I know this sounds like a broken record, but I was frustrated again yesterday (Tues. 9/29) at not getting far enough into Chapter 3, so I am going to use this blog to catch up a bit. In fact, I am toying with the idea of posting my lecture notes on the blog on a regular basis and then using class time to illustrate, elaborate, and discuss the notes further. I'll let you know what I decide on that score.
First, a few comments on my criticism of deterrence theory and its later manifestation, rational choice theory.
In attacking the idea that criminals choose to commit their crimes based on a rational calculation of benefits and costs, I glossed over another critical point -- that well over half of those involved in crimes such as manslaughter or assault were under the influence of alcohol, and alcohol is not known to enhance one's rational faculties.
The passage from Prof. Akers on a study of repeat offenders goes as follows:
"...their actions and assessments 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."
The focus of criminals (as for many of us) seems to be directed largely to the potential rewards, with little consideration of the possible costs. The book, "Drug War Heresies," makes a similar point: "Criminal offenders are particularly prone to impulsiveness and an inability to delay gratification."
So, to emphasize again, the whole premise of classical and neo-classical theory (or deterrence and rational choice theory) is questionable. Most of us, most of the time, much less criminals, do NOT act in the rationally calculating way this theory assumes.
Finally, such criticism tends to cast doubt on the wisdom of more certain and severe penalties being given in an effort to control or reduce crime. eg. mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes and you're out," etc. (The author of the text makes the connection between these punishments and the classical theory but he does NOT clearly draw this critical point.)
That brings us up to the next major heading in the text where I will continue my lecture notes.....
ECOLOGICAL THEORY
A. This theoretical perspective occupies a place in between classical criminology and the biological theory of Lombroso. Although I am not familiar with the theorists mentioned, I believe it would be more accurate to refer to this as the "statistical" or "geographical" theory. What is called "human ecology" will resurface again as the basis for what is called "social disorganization" theory.
B. Both Guerry and Quetelet were looking very broadly at crime rates in whole countries or particular geographic or climatic regions.
1. I agree with the point the author makes about Quetelet -- that consistent variations among crime rates in certain social categories -- age, gender, etc. -- suggests that crime is not simply a matter of idiosyncratic, individual choice.
However, there are all sorts of problems with his so-called "thermic law of crime" -- that temperature has something to do with the types of crime committed, which is questionable.
C. And although the author neglects to bring it out here (even though it is in the subject index and defined in the glossary at the end of the book, p. 399), we need to be aware of the "ecological fallacy": "A problem when group statistics and rates are used in order to describe (or explain) individual behavior."
So, just because the property crime rate is higher in cold climates does NOT mean that somehow the cold causes individuals to steal. Rates are strictly about group-level characteristics.
FORERUNNERS OF MODERN CRIMINOLOGICAL THOUGHT
A. Three big names in the history of Western thought are mentioned which you should all recognize. Hagan treats them all very simplistically. Only ONE had a fairly direct impact on later criminological theory -- that was Karl Marx and his focus on economic inequality in capitalism. Darwin's theory of evolution had a huge impact on social thought and sociology, but NEGLIGIBLE impact on criminology or, more specifically, biological theories of crime. Freud's theories did contribute to a psychoanalytic theory of crime, but other psychological theories were NOT inspired by Freud's view which is looked upon unfavorably these days.
POSITIVISM
A. The main thing about positivism is that it involves the sytematic application of the scientific method. Comte certainly was the "prophet" of positivism -- he promoted it as the best, most appropriate way to look at society, in contrast to a religious or philosophical view of society which prevailed in earlier periods.
1. The other two elements -- discovery & diagnosis of pathology and treatment -- although part of Comte's sociology, are not essential to positivism.
___________________________________
That brings us up to BIOLOGICAL THEORY, which is where we will pick up tomorrow (Thurs. 10/1).
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Lecture Notes: Chapter 2
As usual, I did not get as far as I planned yesterday, so I am going to post some of what I had planned to say in class. Of course, incorporate this material in your notes. Also, I still expect to begin to talk about Chapter 3 in the text on Thursday (9/24), so you should begin reading Chapter 3. And two other reminders: (1) A few of you still have to post your comment on that individual exercise; the deadline is tomorrow (9/24). (2) We will be having our first inclass essay soon, perhaps next week. I will let you know about that hopefully by tomorrow.
