Schedule for Crime Types' Reports & Next Couple Weeks

First, remember to check out the MONDAY, SEPT. 29TH blog post in which I describe what I want each of the families to do in your chapter reports. Also, as I noted this morning, this will be a 5 point activity. Now that we know which chapters each of the families will be responsible for, let me set down a schedule for this, including for the next couple weeks:

THURS. 10/2: continue presenting sociological theories of criminal behavior, beginning with so-called "Labeling Theory".

TUES. 10/7: FIRST ESSAY DUE. Final comments on theories. I will talk about Preface and Chapter 1 of Crime Types. (Time for families to organize reports and brainstorm midterm exam questions). BRING YOUR BOOKS.

THURS. 10/9: I'll report on Chapters 6 & 8 of Crime Types. (family time to finalize some midterm exam questions).

TUES. 10/14: I'll cover any loose ends on Crime Types and theories. Review for midterm exam. Probably also hand back essays.

THURS. 10/16: MIDTERM EXAM.

TUES. 10/21: Crime Types' Report: Chap. 2 (Green Family) Most likely hand back midterm exams and go over in class.

THURS. 10/23: Crime Types' Reports: Chap. 3 (Blue Family); Chap. 4 (Yellow Family)

TUES. 10/28: Crime Types' Reports: Chap. 5 (Black Family); Chap. 7 (Red Family).

***We'll try to stick to this schedule. Since your reports will come after the midterm exam, you will be making up questions for the final exam. Also, you need to read at least the Preface and Chapters 1, 6 & 8 prior to the midterm.

Family Activity: Crime Types Chapter Reports

First thing in class tomorrow (Tues. 9/30) someone from each family will choose a chapter in Crime Types which that family will be responsible for reporting on to the rest of the class. Since we have five families, that will mean the families will cover five chapters in Crime Types, and I will be responsible for covering the remainder. These will be oral reports, however, I also want each family to submit TWO SHORT-ANSWER EXAM QUESTIONS (and answers) based on your report. Submit these questions in writing to me. Plan on taking roughly 30 minutes to cover each chapter, and every family member should contribute to this oral report in some way. In these reports, I want you to address the following:
(1) A general overview of the chapter, including the selected articles. Please DO NOT TRY TO COVER EVERYTHING because that would take too long. Focus on main points and a few supporting examples and statistics.
(2) Draw out at least a couple connections to the theories of criminal and deviant behavior we covered in class lecture. And by "connections" I mean not only things which support a particular theory but also points which may go against or contradict a theory.
(3) Identify implications of what you have learned about your crime type which may have use in developing strategies for controlling or reducing that type of criminal behavior.
(4) Finally, as I noted above, two short-answer exam questions which I may use on either the midterm exam or final exam.

After each family knows which chapter it will be reporting on, I will make up a schedule of when you will be called upon to present your chapter to the class. I anticipate that we will not finish this until after the midterm exam which will be coming up in a couple weeks, so some of you may be reporting on your chapters after the midterm exam. Of course, everyone is responsible for reading ALL of Crime Types, and not just the chapter you'll be reporting on.

See you tomorrow.

Essay I Description

Since I ran out of copies of the brief write-up for the first essay yesterday, I decided to post it on the blog, which I probably should have done to begin with. So, here it is:

Sociology 220
Essay I
9/23/08

A. For this first essay you will need to review the comment you posted on our course blog regarding your explanation for criminal behavior and/or fluctuations in the crime rate. First, I want you to RE-WRITE that comment, making needed corrections, perhaps also deleting or, more likely, adding a few sentences to make it more complete and coherent. Then, you should discuss how your ideas relate (i.e., are consistent or inconsistent) with any TWO aspects of what I have covered in class lecture, especially the various theories of criminal and deviant behavior. Finally, I want you to be critical of your own theory; that is, identify what you believe is a weakness in your own theory.

B. The essay should be roughly 3 pages (single-spaced handwritten or double-spaced typewritten).

C. It is due on or before TUESDAY, OCT. 7th. Normally, I would give you a week for such an essay, but in this case I want to make sure to have covered all of the various theories, which should take me another week and a half.

_____________________________

We will get back to the theories in class next Tuesday (9/30). Also, don't forget that each family will choose a chapter in Crime Types to report on. I will post what I want you to do in those reports on this blog on Monday (9/29).

