First, let me take this opportunity to remind you of the key dates I wrote on the board yesterday. They were: Tuesday, Oct. 2nd - handout first essay assignment
Thursday, Oct. 11th - "singing the theories"
Tuesday, Oct. 16th - midterm exam (tentative)
Also, let me state the questions that were selected to appear on the midterm exam. I have changed the wording of some of them to clarify them and in one case I decided to delete one part of a question. Sometime prior to the exam we will discuss the answers to each of these questions.
220A: (1) Briefly explain the difference between "macro" and "micro" level theories. (2pts) Green family
(2) State the three main components of Routine Activities Theory which constitute the circumstances which lead to criminal behavior. How did Akers criticize this theory? (4pts) Blue family
220B: (1) What are the three main components of Routine Activities Theory which constitute the right circumstances for criminal behavior? (3pts) Green family
(2) What was Matza's definition of deviance? (1pt) Green family
That's all for now. See you next Tuesday.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Critical Observation on Biological and Psychological Theories
I'd like to use this post to underscore a critical point about both biological and psychological theories (which I did manage to squeeze in yesterday in 220A, although not in 220B). I believe that neither theory by itself (or even together) can offer a completely adequate explanation of criminal and deviant behavior for one basic reason that: the individual is not a separate and distinct biological or psychological being, but is also a social and cultural being. That is to say, the individual is really a system of relations, which includes the social and cultural dimension as well as the biological and psychological. And given the fact that crime and deviance are a matter of social definition, that would suggest that the social dimension is ultimately more important than the biological and psychological in explaining this behavior. Indeed, I believe most biologists and psychologists would concede this point.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wrapping up Deterrence/Rational Choice/Routine Actitivities Theories
First, let me congratulate everyone for posting a comment on the blog. Now you know how to do this and how easy it is, feel free to post comments and questions whenever you want and I will probably also give you some additional opportunites to earn activity points for this.
I want to use the remainder of this blog to wrap up what I did not get a chance to wrap up in class this morning. What follows are lecture notes I had hoped to get to, so please read this and perhaps write them out or print them and insert them in your class notes.
In the final analysis, I believe it can be said that Routine Activities Theory is more a theory of criminal victimization than a theory of criminal behavior, because the theory starts with the assumption that there are people motivated to commit crime and does not explain that or address the source of that motivation or inclination.
Finally, there can be no doubt that deterrence theory (and related theories) has had an obvious impact on criminal justice policy. It is generally believe that certain, swift, and especially severe penalties for criminal acts will reduce crime in society. The popular ("knee-jerk") approach of politicians over the past 30 years or so has been to "get tough," which is reflected in such policies as: (1) restoration of capital punishment, (2) "three strikes and you're out", (3) mandatory minimum sentences, etc.
(1) However, looking at the fact of our exploding prison population (4 times higher than in 1980) and seeing that overall crime rates are higher than they were in the 1970s, would lead one to question this theory, among the other critical points we made earlier questioning the view of individuals as rational, calculating actors.
(2) Some other versions of "get tough" scare tactics are programs such as "shock incarceration" or "Scared Straight" which have not been as successful as they were first believed to be. In fact in the case of Scared Straight, follow-up research found that the juveniles who were exposed to convicted criminals in Rahway State Prison in New Jersey and were told about the horrors of their lives and prison were more likely to commit crimes later than the control group of juveniles who did not have this experience. It was pointed out by some of these researchers that: "With the best of intentions, the lifers at Rahway can't transform city schools, poor and broken families, jobless summers." In other words, scare tactics (or exaggerating the costs of crime) can only go so far and are not likely to overcome the effect of other powerful social factors which lead juveniles to engage in crime. All of which tends to undermine any theory based on the notion that individuals rationally weigh the costs and benefits of their actions.
So, this then brings us to Biological theories which we will pick up with on Tuesday (9/25).
Finally, I forgot to mention in class this morning that next week I will be calling on the families to begin making up some exam questions. See you next week....
I want to use the remainder of this blog to wrap up what I did not get a chance to wrap up in class this morning. What follows are lecture notes I had hoped to get to, so please read this and perhaps write them out or print them and insert them in your class notes.
In the final analysis, I believe it can be said that Routine Activities Theory is more a theory of criminal victimization than a theory of criminal behavior, because the theory starts with the assumption that there are people motivated to commit crime and does not explain that or address the source of that motivation or inclination.
