitutive laws focus on restoring normal relationships rather than punishing offenders, reflecting the cooperative nature of interdependence. Key Example: Modern urban centers where diverse occupations and roles create mutual dependence. Role of Law Durkheim uses law as a visible indicator of social solidarity: ○ Repressive Laws: Reflect mechanical solidarity by punishing deviations from shared norms. ○ Restitutive Laws: Reflect organic solidarity by focusing on restoring disrupted relationships (e.g., contracts, property disputes). Legal evolution mirrors societal shifts from mechanical to organic solidarity. Collective Consciousness Concept: The set of shared beliefs, values, and norms that unify members of a society. In Mechanical Solidarity: ○ Collective consciousness is strong and uniform, binding individuals to shared norms. ○ Crime is seen as a violation of the collective consciousness and is harshly punished. In Organic Solidarity: ○ Collective consciousness weakens, giving way to diverse individual beliefs. ○ Crime becomes less about offending collective values and more about disrupting social order. Anomie and Pathologies of Division of Labor Anomie: ○ A state of normlessness resulting from rapid societal changes or insufficient regulation. ○ Manifests during crises (e.g., economic depressions, social upheaval) when societal norms fail to adapt. Forced Division of Labor: ○ Occurs when societal roles do not align with individuals' abilities, leading to class conflict and dissatisfaction. ○ Exacerbated by rigid class structures or unequal access to opportunities.  Solutions: ○ Introduce equitable rules and diminish external inequalities to harmonize societal functions. Contractual and Moral Relationships Contracts: A key feature of organic solidarity, regulated by laws ensuring fairness and equity. Moral Obligations: ○ Extend beyond legal contracts, arising from the interconnectedness of specialized roles. ○ Examples include professional ethics and responsibilities tied to occupational roles. Implications of Division of Labor 1. Integration Through Interdependence: ○ As societies grow, interdependence becomes the basis of social cohesion. ○ Specialization increases personal freedom while enhancing collective functionality. 2. Decline of Collective Beliefs: ○ Religion and traditional collective sentiments diminish in influence as societies modernize. ○ Rational and secular values replace older norms. 3. Role of the State: ○ Acts as the central organ coordinating specialized functions. ○ Expands its influence in modern societies to ensure cohesion and regulate individual roles. Conclusion Solidarity and Social Progress: ○ Mechanical solidarity ties individuals through shared identity, while organic solidarity unites them through interdependence. ○ The transition reflects societal evolution from uniformity to diversity and complexity. Law as a Reflection of Solidarity: ○ Penal law symbolizes collective consciousness, while restitutive law mirrors cooperative interdependence. Need for Regulation: ○ Durkheim emphasizes the importance of just rules and equitable conditions to prevent societal discord and ensure harmony. Durkheim's analysis remains foundational in understanding how social structures evolve and maintain cohesion in the face of increasing complexity _________________________________________________________________________ Garland, D. (1990) “Punishment and Social Solidarity: The work of Emile Durkheim”. In: D. Garland, Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory, pp. 23-46. Summary: David Garland explores Emile Durkheim’s contributions to the sociology of punishment, examining how punishment reflects and reinforces social solidarity. He contextualizes Durkheim’s ideas within broader social theory, highlighting their relevance and limitations in understanding punishment's role in society. 1. Introduction to Durkheim’s Sociology of Punishment Punishment and Society: Durkheim viewed punishment as central to the moral fabric of society. It is not merely a tool for controlling crime but a reflection of society's collective conscience and moral life. Focus on Social Solidarity: ○ Punishment expresses shared values and strengthens societal bonds. ○ Analyzing punishment reveals insights into the moral and structural organization of society. Durkheim’s Objective: To identify how changing forms of solidarity (mechanical vs. organic) influence the nature and purpose of punishment. 