Lecture Material: Biological and Psychological Theories

Although we are not terribly behind, I decided to go ahead and post the remainder of my lecture notes on the biological and psychological theories, especially since I don't claim any real expertise in these fields. This will allow me to begin to talk about the main sociological theories tomorrow.

I left off by noting how in 1939 E.A. Hooten resurrected a theory of criminal behavior reminiscent of Lombroso in which he argued that criminals are basically "organically inferior." (And, indeed, Edwin Sutherland, the father of American criminology, developed his theory of Differential Association in part as a critical response to Hooten. As we'll see, Sutherland also pioneered the field of white collar crime, whereas Hooten and other biological theorists had studied only street criminals.)

6. By the 1950s, biological theories in criminology had pretty much been discredited. Sociological theories were coming into vogue. But biological theories did not die but were resurrected and have become more sophisticated due to our increasingly sophisticated understanding of human physiology and genetics.

a. For example, in the 1960s biological explanations got a short-lived boost from the "XYY super-male criminal theory" -- that an additional Y chromosome makes men more volatile and aggressive. But, among other problems, it was found that only a small proportion of XYY males commit crimes of any kind, and there is no evidence that the XYY syndrome is the specific cause of any criminal behavior. And, of course, what about female criminals?

7. Modern biological theories of crime and delinquency, often based on new advances in genetics, neurology, biochemistry, are considered more respectable, despite some methodological problems. They are more sophisticated than the early, simplistic BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM of people like Lombroso. These modern theorists do acknowledge the role of other social factors, and they largely relegate biological factors to the role of PROPENSITIES or PREDISPOSITIONS, which I would argue is the most that can be claimed for any biological theory.

a. In a commentary entitled, "Elementary, Dr. Watson. The Neurotransmiters Did It.", science correspondent for the New York Times, Natalie Angier, examined some recent biological theories. She quoted a neurobiologist at Harvard University, Evan S. Balaban, who noted that part of what is driving this interest in biological theories is people want a simple answer to crime -- "that perhaps a lot of criminals really are just born defective."

Then toward the end of this commentary, Ms. Angier notes that at best theories such as low serotonin levels in the brain being linked to violence and aggression may have identified a PREDISPOSITION to violent criminal behavior, but that social environmental factors such as easy access to guns, poor schools, few jobs, etc. must also be considered part of the equation. And that to intervene to prevent criminal violence will take more than just putting everyone on Prozac, if that were even feasible or acceptable.

8. Policy Implications of Biological Theories

a. Older, more deterministic theories would lead to more drastic measures. Criminals really could only be changed through some medical or surgical intervention, or through selective breeding (which Hooten actually suggested), or completely isolating these born criminals from society through incapacitation in prison or execution.

b. Contemporary biological theorists support such interventions as dietary therapy, genetic counseling, drug therapies, but they would also support changes in the social environment.

1. In this context, you would have to deal with the problem of "false positives" -- people who may have some of these biological characteristics but will not go on to commit crimes. Often talking about 50% or more (not just a few)-- the question being: would early (preventative) intervention with some drug therapy be justified if half of those receiving it really did not need it?


Psychological Theories: I want to address briefly TWO broad categories of such theories, recognizing that this is far from exhaustive or adequate.

1. One type of psychological theory that was more popular some years ago was the psychoanalytic theory based on the Freudian view of the psyche, consisting of the id, ego, and superego.

a. Without getting very specific, one could say that the psychoanalytic explanation relies heavily on irrational, unconscious motivations (emanating from the id) not being properly handled by other aspects of the psyche -- the ego and superego (repressed sexuality, guilt, or abnormal maturation or control of instincts).

b. It is difficult to assess the empirical validity of psychoanalytic theories because they rely on a careful examination of individual cases by a trained psychoanalyst, and however compelling they may seem, you cannot extrapolate to the larger population. Which is also to say, it is difficult to replicate or independently verify the psychoanalysts' diagnosis.

2. Then you have what could be called personality theories. Here you are dealing with more conscious, observable (measurable) aspects of personality. The basic proposition being that criminals have abnormal, inadequate or specifically criminal personalities or personality traits that set them apart from law-abiding people.

a. This would include traits such as aggressiveness, impulsiveness, sensation-seeking, risk-taking, etc. (although we should acknowledge that these traits do NOT necessarily manifest themselves in criminal behavior.)

b. Apparently, (according to Prof. Akers) research results on the causative effects of such personality traits on criminal and deviant behavior have been inconsistent.

c. You also run into the problem of TAUTOLOGY (that is, a circular argument or true by definition and so incapable of being disproven). For example, a psychopathic personality being measured in part by a prior history of criminal and deviant behavior would make the argument that such a personality leads to criminal behavior true by definition, which is a TAUTOLOGY.

