1. Social StructuRAL THEORIES
Emile Durkheim
The “Chicago School” + Social Disorganization
Anomie/Strain Theories
Social StructuRAL THEORIES

2. Emile Durkheim (late 1858-1917)
French Scientist
Suicide
Humans nature: selfish and insatiable
Effective Societies able to “cap” desires
Socialization & Social Ties
Special concern with “Industrial Prosperity”
Coined the Term “Anomie”:
Institutionalized norms lose ability to control human behavior and human needs

3. “Industrial Prosperity” therefore cap or control
Durkhiem’s Legacy
Rapidly Changing
Society
“Industrial Prosperity”
Anomie
(Norms are Weakened)
Human Nature as
Insatiable; must
therefore cap or control
Social Ties Important
The Anomie/Strain Tradition
The Social Disorganization and “Informal Control” Tradition

4. Park & Burgess (1925) How does a city growth and develop?
Concentric Zones in Chicago
Industrial zone
Zone in transition
Residential zones

5. Shaw and McKay Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas 1942.
Mapped addresses of delinquents (court records)
Zone in transition stable and high delinquency rates over many years
Implications of these findings:
1. Stable, despite multiple waves of immigrants!!
2. Only certain areas of the city Something about
this area causes delinquency

6. Social Disorganization
What were the characteristics of the zone in transition that may cause high delinquency rates?
Population Heterogeneity
Population Turnover
Physical Decay
Poverty/Inequality
Argue that these things impede informal social control
One started, crime becomes stable because delinquent values are transmitted?

7. Sampson and Groves (1989) Using British Crime Survey Data (BCS)
ECOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
Population turnover
Poverty / inequality
Divorce rates
Single parents
SOCIAL CONTROL
Street supervision
Friendship networks
Participation in
organizations
CRIME (VICTIMIZATION)

8. Sampson Friends (1997-Present) Version
Data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods
Concentrated
Disadvantage
(Ecological)
Population turnover
Poverty / inequality
Race composition
Family disruption
Physical decay
Collective
Efficacy
Willingness to
supervise/confront
in neighborhood
Mutual trust and
willingness to help
neighbors
CRIME
Homicide
Violence as
“problem”
Victimization

9. RETURN OF THE “CULTURAL TRANSMISSION”
William J. Wilson (Concentrated Poverty)
The “Underclass” or “Truly Disadvantaged”
Cultural Isolation no contact with “mainstream” individuals/institutions
Little respect for “life”
Hyper materialism, violence as “normative”
Some believe recent “crime drop” reflect move away from these values

10. S.D. as an explanation for high rates of African American offending
William Julius Wilson and Robert Sampson
High proportion of the current members of the “Zone in Transition.”
Public Policy made matters worse (high rise “projects” of the 1950s-60s)
Why do African Americans not “move out” like prior ZIT residents (immigrants)?
Housing Segregation
Loss of Manufacturing Jobs
The irony of “Black Flight”

11. Policy Implications? Build neighborhood “collective efficacy”
How do you do this?
Address ecological characteristics that ruin collective efficacy
Family disruption, concentrated poverty, residential mobility

12. Robert K. Merton Social Structure and Anomie (1938)
From Durkheim: Institutionalized norms are weakened in societies that place an intense value on economic success
Applied this to the United States
The “American Dream”

13. Strain Theory (Micro Level)
MODES OF CULTURAL INSTITUTIONALIZED ADAPTATION GOALS MEANS
1. Conformity
2. Innovation
3. Ritualism
4. Retreatism
5. Rebellion +/ /-

14. Criticisms of Merton’s Strain Theory
Is crime a “lower class” phenomena?
Cannot explain “expressive” crimes
Weak empirical support
Why do people “adapt” differently?

15. Agnew: General Strain Theory
Overhaul of Merton’s Strain Theory
Three sources of strain
Failure to achieve valued goals
Removal of valued stimuli
Can’t escape noxious stimuli

16. Agnew (GST) StrainNegative Affective States
Anger, fear, frustration, depression
In lieu of “Coping Mechanisms,” anger and frustration can produce delinquency
StrainNeg EmotionalDelinquency

17. CRIME AND THE AMERICAN DREAM
Messner and Rosenfeld

18. Elements of the “American Dream”
Achievement
Individualism
Universalism
The “fetishism” of money
These elements encourage “Anomic conditions”

19. Institutions in Society
Social institutions as the building blocks of society.
The Economy
The Polity
The Family
Education

20. Culture, Social Structure, and Crime Rates
The American Dream
ANOMIE
SOCIAL STRUCTURE
Economic Dominance
Weak Institutional Controls
HIGH CRIME RATES

21. Informal Social Control Theories
Hirschi (social bond)
Gottfredson and Hirschi (low self-control)
Sampson and Laub (age graded social control)

22. Assumptions about “Motivation towards crime”
Strain theory: motivation from some sort of strain (e.g. blocked opportunity)
Learning theory: motivation from delinquent peers
Control theory: there is enough natural motivation towards crime
No need to “build in” extra motivation
Real question? Why aren’t we all criminal?

