Full summary of the exam material of sociological perspectives on crime. The exam material contains chapters from the book 'an introduction to criminological theory' and a number of individual articles
CMY2601 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 (701985) - DUE 14 August 2024 ; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations. .
CMY2601 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 (701985) - DUE 14 August 2024 ; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
CMY2601 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 (701985) - DUE 14 August 2024
All for this textbook (5)
Written for
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
Criminologie
Perspectieven Op Criminaliteit - Sociologie
All documents for this subject (3)
Seller
Follow
LiekeK
Reviews received
Content preview
Chapter 6: Psychological positivism
6.3 Cognitive learning theories
Cognitive learning theories state that persons learn through observation of what happens to others.
Tarde saw crime as learned behaviour; laws of imitation formed a cognitive theory where people
learn through association with others: 1) people imitate in proportion to how much contact they
have (more frequent/changes more rapidly in urban areas); 2) inferior usually imitate superior
(drunkenness/murder originates from royalty?; 3) newer fashions replace older ones. Sutherland;
differential association (thieving has own techniques/codes/status/etc. copied in ‘non-criminal’
groups); frequency/consistency of contacts with patterns of criminality determine chance of
participating in that system. Cause is existence of differential culture groups with different normative
structures within same society that produced a situation of differential social organization. Criticism;
said little about process through which ‘contamination through exposure’ could be resisted through
personal/social differences. Revised version: criminal behaviour occurs when sentiment sin favour of
crime outweigh those opposed to it. Associations/contacts with greatest impact are frequent/early in
point of origin/most intense. Criticism; ignores personality traits, cannot explain spontaneous crimes
of passion, but still forms basis for delinquent subculture theories. Sutherland applied this theory to
white collar crime; many ignored the crimes committed by the powerful. Many ‘learned’ price fixing
etc. as a part of learning their new job, supported by superiors/peers, reinforced by rewards/
punishments. But the theory should still adapt personality traits to explain why the same situation
has a different effect on different individuals
7 Chapter: Sociological positivism
7.1 Emile Durkheim and social disorganization theory
Comte; industrialization separates places of residence and employment and this subverts the moral
authority of a previously united society. Humans have a natural desire to reach perfection and the
creation of a moral authority by social scientists creates the ordered state of being. Durkheim sees
this view of a higher moral authority restraining crime as utopian/idealistic; a dualistic view of human
nature is better (body/soul): instincts are biologically given and social world should develop through
the ‘soul’ an adherence to a moral consensus that is the basis of social order/control. Failure to
control certain predispositions cause egoism/anomie (individuals were not human till socialized; lack
of this will lead to conflict with society (Freud; lack means problem for individual well-being)).
Durkheim; individuals have problems with moral authority when caught in occupations unsuitable for
talents, social change/forced division of labour were also problems. Mechanical solidarity
(conformity of groups/rigid collective conscious/law used to maintain uniformity; crime is necessary
for social progress/innovation) was high in earlier forms of society, now we have more organic
solidarity (different groups dependent on each other; social solidarity relies on management of
diverse functions of groups; moral individualism = set of reciprocal obligations that binds together
individuals/it is not collapse of moralism). Division of labour = restraint upon self-interest, imperfect
social regulation leads to social problems including crime. 3 types of deviants: biological deviant
(physiological/psychological malfunction) can be present in normal division of labour, functional
rebel (normal person reacting to pathological society; expresses spontaneous/normal collective
consciousness instead of the ‘forced’ one), skewed deviants (socialized into a disorganized
pathological society). Modern industrial societies encourage state of unbridled egoism and likelihood
of inefficient regulation is greater in rapid modernization (new forms of control have not yet been
formed, old forms no longer work): society is in state of anomie (normlessness). This view is over-
determinist with no space for free will, a more recent interpretation states that individuals do have a
choice, for coalitions of interest and create social change. These actions are constrained by both
,structural constraints and conscious collectives. Even in modernised societies with high levels of
organic solidarity, mechanic solidarity retains considerable explanatory power (for hate crimes for
example). In complex/diverse societies 3 levels of mechanic solidarity still consists: macro (national
identity; strongest when enforced by religious/political belief systems), meso
(organization/institution; gangs/hate groups), micro (small groups/gang/localized less organized hate
groups). Deviance is a necessary function of mechanic solidarity; tests boundaries of tolerance
leading to evaluation of norms/values. Subordinate groups are perceived to have contravened the
mechanical solidarity and a number of meso/micro mechanical solidarities create an environment for
racist hate/insecurity among sections of the traditional white majority. Hate crime perpetrators see
themselves as victims/demand preferential citizenship/feel alienated from their traditional
community or mechanical solidarity. Durkheims theory taken as a whole attracts controversy to its
accuracy but his notion that crime is linked to a breakdown of social controls is a major inspiration to
sociologists. Merton: anomie/egoism help explain nature of crime.
