Understanding Crime: Social Construction & Media's Influence, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Download Understanding Crime: Social Construction & Media's Influence and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity! Crime and Deviance Key issues in order of appearance Topic Completed in class Looked over Revised/Questions Social control, deviance and crime Agencies of social control Agencies of social control The social construction of crime and deviance The mass media and the social construction of crime and deviance Theories of crime and deviance The pattern of crime Age and crime Gender and crime Social class and crime White collar or occupational crime Ethnicity and crime Locality and crime Limitations of official crime statistics Corporate crime Crime and globalisation State crimes The victims of crime Crime control, prevention and punishment Suicide Social control, deviance and crime Social control refers to the methods which persuade or force individuals to conform to the main social norms and values which are leared through early socialisation. This in turn prevents deviance. They can be formal, through institutions like school and law enforcement or they can be informal, through peers and family. Sanctions are a way of enfocring social control and can be good or bad, ranging all the way from good sanctions being pocket money or a knight hood to bad sanctions being sitting in the corner or life imprisonment. Agencies of social control: Formal social control; • These are agencies specifically set up to ensure that people conform. E.g. Police, courts. You have to obey because of bad sanctions like prison time or fines. Informal social control; • These are groups which sanction but are not primarly involved enfocring social control. E.g. Parents, education system and workplace. The social construction of crime: Crime is whatever is against the law, as in, if it is against the law is to wake up at 7:59, then you are a criminal if you wake up at that exact time. What is regarded as a crime is more often then not regarded as devient. Newburn (2007) says that crime is a label attached to certain forms of behaviour which are prohibited by the state and have som elegal penulty agianst them. No act in itself is criminal, it is only criminal when it is labled as a crime. Killing in itself is not criminal, it is dependant on the circumstance; for instance if you kill someone by hit and run then it is criminal, but if you kill an enemy at war then it is not. As what is criminal changes over both time and country it strengthens the idea that no act alone is criminal. The social construction of deviance: Deviance is essentialy deviation from rules/norms/beliefs/conformity and values of something. It could be deviation from law, deviation from family, or even deviating around a pot hole when driving. It is very difficult to define exactly what is deviant because many people disagree. Downes and Rock (2007) suggest that ambiguity is a key feature as people don't really know what is deviant and what isn't. A persons judgement on what is deviant will depend on loads of stuff about them personally, and deviance in a speific setting will depend on the social norms and how others react to it. For instance, wearing a t-shirt that has a swear word might be cool and accepted around friends, but not in the work place or in front of the queen. Plummer (1979) Societal and situational deviance: Societal deviance: • This is just what is seen by other members of society as deviant, and they all have shared values of what is allowed and what is certainly not allowed. For instance, murder, rape, child abuse and drink-drivng will all be not allowed in the UK as a value. Situational deviance: • This is all about the context like where it took place and how it affected those around it. These both show that deviance can be agreed on across whole societies, but differ with other societies, or even differ between groups in society. The following show how deviance and crime can change over time, further proving that no act in itself is either deviant or criminal. 1. Non deviant crime: These are ware lots of people do them and over all the acts are quite common, they an still be illegal but the stigma attached to the common activities is not so bad. For example, parking offences, under age drinking, light cannabis use ect 2. The time: Deviance and crimes change over time, because the people deciding the laws and values (wider society) change. For instance smoking was a widely accepted event in 1948 over 85% of the population smoked, and now in modern times it had become a minority event with barely 24% of the population smoking. 3. The society or culture: Whether the country or culture thinks it is deviant. For instance alcohol use in Islamic countries is deviant as it goes against their religion. Media and the fear of crime: Media exaggerates the amount of violent and unusual crimes • Research shows that there is a link between media consumption and the fear of crime • Schlesinger and Tumbr (1992) found tabloid readers and heavy users of TV expressed greater fear of going at night and becoming a victim. • Gerbner et al found heavy user of TV (4+) had higher levels of fear of crime • However correlational evidence says people who stay in at night may already be scared of going out at night and consequently watch more TV. • Interpretivists like Richard Sparks (1992) note that research into the effects of media has to look at the meaning people give to the voilence and crime they see in the media. Causing crime through relative deprivation: • Left realists; Lea and Young (1996) argue that the mass media helps to increase the sense of relative deprivation – the feeing of being deprived relative to others. • The media presents everyone with imaged of materialistic good life of leisure, fun and consumer goods as the norms which they should conform • The pressure to conform to the norm can cause deviant behaviour - theft. • Working class are more likely to cause crime. Like Merton's strain theory, the pressure to conform is harmful as the poorest are unable to achieve the same goals through legitimate means. Moral Panics “This is an exaggeration or over-reaction by society to a group / behaviour when it is seen as a threat to societal values and norms. This is driven by the media.” Stanley Cohen, an Interactionalist; in 1972 published the most influential study of moral panics and the role of the media in 'Folk devils & Moral Panics'. Stanley examined the media response in 1964-66 to the mods and rockers and why it created moral panic. 3 key elements lead to moral panic; 1. Exaggeration and distortion- media exaggerated no. involved, and extent of violence and damage. Sensationalist headlines were used e.g 'Day of Terror' 2. Prediction- assumed and predicted further conflict 3. Symbolisation- their clothes, bikes, scooters, hairstyles and music. Deviance amplification is a process, often performed by the mass media, in which the extent and seriousness of deviant behaviour is exaggerated. The effect is to create a greater interest in the deviance to uncover more deviance; this gives the impression that the original exaggeration was true. • This lead to increased control response from police and courts • This produced further marginalisation and stigmatisation of mods and rockers and less tolerance towards them. • Media also amplified problem by defining two groups and lifestyle – leading to more youths adopting styles – more people for future clashes. Media identify a group as a problem; or threat Media present the group in negative way; exaggerate Moral entrepreneurs- politicians ect condemn it Leads to crack down on group Creates an SFP and deviance amplification Mods and Rockers were in a post-war ear (an environment where moral panic supposedly flourishes). Folk devils are the ones which are blamed and are clearly identifiable by what they are wearing. Rockers became the folk devils Stanley Cohen 'Folk devils and Moral Panics (1972) National news papers wanted stories to cover, noticed the mods and rockers mess in Brighton, media magnified the riot out of all proportion. This is picked up all over the world and this becomes the image of youths in the 1960's. The wider context- • The mods and rockers moral panic came in a post war British society- youths consumerism and hedonism appear to challenge the values of older generations. • suggests moral panics arise at time of social change- when people feel accepted values seem to be undermined. Other theories of moral panic- • Functionalists suggest moral panics occur as a response to the to the normelessness (anomie) created by change – by dramatising the threat, media raises collective consciousness and reasserts social controls when central values are threatened. People are unsure or unclear on values of society, moral panics help to fix this. By creating moral panic it brings people together, by condemning behaviour together and asserts what is right and wrong. • Stuart hall (1979) adopts a neo-marxist approach and suggests moral panics are created to enforce capitalism. They – 1. divert attention away from capitalism, 2. divide wc and conquer e.g race, 3 legitimate social control e.g. video surveillance. Criticisms of moral panics: • It assumes societies reaction to a crime is always an over reaction- who is to decide what is an overreaction and what is the real problem? Left realists argue that fear of crime is irrational. • It can't explain why some issues are amplified and others are not. • McRobbie and Thornton argue moral panics have less impact in today's modern world as we are all used to 'shock, horror' stories and so don't react. • It is harder for the media to create moral panics but there is little agreement about what is and what is not deviant and this is constantly changing. For example, single motherhood was seen as deviant in the 50's but now is seen as acceptable. • Traditional Marxists for example, would be very clear that the reasons why mods and rockers are singled out and focused on in the way Cohen shows, is because they are working class; the forces of law and order do not exert anything like as much concern in investigating the crimes of the rich and powerful. • Although Cohen takes an interactionist approach, the picture he presents of moral panics and deviance amplification seems to be very structural. • This means that in practice, Cohen’s explanation suggests that the mods and rockers have no freedom in their actions; they are portrayed as powerless victims in the face of media distortion and public outrage. • Cohen seems to assume that the public will indeed all react in a particular way, and that this reaction is something that is directly caused by the media’s reporting; it seems therefore to be an automatic response. This implies that the public have no free will to respond to media reporting and a ‘moral panic’ in any other way. • Lastly, many sociologists (perhaps including Cohen himself) would point out that since the 1960s, society has undergone considerable social change. Sarah Thornton’s study, ‘Club Cultures’ is perhaps the best summary and example of these criticisms. Thornton argues that Cohen makes a mistake in assuming that there is simply one uniform response to moral panics. She points out that we now live in a more fragmented society, and that there may be very many different reactions to moral panics. Thornton argues that rather than see the targets of moral panics are not always passive victims of the media and a uniform public reaction. She argues that the example of rave music in the late 8 0s and early 90s shows how ‘deviant’ groups can seek out notoriety and moreover use it to create their own oppositional and non- conformist identity. • Equally though, she also points out that nowadays the line between deviance and normality is increasingly blurred, since she thinks it is the case that to be ‘normal’, and not to drink under-age, would be deviant. Examples of moral panics that have happened: • The Columbine High School massacre led, and still leads, to many schools over-reacting against imagined deviance among their pupils, under the guise of "Zero-tolerance" • Hooded tops- sweatshirts with hoods are the latest clothing of demonized youth in the UK Global cyber-crime Thomas and Loader (2000) define cyber crime as 'computer-mediated activities actibities that are either illegal or considered illicit, and are conducted through global electroic networks' Yvonne Jewkes (2003) notes tha the internet has brought new and old ways of commiting crime to half of the wolrds popuation. Old crimes like fraud are now easier with the speed and access we all have online, and 'new crimes using new tools' like software privacy. Wall (2001) comes us with 4 catagories of cyber crime. • Cyber-tresspass – crossing boundaries into others cyber property. Hacking, sabotage, viruses ect • Cyber-deception- identity theft, online banking details, illegal downloading ect • Cyber-pornography- including minors/opportunities for children to access porn • Cyber-violence – Doing psychological harm, inciting physical harm, cyber stalking, hate rimes, bullying by text. Policing cyber crime is hard because the internet is so vast with different servers, IP addresses and ways to avoid detection becoming ever more increasing in size. Also the jurisdiction around the global usage is difficult to define and enforce. Survellience ICT is good as it helps the police and state to deal with crimes. For instance, CCTV cameras, digital fingerprinting ect. Subcultural strain theories This both builds and criticisms Merton's theory so if you're going to get a question on this, its best to start with a very brief outline of Merton's theory, as people like Cohen adapt from it. This theory is put forward by Cohen and Cloward & Ohlin. This focuses on the groups in society rather than the individuals and how they adapt to the strain they each face. Also it mostly deals with young delinquency (crimes by people who are under 17) who are the largest group of criminals. A. K Cohen: Status frustrations Cohen agrees that it's the working classes inability to gain legitimate goals like mainstream success by legitimate means like education that causes them to be deviant and commit crimes. But Cohen argued differently from Merton and Criticises him; 1. Merton see's individuals and the strain on them as individuals, whereas Cohen thinks we should look at deviant groups, and the effect on groups which can form subcultures. 