Week 4 Criminology Notes PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by Deleted User
Tags
Summary
These notes cover aspects of criminological theory, including parsimony, scope, logical consistency, testability, and empirical validity. It also discusses causality and temporal ordering in the context of criminal behavior.
Full Transcript
EEK 4 W Characteristics of theory 1) Parsimony - Self control theory→ very parsimony 2) Scope - 3) Logical consistency 4) T...
EEK 4 W Characteristics of theory 1) Parsimony - Self control theory→ very parsimony 2) Scope - 3) Logical consistency 4) Testability - Can the theory be tested - Cannot always test a theory 5) empirical validity - Must be able to test it to have this 6) Policy implications - Most important - Parsimony - Explaining a given phenomenon in the simplest terms - The simpler the theory, the better Low self control is responsible for most criminal activity (has a wide scope) Scope - How much a given phenomenon the theory seeks to explain - The wider the scope of a theory, the better the theory - You want it to cover a lot of things (how much we can explain with this theory) - We want to explain many things with one theory Legal Consistency - Does it make sense - Extent to which a theory makes sense in terms of its concepts and propositions Father of criminology: cesare Lombroso: serious offenders are born criminals Testability - Extent to a theory can be put to testing - Some theories cannot be tested Empirical validity - Theoretical model is supported by scientific research - If it has good validity, it is accurate Policy implications - Extent to a theory can create realistic and useful guidance for changing the way society deals with a given phenomenon 3 criteria to show causality Causality - X: crime, predictor or independent variable - Y: outcome or dependent , why a crime happens - X→ Y 1) Temporal ordering - redictor variable (X) precede explanatory variable (Y) due to associations that X P causes Y. - X comes before Y 2) correlation/covariation - Extent to which a change in predictor (X) is associated with a change in Y - Correlation does not equal causation - If we change X and Y does not change, there is no correlation 3) Accounting for spuriousness - To determine that X causes Y, other factors that could be causing the observed association must be accounted for before we can be sure that it is actually X that is causing Y Theory - Explanation of why crime happens - Concepts make up a theory - Makes a good theory - Based on scientific research - Holds up over time to empirical testing - Should have a broad scope Divorce Rate in Maine - Higher amount of margarine consumption leads to more divorce retend you are testing the following hypothesis: Hanging out with deviant peers increases a P juvenile's risk of violent crime. You ask people to tell you about their peers and their violent behavior during the same 6 month time frame. Which element of causality are you concerned about? - Temporal order - Same 6 months → we don't know what came first the friends or the bad behavior retend you find out that students in this class who are over 5 ft 8 inches tall scored the highest on P quiz #1. You conclude that height is correlated with intelligence. Which element of causality should we be concerned about? - Non-spuriousness Crime rates measure crime at the macro level - Micro- individual - Macro- group level Unit of analysis should match unit of explanation - Ecological fallacy is predicting crime in neighborhood - X matches Y ep 30 S Pre- Classical Criminology - Explain why people do the wrong things (crime was caused from a higher power) - Supernatural causes of crime such as storms, evil spirits, and full moon - This creates inhumane responses such as breaking skull, stoned, exorcism Classical - Focus on theories that grew out of the age of enlightenment - Emphasize free will, choice, - Weigh the cost against the benefits - Decision made without influence of external factors - Aligns with the get tough agenda Age of enlightenment - Hobbes - Proposed rational theory of why people are motivated to form democratic states of governance - People are at warfare with one another (selfish) and constant fear of everyone - People are rational so they will create rules and common authority to avoid this fear - Social contract - arrangement of citizens promising to abide by the rules or laws set forth by a given society in return for protection - People put into society’s laws to guarantee protection from those who break the law - People deserve a say in determining the law - Beccaria - individuals to consider the consequences of their actions, and they assumed that people freely choose their behavior - emphasized the concept of the social contract and incorporated the idea that citizens give up certain rights in exchange for the state’s or government’s protection - On crimes and punishment - Father of classical school and deterrence theory - Followed the enlightenment ideal (free will and choice) - Believed