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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Although I already knew that men had a much higher rate of crime than women, I thought that Hagan presented some very interesting information about this difference. I did not realize that the gap between male to female arrests was so great. The most interesting thing that Hagan mentions though is that in more modernized countries in which women have equal rights with men, the gap between arrest rates of different genders is much smaller. I had never thought about this possible correlation before. It makes sense that in traditional societies in which women have little freedom, they would not have many opportunities to break laws. For example in some Middle Eastern countries women are not permitted to go anywhere unless accompanied by their husbands or a male relative. In such cultures it would be incredibly difficult to commit a crime when you are never left alone to have to opportunity for criminal activity.
The one set of crime statistics about crime variables that I was surprised by was the percentage of crimes committed by juveniles. While it does make sense to me that criminal activity such as robbery, vandalism, and disorderly conduct are mostly committed (by percentage) by the juvenile age group, it came as a great surprise to me that the categories of murder, motor vehicle theft, and forcible rape were as high as they were. It would have seemed to me that these percentages would have been much lower in such a young age group. This just shows that our initial perceptions of crime may not be accurate and could in fact be drastically different from what we have come to expect.
One of the facts that I found most staggering was that most juvenile delinquents do not become adult criminals. I would have suspected that most young people that were already getting into trouble with the law would definitely find themselves in deeper trouble as they became older. My prediction would have been that a one time juvenile delinquent turned adult would become a criminal of a much higher degree in almost all cases. With age comes the ownership of vehicles, weapons; things that could take a person from property damage and vandalism as a kid to extreme felonies in their later years.
Hagan goes on to explain that youthful offenders in urban areas are most likely "overrepresented" in arrest statistics. Hagan says that urban areas have more efficient, formalized policing, and that youth usually has less power than grownups to shield themselves from arrest.
The first thing I thought was interesting was the lists of recent great crimes. Some of the events that were listed off I had not thought of as "crimes", chiefly the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I thought it was interesting to approach the subject through the eyes of a criminologist. It really gave a new perspective to the whole idea.
I also thought that the gender differences listed in the text were very interesting. I did know that men had a much higher arrest rates, though I did not know exactly how great the difference was. I had never thought about it but it does seem to make much more sense that in conservative countries, where womens rights aren't up to our level, that womens crimes would be much lower.
I found the section about war and crime very interesting. Before reading this, I would have expected that the crime rate rose in times of war. I would have guessed these two were directly proportional. Hagan however presents the opposite idea. He writes, “…conflict with an outside group tends to increase the internal solidarity within groups; that is, as conflict with outside enemies increases, conflict within groups decreases.” When it is explained it makes sense that the group fighting would come together in unison rather than cause controversy with each other. I would have thought that the tensions and anger from the war would carry on throughout the citizen’s lives but it makes sense to say that it “increases internal solidarity.” It was very interesting to learn about this subject from a different perspective.
Although I had an idea that men were arrested more than women I found it quite shocking that in the nineties 83% of those who arrested were men. I did not think the difference was that great. The author states, " For some males, crime is considered macho and enhances status and while female crime is usually stigmatizing." I think the overall societal view of women and the stereotypes of "weakness" and "vulnerability" may have something to do with the fact women do not attempt the types of crimes men do. Women are more likely to get arrested for less rewarding crimes such as shoplifting and prostitution. I find it extremely interesting that these differences between men and women distinctly can be seen in the gender differences in crime rates.
I was suprised at how high the percentage was for black males that were either behind bars, or on probation or parole in the early nineties. It was 1 in every four black males, or 25%. I was suprised it was that high. It was " more than the number of black males enrolled in college."
I found the Gender Difference in Criminaltiy to be very interesting in that Hagan relates what he feels to be the reasoning and differences behind crimes of men and women. He sees male criminality as a proof of being "macho" and an attempt of "enhancing status". Women's crimes, however, are based on emotion or are in some way still dominated by male influence. In this finding,however, I question if Hagan finds it impossible for women to commit a crime for the same reason as a man, to gain a higher sense of status. I found it interesting that most women's crimes are a result of a past event in their life or because of their childhood. Also, Hagan relates that it has only been recently that crimes committed by women have been recognized or acknowledged because in the past men usually took the blame for their wives or because women just aren't usually seen in a devient light.
I found the differing regional crime rates to be very interesting. The crimes of the different american regions were astonishing to me. Now looking at it I assume that the chart of incomes of the areas would also show a similar pattern.While I expected that crime rates might vary a bit I did not expect the stunning differences that were reported. I wonder how much this(effect of population density) might really apply, but, I also found it very interesting when it spoke about how the relation with the size of a community increases that the crime RATE increased not just the crimes. I had always assumed there were more crimes in higher populated areas but assumed that it was still somewhat proportional to the size. I wonder what regions have possess larger numbers of high populated areas.
