▪ So this week!
▪ First let’s continue with some content from last week…
▪ Then we will consider other ‘criminal domains’ – why do some
places host certain types of crime? How can we use theories to
account for this?
▪ What types of crimes happen at work and why? What about
crime itself as a kind of work?
Not all
households are
equally as likely
to be victimized:
▪ Rural versus
urban areas
Burglars must consider three
important factors in the
decision to commit break and
enter: Risk, Ease and Reward.
Professional offenders: burglars with considerable
technical competence who are connected to a network of
thieves, tipsters and fences. Understand their offending in
occupational terms. Extensive careers; high social status.
Crimes involve rational cost-benefit analysis
▪ Socio-economic
standing
Occasional Offenders: commit crimes when opportunities present
▪ House structure themselves. May not conceive of selves as ‘criminals’. Rationalize
offences to convince themselves that they weren’t really criminal acts.
Do not make moves toward acquiring further skills or knowledge of
▪ Time of day
crime. Examples: auto theft, cheque forgery, shoplifting, employee
theft, vandalism. Professional and occasional offenders differ with
respect to how they commit crimes such as break and enter and
automobile theft.
Vast majority will not purposely enter an occupied
residence (93% according to Cromwell, Olsen and Avery) –
determining occupancy is a very important precursor to
burglary. So, how do prospective burglars make decisions
about which house to target?
▪ Snook and Dhami (2011) sampled 40 incarcerated burglars –
showed photos of residences and asked questions about
their decision-making strategies.
▪ Results: Looked for a vehicle to determine occupancy – and
this was a strong predictor as to whether anyone was home.
Whether there was a vehicle was second most important to
whether there was a visible security system.
▪ What does this mean? RISK is the most important factor, not
reward.
Other strategies:
• More likely to break in during the
weekdays
• Weekend occupancy is high in the
daylight and the darkness
• Occupancy is high during the dark in the
week – dark provides cover if detected
• SO, to minimize risk burglars are more
likely to work during the daylight hours
during the week.
• Target properties with better cover –
townhouses more popular after dark
because of sparse cover
How might Routine Activities Theory help us to understand burglar’s decision making process?
Pre-Social Media Era Research:
Cromwell, Olson and Avary’s (1991) research with burglars suggests
that they use imaginative methods to determine occupancy:
▪ if working as part of a team, the most “presentable” burglar
knocks on the door; if someone is home, he or she asks for
directions
▪ Ringing the doorbell – if someone is home, claim the car broke
down and ask to use the phone.
▪ Calling from a nearby phone – if you can hear it ringing inside,
likely no one is home
▪ Targeting a house next to one that is for sale – posing as a buyer,
the burglar can examine the household from the vantage of the
sale property
How has social media affected
occupancy probes?
Do you think people think
carefully about what they post
on social media?
How much information about
access to our homes is on
facebook??
Routine Activities Theory
Absence of
Capable Guardians
(e.g. police, home
owners)
Suitable
Targets
(e.g. unlocked
car or house)
Motivated
Offenders
(e.g. young
males,
unemployed)
Rational Choice Theories:
• Burglars tend to make decisions about which houses to
target in much the same way that people make
decisions about legal activities.
• Burglaries are calculated – and people will select
targets based on a cost-benefit analysis that has
worked for them in the past.
• They stick to places that they have targeted in the past
– and when new locations are chosen, they tend to be
near a previous one.
• This pattern is similar to how we choose where to
eat, where to shop and where to work.
Leisure: Free time after work, family and other obligations that can be
used for play or recreation.
▪ Unequally distributed – some people have much more leisure time than
others!
▪ Attractive topic to opportunity theorists – what types of things do we do
with our leisure time, and how does it create criminal opportunities?
What does leisure have to do with the way in which particular people
become involved in particular types of crimes?
▪ 1) Leisure as Corrupter: there are many claims – especially in media –
that youth leisure products are corrupting, that violent video games are
to blame for violence, et cetera. Who benefits from these claims? Why is
this such a popular way of explaining crime?
▪ 2) Leisure facilitates encounters between victims and offenders: How do
our lifestyles bring us into contact with different types of criminal and
criminal victimization opportunities?
Two mechanisms are very
important here: Exposure
and Opportunity (recall
Lifestyle theories)
Concern over the
leisure activities of
youth and the leisure
products that they
consume has a long
history…
…every major form of youth leisure
activity has been claimed by interest
groups to be a corruptor of young
people… Can you think of some
contemporary examples? Facebook,
TikTok, Instagram???
• Justifications:
accept
responsibility for
the act but deny
that it is wrong.
Techniques of
Neutralization:
• Denial of
Responsibility
• Denial of Injury
• Sykes and Matza
(1957) applied
‘techniques of
neutralization’ to
the study of
delinquency.
• Denial of the
Victim
• Condemnation of
the Condemners
• Appeal to Higher
Loyalties
It’s only stealing a little a lot… (Shigihara 2013)
Methods: 44 interviews with restaurant workers to determine
use of language to justify theft.
Results: Found that accounts were organized around several
themes:
• Opportunistic: easy to steal
• Economic: stealing out of need; compensating for income
• Merit: working hard justifies compensation
• Symbiotic: steal because of demands of social groups
‘hooking up free drinks for friends’
• Minimizing:
• Denial of Excess
• No One Cares
“permissive environs”: these
are social settings such as
bars and parties where
individuals feel free of many
of the constraints that
operate in other settings such
as school and work.
‘Somebody’s Gonna Get Their Head Kicked In Tonight!’ Aggression
among young men in bars – a question of values? (Graham and
Wells 2003)
Research investigates the causes of male to male violence in bar
environments.
Methods: semi-structured interviews with men aged 20-24
Results: alcohol encouraged risk taking, aggression, and made
participants less aware of risks; honor, saving face, group loyalty,
fighting for fun were the main motivations for barroom
aggression/violence. There is an acceptance – even an endorsement –
of violence in bar environments.
Cohen & Felson’s Routine
Activities Theory: They argued
that we need to consider not
only offender motivation, but
also criminal opportunities ( a
suitable target and absence of
capable guardianship)
• How does this theory help
us to explain barroom
behaviour?