7.2 The Chicago school
Negative living conditions influence outcome of people’s lives; crime/criminal behaviour in such an
environment cannot be explained by biological/psychological theories alone. By changing the
surroundings, it is possible to reverse negative effects of the city is the assumptions. Park: 1)
development/organization of the city is like any ecological system, patterned and ever-changing; 2)
nature of social processes influences crime/human behaviours. Burgess: social disorganization theory
states that cities grow radially in concentric zones (5 types) in which people are distributed spatially:
commercial enterprises are in the central business district, close to transport systems and poor living
areas. Outward expansion of business district forces displacement of residents; weakened
family/communal ties. Shaw/McKay: testes concentric zone theory; nature of neighbourhood most
important regulator with regard to crime, transition zone has highest crime rates. Children here are
not monitored by conventional institutions (strained/destroyed by rapid urban growth/migration/
poverty). Young people were often recruited into crime trough association with older siblings/gang
members. In disorganized neighbourhoods ‘criminal traditions’ compete with conventional ones and
thus children learn a value system that condones crime, whereas youths in organized areas remains
insulated from deviant values/peers. Criticisms: less detail provided on origin of criminal culture, is
spatial distribution of groups natural (role of power/status = ignored), mostly explains stable/group-
based crime instead of other forms. Practical influence: Chicago area project (Shaw): 1) recreational
programs to divert young people away from criminality; 2) improving physical appearance of
area/taking pride in community; 3) CAP staff mediating between youths/authorities; 4) locals
persuade youths to follow conventional lifestyle. This program has proven effective.
7.3 Robert Merton and anomie theory
Anomie theory: explains crime/disorder, tries to give a comprehensive causation for crime/deviance.
This vision challenged the view of the ‘American dream’ (hard work/conservative values would
evenly distribute social/economic rewards). In contrast to Durkheim, Merton states that human
aspirations are socially learned: structural limitations imposed on access to means to achieve goals
causes crime; focus on position of individual within social structure. Overemphasizing the cultural
goals (material possessions/status/etc. (socially learned)) or institutionalized means (distribution of
opportunities in socially acceptable ways) can lead to anomie/strain. This cultural imbalance leads to
crime (other ways of achieving goals for example). 5 possible reactions when people are not able to
legitimately attain internalised social goals: conformity (accept goals/means; strain is tolerable),
retreatism (least common; reject goals/means, dropouts (alcoholics etc.), ritualism (obey to rules for
own sake; emphasis on means rather than goals), innovation (achieves goals through innovative
,routes; overlap with conformist (new ways, unthreatening to conventional norms relatively =deviant,
or real criminal: overemphasizing goals), rebellion (reject goals/means; establish new social system
with goals). Criticism; 1) does not trace origins of criminogenic circumstances, fails to explain deviant
behaviours (drug use) by conformists; 2) society has a plurality of values (problematic assumption
that all members know same set of values; does not account for deviance in higher classes/
overemphasizes on deviance in lower classes, can explain white collar crime in context of corporate
values: competitors, government, employees, consumers, public are obstacles the corporation has to
overcome to achieve goals (scarce products = trade violations, bulk of crime initiated by high
officials). Corporate promotion system selects personality traits required for corporal crime,
successful people feel free from the bind of conventional values (anomie closer to Durkheim than
Merton). Apart from financial goals, pride in work etc. can also trigger deviant behaviour. Hate crime;
blame problems on minority group, conformity to the dominant group keeps these feelings in check
until others share these feelings. Hate crime is a pathological deviation from societal norms. But, it
can also be seen as a fundamental part of conformity to the ‘own’ group where other groups are
seen as deviant. The conforming group may silently approve of some members actually acting on
those shared feelings. Messner/Rosenfeld; American Dream is broad cultural ethos entailing
commitment to goal of material success in culture dominated by huge corporations (social
institutions serve this economic goal), this promotes anomie (moral = seek most efficient way to
economic success), which causes crime. So, no ‘wars on crime’ will be successful because they attack
the economy as well. Apart from the commitment to material success, other values such as
achievement (material success to measure self-worth)/individualism (intense personal competition)/
universalism (fear of failure because everyone has same changes)/etc. play a part in the creation of
anomie.
7.4 Deviant subculture theories
5 explanatory inputs: anomie (Merton), social disorganization (Chicago school), masculine identity
crisis theory (Parsons; absence of father (in prison often)/masculine role model, male child identifies
with mother, cultural pressure on masculinity), differential association (Sutherland), sociological
studies; gangs emerged where young children in disorganised areas turn to the streets for fun. Cohen;
juvenile offending is rarely motivated by monetary success (Mertons assumption) but the reputation/
status gained within the gang. Society is stratified in SES-classes, but the norms/values of the middle
class are dominant/judge success/status of everybody, but lower class juveniles experience status
frustration because of this and together with youths facing the same problem they create a
subculture with alternative norms/values (conscious/active rejection of middle class values).