2. Mechanical Solidarity and Repressive Punishment Definition: ○ Found in traditional, homogenous societies where individuals share common values and beliefs. ○ The collective conscience (shared morals) is strong and dominates individual identities. Nature of Punishment: ○ Repressive punishment is harsh and public, aiming to uphold societal norms by responding emotionally to crimes that violate sacred collective values. ○ Criminal acts provoke moral outrage and a passionate demand for vengeance. 3. Organic Solidarity and Restitutive Punishment Definition: ○ Found in modern, heterogeneous societies characterized by interdependence and specialization.  ○ The collective conscience weakens, allowing for greater individuality and diversity. Nature of Punishment: ○ Restitutive punishment focuses on repairing harm and restoring disrupted social relations (e.g., fines, rehabilitation). ○ Punishment is less emotional and more procedural, reflecting rationalized legal systems in complex societies. 4. Punishment and Collective Sentiments Sacred Moral Order: ○ Punishment is deeply tied to sacred values. Crimes offend these values, provoking collective emotional reactions. Social Rituals: ○ Punishment operates as a social ritual that reaffirms societal values and strengthens solidarity. ○ Public participation in or awareness of punishment rituals helps maintain the moral order. Modern Challenges: ○ In modern societies, punishment appears rationalized and bureaucratic, but Durkheim argues it still carries emotional and symbolic functions. 5. Anomie and Pathologies of Punishment Anomie: ○ Rapid social changes or lack of regulation lead to normlessness, weakening social cohesion and increasing crime. Forced Division of Labor: ○ Inequities in societal roles or misaligned expectations can cause dissatisfaction and unrest, reflected in punitive practices. Modern Implications: ○ Modern punishment struggles to balance individual freedoms with collective needs, often failing to fully align with contemporary moral frameworks. 6. Historical Evolution of Punishment "Two Laws of Penal Evolution": ○ Punishments in traditional societies were severe and emotionally charged due to intense collective sentiments. ○ Modern punishments are less severe, reflecting a shift toward rationalized, procedural justice. Shift from Physical to Liberty-Based Punishment: ○ Societal changes led to the decline of corporal punishments and the rise of imprisonment. ○ Imprisonment reflects modern values of individual rights and reform but also highlights tensions within democratic societies. 7. The Role of the State Guardian of Collective Sentiments: ○ The state embodies and enforces societal values, linking punishment to its moral and symbolic role. Power and Absolutism: ○ Absolutist regimes often intensify punishment, using it as a tool of control and a reflection of the ruler’s divinity. ○ Democratic societies, by contrast, emphasize leniency and rational justice. 8. Punishment as Moral Education Moral Education: ○ Punishment serves as a mechanism for teaching societal values and reinforcing acceptable behavior. ○ Schools and other institutions play a key role in inculcating secular, rational morality. Symbolic Function: ○ Punishment operates as a reminder of societal norms and the importance of maintaining social order. 9. Key Critiques and Contemporary Relevance Critiques: ○ Durkheim’s focus on moral solidarity overlooks economic and political dimensions of punishment. ○ His theory relies heavily on static ideas of societal evolution, which may oversimplify complex historical processes. Relevance: ○ Garland highlights the enduring importance of Durkheim’s insights into the symbolic and social functions of punishment.  ○ Durkheim’s emphasis on the emotional and ritualistic aspects of punishment remains applicable in analyzing modern penal practices. Conclusion Durkheim’s theory presents punishment as a mechanism for expressing and reinforcing social solidarity. Despite critiques, his ideas provide valuable perspectives on the moral and symbolic roles of punishment in maintaining social cohesion, both in traditional and modern societies. Week 7 - Anomie and Strain (Oct. 22nd) _________________________________________________________________________ Merton, R. (1938) “Social Structure and Anomie” American Sociological Review, 3 (5): 672-682. Core Thesis Merton examines how societal structures contribute to deviance and anomie. Key Argument: Deviant behavior results from a disjunction between culturally prescribed goals and institutionally available means to achieve them. 1. Key Concepts Cultural Goals: ○ Aspirational objectives deemed desirable by society (e.g., success, wealth, prestige). ○ Serve as a frame of reference for societal behavior. Institutionalized Means: ○ Accepted methods for achieving cultural goals (e.g., education, hard work, lawful conduct). ○ Defined and regulated by societal norms. Imbalance and Malintegration Disjunction occurs when: ○ Cultural goals are overemphasized without equal emphasis on institutional means. ○ Societal pressures lead individuals to pursue goals by any means, including deviant ones. 2. Anomie Definition: A state of normlessness or breakdown of social norms. Causes:  ○ Excessive focus on achieving goals (e.g., wealth) without adequate regard for legitimate means. ○ Structural inequalities that limit access to institutionalized means. Consequences: ○ Weakening of regulatory norms. ○ Increased deviant behavior as individuals seek alternative means to achieve goals. 