Crim - Reading
Reading 1:
What is Crime and Who is the Criminal?
Introduction
Debate among criminologists on the definition of crime and its application to certain behaviors and demographics.
Crime is often poorly defined, causing issues in criminological research.
tied to state’s power
state: selective with what is punishable. often turns a blind eye to other behaviours which are more social/environmental harm
Association of crime with harmful behavior leading to penalties (fines, imprisonment, etc.).
Popular examples include murder, robbery, drug trafficking, and organized crime. (as shown by media) - clearly harmful
Public reaction to crime depends on area (urban or rural), culture, and history
Disconnect Between Harm and Crime
Some harmful behaviors are not classified as crimes; powerful individuals/groups often escape accountability.
Example: Copying software is illegal but hard to prosecute, while politicians' negligence in crises (oil spills) may not be categorized as crimes.
Understanding the institutional relationships is critical to explain crime classification perceptions.
Social Processes Impacting Crime Definition
The role of the criminal justice system in defining crime and how various social factors influence drastic variations in definitions and perceptions across communities.
Examples:
Indigenous communities face higher crime victimization rates.
Police-community mistrust complicates reporting and response.
Divisions in Criminology
Mainstream criminology often follows state-defined metrics, overlooking social forces behind crime.
Critical criminology explores alternatives to conventional definitions, including human rights implications.
Legal Definitions
Criminal Law's Role: Defines behaviors imposing moral blame, warranting investigation and punishment.
Crimes Act and Criminal Code in Australia outline defined criminal behaviors such as:
Offences against the state (e.g., treason).
Violence-related offenses (e.g., assault, manslaughter).
Theft and fraud.
Legal definitions can be inconsistent and are influenced by variable enforcement practices.
Example: Behavior that is merely socially normative might still face legal ramifications depending on broader social contexts.
Criminal Law sets limits on police + justice agencies to balance their investigative powers against rights of protected but accused individual
due to wider range of illegal behaviours - harder for people to reintergrate back into society - results in doubt of the efficient use of the law, state’s policing, and justice resources
Pre-crime and Over-criminalization
Pre-crime Concept: Identifying signs of potential criminality to prevent future crimes, typically justified by terrorism and safety arguments.
should criminal law be applied to enhance investigations, limit extent of lethal force by police?
multiple arrests within the same Indigenous community can be more destabilising than the harm of the original crime
due to stigmatised effects of criminal punishment
social processes linked to criminal enforcement + punishment explain Indigenous over-representation
results in increased public visibility → easier for police to detect → spiral effect of specifically targeting indigenous people (population profiling)
showcases systematic and political marginalisation of Indigenous people
Divisionary strategies: recognise adults and young people involved in ‘pre-crime’ or minor one off offences
better served a reintegrative strategy over formal criminal punishment
prevents continuance of behaviour once offender is released
Human Rights Definitions
minimum standards directed at governments + protect citizens
not enforceable in the same way as the law
criminal law and its enforcement can still violate international human rights law
Safety of the person: equal treatment + freedom
no torture, cruelty, slavery, racial/religious/political persecution
Individual freedom: freedom of opinion/expression/thought/religious belief/peaceful protest
Fairness: against arbitrary arrest, detention or exile- right to fair public hearing and presumption of innocence
peaceful enjoyment of property and privacy
Human rights laws incorporated into Australian law - embedded into criminal procedure
Reading 2:
Introduction:
explanations/theories for crimes are formed with different (even almost contradictory) perspectives
most draw on disciplines (eg. medicine, psychology, law, politics, history, economics, sociology)
how these are viewed + thought about depend on time and social context
origin of criminology - traced to several thinkers from Enlightenment era
questioned status quo
theorised best ways to govern people + unruly desires
due to them being earlier understandings:
based off of mystical + supernatural + religious
eg. christians believed crime as manifestation of evil + product of the flawed nature of human kind
Explaining crime: some fundamental debates:
explaining deviancy rests on core philosophical beliefs about drivers of behaviour:
free will vs determinism
nature vs nurture
normal vs pathological
driving vs restraining forces
person vs situation
Classicism:
classical school of criminology sees crime as:
free will (rational choice theory)
dependant on person’s rational pursuit of pleasure + avoidance of pain (pleasure pain principle)
argues law should be proportionate + predictable rather than severe + arbitrary
Hobbes idea: government + law needed to organise society + people’s lives
with citizenship = unspoken contract with power - certain freedoms given up for protection against violence - (social contract theory)
mutual exchange - gave state power and responsibility to protect and regulate society
Beccaria: On crimes and punishment - idea
state power must be limited for the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people
‘utilitarianism’: judges morality of decisions based on the consequences
Classical thinking remains evident in western democracies and legal procedures
