Criminology Notes PDF

Criminology notes Lecture 1: criminology & crime What is criminology? - The scientific approach to the study of crime and criminal behaviour and society’s subsequent reaction to it - Sutherland: ‘the making of laws, the breaking of laws and society’s reaction to the break...

Criminology notes Lecture 1: criminology & crime What is criminology? - The scientific approach to the study of crime and criminal behaviour and society’s subsequent reaction to it - Sutherland: ‘the making of laws, the breaking of laws and society’s reaction to the breaking of laws’ -> so already you can see there are multiple parts to criminology - Discussion: is criminology a discipline or a rendez-vous subject? o Interdisciplinary subject: ▪ Psychology/psychiatry ▪ Sociology ▪ Criminal law and legal theory ▪ Political science ▪ Geography ▪ History ▪ Economics ▪ And more! ➔ All these disciplines meet and research is done from the starting point of all these subjects - Objective and grounded in empirical study (important to note because criminologists often work closely with government: but are not partisan to the government side!) o Many sub-disciplines such as criminography, penology (abt punishment), etc. o Lots of different schools and theoretical perspectives - Criminology is not: crime scene investigation and forensic work, profiling and serial killers (so not working on individual cases) - Criminologists study: crimes and harmful/deviant behaviour; offenders; victims; meso/macro units, criminal justice actors, policies, etc  - Criminological research: usually start with explanatory research questions, it’s about explaining ‘why’ something related to crime happens/is the case, looking for facts rather than impressions, looking for patterns rather than cases, make recommendations based on scientific facts rather than political processes Crime - Different definitions: o Crime is an act in violation of a criminal law o Crime is a violation of societal rules of behaviour as interpreted and expressed by a criminal code created by people holding social and political power. Individuals who violate these rules are subject to sanctions by state authority, social stigma and loss of status - Types of crime: o Mala prohibita (wrong by law): infractions created by legislation based on current ideas (e.g. underage drinking, gambling) o Mala in se: inherently wrong acts that are considered bad in and of itself (murder, assault) - Do we only focus on infractions of criminal law? Or also other ‘deviatory’ behaviour? -> so arguing for a wider definition of ‘crime’, also things prohibited in  other legal codes or also uncriminalised social harms (financial things, environmental things) o Crime is a concept (social construct) that constantly changes relative to a particular culture and often independently from any absolute moral code -> different per area, time, culture, context, etc > also smth that is a crime in certain circumstances is not a crime in other situations! o (De)criminalisation: acts can become labelled as crimes (and prosecuted/enforced) or lose their criminal status (e.g. decriminalising cannabis, criminalising laughing gas) - Crime and deviance o Customs (things we agree on but violating them does not lead to saction) – social norms (things seen as the normal situation and deviating from it is socially not accepted) – legal norms (solidified social norms) o Deviance/norm violation – crime ▪ Deviance: acts that violate the social customs/norms but are not criminalised ➔ A scale and behaviour can move over the scale - Summary: o Crime as an infraction of criminal law, crime as a social construct, serious social harms Crime Common crime concepts: - Victimless crime: crimes that do not harm others, there is no injured party (e.g. street prostitution with two consenting adults) - Organised crime: non-ideological enterprise, 2+ people, purpose is profit/power, engaging in serious (il)legal activities, continuing basis (not one-off act), members safeguarding organization - White-collar crime: people in power (working in the office) (compared to blue- collar, which is workers on the field/poor workers) -> mostly financial crimes, e.g. making up stocks  o Occupational crime: a person occupying a position in a corporation committing a crime by themselves o Corporate crime: offences committed by whole corporation - Environmental crime: e.g. dumping waste in nature, pollution, illegal logging/fishing, illegal trade in wildlife/natural material ➔ Has not got a lot of attention, often seen as accidents and one-offs for which other sanctions are given ➔ School of ‘green criminologists’ arguing this should get more attention - Transnational crime: takes place between countries, two forms: o (e.g. sex offenders travelling to other countries to commit offence and then going back -> acts illegal EVEN THOUGH they were outside of national boundaries (can be found in criminal codes when this applies) o Crimes that are crimes BECAUSE they are international (e.g. illicit goods trafficking) - Hate crimes: offence motivated in whole or in part by the offender’s bias against a certain thing (e.g. bombing church) Types of crimes can be distinguished by/put into categories based on: - Target: personal, property, government (e.g. smuggling, interest of state is harmed), victimless, possibly also environment - Motivation: o Expropriative: motivation is to obtain material resources from another person without their knowledge of consent (e.g. theft, embezzlement, fraud) o Expressive: to obtain hedonistic resources (pleasure, joy) that increase pleasurable feelings or decrease unpleasant feelings (e.g. drugs, sex crimes) o Economic: to obtain monetary resources through profitable illegal cooperative activities (e.g. organised crime) o Political: to obtain political resources by using a wide variety of tactics (e.g. terrorism, rigging an election) - Legal:  o Felonies v misdemeanors (misdrijven v overtredingen) ➔ Felonies are more serious, harsher sentences (e.g. NL 1+ year), misdemeanors less serious, lighter sentences (NL >1 year) -> in US felonies can even take away some of your human rights (e.g. right to vote) ➔ Misdemeanors cannot be attempted, felonies can ➔ Are often in different chapters of the criminal code, but not all misdemeanors are in criminal code!!! E.g. publishing someone’s picture without consent -> copyright law -> misdemeanor o Crimes can have subcategories (e.g. homicide/death of another person without justifiable cause such as euthanasia (murder, manslaughter/murder in the second degree, etc), rape (statutory rape, date rape, marital rape, etc)), inchoate offences (including accessorial; inchoate comes from Latin noun lol story about cow and field ploughing), aggravating/mitigating circumstances (e.g. because of motivation, premeditation, whether/which weapon was involved, age victim, status of victim such as police officer, etc), that all influence sentences Crime and the media - Mass media are an almost ever-present element of contemporary life - Crime is a central and dominant theme for television, cinema, magazines, newspapers, books, and podcasts, both fiction and non-fiction (1 in 4 books, 1 in 5 movies, 30% of newspaper space, etc) - What we think we know about crime is hugely influenced by what we see in the media - Why is crime presented in the media in a particular way, and what is the impact of this? o Newsworthiness: novelty, proximity (if it happens close to us (spatially or socially) we will care), anything that mentions children 1. Immediacy: speed/the present 2. Dramatisation: drama and action 3. Personalisation: cult of celebrity -> focus on individuals rather than systemic issues or patterns 4. Simplification: elimination of shades of grey  5. Titillation: revealing forbidden things/voyeurism 6. Conventionalism: hegemonic ideology: crime stories framed in a conventional, socially accepted way -> portraying crimes as violations of universally accepted norms and values, often without delving into systemic or complex causes 7. Structured access: experts, authority 8. Novelty: new angle/speculation/twist - And/or: 1. Visible and spectacular acts 2. Sexual and political connotations 3. Graphic presentation 4. Individual pathology 5. Deterrence and repression. ➔ Highly selective process: certain cases are selected, also often based on who the victim was - Representations of (perpetrators of) crime do not adequately reflect the nature and amount of crime -> distorted picture: o Disproportionate focus on violent crime: is vast majority of crime in news, while only small portion of crime committed o Exaggerate the risk of victimisation, particularly for white, female and higher social status adults (e.g. missing white woman syndrome) o Police success in ‘clearing up’ crimes is exaggerated in news reporting (cases in media are often the cases that end well) Moral panics: - Young and Cohen - Criminogenic: causing crime (e.g. media can be seen as criminogenic) - Steps: 1. Something or someone is defined as a threat (to particular values a society has) -> typically young people of something young people do is often what is defined as threat -> these people then become ‘folk devils’ (e.g. right now: fatbikers, asylum seekers)  2. This is picked up by the media (pressure cooker, more and more attention to it) 3. Rapid build-up of public concern 4. Authorities (feel like they need to) respond 5. Panic recedes (on its own) or results in social changes (policies) - Often seen as volatile (unstable, can change automatically in a very short time) and as exaggerated (a small/rare rate becomes a very big issue) - Media potentially contributes in this way to crime via labelling and deviance amplification: people that are now labelled as deviant/a threat internalise the label and their deviant behaviour is increased Measuring crime - Two main approaches: official crime statistics and self-report data (victimisation surveys and perpetrator surveys) Official crime statistics: - Data collected and registered by law enforcement agencies such as the police o UK & Wales: recorded crime statistics collected by police and courts o US: Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) collected by FBI from police departments o NL: crime statistics from police collected by CBS - Limitations: o Changing definitions of crimes, policing practices and recording practices (e.g. due to legislation and policy) o Attrition: not all crimes end up in the