On Tuesday (9/22) we were looking at the social and institutional correlates of crime. I finished my remarks on Age and Crime, so let me pick up with:
(2)Gender Differences in Criminality
(a) "Of all the demographic variables, gender is the best predictor of criminality;...The male crime rate exceeds that of females universally, in all nations, in all communities, among all age groups, and in all periods of history for which statistics are available." (p. 33)
(1) In America, if you knew nothing else about a crime, you'd be right 8 or 9 times out of 10 predicting that a male was the perpetrator. And that ratio is even higher in other societies.
(b) But before we go off and concoct some biological argument about why males are more prone to crime, we should note that the ratio between male and female crime varies significantly -- "The female crime rate appears to be closer to the male level in countries in which females enjoy more equality and freedom, and thus an increased opportunity to commit crime." (p. 33) such as the U.S.
(1) Indeed, there is also evidence of a rising female crime rate. "The NCVS for 2001 showed the percentage of estimated female perpetrators increasing from 14 to 19 percent for violent crime. From 1990 to 1998, the number of women in prison grew 48 percent compared to 27 percent for men (which I am sure is largely due to the war on drugs). Between 1988 and 1997, female delinquency cases increased 83 percent." (p. 35)
(c) There undoubtedly has been an "androcentric" (male-centered) bias in criminological research and theory -- most classical theories, as we'll see, focused strictly on men.
(3) Social Class and Crime
(a) Vast majority of those arrested for UCR index crimes (or "street crimes") are from lower social classes. The author discounts bias as a major factor, so it appears that there is something about lower class status that makes people more prone to crime. (Certainly see that in "Gang Leader for a Day")
(1) Traditional view is that social class and crime are INVERSELY related -- see fig. 2.4(a) p. 36. But Hagan reminds us that official statistics undercount white collar crime, so perhaps the BI-MODAL distribution (fig. 2.4(b)) is closer to the reality. (NOTE: if I gave you either one of those graphs on the midterm test, you should be able to tell me in your own words what it reveals.)
(4) Race and Crime
(a) In addition to noting a possible Eurocentric (white) bias in criminology because there have been few black or other minority criminologists, Hagan goes on to debunk racist theories based on discredited race theory or racial classification -- a point which I especially appreciate because I also cover this in the race and ethnic relations class I teach.
(1) Any crime theory based on race must inevitably grapple with the problem that there is no such thing, biologically speaking, as a PURE RACE. As Hagan notes -- "As Sutherland and Cressey (1974) point out, 'There is no avoioding the fact that at least 80 percent of the offenders contributing to the 'black' crime rate are part 'white.'" (p. 37)
(b) This is not to deny the fact that "blacks" (socially defined as such) commit a disproportionate amount of crime, especially violent crime, comapred to "whites." In this context, I believe it is fair to say -- "Much of the discrepancy between black and white crime rates can perhaps be explained by the fact that African Americans until relatively recently have been locked disproportionately into the lower class through a pseudo caste system." (p. 37)
(c) The disproportionate number of arrests and incarceration also raises the question of bias in the criminal justice system, which Hagan generally discounts and cites a couple sources. However, the special box on RACIAL PROFILING (pp. 38-9) presents some strong counter-evidence, especially when we consider the impact of the war on drugs. ("Tulia" will be especially relevant here.)
(1) racial profiling creates a "self-fulfilling prophecy" -- that is, since blacks are generally perceived as more criminal, they are more likely to be SUSPECTED, ARRESTED, and eventually INCARCERATED.
(2) Also, a report by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, "And Justice for Some" (2000), notes how black and Hispanic delinquents were treated more severely at every step in the juvenile justice system. (p. 40)
(d) Hagan comments on the INTRA-racial nature of crime -- black criminals tend to prey on blacks, whites on whites, Asians on Asians, etc.. (We should not be distracted by the racist implications of the phrase "black-on-black" crime -- as if blacks are the only ones who prey on their own kind.)
