It seems I never get through the material I planned to get through in class, so I am going to resort to posting more lecture notes on the blog. Be sure to check this material out, and don't hesitate to ask any questions you may have about it.
Before we get back to Akers' "Social Learning" theory (an updated version of Sutherland's "Differential Association" theory), let me re-state that famous description of the symbolic interactionist concept of the "looking glass self," which underlies this theory of crimnal behavior: "I am not who I think I am. I am not who you think I am. I am who I think you think I am." -- which suggests that our identity is a product of our interaction with others in which we take into account their attitudes and expectations, so if we are interacting with others who happen to be criminals, we are more likely to develop a criminal identity, to come to see criminal behavior as ok.
Now, Akers' Social Learning theory:
F. Akers identifies FOUR major aspects of social learning theory, which I present below, recognizing that some of this is repetitious:
1. Differential Association: Akers suggests that two types of associations are involved here: DIRECT association or interaction with criminals or INDIRECT association and identification with more distant reference groups (which Sutherland did not acknowledge). This really has to do with IMITATION, which is the fourth major aspect of this theory.
a.) Person absorbs certain norms and values through these associations. And Akers does note that the most important or significant of these contacts are (face-to-face) primary group contacts.
b.) In this context, Akers also describes what PRIORITY, DURATION, FREQUENCY, and INTENSITY entail: "Those associations that occur earlier (priority), last longer and occupy more of one's time (duration), take place most often (frequency), and involves others with whom one has the more important or closer relationship (intensity) will have the greater effect on behavior."
2. Definitions: these are the attitudes or meanings one attaches to a given behavior. Or, orientations or rationalizations, etc. which define the commission of an act as right or wrong, good or bad, justified or unjustified.
a.) Akers distinguishes between POSITIVE definitions which define criminal behavior as morally desirable (or positively), and NEUTRALIZING (or negative) definitions which favor criminal behavior by excusing or rationalizing it.
1.) The latter type of definition is well-illustrated in an article by Sykes and Matza entitled "Techniques of Neutralization" -- that delinquents especially learn such techniques such as "denial of responsibility," "denial of injury," among a few others. Or, more generally, excuses such as: "everybody has a racket," "I can't help myself, I was born that way," etc. (You will see a number of references to this in "Crime Types.") Donald Cressey, a colleague of Sutherland's, wrote a book on trust violators (white collar crime) in which he saw these individuals rationalizing their behavior.
b.) These definitions may be so extreme that they almost require you to violate the law, such as radical, revolutionary ideologies. (eg., Islamic terrorists who use (or misuse) their religion to justify acts of terror.)
c.) In general, the point is that learning such definitions creates a mind set in which one is more likely to engage in criminal behavior.
3. Differential Reinforcement: whether you refrain from or commit a crime depends on past, present, and anticipated future rewards or punishments for one's actions.
a.) POSITIVE reinforcement -- money or approval which is more an indirect, SOCIAL reward.
b.) NEGATIVE reinforcement -- escaping punishment, pain or disapproval. That when you commit a criminal act and are not apprehended or punished for it, tends to reinforce such behavior. (eg., a child who uses foul language and is never punished or confronted for it, will probably continue to use such language.)
4. Imitation: (noted earlier, aspect #1) I would add that this would include identifying with fictional characters on TV or in the movies.
G. According to Prof. Akers, this has been among the most tested of the theories and it has stood up well. It is also supported by other studies which have shown that key groups such as the family, peer groups, gangs exercise considerable influence over individuals either in a conventional or deviant way. (This was even borne out in a study Prof. Akers and his students conducted on college men involved in rape.)
H. This theory (Differential Association/Social Learning) stands out as one of the most broadly applicable theories, underlying a variety of programs involving some sort of group therapy. I would also argue that PROBATION and PAROLE programs relate insofar as they seek to guarantee a person under such supervision stays away from their former criminal associates. (Later in the semester we'll see a video on parole in which this point comes out.)
1. Unfortunately, many of these programs have not been that successful. One could blame the heavy caseloads of most probabtion and parole officers, but I believe this lack of success also has to do with a major flaw or weakness in the theory.
I. I believe that part of the reason for the limited success of prevention and treatment programs based on this theory has to do with the fact that this theory does NOT really get at the ROOT of the problem -- where crime itself comes from. It may be ok as a theory of CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, but NOT as a theory of CRIME.
1.) According to differential association, criminals learn from other criminals, who, in turn, learned from a previous group of criminals, etc., etc., etc., AD INFINITUM...... So, where did the first criminal group come from, to get the ball rolling, so to speak? The devil? (Similarly, if delinquents tend to come from broken homes -- or broken homes, like criminal groups, cause delinquency, then one could ask, where did these broken homes come from? How did they develop? Ultimately, you need to uncover the circumstances which give rise to broken homes, or criminal groups.)
a.) Sutherland himself even admitted as much when he made the following remark: "Since criminal behavior is thus developed in association with criminals, it means the CRIME IS THE CAUSE OF CRIME." (my emphasis), which is entirely CIRCULAR. So, there is no theory of crime as such in differential association, or social learning, for that matter.
2.) Ultimately, we must seek to uncover and understand the root causes of crime itself and attempt to remedy them. I believe Elliot Currie attempts this in his book, "Reckoning." This inevitably will take us into larger questions concerning flaws in society, because individuals are bound up with the larger society.