Drinking Patterns, social interaction and
barroom behavior (Fox & Sobol 2000)
Absence of Capable
Guardians
(e.g. police, home
owners)
Suitable Targets
(e.g. unlocked
car or house)
Motivated
Offenders
(e.g. young
males,
unemployed)
Methods: compared two bars; participant
observation; interviews with bartenders.
Findings: the bar scene puts victims and
offenders in close proximity without
protective measures.
Making Bars Safer
Do bars have to be dangerous places? According to the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
several steps can be taken to increase the level of security around bars and taverns:
1. Train bar staff to handle intoxicated patrons in a nonviolent manner.
2. Establish adequate transportation.
3. Relax or stagger bar closing times.
4. Control bar entrances, exits and immediate surroundings.
5. Maintain an attractive, entertaining, comfortable setting.
6. Establish and enforce clear rules of conduct.
7. Reduce the instance of weapons.
8. Ban known troublemakers.
Source from
Sacco &
Kennedy – The
Criminal Event
▪ Streets
▪ Male dominated domain
▪ “Broken Windows Theories”
▪ Bars
▪ Do bars have to be dangerous places?
▪ Box 9.3 Making Bars Safer
▪ Dating
▪ Tourism
Some questions questions:
“workplace crime”: criminal events that emerge out of relations formed
by labour force participation.
▪ This includes both legitimate and illegitimate economies.
• How are patterns of
victimization associated
with patterns of
employment?
Victimization Risks and Occupations
• In what ways is crime an
occupational activity?
▪ Difficult to accurately estimate particularly for illegal and semi-legal
occupations
▪ Some research suggests that victimization is higher for military
personnel, probation officers, police officers, welfare workers, bar staff,
and other occupations that involve frequent contact with high risk
populations
• How do people account
for workplace crimes?
How do workplace
characteristics relate to
workplace danger?
▪ Routine face to face contact
with large numbers of
people
▪ Cash
▪ Overnight travel between
worksites
▪ Delivery of passengers/goods
▪ Alcohol
• Justifications:
accept
responsibility for
the act but deny
that it is wrong.
Techniques of
Neutralization:
• Denial of
Responsibility
• Denial of Injury
• Sykes and Matza
(1957) applied
‘techniques of
neutralization’ to
the study of
delinquency.
• Denial of the
Victim
• Condemnation of
the Condemners
• Appeal to Higher
Loyalties
It’s only stealing a little a lot… (Shigihara 2013)
Methods: 44 interviews with restaurant workers to determine
use of language to justify theft.
Results: Found that accounts were organized around several
themes:
• Opportunistic: easy to steal
• Economic: stealing out of need; compensating for income
• Merit: working hard justifies compensation
• Symbiotic: steal because of demands of social groups
‘hooking up free drinks for friends’
• Minimizing:
• Denial of Excess
• No One Cares
“organized crime”: long-term highly organized
crime syndicates that are involved in a number of
criminal businesses.
• May be better understood as a process
rather than a structure or group as it is a
way of committing crimes rather than a
type of crime
• Ex. Tobacco smuggling
Is the Internet changing the way that we think
about organized crime?
What kinds of opportunities for organized
crime are created by new technologies?
http://www.ted.com/talks/misha_glenny_hir
e_the_hackers.html
In the 1970/80s a series of books were published – Crimes of the Powerful (Pearce 1976); Wayward
Capitalists (Shapiro 1984); The Criminal Elite (Coleman 1985) among others;
▪ These books had three core themes:
▪ Illustrating the hypocrisy of the criminal justice system - equal justice is a sham.
▪ Crimes of powerful outweigh crime of poor
▪ Need to subject elites to criminal sanction
▪ Criminologists were refreshed in the 1970s – these ideas became popular within a particular social
context: 1) the social rights movement made calls for equal justice and unmasked structures of
inequality; and 2) consumer and environmental movements – ford pinto, price inflation, unsafe products,
false claims – received news coverage and started to hold a place in public consciousness.
Example: Ford Pinto
Due to a critical design
flaw, the Ford Pinto was
highly likely to explode on
impact. Executives knew this,
but decided not to fix the
Flaw because it was cheaper
to pay for lawsuits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVq0qCpcCoA
Differential Association is a general theory that explains white collar crime (all crimes are learned
behaviour)
▪ Critiqued other theories for focusing on individual traits – pointed out class bias;
▪ Wanted to debunk the stereotype of criminals as exclusively poor – argued that while collar
criminals are no different except that their high status allows them to hid behind a veil of
legitimacy.
▪ He was not restrained in his anger toward white collar crime – highlighted the financial and
social cost perpetrated (ex. damage to public trust and morale)
▪ Early life – influenced by the populist movement in Nebraska that sought to extend rights and
protections for workers; unquestioned professional integrity, honesty.
Applied the logic of Differential Association to the white collar crimes of the “upperworld”. People
new on the job learn definitions or are socialized into an ideology that justifies breaking the law:
▪ White collar crime is organized: 1) transmission of criminal culture to new employees [values
illegal practices; neutralize shame]; 2) conspire with other companies; 3) corporate veil enables
perpetrators; 4) rationality – purpose to make profit (activities increasingly directed at
advertising, salesmanship, lobbies etc).
▪ 4 reasons why the fight against corporate crime is weak: 1) public doesn’t think of them as
criminals; 2) laisez faire economy provided justification for not intervening; 3) business uses its
power to disrupt attempts to control it; 4) victims of white collar crime are weak/less powerful
https://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=xHrhqtY2
khc
Books and documentaries on both of
these…
▪ Science always reflects
the merger of logic and
observation.
▪ Science is transparent and
open to scrutiny by the
academic community and
the public.
▪ Scientists test their
theories many times
before we can have any
confidence in our claims
about crime.
Science reflects an attempt to overcome some of the errors in inquiry
that we commonly make as humans:
• Inaccurate Observations
• Overgeneralization
• Selective Observation/Confirmation Bias
• Illogical Reasoning
Theories are practical analytical tools
Criminological Theories differ from common sense/conventional wisdom or
“common sense” in three ways:
• Theories general explanations of how, why and with what
consequences crimes occur (as opposed to specific explanations)
• Theories need to be consistent with evidence/researched facts
(logic and observation)
• Theories must be falsifiable
Classical School: a set of theories that views the offender as a “rational person”
who would only be deterred by threat of sanction.
▪ Closely associated with the work of Cesare Beccaria.
