SOC assignment

answer the question after reading ppt

From PowerPoints, class discussion, and the textbooks as well as your own reflection, please answer the following questions. Feel free to write on the other side or to type answers.

1. How is criminological theory applied to juveniles?

2. Briefly explain the biological approach to explaining juvenile delinquency.

3. Briefly explain the psychological approach to explaining juvenile delinquency.

4. Based on your reading in chapter three of Whitehead, what is the most useful theory in explaining juvenile delinquency?

Neo Classical Theory

Classical and Neoclassical Perspectives

From theology to science

Causes of crime and deviance: gods and demons

Age of reason

Classical school of criminology

Rise of positivism

Neoclassical Perspectives:

Rational Choice Theory

Deterrence Theory

Types of Deterrence

Routine Activities theory

Neoclassical Perspectives
Rational-choice theory assumes people choose to commit crime after calculating whether its rewards outweigh risks
Derek B. Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke
Rational choice perspective assumes that offenders choose to commit crime because of the benefits it brings them

Neoclassicism: Rational Choice Theory
Rational choice theorists believe that factors such as poverty, IQ, impulsiveness, or broken homes are not required to explain crime.
The choice is made in context of personal and situational constraints and the availability of opportunities.
Criminal acts are specific examples of the general principle that all human behavior reflects the rational pursuit of maximizing utility, which is the modern economists version of Bentham’s principle of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.

Neoclassicism: Rational Choice Theory
Rational choice theory assumes a criminally motivated offender and focuses on the process of the choice to offend.
Choice structuring: The constellation of opportunities, costs, and benefits attaching to particular kinds of crimes.
Explanations of criminal events must be crime specific because offenses have properties of their own.

Deterrence and Choice: Pain versus Gain
Deterrence: The prevention of criminal acts by the use or threat of punishment.
Specific deterrence refers to the effect of punishment on the future behavior of the person who experiences the punishment.
Recidivism: Committing another crime after previously being punished for one.

There must be a relatively high degree of certainty that punishment will follow a criminal act, the punishment will be administered very soon after the act, and it must be quite harsh.
The affect of punishment on future behavior depends on the contrast effect, which is the distinction between the circumstances of punishment and the usual life experience of the person being punished.
Deterrence and Choice: Pain versus Gain

General deterrence: the preventive effect of the threat of punishment on the general population; it is aimed at potential offenders.
Deterrence theorists tend to assume a more rational human being than rational choice theorists, their models being full of complicated mathematical models defining cost/benefit ratios.
Deterrence and Choice: Pain versus Gain

Evaluating Rational Choice Theory
Studies of active robbers, burglars, and other offenders
Offenders who plan vs. offenders who give very little thought to their crime
Focus on the criminal event
Situational factors and opportunities that affect decisions to commit crime
Situational crime prevention
Drugs and alcohol

Deterrence Theory
Neoclassical perspective
Assumes that potential and actual legal punishment can deter crime
Rational choice theory and deterrence theory often considered synonymous
Assumptions underlie the “get tough” approach, involving harsher punishments and more prisons

Types of Deterrence
Marginal: The effect of increasing the severity, certainty, and/or swiftness of legal punishment
General: Members of public decide not to break the law because they fear punishment
Specific: Offenders already punished decide not to commit another crime
Deterrence Theory

Deterrence Theory
Considerations that affect the size of any impact the criminal law may have on deterrence:
Type of criminal offense
Instrumental offenses
Expressive offenses
Whether offenders have high or low commitment to criminal behavior
Whether a crime tends to occur in public or private
Additional considerations

Research on Deterrence
Most research has focused on the certainty (likelihood of being arrested) of punishment and on the severity (whether someone is incarcerated and if so how long) of punishment
Early research results  marginal deterrent effect is small

Is the Death Penalty an effective Deterrent?

Things to Consider…

Routine Activities Theory
Neoclassical perspective
Also known as routine activity theory
Focus on criminal victimization patterns
Rational choice assumptions of criminal decision-making
Assumes that crime is more likely when 3 factors are simultaneously present:
Motivated offenders
Attractive targets
An absence of guardianship

Routine Activities Theory
1979: Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson
For crime to happen, offenders, targets, and the absence of guardians must all converge at the same time and in the same location
When people’s routine activities change, crime rates change as well
There will always be a supply of motivated offenders

Routine Activities Theory
Focus on changes in the supply of attractive targets and in the presence/absence of guardianship as key variables affecting changes in crime rates
Criminal opportunity structure
Opportunity theory of crime
Routine activities inside or near one’s home result in less victimization than activities that occur away from home

Routine Activities Theory
Crime results in part from the activities that so many people ordinarily enjoy
“Rather than assuming that predatory crime is simply an indicator of social breakdown, one might take it as a byproduct of freedom and prosperity as they manifest themselves in the routine activities of everyday life”

Evaluating Routine Activities Theory
Popular because:
It seems to explain important aspects of differences in crime rates among different categories of people and among different locations
It seems to explain important aspects of changes in crime rates over time

Evaluating Routine Activities Theory
Certain studies have deepened the understanding of the factors that contribute to target availability and the absence of guardianship
Some researchers have used it to explain offending
May ignore factors that motivate offenders to commit crime

Situational Crime Prevention
Efforts in specific locations that aim to “reduce exposure to motivated offenders, decrease target suitability, and increase capable guardianship”
Examples:
Installing/increased lighting and camera surveillance on city streets and in public parks
Providing/installing better security systems for motor vehicles, commercial buildings, and homes
Hot-spot policing

Figure 3.1
Summary and Comparisons of the Classical and Positivist Schools Pertaining to Certain Issues
Classical Positivist
Historical Period 18th-century Enlightenment, early period of Industrial Revolution 19th-century Age of Reason, mid–Industrial Revolution
Leading Figures Cesare Becarria, Jeremy Bentham Cesare Lombroso, Raffael Garofalo, Enrico Ferri
Purpose of School To reform and humanize the legal and penal systems To apply the scientific method to the study of crime and criminality
Image of Human Nature Humans are hedonistic, rational, and have free will. Our behavior is motivated by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Human behavior is determined by psychological, biological, or social forces that constrain our rationality and free will.

Image of Criminals Criminals are essentially the same as noncriminals. They commit crimes after calculating costs and benefits. Criminals are different from noncriminals. They commit crimes because they are inferior in some way.
Definition of Crime Strictly legal; crime is whatever the law says that it is. Based on universal human abhorance; crime should be limited to inherently evil (mala in se) acts.
Purpose of Punishment To deter. Punishment is to be applied equally to all offenders committing the same crime. Judicial discretion to be limited. Social defense. Punishment to be applied differently to different offenders based on relevant differences and should be rehabilitative.

Figure 3.1
Summary and Comparisons of the Classical and Positivist Schools Pertaining to Certain Issues

Connecting Criminological Theory & Social Policy
Theories of crime causation imply that changing the conditions the theory holds responsible for causing crime can reduce it and even prevent it.
Policy: A course of action designed to solve some problem that has been selected from among alternative courses of action.
Every theory has policy implications deducible from its primary assumptions and propositions
A good theory should offer useful practical recommendations.

Policy and Prevention:
Implications of Neoclassical Theories
Rational choice and routine activities theories shift the policy focus from large and costly social programs to target hardening and environmental designs that might dissuade a motivated offender from offending.
The policy recommendations of deterrence theory increase the costs of committing crimes and there will be less of it.

Policy and Prevention:
Implications of Neoclassical Theories
Lombroso believed that punishment should be only determined after a thorough assessment of offenders and their needs.
As a social defense, Lombroso recommended death or life imprisonment for congenital offenders.

Classical School
Criminology

CLASSICAL SCHOOL
BEGAN IN MIDDLE OF 18TH CENTURY
ASSUMPTION: INDIVIDUALS CHOOSE TO COMMT CRIMES AFTER WEIGHING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS
INDIVIDUALS HAVE FREE WILL & CHOICE
FEAR AS DETERENT
SOCIETY CAN CONTROL BY MAKING PAIN OF PUNISHMENT GREATER THAN PLEASURE OF CRIMINAL GAINS

Historical Context
Prior to the French Revolution of 1789, there was no discernable criminal justice system in Europe.
Due process did not exist
Many laws were not codified

Punishments included branding, burning, flogging, mutilating, drowning, banishing, and beheading
Public Punishments were popular events

The Classical Scholars
Modern criminology is the product of two main schools of thought: The classical school originating in the 18th century, and the positivist school originating in the 19th century.

Pre-Classical Notions of Crime & Criminals
Prior to the eighteenth century, explanations
of a wide variety of phenomena tended to be
of a religious or spiritual nature.

Pre-Classical Notions of Crime & Criminals
Demonological explanations of crime began to wane in the 18th century with the beginning of a period of historians call The Enlightenment, which was essentially a major shift in the way people began to view the world and their place.

