36364 -4 Pages within 10 hrs

36364 Topic: SOC 203 Social Problems Number of Pages: 4 (Double Spaced) Number of sources: 4 Writing Style: APA Type of document: Essay Academic Level:Undergraduate Category: Sociology Language Style: English (U.S.) Order Instructions: ATTACHED Week 3 - Assignment: PLEASE CHECK FOR PLAIGIARISM BECAUSE I RECEIVE 3 OUT 7 ON THE WEEK TWO ASSIGNMENT BECAUSE IT WAS COPYING FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER: I PUT THE INFO ON THE SUPPORT TEAM The Interconnection of Social Problems Review the article, Race, poverty and punishment: The impact of criminal sanctions on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequality, as you to prepare for this paper. As Wheelock and Uggen (2006) point out, “the association between crime, punishment, and poverty has long been the subject of sociological and criminological investigation” (p. 1). This assignment is intended illustrate the interconnection of social problems. Write a paper discussing the overlap of crime, punishment, and poverty. In your paper, please explain the following five core arguments made by the authors: Criminal sanctions and victimization work to form a system of disadvantage that perpetuates stratification and poverty. Punishment impacts individuals convicted of felonies, as well as their families, peer groups, neighborhoods, and racial group. After controlling for population differences, African Americans are incarcerated approximately seven times as often as Whites. Variation in criminal punishment is linked to economic deprivation. As the number of felons and former felons rises, collateral sanctions play an ever-larger role in racial and ethnic stratification, operating as an interconnected system of disadvantage. The paper must be three to four pages in length and formatted according to APA style. You must use at least two scholarly resources other than the textbook and required readings to support your claims and subclaims. Cite your resources in text and on the reference page. For information regarding APA samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center, within the Learning Resources tab on the left navigation toolbar. Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment. Required Resources Korgen, K. & Furst, G. (2012). Social problems: Causes & responses [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/ Chapter 6 – Violence as a Social Problem Chapter 7 – Crime and Substance Abuse Articles Knafo, S. (2013, August 22). War on drugs failure gives way to treatment in states, cities (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/war-on-drugs-treatment_n_3792445.html (In order to complete this week’s discussion, “The Changing Face of the War on Drugs in the U.S.,” read this article that discusses the ways that the criminalization of drug addiction has changed.) Scutti, S. (2015, August 21). Opiate addiction: Sociologists construct distinct profiles for heroin and prescription painkiller users (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Retrieved from http://www.medicaldaily.com/opiate-addiction-sociologists-construct-distinct-profiles-heroin-and-prescription-348938 (In order to complete this week’s discussion, “The Changing Face of the War on Drugs in the U.S.,” read this article that discusses how the populations impacted by drug addiction have changed.) Wheelock, D. & Uggen, C. (2006). Race, poverty and punishment: The impact of criminal sanctions on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequality (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Working Papers: National Poverty Center. Retrieved from http://npc.umich.edu/publications/workingpaper06/paper15/working_paper06-15.pdf (In order to complete this week’s assignment, “The Interconnection of Social Problems,” read this article that discusses the impact of criminal sanctions on racial and gender inequality.) Yankah, E. (2016, February 9). When addiction has a white face (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/opinion/when-addiction-has-a-white-face.html?_r=0 (In order to complete this week’s discussion, “The Changing Face of the War on Drugs in the U.S.,” read this article that discusses how the populations impacted by drug addiction have changed.) Multimedia University of Notre Dame. (1999). War on Drugs Dramatically Increases Prison Population (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. [Video]. In Life Behind Bars. Retrieved from the Films on Demand database. (In order to complete this week’s discussion, “The Changing Face of the War on Drugs in the U.S,” watch the video that discusses the social and financial costs of the War on Drugs.) Recommended Resources Multimedia Gaviria, M. (2016, February 23). Chasing heroin (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.[Video]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/chasing-heroin/ (Watching this video may help you successfully complete this week’s discussion, “The Changing Face of the War on Drugs in the U.S.” ) National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #06-15 June, 2006 Race, Poverty and Punishment: The Impact Of Criminal Sanctions On Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Inequality Darren Wheelock, University of Minnesota Christopher Uggen, University of Minnesota This paper is available online at the National Poverty Center Working Paper Series index at: http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/working_papers/ Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Poverty Center or any sponsoring agency. RACE, POVERTY AND PUNISHMENT: THE IMPACT OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS ON RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND SOCIOECONOMIC INEQUALITY Darren Wheelock University of Minnesota Christopher Uggen University of Minnesota September 2, 2005 Word Count: 8,869 Running Head: Race, Poverty and Punishment Prepared as a draft chapter for the "The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic Disparities Persist," volume edited by David Harris and Ann Chih Lin for the National Poverty Center at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. We thank all the reviewers who helped us improve this chapter especially, Alford Young, Ted Mouw, and Jeff Morenoff, David Harris and Ann Chih Lin. We are also indebted to Kim Gardner and Pamela Parnell for research assistance. http://npc.umich.edu/publications/workingpaper06/paper15/working_paper06-15.pdfRACE, POVERTY AND PUNISHMENT: THE IMPACT OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS ON RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND SOCIOECONOMIC INEQUALITY The association between crime, punishment, and poverty has long been the subject of sociological and criminological investigation. A classic literature has linked poverty to crime (Blau and Blau 1982; Braithwraite 1981; Sampson 1987; Shaw and McKay 1942; Wolfgang and Ferracuti 1967). This line of inquiry has typically examined the role of poverty and deprivation enhancing the risk of criminal involvement and criminal victimization. Such an approach typically places individuals or groups at the center of the analysis striving to understand how or why socioeconomic status would compel or shield individuals and communities from deviant motivations and behaviors.1 This venerable body of research has generated a wealth of scholarship linking high crime rates to poverty or its correlates, such as family disruption (Sampson 1987), economic inequality (Blau and Blau 1982), and social disorganization (Shaw and McKay 1942). Recent patterns of criminal justice policy marked by dramatic increases in all forms of criminal justice sanctions, however, have shifted attention to the role of punishment in contributing to racial and ethnic inequality. A related line of research and scholarship has emerged emphasizing the implications of criminal involvement and punishment in explaining contemporary trends in both inequality and, to a lesser degree, crime (Clear and Rose 2002; Clear, Rose and Ryder 2001; Pager 2003; Petersilia 2003; Pettit and Western 2004; Western 2002; Western and Pettit 2000). In the past decade, researchers have focused more intently on how criminal punishment and victimization 1 It is interesting that while poverty and deprivation seemingly predict aggregate crime rates, similar associations are not observed with individual-level self-reported survey data (Braithwraite 1981; Tittle, Villemez, and Smith 1978). 1 1 affect stratification. Despite the strides made in this area, extant research linking racial disparities in criminal sanctions and victimization to different domains of inequality remains incomplete and largely segmented. For example, while studies have examined the impact of incarceration and criminal victimization on labor market prospects and familial ties, their connections to broader shifts in racial and ethnic stratification have been largely unexplored.. It is also the case that much of this work focuses almost exclusively on the impact of incarceration on inequality rather than examining the impact of criminal punishment more generally, such as the role of collateral sanctions. This chapter offers a brief overview of this emerging literature, using existing lines of research and empirical analysis to demonstrate how crime and punishment interact to form a system of social and economic disadvantage that may help account for recent fluctuations in inequality. It is our thesis that criminal sanctions and victimization work to form a system of disadvantage that perpetuates stratification and poverty. More specifically, recent patterns of criminal punishment have led to the persistence, and in some instances, the worsening of racial and ethnic inequality in numerous social institutions. In developing this thesis, we begin by asking whether criminal sanctions and victimization act to entrench disadvantaged individuals more securely in poverty. Those at greatest risk of both phenomena – young men of color – are also highly vulnerable to the deleterious effects of criminal punishment and victimization. For example, young African American men with low levels of education are far more likely than any other social group to be incarcerated (Pettit and Western 2004), and to become victims of homicide or robbery (U.S. Department of Justice 2005b; U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation 2004). Yet a felony conviction can exacerbate such problems by rendering such persons ineligible for student financial aid, housing assistance, and a wide array 2 2 of employment opportunities (Curtin 2005; Rubinstein and Mukamal 2002). As the number of female prisoners rises (U.S. Department of Justice 2000), the implications of these consequences will become even more salient for families and communities directly affected by crime and punishment. Our particular focus in this regard is the formal and informal consequences of felony conviction. Despite hopes and expectations that released prisoners and other felons will “reintegrate” back into their communities, criminal punishment suppresses employability and attainment (Western 2002; Western, Kling, and Weiman 2001), disrupts family ties (Uggen, Wakefield, Western; 2005 Edin, Nelson, and Paranal 2004; Hagan and Dinovitzer 1999) and imposes debilitating stigmas associated with a criminal record (Pager 2003). In particular, state and federal laws prohibit convicted felons from fully participating in labor markets, politics, family life, and educational institutions. We therefore outline the scope of these civil disabilities and discuss their role in perpetuating stratification along race, class and gender lines. In line with expanding notions of criminal punishment to include post-sentence sanctions, we conceptualize such punishment as affecting not only the individuals convicted of felonies, but also their families, peer groups, neighborhoods, and racial group. Millions of individuals now face the difficult challenge of reentering society despite having low skills and prospects of improving their situation. Families, especially children, must adjust to the removal of parents and the reduced household income from their diminished employment prospects when released. Furthermore, the spatial concentration of released prisoners, and the probationers and parolees who remain under correctional supervision in their communities, engenders similar processes at the neighborhood level. It is also often the case that many disadvantaged neighborhoods face the difficult task of reintegrating large numbers of released prisoners and dealing with the socially 3 3 divisive impact of offending and victimization (Clear, Rose, Waring, Scully 2003). Thus, our chapter also considers the impact of criminal punishment on offenders, families, and neighborhoods by examining the different layers of its impact on social stratification and inequality. To examine the nexus between criminal punishment and racial and socioeconomic stratification, we focus on the following three issues. First, we describe current trends in criminal punishment by race, ethnicity and poverty status and note the major social scientific explanations for the observed differences. Second, we examine how patterns of victimization vary across racial and ethnic subgroups and discuss their probable implications for stratification. Third, we consider how criminal punishment, and the associated formal and informal sanctions that it implies, affect future life chances. Across each of these areas, we suggest that criminal punishment and victimization create a system of disadvantage that exacerbates inequality and complicates individual efforts to escape from poverty. We conclude on a programmatic note, offering some ideas for future research that might elucidate the complicated relationship between criminal sanctions, poverty, and racial and ethnic inequality. Race, Poverty, and Punishment Trends in Incarceration As many social scientists have noted, U.S. rates of criminal punishment have soared in the past 30 years .2 As shown in Figure 1, all categories of correctional populations – prisoners, 2 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners 1925-81, Bulletin NCJ-85861, p.2; Prisoners in 1998, Bulletin NCJ 175687, p.3, Table 3 and p.5, Table 6; 1999, Bulletin NCJ 183476, p.3, Table 5 and p.5, Table 8; 2000, Bulletin NCJ 188207, p.5, Table 6; 2001, Bulletin NCJ 195189, p. 5 and p. 6, Table 7 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice); and U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 4 4 parolees, probationers, and jail inmates – have undergone dramatic increases. In 2003, a total of 6.9 million people were under some form correctional supervision, relative to 1.8 million as recently as 1980. Incarceration represents the most severe form of supervision and U.S. prisons and jails now house over 2.1 million inmates, representing an overall incarceration rate of 726 per 100,000 in the population (U.S. Department of Justice 2005a). By comparison, the imprisoned population in 1974 was approximately 210,000 (U.S. Department of Justice 2003), representing a rate of 149 per 100,000 adult residents. The number of probationers and parolees has grown rapidly as well. In 1980, there were only 1.1 million probationers and 220,000 parolees, compared to over 4 million probationers and 775,000 parolees in 2003. In short, more people are incarcerated and more non-incarcerated felons are serving sentences than at any other time in U.S. history. [Figure 1 about here.] As we discuss below, the increased use of imprisonment marks what some scholars have termed a shift to “the new penology” for managing dangerous populations (Feeley and Simon 1992). Increasing numbers of police, criminal defendants, and overall criminal justice expenditures characterize this era. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the new penology, however, has been the increasing representation of young Black men in prisons. The African American incarceration rate has increased so dramatically that the topic has generated voluminous research, articles, and books (see, e.g., Beckett and Sasson 2000; Blumstein 1982; Blumstein 1993; Blumstein 1998; Chiricos and Crawford 1995; Steffensmeier, Correctional Populations in the United States, 1994, NCJ-160091, Tables 1.8 and 1.9; 1997, NCJ 177613, Tables 1.8 and 1.9 and U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions, SD- NPS-PSF-8, NCJ-80520, p. 16 (Washington, D.C.: USGPO 1982). 5 5 Ulmer, and Kramer 1998; Lusane 1991; Mauer 1999; Miller 1992; Myers 1993; Pettit and Western 2004; Sampson and Lauritsen 1997; Spohn and Holleran 2000; Tonry 1995). Figure 2 compares the racial and ethnic distribution of U.S. prisoners with the racial and ethnic distribution of males aged 25 to 34 in the general population. The prisoners are approximately 47 percent African American, 33 percent white, and 17 percent Hispanic, whereas the general population is approximately 13 percent African American, 69 percent White, and 13 percent Hispanic. In 2003, the incarceration rate for African Americans was 2,240 per 100,000 adult residents (U.S. Department of Justice 2004a). This stands in stark contrast to the White incarceration rate of 321 per 100,000. After controlling for population differences, African Americans are incarcerated approximately seven times as often as Whites. Disaggregating these rates by gender draws additional attention to these pronounced racial differences. [Figure 2 about here.] Young African American men are at the greatest risk of incarceration. In 2003, the incarceration rate for African American men is 4,925 per 100,000; that is, about 5 percent of all African American male adult residents were incarcerated in that year. The corresponding rate for White men is 610 inmates per 100,000, or about 0.6 percent of all White male adult residents were incarcerated in 2003. Based on these estimates, the rate of incarceration for African American men is eight times greater than for White men. If current trends of incarceration continue, a Justice Department study calculates that the percentage of males born in 2001 who will go to prison during their lifetimes is 32 percent for African Americans, 17 percent for Hispanics, and 5 percent for Whites (Bonczar 2003). These patterns are especially pronounced in 6 6 some urban areas. Beckett and Sasson (2000; 2) report that more than half of all African American men between the ages of 18-35 are currently under the criminal justice supervision in Baltimore and Washington, DC. As Becky Pettit and Bruce Western point out, more African American men were imprisoned in 2003 than were attending college or serving in the military that year. Incarceration has become so commonplace among young African American males that they liken it to a common life course event: “recent birth cohorts of black men are more likely to have prison records (22.4 percent) than military records (17.4 percent) or bachelor’s degrees (12.5 percent)” (2004: 164). Although not as dramatic, levels of incarceration for Hispanics also rose considerably during this period. National incarceration data for racial groups other than Whites and African Americans is sparse to non-existent. Some sources of official criminal justice statistics provide estimates for “Hispanics” and combine all other racial and ethnic categories into "other." Unfortunately, this makes broad cross-race comparisons impossible, though it does allow for comparisons between select ethnicities and races. There appear to be substantial ethnic disparities in incarceration between non-Hispanics and Hispanics, though the differences are smaller in magnitude than the differences between Whites and African Americans. A recent report from the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (Demeo and Ochoa 2003) concludes that Latinos are overrepresented among the convicted felon population in nine of ten states examined. There are several explanations for the origins and persistence of these racial and ethnic differences and nearly all assign an important role to poverty and inequality. Scholars of social control, punishment and criminal justice policy have attributed increases in the prevalence of imprisonment to numerous factors. Evidence suggests that state- 7 7 level variation coincides with homicide rates (Oliver and Yocum 2004). Greenberg and West (2001) find that state-level incarceration growth between 1971 and 1991 is partly a function of violent crime rates. However, during the period of greatest prison growth (the mid-1970s to the late 1990s), crime rates were mostly stable (Blumstein 1998), suggesting a tenuous correlation between crime and punishment in the past thirty years. Rather, research has indicated that criminal justice policy during this era was more sensitive to political factors (Stucky, Heimer, and Lang 2005; Jacobs and Carmichael 2001; Greenberg and West 2001; Beckett and Sasson 2000; Savelsberg 1994). The crux of this argument is that crime control is a highly charged political issue on which many candidates base their election campaigns. Such candidates may gain votes by calling for increased sentences (especially for drug offenders), repeal of parole programs, and mandatory minimum sentences (see, e.g., Mendelberg’s 2001 account of George Bush Sr.’s 1988 presidential campaign). Not only have “get tough” arguments been immune from political criticism, but there have been few economic limits imposed on punitiveness or public expenditures on punishment. Feeley and Simon (1992) describes these increases as part of the “new penology,” which includes the emergence of new discourses in punishment and new criminal justice objectives. These criminal justice system rationales emphasize management of threatening and dangerous groups rather than rehabilitation of individual offenders. Feeley and Simon claim conceptions of threatening and dangerous groups were typified as synonomous with the poor; The underclass is understood as a permanently marginal population, without literacy, without skills, and without hope; a self-perpetuating and pathological segment of society that is not integratable into the larger whole, even as a reserve labor pool. Conceived this way, the underclass is also a dangerous class, not only for what any particular member may or may not do, but more generally for collective potential misbehavior. It is treated as a high-risk group that must be managed for the protection of the rest of society (p. 467). 8 8 In our view, the dangerous underclass more accurately depicts poor minorities. Nevertheless, it would be careless to reduce all racial differences in criminal punishment to recent shifts in the structure of crime control efforts. Such a position disregards compelling evidence concerning potential group differences in criminal offending. Accounting for Racial and Ethnic Disparities There have been numerous attempts to explain racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. Research frequently attributes some portion of recent disparities to changes in the prosecution and punishment of drug-related and other non-violent offenses and the host of sentencing laws enacted during the early 1980s (Beckett and Sasson 2000; Blumstein 1998; Mauer 1999; Tonry 1995). Policies such as mandatory minimum sentences, "three strikes" laws, and sentencing guidelines have clearly increased the use of imprisonment in addressing crime in the United States. These legislative changes alone, however, cannot account for longstanding disparities that existed prior to such laws. At the risk of oversimplifying a large body of literature, we discuss explanations for persistent disparities in punishment in terms of two classes: (1) differential rates of offending across these groups and, (2) differential treatment of racial and ethnic minority groups. The basic idea behind the differential offending position is that social inequality or other factors lead disproportionate shares of racial and ethnic minorities to engage in violent and criminal behavior, which, in turn, explains much of the racial and ethnic disparities in imprisonment. Researchers have focused on various mechanisms through which deprivation leads to increased rates of crime and violence, such as street credibility (Anderson 1990), residential segregation (Massey 1995), social isolation (Sampson and Wilson 1995), and social 9 9 disorganization (Morenoff and Sampson 1997). The differential offending position is largely supported by official homicide statistics. These data clearly reveal two patterns: (1) higher rates of homicide victimization and offending among African American males relative to any other social group (LaFree 1995; U.S. Department of Justice 2004b); and, (2) that most homicides are intra-racial rather than inter-racial. During the early 1990s, homicide was the leading cause of death among young African American men, at least 80 percent of whom were killed by other young African American men (Hagan and Peterson 1995). One oft-cited, albeit dated, study (Blumstein 1982) estimated that at least 80 percent of the racial differences in incarceration were due to differences in arrest rates (which were taken in the study as a proxy for offending differences). While Blumstein (1993) and others later reduced these early estimates, researchers continue to provide empirical evidence for differential offending playing some role in differential punishment (DeLisi and Regoli 1999; DiIulio 1994; Sampson and Lauritsen 1997). Differential treatment is the major alternative to this explanation of racial and ethnic disparities in imprisonment. A long line of research shows that African American and Hispanic criminal defendants are treated more harshly than their White counterparts by the police (Chambliss 1994), by judges (Hagan and Peterson 1995; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer 1998; Spohn and Holleran 2000) and by parole and release boards (Myers 1993). Net of crime rates, the percentage of African American residents is a significant predictor of crime control activities such as policing (Earl, Soule and McCarthy 2003; Jackson 1989; Jackson and Carroll 1987), incarceration (Greenberg and West 2001; Jacobs and Carmichael 2001; Myers 1990; Stucky, Heimer, and Lang 2005), and the death penalty (Paternoster 1991). These findings have led researchers to interpret area racial composition as an indicator of “racial threat,” a concept 10 10 drawn from classic work on inter-group prejudice and discrimination (Blalock 1967; Blumer 1958). Although a few sociologists and criminologists dogmatically adhere to either the differential offending or the differential treatment position, most today acknowledge that both factors help explain racial and ethnic gaps in criminal punishment (Hagan and Peterson 1995 offer a concise summary of this integrated perspective). Both factors appear to interact in complex ways across time, place, and subgroup characteristics. For example, explicit expressions of racial and ethnic discrimination in the criminal justice system in past eras have likely been replaced with more subtle forms of discrimination. While more difficult to detect, modern forms of laissez-faire racism (Bobo and Smith 1998) can also prove harmful to racial and ethnic minorities (Sampson and Lauritsen 1997). Criminal Punishment and Social Class Variation in criminal punishment, of course, is also linked to economic deprivation. It is virtually impossible to discuss the prevalence of racial and ethnic minorities in criminal justice without discussing crucial group differences in socio-economic backgrounds. The U.S. Department of Justice regularly conducts a large, nationally representative survey of state prison inmates and occasional surveys of probationers and parolees. As shown in Table 1, men and racial minorities are vastly overrepresented in these populations relative to the general population. By 1997 (the most recent year the survey was conducted), 94 percent of all prison inmates, 96 percent of parolees, and 79 percent of probationers were males. African Americans make up almost half of the prison and parole populations and almost one-third of the felony 11 11 probation population, as compared with 12 percent of the general population and 13 percent of the population aged 25 to 34. [Table 1 about here.] Of course, the rate and absolute number of incarcerated persons has changed dramatically since 1974, as has the most serious offenses for which prison inmates have been convicted. Drug offenses, which had accounted for about 10 percent of the prison population, have increased sharply to over 26 percent. Property offenders have declined from 33 percent to 14 percent, and the percentage of those incarcerated for violent offenses has declined from 53 percent to 46 percent. The average age of prison entry has risen steadily since the 1970s, with prisoners now averaging over 30 years of age at the time of admission. Despite their advancing age, however, prisoners remain socioeconomically disadvantaged relative to the general population. They have very low levels of education, with less than one-third having received a high school diploma at the time of interview. Employment levels at the time of arrest have declined gradually since 1974, with a slim majority (56 percent) holding a full-time job prior to their most recent arrest in the 1997 survey. By comparison, over three-fourths of males of comparable age in the general population held full-time jobs and 87 percent had attained a high school degree. The percentage of married inmates has declined from 24 percent in 1974 to 18 percent in 1997. The comparable figure in the general population is 53 percent for males in this age range. Despite low rates of marriage, most inmates are parents: 56 percent reported having at least one child in the most recent survey. Although trends such as declining rates of marriage and non- marital births mirror larger societal shifts, the characteristics of the inmate population have 12 12 remained relatively stable over the past 25 years. Prison and jail inmates lag the farthest behind their contemporaries in the general population, while probationers and parolees are somewhat better off socioeconomically. All, however, face challenges in rebuilding their lives after they have served their sentences. Based on these inmate surveys and self-reported income information, we calculated the percentage of prisoners falling below inflation-adjusted federal poverty guidelines at the time of their most recent arrest. We must caution that the inmate surveys do not include an independent verification of prisoners’ self-reported income information and that these data are therefore subject to potential validity and reliability problems. Nevertheless, they are useful for showing trends in the percentage of inmates who report very low incomes. As Figure 3 shows, the share of inmates that report being impoverished fluctuated between 40 and 60 percent in the past thirty years. Nevertheless, the total number of inmates in poverty has increased dramatically with the prison population, as shown in the dotted line of the figure. In 1974, fewer than 100,000 prisoners had been in poverty prior to their most recent arrest. In 2004, by contrast, that figure exceeded 600,000. The data suggest that prisoners have always been poor but that imprisonment is now much more prevalent among those in poverty today, relative to 30 years ago. Further examination of these trends, however, shows the linkages between poverty and race in the incarceration figures. [Figure 3 about here.] As previously mentioned, poor and uneducated young African American men are at great risk of incarceration, and this risk has been increasing for the past three decades (Western and Pettit 13 13 2004). Figure 4 illustrates this pattern by plotting changes over time in the percentage of all poor African Americans and poor non-African Americans who are imprisoned. This graph shows a dramatic increase in incarceration rates for poor African Americans, rising from slightly over two percent in 1974 to over ten percent in 2002. The corresponding percentage for non-African Americans is far lower, rising from nearly one percent in 1974 to close to three percent in 2002. [Figure 4 about here.] These trends are wholly consistent with Pettit and Western’s (2004) argument that incarceration increases have particularly affected the less educated, the less skilled, and the poor. They estimate that 60 percent of African American men born in the late 1960s with no more than a high school education have a prison record by their mid-thirties. Considering these findings, it would be difficult to overstate the importance of social class, race, and gender as risk factors for incarceration. While incarceration has also risen among non-African Americans and females, the increases for these groups have been more modest and the initial base incarceration rates had been much lower. Not surprisingly, explanations for class disparities in imprisonment mirror those for racial and ethnic differences. Theoretical work on class gaps in criminal punishment also splits along the differential offending and differential treatment perspectives noted above with regard to race. Since the advent of self-reported crime surveys in the late 1950s, criminologists have found relatively meager associations between socioeconomic status and self-reported crime, in contrast to arrest and incarceration data that show substantial differences (see, e.g., Braithwaite 1981; Elliot and Ageton 1980; Tittle, Villemez, and Smith 1978; Wright et. al. 1999; Uggen 2001). Some portion 14 14 of class disparities in punishment is therefore likely to stem from systematic biases that penalize the poor more harshly than the wealthy. Theoretical approaches that integrate both perspectives perhaps best capture the origins of class differences in punishment. Nevertheless, it is an undeniable empirical fact that a large proportion of prisoners come from disadvantaged social circumstances. Criminal Victimization, Race, and Social Class Crime victims as well as offenders are also more likely to be drawn from the ranks of racial minorities and the poor. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show widely varying rates of victimization across race and ethnicity. African Americans and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics report being victimized at higher rates than Whites and Non-Hispanics for many types of crimes, particularly violent offenses. As shown in Figure 5, African Americans report significantly higher rates of serious violent victimization (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) than Whites (U.S. Department of Justice 2005b). Nevertheless, due to a declining crime rate, African American rates for 2001 to 2003 are well below White rates from the 1970s to the early 1990s. Hispanics were victims of overall violence at about the same rate as non-Hispanics: Hispanic persons age 12 and older made up 13 percent of the population and experienced about 14 percent of all violent crime. Criminal victimization is also stratified by socioeconomic status. Figure 6 shows rates of personal (or violent) victimization and property victimization by income categories. For both types of crime, the greatest victimization occurs among households earning less than $7,500 per year. The personal victimization rate of 49.9 per 1,000 households in this lowest income group 15 15 doubles the rate of 24.9 for households earning $25,000 to $35,000 per year and almost triples the rate of 17.5 for households earning greater than $75,000 per year. The impact of criminal victimization, however, does not end with the completion of a criminal act. Ross Macmillan (2001; 2000) finds evidence that violent victimization, especially during adolescence, imposes long-term effects on psychological distress, future involvement in crime, and even educational and occupational attainment. In one study based on National Youth Survey data (Macmillan 2000), hourly wages are over one dollar lower for victims than for non- victims, net of gender, age, race, family structure, urban residence, family socioeconomic status, delinquency, and delinquent peers. These effects appear to be driven, in large part, by diminished educational attainment and occupational status among crime victims. The Impact of Felon Status on Future Life Chances The effects of criminal punishment extend far beyond detainment or direct supervision by the criminal justice system. Upon release, prisoners re-entering their communities often face discrimination, low levels of human and social capital, and restrictions that affect their ability to earn a living and obtain basic necessities such as housing. There is little doubt that these barriers adversely affect future occupational attainment, labor force participation, and economic security. At the very least, removal from the labor force for four and one-half years -- the average state prison sentence (U.S. Department of Justice 2003) -- decreases lifetime earnings. It is only recently, however, that researchers have begun to identify the magnitude of imprisonment’s effect on economic well-being and future life chances. Current research has also begun to disentangle the impact of criminal sanctions from self-selection into crime in other arenas of 16 16 social life, such as the family, educational attainment, and civic engagement. Turning to these lines of research, we first discuss the increasing population of released prisoners. In addition to the more than 600,000 prisoners released annually in recent years (see, e.g., Petersilia 2003), over two-million probationers also leave supervision (U.S. Department of Justice 2004). Apart from the flow out of the system, the number of new convictions is also rising. In 2002, there were over one million state felony convictions (U.S. Department of Justice 2003b). Forty-four percent of those convicted were African American, 54 percent were White, with the remaining two percent were comprised of other racial groups. Most of these convictions were for non-violent offenses (approximately 81 percent) and a large proportion resulted in probation rather than prison (31 percent). Based on analysis of demographic life tables, Uggen, Manza, and Thompson (2006) estimate the 2004 population of former felons at 11.7 million, after accounting for recidivism and mortality. This estimate represents about 5.4 percent of the adult population, 9.2 percent of the adult male population, and 23 percent of the African American adult male population. After combining the number of current felons and former felons, the estimated total population is approximately 16 million (Uggen, Thompson, and Manza 2006). This represents approximately 7 percent of the adult population and 33 percent of the adult African American male population. These figures indicate that the relationship between criminal punishment and stratification extends far beyond those currently incarcerated. The “criminal class” includes millions of individuals with felon status who are now “off-paper” as they rebuild their work and family lives. Formal Consequences of Criminal Sanctions 17 17 The millions who have been convicted of felonies lose numerous rights and privileges due to provisions known as civil disabilities or collateral consequences. Researchers have begun to explore the origins of such limitations (Behrens, Uggen, and Manza 2003; Keyssar 2000), their implications for citizenship and democracy (Uggen and Manza 2002), their legal status (Behrens 2004; Damaska 1968; Love 2003; Snyder 1988), and their importance for social policy (Mauer 2002; Rubinstein and Mukamal 2002; Travis 2002). Overlooked, in our view, are the role of such collateral sanctions in perpetuating and often exacerbating racial inequalities. Collateral consequence provisions disproportionately affect the socioeconomic and community standing of disadvantaged groups. They reduce employment prospects, erode civic participation, bar receipt of federal funding for higher education, and remove parental rights, with consequences falling particularly heavily upon the many poor and working class members of racial and ethnic minority groups. We approach these issues with a conceptual framework presented in other work (Wheelock 2005) that packages collateral consequences as classes of restrictions. Consistent with our initial thesis, it is important to view them as an inter-connected system of disadvantage that amplifies disparities across markers of economic and social well-being. Such an approach allows us to discuss and describe their diffuse yet non-trivial role in stratification. This framework distinguishes broad groups of restrictions: occupational, public aid, and civic. We briefly discuss each and provide an example of how a specific restriction in that domain either maintains or worsens inequality for racial minorities and the poor. First, work and occupational restrictions have perhaps the most direct impact on inequality in the labor market. These consequences exclude individuals with felon status from holding specific types of employment either through outright bans or by disqualifying them from 18 18 eligibility for occupational licensure (Dietrich 2002; May 1995). Some of these restrictions are clearly justified as public safety measures, but the list of restricted occupations spans diverse fields and activities. In New York, ineligible occupations include barbershop owner, boxer/wrestler, commercial feed distributor and emergency medical technician (Samuels and Mukamal 2003). Table 2 provides a list of restricted occupations in Florida, which includes acupuncturist, chiropractor, speech-language pathologist, and cosmetologist to name a few (American Civil Liberties Union 2005). It seems unlikely that all former felons who have completed their sentences could pose such a danger in these occupations that they should be categorically locked out as a class. [Table 2 about here.] We do not suggest that every occupational restriction has significant implications for racial and ethnic inequality. In some cases, convicted felons may lack the human capital to seek such occupations in the first place. For example, it is tenuous to propose that large proportions of individuals with felon status are pursuing positions as speech-language pathologists. However, New York and Florida (states with very large ex-felon populations), also prohibit individuals with felon status from less-skilled positions such as taxi driver, junk dealer, farm laborer, and even “telephone seller” (American Civil Liberties Union 2005; Samuels and Mukamal 2003). Furthermore, in light of the sheer numbers of ex-felons and the broad scope of these restrictions it would seem plausible that lifetime occupational bans not only diminish offender reintegration and reentry, but also exacerbate racial and ethnic inequality in the labor market. 19 19 In addition, many states bar people with felon status from government positions. Census data indicate that African Americans are more heavily concentrated than Whites in government sector employment (U.S. Census Bureau 2003), so felon restrictions on government work, again, exert a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. In sum, there are significant direct impacts of occupational restrictions on stratification outcomes. To the extent that former felons are relegated to marginal work with little opportunity for advancement, there are long- term effects upon socioeconomic status over the life course. Public aid restrictions disqualify felons and ex-felons from government assistance due to their criminal record. This class of disqualifications includes eligibility for federal college loans and grants, welfare assistance, public housing, and denial of military benefits. The consequences of these bans are most keenly felt in the crucial months immediately following release from correctional supervision, when the likelihood of recidivism is at its apex (Uggen 2000). Few researchers have systematically examined the impact of these restrictions, but we can offer a preliminary look based on the impact of the 1998 Higher Education Act Reauthorization (20 U.S.C. 1091(r)). This federal legislation disqualified individuals with drug offenses from receiving federal aid for high education (which also include non-felony drug convictions). Individuals with three possession convictions or two distribution convictions receive lifetime bans on receipt of federal education monies. We hypothesize that this single piece of legislation likely accounts for a non-trivial portion of the racial gap in educational attainment. Although no empirical study to date has estimated the magnitude of the impact, we can bring some preliminary data to bear upon the question. According to a study conducted by the National Center of Education Statistics, African American-White racial gaps in high school completion and dropout have decreased in recent 20 20 years, although African American-White racial gaps in college attendance and completion have either remained stagnant or worsened slightly (U.S. Department of Education 2001). College attendance rates for African Americans between the mid-1970s and the late 1990s remained 83 to 85 percent of White rates. The racial gap in college completion, however, has actually worsened during this period, rising from 13 percent to 17 percent (U.S. D.O.E. 2001). The 1998 Reauthorization has likely contributed to this widening gap. The Department of Education reports that more than 124,000 students have either been rejected for assistance or lost their financial aid since the provision’s enactment in 1998. This estimate is rising rapidly, for 48,629 students were denied Pell Grant funding in the 2001-2002 school year alone (Levi and Appel 2003). Relative to Whites, racial and ethnic minorities are significantly more likely to be convicted of the disqualifying drug offenses (U.S. Department of Justice 2003) and significantly more likely to require a Pell Grant to attend college (National Center for Education Statistics 2000). It is therefore plausible that tens of thousands have been denied college funding solely on the basis of their conviction status. It also seems likely that disqualification for welfare benefits has a profound impact on the lives of women with felony convictions and their families. Approximately two-thirds of female state prison inmates are mothers of minor children and 64 percent reported living with these children prior to incarceration (U.S. Department of Justice 2000b). Again, public assistance disqualifications exacerbate racial inequalities, since African American women face an incarceration rate over six times that of White women (U.S. Department of Justice 2000a). Although far more information is needed to assess the magnitude and significance of these effects, it is clear that public aid restrictions play some role in racial and ethnic educational stratification. 21 21 Finally, civic restrictions such as felon disenfranchisement, jury exclusion, and disqualification for public office prevent individuals with felon status from fully participating as citizens. Felon disenfranchisement research links the origins of these restrictions to racial conflict (Behrens, Uggen and Manza 2003; Keyssar 2000), suggests they have influenced recent senatorial and presidential elections (Uggen and Manza 2002), and draws attention to their implications for the successful reintegration of former felons (Uggen and Manza 2004). The impact of civic restrictions on social stratification, however, is likely indirect. It seems plausible that felon voting bans may indirectly maintain inequality by quelling the political voices of the economically disadvantaged and socially marginalized. To some extent, restrictions on jury service and office-holding may also diminish the pool of otherwise eligible citizens and further dilute the power of groups overrepresented in the criminal justice system. For non-citizens, the most serious civic consequence of a felony conviction is the possibility of deportation (Kanstroom 2000; 2005). Regrettably, many immigrants who agree to a guilty plea (typically in exchange for a reduced period of confinement) are never informed that they may face deportation as a possible consequence of the plea agreement (Ferster and Aroca 2005). In 2003, the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs reported that of 11,317 immigrants held in Federal and State detention centers, 10,763 had been convicted of criminal offenses and 1,725 had pending criminal cases (U.S. Department of Justice 2003). The long-term trend in deportation reveals sharp increases in recent years. Figure 7 is based on decennial deportation data from 1908 to 1960 and annual information from 1960 to 2003 in U.S. criminal deportations (Immigration and Naturalization Statistical Yearbook, 1908-2003). Until the mid-1980s, there were fewer than 5,000 criminal deportations per year. By 1990, however, there were over 8,500 such deportations, and by 2000, over 40,000 people were deported for criminal offenses. 22 22 Although many immigrants do not possess the rights and privileges enjoyed by U.S. citizens, these deportations clearly affect the socioeconomic standing of the families left behind. [Figure 7 about here.] As the number of felons and former felons rises, collateral sanctions play an ever-larger role in racial and ethnic stratification, operating as an interconnected system of disadvantage. Given the expansiveness of collateral consequences for ex-felons, we expect their influence to be felt across almost every domain of social life. To date, however, research linking stratification and collateral sanctions is in its infancy, as even the most rudimentary descriptive statistics and summary counts are often unavailable. We next discuss a more mature line of research regarding the informal consequences of criminal sanctions. Informal Consequences of Criminal Sanctions In recent years, new research has begun to specify the informal effects of incarceration and felon status. This line of strong empirical research has estimated the effects of incarceration on future economic well-being (Western 2002; Western and Pettit 2000), life course outcomes (Pettit and Western 2004), family (in)stability (Hagan and Coleman 2001; Lopoo and Western 2005), community cohesion and collective efficacy (Clear and Rose 2002; Clear, Rose and Ryder 2001), and employment prospects (Pager 2003). This body of work is distinctive in uncovering the unforeseen and likely unintended consequences of large-scale incarceration. For example, Devah Pager’s (2003) audit study showed that people with criminal records are significantly less likely to be called back when they submit job applications, with African 23 23 American males effectively screened out of even entry-level employment. Such evidence shows both that African Americans continue to experience severe discrimination in the labor market and that a criminal record dramatically reduces employment prospects in even the low-wage labor market. The combined impact of discrimination by race and felon status thus locks many former felons out of the labor market altogether. A body of related work has also examined the impact of criminal punishment with a different lens, focusing more intently on the experiences and understandings of young African American men (Young 2004), particularly those in disadvantaged inner-city housing projects (Venkatesh 2001). Largely ethnographic, this research has shed important insight on the communities most affected by current trends in criminal punishment. As previously noted, we are only beginning to understand how the release of hundreds of thousands of prisoners annually impacts their socioeconomic well-being and that of their communities. Of course, it is difficult to disentangle imprisonment effects from the selection processes that lead to differential rates of incarceration. Experimental methods (Pager 2003; Uggen 2000), panel data models (Kling 2006; Western 2002), and propensity score matching (Massoglia 2005) are among the techniques employed to address selectivity effects in this line of research. For example, Massoglia (2005) utilizes propensity score matching to estimate sizable incarceration effects on mental and physical health at midlife, net of selection into incarceration. Removal from the labor force, disrupted social bonds, and social stigma all work to place released prisoners at the very rear of the labor queue and at the highest risk of poverty. Many return to their communities with few marketable skills, no better than a high school diploma or equivalency, splintered personal relationships with family members (Petersilia 2003), and few of the “weak ties” that non-felons use to obtain employment (Granovetter 1983). Stable 24 24 employment, so critical to successful reintegration (Sampson and Laub 1990; Uggen 2000), also remains elusive for individuals with a felony criminal record (Petersilia 2003). Former prisoners earn significantly less than those who were never incarcerated, though the absolute duration of imprisonment does not appear to exact additional wage penalties (Kling 2006). According to Western (2002), incarceration can reduce wages by 10 to 20 percent and reduce wage growth by 30 percent. In sum, criminal punishment not only decreases the probability of obtaining employment but it reduces future earnings. Conclusion This chapter has described the relationship between criminal punishment and racial and socioeconomic stratification. In doing so, we hope to have shown how criminal punishment acts as a system of disadvantage to further exclude and marginalize already vulnerable social groups. We wish to close on a programmatic note, calling for further research on the impact of collateral sanctions on socioeconomic well-being and racial stratification. As punishment has risen in the past three decades, an ever larger proportion of those in poverty and people of color have become felons and former felons, and hence subject to these “collateral consequences.” As the data and literature reviewed make clear, the impact of crime and punishment lingers long after these felons are released from supervision, either removing or impeding their already circumscribed opportunities. What policy interventions might be undertaken to reduce the impact of criminal sanctions on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequality? We can point to sentencing reform as one avenue. In some areas, such as harsher punishment for crack versus powder cocaine, racial disparities exact a disproportionate toll on communities of color (Beckett, Nyrop, Pfingst, and 25 25 Bowen 2005). More generally, reducing the scope and duration of criminal punishment would reduce the size of the criminal class and the social deficits that accompany criminal sanctions. With regard to collateral consequences, we suggest a thoughtful reassessment of the sanctions that sap the social, economic, and political strength of the poor and disenfranchised. What public safety purpose is served by the lifetime voting ban for former felons in Alabama? Or the lifetime restriction on obtaining a Florida barber’s or cosmetologist’s license? In such instances, prudently extending basic rights -- to work, to vote, and to participate in social life -- may reduce the deleterious impact of crime and punishment on inequality. 26 26 References Ackelsberg, Irv and Amy E. Hirsch. 2002. “Student Loans and Criminal Records: Parents with Past Drug Convictions Lose Access to Higher Education.” Every Door Closed: Barriers Facing Parents with Criminal Records. Report Prepared by the Center for Law and Social Policy and Community Legal Services, Inc. Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beckett, Katherine and Theodore Sasson. 2000. The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Justice in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Beckett, Katherine, Kris Nyrop, Lori Pfingst, and Melissa Bowen. 2005. “Drug Use, Drug Possession Arrests, and the Question of Race: Lessons from Seattle.” Social Problems 52: 419-41. Behrens, Angela. 2004. “Voting--Not Quite a Fundamental Right? A Look at Legal and Legislative Challenges to Felon Disfranchisement Laws.” Minnesota Law Review 89: 231-275. Behrens, Angela, Christopher Uggen & Jeff Manza. 2003. “Ballot Manipulation and the ‘Menace of Negro Domination:’ Racial Threat and Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850-2002.” American Journal of Sociology, 109:559-605. Blalock, Hubert M. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: Jon Wiley and Sons. Blau, Judith and Peter Blau. 1982. "The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime." American Sociological Review, 47:114-129. 27 27 Braithwaite, John. 1981. “The Myth of Social Class and Criminality Reconsidered.” American Sociological Review, 46: 36-57. Blumer, Herbert. 1958. “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.” The Pacific Sociological Review, 1:3-7. Blumstein, Alfred. 1982. “On the Racial Disproportionality of United States’ Prison Population.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 73:1259-1281. Blumstein, Alfred. 1993. “Racial Disproportionality of United States’ Prison Populations Revisited.” University of Colorado Law Review, 64:743-760. Blumstein, Alfred. 1998. “U.S. Criminal Justice Conundrum: Rising Prison Populations and Stable Crime Rates.” Crime and Delinquency, 4:127-135. Bobo, Lawrence D., and Ryan A. Smith. 1998. “From Jim Crow Racism to Laissez-Faire Racism: The Transformation of Racial Attitudes.” Pp. 182–220 in Beyond Pluralism: The Conception of Groups and Group Identities in America, edited by W. F. Katkin, N. Landsman, and A. Tyree. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Bonczar, Thomas P. 2003. “Prevalence of Imprisonment in the U.S. Population, 1974-2001.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Chambliss, William. 1994. “Policing the Ghetto Underclass: The Politics of Law and Law Enforcement.” Social Problems, 41:177-194. Chiricos, Theodore and Charles Crawford. 1995. "Race and Imprisonment: A Contextual Assessment of the Evidence." pp. 281-310 in Ethnicity, Race, and Crime: Perspectives Across Time and Place edited by Darnell Hawkins. Albany: State University of New York Press. 28 28 Clear, Todd, Dina Rose, Elin Waring, Kristen Scully. 2003. "Coercive Mobility and Crime: A Preliminary Examination of Concentrated Incarceration and Social Disorganization." Justice Quarterly, 20:33-64. Clear, Todd, Dina Rose and Judith Ryder. 2001. "Incarceration and the Community: The Problem of Removing and Returning Offenders." Crime and Delinquency, 47:335-351. Curtin, Elizabeth. 2005. “Home Sweet Home for Ex-Offenders.” Pages 111-120 in Civil Penalties, Social Consequences, edited by Christopher Mele and Teresa Miller. New York: Routledge. Damaska, Mirjan A. 1968. “Adverse Legal Consequences of Conviction and Their Removal: A Comparative Study.” The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 59: 347-352. DeLisi, Matt and Bob Regoli. 1999. "Race, Conventional Crime and Criminal Justice: The Declining Importance of Skin Color." Journal of Criminal Justice, 27:549-557. Demeo, Marisa J., and Steven A. Ochoa. 2003. Diminished Voting Power in the Latino Community: The Impact of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws in Ten Targeted States. Los Angeles: MALDEF. Dietrich, Sharon M. 2002. “Criminal Records and Employment: Ex-offenders Thwarted Attempts to Earn a Living for Their Families.” pp. 13-26 in Every Door Closed: Barriers Facing Parents with Criminal Records Center for Law and Social Policy and Community Legal Services, Inc. DiIluio, John, Jr. 1994. "The Question of Black Crime." The Public Interest, 117:3-32. Earl, Jennifer, Sarah A. Soule and John D. McCarthy. 2003. “Protest Under Fire? Explaining the Policing of Protest.” American Sociological Review, 68:581-606. 29 29 Edin, Kathryn, Timothy J. Nelson, and Rechelle Paranal. 2004. “Fatherhood and Incarceration as Potential Turning Points in the Criminal Careers of Unskilled Men.” Pages 46-75 in Imprisoning America: The Social Effects of Mass Incarceration, edited by Mary Pattillo, David Weiman, and Bruce Western. New York: Russell Sage. Elliot, Delbert and Susan Ageton. 1980. “Reconciling Race and Class Differences in Self- Reported and Official Estimates of Delinquency.” American Sociological Review, 45:95- 110. Feeley, Malcolm and Jonathan Simon. 1992. “The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications.” Criminology, 30:449-474. Ferster, Lucian E. and Santiago Aroca. 2005. “Lawyering at the Margins: Collateral Civil Penalties at the Entry and Completion of the Criminal Sentence. Pp. 203-222 in Civil Penalties, Social Consequences, edited by Christopher Mele and Teresa Miller. New York: Routledge. Garland, David. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Granovetter, Mark S. 1983. "The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited." Sociological Theory, 1:203-33. Greenberg, David and Valerie West. 2001. “State Prison Populations and their Growth, 1971- 1991.” Criminology, 39:615-653. Hagan, John and Juliegh Petty Coleman. 2001. "Returning Captives of the American War on Drugs: Issues of Community and Family Reentry." Crime and Delinquency, 47:352-367. 30 30 Hagan, John and Ronit Dinovitzer. 1999. "Children of the Prison Generation: Collateral Consequences of Imprisonmnet for Children and Communities." Crime and Justice, 26: 121-162. Hagan, John and Ruth Peterson. 1995. "Criminal Inequality in America." Pp. 14-36 in Crime and Inequality edited by John Hagan and Ruth Peterson. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Jackson, Pamela. 1989. Minority Group Threat, Crime, and Policing: Social Context and Social Control. New York: Praeger Press. Jackson, Pamela Irving and Leo Carroll. 1987. “Race and the War on Crime: The Sociopolitical Determinants of Municipal Police Expenditures in 90 Non-southern U.S. Cities.” American Sociological Review, 46:290-305. Jacobs, David and Jason Carmichael. 2001. “The Politics of Punishment across Time and Space. A Pooled Time-series Analysis of Imprisonment Rates.” Social Forces, 80:61-91. Kanstroom, Daniel. 2000. “Deportation, Social Control, and Punishment: Some Thoughts about Why Hard Laws Make Bad Cases.” Harvard Law Review, 113:1890-1935. -------. 2005. “Immigration Law as Social Control: How Many People Without Rights Does it Take to make you Feel Secure.” Pp. 161-184 in Civil Penalties, Social Consequences, edited by Christopher Mele and Teresa Miller. New York: Routledge. Kasinitz , Philip (Editor), John H. Mollenkopf, Mary C. Waters. Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the New Second Generation. Keyssar, Alexander. 2000. The Right to Vote. New York: Basic Books. Kling, Jeffery. 2006. “Incarceration Length, Employment and Earnings.” Forthcoming in American Economic Review. 31 31 LaFree, Gary. 1995. “Race and Crime Trends in the United States, 1946-1990.” Pp. 169-193 in Ethnicity, Race, and Crime: Perspectives Across Time and Place edited by Darnell Hawkins. Albany: State University of New York Press. Levi, Robin & Judith Appel. 2003. “Collateral Consequences: Denial of Basic Social Services Based Upon Drug Use.” New York City: Drug Policy Alliance. Lopoo, Leonard M. and Bruce Western. 2005. “Incarceration and the Formation and Stability of Marital Unions.” Journal of Marriage the Family, 67:721–734. Love, Margaret Colgate. 2003. “Starting Over with a Clean Slate: In Praise of a Forgotten Section of the Model Penal Code.” Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30:1705-1741. Lusane, Clarence. 1991. Pipe Dream Blues: Racism and the War on Drugs. Boston: South End Press. Macmillan, Ross. 2000. “Adolescent Victimization and Income Deficits in Early Adulthood: Rethinking the Costs of Criminal Violence from a Life Course Perspective.” Criminology, 31:553-87. -------. 2001. “Violence and the Life Course: Assessing the Consequences of Violent Victimization for Personal and Social Development.” Annual Review of Sociology, 27:1- 22. Massey, Douglas. 1995. “Getting Away with Murder: Segregation and Violent Crime in Urban America.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 143:1203-1232. Massoglia, Michael. 2005. “Health Consequences of Crime and Punishment.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Mauer, Marc. 1999. Race to Incarcerate. New York: The Sentencing Project. 32 32 -------. 2002. “Mass Imprisonment and the Disappearing Vote.” Pages 50-58 in Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment., edited by Marc Mauer and Meda Chesney-Lind. New York: The New Press. May, Bruce E. 1995. “The Character Component of Occupational Licensing Laws: A Continuing Barrier to the Ex-Felon’s Employment Opportunities.” North Dakota Law Review, 71: 187-210. Miller, Jerome G. 1992. Search and Destroy: African-American Males in the Criminal Justice System. Cambridge University Press. Morenoff, Jeffery and Robert Sampson. 1997. "Violent Crime and the Spatial Dynamics of Neighborhood Transition: Chicago." Social Forces, 76:31-64. Myers, Martha A. 1990. “Black Threat and Incarceration in Postbellum Georgia.” Social Forces, 29:373-393. Myers, Samuel Jr. 1993. "Racial Disparities in Sentencing: Can Sentencing Reforms Reduce Discrimination in Punishment?" University of Colorado Law Review, 64:781-808. National Center for Education Statistics. 2000. 1999-2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. Washington D.C. Oliver, Pamela E. and James E. Yocum. 2004. “Explaining State Black Imprisonment Rates 1983-1999.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association. Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology 108:937- 975. Paternoster, Raymond. 1991. Capital Punishment in America. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 33 33 Pettit, Becky and Bruce Western. 2004. “Mass Imprisonment and the Life Course: Race and Class Inequality in U.S. Incarceration.” American Sociological Review, 69:151-69. Rubinstein, Gwen & Debbie Mukamal. 2002. “Welfare and Housing – Denial of Benefits to Drug Offenders.” pp. 37-49 in Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment. Editor, Marc Mauer and Meda Chesney-Lind. New York: The New Press. Sampson, Robert. 1987. "Urban Black Violence: The Effect of Male Joblessness and Family Disruption." American Journal of Sociology, 93:348-382. Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub. 1990. “Crime and Deviance over the Life Course: The Salience of Adult Social Bonds.” American Sociological Review, 55:609-627. Sampson, Robert J. & Janet L. Lauritsen. 1997. “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Crime and Criminal Justice in the United States.” Pp. 311-374 in Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives, edited by Michael Tonry. Volume 21 of Crime and Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sampson, Robert and William Julius Wilson. 1995. “Race, Crime, Urban Inequality.” pp. 37-54 in Crime and Inequality edited by John Hagan and Ruth Peterson. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Samuels, Paul, and Debbie Mukamal. 2003. After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry. A Report on State Legal Barriers Facing People with Criminal Records. New York: Legal Action Center. 34 Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home Parole and Prisoner Reentry. London: Oxford University Press. 34 Savelsberg, Joachim J. 1994. “Knowledge, Domination, and Criminal Punishment.” American Journal of Sociology, 99:911-943. Shaw, Clifford and Henry McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency a d Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Spohn, Cassia and David Holleran. 2000. “The Imprisonment Penalty Paid By Young, Unemployed Black and Hispanic Male Offenders.” Criminology, 38:281-306. Snyder, B. Steven. 1988. “Let My People Run: The Right of Voters and Candidates Under State Laws Barring Felons from Holding Elective Office.” Journal of Law and Politics, 6:543- 577. Steffensmeier, Darrell, Jeffery Ulmer, and John Kramer. 1998. “The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black and Male,” Criminology, 36:763-797. Stucky, Thomas D., Karen Heimer, and Joseph B. Lang. 2005. “Partisan Politics, Electoral Competition and Imprisonment: An Analysis of States Over Time.” Criminology, 43:209- 45. Tittle, Charles, Wayne Villemez and Douglas Smith. 1978. “The Myth of Social Class and Criminality: An Empirical Assessment of the Empirical Evidence.” American Sociological Review, 43:643-56. Tonry, Michael. 1995. Malign Neglect: Race, Crime and Punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Travis, Jeremy. 2002. “Invisible Punishment: An Instrument of Social Exclusion.” Pages 15-36 in Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, edited by Marc Mauer. New York: The New Press. 35 35 Uggen, Christopher. 2000. “Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Criminals: A Duration Model of Age, Employment and Recidivism.” American Sociological Review, 65:529-46. -------. 2001. “Crime and Class.” Volume 5, pages 2906-10 in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes. New York: Elsevier. Uggen, Christopher and Jeff Manza. 2002. “Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States.” American Sociological Review, 67:777- 803. -------. 2004. “Voting and Subsequent Crime and Arrest: Evidence from a Community Sample.” Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 36:193-215. Uggen, Christopher, Sara Wakefield, and Bruce Western. 2005. "Work and Family Perspectives on Reentry." pp. 209-243 in Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America, edited by Jeremy Travis and Christy Visher. New York: Cambridge University Press. Christopher Uggen, Jeff Manza, and Melissa Thompson, 2006. “Citizenship, Democracy, and the Civic Reintegration of Criminal Offenders.” Forthcoming in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. 2001. Educational Achievement and Black-White Inequality. U.S. Department of Justice. 2000a. Women Offenders Revised. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 36 36 U.S. Department of Justice. 2000b. Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Justice. 2001. Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2000 State Court Processing Statistics. -------. 2003. State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 2000 Statistical Tables. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. -------. 2004a. Prisoners in 2003. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. -------. 2004b. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. -------. 2005a. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2004. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. -------. 2005b. Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2003 Statistical Tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2004. Crime in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Venkatesh Sudhir Alladi. 2000. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Western, Bruce. 2002. “The Impact of Incarceration on Wage Mobility and Inequality.” American Sociological Review, 67: 526-546. Western, Bruce and Katherine Beckett. 1999. “How Unregulated is the U.S. Labor Market? The Penal System as a Labor Market Institution.” American Journal of Sociology, 104:1030– 1060. 37 37 Western, Bruce, Jeffery Kling, and David Weiman. 2001. "The Labor Market Consequences of Incarceration." Criminology, 47:410-438. Western, Bruce and Becky Pettit. 2000. “Incarceration and Racial Inequality in Men's Employment.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review,, 54:3-16. Wheelock, Darren. 2005. “Collateral Consequences and Racial Inequality: Felon Status Exclusions as a System of Disadvantage.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. Special issue: Collateral Consequences of Criminal Sanctions, 21: 82-90. Wolfgang, Marvin and Franco Ferracuti. 1967. The Subculture of Violence. London: Tavistock. Wright, Bradley R. Entner, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Richard Miech, and Phil Silva. 1999. “Reconsidering the Relationship between SES and Delinquency: Causation but Not Correlation.” Criminology, 37:401-420. Young, Alford. 2004. The Minds of Marginalized Black Men: Making Sense of Mobility, Opportunity, and Future Life Chances. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 38 38 Table 1. Characteristics of Prison Inmates, Parolees, and Felony Probationers. 39 Education Y ears of Education % with HS Diploma/GED Employment % FT employed % PT/occasional employed % looking for employment % not employed and not Looking for work Sex (percent male) Current Age Age at Admission to Prison Race % Black, non-Hispanic % White, non-Hispanic % Hispanic %Other Family Status % Never Married % Married % with children Number of children Conviction Offense % Violent Offense % Property Offense % Drug Offense % Public Order Offense % Other Offense 10.7 30.6 56.0 12.5 13.7 17.8 93.7 34.8 (10.0) 32.5 (10.4) 47 33 17 Felony U.S. Men Probation 25-34 1995 1997 54.4 87.3 77.0 12.1 3.9 7.0 79.1 100 31.9 29.7 31 12.8 55 68.9 11 13.2 3 5.0 50.8 40.4 26.8 53.0 24.4 19.5 30.8 36.6 35.3 30.7 9.0 12.1 0.5 1.0 Prison Inmates 1974 1986 9.9 10.9 21.1 31.9 61.6 57.3 7.3 11.6 12.5 18.0 18.5 13.0 96.7 95.6 29.6 30.6 (10.0) (9.0) 26.5 27.6 (9.3) (8.7) 49 45 39 40 10 13 Parole 1997 1999 2 3 3 1.2 47.9 23.7 60.2 1.7 (2.0) 52.5 33.3 10.4 1.9 2.0 53.7 55.9 20.3 17.7 60.4 56.0 2.3 2.5 (1.7) (1.9) 64.2 46.4 22.9 14.0 8.8 26.9 3.3 8.9 0.9 3.7 49.2 90.1 34.0 47.3 35.4 16.1 Note: Standard deviations for continuous Sources: Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, Trends in State Parole 1990-1999, and Characteristics of Adults on Probation, 1995 and Statistical Abstract, 1998 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office). Table adapted from Manza and Uggen, 2005. variables in parentheses. 39 Table 2: Occupations Affected by Employment Restrictions in Florida (ACLU) 40 Statute Occupation Statute Occupation F.S. 457.101 Acupuncture F.S. 481.201 Interior Design F.S. 458.301 Medical Practice F.S. 481.311 Landscape Architecture F.S. 458.301 Medical Faculty F.S. 482.001 Pest Control F.S. 459.001 Osteopaths F.S. 483.101 Clinical Laboratories F.S. 460.401 Chiropractors F.S. 483.30 Multiphasic Health Testing Centers F.S. 483.825 Clinical Lab Personnel F.S. 483.825 Clinical Laboratory Personnel F.S. 461.001 Podiatrist F.S. 483.825 Medical Physicists F.S. 462.01 Naturopathy F.S. 484.001 Dispensing of Optical Devices F.S. 463.001 Optometry F.S. 484.0401 Hearing Aid Specialist F.S. 464.001 Nursing F.S. 486.001 Physical Therapy Practice F.S. 465.001 Pharmacy F.S. 489.101 Contracting F.S. 466.001 Dentistry, Hygiene, and Dental Labs F.S. 489.501 Electrical and Alarm System Contracting F.S. 467.001 Midwifery F.S. 489.551 Septic Tank Contracting F.S. 468.1105 Speech-Language Pathologist, Audiologist F.S.490.009 Psychological Services and Clinical F.S. 468.1635 Nursing Home Administration F.S. 491.006 Counseling and Psychotherapy Services F.S. 468.201 Occupational Therapy F.S. 492.105 Professional Geology F.S. 468.3001 Radiologic Technology F.S. 493.6105 Private Investigative, Private Security and Repossessive Services F.S. 468.35 Respiratory Therapy F.S. 112.001 Public Officers and Employees F.S. 468.381 Auctioneers F.S. 112.531 Law Enforcement and Correctional Officers F.S.468.401 Talent Agencies F.S. 112.80 Firefighters F.S. 468.433 Community Association Management F.S. 494.0031 F.S. 494.0061 Mortgage Brokers Mortgage Lenders F.S. 468.451 Athletes’ Agents F.S. 469.009 Asbestos Abatement F.S. 468.501 Dietetics and Nutrition Practice F.S. 469.409 Professional Fundraising Consultant F.S. 468.520 Employee Leasing Agency F.S. 496.410 Professional Solicitors F.S. 468.601 Building Code Administrators F.S. 497.433 Funeral and Cemetery Services F.S. 468.70 Athletic Trainers F.S. 501.605 Telephone Sellers F.S.468.80 F.S. 469.001 Orthotics, Prosthetics, Pedorthics F.S. 516.05 Consumer Finance F.S. 469.001 Asbestos Abatement F.S. 517.12 Securities Transactions F.S. 470.001 Funeral Directing F.S. 320.27 Motor Vehicle Dealers F.S. 470.001 Embalming F.S. 648.27 Bail Bond Agents and Runners F.S. 470.001 Direct Disposition F.S. 310.071 (Boat) Pilots F.S. 471.001 Engineering F.S. 484.056 Dispensing of Optical Devices and Hearing Aids F.S. 472.001 Land Surveying and Mapping F.S. 476.024 Barbering F.S. 473.301 Public Accountancy F.S. 477.012 Cosmetology F.S. 474.201 Veterinary Medical Practice F.S. 478.41 Electrolysis F.S. 475.001 Real Estate Broker, Salespersons, Schools and Appraisers F.S. 480.031 Massage Practice F.S. 481.201 Architecture 40 Figure 1. Correctional Populations in the United States, 1980-2003. 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 41 Parole Prison Jail Probation Year Probation Jail Prison Parole 41 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number of Persons Figure 2. Race and Ethnicity of U.S. Males Age 25-34 versus U.S. Prisoners Hispanic 17% Other 3% 42 African American 47% White 33% Other 5% African American 13% Hispanic 13% White 69% 42 Figure 3. Poverty Status of State Prison Inmates 1974-2004 70% 60% 700,000 600,000 43 50% 500,000 40% 30% 20% 10% 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0% 0 % Below Individual Poverty Line Number Below Poverty Line 43 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Figure 4. Estimated Percentage of U.S. Residents Aged 18 and Over in Poverty that are State or Federal Prison or Jail Inmates, 1974-2002. 44 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% % of Black Poor that are Prison or Jail Inmates % of Nonblack Poor that are Inmates 44 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Figure 5. Serious Violent Victimization by Race, 1973-2003 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 45 Year White Black 45 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Serious Violent Victimization per 1000 Figure 6. Personal and Burglary Victimization by Income, 2003 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 46 0-7.5K 7.5K-15K 15K-25K 25K-35K 35K-50K Annual Household Income Personal Burglary 50K-75K 75K+ 46 Rate (per 1,000 persons/households) Figure 7. Criminal Deportations, 1908-2003. 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 47 Year 47 BOOK I USE FOR SCHOOL INFO: 6 Violence as a Social Problem Man with gun walking through destroyed building in Gaza City, Gaza Strip. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images Chapter Outline 6.1 Why Violence Is a Social Problem 6.2 Violence Within Families 6.3 Violence in the Workplace 6.4 Violence in Communities 6.5 Global Violence 6.6 Theoretical Perspectives on Violence 6.7 Solutions to Violence 6.8 Using Sociological Tools to End Violence Summary & Conclusion In February 2012, a Half Moon Bay, California, man was sentenced to 3 years in prison after dragging his 82-year-old grandmother from her car and repeatedly punching her in the face and slamming her head against the vehicle after becoming angered that she was driving too slowly (Noack, 2012). On February 17, 2012, in Long Beach, California, as Deputy Special Agent-in-Charge Kevin Kozak counseled Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Ezequiel Garcia about his job performance, Garcia allegedly opened fire with his employer-issued service weapon, peppering his boss with multiple gunshot wounds all over his body (Manzer, 2012). A third employee intervened and shot Garcia dead at the scene. A former female gang member from Great Britain openly discussed the prevalence of sexual violence against women, who often accept rape as the price to pay for membership in gangs. She told The Guardian that the problem of rape in British communities has escalated to the point that being raped is considered normal among young women seeking acceptance by gangs (Townsend, 2012). On February 17, 2012, Amine El Khalifi was arrested near the U.S. Capitol Building with an automatic weapon, wearing a vest packed with what he thought were explosives. After monitoring him for a year, FBI agents closed in and charged him with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against government property. Authorities said that he planned to shoot his way into the Capitol and detonate bombs, reportedly telling his interrogators that he "would be happy killing 30 people" (Howell, 2012). The social problem of violence in families, the workplace, communities, and the world is a complex and frightening one that sociologists and other social scientists have attempted to explain with a complex interaction of social, cultural, political, and economic forces. Understanding why people resort to, and often accept, violence in their social interactions with others is not an easy task. Similarly, there are no simple preventative measures or solutions to the challenge of violence in society. The purposes of this chapter are to describe and understand the multifaceted nature of violence in the home, workplace, community, and world; to understand probable causes and theoretical explanations for violence; and to evaluate a range of potential solutions to the problem. Finally, we will look at specific examples of how sociology researchers are working to address the issue of violence. 6.1 Why Violence Is a Social Problem The World Health Organization (WHO), an international agency, defines violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, or another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation" (World Health Organization, 2002). The WHO's definition qualifies violence as a social problem—as described in Chapter 1—in that it represents a global social pattern from which millions of people worldwide suffer. In the United States alone, violence leads to about 51,000 deaths per year, while globally, violence accounts for about 1.5 million deaths per year. In addition to death, violence results in injury, psychological trauma, and neglect at every level of society, including those in power. As the examples in this chapter's introduction illustrated, violence occurs in many contexts—including those most intimate to perpetrators and their victims. Due to its variances and widespread affects, curbing violence as a social problem often perplexes lawmakers, enforcers, and social scientists. Yet, there are many community services, social programs, and legislative initiatives aimed at both preventing and limiting the amount of violence experienced by both local and global communities. 6.2 Violence Within Families Young child holding a doll sees parents downstairs fighting. Sturti/Vetta/Getty Images Violence within families can take several forms and is a prevalent social problem in the United States. Violence at home and within families is a pervasive social problem that is prevalent in the United States. This type of violence is alternatively called family violence or domestic violence. We can consider several forms of violence in this category, including child maltreatment, elder abuse, sibling abuse, and intimate partner or spousal abuse. Family violence tends to differ from other crimes because it is usually not a sudden or isolated incident. Instead, it is a frightening cycle of events that unfold over time with escalating psychological and physical trauma outcomes. Without intervention, family violence often becomes more frequent and gets worse rather than better over time. Researchers have identified a long list of correlates, causes, and markers of family violence including alcoholism and drinking (Hirschel & Hutchison, 2011), pressures at work (Fox, Fonesca, & Bao, 2011), violence previously inflicted upon the perpetrator, and a number of personal traits and characteristics of both victims and offenders. Specifically, D. G. Dutton and R. P. Kropp (2000) explored factors such as antisocial behaviors and attitudes; relational stability; employment stability; mental health and personality disorders; motivation toward treatment; and overall attitudes toward women, children, and the elderly. While some researchers examine situational factors and internal states of abusers and victims, others use overt behaviors as markers—including animal abuse (McPhedran, 2009); threats of homicide or suicide, ownership of or access to weapons, displaying dependence on intimate others, escalation of reckless behavior, and hostage taking (Hilton, Harris, & Rice, 2001). In this section, we will examine the most prevalent types of family violence—child maltreatment, elder and parent abuse, sibling abuse, and intimate partner violence. Child Maltreatment: Physical and Sexual Abuse Child maltreatment includes any type of violence or neglect related to a child under the age of 18 by a parent, family member, or anyone serving in a custodial role (such as a teacher, coach, or minister). Child maltreatment typically takes four forms: physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect. Although the most common form of child maltreatment is neglect—the caregiver's failure to provide adequate attention and supervision, food and nutrition, medical care, and a safe and clean living environment—for this chapter on violence as a social problem, we will focus on physical and sexual abuse. Girl sitting in a corner clasping her hands around her legs, resting her head on her knees, and a rag doll is across from her. Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock Child abuse contributes to other social problems. Child physical and sexual violence is a widespread problem with far-reaching societal costs. State and local agencies process more than 3 million reports of child maltreatment each year in the United States (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, 2008). More than 84 children are treated for injuries related to violence in U.S. emergency departments every hour (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2011). However, violence and sexual abuse against children are underreported crimes, and these figures do not reflect the reality of this social problem. Childhood maltreatment of any type negatively impacts victims' self-perception and often results in adult dysfunctional submissive behavior (avoiding speaking up for oneself or getting one's own needs met when they compete with another's needs) (Berber & Odaci, 2012). In other words, children who are maltreated often interact in their adult relationships from a place of poor self-perception and self-concept, and as a result do little to get their own needs met. Instead, they submit to the needs and wishes of others, making them targets for continued mistreatment and abuse if they become involved with the type of individual that is likely to exploit them. The problem of child abuse contributes to the incidence of other social problems as well. For example, there is a high rate of substance abuse among children that have experienced maltreatment at home (Singh, Thornton, Tonmyr, 2011). In addition, research indicates that youth that have experienced violence are more likely than those who haven't to perpetrate violence on others later in life and to become juvenile or adult criminal offenders (Widom & Maxfield, 2001). In other words, violence becomes a learned problem-solving technique that is transmitted from one generation to the next in a phenomenon known as the cycle of violence. Victims of sexual abuse experience lowered self-esteem, withdrawal, suicidal ideations, adult sexual dysfunction, and lack of trust in adults as outcomes (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2011a). Further, there is some disturbing evidence of an interrelationship among childhood sexual abuse, compulsive sexual behavior, depression, intimate partner violence, and drug use among adults (Parsons, Grov, & Golub, 2012). In other words, childhood sexual abuse may lead to a complex interaction of individual and social problems. Clearly, violence and sexual abuse targeted at children are pervasive problems that come with a variety of negative social costs. A Closer Look: How Do Societal and Personal Problems Interact to Result in Child Abuse? In post-Katrina New Orleans the problem of parental drug use and child abuse is growing. As more parents use drugs, more children are abused, and little help is available to anyone. Watch this video and consider the link between the two. Consider the complexity of this particular problem. Although it's easy to blame the outcome on irresponsible parenting, what social problems are contributing to these parents' neglect and physical violence toward their children? Would providing more resources to these parents help prevent the current cycle of both drug and child abuse? What resources could turn this around? Who is victimized? Children in the age group of birth to one year have the highest rate of victimization. Boys and girls appear to be victimized at approximately the same rate; and the largest numbers of abused children are white (41.5%), followed by Hispanic (20.8%) and African American (16.6%) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], Administration of Children and Families, 2012). Sexual abuse of children is one of the most underreported forms of child maltreatment, because children are fearful of telling anyone about incidents of sexual abuse; further, some experts maintain that the process of validating reports of sexual abuse is cumbersome and potentially unreliable (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2011a). Who commits violence against children? Perpetrators of physical violence are most often the parents of the victim, and parents most likely to abuse their children are poor or unemployed, have experienced abuse themselves, and/or lack basic parenting skills and understanding of child development (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children and Families, 2008). Recently, researchers examining the predictors and correlates to child abuse have focused on mothers with mental health issues (Westad & McConnell, 2012); parenting stress, high expectations for a child's maturity and ability, and the attributions parents make about the intentionality of a child's misbehavior (Haskett, Scott, Grant, Ward, & Robinson, 2003); young parents, parental substance abuse, and lack of a support system (Fallon, Ma, Black, & Wekerle, 2011). Characteristics of sexual abusers are much more difficult to isolate than those of physical offenders. Children are victimized by immediate and extended family members as well as by individuals outside of the family such as school personnel, babysitters, and coaches; however, parents and family members remain the most likely offenders (Pennsylvania Child Welfare Training Program, 2012). There is no profile of adults that commit sexual violence against children; they represent every socioeconomic status, occupation, education level, and ethnicity. Males are responsible for about 90% of sexual assaults against children, and most do not have criminal backgrounds. Although females are responsible for fewer than 10% of these crimes overall, they are responsible for the majority of offenses committed against children under the age of six (Snyder, 2000). A Closer Look: A High Profile Case of Sexual Abuse In November 2011, former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was arrested on charges of child molestation. Prosecutors allege that Sandusky preyed on young boys affiliated with his charitable organization he had established in 1977 to support and mentor at-risk youth. Within days of Sandusky's arrest, the Penn State board of trustees terminated the president of the renowned university as well as the beloved head coach of the football team, Joe Paterno. Although we caution you that the contents of the indictment against Sandusky are graphic and disturbing, consider reading the document here. Consider the wide range of victims. Who is directly, and who is indirectly affected? Assess the far-reaching prices that people and institutions are paying for the alleged offenses described. What are the consequences associated with child maltreatment in general and sexual abuse in particular, and what are their unforeseen costs? Elder, Parent, and Sibling Abuse Although child maltreatment is a clear and serious social problem, other forms of violence occur at home and within families—including adults that abuse their elderly parents or grandparents, children abusing their parents, and siblings engaging in violent behavior with one another. A pair of young hands clasping an older pair of hands in comfort. iStockphoto/Thinkstock Elder abuse is an underreported crime. Elder abuse is a growing social problem that involves sexual or physical violence, neglect, and abandonment, and financial exploitation against older people. There are three broad categories of elder abuse: domestic (that which occurs in and around the home, typically perpetrated by family members or friends responsible for the elder's care), institutional (abuse that occurs in care facilities), and self-neglect or abuse. Like child abuse, elder abuse is an underreported crime; only about one in 14 cases (excluding cases of self-neglect) are brought to the attention of authorities (Pillemer & Finkelhor, 1988). About a half million cases of elder abuse are reported each year (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2003), with women being reported as victims more often than men. There are no other clear patterns of who is abused; the problem touches all geographic areas, ethnic, and religious groups. Why do people abuse the vulnerable elderly? Often, abusers have personal problems such as alcoholism and drug abuse, legal issues, or mental illness (Amstadter, Cisler, McCauley, Hernandez, Muzzy, & Acierno, 2011) and are dependent on the persons for whom they care. They use violence as a means to induce their victims' compliance. For example, the man convicted of elder abuse that we introduced you to in the opening of this chapter had a suspended driver's license and was dependent on his grandmother for rides. Second, experts attribute some elder abuse to caregiver stress. Those family members, friends, or even professionals responsible for providing significant care to older adults may experience frustration, burnout, and depression—and take out their burden in dysfunctional ways on the elder (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2002). Another theory of why people mistreat the elderly is related to the cycle of violence discussed earlier in this chapter: Elders that abused their own children are more likely to be abused in their later years by family members. And there appears to be some association between the nature of the elder's condition and the likelihood of abuse—with dementia being a primary correlate (Fitzpatrick & Hamill, 2011). Conversely, elders with strong cognitive functioning and social skills are less likely to be abused or exploited (Pinsker, McFarland, & Pachana, 2010). Closely related to the problem of elder abuse is parent abuse, which is any act of a child intended to cause physical, psychological, or financial harm to a parent (Cottrell, 2001). Even young, healthy parents are victimized by their children's violent behavior. Physical abuse toward parents may take the form of hitting, kicking, shoving, or use of a weapon to intimidate, injure, or kill the parent. Boys and girls both perpetrate violence against their