▪ Assumes free will/hedonism – that the ‘rational’ person always seeks to
maximize pleasure and minimize pain/punishment
▪ Rarely acknowledged in criminology but free will is a highly problematic
concept
▪ Many contemporary theories embrace these paradigmatic, classical
assumptions including: control theories, deterrence theories, rational
choice theories, and routine activities theories, among others.
Positivist School: a philosophical position, that scientific knowledge can
come only from direct observation and experimentation.
▪ Most closely associated in Criminology with Cesare Lombroso.
▪ “atavistic criminal” – evolutionary throwback; primitive condition that
explains offending
▪ Assumes determinism
▪ Assumes behaviour has causes that can be investigated scientifically
▪ Many contemporary theories embrace these paradigmatic, positivist
assumptions including: biological theories, strain theory, labelling theory,
subcultural theories, among others.
▪ Early criminological theory considered body deviance as indicative of
“atavistic” criminality
▪ Lombroso is perhaps most famous for drawing a connection between
criminality and “deviant” physical traits; indeed, he argued that from
physical abnormalities one could rightly infer weak moral character:
▪ [C]haracteristics presented by savage races are very often found among
born criminals. Such, for example, are:…low cranial capacity; retreating
forehead; highly developed frontal sinuses;…the thickness of bones of the
skull;…greater pigmentation of the skin; tufted and crispy hair; and large
ears. To these we may add…anomalies of the ear;…relative insensibility to
pain…ability to recover quickly from wounds…laziness; absence of
remorse; impulsiveness; and…cowardice….Unexpected analogies are met
even in small details, as, for example…the custom of tattooing…(1911:365)
Fun Fact: Bram Stoker’s Dracula is
informed by Lombroso’s description of
the atavistic criminal
We can think of
courtroom battles as
reflecting a debate
between classical and
positivist
assumptions…
…Simon Baatz’s For the Thrill of It details the crime
and trials of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. The
book nicely illustrates the debate/tension between
determinism and free will.
▪ Classical and positivist theories differ in terms of the significance
that they attribute to the role of “will” inhuman behaviours.
▪ Positivist theories see will as a less significant characteristic of
criminal behavior; instead focussing on how various factors
compel/encourage criminal conduct:
▪ Criminal conduct as a result of psychological/physiological makeup
▪ Offending as the product of troublesome conditions
▪ Offending as resulting from cultural beliefs that condone crime
Positivist theories assume that
behaviour (including criminal
behaviour) has causes and can
be explained using science.
In contrast, classical theories
assume that people have free
will that they act on.
▪ Genetics: how do pre-social factors such as family ties and blood
relations influence criminal outcomes?
▪ Examine the role of factors such as diet, psychopathology, learning
disabilities, birth complications, etc.
▪ This is not about simple genetic determinism, or a “gene for crime”
▪ “gene for crime”: the sociobiological perspective that certain genes may be
linked to criminality. This argument is problematic because it implies that
genes can vary across legal cultures; and misinterprets how genes are
understood by geneticists.
▪ The most contemporary versions of “biological theory” derive from
evolutionary models
Biocriminal explanations
of crime have positivist
assumptions because they
assume causes of
behaviour.
▪ Psychopathology: the study of abnormal behavior
▪ Psychopathy: a sociopathic disorder characterized by a lack of moral
development and the inability to show loyalty to others.
▪ Sociopathy: antisocial personality disorder involving a marked lack of ethical or
moral development.
▪ Example: Kayla Bourque
▪ http://www.the-peak.ca/2013/01/sfu-criminology-student-a-serial-killer-in-the-
making/
Dr. Robert Hare’s
interesting book
Without
Conscience
addresses
psychopathy and
psychopathy
measurement
instruments...
…The documentary and book The Corporation
offers an interesting interpretation of
psychopathy at the corporate level – comparing
the actions of corporations against Hare’s
Psychopathy Checklist
▪ Certain social circumstances and conditions have been used to explain criminal offending
▪ People commit crimes to adapt to social circumstances that threaten them in some way
▪ Concept of “social strain” (Merton, Agnew and others)
Robert K. Merton – Social Structure and Anomie
▪ Anomie Theory: anomie occurs when there is a lack of integration between the cultural goals to
which people are encouraged to pursue and the legitimate means available for achieving those
goals.
▪ Frustrated Ambitions: happens when you aspire to goals you can’t realistically obtain.
▪ Positivist assumptions: determinism; behaviour is constrained and enabled by various
causes/social factors.
▪ Merton borrowed the notion of anomie –
normlessness or deregulation – from Emile
Durkheim
▪ For Merton, institutionalized norms will weaken –
anomie will take hold – in societies placing an
intense value on economic success
▪ When this occurs, the pursuit of success no longer is
guided by normative standards of right and wrong
▪ The question becomes which of the available procedures is
most efficient in netting the culturally approved value
Fun Fact!
Merton’s middle
name is “King”
and he was also
briefly a
magician
▪ American society as
criminogenic because the social
structure limits access to
achieving the goal of success.
▪ Structurally Induced Strain
▪ The U.S. places and extraordinary
and universal emphasis on
economic success for all (the
“American Dream”). Cardinal
American virtue is ambition
Anomie Theory: anomie occurs when there is a lack of integration
between the cultural goals to which people are encouraged to pursue
and the legitimate means available for achieving those goals. Borrowed
concept of anomie from Durkheim.
Structurally induced strain: The disjunction between what the culture
extols (the American Dream) and the means provided by the social
structure (limited legitimate opportunities) produces strain and pressure
for deviance
Frustrated Ambitions: happens when you aspire to goals you can’t
realistically obtain.
Positivist assumptions: determinism; behaviour is constrained and
enabled by various causes/social factors.
Merton’s Paradigm of Deviant Behaviour:
▪ Conformity: an adaptation in which the individual
accepts as legitimate both the goals and the
means for achieving them.
▪ Innovation: accepting cultural goals but rejecting
CONFORMITY
INNOVATION
legitimate means of goal attainment.
▪ Ritualism: Accepting the means for achieving
RITUALISM
cultural goals, but rejecting the goal itself.
▪ Retreatism: Rejecting both goals and means.
▪ Rebellion: Rejecting goals and means –
substituting with new goals and means.