led to proportionate sentencing + notion of deterrence
Notion of deterrence:
crime can be deterred through certainty of detection
threat of punishment + bad consequences prevent + discourage crime
embed thought that humans are rational, capable of making reasonable choices, want to maximise pleasure + minimise pain
Doesn’t consider how situations and conditions influence deviance - assumes everyone’s equal
Positivism:
pattern of taking a rational scientific approach to understanding the world
challenging old ways of using spiritual and religious beliefs to understand human behaviour
something we can observe and measure
someone is biologically / psychologically predisposed to committing crime
biological positivism:
phrenology: contours of a person’s head (eg. bumps, or lumps_ reflect brain abnormalities + used to identify certain traits (eg. dishonesty, criminality)
no longer relevant
founded by Gall
Lombroso: criminals were biological throwbacks
crime was NOT a result of poor choices
crime = innate instinct of under-evolved humans
used distinguishing features:
overly large/small skull, asymmetrical face, tattoos
being female made them less evolved than male criminals
NOT random or representative - racist, sexist, misinformed
search for the ‘criminal gene’ is still alive:
looking into brain chemistry - hormones - chromosomal abnormalities - diet - brain injury
IF criminality is from - biological flaws - inheritance - biological trait
implications for prevention but also ethical considerations are huge
focuses on treating people medically - no measure of punishment should be able to deter criminal actions (contradictory to classical thinking)
Fitter Families:
human breeding = farm breeding
high quality + high quality = HIGHER quality
like the rich marrying the rich to make them more rich
Nazi Germany: Aryan race
Psychological positivism:
focussed on personality + development + cognitive +/ psychosocial changes
psychological traumas = progeniters (leads to) criminal conduct
Sigmund Freud: criminal behaviour = response to underlying mental conflicts
individuals environment = secondary influence
shapes desires + reactions to desires
Hans Eyseneck: person’s propensity (tendency) to be conditioned = key to a person’s likeliness of committing crime
eg. extraversion, neuroticism, psychopathy
links to biological characteristics
Sociological criminology: Structures, processes and reactions
explanations: focus on forces outside of an individual’s direct control - and how they may be the main driver of crime
notion of crime = intrinsically fluid + linked to social reaction and control
because crime is not the same across time and place
shift focus from individual —> situation + social forces
crime is a result of:
social structures
how society is set up + how it functions
Social processes:
how people interact + what they experience
Social reactions:
how people react + respond to social realities
Social structures: From Durkheim to strain theory
Durkheim: first to focus directly on deviance + to see it a consequence of certain social facts
saw crime as central to function of society
beneficial in helping make behavioural boundaries - setting norms and expectations
expression of human desire to push boundaries
understanding of society: rests on common collective consciousness
linked to Hobbes: ‘social contract’ idea
common consciousness: represents healthy societies have shared set of values in which everyone is equally invested
social glue - helps maintain cohesion
crime reinforces because it represents unacceptable behaviour - provides reference for what is right and wrong
major social changes: mechanical —> organic societies
resulted in subtle + important changes in nature of collective conscience and its reinforced
Mechanical societies
social solidarity was straightforward - people preformed the same tasks as each other + held same beliefs
Life was predictable - one’s place in the world is predetermined + inherited
Organic societies:
social solidarity founded on individual interdependence
labour increased the need for interdependence between provision of essential good s and services
common consciousness defined by role difference, regulation, reinforcement = more delicate and complex
needs law and custom to regulate difference - not readily achieved in societies undergoing great social change
modernity: collective conscience weakens = anomie
conditions that arise when society in flux + standards unclear/poorly established
allows easy deviance
Modern understandings: societies represent a blend of mechanical and organic
The Chicago School
Merton:
crime = largely function of individuals finding ways to adapt to anomie
anomie result from opportunities to attain goals being restricted
goals: good education, securing meaningful employment, homeownership, raising a family in comfortable circumstances
strain of blocked opportunities - results in a series of adaptations —> lead to crime
mode of adaptation: result from accepted/rejected dominant cultural goals + values + commonly accepted means to achieve
adaptations = individuals who saw crime as useful means to achieve goals - through ‘innovation’ + ‘rebellion’
some crime is ‘normal’ in response to pathological situation
If there was equal opportunity + less emphasis on material success —> less deviance and crime
Crime as a social process:
efforts took another shift as people began to examine social processes + reactions over just social structure
Edwin Sutherland: differential association theory
crime was a learned behaviour - culturally transmitted through interactions
whether someone became a criminal depends on people association and how they shaped their view of the world (especially what laws are favourable or not)
Crime more than just values
First to examine white-collar crime
Control theories: the way societal norms work to control individual choices
returns to classical assumptions
Travis Hirschi: social bond theory
what stops people from becoming deviant?
