CRJS Exam #2.pdf

Unit #2 Key Terms & Concepts Adolescence-limited: Type of offender (the majority of young offenders) who does not have a childhood history of antisocial behaviour, but engages in this behaviour only in adolescence, only inconsistently, and only when it is rewarding and/or profitable to do so. Androg...

Unit #2 Key Terms & Concepts Adolescence-limited: Type of offender (the majority of young offenders) who does not have a childhood history of antisocial behaviour, but engages in this behaviour only in adolescence, only inconsistently, and only when it is rewarding and/or profitable to do so. Androgynous: Describes terms that are assumed to refer to both males and females (e.g., “gangs”). Anomie: A term coined by Emile Durkheim, referring to a state of “normlessness,” or one with no rules. Antisocial Personality: Psychological classification of people with traits of impulsivity, insensitivity to their own pain or the pain of others, and a lack of guilt or remorse. Behaviourism: A branch of psychology based on a set of behavioural principles first developed by B.F. Skinner. Care Ethic: An ethical or moral standard based on nurturing attitudes of caring for the welfare and well-being of others. Chivalry Hypothesis A belief that crime rates are lower for women and girls because people are less likely to view their behaviour as criminal. Classical School of Criminology: The school of thought that assumes people are rational, intelligent beings who exercise free will in choosing criminal behaviour. Cognitive Having to do with mental processes and how we develop knowledge about and understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Conditioned: In behaviourist theory, refers to behaviours that have been patterned to repeat or stop by a regime of rewards or punishments. Consensus Theory: In criminology, it refers to a group of theories based on a fundamental assumption that people are essentially law-abiding. Concept: A general abstract term that refers to a class or group of more specific terms (e.g., “crime” refers to any number of specific behaviour). Control Theory: Refers to a group of theories premised on an assumption that people will operate on the basis of self-interest unless constrained. Criminal Event An event involving the convergence of a motivated offender, a suitable target or targets, and the absence of controls. Criminalization: The process whereby a person or group comes to be officially and/or publicly known as a “criminal.” Critical Perspectives on Crime: Refers to the group of theories that begins with the assumption that structures of power and oppression are the source of crime (i.e., race, class, gender, and, to some extent, age structures in society). Decarceration: The practice of moving individuals from institutional settings into community facilities and programs. Deconstruction: A method of interpreting texts, movies, TV programs, and other cultural symbols and practices. Delinquent Subculture: A concept used in early criminology theory to explain youth crime. Developmental Theory: Focuses in the states of development and posits inadequate development or failure to progress to higher states in explaining criminal and delinquent behaviour. Empirical: An adjective describing knowledge that is based on observation, experience, or experiment rather than on theory or philosophy. Eugenics: A branch of science based on a belief in genetic differences between groups that result in superior and inferior strains of people. Fact: In everyday terms, a fact is usually something that is considered to be true. In a scientific sense, a fact is something that has been established through the research process. Human Ecology: A branch of behavioural science that examines the relationship between people and their physical environment. Interactional Theory: Posits that relationships between delinquent behaviour and other variables are not unidirectional, but rather are bidirectional. Life Course-persistent: Type of offender (about 5 percent of young offenders) who begins with childhood biting and hitting at around age 4, and whose behaviour escalates and continues to such adulthood offences as violent assault; spouse battery and abandonment, neglect, or abuse of children. Life Course Theory: The theory that children undergo a succession of role and status changes as they grow older. Oppression: The negative outcome experienced by people due to physical force by an oppressor or structural arrangements (e.g., laws and political policies) that remove or restrict their rights. Patriarchy: A set of structural relations that creates, reinforces, and perpetuates male dominance and control over women. Positivist: An 18th-century philosophical, theoretical, and methodological perspective positing that only that which is observable through the scientific method is knowable. Postmodernists: Those who reject or challenge all that has been considered to be modern. Power: The ability of a person or group to force others to do what they wish. Power-control Theory: Attempts to explain class and gender differences in delinquency by the structure of family relations, whether egalitarian or patriarchal. Research: A systematic process of information gathering, analysis, and reporting of findings. Role Theory: Attempts to explain behaviour by understanding the