2. Merton's theory also focuses on utilitarian things (doing something for a greater gain) like theft, rather than non-utilitarian things like assault and vandalism which Cohen can see no greater gain from or economic motive. Cohen sees that specifically working class boys can face Anomie form mainstream middle class cultures and education system. Because they are culturally and sometimes materially deprived they can face a sort of Status Frustration as they are at the bottom of the hierarchy because they cannot achieve in this system. So they turn to others in the same situation and form a delinquent subculture with alternative and distinctive values which are a deliberate reversal of he accepted norms and values in mainstream society. For instance, society sees stealing as wrong, whereas they would see it as a great way to get new things, or how vandalism replaces a respect of others property. Alternative status hierarchy Cohen believes that these delinquent subcultures offer an illegitimate opportunity structures for working class boys who couldn't get it in the mainstream legitimate way. These subcultures give ways to achieve statu s by delinquent behaviour. This explains the difference between Merton and Cohen, in that there need be no utilitarian motive for a crime, but for gaining status in the delinquent subculture. Evaluation of Cohen's status frustrations: + It explains what Merton can't about group delinquency rather than individual delinquency. +Explains non-utilitarian crime as its status frustration and rejection of values - Cohen thinks that working class young boys see the mainstream societal values as great and desirable, and only act out as rebelling at what they cannot get themselves legitimately. Miller (1962), agreed with Cohen that there was a delinquency subculture, but argued that it arose entirely from the lower class way of life, they had their own focal concerns that differed from the mainstream ones. - Matza (1964) said WC boys weren't committed, but drifted values over time. -Not all WC boys commit delinquent acts Cloward and Ohlin: Working class delinquent subcultures Like before Cloward and Ohlin agree with Merton and say that WC boys are denied the legitimate ways to achieve and they delinquency stems from this as a strain..but Cloward and Ohlin try to identify why all of the WC boys don't become rebellious, like the 4 different groups (Merton's retreatists, ritualists, rebellious and innovators). They also suggest that Cohen doesn't quite explain why there is such a diversity in subculture responses. Cloward and Ohlin suggest three different types of subculture responses which are given rise to by varied social circumstance. 1. Criminal Subcultures These give WC boys the opportunity to participate in utilitarian crime (crime for gain), and most likely occur in neighbourhoods which already have crime links to adult professional crime (illegitimate opportunity structure) and a stable adult criminal structure which can act as a profession to WC boys who will be taught by the criminal adults. There will also be an element of social control on the WC boys, as the adults wont want them doing petty crimes like vandalism as it will get police attention. 2. Conflict subcultures These are area's of great population turn over (moving in and out) where there cannot be established a stable criminal culture and rely on violent crimes as a source of frustration release and status. This explains a lot of the newly developing gang culture in Britians biggest cities in run down parts as there is such a population turn over that the only opportunity to obtain status illegitimately is to commit street crime, muggings, and gang warfare. 3. Retreatist subcultures This third group are made up of those who have failed to be successful either way, 'double failure' at both illegitimate and legitimate means and goal. They drop out of society and turn to drugs abuse and alcoholism, funded mainly by small crimes for each hit. CHICAGO SCHOOL Evaluation of Cloward and Ohlin: + Their theory is useful as it helps explain why WC boys take different routes of delinquency dependant on their social circumstance. - However this theory can be argued to exaggerate the differences between the subcultures, and like most things they actually overlap. For instance utilitarian crime is present in all three subcultures not just one or two. For example, drug dealing for gains of money or respect is present in all three. - Like Merton, Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin both forget the crimes of the wealthy, and the wide power structure, and over represent working class crime. - Like Cohen, they are reactionist, showing the subcultures as a reaction to the inability to achieve legitimate means, legitimately, but assume all WC start off sharing the same values, when as before stated, they might not/already have separate values. Miller: Focal concerns of working class life. This theory basically says that, the working class have different values (focal concerns) , being tough, a resentment for authority ect, and so when they try and gain status with their fellow WC they over conform to the focal concerns of the working class and become delinquent. So it's not a rejection of dominant values, it is a conformity to a distinct working class. Criticisms of the Functionalist theories - Consensus: Functionalists always say there is some kind of shared value or belief throughout mainstream society and this is a consensus. But Taylor (1973) points out that this isn't the case. Many people have different values, religion for example values different things, and some may want to 'love' their job rather than climb the ladder. - Subculture theories only explain WC delinquency - Official statistics don't cover unreported crime, so subcultural theorists are basing their theories on unrepresentative samples and potentially untrue stats. However as far as we are concerned the WC are a large proportion of the criminals reported so, using the 'official' stats this can't be a negative point. - Subcultural theory assumes that delinquency is socialised into the WC, whereas it is not otherwise all WC would do it throughout their lives. Matza found that most WC don't regularly partake in illegal activities and grow out of it. - Matza hates subcultural theories because; • Delinquents are made out to be abnormal and different people to mainstream society whereas they do express the same values; an excuse for shoplifting would be that they needed to get their mum a present but didn't have the money. Shows a commitment to values not rejection. • Most delinquency is not throughout life, but a phase before adulthood. • When delinquents are caught they show 'techniques of neutralisation' which are the excuses made in the first bullet point to explain crime. Control Theory: Hirschi's social bonds theory Hirschi (1969) doesn't look at why people commit crime, but rather why they do not commit crime. He shares views with Durkheim, and says that there are social values that are instilled into us through institutions. Control theorists argue that humans are weak, and so if we do not have social bonds with other people to encourage us to conform we will be tempted to commit crime. So those who have these bonds will not. The four social bonds: • Belief: People share moral beliefs, like respect for others and obedience to the law. • Attachment: People are committed to shared activities, like work, education, and family. They do not wish to risk these things for the same of crime. If there is little attachment they can become psychopath. • Commitment: People are sensitive to others views around them; family ect. Time, effort and money spent on conventional activities like eduction. • Social bond/Involvement: They have no time for crime because people are involved in other stuff like clubs and teams. Hirschi might explain juvenile delinquency by suggesting that delinquents do not have the same commitments and involvement in society that people whom are older do have. Less likely to have formed attachments as they may not have had enough time, adolescence if the time to break away. For example, they do not have jobs to protect so do not have the same commitment to their lives and have less to loose, also less money to spend on their life that they have the chance to adapt. They may not share the same beliefs as older people as they have not got the same life experience. Hirschi can explain WC crime through the idea of commitment as they don't have the resources and are blocked to the opportunities and so they do not have as strong a commitment. Evaluation of this theory: - It contradicts some other theories like Merton and Matza by saying that criminals break away form the bonds and values of society, whereas those people say they still have them. + It recognises important things like; socialisation and social control in forming a cohesive society. And this is major in a functionalist theory. - Doesn't explain everything: like why some people have weaker bonds, and why those with weak bonds don't jump off the bandwagon and commit crime. Level of social bond? - Doesn't explain (Labelling theory does), why people who are major successful and have tight bonds are drug users. - Doesn't explain the diversity of crime, for instance environments for crime, Cloward and Ohlin. – Slippery slope as it assumes everyone could be criminal and deviant so we need to be carefully controlled and monitored. Some groups could be stereotyped and harassed. +Shows importance of stereotyping in understanding deviance -It doesn't explain why there are different reactions to deviance, or where the stereotypes come from in the first place +It reveals the way Official stats are a form of bias in law enforcement -It ignores the importance of wider structural factors in creating deviance, and assumes it's all down to societal reaction +Shows the importance of those in power (moral entrepreneurs) of defining acts and people as deviant -It doesn't explain the causes of deviance which precede the labelling process (primary deviance) or the difference in acts; drug use and murder +It shows how labelling can to SFP and deviant careers -Deterministic; assumes once people are labelled they will be more deviant, but it could make people less deviant as they can choose to or not. They might not become an SFP because once they are labelled they could be put off deviance +Shows how the deviant label can affect the self-concept of a deviant -Doesn't explain why some people are labelled and others aren't like Marxists theories do via the clash between RC and WC. +Shows an attempt to control leads to more so we shouldn't 'crack down'. -Little to say about the victim of deviance Suggests we should have less laws in order to stop deviance amplification...good or bad? Traditonal Marxist vs Neo-Marxist The driving force behind crime is the clashes between social classes (Ruling class v working class) and social inequalities because of this. Traditional Marxist theories • Law: ◦ All the laws are not created from value consensus (like Functionalists think) they are just made to benefit the ruling class in some way. E.g. through laws to stop the working class uprising; to protect their property and wealth -inheritance laws-; definitions of crime and deviance are to suppress the WC. Chambliss (1975) argues that laws to protect private property are the cornerstone of the capitalist economy. For example, Chambliss illustrates this by looking at the introduction of English law in African colonies. The African economies were not fuelled by money. So in introducing a tax law, which had to be paid in cash the Africans then had to work for them to earn cash to pay the tax. The law served the economic interests of the capitalists. Laureen Snider (1933) argues that the state is reluctant to pass laws which