criminality
attachment
commitment
sees crime as a lack of self-control - due to inadequate social bonds (poor parenting, and weak familial bonds)
considering social conditioning and learning in the process of developing self-regulating behaviours
Crime as a social reaction: From conflict theory to critical criminology
Conflict theories: examine the role of power in labelling certain behaviours as criminal - interests of preserving status quo
society not based on moral consensus but rather conflict + lack of consensus
meant that some people had power in ways others couldn’t access
criminalisation = product of unequal dynamic
more nuanced + complex approach - opposed to conservative legacies of classical thinking + ‘rational choice’
Bonger: identify class struggles as a driver of crime - lower class routinely subjected to criminal law
Tannenbaum: examined ‘dramatisation of evil’ + ‘Labelling theory’
young people doing delinquent activity attracted a ‘tag’ which labelled them —> affects identity - linked to how people treat them
increasing likelihood of reoffending and actively producing crime
power of applying lables - how groups powerfully influence individual behaviour
shifting focus of criminology away from working class crimes towards crimes of powerful people
Realists:
4 key variables can be used to explain crime
victim + offender + state + community
Moral panics - result of media cyclically amplifying particular events
public more likely to readily accept harsh law and order policies
foundational to crime control
Contemporary explanations
focus on forces that cannot be precisely measured (eg. power, class, gender, race, identity, sexuality)
Reading 3:
Introduction
labelling actions / activities as ‘crime’ depends on:
whether anyone finds out
whether the act is worth doing anything about (eg. getting the police) when considered by witnesses
whether the police / any one with power is able to act upon what they decide to report
methods of measuring crime continue to be problematic and controversial
Measuring crime:
Two main Methods:
routine data collection by law enforcement
public reports crimes + other methods of crimes coming to the attention of authorities
Have shortcomings
much crime doesn’t make it into official records - ‘dark figure’ of crime
survey methods to gain information from representative sample of population
more accurate than routine data collection
Official Statistics:
size of ‘dark figure’ depends:
on justice reaching the guilty
whether wronged individuals feel disgust from reporting incidents
or the ignorance of the people who should be reporting crimes they see
England and Wales: Criminal Statistics
data given to gov by police + courts
until late 19th century - sentencing stats were one main source of info on crime
Offenders Index and Police National Computer
provide the bulk of information about criminal careers + reconviction rates
+ info on numbers of people in prison + subject to probation + sentence lengths
Stats on levels and trends of crime
contain court proceedings, offenders cautioned / found guilty, use of police bail, court remand + offences
United States: Uniform Crime reoprts
UCR came to be
1870: Attorney general tasked with reporting crime stats - didn’t happen until 1920 —> resulted in concerns surrounding the stories of crime
UCR has two parts:
Part 1: Index offences
criminal homicide
forcible rape
robbery
aggravated assult
burglary
theft
arson
identifiable crime that public would definitely agree to
Part 2: non-Index Offences + only covers those that result in arrest
violence + theft
sex offences
drunkness
fraud
because these are seen as lower-levels of crime = underestimated
cannot tell a lot about overall crime rate - lowers reliability
covers limited range of crime
list is mostly focused on ‘street-crime’ + conventional forms of crime
doesn’t consider white-collar crime + other serious crimes
it is not compulsory - doesn’t cover the whole country
likely that there is variation between police departments in what they choose to record
Assessing official statistics:
inevitably has limitations - none can say with true accuracy
represent a resource for understanding historical trends - as it spreads over more than a century
modern day vs 19th century: crime rate used to be extremely low
remained low until 1950’s
crime rises from mid 1950’s - 1990s
possible that official resources exaggerate BUT evidence suggests early 19th century was NOT more orderly
9 main categories of crime:
theft + handling stolen goods
bruglary
criminal damage
violence against another person
sexual offences
robbery
fraud + forgery
Drug offences
other
Theft + damage - account for more than half of all crime
1/5 = violence
Theft + damage + violence: 3 per 5 crime (recorded by police)
derived from criminal law - form basis for definition + identification of crime by police
