Theory Unit 2

Becker

Formalized crime as a choice under uncertainty (crime and punishment)

Rational Choice

Person analyzed benifits outweighed the cost (does not mean smarter); gave us an equation for human behavior

Crime will increase if:

Rewards increase and alternatives/costs go down

Durkham’s Optimal Crime Rate

Is not zero because crime gives us something to move against and it would cause more harm than it would prevent

Fines

Becker says we should fine whenever possible (imprisonment is costly)

Criticisms of Becker

The theory accounts for too much (is too flexible; need to be able to falsify), is impulsive, underestimates risk factor

Percieced vs Objective Risk

Presant bias, value

Repairs to Rational Choice

Bounded rationality, situational action theory, integration, scope conditions

Bounded rationality

Cognitive capacity is limited (incomplete info and we have time constraints)

Satisficing

Set a threshold and take the option that clears it, then move on

Lifestyle theory

Used the NCVS to analyze victimizations events; risk as a probability on a continuum

Routine Activity theory

Uses agragate crime trends (assume all motivated offenders)

Routine Activity Post WW2

Women started entering the workforce, so more time not at home

What do you need for Routine Activities

Motivated offender + suitable target + No capable guardian

VIVA (Cohen and Felson)

Value, Inertia (ease), Visibility, and Access

CRAVED (Clark)

Concealable, Removable, Available, Valuable, Enjoyable, and Disposable (can get value)

Handler

Controls offenders (parents)

Guardian

Looks over (owner)

Mannager

Keeps an eye out (bartender, teachers, etc)

Criticism of Routine Activities

Ignore motivation, is too static, weak on violent crime, and assumes rationality

Lifestyle Theory Definition

Exposure to high-risk times, places, and people (demographics play a role)

Victim-offender overlap

Young males that are unmarried are both likely offenders and victims

Demographic influence

Structural position (age, sex, etc) → role expectations (daily routines) → exposure → victimization risk (builds)

Victim-blaming

Overstates choice in routine, underplays structure, and is static

Applied RAT

Situational crime prevention, policing, and accountability

Applied LT

Victim centered

Social Disorganization

Built off human ecology

Burgess’ Concentric Zones

I.) Central buisness district (no one lives there)

II.) Zone of transition (poverty/cheap housing)

III.) Working-class homes (modest/stable)

IV.) Residential zones (middle class)

V.) Commuter Zone (suburbs; lowest crime rate)

Shaw and Mckay

Said that crime tends to concentrate in zone 1 (zone two is consistent)

Social Disorganization Theory

Poverty, residential turnover (only one that held up), and ethic diversity results in a breakdown

Crime according to social disorganization

Informal social control or cultural transmission (gangs teach kids)

Issues with Social Control

tautology issues (looked at crime rate to measure disorganization) and measurement (never had a proper way to measure disorganization)

Kornhauser

Cut the theory in half (ignored cultural transmission) and kept social disorganization as pure social control

Kasarda

Found that size matter (attachments take time)

Janzitz

Don’t need the shared values, just the capacity to prevent behavior that is interfering with goals

Hunter

Bring in private control (family), parochial (school), and public (police); crime is all of these failing to connect

Bursick

Crime will degrade control (feedback loop); more social disorganization leads to more crime

Sampson and Goves

Looked at 11k residents in the UK and found that sparse friendship, unsupervised teen groups, and low organizational participation explains the relationship between crime and social disorganization

Mary Patillo

Found black neighborhood that was middle class; it was organized, but the gang was pillar of community (cohesion alone is not enough)

Effacacy

Individual that believe will achieve a better outcome (all things equal)

Social capital

Resource that has value, but you can’t spend it

Collective effacacy

Effacacy + social capital

Free Rider

Person who benifits, but doesn’t do the work

Measuring effacacy

Chicago they measured informal social control (what others would do) and social cohesion/trust (how close is community)

Laten variable

Can’t directly observe

Sampson

Findings were more disadvantage→ more violence (residential stability and collective was corrilated with lower violence), immigration was not corrilated

Mediation

Something that explains the relationship; about 75% of violence is explained by collective effacacy

Broken Windowns

An unrepaired signals that nobody cares (more disorder leads to more crime)

Wilson and Kelling

Argue disorder leads directly to crime (social control), but no relation between disorder and crime for collective effacacy (it cause both)

Two field experiments

Seattle mailbox- left envelope to see if people ignored, stole, or returned them

Kaizer- magazine racks for disorder (had to stop cause removed them)

Results

First study (Kaizer) supports broken windows and Seattle study supports collective effacacy (pro-social standards went down)

Notes for collective effacacy

Places carry role, not people, informal social control (mechanism), willingness to intervene, conditions are produced, and disorder is a symptom, not a cause

Differential association

Corrilates were put into a list (age, race, sex, intellegence, family, neighborhood) used by Sotherland

Sotherlands propostions 1,2, and 8

Behavior is learned interacting with other people (like learning math)

Sotherlands propostions 3 and 4

Learn from inamate personal groups (need definitions and skills)

Sotherlands propostions 5,6, and 7

Definitions of the law as favorable or unfavorable

Sotherlands propostion 9

Crime is not about needs

Four modalities

Frequency, duration, priority (how early), and intensity (how much does it matter)

Ratio

Weighted definitions favorable to violation (need to in excess for crime)/ definitions unfavorable to violation