Pre-Classical Notions of Crime & Criminals
Enlightenment thinkers focused on the dignity and worth of the individual.
A view that would eventually find expression in the law & the treatment of criminal offenders.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The Classical School arose
OUT OF REACTION TO BARBARIC SYTEM
PRIOR TO THIS CRIMES AGAINST THE STATE, CHURCH, AND CROWN BUT NO REAL SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SOME CRIMES SPECIFIED BUT JUDGES COULD CONVICT FOR AN ACT NOT EVEN LEGALLY DEFINED AS A CRIME

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
LETTRE DE CACHET – ISSUED BY MONARCHS UNDER WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL COULD BE IMPRISONED FOR NO REASON AT ALL
MANY LAWS UNWRITTEN
DID NOT SPECIFY TIME OR TYPE OF PUNISHMENT
CRUEL/ARBITRARY SENTENCES
ENGLAND OVER 200 DEATH PENALTY LAWS INCLUDING PETTY THEFT

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
PUBLIC PUNISHMENT POPULAR
TORTURE TO ELICIT CONFESSIONS
A MAN WOULD SUFFER TORTURE TILL DEATH TO AVOID TRAIL SO HIS FAMILY COULD RETAIN LANDS AND GOODS
GAP BETWEEN HAVES AND HAVE NOTS GREW AS INDUSTRY GREW

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
UPPER CLASS PROTECTED SELF VIA RUTHLESS OPPRESSION
SOCIAL UNREST GREW
AS CRIME RATES ROSE SO DID BRUTALITY OF PUNISHMENT
VIOLENCE TO CONQUER VIOLENCE
GROWING EDUCATED CLASS SAW INCONSISTENCY

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
IF TERRIBLE TORTURE DESIGNED TO DETER CRIME WHY WAS CRIME INCREASING
MID 18TH CENTURY SOCIAL REFORMERS SUGGEST MORE RATIONAL APPROACH
CECARE BECCARIA LAID FOUNDATION FOR SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY – CLASSICAL SCHOOL

Basics
There are two basic schools of thought in early criminology
The Classical School
The positivist School
The Classical School
Ruthless oppression of those beneath it became the norm.
The growing educated classes began to see the inconsistency in these policies

Classical Criminology
Cesare Beccaria
Founding Father of Modern Criminology
Wrote On Crimes and Punishment
Enlightened criminal justice system that would serve the people rather than the monarchy

Cesare Beccaria and Reform
The father of classical criminology is generally considered to be Cesare Bonesana, Marchese di Beccaria.
Dei Delitti e della Pene (On Crimes and Punishment) (1764): This book is an impassioned plea to humanize and rationalize the law and to make punishment more just and reasonable.

CESARE LOMBROSO
MEDICAL DOCTOR/PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY
LATER PROFESSOR OF CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY
THEORY – “BORN CRIMINAL” – LOWER FROM OF LIFE NEARER APE-LIKE ANCESTORS
ATATVISTIC STIGMATA – PHYSICAL FEATURES OF CREATURES AT AN EARLIER STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, BEFORE FULLY HUMAN

LOMBROSO
STIGMATA – HUGE JAWS, STRONG CANINE TEETH, GREATER ARM SPAN, ETC.
ANY FIVE STIGMATA IS “BORN CRIMINAL”
PROSTITUTE “BORN CRIMINAL” IN WOMAN
INSANE CRIMINALS – BECOME SO DUE TO CHANGE IN BRAIN UNCTIONING LIMITING ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH RIGHT FROM WRONG
CRIMINOLOIDS – HABITUAL, PASSIONATE, ETC.

LOMBROSO
MOST SCIENTISTS WHO FOLLOWED LOMBROSO DID NOT SHARE HIS VIEWPOINT
WORK KEPT ALIVE MORE BY CRITICISM THAN AGREEMENT
HIS THEORIES DO NOT STAND UP TO SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY
HIS THOUSANDS OF MEASUREMENTS ON LIVE AND DEAD CRIMINALS DID CHANGE THE NATURE OF QUESTIONING

Beccaria did not question the need for punishment, but he believed that laws should be designed to preserve public safety and order, not to avenge crime.
To ensure a rational and fair penal structure, punishments for specific crimes must be decreed by written criminal codes, and the discretionary powers of judges severely curtailed.
The Classical School:
Cesare Beccaria and Reform

“Crime Problem”
According to Beccaria the crime problem could be traced to bad laws, not bad people.
Beccaria assumed that crime is a rational choice and individuals are responsible for the consequences of their behavior
His plan included the following elements:

Beccaria’s Principles
Laws should be used to maintain the social contract
Only legislators should create laws
Judges should impose punishment only in accordance with the law
Judges should not interpret the laws
Punishment should be based on the pleasure/pain principle
Punishment should be based on the act, not on the actor

Beccaria’s Principles Continued
The punishment should be determined by the crime
Punishment should be prompt and effective
All people should be treated equally
Capital punishment should be abolished
The use of torture to fain confessions should be abolished
It is better to prevent crimes than to punish them

Influential!
Beccaria’s book had a huge impact in the field of criminology.
Beccaria’s plan was used as the foundation for many penal codes in Europe, Russia and the United States
Beccaria’s work influenced the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution (the Bill of Rights).

Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism
Bentham’s work was governed by the utilitarian principles
Utilitarianism assumes all human actions are calculated in accordance with their likelihood of bringing happiness (pleasure) or unhappiness (pain)

Jeremy Bentham and Human Nature
Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) is a philosophy of social control based on the principle of utility, which prescribed “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”
Any human action at all should be judged moral or immoral by its effect on the happiness of the community.
Hedonism: A doctrine with the central tenet that the achievement of pleasure or happiness is the main goal of life.

Rational behavior is behavior that is consistent with logic.
Hedonism and rationality are combined in concept of the hedonistic calculus, a method by which individuals are assumed to logically weigh the anticipated benefits of a given course of action against its possible costs.
Jeremy Bentham and Human Nature

Free will enables human beings to purposely and deliberately choose to follow a calculated course of action.
If crime is to be deterred, punishment (pain) must exceed the pleasures gained from the fruits of crime.
Jeremy Bentham and Human Nature

Calculation…
Bentham proposed the “felicific calculus”
According to this reasoning, individuals are “human calculators” who put all the factors into an equation in order to decide whether or not a particular crime is worth committing.
Bentham hypothesized that the certainty of punishment outweighs severity as a deterrent against crime.

Classical School is reform focused
Both Beccaria and Bentham advocated a new philosophy and a new system of legal and penal reform.
They believed the punishment should not be inflicted for vengeance; rather, punishment should be for the reduction or deterrence of crime.

The Legacy of the Classical School
All modern criminal justice systems in the world assume the classical position that persons are free agents who deserve to be punished when they transgress the law.

The Legacy of the Classical School
Many of the ideas championed by Beccaria in such rights as freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, the right to a speedy trial, as freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, the right to a speedy trial, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, the right to confront one’s accusers, and equality under law, contained in the Bill of Rights and other documents at the heart of Western legal systems today.

Weaknesses in the Classical School
There was no need to ask why people behave as they do, to seek a motive, or to ask about the specific circumstances surrounding criminal acts.
Factors beyond their control were not taken into account when explaining criminal behavior.

Figure 3.1
Summary and Comparisons of the Classical and Positivist Schools Pertaining to Certain Issues

Classical Positivist
Historical Period 18th-century Enlightenment, early period of Industrial Revolution 19th-century Age of Reason, mid–Industrial Revolution
Leading Figures Cesare Becarria, Jeremy Bentham Cesare Lombroso, Raffael Garofalo, Enrico Ferri
Purpose of School To reform and humanize the legal and penal systems To apply the scientific method to the study of crime and criminality
Image of Human Nature Humans are hedonistic, rational, and have free will. Our behavior is motivated by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Human behavior is determined by psychological, biological, or social forces that constrain our rationality and free will.

Figure 3.1
Summary and Comparisons of the Classical and Positivist Schools Pertaining to Certain Issues

Classical and Neoclassical Perspectives
From theology to science
Causes of crime and deviance: gods and demons
Age of reason
Classical school of criminology
Rise of positivism
Neoclassical Perspectives:
Rational Choice Theory
Deterrence Theory
Types of Deterrence
Routine Activities theory

*
*
*
*

*
*

*
*
*

*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Explanations for Delinquency
A Brief Introduction to Sociological Theory

Theory Without Panic!
A simple definition of theory:
Theories are nothing more than explanations for how 2 or more phenomena are related to each other.
We all apply theories every day
For example, we explain “getting wet” by the falling rain
Scientific theory must be falsifiable:
This means that it must be stated in such a way that it can be tested with empirical evidence;
This evidence provides a litmus test–it either supports the theory or it fails to support the theory
If supported, or verified, the theory gains credibility; if not supported, or falsified, the theory must be revised.