Impact of legislation:
new legislation = new offenses (eg. racial discrimination and harrassment)
allows for additional crimes to be recorded
can be repealed = crimes may no longer be seen as criminal (eg. homosexual laws)
Understanding ‘attrition’:
stages for which acts become ‘crimes’
1. must be known
victims may not be aware of the offence (eg. small amounts of money stolen from account) - if you do not realise its happening —> you cannot report
There may be no victim (eg. buying drugs)
Makes it so a small % of crime is known by police
2. ‘cases’ drop out of the system is when crimes are reported - victim is aware yet only small % reported
poorer people are less likely to have insurance (which require crimes reported before they can be used)
poorer communities experience the most crime
see how crime has a considerable + differential impact depending on wealth
Why do people not report?
matter is too trivial / embarrassing / comprimising , victim feels police will not be willing to do anything
police is thought to be uninterested
police won’t believe them
police are simply too busy
victim wants to deal with it in a different way
eg. rape, sexual assult
reporting doesnt = recorded
police may not accept account
may find insufficient evidence to confirm offence
victim refuses to press charges
police may judge that it is satisfactorily dealt with
may not wish to pursue matter —> fail to record
mis-recording of sexual crimes - police feel pressured to improve preformance + meet targets —> do not record
Police records (from 2014) are no longer official records
‘Clear-up rate; used as an indicator of police efficency
someone has been charged / summonsed / cautioned
offence has been ‘taken to consideration’ at court - someone has been found guilty but not prosecuted
sufficient evidence to prosecute - but not proceeding due to incapacity of offender / victim / witness
victim is unwilling to give evidence
offender is below age 10 (age of criminal responsibility)
offender is alr in prison with another offence
Limitations of official statistics:
offence focused rather than offender-focused or victim-focused
if offender has 3 offences - only most severe is recorded
VS offender has 3 offences 3 different times - all are recorded
Politicians + journalists consider these stats as accurate representations of crime
sizeable rises recieves widespread publicity + sparks up arguments about police and gov ineffectiveness
Victimisation Surveys:
estimate gap between reported + unreported crime
assess public attitudes towards reporting + crime + policing
assess crime prevention + effects of initiatives
direct attention to otherwise ignored experiences of victims
Advantages:
does not rely on what comes to the attention of police
allow lots of questions to be asked about nature + impact of crime
Limitations:
doesn’t normally pick up corporate + organised crime
white-collar, criminal damage, ‘victimless’ crimes
little oppurtunity to ask about work-based offences
responders may be reluctant to answer questions
too scared to report, too embarrassed, ashamed
Impacted by 7 factors:
knowledge of incidents, not telling, memory decay
teloscoping (when incident feels like it happened earlier than it did)
education, multiple + serial incidents, interview conditions
The Crime Survey for England and Wales:
whether they have experienced any listed crimes - then follow up questions if yes
life styles, fear / belief / attitudes to crime, contact with police , drinking habits, self-reported offending
assessments on seriousness, impact of crime on victims, perception of crime risks + fear of crime , attitudes to sentencing + neighbourly watch schemes
Local crime surveys:
mostly similar to national surveys but focusing on a smaller highly targetted area
aimed to correct the shortcomings of the british crime survey
eg. underestimating the impact of criminal victimisation
ineffectiveness at uncovering ‘hidden’ crimes (eg. domestic violence)
how to develop policies to help those who suffer most
eg. women, ethnic minorities, working class
while refusing the draconian policing policies + penal practices
need objective assessment on police-public relations
measure public demands of what they want
efficacy of existing methods
shifting from circumstances of incident from perpetrators motives - helped refine work in the ‘situational’ + ‘oppurtunity theory’ area
Comparing official statistics + victimisation surveys:
offence categories aren’t the same
Strengths of surveys:
capture unreported incidents
capture reported but not recorded incidents
depends on victim’s understanding of events
Weakness:
range does not cover all crime
often don’t include people in certain institutions (eg. prison, hospital, care homes)
other sampling problems
limit to accuracy of responder memory