in not paying off the judge - Laws should make determinations not judges to avoid unequal treatment - Should not interpret intent, only focus on the act they did - Acus reas (guilty act) vs mens reas (intent/ guilty mind) - Should not torture - Should be able to confront and cross examine witnesses - Education is best way to reduced crime - Did not Believe in death penalty→ violated social contract and not a deterrent - Believed it is better to prevent crimes than punish them - most heinous criminal acts are those that directly violate the social contract, which would be treason and espionage CLassical School - Paradigm best suited for analysis of what types of calculations are going on in someone’s head before they commit a crime - Some focus on positive while other focus on negative - Individuals make their own choices regardless of influences - Assumes people are rational and make decisions by weighing the pros and cons of their actions, thereforecrime is a choice eterrence theory D Characteristics of punishment that influences decisions to commit crime (swift and certain are formal) - Hypothesizes that people will decide to commit crime when the certainty, swiftness, and severity of punishment are low 1) Celerity/swiftness (should be swift to deter crime) - CJ system is too slow - Punishment should be fast to connect crime to consequence 2) Certainty - If punishment were guaranteed it would deter crime - Most important 3) Severity - possible penalty must outweigh the potential benefits - Punishment needs to outweigh the benefits of committing crime → deter - Cannot be too severe because then more crime would happen - Specific vs. General Deterrence Punishments that focus primarily on the individual are considered specific deterrence Punishments that focus primarily on other potential criminals and not on the actual criminal are referred to as general deterrence. ○ Specific → punishment focused specifically on the individual … reduce future offending of that specific person Ex. being arrested, diversion, treatment ○ General → deterring the public from committing a potential crime … reduce crime more broadly Ex. death penalty, public shaming Classical Ctd. ○ Inspired by and refined the work of Beccaria ○ Hedonistic calculus The weighing of pleasure vs. pain ○ Panopticon Prison design Used in Europe and early prisons in PA 360 degree visual 4 Phases of deterrence theory research Phase 1 - Aggregate Studies ○ Measuredcertaintyandseverity Ratio of crimes reported / number of arrests Ratio of arrests / convictions Sentence length and capital punishment Evidence supported the role ofcertainty Mixed evidence forseverity States w/ death penalty have more homicide ○ PROBLEM: Ecological Fallacy Using aggregate data to draw conclusions about individuals The unit of analysis needs to match the unit of explanation increased risk or certainty of punishment was associated with less crime for most serious offenses. Plus, it is a fact that most offenders who are arrested once never get arrested again, which provides some basic support for deterrence. Phase 2 - Cross-Sectional Studies ○ Data measured at one time point ○ Shift from macro to micro to address concerns from phase 1 Focus onindividualperceptions ofseverityvscertainty ○ Evidence supported role ofcertainty,butseveritywas mixed ○ PROBLEM: Is perception shaping behavior OR is behavior shaping perception? Perception → Behavior OR Behavior → Perception Which aspect of causality is of concern here? Temporal Ordering! Phase 3 - Longitudinal Studies ○ Data measuredseverityandcertaintyperceptionsatmultiple time points ○ Experiential effect Behavior was indeed shaping perception Ex. drunk driving, white collar crime Gambler’s Fallacy → “I got caught … that’s a fluke, it won’t happen again” ○ Limitation: data points separated by up to 1 year Phase 4 - Scenario / Vignette Research ○ Estimate likelihood of crime in a given (hypothetical) situation ○ Estimate immediate perceptions of severity and certainty ○ Evidence supports the deterrent impact of certainty, not severity Certainty of … Formal / official / legal sanctions (prison, law enforcement) Informal / unofficial / extralegal sanctions have a stronger deterrence than formal ones Rational Choice theory - Incorporates both formal and informal factors - People will make rational decisions based on the extent to which they expect their choice to max benefits and min cost - Both formal and informal factors influence decisions - Cornish and Clarke’sThe Reasoning Criminal(1986) Emphasized role of extra-legal or informal sanctions Self-sanctions ○ Shame, loss of self esteem regardless of being caught Influenced by others - social disapproval ○ Katz’sSeduction of Crime(1988) Psychological pleasure from criminal behavior Fun of / in criminal behavior ○ Important benefit to consider, but hard to test and regulate Routine Activities Theory ○ Also called lifestyle theory ○ Cohen and Felson (1979) ○ Still assumes the offender makes rational decisions ○ Three factors come