(e) He concludes with a box on Native American crime which is exceedingly high, which should not be surprising considering the extreme levels of poverty, lack of educational opportunities, alcoholism on many reservations. Alcohol being a huge factor -- "Most Indians are incarcerated because of crimes they committed while intoxicated." (p. 41)
(f) In MINORITY GROUPS AND CRIME, Hagan elaborates on the point that it is not so much race as social class -- the fact that a large percentage of blacks are concentrated in ghettos which exhibit high rates of social breakdown. (Just think of the housing projects in Chicago where Venkatesh did his field work on gangs.)
(1) But other immigrant groups, and more recently Latinos who have experienced similar conditions, have not had the same rates of crime (which I believe may be due to the fact that many of these Latinos are first-generation immigrants who have a strong cultural base to draw on). Hagan cites some of the findings of the Kerner Commission Report (quoted in the beginning of the chapter) which distinguish the Black experience from that of other groups -- discrimination against them being more institutionalized and persistent.
(2) W.J. Wilson in "The Truly Disadvantaged" (1987) cites conditions (de-industrialization, out-migration of middle class) which kept inner city Blacks in desperate circumstances.
(3) In the end, Hagan poses the question -- "Does minority group status itself produce higher crime rates? In general, the answer to this question is NO. Much depends upon the particular minority group and its specific values and cultural traditions."
(4) There is a GENERATIONAL point that can be made -- first generation immigrants often come from close-knit societies and do not get involved in much crime, whereas second and third generations are more crime prone.
(5) Regional Variation in Crime
(a) He makes a brief comment on regional variation, noting especially that, overall, the South has the highest crime rate of all the different regions. (But he makes no attempt to suggest why.)
(6) Urban/Rural Differences
(a) Urban areas have generally (historically and cross-culturally) had more crime than rural areas. But there is evidence that rural areas and smaller cities are catching up. Of course, in modern, developed societies such as ours there is less difference between cities and the countryside. (But, again, Hagan provides no real suggestion as to why this urban-rural difference.)
That brings us to INSTITUTIONS AND CRIME (p. 45), which is where I will pick up in class tomorrow (Thurs. 9/24). If you have any questions or comments about the above notes, you may raise them in class or post them as comments on this blog and I will do my best to answer them.
On Tuesday (9/22) we were looking at the social and institutional correlates of crime. I finished my remarks on Age and Crime, so let me pick up with:
(2)Gender Differences in Criminality
(a) "Of all the demographic variables, gender is the best predictor of criminality;...The male crime rate exceeds that of females universally, in all nations, in all communities, among all age groups, and in all periods of history for which statistics are available." (p. 33)
(1) In America, if you knew nothing else about a crime, you'd be right 8 or 9 times out of 10 predicting that a male was the perpetrator. And that ratio is even higher in other societies.
(b) But before we go off and concoct some biological argument about why males are more prone to crime, we should note that the ratio between male and female crime varies significantly -- "The female crime rate appears to be closer to the male level in countries in which females enjoy more equality and freedom, and thus an increased opportunity to commit crime." (p. 33) such as the U.S.
(1) Indeed, there is also evidence of a rising female crime rate. "The NCVS for 2001 showed the percentage of estimated female perpetrators increasing from 14 to 19 percent for violent crime. From 1990 to 1998, the number of women in prison grew 48 percent compared to 27 percent for men (which I am sure is largely due to the war on drugs). Between 1988 and 1997, female delinquency cases increased 83 percent." (p. 35)
(c) There undoubtedly has been an "androcentric" (male-centered) bias in criminological research and theory -- most classical theories, as we'll see, focused strictly on men.
(3) Social Class and Crime
(a) Vast majority of those arrested for UCR index crimes (or "street crimes") are from lower social classes. The author discounts bias as a major factor, so it appears that there is something about lower class status that makes people more prone to crime. (Certainly see that in "Gang Leader for a Day")
(1) Traditional view is that social class and crime are INVERSELY related -- see fig. 2.4(a) p. 36. But Hagan reminds us that official statistics undercount white collar crime, so perhaps the BI-MODAL distribution (fig. 2.4(b)) is closer to the reality. (NOTE: if I gave you either one of those graphs on the midterm test, you should be able to tell me in your own words what it reveals.)