regulate the activities of businesses or threaten their profitability. Thus not introducing laws which look at the economic inequalities in society. There is also selective enforcement! Jeffery Reiman's (2001) book the 'rich get richer and the poor get prison' shows that the higher-class person who commits a crime is less likely to be treated as a criminal offence. • Capitalism and Crime: Criminogenic ◦ Crime is natural in this society because it is based on wealth, success, greed and a disregard of how to get it. The working class who are poor may be force to commit crime as their only way to gain means. Crime may also be the only way to achieve material gains, so utilitarian crimes exist. David Gordon (1976) argues, crime is a rational response to the capitalist system hence why it is found in all classes. WC crime is just over played. • Ideological functions of crime and law ◦ Sometimes laws appear to benefit the WC but really benefit the RC. Like health and safety laws which just ensure they are productive and safe to make profit. Frank Pierce (1976) argues that these laws benefit the working class too by keeping the work force fit to work and giving a 'caring face' of the RC. W.G Carson (1971) in a sample of 200 firms found that they had all broken health and safety laws at least once, yet only 1.5% have been prosecuted. Neo-Marxist theories (critical criminology) This takes traditional marxist theories like class conflict and exploitation and criminogenic, the state enforcing laws in its own interest and that society should be replaced by a class-less one. But Neo- Marxists like Taylor think that we should combine it with theories like labelling theory. Taylor et al (1970's+) founded the 'New Criminology' based on Marxist stuff and said that there was more to crime than RC laws, and that WC had a political motive as well. Also they recognised that crime was a choice, that no one was forced into it (debatable), and you also had to find out what crime meant to criminals. Taylor said they needed to look at both structural and interactionist perspectives to have a fully social theory of crime. Hall et al (1978) applied this to black crime – muggings- in the 70's. Other theorists say that crime is a way for the WC to act out about the RC oppression, and two, a way for the RC to reassert RC hegemony (RC values, beliefs and dominance in society) through moral panics of WC crime. In the 1970's Hall argued that the moral panics over black crime were used to justify tougher policing and harassment, and police racism (Gilroy 1982- discussion of black crime). • Taylor rejects traditional Marxism by saying that it is too deterministic; ◦ e.g it sees workers driven to commit crime out of necessity. They reject this as well as other theories saying that crime is caused by external factors; anomie, blocked opportunities... Voluntarism: Crime is a conscious choice often with political motive. E.g to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Criminals are deliberately struggling to change society. Neo-Marxists looks a the government laws and how these benefit the RC also. Looks at how we look at WC crime, a focus on benefit fraud from WC rather than tax evasion from RC. A fully social theory of crime of deviance: Taylor tried to create a comprehensive account of deviance to make society better using two sources; -Traditional Marxism; ideas about unequal wealth and distribution and who has the power to make and enforce the law. -Labelling theory; using the meaning of the deviant act for the actor, societal reactions to it and effects of the deviant label on the deviant. In their view a complete theory of deviance needs to include these 6 things; The New Criminology and a fully social theory of deviance Dimension to be explored Explanation The wider social origins of the deviant act The wider context, like unequal distribution of wealth and power. The immediate origins of the deviant act The specific situation leading criminals to choose to commit the deviant act The actual act and what it means to be deviant It could be a political act, steal from the rich to help the poor, alternate to paid employment, or supporting a further deviant habit; drugs The immediate origins of the societal reaction How do people react to the act like the the deviant or victim, neighbours, or family and why The wider origins of societal reaction How does the wider society reaction, do the media or people in power define it as deviant and why some acts are treated more severely than others The outcomes of the societal reaction, further action What happens after being labelled? Does it stop them re-offending? Does it lead to amplification? Evaluation of Marxist/Neo-Marxist theories • What they ignore: ◦ The victim: Ignore the fact that most victims of crime are working class (but this is supposed to be crime as acting out against RC, so why are other WC victims?) ◦ Not all poor commit crimes ◦ Non-criminal deviance Like dying hair green, its not illegal but it is deviant from norms. ◦ No solutions to crime ◦ Any other explanation of how to deal with crime aside form DESTROY CAPITALISM! ◦ How everyday crimes like burglary and vehicle theft are working in the RC favour. Although it could be argued that they need to keep a content and non-crime workforce for better production. ◦ Not all capitalist societies have high crime rates. Japan and Switzerland have much lower crime rates than the USA. ◦ Other laws like health and safety, consumer protection and traffic laws which can't really been seen to benefit the RC. But again, like before it could be seen to be protecting the workforce, so that they feel minimally oppressed and work harder. • What they over emphasize: ◦ Class inequality in crime instead of looking at other types of group like ethnicity, gender, age ect. ◦ Property crime and ignore other crimes like rape, domestic violence and murder. ◦ Feminists argue that they over emphasize male criminality not females. • It can be seen as idealistic as it offers no realistic answers to anything, idealistic reasons for crime and idealistic ways out of a criminal society. • Traditional Marxists: ◦ Offers an explanation of the relationship between crime and capitalist society, first theory to do this, others do mention inequality but does not delve into that. ◦ Shows link between law making, enforcement and the interests of the capitalist class. ◦ It puts labelling theory into a wider social context regarding selective enforcement of the law- enforcement ◦ This view has also influenced recent approaches to study the crimes of the rich and powerful. Gary Slapper and Steve Tombs (1999) argues that corporate crime is under- policed and rarely prosecuted or punished severely. • Left realist criticisms: ◦ Critical criminology (Neo-Marxists) romanticises the working class criminals as 'Robin hoods' who are fighting capitalism to redistribute wealth. But in reality these criminals pray on the poor. ◦ Taylor does not take such crime seriously and ignores the effects on WC victims. • Other Criticisms: ◦ Rodger Hopkins Burke (2005) argues that critical criminology is both too general in explaining and tackling crime. Left and Right Realism Right and Left realists differ on political stances, they both think crime is a problem and both offer solutions but on both these counts there are radically different. Try to offer realistic solutions • Right realists: Heavily right wing neo-conservative/new right influenced, and have a zero tolerance towards crime • Left realists: Are reformists and want policies which promote equality Right realism: This approach is heavily influential in the UK, USA and loads of places around the world. It promotes that theories in the past have not adequately explained crime, and what there should be put in place to prevent/stop it. Labelling theory and Critical criminology are said to have both failed on this point, Left Realists: Developed in the 80's and is related to the work of and Lea and Young (1984) in response to Marxist and neo-marxist approaches. Like Marxists they see the capitalists society as the root of crime, but don't want a revolution to uproot it, they believe in the gradual reforms being the only way to make the policies work. Also unlike Marxists they want to stop and prevent crime now, not once capitalism is overthrown. They are reformers not revolutionists. This theory has some criticisms of other theories: • Traditional Marxists; focus too much on the crimes of the powerful and forget WC crime and its effects • Neo-Marxists; Romanticise WC criminals as fighting against the man, but in reality they victimise other WC people • Labelling theorists; neglect actual victims and say criminals are victims of labelling. Taking crime seriously: We need to recognise that • It's main victims are disadvantaged groups, the WC, ethnic minorities, and woman. They are likely to be victims and not be taken seriously by police • There has been a real increase in crime, lead to as Young puts it, an Aetiological crisis (looking for an explanation). Labelling theorists argue that there is no 'real' increase in crime, just an increase in tendency to label the poor as criminals. Left Realists argue that there is a 'real' increase and this explanation labelling theory puts forward just doesn't cut it now. You can see the increase by looking at victim surveys like the British Crime Survey. Causes of crime according to Left Realists (Lea and Young) • Relative deprivation ▪ Whether people see themselves as deprived compared to other people. Although it's not always the case, for example in the 1930's poverty was high but crime was low. By contrast, since the 50's standards of living have risen and so has crime. W.G. Runciman's (1966) definition of relative deprivation is how deprived you feel in comparison to others. Lea and Young (1992) found ethnic minorities feel resentment due to the relative deprivation as they see there to be unfair and biased in policing in their community. • Subcultures ▪ WC subcultures form as response to social inequalities, some WC subcultures believe that offending behaviour is ok and acceptable. Like Merton, AK Cohen and Cloward and Ohlin Left Realists draw on the blocked opportunists and responses of subcultures, Some subcultures weren't just about crime though, some were religion. Pryce (1979) noted in Bristol there were groups of Afro-Carribean 'hustlers' and Rastafarians 'saints' and WC 'respectables'. Messner and Golden (1992) found that where racial discrimination existed, deep violent subcultures flourished. But different groups also have different types of subcultures; religious ones. • Marginalisation ▪ Some people slip out of society because of poor education, lack of opportunities, unemployment and lack of community opportunities. Gibbs and Merighi (1994) argue that the black community are marginalised in terms of poverty, housing, education and jobs -anger and frustration = crime Late modernity and crime Young (2002) looked at crime and said that since the 70's WC crime has got worse because: • Harsher welfare policies, job insecurity, poverty and unemployment • Destabilisation of family and communities, weakening informal social controls Young (2002) notes also some changes in late modernity • Crime is everywhere in society, even at the top, people always want more, there is also resentment at highly undeserved rewards, footballers pay ect • Relative deprivation downwards; resentment against unemployed, and more hate crimes like that of the racist attacks on asylum seekers. • Blurred lines between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. • Public demand more of the state, including harsher formal controls. Modern society has high crime rates but an increasing intolerance for crime. Solutions to crime: Left right realists have two policies, democratic policing and reducing social inequality. • Democratic policing: Police who are more involved in the community ▪ Kinsey, Lea and Young (1986) argue that the policy rely on information provided by the public (90% of all crimes known to police are reported to them). But to their disadvantaged, lines of investigation are drying up because the public are loosing faith in the police. So they have to rely on military policing, like 'swamping an area'. But this causes a resentment for the police and they loose the respect in communities and area's that they search. ▪ To get back the support from the public that they have lost, they need to be accountable to local communities. To do this they need to involve them more, in things like policy making and priority deciding. ▪ But not only that the way the police control crime had to become a multi-agency approach, involving not just them selves but other agencies like social services, housing departments and schools. • Reducing inequality ◦ The main solution to crime is to get rid of underlying social inequality. ◦ The state needs to tackle discrimination, inequality of opportunity and unfairness of rewards and also provide houses and decent jobs for all. Influence on social policy: New labours firmer approach to policing of hate crimes, sexual assaults and domestic violence. New labours 'New Deal' for unemployed youth and anti-truancy policies. Young argues this tackles symptoms not causes. Evaluation of Left Realism: + It explains the social causes of crime well, and recognising that tackling crime itself is not enough, the inequalities need to be tackled too. -Henry and Milovanovic (1996) argue that LR's accept the authorities definition of crime as street crime by the poor and ignores that crimes committed by the powerful against the poor. Marxists argue that it fails to explain corporate crime which can be more harmful. + It recognises the vitcim; victims are often poor and working class and recognises the importance of tackling fear of crime also -Relies on victim of crime surveys to measure the fear of crime which may not always be valid, there is also a tendency to over-report some crimes and under-report others. + It recognises that there is a community of crime, the offender, the police, the victim and the pubic are involved in creating and reducing crime. -Interactionist's argue that LR's rely on quantitative data like victim of crime surveys and so do not get the motive behind crime. Instead we need qualitative data to do this. -The use of subcultural theory means that LR assume a value consensus exists and crime only occurs when there is a breakdown of this. -Not all people who are relatively deprived commit crime, so they over-predict the amount of crime. -Focuses to much on high-crime inner-city states and makes it seem like a bigger picture than it actually is. Feminist criminology: Feminists know that the society we live in is patriarchal. That means that it is largely controlled by men, giving woman little power. The suggest that men control woman and so discourage deviance in this way. But this control also generates some serious crimes by men against woman like sexual offences and domestic violence. 