Social Control

 Collective efforts to ensure conformity to the norms.  Formal vs. Informal –“Informal” subject of considerable discussion to this point

Hechter and Kanazawa: Informal Social Control – Why do the Japanese conform? 1.principle of dependence: Japanese especially dependent on others (teachers or employees determine fate) 2.principle of visibility: Japanese interactions less private… more visibility 3.principle of extensiveness: “Others” assume the right to weigh in on everything, including lifestyle expectations

Three Methods of Formal Social Control 1. Prevention: a) Remove opportunities for deviant acts to occur or b) eliminate their causes. 2. Deter deviance with the threat of punishment. 3. Reform or resocialize people so they no longer want to deviate.

Some prevention efforts do NOT focus on perpetrator  “Broken Windows” – James Q Wilson –“Broken window” if left uncorrected, soon all will be broken –Indication that no one cares  Cohen and Felson “opportunity” theory –Suitable targets –Absence of effective guardians  Both influential in law enforcement circles… policy implications feasible

Prevention example: Cambridge- Somerville experiment  Experimental group of high risk juveniles gets physical (e.g., health care) and emotional support (e.g., counselors)  Control group nothing  Results suggest no difference  “Believers” rejected findings  Conclusion is programs like this tend NOT do work –We can’t really manipulate situation (family, school success, strongest predictors) that is most important

Jack Gibbs:Theory of Deterrence  rapid, certain, and severe – rational choice theory  Most important empirically? Certain –Severe sentences will not deter crimes if people perceive no risk  Some crimes more easily deterred than others?  Important to distinguish between general and specific deterrence –Martha Stewart

What about the death penalty?  Most western countries have abolished  US did in 1972, begain again in 1977  Support for DP low in 60s, up to 70%+ in 1990s, 60%+ range today  Does it deter? –Ehrlich 1975 study challenged conventional thinking –Today? No sure answer

Deterrence really the issue? Even if it does deter many against because…  Haphazard implementation  Race and class factors  See killing as wrong  Cost  Concerned about killing innocent

What about the “War on Terror?”  Terrorist actions a “rational choice?”  Deterrence language from politicians –Show of power and strength “scare” into submission?  Can terrorists be deterred?

Rehabilitation  Conclusions similar to prevention conclusions: difficult for society to change that which matters most  TARP experiment –Money to ex-convicts

Concluding thoughts  Deterrence vs. labeling  Social Control vs. Deterrence –Policy implications  Stark overly pessimistic?  Which crime theory does Perrin like?  Class and crime  White-Collar crime