Social Environmental Theories of Crime PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes (essentially a summary) on the social and environmental theories of crime. Consists of six theories - Learning Theory, Strain Theory, Control Theory, Labelling Theory, Rational Choice Perspective and Routine Activities Theory...

Description

Learning theory- Formulated by Sutherland (1947) - Posits that criminal behaviour, like any other behaviour, is learned - It is learned through social interaction and communication - Learned within intimate personal groups rather than through the media - What is learned includes crime techniques, as well as criminal motives, drives, rationalisations and attitudes - Postulates that one commits criminal acts because the person’s definitions of the law as something to violate are in excess of , and more favourable, than the person’s definitions of the law as something to obey. - These varying definitions arise from “differential association” with situations in which the definitions are learned. - Differential associations vary in frequency, duration, historical priority and intensity/emotional impact - Learning by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves mechanisms entailed in any other learning, not just imitation alone - Criminal behaviour is not explained by general needs, as the same needs and values underlie non-criminal behaviour as well -

-

One unique aspect of this theory is that the theory purports to explain more than just juvenile delinquency and crime committed by lower class individuals. Since crime is understood to be learned behaviour, the theory is also applicable to white-collar, corporate, and organized crime. Critique-This theory does not take into account personality traits that might affect a person's susceptibility to these environmental influences. Critique- this theory is limited to the description of the learning process and does not situate this process within a larger social structural context.

Strain theory- Merton (1938) - Attempts to address some of the contextual shortcomings of the learning theory - Theory posits that there is a social structural disjoint between social desirable goals (eg, material success) and the means for achieving these goals - This disjoint between goals and means produces a social-psychological strain on the individual, - More potent in lower classes- because the legitimate opportunities they have to achieve success are more restricted - There, the individual is forced to escape the strain through various adaptations. Merton specified 5 adaptations: conformity, ritualist, innovator, retreatist, rebel. - Conformity: pursuing cultural goals through socially approved means. - Innovation: using socially unapproved or unconventional means to obtain culturally approved goals. Example: dealing drugs or stealing to achieve financial security. - Ritualism: using the same socially approved means to achieve less elusive goals (more modest and humble) (they work because its the right thing to do but they have no aspirations) - Retreatism: to reject both the cultural goals and the means to obtain it, then find a way to escape it. - Rebellion: to reject the cultural goals and means, then work to replace them. - most radical alternative.eg, Hippies -

-

-

Does not account for criminal activity which does not involve financial gain It overemphasizes the role of social class in crime and deviance (Brym and Lie, 2007). Strain theory applies best to lower classes as they struggle most with the lack of resources to reconcile their goals. However, if we examine the wide spectrum of deviant and criminal acts, strain theory account inadequately for crimes beyond the narrow scope of street crimes; crimes considered as white-collar crimes are more rampant among the middle and upper-classes who suffice materially. This theory provides a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between macro social structure and deviance and crime. However, it neglects the interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of criminality. Another theory created from this theory is - illegitimate opportunities theory- states that crime occurs due to the high availability of illegitimate opportunities, not a lack of legitimate ones- explains juvenile crime.

Control theory- strain theory assumes people to be naturally conforming unless forced into deviance, however control theories assume that conformity to a "conventional order" requires explanation - Focuses on the factors that insulate individuals from delinquency instead of those factors which propel individuals towards delinquency (internalised norms and the controlling influence and authority of social institutions such as family, school, neighbourhood) - In this way, it looks at crime as an inherently individual act, and stresses the importance of focusing on the characteristics of individuals who commit crimes. - Most influential control theory: Hirschi (1969)- social control theory: posits that conformity depends on the strength of the bond between the individual and society. Deviance results when this bond is weak or broken. - Elements of this bond: - a) attachment to others in the form of conscience, internalised norms and caring about what others think - b) commitment to conventional goals - c) involvement in conventional pursuits incompatible with delinquent activities - d) belief in the moral validity of conventional values - The central argument of this theory is that- when the bonds between juveniles and conventional order are severed, they are freed to commit criminal/delinquent acts. -