What Causes Delinquency?
What propels youths to commit delinquency?
Complex interplay of a variety of biological, genetic, and environmental factors
Further complicated by various reactions to environmental factors
Why do only a few individuals who experience the same environments as many others actually commit crime?
Criminological theories provide a scientific way to approach and understand why people commit crime

Criminological Paradigms
Classical School Theories
Focus on individual free will and our ability to make choices as the central explanation for committing delinquency/crime
Positive School Theories
Embraces determinism and scientific method: Recognizes the role of forces that individuals cannot control or may not be aware of on crime and the role of science to discover what these factors are
The positive school has 3 basic approaches: biological, psychological, and sociological

Theories Within Classical School
Deterrence Theory
Certainty, severity, and celerity
General and specific
Rational Choice Theory
Decision to commit crime involves weighing the costs and benefits associated with that crime
Bounded rationality
Routine Activities
Focuses on the opportunity for crime to occur
Interaction of the following: suitable targets, absence of capable guardians, and presence of motivated offenders

Positive School—Biological Theories
Genetic transmission of criminal tendencies
Hormonal imbalances
Neurological dysfunction
Developmental Theory (Biosocial Theories)

Positive School—Psychological Theories
Intelligence—IQCrime
Personality types–Somatotypes
Psychodynamic Theory (Freud & psychic phenomenon)
Underdeveloped/Overdeveloped Superego
Basis for Antisocial Personalities & Impulsivity
Behavioral Theory (Skinner & measurable events)
Used as basis for Social Learning Theory

Positive School—Sociological Theories
Social Structure Theories
Social disorganization
Anomie/Strain
Social Process Theories
Differential Association/Learning Theory
Social Control Theory
Social Conflict
Labeling and Stigma

What Do We Know About Offenders?
Small group of offenders (6-25%) are responsible for majority of crime
There is a pattern of offending that ultimately defines subgroups of offenders
Serious: Commit serious property crime
Violent: Commit serious violent crime
Chronic: Commit 4 or more offenses of any type
Serious, Violent, Chronic Offenders
Patterns of offending in childhood and adolescence are related to adulthood offending
Patterns of offending can be identified through the identification of behaviors related to offending pathways

Developmental & Life Course Theories
The Life-Course Perspective
Human development viewed across the life span
Childhood, adolescent and adult experiences are continuous process of change
Individuals progress within culturally defined roles and social transitions that are age-graded
Trajectories or pathways=the avenue of development over time; long-term patterns of development in social institutions (e.g., educational career)
Transitions=short-term changes in social roles within long-term trajectories (e.g., divorce)
Developmental theories try to account for offender careers and their relationship with age
This area or research began in criminology during the late 1980s and began to grow over the 1990s

Life Trajectories
Life-course is a series of interlocking trajectories
Generally consistent
Impact all domains of life
Short-term transitions (or life events) interrupt
Transitions can be consistent or disruptive
“Off-age” transitions (e.g., teenage pregnancy) can produce disorder and change the direction of a trajectory
Key: How individuals adapt to changes
Person A may start a life of crime while person B doesn’t get involved in crime
Attempts to explain the onset, escalation, de-escalation, and desistence in offending careers

Various factors influence experience and change: individual factors, family factors, school factors, peer groups, and community factors
Research in this are requires longitudinal research and within-individual changes
Previous research often relied on cross-sectional studies
Previous research largely defined by between-group differences
Life Trajectories

Different Theories
Many developmental/life course theories have been developed, only three will be highlighted for this class:
Moffitt’s Dual Taxonomy
Sampson & Laub’s Age-Graded Theory
Gottfredson & Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime

Moffitt’s Developmental Theory
Close inspection of crime rate trends over the life-course indicate that there are two types of offenders:
Adolescent limited offenders: antisocial behavior is temporary and situational
Life-course persistent offenders: antisocial behavior is permanent and stable
Timing and duration of offending is critical aspect between the types of offenders—stable v. unstable antisocial behavior

Defining the Life-Course Persistent Offender
Underlying trait that begins at very early age and continues throughout life and underlies a variety of problem behaviors
Age 4: biting and hitting
Age 10: Truancy and shoplifting
Age 16: Sell drugs/steal cars
Age 22: Robbery and rape
Age 30: Fraud and child abuse
Persistence of other problem behaviors throughout life: Drug addiction, homelessness, unstable relationships, domestic violence, and mental illness

Factors Related to Life Course Persistence
Difference exists in individual differences in neuropsychological functions of infant nervous system
What can cause these differences to occur?
Disruption in fetal brain development/brain injury
Maternal drug use
Poor nutrition
Exposure to toxic agents
Birth complications
Lack of stimulation and affection
Abuse/neglect
Results in neuropsychological deficits (temperament, behavior development, and cognitive abilities)

LCP Interaction in Environment
Reactive interaction-react to environment with their style
Proactive interaction-select or create environment to support style (e.g., selecting similar mate)
Cumulative consequences-underlying trait sets downhill path in motion
Contemporary consequences-impact of trait on environment
Why do LCP fail to desist in their offending?
Fail to learn conventional prosocial alternatives due to rejection and lack of opportunities
Become ensnared in deviant lifestyle

Intervention
Underlying trait underlies deficiencies in temperament, developmental milestones, and cognitive abilities
Interaction with environment creates the antisocial personality and is fixed (according to Moffitt) before 18 years old
Therefore, treatment is difficult after this point

Adolescent Limited
Statistically, it is rare for individual to refrain from crime during adolescence
The defining characteristic for most adolescents, however, is the lack of consistency in their offending
Why do a few not get involved in delinquency during adolescence?
No maturity gap: Late puberty or access to opportunities
Personal characteristics that exclude from networks Few opportunities for mimicking

Explaining AL Behavior
Motivation: Duration of adolescence has lengthened, forcing those in the 13-18 age group to delay their entry into adulthood
Social mimicry: When one species adopts the social behavior of more successful species to obtain access to a valuable resource
Valuable resource=Mature status and the power and privilege that comes with it
LCP become influential in the peer structure—delinquency that was stigmatizing as a child is not normative group behavior because it provides an avenue to the valuable resource
Reinforcement: The negative consequences that result from delinquency “fit” with need and desire to rebel

Explaining AL Desistence
At the end of adolescence, motivation wanes because of the change in circumstance—entry into adulthood
Exempt from cumulative and contemporary continuity, so opportunities and acceptance is not an issue
Delinquency for these adolescents is considered normative rather than abnormal
Best adjusted adolescents appear to be those who have experimented and been responded to with consistent and reasonable discipline

Sampson & Laub’s Age-Graded Theory
Main proposition=an individual’s propensity to offend is dependent upon involvement in conventional activities
Informal social controls are the main focus of this theory
Although trajectories are influenced by early experiences, Sampson & Laub believe that social factors (specifically informal controls) can modify trajectories, reducing offending in adulthood—criminality is not solely defined by traits rooted in childhood
“Turning points”=the mechanisms that alter the life course, changing a risk pathway to a more adaptive one
Life-course development is dynamic regardless of age
The role of transitions within life trajectories generates turning points or changes in one’s pathway

Influencing Factors
Childhood: Family dynamics including erratic/harsh discipline, low levels of supervision, parental rejection
Adolescence: Association with delinquent peer groups, lack of attachment to school, involvement in the juvenile justice system
Young adulthood: Labor markets, marriage, prison, military

A General Theory of Crime
Low self-control is ultimately the cause of criminality
Low self-control results from parents failing to:
Monitor behavior
Recognizing problem behavior
Punishing problem behavior properly
People with low self-control will constantly be involved in delinquency and other problem behaviors
Low self-control becomes “locked” for individuals at a very young age (8 or 9 years old)

Developmental Pathways for Females
Requires attention to the gender-specific patterns in offender careers over the life course (e.g., victimization)
Although factors influencing offending may be similar across gender, the intensity and role of these factors may differ
Kempf-Leonard suggests the following “stepping stones” for females
1st Stepping Stone: Child Abuse
2nd Stepping Stone: Mental health problems
3rd Stepping Stone: Running away
4th Stepping Stone: Youth gang involvement
5th Stepping Stone: Juvenile justice involvement & experiences

In sum…
Early intervention is needed to most effectively altering offending pathways
Identification of persistent offenders is difficult and subject to inaccuracies because a small proportion of individuals who exhibit signs of offending careers actually become chronic offenders

INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF DELINQUENCY
Biology
Rational Choice
Modern Individualism

Categories of Theories
Classical/Choice
Biosocial
Psychological

Classical/Choice
Cesare Beccaria
Free will
Pleasure-pain principle
Problems

More Theories
Routine Activities
Rational choice
Crime if:
Suitable target
No capable guardian
Motivated offender

Deterrence
Risk/benefit
General v. specific deterrence
Assumptions
What does the evidence show?

Biological Theories
Lombroso’s Atavism Theory
“Born criminal”
Discredited

Modern Biosocial Theories
Minimal Brain Dysfunction
Traits that heighten risk of delinquency
Diet
Schoenthaler research in public schools
2000 study
Phoenix study
Schoenthaler study of incarcerated juveniles

Modern Biosocial Theories
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
Childhood development
Medical problems
Connection to juvenile delinquency
Learning disabilities
What’s the connection with juvenile delinquency?
ADHD

Genetics
Twin studies
Adoption

% Adopted Juveniles with Criminal Record

Biological and adoptive parents
NO CRIMINAL RECORD 13.5%
BIOLOGICAL parents had criminal record 20%
ADOPTIVE parents had criminal record 15%
Biological and adoptive parents
BOTH HAD CRIMINAL RECORDS 25%

Psychological Theories
Psychodynamic
Freud
3 part personality
Social Learning
How do we learn?
Violent home
Violence in TV, video and the movies

Cognitive Theory
Kohlberg’s moral development theory
Stages
Punishment and obedience
Hedonistic orientation
Interpersonal concordance
Law and order
Social contract
Universal ethical principles
Which stages are delinquents stuck at?