(Similar to the so-called "MEDICAL ANALOGY:" that ultimately we need to treat the disease and not merely the symptoms of the disease. Which is not to say, however, that we should ignore treating the symptoms, which differential association may help in doing. But it is no cure.)
That's it for now. I may highlight a few of the above points in class tomorrow (Thurs., 9/29), especially my criticism of this theory, but for all intents and purposes we will move on to the next theory. Also, I will give the families some time in the beginning to confer on how they are going to divide up responsibilities in regard to the chapter in "Crime Types" you will be reporting on.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Wrapping up Deterrence/Rational Choice/Routine Activities & Biological and Psychological Theories
AS I noted in my previous blog post, I planned to post some more lecture notes so that we can make it through these theories and get on to "Crime Types" in another two weeks or so. I may make some brief comments about these notes in class tomorrow, but for all intents and purposes, I plan to move on to the sociological theories tomorrow (Tues., 9/27).
WRAPPING UP DETERRENCE/RATIONAL CHOICE/ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORIES
A. In addition to the passages critical of deterrence theory (which you'll find in the previous blog post), I'd like to make a couple more general observations about the impact of such thinking on criminal justice policy over the past 30 years or so.
B. There can be no doubt that deterrence theory has had an obvious impact on criminal justice policy. It is generally believed that SWIFT, CERTAIN , and SEVERE sanctions for criminal acts will reduce crime in society. The popular ("knee-jerk") approach of the vast majority of politicians is "get tough."
1. For example, over the past 30 years or so, we seen the restoration of capital punishment, abolition of parole and indeterminant sentencing, mandatory-minimum sentences, generally longer sentences, especially for drug offenses, "3 strikes and you're out," trying juveniles as adults.
2. This has led to a quadrupling of our prison population since 1980 (from 500,000 to over 2 million). But the overall crime rate has not come down that dramatically, even though in the late 1990s and more recently (2008-2010) crime rates have come down somewhat. In general, there is not much evidence that potential criminals are being deterred, although one could argue that we are certainly INCAPACITATING more criminals today, which may be responsible for lowering crime rates.
a.) Of course, there are other possible explanations for the recent decline -- one possibility might be a decline in the population of young males, which is the most crime-prone population.
3. Shock incarceration, boot camps, and an experimental program called "Scared Straight" can all be considered versions of "get tough," scare tactics, but they have not been that successful. Follow-up research on "Scared Straight," in particular, largely punctured the hoopla when it was first introduced. Two researchers (Lundman and Scarpitti) looked at "Scared Straight," and many other such programs, and concluded: "'Our own research and the research of others, lead us to the inescapable conclusion that few, if any of these efforts successfully prevented delinquency.' The authors suggest...so far, the program hasn't been devised that will knock out juvenile crimes. With the best of intentions, the lifers at Rahway (the New Jersey prison where "Scared Straight" was first tried) can't transform city schools, poor and broken families, jobless summers." In other words, in the absence of changing the social environment substantially, one can't expect much from scare tactics or "get tough" approaches.
BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES:
A. The following brief overview of biological and psychological theories of criminal behavior is not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive. By treating these theories so briefly, I do not mean to imply that they are not worth careful consideration. My main intention is to present these theories as a COUNTERPOINT or CONTRAST to the various sociological theories which, of course, emphasize the role of SOCIAL forces over and above aspects of our biological or psychological make-up.
B. Lombroso and the Early Biological Theories
1. The classical school of criminology (i.e., deterrence) was dominant up until the late 19th century when what is known as "biological positivism" took hold, which directly challenges the notion that crime is rational behavior. (In fact, I would go as far to suggest that biological and psychological theories see criminal behavior as a product of some biological or mental DEFECT or ABNORMALITY, rather that ordinary, rationally-calculating individuals.)
2. The early biological criminologists viewed criminals as a distinct set of people who were biologically inferior to law-abiding citizens, or inherently defective in some way. Preeminant among them was Cesare Lombroso, a self-described "medical anthropologist" and physician, who wrote "The Criminal Man" in 1876 which, despite its major flaws, went through 5 editions. He has been considered the "father of modern criminology" because he used a scientific methodology to study criminals (and NOT because of the strength of his theory).
3. In his research, Lombroso compared Italian prisoners (representing the criminal population) with soldiers (representing the "normal" population). He found that the prisoners shared distinctive physical traits or abnormalities which identified them as being a "born criminal type" -- really throwbacks to primitive man. Traits such as asymetry of face or head, large ears, receding chin, twisted nose, etc.
4. There is an obvious problem with both of the samples he used: prisoners do NOT represent all criminals, and even worse, soldiers are in no way representative of the normal population. Indeed, that was largely the basis of Charles Goring's refutation of Lombroso's theory in his 1913 book, "The English Convict." Goring took a much broader sample of the normal or non-criminal population and found no significant physical differences with English convicts.
5. Despite Goring's rather thorough critique, Lombroso's idea did not die. It was resurrected by E.A. Hooten in 1939, who argued that criminals are basically "organically inferior." (Indeed, Edwin Sutherland, the father of American criminology, developed his theory of DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION in part as a critical response to Hooten. Sutherland also pioneered the field of white collar crime, which suggested that only focusing on street crininals was inadequate.)
