Criminology: Ch 5, Recent Sociological Approaches to Crime

recent sociological approaches to crime

general theory of crime

life course perspective

general strain theory

rational choice theory

routine activity theory

crime prevention through environmental design

general theory of crime

gottfredson and hirschi 1990

crime: rational and predictable

criminal offenders:

• individuals predisposed to crime → constant throughout life

• low self-control, impulsive, self-centered, active, physical, adventuresome

• level of self-control depends on quality of parenting received in child’s formative years

  • don’t feel shame, not many friends

  • parents aren’t present, consistent, laying down the law

criticisms of general theory of crime

mixed results when put to empirical testing

tautological: circular reasoning (which comes first?)

• low self-control ←→juvenile delinquent

• eventually going to become conformists: research shows juvenile delinquents get better

not that successful in predicting serious forms of violence

life course perspective

crime

problem behaviours are age-related, not constant

increases during adolescence and early adulthood, then declines

men who desist from crime were rooted in strong social ties with family and community

focus on turning points: employment (or future jobs), marriage (another person who is affected), close-call (want to straighten yourself out now)

• why? more to loose, looking more into the future

  • mess up future, after 18 consequences are more serious, when a minor = sealed records

victimization macmillian 2000

• being victimized by crime affects adult income

  • make a difference when these kinds of experiences happen

  • ex. victim of crime as an adolescents: low earnings → drop out of school, lose focus, time and money to get help from trauma

• timing is important

criticisms of life course perspectives

more life course research needed on females

tanner and colleagues 1999: effects of delinquency on employment status in adulthood were more pronounced for males than for females → not modern anymore, need more research (glass ceiling for women)

general strain theory

agnew

strains lead to criminal behaviour

• macro level strain, how are you doing out in the world

  • inability to achieve positively valued goals

• micro level strain, what’s going on in your life

  • removal or the threat to remove positively valued stimuli

    • loosing something good: ex. losing job, family (divorce)

  • actual or anticipated negative or harmful stimuli

    • getting something bad: ex. bullied at school

gender differences: both can experience strains

• females: concerned with close bonds and relationships

  • lower rates are property and violent crimes → want to be likeable

  • face discrimination and high demands if act outside of gender roles → more restricted behaviour

  • self-destructive behaviour if goals aren’t achieved

  • response: depression and anger

    • accompanied by fear, guilt, shame

    • blame themselves, worry about effects of anger on anothers

    • depression and guilt → self-destructive behaviour (ex. eating disorders)

• males: concerned with material success

  • failure to achieve goals → more property and violent crime

  • more conflict with peers, more likely to be victims of crimes (ex. physical fights; killed)

  • response: anger

    • accompanied by moral outrage

    • blame others, don’t care about hurting others

    • moral outrage → property and violent crime

criticisms of general strain theory

how do we measure strain

rational choice theory

criminals are rational actors

human behaviour = result of conscious decision-making

“Expected utility” principle: crime is calculated and deliberate

• want deterrence to be well-known to stop this

crime is influenced by variations in: opportunity, environment, target, risk of detection

• ex. car stealing: calculated, getting them out of the country quickly, low risk of getting caught

• ex. first-degree murder: revenge, coercion, accused of crimes = need to get rid of evidence

criticisms of rational choice theory

is everyone capable of making a rational decision?

• under the age of 12, mental illness/defect

better at explaining “instrumental (thought out)” rather than “expressive” crime

• ex. saving myself, profit, stop coercion, silence someone vs ex. domestic abuse, crimes of the heat of the moment/passion

routine activity theory

cohen and felson 1979

crime is likely to occur when

• a motivated offender

  • some more than other? → lower-income/unemployed, family problems (adolescents males from broken homes/lone parents) , marginalized groups, segregated peoples, without role models

• suitable victim

  • seniors, other criminals/lower-income people/marginalized (less likely to report), physical disabilities, tourists, people with cash/jewelry/electronics, emotionally vulnerable people, intoxicated people, empty homes without alarm system or nosy neighbours,

• in an environment that does not provide protection to the potential victim

  • absence of capable guardian: police, parents, teachers, neighbours, witnesses, video cameras

general increase in youth crime is the result of

• changes in education (people in school a lot longer → more time because of no job), work (women going to work mean that there is not as much supervision of young people), technology (more things we want to steal)

• rise in the number of temptations: status symbols (ex. stanley cups)

• decline in parental controls

criticisms of routine activity theory

opportunities to commit crime do not necessarily lead to crime even when controls are absent

• just presumes that there are motivated people

what about crime displacement?

• ex. really supervise malls after school → kids go to another area (move motivated offenders; not dealing with underlying causes of crime)

crime prevention through environmental design

jeffery 1971

“defensible space”

• hard to commit crime and chances of getting caught are high → not worth it

four main ideas

• natural surveillance

  • people in the area watching and listening → more witnesses/bystanders to intervene

  • ex. big windows

• natural access control

  • pathways where people should/shouldn’t walk (paving vs bushes)

• territorial reinforcement

  • views from office buildings, clear building signage, illuminated exteriors, large windows on ground floor, games in alleys (parents watching), paint markers in front of ATMs

• maintenance

criticisms of CPTED

other crime prevention strategies are overlooked

good citizens vs bad offenders stereotypes

• avoid being a victim of crime = personal responsibility

not based on accurate risk assessment

responsibilization of clients to become willing participants

risk and actuarial criminology

focus on understanding emerging forms of social control: ex. cancel culture

power is now localized in a wide array of institutions each of which has specialized techniques for disciplines: ex. dean of school, security

corrections, risk, and actuarial analysis focus on risk management, recognizing the system is incapable of rehabilitating offenders

criticisms of risk and actuarial criminology

language used in this theory is problematic

only accessible to a relatively small group of experts in the area