Lecture 6 - March 6 2019 PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture 6 - March 6 2019 -
Professor Jordan Harel...

Description

Lecture 6 – Youth Deviance and Social Control March 6, 2019 -

Public Perceptions of youth and deviance often view youth as troubled or troubling

Perceptions vs. Reality -

Youth crime from increased from 1962 to 1990 Long term downward trend since 1990s

Adult vs. Youth Crime -

Adults carry out majority of all crime Approximately 85% of violent crime Youth are more likely to be the victims of crime.

Perception vs. Reality of Youth Crime: How do we Explain it? -

How to explain the gap between perception and reality?

Moral Panics -

Popularized by Cohen in 1973 Defines as the exaggerated and sensationalized concerns of a social phenomenon

Goode and Ben-Yehuda – 5 elements of moral panic 1. 2. 3. 4.

Heightened concern Hostility towards an offending group Consensus (to a certain level) that there is a real threat Disproportionality e.g. opening newspaper and seeing 98/100 pages are focused on a particular issue 5. Volatility – e.g. 98/100 pages 1 week with 1 page in the next week. Popular once then suddenly unpopular. - Conception sed to analyze youth cultural phenomenon - Moral panics are constructed within the media - Youth crime is:  Over represented  New problem  Linked to class/ethnicity Moral Panics are not limited to North American Society -

Research has shows their existence in:  Austria  Germany  Other European societies in late 19th century

Youth crime

-

Well researched Has theoretical and empirical theories

Theoretical -

Differential association Social control theories Status frustration

Empirical -

Influence of school, families, and peers The best predictor of youth criminal activity is peer criminal activity

Youth criminal activity -

Importance of school/family factors Positive school experience leads to a lower likelihood of engaging in criminal activity Positive experience with parents leads to a lower likelihood in criminal activity

Youth Gangs -

Are a popular theme within the media  Newspapers  Political speeches  Film  Television

The social control of youth crime and gangs -

Not easy There is no quick fix Gangs are socially controlled on multiple levels:  Formal level  Schools provide education  Interactive gang awareness programs that educate children on the danger and consequences  Goal: prevent from joining  Community agencies: can be retroactive and preventative  Retroactive: focus on existing gang memers to exit lifestyle  Various means: educational upgrading/job training/employment search assistance/no cost tattoo removal/counselling  Preventative programs – conjunction with schools, basic like skills training, social skills, organized skills  Informal level  Everyday social interaction  Includes: parenting (style, conversation), community involvement with youth (coaching, food drive)  Retroactively

 Preventatively Comprehensive Gang Model -

Strategies:  Prevention  Intervention  Suppression

Community Solution to Gang Violence (CSGV) -

-

Based in Edmonton Administration: native counselling services of Alberta 40 community organizations including Edmonton Police Service/municipal, provincial and federal government CSGV strives to:  Enhance a sense of community responsibility and commitment to address gang violence;  Promote positive youth development and develop conditions to prevent young people from becoming involved in gangs, and;  Create a community-wide plan and network of support to find solutions to gang violence. Vision statement: The Greater Edmonton area is a safe and healthy community in which our youth and other citizens, agencies, institutions and government are sufficiently informed and empowered to value and take collective and individual responsibility for maintaining a community free of gang violence.

Controlling gangs and youth crime: intertwined -

Similar approaches to prevention can help prevent youth crim, more generally: Strong parent child relationships, effective classrooms, community involvement

Formal Control in the Justice System -

Juvenile Delinquents Act (child welfare) Young Offenders Act (justice) Youth Criminal Justice Act (multifaceted)

Youth Tobacco Use -

Between 1970 and 1990 use declined Coincided with health risks being highly publicised Increased a bit in 1990s but declined since

Social control of youth smoking -

Federal Tobacco Act (Age 18) Provincial Legislation (Age 19) There has been lax enforcement for many years – more recently, stringent and higher penalties Alberta retailers: $3,000-$100,000 Health Canada: regular investigations into retail outlets in 30 cities across the country Method: 1 youth and 1 adult enter the store, youth asks for tobacco

-

Results: 85% compliance rate Tv commercials for tobacco were banned Cigarette advertising is greatly restricted Various other public bans

Case Study: Smoke Free Ontario -

Smoking: “smoking” means smoking (inhaling and exhaling) or holding lighted tobacco or cannabis (medical or recreational) Vaping: “vaping” means inhaling or exhaling vapour from an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) or holding an activated e-cigarette, whether or not the vapour contains nicotine

Youth Drug Use -

Cannabis is the most widely used substance in Canada Ontario student drug use and health survey: 12.21% of students between grade 7 and 12 have used within the past year Other illicit drugs: 5% ecstasy; mushroom/mescaline was 3% Youth are more likely to abuse prescription or over the counter medications.

Youth Alcohol Use -

Those surveyed between grades 7 to 12: under half consumed within the previous year Most have consumed Grade 12 – 70% and 1/3 engage in binge drinking Alcohol industry has been criticized for promoting favoured alcohol beverages known as ‘alcopop’

Alcopop -

Tastes like soda Fruit flavored Exceptionally popular with youth Most popular one in Smirnoff ice Advertising done through media venues for youth such as youtuber, Facebook, tv, and websites

University Students and Binge Drinking -

Binge drinking: 4-5 drinks per sitting US data: 30-40% of students engage in binge drinking

Binge Drinking -

-

Proportion was consistent since early 1990s More polarized:  Increasing in those abstaining  Increase in those frequent/high risk binge drinkers Binge drinking is not associated with alcoholism late in life

Social Control measures

-

-

North American campuses have preventative and retroactive measures Preventative:  Information on penalties and rules  Educational campaigns  Information on where to seek help Retroactive:  Written reprimands  Fines  Mandatory educational programming  Community service  Referral to treatment

Prevention Paradox -

Control efforts focus on heavy drinkers However, most harm is done by occasional drinkers More effective is population prevention approaches  Population prevention approach target university environment rather than individuals

At Risk Youth -

Permeation of sectors in society: health, social services, policing, education, industry Risk society – risk is everywhere Controlled through science of risk ‘at risk’ has replaced troubling and troubled conception However, has the potential to include all youth

Adolescence -

Socially typed: deviant time Generation gap between youth and adults G Stanley Hall – Sturm und Drang Teenager: conception of 1950’s Generation gap can then be seen as an exaggeration...