I was surprised to learn that during major wars domestic crime declined. However, after reading this section it did make sense that the country involved in war would band together and increase social solidarity, therefore decreasing the rate of crime. It was also interesting that juvenile crime increases during a time of war, and this is due to the displacement of families and increased mobility. It was also a surprise to me that white collar crime increased during times of war because I thought it would be more street crime that would increase due to the amount of unrest the country would be suffering. It does make sense that after a war, a nation becomes more prone to violence because the country has been exposed to it.
I was not actually that surprised by many of the demographics. It is a pretty common stereotype that young, African American males from lower-income backgrounds are more likely to commit crimes. However, I was very surprised to learn that the demographics are not always accurate due to the fact that law enforcement is often biased, and that white-collar crime is left out of many studies and statistics. When countries compare crime rates they often omit the white collar crimes, thus giving skewed and inaccurate statistics. That is why the United States have higher crime rates than other countries, the statistics are more accurate than countries that ignore crimes that deal more with embezzling and forgery as opposed to more violent crimes, such as murder and assault. I never really thought that those crimes would be omitted from crime statistics, and the author's recognition of that was extremely surprising to me.
When I was reading chapter 2, the heading title of one section really shocked me. I was surprised to see that religion was listed as a correlate of crime. Hagan writes “Of major religious groups in the United States, Jews have the lowest official crime rate, followed by Protestants; Catholics have the highest rates” (49). This statement really surprised me, however when Hagan went on to explain this correlate, it began to make much more sense. Hagan said that there is a hidden variable within this correlate – social class. Catholics include a significant proportion of low-income minorities who have a high rate of crime. As expected, Hagan states that studies show attendance at religious services reduced crime commission.
I was very surprised when reading the crime statistics. Most of the statistics I had learned about earlier in Intro to Sociology but I had never seen the juvenile ones before. These were the ones that surprised me the most. It was plausible to believe that juveniles would commit crimes like robbery, vandalism, etc. However, I was shocked to learn that murder, motor vehicle theft, and forcible rape were committed as much as they were considering these juveniles were exceptionally young. I expected these percentages in these categories to be much lower.
I found it interesting that most juvenile delinquents do not become adult criminals. i guess this just shows that while juveniles are more likely to rebel against societal norms, this is just a phase of their development. I know that as a young person, the temptation to commit crimes is strong. i guess the peer pressure to perform such acts passes with time. gang activity is also much more common in young people than in adults so i guess this accounts for a large number of the violent crimes committed by adolescents.
I found it interesting to see how class and gender tend to have very large gaps within their catagories. It's often eluded to in popular culture that the upper class tend to get away with more criminal behavior due to such persuasion as bribary, but I didn't think much of it in reality. In the case of gender, stereotypically crimes are committed by men, but I had always assumed that there were a fair number of women that committed crimes as well. I didn't expect that there would be such a large disparity between the sects of citizens. In fact, both of these catagories seem to have sort of jarred my thought process and led to some interesting reasoning in which criminology is something different than what I had expected.
I was surprised by the immigrant section when Hagan refers to the parental groups rate of crime vs the second generations crime rate. Hagan claims "IT is not the parental group of immigrants that exhibits excess criminality, for many groups, it is the second generation that shows a marked upsurge in crime." (p44) Hagan's idea is that the parental group want to be Americanized while the second generation tries to maintain the culture, however the neighborhoods they come from often have high crime rates, thus the second generation assimilate the high crime values of the area from which they live.
When reading the demographics, I was not really all that surprised by the statistics. I have heard that men tend to create more crime than women, and that younger African American lower class men are more prone to commit crime. These pieces of knowledge are not stereotypical thoughts, they are just inferences I have formed from watching the news, reading the newspaper, and by listening to different stories. I did find the correlations between arrest rates of men and women very interesting. That is something I had never learned of before. The roles of women are different in many countries, so in some countries, women would never even have the opportunity to commit a crime. which could be a reason as to why the arrest rate for women is low.
While reading I noticed a point that was interesting about race and crime. I knew many black males were in prison or on some type of supervision, but I did not know, "In the the early nineties, roughly 1 in 4 young black males in the United States was behind bars, on parole, or on probation. This was more than the number of black men enrolled in college." This was startling because I did not know the ration was that high for black males. Also, during the nineties I thought the ration was declining and more black males were going to college.
I find the way Hagan tries to connect education and crime interesting. Earlier in chapter two, Hagan argues that if you are in a higher social class, you are less likely to commit a crime. He later ties this into education by stating "it is not formal education per se that causes or prevents crime; rather, educational status reflects one's social class, location of residence, and exposure to criminal or delinquent opportunity." I understand the point he is trying to make, but I also have to disagree that educational status reflects one's social class. Many people in a lower social class have fought there way to a higher education. It does make sense that if you have a strong bond with school and do extra curricular activities, you are less likely to get involved with other things. I agree with Hagan that a person's family situation and neighborhood have a large influence on their susceptibility to committing crimes.
Post a Comment