3. Modes of Individual Adaptation Merton outlines five responses to the tension between goals and means: Mode Cultural Institutional Description Goals Means Conformit Accept Accept Most common. Individuals adhere to societal y norms and pursue goals through legitimate means. Innovatio Accept Reject Deviance occurs as individuals adopt n illegitimate means to achieve societal goals (e.g., theft, fraud). Ritualism Reject Accept Individuals abandon societal goals but rigidly adhere to institutional norms (e.g., bureaucratic rigidity). Retreatis Reject Reject Individuals withdraw from societal expectations m entirely (e.g., addiction, vagrancy). Rebellion Replace Replace Individuals reject existing goals and means, substituting them with new values and structures (e.g., revolutionaries). 4. Structural Strain and Deviance Class Structure and Deviance: ○ Lower-class individuals are more likely to experience strain due to limited access to legitimate opportunities. ○ Structural inequality fosters deviant adaptations like innovation (e.g., crime) as alternative routes to success. Cultural Overemphasis on Success: ○ In societies like the U.S., wealth and status are highly valued.  ○ Lack of accessible legitimate means amplifies frustration and deviance. 5. Examples of Deviance Economic Context: ○ In areas with limited access to legitimate work (e.g., manual labor), individuals may turn to crime or vice for economic success. Sporting Context: ○ Winning becomes prioritized over fair play, leading to cheating or unsportsmanlike behavior as acceptable means. Social Mobility: ○ Reduced vertical mobility exacerbates frustration in lower classes, encouraging deviance as a response to blocked opportunities. 6. Implications for Poverty and Crime Poverty Alone Is Insufficient: ○ Crime does not always correlate directly with poverty. ○ Deviance is more likely when poverty intersects with cultural values emphasizing wealth and individual achievement. Comparison Across Societies: ○ In rigid class societies (e.g., feudal systems), deviance may be lower due to the absence of shared aspirations across classes. ○ In egalitarian societies with significant inequality (e.g., the U.S.), higher rates of deviance arise from unfulfilled aspirations. 7. Broader Social Implications Critique of Utilitarianism: ○ Utilitarian views of society as purely calculative fail to account for the role of cultural goals and normative structures. Anomie in Modern Society: ○ Normlessness leads to cultural chaos, where the "ends justify the means." ○ As institutional norms weaken, deviance becomes more common. 8. Unintended Outcomes Role of Illegitimacy: ○ Illegitimate means often become normalized in certain subcultures or under structural strain. ○ Deviance, paradoxically, reflects the same cultural goals as conformity. Impact of Egalitarian Ideology:  ○ The myth of universal upward mobility sustains societal frustration by perpetuating unrealistic expectations. Conclusion Merton’s analysis links deviance to societal structure, showing how the emphasis on success, coupled with unequal opportunities, creates strain and leads to varied adaptations. His framework remains foundational in understanding the social roots of crime and deviance. Additional Notes Merton’s work emphasizes the interplay of cultural and structural forces in shaping behavior. Future studies can explore how modern economic and technological changes affect the disjunction between goals and means. Week 9 - Chicago School of Criminology (Nov. 5th) _________________________________________________________________________ Shaw, C.R. and McKay, H.D. (1942) “Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas” In F. T. Cullen, R. Agnew and P. Wilcox (2014) (Eds.), Criminological Theory: Past to Present (5th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 107-113. Core Thesis Shaw and McKay explore the relationship between social disorganization in urban areas and juvenile delinquency. Key Argument: Delinquency stems not from individual characteristics but from the environmental and social conditions of urban communities, especially in disadvantaged areas. 