3. Psychological counseling of various kinds is widely employed in delinquency prevention and treatment programs. Such counseling is also found in virtually every residential and non-residential facility for treating criminal offenders. But the effectiveness of these programs has not been demonstrated, which would suggest that perhaps the theory behind it is not very good.


I would like to conclude this obviously superficial treatment of biological and psychological theories with what I believe is a valid overall criticism:

I believe that neither theory by itself, or even in combination, can offer a completely adequate explanation for criminal and deviant behavior for the basic reason that: THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL BEING. THE INDIVIDUAL IS ALSO A SOCIAL AND CULTURAL BEING. That is to say, the individual is really a system of relations which includes the biological, psychological, and especially the SOCIAL. So any explanation of any aspect of human behavior which ignores the social dimension of who we are is necessarily inadequate. Indeed, I believe most biological and psychological theorists would concede this point.

So, lets then turn our attention to the main sociological theories of criminal and deviant behavior.


That's all for now. I may address a few of the points brought out above in class tomorrow, but I also plan to move on quickly to the sociological theories. As I mentioned in the blog post on Friday, I will also have a write-up of your first out-of-class essay to hand out.

Quoted Passages & Reminders

Regarding Rutgers University's critical analysis of the "Scared Straight" experiment and similar programs which employ get tough or scare tactics to try to prevent juvenile crime:
" 'Deterrence,' the Rutgers researchers began their second report, 'has long been one of the fundamental goals of the criminal justice system, and more recently of the juvenile justice system as well. Unfortunately, little is known about the deterrent effects of exposure to these systems.' In any case, the researchers went on, studies suggest that the CERTAINTY of punishment has more impact on crime than the SEVERITY. The lifers at Rahway can expound on the horrors of the place to their young audiences, but they cannot guarantee tham that the kids are going to end up there if they steal a purse or sell some drugs. 'Perceived severity,' the researchers concluded, 'has no particular deterrent effect.' "

And it appears that those who were supposedly "scared straight" actually got into more trouble than those who weren't: "Six of the 19 who went to Rahway with no prior record were arrested within the next six months. Only one of the 21 with no prior record who did not go to Rahway was arrested subsequently."

Finally: "...Richard J. Lundman and Frank Scarpitti looked at 40 juvenile delinquency prevention programs. 'Our own research and the research of others' they wrote, 'lead us to the nearly inescapable conclusion that few, if any, of these efforts successfully prevented delinquency.' The authors suggest less optimism, for the moment: so far, the program hasn't been devised that will knock out juvenile crimes. With the best intentions, the lifers at Rahway can't transform city schools, poor and broken families, jobless summers. Too many of us, the Rutgers researchers write near the end of their report, 'have failed to take account of these realities, and consequently have raised unrealistic expectations and goals for the Project.' This research, like that of Lundman and Scarpitti, suggests that people consider sociological and psychological causes in future programs for delinquency prevention."


REMINDERS: I should have a write-up of our first out-of-class essay on Tuesday (9/23), so look for that. Also, since we are a bit behind, on Monday I may post some of my lecture notes on biological and psychological theories.

Quoted Passages & Lecture Material

Yesterday (Tues., 9/16) I quoted two passages from a book entitled, The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice (4th ed.), which questioned the validity of deterrence theory. First, with regard to deterrence and capital punishment:
" A simple test of deterrence is whether states or countries with the death penalty have lower homicide rates than those that don't. There is no evidence to indicate that this is true. The United States is the only Western democracy that retains capital punishment; it is also the country with the highest homicide rate in the industrialized world. Comparative analyses of regions within the U.S. reveal the same pattern. Southern states account for about 80 percent of all executions, and the South is the only region with a homicide rate above the national average. The homicide rate in states that have retained the death penalty is 6.6; the rate for non-death penalty states is 3.5." (p. 335)

Then, a broader criticism from the same source which I quoted:
"If prison terms deterred further criminality, we would expect that people who go to prison would be among those least likely to return there. However, the fact is that within 3 years of release from prison 47 percent were reconvicted for a new crime."
"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 costs of the 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 desparate circumstances. They are the poor, 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 eradiction of mythical crime problems through more law and order and more punishment." (pp. 362-363)


Since the above passages also speak to the validity of Rational Choice theory, let me go ahead and include my lecture notes on that:

RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY came into vogue in the 1980s, and it was introduced by economists who attempted to explain not only criminal behavior but all kinds of human behavior. It is based on the same general view of human nature in classical criminology. More specifically, it derives from the "expected utility" principle in economics -- that people will make rational decisions to act in certain ways based on the extent to which their choice of actions will maximize their profits and minimize costs or losses.