C. More modern biological theories
1. 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 an individual more volatile and aggressive. But, among other problems, it was found that only a small proportion of XYY males commit crimes of any kind (lots of exceptions, that is), and there was no evidence that the XYY syndrome is the specific cause of any criminal behavior. (And that is not to mention that female criminals were overlooked.)
2. Modern biological theories of crime and delinquency, (often based on advances in genetics, brain function (eg., serotonin levels in the brain), neurology, biochemistry, are considered more respectable, despite some methodological problems. These theories are clearly more sophisticated than the early, simplistic BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM (biology is destiny, that is) of people like Lombroso. They acknowledge the role of other social factors, and largely relegate biological factors to a secondary role as PROPENSITIES or PREDISPOSITIONS (that is, biological factors may PREDISPOSE someone to commit a crime but they do NOT DETERMINE that someone will commit a crime).
D. Policy implications of biological theories
1. Older, more deterministic theories would lead to more drastic measures, such as "selective breeding," which Hooten actually suggested, or completely isolating these born criminals in prison, or executing them, since they were biologically determined to commit crime.
2. Contemporary biological theorists support dietary therapy, genetic counseling, drug therapies, but they would also support changes in the social environment. In this context, you would still have to deal with the problem of "false positives," that is, people who may have these criminally-prone biological characteristics but who do not commit crimes. Often talking about 50% or more, not just a few exceptions. So, would early (preventive) intervention with some drug therapy, for example, be justified if half of those receiving it really did not need it?
E. Psychological Theories
1. One type of psychological theory that was more popular some years ago when PSYCHOANALYSIS was more in vogue, is the PSYCHOANALYTIC theory based on Freud's view of the human psyche, consisting of: ID, EGO, SUPEREGO. Without getting very specific, one could say that the psychoanalytic explanation relies heavily on the existence of irrational, unconscious motivations (id) not being properly handled or controlled by other aspects of the psyche (ego, and especially, superego or conscience). Or, the flip side would be an overbearing superego which would give rise to "repressive sexuality," or excessive guilt.
a.) 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 such case studies may seem, you cannot extrapolate to the larger population. It is difficult to replicate and independently verify the psychoanalyst's 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 argument being that criminals have abnormal, inadequate or specifically criminal personality traits that set them apart from the law-abiding people. This would include traits such as aggressiveness, impulsiveness, sensation-seeking, risk-taking, etc. (although we should also acknowledge that these traits do NOT necessarily manifest themselves in criminal behavior.)
a.) Apparently, research on the causative effects of such personality traits on criminal and deviant behavior has been INCONSISTENT.
b.) You also run into the problem of TAUTOLOGY (circular argument or true by definition and therefore incapable of being disproven). For example, psychopathic personality being measured, in part, by a prior history of criminal and deviant behavior, which would make the theory that a psychopathic personality leads to criminal behavior true by definition.
3. Psychological counseling of various kinds is widely employed in delinquency prevention and trestment programs, as well as in virtually every residential and non-residential facility for treating criminal offenders. But the effectiveness of such counseling has not been demonstrated, which would suggest perhaps that psychology is not the problem, but something else needs to be addressed.
FINAL CRITICAL OBSERVATION ABOUT BOTH BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES:
I believe neither theory by itself (or even combined in some way) can offer an adequate explanation for criminal behavior for the basic reason that: THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL BEING. INDIVIDUALS ARE ALSO SOCIAL AND CULTURAL BEINGS. That is to say, the individual is really a system of relations which includes the social and cultural dimensions as well as the biological and psychological dimensions. Also, given the fact that crime is a matter of social definition, that would suggest that the social dimension is ultimately more important than the biological or psychological in explaining criminal behavior.
_________________________
That's all for now. I will make a few brief comments on what I have just posted on the blog, but basically, I will start to consider the main sociological theories tomorrow (Tues., 9/27).
WRAPPING UP DETERRENCE/RATIONAL CHOICE/ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORIES
A. In addition to the passages critical of deterrence theory (which you'll find in the previous blog post), I'd like to make a couple more general observations about the impact of such thinking on criminal justice policy over the past 30 years or so.
B. There can be no doubt that deterrence theory has had an obvious impact on criminal justice policy. It is generally believed that SWIFT, CERTAIN , and SEVERE sanctions for criminal acts will reduce crime in society. The popular ("knee-jerk") approach of the vast majority of politicians is "get tough."
1. For example, over the past 30 years or so, we seen the restoration of capital punishment, abolition of parole and indeterminant sentencing, mandatory-minimum sentences, generally longer sentences, especially for drug offenses, "3 strikes and you're out," trying juveniles as adults.
2. This has led to a quadrupling of our prison population since 1980 (from 500,000 to over 2 million). But the overall crime rate has not come down that dramatically, even though in the late 1990s and more recently (2008-2010) crime rates have come down somewhat. In general, there is not much evidence that potential criminals are being deterred, although one could argue that we are certainly INCAPACITATING more criminals today, which may be responsible for lowering crime rates.
a.) Of course, there are other possible explanations for the recent decline -- one possibility might be a decline in the population of young males, which is the most crime-prone population.