1. Social Disorganization Definition: Communities are socially disorganized when: ○ They experience constant social change and economic instability. ○ Traditional institutions (e.g., schools, families, churches) lose influence. Characteristics: ○ High poverty levels, residential mobility, and cultural heterogeneity disrupt community cohesion. ○ In these areas, formal and informal social controls weaken, enabling delinquency. 2. Geographic Distribution of Delinquency Shaw and McKay mapped delinquency rates in Chicago and found that:  ○ Delinquency was concentrated in specific areas, particularly inner-city neighborhoods. ○ High rates of delinquency persisted in these areas over time, regardless of changes in the racial or ethnic composition. ○ Economic and social disadvantages consistently correlated with delinquency. 3. Community Dynamics and Crime Weakened Social Institutions: ○ Poverty and instability reduce the effectiveness of social institutions that typically regulate behavior. ○ Conventional institutions become weaker, while criminal influences gain strength. Transmission of Criminal Traditions: ○ In disorganized neighborhoods, delinquent traditions are passed from one generation to the next. ○ Peer groups and neighborhood interactions serve as mechanisms for transmitting criminal values and behaviors. 4. Role of Peer Groups Peer Influence: ○ Delinquency often occurs in groups rather than in isolation. ○ Youths in disorganized areas are more likely to form or join delinquent peer groups. Group Dynamics: ○ Peer groups provide status, identity, and support for delinquent behaviors. ○ These groups expose individuals to criminal activities and normalize deviance. 5. Cultural Conflict Competing Value Systems: ○ Disorganized communities harbor conflicting moral and cultural values. ○ Conventional values (e.g., lawfulness, education) coexist with deviant values (e.g., crime as a means to achieve status or economic gain). ○ Youths in these areas are often exposed to both systems, creating moral ambiguity. 6. Socioeconomic Inequality Poverty and Limited Opportunities: ○ Residents in disorganized areas face significant barriers to economic and social mobility. ○ Limited access to legitimate opportunities pushes individuals toward crime as an alternative means of achieving status and resources.  Neighborhood Stigma: ○ Inner-city residents often face discrimination and limited access to jobs, education, and social networks. 7. Policy Implications Shaw and McKay advocate for community-based interventions to address delinquency: ○ Strengthening community institutions (e.g., schools, recreation centers). ○ Promoting economic development and reducing poverty. ○ Encouraging community organization and collective action. 8. The Chicago Area Project Implementation: ○ Initiated in the 1930s to apply Shaw and McKay’s theory in practice. ○ Focused on improving physical and social conditions in delinquency-prone neighborhoods. ○ Activities included: Recreation programs for youth. Neighborhood beautification to reduce disorder. Engaging local residents in crime prevention and youth mentoring. Outcomes: ○ The effectiveness of the Chicago Area Project remains debated, but it highlighted the importance of addressing community dynamics in crime prevention. 9. Legacy and Criticisms Legacy: ○ Shaw and McKay’s work established the foundation for the social disorganization theory, which remains influential in criminology. ○ Their emphasis on community dynamics shifted focus away from individual pathology toward environmental factors. Criticisms: ○ Overemphasis on inner-city areas: Critics argue that delinquency exists across all communities, albeit in different forms. ○ Idealized view of affluent neighborhoods: Assumes that well-off areas are free from significant deviant influences. ○ Underestimation of individual agency: Critics argue that individuals still exercise choice, even in disorganized settings. Key Findings 1. Delinquency is a product of environmental and social factors rather than individual traits. 2. High rates of poverty, instability, and cultural diversity undermine social cohesion and control. 3. Delinquent subcultures perpetuate criminal behavior across generations through peer groups. 