together to increase likelihood of crime / victimization Motivated offenders Most important… there will always be them Suitable targets Vacant houses, unlocked cars, someone walking alone, bars, etc Lack of capable guardians Police / security, witnesses, dog, alarm, lighting, etc ○ Based on the idea that most crime is unplanned, instead it is opportunistic Certainty of formal punishment(deterrence theory) matter, informal punishment matter more - eview: Which classical theory hypothesizes that people consider the risk of both formal and R informal punishments when deciding to engage in crime? - Rational choice theory - Informal punishment is parents disappointed in you Pogarsky - Goal : test the role of certainty and severity of a specific groups of people based on if they are deterable - 3 groups of offending profiles Want punishment to impact deterrable (they are impacted by certainty) - Acute conformist will do the right thing no matter what - They are impacted by rational choice theory such as social or self disapproval Bernasco et al. (2013) ○ Goal? How do street robbers decide where to attack their victims? ○ Background Location of crime is an incentive-driven CHOICE Economic analysis (like choosing a location for a new store) ○ Data: Analysis used ~13k cleared robbery cases where at least one person was arrested From total of ~75k street robberies known to police Any concerns? ○ Aligns with age crime curve (crime peaks from 16-20, declines throughout 20s and drops off by age 30-35) ○ Only 10% of robbers are female? They gotta be better at it Census block data: Key variables to measure ATTRACTIVENESS for street robbery ○ Presence of legal cash economies Marketing info on businesses (ex. Bars, restaurants, grocery stores, pawn shops) ○ Presence of illegal cash economies Drugs, prostitution, gambling (CPD incident files) Accessibility ○ Main street and near El station ○ Findings: Street robbers prefer: Easily accessible blocks With legal and illegal cash economies ○ People carrying cash, you can’t report it if you were gonna use the money to do illegal shit Near their home Where the majority population matches their own racial / ethnic background ○ How does this relate to … Deterrence theory Robbers preference for legal / illegal cash economies → INCREASE REWARD Easily accessible blocks near public transit – DECREASE RISK OF PUNISHMENT (likely swiftness and certainty) Routine Activities theory Robbers prefer legal and illegal cash economies … SUITABLE TARGETS Easily accessible blocks near public transit … LACK OF CAPABLE GUARDIANS N ear their home where the majority population looks like them … ROUTINE Farrington & Welsh (2002) - 2/22 Summary: meta-analysis of 15 studies, taken together they show a 20% decrease in crime in areas where street lighting was improved compared to control areas Tien (1979) initial attempts to understand this effect, deemed existing studies were inadequate (only used info from police depts, failed to properly measure street lighting, flawed methodology) ○ Was interpreted as “street lighting has no effect” rather than “we need to do more studies” UK studies during the 80s showed a positive effect By 1999 the matter was considered settled Situational Approach → good visibility, informal social controls prevent crime Improved community confidence / cohesion / social control through investment → reduced daytime AND nighttime crime Results ○ 25% increase in crime in control areas compared to experimental ones ○ Significant variance from study to study Different populations and context within each area Greater community pride shows a significant effect on reduction of crime ○ Few negative effects, clear benefits Class notes ○ Goal: understand what impact improved street lighting had on crime ○ Method: systematic review + meta-analysis → take existing studies, filter down to those that meet your standards, compile all data and average out Reviewed 13 studies that used before-and-after designs with experimental and control areas 8 U.S. studies, 5 British studies ○ Question: How might improved street lighting reduce crime? Situational approach Lighting increases visibility, natural surveillance Impact on crime at night Increased capable guardianship Community investment Lighting demonstrates investment to improve neighborhood conditions which strengthens community confidence, cohesion, and social control Impact on crime at all times of day Increased suitable targets ○ Findings: O f the 8 US studies, 4 found improved lighting decreased crime and 4 found no effect Studies that found support tended to measure both day and night crimes Studies that found no support tended to only measure night crime Of the 5 British studies, all found that improved lighting decreased crime 2 found financial savings from reduced crimes was greater than cost of lighting Did not find that nighttime crime decreased MORE than daytime crimes ○ Theoretical Implications: Support for community investment approach Routine activities theory Practical implications ○