parents—by some estimates, with similar frequency. However, children larger in size tend to be viewed as more abusive than smaller ones. And, like other forms of domestic violence, elder abuse appears to be correlated with the perpetrator's substance abuse and criminal activity (Cottrell, 2001). Mothers tend to be abused more often than fathers, and the majority of reported parent abuse cases occur in single parent families. The impact of any type of family violence is clear and severe, and cases of children abusing their parents are no exception. This type of violence results in extreme shame, isolation, depression, and frequently, problems for the victimized parent at work (Holt, 2009). Sibling abuse, the infliction of physical, sexual, or emotional harm on a brother or sister, may represent the most prevalent form of violence in families (Eriksen & Jensen, 2009). Among cases reported in a national study with a representative sample, 14% of children were repeatedly physically attacked by a sibling; 5% hit hard enough to result in bruises, cuts, broken teeth, and broken bones; and 2% were hit with objects such as rocks, toys, shovels, and knives (Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2006). An aspect of this social problem worthy of attention is that sibling violence is often thought of as "kids just horsing around" or the result of common sibling rivalry—and it is often not considered a severe issue with serious implications. In addition to the physical harm caused by sibling violence, David Finkelhor, et al.'s research indicates that there are severe emotional impacts as well, including anxiety and depression, sleeplessness, thoughts of suicide or harming others, and fears of the dark. Intimate Partner Violence Intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to actual or threatened violent crimes against people by their current or former spouses, cohabiting partners, boyfriends, or girlfriends. Although some of us may tend to think of intimate relationships as a source of comfort, safety, and happiness, others experience extreme violence in their closest relationships. Women tend to be victimized more often than men by both same- and opposite-sex partners; 3 in 10 women and 1 in 10 men in the United States have been raped, physically injured, or stalked by a partner (Black, Basile, Breiding, Merrick, Chen, & Stevens, 2011). IPV results in close to 3,000 deaths annually; 70% of these deaths are women (Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011). Although most IPV research focuses on heterosexual couples, the problem is evident among same-sex partners as well. According to 2011 data from the Department of Justice same-sex cohabitating female and male couples actually experience more violence than opposite-sex couples, but as in opposite-sex relationships, males remain the most likely perpetrators of violence among same-sex partnerships. Moreover, we know that all racial minorities experience more IPV than White persons (U.S. Department of Justice, 2000). Among ethnic minorities living in the United States, American Indian/Alaska Native women report more violence than any other group, and Asian/Pacific Islander women report less abuse of any kind. There appears to be no difference between the frequency of abuse reported by Hispanic individuals and non-Hispanics non-Whites, but Hispanic women are more likely than non-Hispanic non-White women to report rape by a partner. A Closer Look: How to Recognize Intimate Partner Violence Victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) may not realize they are being abused until it is too late. It is common to make excuses for abusers, especially if they apologize after incidents. However, abusers often have negative behaviors early on that indicate abuse may occur at some point. Review the checklist of characteristics of abusers found here and be able to recognize red flags. Consider the characteristics of an abuser. Do you know anyone who displays any red flag characteris-tics? What would you do if a friend confided that he or she was the victim of IPV? Risk factors associated with IPV strongly suggest a variation on the cycle of violence effect that we previously discussed. Women and men that were physically assaulted as children are not only more likely to perpetrate abuse on others but also are more likely to report being victimized by physical abuse (U.S. Department of Justice, 2000). In other words, people who were mistreated as children accept this form of treatment and are tolerant of violence and abuse in their later-life intimate relationships. Unmarried women are at greater risk for IPV than married ones, but the same does not seem to be true for men. Controlling behavior, coupled with verbal and/or emotional abuse by the perpetrator, is the strongest predictor of violence toward women in intimate partnerships. Status disparities also contribute to the risk of IPV in opposite sex couples. For example, women with higher levels of education than their male partners are more likely to be abused than women in relationships with men of the same or higher educational attainment. Finally, a growing social concern is the high incidence of intimate partner aggression, which often leads to violence, among Afghan and Iraqi war veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (Teten, Schumacher, Taft, Stanley, Kent, Bailey, Dunn, & White, 2010). Woman with bruise marks on her face looking at her reflection in a mirror. iStockphoto/Thinkstock Photos Women are more often victims of intimate partner violence. IPV results in severe negative consequences at the individual and societal levels. Injury and costly medical treatment are some of the more serious consequences commonly associated with domestic abuse. However, research also indicates that victims in abusive partnerships have difficulty maintaining stable employment (Crowne, Juon, Ensminger, Burrell, McFarlane, & Duggan, 2011). Abused partners sometimes experience depression, extreme parenting stress, anxiety, disruptive behavior disorders, substance abuse, and psychiatric disorders at higher rates than people in nonviolent relationships (Affifi, MacMillan, Cox, Asmundson, Stein, & Sareen, 2009). In summary, violence in the home is a serious social problem. We have reviewed the most common types of domestic violence: physical and sexual abuse of children by parents and custodial adults, elder and parent abuse, sibling abuse, and intimate partner violence. Further, you now know some of the factors associated with these disturbing types of violence and a range of negative consequences resulting from family violence. Although our closest and intimate relationships should be safe, reassuring ones, the data we've reviewed and discussed here indicate that, unfortunately, for many people in society, they are not. Now, we turn to a discussion of violence perpetrated outside the home—in the workplace, in the community, online, and more globally. 6.3 Violence in the Workplace Workplace violence is any act or threat of real violence, harassment, intimidation, or any other threatening, disruptive behavior that occurs at work. Workplace violence takes the form of threats, physical assault, and even homicide. It affects and involves employees, clients, customers, and visitors to workplaces. It may result from random acts by outsiders (for example, in the course of a robbery) or as a result of internal disputes among employees or between employees and outsiders. For example, recall the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent you read about in the introduction to this chapter that opened fire on his supervisor during a performance appraisal. However, workplace violence is not always related to actual work issues. For example, in October 2011, eight customers and employees of a beauty salon in Seal Beach, California, were fatally wounded when the ex-husband of one of the stylists went on a shooting rampage after being denied custody of the couple's son. The news account of this tragedy found here offers some illustration about how the ongoing nature of family violence can affect the workplace. Nearly 2 million Americans report being victims of workplace violence every year, and in 2010, 506 homicides were related to workplace violence (United States Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, 2012). Like all other forms of violence, the problem often goes unreported out of fear for escalated violence. The after-effects of workplace violence cost U.S. businesses an estimated $36 billion a year for things like medical and psychiatric care, lost business and productivity, repairs and cleanup, higher insurance rates, and increased security costs. Of course, there is no dollar amount that can be placed on human lives that are injured or taken as a result of workplace violence. Next, let's think about the causes and correlates of the workplace violence epidemic. A Closer Look: Recognizing the Potential for Workplace Violence Individuals who are likely to commit violence in the workplace often give off warning signs before acting out. If red flags are noticed and reported, fewer workplace violence incidents might occur. Workplace Violence Research Institute studied hundreds of incidents to determine warning signs that someone might be at risk for committing violence in the workplace. Researchers at the institute have compiled a list of pre-violence indicators. Read the signs here: https://www.rose-hulman.edu/media/1268875/RESPECT-Pre-IncidentIndicators24Jun09.pdf . Next, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRVWdCTc0E&feature=related. How do social issues unrelated to work exacerbate workplace aggression? In what ways might the communication patterns and technologies that people rely on in the workplace contribute to dys-functional or violent behavior? Consider whether you have ever witnessed any of these indicators in coworkers, classmates, or yourself. While these signs may be helpful in preventing violence in the workplace, could they lead to false accusations or stereotyping of coworkers? As the experts in the video in "A Closer Look: Recognizing the Potential for Workplace Violence" suggested, a wide range of factors can lead to workplace violence. In addition to some of the correlates discussed in the video, there is also some evidence that these work-related circumstances might contribute to the problem: Exchanging money with the public Working with people that suffer from mental illness, substance addiction or abuse problems, or volatile and disruptive behavior disorders Working alone, in isolated areas, or in locations with high crime rates Providing services and care to others Working where alcohol is served or consumed OSHA has identified several jobs that carry high risk for violence: delivery drivers, health care professionals, public service employees, customer service agents, and law enforcement personnel. 6.4 Violence in Communities Although community violence tends to be linked with urban areas such as South Central Los Angeles, New York City, or Miami Beach where drug trade influences incidences of violent crime, violence strikes communities large and small, in all regions. For example, an organization known as CeaseFire in the small community of Rockford, Illinois, promotes nonviolence in response to an escalated incidence of shootings and gang-related violence in that city (WIFR, 2012). Such community violence affects children, adults, and the elderly and is defined as exposure to acts of interpersonal violence committed by individuals that are not intimately related to the victim (National Center for Children Exposed to Violence, 2012). Typical examples of community violence include sexual assault, homicide, use of weapons, muggings, the sounds of gunshots, hate crimes, property crimes, and issues such as the presence of criminal gangs, drugs, and racial tension. Although crime rates in the United States overall tend to have fallen over the past 20 years, these issues represent serious social problems when they occur with any frequency. Gun violence, for instance, claims the lives of more than 30,000 people in the United States annually. According to the FBI, in the United States in 2010, the two most violent communities were Los Angeles (with close to 4 million violent crimes reported) and New York (over 8 million reported). In 2009, 81,820 rapes were reported as either attempted or committed in the United States; and in 2008, there were over 16,000 murders (U.S. Census, 2012c). In 2010, over 10 million incidents of property crime were reported in the United States, resulting in losses of over $15 billion (FBI, 2012). Although some of these statistics include reports of domestic violence, violence of any type has a negative impact on the vitality of our communities. Particularly serious community violence problems that are distinguished from domestic violence involve hate crimes, murder, rape, and gang activity. Amish man with beard wearing a straw hat stands among a group of other Amish men wearing straw hats. Richard Ellis/Getty Images Twelve men were charged with hate crimes, which are motivated by biases, in the "Amish beard-cutting attacks." Violent Hate Crimes Also known as bias-motivated violence, hate crimes take place when an offender targets a victim because of his or her membership in a particular social group, such as a racial group, religion, sexual orientation, gender identification, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, sex, social status, or political affiliation. (Hate crimes are discussed as they relate to sexual orientation in Chapter 5). Hate crimes are not new; Ku Klux Klan activities in the Southern United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s represent an early example of organized, and often violent, bias-motivated community activity. More recently, in 2011, 12 men were arrested in the so-called "Amish beard-cutting attacks" and charged with hate crimes for committing an act considered deeply offensive within the Amish community against individuals with whom they disagreed on fundamental religious issues (Associated Press, 2012). In another example, three "Occupy Oakland" protesters were arrested in Oakland, California, and charged with a hate crime after they physically assaulted a woman and made vulgar references about her sexual orientation when she told them not to protest in her neighborhood (NBC, 2012). And, recently, there is a growing focus on violent hate crimes toward the elderly (Beckford, 2012). The Internet and widespread use of social media have given rise to new forms of hate crimes such as electronic aggression (the use of technology to harass, threaten, target, or embarrass another person) and digital spying. Although very little research has been conducted on cyber-harassment, experts indicate that it is often a precursor to violent behavior, especially among young people (Hemphill, 2012). For instance, a former Rutgers University student was convicted of bias intimidation against his gay roommate, who committed suicide days after he discovered his roommate was using digital equipment to record his sexual activities (Glaberson, 2012). A Closer Look: Hate Crimes The events of September 11, 2011, contributed to an increase in hate crimes against Muslims around the world and especially in the United States. In the first year after the September 11 attacks, anti-Islamic hate crimes in the United States rose more than 1,000%. Read a report on hate crimes against Muslims between September 11, 2001, and October 11, 2002, here: http://www.mbda.gov/sites/default/files/September_11_Backlash.pdf, and then read a more recent article on hate crimes against Muslims here. How has post-9/11 anti-Muslim and anti-Arab backlash and discrimination affected local and global communities? How are hate crimes related to fear and/or ignorance? Why do some individuals and groups believe that violence directed at Muslims, as a form of revenge, is acceptable more than a decade after 9/11? What efforts are being made to smooth over tensions between Muslims and other religious communities in the United States? Murder Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being, distinguished from other types of criminal homicides in which premeditation is absent (such as manslaughter or self defense). Murder is generally considered one of the most serious of societal crimes for a range of reasons—from the nature of the violence associated with the commission of murder to the enormous grief and other negative impacts that murders have on surviving community members. Poverty, unemployment, drug use, and closure of major employers all tend to coexist with elevated murder rates; however, it is difficult to establish whether these factors cause the problem or simply coexist with the problem. Murder rates in America are highest in urban African American communities and in the Southern United States (Schneider, 2009) and in communities where poverty and unemployment are high. For example, once-thriving industrial U.S. cities like Gary, Indiana; Youngstown, Ohio; and Camden, New Jersey, far outpace the national average for murder—a newspaper columnist from Youngstown observed that "if people were murdered [here] at the national average, the city would have met its annual quota for homicides one cold night in January" (de Souza, 2007). Indeed, sociologists have identified income inequality as a primary correlate of community murder rates. The greater the disparity, the higher community murder rates tend to be (Babones, 2008). Additionally, murder rates are higher in communities with higher than average rates of drug use (Palermo, Smith, DiMotto, & Christopher, 1992). We also know that murder is a highly gendered form of violent crime, with male offender/male victim homicides accounting for 63% of all cases. But these generalizations, based on data reported to federal agencies by community organizations and law enforcement agencies, do not explain all murders that occur in our communities. Sexual Assault and Rape Sexual assault is a sexual act committed on another person without his or her consent. Examples of sexual assault include inappropriate touching and forced kissing. One particularly violent form of sexual assault is rape, the instance of forced oral, vaginal, or anal penetration without the victim's consent. All forms of sexual violence represent serious community problems that threaten the security of men, women, and children. In this section, we are referring to sexual violence committed by and against adults over the age of 18; child sexual abuse was discussed earlier in this chapter. Victims of rape may be either male or female; however, the FBI's definition of rape was only updated to include male victims in early 2012 (Johnson, 2012). For this reason, many experts believe that rape statistics have underestimated the scope of the problem for decades—but agree that more women than men are victimized by sexual violence and rape. According to U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics, 99% of rape perpetrators are male, and 91% of victims are female. Individuals may be raped by those familiar to them, as in cases of date rape or even by their spouses and partners, or by strangers. However, most perpetrators of adult sexual violence are known to their victims (National Institute of Justice, 2012). Like all violent crimes, rape is underreported, and some groups such as the American Medical Association believe that it is the most underreported. The FBI estimates that about 8% of reported rapes and sexual assaults in the United States are unfounded. Researchers have discovered some general risk factors for rape. However, like those associated with murder, these variables should be read with caution. People of all economic levels, educational background, ethnicities, and geographic location are at risk. First, adult alcohol dependence and heavy alcohol use or binge drinking are common risk factors, based on analysis of previous cases with both male and female victims (Martino, Collins, & Ellickson, 2004). Victim marijuana use may be another potent correlate. Further, there is some evidence that women who were sexually abused before the age of 12 and then again between the ages of 13 and 17 are at much greater risk for sexual violence than other women (Siegel & Williams, 2001). Moreover, women who are sexually active as children and those with at least one alcoholic parent are at risk. Rape and sexual violence victims are at high risk for mental health problems and emotional problems. These may include acute stress disorder or posttraumatic stress disorder (Elklit & Christiansen, 2010), depression and depressive symptoms (Gelaye, Arnold, Williams, Goshu, & Berhane, 2009), fear, guilt, feelings of powerlessness in all aspects of their lives, inability to trust others, mood swings, and diminished satisfaction with their personal relationships. Additionally, they experience physical health symptoms including trauma, skeletal muscle tension, illnesses of the reproductive system, sleep disorders, gastrointestinal distress, and diminished sexual performance (Hewitt, 1980). Rape victims are at heightened risk for revictimization. A Closer Look: Is Violence Against Women Rooted in Gender Socialization? In this dynamic talk given at TEDWomen http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html, Tony Porter makes some compelling and sometimes entertaining arguments about the ways in which men are socialized into "the man box," or social norms for men. He goes on to discuss the darker side of masculine socialization and its relationship to violence against women. Porter makes a direct correlation between gender norms and violence, especially sexual violence. How is the prevalence of "the man box" evidenced in our society? Do you think there is a "woman box" that has contributed to flaws in the socialization of women? To what extent do you believe that gender socialization is related to the rape and sexual violence problem in America? Gang Violence Los Angeles Police gang unit official searches a car that belongs to the group of suspected gang members who are standing nearby with their hands clasped behind their backs. Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images Some communities do not want to acknowledge gang problems publicly. The gang violence problem in America's communities is heavily related to the lingering and pervasive problem of racial tension and divide. Most gangs are racially homogenous, or grouped by race, such as black gangs (like the well-known Crips and Bloods and their many offshoot groups), Hispanic gangs (for example, the Mara Salvatrucha ("MS13"), Mexican Mafia, and Latin King groups), White gangs (for example, the Aryan Brotherhood), and Asian gangs (such as the Asian Boyz and Wah Ching groups). Some are more heterogenous and focus on individual member commitment to the gang's activities (for example, drug trafficking) or hatred of another group (for example, White supremacist groups). Although gangs are predominantly male in membership by a 2:1 margin, females affiliate with organized criminal enterprises as well. Alternatively known as criminal gangs or street gangs, gangs are self-formed groups of peers with mutual interests, clear leadership and organization, which act collectively to achieve group goals, usually including illegal activity and control of a particular territory or enterprise (Miller, 1992). For example, most gang activity is targeted toward generating revenue from drug trade. However, gangs are involved in many forms of street crime, including extortion, kidnapping, robbery, and theft. They traffic drugs inside and outside the prison system, and gangs are prevalent within U.S. prisons (Fleisher & Decker, 2001). Gangs take over territories in communities under the guise of providing protection for residents and business owners (usually from the gang itself) and as a front for extorting money from those they "protect" (Cantrell, 1992). About 8% of U.S. youth affiliate with gangs by age 17, and that number is as high as 30% in larger cities and those labeled "gang-problem" communities (National Gang Center, 2012). One byproduct of gang activity is violence, often targeted toward innocent people and property. Identifying the true extent of gang violence and criminal activities is difficult, because many communities do not want to acknowledge publicly that they have gang problems. Thus, police often do not label crimes as "gang-related" (National Gang Center, 2012). Although the statistics vary according to city, experts estimate that 70%–90% of all community violence committed by adolescents and young adults is attributable to gang membership (Thornberry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 2004). We also know that violence toward community members is typically associated with recruiting and initiating new gang members. When violence is targeted toward innocent community members, the implications of the social problem of organized crime become quite prominent. For example, read this news account of the violent crime spree reported during Buffalo, New York's "gang initiation week" in 2010: http://buffalonews.com/2010/07/30/violence-rules-during-initiation-week/. Researchers and law enforcement officials have isolated some common risk factors for youth gang involvement (Howell & Egley, 2005). Risk factors for gang membership and violence include previous involvement in serious violence and delinquency—particularly drug and alcohol abuse. Youths in neighborhoods with gang presence and access to firearms and drugs are more likely to join gangs than those who do not. Other factors that seem to predispose young people to gang affiliation and eventual violence include problematic relationships with parents, poor family management or absent parents, poor school performance and negative labeling by teachers, and association with aggressive peers that engage in delinquency and that may already be gang-affiliated. As with many social problems, the red flags and risk factors tend to become more powerful as they add up. 6.5 Global Violence Global violence is a great paradox. Much of the world's violence is committed as a measure to protect the lives, securities, or freedoms of some individuals at the expense of others. For example, the Armenian Genocide, which occurred in post-World War I Ottoman Empire (modern-day Turkey), was an effort to exterminate Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire based on the premise that they were a threat to the empire's security. In the 1990s and 2000s, the brutal Al-Qaeda–affiliated Somalian militia Shebab has been accused of brainwashing and training young suicide bombers as a way of driving out international military presence in the African nation intended to stabilize the war-torn region. And the war on terrorism resulted in the loss of far more lives than were lost in the trigger events—the World Trade Center and U.S. Pentagon attacks on September 11, 2001. War and terrorism have been among the world's most significant and consequential social problems since the beginning of time. War War is an organized, armed, and often prolonged conflict between or among states, nations, or other parties in pursuit of some objective or objectives. War is characterized by extreme social disruption, violence, and usually death rates within the affected regions. The many wars that have affected the world over the course of history are too numerous and complex to list here, but several serve as prominent examples—World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam Conflict, and the most recent war on terrorism and its related international military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Woman standing in remains of a destroyed home in a suburb of Gaza City, Gaza Strip. Spencer Platt/Getty Images Conflicts over land or resources are the causes of some wars. Some wars are caused by conflicts over land and similar resources. For example, the long Israeli-Palestinian conflict centers, in part, on the role of the contested West Bank and Gaza Strip as locations for a Palestinian state. Oil-rich Kuwait was seized by Iraq over this valuable resource in 1990. Other wars are the result of differences in political ideologies; for example, World War II was a contest of democracy versus fascism. Racial, ethnic, and religious hostilities may give rise to war as well. For instance, the September 11, 2001, attacks have been blamed variably on an Islamic jihad (a type of holy war), Islamic beliefs themselves, and Islamic fundamentalist zealots that divide the world into "believers" and "nonbelievers" (Williams, 2003). Other wars are civil or revolutionary in nature; these involve citizens retaliating against their governments with the objective of political, economic, and social change. One recent high-profile example was the Libyan Revolution, in which forces loyal to leader Muammar Gaddafi fought citizens seeking to overthrow his government. Some wars are characterized by more violence than others. For example, in a case brought to international attention by the series of viral videos featured on YouTube in early 2012, Joseph Kony is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes (violations of laws and treaties applicable during armed conflicts), including abducting children to use as militia fighters and sex slaves. Take a look at the follow-up of the original Internet sensation spotlighting this violence here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c_Ue6REkeTA#!. World War I, the most violent of all wars in history in terms of death and injury, resulted in more than 15 million military and civilian deaths worldwide, and more than 20 million injuries. Other global conflicts are characterized by the threat of violence and escalating military presence or power, but little actual violence. For example, the Cold War was a state of political tension and military and economic rivalry between the United States and the former Soviet Union from the 1950s through the 1980s. Although the conflict never resulted in a violent war, it was the basis for extreme spending on military preparedness and the development of nuclear armaments. War is a social, economic, and environmental problem that threatens, harms, and takes lives. War robs people of their ability to work at making a living and siphons government resources from more positive social causes such as education and health care. Sociologists and other social scientists have examined a wide range of social problems associated with war. For instance, in one study of Palestinian and Israeli mothers and their children, researchers found significant evidence of depression, anxiety, aggression, and problems with mother-child attachment security when exposed to political violence (Guttmann-Steinmetz, Shoshani, Farhan, Aliman, & Hirschberger, 2012). More generally, time-series designed research (that which is based on data collected over long periods) indicates that there is a negative relationship between war-related expenditures and the satisfaction of other social welfare needs in affected countries. In other words, as war impacts regions, spending on social welfare needs such as care for the aging and children, health care, and education declines. And, as revealed in a study by Kaufman (1983), the social development of even neutral nations may suffer when surrounding countries are involved in war. Similarly, in a study of Bosnian war refugees, Daiute and Lucic (2010) observed lowered cultural development, critical evaluations of others, and problems clarifying one's personal identity among adolescents that escaped the worst violence. In a simple but apt summary of the social consequences of war, sociologists Carlton-Ford and