3. Shock incarceration, boot camps, and an experimental program called "Scared Straight" can all be considered versions of "get tough," scare tactics, but they have not been that successful. Follow-up research on "Scared Straight," in particular, largely punctured the hoopla when it was first introduced. Two researchers (Lundman and Scarpitti) looked at "Scared Straight," and many other such programs, and concluded: "'Our own research and the research of others, lead us to the inescapable conclusion that few, if any of these efforts successfully prevented delinquency.' The authors suggest...so far, the program hasn't been devised that will knock out juvenile crimes. With the best of intentions, the lifers at Rahway (the New Jersey prison where "Scared Straight" was first tried) can't transform city schools, poor and broken families, jobless summers." In other words, in the absence of changing the social environment substantially, one can't expect much from scare tactics or "get tough" approaches.
BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES:
A. The following brief overview of biological and psychological theories of criminal behavior is not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive. By treating these theories so briefly, I do not mean to imply that they are not worth careful consideration. My main intention is to present these theories as a COUNTERPOINT or CONTRAST to the various sociological theories which, of course, emphasize the role of SOCIAL forces over and above aspects of our biological or psychological make-up.
B. Lombroso and the Early Biological Theories
1. The classical school of criminology (i.e., deterrence) was dominant up until the late 19th century when what is known as "biological positivism" took hold, which directly challenges the notion that crime is rational behavior. (In fact, I would go as far to suggest that biological and psychological theories see criminal behavior as a product of some biological or mental DEFECT or ABNORMALITY, rather that ordinary, rationally-calculating individuals.)
2. The early biological criminologists viewed criminals as a distinct set of people who were biologically inferior to law-abiding citizens, or inherently defective in some way. Preeminant among them was Cesare Lombroso, a self-described "medical anthropologist" and physician, who wrote "The Criminal Man" in 1876 which, despite its major flaws, went through 5 editions. He has been considered the "father of modern criminology" because he used a scientific methodology to study criminals (and NOT because of the strength of his theory).
3. In his research, Lombroso compared Italian prisoners (representing the criminal population) with soldiers (representing the "normal" population). He found that the prisoners shared distinctive physical traits or abnormalities which identified them as being a "born criminal type" -- really throwbacks to primitive man. Traits such as asymetry of face or head, large ears, receding chin, twisted nose, etc.
4. There is an obvious problem with both of the samples he used: prisoners do NOT represent all criminals, and even worse, soldiers are in no way representative of the normal population. Indeed, that was largely the basis of Charles Goring's refutation of Lombroso's theory in his 1913 book, "The English Convict." Goring took a much broader sample of the normal or non-criminal population and found no significant physical differences with English convicts.
5. Despite Goring's rather thorough critique, Lombroso's idea did not die. It was resurrected by E.A. Hooten in 1939, who argued that criminals are basically "organically inferior." (Indeed, Edwin Sutherland, the father of American criminology, developed his theory of DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION in part as a critical response to Hooten. Sutherland also pioneered the field of white collar crime, which suggested that only focusing on street crininals was inadequate.)
C. More modern biological theories
1. 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 an individual more volatile and aggressive. But, among other problems, it was found that only a small proportion of XYY males commit crimes of any kind (lots of exceptions, that is), and there was no evidence that the XYY syndrome is the specific cause of any criminal behavior. (And that is not to mention that female criminals were overlooked.)
2. Modern biological theories of crime and delinquency, (often based on advances in genetics, brain function (eg., serotonin levels in the brain), neurology, biochemistry, are considered more respectable, despite some methodological problems. These theories are clearly more sophisticated than the early, simplistic BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM (biology is destiny, that is) of people like Lombroso. They acknowledge the role of other social factors, and largely relegate biological factors to a secondary role as PROPENSITIES or PREDISPOSITIONS (that is, biological factors may PREDISPOSE someone to commit a crime but they do NOT DETERMINE that someone will commit a crime).
D. Policy implications of biological theories
1. Older, more deterministic theories would lead to more drastic measures, such as "selective breeding," which Hooten actually suggested, or completely isolating these born criminals in prison, or executing them, since they were biologically determined to commit crime.
2. Contemporary biological theorists support dietary therapy, genetic counseling, drug therapies, but they would also support changes in the social environment. In this context, you would still have to deal with the problem of "false positives," that is, people who may have these criminally-prone biological characteristics but who do not commit crimes. Often talking about 50% or more, not just a few exceptions. So, would early (preventive) intervention with some drug therapy, for example, be justified if half of those receiving it really did not need it?
E. Psychological Theories
1. One type of psychological theory that was more popular some years ago when PSYCHOANALYSIS was more in vogue, is the PSYCHOANALYTIC theory based on Freud's view of the human psyche, consisting of: ID, EGO, SUPEREGO. Without getting very specific, one could say that the psychoanalytic explanation relies heavily on the existence of irrational, unconscious motivations (id) not being properly handled or controlled by other aspects of the psyche (ego, and especially, superego or conscience). Or, the flip side would be an overbearing superego which would give rise to "repressive sexuality," or excessive guilt.
a.) 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 such case studies may seem, you cannot extrapolate to the larger population. It is difficult to replicate and independently verify the psychoanalyst's 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 argument being that criminals have abnormal, inadequate or specifically criminal personality traits that set them apart from the law-abiding people. This would include traits such as aggressiveness, impulsiveness, sensation-seeking, risk-taking, etc. (although we should also acknowledge that these traits do NOT necessarily manifest themselves in criminal behavior.)
a.) Apparently, research on the causative effects of such personality traits on criminal and deviant behavior has been INCONSISTENT.
b.) You also run into the problem of TAUTOLOGY (circular argument or true by definition and therefore incapable of being disproven). For example, psychopathic personality being measured, in part, by a prior history of criminal and deviant behavior, which would make the theory that a psychopathic personality leads to criminal behavior true by definition.