official crime statistics ▪ Victims may be unaware they are a victim of crime ▪ There may be no victim (victimless crime) ▪ Not all crimes are reported to the police by victims, because: o Victim considers it too trivial o Victim feels the police will not be able or willing to do anything about it (e.g. won’t believe them, is too busy)  o The matter is too embarrassing or is compromising in some other way o Victim is too scared to report it > Changes in willingness to report can lead to an increase in reported offences (e.g. sexual violence in the #metoo movement, is much more reported now. Also increasing attention for domestic violence has led to more reporting) ▪ From all crimes reported, not all crimes are recorded by the police, because: o The police may find insufficient evidence to confirm that an offence has taken place o The victim may refuse to press charges o The police may judge the matter reported to them to have already been dealt with satisfactorily or to have been resolved o The police may simply not wish to pursue the matter and therefore fail to record it > Dark figure of crime ▪ Not all crimes recorded by the police result in a conviction - Strengths: o Relatively easily accessible o Include all crime types (although differences in how well different crime types are recorded o Relatively good statistics on some types of crime (e.g. homicide) Victimisation surveys - Surveys among a large and representative sample of the general population (aged 15/16 and older) - Developed to try and address the shortcomings of officially recorded crime (dark figure) - More attention paid to (experiences of) victims of crime (victimology) o US: National Crime Victimisation Survey (NCVS)  o UK & Wales: Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) o NL: Veiligheidsmonitor - Victimisation surveys measure: o Victimisation of a broad range of crimes o Follow-up questions about the nature of the crime o Fear of crime o Attitudes to reporting of crimes to the police o Demographic and lifestyle factors ➔ Often over the past 12 months, sometimes following someone’s entire lifetime, usually administered every year - Strengths: o Overcomes the issues of non-reporting and non-recording o More accurate estimation of true level of (certain types of) crime o Lot of information about the nature and impact of crime and attitudes towards reporting victimisation to the police - Limitations: o Sampling ▪ Not all victimization surveys include young people ▪ There is a focus on households (exclusion of homeless people, people in institutions, businesses) ▪ Selective non-response (attrition bias) o Not all crimes are included ▪ Victimless crimes ▪ Corporate/environmental crimes, etc. o Unreliable answers and underreporting ▪ Not aware of or unwilling to report incidents ▪ Memory decay, telescoping effect ▪ Multiple and serial incidents Self-reported offending - Self-report studies among general population, at-risk groups of known offenders - Questions about offending - Usually about the past 12 months (or 5 years or lifetime) - Mostly used among teenagers and young adults - Self-reported delinquency scales: The Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (SRDS) is a self-report questionnaire that assesses the frequency and severity of delinquent acts committed by an individual over the past year - Strengths: o Overcomes the issues of non-reporting and non-recording o First-hand information from offenders (dark figure) o When used as part of longitudinal studies, self-report methods can reveal changes in patterns of offending over the course of one’s life that would otherwise be hidden - Limitations: o Too much focus on trivial acts (antisocial behaviour) o Accuracy of a respondent’s recall of events o Are respondents/offenders always entirely truthful? - Difference decriminalisation and legalisation: decriminalisation means it would remain illegal, but the legal system would not prosecute a person for the act. The penalties would range from no penalties at all to a civil fine. Legalisation, on the other hand, is the process of removing all legal prohibitions against the act. Lecture 2: criminological theories: classicism and positivism, learning and control Outline:  - Criminological theories: a brief overview and history o Classicism (Beccaria) o Positivism (Lombroso) - Contemporary classicism (ch15) o Rational choice theory (Cornish and Clarke) o Routine activity theory (Felson and Cohen) - Psychological positivism (ch34, 8) o Risk factor paradigm ▪ Eysenck’s PEN-model/biological theory - Learning theories (ch8) o Conditioning (Pavlov) o Operant learning (Skinner) o Social learning/imitation and models (Bandura) o Differential association (Sutherland) o Differential reinforcement (Akers) - Control theories (ch12) o Social bond theory (Hirschi) o General theory of crime (self-control) (Gottfredson and Hirschi) ➔ Try to understand the meaning of theories and to apply, not all details What is a theory: - Trying to make sense of the world around us: “theories are nets cast to catch ‘the world’: to rationalize, to explain and to master it.” (Karl Popper) - A scientific theory is a preliminary explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment Chronological overview theories:  - Choice theories: classical/neo-classical schools - Conflict theories: Karl Marx - Biological: trying to find out if offenders biologically differ from non-offenders (currently done with genes, in the past skull shape/size - Social structure and social process: sociological theories - Integrated theories: different schools Classicism and positivism - Classical (Beccaria): o Offenders are rational, calculating, free-willed, normal individuals -> crime is just a choice one can make based on weighing of options o The main response to crime is through punishment proportionate to the offence - Criticism: o Overlooks incapacity to make rational choices (is everything we choose really rational)? o Ignores power structures of inequality: Failing to focus on the very different structural circumstances occupied by men and women and  ignoring the racial and class inequalities that are important in explaining patterns of offending - Positivist (Lombroso): o Offenders are pathological (different) individuals driven by biological, psychological, social or other influences o Positivists use scientific methodology to measure risk factors for crime o Founded on the belief that there were other factors – either intrinsic to the individual or to be found in the immediate environment – which could be identified and which would help distinguish the criminal from the non- criminal. o The main response to crime is through treatment depending on individual circumstances -> find a way to address the risk factors (e.g. personality differences. But if it is a biological risk factor, maybe there is no correct treatment… you can’t lock up everyone with green eyes/an oval-shaped skull for e.g.) ➔ So criminals differ from non-criminals - Criticism: o Determinism: fails to take individual choice into account o Differentiation and assumption of pathology: can offenders be separated from non-offenders? And is this the result of something having gone wrong for offenders? - !! the question of whether individuals are or are not rational decision-makers is a central fault line separating different traditions of criminological theorising Contemporary classicism Rational choice theory (Cornish and Clarke): - Crime is the consequence of a rational choice an individual can make - Focus on individual offender’s decision making - Humans weigh the costs (risks, losses) and benefits, e.g.: o Risk of apprehension -  o Seriousness of expected punishment - o Investment of time/effort - o Potential value of criminal enterprise + o Immediate need for criminal gain + - Determines not just whether crime occurs, but also elements of the crime (type, target, place, time) -> rational choice when the best time for crime is, what place, etc. -> rational choice also determines the circumstances - Focuses more on singular offences instead of on the offender themselves - Utilitarian view - What does it mean for policy/punishment? ➔ Based on costs/benefits, adapt these! E.g. more CCTV (higher risk of apprehension, higher cost), increase punishment (higher seriousness of expected punishment, higher cost), reduce immediate need for criminal gain (less need, less benefit), reduce value of criminal enterprise e.g. making car parts cheaper (less money for offender, less benefit) ➔ When a policy like this works, it shows the value of rational choice theory - Criticisms: o Rational choice does not explain everything: people in similar situations do not make the same choices: ignores systematic differences between groups and structural inequality o Can it be used to explain crimes of passion/violent crimes? (yes it can maybe explain property crime but not these) o Are people really rational? ▪ Rational choice theory does accept ‘bounded rationality’, that individuals make a choice based on the limited and incomplete information/assumptions they have of the costs and benefits Conditions under which decisions are often made: not knowing all necessary facts about risk/effort/reward, quick choices (hasty and unrevised), not planning but relying on a general approach that has worked before (serial robber), focusing on rewards instead of possible punishment o What the rational choice is may differ per person  ▪ Relies on other theories to explain what may be rational in particular situations Routine activity theory (Felson and Cohen) - Crime happens when there is a convergence in space and time of a motivated offender, a suitable target (person/property/otherwise), in absence of a capable guardian (formal: police officer, guard, etc. Informal: neighbour, parents, other citizens in the proximity) and whether that happens depends on routine activities of potential offenders, targets and guardians ➔ Does not give a definition of a ‘motivated offender’: assumes everyone in certain conditions can be motivated to commit crime - This theory is applied to both micro (per individual case: only the crime triangle matters really, the change in circumstances that allowed for the crime does not need to be ‘routine’) level and macro (patterns of crime, like a sudden rise in crime) level; and to look at distributions across time and space (so where and when certain crimes are more present) - Beyond microlevel: changes in routine activities