focuses on crime that is individual events - fails to capture multiple victimisation
eg. needed for racial harassment, domestic violence
Crime trends:
mid 1950s crime started significantly rising
need to be observed over a long extended period of time
short-term fluctuations easily affected by temporary + superficial changes in organisational practices
wary of assuming data accurately portrays changes over time bc
coverage of crimes
counting rules
redefinitions
behvaiour
recording + reporting rates
at risk populations
Reading 5:
Introduction:
Youth + crime = social construct used by powerful people (politicians + news editors)
doesn’t reflect social reality
Media: creating moral panic around ‘gangs’
Past and Present perceptions of youth:
moral panic: ‘antisocial behaviour’ + ‘gangs’
Antisocial behaviour is not necessarily criminal
plays on people’s fear of crime - amplified by media
young people who hangout in public
come from poor neighbourhoods + usually unemployed - cannot participate in formal spaces —> result of activities seen in sketchy places (drugs, drinking, smoking etc)
long-term unemployment = involved in criminal activity - to get by
car crime, mugging
moral panic: surrounding social class
clear signs of anti-social behaviour: hoodies + chavs
Theories of youth crime
crime + deviance + delinquency = responses to social problems
crime-dense areas: normally subject to rapid + frequent social change
subculture + gang theory:
stem from anomie / strain theory
structural strain - result of discontinuity of society between cultural goals + institutional means of achieving goals
cultural goals: aspiration to own basic things (eg. car, tv, etc)
not everyone has legit means (eg. money) to achieve goals
crime: attempts to achieve goals illegal
strain b/w cultural goals + legitimate means - rise in individual responses (adaptations)
responses: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, rebellion
individuals experience ‘status frustration’
Gangs: group of individuals who experience similar problems and attempt to solve them
shared solution: accepted standards are inverted
norms of delinquent subculture = negative polarity to respectable status system
= antagnoistic relation to respectable norms + values (hence moral panic)
reality: violation of norms from lower class focal concerns
activity = positive effort to achieve status within their own lower-class culture
Differential opportunity structures and differential association
Cloward + Ohlin (1960):
considered deviant solutions : collective solutions
serious delinquencies violate both lower class and middle class values
based on: everyone pursues the American dream of success as cultural goal
disregards class, race, religion
middle class: pursue via legitimate means
working class youth: use illegitimate means
neighbourhoods provide opportunity to learn various means to overcome blocked opportunities
response of youth defined by material terms of reference by working class
responses:
commit utilarian forms of theft + robbery: provide criminal role models + apprenticeships into adult crime
conflict subcultures + fighting gangs
retreatist subcultures: drug users
Anomie theory: depends on the differential access to the same cultural goals
Sutherland: recognising different social worlds have own norms + values + means of achieving cultural goals + objectives
criminal behaviour is learnt in a normal manner like non-criminal behaviour
difference: person becomes criminal by associating w others in social environment where law breaking is accepted
Criminal Careers:
many young people w ‘risk factors’ - associated w social exclusion - do not develop full criminal careers
Criminal careers
proposed delinquency = subcultural tradition practiced by generations living in ‘delinquent neighbourhoods’
support Shaw + Mckay:
argue socially disorganised neighbourhoods = provide environment where criminality + delinquent traditions are passed down
Subterranean values + neutralisation techniques
David Matza:
delinquents tend to drift in + out of deviant activity
not fully committed to a life of deviance + involvement in subcultures = transitory
doubtful juvenile delinquents = totally immune from conformity by dominant social order
family of delinquent probs agree with respectable society that delinquency = wrong
family may also say that and be engaged in illegal activities
Values + practices:
they adhere to conventional society ( values)
use illicit means (practices)
reject idea that subcultures = culture within culture
rather 'world of delinquent embedded in larger world of those who conform’
challenge idea that certain values = juvenile delinquency
eg. search for adventure / excitement, disdain for work, desire for money, aggression
values does not mean they are intrinsically deviant = mode of expression
delinquency = based on over simplification of society’s value system being the same as middle-class values