Antisocial Personality Disorder
Definition
Conduct disorder
Characteristics
What correlates with it?
**Cannot assume the role of another

Explanations of Female Violence
Biological
Lombroso’s masculinity hypothesis
Pollack’s theory
Psychological

Social Theories of Delinquency
Social Structure
Social Process
Social Reaction
Social Conflict

Structural Explanations for Delinquency

Defining Structural Theories
Characteristic features of structural theories
Focus on rates of crime rather than why individuals commit crime
Crime rates are explained in terms of the structural features of society
Two broad types of structural theories
Strain Theory
Cultural Deviance Theory

Structural Theories I:
Strain Theory

Strain Theory
Delinquency

Economic Inequality

Historical Foundation of
Strain Theory
The Legacy of Emile Durkheim
Two themes dominate Durkheim’s work on crime
The normality of crime
Crime and anomie

Robert Merton
Robert King Merton is one of the most influential sociologists in the field of criminology
At age 27, (1938) he wrote a definitive article entitled “Social Structure and Anomie”
This article still serves as an anchor in our understanding of delinquency

Social Structure and Anomie
Merton’s theory of “anomie” stressed two structural conditions:
The interaction of these conditions produce five adaptive responses:

Goals
Means

Conformist

Innovator

–

Ritualist

–

Retreatist

–

Rebel

-/+

Strain—Modes of Adaption
Conformity Accepts cultural goal Accepts institution Highly unlikely JD
Ritualism Rejects cultural goal Accepts institution Unlikely JD
Innovation Accepts cultural goal Rejects institution Most likely JD
Retreatism Rejects cultural goal Rejects institution Likely JD
Rebellion Rejects cultural goal Rejects institution Likely JD

Differential Opportunity Theory
This theory was developed by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin
Agree with Merton that not everyone has equal access to social rewards, producing strain
However, suggest that there is also an “illegitimate” opportunity structure with differential opportunities there as well.
Failure to succeed in either the legitimate and illegitimate opportunity structure results in “double failure.”
Lloyd Ohlin

Differential Opportunity’s Three Subcultural Responses
Criminal Subculture
Occurs in neighborhoods where there are adult criminal role models
Here, the delinquent youth succeeds in the illegitimate opportunity structure
Conflict Subculture
Adult role models are not available for successful crime
Delinquent youth becomes angry and engages in violent crime
Retreatist Subculture
Adult role models are not available for successful crime
Rather than angry retaliation, the youth withdraws or retreats, typically into a world of drug use.

Cohen’s Subcultural Strain Theory
Cohen suggests that one of the central problems in life is conforming to social expectations.
Since these expectations are largely determined by the middle class, Cohen calls these “middle class measuring rods.”
The lower class has a much more difficult time in conformity than the middle class.
For lower class youth, the context for this difficulty is typically the school.
Lower class youth are confronted by “status frustration,” and turn to other youth for solutions.
For Cohen, this is the genesis of the delinquent gang.

Cohen’s Adaptive Responses to Status Frustration
Corner Boy Response
Youth psychologically disengages from MC goals and accepts more humble goals
This is the most common lower class response
College Boy Response
Lower class youth accepts the MC challenge and competes for MC goals
Involves a rupture in his relationship with LC friends, a cost
Delinquent Subculture Response
Involves a direct repudiation of MC values in the form of delinquency
Characteristics of the delinquent subculture
Non-utilitarian
Malicious
Negativistic

Structural Theories II:
Cultural Deviance Theories

Cultural Deviance Theories

Cultural Orientation
Delinquency

Historical Foundation of Cultural Deviance Theories
Intellectual roots of most cultural deviance theories are at the University of Chicago–hence called the “Chicago School.”
This school stressed the need for empirical study of the issue of crime and delinquency
Chicago was a natural laboratory to be doing these studies:
It was a major urban center, drawing immigrants from all walks of life;
Many people were threatened by the changes that were going on in cities like Chicago
It was popularly believed that foreign and minority immigrants were inferior
Cultural deviance theory emerged as a way to explain rising crime rates in the context of this rapidly changing environment

Robert Park
A founder of the
“Chicago School”

Social Disorganization Theory
The Park-Burgess roots–concentric zone theory
Zone in transition–the geographical center of crime
this was also an area of physical deterioration and social disorganization
social disorganization was measured by such things as homelessness, mental illness, crime and other pathologies
The relationship between social disorganization and delinquency

Moreover, delinquent traditions are passed on from generation to generation through delinquent gangs
Social Disorganization

Lack of Supervision

Delinquency/Gangs

Lower Class Focal Values
Walter Miller suggests that delinquency results, not from a disorganized lower class, but from a united social class with their own distinctive values.
The values, or “focal concerns” of lower class youth are but extensions of the focal concerns of adults in these communities.
6 focal concerns of the lower class:
Trouble
Toughness
Smartness
Excitement
Fate
Autonomy

Social Process Theories for Delinquency

Historical Background
These theories reached their zenith in the 1960’s
Self-report studies were revealing that crime was not limited to lower class
It became necessary to develop a theory that could account for middle class crime as well.

General Assumptions
Begin with the assumption that anyone is capable of committing a crime.
Argue that delinquency can be explained by the nature of socialization experiences of individuals
Hence, they tend to focus on the immediate social milieu of the individual–e.g., family, peer group, etc.
As such they focus on the process of becoming delinquent

Types of Social Process Theories
Two broad types of process theories:
Social Learning Theories

Social Control Theories

Social Process Theories I:
Social Learning Theories

Social Learning Theories
General Features
Children are not born with a tendency to want to do bad
Delinquency is a function of learning the norms, values and behaviors associated with delinquency
Without opportunities to learn the values and techniques associated with delinquency, individuals would not become delinquent

Differential Association Theory
Developed by Edwin Sutherland
The theory:
Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons
Principle part of learning takes place in intimate personal groups
Learning includes: techniques of committing the crime and the drives, values and motives
Direction of drives and motives determined by relative “definitions” (influences) favorable or unfavorable to law violation
One becomes delinquent because of excess definitions favorable to violating the law
Differential associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
Process of learning delinquency involves same process as any other learning
Edwin Sutherland

Differential Reinforcement Theory
Developed by Ron Akers
Represents a synthesis between differential association and operant conditioning
The theory:
Behavior is reinforced with positive rewards
Rewards are given and evaluated in interaction with significant others
Hence, the kinds of behavior that are reinforced depend on one’s differential associations
Ron Akers

Drift and Neutralization Theory
The Drift Hypothesis
Delinquents do not strictly adhere to delinquent cultural values, but are affected by both criminal and conventional values
Hence, delinquents find themselves in “drift” between the two sets of values
Subculture of delinquency provides the delinquent with a vocabulary to neutralize the demands of conventional society
Techniques of Neutralization
Denial of responsibility
Denial of injury
Denial of victim
Condemnation of condemner
Appeal to higher loyalties
Gresham Sykes

Social Process Theories II:
Social Control Theories

General Assumptions
Human beings are predisposed toward maximizing self-interest
Hence, everyone has the capacity to commit crime
Most people don’t commit crime because of constraining influences
Hence, what is to be explained is not “Why do some people engage in delinquency?” but “Why do most people not engage in delinquency?”

Containment Theory
Developed by Walter Reckless
The Theory
“Pressures” and “pulls” toward delinquency are everywhere
Counteracting these pressures and pulls are “containments” of which there are two types:
outer containments–structural buffers, such as intact family, positive discipline, etc.
inner containments–internalized values, high frustration tolerance, etc.
Reckless identified a positive self concept as the critical containment insulating against delinquency.
Walter Reckless

Social Bond Theory
Developed by Travis Hirschi
The Theory:
Assumes that all people have the capacity to be delinquent
Preventing most people from engaging in delinquency is a “bonding” to conventional society
Hirschi identifies 4 elements to the social bond (next slide)

The Social Bond

249.bin

250.bin

Societal Reaction Theories for Delinquency

Overview of Societal Reaction Theory
Central focus of societal reaction theory is society’s reaction to particular behaviors
Two broad streams of societal reaction theory
Labeling Theory

Conflict Theory

Historical Context of Societal Reaction Theory
The recent emergence of labeling and modern conflict theory occurred in the tumult of the 1960’s and 1970’s
Viet Nam War
Civil Rights
Youth “Hippie” Rebellion
During this time many social institutions were being challenged, and assumptions questioned

Societal Reaction Theory
Labeling Theory

Broad Mosaic of Labeling Theory
Labeling theory is a composite of the work of many theorists, including:
Howard Becker
Edwin Schur
Edwin Lemert
Erving Goffman

Central Questions of Labeling Theory
1. Why are certain behaviors defined as delinquent?
2. Why are certain individuals labeled delinquent?
3. What is the effect of the label?