'Malestream' sociology and the invisibility of woman Until very recently theories / explanations of crime have been about men, concerning men and tackling male crime. Therefore there is little consideration in these theories about female offenders, why females in the same situation as males don't commit crime and also the gender gap in crime statistics. Female victimisation is ignored in theories, particularly violence and domestic abuse. Newburn (2007) suggests woman are invisible in criminology. This all reflects the male dominance in society, which means male dominance in crime theories, and therefore Malestream sociology. Heidensohn came up with some ideas as to why woman were invisible in this way. • Academics & researchers in sociology of crime mainly male • Malestream middle class sociologists gained status from having a romanticised male preoccupation with macho working class males • Less to study. Low levels of female crime / women tend to commit more invisible crime e.g. Shop lifting The growth of feminist criminology: Since the 1960's and 70's researchers have been more focused on female offending as well. Looking at things like female offending, woman's treatment by the criminal justice system, female victimization and the gender gap. Gender identity has been identified as a important area when examining crime and deviance. Smart (1976) suggests women are seen as DOUBLE DEVIANTS because they break the law & traditional gender role. This means there offences are more highly stigmatised. Feminist criminologist understand the importance of gender identity in theories of crime rather than just structural factors like strain, subcultures, social class and power. It also looks at how the conception of femininity might deter females from becoming deviant. Messerschmidt (1993) researched into the idea that crime and deviance including domestic violence, can be a way of accomplishing masculinity for men that have failed to achieve that in other areas of their life Feminist contributions to crime and deviance: • a new focus on female offending and the experiences of women in the CJS • the application of existing theories, criticisms of them and development of new theories to explain female deviance • new focus on the various types of female victimisation, like sexual and domestic violence • challenging the idea that woman get special treatment in the CJS called 'chivalry'. • Have raised questions in control theory concerning how men and woman experience different levels of control. In labelling theory in why female offending has more stigmatisation than male offending. The Pattern of Crime The source of crime statistics: • Police-recorded crime: these are crimes which are reported or detected by the police and recorded by them • Victim surveys: e.g. the British crime survey (BCS) these are more accurate because they include unreported crime. ◦ Strengths of victim surveys; ▪ Overcomes the fact that a massive proportion of crime is not recorded by police- recorded ▪ Shows the extent and patterns of victimisation which is not recorded ◦ Weaknesses of victim surveys; ▪ Victims memories can often be faulty or biased ▪ The victims have to full out categories of crime which can be inaccurate ▪ They omit lots of crimes like corporate crimes and any crime where the victim cannot report it ▪ Despite the anonymity victims still fail to report sexual offences • Self-reported study: the Home Office's Criminal Justice is an anonymous survey where people can fess up to their crimes without getting in trouble ◦ Weaknesses of self -reported study; ▪ Not valid, respondents may lie or exaggerate, or be mistaken ▪ Not representative as they focus on young people and students not professional criminals ▪ Not relevant as the reported crimes are often trivial • Court and prison records: these reveal characteristics of offenders Trends in crime: Patterns of offending: The most crime is committed in Urban areas, against property (80% of all crime) and by young people. Gender and Crime: According to official statistics males commit way more crime than females. • By their 40th birthday 1/3 males have convictions and only 1/10 for woman. • Men are responsible for about 4/5 recorded offences. • Females are more likely to be convicted for property crimes. • Males are more likely to be repeat offenders, have longer criminals careers and commit more serious crimes. Frances Heidensohn (1996) suggests gender differences are the most significant feature of recorded crime On top of this men are cautioned more than woman. • 50x more likely for sex offences • 14x more likely for burglaries • 8x more likely for robbery and drug offences • 7x more likely for criminal damage • 5x more likely for violence against a person Do woman commit more crime? Sociologists argue that we underestimate the rates of female offending for two reasons; 1. Typical females crimes like shoplifting are less likely to be reported. Similarly prostitution which females more more likely to be engaged in is not going to be reported by either party. 2. Even if females crimes are detected they are less likely to be prosecuted, if they are then they will be treated lightly. Functionalist Sex role theory and gender socialisation: This theory looks at the gender socialisation and the different roles each gender has. Female roles include caring for partners, children, and dependant elderly parents. There is also household duties they are expected to perform. Gender socialisation wants women to adopt these roles, by adopting them they become more emotional and less aggressive making them more afraid of committing crime because they do not have the characteristics of a criminal. Men are encouraged to be tough and aggressive, therefore disposed to commit acts of violence. Parsons (1955) traces this back to differences in gender roles in nuclear family. Men take on the breadwinner role, whilst women take on the nurturing, caring role meaning they bring up children. Girls therefore have access to adult role model, but boys seek to distance themselves of feminine models of behaviour engaging in compulsory masculinity According to A. K Cohen (1955) the absence of the male role model leads boys to turn to all male street gangs as a source of masculine identity, here they earn status through delinquency (Think the other Cohen's subcultural theory). Evaluation of sex role theory: • Walklate (2003) criticises Parsons for assuming that because of a woman biological ability to bear children that they are the best to the expressive role. So although Parsons tries to explain this socially he is actually doing so biologically about sex differences. Patriarchal Control theory and rational choice (gender deals): Pat Carlen (1988) and Heidensohn (1996) build on rational choice theories and explain female offending with it. Heidensohn argues that the difference in gender in offending is down to socialisation, social circumstance and and impacts of formal/informal control agencies. Heidensohn argues that woman commit less crime because patriarchal society imposes greater control over woman. It operates in the home, in public and at work. • Control at home: A woman's role in the home is to be a domestic goddess, clean and maintain the home, cook meals and look after the kids. This places high time demands on woman and gives them less time to commit crime. Women who try and make time may find themselves in a domestic abuse situation because their partners don't like their breakaway from the rules. ◦ Dobash and Dobash (1979) show how many violent attacks results from a man's dissatisfaction with their wives performance domestically. Men also use control with their financial power to restrict funds for a woman's leisure activities so that they spend more time working at home. ◦ Daughters are restricted because they are under greater control to not come and go as they please or stay out late, as such they socialise in doors, a 'bedroom culture' is created and they are more likely to do housework chores than male counterparts. • Control in public: Woman are controlled in public because they fear going out and getting raped. Media reports help stipulate this fear to frighten women into staying indoors. ◦ The crime survey found that 54% of women avoid going out after dark, against only 14% of men. There is also a fear of how women dress in public, dressing certain ways can get a reputation for being 'loose' or sexually promiscuous especially if they go out in pubs alone where many crimes occur. • Control at work: Women have a subordinate role at work. The glass ceiling prevents reaching higher and potential white-collar crimes. The gender deal and the class deal Carlen looked at a small number of working class woman who had criminal convictions, using unstructured tape recorded interviews. She said that woman are expected to conform to two things, the class deal and the gender deal. • The class deal: the material rewards that happen when people work in paid employment, enabling woman to purchase things. • The gender deal: the rewards that woman get from fulfilling their gender role in the family and home. In terms of the class deal; woman in Carlen's study failed to find legitimate ways to earn a decent living. Most had always been in poverty and couldn't handle benefits. In terms of gender deal; some had been abused by farthers/families and so family bonds had broken. Woman may then make the rational choice to commit crime (they have little to loose because they are poor) and crime offers some benefits like money and material goods. The constrains of socialisation: Heidensohn suggests that woman face greater loss than men if they commit crime because they would face a social stigma. Carlen argues woman are socialised into the domestic goddess role and risk disapproval when they don't. Crime is double jeopardy for the crime and not being a 'woman'. Social control: Agencies of social control try to discourage people from crime. Heidensohn argues that there is a ideology over the spheres the genders are allowed in. For instance men dominate clubs and outside in public area's, whereas woman dominate the home and private spheres. The agencies of social control: • In the private sphere of the domestic home woman are too busy and have too many responsibilities to be committing crime, and teenage girls are more supervised than teenage male counterparts. • In the public sphere woman feel that they cannot go outside from fear of sexual/physical violence and at work they are often sexually harassed and supervised by a male boss. • Woman face the threat of their reputation as respectable people if they deviate from the norms. The applications of the word 'slapper' or 'slag' threaten their reputation. Evaluation of patriarchal control theory: -Underplays free will and choice in offending by saying that woman are controlled and determined by the patriarchal control. -Carlen's sample was small and may be unrepresentative, and largely WC offenders. +Heidenson shows that there is still some form of patriarchal control in the home. +Carlen shows that what causes crime is the two deals not working Ethnicity and crime: What do the statistics say? Official statistics: These show the likelihood of ethnic minorities getting into the CJS not necessarily whether these are true or not. • Blacks are 7x more likely than whites to be stopped and searched • Blacks are 5x more likely to be in prison. • Black people make up just 2.8% of the population yet make up 11% of the population in prison • Blacks are more likely to be arrested for robbery ◦ 3x more likely to be cautioned by police ◦ 3.5x more likely to be arrested ▪ more likely if arrested to be charged and prosecuted than a caution ▪ more likely if found guilty to receive custodial sentence • Asians make up 4.7% of the population yet are 6% of the prison population ◦ 2x more likely than white to be stopped and searched (mainly for drugs) ◦ more likely to be charged and face court proceedings than caution ◦ more likely to receive a custodial sentence than whites ◦ more likely to be arrested for fraud and forgery. • White people are under-represented at all stages of the CJS In 2007 26% of male prisoners and 29% of females were from black and minority ethnic groups even though they make up 9% of the whole population. This pattern has emerged since the 70's. Victim surveys This asks the respondent to identify if they have been victims of crime. They can be asked to identify the ethnicity of the attacker. Commonly the reported ethnicity of a 'mugger' is black. It also shows crime which is inter-ethnic, so crimes within ethnic groups not between them; The British Crime Survey (2007) found that in 90% of crime where the victim was white at least on of the offenders were white. Criticisms: -They rely on the victims memory of events which is never truly reliable as memory changes and is influenced. Bowling and Phillips (2002) suggests that white victims may 'over-identify' blacks by saying that their offender was black when they weren't really sure. -They only cover personal crimes, which in the OS aren't very many (5th of all crime). Muggings only make up 1.7% of all crime. Tell us nothing about corporate crime or white-collar crime. -Exclude under 16 victims; minority ethnic groups contain a larger proportion of under 16's than any other group. Self report studies: This is where individuals are encouraged to disclose any crimes that they may have committed by not necessarily been convicted of doing or caught. Graham and Bowling (1995) Found that blacks (43%) and whites (44%) had similar and almost identical rates of crime, but Asians actually had lower rates (Indians- 30%, Pakistanis-28% and Bangladeshi-13%). Other self report studies have shown the same and so removed this stigma of black offenders. Sharp and Budd (2005) noted that the 2003 offending, crime and justice survey of 12,000 people found that whites and mixed ethnicity were more likely to say they had committed a crime, followed by blacks (28%) and Asians (21%) Racisms and the CJS At each stage of the CJS there is a big difference in ethnic groups, how far as these a result of racism? Policing • Phillips and Bowling (2007) ◦ There have been a ton of allegations against police for racism, including mass stop and search operations, paramilitary tactics, surveillance, armed raids, deaths in custody, and failure to respond effectively to racist violence. Minorities think they are over policed and under protected. Stop and search • Black people are 7x more likely than whites to be stopped and searched • Asians are 3x more likely to be stopped and searched than any other people. • Only small % actually lead to arrests. • This is explained by; Police Racism ▪ The Macpherson report (1999) on the murder of black teen Stephen Lawrence, concluded that there was an institutionalised racism within the metropolitan police. Other have found deeply ingrained racism in officers. ▪ Phillips and Bowling (2007) point out that officers hold racist stereotypes of ethnic minorities, leading to more stop and searchers and a 'canteen culture' of file and rank. ◦ Ethnic differences in offending ▪ Patterns in ethnic group offending may simply be down to that group offending more. Police use low and high discretion. • High discretion: Police act on intelligence and relevant information about a relevant offence. For instance a victims description of an offender. • Low discretion: Police act without specific intel. In these stops where police officers use low discretion stereotypes come out. ◦ Demographic factors ▪ Ethnic minorities are over-represented in the groups that are most likely to be stopped and searched like the young, unemployed and urban dwellers. Arrests and cautions: • The arrest rate for blacks is 3.6x higher than that of whites, and once arrested blacks and Asians are less likely than whites to receive a caution. ◦ One reason might be because blacks and Asians are less likely to admit guilt straight away and exercise their legal rights. However not admitting means they cannot get a caution. Prosecution and trial: • The Crown Prosecution service (CPS) is responsible for deciding whether a crime or arrest should be prosecuted in court. They base it on whether there is any real chance of the prosecution succeeding and whether it is better for the public that they are prosecuted. • Ethnic minority cases are more likely to be dropped than whites, and blacks and Asians are less likely to be found guilty than whites. Bowling and Phillips (2002) argue that this is because there is never enough evidence to prosecute as it is mainly based on racist stereotyping. In 2006/7 60% of whites were found guilty, against only 52% of blacks, and 44% of Asians. • When cases go ahead members of ethnic minorities are more likely to elect for Crown Court trail rather than magistrates (even through Crown Courts can hand out more severe punishments) potentially because of a mistrust of magistrates. Sentencing and prison: • Jail sentences are more likely to be given to blacks (68%) compared to whites (55%) or Asians (59%). Whereas whites and Asians were more likely to receive community services. But this could be due to the seriousness of some ones offence of previous convictions. • Hood (1992) found that even when the seriousness of an offence and previous convictions were taken into account Black men were 5x more likely to be jailed and given a sentence which is 3 months (Asians 9 months) longer than whites. • When awaiting trial ethnic minorities are less likely to be granted bail. Explaining ethnic differences in offending: In the 1950's there was large scale migration of afro-carribeans, and they had the lowest crime rates. But in the 70's it all changed, with police more likely to arrest and increased conflict between blacks and police with street crime. 'Black criminality' came to be seen as a problem. But it was not until the 90's that Asian crime became a big thing, media concerns about 'Asian gangs' and September 11 th terrorist attacks helped to fuel the idea that Asians – especially Muslims- were an 'enemy within'. There are two theories to Ethnic differences in crime; Left Realist and Neo-Marxist. Left Realist: Lea and Young (1993) basically argue that the official statistics may actually reflect real offending rates in real life and not just police racism. This due to relative deprivation, marginalisation and subcultures. The fact that 90% of crime is reported to police and not found by the suggests that it is not just police racism that calls high offending rates for ethnic minorities. Although this explanation does not say that they are totally unbiased. -Racism has lead to marginalisation and economic exclusion of ethnic minorities -Media emphasizes consumption and promotes relative deprivation by setting material goals. Lea and Young recognise that unjustified policing often leads to criminalisation of ethnic minorities, but • even if police do act under racist assumptions its not enough to explain the massive ethnic group differences in offending rates all the time. • Also police racism cannot explain the massive differences between blacks and asians in the CJS ; they would have to be selectively racist for this to happen. Asians may just not commit as much crime -LR's view on police racism may be wrong because police can be racist not that certain group commit less crime. -Stereotypes changes after 9/11 police now regard Asians as more dangerous, perhaps explaining rising criminality. Neo-Marxist: Paul Gilroy (1982) and Stuart Hall (1979) reject that statistics reflect reality, but instead say that it is a social construction. Gilroy: the Myth of black criminality (Neo-marxist) • Gilroy argues that black criminality is a product of racist stereotyping of Afro-Carribeans and Asians. In real life there is no real difference in criminality than any other group. But as the whole CJS is racist they appear to. • Crime as political resistance: ◦ Gilroy argues that ethnic minority crime is a resistance to racism in society, and this resistance has roots in British imperialism. ◦ Most blacks and Asians in the UK originated from former British colonies and so have an anti-imperialist stance which is taught and helps to resist political oppression, e.g through riots and demonstration. ◦ When they came over here they were faced with racism and as such adopted these taught forms of resistance, but this was criminalised by the British state. This theory is criticised by Lea and Young (1984) on three grounds; -Fist generation immigrants were actually very law-abiding citizens and as such did not resist against the colony of Britain and were less likely to pass this anti-colonial stance to their kids. -Actually most crime is against other people of the same ethnic group and so cannot be seen as resistance to racism. Like critical criminologists, Lea and Young criticise Gilroy for romanticising the criminals as somehow revolutionary. -Asian crimes rates are similar or lower than whites, which would mean the police were only racist towards blacks, which is unlikely. -Most crime is reported to police not uncovered by them so it is difficult to suggest racism within the police itself. Hall et al: Policing the crisis They argue that the 1970's saw a moral panic over black 'muggers' that served the interest of capitalists. Capitalists normally rule with consent, when there is a crisis this is difficult. • In the 70's there was a crisis of high inflation, unemployment and strikes. And a media driven moral panic about 'new' crime (Mugging) which was allegedly committed by black youth. According to Hall et al there was no significant increase in this type of crime. • The myth of the 'black mugger' served as a scape goat to distract people from the capitalist Social class and crime: Most crime shows that it was committed by people from working classes. This is because; • The working classes are more likely to be formally punished for petty crimes than informally by institutions like school • WC commit more 'detectable' crimes than MC. There is much MC white-collar crime which is harder to detect and not necessarily dealt with in the CJS • Poverty and social deprivation is more common in WC • Labelling, stereotyping and prejudice mean that the WC are targeted and treated worse • Status frustration (AK Cohen) is felt more strongly by WC and there could be a culture of crime (risk taking and excitement) aggravated by not having work • Marginality and social exclusion mean the poorest are blocked, social bonds are broken and separated from mainstream society. • Strain theory and anomie is most faced by the disadvantaged and they cannot gain the legitimate goals by approved means, so they innovate. Social deprivation: Property crime seems to rise when there are economic issues in a country. There is a rational choice in getting goods which they wouldn't be able to get via legitimate means as the economy is poor. Strain theory and anomie: Think Merton's strain theory here. Innovation- accepts goal but innovates means (cant achieve legitimately)-doesn't recognise social pattern of deviance (class, gender, locality) Marginality, social exclusion, control and rational choice theories: In disadvantaged neighbourhoods social control agencies like the family, school and work place are likely to be less effective in providing bonds to mainstream society. Hischi why people don't commit crime (like Durkheim he say there are shared values, institutions needs to socialise people into these values) points to this in his control theory, those weak bonds mean people are not tied to society as much, so they can be deviant against it because they don't identify with it as much. MC identify and have proper socialisation so don't commit crime. There isn't one victim in MC crime so there is no moral guilt. Company business practices are all about profit and ruthless (make as much as you can). Subcultural explanations: Look at Cloward and Ohlin (3 subcultures), Cohen (status frustration), Miller (Focal concerns). Status frustration; inability of WC to achieve mainstream goals, sees crime as a group things, take into account non-utilitarian crime, recognises anomie of cultural deprivation and lack of achievement, resolve frustration by rejecting MC values, they join delinquent subcultures (alternative status hierarchy), gain status through peer. Assumes boys have the same values of MC but might not (miller) Labelling, stereotyping and prejudice: The poorest part of the WC are referred to as the underclass, cultured by dependency on welfare state