value system = more complex
placing importance of subterranean values
Subterranean values: values in conflict w other deeply held values but are still recognised + accepted by many
eg. search for adventure + excitement
some circumstances = acceptable
context in which value is exercised + appropriateness of activity = deviant or not
delinquents neutralise conventional norms by:
denial of responsibility
rationalised as result of forces beyond individual control
denial of injury: ‘I didn’t hurt anybody’
eg. theft = borrowing
denial of victim: ‘they had it coming to them’
rightful avenger
condemation of the condemners: ‘everyones picking on me’
deflect attention from deviant acts
appeal to higher loyalties: ‘I didn’t do it for myself’
resolving conflicts that contradict
Labelling theory + moral panics:
labelling theory: no act is inherently deviant
moral entrepreneurs + agencies of social control = crucial role in labelling the deviant
people who are labelled: assume it a basis of adopting deviant identity + lifestyle
leads to start of delinquent career
= ‘secondary deviation’
Moral panic: exaggeration + distortion in media —> leading to targeting by pocie and courts '
Victoria’s youth gang moral panic:
bands of people who were thought to be gangs were not
were groups bc little organisation + rather than serious they committed petty crimes (eg. graffiti, vandalism)
problems associated with sensational gang talk + administrative gang criminology
critical approaches see gangs as potential vehicles of comradehip at border of licit + illicit activity
English delinquent subculture
illegal behaviour not due to status frustrations reaction-formation
illegal behaviour bc dissocation from middle class in contexts of schools, work, recreation
corner boys (englands delinquents) place importance on leisure goals
having little money + limited access to subculture lifestyles —> reacts against middle + lower class culture
Cultural criminology ‘old’ + ‘new’
British subcultural theory:
stress leisure > crime + delinquency
differed from American (class conflict > cultural conflict)
post war redevelopment + rehousing strategies = youth reactions - style > crime
formed subculture: to express and revolve contradictions that are hidden/unresolved in parent culture
reality: provided no solution out of common class problematic
merely symbolic
no real solutions to unemployment, educational disadvantage, low pay, loss of skills
subcultures = reproduction of gaps + discrepancies
delinquency strems from status frustration
simultaneously being enticed into consumer culture but being excluded from materialist consumer society
trascend + escape from mundane routines of everyday life
resemble trying to control over one’s destiny in constantly shifting + unstable world
depending on what value delinquency stems from the police can amplify it
eg. chase for exhileration - intensified by police car chases
Youth and crime in contemporary Australia
Crime policy: welfare + justice approaches
welfare:
addressing underlying social + economic causes of crime
providing long-term remedies
Justice approaches:
offer quick-fix solutions
focused on punishing
focuses on retribution over rehabilitation
culture of control: crime policy being justice approaches > welfare considerations
Developments: include restorative justice initiatives
parties come together to resolve the aftermath of offence + implications '
NSW: restorative justice if offender accepts responsibility for the offence
WA: avoiding juveniles exposure to negative influences
Reading 6:
Introduction:
Digital technologies = new challenges
but also new tools for information + support for victims
Vulnerability as victim / offender
influenced by experience at home / homelessness
social, economic, political, personal factors affect access to safe + secure housing
Meanings of home:
meanings: physical space, personal/intimate connection, network of caring relationships / obligations, private place
some cultures = spiritual connection to land / geographical location
Women + home = ambivalent relationship
offers pleasure + security
but also unpaid work + violence + threats
domestic violence = main reason for women homelessness
Immigrants: leaving home = new life + opportunities
but also many challenges
Homelessness:
linked to crime + criminalisation
fear of homelessness prevents people from leaving abusive homes
homeless people vulnerable to victimisation in streets / alternative housing
other risks: alcohol use, drugs, prostitution + stealing to support survival
likely to be stigmatised
represented as : distasteful + threatening
vulnerable to over-policing
Factors → homelessness
poverty
unemployment
inadequate social welfare policies
lack of affordable housing
racism, sexism, homophobia
The protection of privacy - whose privacy?