cause new opportunities for crimes o E.g. US: after WWII, more crimes. Why? There was a major shift in routine activities, like women also going to work and people in general spending less time outside the house, increase of expensive cars and luxury goods, etc-> more burglaries - Suitable target: VIVA o Value: how much is it worth? o Inertia: how easy is it to move (secretly)? Weight, size, etc.  o Visibility: is the target noticeable for the criminal so they can even get the idea to steal it? o Access: are there locks or other barriers? ➔ E.g. copper-theft: sometimes people steal copper from the train tracks, but this fluctuates. Based on VIVA: the price of copper (Value) fluctuates, so crime rate fluctuates with it - Nice about this theory: informs crime policy: all three elements of the triangle can be influenced (e.g. more guardians by neighbourhood watch, less suitable targets by good locks etc., influence motivated offender by posters/education) Criticisms contemporary classicism (rational choice+routine activity theory): - Fails to explain offender motivation: unrealistic to assume everyone would normally commit crimes if this was the most beneficial choice and there were no controls to stop it. What about excitement/thrill/bravado? ➔ Shifts focus away from offender and more towards criminal acts themselves (this can also be seen as a plus though as these theories do not try to differentiate between offenders and non-offenders as if offenders are a different ‘breed’) - Rational choice: fails to take sufficient account of the structural conditions within which individual decision-making takes place: preoccupation with ‘opportunity’ rather than social conditions etc. - Situational prevention (policy stemming from these theories): o Does not prevent crime but merely displaces it to somewhere else (in time, space, another target, by different means, different type of crime, etc.)  - These theories might act repressively and/or regressively: placing undue/unfair burdens on citizens by limiting individual freedoms/rights such as privacy by for example more controls - These theories strip away the social aspects of an individual and make them merely calculating, economically-induced individuals Positivism - Trying to identify risk factors - Biological positivism: Early biological theories of criminality focused on physical attributes and appearance ➔ the assumption being that it was those that were somehow biologically inferior who were most likely to become involved in deviant activities. ▪ physiognomy (facial features) and phrenology (skull shape and size) Psychological positivism Risk factor paradigm (standard/perspective/set of ideas): - Risk and protective factors: risk factors are factors that predict an increased probability of later offending ➔ Not a causal relationship! (e.g. not all mistreated children will grow up to be violent offenders, but it mistreatment in childhood can increase the risk of it) - Multiple types of risk factors: individual risk factors, family risk factors, socio- economic, peer, school and community risk factors ➔ Can be static (e.g. demographic) and dynamic (attitudes/beliefs/emotions/behaviours like drug or alcohol use) ➔ Risk-focused prevention of crime - Individual risk factors: - Personality (Eysenck’s biosocial theory of personality)  o PEN-model: ▪ Psychoticism: aggressive, anti-social, egocentric, impulsive, lacking empathy ▪ Extroversion: assertive, dominant, sensation-seeking ▪ Neuroticism: anxious, low self-esteem, moody, shy ➔ Everyone scores something on these. Eysenck said the higher one scores on these, the more likely one will be(come) an offender o More recent theory: Big 5 (OCEAN) model of personality ▪ Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism - Lower intelligence: o Poorer ability to foresee consequences of actions o But: social factors could partly explain this association (, e.g. less self- control, less education and thus less life chances, more intelligence could mean more understanding rules and laws and norms) - Impulsiveness: hyperactivity, sensation-seeking, risk-taking, low self-control - Empathy - Mental health problems or disorders ➔ High prevalence of mental health problems among prisoners BUT: chicken and egg issue, and link between criminality and mental disorder hard to define as both concepts are social constructs and hard to define! No straightforward definitions o Mental disorders account for only a small proportion of violence o Looked at most are: ADHD and conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy - Family risk factors: - Criminal and antisocial parents: higher risk children will also be criminal/antisocial - Risk factors related to family disfunction: parental conflict, divorce, single- parent family - Childrearing methods: harsh and punitive discipline, inconsistent discipline - Child abuse and neglect ➔ So positivists look at scientific research into these risk factors and how to establish policies to work on this (e.g. more support with childrearing, etc) - Socio-economic, peer, school and community risk factors: socio-economic deprivation; peer influences; school (culture) influences; community (area) influences - Obstacles in using psychology to approach crime: positivism (Only that which can be directly experienced can be known), individualism (focus on person themselves not on social factors), biologism (biological differences seen as largely explaining delinquency), determinism (assumes that certain individual features can be identified as the cause of offending behaviour), reductionism (trying to explain social phenomena by referring to individual’s psychology/personality or biology) ➔ but McGuire argues these obstacles are false with contemporary psychology - Criticisms psychological positivism: o Can the same theories apply to all crimes? Do different types of crimes not have different amounts of psychological factors involved? o Difficulties risk factors and crime prevention: Learning theories - Offending, like all behaviour, is learned -> in essence comes from psychological principles - One of social process theories - Brief intro how do we learn things in general? o Classical conditioning theory (Pavlov): behaviour, even reflexes, can be modified through conditioning (include picture!) o Operant learning/instrumental learning theory (Skinner): behaviour is influenced by the consequences that follow ▪ behaviour resulting in consequences felt to be desirable will tend to increase in frequency, whereas behaviour that results in undesirable outcomes will decrease. The former behaviour has been reinforced, whereas the latter has been punished  ▪ Reinforcement/punishment can be positive (adding) or negative (removing) Positive reinforcement: giving treat, negative reinforcement: taking away pain/work Positive punishment: slapping someone/giving more work, negative punishment: taking away dessert/money ➔ Difference: “In classical conditioning, involuntary responses occur to a specific stimulus. For example, dogs salivate after a tone because food is being served. In operant conditioning, reinforcement or punishment shapes voluntary behavior. For example, someone praises their child for doing their homework, reinforcing them to continue doing it.” -> so classical is involuntary/unaware, operant is voluntary; you are the conscious operator of your behaviour and can choose to adapt it because of the consequences o Imitation and models/social learning theory (Bandura): behaviour is learned through observation and imitation of others (models) ▪ Reinforcement/punishment ▪ E.g. with that weird doll -> violence ▪ three linked psychological concepts at the heart of cognitive social learning theory: Learning, social and cognition. The term learning indicates that an important element in the theory is the assumption that many things humans do are learned, including very basic apparently physical functions. However, unlike most other species such learning takes place in a social context. The crucial distinction between humans and other species, though, is undoubtedly the complex nature of the human brain – the basis of our consciousness and of processes such as perception, understanding, dreaming and imagining, or cognition. Cognition is  'mental events that each of us directly experiences, but which we cannot directly observe in others’ ➔ The core difference between operant and social learning theories is that whereas the former stressed the importance of the environment – social reinforcements and punishments – the latter maintains that it is also possible to learn cognitively through observing the behaviour of others, what Bandura called models. Having been learned, then environmental reinforcements and punishments come into play in the fashion suggested by Skinner and others. And social learning theory also includes motivation (3 types, P166) Differential association theory - Sutherland - Criminal behaviour is learned through coming into contact with social norms - Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction (and then imitation) with other persons in a process of communication, principally in intimate personal groups (friends/peers/family) - Learning includes: o Offending techniques o Specific direction of motives, drives, rationalisations and attitudes (social norms/attitudes to crime) - When definitions (influences) favourable to violation of the law exceed definitions unfavourable to violation of the law, a person will turn to crime - Differential association (Sutherland): “The term differential association quite specifically points in the direction of the two central elements of the theory: that criminal behaviour is learned, and that it is learned in association with others (not necessarily people who are themselves involved in crime) – what is learned tending to reflect the balance of ‘definitions’ favourable or unfavourable towards breaking the law” (from the book)  ➔ Different learning theories share same idea that behaviour is learned, but they all come to different conclusions on HOW we learn so also on how policies should be made - Differential reinforcement (Akers): criminal behaviour is learned as a result of the reinforcing consequences of particular behaviours. ➔ An individual’s learning history therefore becomes vital in understanding their decisions in relation to crime (to engage in criminal activity or not). Crime may have a number of benefits as well as negative consequences and, in the