(4) Race and Crime
(a) In addition to noting a possible Eurocentric (white) bias in criminology because there have been few black or other minority criminologists, Hagan goes on to debunk racist theories based on discredited race theory or racial classification -- a point which I especially appreciate because I also cover this in the race and ethnic relations class I teach.
(1) Any crime theory based on race must inevitably grapple with the problem that there is no such thing, biologically speaking, as a PURE RACE. As Hagan notes -- "As Sutherland and Cressey (1974) point out, 'There is no avoioding the fact that at least 80 percent of the offenders contributing to the 'black' crime rate are part 'white.'" (p. 37)
(b) This is not to deny the fact that "blacks" (socially defined as such) commit a disproportionate amount of crime, especially violent crime, comapred to "whites." In this context, I believe it is fair to say -- "Much of the discrepancy between black and white crime rates can perhaps be explained by the fact that African Americans until relatively recently have been locked disproportionately into the lower class through a pseudo caste system." (p. 37)
(c) The disproportionate number of arrests and incarceration also raises the question of bias in the criminal justice system, which Hagan generally discounts and cites a couple sources. However, the special box on RACIAL PROFILING (pp. 38-9) presents some strong counter-evidence, especially when we consider the impact of the war on drugs. ("Tulia" will be especially relevant here.)
(1) racial profiling creates a "self-fulfilling prophecy" -- that is, since blacks are generally perceived as more criminal, they are more likely to be SUSPECTED, ARRESTED, and eventually INCARCERATED.
(2) Also, a report by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, "And Justice for Some" (2000), notes how black and Hispanic delinquents were treated more severely at every step in the juvenile justice system. (p. 40)
(d) Hagan comments on the INTRA-racial nature of crime -- black criminals tend to prey on blacks, whites on whites, Asians on Asians, etc.. (We should not be distracted by the racist implications of the phrase "black-on-black" crime -- as if blacks are the only ones who prey on their own kind.)
(e) He concludes with a box on Native American crime which is exceedingly high, which should not be surprising considering the extreme levels of poverty, lack of educational opportunities, alcoholism on many reservations. Alcohol being a huge factor -- "Most Indians are incarcerated because of crimes they committed while intoxicated." (p. 41)
(f) In MINORITY GROUPS AND CRIME, Hagan elaborates on the point that it is not so much race as social class -- the fact that a large percentage of blacks are concentrated in ghettos which exhibit high rates of social breakdown. (Just think of the housing projects in Chicago where Venkatesh did his field work on gangs.)
(1) But other immigrant groups, and more recently Latinos who have experienced similar conditions, have not had the same rates of crime (which I believe may be due to the fact that many of these Latinos are first-generation immigrants who have a strong cultural base to draw on). Hagan cites some of the findings of the Kerner Commission Report (quoted in the beginning of the chapter) which distinguish the Black experience from that of other groups -- discrimination against them being more institutionalized and persistent.
(2) W.J. Wilson in "The Truly Disadvantaged" (1987) cites conditions (de-industrialization, out-migration of middle class) which kept inner city Blacks in desperate circumstances.
(3) In the end, Hagan poses the question -- "Does minority group status itself produce higher crime rates? In general, the answer to this question is NO. Much depends upon the particular minority group and its specific values and cultural traditions."
(4) There is a GENERATIONAL point that can be made -- first generation immigrants often come from close-knit societies and do not get involved in much crime, whereas second and third generations are more crime prone.
(5) Regional Variation in Crime
(a) He makes a brief comment on regional variation, noting especially that, overall, the South has the highest crime rate of all the different regions. (But he makes no attempt to suggest why.)
(6) Urban/Rural Differences
(a) Urban areas have generally (historically and cross-culturally) had more crime than rural areas. But there is evidence that rural areas and smaller cities are catching up. Of course, in modern, developed societies such as ours there is less difference between cities and the countryside. (But, again, Hagan provides no real suggestion as to why this urban-rural difference.)
