FAMILY ACTIVITY: "GANG LEADER FOR A DAY"

Over the next couple weeks you'll be reading "Gang Leader for a Day," and I would like each of the families to discuss the questions listed below and come up with answers to them. Your answers or responses should be NO LONGER THAN A PARAGRAPH OR TWO AT MOST, AND THEY SHOULD REFLECT THE COLLECTIVE EFFORT OF THE FAMILY. I will give you plenty of class time to confer with your fellow family members, and we will also be discussing the book in class. Specifically, I will give the families time to discuss the book on THURSDAY, NOV. 4TH and TUESDAY, NOV. 9TH. On THURSDAY, NOV. 11TH I want each family to present your answers in class and submit them in writing to me. I will then consider your answers and post on this blog what I believe are the best answers to each question. These "best answers" will be the basis for me making up final exam questions about "Gang Leader for a Day." Those families' answers that are selected as best will earn a bonus point for your efforts. All participating family members will earn 7 activity points for this exercise.

HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS:
(1) What did you find was the MOST SURPRISING FACT OR OBSERVATION, AND WHY?

(2) What do you believe is the MOST INSIGHTFUL PASSAGE IN THE BOOK (no more than a paragraph long), AND WHY?

(3) What do you believe is the MOST IMPORTANT LESSON to be drawn from the book in terms of understanding and dealing with gangs?
______________________

So, please start reading the book and be ready to begin discussing these questions with your family members next Thursday.

And please check out the previous blog post which describes the EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY coming up next Tuesday, Nov. 2nd.

EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY

Next week Tuesday, Nov. 2nd, I will be showing a documentary entitled, "A Hard Straight," about the parole system in California. After seeing this video in class, to earn 5 EXTRA CREDIT POINTS, I want you to post a two-paragraph comment in which you will focus on ONE of the three parolees featured in the documentary. The question I want you to address is simply: what could have been done to help this person make a successful transition to life outside of prison, thereby avoiding the personal and social costs of sending him or her back, as over 50% of parolees in California are today?

PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENT NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 5TH.
______________________

Also, be looking for another blog post soon describing the family activity on "Gang Leader for a Day."

Family Questions from "Crime Types" for the Midterm

Below are the questions (and answers) I accepted, with some editing. Remember, these questions will be on the midterm exam coming up this Thursday, 10/21.

CHAPTER 2: HOMICIDE AND ASSAULT RED FAMILY (Sami, Amanda, Taylor, Kirsten)

1. Identify the characteristics of most murders. (2pts) (Note: you do not have to list all of them to get full credit, but you should be able to identify several.)

ANSWER: Most murders are one-on-one situations where the victim and the perpetrator are acquainted. Most involved individuals of the same age, race, and gender. And they tend to be crimes of passion which result from a heated, emotional argument.

2. In what way do independent killers (or hitmen) use Sykes and Matza's "techniques of neutralization?" (1)

ANSWER: By classifying killing as a job or a normal business transaction, which enables the hitman to neutralize any sense of moral responsibility.

3. Why is the use of "threats" so important in gang violence, and how does this contribute to the growth of gangs? (2)

ANSWER: Threats keep opposing gangs in a constant state of anticipation of what the other gang will do, causing them to act irrationally, out of fear, using violence. Threats increase the solidarity of a gang and motivates other young people in the neighborhood to join for protection.

4. In the article, "How Women Experience Battering," how is Sykes and Matza's "techniques of neutralization" used in a unique way? (1)

ANSWER: As the basis for categories of rationalization that battered women, as VICTIMS, rationalize the behavior of their abusers.


CHAPTER 3: VIOLENT SEX CRIMES GREEN FAMILY (Michaela was the only one who submitted questions; the other family members, Lauren A., David, and Sarah get 2 points off for this activity.)

1. What are the typical characteristics of gang rape victims on college campuses? (1)

ANSWER: They are generally rather naive, first-year students who have somehow gained a reputation for being promiscuous.

2. According to research by Scully and Marolla, referred to in the Introduction to Chapter 3, most rapists are driven by what? (1)

ANSWER: a will to degrade or dominate their victims, not by a quest for sexual gratification.


CHAPTER 4: ROBBERY YELLOW FAMILY (Francis, Patrick, Cynthia, Anna)

1. Why do people resort to robbery instead of seeking legal work? (2)

ANSWER: Because criminals are addicted to pleasure. They rob and spend the money as quickly as possible on parties, drugs, clothes, etc. and when they run out, they want to have their "fun" back as quickly as possible, so they rob again. A job with a paycheck would not give them the cash they need when they need it. And since criminals tend to be unskilled and uneducated, it would be difficult for them to hold down even a minimum-wage job.