GOAL
MEANS
EXAMPLE
√
√
University
Student
X
√
Al Capone
Peter from
Office Space
√
X
RETREATISM
X
X
Drug
Addiction
REBELLION
X/√
X/√
Political
Radicals
Dr. Horton’s comments: Merton is one of the coolest sociologists. I love Merton. He was writing in the
1930s about a homogenous structurally induced strain (ie, the pressure to achieve the American Dream =
economic success) despite structural inequalities in society. In other words, everyone feels the pressure to
succeed economically, not everyone has access to the means to accomplish this cultural goal. His theory is
brilliant because it is so sociological – the structure of society produces both conformity and deviance. I love
this theory because it doesn’t imply like so many others – that we need a separate theory of deviance to
explain deviants’ fundamental differentness (as so many theories do), as if somehow deviants exist outside
of the same society as ‘normal’…It’s an awesome theory because it speaks to disciplining ideologies that
control us and perpetuate the status quo – ie, if you don’t become financially successful (according to the
American Dream, you weren’t “ambitious” enough) then there’s something wrong with YOU (and we see
these individual explanations for poverty/low SES all the time, reflected in comments like ‘get a job!’). How
convenient for those who benefit from the current status quo! If we all go around believing that people are
poor because they’re lazy, and that lack of ambition is the key explanatory variable for poverty – then how
is anyone going to start to think structurally about economic inequality? Hence, the status quo is
perpetuated and maintained.
ANYWAY – it’s an awesome theory – but even though he was writing in the 30s’ his work wasn’t recognized
until the 1960s when criminologists and others were concerned about inequality (ie, many rights
movements happening at this time).
Dr. Horton’s comments: Let’s clarify this chart. So, it’s all about the disconnect between cultural
goals (achieving financial success) and distribution of means to achieve those goals. It is a
theory of both crime and any kind of deviance. There are five adaptations: Conformity – some
people are better positioned to conform with cultural goals/ideals (ie, born into a rich family,
access to post secondary education, born attractive = goals √ means √). No problems here,
because these people are better able to conform. But, some people feel the pressure to
conform to cultural goals (ie, in Merton’s theory, economic goals) but don’t have the means, so
they have to essentially get creative, or innovate (ie, wants money, but experiences blocked
access to post secondary [socially approved means to the goal, or otherwise rejects normative
means to achieve goals]. Someone like famous gangster Al Capone was arguably motivated by
pro-social goals (wealth, power, prestige) but had very anti-social means of achieving those
goals (violence, bootlegging etc). Innovation = goals are there, means are not – so you come up
with your own ways to achieve cultural goals…Innovation is interesting because it explains a lot
of deviance – for example, in my ethnography of flesh hook pulling rituals (for my MA I did an
ethnography of people who go to an isolated island, sew limes into their skin….
Dr. Horton’s comments continued…. and piece their chests and backs with large
hooks, then pull on these hooks for a whole day) the motivations, I learned, were
quite pro-social (they found it sexually satisfying, the event built community and
friendship, spiritually satisfying, empowering). These are very normative types of
goals! But, the means not so much – the majority of people who want to achieve
spiritual fulfillment might go to a church or some other place of worship, not pull
from bleeding hooks in their bodies. Ritualism: Have you ever seen the film
Office Space?? Perfect example. Google it. Ritualists have rejected/given up on
society’s goals but they are still committed to the pro-social means (going
through the motions kind of thing). Do you know anyone’s parents who have kind
of given up on financial success, but are still going to work every day?
Retreatism: rejection of cultural goals and rejection/blocked access to pro-social
means to achieve those goals (usually manifests in deviance like chronic drug
use, etc). And Rebellion! We don’t want your goals, society! Or the means to
achieve them! These are people with their own view of social goals and ways to
achieve it (for example, any political radical group). So there you have it!
Horton, A. D. (2013). Flesh
Hook Pulling: Motivations
and Meaning-Making From
the “Body Side” of
Life. Deviant
Behavior, 34(2), 115-134.
*Here’s my paper if you are
interested – if you take
methods with me, I’ll tell
you about how I accessed
this group*
Albert Cohen: juvenile crime/deviance rooted in the problems of
working class youth.
▪ “middle class measuring rod”: a middle class ethic that prescribes an
obligation to strive for worldly success through self-disciplined,
independent activity (a standard by which status is determined and
compared)
Cloward and Ohlin: illegitimate means are structured too.
▪ “illegitimate means”: two aspects of the opportunity structure of
delinquency – the opportunity to learn, and the opportunity to play
the delinquent role.
▪ Introduced retreatist pattern, conflict pattern and the concept of the
“double failure”
Robert Agnew: General Strain
Theory – focus on negative
relationships between people that
promote anger, fear, frustration
which could lead to delinquency
▪ “Subculture”: a group of people in a dominant
culture with different values evident in their
expression of deviant behaviour.
▪ “Countercultures”: a group that strongly rejects
dominant societal values and norms and seeks
alternative lifestyles.
▪ Walter Miller’s 6 lower class “focal concerns”
▪ Trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fate,
autonomy
What do people’s cultural values have to do with crime?
Culture: sum total of the environment in which we are socialized throughout our lives; broadly defined
as socially transmitted ideas, practices, and material objects that people create – passed on from
person to person, generation to generation.
▪ Differential Association Theory – Edwin Sutherland
▪ The theory that criminal behaviour is learned in the process of interaction with intimate groups.
▪ Two kinds of learning:
▪ 1) Learning the criminal skills/techniques
▪ 2) Learning the crime is acceptable
▪ Culture of Competition:
atmosphere in which
crime/deviance is promoted
by competition that defines
wealth and success as central
goals.
▪ Subterranean Values:
cherished values held by
many; but they might conflict
at times.
Neutralization theory: linguistic techniques that reduce guilt associated
with delinquent behaviour.
❖
❖
❖
❖
❖
Denial of Responsibility
Denial of Injury
Denial of a victim
Condemnation of the condemners
Appeal to higher loyalties
▪ what is meant by theoretical explanation.
▪ the intellectual origins of contemporary criminology and the enduring legacy of classical and
positivist thought.
▪ Be able critically evaluate biocriminological accounts of criminal conduct.
▪ Describe the evolution theories which focus on the role of social conditions in criminal
motivation.
▪ Examine the relationship between crime and social strain.
▪ Examine the relationship between culture and crime.