4. Policy solutions must focus on community organization and strengthening social institutions _________________________________________________________________________ Lily et. al. (2025) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences (8th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Read Chapter 3 Week 10 - Control Theory (Nov. 12th) _________________________________________________________________________ Hirschi, T. (1969) “Social Bond Theory” In F. T. Cullen, R. Agnew and P. Wilcox (2014) (Eds.), Criminological Theory: Past to Present (5th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 229-237. _________________________________________________________________________ Hirschi, T. (1969). “Chapter 1: Perspectives on Delinquency” In Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 3-15. Overview: Travis Hirschi developed the Social Bond Theory as part of the broader control theory in criminology. Central premise: Strong social bonds prevent individuals from engaging in criminal behavior, while weak or broken bonds increase the likelihood of deviance. Core Components of Social Bond Theory Hirschi identifies four key elements of social bonds that connect individuals to society and deter criminal behavior: 1. Attachment: ○ Refers to emotional and social connections to others, such as family, friends, and community. ○ The stronger these attachments, the less likely an individual is to engage in crime because they fear disappointing or hurting those they care about. ○ Examples: Strong family ties discourage deviance due to fear of familial disapproval.  Peer relationships foster conformity when peers adhere to social norms. 2. Commitment: ○ Involves the investment an individual makes in conventional activities (e.g., education, career, or personal goals). ○ A person with much to lose is less likely to risk it by committing crimes. ○ Examples: A student striving for a degree may avoid crime to protect their future. A professional avoids theft to maintain their job and reputation. 3. Involvement: ○ Describes participation in legitimate, socially accepted activities that limit time and opportunity for deviance. ○ Examples: Engaging in extracurricular activities reduces the idle time available for delinquency. Being busy with work, sports, or volunteerism leaves little time for criminal behavior. 4. Belief: ○ Represents an individual’s acceptance of societal norms, laws, and values. ○ Those who believe in the moral correctness of laws are less likely to break them. ○ Examples: A person with strong moral beliefs about honesty is unlikely to steal. Respect for authority discourages acts of rebellion or violence. Key Principles of the Theory Focus on Conformity: ○ Unlike other criminological theories that explain why people commit crimes, Hirschi’s theory emphasizes why people conform to societal norms. Weak Bonds Lead to Deviance: ○ Weak or broken social bonds increase the likelihood of criminal behavior because individuals feel disconnected from societal expectations. Context and Contributions 1. Influence of Control Theory: ○ Hirschi’s theory builds on traditional control theories, which argue that societal controls (formal and informal) regulate behavior and prevent deviance.  ○ Focuses specifically on personal and social relationships as key mechanisms of control. 2. Impact on Criminology: ○ Shifted the focus of criminology from internal motivations (e.g., psychological factors) or structural causes (e.g., poverty) to the strength of interpersonal and societal relationships. ○ Emphasized the importance of preventative measures, like fostering strong familial and community ties. 3. Empirical Support: ○ Studies often find that individuals with weaker attachments, less involvement, or low commitment to societal goals are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior. Applications 1. Youth Crime Prevention: ○ Programs that strengthen family bonds, promote school engagement, and encourage community participation align with Hirschi’s theory. ○ Examples: After-school programs, mentorship initiatives, and family counseling. 2. Policy Implications: ○ Policies that encourage stable family structures, reduce school dropouts, and provide opportunities for youth engagement can lower crime rates. 