That brings us to INSTITUTIONS AND CRIME (p. 45), which is where I will pick up in class tomorrow (Thurs. 9/24). If you have any questions or comments about the above notes, you may raise them in class or post them as comments on this blog and I will do my best to answer them.
Friday, September 18, 2009
JFK Passage & A Few Comments on Joel Best's Article
As promised, below is the passage from a paper I wrote and presented with a colleague at a conference in Washington, D.C. in August 1995. The title of the paper is " The JFK Assassination and the Failure of Institutions: The Sociological Significance of a Major Historical Event." The Conclusion began:
"In a seminal essay written many years ago at the height of a period of critical self-examination in American sociology, Alexander Liazos called upon his colleagues specializing in the study of criminal and deviant behavior to look beyond the individuals who are typically studied -- in his words, the "nuts, sluts, and preverts" -- and focus more on the less visible, but deeper, institutional problems. He focused not on individual deviants and their behavior, but rather on what he called "covert institutional violence." This covert institutional violence represents the unrecognized institutional actions which had destructive consequences for society and can properly be regarded as major instances of deviant and/or criminal behavior."
"A more subtle form of "covert institutional violence" might be called, after Liazos, "covert institutional fraud." Throughout our discussion of the failure of various institutions to deal properly and honestly with the assassination of President Kennedy, we have documented numerous instances of such "covert institutional fraud." From the Warren Commission, to law enforcement, to the legal profession and judiciary, and finally to the media and science, an account of the assassination has been foisted on the American people which is a knowing fraud. Although countless books and articles have been written on the Kennedy assassination, this fraud has been little exposed, hence covert. Only in the works of a handful of responsible critics, critics who have been virtually ignored by the media all these years, has this story been told. This "covert institutional fraud" not only reveals serious flaws in major institutions, but on the whole continues to erode the foundation of trust and confidence on which our government and other major institutions depend."
Remember, I quoted the above passage in the context of illustrating the significance of Liazos' 1972 essay, "The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and Preverts," which, in turn, is relevant to the point the author of your text makes about what he points out are the limitations of the so-called "purist legal view of crime." (p. 11) In this respect, I agree with the author of the text that: " A sociological view of crime does not (and should not) restrict its concept of criminality to those convicted of crime in a legal sense."
"...obviously we must not loosely throw around the label criminal, but neither should we ignore dangerous acts that do great harm, simply because the criminal justice system chooses to ignore them." (p. 13)
Let me add about Joel Best's article, "Telling the Truth About Damned Lies and Statistics," that, as he says on p. 64: "The solution to the problem of bad statistics is not to ignore all statistics, or to assume that every number is false. Some statistics are bad, but others are pretty good, and we need statistics -- good statistics -- to talk sensibly about social problems. The solution, then, is not to give up on statistics, but to become better judges of the numbers we encounter. We need to think critically about statistics -- at least critically enough to suspect that the number of children gunned down hasn't been doubling each year since 1950." And that is where that list of questions (p. 65) comes in which I began quoting as class was winding down.
Please be sure to incorporate the above comments in your notes. We'll see you next Tuesday, AND DON'T FORGET TO POST YOUR COMMENT ON THE BLOG IN REFERENCE TO THE FIRST INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE.
"In a seminal essay written many years ago at the height of a period of critical self-examination in American sociology, Alexander Liazos called upon his colleagues specializing in the study of criminal and deviant behavior to look beyond the individuals who are typically studied -- in his words, the "nuts, sluts, and preverts" -- and focus more on the less visible, but deeper, institutional problems. He focused not on individual deviants and their behavior, but rather on what he called "covert institutional violence." This covert institutional violence represents the unrecognized institutional actions which had destructive consequences for society and can properly be regarded as major instances of deviant and/or criminal behavior."