▪ Criminological theories are generalized explanations
▪ Two basic schools of thought in Criminology
▪ Classical school
▪ Positivist school
▪ Biocriminal explanations
▪ Intelligence and crime
▪ Social conditions
▪ Strain theory
▪ Cultural theories
▪ Accounts and Neutralizations
Social Control: Efforts to ensure, or attempt to
ensure, conformity to norms and expectations.
▪ Social control operates via the internalization of
social norms and external pressures that
threaten sanction.
Formal Social Control: conventional methods of technology and
physical coercion, such as the police force, used to maintain
social order.
Organized systems of reactions from specialized agencies
and organizations.
Informal social control: Casual methods of coercion
employed by community members to maintain conformity.
These can include: ridicule, reprimands, gossip, criticism,
praise, stares, snide comments, body language. Fear of
being shunned, gossiped about, or otherwise becoming the
object of informal social control itself is a powerful
deterrent.
Agents of social control administer controlling
sanctions – this includes anyone who attempts to
manipulate the behaviour of others by imposing
formal sanctions.
Ex, By-law enforcement officers
The Law as an example of social control – power to
criminalize certain types of behaviours and not others
Control Theories: group of theories that assume deviant/criminal behaviour emerges in the absence
of internal or external controls that might otherwise check or contain behaviour. These theories ask
why people conform – as opposed to why people deviate.
▪ Main premise: deviance results from an absent/inadequate controls or constraints on behaviour.
▪ Control theories are classical theories because each assume: behaviour is a product of free will;
rational choice, based on the human tendency to act hedonistically. People are free to act
consistently with their own self-interest.
Walter Reckless – Containment Theory
▪ A control theory that suggests youth are insulated from delinquency based on containments
that constrain non-conformist behaviour:
▪ “inner
containments” – products of effective socialization; successful internalization of
rules/expectations around appropriate behaviour. This means that inner pulls/containments (such as
a conscience) prohibits people from behaving deviantly or criminally.
▪ “outer containments” – aspects of one’s social environment that prevents non-conforming behaviour
from occurring. This means things that are outside of the person – such as conforming others, laws,
guard dogs et cetera
Travis Hirschi – Theory of the Bond
Dr. Horton’s comments: Hirschi’s bond theory is a very influential
theory in criminology. Basically the idea is that everyone is
▪ Most influential statement on the
motivated to commit crime (for example, we can all see the
relationship between social ties and social
benefits of taking the money in the armoured trucks that pick up
control
cash from the ATMs…right??) but some people have more to lose
▪ Bonds to conforming others prevent non- (bonds to conformity) because they worry about what their parents
think for instance (attachment bonds) or really want to be a police
conformity
officer one day (commitment bonds) or just don’t have time to plan
▪ These bonds include:
a heist (involvement bonds) or even though they don’t think it’s that
▪ Attachment
bad to steal… they belief that the people in their lives who think it is
▪ Commitment
wrong should be respected.
▪ Involvement
▪ Belief
Gottfredson and Hirschi – General Theory of Crime
▪ Criminal activity and other deviance appeal to people who
are impulsive, short-sighted, risk-taking and low in selfcontrol.
▪ Crime happens when people with low self-control encounter
situations or opportunities to offend.
▪
Many forms of crime are “acts of force of fraud undertaken
in pursuit of self-interest” (1990:15)
Dr. Horton’s comments: Hirshi later made
another theory with Michael Gottfredson…
He started thinking, maybe weak bonds are a
by-product of low self-control… and low-self
control is the more powerful explanatory
variable here (still equal motivation – but
different levels of self-control).
Hagan, Simpson and Gillis: Power-Control Theory
▪ Are there gender differences in terms of familial
relationships that permit/discourage delinquency?
▪ This theory draws on the concept of social control
to explain gender differences in offending
▪ In traditional, patriarchal families - boys are subject to
less control than girls. Male children are “freer” to
engage in delinquency
Dr. Horton’s comments: What do you think
about this theory? A good theory has to
make sense of observations – and
undeniable pattern is that men/boys
commit most of the crime. Why? Could it
be that boys/men are more culturally
permitted (or freer) to engage in
delinquency? Go out at night – or
otherwise do things that could bring them
in contact with criminal opportunities?
Labelling Theory: Howard Becker
▪ Control responses can create conditions that make crime
more probable
▪ A “label” is a stigma that a person must bear; social
reactions to crime and delinquency have an impact on
how the labeled person sees themselves
▪ A stigmatizing label such as “criminal” can decrease
opportunities for legitimate relationships, legitimate
employment etc.
What are some implications of labelling
theory for our current criminal justice
system?
A person with the stigmatizing label
can internalize this label as a result of
constant feedback that he or she is no
good; eventually, he or she might
internalize and accept this deviant
identity…
“secondary deviance” persistent
negative feedback that suggests that
one is disreputable can lead a person
to accept this definition.
“self-fulfilling prophecy” people who
are perceived as beyond redemption
come to act as if they are.
Dr. Horton’s comments: two points here… First,
this theory suggests that if a person gets enough
bad feedback from others that they might start to
believe it, and act accordingly. Remember Jesse
from breaking bad? A good example.
Another important point – are some people more
likely to be labelled negatively? For example – are
some people more likely to be stigmatized by
arrest or a criminal label?? (think – social class,
race, gender, etc)
According to labelling theory - if state intervention causes crime, then steps should be taken to limit it.
Four key policy implications:
Decriminalize
victimless
crimes such as drug use, sex
work et cetera. The fact that
these are against the law
means that people involved
are candidates for arrest,
stigma and CJS processing.
Also creates an illegal
market.
Divert people away from
prison
though
other
options such as home
sentences, mental health
services et cetera. Some
concern that this results in
net-widening rather than
a true alternative.
Due process by ensuring
the CJS is transparent.
Checks on discretion; hope
is that policies would result
in shorter and more
equitable sentences and
thus would reduce negative
effects of state intervention
Deinstitutionalize
and
lessen
the
prison
population.
Labeling
theorists took special pains
to detail the criminogenic
effects of incarceration and
advocate this policy. An
example is compassionate
release
Recall – Labelling theory suggests that too much control is
criminogenic (self-fulfilling prophecy)
John Braithwaite’s work on reintegrative shaming represents an
extension on perspectives about the relationship between public
reaction and crime.