Finally, there can be no doubt that deterrence theory (and related theories) has had an obvious impact on criminal justice policy. It is generally believe that certain, swift, and especially severe penalties for criminal acts will reduce crime in society. The popular ("knee-jerk") approach of politicians over the past 30 years or so has been to "get tough," which is reflected in such policies as: (1) restoration of capital punishment, (2) "three strikes and you're out", (3) mandatory minimum sentences, etc.
(1) However, looking at the fact of our exploding prison population (4 times higher than in 1980) and seeing that overall crime rates are higher than they were in the 1970s, would lead one to question this theory, among the other critical points we made earlier questioning the view of individuals as rational, calculating actors.
(2) Some other versions of "get tough" scare tactics are programs such as "shock incarceration" or "Scared Straight" which have not been as successful as they were first believed to be. In fact in the case of Scared Straight, follow-up research found that the juveniles who were exposed to convicted criminals in Rahway State Prison in New Jersey and were told about the horrors of their lives and prison were more likely to commit crimes later than the control group of juveniles who did not have this experience. It was pointed out by some of these researchers that: "With the best of intentions, the lifers at Rahway can't transform city schools, poor and broken families, jobless summers." In other words, scare tactics (or exaggerating the costs of crime) can only go so far and are not likely to overcome the effect of other powerful social factors which lead juveniles to engage in crime. All of which tends to undermine any theory based on the notion that individuals rationally weigh the costs and benefits of their actions.
So, this then brings us to Biological theories which we will pick up with on Tuesday (9/25).
Finally, I forgot to mention in class this morning that next week I will be calling on the families to begin making up some exam questions. See you next week....
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
"Singing the Theories" Again & Passages on Deterrence/Rational Choice
First, a quick response to a comment on "Singing the Theories." Dr. Thurmond's little ditty is an example of making up an original song based on an existing melody. However, you are also welcome to use an existing song which fits one of the theories.
Second, I want to share with you a couple of passages from different sources which cast a critical light on deterrence/rational choice theory. I will probably quote these in class, but you will have the verbatim quote here to review when need be.
First, from The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice (4th ed.): "If prison terms deterred further criminality, we would expect that people who go to prison would be among the least likely to return there. However, the fact is that within 3 years of release from prison 47 percent were reconvicted of a new crime (Langan & Levin, 2002)."
"So the commonsense logic of deterrence is neither logical nor sensible. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both criminals and crime. For deterrence to work, the offender must be a logical actor who understands the consequences of criminal behavior, knows the penalties, and weighs the cons of crime against the benefits of crime. Logic and calm reflection are simply not parts of the crime equation. In addition, a sizable number of offenders are people without hope, living in desperate circumstances. They are the poor, the unemployed, the uneducated, and the socially alienated. Fear of prison is a relatively minor consideration when stacked up against the hopelessness of their day-to-day existence. Yet, police and politicians continue to pledge eradication of mythical crime problems through more law and order and more punishment." (pp. 362-363)
From Prof. Ronald Akers: "Does an offender choose to commit a crime with full knowledge and free will, taking into account only a carefully reasoned...set of costs and benefits? If it is this kind of pure rationality that rational choice theory assumes, then the theory has virtually no empirical validity. The purely rational calculation of the probable consequences of an action is a rarity even among the general conforming public."
Finally, from Drug War Heresies: "Expected legal risks do have an influence on decisions, but their effects are considerably more muted than generally assumed. Part of the problem is that people just do not seem to combine information in the manner suggested by rational choice theories. For example, Carroll (1978) found that when evaluating hypothetical crime opportunities, few adult and juvenile offenders focused on more than one of the four key deterrence factors: probablity of success, amount of gain, probablity of capture, and size of penalty."
"And the factors that do matter are more likely to involve carrots than sticks. Studies comparing the relative influence of the rewards and risks of crime suggest that criminal gains are more influential than penalties, and the probablity of success is more influential than the probablity of capture...."
One reason gains generally loom larger than risks is that the gains tend to be immediate, whereas legal sanctions are not only uncertain but also in the remote future. Criminal offenders are particularly prone to impulsiveness and an inability to delay gratification."
Second, I want to share with you a couple of passages from different sources which cast a critical light on deterrence/rational choice theory. I will probably quote these in class, but you will have the verbatim quote here to review when need be.