3. Critiques and Limitations: ○ Overemphasis on Conformity: Critics argue that the theory assumes people are inherently inclined to deviate unless bonded, which might oversimplify human behavior. ○ Limited Explanation for Adult Crime: While effective in explaining juvenile delinquency, it may not fully account for adult criminal behavior. ○ Cultural Bias: The theory is often rooted in Western norms of individualism and might not apply universally. Conclusion Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory emphasizes the importance of strong interpersonal and societal ties in preventing crime. By focusing on the bonds of attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief, the theory provides a framework for understanding why individuals conform to societal norms and offers practical insights for crime prevention and policy development. It remains a foundational concept in criminology, particularly in studies of youth behavior and delinquency. _________________________________________________________________________ Lily et. al. (2025) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences (8th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Read Chapters 5 and 6 Week 11 - Labelling Theory I (Nov. 19th) _________________________________________________________________________ Becker, H.S. (1963) Excerpts from Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Free Press, pp. 1-18; 147-163 Key Concepts of "Outsiders" 1. Social Groups and Rules: ○ All social groups create rules to define acceptable behavior and enforce them. ○ Breaking a rule results in labeling the individual as an "outsider," or deviant. ○ Rules can be formal (laws) or informal (customs/traditions). 2. Dual Perspective of "Outsiders": ○ Those labeled as outsiders may see themselves as unfairly judged. ○ Rule-breakers might view rule enforcers as outsiders themselves, questioning their legitimacy. 3. The Nature of Deviance: ○ Deviance is not inherent in an act but is defined by societal reaction and labeling. ○ The process of labeling and enforcement defines what is deviant and who becomes an outsider. Definitions and Frameworks 1. Deviance as Rule-Breaking: ○ Deviance depends on societal reaction, not just the act itself. ○ Rules and their enforcement are shaped by social, cultural, and political factors. 2. Judgment and Labeling: ○ Labeling someone as deviant creates a social identity for the individual. ○ Rule-breaking behavior is only one factor; societal reaction determines deviance.  3. Variable Nature of Deviance: ○ Deviance depends on time, place, and societal context. ○ Some acts may be overlooked while others, even minor infractions, are harshly judged depending on societal focus. Labeling Theory 1. Central Thesis: ○ Deviance is the result of being labeled as such by society, not just the act itself. ○ This label affects the individual’s identity and how they are treated by others. 2. Implications of Labeling: ○ Creates a "self-fulfilling prophecy" where labeled individuals adopt deviant roles. ○ Society’s power structures influence who gets labeled and who escapes. Social Construction of Rules 1. Whose Rules?: ○ Rules are created by those in power and reflect their interests. ○ Marginalized groups often live under rules they had no part in creating. 2. Conflict in Rule-Making: ○ Different social groups may have conflicting rules (e.g., cultural norms of immigrants vs. mainstream laws). ○ Enforcement of these rules often reflects power dynamics. Moral Entrepreneurs 1. Definition: ○ Individuals or groups who seek to create and enforce new rules to correct perceived evils. ○ Examples: Temperance movement, anti-drug campaigns. 2. Motivations: ○ May stem from genuine humanitarian concerns or desire for control. ○ Often involve higher social classes imposing rules on lower classes. Rule Enforcers  1. Role of Rule Enforcers: ○ Enforcers (e.g., police, officials) apply existing rules to individuals, creating labeled "deviants." ○ Their actions are influenced by personal and institutional interests, not just rule content. 2. Discretion and Power: ○ Rule enforcers have significant discretion in applying rules, leading to selective enforcement. ○ Factors like respect for authority and social status influence decisions. Examples and Case Studies 1. Cultural Deviance: ○ Examples include Prohibition-era bootlegging or behaviors judged differently based on cultural norms. ○ What is deviant in one culture or era may be acceptable in another. 2. Discriminatory Enforcement: ○ Racial, gender, and class biases often determine who is labeled deviant. ○ Middle-class rule-breakers may escape punishment that falls heavily on lower-class individuals. Political and Social Dynamics 1. Power and Rule Creation: ○ Rule creation and enforcement are tied to political and economic power. ○ Dominant groups impose their norms on others through laws and social rules. 2. Resistance and Subversion: ○ Labeled individuals and groups may resist their outsider status by rejecting the imposed rules. Conclusion Deviance as a Social Construct: ○ Deviance is a result of societal reactions, not intrinsic qualities of behavior. ○ Understanding deviance requires studying both rule-makers and rule-breakers.  