processes whereby individuals acquire and become committed to deviant roles. Semiotics: The study of signs and symbols. Social Bond: The social ties that hold people together; cause people to care about each other. Social Capital: Investments in institutional relationships such as family, work, and school. Social-Capital Theory: The theory that people possess varying degrees of useful and valuable social resources (e.g., supportive family and neighbours and an education for good grades in school). Social-Learning Theory: Attempts to explain crime and delinquency through notions of imitation and modeling. Social Order: Refers to assumptions about society as being free of disorder. Theory: An integrated set of propositions that offers explanations for some phenomenon. Study Questions: Describe positivism and provide a general description of empirical relationships, with particular attention paid to causal relationships and the post-modern critique. Positivism: Auguste Comte (1798–1857), the founding father of sociology, was among the first to argue that society could best be understood by applying the scientific method to its study. In other words, they assumed that human behaviour is determined by natural laws, and they believed that their task, as scientists, was to discover these laws. What differentiates such positivist thinkers from other scientific thinkers is the assumption that behaviour is determined by some factor or factors beyond the control of the individual. Casual Relationships: Three conditions have to be met before causality can be established. First, it has to be established that there is a relationship between concepts both within and among the propositions that constitute a theory. Second, a time priority has to be established between these concepts. In other words, the cause has to come before the effect. If we take as an example the proposition that seeing a criminal act on television caused that act to be repeated, we would have to establish (1) that there was a relationship between seeing a crime on television and committing a crime and (2) that the “seeing” preceded the “committing.” Most often, statistical tools such as a chi-square test or correlation are used to establish a relationship. A third criterion for determining causality concerns “spuriousness.” This refers to whether we can be certain that there is no other “causal” factor related to both watching television and committing a crime. A possible third factor in such a case might be boredom or having a lot of free time. Postmodern critique: Postmodernists, those who reject or challenge all that has been considered to be modern—Western theory, art, philosophy, and knowledge developed in the 19th and 20th centuries—would take the position that even scientific knowledge, including academic theory, has no more claim to “truth” than taken-for-granted understandings. Identify the key differences between major disciplinary explanations of youth crime and delinquency, with emphasis on biological, conflict, psychological, and sociological explanations. Biological Positivism: a theory or approach that takes an individual's characteristics and behavior that make up their genetic disposition is what causes them to be criminals. Biological positivism in theory states that individuals are born criminals and some are not. - Types of People: Delinquents were believed to be people who could change their ways if they received the right sort of guidance. Defectives were believed to have limited abilities and in some cases to be “feebleminded,” and thus were not held responsible for what they did. Dependants were seen as people (not unlike children) whose well-being depended on the assistance of others. The categories were not just reserved for juveniles—adults could be delinquents also. Hence, at the time, it was necessary to differentiate “juvenile” delinquents from other delinquents. “Types of people” views grew in popularity at the turn of the century and were bolstered by eugenics studies like those of Dugdale and Goddard. People who were considered to be defective, inferior, or feebleminded were sterilized to prevent them from having children - The Born Criminal: As a prison doctor, Lombroso had cause to examine hundreds of prisoners. On the basis of these examinations, he argued that criminals and non-criminals were at different stages of evolutionary development. The physical features of convicted criminals constituted the “evidence” for Lombroso’s theory that some people were quite simply born criminals. Delinquents were believed to be people who could change their ways if they received the right sort of guidance. Defectives were believed to have limited abilities and in some cases to be “feebleminded,” and thus were not held responsible for what they did. Dependants were seen as people (not unlike children) whose well-being depended on the assistance of others. The categories were not just reserved for juveniles—adults could be delinquents also. Hence, at the time, it was necessary to differentiate “juvenile” delinquents from other delinquents. Conflict: Psychological Positivism: Psychological theories did not develop until the 20th century. Essentially, these theories focus on the development of antisocial characteristics to explain criminal and delinquent behaviour. Unlike biological theories, some