• Shaming refers to “all processes of expressing disapproval which
have the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being
shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the
shaming”
• Disintigrative: shaming that stigmatizes, excludes, and creates
a “class of outcasts”
• Reintegrative: shaming/disapproval paired with attempts to
reintegrate a person into the social order (ie does not initiate
the criminogenic process)
Will this work in countries
that do not have dense
interconnectedness?
Reintegrative,
Labelling
and
Restorative
Perspectives question the impact of societal
reactions on crime.
▪ RJ activists reject the ‘just deserts’ model in
favour of one that decreases harm by restoring
1) the victim to an unharmed status; 2) the
convicted person to the community. Typically
conferencing determines what is needed to
address harms.
▪ Supporters include: victim’s rights groups, some
religious groups, peacemaking and feminist
criminology, and Braithewaite’s RI provides
intellectual justification for RJ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzJYY2p0QIc
Bonta et al (2009) – meta analysis of 39 studies
evaluating the impact of RJ on recidivism. Three key
findings:
1.
Effects of RJIs are small but
2.
No effect
ordered.
3.
RJIs appear to be more effective with
low-risk law-breakers. Though some
studies dispute
this.
on
recidivism
significant.
if
court-
“Social Disorganization” long-term, widespread deterioration
of social order and control in a population.
▪ Characterized by high population turn-over, economically
disadvantaged, ethnic/racial heterogeneity
▪ Communities unable to solve common problems,
friendship networks are less likely to develop, and
participation in community organizations is low
▪ Private, Public, and Parochial controls are less effective
Deterrence Theories: focus on how legal threats are
communicated to offenders.
Deterrence Theory
3 qualities of punishment:
▪ “specific deterrence” punishment or the threat of it
deters individual offenders from reoffending
▪ “general deterrence” the idea that other people are
deterred when they see someone else being
punished
“severity”
“certainty”
perceived or actual seriousness of
the penalty
perceived likelihood of being
punished or apprehended
“celerity”
perceived swiftness of
punishment
Williams and Hawkins – three other types of sanctions:
▪ “commitment costs”
▪ Potential that arrest will jeopardize involvement in legitimate
activity
▪ “attachment costs”
▪ Potential that arrest will damage valued relationships with family
and friends
▪ “stigma of arrest”
▪ Potential that arrest will damage reputation
How do formal
social controls
(threat of arrest,
incarceration)
activate informal
social controls?
▪ Emergence of victimology
▪ Two questions: Why are some people at more risk of
being victimized than others? (victim opportunity) How
do the actions of offenders and victims combine to
produce criminal outcomes? (victim-offender interaction)
▪ Lifestyle Exposure Theory – Hindelang, Gottfredson,
Garofalo
▪ Routine Activities Theory – Cohen and Felson
▪ Victim precipitation
▪ Situated transaction
Dr. Horton’s comments: Measuring the cost of crime is a challenge because
there are so many different types of short and long term costs for both
people who are criminally victimized and people who are criminally
involved.
▪ Financial Cost: These types of costs can include things like the value of an
item stolen – but also long term costs associated with victimization like
time off of work or a career change or a life style change.
▪ Physical Costs: these types of costs can be short or long term as well.
Exacerbating existing conditions or the creation of a new one.
▪ Emotional Costs: people who have been criminally victimized may
experience shock, mistrust, anger, sleeplessness et cetera
▪ Behavioural Consequences: people might avoid places where a
victimization happened, try to gain information to deal with the
victimization or engage in collective action (ie protests)
Physical Costs:
▪ physical costs can be associated with arrest or incarceration. For
example, a person could be injured or possibly even killed while being
arrested by police.
▪ Also many physical costs associated with incarceration
▪ Changes in access to exercise and fresh fruits/vegetables
▪ Exacerbating existing medical conditions due to the stress of
incarceration
▪ Increased risk of violent victimization in prison
▪ The suicide and homicide rates are higher in prison
▪ Emotional costs: There are many emotional
costs associated with criminal involvement.
Many people who cause harm to others are
also harmed by it themselves.
▪ Dealing with the shame/guilt/pain of
having criminally victimized someone
▪ Damage to relationships with families
and friends
▪ Incarceration results in separation from
children
▪ Fear, stress and anxiety associated with
incarceration (fear of sexual violence,
fear of victimization, routine degradation
associated with incarceration, et cetera).
Below – a quote from a research participant in Dr. Horton’s
research on prison violence:
“It is emotionally, and mentally and physically draining that
every single day you have to go onto that unit with that face,
that mask. You have to do that tough guy thing and you
constantly have to be watching your back and you can’t just
relax and be goofy and silly – or even say the word goofy! It is
draining, it is exhausting to have to do that for so long and you
miss just being able to fucking be yourself.”
▪ Financial costs: incarceration has been described as a kind of imposed poverty (though many
people are already poor when they are incarcerated). The stigma of a criminal label means
that finding and maintaining ‘legitimate employment’ is a challenge (due to criminal record
checks, discrimination, and gaps in employment)
▪ Behavioural costs:
▪ It is possible that incarceration produces more crime. If you recall theories from the past two weeks –
try to think about how they might explain the relationship between crime at time one and
subsequent involvement in crime.
▪ Control theories – for instance, damage to pro-social relationships might weaken social bonds thus making a
person ‘freer’ to engage in crime
▪ Labelling theories – the stigma of a criminal label becomes self-fulfilling
▪ Please try to think of other ways that the theories we have looked at can help us to explain behavioural costs
of crime.
Gresham Sykes’ – famous study of a maximum security
prison. In his iconic work Society of Captives he identifies
five ‘pains of imprisonment’:
▪ Deprivation of Goods and Services: lack of access to
things people have in the free community
▪ Deprivation of Autonomy: lack of control over yourself
via the imposition of rules and schedules
▪ Deprivation of Liberty: lack of freedom
▪ Deprivation of (hetero) sexual relationships: Sykes point
was that prison deprives people access to women (and
other genders) – contact that people need to work out
their own sense of self
▪ Deprivation of Security: prison is violent – the homicide
and suicide rates are much higher than in the general
public
Erving Goffman – a great sociologist – described the
concept of the “total institution” in his important book
Asylums. Prisons are examples of total institutions
because they are, in Goffman’s words “forcing houses”
for changing people (ie, symbolic divorce from previous
identity, attempts to ‘resocialize’ a person via the
imposition of rules/routines imposed and enforced by
authority figures, geographic/social isolation)
I recommend every book Goffman has ever written!