Boop observed that "war adversely affects life chances (i.e., economic well-being, food production, and education) that are key to social and economic development . . . these life chances, potentially, affect the most basic life chance—mortality" (2010, p. 75). Terrorism Closely related to the social problem of war, terrorism is the premeditated use of violence as a means of coercion with disregard for the safety of civilians, typically with religious, political, or ideological objectives. According to the U.S. Department of State, terrorism is the greatest security threat in the world. In 2010, there were more than 11,500 terrorist attacks worldwide, and more than 8,000 of these resulted in death or injury (2011b). Nearly 50,000 people were killed or injured as a result of terrorism in 2010 alone. According to the U.S. Department of State, the greatest terrorist threat comes from the Al Qaeda network—a well-known group that aims to overthrow "the existing world order and replace it with a reactionary, authoritarian, transnational entity" (2011c). Some examples of terrorism include state terrorism, which occurs when a state uses force or threat of force to accomplish a political goal. Nazi rule has been used as an example of this type of terrorism. Sometimes state terrorism has international social implications; for example, Iranian arms groups such as Hizballah promote and support terrorism worldwide as a means of carrying out Iran's foreign policy. Nuclear terrorism refers to the use of nuclear materials in an attack; nuclear terrorists may exploit nuclear power facilities and weapon storage arsenals. As a result, in a 2009 address in the Czech Republic, U.S. President Barack Obama declared "securing all vulnerable nuclear material around the world" a top international priority (Embassy of the United States). Members of a biohazard team standing in front of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Alex Wong/Getty Images Toxic biological agents, such as anthrax spores, are sometimes used as weapons. A third type of terrorism is bioterrorism, which refers to the intentional release of toxic biological agents with the intent of harming others. For example, a letter sent to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in 2001 containing anthrax spores killed two postal workers. Cyberterrorism includes any type of attack on information technologies to intentionally disrupt services, such as Internet connectivity or access to data. For example, in March 2012, access to the websites of Britain's Ministry of Justice, as well as the Prime Minister's office was disrupted in a Denial of Service "hack." The group Anonymous claimed responsibility. A final group of terrorist threats are related to the concept of ecoterrorism—violence committed in the interests of environmental concerns. The perpetrators typically carry out such acts against individuals or industries seen as harming animals or natural resources. For example, a group known as Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has taken responsibility for freeing animals from laboratories where they were the subject of experiments, and even from pet owners along with related property damage and destruction (Anti-Defamation League [ADL], 2012). According to the ADL, ecoterrorism groups have perpetrated arson, bombings, harassment, vandalism, and animal release from owners. Terrorism is rooted in multiple, complex causes. The U.S. Department of State has identified a number of underlying conditions, including communal conflicts, failed or weak states unable to control terrorist groups, extreme religious or secular ideologies, a history of political violence and civil wars, repression by a foreign invader, mass racial or ethnic discrimination. Even the presence of a charismatic leader has been identified as an underlying cause of terrorism; those with radical ideologies or agendas will be adept at gaining support. Clearly, violence at home, in the workplace, in our communities, and on the global stage are significant social problems with high social costs. More than a few people are affected by violence and the related issues we have defined here, and violence threatens one of personhood's most basic values—that of security. Although researchers have investigated and found evidence of a number of causes and correlates to various types and examples of violence, sociologists also have used theoretical lenses to describe, explain, and predict violence in society. In the next section, we will explore how several important theories of sociology help illuminate the violence problem. Subsequently, we will review how society is reacting to this problem with potential solutions, and then examine how select sociology scholarship might apply in the solution of violence. 6.6 Theoretical Perspectives on Violence Manhood and Violence: Fatal Peril How has violence been taught as a masculine trait? How have domestic violence courses helped reform violent offenders? Why are they successful? Why might they fail? Recall that a number of sociological theories were described in Chapter 1 (1.3) and that these perspectives help us achieve a better understanding of social patterns and how we might address social problems. Several theories offer different approaches to the problem of violence in families, the workplace, communities, and the world—most notably, symbolic interactionism, functionalism, conflict theory, and the feminist perspective. Symbolic Interactionism Mead's theory explains the social violence problem in terms of our social interactions with others, the labels others use to describe us, and how society influences the development of our self-concept. All of these factors impact our attitudes about violence—the likelihood that we will perpetrate it, be victimized by it, or tolerate and accept it within our communities. Recall that in Chapter 1 (1.3), we described how symbolic interactionists argue that many of society's problems are created and recreated through patterns of social behavior, and that over time, individuals and their social groups begin to believe that "this is just how the world works." What concepts highlighted in our definitions of the various types of violence does this sound like? Symbolic interactionism is a useful framework for understanding many types of violence. For example, it illuminates the cycle of violence and helps us better understand the dynamics of family and intimate partner violence. In our definitions of many of the types of violence discussed in this chapter, we pointed to research suggesting that persons who were victimized by violence early in life are more likely to perpetrate violence on others at home, at work, and in the community later. Similarly, we mentioned that gang-affiliated youths are more likely than not to have been physically abused as children or adolescents. In an extension of symbolic interactionism, Edwin Sutherland advanced the idea that violence that occurs early in life and that is repeated frequently contributes to a learned and enduring attitude favoring violence as a means for coping with frustration and life's problems. Two teenage boys with red mohawk haircuts smoking a cigarette. Jochem D. Wijnands/Photodisc/Getty Images Negatively stereotyped youths are more likely to engage in violent behaviors. Negative labeling is another common correlate to involvement in violence, and its impact can be understood through the lens of symbolic interactionism. For example, we mentioned earlier that adolescents who feel negatively stereotyped by instructors or who have been addressed with negative labels by these authority figures (e.g., "punk," "hoodlum," "gangbanger," or "bad kid") are more likely to engage in violent behaviors than those who have not. These labels negatively affect the self-concept of youths, often leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy, a prediction that comes true because an individual believes the things that others say about him or her. Similarly, intimate partner victimization can be explained by this same pattern. Victims that are negatively labeled (e.g., "useless," "nag," "loser") often become convinced that they are deserving of violence and abuse as a result of these patterns of interaction. Social groups and cultures develop norms and patterns of behavior within which they are reinforced and recreated over time. In this way, symbolic interactionism explains how rigid ideologies (such as attitudes toward racial or religious groups) might lead to violence and how that violence over time becomes normative and acceptable. Through interactions with other members of social groups, individuals develop attitudes about themselves and about violent behavior that inform their own behavioral choices and willingness to accept violence in their communities. For instance, in Sierra Leone, which has been torn by violence and civil war for decades, women and men have long accepted violence as part of married life. Experts attribute the extreme brutality of the ongoing civil war, which has included amputation, rape, torture, and forcible impregnation of children, to this legacy of accepted violence. In other words, when social groups develop a tolerance for one form of violence, they become more inclined to tolerate or participate in other types of violence. Functionalism Recall that functionalists describe society as a series of interdependent and interrelated parts, each required to be in functioning order for the overall good of the whole. Thus, according to this perspective, violence serves particular functions in society. This theory can be used to understand the sociological nature of war. For example, in many cases war functions as a "common cause" that unifies and strengthens ties among members of social groups. For example, during World War II, U.S. citizens bought war bonds, used ration coupons, and "did their part" to defeat the enemy. Men went to fight, women left home to work in ammunition factories and to provide medical care and aid to wounded soldiers. Most industry was halted in the United States as automotive plants and other factories ceased operating and were repurposed to produce war-related tanks, vehicles, ammunition, and weapons. Durkheim, a prominent functionalist who has been discussed in previous chapters, used the theory to help explain violence in cities. He examined the social shifts brought about by the Industrial Revolution—the move from an agrarian society to an urban, industrial one—which included a more expensive cost of living and fewer social bonds with family and intimates. Recall the concept of anomie, used to describe feelings of social disconnection— that decreased solidarity and increased anomie leads to an increased likelihood of deviant acts in society, such as violence. Durkheim and other functionalists argued that these factors lead to urban environments that are more anonymous and where relationships are less common than in farming communities, and as a result, give rise to violence. Conflict Theory Conflict theorists, as you will remember from Chapter 1 (1.3), posit that social groups compete for power and resources. This perspective is another useful one for understanding the social problem of violence in its many forms. We can think of violence as an expression of conflict, or a manifest struggle between two parties that have goals they perceive as incompatible and scarce resources to be shared (Pearson, Nelson, Titsworth, & Harter, 2008). Hoffman, Kiecolt, and Edwards (2005) argued that the conflict perspective is particularly relevant for understanding violence in family structures, where competing interests such as the division of household chores, competition for parental favoritism, and attempts to gain valuable rewards are common. Although these examples of conflict may seem interpersonal rather than sociological in nature—recall that violence in any form is a social problem because of its far-reaching effects, which we described earlier in this chapter. Similarly, within the community, we described gangs as "owners" of certain territories, streets, or businesses—and one of their objectives is to keep rival gangs off their turf so that they can continue to reap the financial benefit of dominating that area. Wars are obvious examples of conflicts, too—during the U.S. Civil War, the Northern and Southern states fought over ideological differences; today, the Israelis and Palestinians and countless other groups conflict over similar differences or for control of resources and land. When social life is viewed as competitive, and when resources are defined as limited, conflict is an expected byproduct of interaction in society. Conflict theorists would argue that violence is normative and inherent in society as a result of these conditions. Brother and sister pushing and fighting in the car. Thomas Northcut/The Image Bank/Getty Images Boys are often more violent than girls in family contexts. Feminist Perspective The feminist perspective was articulated to better understand the social structures and processes that contribute to gender inequality and can today be used as a lens to examine many forms of violence, including rape and intimate partner violence. Feminist scholars have analyzed these social problems in terms of how they support male patriarchy, or control of a disproportionate amount of power and dominance in society. Feminists argue that male-perpetrated violence is widely accepted in society and that boys and men will tend to engage in violence more frequently than girls and women as a way of building and reinforcing their identities as males. Feminists examine intimate partner violence, which you will recall victimizes far more women than men, as a means of dominance over women. And, in one theoretical model, sociologists used the perspective to examine sibling violence and proposed that boys are more violent than girls in family contexts (Hoffman, Kiecolt, & Edwards, 2005). 6.7 Solutions to Violence Given the seriousness and pervasiveness of the social problem of violence, a number of potential remedies and solutions have been enacted. These include initiatives at the local level such as after-school youth programs and neighborhood watch organizations, and criminal justice responses, such as law enforcement programs, the penal system, treatment programs, and capital punishment along with legislative action by state and federal lawmakers that are designed to curb and punish violence. Communication campaigns intended to disseminate anti-violence messages, and international efforts to bring peace to war-torn areas of the world are also means of addressing the social pattern of local and global violence. Local Initiatives Neighborhood Watch Groups What are the roles of community groups in relation to police work? What are copycat gangs? Numerous programs and initiatives exist at the local level to enhance awareness of the violence problem and to prevent, limit, or stop it. Often, these programs are funded by grants from the federal or state government, private foundations, or religious institutions. In one example, the state of Ohio Department of Health administers the "Keep Yourself Alive" program to youths in high-crime areas. The initiative involves curriculum taught in high schools, middle schools, after-school programs, juvenile detention centers, and community-based programs that focus on anger control, peer pressure, forgiveness, self-esteem, and healthy conflict management alternatives to violence. A similar community-based program called "Reach Back" couples violence prevention measures with career planning and mentoring. The state of Minnesota has developed a unique community-based program designed to prevent sexual violence, which involves leadership training for interested adults. Leadership teams throughout the state promote education, policy, and awareness of the sexual violence problem and design message campaigns focused on the problem. Area Councils on Aging provide resources and support to victims of elder abuse. Many communities nationwide have active neighborhood watch programs; one program sponsored by the National Sheriffs' Association supports citizens becoming involved in the "fight against crime . . . [and providing] an opportunity for communities to bond through service" (http://www.nnw.org/). And in another example of local initiatives designed to prevent violence, many communities sponsor gun buyback programs in which citizens can exchange illegal or unlicensed weapons in exchange for a cash reward without fear of prosecution. Community policing makes use of relationships and partnerships between local law enforcement and community groups such as private citizens, private businesses, nonprofits, and religious organizations. These relationships are seen as positive ways to empower community groups to become involved in the solutions to violence. Community policing involves, for example, training of local business owners to spot potential criminal activity and working to educate community groups on effective communication skills for resolving conflicts without violence or bias. Finally, the Internet provides a means to remedy the violence problem locally; local sheriffs' offices and courts post descriptions and photos of sexually violent offenders and photographs of allegedly violent individuals at large in the communities and wanted for questioning by law enforcement. Measuring the effectiveness of community-based initiatives is difficult since their goals vary, and typically, their effects are difficult to sort out from other factors influencing the violence rate in communities (Mareschal, McKee, Jackson, & Hanson, 2007). Add to this the underreporting of violence, described earlier in this chapter, and the true impact of community initiatives designed to curb violence is difficult to assess. Criminal Justice Initiatives Convict in handcuffs standing in a prison corridor. Kevin Horan/Stone/Getty Images The criminal justice system is designed to deter and punish criminal behavior in society. The U.S. criminal justice system encompasses law enforcement agencies, the courts and probation systems, and the corrections system. Each play a unique role in solving the violence problem. According to the Bureau of Labor Occupational Outlook Handbook, law enforcement is comprised of police and detectives that protect people and property from violence and other crimes. However, groups vary in the degree of confidence they have in law enforcement's ability to effectively protect them from violent crime. For example, a 2009 Pew Social Demographic study revealed that Black and Hispanic Americans have far less confidence than Whites in their local police to effectively and fairly address the violence problem. Regardless of race, Americans' perceptions about law enforcement's ability to protect them from violent crime are relatively unfavorable; just 53% of Americans believe that police provide "quite a lot" of protection from violent crime (Shaw & Brannon, 2009). In addition to prevention, law enforcement is charged with apprehending violent criminals and bringing them into the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is made up of practices and institutions designed to deter criminal behavior in society, and it includes entities such as the court system, correctional authorities, and probation departments. How the system deals with violent offenders is a matter of great debate. One alternative is rehabilitation, a philosophy that the likelihood of an individual committing another crime, called recidivism, can be reduced through court-mandated training, education, and counseling. In opposition to rehabilitation is incarceration, a criminal justice philosophy that recidivism will be reduced only by isolating a convicted violent offender from the public, usually in jail or prison. In some cases both goals are served by incarcerating offenders; most modern prisons offer schooling or job training as well as substance abuse counseling and spiritual or faith-based support to assist in rehabilitation. Probation departments and officers oversee the conditional release of violent offenders and supervise their interactions within the community for a specified period after conviction. One highly controversial punishment of violent criminals is capital punishment, which involves the state taking the life of a person as punishment for a crime. Legislative Action Law-making bodies at both the state and federal levels routinely debate, and have enacted, policies designed to prevent and reduce the number of violent crimes in society. Gun control has been one of the most controversial of these proposed measures in the past few decades. Gun control involves any law, policy, or practice designed to limit the possession or sale of firearms by citizens. Gun control policies vary widely throughout the world, and the United States has one of the most relaxed codes. Those that oppose gun control believe that citizens have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own guns. Advocates, on the other hand, view lax gun control policies as a leading factor in our country's violence problem. Although U.S. gun control laws remain somewhat lax in comparison to other countries, the 1993 Brady Bill represented a significant victory for gun control advocates. The law presently requires instant background checks for those wishing to purchase handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Under federal law, the following groups are excluded from gun ownership: People convicted or under indictment for felonies Fugitives Mentally ill people Individuals with dishonorable military discharges Those that have given up U.S. citizenship Illegal residents Illegal drug users Anyone convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors or under personal protection orders related to domestic violence In addition to federal regulations, states and municipalities can establish their own gun restriction codes. For instance, some states, including California and New York, have banned so-called assault weapons (which refer primarily to semiautomatic rifles, similar to military firearms); some states, such as Ohio, issue permits to conceal and carry weapons, and others, like Vermont, prohibit this practice. States vary in their licensing requirements, with some states not requiring guns to be licensed at all. In addition to guns, legislation addresses forms of violence and issues related to the violence problem. The U.S. Congress has passed two laws related to violence against women and children, including the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. The VAWA stiffened penalties for those convicted of violent crimes against women and enhanced services and programs for victims, including, protection for victims evicted from their homes due to events related to domestic violence or police activity, funding for assistance programs like rape hotlines and crisis centers, legal aid for victims, and services for children and teens with abused parents. The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) established the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which employs trained advocates that offer advice, referrals, support, and crisis intervention to callers. Additionally, FVPSA provides grant funding and other resources to community programs involved in tackling the significant social problems associated with family violence. Numerous local and state statutes have been implemented to deal with the youth and gang violence problem. In a move representative of similar ones in other communities, Orange County, California, cities have enacted a 10:00 p.m. curfew for minors, and law enforcement apprehends minors seen in public after 10:00 p.m. without their parents. Consequences range from misdemeanor charges to jail time for parent, child, or both. In another example, in 2009, Illinois passed legislation that toughens penalties for crimes committed by gang members with illegal weapons. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is the largest crime-related bill in the history of Congress. This act barred the possession, sale, and use of 19 types of semiautomatic weapons, and it restricted gun ownership for convicted violent offenders and domestic abusers. It expanded federal death penalty in cases of violent crime, and defined new crimes related to hate, sex, and gang-related activity. A 2007 amendment (Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2007) written to strengthen the 1994 code, failed before a Congressional vote. In addition, numerous federal, state, and local laws address the growing problem of child sexual abuse. Most notably, Megan's Law is a federal mandate to communities requiring a sex offender registration and community notification program. For a comprehensive list of federal legislation related to sex crimes against children, including links to state statutes, click here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/legislation.htm. Communication Campaigns Another ongoing initiative of various nonprofit agencies, local, state, and federal governments is the implementation of communication campaigns designed to increase awareness of the violence problem and to enhance prevention efforts. Communication campaigns rely on strategically designed messages, media, and an organized set of communication activities with the objective of shaping attitudes and behaviors toward desirable social outcomes, such as avoiding drugs and alcohol or violent activity. Elements of a campaign might include a slogan, website, videos, educational programs, and T-shirts—all designed to reinforce the campaign's primary message. Campaigns you might be familiar with are the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and Character Counts programs implemented in schools. Campaigns specific to violence include Say No to Violence, Drop the Weapons, and A Community that Cares. International Efforts United Nations flag fluttering in front of a building damaged during violent conflicts. Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images Organizations such as the United Nations work to develop solutions to violence and war. Finally, numerous international agencies and nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations have developed a wide range of solutions to the violence problem. For example, the United Nations has developed a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy; NATO has implemented strategies to protect its member nations from terrorism (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_77646.htm); and the National Commission on Terrorism monitors the changing nature of international terrorism and makes policy recommendations (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/commission.html). End Violence Against Women International is focused on the diverse nature of sexual violence around the globe. Amnesty International advocates against any type of abuse toward women, including mutilation, in wartime and peaceful countries (http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/women-s-rights/violence-against-women). Invisible Children focuses its efforts on the violent abuse of children in war-torn African nations. And, a final example from a long list, the International Rescue Committee is a global organization dedicated to ending and preventing sexual violence toward women during war. 6.8 Using Sociological Tools to End Violence Sociologists Judy Porter and LaVerne McQuiller Williams (2011) of the Rochester Institute of Technology are interested in rape and other forms of sexual and physical violence on college campuses. Troubled by data that indicate one in five women are sexually assaulted during their college years, they launched a research program to investigate the sociological aspects of this serious problem. From their sociological lens, they observed that most research into these issues focused on the experiences of White, heterosexual females. They argued that the experiences of underrepresented groups, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientation students; racial and ethnic minorities; and hearing challenged students may not mirror existing research findings. In a 2011 publication in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, they reported that college students in all of these groups were more likely to be victimized by any type of violence than White students. More specifically, they found that racial and ethnic minorities and gay, lesbian, and bisexual students were more at risk for sexual abuse and rape. Overall, members of underrepresented groups appear to be victimized by violence at higher rates than those in majority groups. Subsequently, the authors made recommendations to practitioners such as counselors, college health professionals, campus life officials, and resident advisors that emphasize "population-specific interventions." Specifically, they suggest that educational materials and messages be culturally relevant to the groups they target, and that these individuals be aware of the heightened risk for violence that exists for nonmajority groups on college campuses. This research program illustrates how the sociological focus on the experiences of groups in society may help us better understand the social problem of violence. Their research findings suggest potent solutions to violence against underrepresented groups on campuses by illustrating the problem with cookie-cutter prevention solutions, which may not be culturally relevant to all intended audiences. In a 2009 paper published in the Journal of Family Violence, Kendra Pennington-Zoellner took a sociological approach to examining how the violence problem might be addressed in our communities. Focusing on intimate partner violence (IPV), Pennington-Zoellner noted that most community-based solutions to IPV are related to the criminalization of the perpetrator's behavior and into reactive counseling for victims. That is, community resources are spent primarily on dealing with IPV after it happens. She argued that an enhanced solution would include training and counseling of at-risk women in the areas of financial literacy and life skills so that they would have less fear about leaving their partners and be less likely to drown further into the escalating violence problem. Additionally, she advocated for expanding the notion of "community" in the solution and prevention of IPV from the primary focus on the criminal justice system, counseling centers, and shelters. She argued that counselors and social workers should assess and involve a wider range of formal and informal groups in the network of prevention and survivor support resources, and pointed out that because violence is a social problem, it requires a social solution. From Pennington-Zoellner's perspective, some groups that should be integrated into the community of support resources include churches, synagogues, friends, siblings, parents, employers, and nonviolent intimates. Using the Sociological Lens: The New World of Bullying Unlike with in-person bullying, there is little escape from cyberbullying—it can take place around the clock on all of a person's electronic devices. Cyberbullying is when a person is harassed, mocked, taunted, or otherwise tormented via the Internet or on other electronic devices, such as cell phones or tablets. One example of cyberbullying would be a group of people writing cruel posts on a user's MySpace or Facebook page; another would be ganging up on a person via text messages, perhaps sending hundreds of them per hour. Another example might be impersonating someone by creating a social media page in their name and using it to make inappropriate or embarrassing comments to others; still another might be taking a photo or video