3. Psychological counseling of various kinds is widely employed in delinquency prevention and trestment programs, as well as in virtually every residential and non-residential facility for treating criminal offenders. But the effectiveness of such counseling has not been demonstrated, which would suggest perhaps that psychology is not the problem, but something else needs to be addressed.
FINAL CRITICAL OBSERVATION ABOUT BOTH BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES:
I believe neither theory by itself (or even combined in some way) can offer an adequate explanation for criminal behavior for the basic reason that: THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL BEING. INDIVIDUALS ARE ALSO SOCIAL AND CULTURAL BEINGS. That is to say, the individual is really a system of relations which includes the social and cultural dimensions as well as the biological and psychological dimensions. Also, given the fact that crime is a matter of social definition, that would suggest that the social dimension is ultimately more important than the biological or psychological in explaining criminal behavior.
_________________________
That's all for now. I will make a few brief comments on what I have just posted on the blog, but basically, I will start to consider the main sociological theories tomorrow (Tues., 9/27).
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Passages on Deterrence & Rational Choice theories
Below are the passages I quoted in class this morning (Thurs., 9/22), all of which are critical of both deterrence and rational choice theory.
First, from a book entitled, "The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice" (4th edition):
In a section entitled, "General Deterrence": "A simple test of deterrence is whether states or countries with the death penalty have lower homicide rates than those who 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)
And a more general comment about "get tough" policies that have prevailed in our criminal justice system for the past 30 years or so: "Longer sentences for repeat offenders continue to be a political panacea for crime. It is an easy solution to sell because it seems logical. According to popular folk wisdom, severe punishment and the certainty of prison will deter crime. That may be commonsense logic, but it is wrong. The simple fact is that prison does not deter crime, and severe sanctions probably increase the amount of crime in society. 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 desperate circumstances. They are the poor, the unemployed, the uneducated, 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 eradication of mythical crime problems through more law and order and more punishment." (pp. 362-363)
Then, from Ronald Akers on rational choice theory:
"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 pure 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)
Finally -- referring to a study of repeat offenders: "...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)
(a) And it was in this context that we brought out a few examples of criminals' ineptitude, which is much more common than careful planning.
That's all for now. I will be posting some more lecture notes on the blog over the weekend, so check them out. See you next week.
First, from a book entitled, "The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice" (4th edition):
In a section entitled, "General Deterrence": "A simple test of deterrence is whether states or countries with the death penalty have lower homicide rates than those who 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)
And a more general comment about "get tough" policies that have prevailed in our criminal justice system for the past 30 years or so: "Longer sentences for repeat offenders continue to be a political panacea for crime. It is an easy solution to sell because it seems logical. According to popular folk wisdom, severe punishment and the certainty of prison will deter crime. That may be commonsense logic, but it is wrong. The simple fact is that prison does not deter crime, and severe sanctions probably increase the amount of crime in society. 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 desperate circumstances. They are the poor, the unemployed, the uneducated, 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 eradication of mythical crime problems through more law and order and more punishment." (pp. 362-363)
Then, from Ronald Akers on rational choice theory:
"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 pure 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)
Finally -- referring to a study of repeat offenders: "...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)
(a) And it was in this context that we brought out a few examples of criminals' ineptitude, which is much more common than careful planning.
That's all for now. I will be posting some more lecture notes on the blog over the weekend, so check them out. See you next week.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
First Family Activity: "Crime Types' Chapter Reports
As I mentioned in class yesterday (Tues., 9/20), we are going to be dividing the class up into five groups (or families) tomorrow (Thurs., 9/22). In addition to dividing the class up into groups, I will also be assigning each group a chapter in "Crime Types" that you will be responsible for reporting on to the rest of the class. Each group will, then, read and prepare an oral report on your assigned chapter. Plan on taking roughly 30 minutes to cover each chapter and make sure that each group member contributes to this oral report. More specifically, in these oral reports I want you to address the following:
(1) A general overview of the chapter, including the selected articles. You might have each group member take a piece of this: for example, one or two of you focus on the introduction and then have other group members focus on each of the selected articles. PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO COVER EVERYTHING because that would take too long. Focus on key points and a few supporting examples and statistics. You need to exercise some selectivity here.
(2) Draw out at least a couple connections to the theories of criminal behavior that I am currently presenting in class lecture. And by "connections" I mean not only points 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 some use in developing strategies for controlling or reducing that type of criminal behavior.
(4) Finally, I want each group to submit to me in writing (or via email) THREE SHORT-ANSWER EXAM QUESTIONS (AND ANSWERS), which I may use on either the midterm exam (or the final exam, if we cover that chapter after the midterm exam).