of the psychological theories stress environmental impacts on the formation of antisocial characteristics. There are six groups of psychological theories on criminal and delinquent behaviour: psychoanalytic theories stemming from the work of Freud, behaviouristic explanations (B.F. Skinner), social learning theory (Albert Bandura), moral development theory (Jean Piaget), personality theory, and antisocial personality theory. Sociological Positivism: While biology and psychology offer some explanations for crime and delinquency, sociology is responsible for most of the theorizing and research in this area. Sociology did not develop as a discipline in its own right until the latter part of the 1800s. However, their main concern was to discover what it is about the environment that affects an individual’s behaviour. In addition, sociologists were among the first to develop explanations of delinquency and not just criminal behaviour. Because of its focus on the environment, sociological theory has had a considerable influence on social policy, delinquency-prevention projects, and the manner in which young offenders are processed through the justice system. Psychology, with its focus on the individual, has had more impact on how we work with young people once they have been convicted or apprehended by the police. Understand important perspectives and theories of youth crime and delinquency prior to 1960 Behaviourism: is one of the most widely used explanations of crime and delinquency. Quite simply, it suggests that people break the law because they can do so and not be punished. This idea is reminiscent of the classical school notion that punishment must fit the crime if crime is to be stopped. Behaviourists have attempted to explain how people learn to behave in particular ways. Whereas psychoanalytic and biological perspectives argue that behaviour is driven by forces within the individual, the behaviourist argues that a person’s environment shapes or conditions her or his behaviour. Social disorganization describes a condition in which: Controls that would prevent delinquency are absent; Parents and neighbours may actually approve of certain delinquent behaviours; Opportunities for delinquency are numerous; and There is little opportunity for or encouragement toward employment (cited in Bohm, 1997, p. 74). Anomie: Closely related to social disorganization is anomie, a concept that was first formulated by Durkheim. Anomie refers to a state of “normlessness” in which rules and regulations are no longer sufficient to control social behaviour. Strain theory (Robert Merton (1938): Assumes that children are basically good and engage in delinquent activity only when faced with undue pressure or stress. Thus, conformity is the normal state of affairs; what needs explaining is why people would deviate or why children would be delinquent. Differential Opportunity: Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin also saw delinquency as a lower-class urban behaviour; developed what is termed differential opportunity theory to explain delinquent behaviour. Cloward and Ohlin recognized that some youth have access to “illegitimate” opportunity structures. If young people are denied access to legitimate opportunity structures or are unable to achieve success in legitimate ways, they will try to gain access to illegitimate opportunity structures. The extent to which illegitimate opportunity structures are available will depend on the neighbourhoods in which young people live. The Delinquent Subculture: Albert Cohen’s study of lower-class youth (1955) was chiefly concerned with gang delinquency. Cohen modified Merton’s anomie theory, added a psychological dimension, and argued that delinquent behaviour is a “reaction formation” to the frustration of being a lower-class youth in a middle-class world. In this regard, delinquent behaviour is a group activity that offers a solution for lower-class youth. The delinquent subculture (gang) is a group solution to the frustration of being unable to achieve middle-class goals. Differential Association: Edwin Sutherland added a new dimension to the issue of delinquency through his theory of differential association. According to Sutherland (1939), delinquent behaviour is learned behaviour, or behaviour that is learned by interacting with others who are delinquent. What is learned are the techniques, motivations, attitudes, and definitions that permit people to break the law. Sutherland took issue with Shaw and McKay’s notion of disorganized communities by pointing out that these communities are not necessarily disorganized, but rather are organized in a manner not evident in mainstream communities. Sutherland presented his theory of differential association through a series of principles. Of the nine principles, two are of particular significance: 1. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law. 2. While criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, as non-criminal behaviour is an expression of the same needs and values. (Sutherland & Cressey, 1974, pp. 75–77) Drift and Delinquency: An extension of Sutherland’s principle that criminal and non-criminal behaviours are expressions of the same needs and values is found in David Matza’s theory of drift and delinquency. Like Sutherland, Matza (1964) argued that delinquents are not much different from non-delinquents in terms of their values; hence, they are not firmly committed to delinquent behaviour. Unlike Sutherland, however, Matza argued that delinquent behaviour is situational rather than learned; in other words, it is particular situations and circumstances that lead to delinquent behaviour. Techniques of Neutralization: Sykes and Matza (1957) suggest that there are five defence mechanisms, or “techniques of neutralization,” that young people use to rationalize, justify, or excuse the negative aspects of their delinquent behaviour. Denial of responsibility occurs when young people refuse to accept any responsibility for their behaviour and blame others instead. Roger Caron (1978), a Canadian who spent most of his adult years in federal prisons, uses this neutralization technique when he says that one of the robberies he committed was motivated by his father’s inability to make a mortgage payment; in committing the crime, he was “helping” his father. Class Culture: Walter Miller focused on cultural factors as he tried to identify characteristics of lower-class life that gave rise to delinquent behaviour. According to Miller (1958), the problems experienced by lower-class youth begin with the family structure—primarily a female-headed household. This arrangement forces boys to join all-male peer groups, or “one-sex peer units” (p. 14). It is within these peer groups that boys learn the characteristics, or “focal concerns,” of lower-class culture that generate delinquent behaviour. The Social Bond: Young people with attachments to parents, schools, and other agents of socialization are less likely than those without such attachments to become delinquent. Unlike Cohen and Miller, Hirschi argued that attachment to peers is a deterrent to delinquent behaviour; delinquents, he believed, tend to be socially isolated. Identify and explain criminological theories of youth crime and delinquency after 1960, including: labelling theory; liberal and radical traditions of conflict theory; critical perspectives; and integrative, interactional, life-course, and developmental criminology. LABELLING THEORY: Play and Delinquency: For Tannenbaum, the best adult response to delinquent behaviour is to do nothing. In his view, it is the conflict that develops between a child’s play group and the community that turns play into delinquent or criminal behaviour. More specifically, adults in the community become annoyed or angered by what children are doing and respond by trying to control or stop the activity. If children begin to resent adult interference and start to act in a defiant manner, adults will define them as bad. Being so defined will isolate these children from the community and from other children. In their isolated state, they will come to accept themselves as different and be encouraged to engage in more delinquent behaviour. This process, in which “the person becomes the thing he is described as being” (Tannenbaum, 1938, p. 21), was later elaborated on by Edwin M. Lemert (1951, 1967) and Howard Becker (1963). Secondary Deviance: Lemert (1951) argued that there are two types of deviance: primary and secondary. Primary deviance is the initial act. Anyone is potentially a “primary” deviant if he or she does things that would likely be considered deviant if they were known about by others. Secondary deviance refers to all of the behaviours that a person develops as a result of societal responses to her or his primary deviance. In other words, once discovered, a person may find it very difficult to behave or be seen as anything other than deviant precisely because his or her deviance is known to others. Hence, it becomes increasingly difficult for a secondary deviant not to be viewed as deviant in the eyes of the community. The person may begin to develop a self-concept as a deviant and act accordingly. The transition from primary to secondary deviance involves a lengthy interactive process between the person and societal reactions to both the person and her or his behaviour. Societal Response: Becker (1963) began his work with the intriguing notion that acts are not deviant until they are so defined. According to Becker, deviance is not inherent in an act, but rather is created by our responses to the act. Becker also considered the process whereby people become delinquent. Like Lemert, he maintained that this process begins with attaching a label to a person in response to his or her behaviour. Once attached, the label is generalized to attach to everything that the person does. In other words, deviance is a “master status,” meaning that no matter what her or his other qualities are, a person who has been labelled will be seen and responded to as a deviant. For example, before their crimes are discovered, serial killers are often described by their neighbours as “nice people.” Subsequent to the discovery, the same neighbours will begin to view and respond to the person as a “serial killer.” Edwin Schur (1973) called this aspect of the labelling process “retrospective interpretation.” Once a person’s deviance is discovered, we reinterpret all of his or her past actions in light of the new information. CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY AND CONFLICT THEORY In the 1960s and 1970s, what is now viewed as a critical perspective, or