Critique: doesn’t specify how bonds develop or break

Labelling Theory- Views deviance as a process of interaction between those who violate the norms and those who impose social control. - In this theory, there are some people who impose the definitions of morality upon others. They represent the law & order. And these people do most of the labelling. - Thus, labeling represents a form of social control. - So, when one of these moral forces labels a person as ‘deviant,’ they get stigmatisedwhich may push people further into criminal behaviour. - There are two types of deviance: - 1. Primary deviance: an act which is the catalyst for a label to be given to an individual - it may not have violated social norms but it resulted in some form of social control. Eg, skipping school or work or something minor like that. - 2. Secondary deviance: when an individual is labeled deviant, regardless of the extent or even existence of past deviance, actually fulfills his new label and displays deviant behaviour. In other words, it acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy: by consistently calling someone ‘deviant’ they would begin to think that they are actually deviant and would start acting deviant - thus , this theory believes that acts are not intrinsically deviant, rather deviance is socially constructed. - Further, it focuses on the tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from standard cultural norms. -

Critique of the theory: it assumes offenders are just passive, doesn’t recognise the role of personal choice in committing crime; gives criminals a ‘victim’ status; doesn’t explain why acts of primary deviance exist

The Rational Choice Perspective-

-

-

One of the oldest perspectives of criminal behaviour This viewpoint holds that individuals are reasonable actors who weigh means and ends, costs and benefits, and make a rational choice. In other words, crime is a purposive behaviour designed to meet the offender’s needs for things such as money/status/sex/excitement, and meeting these needs sometimes involves making decisions and choices which may not be strictly lawful in an objective sense. Rules out biological/psychological/environmental factors that might compel a person to commit a crime Central to this theory is that the offender sees himself as an individual rather than as part of something bigger. Therefore, he/she thinks about themselves and their personal gain rather than considering the impact of their acts on other people. While this theory acknowledges that people weigh the costs and benefits, it does not assume that their evaluations are entirely rational. Based on their personal history, they may have a distorted view of the consequences and benefits of crime.

Routine Activities Theory-

-

-

-

Cohen & Felson (1979) Has three parts: capable guardian, a target, a motivated offender Motivated offenders are individuals who are not only capable of committing criminal activity, but are willing to do so. Suitable targets can be a person or object that are seen by offenders as vulnerable or particularly attractive. Guardianship can be a person or an object that is effective in deterring offense to occur. Basically what happens is that- when a motivated offender comes to take the target (could be a child in a kidnapping case, could be a TV in a robbery case), the capable guardian (eg, parents, police, or even floodlights/alarms) comes and stops the offender and protects the target. A lot of motivated offenders are opportunistic (eg, a thief seeing a wallet lying unattended and he steals it). Does not consider social causes of crime eg, poverty/inequality, instead, it is based on the assumption that crime can be committed by anyone who has the opportunity. Felson and Cohen (1980) postulate that criminal activities are a “structurally significant phenomenon,” meaning that violations are neither random nor trivial events. In consequence, it is the routine of activities people partake in over the course of their day and night lives that makes some individuals more susceptible to being viewed as suitable targets by a rationally calculating offender. Also implies that victims are given choices on whether to be victims mainly by not placing themselves in situations where a crime can be committed against them.

Social Class and Criminal Behaviour: A Critique of the Theoretical Foundation: Charles Tittle - Can use this paper as a critique of all theories (a general critique, not a very specific one) - A pervasive theme in sociology and criminology is the link between criminal behaviour and an individual’s position in the social structure (Schafer). Although the form of this association varies, the most frequently hypothesised relationship is negative, i.e. there is higher crime in the lower socio-economic strata of society. - This belief is so entrenched that evidence to the contrary is viewed with suspicion and disbelief. - All theories discussed above imply a negative association between socioeconomic status and the probability of criminal behaviour. None of these theories explicitly state this, but with an addition of external preconceived notions and assumptions, they imply this relationship. - Summary: basically, there’s an idea out there that criminal behaviour is linked to an individual’s position in the social structure. This belief doesn’t have too much actual theoretical basis, however, it is still prevalent....