Why are certain behaviors defined as delinquent?
This question is largely addressed by Howard Becker
Assumes that behaviors are not intrinsically delinquent
Some behaviors are defined as delinquent
This is done through a process called moral entrepreneurship.
Howard Becker

Why are certain individuals labeled delinquent?
William Chambliss, among others address this question
Chambliss suggests 3 crucial factors in the labeling of individuals:
Visibility of delinquency
Personal disposition of offender
Mobilization of community bias
William Chambliss

What is the effect of the label?
Erving Goffman and Edwin Lemert, among others, have addressed this question
primary vs. secondary deviance (Lemert)
dramatization of evil (Tannenbaum)
stigma (Goffman)
Erving Goffman
Edwin Lemert

Societal Reaction Theory:
Conflict Theory

The Marxist Foundation
The Infrastructure and the Superstructure
Economic Infrastructure
Law
Family
Religion
Education
Science

Marxist Foundation (cont.)
The composition of the economic infrastructure
Forces of Production
Relations of Production
Importance of the relations of production
Own the means of production (bourgeoisie)
Work for owners of production (proletariat)
These two classes in continual conflict

Marx and Crime
Marx said very little about crime
The criminal was a member of a third marginal class Marx called the “lumpenproletariat”
Marx’s contribution is tied to his analysis of law
Law is part of the “superstructure” of society
As such, it is controlled by the economic elite
Its content reflects ruling class interests
It is therefore the poor who will be victimized by law

Early Marxist Criminologists
Frederick Engels
Wrote The Condition of the Working Class in England
Suggests that crime is a result of demoralization of proletariat caused by alienation from means of production
Willem Bonger
Wrote Criminality and Economic Conditions
Capitalism encourages “egoism”, which in turn encourages crime.
Four types of crime encouraged by capitalism:
Economic Crimes
Sexual Crimes
Crimes of Vengeance
Political Crimes
Frederick Engels

Themes of Modern Conflict Theorists
Law and Justice
Modern conflict theorists see the law as an instrument of the ruling class to serve their interests
Demystification–exposing hidden power relationships in society
Social Class and Delinquency Reconsidered

Social Correlates of Delinquency
Gender

Our Knowledge Gap on Gender and Delinquency
It is commonly believed that girls engage primarily in status offenses; boys in more serious delinquent offenses
Issue of female delinquency did not receive much scholarly attention until the 1960’s
Most of the classical theories, therefore, are based on observations of male delinquency and may not be as appropriate to females

Nature and Extent of Male and Female Delinquency

Mr.
Streetman
Jason
1102 – 280 Bypass
Phenix City
AL
36867

Charles Bradshaw

Fall, 1999

Nature and Extent of Male and Female Delinquency

Explaining Female (vs. male) Delinquency
Two Broad Categories of Explanations
“Trait” Views
Center on intrinsic biological and mental traits attributed to being “female” or “male”

Sociological Explanations
Focus on different social experiences boys and girls

“Trait” Explanations for Female Delinquency
Lombroso–The Female Offender
Women are lower on the evolutionary scale
Pollack–The Criminality of Women
Onset of criminality linked to menstruation, pregnancy and menopause
Chivalry Hypothesis accounts for lower rates of female delinquency
Freud–Penis Envy
Lack of penis unconscious sign of punishment, resulting in inferiority complex
Failure to resolve penis envy might result in crime
Gluecks–Precocious Sexuality
Early sexual experimentation by girls results in later delinquency
Hormonal Explanations
Testosterone Levels
Pre-Menstrual Syndrome

Sociological Explanations for Female Delinquency
Differential Supervision of boys and girls
Quality of parental relations
Feminist explanations
Hagan’s “power-control” theory
Societal Reaction explanations

Changing Gender Patterns
Over the past 30 years, the gender gap in delinquency has been gradually converging
From 1990-1994:
male arrest rate increased by 19%, while female rate increased by 31%
male arrest rate for serious violent crime increased by 23%, while female rate increased by 48%
Self-report data also suggesting that females are engaging in more typically “male” offenses

Explaining Changing Gender Patterns
Freda Adler–Sisters in Crime
focus on impact of women’s liberation
Rita Simon–The Contemporary Woman and Crime
focus on changing sex roles
Joseph Weis
focus on changing school influences
Differential societal reaction

Social Correlates of Delinquency
The Family

Why Look at the Family as a Causal Context for Delinquency?
History of childhood and delinquency reveals that the family has been charged with primary responsibility for socialization of children
It is within the context of the family that primary relations are first formed
Basic values are first formed here
We have also seen that historical forces in America disrupted family life

Family Variables Linked to Delinquency: The Broken Home I
Variable interest in the broken family as a cause of delinquency
Early research:
Found that broken home had a profound effect
Seemed to affect girls more than boys
Seemed to affect whites more than other ethnic groups
Seemed to affect the affluent more than poor
Homes broken by divorce more devastating than homes broken by death

Family Variables Linked to Delinquency: The Broken Home II
The broken home reconsidered
More recent studies have been inconclusive
Many of early studies were conducted among arrestees and in correctional institutions–possible bias in samples
Self-report studies suggest a less clear-cut relationship
Some concluding thoughts:
Divorce does seem to be more correlated than death
Broken home probably affects status offenses more than serious delinquency
Remarriage does not mitigate effect of divorce on youth
Continued contact with non-custodial parent does not mitigate
Little evidence that behavior of children in broken homes improves over time
Post-divorce conflict related to child maladjustment

Family Variables Linked to Delinquency: Family Conflict
Intra-family conflict and discord have long been associated with delinquency
Various factors operative:
emotional disturbance
low warmth and affection
low social skills
Difficult to establish whether family conflict causes childhood maladies or vice versa
Relative consequences of the broken home vs. family discord
Recent review of literature suggests that both situations are deleterious
Children of divorced parents probably fare better than children of high-conflict families

Family Variables Linked to Delinquency:
Parental Rejection
Generally believed that children need warm, supportive relationships to thrive
Most studies have used boys in their samples
Early studies suggested that rejection by either mother or father was related to delinquency
Joan McCord’s research finds that mother’s rejection is more significant in early years; father’s in later years

Family Variables Linked to Delinquency:
Discipline
Gluecks–found that lax or erratic discipline was most associated with delinquency
Nye–found that very erratic, strict, or very permissive discipline most associated with delinquency.
Strauss–found that physical punishment tends to be more associated with delinquency.

Family Variables Linked to Delinquency:
Family Role Models
Gluecks–find discipline ineffective when parental behavior is inconsistent
Hirschi–found that even criminal parents espouse conventional values. Intimacy between parents more important than role modeling
Laub and Sampson–find that parental deviance related to chronic delinquency
Rowe and Gulley–find that siblings have an impact on delinquency if relationship is intimate

Family Variables Linked to Delinquency:
Family Size
Some evidence suggests that larger families may be productive of delinquency
suggested that this may be due to a “dilution of resources.”
Relationship is usually seen as more indirect
resource dilution often leads to educational underachievement
family size also related to social class

A Special Case:
The Abusive Family
Defining child abuse and neglect:
Abuse–historically defined as “any non-accidental physical injury inflicted on a child by a parent…”
has come to be used more generically to include neglect as well
Neglect–more passive, referring to the deprivations that children suffer at hands of parents or guardians. Three broad types:
Physical neglect
Emotional neglect
Moral neglect

Extent of Child Abuse:
Reported Cases
All states have laws for certain professionals to report child abuse, but these cases represent only a tip of the iceberg
Leading organization in reporting is the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse (NCPCA)
Reported 3.1 million cases in 1995 (up 5% from 1994, and up 50% from 1985)
26% of these were physical abuse
10% sexual abuse
53% neglect
3% emotional maltreatment
17% “other”
NCPCA estimates about 1,200 children killed each year because of abuse

Extent of Child Abuse:
Unreported Cases
Research by Murray Strauss in 1980:
between 1.4 and 1.9 million children abused annually
the average number of assaults for each child was 10.5 (median 4.5)
Estimates are that as many as 1 in 10 boys and 1 in 3 girls have been sexually abused

The Abused and the Abusers
Most likely to be abused:
Infants (especially premature infants)
Illegitimate children
Hyperactive children
Boys
Circumstantial
Most likely to abuse (in order)
Natural parents
Step parents
Paramours
Other relatives
Babysitters/non-relative caretakers

What Causes Child Abuse?
Adults who have been abused themselves
Social isolation and alienation
Substance abuse
Social Class
This has been controversial, though most experts agree that there is a higher incidence in the lower class
Perhaps due to financial stress

Relationship between Child Abuse and Delinquency
Logical relationship
Abuse provides a role model for aggression
Abuse leaves one more vulnerable to stress

Clinical Histories
Studies of incarcerated delinquents reveal that a substantial majority have been abused in some way as children
Problem with these studies is that they do not tell us about the known population of abused children and the % of them who are delinquents
Also, it may be that child abused is caused by the delinquency!
Abuse