Broader Implications: ○ Becker’s work highlights the role of power, social norms, and labeling in shaping societal views of deviance. ○ It challenges conventional ideas about criminality and morality, urging a deeper look at the systems enforcing them. _______________________________________________________________________ Lily et. al. (2025) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences (8th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Read Chapter 7 Week 12 - Labelling Theory II (Nov. 26th) _________________________________________________________________________ Cohen, S. (1972 ) Excerpts from Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers, Third Edition, Oxon: Routledge, “Deviance and Moral Panics” (pp. 1-20) and “Introduction to the Third Edition” (vi-xxvi). Key Concepts 1. Moral Panic: ○ A moral panic arises when a societal reaction to an event, group, or phenomenon is exaggerated, creating widespread fear or concern. ○ It involves identifying a threat to societal values and interests, often focusing on specific groups labeled as "folk devils." 2. Folk Devils: ○ Groups or individuals who are portrayed as the root of social problems and a threat to societal norms. ○ Examples include youth gangs, drug users, or immigrants. 3. Core Elements of a Moral Panic: ○ Concern: Perceived threat to societal norms or safety. ○ Hostility: Negative reactions and moral outrage directed at the group causing the "problem." ○ Consensus: Widespread agreement that the threat is real and significant. ○ Disproportionality: Reaction exceeds the actual threat posed by the problem. ○ Volatility: Moral panics often emerge suddenly and fade quickly. Media’s Role in Moral Panics  1. Creation and Amplification: ○ The media plays a central role in spreading and intensifying moral panics by sensationalizing events and framing them as crises. ○ Common techniques include repetition, exaggeration, and focusing on atypical cases to generalize. 2. Symbolization: ○ Certain behaviors, symbols, or individuals become shorthand for the perceived problem (e.g., hoodies representing youth delinquency). 3. Case Examples: ○ Cohen discusses events like school shootings, drug use, and cases like James Bulger’s murder, highlighting how the media turns specific incidents into moral panics. Processes in Moral Panics 1. Identifying Folk Devils: ○ Groups are labeled as "enemies" of societal norms. They are often marginalized and lack power to refute these labels. 2. Attribution of Blame: ○ Simple explanations for complex societal issues are often provided, blaming the "folk devils" for problems like crime, violence, or moral decay. 3. Exaggeration and Distortion: ○ Isolated incidents are treated as widespread issues, fueling public fear and anger. Case Studies in the Excerpt 1. James Bulger Case: ○ The murder of a two-year-old by two young boys in 1993 was used to symbolize the decline of morality in Britain. ○ Media and political figures called for stricter laws and cultural reforms, despite such incidents being extremely rare. 2. Stephen Lawrence Case: ○ An 18-year-old Black youth murdered in a racially motivated attack in 1993. ○ The case shifted public focus from the perpetrators to systemic racism within the police, creating an incomplete moral panic since the "folk devils" (police) were not an easy target. 3. School Shootings:  ○ Columbine and similar events became symbols of societal breakdown, leading to panic over youth culture, gun laws, and media influence. 4. Drug Use: ○ Cases like Leah Betts' death after taking ecstasy created panic around recreational drug use, with simplistic narratives blaming "evil pushers" and youth culture. Characteristics of Folk Devils 1. Predictable Targets: ○ Often marginalized groups such as working-class youth, immigrants, or specific subcultures. 2. Moral Judgments: ○ Framed as inherently dangerous or corrupting to societal values. 3. Powerlessness: ○ Lack the resources or social capital to challenge their portrayal. Critiques of Moral Panics 1. Oversimplification: ○ Complex issues are reduced to moral arguments, ignoring root causes or broader social factors. 2. Selective Focus: ○ Certain issues are exaggerated while others, often more serious, are ignored. 3. Use for Control: ○ Moral panics often justify increased surveillance, harsher laws, or social exclusion of marginalized groups. Wider Implications 1. Sociological Impact: ○ Moral panics reflect societal anxieties and shifts in norms, values, and power dynamics. 2. Policy and Control: ○ They often lead to policy changes, though these are frequently reactionary rather than effective. 