"A more subtle form of "covert institutional violence" might be called, after Liazos, "covert institutional fraud." Throughout our discussion of the failure of various institutions to deal properly and honestly with the assassination of President Kennedy, we have documented numerous instances of such "covert institutional fraud." From the Warren Commission, to law enforcement, to the legal profession and judiciary, and finally to the media and science, an account of the assassination has been foisted on the American people which is a knowing fraud. Although countless books and articles have been written on the Kennedy assassination, this fraud has been little exposed, hence covert. Only in the works of a handful of responsible critics, critics who have been virtually ignored by the media all these years, has this story been told. This "covert institutional fraud" not only reveals serious flaws in major institutions, but on the whole continues to erode the foundation of trust and confidence on which our government and other major institutions depend."
Remember, I quoted the above passage in the context of illustrating the significance of Liazos' 1972 essay, "The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and Preverts," which, in turn, is relevant to the point the author of your text makes about what he points out are the limitations of the so-called "purist legal view of crime." (p. 11) In this respect, I agree with the author of the text that: " A sociological view of crime does not (and should not) restrict its concept of criminality to those convicted of crime in a legal sense."
"...obviously we must not loosely throw around the label criminal, but neither should we ignore dangerous acts that do great harm, simply because the criminal justice system chooses to ignore them." (p. 13)
Let me add about Joel Best's article, "Telling the Truth About Damned Lies and Statistics," that, as he says on p. 64: "The solution to the problem of bad statistics is not to ignore all statistics, or to assume that every number is false. Some statistics are bad, but others are pretty good, and we need statistics -- good statistics -- to talk sensibly about social problems. The solution, then, is not to give up on statistics, but to become better judges of the numbers we encounter. We need to think critically about statistics -- at least critically enough to suspect that the number of children gunned down hasn't been doubling each year since 1950." And that is where that list of questions (p. 65) comes in which I began quoting as class was winding down.
Please be sure to incorporate the above comments in your notes. We'll see you next Tuesday, AND DON'T FORGET TO POST YOUR COMMENT ON THE BLOG IN REFERENCE TO THE FIRST INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE.
Friday, September 11, 2009
More Reflections on the Definition of Deviance & First Individual Exercise
REFLECTIONS ON DEFINITION OF DEVIANCE
I hope that the last issue I got into yesterday was not confusing. First, let me say again that the author's definition of deviance at the bottom of p. 6: "...behavior that is outside the range of normal societal toleration." is ok. But when he talks about definitions of deviance being relative to time, place, and person, he seems to endorse a more RELATIVISTIC standard which leaves the door open for almost anything to be considered deviant. It is like Matza's definition of deviance as "straying from A path or standard," which I believe is unacceptable. Let me add just a few additional observations about this:
(1) Aside from the fact that such an extreme relativistic definition is tantamount to no definition at all (because anything could qualify as being deviant), I am also troubled by the reliance on attitudes and opinions which we are all entitled to have but which, unfortunately, all too often are based on myths, biases, prejudices and not on fact or real evidence. I would hazard a guess that most attitudes and opinions people have could not be considered "informed."
(a) For example, attitudes which regarded racial integration as deviant were for decades (even centuries) based more on racial prejudice and myths than anything else.
(b) Although there may be some value in knowing the range of opinions on what is considered deviant and how these vary over time, I would insist that it is not a valid basis for defining deviance, or even more so for exploring the implications of deviance for the larger social order.
(c) Finally, I believe it is important to take a CRITICAL approach to what a society or certain individuals may consider deviant, just as I would also say we should be critical of what constitutes crime, since ultimately that is also based on attitudes and opinions which are the basis of the laws which define certain acts as criminal.
PLEASE INSERT THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS IN YOUR NOTES.
FIRST INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE: In Chapter 2: General Characteristics of Crime and Criminals, the author considers the correlation of crime with numerous social variables such as age, gender, class, race, etc.. In this context, I want each of you to identify any ONE point the author makes which you found surprising or startling and briefly tell why it was surprising or startling to you. I am only looking for a paragraph or two at most, which you will post on this blog as a COMMENT. This exercise is worth 5 points, and I would like you to do this BY NEXT FRIDAY, SEPT. 18TH.