benefits, and unemployment. These characteristics and others of the underclass are what the police stereotype as 'typical offenders' and criminal neighbourhoods. Because of this, it shows in the official stats that these are the areas where likelihood to being a victim is highest. This means that police will regard it as more criminal and so police it more, then this leads to more arrests because they have it in their mind that everyone is criminal and 'suspicious'. Therefore WC are bigger in the stats because they are stopped more because police are around to catch more. MC and Magistrates show prejudices when they see WC offenders in courts and see that they fit the preconceived idea of the 'typical criminal'. Informal social control: MC youth are more likely to be punished by parents, teachers or informally through cautions by police for petty crimes, whereas WC youth don't benefit from this. MC kids are seen as acting out rather than criminal. WC less likely to get off. Negotiation of justice More detectable offences: WC are more likely to commit offences which are more obvious or detectable like violence or property theft, and more likely to be reported to police/prosecuted than any other class group. MC crimes like white-collar crimes are much harder to detect. Criticisms of these explanations: -The maj of WC dont commit crime, what about them? (Good social bonds? Not typical enough?) -There are loads of other crimes in other social groups which are not in the OS, so this over- emphasises WC crime when it's not just WC who commit crime. -Loads of unrecorded crime so we don't know who is a criminal White-Collar crime: Sutherland (1949) say white collar crime is committed by the most affluent in society, who abused their MC positions for personal gain and criminal activity. Newburn (2007) crime theories focus on the powerless not the powerful. Eitzen (1989) puts it as crimes of the streets not the suits. What is White-collar crime: White-collar crime is higher than just against a person, it can be against states, economies, and range from corruption in government to professional misconduct (sexual harrassment) , fraud and embezzlement (abusing a position of trust- bankers are entrusted with peoples money), and bribery and corruption. Croall (2001) notes that GP's, dentists and doctors and pharmacists falsify prescriptions and patients records to over claim from the NHS. One GP actually made £700,000 over 5 years. In 2007 Conrad Black former owner of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph was convicted in the US for defrauding shareholders of millions of dollars for private gain. The higher you are up the social class; • the less likely your crimes are detected • the less likely your crimes when detected to result in arrest • the less likely this is to end in prosecution • the less likely to be found guilty after being prosecuted • the less likely you are to gain a prison sentence. The under-representation of white-collar crime: Here are some reasons as to why white-collar crime remains hardly reported in Official Stats. • They are hard to detect: Croall (2001) says that these types of crime occur in offices and in the work place, so everyone present/involved should be there when they were. These types require insider expert knowledge and the exact timing and prolongedness is hard to gage. • Often without a personal/individual victim: White-collar crimes are mostly against faceless victims, like organisations or the public generally, so there is no victim to report it. • The crime may benefit both parties involved: In cases of bribery and corruption both parties benefit so have an invested interest in concealing their illegal activities. • Hard to investigate: Even with business or computer fraud they can be very hard to investigate and require expert skills which police often lack. • Often a lack of awareness that a crime even took place: For instance stealing very small amounts from multiple accounts in a large corporation is hardly noticeable and those accounts holders may not even know when they are being mislead or stolen from. • Even if they are reported, Institutional protection means they are often not reported and prosecuted: For instance internet banking fraud is rarely reported at risk to the institution loosing client confidence or respect. It is more likely instead of police to be a private security firm. • Offenders have better chance in court: People from loads of walks of life see crime as a working class phenomenon. The defendant is often the same class as the judge and seem more 'respectable' to judges, so may not be found guilty or have way lesser sentences. Explaining White-collar crime with other WC explanations: Strain theory and Anomie: Middle class people can still face strain from relative deprivation, and wanting things beyond what their legitimate means can gain. It could be greed, or long debt from their lifestyles that makes them turn. Control theory: As there is no personal victim the moral bonds may be weakened as they see nothing wrong. Encouraging competition with other businesses and ruthless aggression can lead to crime. Edge-work: As Katz (1988) suggests it is in the person whether they commit crime; they are risk taking, thrill- seeking and pleasure seeking rather than in want of material gain. Locality and Crime: The pattern of crime in Urban and Rural areas; The difference in statistics between these two areas is not just down to the populations in each, this is because statistics are collected on a per person, per household basis and thus doesn't make a difference to the rates/risks per person per household. The BCS and police recorded crime both show that rural areas are different to urban areas in these ways; • they have lower crimes rates (of every kind) • they worry less about crime-relate • people perceive lower levels of anti-social behaviour (including, noise, loitering, litter, vandalism, graffiti and public intoxication) The official stats show that crime occurs more in Urban areas because: • poverty and social exclusion are more common in urban areas • more opportunity for crime, with more things attracting offenders to crime and influences • less chance of being caught in impersonal areas • impersonal life means more formal social controls (police) and less community control • higher population turn over, generating social disorganisation social deprivation, and poor housing and health • Sutherland's differential association suggests in these socially disorganised areas there is more involvement in crime • there is a greater presence of police meaning more people are caught Marshall and Johnson (2005) They show evidence that worry about crime is less in rural areas, and that rural residents see themselves as less likely to become a victim of crime. They also found that the poor rob the poor (robberies are more common of low-income housing) in urban areas whereas it is the poor robbing the rich in rural areas. Explaining locality and crime: The ecology / environment of crime – The Chicago School and the zone of transition: Shaw and McKay (1931,1942) argued that cities like Chicago are divided into concentric circles or zones going outwards (after studying OS) , with each zone having particular social and cultural neighbourhood characteristics. They identified one zone with the highest crime rate, which was the 'zone of transition' (zone two) outside of the central business zone. It had high population turn over, poor housing and was run-down. Therefore it has hardly any social stability, lots of crime, prostitution, poor health and poverty. The 'Zonal Hypothesis' explains crime in 3 ways; 1. Social disorganisation: High-population turn over prevents stable societies, the normal informal social controls and bonds were weak or not there. 2. Cultural transmission: Delinquent subcultures are created, and a distinct set of values alternative to the mainstream. These criminal values are transmitted by generation. 3. Differential association: Sutherland argued that the behaviour of someone is uninfluenced by the behaviours of primary groups around them. If the primary groups engage in normal criminality then they would too. Criticisms of ecology theory: -It is tautological, meaning that what it's trying to explain is explained in itself. They say crime develops because crime exists, but not why it exists in the first place. -3 and 2 ignore free will; if these two are the case then everyone would turn to crime, but they don't, why not? -Very unclear; If everything (zones of transition) is disorganised with high population turn over then it's not clear how delinquent subcultures can be formed and passed down from generations? You could argue that some families are forced to stay because they are poor and so criminal subcultures form from that. Shaw and McKay's zones can be seen in today's British society, in inner-city areas with high population turn overs, 'problem families' all group together, and high numbers of poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, and crime. What happens in Rural areas to have such a low crime rate? -Social Organisations -More tight knit communities with lots of community interaction (Marshal and Johnson 2005) -Continuity in addresses Other Explanations: Opportunity for crime; -Felson and Clarke (1998) suggest that the higher levels of opportunity are the ‘root cause’ of crime -Brantingham & Brantingham (1995) suggest that urban areas have more crime generating and attracting areas such as –shopping precincts, warehouses, leisure facilities, large insecure car parks Policing styles; There is greater police presence in urban areas, police are less likely to be from the community they police, so they police formally (arresting and charging) Less chance of being caught in urban areas; Urban life is more impersonal, not everyone knows everyone and they certainly wont recognise anyone. If strangers go unrecognised then they can offend without the risk of getting caught and recognised. But there is a high level of natural surveillance in rural areas and offenders would risk getting recognised. Social deprivation more likely in cities; Poor housing, unemployment and other social problems are huge in inner-city areas an these have been linked to crime (strain theory, anomie, subcultures etc) Understanding the limits of Official Statistics Crime statistics are seen as; • unreliable in terms of the amount of crime and characteristics of offenders • they are socially constructed products which tell us more about the process of reporting (by the public), the stereotypes and activities of social agencies of control than it does about offending • invalid, self-report studies and victim surveys show higher rates of offending that the stats do and the young WC male stereotype may be wrong • unrepresentative, many crimes go unreported even compared to the rates in police records and the BCS, the image below shows that out of the crimes self-reported in the BCS the percentage of these which have actually been reported to the police. This shows that around 58% BCS reported crimes are never officially reported, sometimes 70% Only 30% of crime was 'cleaned up' in 2007-8. Maguire (2002) estimates that only about 3% of crime ends up in a conviction! Why are official statistics so inaccurate? Failure to report crimes; below shows percentages of reasons people who responded to the BCS gave about not reporting their crime: dominance to avoid having their activities defined as illegal (control of law) they still break the law when it conflicts with their interests. Box (1983) points out that corporations have had a lot of success in promoting the idea that corporate crime is less harmful and less serious that a range of street crimes. Frank Pearce (1976) looked at why there were so few prosecutions of corporate crimes, he found that if there were more it would undermine the wrong assumption that most crime is committed by the working classes. If the true extent of their crimes were known to the public it would undermine the legitimacy of the RC. -These views have been criticised by Carrabine et al (2004), they pointed out that it is not just capitalism that under pays workers, have poor conditions and pollution of the environment. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union some of the most dangerous and underpaid work was under communist control. -Other citicisms include that of Nelken (2002) who pointed out that Marxists believe that corporate business have limited legal restrictions so they can maximise profits, but in reality there are numerous restrictions in place. Control theory: This approach argues that people who commit these types of offences are driven by aggressive management cultures, which focuses in on the global market. Shortcuts they regard as not that wrong, but an extension of typical business practice are rationalised so there are reduced moral concerns over crime. Why are corporate crimes invisible/under-represented: You have similar arguments to the white-collar crime section, meaning that these crimes are harder to detect because they are often committed under intricate systems of expert knowledge and legal terminology which can be very complex and confusing. When they are detected it is often too late. They are also conducted by powerful people who can persuade the government, police and public that their actions are not serious or harmful. Again like white-collar crimes, when these crimes are detected they are often not prosecuted. For example when price fixing or there are health and safety violations, the corporations often just get a fine. But there are also some other reasons these are invisible; • Differences in power; Marxist theorists like Pearce (1976) believe that the laws and the enforcement of laws are reflections of the inequamslities of power in capitalist society. It is not just Marxists who have these views, other sociologists like, Braitwaite (2000) and Tombs (2002) both believe this same point, but differ from Marxists in that they don't see a ruling class at the root. • Media representations of crime; Tombs and Whyte (2003) believe that corporate crimes are not newsworthy because the average non-expert person would not understand the crime and they are too complicated to summarise easily, also as there is often no direct victim there is no emotion behind it. • The policing of corporate crime; Braithwaite (2000) found that instead of 'policing' corporations they are 'regulated' which is a whole new thing. For example, in Britain the financial sector is meant to be regulated by the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority, but they rarely call the police if there is a violation and it is certainly not called 'law breaking'. At the extreme all the violating companies receive is a fine. • Lack of research; Sociologists like Tombs (2007) have realised that the government puts loads of effort into finding out how many crimes are 'committed' through surveys but none at all to research into corporate crime. In fact according to Hopkins (2002) the government spend a lot of time funding research into crimes against businesses. State-Corporate crime: Large corporations and the government are mutually dependent. The government needs large corporations for tax and employment and large corporations depend on the government for a sympathetic organised environment to work in. Kramer's (2006) study of the space shuttle Challenger explosion argued that the deaths of crew on board was down to political decisions by NASA (government space programme) to keep the space programme going but with massive budget cuts. This forced them to order by contract from a large corporation potentially dangerous materials from other companies to create the shuttle. The government and the corporation say it was an 'accident'. Crime and Globalisation The globalisation of crime essentially means that crime that can occur in one country can be committed by people in another country, and if states or governments in these countries don't cooperate, then it can be impossible to convict criminals or track them down. The detection, policing and prosecution of global crime requires international cooperation. Interpol (international police organisation) and Europol (European police office). Karofi and Mwanza (2006) say that global crimes include, international trade in illegal drugs, weapons and human beings, money-laundering, terrorism and cyber crime. Manuel Castells (1998) says that the global crime economy is worth over £1 trillion per annum. As well as the above here are some more global crime examples. • Arms trafficking: to illegal regimes, guerrilla groups and terrorists. • Trafficking in nuclear materials: especially from former communist countries • Smuggling of illegal immigrants: the Chinese triad makes an estimated $2.5 billion annually • Trafficking of woman and children: often linked to prostitution or slavery. Up to 500,000 trafficked to Western Europe each year. • Sex tourism: this is where Western people got to third world countries and have sex with them, especially minors. • Trafficking in body parts: mostly for rich countries, but over 2,000 organs annually are taken from executed Chinese prisoners. • Cyber-crimes: child pornography or fraud • Green crimes: that damage the environment • International terrorism: terrorism is now linked across the internet, radicalisation websites and other ICT. • Smuggling of illegal goods: alcohol, tobacco, evading taxes • Smuggling cultural artefacts: works of art • Trafficking in endangered species: their body parts, and ornaments • The drugs trade: worth around $300-400 billion annually • Money laundering: this includes the profts of organised crime, estimated up to $1.5 trillion per year. Global risk consciousness: Essentially, moving around the world makes people more conscious of the risks associated with globalisation. For instance, economic migrants and asylum seeks fleeing prosecution has given rise to the Western anxieties about risks abroad and the risks of opening their boarders. One response to this increased risk is the tightened control of UK boarders. Globalisation, capitalism and crime: Marxists like Taylor (1997) argue that globalisation has lead to greater inequality and exploitation from transnational corporations. For instance, TNC's can now switch manufacturing to low-wage countries to further their profits. This means jobs are leaving this country and providing insecure low paid jobs over there, leading to poverty and unemployment. Governments now have little control over their economies now. This leads to crime, because the massive insecurity and uncertainty will lead them to illegitimate means like lucrative drug trade. • For example in Los Angeles, de-industrialisation lead to growth of drug gangs of over 10,000 members. But the elite also benefit, the lack of regulations creates large-scale criminal opportunities like Tax evasion and insider trading. But also in general employment, subcontracting can allow recruitment of illegal 'flexible' workers. Critisisms: -Doesn't explain why all poor don't turn to crime if the world is so in equal. Patterns of criminal organisation: Globalisation creates new forms of crime. 'Glocal' organisation and 'McMafia'. 'Glocal' organisations: Crime is locally based but with global connections. Hobbs and Dunningham found that although crimes have global links (drug smuggling) they still depend on a local setting (where to sell the drugs). The globalisation of crime include acting as a hub around which a group is formed. 'McMafia': Glenny (2008) examined organisations that came about in Russia and Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism (1989). The new Russian government messed up the economy, and so prices of things like food went up. Commodities like oil and gas were kept at the same prices which were very low compared to the rest of the world, leading rich Eastern Europeans (Oligarchs) to snatch them up and sell these at way higher prices to the world market. To protect them from violence and disorder, the guards were made up of ex-communist security/service men. They were important for the emergence of a Russian capitalist class in the world economy. State Crimes Penny Green and Tony Ward (2005) define state crime as “illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by, or within the complicity of, state agencies.” So all crimes committed by or on behalf of states to further their policies. These include, genocide, war crimes, torture, imprisonment without trial and assassination. McLaughlin (2001) has four categories of state crimes: • political;economic;social/cultural; crimes by security and police forces. The scale of state crime: Because states are large and powerful entities, they can cause large and powerful, often widespread crimes. For instance, in Cambodia between 1975 and 1978 the Khmer Rouge government killed up to 1/5 of the entire population. This also means that the power of the states can conceal their crimes and make them harder to detect, and change the law to benefit their deviance. National self-rule makes it hard for international bodies (the UN) to impose sanctions for war crimes and genocide. Michalowski and Kramer (2006) argue that 'Great power, and great crimes are inseparable'. Human rights and state crimes: There is no singular list of agred human rights (there is a list, but not everyone agrees on it), but what we consider human rights can be split into two; natural and civil rights. • Natural rights: people have rights to life, liberty and free speech just by being alive • Civil rights: right to vote, fair trial, education and privacy all are included in this Rights are essentially entitlements we have, that act a protection against power. From this perspective the state can be seen a criminal, and not just the person who decides what crime is and how to punish offenders. Crime as a violation of human rights: Herman and Julia Schendinger (1970) say that we should define crime as that which violate basic human rights rather than law breaking. Therefore states which don't regard human rights are criminals. But their view is a little different, they say that any state that practice imperialism, racism, sexism, or inflict economic exploitation on their citizens are committing crimes. -Stanley Cohen criticises this because human rights violations like war crimes and torture are obvious, but other acts like economic exploitation are not illegal but morally wrong. -There is little agreement on exactly what human rights are, some think freedom is, but not freedom from poverty. State crime and the culture of denial: Stanley Cohen argues that states conceal and legitimate their human rights crimes. He says this because human rights and state crime are increasingly central to both political debate and criminology because of the impact of the human rights movements like Amnesty international an increased focus on victims. • Dictatorships: they just deny committing their human rights offences. • Democratic states: have the justify their actions to the people in a complicated way; three stages 1. “It didn't happen” deny it happened, when media surfaces that it did they say.... 2. “If it did happen, 'it' is something else” it is collateral damage or self-defence 3. “Even if it is what you say, it's justified.” like national security protection etc. • Neutralisation theory: ways in which officials justify or deny their crimes. (Sykes and Matza's techniques of neutralisation). These include, denial of victim, denial of injury, denial of responsibility, condemning the condemners and appealing to higher loyalties. The social conditions of state crime: People would commit crimes such as torture it turns out, aren't different from us at all. It is just a situation that they are socialised into. Kelman and Hamilton (1989) studied 'crimes of obedience' and found 3 features that produce these crimes. Authorisation; when acts are approved by a form of authority. Routinisation; if its a routine people can commit it in a detached manor. Dehumanisation; when the enemy is described as an animal moral rules don't apply. Crime prevention and control There are a load of approaches to crime prevention, and they each raise questions about social control and the ability of societies to regulate behaviour. There are other explanations (look up locality and crime) Situational crime prevention (SCP): RIGHT REALIST This essentially doesn't try to change institutions or anything about the society but just reduce opportunities for people to commit crime. Ron Clarke (1992) describes situational crime prevention as 'a pre-emptive approach that relies not on improving society, but simply on reducing opportunities for crime.' It's based on Rational Choice theory that criminal weigh up pros and cons. Clarke identifies 3 methods of situational crime prevention; • Directed at specific crimes • Involve managing or altering the immediate environment • Aim to increase effort and reduce benefits of crime-relate 'Target hardening' involves, locking doors, employing security guards, re-shaping environment with fewer crime hotspots, and CCTV For example; Marcus Felson (1998) looks at SCP in the Port Authority Bus Terminal in NY and how it was poorly designed and provided deviant opportunities. Or Poyner and Webb (1997) used a field exp and discovered that there was a high rate of theft in the Bullring centre in Birmingham and that thefts occurred in 2 markets which were densely packed. They redesigned the markets and crime fell by 70%. -They do not stop crime they just displace it. If criminals are rational then they would obviously just commit crime somewhere with softer controls. Chaiken et al (1974) found that a crackdown on subway-robberies only lead to crime above the surface +Works to a certain extent on some crimes but not all, like homeless people using public spaces for homes, when there is no where to stay they will move +SCP may not always lead to displacement, in the 60's they changed the gas system from highly toxic gas to less toxic gas, this lessened the suicide rates because they could not any more (there wasn't the situational opportunity), as the overall rate declined there was no displacement. -Ignores white-collar crime/bigger more MC crimes -Assumes criminals act rationally but that doesn't work for violent crimes and crimes under