main, it is to the balance of particular rewards and punishments that we should look in attempting to explain patterns of offending: o “The theory of differential reinforcement states that a criminal act occurs in an environment in which in the past the actor has been reinforced for behaving in this manner, and the aversive consequences attached to the behaviour are of such a nature that they do not control or prevent the response.” ➔ Combines operant learning and differential association ➔ The reinforcement comes from social responses to behaviour as well as one’s own feelings of either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with outcome Control theories - Not so concerned with what causes crime. Instead, why are we not all committing crimes? - “We are all animals and thus all naturally capable of committing criminal acts” Social bond theory (Hirschi) - Deviance occurs when an individuals’s bond to society is somehow weak, underdeveloped or broken - So most citizens are law-abiding because they are bonded to society. - People who commit crimes are free of attachments/values/aspirations that bind them to conventional society - Attachment: people who would judge one negatively if one behaves criminally - Commitment: time and energy and effort one has committed themselves to conventional activities in society: one has a stake in conformity (e.g. one has put years and effort into a career, one has something to lose by deviance) - Involvement: one simply does not have time to be involved in criminal acitivties - Belief: values one holds on morality, fairness, responsibility ➔ The less of these bonds one has the more likely one is to NOT conform and commit crime - Criticisms social bond theory: o Chicken-and-egg issue: is delinquency a product of weak attachment to cultural norms, or is weak attachment a product of delinquency? o There is evidence offenders are not weakly attached to conventional social norms o Partial theory: does not explain basis of low attachment/belief: WHY do social bonds vary in strength? o Underlying assumption deviance is a natural behaviour (like other control theories) o Cannot explain why certain specific types of deviant behaviour occur, only deviant behaviour as a whole (why would someone then do this specific crime?) General theory of crime/self-control theory - Gottfredson and Hirschi - Crime and deviance are a consequence of low self-control o Self-control: the concern for the long-term consequences of one’s acts (marshmallow experiment) o Low self-control: ▪ Characterised by impulsiveness, risk-seeking, temper, self- centeredness ▪ Interacting with opportunity to produce crime ▪ Caused by ineffective parenting (if parents are unloving, inconsistent in discipline, etc) ▪ A trait that remains stable over much of the life course -> stable trait, does not vary much (‘persistent heterogeneity) ➔ Root is planted in childhood, solidified before age 8-10 ➔ So it is a social process - Why low self-control would result in crime:  o Crime offers immediate gratification o Crime is risky/exciting/thrilling o Crime is less likely done by people with long-term goals that require long- term investment: individuals with low self-control have less of this o Crime generally requires little expertise/planning, compatible with lifestyle and skills of individuals with low self-control o Crime brings pain/suffering to others and individuals with low self-control are usually self-centered and thus less affected by this - Criticisms general theory of crime: o Self-control is difficult to research o Theory is tautological/circular: “in arguing that low self control is central to explaining delinquency, there is a real danger that we will use the fact of offending as an indicator of low self-control. It is hard to see each independently of the other” -> using the fact someone commits crime as evidence they have low self-control ➔ Reaction: “In our view, the charge of tautology is in fact a compliment; an assertion that we followed the path of logic in producing an internally consistent result... We started with a conception of crime, and from it attempted to derive a conception of the offender... What makes our theory peculiarly vulnerable to complaints about tautology is that we explicitly show the logical connections between our conception of the actor and the act, whereas many theorists leave this task to those interpreting or testing their theory” (Hirschi and Gottfredson) o ‘general’ is wrong name because cannot explain ALL crime (e.g. white collar crime/corporate crime) o If low self-control remains stable over life, why does crime decline with age? o General criticisms that the theory ignores many other influences on crime like gangs/social environment/bonds, socio-economic factors,opportunity, etc - Criticisms control theories:  o Focus on controls and increase in controls to reduce deviance does not sit well with liberal disposition of many sociological criminologists: normative question about how much intervention is appropriate o Overstates its ability to explain crime: controls are important but proposing it as a ‘general theory’ ignores other approached o Arguably not a theory on causation, simply explains the conditions that make crime possible o By focusing on the immediate/things at hand, it draws away from the underlying factors of crime such as social inequality (except social bond theory does not do this) o Helps little in explaining why people engage in one form of deviant behaviour and not another: only about why one offends in general, not about why one offends in THIS specific way o Some determinism involved: implication that without controls/inhibitions crime is inevitable Lecture 3: criminological theories: social structure (strain, Chicago, subcultural), neutralisation, labelling, conflict/critical Outline - Social structure theories o Strain ▪ Merton’s Anomie ▪ General strain theory (Agnew) ▪ Institutional anomie theory (Messner and Rosenfeld) ▪ Illegitimate opportunity structure (Cloward and Ohlin) o Chicago school ▪ Social disorganisation theory o Subcultural theories ▪ Subcultural strain theory (Cohen) ▪ American subcultural theories:  > Subculture conflict (Sellin) > Subculture of violence theory (Wolfgang and Ferracutti) > Lower-class culture conflict (Miller) - Neutralisation - Labelling - Conflict/critical theories o ‘new’ criminology / social theory of deviance (Taylor, Walton, Young) o Utilisation and political economy theory (Bonger) o Contemporary radical criminology (Gramsci) Social structure theories: look at social structures as the roots of delinquency Strain theories Anomie theory (Merton) - Robert Merton: American Dream o History of Great Depression - All societies have culturally determined goals (American Dream: idea that anyone can make it and have material success (riches and fame=goal), if only one works hard enough) ➔ Not everyone has the means (because of society’s structure) to realistically achieve these goals -> distinction between means and goals is central to Merton’s argument - “a cardinal American virtue, ambition, promotes a cardinal American vice, deviant behaviour” - The dissonance between socially desired ends and limited means produces a strain to anomie: a range of behavioural adaptations to these social and psychological circumstances - In Merton’s terms, this strain to anomie is the product of the ‘contradiction between the cultural emphasis on pecuniary ambition and the social bars to full opportunity’ -> so the means one has are limited by social structures, because of which one cannot attain the pecuniary (financial/material) goals one wants to achieve - Relative vs. Absolute deprivation: o Absolute: you do not have enough to survive by (e.g. so one needs to steal) -> does not cause crime Merton says o Relative: deprivation of resources for needs which are not necessary, but which one wants, e.g. a more luxurious lifestyle, a specific diet, etc) ▪ By comparing oneself to others! - The majority of people will continue conforming, but some will not: the strain is stronger for certain social groups because their possibilities/opportunities are even more limited than those of others (lower classes) - Adaptations to strain: o Institutionalised means: conventional means o Innovation: most criminal behaviour comes from this adaptation, still accept the cultural goals but reject the means and find some other way to achieve them (e.g. find other ways to fund luxury lifestyle) > Not all innovation is criminal, e.g. the ‘hustle’ culture is/was also innovation o Retreatism: reject both goals and means and in some way retreat from society (e.g. hippies in the 60s, homeless people, drug users. Does not involve victimisation of others, private response)  o Ritualism: people who accept the means (e.g. might be in 9-5 job), but are no longer interested in the goals -> going through the means is just a routine or ritual, they don’t really care/have an ideal to work towards (so also not highly affiliated with crime) o Rebellion: reject everything, but different from retreatism by advocating for new means and new goals (e.g. people in protests, communism) -> have an ideological idea of how they want it to be (so this can be related to crime but there would be an ideological idea behind it) -> seek to RESOLVE the strain by creating a new situation ➔ So most crime in innovation! - Criticisms: o Focus on lower-class delinquency o Focus on conventional goals: not everyone is after these goals of middle- class status/wealth (and also different per country!) o Overlooked other types of strains besides social stratification: e.g. ethnic background o Does not explain why many people who experience strain do not turn to delinquency General strain theory (Agnew) - Three sources of strain: 1. Failing to achieve one’s personal goals 2. Actual or anticipated removal (loss) of positively valued stimuli (e.g. divorce, loss of liked and well-paying job) 3. Actual or anticipated presentation of negative stimuli: something bad has happened/will happen in your life ➔ The greater the extent of the strain, the more likely the adaptive response will be deviant ➔ So more expansive and more micro-level than Merton - Chronic/repeated strains: this decreases the ability to cope with the strain - The likelihood of deviant adaptions may be offset by the existence of support/availability of alternative methods/personal characteristics - (e.g.) Strains especially conducive to crime: parental