Legal idea:
in public: subject to legal regulation + as a legal actor
in private: free from law to be one’s particular self
Home = criminal behaviours are tolerated + ignored
police + courts failed to intervene on domestic violence + child abuse incidents
has endorsed men’s authority over women + children
Legal regulation
assumes based on white, heterosexual, middle class morality
groups outside this are vulnerable to surveillance + legal intervention which imposes those standards
A brief history of crime and the home
politics + culture: male dominated
women = poorly paid + constrained by childcare
little legal constraints on men’s violence
married women had lots to lose by prosecuting violent husbands
Domestic violence = private affair unless disturbed peace
SA trials turned bc assumed offender’s chastity / good character
Child criminals
were orphaned, neglected or poor = at risk or alr criminal
destitute children vs offenders = blurred line
often imprisoned in adult jail
1970: child abuse term introduced
public concern from neglect → physical abuse
Crimes in the home
Homicide:
Most common: intimate partner homicide
2nd: filicide (child death by parent)
Victim + offender rates: mostly male for both
females - mostly killed by someone w domestic relationship
males - by acquaintances
Domestic violence/family violence
mostly violence b/w intimate partners but ALSO aboriginal kinship
not all forms (damaging + abusive) = crime
eg. coercive control - remains debated
official stats - poor measures of reasons bc of stigma + shame + fear
men less likely to call it self defence if it is
violence doesn’t cease at end of relationship - some cases it increases
men offenders: self-oriented, lack empathy, deny responsibility, blame on others, minimise harm done
Indigenous family violence:
term ‘family violence’ - preference for holistic, community-led solutions + services
violence against women + children = common
seen in context of ongoing effects of colonisation
Elder abuse:
commonly: family members against the elderly
adult child taking money / property from aged parent by force / fraud
difficult to detect → undercounted
risk factors: cognitive impairment / other disability , social isolation, traumatic life events
+ characteristics of offender
norms + expectations regarding generational transfer of assets
Child abuse:
physical, sexual, emotional, neglect, prostitution, pornography, other technology - facilitated abuse
Thinking theoretically about crimes in the home
early theories: crude, individualistic, victim blaming
modern: violence = irrational / pathological, coming from mental illness, personality disorders or drug abuse
Sociological theories:
focus on family as social institution
theories of masculinity - focus on gender relations in family
violence stem from demands and stresses
General systems theory:
family = system of interdependent people w goals, rules, boundaries - influenced by society
Resource theory:
violence related to power
person w greater social, economic, personal resources = dominant family member
violence = establishing dominance
marginalised men use violence → establish masculine status
Exchange theories:
behaviour linked to costs + rewards
violence as means to goal - but has costs
cost is lower - bc violence = private affair
Subculture of violence: how its accepted into families
values + norms differ across society - some groups endorse violence
generational transmittance of use of violence
Coercive control: violence not irrational / meaningless → exercise power + control over others
emphasise intimidation, isolation, control
deprive women of rights and resources needed for personhood + citizenship
Responding to crimes in the home:
policy responses - emphasis on primary prevention
+ integration of criminal justice system + social services
Reading 7:
On 26/01/08, Mr Ward (aboriginal elder) died of heatstroke after receiving third degree burns
the company escorting him knew of malfunctioning air-conditioning + high risk of associated death
Did nothing → car internal temp reached 50
shows everyday operation of settler colonial law + prison industrial complex
400 indigenous deaths since 1991
Incarceration in settler colonial societies: A statistical overview
over-rep of indigenous peoples at every level of criminal process
police custody + remand + juvenile detention + parole + sentencing + prison population
prison population steadily rising
causes: tough-on crime agendas
prison power expansion
risk assessment + surveillance tools
mandatory sentencing
longer prison sentences
increasing use of prison sentences
Indigenous people make up 30% of adult prison admissions
Policing:
BLM movement: redefine + intervene problem of structural racism + policing
racial profiling → implications for concern surrounding perceived legitimacy + police - community relationship
causes alienation - exclusion - detrimental health - socio-economic impacts
Aboriginal people more likely to
not acquire bail
due to previous offending record - failing to meet conditions
experience homelessness
Neoolonialism, postcolonialism + criminology:
neocolonialism: focuses on continuities of colonialism into modern day
postcolonialism: focuses on ongoing effects of colonialism on both colonised + coloniser
important insights:
coloniasation → depicted peoples of non-west racially inferior
western culture = basis for legitimate government, law, economics, science, language, arts
violence process - physically + epistemological
epistemology: denial of colonised people’s way of knowing, knowledge, language, etc.
