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"

Lecture Notes on Biological and Psychological Theories

As promised, below are the lecture notes on the biological and psychological theories of criminal behavior. PLEASE INCORPORATE THIS MATERIAL IN YOUR CLASS NOTES, BECAUSE I WILL ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT ON THE UPCOMING MIDTERM EXAM AND IT MAY BE OF SOME USE ON YOUR FIRST SHORT ESSAY.
_____________________

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 any 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 as to suggest that biological and psychological theories see criminal behavior as a product of some biological or mental DEFECT or ABNORMALITY, rather than 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. Pre-eminent 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 stength 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 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 criminals 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 the role of 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 acually 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 postiives," 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 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 age 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 "repressed 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 they 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 proposition being that criminals have abnormal, inadequate or specifically criminal personality traits that set them apart from 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 treatment 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 dimension 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.

First Family Activity: Crime Types Chapter Reports

As I mentioned last week, we are going to be dividing the class up into five "families" first thing tomorrow (Tues. 2/28). Once everyone knows which family they will be working with, we will then have each family choose a chapter in "Crime Types" to report on to the rest of the class, and we will do that on Thursday, 9/30, of this week. Since there will be five families, that means you will be covering five chapters in that book and I will cover the rest. Each family will then read and prepare an oral report on their chapter. Plan on taking roughly 30 minutes to cover each chapter and make sure that each family member contributes to this oral report. In these reports I want you to address the following:
(1) A general overview of the chapter, including the selected articles. Please DO NOT TRY TO COVER EVERYTHING because that would take too long. Focus on main points and a few supporting examples and statistics.
(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 things 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 family to submit to me in writing (or via email) TWO SHORT-ANSWER EXAM QUESTIONS (and answers) which I may use on either our upcoming midterm exam or the final exam (if we cover that chapter after the midterm exam).

After I know which chapter each family will be reporting on (and I will give you some time in class to discuss how you will divide up responsibilites), I will make up a schedule and post it on this blog. I anticipate that we will not finish this exercise until after the midterm exam, which will be coming up in a few weeks. LET ME ALSO STRESS, HOWEVER, THAT EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR READING ALL OF CRIME TYPES, NOT JUST THE CHAPTER YOU HAVE TO REPORT ON. This activity is worth 7 points for all PARTICIPATING family members.
_______________________

ALSO CHECK THIS BLOG LATER TODAY FOR SOME LECTURE NOTES I PLAN TO POST ON BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES

Passages Critical of Deterrence Theory

AS you recall, yesterday I lectured a bit on deterrence theory, and toward the end of class I hurriedly read through a couple passages that were critical of this theory. These passages come from a book entitled, "The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice" 4th ed.:

First passage,regarding "General Deterrence": "A simple test of deterrence is whether states or countries with the death penalty have lower homicide rates than those that 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)

Second passage: "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 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, and 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)


This last passage could certainly also apply to a modern variation of deterrence theory known as "rational choice theory," which I will begin talking about first thing tomorrow (Thurs. 9/23). Hope to see everyone then.

PLEASE INCORPORATE THE ABOVE PASSAGES IN YOUR CLASS NOTES.

Looking Ahead to Next Week & Reminder

Next week we will be getting into the major theories of criminal and deviant behavior, beginning with Deterrence theory. As you know, I will be presenting that material in class lecture. It should take two weeks or so, and then around the beginning of October, we should be getting into our first book, Crime Types. Let me also add, that next Tuesday I will take out just a little time to comment on those handouts I gave you on Thursday. Both make good general points about how to approach the question of explaining crime.

REMINDER: As of this morning (Friday, 8AM), there were still two people who had not posted their comments about your explanations for criminal behavior. Please do so ASAP. And remember, as I noted in class yesterday, I am going to link this first exercise with the first short essay you'll be doing once we finish going over the major theories of crime.

See you next Tuesday.

Welcome & First Exercise

WELCOME to the blog that I have set up for this course, Sociology 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 course syllabus, such as the one described below. I may ask you to comment on some a video program I may show in class, on something in the assigned reading, etc.. Among these activities and exercises, 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. Frequently, I will use this blog to follow-up on a class lecture or discussion to clarify or elaborate on a point I made in class. (BUT PLEASE DO NOT EXPECT THAT I WILL BE POSTING EVERYTHING I COVER IN CLASS ON THIS BLOG.)
(3) There may also be some extra credit opportunities for which I will ask you to post a comment on some outside lecture, film or article that is pertinent to the class.
(4) Finally, you, of course, are welcome to use this blog to comment on or ask questions on anything we cover in class.
When I do post an exercise I will always be sure to mention it in class and ask you to check the blog, but I would also suggest that you get in the habit of checking this blog once or twice a week even if I don't call your attention to it in class. This blog will be an important source that you will need to consult for both the midterm and final exams, not to mention the short essays and paper you'll also be doing.
___________________________


FIRST EXERCISE: Before we get into the various theories of criminal and deviant behavior, I'd like each of you to give me some of your own thoughts on this. Briefly state (in a paragraph) your own personal theory or ideas about what leads people to commit crime or why the crime rate may go up or down. This exercise is worth 3 activity points, and I'd like you to post your comment by WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 15TH.