▪ 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