rejection, erratic/excessive/harsh supervision/discipline, child abuse/neglect, negative school experiences, unpleasant jobs/unemployment, marital issues, failure of goals, criminal victimisation, residence in depreived communities/homelessness, discrimination ➔ Fight club character:  ➔ “We were all raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires... but we won’t. (Merton) We are slowly learning that fact and we are very, very pissed off (Agnew).” Compared: Merton Agnew Attaining economic success as universal Cultural goals differ (and not only goal economics matter) One definition of strain Three kinds of strain Strain is caused by discrepancy between Experiencing strain leads to negative goals and means, which are influenced emotions, and the coping mechanisms by social structure (macro level) which are used in response can lead to/be crime (micro level) Institutional anomie theory (Messner and Rosenfeld) - At its simplest, their argument is that ‘the American Dream itself exerts pressures toward crime by encouraging an anomic cultural environment, an environment in which people are encouraged to adopt an “anything goes” mentality in the pursuit of personal goals’ -> crucial features American dream: emphasis achievement, individualism, materialism, universalism (=these values permeate the whole of society) -> everything aimed at economic goals over others (e.g. school devoted to labour market etc) Illegitimate opportunity structure (Cloward and Ohlin): - a system that stresses ability as the basis of advancement, the failures who view themselves as equal in ability to those who succeed tend to feel unjustly deprived ➔ where people are led to believe that the ability they have will enable them to gain access to education and thereby to occupational success, but where opportunities are limited and decisions are frequently based on other criteria such as class, ethnicity and sex, the outcome is that a proportion of the population feel anger at their unreasonable exclusion. The solution again is the rejection of core middle-class values aka delinquency - There are numerous means of resolving/adjusting to this strain -> illegitimate opportunity structure (criminal, retreatist or conflict) o An illegitimate opportunity structure exists next to the legitimate opportunity structure (school, work, etc). Some have more access to one, some more to the other, depending on with group/neighbourhood one is  part of. Adaptation to strain is mediated by this availability to legitimate/illegitimate resources - Merton strain vs. Cloward and Ohlin differential opportunity: o Merton all about goals and means and not having the means to achieve goals o Cloward and Ohlin: says all of us and different groups have different legitimate and illegitimate opportunities available to them -> some people gave easier access to crime, while other do not -> this influences what one does o Borrows from strain and differential association theory: criminal subculture (organised crime groups) have lot of opportunities in illegitimate, retreatists have more access to victimless crime Chicago school - Main point of study was the city: city is not merely a physical structure, it is more than this, it can be viewed through a sociological lense with its traditions, customs, beliefs, etc - Focuses on the nature of the city, its structures, changes and processes, and later through criminological lense how these related to the patterns of crime and deviance -> were empirical scientists - Developed in a time of industrialisation, urbanisation, immigration (different social groups coming into the city) - Social ecology: studying the city as a (social) environment - Though generally referred to as the Chicago School, the work of the Chicago sociologists isn’t uniform or particularly systematised The zonal hypothesis (Burgess) (not a criminological theory! But needed as basis for social disorganisation theory ) - The city evolved through a series of concentric circles, each being a zone of social and cultural life ➔ So the growth of a city is not haphazard, it’s heavily patterned ➔ Not (entirely) planned ➔ Each area comes to resemble its inhabitants’ qualities/character  - Zone I: factories - Zone II: zone of transition (in Chicago: immigration from Europe) ➔ Migrants settle here, because this is where the cheap rental houses are. ➔ At some point, people that have jobs can move out of this zone because they get more money and can afford a more expensive home, so they move to zone III, IV, V, consequently -> called succession - Zone of transition: o An area in which there is a transient population (moving in and away), poor, living in inadequate and deteriorating housing o A whole range of social problems could be found concentrated here, not limited to but including delinquency; prostitution; high infant mortality; poor health; poverty Social disorganisation theory / ‘ecology of crime’(Shaw & McKay) - Explored the ecological patterning of offending - Crime is a product of social disorganisation in neighbourhoods - Why, if the population is so transient, does the crime rate in these areas stay so stable? - Patterns in the social and geographical distribution of crime showed that: o Neighbourhoods are relatively stable in their status as high/middle/low- crime area o Crime rates are consistently lower in areas of high socioeconomic status and higher in areas of socioeconomic deprivation ➔ concluded factors that could explain low socio-economic status could also help explain crime and delinquency, NOT necessarily saying poverty CAUSES crime - The high levels of juvenile delinquency found in the zone of transition are a product of social disorganisation. Social disorganisation consists of: 1. Poverty 2. Residential mobility 3. Ethnic heterogeneity - Cultural transmission: values, including delinquent values, are transmitted from generation to generation (older juveniles to younger teens/children), establishing a tradition of criminal behaviour in certain areas - Social disorganisation erodes social control: residential mobility means people don’t know their neighbours, ethnic variety means less contact between neighbours  - Juvenile delinquency was the main focus of their theory, but this is a big shortcoming, because does this apply to different types of crime and older delinquents? Cultural deviance: Subcultural theories (family) Subcultural strain theory (Cohen) - Certain subcultures can develop because of strain - Gangs are a solution to strain faced by young men - Cohen observed lower class boys and notices they had a status frustration of seeing the goals of middle-class - Cross over from strain theories with the concept of cultural transmission: 1. Status frustration of lower-class boys, created by their failure to achieve ‘middle- class measuring rods’ (so middle-class ideals for life) causes them to join gangs 2. People perceiving this strain will bond together in their own groups/subcultures for support and recognition -> gangs are solution  ➔ So: strain leads to shame and status frustration, which consequently leads to the formation of gangs and delinquency in reaction ➔ This joining together creates the basis for a delinquent subculture - The way of life/subculture outlined in Cohen’s theory of delinquency had six major features: 1. Economic rationality is largely absent 2. Malice 3. Rejection of dominant values 4. Gang activity is hedonistic and emphasises instant gratification 5. Delinquents are not specialised: varied delinquent behaviour (so not just committing one type of crime) 6. Primary allegiance is to the gang, not to other groups ➔ Alternative source of status when that in the values of middle-class society is not possible -> rebellion adaptation to strain - Criticisms Cohen’s theory: o Middle class values are not widely accepted by lower-classes o Lower-class delinquents might not be hostile to middle-class values American subcultural theories - Deviant subcultures are distinct from mainstream dominant culture and form a (delinquent) solution to the dilemmas posed by the dominant culture - The offender is seen as a mostly rational actor, responding to these dilemmas - There was an American and a British Marxist wave of subcultural theories > Similar: both discuss same problem of growing up in a class society; both identify same vulnerable group of working-class, late adolescent males; both see delinquent behaviour as a collective solution to a structurally imposed problem Culture conflict theory (Sellin)  - Adhering to local community norms which are in conflict with the general social rules -> crime o E.g. friend group/gang has norms that conflict with societal norms -> conflict between cultures Subculture of violence theory (Wolfgang and Ferracutti) - In some subcultures (often class-related) violence is considered a normal and expected response to challenges of status ➔ More focused on violent crime/’spur-of-the-moment’ actions, having to defend one’s honour/status - ‘Code of the street’ Lower-class culture conflict (Miller) - Working-class culture is a generating milieu for delinquency (i.e. there is something about lower-class in general that stimulates delinquency) - 6 distinguishing values held in these subcultures: 1. Trouble (preoccupation with getting into trouble) 2. Toughness (having to be/appear tough) 3. Smartness (street smart, not book smart) 4. Excitement (daily routines of work are boring, compensated by excitement seeking in other areas) 5. Fate (fatalistic view of the future, cannot be controlled, universe decides) 6. Autonomy (resentment of outsider interference/intervention, ‘no one can tell me what to do!’) ➔ Values are very unlike those of mainstream/conventional culture (while strain theory sees delinquency as product of lower classes SHARING mainstream values but not the means to meet them!!!!) Anderson: competition in lower-classes for limited lawful opportunities leads to using the plentiful illegitimate opportunities -> This creates a code of the street - > have to uphold respect/manhood - Criticism subcultural theories: based on stereotyped view of working-class culture  - Subcultures have some characteristics that can explain why there is delinquency here Neutralisation theory (Sykes and Matza) - Sykes and Matza do not really fit in with the subcultural theories: they proposed that delinquents are not pushed into crime by some social forces nor that they have norms and values distinct from those of mainstream