I hope that the last issue I got into yesterday was not confusing. First, let me say again that the author's definition of deviance at the bottom of p. 6: "...behavior that is outside the range of normal societal toleration." is ok. But when he talks about definitions of deviance being relative to time, place, and person, he seems to endorse a more RELATIVISTIC standard which leaves the door open for almost anything to be considered deviant. It is like Matza's definition of deviance as "straying from A path or standard," which I believe is unacceptable. Let me add just a few additional observations about this:
(1) Aside from the fact that such an extreme relativistic definition is tantamount to no definition at all (because anything could qualify as being deviant), I am also troubled by the reliance on attitudes and opinions which we are all entitled to have but which, unfortunately, all too often are based on myths, biases, prejudices and not on fact or real evidence. I would hazard a guess that most attitudes and opinions people have could not be considered "informed."
(a) For example, attitudes which regarded racial integration as deviant were for decades (even centuries) based more on racial prejudice and myths than anything else.
(b) Although there may be some value in knowing the range of opinions on what is considered deviant and how these vary over time, I would insist that it is not a valid basis for defining deviance, or even more so for exploring the implications of deviance for the larger social order.
(c) Finally, I believe it is important to take a CRITICAL approach to what a society or certain individuals may consider deviant, just as I would also say we should be critical of what constitutes crime, since ultimately that is also based on attitudes and opinions which are the basis of the laws which define certain acts as criminal.
PLEASE INSERT THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS IN YOUR NOTES.
FIRST INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE: In Chapter 2: General Characteristics of Crime and Criminals, the author considers the correlation of crime with numerous social variables such as age, gender, class, race, etc.. In this context, I want each of you to identify any ONE point the author makes which you found surprising or startling and briefly tell why it was surprising or startling to you. I am only looking for a paragraph or two at most, which you will post on this blog as a COMMENT. This exercise is worth 5 points, and I would like you to do this BY NEXT FRIDAY, SEPT. 18TH.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Welcome to Soc. 220 Blog for Fall '09
Welcome to this blog for Sociology 220: Sociology of Criminal and Deviant Behavior for the Fall '09. Let me fill you in on what we will be using this blog for this semester:
(1) This blog is intended to give you another outlet for comments, discussion, and questions. In addition, I will be posting individual and "family" (or group) exercises from time to time for which you can earn activities points. For example, one family activity we will be doing prior to the midterm and final exams will be making up exam questions in which you will be called upon to contribute questions for both the midterm and final exams which will then be posted on this blog.
(2) This blog will also be used for occasional extra credit opportunities such as posting some brief reflections on an outside lecture or film you may attend that is relevant to this class.
(3) I may also use this blog to post lecture notes or comments relevant to what we covered in class, especially if I get behind. But do NOT expect me to do this all the time.
(4) THIS BLOG WILL BE THE MAIN VEHICLE I'LL USE TO CARRY ON CLASS IN THE EVENT THAT I COME DOWN WITH SWINE FLU.
(5) Finally, I will usually remind you in class if I have posted anything on the blog, but it would still be a good idea to check it a couple times a week regardless.
That's all for now, but I will soon (by the end of this week) have a little exercise for you which will involve posting some comments on this blog, so be looking for that.
(1) This blog is intended to give you another outlet for comments, discussion, and questions. In addition, I will be posting individual and "family" (or group) exercises from time to time for which you can earn activities points. For example, one family activity we will be doing prior to the midterm and final exams will be making up exam questions in which you will be called upon to contribute questions for both the midterm and final exams which will then be posted on this blog.
(2) This blog will also be used for occasional extra credit opportunities such as posting some brief reflections on an outside lecture or film you may attend that is relevant to this class.
(3) I may also use this blog to post lecture notes or comments relevant to what we covered in class, especially if I get behind. But do NOT expect me to do this all the time.
(4) THIS BLOG WILL BE THE MAIN VEHICLE I'LL USE TO CARRY ON CLASS IN THE EVENT THAT I COME DOWN WITH SWINE FLU.
(5) Finally, I will usually remind you in class if I have posted anything on the blog, but it would still be a good idea to check it a couple times a week regardless.
That's all for now, but I will soon (by the end of this week) have a little exercise for you which will involve posting some comments on this blog, so be looking for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)