Below is the list of groups and the chapter that each group will be responsible for:
GREEN FAMILY: CHAPTER 2: HOMICIDE AND ASSAULT
BLUE FAMILY: CHAPTER 3: VIOLENT SEX CRIMES
RED FAMILY: CHAPTER 4: ROBBERY
BLACK FAMILY: CHAPTER 5: BURGLARY
YELLOW FAMILY: CHAPTER 7: PUBLIC ORDER CRIME
In a couple weeks, I will post a schedule of dates when each group will be expected to give its presentation. At this point, my guess is that we will begin these presentations around Oct. 6th or the 11th. LET ME ALSO STRESS, HOWEVER, THAT EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR READING ALL OF "CRIME TYPES," NOT JUST THE CHAPTER YOUR GROUP IS REPORTING ON. I will be reporting on the other chapters in the book. This activity is worth 8 points for all PARTICIPATING group members.
(1) A general overview of the chapter, including the selected articles. You might have each group member take a piece of this: for example, one or two of you focus on the introduction and then have other group members focus on each of the selected articles. PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO COVER EVERYTHING because that would take too long. Focus on key points and a few supporting examples and statistics. You need to exercise some selectivity here.
(2) Draw out at least a couple connections to the theories of criminal behavior that I am currently presenting in class lecture. And by "connections" I mean not only points 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 some use in developing strategies for controlling or reducing that type of criminal behavior.
(4) Finally, I want each group to submit to me in writing (or via email) THREE SHORT-ANSWER EXAM QUESTIONS (AND ANSWERS), which I may use on either the midterm exam (or the final exam, if we cover that chapter after the midterm exam).
Below is the list of groups and the chapter that each group will be responsible for:
GREEN FAMILY: CHAPTER 2: HOMICIDE AND ASSAULT
BLUE FAMILY: CHAPTER 3: VIOLENT SEX CRIMES
RED FAMILY: CHAPTER 4: ROBBERY
BLACK FAMILY: CHAPTER 5: BURGLARY
YELLOW FAMILY: CHAPTER 7: PUBLIC ORDER CRIME
In a couple weeks, I will post a schedule of dates when each group will be expected to give its presentation. At this point, my guess is that we will begin these presentations around Oct. 6th or the 11th. LET ME ALSO STRESS, HOWEVER, THAT EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR READING ALL OF "CRIME TYPES," NOT JUST THE CHAPTER YOUR GROUP IS REPORTING ON. I will be reporting on the other chapters in the book. This activity is worth 8 points for all PARTICIPATING group members.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Loose Ends from Thursday's (9/15) Class & Some Lecture Notes
Let me follow up on a few things I tried to bring out in yesterday's class. I did not feel terribly good about my performance and hopefully I can make amends on this blog for some things that may not have come across clearly. Also, I am going to post a few lecture notes which I did not get to, so we don't get too far behind. Finally, by the end of next week, I will give you a desription of just what I plan to do with our first book, "Crime Types."
I trust all of you are reasonably clear about the pitfalls of crime statistics, which is not to say, of course, that we should just forget about such statistics. As Joel Best stressed, statistics are important as a basis for various social policies; we just need to be careful how we interpret them and we need to ask some questions about them.
As you recall, I quoted a brief passage from that article from the Spartanburg Herald Journal from last year (Sept. 14, 2010), "FBI ranks SC third in violent crime," which noted that despite being third in violent crime, SC had also experienced a significant decline in all categories of crime in 2009. At the very end, the article quoted James Alan Fox, a well-known criminologist who "...said that while the downward trend is encouraging, the economy 'could come back to haunt us' because of a nearly 10 percent drop per capita in police budgets in the past few years."
"'There is a connection between the economy and crime rates, but it's not that when the economy is bad, people go out and commit crime,' Fox said. 'When the economy is bad, there are budget cuts. Less is spent on youth crime prevention and crime control in the street.'"
a.) Actually, in that last paragraph, Fox seems to be suggesting that we should not be surprised if we see a RISE in crime in the future, and not just because of a bad economy but how that bad economy affects programs in crime prevention. Also, as some of you observed in your comments on the recent decline in crime rates, budget cuts for police departments may mean fewer reports, hence an apparent decline in crime.
Toward the end of class, I made some general comments about theory and specifically criminological theories. Recall, I distinguished between MACRO and MICRO theories. Let me go over that again here, and then post a few new lecture notes.
1. MACRO theories -- focus on the question of why there are variations in group rates of crime and deviance. For example, explaining why the United States has such a high violent crime rate compared to other developed countries. These theories are more STRUCTURAL, dealing with groups, classes, communities, whole societies.
2. MICRO theories -- why do some individuals commit criminal acts and others don't. More PROCESSURAL -- focus on the process by which an individual comes to engage in this behavior, or what is it about an individual, his or her particular experiences, which leads them to commit crimes.
3. On balance, we'll see that most theories, including the sociological ones, are MICRO-level theories, although there are a couple with a distinctively MACRO focus. (I would insist that these two levels are always intertwined.)
C. Finally, it should be noted that criminological theories draw on various disciplines -- from biology and psychology to sociology, history, economics, etc. The fact that many theories reflect these different disciplines and levels (of reality) is really a testatment to the complexity of human beings.
Regarding the xerox handout of Orlando Patterson's commentary, "The Lost Distinction Between 'Explain" and 'Justify'," I trust you all got the basic point, which I insist is especially important to keep in mind in this class. Although Patterson aims his analysis at conservatives who attacked Mrs. Clinton, he is also careful to point out that liberals are guilty of falling into the opposite trap, an oversocialized view of the individual which denies individual responsibility. I may come back to this briefly, but next Tuesday I plan to begin talking about the major theories of crime.