culture - According to them, dominant morality is recognised and accepted by delinquents - Delinquent values should not be seen as opposed to mainstream values, they should be seen as techniques of neutralisation, which legitimise the breaking of the law o Techniques of neutralisation: blows against dominant norms which help to render inoperative the social controls that would otherwise check law- violating behaviour ➔ These techniques then enable people to break the law, as they kind of justify it for themselves, so they are rationalisations and justifications ➔ This shows the power of the dominant morality, as otherwise these neutralisations would not be needed ➔ Used BEFORE committing crime, because only then it allows the offender who otherwise accepts the moral validity of the law to now break said law - These techniques can be learned through association - Five techniques: o Denial of responsibility o Denial of injury (no one will miss it, has insurance, they are rich anyways) o Denial of the victim (did not affect them, did not get hurt, asked for it, had it coming) o Condemnation of the condemners (they were picking on me, anyone else would also do it, they (the condemner) did way worse things!) o Appeal to higher loyalties (protecting family, I HAD to do it)  o & more, claim everyone does it/entitlement/necessity/defense of the ledger (karma, I was really doing something good)/denial of necessity of law (this law should not even be there)/etc. - Criticism: under-predicts (violent) offending behaviour Labelling theory - Social process: not pointing at a social structure, but at the process of labelling - Deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’ - Crime does not even really exist, only because it is labelled - Focus on the social reaction to deviance o Behaviour is shaped in interaction with the world and people around us - Labelling can lead to secondary deviance through its influence on self-concept: adopting label as master status/label, turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy - Steps: primary act of deviance -> labelling process -> secondary deviance o Primary deviance: ▪ Act considered deviant ▪ Negative societal response associated with stigma/label > NOTE: many instances of primary deviance are not labelled and thus do not lead to this process! o Labelling process: ▪ People begin to see themselves as the label put on them and adopt this as ‘master status’ -> overriding identification of themselves, becomes more important than other characteristics ▪ Self-fulfilling prophecy: they start to act according to the label they have been given o Secondary deviance: ▪ A way of dealing with the social reaction -> the label causes this secondary deviance ▪ Deviance amplification ➔ And so the label comes true  o E.g. hangjongeren ➔ BUT labelling does not only influence how we are looked at and look at ourselves, it also affects out opportunities in the world (work etc) - One can also reject the label: easiest/most likely for those who: o Do not fit the stereotype of the typical criminal o Are treated with leniency by the courts o Enjoy a system of social support (friends, family, colleagues, etc.) - Implications for crime prevention: o Radical non-intervention: we need to make sure primary act of deviance is NEVER labelled, NO interventions o Diversion programs: can often be seen in how youth crime is dealt with. Instead of criminal record, alternative sentence is given that keeps them out of criminal system and tries to get them into ‘normal’ society o Restorative justice o Reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite) ➔ These preventions/interventions are only available in current criminal justice system to a limited extent Conflict theories - Also called critical, radical criminology - Marxism: o Division of power in industrial societies into the bourgeoisie who owns the means of production and the proletariat who has to sell its labour to survive -> this division is reflected in all of society and state institutions work to maintain this unequal system o These contradictions would eventually lead to the collapse of capitalism after revolution and replacement by a communist system o The law is an expression of class domination, representing the interests of the dominant class so the bourgeoisie o Simply put then, crime is a form of resistance by the disenfranchised to the capitalist order (crime as primitive rebellion)  ▪ Theft as the most primitive form of protest (Engels) ➔ Conflict theories draw inspiration from Marx: theories are underpinned by centrality of class conflict in the social order, dominant ideas are those that serve the ruling class interests, centrality of property/the economy to class relations ‘new’ criminology / social theory of deviance (Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, Jock Young) - ‘Crime’ is a logical response to the structural position people find themselves in under capitalism - Summarised: 1. Capitalism shapes social institutions/identities/action 2. Capitalism creates class conflict/contradictions 3. Crime is a response to this (logical/rational, sometimes form of resistance/rebellion) 4. Capitalist law facilitates and conceals crimes of domination and repression (focus on behaviour of lower class, not on that of the powerful and the state itself) (helps powerful dominate the lower-class) 5. Crime serves a function for capitalism (creates work (capital) in the justice system and legitimises the operation of said system (symbolic evil to use resources for) 6. Capitalism, by shaping law, also shapes society’s response to crime (enables continuation of the system) -> criminalisation Conflict / critical theories: - Crime must be understood within the deep-seated structural inequalities in society - Shared characteristics: 1. Focus on power relation in society and how crime and criminal law relate to such power differentials 2. Class conflict is central to the understanding of social order 3. The law reflects and serves the interests of the ruling class (e.g. a fine for rich people does not matter)  ▪ Process of criminalisation - Other critical perspectives include: o Feminist criminology o ‘Southern’ criminology (criminology so much based on northern hemisphere and how the southern hemisphere is quite different from that) - Implications for policy: o Criminologists must commit to the abolition of inequalities in wealth and power o Category of crime seen as problematic, thus criminology as well -> response is to broaden the focus of inquiry to social phenomena that cause harm (e.g. state harms, migration, workplace injury, corporate misconduct, poverty), regardless of whether they are defined as criminal (this approach was called zemiology) > Good because it rejects crime, but hard because ‘social harm’ lacks specificity Willem Bonger (Dutch! ): utilisation political economy theory - Economic inequalities and egoism (pursuit riches and indiv. Pleasure) increased criminal conduct -> lack of control for individuals of new division in labour was a core problem (similar Durkheim anomie) - the operation of the law in capitalist society acts to punish the poor whilst allowing the wealthy to act in selfish and greedy ways without fear of punishment. By contrast, in a socialist society crime would eventually be eliminated as the law would protect the interests of all rather than merely the propertied. ➔ Others argued in similar vein, that the law favoured the (economically) powerful (Sellin) Contemporary radical criminology (Antonia Gramsci) - Hegemonic strategies: processes/methods by which the dominant culture maintains their dominance/existing relations (cultural and ideological) - To explain why ruling class could maintain their dominance: through hegemonic strategies the consent and cooperation of the masses was secured ->  subordinate groups are persuaded of (so not forced to accept!) the normality and legitimacy of the current social arrangements ➔ Means of achieving this as well as reactions to challenges are often seen (e.g. policy is established, rise of protest/crime, policy is changed to maintain status quo) Lecture 4: crime prevention Crime prevention - What is crime prevention? - Situational crime prevention - Social and community crime prevention Crime prevention: background - Increase in (recorded) crime rates since WW2 - Prevention of (further) offending via punishment (prison etc.) -> idea was that they would then not commit any further crime, but it turned out this did not work, and because crime increased prisons also became too full - Failure of the rehabilitative (try to reform people and help them to leave criminal life behind) ideal -> did not decrease crime -> lead to ‘nothing works’ attitude ➔ This lead to an increase of interest in crime prevention: if we cannot decrease crime in this way, we need to prevent crime from happening in the first place - Crime prevention: strategies and measures to reduce the risk of crimes occurring Defining crime prevention: 2 ways 1. Distinguishing primary, secondary and tertiary activities of prevention: - Primary prevention: targeted at a general population, everyone, aiming to prevent crime before it occurs - Secondary prevention: targeted at a more specific at-risk population (can be groups of people, areas (area with lots of clubs/pubs/nightlife activity e.g.), etc.)  - Tertiary prevention: targeted at known offenders/victims/places (e.g. putting locks on house that has been burgled), aiming to reduce offending and/or harms associated with it 2. Distinguishing situational, social (developmental and community) approaches - Situational crime prevention: how the environment can be manipulated to prevent or reduce crime ➔ Focus on situations, the environment o Criticism: superficial, disregarding fundamental causes of crime (poverty, poor housing, unemployment, bad education/parenting, etc.) - Social/developmental/risk-focused crime prevention: role of individual risk factors, predispositions for crime o adapting social conditions and psychological dispositions that create offenders - Community crime prevention: role of informal controls, community and social environment ➔ Focus on people (individuals/groups/communities) ➔ Overarching heading of developmental and community crime prevention is called social crime prevention, so confusing! Situational crime prevention - Focuses on situations, not people - Reducing the opportunities for crime - Concerned with the management, design and manipulation of the environment (situation) in which crimes are committed (as permanent as possible and as specific as possible) - Directed at highly specific forms of crime (measures are very specific, usually prevent one type of crime, e.g. putting locks on house to prevent burglary) - To increase the effort and risks involved in committing crimes and reduce (perceived) rewards - Theoretical underpinnings: classicist theories ➔ It started from a very practical approach, how can be prevent this crime, but these theories can be seen as related closely  o Rational choice theory: manipulating the advantages of crime, the ease of committing the crime or the risk of being caught: decreasing benefits and increasing losses/risks o Routine activity theory: manipulating a likely offender, suitable target or the absence of a capable guardian to decrease the favourable circumstances to crime ➔ These stress the importance of immediate, contingent and often malleable factors involved in crime -> situational crime prevention says these can be manipulated to reduce/change crime opportunities - Opportunities are important because: o Criminally disposed people will commit more crimes if they encounter more criminal opportunities o Regularly encountering such opportunities can lead to people seeking even more opportunities o People without pre-existing dispositions can be drawn into criminal behaviour by an increase of criminal opportunities o Generally law-abiding people can be drawn into committing specific types of crimes if regularly encountering easy opportunities for this crime (uhm yes…) Techniques of situational crime prevention - 5 types of techniques of situational crime prevention: 1. Increase the effort (target hardening) ▪ E.g. lock on a bike/car/house, (spikes on) fence, gateways with card scanner at train stations > Clearly manipulates physical environment 2. Increase the risk (of getting caught) ▪ E.g. street lighting, cameras, citizen guardianship (neighbourhood watch), security guards, police presence > Clearly increases risks/losses rational choice theory ➔ These first two are the most popular/commonly used 3. Reduce the rewards  ▪ E.g. pin only in stores (no physical cash), property marking (something engraved in property to make it traceable, e.g. bikes and then they cannot be resold), graffiti cleaning (no one will see their work) > Clearly decreases benefits rational choice theory 4. Reduce provocations ▪ Used to try to reduce violence ▪ E.g. separating rival football supporters, manage crowds, efficient queues and police service in the nighttime economy, classical music/vanilla scents in crowded areas where violent outbursts are likely (to calm people lol, still being researched) 5. Remove excuses ▪ E.g. clear instructions and warning signs (sign that ‘shoplifters will be prosecuted) (so an offender cannot make any excuses), codes of conduct ➔ Overview: Environmental design ➔ So situational crime preventions are concerned with the management, design and manipulation of the environment, but can be small and big -> crime prevention through environmental design - Defensible space theory (Newman, 1972): design buildings and (residential) communities in such a way that social controls are increased and crime is discouraged (do not need to know this theory that much, but do need to know about environmental design!!) o Model for residential environments which inhibits crime by creating the physical expression of a social fabric that can defend itself o To enhance social controls and reduce crime: 1. Territoriality (sense of ownership) 2. Surveillance (natural surveillance is key, so enough light, trees not too high -> so everything is open and observable to everyone) 3. Image: avoid stigma and suggestion of vulnerability 4. Environment ➔ 1 & 2 most important! o Criticisms Newman’s theory: reputations of areas and the importance of formal social control (police) is ignored, as well as giving the impression space needs to be defended from ‘others’ while the offenders might live IN those spaces. Also, the environment is not the only factor that conditions people’s behaviour towards/away from crime  - CPTED: crime prevention through environmental design o Manipulation of behaviour by change/design of environments (-> e.g. Bijlmermeer waar je elke dag langsloopt vanaf station lol, removed high flats to improve natural surveillance) o E.g. the high buildings NL post-war that failed (aardrijkskunde!), this was conducive to crime!!! Situational crime prevention: effects and criticism - Benefits: o Diffusion of benefits: situational prevention can also have unintended positive consequences (e.g. security added to some houses reduced burglaries in whole neighbourhood, cameras installed at some traffic lights made people run less lights in nearby locations as well, electronically tagging some shop products leads to reduction of thefts of other items from the shop as well) o Anticipatory benefits: crime rates already go down because offenders know a prevention method will be established  - Criticisms/disadvantages: - The idea that a situational prevention measure does not decrease crime but simply displaces it o Possible forms of displacement: ▪ Temporal ▪ Spatial ▪ Target ▪ Tactical (different method, usually a more damaging method (using firearms for a robbery instead of just a knife)) ▪ Functional (different type of crime than initially intended) > E.g. better car locks on new cars -> more old cars get stolen: target displacement ▪ Crime deflection: crime is displaced in a way that causes less harm: so the crime is not prevented, but the measure still works in a way (e.g. drug dealing to a red light district, violent robbery to pickpocketing) - Not the physical environment needs ‘fixing’, but structural social conditions that lead to crime should be fixed - Fails to address root causes of crime (depends on what theory one follows) ➔ So it’s seen as superficial, does not really tackle the problem ➔ However, it is still used a lot ➔ Social and community prevention: critics argue these DO address the real problem Social crime prevention - Focused on trying to influence underlying (individual, social and economic) causes of crime - Focuses on people rather than situations - Two types:  o Social/developmental/risk-focused crime prevention (more individual level): preventing criminality or criminal propensities from developing within a person/group o Community crime prevention: changing the social conditions that are believed to contribute to crime in residential communities - Theoretical underpinnings: o Social/developmental crime prevention ▪ Risk factor paradigm (developmental criminology) ▪ Learning theories (e.g. social learning) ▪ Control theories (low self-control, social bonds) o Community crime prevention ▪ Strain theories ▪ Subcultural theories ▪ Social disorganisation, lack of social cohesion ▪ Broken windows theory: - Broken windows theory (Wilson and Kelling, 1982) o Street crime flourishes in areas in which disorderly behaviour goes unchecked: in areas where there are (small) signs of disorder in a neighbourhood, this signals there is a lack of social control and cohesion (‘no one cares’) -> this then invites minor and serious criminal behaviour ➔ Can be seen as downwards spiral ➔ So if you fix the ‘broken windows’ (those signs of disorder, small misdemeanors), more serious forms of crime can be kept from occurring Social/developmental/risk-focused crime prevention - Aimed at identifying, measuring and manipulating the risk and protective factors that (longitudinal) research has confirmed are important in predicting future offending -> leads to risk-focused prevention by tackling these risk factors o Important note: often risk factors work cumulatively, so addressing just one risk factor is not enough AND only looking at one risk factor does not really show you who might become delinquent - Ideally: early intervention, so addressing these risk factors in young people (pre- school, sometimes even pregnant women targeted to try and improve the circumstances for the child when it is born: not using substances during pregnancy, improving financial situation, coaching for parents) - Often implemented at a secondary level (at-risk groups) or a tertiary level (known (young) offenders) Risk and protective factors: - Protective: variables that increase protection against/resistance to ‘undesirable outcomes’, i.e. criminal behaviour/careers (less is known about these factors than about risk factors) - Risk: variables that predict an increased probability of later offending -> work cumulatively (so the more of them you have the higher the probability of offending) o Static: demographic variables (sex, age, family background) or aspects of criminal history (age at first offence, offending history): unchanging o Dynamic: beliefs, emotions, attitudes, forms of behaviour such as drug/alcohol use - Individual risk factors: o Low intelligence and attainment (poor ability to foresee consequences of offending and appreciate feelings of the victim) o Personality (Eysenck’s theory of personality, neuroticism and extraversion) ▪ Temperament (childhood equivalent of personality, restless/impulsive/poor attention linked to later in life delinquency) o Empathy: cognitive (understanding others’ feelings) and emotional (experiencing others’ feelings) empathy (low cognitive empathy slightly associated with offending) o Impulsiveness/hyperactivity/restlessness/low self-control/sensation- seeking/etc. (perhaps most crucial risk factor) o Social cognitive skills (poor decision-making and problem-solving skills in interpersonal situations) - Family risk factors:  o Crime running in family (possible explanations: exposure to the same risk factors such as poverty across both/all generations; people tending to have partners similar in personality/offending and children with two offending parents increases their risk a lot; socialisation and imitation may cause younger family members to resemble older ones; parents engaged in offending tend to live in poorer neighbourhoods, be less consistent and more authoritarian in disciplining their children; genetic predisposition; families being labelled by criminal justice system) o Large family size o Child-rearing methods (harsh/punitive, erratic/inconsistent parenting and lacking parental warmth/involvement are predictive of later delinquency) o Child abuse and neglect (possible explanations: physical abuse leading