of a person without permission and posting it online. The anonymity the Internet affords to users, coupled with its scathingly public nature and the way in which it encourages mob-like behavior are among the many reasons why cyberbullying is increasingly viewed as more dangerous than traditional schoolyard bullying. Unlike with in-person bullying, there is little escape from cyberbullying—it can take place around the clock on all of a person's electronic devices. It can even take place in someone's cyber-absence; it is very damaging to know that even after a person turns off the devices, cruel conversations continue to take place. Furthermore, once brutal comments or cruelly edited photos are posted online, they are often a permanent feature of cyberspace, hard to delete or remove. This gives the bullying an ongoing, eternal quality, allowing it to persist long after both parties might have left a physical space. In addition, unlike traditional bullying, which is typically witnessed by only a handful of people, hundreds or thousands of people can witness or participate in cyberbullying, publicly humiliating a victim on a massive scale. Finally, the anonymity of the Internet tends to encourage people to be more cruel and aggressive than they would in person. Indeed, people who might be too shy, embarrassed, or sensitive to bully someone in person seem to have less problem doing so from the safety of cyberspace. Cyberbullying has a bandwagon effect, in which a feeding frenzy of negativity and hate haunt a victim 24 hours a day. Though it is still a new field of study, research is increasingly showing that cyberbullying is more dangerous, harmful, and more often results in death than traditional bullying. In 2010, researchers at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development examined bullying behaviors in more than 4,000 teens. They concluded that cyberbullying is more likely damaging to victims than are physical beatings or in-person taunting. "Unlike traditional bullying which usually involves a face-to-face confrontation, cyber victims may not see or identify their harasser," wrote researchers. "As such, cyber victims may be more likely to feel isolated, dehumanized or helpless at the time of the attack." The researchers found the victims of cyberbullying were significantly more likely to be depressed and more seriously depressed than those frequently bullied in person (National Institute of Child Heath and Human Development). Surviving a Cyberbully In 2012, a massive survey published by the global research company Ipsos made clear for the first time that cyberbullying is a global problem. After polling more than 18,500 people in 24 countries, Ipsos released a treasure trove of data that gave a unique, if chilling, glimpse into the state of cyberbullying around the world. Although the data revealed that a disturbing number of children have been the victim of cyberbullying, it also revealed that the majority of them survive the experience. About 12% of international parents said their own child has been cyberbullied; 26% said they know a child in their community who has been cyberbullied. Cyberbullying was found to be most common in India, where 32% of parents said a child in their house had been cyberbullied. Next was Brazil (19%), Saudi Arabia (19%), Canada (18%) and the United States (15%). Countries in which parents were least likely to report cyberbullying were Italy (where just 3% of parents said their child had experienced cyberbullying), Russia (5%), France (5%), Turkey (6%) and Spain (6%). The minority (23%) of parents polled believe the problem can be addressed using anti-bullying measures already on the books. Rather, three quarters—77%—think cyberbullying is a challenge that requires new solutions and increased attention. A cyberbullying case from Newark, New Jersey, illustrates the tenacity and creativity often required to catch a cyberbully and the strength and support a teen needs to survive it. The following perspective details the experience of 15-year-old Nafeesa Onque, who was tormented for 3 years. Onque's bully was relentless and creative: Instead of simply posting online insults, the bully undertook a full-fledged identity theft campaign. The bully registered social network pages in Onque's name and used these accounts to impersonate her to embarrassing ends. The bully posted forged nude photos; real, personal and sensitive information, such as Onque's home phone number and address; and fake, embarrassing information about her, such as who she had supposedly had sex with. The bully sought out online connections with real people Onque knew, such as her relatives or fellow students, and once they were connected, blasted them with sexually explicit comments, threats, and other upsetting content. The police eventually caught the bully, but the following perspective details that difficult and time-consuming process. James Queally, "Newark Teen's Online Identity Stolen and Used to Destroy Her Reputation," Star Ledger (Newark), February 13, 2011. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/someone_had_stolen_a_newark_te.html Bullied to Death Although cyberbullying occurs around the world, cyberbullying that results in a suicide—also called bullycide, or when a young person is "bullied to death"—is a problem more common in the United States than in other countries. There have been a few international cases in which a teen has committed suicide after experiencing cyberbullying, such as British teen Megan Gillan, who in 2009 fatally overdosed after experiencing months of online bullying, or Gail Jones, also from Britain, who took her life after receiving dozens of silent calls on her cell phone every half hour. Similarly, 15-year-old Canadian Jamie Hubley killed himself in 2011 after being tormented by classmates over his sexuality. Most of the known cases come from the United States, however, where victims have included Phoebe Prince, Jessica Logan, Ryan Patrick Halligan, Jamey Rodemeyer, Alexis Pilkington, and Amanda Cummings, just a few of the dozens of teens who have committed suicide after relentless online bullying campaigns. Among the most well known of the cyberbullying suicides is Megan Meier, who in 2006 killed herself after a 47-year-old woman named Lori Drew created a fictional teenage boy for the sole purpose of tormenting Meier online. Drew's daughter had been friends with Meier, but a falling out between the two led Drew to seek revenge on Meier in a particularly cruel way. Drew invented 16-year-old Josh Evans and used him to befriend 13-year-old Meier. Evans told Meier he thought she was pretty and that he liked her. Meier was overweight and suffered from attention deficit disorder and depression, and the online flirtation with Evans made her feel happy, attractive, and confident. After gaining Meier's trust over several weeks' time, Evans turned on her, ultimately telling her, "You are a bad person and everybody hates you. . . . The world would be a better place without you" (Popkin, 2009). Dozens of other people jumped in on the assault, which ended with Meier running to her room and hanging herself with a belt. Drew claimed she just wanted to get back at Meier for how she had treated her daughter and did not intend the prank to end in the girl's death. Another heavily profiled cyberbullying suicide was that of Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old student at Rutgers University who ended his life in September 2010 by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. Clementi, who was gay, committed suicide after his college roommate, Dharun Ravi, and another student, Molly Wei, secretly videotaped him having a sexual encounter with another man and gossiped about it in real time on the Internet (Parker, 2012). In the following perspective, Lucinda Frank profiles a few of the most disturbing cyberbullying suicides and looks for answers to why some teens bully others to death. Lucinda Franks, "Bullied to Death," Daily Beast, March 30, 2010. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/03/30/inside-the-mind-of-a-bully.html Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions The Internet has given rise to cyberbullying, but might it also offer solutions to the problem of cyberbullying? What features of the Internet might be used to combat cyberbullying? What changes to social media websites could be made to inhibit or discourage cyberbullying? The Internet has proven to be a formidable tool in the fight against many social problems, helping people join together to raise money for important causes, organize politically, and connect with likeminded individuals outside of their direct community. Yet people have also used the Internet destructively for ventures such as cyberbullying. Overall, do you think the Internet is a positive social tool or a negative social weapon? Why? What punishment do you think is appropriate for people who cyberbully others? Should being mean to others be a crime? Should those who push others to suicide be held responsible? How should society deal with or punish cyberbullies? The Ipsos poll discussed above reports that about 12% of parents worldwide say their children have been cyberbullied; in the United States, about 15% of parents say a child of theirs has experienced cyberbullying. In your opinion, is that a large enough group of teens to constitute a social problem? Or is that few enough teens where cyberbullying should not be regarded as a social crisis but more of an individual problem? For Further Consideration How to Punish Cyberbullying Parker, I. (2012, February 6). The story of a suicide: Two college roommates, a webcam, and a tragedy. New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/ 02/06/120206fa_fact_parker Cyberbullying and Suicide, by the Numbers Hinduja, S., Ph.D., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Cyberbullying research summary: Cyberbullying and suicide. Cyberbullying Research Institute, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.cyberbullying.us/cyberbullying _and_suicide_research_fact_sheet.pdf It's Not Just Cyberbullying That Makes a Teen Suicidal Bindley, K. (2012, February 8). Bullying and suicide: The dangerous mistake we make. HuffingtonPost .com. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/bullying-suicide-teens-depression_n_1247875.html Cyberbullying Is Wrong But Not a Hate Crime Bennett, J. (2011, April 22). Should Tyler Clementi's bully be charged with a hate crime? Daily Beast.com. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/04/22/tyler-clementi-should-the-gay-teens-bully-be-charged-with-a-hate-crime.html Cyberbullying Should Be Criminal O'Doherty, C. (2011, October 3). Bullying is violence, it should be considered a crime. IrishCentral.com. Retrieved from http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/manhattan_diary/bullying-is-violence-it-should-be-considered-a-crime-130967758.html How to Punish Bullycide Schwartz, J. (2010, October 2). Bullying, suicide, punishment. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/weekinreview/03schwartz.html Rethinking Cyberbullying Rhetoric Boyd, D., & Marwick, A. (2011, September 23). Bullying as true drama. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/opinion/why-cyberbullying-rhetoric-misses-the-mark.html Summary & Conclusion In this chapter, we have described the widespread social problem of violence within families, in the workplace, in our communities, and on the global state. Violence is a complex social problem with numerous causes and consequences, which affects individuals and communities. Violence occurs within families in the form of child maltreatment, sexual abuse of children, elder abuse, parent abuse, sibling abuse, and intimate partners. Family violence is highly affected by a phenomenon known as the cycle of violence, in which the use of violence as a problem solving strategy is transmitted from one generation to the next. It tends to be cyclical in nature, meaning once violence starts, it tends to get worse rather than better and people who have been exposed to violence (especially early in life) tend to become violent themselves. Sociologists and other interdisciplinary scholars study risk factors associated with violence and the causes, correlates, and consequences of violence in society—both at the local and global level. Causes of violence are typically complex interactions of numerous social factors, and several sociological theories help provide some perspective on the violence problem, including symbolic interactionism, functionalism, conflict theory, and the feminist perspective. Numerous programs, laws, organizations, and campaigns exist to raise awareness of violence and provide potential remedies to it. Finally, sociologists are using their own research findings to make recommendations about the ways in which violence may be addressed. Key Terms Click on each key term to see the definition. child maltreatment Cold War communication campaigns community policing conflict cycle of violence dysfunctional submissive behavior elder abuse electronic aggression family violence or domestic violence hate crimes or bias-motivated violence intimate partner violence (IPV) murder neglect parent abuse patriarchy rape recidivism rehabilitation self-fulfilling prophecy sexual assault sibling abuse terrorism violence 7 Crime and Substance Abuse Police officer using drug-sniffing dog to search for drugs along a line of inmates at a detention center. Associated Press Chapter Outline 7.1 Is Crime a Social Problem? 7.2 Definition of Crime 7.3 Substance Abuse and Crime 7.4 Types of Substances and Their Relationship to Crime 7.5 Substance Abuse Treatment 7.6 Substance Abuse and Social Policy 7.7 Theories of Crime and Substance Abuse 7.8 How Sociologists Are Responding to Issues of Crime Summary & Conclusion Eve had been using heroin and cocaine for more than 5 years. She had been homeless at times and worked as a prostitute to earn money to buy drugs. She had been arrested for prostitution twice and served several months in county jail. A year ago Eve was arrested when she tried to buy drugs from an undercover police officer. When she went in front of the judge, she expected to hear that she would be facing a long time behind bars. Instead, the prosecutor told her she was eligible to participate in drug treatment court. If she agreed, she would avoid jail but be supervised by a judge, undergo mandatory drug treatment, random urine testing, and group therapy. If she was found to be using drugs while enrolled in the program, she would be kicked out and incarcerated. Tired of the constant pull of her addiction and her life on the street, Eve agreed to participate in drug treatment court. The first time she appeared before the drug court judge, Judge Cho, he warned Eve that the program would not be easy and would require her to be dedicated to getting sober. For the first 2 months she had to check in every 2 weeks with the judge, who reviewed reports from her drug treatment counselors and the results from her urine tests. He urged her to keep up her good work and told her he was impressed to learn she had decided to return to college to finish her degree. By Eve's third month in the program, Judge Cho said he wanted to see her every 3 weeks, and soon after she was appearing before him just once a month. For 10 months, Eve remained sober. Then, Judge Cho informed her she would be graduating from the drug court treatment program. In a ceremony held in the courtroom a few weeks later, Eve and nine other participants stood in the front of the courtroom. Judge Cho handed Eve a certificate of completion as her mother clapped in the audience, surrounded by other proud parents, children, and drug treatment counselors. Drug treatment courts are in every state, and their numbers continue to grow. By 2010 there were more than 1,400 throughout the country (Urban Institute, 2011). Participants are drug-addicted offenders convicted of nonviolent crimes. They are closely supervised by judges and receive drug treatment, avoiding incarceration as long as they comply with the conditions of the program. According to research findings, graduates of drug court programs are less likely to go on to commit crime and use drugs compared to offenders who were sentenced to jail or probation (Urban Institute, 2011). However, not everyone supports the drug-court approach. Critics argue court-mandated participants can take up limited space in drug treatment programs. Opponents also say courts violate defendants' rights because participants usually have to first admit guilt to be eligible for these programs. While processing a case through drug court costs more than processing it through a typical criminal court, in the long run, taxpayers save money. By reducing recidivism, or the tendency to relapse into criminal behavior, these programs avoid the costs of offenders' future crimes, arrests, court processing, and time spent incarcerated. This chapter examines crime and substance abuse as social problems. Crime and substance abuse are two separate issues, but they overlap and are interwoven in many significant ways. The United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world and tightly regulates the use of drugs and alcohol. Examining these issues with a sociological lens shows that crime and substance abuse affect society as well as individuals, revealing a social pattern that violates society's core values and negatively impacts those in power. This chapter also considers the ways society responds to crime and substance abuse and explores the impact of those responses. 7.1 Is Crime a Social Problem? Does crime fit the four criteria for social problems? Do you think people convicted of crimes should receive treatment instead of being incarcerated? Does providing treatment violate the core values of the criminal justice system? Does the growing number of drug treatment courts indicate that those in power view them as a potentially effective response to drug abuse and crime? Sociological Lens and Social Patterns In a media-saturated world, TV shows, movies, and 24-hour news channels bombard viewers with stories, real and fictional, about people who commit crimes and their victims. The regions in which people live, as well as their ages, races, genders, and class are all factors that influence their likelihood of being an offender or a victim of crime. In addition, the actions society deems criminal change over time and from place to place. While most Americans believe crime is increasing, statistics from the FBI's Unified Crime Reports show a steady decline in the national crime rate. Examining crime through a sociological lens offers a better understanding of the nature and extent of crime and victimization. Crime and Core Values Close up of the preamble of the U.S. constitution. iStockphoto/Thinkstock The United States' Constitution serves as the basis for the country's laws and establishes a social contract between citizens and their government. Crime clearly violates society's core values. Society is organized according to a social contract in which people agree to follow common rules in exchange for protection by the government. Crimes violate the social contract and compromise individual safety and security. Social contract theory is based on the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers of the mid-1600s and 1700s, including Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Their work influenced the writers of the Declaration of Independence, who set out to create a new government free from the rule of the English monarchy and based on the right of the people to change or abolish a government to protect their safety and happiness. The writers of the Declaration of Independence were concerned with preventing an all-powerful government from committing crimes against its people. The U.S. Constitution is the basis for the country's laws and sets out the framework of the three branches of government: legislative, judicial, and executive. From its first words, it establishes a social contract: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." "We the people" establish the government, and the government will ensure the people's rights, as outlined in the Constitution's first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. The government is given the power to punish those who commit crimes, which are violations of others' rights. While protecting the safety of the people, however, the government must also protect their rights. For example, the Eighth Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment. A Closer Look: The Bill of Rights Go to http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/the-story-of-the-bill-of-rights and watch the short videos about the Bill of Rights. Are there any rights that, in your opinion, the government does not do a good job of ensuring? Have you ever experienced a violation of one of these rights? Can you think of any rights you would have added to the list if you had been a writer of the Constitution? Crime and Power Structure U.S. leaders have a responsibility to protect society from crime by upholding the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the nation's laws. If the populace feels threatened by crime, it will negatively affect those in positions of power. Many contemporary politicians describe themselves as "tough on crime" as a way to attract voters. The message of these political leaders is that they will protect people from crime by supporting harsh punishments for criminals who violate the rights of others. Responses to Crime Society reacts to criminal behavior in a number of ways. Three main types of laws are applied to crime: criminal law, procedural law, and civil law. Criminal law, sometimes referred to as substantive law, defines crimes and determines punishment. In criminal law, the state or federal government can pursue accused offenders and limit their liberty by incarceration or probation. Procedural law sets the rules government must follow when enforcing criminal law. For example, law enforcement officers must follow rules, such as having a reason to arrest a person and informing the accused of their rights. Civil law refers to the rules that govern relationships between private parties, such as people and organizations. For example, civil law is used to resolve conflicts over matters such as wills and contracts. Society also reacts to crime with punishment. Philosophies of punishment have varied over time and from place to place, as well as according to the type of crime. 7.2 Definition of Crime Definitions of crime vary over time and between places. Crime is generally behavior that can be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Other behavior may not be illegal but is considered evil, shameful, or wrong. Society decides what acts to categorize as criminal. People's characteristics, including race, class, and gender, affect when and what laws are applied to their behavior and what type of punishment they receive. What is crime? This seemingly simple question is actually quite complex. At its most basic level, crime is any specific act society has decided is harmful or dangerous and that is prohibited and punishable. Two Latin phrases are used to describe two kinds of crime in U.S. criminal law: Mala in se crimes are those that are considered inherently wrong. Mala in se crimes include rape and murder, which most people would consider wrong even if there was no law against them. Mala prohibitum crimes are wrong only because they are prohibited. An example of a mala prohibitum crime would be jaywalking. Like other social problems, crime is socially constructed. People decide what behaviors to define as criminal. Crimes that are mala prohibitum are created by legislative bodies and reflect the prevailing moral beliefs and values of the time. For example, from 1919 to 1933, the sale of alcoholic beverages was illegal in the United States. After the repeal of Prohibition, minimum drinking ages were different in different states and at different times. In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which set 21 as the minimum age for buying and publicly possessing alcohol. Before 1984, states set their own legal drinking ages, which varied between 18 and 21, or made distinctions between purchase and consumption. Mala prohibitum crimes demonstrate how the same act committed by different people in different places may or may not be criminal. Differences in definitions of legality and crime stem from differences in social norms, including varying folkways and mores, cultural orientations, societal sanctions, and perceptions of deviance. Social Norms Two men greet each other with a kiss on the cheek. Ramzi Haidar/Getty Images Social norms vary by country. For example, although not common in the United States, it is normal for men in some countries to greet each other with a kiss on the cheek. Social life is governed by norms, rules that define which behaviors are appropriate or not in a given situation (Chapter 1). Norms specify the customary or usual behavior that is expected in interactions with others. For example, in the United States, norms dictate that motorists drive on the right, not the left. In England, people drive on the left. Driving on the left in this country would cause accidents and chaos for other drivers. It would also be a mala prohibitum crime. Norms are part of a society's culture and reflect a group's values, beliefs, and attitudes. In the United States, for example, when two men greet each other, they generally do not kiss. But in countries such as France and Italy it is common for men to greet each other with a kiss on each cheek. Similarly, in some Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, men hold hands as a sign of friendship. Social norms vary, not only between cultures, but also according to the situation in which the behavior occurs. Norms also reflect a society's manners and etiquette. For example, talking on the phone in a movie theater might anger other people trying to watch the movie. The offender could even be told to leave if it's against the theater's policy. A person who spits on the sidewalk may get looks of disgust from others, but spitting on a subway train violates a regulation that results in a ticket. Folkways and Mores There are two different types of norms: folkways and mores. Violating folkways is rarely a crime, whereas violating mores is often a crime. Folkways are customs or practices that are enforced through informal rewards and punishments. Some folkways are related to etiquette or manners. For example, people are taught not to burp loudly and may be laughed at or sneered at if they do. Another example of a folkway in some cultures is getting too close to someone while speaking to them. In some cultures this is considered violating another's personal space. In comparison, mores (pronounced mor-ays) are norms that reflect a culture's morality. Mores are practices that are important for the social well-being or cohesion of a society. Mores are often enforced by laws. For example, people who do not pay their bills face negative repercussions such as having their utilities cut off or being prosecuted in court. Violations of mores are also often viewed as posing danger to others. Refusing to call for an ambulance after witnessing someone being hit by a car violates mores. When people violate society's most deeply held mores, they are violating taboos. Taboos reflect society's core values. Examples of taboos are incest (sex between closely related family members) and cannibalism (people eating other humans). Society's taboos are widely viewed as disgusting, repugnant, and worthy of shame and are treated as crimes. Subcultures Subcultures are groups within the larger society with different values and norms than those of the majority culture. People within subcultures may share backgrounds, characteristics, activities, rituals, common knowledge, language, or experience. Examples of subcultures range from residents of a retirement community to online gamers, and from correctional officers working in a prison to stay-at-home dads or members of Alcoholics Anonymous. People are often members of more than one subculture, such as a stay-at-home father who belongs to AA and plays online poker. Some subcultures, known as countercultures, have norms and values that oppose those of the dominant culture. Sometimes referred to as deviant subcultures, these groups can come into conflict with society's majority and with the law. One example of a counterculture is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). The FLDS Church is a conservative, fundamentalist Mormon sect whose members practice polygamy, meaning that men may have more than one wife. It has about 10,000 members living in Arizona, Colorado, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah. The FLDS Church was established in the early 1900s when its members split from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) over the issue of polygamy. In the early years of the LDS Church, its members had practiced polygamy. However, after many years of conflict with the U.S. government over the practice, which was a violation of state law, the Church discontinued the practice in the late 1800s and excluded members who continued to marry multiple women. Nevertheless, according to FLDS doctrine, it is God's will for men to have a minimum of three wives, and it is the responsibility of the church's leader to assign teenage girls to a husband. The need for so many brides often leads to child marriages, incest, and child abuse (Offices of the Attorney Generals of Arizona and Utah, 2009), all of which come into conflict with existing U.S. mores and law. A Closer Look: The FLDS as a Counterculture Go to http://www.bankingonheaven.com/ and view the trailer for the documentary "Banking on Heaven." Although members of the FLDS Church are considered members of a counterculture, are they practicing their First Amendment right to freedom of religion? If so, does that trump the fact that they engage in some illegal practices? In the interests of preserving U.S. laws and mores, should the state or federal governments take action against the FLDS Church? Why or why not? Sanctions Society responds to norm violations in different ways. A sanction is a kind of response meant to reward or punish behavior. Positive sanctions reward conforming behavior, and negative sanctions punish behavior that violates norms. Positive sanctions increase the likelihood that a particular behavior will continue. For example, teachers provide students with positive sanctions by giving higher grades for better work. Good grades reward students and increase the likelihood that they will want to continue to learn and achieve in school. In contrast, negative sanctions punish behavior with the goal of stopping it. For example, police officers give negative sanctions when ticketing drivers for violating traffic laws. Drivers who violate traffic laws put others in danger. Tickets decrease the likelihood that drivers will take risks on the road. Tickets can help society members remain safe by reducing reckless behavior. Just as there are positive and negative sanctions, there are also informal and formal sanctions. Informal sanctions are unofficial or casual responses to behavior that has violated a social norm. Imagine being in a group of people in which one person constantly interrupts whoever is speaking. When that person leaves, the others might make fun of or talk negatively about the person who was interrupting the others. Being gossiped about is an informal sanction that reinforces the social norm that people should not interrupt others when they are speaking. Formal sanctions, on the other hand, are the result of regulations and laws. They are applied by a group of people or an agency to ensure norms are followed. When the police arrest an armed robber who has held up a convenience store, the person, if convicted, will be sent to jail. The punishment is a formal sanction that reminds people how society expects them to act. Deviance and Crime Young woman with colorful tattoos on her arm and a Mohawk. Emma Innocenti/Getty Images The concept of deviance varies by group. For example, some may consider having tattoos and a Mohawk hairstyle to be deviant, but other may enjoy this style. Crime and deviance are similar but different concepts. Crime is behavior society prohibits because it is harmful or dangerous. Deviance, on the other hand, violates norms or expectations of behavior but does not necessarily cause harm or danger. Crime reflects people's actions, but the concept of deviance encompasses attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics—the ABC's of deviance. When distinguishing between crime and deviance, it is important to consider whose norms or standards are being violated. Is having tattoos deviant? Is it deviant to walk a cat on a leash? Is it deviant for your teenage sister to have blue hair? Is it deviant for your professor to have blue hair? Depending on a person's norms, these examples may be deviant, but none is criminal. However, some deviant behaviors are criminal and do cause harm to others. Crimes that result from deviant behavior, such as murder or burglary, are mala in se, or inherently wrong. But just as not all deviant acts are crimes, not all crimes are deviant. For example, it is illegal to speed but it is common and, some would argue, normal. Underage drinking is also illegal, but it is common for people to break that law, and underage drinkers are not necessarily considered deviant. When a person's attributes or characteristics deviate from norms, society may stigmatize the person. A stigma is a physical or social characteristic that society labels undesirable. When people are labeled or stigmatized, they are judged by society as less desirable. For example, in some social groups, people with tattoos and blue hair are stigmatized. More seriously, a person incarcerated for molesting a child is often stigmatized while in prison and also after release from prison—registered sex offenders can be banned from living in certain places, such as in proximity to a school. 