Modeling of Aggression
Vulnerability to Stress

Delinquency

Cohort Studies on Abuse and Delinquency
This method follows up cohorts of children who have been abused and compares their delinquency to non-abused youth
A major study by Cathy Widom found that 27% of abused youth (compared with 17% of non-abused youth) later had criminal records
Certain categories more affected by abuse than others; older, black males most affected
General conclusions:
Abuse increases likelihood of juvenile arrest by 53%
Abuse increases likelihood of adult arrest by 38%
In a follow-up, Widom found greater likelihood of persistent offending over time by abused children

Social Correlates of Delinquency
The School

Significance of the School in the Study of Delinquency
Compulsory school attendance means that all children spend significant time in school
Hence, school is playing an increasing role in the socialization of children
The time spent in school also means that children are spending significant time with peer groups

The School and Delinquency:
Proposed Effects
Two contradictory predictions about the role of the school in delinquency:
The school causes delinquency
School experiences are frustrating, especially to underachievers and others who don’t fit in
Hence, the more time spent in school, the more frustration, and the more delinquency

The school prevents delinquency
Here, the argument is that the school teaches children proper values, monopolizes their time, and builds positive relationships
Hence, spending time in school should reduce the delinquency

School Attendance

Frustration

Delinquency
School Attendance

Positive Values,
Relationships

Less Delinquency

Theoretical Basis for Positions
Each of these positions is grounded in two theoretical perspectives examined earlier:
School produces delinquency:
Strain theory
School prevents delinquency
Control theory

Testing the Theories:
Elliot Study
Hypotheses
Rate of delinquency greater for boys while in school than out of school
Delinquents who drop out have higher rate while in school than while out
Method
743 10th grade boys
Data gathered from 10th-12th grade
“Graduates”=those who graduated or were in school entire time
“Dropouts”=those who left school in the study period
Delinquency measured by official contact
Findings

SES

AREAS

In School

Out-of School

Graduates

Drop Outs

Subtotal

Drop Outs

Lower

4.13

8.70

4.96

2.42

Higher

4.92

4.95

4.92

4.63

Total

4.34

8.03

4.95

2.75

Testing the Theories:
Thornberry et al. Study
Hypotheses
Strain Theory: Criminal behavior of dropouts should decline more sharply than that of graduates after leaving school, and rates for dropouts should converge quickly with those of graduates
Control Theory: Natural decline during post-high school years should be more gradual for dropouts than graduates, and will not converge with decline for graduates
Method
Sample: 10% sample of Philadelphia Birth Cohort Study (N=567 boys)
Variables: Dropping Out, Criminal Involvement (arrests), Race, Father’s Occupation, Marital Status, Employment Status

Testing the Theories:
Thornberry et al. Study
Findings

Social Correlates of Delinquency
Social Class

Traditional Understanding
Lower class is responsible for most crime and delinquency
This view comes from several sources:
Selective focus on “crime in the streets” (these are crimes more characteristic of lower class
When MC commits these crimes, almost always presented as “the exception” (e.g., Columbine shooting)
Police surveillance more close in lower class areas
Early empirical studies which focused on lower class

Some Early Self-report Evidence:
Individual Social Class
Study by Empey and Erikson
Methodology
Self-report data from 180 males 15-17 years old
50 HS boys never in court (non-delinquents)
50 HS boys once in court (one-timers)
50 HS boys on probation
30 HS boys incarcerated
Measures
Social class (father’s occupation)
29% lower class
55% middle class
16& upper class
Delinquency–22 separate offenses; asked if (1) ever committed; (2) how often committed; (3) ever caught; (4) how often caught

Study by Empey and Erikson (cont.)
Overall Findings

Social Class
Percent of Sample
Percent of Delinquency

Upper Class

Middle Class

Lower Class

Study by Empey and Erikson (cont.)
Findings for Specific Offenses

Offense
Lower Class

(29%)

% of viol.
Middle Class

(55%)

% of viol.
Upper Class

(16%)

% of viol.

Theft > $50

33%

59%

Forgery

90%

B and E

24%

67%

Vandalism

22%

70%

Armed Robbery

12%

88%

Driving w/o license

44%

51%

Auto Theft

38%

60%

Narcotics

64%

36%

Skip School

46%

47%

Some Early Self-report Evidence:
Community Social Class
Clark and Wenninger Study
Focus of study
Compares delinquency rates across communities with social class characteristics
Also compares between social classes within the same community
Hypotheses
Will be differences in delinquency across communities of different social class composition
Will be differences in delinquency among similar social classes in different communities
Will not be differences across social classes in the same community

Clark and Wenninger Study (cont.)
Methodology
1154 children in grades 6-12 were given anonymous questionnaires
Represented 4 different kinds of communities:
Rural farm–communities where farming was primary occupation. Considered working class
Lower Urban–located in inner city Chicago
Industrial City–blue collar community
Upper Urban–wealthy suburb of Chicago
All respondents were asked if they had committed any or all of a list of 38 specific offenses; and how many times they had committed that offense
Offenses were then compared across the cities, and across social classes within each city.
Findings
Industrial City
Lower Urban
Similar Delinquency
Patterns
Upper Urban
Rural Farm
Different Delinquency
Patterns

Some Early Self-report Evidence:
Rising Affluence
Study by Jackson Toby
Focus of Study
Observed that delinquency rates were increasing just as rapidly in affluent societies as in poor societies. Sought to explain this phenomenon
Methodology
Used as indicator of affluence:
# of radios/100 population
# of TV’s/100 population
# of cars/100 population
Ranked countries from most to least affluent (USA most, Pakistan, least)
Ranked % increase in affluence from 1954 to 1964
Measured delinquency through this time

Study by Jackson Toby (cont.)
Findings
rising affluence is directly associated with delinquency (linked with rising expectations)
rising affluence results in less parental control (because of more women in the labor force
as a mitigating factor, rising affluence results in greater education, which is linked with lower levels of delinquency

Reassessing Social Class and Delinquency I: Criticisms of Prior Research
Problems with measures of delinquency
Much of early self-report studies used trivial offenses in addition to more serious offenses. These sorts of offenses will be disbributed more evenly
Prevalence rather than incidence figures were used in early studies
Prevalence refers to how many people have ever engaged in delinquency
Incidence refers to the number of acts committed
Early studies focused on delinquency over an entire lifetime
Problems with measures of social class
Most studies has been measured with “status attainment” variables–parent’s occupation, education, etc.
Alternative measures, such as unemployment or welfare status, are more likely to show a relationship between social class and delinquency

Reassessing Social Class and Delinquency II:
Recent Studies
Methodology
Used a portion of the National Youth Study (from Seattle)
Asked respondents how many times (incidence) they had committed a delinquent act
Compared relationship between social class and delinquency in different communities
Findings
Weak associations between social class and delinquency, regardless how either of these variables are measured (strongest associations found when using parents education as measure of SC
Neighborhood comparisons did not affect social class-delinquency relationship.
Joseph Weis Study

Social Correlates and Delinquency
Juvenile Gangs

History of Gangs in America
American society has a long history of violent gang activity
Boston Tea Party!
Vigilante groups on the frontier
Rioting farmers
Racial riots
“Youth” gangs also have a long history, though not always equated with delinquency

Defining “Gang”
Problem with lack of consistent definition
Erikson and Jensen’s implied definition:
2 or more youth engaged in delinquent behavior
Walter Miller’s extended definition
Conducted interviews with 445 staff members in over 160 youth service agencies in 24 major cities
Asked them, “What is your conception of a gang?”
On bases of these responses, developed definition and list of key characteristics (see next slide)

Miller’s Characteristics and Definition of a Gang
Characteristics:
Organization
Identifiable leadership
Identification with a territory
Continuous association
Specific purpose
Engaging in illegal activity
Definition (incorporating above):
“A youth gang is a self-formed association of peers bound together by mutual interests, with identifiable leadership, well developed lines of authority, and other organizational features, who act in concert to achieve a specific purpose or purposes which generally include the conduct of illegal activity and control over a particular territory, facility, or type of enterprise.”

Types of Gangs
Gangs can be categorized on several dimensions:
Social Class (e.g., lower class vs. middle class gangs)
Type of activity:
Cloward and Ohlin’s Typology
Criminal gangs
Conflict gangs
Retreatist gangs
Jeffrey Fagan’s Typology
Social Gangs (alcohol and drugs)
Party Gangs (heavy drug use, some vandalism)
Serious Delinquent Gangs (serious delinquency; avoids drug use)
Ethnic composition
Type of organization (see next slide)

Lewis Yablonsky’s Typology
Yablonsky identified 3 types of gangs, based on the sophistication of their organization
Institutionalized Gang
Usually very large gangs which have become intricately involved in their communities
Often entail a “federation” of several local gangs
Examples include Black P. Stone Nation, Vice Lords and possibly Crips, and Bloods
Organized Club
Organized around delinquency, but do not have the scale or organization of institutionalized gangs
Near Group (see next page)

Yablonsky’s “Near Group”
According to Yablonsky, the “near group” is the most common type of gang
7 characteristics of near groups:
Diffuse role orientation
Limited cohesion
Impermanence
Minimal consensus of norms
Shifting membership
Disturbed leadership
Limited definition of membership expectation
3 levels of membership
Leaders
Affiliators
Peripheral Members

Non-Sociological Theories of Gang Formation
Early theories–that there was a natural propensity toward gang formation among boys
Anthropological view–gangs fulfill deep-seated needs for tribal group process such as that which sustained our ancestors over the millenia
Psychological view–gangs serve as an outlet for psychologically diseased youth
Rational choice view–gangs provide opportunities to realize goals. Such goals include financial gain, protection, and social support.