I trust all of you are reasonably clear about the pitfalls of crime statistics, which is not to say, of course, that we should just forget about such statistics. As Joel Best stressed, statistics are important as a basis for various social policies; we just need to be careful how we interpret them and we need to ask some questions about them.
As you recall, I quoted a brief passage from that article from the Spartanburg Herald Journal from last year (Sept. 14, 2010), "FBI ranks SC third in violent crime," which noted that despite being third in violent crime, SC had also experienced a significant decline in all categories of crime in 2009. At the very end, the article quoted James Alan Fox, a well-known criminologist who "...said that while the downward trend is encouraging, the economy 'could come back to haunt us' because of a nearly 10 percent drop per capita in police budgets in the past few years."
"'There is a connection between the economy and crime rates, but it's not that when the economy is bad, people go out and commit crime,' Fox said. 'When the economy is bad, there are budget cuts. Less is spent on youth crime prevention and crime control in the street.'"
a.) Actually, in that last paragraph, Fox seems to be suggesting that we should not be surprised if we see a RISE in crime in the future, and not just because of a bad economy but how that bad economy affects programs in crime prevention. Also, as some of you observed in your comments on the recent decline in crime rates, budget cuts for police departments may mean fewer reports, hence an apparent decline in crime.
Toward the end of class, I made some general comments about theory and specifically criminological theories. Recall, I distinguished between MACRO and MICRO theories. Let me go over that again here, and then post a few new lecture notes.
1. MACRO theories -- focus on the question of why there are variations in group rates of crime and deviance. For example, explaining why the United States has such a high violent crime rate compared to other developed countries. These theories are more STRUCTURAL, dealing with groups, classes, communities, whole societies.
2. MICRO theories -- why do some individuals commit criminal acts and others don't. More PROCESSURAL -- focus on the process by which an individual comes to engage in this behavior, or what is it about an individual, his or her particular experiences, which leads them to commit crimes.
3. On balance, we'll see that most theories, including the sociological ones, are MICRO-level theories, although there are a couple with a distinctively MACRO focus. (I would insist that these two levels are always intertwined.)
C. Finally, it should be noted that criminological theories draw on various disciplines -- from biology and psychology to sociology, history, economics, etc. The fact that many theories reflect these different disciplines and levels (of reality) is really a testatment to the complexity of human beings.
Regarding the xerox handout of Orlando Patterson's commentary, "The Lost Distinction Between 'Explain" and 'Justify'," I trust you all got the basic point, which I insist is especially important to keep in mind in this class. Although Patterson aims his analysis at conservatives who attacked Mrs. Clinton, he is also careful to point out that liberals are guilty of falling into the opposite trap, an oversocialized view of the individual which denies individual responsibility. I may come back to this briefly, but next Tuesday I plan to begin talking about the major theories of crime.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Follow-up to Thursday's Lecture & Notes and Reminders
NOTES AND REMINDERS:
It is early Sunday afternoon and it appears that only 7 of you have posted your comment on those FBI crime figure trends. I'd like to see all of you post your comments by tomorrow (Monday, 9/12). As I mentioned in class, I'd like to use some of your responses as we get into the topic of crime statistics on Tuesday. I will be making a few additional comments about the issue of defining deviance and crime, and then get into crime statistics. I will also have a couple handouts for you on Tuesday.
I may not be in my office tomorrow (Monday, 9/12) until late in the day because I am having some work done on my house and I will have to be home for at least part of the day. I hope I'll be able to get in by late afternoon (3 or 4PM).
After venturing into the topic of the Kennedy Assassination at the end of class last Thursday, I mentioned that I've written a few papers on the subject which you are welcome to read. One of these papers is on my much-neglected faculty website. If you go there and click on the assassination of JFK, it will take you to a 40-page paper I wrote on "Time" magazine's coverage of this event from 1963-1999. That is the only paper, I believe, that is accessible online. I have hard copies of others in my office.
FOLLOW-UP TO THURSDAY'S LECTURE:
I trust that my getting off on a bit of a tangent with the Kennedy assassination did not confuse you as to the point I was trying to make about defining deviance. Recall, that after I basically rejected Matza's completely relativistic definition of deviance, in which almost anything might be considered deviant, I presented Goode's definition, which is better. But Goode's definition still hinges on peoples' attitudes and opinions, which I was arguing may be (and quite often are) based on myths, prejudice and certainly not fact. Ultimately, I believe we should seek a basis IN FACT for labeling behavior as deviant and punishing or condemning people because of it. This point is even more important when we talk about CRIME, because in the case of crime, the state or government gets involved in punishing or condemning people for engaging in these acts. And in the case of JFK, or some aspects of "business as usual," you have examples of deviant and criminal behavior which in fact deserve condemnation but isn't because people are confused or ignorant of the facts.
I will come back to this again, briefly, next Tuesday (9/13).
Finally, remember to weigh in on that first individual exercise, which is described in the previous blog post.
It is early Sunday afternoon and it appears that only 7 of you have posted your comment on those FBI crime figure trends. I'd like to see all of you post your comments by tomorrow (Monday, 9/12). As I mentioned in class, I'd like to use some of your responses as we get into the topic of crime statistics on Tuesday. I will be making a few additional comments about the issue of defining deviance and crime, and then get into crime statistics. I will also have a couple handouts for you on Tuesday.