to brain injury; encourage impulsive/dissociative coping styles linked to poor school performance; affecting self-esteem; impact on family functioning/family make-up; children developing abusive behaviour through social learning; leading to low attachment and thereby low self- control) o Parental conflict and disrupted families (deprivation of attachment) - Socio-economic/peer/school and community risk factors: o Socio-economic deprivation (low socio-economic status of parents is associated with child delinquency) o Peer influences (associating with delinquent friends) (but could also be peer selection: choosing to associate with people similar to you. This would mean peers do not really influence/make one delinquent) o School influences (culture of the school) o Community influences (Chicago School, influence of residential area) - Socio-economic and community risk factors can be both addressed more individually but also in community prevention approaches - Preventions try to address various risk factors and try to reduce their impact, increase a person’s opportunities and thereby prevent offending Developmental/social/risk factor crime prevention interventions can be aimed at:  - Individuals: cognitive behavioural therapy, training programmes (anger management, consequence consideration, etc.), pre-school/school programmes for higher school attainment - Parents/family: teaching parenting skills, conflict resolution training, (trauma) therapy -> help parents to be ‘better’ parents (and decrease their OWN problems) and thereby reduce risk of their children becoming offenders - Peers and school: try to make sure people have positive peer relationships, anti- bullying programmes, how to deal with peer pressure, informing young people about dangers of substance use/truancy/drop-out -> are sometimes also implemented more through neighbourhood/churches/youth centres than through schools - Socio-economic and community: helping family with employment to alleviate poverty, housing -> BUT this can also be done on community level, to improve whole situation of the community for example through better public transport to employment -> this then indirectly alleviates risk factors for children - E.g. Perry Pre-School Project: US, disadvantaged African-American children, intellectual enrichment through pre-school and weekly home visits. Programme ran for 2 years but kept up with subjects through time: worked!!! Less crime and more ‘successful’ in life ➔ Found out by age 40 it had saved society a lot of money (costs of programme compared to costs of crime and criminal justice system, 1 dollar spent programme saved 17 dollars) Community crime prevention - Idea that there are deprived communities that have a higher concentration of crime and victims - Try to: o Improve social conditions: housing, employment, education (related to strain theory) o Social organisation/cohesion: less social exclusion and more cohesion, have opportunities (education/leisure/work) for youth (subcultural theory) - Mentoring programmes: guardianship and guidance in a relationship between two strangers, instigated by a third party which matches the mentor to the needs  of the mentee, as part of a planned intervention programme -> do not always show great success when reviewed o What can make them more successful: increasing the duration of each meeting, increased frequency of meetings, using mentoring as part of a multi-modal treatment (also using other interventions such as supplementary education/employment programmes/behaviour modification) > implemented at community level but affects individuals - ‘credible messengers’ (similar to mentoring, can be ex-offenders or just people that know the area well and know the street code), ‘street coaches’ (keep an eye on young people and help them/flag police when escalation happens) Criticisms on social crime prevention: - Risk-focused prevention: o Some risk factors (personality, genetics, intelligence) cannot really be altered o Correlation does not mean causation: might not work/be effective o Combination of risk factors: multi-modal interventions are needed/best but this is difficult/expensive o Risk-factor research is often based on large samples, while prevention techniques require change within individuals -> so research does not say much about how individuals can be changed - Community programmes are complex and difficult to implement: might address one thing but not everything - Stigma and labelling: fostering the image that certain people are bad or criminal which can increase risk of offending - Focus on lower-class crime: not white collar crime etc. - High non-completion rates: one cannot force people to complete the programme so often they do not work if people do not (fully) engage in them Expensive (although not in the long run!), while situational crime prevention is Lecture 5: police, CJS, punishment and sentences Punishment and sentences The criminal justice system - Police Aims and justifications of punishment - Consequentialist or utilitarian approaches - Retributivism The criminal justice system - Probation and non-custodial sentences - Prisons The criminal justice system Main agencies and actors (in most criminal justice systems) - Police (gather evidence, groundwork) - Public prosecutor o UK: Crown Prosecution Service o NL: Openbaar Ministerie - Courts (decides what happens to criminal) - Probation service - Prisons - Youth offending services -> age of criminal responsibility (criminal justice system is aimed towards adults, so different countries have different ways to deal with young offenders and depends on the age of criminal responsibility (the age at which one can be held responsible for their criminal actions and can be prosecuted, e.g. NL 12 y/o -> you are sent into youth services. Under that age, other services might be used) o UK: Youth Offending Team o NL: Jeugdreclassering ➔ Overseen by: Ministry of Justice Police - Responsibilities: o Prevention of crime o Maintenance of order o Detection of crime o Punishment of offender - What they do/tasks: o Deal with crime/patrol activity (ground work) o Criminal investigation (when someone goes to police/police do checks -> process of criminal investigation starts: interrogation, visit scenes, etc) ➔ These are both largely reactive police work (instigated by public) o Proactive police work/investigation: look/search for crime problems to solve, seeking it out ▪ Importance of intelligence (phone tapping, citizens) o Forensics (more and more important) ▪ Physical or biological evidence (biological has become more present and important: DNA, impression evidence, fingerprints) o Deal with ‘potential crime’: ▪ Probably the biggest part of policing ▪ Keeping minor disturbances from turning into/leading to crime ▪ Keeping the peace: patrolling, dealing with minor social disorder, responding to whatever may arise during their shift (also car accidents etc.) ▪ Proactive activities like gathering intelligence -> being active and visible!!! in the community, building relationships ▪ Police are often only 24-hour service agency available to respond to those in need (unexpected childbirths, drunks, family disputes, mental health crises) ➔ Preventing crime  ➔ (some police say they find this boring, do not see it as ‘real’ police work) - Police powers o Stop and search (stop and frisk): if police suspects a crime has taken place, they are allowed to stop and search people -> and can then seize items if there is reasonable suspicion they are relevant o Arrest: if police suspects a crime has taken place, they are allowed to take someone to the station for questioning ➔ Risk of ethnic profiling: because of police discretion of choosing who to search and arrest, this can be based on personal ideas/assumptions: these powers are often used based on individuals’ personal characteristics, mostly ethnicity o Negative consequences for police trust o Ethnic profiling is also linked to police brutality o Balance between need to control crime and protection of individual rights Models of policing - Community policing o 1970/1980s o Responding to community demands instead of being strict and tough -> deemed necessary to become more focused on local community, build relationships and deal with crime problems the community identified o Knowing what is going on in the area so that they are in close contact and can respond quickly o Collection of intelligence: works better when police has a lot of contact with community, because they have a lot of knowledge ➔ Elements still present in many police systems (e.g. NL you always see the same officers in certain areas) - Problem-oriented policing (POP) o Because of lack of efficiency in police work and lack of resources, this model evolved  o Using data: study and analysing a crime-related problem going on in an area (e.g. hotspots) and then trying to find the best way to use resources o Shift to more proactive rather than reactive police work: first research, then deal with it - Intelligence-led policing o Very new, still in development o Using intelligence (digital data, etc) to research and analyse in a structured manner problems and targets o Similar to POP because trying to research problems, but focusing on intelligence and innovations in intelligence (big data etc) - Zero-tolerance policing o Related to broken windows theory: minor acts of crime need to be dealt with harshly to prevent further criminal behaviour o Used in NYC, seen as effective because crime did go down, but at the same time crime was going down everywhere so perhaps it was not effective and research showed it could be counter-productive for community relationships (e.g. labelling, decrease of trust in police) o Not really used anymore, but among policy makers and politicians there is still sometimes a narrative/call for zero-tolerance policing Police culture - Whole field of research in criminology: norms and values in police, how officers view themselves etc., in combination with police misconduct as well - Hierarchical organisation - Traditionally a masculine, white male organisation, with little females and minorities - Characteristics o Machismo: tough, physically strong, violent, bravery > risk of police brutality o Conservatism: not open to criticism and change  o Solidarity: high solidarity between police officers (needed because dangerous work and need to trust and protect each other), which also means misconduct by officers does not come to light o Rac