Sociological Theories of Gang Formation
Frederick Thrasher–gangs arise out of spontaneous play groups
Tannenbaum–gangs fill a need for primary group involvement
Review general theories of Cloward and Ohlin, Cohen, Shaw and McKay

Extensiveness of Gangs
Extensiveness of Gangs

Researcher

Year

Number of Gangs

Number of Gang Members

Walter Miller

1975

55,000

Walter Miller

1982

98,000

National Gang Assessment

1992

4,881

249,324

National Gang Assessment/

Replication

1994

8,625

16,643*

378,807

555,181*

Malcolm Klein

1995

500,000

Extent of Gang Delinquency
Erikson and Jensen study
Miller Study

Social Correlates of Delinquency
Drug Use

Types of Drugs Used
Narcotics
Opium, Morphine, Heroin, Dilaudid, etc.
Depressants
Alcohol, tranquilizers, most inhalants
Stimulants
Caffeine, nicotine, amphetamines, cocaine, crack
Hallucinogens
LSD, mescaline, peyote, nutmeg
Marijuana

How is Drug Use Measured:
Three National Surveys
Institute for Social Research (ISR) Survey
Annual survey of 50,000 students from in 8th 10th and 12th grades 400 public and private schools
Asked about lifetime, monthly, and annual use of 16 commonly abused drugs (including alcohol and tobacco
10-year follow-up done on about 2,400 students
Parents Resource Institute for Drug Abuse (PRIDE)
conducts annual surveys ofmore than 200,000 juniors and seniors in 34 states
National Household Survey (NHS)
annually interviews about 10,000 people in their homes

Trends in Drug Use:
ISR Statistics

Trends in Drug Use:
NHS Statistics

Drug Use and Crime:
Three Models

Drug Use: A Career Model

Career Patterns of Heroin Use

Drug

Availability
Life Structure

High
Low

High
Stable

Addict

Free-Wheeling Addict

Low
Occasional

User

Street Junkie

The Juvenile Justice System
An Overview

Nineteenth Century Juvenile Justice
American juvenile justice (and criminal justice) is rooted in the English legal system
this system did not much discriminate between adult and child offenders
Under age 7 (or 10) child was not considered prosecutable at all; over age 10, could be prosecuted as an adult
Treatment was harsh, and children were often housed with adult criminals
Some humanizing attempts were introduced:
Massachusetts introduced probation in 1841
By mid-century, special institutions introduced for children

Factors in the Development of the Juvenile Court

Industrialization and Urbanization
19th century witnessed massive population growth due to higher birth rates and immigration
Industrial economy resulted in massive relocation to the cities

Child-Saving Movement
This name was given collectively to those responding to the needs of primarily poor children in the 19th century.
They engaged in various activities:
lobbied state legislatures to enact laws to commit wayward youth
instrumental in development of the institution
launched propaganda campaigns
generally, brought into focus the concept parens patriae
Most of the child savers were white, middle class women
The premiere organization to emerge was Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
first established in New York in 1874
By 1900, 300 SPCC chapters were formed

The Juvenile Institution
This was a major contribution of the child savers
Were called by various names, including Houses of Refuge, Reform Schools, etc.
Initially, these were congregate living arrangements; later the “cottage plan” was implemented

Establishment of the Juvenile Court
The juvenile court was the logical next step to the institution
It was first established in Cook County, IL, in 1899
By 1917, all but three states had adopted the juvenile court
The Illinois invention a watershed:
it set the model for courts to come
made an official distinction between neglected and abused children, and those who were delinquent
consequently, for the first time, juvenile misconduct was officially known as “juvenile delinquency.”

Twentieth Century Implementation
The new juvenile courts handled three types of cases:
criminal (delinquent) cases
“status offense” cases (by about 1920)
delinquent environment cases
The Illinois model went unchallenged until after WWII
Major challenges came in the 1960’s:
In re Gault and other cases challenged the lack of constitutional rights for children, including right to attorney, etc.
In 1962, New York created a “family court:”
included other family issues such as adoption and support hearings
established a new category: Person in Need of Supervision (PINS)

Contemporary Overview
More than 3000 juvenile courts in the U.S.
About 6500 juvenile probation officers
Some statistics on juveniles:
2.2 million juveniles arrested each year
1.5 million of these are petitioned to the courts
500,000 children placed on formal or informal probation
just under 100,000 held in institutions
untold number diverted into community work

Philosophical and Procedural Distinctions between Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Philosophical differences
focus on rehabilitation (vs. punishment)
concern for the welfare of the child (vs. community)
Procedural differences
effort made to reduce stigma attached to criminal courts
proceedings are much more informal
proceedings are usually kept private
only recently have lawyers and cross examination been allowed

Key Court Cases in Twentieth Century Juvenile Justice
Kent v. United States (1966)
In re Gault (1967)
In re Winship (1970)
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971)
Breed v. Jones (1975

Official Reaction to Juvenile Delinquency
Components of the Juvenile Justice System I:
The Police

History of Police Work with Juveniles
Roots are in the English system of policing
1st organized police force established in England in 1829. Called “bobbies”
Children recognized as a special problem by mid-century
Police departments organized in the US by mid-19th century
Did not recognize special problems of children until late 19th century
During 1960’s, attention to juveniles took on more importance with Supreme Court decisions
By 1980’s most dep’ts had special juvenile officers and larger cities had entire juvenile units.

Common Perceptions of Policework

Typical Police Roles with Juveniles
One study suggests only 5% of police encounters with juveniles are for felonies; 60% involve nothing more than rowdiness
Juvenile work often involves conflict for the officer because it does not conform to stereotypical roles of law enforcement officer

Three Broad Types of Organization
Organization of Police Work with Juveniles

Juvenile cases handled by the regular police
This is the historic pattern
Only very small communities have this pattern today
Assignment of one or more officers to juvenile cases
Became a common strategy in the 70’s and 80’s
Officers were specially trained to deal with juveniles
Created morale problems as juvenile officers were stigmatized
Establishment of separate juvenile units
This is the practice of larger departments
Often there are subunits, such as drug education, child abuse, crime, missing children, and gang units

Police Decision-Making
Ideally, officers should make decisions strictly on legally-relevant factors
The reality is that they must often use personal discretion
Because many of their decisions are “low visibility” there is great potential for bad decisions to be made

Factors Influencing Police Decision-Making
Included here are such factors as seriousness of the crime, prior record of the juvenile, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances
Such factors include the general community’s tolerance of youthful misbehavior; policies, practices and customs of the local police department; and alternatives to arrest
Such factors include the attitude of the juvenile, attitude of the complainant, perceived willingness of parents to cooperate, etc.
Racial and gender prejudices; and organizational biases resulting from discriminatory police practices

Empirical Studies of Police Discrimination: Piliavin and Briar
For serious offenses, the nature of the offense itself was the primary factor in police disposition
For less serious offenses (90% of all police encounters) it was the officer’s assessment of the “character” of the offender.
This usually was assessed by demeanor (see table)

Demeanor

Disposition
Cooperative

Uncooperative

Total

Arrest
2 (4.4%)
14 (66.7%)

Citation

8 (8.9%)
5 (23.8%)

Informal Reprimand

15 (33.3%)
1 (4.8%)

Admonish and Release

24 (53.3%)
1 (4.8%)

Total

21
66

Empirical Studies of Police Discrimination: Black and Reiss
the “social distance” between offender and victim is greater
family situations–45% arrested
friends/neighbors–77% arrested
strangers–88% arrested
the complainant prefers arrest
prefers–50% arrested
preference unclear–16% arrested
prefered no arrest–0%
Found that an arrest is most likely when:
Suspect fails to show deference
“very deferential”–22% arrested
“civil”–16% arrested
“antagonistic”–22% arrested

Official Reaction to Juvenile Delinquency
Components of the Juvenile Justice System II:
Pretrial

Elements Involved in Pretrial

Intake
Refers to the screening of cases by the juvenile court system
Done by intake officers who are often probation officers
Intake results in one of the following:
send youth home with no further action
divert youth to a social service agency
petition to juvenile court and release until court date
petition to court and hold in detention
waive (transfer) case to adult court
Juveniles at
intake hearing

*
Photo taken from Senna and Siegel Juvenile Delinquency, 7th edition

Diversion
Refers to screening children from the court without judicial determination
Also referred to as:
nonjudicial adjustment
informal disposition
adjustment
Can be employed by police departments or courts
Encourages the child to participate in a specific program or activity with implied threat of further prosecution