I may not be in my office tomorrow (Monday, 9/12) until late in the day because I am having some work done on my house and I will have to be home for at least part of the day. I hope I'll be able to get in by late afternoon (3 or 4PM).
After venturing into the topic of the Kennedy Assassination at the end of class last Thursday, I mentioned that I've written a few papers on the subject which you are welcome to read. One of these papers is on my much-neglected faculty website. If you go there and click on the assassination of JFK, it will take you to a 40-page paper I wrote on "Time" magazine's coverage of this event from 1963-1999. That is the only paper, I believe, that is accessible online. I have hard copies of others in my office.
FOLLOW-UP TO THURSDAY'S LECTURE:
I trust that my getting off on a bit of a tangent with the Kennedy assassination did not confuse you as to the point I was trying to make about defining deviance. Recall, that after I basically rejected Matza's completely relativistic definition of deviance, in which almost anything might be considered deviant, I presented Goode's definition, which is better. But Goode's definition still hinges on peoples' attitudes and opinions, which I was arguing may be (and quite often are) based on myths, prejudice and certainly not fact. Ultimately, I believe we should seek a basis IN FACT for labeling behavior as deviant and punishing or condemning people because of it. This point is even more important when we talk about CRIME, because in the case of crime, the state or government gets involved in punishing or condemning people for engaging in these acts. And in the case of JFK, or some aspects of "business as usual," you have examples of deviant and criminal behavior which in fact deserve condemnation but isn't because people are confused or ignorant of the facts.
I will come back to this again, briefly, next Tuesday (9/13).
Finally, remember to weigh in on that first individual exercise, which is described in the previous blog post.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Welcome & First Individual Exercise
Welcome to this blog which I have set up for this course, Soc. 220: Criminal and Deviant Behavior. We will be using this blog for a variety of activities this semester, which would include the following: (1) For what I call "activities and exercises" in the syllabus, such as the one described below. I may ask you to comment on some video program I show in class, or on something in the assigned reading, etc.. You will be called upon to contribute questions for both the midterm and final exams, which will be posted on this blog. I may also use this blog to post descriptions of some of the short essays you'll be writing during the semester. (2)I may use this blog on occasion to post lecture notes, if I get behind in class, and I will post passages from other sources which I may quote in class. Perhaps most frequently, I will use this blog to follow-up on a class lecture or discussion, or answer a question I was not able to answer satisfactorily in class. (BUT PLEASE DO NOT EXPECT THAT I WILL BE POSTING EVERYTHING I COVER IN CLASS ON THIS BLOG.)
(3) I may offer you some extra credit opportunities during the semester, which will usually involve your posting a comment on this blog. (4) Finally, you are, of course, welcome to use this blog to comment on or ask questions about anything we cover in class or the assigned reading.
When I do post a description of an exercise or anything else, I will always be sure to mention it in class and remind you to check the blog. Nonetheless, I would suggest that you get in the habit of checking this blog once or twice a week anyway.
FIRST INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE: For the past two years the FBI's "Uniform Crime Reports" has been reporting fairly substantial DECLINES in the crime rate nationally. For example, between 2008 and 2009, violent crime dropped 5.3%, robbery dropped 8%, and property crime dropped 4.6%. Between 2009 and 2010, the FBI reports similar declines: violent crime dropped 5.5%, robbery dropped 9.5%, property crime dropped 2.8%. So, my question is, what gives? Does this surprise you? And could you offer some thoughts or explanation on this trend, especially in light of the fact that these years have obviously been difficult ones economically in our country, with high unemployment rates?
Please respond to the above questions by posting a comment on this blog. All I am looking for is a paragraph or two. There is no "right" answer or answer I am looking for. I am as mystified by these numbers as you may be. Please post your comment NO LATER THAN MONDAY, SEPT. 12TH. This exercise is worth 5 activity points.
(3) I may offer you some extra credit opportunities during the semester, which will usually involve your posting a comment on this blog. (4) Finally, you are, of course, welcome to use this blog to comment on or ask questions about anything we cover in class or the assigned reading.
When I do post a description of an exercise or anything else, I will always be sure to mention it in class and remind you to check the blog. Nonetheless, I would suggest that you get in the habit of checking this blog once or twice a week anyway.
FIRST INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE: For the past two years the FBI's "Uniform Crime Reports" has been reporting fairly substantial DECLINES in the crime rate nationally. For example, between 2008 and 2009, violent crime dropped 5.3%, robbery dropped 8%, and property crime dropped 4.6%. Between 2009 and 2010, the FBI reports similar declines: violent crime dropped 5.5%, robbery dropped 9.5%, property crime dropped 2.8%. So, my question is, what gives? Does this surprise you? And could you offer some thoughts or explanation on this trend, especially in light of the fact that these years have obviously been difficult ones economically in our country, with high unemployment rates?
Please respond to the above questions by posting a comment on this blog. All I am looking for is a paragraph or two. There is no "right" answer or answer I am looking for. I am as mystified by these numbers as you may be. Please post your comment NO LATER THAN MONDAY, SEPT. 12TH. This exercise is worth 5 activity points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)