2. What is the term Samaha prefers as an alternative for "robbery," and why? (2)

ANSWER: "Aggravated property crime," because a robbery combines elements of property theft and violence into a single criminal transaction.

3. What two things govern an individual's decision to commit a carjacking? (2)

ANSWER: (1) PERCEIVED SITUATIONAL INDUCEMENTS (immediate pressures on an individual such as peer pressure, need for cash or drugs, revenge) and (2) PERCEIVED OPPORTUNITY (potential risks and rewards).
____________________________________

That's it. See you tomorrow (Tues. 10/19).

Concluding Lecture Notes on Contemporary Theories

Below are some final brief notes on contemporary theories of crime. Please copy these and study them, along with the other lecture notes for the midterm exam coming up next Thursday, Oct. 21.

CONTEMPORARY THEORIES

A. Many of the more contemporary theories, to my mind, don't make much improvement over the traditional theories we've already covered. Indeed, they seem to be more concerned with exposing biases in the way our criminal justice system operates. There are three main ones:

1. Conflict theory -- biases based on social class (or race)
2. Marxist theory -- biases based on class
3. Feminist theory -- biases based on gender, especially the subordinate position of women.

B. No doubt these theories bring out some valid issues, but they also tend to exaggerate the role of these factors and generally can be considered more IDEOLOGICAL. Among them, I would say the feminists attempt to argue there are biases against women in the criminal justice system may be the most distorted. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that women receive more lenient sentences than men for the same crimes, not vice versa.

C. The conflict theorists have exposed the issue of racial bias, which I believe should be fairly obvious (as in the Tulia case), although many (such as Prof. Akers) downplay this "extra-legal" variable (race) in criminal justice decision-making.

D. The Marxists may have a point in suggesting that capitalist societies tend to have higher crime rates than socialist ones. But they also have been guilty of idealizing socialist systems or just assuming they would have lower crime rates. Also, they tend to ignore obvious differences in crime rates between various capitalist countries.

1. An interesting point point some Marxist theorists have raised is -- that as the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (I would even say, China) become more capitalist their crime rates have risen dramatically. But that is a bit simplistic. One must consider how repressive the former Soviet Union was and that other things could also explain this surge.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATION ON THE SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF CRIMINAL AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

Even though no theory stands out as THE answer to the many different types of criminal behavior, I believe sociologists have identified some important social factors that must be considered not only in explaining this behavior, but also ultimately addressing or correcting it more effectively.

Concluding Lecture Notes on Anomie/Strain Theory

Last Thursday I did manage to present Merton's "Anomie" Theory of criminal and deviant behavior, along with a couple later modifications: Cohen's "status deprivation" and Cloward and Ohlin's "differential access to illegitimate opportunities. Let me, then wrap this up with some critical comments about the theory.

F. Research on this theory offers mixed support. Looking at official figures, the inverse relationship between social class and crime does appear to hold up (i.e., the lower the class the higher the crime rate), especially considering serious offenses. There is less of a class difference when considering minor offenses.

1. There is even a mixed picture when we consider the relationship between unemployment and crime. Citing a couple of studies from the 1980s, Prof. Akers observes: "...there is little evidence that unemployment motivates people to commit criminal acts. Moreover, crime is as likely to affect unemployment as vice versa." (especially these days with widespread drug testing in the workplace)

2. Focusing just on the so-called "social structural correlates" of crime such as social class, pverty, unemployment, racial heterogeneity, there is some fairly strong evidence of the influence of such factors. And this is seen as consistent with Merton's anomie theory. (Although one could still point out, this does not help us to sort out why only some individuals, and far from the majority, who live in these crime-prone social conditions get involved in crime.)

Concluding Comment About Macro Theories

A. Despite some of the problems we've seen with both Social Disorganization and Anomie/Strain theories (our two macro theories), I would endorse the general policy implications that Prof. Akers describes well in the following:

"The ultimate policy implications of any structural theory is that basic social changes need to be fostered to remove the criminogenic features of economic, political, and social institutions of society. The clear implication of anomie theory, for instance, is to promote the integration of cultural goals and socially approved means, and the redistribution of opportunities in the class system."
("The Cheating Culture" book that had a nice description of Merton's theory draws a similar conclusion regarding how to address cheating.)
___________________

That's all for now. I will post some notes about more contemporary theories in the near future. Tomorrow (Tues. 10/12), of course, we are going to break new ground in discussing "Crime Types." I will be reporting briefly on the Preface and Chapter 1, and then we will hear a family report on Chapter 2: Homicide and Assault.