23. Types of Control Direct Control Indirect Control Internal Control
Direct punishments, rewards from parents, friends
Indirect Control
Refrain from deviance because you don’t want to risk friends, job, etc.
Internal Control
Good self-concept, self-control, conscience

24. Social Bond Theory “Bond” indicates “Indirect Control” Attachment
Direct controls (punishment, reinforcement) less important because delinquency occurs when out of parents’ reach (adolescence).
Attachment
Commitment (Elements of the social bond
Involvement are all related to each other)
Belief

25. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)
A General Theory of Crime
Same control theory assumptions
If we are all inclined to be deviant, why conform?
Because most of us develop “self-control”
“Internal control”
Developed by age 8, as the result of “direct control” from parents

26. Nature of Crime, Nature of Low Self-Control
People with low self-control
are therefore…
Impulsive
Risk-taking
Physical (as opposed to mental)
Low verbal ability
Short-sighted
Insensitive
Criminal Acts…
Provide immediate gratification
of desires
Are risky/thrilling
Are easy/simple
Require little skill/planning
Provide few/meager long term
benefits
Result in pain/discomfort to a
victim

27. Gottfredson and Hirschi
Family Context
Large family size, single parents, parental deviance
Low Direct Control
Inadequate supervision, recognition, punishment
Low Self-Control
Insensitive, impulsive, risk-taking…

28. “Age Graded Theory of Informal Social Control”
Sampson and Laub
We will cover this again in the “lifecourse” theory section
Takes Hirschi’s (1969) theory and made it “age graded”
The specific elements of the social bond change over the life-course
Also includes elements of “direct control”
Also throws in some other stuff (integrated theory)

29. Sampson and Laub Childhood Adolescence Adulthood Parenting Supervision
Discipline
Social Bonds
Family
School
Delinquent Peers
Context
Delinquency
Adult Crime
Individual
Differences
Length of
Incarceration
Social Bonds
Marriage
Good Job

30. Policy Implications Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory
Target attachment, commitment, belief
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory
Must focus on early childhood prevention
Train parents?
Sampson and Laub
Different targets for different ages
Importance of adult bonds (job, marriage)

31. Social process theory traditions
▪ Differential association/social learning
▪ Adequate socialization toward the incorrect norms and values
▪ Informal social control
▪ Inadequate socialization
▪ Labeling theory
▪ Socialized to accept delinquent identity as result of criminal justice system

32. Differential Association
Criminal Behavior is learned
Negatively, this means it is not “invented”
Communication within intimate groups
Learning involves techniques and attitudes
Attitudes expresses as “definitions of the situation”
A person becomes delinquent because of an “excess of definitions favorable to law violation”
The process involves the same learning process as all other behavior

33. Techniques of Neutralization
▪ Developed by Sykes and Matza
▪ First good attempt to measure Sutherland’s “definitions”
Documented common rationalizations (excuses) for delinquency among a sample of delinquents

34. Techniques of Neutralization
▪ Denial of responsibility
▪ Denial of injury
▪ Denial of victim
▪ Condemnation of the condemners
▪ Appeal to higher loyalties

35. Techniques of Neutralization
Definitions or Something Else??
▪ Sociology criticism  Such attitudes do not actually cause criminal behavior.
▪ Rationalization is utilized only after the offense is committed when behavior is called into question.
▪ Psychologist (Behaviorism): To the extent that these rationalizations neutralize guilt, they reinforce behavior (Negative Reinforcement)

36. Social Learning Theory
▪ Developed by Ronald Akers
▪ Early version: differential reinforcement
▪ Revision of differential association theory
▪ Added concepts of operant conditioning and imitation (observational learning) to explain how behavior was learne

37. Social Learning Theory
Key concepts
▪ Differential associations
▪ Definitions
▪ Differential reinforcement
▪ Imitation

38. Social Learning Theory (Akers)
Exposure to
definitions
or different
role models
Balance of
definitions or
role models
produces initial
behaviors
Positive or
negative
reinforcement
Definitions Behaviors
Role models
R(+/-) DA

39. Social Learning Theory
▪ Empirical research measures
▪ Attitudes that support crime (definitions)
▪ Exposure to delinquent peers/family members (differential associations)
▪ Rewards or punishment for delinquency (differential reinforcement)

40. Policy Implications: Social Learning Theory
▪ Use the principles of learning to
▪ Reduce access to delinquent peers
▪ Confront and change antisocial attitudes
▪ Change the balance of reinforcement so that it supports prosocial behavior
▪ Behavioral/cognitive restructuring programs

41. Labeling Theory
▪ Developed by Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert, and Howard Becker
▪ Key concepts
▪ Emphasis is on interactions between individuals and institutions of formal control (e.g., police, courts, prisons).
▪ Contact with police and the courts may create negative self-image.
▪ Formal interventions may increase criminal behavior.

