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.