Especially, Asylums, Stigma and Presentation of Self in
Everyday Life
Pains of imprisonment have been one of the points of focus
in my research on prison violence.
© Alicia Horton 2020
▪ What are some behavioural,
emotional, physical and/or
financial costs of crime to
people convicted of crimes?
▪ Is the cost of criminal
behaviour criminogenic?
“…there are a lot of lifers who can’t seem to get out of a max because
they’re so involved in the fighting, rioting, and smashing up, or just
assaulting right. So, there’s two types of inmates, the one inmate who
feels he has nothing to lose, he doesn’t give a shit, he’s lost his kids,
maybe he’s lost his family because of his incarceration, maybe, there’s
a lot of personal problems that come in that aren’t necessarily bread
in [the prison] guys have social problems before they come in, right?
The guys in the max, they’re all uber-violent and that’s why they’re in
a max.”
▪ How should these costs be
addressed?
-research participant from Dr. Horton’s work
“Moral Panic”: the behaviour of some members of society is
seen as so problematic, evil, or harmful to the society that it
becomes a social imperative to control the behaviour, punish
the offender and repair the damage.
▪ Example: Witch Hunts; Drug Scares
▪ “Societies appear to be subject, very now and then, to periods of moral panic. A
condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a
threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in stylized and
stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by
editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited
experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; always of coping are evolved
or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or
deteriorates and becomes more visible. Sometimes the object of moral panic is
quite novel and at other times it is something which has been in existence long
enough, but suddenly appears in the limelight. Sometimes the panic passes and
is forgotten, except in folklore and collective memory; at other times, it has
more serious and long-lasting repercussions and might produce such changes
as those in legal and social policy or even in the way the society conceives
itself.”
▪ Goode & Ben-Yehuda argue that moral panics are characterized by the following:
▪ Concern: heightened level of concern over some particular form of behaviour
▪ Hostility: increased hostility directed towards those who engage in the behaviour
in question. “Folk devils” are identified.
▪ Consensus: widespread agreement about the seriousness of the threat, who is
responsible and what needs to be done.
▪ Disproportionality: disproportionate response to the perceived problem.
▪ Volatility: panics emerge and subside rapidly
Joel Best & Gerald Horiuchi (1985) The Razor Blade in the Apple: The Social Construction
of Urban Legends. Social Problems 32(5):488-499.
“…that plump red apple that Junior gets from a kindly old woman down the block… may
have a razor blade hidden inside” (New York Times 1970)
“If this year’s Halloween follows form, a few children will return home with something more
than an upset tummy: in recent years several children have died and hundreds will have
narrowly escaped injury from razor blades, sewing needles and shards of glass purposely
put into their goodies by adults (Newsweek 1975)
“It’s Halloween again and time to remind you that…[s]omebody’s child will become violently
ill or die after eating poisoned candy or an apple containing a razor blade (Van Buren 1983)
▪ Urban Legend: contemporary, orally transmitted tales that feature supernatural themes, but are grounded in human
baseness. They describe consumer criminal attacks, contaminated consumer goods, and other risks. These are
typically told as true stories.
▪ A legend can begin with a real incident or as a fictional tale; it is told and retold, and evolves as it spreads. Sometimes
urban legends appear in newspaper stories, reinforcing the tale’s credibility. In the Halloween example, the belief is
maintained through orally transmitted warnings about the dangers contemporary society poses to the traditional
custom of trick or treating.
▪ “The Halloween sadist emerged as a symbolic expression of this strain: the sadist, like other dangers, attacks children –
society’s most vulnerable members; the sadist, like the stereotypical criminal, is an anonymous, unprovoked assailant;
and the sadist, like other strangers, must be med by doubt, rather than trust” (1985:494)
▪ Grassroots Model: moral panics originate in the mood of the general public.
▪ Elite engineered: moral panics are deliberate attempts by economic and political elites to
promote public concern about some issue.
▪ Interest-group theory: moral panics are set in motion by the actions of politicians,
crusading journalists, religious leaders and so forth, all of whom pursue their own interests
Restorative Justice: a problem-solving approach to responding to crime based on the principle that
criminal behaviour injures victims, communities, and people who are criminally involved and that each
of these parties should be involved in efforts to address the causes of the behaviour and its
consequences. Has been described as a balance between an “ethic of justice” and an “ethic of care”
(Sharpe). Can include: victim-offender mediation and encounters; family group conferencing. Grassroots
– several origins = vague definition.
▪ Provides the basis for a community and justice system to respond to crime
▪ Key principles include:
▪ Addressing harms/needs of victims, offenders, communities
▪ Confirming the obligations of offenders, families, communities and society that result from these harms
▪ Inclusive and collaborative process – diverse ownership of the problem
▪ Involves all with a stake in the issue and has a focus on righting wrongs
RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Focus
Establishing guilt
Problem-solving, obligations, future
Stigma
permanent
Removable; repentance, forgiveness
People
Professionals; experts
Direct involvement by participants
Process
Adversarial; state v offender; victim
exclude., offender passive
Consensus; community v problem; offender takes
responsibility; everyone involved
Issues
Laws broken
Relationships broken
Accountability
Accountability defined as punishment
Accountability = understanding impact and helping
decide how to make things right
Community
Community represented abstractly by
the state
Community as facilitator
Tools
Punishment and control
Healing and support
Procedure
Fixed rules
flexible
Opportunities, Lifestyles,
and Situations
Recap: Classical & Control Theories
Classical v. Positivist assumptions
Classical Theories
Social
Control
Theory
of the Bond
General
Theory of Crime
Deterrence
Labelling
Theories
Theories
Victimology
Victimology is a much newer area of criminological
interest than the study of law-breakers.
Three factors account for
victimology in the 1960s/70s :
of offender-centred theories
2) Development of victimization surveys
New
emergence
1) Critique and theoretical development
Limitations
the
kinds of data, new empirical questions
3) Increase in predatory crime
Emergence
of victim’s rights movements
of
Two kinds of questions:
1) Why are some people at a
higher risk of victimization
than others? (opportunity
theories)
2) How do the actions of
parties to an interchange
combine together to
produce criminal
outcomes? (interactional
theories)
Lifestyle Exposure Theory
Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garofalo
Book: Victims of Personal Crime
Why are young, single, poor men at
higher risk of being victimized?