influence of drugs -Ignores the root causes of crime, such as poverty or poor socialisation -CCTV is bad. Norris and Armstrong (1998) found that camera operators focus on young males. Feminists argue that CCTV is just an extension of the 'male gaze' not a solution. Opportunity for crime; -Felson and Clarke (1998) suggest that the higher levels of opportunity are the ‘root cause’ of crime -Brantingham & Brantingham (1995) suggest that urban areas have more crime generating and attracting areas such as –shopping precincts, warehouses, leisure facilities, large insecure car parks Environmental crime prevention: RIGHT REALIST Basically, Wilson and Kelling who devised the Broken Windows thesis argue that if a place is left to disrepair then it will only get worse and cause more crime. This absence of formal and informal controls (police and community) makes the people living them feel powerless and intimidated by fear of crime. Respectable people move out of the area and this leaves room for deviants. Zero tolerance two part strategy. Wilson and Kelling say that there needs to be a crack down in two areas for crime to be under control. • Environmental improvement strategy: tidying the place up immediately, repairing broken windows and towing abandoned cars away right away. For example in New York where Kelling was police advisor they eradicated graffiti from subway carts as when there was graffiti on them, they were taken out of service and returned once clean. Graffiti subsequently declined. • Policing strategy: they have to deal with every type of crime no matter how petty. For example, also in New York there was a police crack down on 'Squeegee merchants' (people who clean windscreens in traffic and demand payment) who were found to have outstanding warrants for violent and property crimes. -Although its not clear if these declines were to do with police strategies, as there was a massive jump in police numbers and a fall in unemployment at the same time. Also the general crime rates of US cities declined at the time anyway, also drugs weren't as widely available anymore. Social and Community crime prevention: This aims to get rid of the causes of crime; the causes in the community and socially that can pre- dispose people to crime. A lot of policies which have come into place about poverty and employment have actually decreased crime anyway, even if the policy wasn't aimed at that in the first instance. They try to increase youth leisure opportunities, more unemployment, employment schemes, and improving poor housing. The Perry pre-school project: A comparison between an experimental group of 3-4 year olds in a two-year intellectual enrichment programme, for black pre-schoolers in Michigan. Longitudinal. They were given weekly home visits. By 40 they were compared to the control group showing that they are significantly lower life times arrests and more were employed and had graduated from high school. Left and Right realists focus on the reality of crime, and on crimes that matter to the people and the impact of these on daily life. The realists perspectives differ on their approaches to crime, but they both look at some of the methods above. Left realists: Believe that offenders and victims of crime all come from similar area's, disadvantaged ones. They believe this is because of material and cultural deprivation, like unemployment, poverty, poor housing and education. They want to prevent crime and so look at the Social and Community methods of prevention. -Left realist approaches are 'soft' on crime, meaning that they focus on social issues and causes and not on whether the offender just felt like offending, or made a rational choice to. They romanticise the offender and make him a victim of circumstance. -Ignores middle class crime -Not everyone who faces marginalisation, as well as material and cultural deprivation turn to crime. -They deflect proper strategies to stop crime, like tighter policing. Right realists: Offenders choice to commit crime, its an individual act. It believes in Situational crime prevention (above) but also increased social control generally. Like Hirschi's social bonds theory, right realists want to tighten these bonds and aid socialisation by strengthening institutions like the nuclear family, religion and community. -They miss the wider social causes that Left realists address -They ignore that some people are targeted unfairly by police (labelling theory) -They assume it's all rational choice but impulsive acts like violence aren't exactly rational and still occur. Think about Lyng's research on 'Edgework' and Katz seduction of crime, these just further show that it's not a rational choice to offend but for the buzz (they did it for the vine). What is missing from these crime prevention methods? They all seem to focus on low level crime, and violence. This just ignored high level more corporate and environmental crimes, which is annoying as these are potentially the most devastating and harmful crimes. For instance Whyte surveys 26 crime and disorder partnerships in NW England to see what crimes they were targeting, they were focussing on vehicle, property and drug crime, when at the same time the Environment Agency gave 98 prosecutions in 2001-2 for environmental offences (huge issue but not targeted). The NW also had one of the highest concentrations of chemical plants in Europe with just two plants expelling about 40% of the countries cancer-causing pollution each year. The Victims of crime Th UN says victims are those who have suffered (mental, physical, emotional, economic impairment) through acts that violate the state. Nils Christie (1986) argues differently that they say the victim is socially constructed. For example there is a stereotype of an ideal victim like there is a stereotype of offender. These are weak and blameless individuals who were targets of strangers attacks. There are two approaches to victimology, positivists and critical. Positivist victimology: Miers (1989) says that positivist victimology has three parts • aims to identify factors that produce patterns in victimisation, and factors which make people more prone to be victims • focuses on interpersonal crimes of violence • aims to identify victims which have contributed to their own victimisation Victim proneness is the idea that characteristics of someone makes them more likely to be a victim than other people e.g being less intelligent. Hans von Hentig (1948) identified factors that make someone a victim: female, elderly or mental abnormal. Victim precipitation is the idea that the victim contributes to them becoming a victim. Wolfgang's (1958) study of 588 homicides found that 28% involved the victim triggering the events leading to death. -Victim blaming, its almost saying its the victims own fault for being a victim. Amir's (1971) claim that 1/5 rapes are victim precipitated is not very different from saying that the victims asked for it +Fiona Brookman (2005) notes that Wolfgang's study shows the important of the offender-victim relationship and that it is sometimes chance who ends up the victim -Ignores wider structural factors influencing victimisation like patriarchy or poverty; is it less likely that those in power will not be victims? -Ignored crimes where even the victim doesnt know it's a victim, like environmental or corporate crimes Critical victimology: The victims like woman and the poor are victims because of wider structural factors like patriarchy and poverty. The CJS applies labels of victim to some and not others. For example if police fail to press charges on a man accused of domestic abuse then the woman is no longer a victim even if she is. Tombs and Whyte (2007) shows that when employers violate the law and it leads the death the victim is called 'accident prone' rather than a victim. -Ignores whether the victim brought it on themselves e.g leaving their doors and windows unlocked at home when they go out ect +highlights how the label of victim is given by the powerful at the benefit of the powerful. Patterns and victimisation The chance of becoming a victim is significantly affected by group divides like class, age, gender and ethnicity. • Repeat victimisation: only 4% of the population of victims of 44% of all crime. According to the BSC around 60% of the population hadn't been victims of any crime in a given year • Class: the poor are likely to be victims, as there is a huge concentration of crime in poor areas with high unemployment • Age: the young are more likely to be assaulted and face sexual harassment, theft and abuse at home • Ethnicity: minority groups are more at risk than whites of being victims of racially motivated offences • Gender: men are at greater risk of violent attacks, women are more likely to be victims of sexual or domestic abuse, stalking and harassment. The impact of victimisation: Crime can have some bad effects, insecurity, increased security-consciousness, and issues with social functioning. Carrabine et al takes a liberal approach to victimisation It also has indirect victims like friends and family. Hate crimes don't just affect individuals but whole communities. Secondary victimisation, in addition to the crime itself as well as impact from the crime. For example, the CJS and rape victims. Crime creates a fear of crime, e.g woman afraid to go out at night. Hate crimes radiate wave of hard across whole communities. For instance, the Muslim Community Center in Muswell Hill, North london was burnt down by the English Defence League as a hate crime, and as such since this the whole community has been effected and feel victimised and afraid of the community. Suicide Durkheim used it to distinguish sociology as a distinctive contribution to understanding human behaviour. Durkheim, positivism and suicide: Positivists essentially say that sociology is a science like chemistry and is a science because we can observe society and make laws from what we see as to what governs what's going on. Durkheim (1897) discovered that there are patterns in suicide and their social causes can be discovered too, thus proving sociology is a science. Suicide rates as social facts: Durkheim believes that suicide is a social fact, which is a social force external to the individual in the structure of society. He said that suicide cannot be down to just individual motives because there were vast differences between groups in societies and societies compared to other societies. So it has to be something in the social structure which causes it. Thus suicide is a social fact. Durkheim studied quantitative suicide rates from European countries for decades and found these things; • Different societies have different rates • Rates varied between social groups e.g Catholic had lower rates than Protestants • Suicide rates within a society remained more of less constant over time For Durkheim he said that these rates were due to two social facts; • Social integration: how far individuals feel like they belong to a group • Moral regulation: how far individuals acts are kept in check by norms Durkheim's typology (classification) of suicide: He says that suicide is caused by too much or too little social integration and too much or too little moral regulation. Thus he has a four fold typology. • Egotistic suicide (too little integration); for instance Catholics have a lower rate than protestants because they are tightly integrated into shared ritual. Industrial societies don't have proper integration • Altruistic suicide (too much integration): where it is the individuals duty to die for the good of the group; Japanese kamikaze pilots • Anomic suicide (too little regulation): where societies norms became outdated or blurred from sudden change, like economic booms and slumps • Fatalistic suicide (too much regulation): where societies control individuals completely like slaves or prisoners. Concentration camp. There are different types of suicide in different societies because of the difference in integration and regulation • Modern societies: very individualistic, causing egotistic suicides whilst rapid changed causes anomic suicides • Traditional societies: the group is more important causing altruistic suicides and the ascribed status can cause fatalistic suicides. -Suicide rates were not as reliably collected back in his day because they did not have the national administrative capabilities and rarely conducted autopsies to find out whether something was suicide or not. Although his aim to conduct scientific research is still good. +Prasied for over 70 years for good use of positivist research -Durkheim doesn't operationalise integration, Gibbs and Martin (1964) attempt to build on Durkheim's work and define integration as a situation where there are stable and lasting relationships. They argue this occurs when there is stable status integration (if your education and your occupation match up) e.g if you are well educated and get a well paid job. Suicide rates are higher where there is little status integration. -Cannot rely on coroners reports, as family might not want to be seen as suicide -Overestimated the role of religion, Halbwachs (1930) suggested that living in urban areas was also a key factor.