Criticism; failure to empirically support (it is not testable), young working-class men do not
experience problems of adjustment to middle class values, these values are irrelevant to them, they
resent middle class outsiders who try to impose their irrelevant way of life upon them, crime is thus a
utilitarian/rational behaviour in working-class culture. Miller; the focal concerns of working-class
society combine to produce criminality (toughness/excitement/autonomy/etc.), thus subcultures do
not originate from the lack of status/thwarted aspirations (influenced by Parson). Criticism; he offers
no explanation for the origins of these deterministic values. Cloward/Ohlin: Mertons anomie explains
‘push’ factors (why people offend), Sutherlands differential association explains ‘pull’ factors
(continuance/passing on): discrepancy between working-class aspirations and opportunities, blame
unfair society for this/withdraws believe in legitimacy of social order. Cohen; individuals actively seek
out/join others with same problems to produce a collective solution, they develop neutralizing
techniques (guilt) in groups (reformulation of anomie). Assumption here is; illegitimate routes to
success are freely available to those who need them. Illegitimate opportunity theory (combi of
cultural transmission (Shaw) and differential association (Sutherland)) predicts 3 types of subcultures:
, criminal delinquent (when illegitimate opportunities to learn motivations/attitudes/ techniques to
commit crime are available), conflict (no available criminal opportunity structure, young males attack
property/people out of frustration), retreatist (drugs are freely available/members failed to gain
access to other subcultures). Prediction was; the first would decline because it was too elaborate for
juveniles, the other 2 would grow. Criticism: model of subculture is based on stable structure of
adolescent gangs in Chicago (no longer exists), assumption of homogeneous working-class, too
simplistic explanation of drug use. Spergel; anomie gap between aspirations measured in ‘aspired to’
and ‘expected’ (differed between subcultures/non-criminals). 3 types of subcultures: racket
subculture (organized adult criminality is already in existence/visible), theft subculture (not well-
established criminal subculture already existed), conflict (limited access to either
criminal/conventional activities). Drug use was common in all types, form of deviant behaviour is not
a result of national characteristics (as Merton/Cloward/Ohlin state). Overall criticisms; fail to explain
adolescent offending, there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ offender driven by grim social/econ. forces
(does not explain why others do not join gangs etc.), adolescent offending is considered a gang
phenomenon (this is highly doubted), roles of authority figures are ignored, no explanation for
adolescent female offenders. But, these theories are useful in explaining corporate crime for
example. Universalistic obligations (law-abiding citizens) should be sufficient motivation to obey law,
but sanctions are weak, particularistic obligations (due to business colleagues) were supported by a
philosophy supporting the avoidance of blatant offences (rationalizing offences in white collar crime
corporates). But individual characteristics, variations between groups within a subculture, degree of
exposure to subcultural values are all relevant (not fully deterministic). These theories can help
account for hate crime motivation (being part of particular ethnic group/institutional racist police
f.e.).
Early US deviant subculture theories are overly deterministic (predestined actor model) and while
some may be overly socialized into the mores of a subculture, most have more tangential
relationships to such deviant behaviour although they may be at risk of being drawn into the
subculture deeper. Matza: predestined actor model makes 3 basic assumptions 1) focus on criminal/
behaviour, ignores criminal justice system; 2) rejects rational free will; 3) considers criminals
fundamentally different from non-criminals. This model fails to explain age crime curve. Matza: crime
is status/criminals act out delinquent role, young person drifts from delinquent to conventional
(freely chooses), delinquency in subcultures exist, but there is no specific type of delinquent
subculture; a contra-culture is problematic because 1) juvenile offenders should not experience guilt
in this case; 2) juveniles offender should have no respect for conventional values; 3) everyone
outside own subculture should be a potential victim; 4) delinquents are immune to demands of
dominant culture (all 4 are not true). 3 stages of becoming deviant: 1) in contact with peers/ideology
of delinquency/motivated by anxiety to fit in/about masculinity/adult status, thus copies criminal
behaviour of peers (group members are trapped in vicious circle; break when anxiety goes away/is
mature enough); 2) has overcome anxiety, faces moral restraints (result from initial socialization),
utilises techniques of neutralization (denial of responsibility/injury/victim/condemning condemners/
appeal to higher loyalty)/commitment to subterranean values (need for stimulation f.e.) and they
exploit contradiction in criminal justice system (punishment vs same treatment because not fully
responsible); 3) young male is on ‘drift’/knows what is required/learned neutralization techniques,
but not automatically committed to crime. They continue offending because they are prepared
(learned from older friends/media/change of getting caught is small) so they repeat old offences
(know how to improve it). Sometimes they feel desperate (fatalistic mood)/pushed around and they
commit serious, new crimes to prove they are a cause, not merely an effect. This all is also useful in
white collar crime. Hate-crime perpetrators often see their behaviour as justified, because the wider
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller LiekeK. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.41. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