Pros and Cons of Diversion
Helps juvenile justice system run smoothly
Allows for reallocation of resources to other programs
Costs less than institutionalization
Helps children avoid being stigmatized
Results in “widening the net”
Many children who would have before simply sent home are now formally in the system

Detention
Refers to the holding of children in secure facilities until trial
Pretrial detention normally used only when:
child might be inclined to run away before trial
child might be inclined to commit another serious crime
child is a violator from another jurisdiction
Alternatives to detention
send the child home (most common pre-trial procedure)
send to shelter care–less restrictive, normally for status offenders
send to foster care–normally for abused and neglected children

Trends in Detention
Increases in detention are increasing despite decreases in delinquency
Reasons include:
rise in serious crime
increased link between drug use and delinquency
younger children becoming involved in serious crimes

Problems With and Recommended Changes for Detention
Seen by some as incarceration without a trial
Due to discretion in who is and is not detained, there tends to be racial and class discrimination
May have a strong negative effect on child due to lack of rehabilitative services
Some jurisdictions still detain children in adult facilities
Some suggest prohibiting detention altogether
Should be reserved for juveniles representing a major threat to community
Should be some rehabilitative services provided

Transfer to Adult Court
All states now have a provision to transfer juveniles to adult courts when deemed appropriate
Three models for adult transfer. They are not mutually exclusive:
Concurrent jurisdiction–prosecutor is given total discretion
Excluded offenses–statutorily identifies certain offenses as transferrable
Judicial Waiver–the court (not prosecutor) waives jurisdiction

Pros and Cons of Adult Transfer
Some suggest that repeat, hardened offenders are beyond rehabilitation anyway
Need threat of tough punishment to deter them
Can you think of any other pros?
Opponents claim that that only half-hearted attempts have been made at rehabilitation
Claim that the transfer is a copout and admission of failure
Can you think of any other cons?

The Petition
If a child is not diverted or waived, he/she will be petitioned to juvenile court
The petition is the formal legal complaint that initiates judicial action
A petition can be brought by:
a police officer
social service agency
family member or guardian
If child admits to allegations, hearing is scheduled to initiate a treatment plan
If child does not admit to facts of petition:
hearing is scheduled to hear the facts
predisposition report is prepared
parents are notified of hearing date

Official Reaction to Juvenile Delinquency
Components of the Juvenile Justice System III:
Trial and Disposition

Organizational Structure of the Juvenile Court
Three Organizational Models

Juvenile Court Organized as Part of a Lower Court
Most common of all structures
Might be part of
District Court
City Court
Recorders Court
Because lower courts tend to have lower prestige, juvenile courts in these jurisdictions also suffer in importance

Juvenile Court Organized as Part of a Higher Court
The higher court is typically a circuit court or superior court
These are also courts that hear adult criminal cases
Juvenile court generally has more stature in these jurisdictions

Juvenile Court Organized as an Independent Court System
Typically, the independent court system is devoted to family court matters
Some states organize this way on a state-wide basis; others, such as Alabama, allow separate jurisdictions to do so.
Advantages of separate court:
Can better serve sparsely populated areas
Permits judicial personnel to deal exclusively with juvenile (and family) matters
More effective in obtaining legislative funding
Provides more consistency in dealing with family matters
Major disadvantages is that restructuring costs can be substantial

Actors in the Juvenile Court

Actors in the Juvenile Court:
The Judge
Functions
Rule on pretrial motions
Make decisions on continued detention
Rule on plea bargaining agreements
Handle all adjudications
Hold dispositional hearings and make dispositions
Handle appeals
Coordinate and gather information from various agencies
Provide leadership in developing youth services
Selection of juvenile court judges–several methods
Governor appointment
Partisan or non-partisan elections
State legislature appointments
Missouri plan

Actors in the Juvenile Court:
The Prosecutor
Variously called: district attorney, county attorney, state attorney.
Until 1960’s the prosecutor was not part of juvenile court
Functions
investigate possible violations of law
work with police, intake officer and probation officer in ascertaining facts of a case
authorize, review and prepare petitions
provide input on detention
represent state’s interest in all decisions by the court
enter into plea bargaining agreements with DA

Actors in the Juvenile Court:
The Defense Attorney
This office is also a creation of the 1960’s Supreme Court decisions
Role is similar to defense attorney in adult court
An additional role is guardian ad litem.
Public defenders are available to juveniles as to adult defendants
Effectiveness of defense attorneys in juvenile court has been questioned

Functions of the Juvenile Court

Adjudication
This is the hearing stage; counterpart to adult trial
Rules of procedure, while more informal, are similar to that of adult trial
Very little research on this process in the juvenile court

Disposition
This is the sentencing stage
More comprehensive than in adult court; involves the development of an overall treatment plan for juvenile
Little formal procedure established for this stage
Disposition is based on a predispositional report

Types of Dispositions
Informal consent decree
Probation
Home detention
Court-ordered school attendance
Financial restitution
Fines
Community Service
Outpatient psychotherapy
Drug and Alcohol Treatment
Commitment to secure treatment
Residential community program
Foster home placement

Principles of Disposition
Disposition is based on principle of least detrimental alternative
this is another way of saying “what is in the best interest of the child”
Recently, the interests of the community have been a major factor in dispositions
Major controversy in dispositions is the indeterminate vs. determinate sentences
Washington’s Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1977
requires adjudicated juveniles aged 8-17 to spend some time in an institution

Appeals
Appeal is not a constitutionally guaranteed right for juveniles, but most states provide for appeals by statute
Two types of appeal:
Direct
involves directly appealing decision to an appellate court to review all of the facts
may involve a trial de novo–a complete retrial of the original case
Collateral–uses legal “writs” to challenge lower court decision
Writ of Habeus Corpus
Writ of Certiorari

Goals
Means
Conformist
+
+
Innovator
+
–
Ritualist
–
+
Retreatist
–
–
Rebel
-/+
-/+
Elements of the Social Bond
Attachment
Emotional Attachment to
significant others
Commitment
Efforts and Energies
expended toward conventional goals
Involvement
Keeping busy at
conventional activities
Belief
Cognitive affirmation of
conventional values
Conformity
Attachment
Emotional Attachment to
significant others
Commitment
Efforts and Energies
expended toward conventional goals
Involvement
Keeping busy at
conventional activities
Belief
Cognitive affirmation of
conventional values
Delinquency
Index Crimes Committed by Boys and Girls
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
HomicideRapeRobberyAgg.
Assault
BurglaryLarcenyMV
Theft
Arson
Type of Crime
Number of Arrests
Girls
Boys
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
Type of Crime
All
Arrests
Violent
(Index)
Number of Arrests
Arrests for Boys and Girls
Female
Male
Ratio of Female to Male Self-Reported
Delinquency
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
HindelangWise
Girls
Boys
In School
Out-of School
SES
AREAS
Graduates
Drop Outs
Subtotal
Drop Outs
Lower
4.13
8.70
4.96
2.42
Higher
4.92
4.95
4.92
4.63
Total
4.34
8.03
4.95
2.75
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
16171819202122
Age
Ave. Arrests per Year
Dropouts
Graduates
Social Class
Percent of
Sample
Percent of
Delinquency
Upper Class
16
9
Middle Class
55
59
Lower Class
29
32
Offense
Lower Class
(29%)
%
of viol.
Middle Class
(55%)
%
of viol.
Upper Class
(16%)
%
of viol.
Theft > $50
33%
59%
8%
Forgery
9%
90%
1%
B and E
24%
67%
8%
Vandalism
22%
70%
8%
Armed Robbery
12%
88%
0%
Driving w/o license
44%
51%
4%
Auto Theft
38%
60%
2%
Narcotics
64%
36%
0%
Skip School
46%
47%
7%
Researcher
Year
Number of
Gangs
Number of
Gang Members
Walter Miller
1975
55,000
Walter Miller
1982
98,000
National Gang
Assessment
1992
4,881
249,324
National Gang
Assessment/
Replication
1994
8,625
16,643*
378,807
555,181*
Malcolm Klein
1995
500,000
Drug Use in Last 12 Months
(12th Graders)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7577798183858789919395
Any Illicit Drug other
than Marijuana
Any Illicit
Percent Using Any Drug
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1979198219851988199119921994
Ever Used
Annual Use
Monthly Use

Life Structure
High
Low
High
Stable
Addict
Free-
Wheeling
Addict
Drug
Availability
Low
Occasional
User
Street
Junkie
Percentage of Population in Cities 1795-
1920
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1795185019001920
Demeanor
Disposition
Cooperative
Uncooperative
Total
Arrest
2 (4.4%)
14 (66.7%)
16
Citation
8 (8.9%)
5 (23.8%)
9
Informal
Reprimand
15 (33.3%)
1 (4.8%)
16
Admonish and
Release
24 (53.3%)
1 (4.8%)
25
Total
45
21
66
Ave. Number of Detainees on Any Given
Day: 1975, 1995
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
19751995
Ave. daily
detainees
Juvenile Detainees for Delinquent and
Status Offenses, 1988-1992
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
19881992
Delinquent
Offenses
Status
Offenses

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ SOC assignment ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed with your coursework?

Get quality coursework help from an expert!

Order now