“Lifestyle”: The patterned way in
which people distribute their time
and energy across a range of
activities. Lifestyles is determined by
social and demographic factors
such as sex, age, income et
cetera.
The
important
argument
that
Hindelang and colleagues make is
that opportunity structures - not
criminal motivation – is central to
understanding why victimization is
differentially distributed.
Lifestyle links to victimization through
two intervening variables:
“Situations”: when and where we
routinely find ourselves
“Associations”: the people with
whom we routinely spend our time
Routine Activities Theory
Cohen and Felson
Why was crime increasing at a time
when
poverty,
unemployment,
inequality were improving?
argued that we need to
consider
not
only
offender
motivation,
but
also
criminal
opportunities ( a suitable target and
absence of capable guardianship)
Absence of Capable
Guardians
(e.g. police, home
owners)
They
Suitable Targets
(e.g. unlocked
car or house)
Motivated
Offenders
(e.g. young
males,
unemployed)
Opportunity Theories: Routine Activities
Theory
Cohen & Felson’s Routine
Activities Theory: They
argued that we need to
consider not only offender
motivation, but also
criminal opportunities ( a
suitable target and
absence of capable
guardianship)
• How does this theory
help us to explain
barroom behaviour?
Absence of Capable
Guardians
(e.g. police, home
owners)
Suitable Targets
(e.g. unlocked
car or house)
Motivated
Offenders
(e.g. young
males,
unemployed)
Drinking Patterns, social interaction
and barroom behavior (Fox &
Sobol 2000)
Methods: compared two bars;
participant observation; interviews
with bartenders.
Findings: the bar scene puts
victims and offenders in close
proximity without protective
measures.
Leisure & Drinking
“permissive environs”: these
are social settings such as
bars and parties where
individuals feel free of many
of the constraints that
operate in other settings
such as school and work.
‘Somebody’s Gonna Get Their Head Kicked In Tonight!’
Aggression among young men in bars – a question of
values? (Graham and Wells 2003)
Research investigates the causes of male to male
violence in bar environments.
Methods: semi-structured interviews with men aged 20-24
Results: alcohol encouraged risk taking, aggression, and
made participants less aware of risks; honor, saving face,
group loyalty, fighting for fun were the main motivations
for barroom aggression/violence. There is an acceptance
– even an endorsement – of violence in bar environments.
Other Lifestyle Risk Factors
Law-breaking Behaviour
People involved in crime as law-breakers are at a
higher risk of being victimized.
Two reasons: 1) lifestyle models – tend to associate with
other criminals; 2) they are unlikely to report victimizations
to police
Prior Victimization experience
Victimization predicts future victimization
Two reasons: 1) risk characteristics continue to place
people at risk after an initial victimization; 2) victimization
experience itself creates risk- People who have been
victimized before are more likely to be victimized again
(for both property and personal crime) ie. “hot dots”
Contrary to the image
presented in news media,
victims and offenders share
several key characteristics.
Economic disadvantage,
sex, and age predict both.
Most importantly, people
who have been criminally
victimized/exploited are
more likely to be criminally
active.
Example: Victimization and Criminal Activity
Stephen Baron’s study of the relationship between victimization and
criminal offending among homeless youth:
1)
almost all in the sample had been victimized, most repeatedly
victimized
2)
the more violent crimes the respondent had committed, the
more likely to report victimization
3)
youths from abusive families are more likely to be victimized
4)
violent offending can deter victimization
Crime as Interactions
How do victim-offender interactions
produce crime?
“victim precipitation”: Occurs when the
opportunity for crime is created by some
action of the victim
Wolfgang
(1958) - Analyzed 558
homicide cases; 25% were victim
precipitated
Amir
(1971) - Applied the concept
of ‘victim precipitation’ to cases of
sexual assault
Some Issues:
• Potential for victim
blaming
• Difficult for people
to disentangle the
moral dimension
from the
explanatory one
• Perhaps we need
a broader
approach to the
study of
interactions
between victims
and law-breakers.
Crime as Interactions
Symbolic interaction: The role of linguistic interaction in
developing a social identity and function according to shared
norms and values.
In a criminal event – these can be viewed as “character
contests” where parties to the interaction attempt to “save
face”. This is important to whether a dispute escalates or not
Situated Transaction – Erving Goffman
Refers to a process of interaction involving two or more
individuals that lasts as long as they are in each other’s
presence. Need to focus on the participants in a criminal
event and not what any one of them does individually
Erving Goffman
Example: Homicide as Situated
Transaction
David Luckenbill
Argued that homicide can be
understood as a situated transaction, 6
main stages
“transaction” because an offender,
victim and audience engage in an
interchange that leaves someone dead
Stage 1: the opening move; an action is taken by the
(eventual) victim and defined by the (eventual)
offender as an offence to “face”
“get lost” or “what are you staring at?”
Stage 2: Offender interprets these words/actions as
personally offensive
Stage 3: offender makes an opening move to salvage
“face” or protect honour; verbal or physical
retaliation
Stage 4: victim responds aggressively; working
agreement that the situation is
suited to a violent
resolution.
Stage 5: Physical interchange.
“situated” because the participants
interact in a common physical territory
Stage 6: brief battle is over, offender flees or remains at
scene
Why is it important?
Interactional theories illustrate why we need to consider more than motivation
Illustrates crime as the outcome of a social exchange
Presents victims as active participants in an event whose behaviour affects
interactional outcome
Provides insight into how situational determinants can produce behaviour and
make us act in was we never thought we could/would
Extensions - Situational Approaches
Randall Collins (2008)
Argues that a useful theory of violence should
address the issue in all of its forms (military conflict,
murder, child abuse) by putting interaction at the
centre of analysis.
How does the situation unfold? People are fearful
of violent situations – whether violence erupts will
depend on how people negotiate this emotional
tension.
For violence to be successful – it must turn
emotional tension into emotional energy.
Recap:
Emergence of Victimology
Two
kinds of questions
Lifestyle Exposure Theory
Lifestyle
risk factors
Routine Activities Theory
What
timely question did it address?
Victim Precipitation
Situated Transaction
Purchase answer to see full
attachment