1. However, to quote the critical analysis of Prof. Ronald Akers (author of Criminological Theories (4th ed.): "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 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." (p. 24)

a. As I also commented yesterday, I would stress that most people most of the time, much less criminals who are generally less educated and more impulsive, do NOT act this way.

b. Indeed, well over half of those involved in crimes such as manslaughter or assault were under the influence of alcohol. And the last time I checked, alcohol is not known to enhance one's rational faculties.

2. Studies of repeat offenders also seem to bear out that criminals generally are not the rationally calculating actors deterrence and rational choice theories assume. Again, quoting Prof. Akers -- "...their actions and assessment of risks were unrealistic, even to some extent irrational. They were unable to make reasonable assessments of the risk of arrest, did little planning for the crime, were uninformed about the legal penalties in the state where the crime was committed." (p. 25) And add to this, incredible stories of the ineptitude of many criminals. Their focus seems to be almost exclusively on the rewards, not the potential penalties.

3. Finally, from a book entitled, 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 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." (pp. 84-85)

I realize I am being hard on deterrence and rational choice theories, but I believe there is just too much evidence that most people, most of the time simply don't act in a rationally calculating manner.

We'll pick up with Routine Activities Theory on Thursday.

Follow-up to where we left off & Reminder

The final point I made before we wrapped up on Thursday had to do with the complexity of human behavior and the corresponding complexity of trying to explain criminal behavior. In that regard I was going to quote something from a recent commentary on an interesting documentary (which is in our library)on a case of child molestation. It is entitled, "What 'Capturing the Friedmans' Says About Getting Tough on Crime." On the general trend of getting tougher, the author comments:

"The result of these 'throw away the key' trends is a bad case of what legal experts call 'overincarceration.' After a three-decade surge, which has continued even as crime rates have dropped, the United States has 702 inmates per 100,000 people, the highest incarceration rate in the world. The growing number of death row exonerations -- more than 100 since 1976 -- are proof that at least some of these inmates do not belong in prison at all. Many more inmates are behind bars longer than they should be."
"The title 'Capturing the Friedmans" is a wordplay on the difference between law and art: it was far easier for the police to 'capture' the Friedmans than it was for the filmmakers. But if the justice system is to live up to its name, it must be as concerned about reaching a full understanding of people and their actions as documentarians are. The law is not free, as artists are, to become so caught up in indeterminacy that it renounces the whole idea of guilt. But it has a moral obligation -- one it has abandoned in recent years -- to try to see crime and criminals in all their complexity."

The way I see it, "to try to see crime and criminals in all their complexity" is precisely what we are going to do in this course. So, in that sense, I believe the sociologist or criminologist can be of value to our criminal justice system, even if they don't have all the answers.
Next Tuesday, I'll comment briefly on "The Lost Distinction Between 'Explain' and 'Justify'", and then we'll get into our first major theory, so-called Deterrence theory.

Reminder: Again, don't forget to post your comment on the first blog exercise by next Monday.

Introductory Exercise

Before we get into the various theories of criminal behavior, I'd like each of you to give me some of your thoughts on this. Briefly state (in a paragraph) your own personal theory or ideas about what leads people to commit crimes or why the crime rate may go up or down. Please post your comment no later than next FRIDAY, SEPT. 12TH.
This activity is worth 3 points.

Welcome to Soc. 220, Fall '08

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome all students of Soc. 220: Criminal and Deviant Behavior to this blog. As you will note, I set this blog up last Fall '07 for the first time and all of the material posted on there is also available to you. You might want to take a few minutes to scroll through last year's entries to get an idea of what this blog is for. Basically, I plan to use this space to supplement class notes and discussion; give you a place to post questions or comments; for individual and family activities; for occasional extra credit opportunities; and to review for exams, among other things. Prof. Ginocchio