Lecture Notes: Labeling & Social Disorganization Theories

Because it does not appear I will be able to cover all of the remaining theories tomorrow, I am going to post my remaining notes on labeling theory and also what I planned to say about social disorganization theory. Since I am not going over this material in class, you won't have an opportunity to comment or raise questions in class. So, after you read over these notes, please don't hesitate to email me any questions or comments or raise qusestions in class, especially during the review session before the midterm exam which is coming up in roughly two weeks. Also, you should consider this material as you compose your first essay, a description of which I will hand out tomorrow (Thurs., 10/7).

LABELING THEORY: as you recall, we did get into this a bit. I noted the relevance of the symbolic interactionist view of the development of self ("looking-glass self" notion)to this theory, then I quoted from one of the leading labeling theorists, Howard Becker, from his book entitled, "The Outsiders."

Becker said: "One of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behavior is likely to be the experience of being caught and publicly labeled as a deviant. Whether a person takes this step or not depends not so much on what he does as on what other people do...being caught and branded as a deviant has important consequences for one's further social participation and self-image."

2. So, society imposing labels such as criminal, dope addict, crazy (as in Scheff's "Being Mentally Ill") tends to foster such a self-concept and behavior in us.

3. Labeling theorists would also emphasize that this theory is designed to explain SECONDARY deviance, not PRIMARY deviance (or the initial act for which one is publicly labeled). And herein lies one of the greatest weaknesses of the theory.

D. Prof. Akers, among many others, has been a long-time critic of labeling theory. He objected to the notion that we disregard the actual behavior of the deviant (in favor of focusing on society's reaction to it), and he also noted that even relatively powerless people are often able to resist the application of the label.

1. It is the factors that led to the initial act of deviance (which labeling theorists admittedly ignore) that may be the most important in explaining the perpetuation of the deviant behavior. As Prof. Akers comments in this regard:
"People are labeled as delinquent, criminal, homosexual, mentally ill, drug addicts, child molestors, and so on largely on the basis of overt acts they have committed. Therefore, the deviant behavior itself is prior to and forms the basis for the stigmatizing label. THE BEHAVIOR CREATES THE LABEL MORE THAN THE LABEL CREATES THE BEHAVIOR; AND SUBSEQUENT DEVIANT BEHAVIOR CONTINUES THE LABEL MORE THAN THE LABEL CONTINUES THE BEHAVIOR."

a.) Indeed, research appears to show that those who have committed primary deviance and have NOT been detected (and labeled) are just as likely as labeled offenders to develop deviant careers. To which Akers also adds: "The preponderance of research finds no or very weak evidence of labeling effects."

E. A later variation on the labeling thesis, John Braithwaite's, "Crime, Shame, and Integration" (1989), suggested the possibility of a positive role for labeling. He distinguished between "DISINTEGRATIVE SHAMING" (negative effect of labeling which the theory stresses) and "REINTEGRATIVE SHAMING" (positive effect).

1. "Reintegrative shaming" is where shaming someone is designed to create genuine remorse and bring the person back into the community (rather than ostracize him). Examples: restorative justice (apologies to victims or restitution, paying back), even drug courts where non-violent drug offenders have to appear before a judge periodically and show they are cleaning themselves up. A more notable recent example would be South Africa's "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" of the mid 1990s where former members of the apartheid regime who committed atrocities were allowed to confess their crimes and ask forgiveness from the victims, rather than simply being prosecuted and sent away to prison.

F. Back in the 1970s the labeling thesis did have some impact on criminal justice policy, inspiring so-called "juvenile diversion" programs -- avoid stigmatizing juvenile offenders and thereby locking them into a life of crime (according to the theory at least). Unfortunately, studies of such diversion programs have not demonstrated much effectiveness in stopping juveniles from continuing to commit crimes. (Nonetheless, I believe avoiding the criminal justice system (prison especially) when possible makes sense, such as in the case of drug courts. Most nonviolent drug offenders and abusers need help more than punishment and the stigma attached to it.)

G. Labeling theory may have been a product of its time -- it became popular in the 1960s to criticize the criminal justice system, to see it as part of the problem (which I believe was important to recognize). But by the late 1970s it was beginning to be rejected -- more conservative mood took hold in the country.

H. Despite the strong criticism , Prof. Akers, among others, does see some promise in Braithwaite's revision. Akers fairly (and very broadly) identifies the principal strength and weakness of labeling theory -- "The principal strength of labeling theory is that it calls attention to the unintended consequences of social control. Its principal weakness is that it essentially ignores primary deviance and seriously underestimates the influence that other variables have on behavior in the first place and continue to have on its future occurrence."


SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY

A. This theory originated at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and it is closely associated with a broader theoretical perspective known as URBAN ECOLOGY, that Chicago School sociologists developed around the same time. They are closely interrelated.

1. The urban ecologists developed various models to describe the city, its growth and development. They identified certain "natural areas" or zones, some of which had distinctly higher rates of criminal behavior. Why?

2. The social disorganization theorists contended that these high crime areas were characterized by a variety of indicators of social disorganization. For example, an especially crime-prone area was the so-called "zone of transition" -- an area near the commercial core which was changing from residential to commercial. Characterized by physical decay, poor housing, incomplete and broken families, high rates of illegitimate births and an unstable, transient, heterogeneous population -- all regarded as indicators of "social disorganization."

a.) Other characteristics identified in later versions of the theory (Sampson and Groves, 1989): lack of informal friendship networks, low participation in organizations, etc.

3. Basically, you have normal people trying to cope with these abnormal conditions, and in doing so tend to get involved in crime.

4. This is the first trutly MACRO theory we've covered, placing the blame on such social conditions and focusing on rates.

B. They also contended that rapid industrialization and urbanization caused this social disorganization which, in turn, undermined social control exercised through traditional social order and values.

C. Certainly, things have changed in our cities and inner city areas. If anything, conditions have deteriorated even further in our inner cities especially and crime rates are higher (even if they have declined somewhat in recent years). This is brought out in books such as "The Truly Disadvantaged" (1989). Yet, there is some basis to question this theory. As Prof. Akers observes --

"To what degree the realtionship between inner-city residents and crime is the result of social disorganization remains uncertain...."

"Often the research does not carefully measure social disorganization...."

"The very fact that crime and deviance are high within an area is itself sometimes used, tautologically, as an empirical indicator that the area is socially disorganized...."

"Furthermore, even in those areas characterized as the msot disorganized, only a minority of youths and a smaller minority of adults are involved in crime."

1. C. Wright Mills, a prominent American sociologist, raised the problem of potential bias in an essay entitled, "The Ideology of Social Pathologists." He suggested that these social disorganization theorists had a strong anti-urban bias because of their small-town, religious upbringing which they assumed to be more in line with social order.

D. Despite the apparent bias, among the other problems noted, I believe the theory makes some sense and it suggests the need to address poor social conditions in order to address the crime problem -- conditions such as you will read about in "Gang Leader for a Day."
______________________

That's it for now. Please incorporate the above in your notes. See you tomorrow.

Next Couple Weeks & Crime Types' Reports

Below is a schedule of what we will be doing over roughly the next month, including a tentative date for the midterm exam. I believe this is a realistic schedule, so we should be able to stick to it.

TUES. OCT. 5TH: Wrap up Control/Bonding theory and move on to Labeling and Social Disorganization.

THURS. OCT. 7TH: Anomie/Strain theory; overview of some contemporary theories. Hand out description of first essay, which will be due on TUES. OCT. 12TH.

CRIME TYPES'S REPORTS: Please refer to the earlier description of what I want these oral reports to include. Remember, you should aim for about a 30 minute presentation for each family. Also, I want each family to submit in writing (or via email) FIVE short-answer questions (and answers) from your chapter by the day following your presentation, at the latest. I will look these over and select at least TWO of these questions and possibly more if they are good, which I will then incorporate on the midterm exam (or final exam, if you give your presentation after the midterm exam).** Finally, let me stress that although you will be focusing on just one chapter in the book for this report, EVERYONE SHOULD BE READING THE BOOK AS A WHOLE AS WE WORK OUR WAY THROUGH IT.

** Note this is a change from the earlier blog description of this activity.

TUES. OCT. 12TH: Preface & Chapter 1 - Prof. Ginocchio
Chapter 2: Homicide and Assault - Red Family

THURS. OCT. 14TH: Chapter 3: Violent Sex Crimes - Green Family
Chapter 4: Robbery - Yellow Family

TUES. OCT. 19TH: Chapter 5: Burglary - Black family
(time for review for the midterm exam)

THURS. OCT. 21ST: MIDTERM EXAM (will cover only thru Chapter 4 of Crime Types)

TUES. OCT. 26TH: Chapter 6: Common Property Crime - Prof. Ginocchio
Chapter 7: Public Order Crime - Blue Family

THURS. OCT. 28TH: Chapter 8: Crime Within Complex Organizations - Prof. Ginocchio
(Hand back and go over the midterm exam)

TUES. NOV. 2ND: Chapter 9: Patterns and Prospects (few comments)
Begin discussing "Gang Leader for a Day"