First, from The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice (4th ed.): "If prison terms deterred further criminality, we would expect that people who go to prison would be among the least likely to return there. However, the fact is that within 3 years of release from prison 47 percent were reconvicted of a new crime (Langan & Levin, 2002)."
"So the commonsense logic of deterrence is neither logical nor sensible. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both criminals and crime. For deterrence to work, the offender must be a logical actor who understands the consequences of criminal behavior, knows the penalties, and weighs the cons of crime against the benefits of crime. Logic and calm reflection are simply not parts of the crime equation. In addition, a sizable number of offenders are people without hope, living in desperate circumstances. They are the poor, the unemployed, the uneducated, and the socially alienated. Fear of prison is a relatively minor consideration when stacked up against the hopelessness of their day-to-day existence. Yet, police and politicians continue to pledge eradication of mythical crime problems through more law and order and more punishment." (pp. 362-363)
From Prof. Ronald Akers: "Does an offender choose to commit a crime with full knowledge and free will, taking into account only a carefully reasoned...set of costs and benefits? If it is this kind of pure rationality that rational choice theory assumes, then the theory has virtually no empirical validity. The purely rational calculation of the probable consequences of an action is a rarity even among the general conforming public."
Finally, from Drug War Heresies: "Expected legal risks do have an influence on decisions, but their effects are considerably more muted than generally assumed. Part of the problem is that people just do not seem to combine information in the manner suggested by rational choice theories. For example, Carroll (1978) found that when evaluating hypothetical crime opportunities, few adult and juvenile offenders focused on more than one of the four key deterrence factors: probablity of success, amount of gain, probablity of capture, and size of penalty."
"And the factors that do matter are more likely to involve carrots than sticks. Studies comparing the relative influence of the rewards and risks of crime suggest that criminal gains are more influential than penalties, and the probablity of success is more influential than the probablity of capture...."
One reason gains generally loom larger than risks is that the gains tend to be immediate, whereas legal sanctions are not only uncertain but also in the remote future. Criminal offenders are particularly prone to impulsiveness and an inability to delay gratification."
Friday, September 14, 2007
Singing the Theories
I got the distinct impression yesterday that many of you were not too thrilled about the family activity I described yesterday in class. Some may think it an impossible task. But I don't think so, and you should also consider having some fun with this. So, to provide an example, Dr. Thurmond has allowed me to share with you one of his latest little ditties which was commissioned by one of his colleagues who eats lunch outside with Dr. Thurmond and others. It is entitled "Oeurve Hernie" and is sung to the tune of Wofford's anthem. The first two verses go:
On our bodies ' southern borders
Reared beneath our skin
Is the thing there that unites us
Makes us brothers, kin.
Oh Ye hernias
Abide forever
Not begotten, but made!
By lugging heavy Wofford benches
From the sun to shade.......
I hope that gives you some inspiration. We'll begin to talk about the theories I listed on the board next Tuesday (9/18). Here's the list again in case you missed it:
1. Deterrence
2. Rational Choice
3. Routine Activities
4. Biological
5. Psychological
6. Differential Association (or Social Learning)
7. Social Bonding or Control
8. Labeling (or Societal Reaction)
9. Social Disorganization
10. Anomie (or Strain)
I have read several of the comments posted already, and look forward to the rest of you posting your comments. Have a good weekend.
On our bodies ' southern borders
Reared beneath our skin
Is the thing there that unites us
Makes us brothers, kin.
Oh Ye hernias
Abide forever
Not begotten, but made!
By lugging heavy Wofford benches
From the sun to shade.......
I hope that gives you some inspiration. We'll begin to talk about the theories I listed on the board next Tuesday (9/18). Here's the list again in case you missed it:
1. Deterrence
2. Rational Choice
3. Routine Activities
4. Biological
5. Psychological
6. Differential Association (or Social Learning)
7. Social Bonding or Control
8. Labeling (or Societal Reaction)
9. Social Disorganization
10. Anomie (or Strain)
I have read several of the comments posted already, and look forward to the rest of you posting your comments. Have a good weekend.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Discussion topic: crime statistics
Something to think about: why do you think the FBI does not vouch for the accuracy of the statistics it publishes in The Uniform Crime Reports?
Please comment on this question or the comments of your classmates.
Please comment on this question or the comments of your classmates.
Welcome to the Soc. 220 blog
This blog will be a space for you to make comments, ask questions, and generally exchange information about criminal and deviant behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)