42. Roots of the Labeling Perspective (1 of 3)
▪ View of crime and deviance as relative
▪ Deviant categorization depends on many factors
▪ Focus on how power and conflict shape society (social context)
▪ Moral entrepreneurs
▪ Importance of self-concept
▪Symbolic interactionism and “Looking-glass self”

44. A Critique of Labeling Theory
▪ Little empirical support
▪ Inaccurate assumptions
▪ Primary deviance as relative, sporadic, and unimportant
▪ Nature of the person predicts official reaction more than the nature of the act
▪ Effect of official sanctions on future behavior
▪ Racial bias does exist…but not sole (or most important) cause of CJ response to crime
▪ Arrest sometimes decreases future crime

45. Policy Implications: Labeling Theory
▪ Schur: “Radical nonintervention”
▪ Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (1974)
▪ Diversion programs
▪ Divert offenders away from the formal juvenile justice processing to programs run by other entities (i.e., social service programs)
Deinstitutionalization (esp. status offenders)
Due Process revolution in Juvenile Court

46. Labeling Theory in Context
Labeling theory most popular in 1960s-1970s
The central ideas had been around as early as the 1930s
Good “fit” for the social context of 1960s
Ironic Twist
Government, trying to do good, actually makes people worse
Good fit with the “can’t trust the government” social movement era

47. Labeling Extensions II
▪ Reintegrative Shaming
Developed by John Braithewaite
▪ Effect of formal punishment depends upon how a person is punished.
▪ Shaming and reintegrative punishment will decrease future crime.
▪ Stigmatizing punishment will increase future crime.
LEADS TO RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

48. Critical Theory Central Themes
Emphasis on “inequality” and “power”
Crime as “political” concept
CJS serves interests of powerful
Solution to crime is more equitable society
EXPLANATION OF LAW and CJ SYSTEM rather than crime

49. Variations of Critical Theory
Conflict Theory
Marxist/Radical Theory
Feminist Criminology/Gender and Crime

50. Pluralistic Conflict—Explanation of the Law and Criminal Justice
George Vold Group Conflict
Multiple groups in society with varying levels of power
▪ Political interest groups
▪ Social movements
▪ Broad segments of society
▪ Political parties
Those who win conflict get control over the law and coercive power of the state

51. Empirical Evidence The formulation of law The operation of the CJS
Interest groups’ influence on law-making
Research on consensus over laws
The operation of the CJS
Research on “extra-legal” variables
“Legal” = prior record, offense seriousness
“extra” = RACE, CLASS, GENDER
Demeanor?

52. Where the Evidence is Clear
Race and Capital Punishment
Victim x Race interactions
Race and Drug Prosecutions
Long history of connecting drugs to “dangerous” populations
Chinese  Opium
Mexicans  Marijuana
African Americans  Crack Cocaine e
“Crack Multiplier”
Enforcement patterns for drug offenses

53. Marxist/Radical Criminology
Instrumental Marxist Position
Hard line position
Crime and the creation and enforcement of law the direct result of capitalism
Structural Marxist Position
Softer Position
Governments are somewhat autonomous
Over time, the direction of the law (creation and enforcement) will lean towards the capitalists

54. Implications for Law Capitalists control the definition of crime
Laws protect the capitalists (property, $)
Laws ignore crimes of the capitalists (profiteering)

55. Implications for the Criminal Justice System
CJS is the tool of the capitalists; used to oppress (not protect) the working population
Crimes of the rich treated with kid gloves
Property crimes strictly enforced
“Street crimes” are enforced only in poor neighborhoods
Incarceration to control surplus labor

56. Criticisms Radical/Marxist Criminology
An “underdog theory” with little basis in fact
Are “socialist societies” any different?
Other capitalist countries have low crime rates
Most crime is poor against poor—Marxists ignore the plight of the poor.

57. Jeffrey Reiman ▪The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison
▪ Key point = harmful acts of the rich are often ignored (unneccesary surgery, environmental harm, etc.)
White collar crime less serious and less likely to be enforced
▪ Pollution, Hazardous work conditions, Unsafe products, Insider trading, Embezzlement, Fraud
▪ Even wealthy people who engage in street crime are less likely to be formally charged and better able to avoid sanctioning

58. Gender and Crime Feminist Criminology
Gender Ratio and Generalizability
Relationships between gender, crime, and the criminal justice system

59. Gender-Crime ▪ Gender ratio (Gender Gap)
▪ Males account for the vast majority of delinquent and criminal offending
▪ UCR, NCVS, self-report
▪ Gender gap shrinking?
Liberation hypothesis (Not supported by research)
WHY is gender ratio so large?
Can traditional theories explain? (Social bond, delinquent peers, etc.)
Masculinity & sex roles

60. Gender and Crime II Generaliziblity issue
Can “Male” theories explain female offending?
Many theories blatantly sexist (See, Cohen)
Many theories simply ignore females
Mainstream theories do explain male and female offending similarly
Could we do better explaining female criminality?
Salience of sexual/physical abuse among delinquent girls

61. Daly’s Typology of female offending
▪ Street women
▪ Harmed-and-harming women
▪ Battered women
▪ Drug-connected women
▪ Other women

62. Gender and the Criminal Justice System
▪ Research findings
▪ When gender effects are found, females are treated more leniently
Chivalry Hypothesis
Paternalism Hypothesis
Seriousness of offense differs in ways that most research doesn’t count
Sort-of-legal-factors (“familied”)