critical criminology, was thought of as conflict theory. Like labelling theory, conflict theory focused on questions concerning the creation and application of crime and deviance rules. In conflict theory, however, the emphasis is on law rather than on labels. In contrast to theories that assume social order is based on social consensus, conflict theories begin with the assumption that conflict is the natural state of affairs in society and that order is possible only because one group has the power to impose its view, interests, values, or culture on another. According to conflict theory, power is an important component in society, and one that must be considered in any attempt to explain criminal or delinquent behaviour. This perspective leads to a focus on laws, law-making, the administration of law, and the impact of law on various groups of people, most often the marginalized. Some conflict theories have been influenced by Max Weber (liberal conflict theory), while others draw on the ideas of Karl Marx (radical conflict theory). Liberal Conflict Theory: Thorsten Sellin (1938) referred to the rules governing a cultural group as “conduct norms.” He argued that because each culture has its own set of conduct norms, heterogeneous societies, which have more than one culture, will have more group conflict than homogeneous, or single-culture, societies. According to Sellin, heterogeneous communities, such as urban core areas of cities, will have higher rates of delinquency than will more homogeneous suburban communities. The dominant cultural group in a heterogeneous community will be the group with the most power and resources. When the normative behaviour of one group violates the normative behaviour of a group that has the power and resources to codify its conduct norms into law, the result is criminalization of the weaker group. Sometimes, groups of people such as Black youth or street youth become criminalized through media coverage of crime issues and all individuals from these groups are perceived to be “criminal suspects.” Two theories within the liberal conflict tradition more typical of a critical perspective were developed by Austin Turk and George Vold. Turk (1969) argued that value conflicts that are perceived as threatening to those in authority will lead to less powerful groups being identified as criminal or delinquent. Hence, juvenile “gangs” who openly appear in conflict with police will have their behaviour defined as criminal or delinquent. Radical Conflict Theory: Although Marx and Engels wrote very little about crime, and even less about delinquency, their work forms the theoretical basis of radical conflict theory. According to radical conflict theory, capitalism is the root cause of crime. Capitalist society is composed of two major classes: the bourgeoisie, who control the means of production, and the proletariat, who sell their labour to the bourgeoisie. In capitalist society, conflict is inherent between the two major classes, and the criminal justice system is but one means used by the bourgeoisie to control the proletariat. One of the first contemporary theorists to apply Marxist ideas to an explanation of delinquent behaviour was David Greenberg. Greenberg (1977) argues that young people are at greater risk of being involved in criminal activities because the age structure of capitalist society forces them into economic dependency. Particularly at risk are working-class youth who are excluded from all but the most degrading and low-paying jobs. As a result of their economic dependency, young people are particularly likely to commit property crime. Herman and Julia Schwendinger (1979), who also see delinquency as a product of capitalist society, argue that delinquency is created by a drive for the profit on which capitalism depends. Profits are increased through technology or the introduction of machinery. Because young people are the least skilled or experienced workers, they are more likely than older workers to be displaced by new technology or machinery. Once out of the labour force, young people become increasingly dependent on school and family; they become prototypic marginals. Those young people who are not supported by their families or who are unable to adapt to school life are at particular risk of becoming involved in delinquent behaviour. SOCIAL CONTROL AND SOCIAL LEARNING Self-Derogation Theory: Howard Kaplan was one of the first to develop an integrated theory using a number of theories and perspectives. His self-derogation theory focuses on self-esteem and combines elements of social-learning theory, control theory, strain theory, and labelling theory. Kaplan (1975) argued that we are all motivated to maximize our self-esteem and that our motivation to conform will be minimized by family, school, and peer interactions that devalue our sense of self. If these interactions are self-defacing, then the social control usually exercised in these groups will be ineffective. To the extent that a young person becomes aware of delinquent activities and feels that this behaviour will be self-enhancing, he or she will be attracted to delinquent groups. Involvement in delinquency will continue as long as the deviant group continues to meet the individual’s need for positive self-evaluation. Integrated Theory: Delbert Elliott and his associates