unequal + exploitative relationship still present - seen in mass incarceration of indigenous peoples
still a massive denial surrounding indigenous sovereignty + self-detirmination
questioning legitimacy of law and institutions
in an era where race isn’t as discriminated against, racist motives use criminal justice system to label these marginilised groups as ‘criminals’
having appreciation for different sources of knowledge, evidence in criminal justice investigations
modern political state: built on human rights abuses + exclusions of colonised + enslaved peoples
decolonising criminology = seeing current criminology as product of set narratives within Western social sciences
Intersectionality + Criminology:
theoretical perspective that tries to understand various intersections b/w class, race, culture, identity, belonging
white criminological theories may be inadequate to explain criminal behaviour of people not in that demographic
Interpersonal racism: attitudes , perceptions, behaviours - from one individual to another
eg. racial profiling + implicit (subconscious) bias
police training + education needs to promote greater awareness of one’s own socio-cultural baggage
Institutional racism: institutional practices / workplace cultures with discriminatory outcomes
explains why minorities are under-repped as police, judicial, and correctional officers, lawyers etc.
Structural racism: systemic ways inequalities are reproduced + maintained in society
Reading 8:
Introduction:
White collar crime has attention:
cause considerable harms
does not result in harsh / appropriate punishment
What is white collar crime?
crimes done by the ‘more respectable’ individuals + corporations
more extensive + costly than street crimes
definition is debated:
lack of agreement whether it fits the accepted ‘sense’ of the word ‘crime’
lack of precision about what crimes are considered ‘white collar crime’
difficult bc actions have different effects / punishments
eg. breaking laws or attract civil and administrative sanctions
breaking the law isn’t complex enough - overlooks a lot of harmful business activity
challenges in having successful criminal prosecution
various offences under ‘white-collar’ have little commonalities
Has a hierarchy of severity - therefore ambiguous + blurs differences between these levels
White-collar and Corporate Crime: Ambiguity or Typology
sociological approach:
explore common elements of white-collar crime
social inequality affecting crime + enforcement of criminal, civil, and regulatory codes
understanding the processes where some activities are called crime
focuses on its ability to resist accountability + punishment
Typological approach:
tries to dispel ambiguity by making clear distinctions between the different forms of white crime
can be better understood and delegated
aims to manage ambiguity + greater conceptual precision
needs decisions on what can distinguish one category from another
eg. occupational vs corporate crime
for it to be accurate: needs to distinguish between types of behaviour
typologies fail to explain the impunity of white-collar offending adequately
White collar crime and embeddedness
Why is there impunity?
certain harms are embedded in mainstream business / commercial activity
harms are less able to regulated / controlled
people responsible are less able to made accountable
harms = normal business activity
nomal and unavoidable by-products
To fix = changing law → legitimate business activity is impaired
the laws facilitate useful productive business but also provide loopholes
Embedded Crime 1: A ‘normal’ part of business activity
eg. Laws that allow for damage to the environment - embedded
pollutant laws often specify appropriate quantities of pollutants rather than stopping them altogether
bc they’re by-products its more effective to just close down the responsible industry - obvi not a realistic thing
drop in employment
drop in government revenues → schools, hospitals welfare services face repercussions
Data on white-collar prosecutions are not representative
large businesses can avoid prosecution + sanctions
Smaller companies have more difficulties hiding + following laws (think health and safety)