3. Cross-Cultural Comparisons:  ○ Different societies may experience moral panics over similar issues but respond differently depending on cultural, political, and media contexts. Conclusion Cohen’s Folk Devils and Moral Panics examines how societies react to perceived threats, focusing on media, power, and societal norms. The book challenges readers to critically assess exaggerated societal reactions and their impact on marginalized groups and policies. Key Concepts 1. Moral Panics: ○ Societies periodically experience heightened concern about a condition, event, or group perceived as a threat to societal values. ○ These threats, often exaggerated or sensationalized, are labeled as "moral panics." ○ Features of moral panics: Stylized portrayal: Threats are presented in stereotypical and dramatized ways, often by the mass media. Moral Barricades: Influential figures (editors, politicians, clergy) rally to defend societal norms. Impact: Moral panics can lead to long-term societal or legal changes or fade into collective memory. 2. Folk Devils: ○ A group or individual portrayed as the embodiment of societal threats. ○ Serve as scapegoats, representing what society fears and condemns. ○ Examples include youth subcultures (Mods and Rockers), drug users, or immigrants. Media’s Role in Creating Moral Panics 1. Amplification: ○ The media sensationalizes events, presenting deviant behavior as more frequent or extreme than it truly is. ○ Focuses on dramatic confrontations, reinforcing stereotypes of "folk devils."  2. Deviance Amplification Spiral: ○ The media’s exaggerated coverage leads to increased public fear and hostility. ○ Authorities respond with stricter measures, pushing the deviant group further outside societal norms, which can exacerbate their deviant behavior. 3. Symbolization: ○ Media coverage turns specific symbols (e.g., dress styles, behaviors) into markers of deviance. ○ Example: Scooters and deckchairs became associated with Mods and Rockers in Britain. Processes of Moral Panic 1. Emergence of a Threat: ○ A behavior, group, or event gains attention as a potential societal danger. 2. Social Reaction: ○ Moral entrepreneurs (e.g., media, politicians) frame the threat in ways that amplify its importance. 3. Escalation: ○ Public concern grows, leading to a demand for action. 4. Control Measures: ○ Authorities implement stricter laws or policies, often targeting the perceived deviant group. 5. Resolution: ○ The panic either subsides, remains part of societal consciousness, or results in lasting societal changes. The Mods and Rockers Case Study 1. Background: ○ Youth subcultures in 1960s Britain (e.g., Mods, Rockers) were perceived as deviant due to their fashion, music, and leisure activities. ○ Conflicts between these groups, especially at seaside resorts, became highly publicized. 2. Media’s Role: ○ Highlighted fights and disturbances, often exaggerating the frequency and severity of incidents. ○ Presented Mods and Rockers as symbols of declining morality.  3. Impact of the Panic: ○ Led to increased police action and stricter measures against youth subcultures. ○ Mods and Rockers became entrenched as "folk devils" in public imagination. Sociological Framework 1. Labeling Theory: ○ Deviance is not inherent but socially constructed through labeling by powerful groups. ○ Deviant labels lead to stigma and further marginalization, potentially reinforcing deviant behavior. 2. Primary and Secondary Deviance (Lemert): ○ Primary Deviance: Initial acts of deviance that may go unnoticed or normalized. ○ Secondary Deviance: When societal reaction to deviance leads individuals to adopt deviant roles or identities. 3. Transactional Approach: ○ Focuses on how society creates deviance by labeling and reacting to behaviors. ○ Questions why certain behaviors are labeled deviant and explores the societal consequences of these labels. Critique and Implications 1. Social Control: ○ Moral panics often serve to reinforce social norms and power structures by targeting marginalized groups. 2. Disproportionate Reaction: ○ The response to perceived threats often outweighs the actual risk posed, leading to unnecessary harm or stigmatization. 3. Symbolic Function: ○ Moral panics highlight societal values and boundaries, reinforcing ideas of what is acceptable or unacceptable. Conclusion Cohen’s work provides a framework for understanding how societies construct and react to deviance. Through the lens of moral panics and folk devils, it reveals the interplay between media, societal norms, and power in shaping public perception and policy. This analysis remains relevant in exploring contemporary issues like youth crime, drug culture, and immigration. Hall, Stuart et al. (1978) “The Social History of a ‘Moral Panic.’” In Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. London: Macmillan, pp. 3-28