David Huizinga and Suzanne Ageton (1985) developed a theory that integrates strain theory (anomie and social disorganization), social bonding, and social-learning theory. Simply put, their theory argues that anomie, combined with social disorganization and inadequate socialization, sets the stage for weak bonds with social institutions. These weak institutional bonds lead to stronger bonds and greater associations with delinquent peer groups within which the learning of delinquent behaviour is enhanced. Interactional Theory: Terrence Thornberry (1987) and Thornberry, Lizotte, Krohm, Farnworth, and Jang (1991) also integrate social bonding and social-learning theory. However, they incorporate aspects of social structure in their interactional theory by arguing that social class, race, and community and neighbourhood characteristics affect the social bond and social learning variables. While weakened bonds are the key to delinquent behaviour, the bonds themselves are not enough to produce or prevent delinquency. Rather, delinquency has to be learned and reinforced. Thornberry et al. (1991) refer to their model as “interactional theory” and maintain that it differs from other integrated models in three ways: First, it does not assume, as many control-based theories do, that variation in the strength of the bond just happens. This variation is systematically related to structural variables such as social class position and residential area. Second, it does not assume that causal models are stable over the life course. Causal influences vary at different developmental stages and at different stages of criminal careers (i.e., at initiation, maintenance, and termination). Third, it does not assume that causal influences are overwhelmingly unidirectional and that delinquency is merely an outcome variable. Many effects are bidirectional, and delinquency may contribute to the weakening of social bonds as well as being a consequence of weakened social bonds. Theory of Differential Oppression: The theory of differential oppression, developed by Robert Regoli and John Hewitt (1994), integrates strain theory, social control theory, and liberal conflict theory. Instead of viewing social control as always being a positive force, Regoli and Hewitt view some aspects of social control as oppressive. They define oppression as the unjust use or misuse of authority, which “often results from attempts by one group to impose its conception of order on another group” (p. 206). People who are subject to oppressive measures of control are made into “objects” or are viewed as “things.” As a result, they come to view themselves as objects rather than subjects; they become passive and accepting rather than active subjects who exercise autonomy and control over their own lives. Lifecourse Theory: Lifecourse theory posits that children undergo a succession of role and status changes as they grow older. Applied to crime, the theory takes a contextual approach. It looks at criminal behaviour in the context of the course of life, which is characterized by transitions (short-term changes) and pathways, or trajectories (long-term trends or patterns). Social-Capital Theory: Lifecourse theory connects family, friends, and school to youth crime by integrating aspects of social-capital theory (Coleman, 1990; Elder, 1985). Social capital refers to investments in institutional relationships, such as family, work, and school. “Social capital is productive, making possible the achievements of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible” (Coleman, 1988, p. 98). Hence, Sampson and Laub (1993) argue that weak social bonds mean a lack of social capital and that explaining crime involves identifying the characteristics of social relations that facilitate or impede the development or accumulation of social capital. Developmental Criminology: A term coined by Loeber and Le Blanc (1990), is a branch of criminological work developed in the late 1980s by those groups of researchers who were formulating the integrated theories of crime and delinquency, including Thornberry, Elliott, Huizinga, and Menard (1989) and Hawkins and Weis (1985). This perspective borrows the concepts of trajectories, or pathways, to delinquency from lifecourse theory and basically seeks to explain offender careers and how they develop in relation to age. One of the first such models, a typology, came from the work of Moffitt (1993), based on the observation that antisocial behaviour changes across the lifecourse as age and circumstances alter opportunities for such behaviour. Lifecourse Persistent & Adolescent-Limited: Moffitt identified two main groups of offenders in childhood and adolescence: lifecourse-persistent and adolescence-limited. As the term implies, the lifecourse-persistent offender, representing only about 5 percent of young offenders, begins with childhood biting and hitting at around age 4, and his or her behaviour escalates and continues to such adulthood offences as violent assault; spouse battery; and abandonment, neglect, or abuse of children. The adolescence-limited offender, constituting the majority of young offenders, does not have a childhood history of antisocial behaviour; she or he engages in this behaviour only in adolescence, only inconsistently, and only when it is rewarding and/or profitable to do so.