7.3 Substance Abuse and Crime When substance abuse and addiction are connected to crime, they become a problem for society, not just for individuals and their family and friends. The tripartite model (Goldstein, 1985) identifies three dimensions linking drugs to crime: The psychopharmacologic dimension refers to the psychological and biological effects of drugs that can lead people to become angry, violent, agitated, excited, or unable to control their impulses, making them more likely to commit crimes. The economic compulsive dimension refers to crimes committed to obtain money to buy drugs. The systemic dimension refers to the violent crimes that often result in distributing and trafficking drugs. Because these illegal activities can lead to incarceration, the stakes are high and so violence, guns, and death are key parts of the business. How substance abuse is defined and how it fits the criteria of a social problem reinforces the link between substance abuse and crime. Definition of Substance Abuse Substance abuse is listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use that impairs ability to fulfill responsibilities at school, work, or at home resulting in being fired or failing classes; leads to legal problems such as arrest; recurs, causing dangerous situations such as driving while impaired; and continues despite persistent social or interpersonal problems caused by the substance such as arguments (2000). Substance dependence, or addiction, is substance abuse in which the user has physiological and behavioral symptoms related to using the substance. These symptoms include tolerance, or the need for increasing amounts of the substance to maintain desired effects, and withdrawal, or the unpleasant physical, mental, and emotional symptoms when usage is decreased or stops. In addition, reinforcement measures the urge experienced by users to choose a substance again and again in preference to other substances. For example, cigarette smokers are reinforced by the nicotine contained in cigarettes to choose cigarettes over a lollipop, which satisfies oral and tactile needs but not the need for nicotine. People who are addicted to a substance crave it and are compelled or feel forced to obtain and consume the drug to feel the altered state of mind or mood it provides. This biological need leads to obsessive or repetitive thoughts causing people to become preoccupied with obtaining the drug. People who are addicted to drugs often increase the dose or frequency with which they use the drug. Is Substance Abuse a Social Problem? Young woman smoking a cigarette. iStockphoto/Thinkstock Users experience varying levels of substance dependence from different types of drugs. Most people think of drugs or alcohol when they hear about substance abuse. Substances, for the purposes of this chapter, are medications, drugs of abuse, or toxins that, when ingested, have a physiological or biological effect. Drugs can alleviate pain, reduce blood pressure, decrease anxiety, or increase alertness. Approximately half of all Americans take at least one prescription medicine and more than 10% use five or more regularly (Gu, Dillon, & Burt, 2010). The types of prescription drugs most commonly used are asthma medicines for children, central nervous system stimulants for adolescents, antidepressants for middle-aged adults, and drugs to lower cholesterol and blood pressure for older Americans. This may reflect the diseases common to these populations, or changes in treatment patterns for those diseases. In the 10 years between 1999 and 2009, the population in the United States increased by 9% while the number of prescription drugs purchased increased 39% (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010). When people use drugs to alter their perceptions or moods, they can be abused. Substances that are subject to abuse include pharmaceutical drugs and over-the-counter medicines as well as alcohol; illegal street drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine; nicotine, and caffeine. Most people use substances, whether occasionally or regularly, but most do not abuse them. Substance use crosses over into abuse when the user starts to experience a pattern of consequences such as legal problems, social or personal problems, and dangerous situations. Sociological Lens and Social Patterns Coping Mechanisms What are some of the reasons that interviewees offer as to the start of their addictions? How does the Native American painter interviewed describe spirituality and artistic distraction's role in battling addiction? What are healthy coping mechanisms described throughout the video? Looking at substance abuse through a sociological lens brings to light patterns of drug and alcohol use. According to the U.S. Justice Department, an estimated 8.7% of Americans aged 12 or older—or 21.8 million individuals—were illicit drug users in 2009. Young adults, aged 18 to 25, represented the largest age group of current abusers. (U.S. Department of Justice, 2011). According to Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics gathered for 2009, nearly 9% of Americans over age 12 had used an illicit, or illegal, drug in the previous month. About 3% of Americans over age 12 had used a psychotherapeutic drug, prescribed to relieve anxiety, depression, or other mental disorder, for nonmedical reasons in the past month (CDC, 2010b). These are people who took a prescription drug for reasons or at dosages for which it was not prescribed, such as using someone else's Valium for recreational purposes. Substance use and abuse do not just affect individuals but have a broad societal reach. Substance abuse affects society in the way its consequences are woven into the lives of families and children, the health care system, the criminal justice system, and the workforce. By examining substances with a sociological lens, one gains a better understanding of the nature and extent of substance abuse. Substance Abuse and Core Values Drinking wine with dinner is acceptable in many Western countries, and wine is used in some religious practices. For other cultures or subcultures, such as Seventh Day Adventists or many Muslims, drinking alcohol violates religious or moral values. Societies, cultures, and communities also have differing norms regarding what constitutes a harmful substance. For example, caffeine use is not regulated, and coffee sales are a lucrative and legal business. On the other hand, drinking caffeine is discouraged for those who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints. Nicotine use is regulated to an extent, but violating those regulations is not punished to the same extent as violating laws regarding, for example, cocaine. Although the norms of different cultures, religions, and communities vary around substance use, substance abuse is usually considered a violation of core values such as self-control, being responsible in one's actions, not endangering the health and safety of others, and treating one's children well. Substance Abuse and the Power Structure Substance abuse affects the power structure in its direct and indirect costs for many systems in society. The effects of substance abuse put a strain on the U.S. health care system, the criminal justice and human services systems, including child protective services. According to the most recent figures from the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), the estimated economic cost of illicit drug use to society in 2007 was more than $193 billion, including more than $120 billion per year in lost productivity. NDIC estimates that the annual cost of drug-related crime is more than $61 billion, and that yearly drug-related health care costs are more than $11 billion. Remedies for Substance Abuse The fourth criteria for defining a social problem is that remedies for the problem must exist. The structures of society address substance abuse in a variety of ways, some more successful than others. Drug treatment court, as described in the beginning of this chapter, is one response that has shown positive results thus far. In addition, political leaders have established laws to punish, control, and prevent substance use and abuse: Some laws regulate who can use substances, such as age limits for cigarettes and alcohol. Other laws regulate the way a substance can be used, such as laws in some states permitting marijuana to be used for medicinal reasons. Still other laws prohibit any use of a substance, such as heroin or LSD. Society also has laws that prohibit substance use under certain circumstances, such as when driving. These laws are meant to protect society's members from harming themselves and others. Panel of speakers sitting onstage at a DARE event. Robert Mora/Getty Images Education through programs such as DARE is one approach to preventing substance abuse. Education is another response to substance abuse. One well-known example is the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program, which is presented to elementary school children by police officers. However, the U.S. General Accounting Office, the Surgeon General's Office, and the National Academy of Sciences have issued reports indicating that children who participated in the DARE program were no less likely to use drugs than children who did not (Mosher & Akins, 2007). In the 1980s, the government developed a public education campaign encouraging children who were offered recreational drugs to "Just Say No." The program was based on abstinence, or refraining from substance use. It was criticized for being simplistic, not addressing causes of substance abuse, and directing children to avoid peer pressure instead of teaching them about drugs. Drug testing is another method of attempting to prevent substance abuse. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that drug testing of middle and high school students without suspicion of drug use did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure. The case arose out of a program at a high school in Oregon in which all student athletes were tested as a condition of their participation. Critics argue drug testing students violates their privacy and damages relationships and trust between students and administrators. Job-related drug testing became common in the United States after Congress passed the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. The act generally requires businesses to agree that they will provide drug-free workplaces as a condition of receiving a federal contract or grant. Today workplaces commonly have policies subjecting job applicants and employees to drug testing. Companies justify these policies as means of controlling productivity loss due to substance abuse. However, according to critics the cost of testing outweighs any benefits in controlling productivity, and the frequency of false positives makes the test results unreliable. Critics also maintain that such testing presumes the person being tested is guilty. On the individual level, treatment and rehabilitation are used to reduce substance abuse. There are various treatment approaches, and substance abusers commonly need more than one method to stop their abuse. Substance abuse treatment will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. When people's substance abuse harms others, society reacts by punishing the substance abuser. Yet, research has shown that punishment does not effectively reduce substance abuse (Wright, 2010). Also, the threat of punishment is not a consistently successful deterrent to substance abuse. For example, despite the possibility of having their drivers licenses suspended, people continue to drink and drive. 7.4 Types of Substances and Their Relationship to Crime There are many different types of substances and new ones are being added all the time. The categories into which they are commonly divided are stimulants, depressants, opiates, and others (such as hallucinogens and steroids). These categories include legally prescribed drugs, illicit street drugs, and alcohol. Stimulants Stimulants are substances that increase the activity of the body's central nervous system. They initially make users feel more alert, energetic, and exhilarated. These drugs cause neurons in the brain to increase production of neurotransmitters such as adrenaline. Caffeine and Tobacco Cans and bottles of various energy drinks. Paul J. Richards/Getty Images Consumption of energy drinks containing large amounts of caffeine is on the rise. Caffeine is one of society's oldest stimulants. Coffee beans have been chewed for their stimulant effects going back as far as 600 CE. Nearly 1,000 years ago Muslims began grinding coffee beans and adding hot water during all-night prayer sessions (Mosher & Akins, 2007). Tea dates back in China to 350 CE. Caffeine's negative side effects can include jitteriness and stomach irritation, and heavy use can lead to insomnia and rapid heart rate. Most recently, caffeine has been added to so-called energy drinks such as Red Bull and RockStar. These highly caffeinated drinks are sometimes mixed with alcohol to combat its sedating effects. Tobacco is another stimulant, and its primary active ingredient, nicotine, is one of the most toxic known substances. Like caffeine, it is legal in the United States, at least for adults. Tobacco will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter. Cocaine Coca is a plant that grows in the Andes Mountains of South America. Archeologists have found evidence of people in Ecuador and Chile having chewed coca leaves for thousands of years. The plant is still used today as an alternative to coffee as it does not irritate the stomach or cause the jitteriness many people experience from coffee. Of the 14 drugs derived from coca, cocaine has the most psychoactive properties. Cocaine chloride, 90% cocaine and 10% hydrochloric acid, was isolated from coca in the mid-1800s and used as an anesthetic by physicians. The soft drink Coca-Cola was invented by a pharmacist in the 1880s and until 1902 contained a significant amount of cocaine. The soda was marketed for its stimulant effects, which in its modern formula result from added caffeine. In addition to its stimulant effects, cocaine causes feelings of euphoria, increased confidence and well-being. People can snort cocaine chloride through the nose or inject it intravenously. Cocaine can be concentrated by a heating process and smoked, which is called freebasing. Crack is another concentration of cocaine that is smoked in pellet form. The high from using these concentrated forms of cocaine is more intense, lasts just minutes, and leaves users feeling anxious, tired, or depressed. More of the substance is then needed to alleviate these feelings, leading users to seek the drug more frequently than users of simple cocaine. All forms of cocaine are now illegal in the United States. Amphetamines Amphetamines are similar to cocaine but their stimulant effects last longer. Amphetamines are created by mixing adrenaline and ephedrine. The first amphetamine created was Benzedrine in Germany in the late 1880s. Other examples of amphetamines include Dexedrine and methamphetamine. These drugs gained popularity during World War II when soldiers were given them to relieve mental fatigue and increase their attention and endurance. Amphetamines became widely prescribed as appetite suppressants in the United States beginning in the 1950s and continuing through the 1970s. The most common amphetamine currently in use is methamphetamine, which has become a national epidemic in recent decades. Methamphetamine is an FDA-approved drug for treatment of ADHD and obesity. However, its most common use is as an illicit street drug. It comes in powdered or crystal form and can be inhaled, smoked, or injected. Methamphetamine is sometimes called crank, speed, meth, or crystal meth. Methamphetamine causes very high stimulation of "pleasure pathways" in the brain and is highly addictive. When usage stops, the user may "crash" and feel depressed and even suicidal. Methamphetamine addicts may develop psychosis. The drug is commonly manufactured by amateur cooks in illegal home laboratories, which makes it more available and relatively inexpensive. Pseudoephedrine, an ingredient in some over-the-counter cold and allergy medications can be extracted for use in the illegal production of methamphetamine. This has led to legal restrictions in which such cold remedies are locked away and only sold in small quantities. Other Stimulants Drugs prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and attention deficit disorder (ADD), such as Ritalin and Adderall, act on the same neurotransmitters as cocaine. Stimulants have a calming effect on people with these disorders. When taken by people without ADHD or ADD, the drugs have an effect similar to cocaine. Adderall is increasingly being used without a prescription on college campuses to help students study and focus without needing to sleep. Ecstasy, also called MDMA, was invented by a German scientist in the early 1900s. In the early 1950s the drug was tested by the U.S. government for its ability to make people tell the truth. Scientists also recognized its ability to increase empathy. Ecstasy is different from other stimulants in that it also has hallucinogenic properties. Because users experience increased sensitivity to touch, ecstasy acts as an aphrodisiac, enhancing sexual experience. Depressants Depressants are the opposite of stimulants. They decrease activity in the central nervous system and induce sedation and sleep. They are also used to relieve stress and anxiety. Withdrawal from depressants may produce insomnia and anxiety, the same symptoms that initiated the drug use. With a greater level of dependence, withdrawal can bring on tremors, weakness, life-threatening seizures, and delirium. Alcohol The most commonly used depressant is alcohol, the oldest and most widely used intoxicant in the world (Mosher & Akins, 2007). Alcohol can be fermented from any plant using sugar and yeast. In colonial America alcohol was common; it was consumed before, during, and after meals, socially, as a sedative, and in religious ceremonies. Because alcohol kills bacteria, it was a safe drink during a time when many people died from infection. Man blowing into a breathalyzer at a DUI checkpoint. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images Breathalyzers used to determine a person's blood alcohol level are used to identify people who are driving under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol is associated with a number of health issues. Long-term use of large amounts of alcohol can lead to liver and brain damage. Alcohol overdose can cause death. Driving while intoxicated is responsible for thousands of deaths each year in the United States. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is credited with changing U.S. cultural norms about drinking and driving. When the organization was established in 1980, there were about 30,000 drunken driving deaths each year; the number has since decreased to 17,000 (Davies, 2005). MADD campaigned for years to lower the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC), or the amount of alcohol in a person's bloodstream that determines driving under the influence (DUI). As a result, in 2000 Congress passed legislation that established 0.08% as the national legal standard for driving under the influence. In addition to drunken driving deaths, another public health issue caused by alcohol is fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), which was identified in the 1970s. Pregnant women who drink alcohol excessively, more than one drink per day, increase the likelihood their child will be born with neurological problems, low birth rate, and facial deformities. Since 1989 all alcohol sold in the United States must be labeled with the surgeon general's warning that "women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects." Binge drinking is a specific pattern of alcohol use. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism defines binge drinking as consuming enough alcohol within two hours to raise the BAC to 0.08%. This corresponds to five or more drinks for males and four or more drinks for females. Most binge drinkers are not addicted or dependent on alcohol. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 90% of the alcohol consumed by underage drinkers, and 75% of the alcohol consumed by adult drinkers is in the form of binge drinking. Males are more likely than females to binge drink, and binge drinkers are more likely than non-binge drinkers to report driving while impaired (CDC, 2010c). Tranquilizers Barbiturates are sometimes referred to as tranquilizers, downers, or sleeping pills and are categorized as either long-acting or slow-acting. Barbiturates have been used for over 100 years, since the sleeping aid barbital was formulated. The effects of long-acting barbiturates last 12 to 24 hours and are used to treat anxiety disorders and seizures. In high doses, fast-acting barbiturates have effects similar to alcohol. Barbiturates have a narrow therapeutic ratio, which means that the dose needed to treat a disorder is close to a lethal dose, making it relatively easy to overdose with them. The danger of barbiturates resulted in the development and widespread use of benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines have similar effects to barbiturates but are safer due to their wider therapeutic ratio. Benzodiazepines are often referred to as tranquilizers because they have a calming, relaxing effect. They are prescribed to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and muscle spasms. In the 1960s, Valium, one of the earliest benzodiazepines, was marketed as an aid to help people face life's everyday challenges—the rock band the Rolling Stones referred to it in one of their songs as "mother's little helper." Xanax is one of the most commonly used and abused tranquilizers; drugs with similar effects include Klonopin, Halcion, and Ativan. Although safer than long-acting barbiturates, these short-term tranquilizers are addictive and people who suddenly stop taking them after long-term use can experience serious withdrawal effects similar to alcohol. Rohypnol, sometimes referred to by the slang name "roofies," is a benzodiazepine that is ten times stronger than Valium. It has been called the date rape drug because, when combined with alcohol, it can cause extreme sedation, paralysis, and amnesia, making it easy for a predator to take advantage of a victim. Rohypnol is not approved for medical use in the United States but is sold in Europe and Central and South America as a treatment for anxiety. Inhalants Inhalants include a wide variety of substances categorized together because of the way they are ingested. Generally they are inhaled directly from the container or from a soaked rag. The slang term for abusing inhalants is "huffing." Many household products can produce effects similar to alcohol when inhaled. Volatile solvents include paint thinner, gasoline, glue, and markers. Aerosol sprays that contain propellants and solvents include spray paint and hair spray. Gases found in whipped cream cans and butane lights can also be used as inhalants. Solvents and gases are highly toxic and can kill after one use. One of the first inhalants was ether, which was used as an anesthetic during surgery. Nitrous oxide, sometimes referred to as laughing gas, is used as a sedative during dental work. It takes effect almost immediately and its effects wear off quickly. Because inhalants and solvents are widely available in household items, abuse is most common among adolescents. Although the substances used for inhalants are not themselves illegal, using them as inhalants is. Opiates All opiates come from opium, a milky extract from the seed pod of poppy plants. Raw opium contains over 40 psychoactive substances, but the two most frequently extracted are morphine and codeine. A small amount of an opiate creates a feeling of euphoria while a large amount can cause mental and physical relaxation. This makes opiates effective painkillers, or analgesics, and also makes them subject to abuse by people who self-medicate. Opiates are sometimes considered a type of depressant because they lead to drowsiness. Opiate use dates back to 5000 BCE; early Egyptians used opiates as a pain reliever. Opiate abusers experience a combination of physical and psychological dependence that can make withdrawal from them more painful than withdrawal from alcohol. Effects of withdrawal can include extreme pain, flu-like symptoms, and anxiety. Relatively speaking, opiates cause less physical damage to the body than alcohol. However, intravenous needle use associated with opiates is life-threatening due to exposure to blood-borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. Morphine and Heroin Morphine was extracted from opium in the early 1800s and is still one of the most effective pain relievers. It was widely used during the U.S. Civil War and the 1870 Franco-Prussian War, which led to many soldiers returning from battle addicted to morphine. During the early 1900s morphine was prescribed to women for menstrual cramps. In the late 1800s a new form of morphine, heroin, was developed in the hopes that it would be less addictive. Heroin was first marketed to the public by Bayer Laboratories, makers of the aspirin, to suppress coughs associated with tuberculosis and pneumonia, which were leading causes of death at the time. Heroin produces the same effects as morphine but more quickly and at lower doses. In most countries, heroin is illegal unless prescribed. When the supply of heroin was low during World War II, scientists developed a synthetic form of the drug called methadone. Methadone went on to be used to treat people addicted to heroin. Methadone produces similar physical effects as heroin but lasts longer and does not provide the same immediate rush or high. As a treatment for heroin addiction, it is administered in controlled dosages under medical supervision, with the dose gradually reduced. Codeine and Synthetic Opioids Codeine, the other primary psychoactive ingredient in opium, is weaker and best absorbed when taken orally. It releases histamines in the body that suppress coughs. Hydrocodone, a synthetic form of codeine, is a powerful pain killer that is more than five times as strong as codeine. Vicodin and Norco are common brand names for hydrocodone. All forms of codeine are legal only when prescribed. Oxycodone is a synthetic opiate used to treat pain. It can be combined with aspirin (Percodan) or acetaminophen (Percocet). Most recently, it has been used to create OxyContin, a painkiller as strong as morphine. Prescriptions for OxyContin have risen steadily in the last several years, as has illicit use of the pills, which could be crushed for snorting or injection. In 2010, the manufacturer altered the product to discourage its illegal abuse as a street drug. Other Substances Hallucinogens Hallucinogens are sometimes referred to psychedelics, rooted in a Greek word meaning "mind vision." It is difficult to overdose on hallucinogens, but they can be powerful at high doses and can cause people to have uncomfortable or traumatizing psychological experiences. Most hallucinogens are illegal unless prescribed in the United States. Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) was discovered by a Swedish chemist who was studying fungus. When he accidentally ingested it, it caused him to see images and blurring of colors. In the 1950s LSD was used by psychiatrists to treat psychological disorders as it was found to be useful in recovering repressed memories. It was also used to treat terminal cancer patients as it reduced their fear of death. At the same time, the military experimented with LSD to attempt to use it to brainwash enemies. Users of LSD can experience changes in their perceptions and be more sensitive to light and sound. Other hallucinogens include psilocybin, which is derived from mushrooms. Peyote is a small cactus that grows in Texas and Mexico. Its most active psychoactive element is mescaline. Peyote is illegal in the United States except for members of the Native American Church, who can use it in religious ceremonies under the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Phencyclidine, commonly called PCP, is a synthetic drug that was used after World War II as a surgical anesthetic. Its use was quickly halted after patients reported feeling dissociated (separated from their bodies) and out of reality days after their operations. Ketamine, a veterinary anesthesia, has effects similar to PCP but is less powerful. Ketamine has been popular as a "club drug" for its hallucinatory properties. Marijuana Marijuana, derived from the cannabis plant, is a commonly used drug that has properties of both stimulants and depressants. The main psychoactive ingredient in the Cannabis plant is delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is concentrated in the top flowering bud of the plant. The fiber of the marijuana plant stalk, hemp, is similar to cotton and can be woven into fabric. Users of marijuana report feeling relaxed and having an altered sense of time and increased appetite. Some people become more talkative and sociable. Some users report impaired memory, slowed reaction time, and difficulty concentrating. Marijuana is an illegal drug under federal law, but its legal status in the United States is complicated due to its legality for medicinal use in some states. Medical marijuana will be discussed in detail later in the chapter. Antidepressants Antidepressants are a category of drug that has grown in popularity of use in recent decades. They are prescribed to treat depression, anxiety, and other mental health disorders. Antidepressants have evolved in recent decades through research and development, and the marketing of such drugs in the popular media has skyrocketed. Antidepressants such as Paxil, Prozac, Effexor, and Zoloft are some of the most widely prescribed drugs in the world (Mosher & Akins, 2007). Antidepressants are initially slow to take effect. Their therapeutic effects are generally not felt for a week or two. Users cannot get high from antidepressants, and they have a low likelihood of abuse. However, they can have any of a wide range of side effects such as agitation, anxiety, headaches, and loss of sex drive. Users are also warned they should not stop taking these drugs suddenly as they can experience withdrawal symptoms such as irritability. In addition, the long-term effects of these drugs are unknown and some doctors advise pregnant women and women trying to become pregnant against taking SSRIs. The modern-day explosion of use of antidepressants has caused an impassioned debate on all aspects of the phenomenon. For example, some critics argue that antidepressant users experience a placebo effect, meaning they feel better simply because they are taking a drug. Some researchers have linked SSRI drugs to increased likelihood of suicidal thoughts, particularly in teenage users. However, others argue that people who are depressed are more likely to have suicidal thoughts with or without medication. Steroids Steroids are synthetic forms of testosterone, the male sex hormone. Testosterone and steroids have anabolic abilities, meaning they promote muscle growth. Steroids also have androgenic effects, increasing male sex characteristics such as deepening of the voice and patterns of hair growth. Although steroids are generally used to enhance athletic performance, they also are capable of affecting users' mood. Steroids have a number of side effects including increased anger or "roid rage," liver disease, and infertility. The specific side effects vary widely by the type of steroids used and the dosages. In low doses steroids have medical uses. The legality of steroids vary from country to country. In the United States, they are illegal unless prescribed. A Closer Look: Prescription Drugs: Help or Hazard? Watch a video of how the increased use of prescription drugs has increased the risk of drug overdose at http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Drugs/drug-deaths-exceed-traffic-deaths/story?id=14554903. The video and accompanying story note a startling fact: As of 2011, both prescription and street drugs kill more people in the United States than motor vehicle accidents. Given this fact, should the use of prescription drugs be limited? Should doctors be limited in the number of prescriptions they can write for any one person? Should law enforcement have access to medical records so they can track whether people are using multiple doctors or pharmacies to gain access to prescription drugs? Explain your answer. 7.5 Substance Abuse Treatment There are several approaches to treatment for substance abuse, but they all acknowledge that treatment is not simple. Addiction is a chronic, complicated disease that affects the brain in many ways, including the ability to maintain self control, think, and remember. Addiction also has a strong effect on the reward and motivation centers of the brain. The motivation of people seeking treatment is a key factor in the likelihood of successful treatment. Many people in substance abuse treatment experience relapse or return to using substances after a period of abstinence. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), effective treatment addresses a person's multiple needs, not just substance abuse. The NIDA also recommends that any treatment program employ a combination of methods (NIDA, 2009). Often the first step in the process is detoxification, in which the user stops or reduces use of the drug and undergoes withdrawal under medical supervision. After this occurs, treatment can begin. The NIDA recommends that treatment include prescribing medications that can restore normal brain function and reduce cravings. One example of this pharmacological approach is the use of methadone as a replacement for heroin, or the use of a nicotine patch as a replacement for cigarettes. People sitting in a circle at a chemical dependency group meeting. Lawrence Migdale/Getty Images Peer support groups offer one type of treatment for substance abuse. In addition, treatment usually includes behavioral therapies, such as counseling to help the user identify and avoid situations that are likely to trigger a relapse. In many treatment programs, while the user is participating in these kinds of therapies, they are also attending meetings of self-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous to add an extra layer of support. Drug treatment can occur with the participant attending regular meetings and appointments as an outpatient. Those with more severe problems can attend residential treatment in a therapeutic community. These are very structured programs in which the patients live at a facility for 6 to 12 months. These facilities concentrate on supporting the user to live a drug- and crime-free life. Because of the connection between substance abuse and crime, many users come in contact with the criminal justice system. Users can be pressured to participate in substance abuse treatment as a condition of probation or a way to avoid incarceration. According to NIDA, research has shown that combining criminal justice sanctions with drug treatment can be effective in decreasing drug abuse and related crime. Individuals under legal coercion tend to stay in treatment longer and do as well as or better than those not under legal pressure (Perron & Bright, 2008). 7.6 Substance Abuse and Social Policy In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protects public health by regulating how pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are labeled, processed, and manufactured. The FDA ensures the purity and safety of these substances for the well-being of society, and it will recall drugs if they are contaminated, defective, or potentially harmful. However, laws regarding substance use are sometimes contradictory and vary from state to state. Very simply put, policies generally view substance abuse as a criminal problem to be outlawed or as a social problem to be treated. Criminalization of Substances The topic of drugs in the United States is marked with paradoxes. The drugs that have been criminalized, or made illegal, are not necessarily the drugs that are most dangerous or harmful. Some societies allow the use of some drugs but not others. Perceptions of drug use vary over time and from society to society. For example, in the Netherlands marijuana use has been tolerated and laws regarding it have not been enforced—a situation that has existed for decades. As cultural values change over time, so do society's norms regarding acceptable drugs. In late 1960s, recreational drug use became mainstream behavior among young, white, middle-class Americans. Drug use was a symbol of protest during that era of political unrest. However, by the mid-1970s and 1980s, increased use of cocaine, drug crime in the Americas, and media reports about crack cocaine made drug policy a hot political topic in the United States. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (known as the Controlled Substances Act) created a classification system for controlled substances. Since 1970, U.S. government officials have added, deleted, or moved from one category to another about 160 substances (U.S. Department of Justice, 1970). This system contains several contradictions based on what is known about dangerous and habit-forming substances. Nicotine is the most difficult for people to quit and yet is not included on the government-generated list of controlled substances. Alcohol, the substance with the most serious withdrawal effects, is also not controlled by the U.S. government. The U.S. government categorizes marijuana as a Schedule I drug even though it is the least addictive, has the least serious withdrawal effects, and is the least likely to develop tolerance in users. Government Drug Classifications Under the Controlled Substances Act, government officials place drugs into five categories based on two characteristics: the potential for their abuse and whether the federal government recognizes any medicinal use. Schedule I controlled substances are those deemed to have no medicinal use in the United States and to have a high potential for abuse. Examples of Schedule I drugs include marijuana, heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. While some states have laws recognizing the medical use of marijuana, according to federal laws it is still illegal and a Schedule I drug. Schedule II drugs are recognized as medicinal but have a high potential for abuse, leading to severe psychological or physiological symptoms. They include morphine, codeine, methadone, methamphetamine, Ritalin, and oxycodone. Schedule III substances have medicinal use but less potential for abuse than those categorized in Schedules I and II such as anabolic steroids, Vicodin, and drugs used to treat opioid or heroin addiction. Schedule IV drugs have a lower potential for abuse. They include Xanax, Klonopin, Valium, and Ativan. Schedule V substances are those that have the lowest risk of abuse and have a recognized medicinal purpose. These include over-the-counter cough syrups with low amounts of codeine and some anti-diarrhea medications. Two substances classified very differently by the U.S. government create a great deal of controversy in society: medical marijuana and tobacco products. Medical Marijuana Society's attitudes toward marijuana use are moving from rejection to acceptance, reflected in changing laws and shifting norms. In the United States, increasing numbers of states permit the possession of small quantities of marijuana. Thirteen states have decriminalized first-time possession offenses of small amounts of marijuana, or made the penalty a fine rather than jail time (Marijuana Policy Project, 2012). Alaska removed all penalties for possessing less than one ounce of marijuana in 1975. In other states, based on local jurisdiction, marijuana offenses are a low priority for law enforcement. A legalization of marijuana advocate holds up a sign during a pro-marijuana rally. Michael Smith/Getty Images Changing laws reflect society's shifting attitudes toward marijuana use. A 2011 Harris Poll found that three quarters of Americans say they support legalization of marijuana for medical treatment (74%) with almost half saying they strongly support it (48%). Significantly fewer Americans say they oppose the legalization of medical marijuana in their state (18%). Two in five support legalizing marijuana for recreational use in their state (42%) (Harris Interactive, 2011). As of 2012, 16 states plus Washington, DC, allow the medicinal use of marijuana for various ailments (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws [NORML], 2011). The federal government, however, does not acknowledge the medicinal properties of marijuana, and as noted previously categorizes it as a Schedule I drug. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005) the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the federal government can ban the use of cannabis, including medical use, even if local laws allow it. The laws in states that allow people to possess and use marijuana contradict and violate federal law. Increasing amounts of scientific research find that marijuana has a variety of medical applications. Health care providers find marijuana reduces pain and nausea and can help alleviate glaucoma. Marijuana is used as an appetite stimulant for patients undergoing cancer treatment, suffering from HIV, and the AIDS wasting syndrome. There is global support from health care organizations for allowing patients legal access to medical marijuana. Smoking and Tobacco Use Each year, more deaths worldwide result from tobacco use than from HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2011b). In 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General first documented the harmful effects of smoking in Smoking and Health: Reports of the Advisory Committee of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001). Some of the harmful effects include the following: Smoking kills more than 400,000 people each year in the United States and causes 30% of all cancer cases. Smoking tobacco causes a large majority of lung cancer cases, and chewing tobacco causes gum disease and oral cancer. Pregnant women who smoke increase their chances of stillbirths and increase the risk of respiratory disorders in their newborns. Children exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes have higher rates of asthma and other breathing disorders, including lung cancer and heart disease (CDC, 2011b). Tobacco is a plant native to the United States that grows easily in the climate of the Southern states. When health officials began to publicly focus on the hazards caused by tobacco, cigarette companies had already become international conglomerates. Well-funded tobacco lobbyists have worked hard to keep cigarettes legal. Southern farmers and the Southern economy also benefit from the legalization of tobacco—North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia are the states with the most tobacco acreage. However, tobacco has a downside for the residents of these states. They consume more tobacco products than those in other states and have higher rates of tobacco-related illnesses and statewide health care costs related to tobacco (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001). Despite the dangers associated with tobacco, it is not on the U.S. list of controlled substances. Lobbying efforts by tobacco corporations and politicians from "tobacco states" have been successful in keeping tobacco legal. Social norms around smoking are different in different regions. For example, California was the first state to prohibit smoking indoors in public places. In New York City people cannot smoke outdoors in public places such as beaches and parks. Meanwhile, in the tobacco states smoking is not as highly regulated. A Closer Look: Smoking in Asia Watch "China Faces Crisis Over Smoking" at http://online.wsj.com/video/china-faces-crisis-over-smoking/D74090AE-660F-467B-BBED-44F468EFDF9B.html. As the number of smokers in the United States drops, cigarette makers have moved marketing campaigns to other areas of the world. China is now home to one third of the world's smokers (Hogg, 2011). According to research findings from China, only about a quarter of people surveyed are aware of the health risks associated with smoking. Yet, about half of all people who die each year from tobacco-related illnesses are from Asian countries such as China, Indonesia, and Thailand. Changing the culture around smoking in Asia presents a challenge. For example, in China it is a sign of good manners to accept a host's offer of a cigarette. And when a person is asked to do a favor, accepting an offered cigarette often indicates the person will grant the favor. Health care officials in Asia fear cultural trends in Asian countries will follow those in the West, where women began to pick up the smoking habit after men. For example, advertising for cigarettes in Vietnam that target young urban women depicts the habit as sophisticated (The Economist, 2007). Consider the anti-smoking efforts of the past several years in the United States. Examples include campaigns sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/), Truth.com (thetruth.com), and the Kill a Cigarette and Save a Life campaign (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kill-a-Cigarette-and-Save-a-Life/186537391381384). Do you think similar campaigns could be effective in Asia, where cultural norms about smoking differ from those in the United States? How could the societies in Asia present smoking as a social problem that needs to be resolved for the sake of public health? Explain your answer. The Wars on Drugs and U.S. Policy The U.S. government has been waging wars on alcohol and drugs for the past 90 years. Not all of these attempts to discourage substance abuse and substance-related crimes have been successful. Prohibition In the 1920s the United States waged war against alcohol. The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on January 16, 1919, and a year later, on January 17, 1920, America went dry. The era of Prohibition had begun. The law was justified in large part on the premise that alcohol was causing all of society's ills at the time. But other social forces also were at work. The industrial revolution of the early 1800s led to the rise of cities. Multitudes of immigrants worked at low-paying factory jobs or were unemployed, and their poverty resulted in the creation of slums in major cities. The disorganized, crowded cities were a startling development to some Americans, especially wealthy Whites. The swift social change these Americans were witnessing, coupled with anti-immigrant sentiment, created a powerful movement against what they saw as moral decline. Prohibition poster from 1918 advocating for the closure of saloons. Courtesy Everett Collection Prohibition was intended to stop social problems caused by alcohol. In reality, Prohibition actually encouraged criminality and corruption. Like contemporary laws prohibiting certain drugs, laws banning alcohol were most successfully enforced against impoverished city dwellers, often recent immigrants. Poor people could not gain access to the exclusive nightclubs or speakeasies where alcohol was served. Supporters viewed Prohibition as a way to clean up the slums and save the immigrants from their own vices. Prohibition did not stop average Americans from drinking alcohol but simply changed its availability. In addition to the illegal use of homemade stills, many Americans who wished to drink could obtain alcohol through legal exceptions. For example, self-fermented alcohol and alcohol remedies prescribed by doctors and dentists were allowed. As a way to avoid prohibition laws, farmers increasingly grew their own grain and fermented their own alcohol. Veterinarians wrote prescriptions for people for human medicines containing alcohol. The exception for sacramental wine led to a rise in bogus religious men leading their "congregations" in mock religious ceremonies. Eighty years later, most people regard Prohibition as an utter failure. It encouraged criminality, disrespect for laws, and corruption; diverted profits from the government, and caused fatalities as drinkers were poisoned by batches of toxic concoctions (Okrent, 2010). Prohibition also cultivated a culture of bribery and allowed organized crime to thrive. Illegal alcohol was highly profitable for gangs and organized crime syndicates. The profits at stake also led to increased rates of violence associated with the alcohol trade. The 21st Amendment, which took effect on December 5, 1933, allowed states to create their own laws regulating alcohol. Despite oft-stated fears, no surge of crime followed the repeal of Prohibition. In fact, Americans drink less now than they did in the early 20th century (Okrent, 2010). The Contemporary "War on Drugs" War on Drugs Dramatically Incresases Prison Population How have addicts changed the face of the U.S. justice system? Why is the American Civil Liberties Union critical of the hard-line approach to drug crimes? Prohibition was just one historical effort by the U.S. government to wage a "war" on substance use. The most recent "war on drugs" has its roots in the context of the civil and racial unrest of the 1960s. Politicians responded by enacting more punitive drug laws. In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared an institutional "War on Drugs." In the 1970s, state and federal law enforcement agencies increased their efforts to control the supply, distribution, and use of illegal drugs. Arrests for drug crimes increased sharply in the 1980s and 1990s, and drug offenders often faced stiff mandatory minimum sentences. While overall state prison populations grew by an average of 8% each year between 1980 and 1996, the population of drug offenders in state prisons grew by more than 16% annually (Western & Pettit, 2008). In 1986, President Reagan signed a law appropriating $1.7 billion to fight the "drug war." The bill created mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses. These mandatory sentences promoted racial disparities in the prison population because of the differences in sentencing for offenses related to crack and powder cocaine. Possession of the much cheaper drug crack resulted in a harsher sentence, penalizing its lower income users. In 1980, 581,000 people were arrested for drug crimes, and by 2009 the number had almost tripled to 1,663,000 people. In 1980 about 41,000 were in prison or jail for drug crimes, and by 2003 that number neared 500,000 people (Mauer & King, 2007). Racial disparities among those arrested for drug offenses are carried over into racial disparities among those sentenced to prison and jail. As a result of the laws that constitute the War on Drugs, today Black and Hispanic-Latino people make up 65% of drug offenders in state prisons (West & Sabol, 2010). Figure 7.1 illustrates how the adult correctional populations grew in the United States between 1980 and 2009. The large increase in the number of people incarcerated and on probation and parole was driven in large part by drug offenses. The "war on drugs" of recent decades has primarily impacted communities of color, as Blacks and Hispanics-Latinos are the majority of those arrested and imprisoned for drug offenses. Impoverished, inner-city neighborhoods bear the double-burden of the arrests of many of their residents and the burden of reintegrating them when they return from prison (Rose & Clear, 2002). People convicted of felony crimes also face collateral consequences, including ineligibility for public benefits, public housing, student loans, and many jobs. These consequences create added difficulties for people trying to establish social and economic stability after release from incarceration. As 700,000 people reenter society each year, these collateral consequences affect their families and their communities (Pinard, 2010). Figure 7.1: Increase in United States correctional population, 1980–2009 Line graph showing the population of adults on probation, in prison, on parole, and in jail between 1980 and 2009. The graphs shows that all 4 populations have risen over this time period. The greatest growth occurred in the probation population, rising from 1,000,000 in 1980 to just over 4,000,000 in 2009. The significant growth of the United States correctional population over the last 30 years is largely due to the increased number of drug offenses. Source: Based on data taken from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Surveys. http://www.bjs.gov/content/glance/corr2.cfm Responding to Social Issues: Prisoners and Reentry Programs Photo of Dr. Christy Visher Photo courtesy of Christy Visher. Used with permission. Dr. Christy Visher Christy Visher is a sociology professor and director of the Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies at the University of Delaware. Her research focuses on criminal careers, substance abuse, communities and crime, violence, and the evaluation of strategies for crime control and prevention. As a Principal Research Associate for the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center, Professor Visher designed and directed a longitudinal study of 1,500 prisoners from four states for Returning Home: The Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (2001–2006). Professor Visher and her co-researchers examined the lives of these prisoners before their release dates and after their reentry in their home communities. A combination of interviews with prisoners and focus groups with community members helped researchers learn more about the challenges offenders face—issues such as substance abuse, unemployment, and recidivism. Researchers gathered information policymakers and support service providers need to better address such reintegration concerns. Professor Visher has over 25 years of experience in policy research and evaluation of crime and justice issues. In this interview she discusses sociological issues related to her research and the role of sociological research in understanding social problems. Sociology and Research Why did you decide to make a career as a sociological professor and researcher? How did you select your area of emphasis? I was interested in the interaction between individuals and their social environment, particularly in urban areas. The selection of a focus area (criminology and criminal justice) had a lot to do with interesting professors I had in college and the opportunity to work on their research projects. Thinking back on your research experiences, is there a memorable finding or event that you did not expect to come across? In my Returning Home study, we found that individuals in prison reported strong family relationships with many "close" family members. Also, these strong family relationships were very helpful in their transition from prison to the community. Some community agencies did not believe our findings. They said that families of incarcerated individuals are often dysfunctional and promote negative behaviors. But what we determined was that the community agencies were likely only engaged with former prisoners and families who were in crisis with lots of problems. The majority of former prisoners and their families do not engage with these community agencies, so the agencies were seeing a biased picture of family support among former prisoners. Studying Prisoner Reentry Programs You have helped conduct analyses of reentry programs for serious and violent offenders. What is the overall objective of such analyses, and why is such research important? It is popular among the media and politicians and the public to envision a strategy that once implemented will rehabilitate serious and violent offenders—the so called "silver bullet" strategy. Sadly, there is no silver bullet. The study of reentry programs is important so that we can identify the specific types of programs and strategies that will reduce the chances of failure among serious/violent offenders. Could you tell us more about conducting the Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry study? We undertook this study because there were no systematic data on the experiences individuals faced as they exited prison, especially larger studies that would permit statistical analysis of patterns. The longitudinal perspective allows us to examine the reintegration process, which takes place over many months. In fact, even after almost a year out of prison, our respondents were still looking for jobs and stable housing. A longitudinal perspective permits a clearer understanding of the factors leading to success. My colleagues have just finished a study of criminal desistance patterns over 15 years, which has revealed important insights that we did not understand studying only the first couple of years after release. Of course, the drawbacks are that a thorough understanding of this process can take many years and can be very costly. How does study of one specific section of the population, such as serious or violent offenders, apply to the population as a whole? Studies of specific populations help us understand how social factors affect individual behavior. Many of these studies will reveal insights that are generalizable beyond the study population. In the case of offenders, we are realizing the importance of family ties and health in creating successful pathways after incarceration. This is not so different than in the lives of the general population—our family and our health are critical factors in how we view ourselves and our lives. These kinds of findings help us to understand a population that we might think is very different from ourselves. Addressing Social Problems How does research influence development of possible solutions for social problems? In my research on prisoner reentry, we have identified individual and family factors that may improve or reduce chances for success after incarceration; for example, strength of family ties, attachment to children, type of in-prison services and programs received, continued substance abuse, and mental and physical health conditions. Once we understand how these factors influence success, we can focus on changing them so that we can improve the chances for a successful reintegration. Why is it important for students to recognize and learn about social problems? Students need to learn about the main societal issues facing individuals and families at the present time and in the foreseeable future to understand how individual problems are often linked to larger social issues. It is also important for students to understand how our view of social problems may be socially constructed by current events, social institutions and the media. Dr. Christy Visher, University of Delaware https://www.cdhs.udel.edu/people/researchers/Visher Returning Home: The Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, research reports and findings for the Urban Institute http://www.urban.org/expert.cfm?ID=ChristyVisher Drug Policy Solutions Critics of U.S. drug policies point out that despite the steps the government has taken, the supply of illegal drugs and the demand for them continues. Critics state that current drug policies and the "war on drugs" have failed, just as Prohibition did. Although drug policy is complex, it often comes down to a debate between those who believe resources should go toward treatment and prevention and those who believe resources should be directed toward reducing the supply and fighting and punishing associated crimes. Treatment-focused policy often concentrates on harm reduction, or reducing the suffering caused by substance abuse. One example of harm reduction includes methadone programs that get addicts off heroin under medical supervision. Another example is programs in which intravenous drug users can obtain clean needles to reduce the chance of getting a life-threatening disease through sharing infected needles. Other approaches to policy include deregulation of substances and decriminalization. Many high-profile public figures, including Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, have advocated for the decriminalization of marijuana. Another approach would be to legalize some or all substances, which some advocates believe would inject billions of dollars into the U.S. economy from reducing the budget for fighting drug-related crime and increased sales tax revenue. A Closer Look: Portugal and the Legalization of Drugs In response to having some of the highest rates of illegal drug use in Europe and increasing rates of HIV among drug users sharing dirty needles, in 2001 the government of Portugal decriminalized the use and possession of drugs including heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. Drug dealers and traffickers still face punishment, but people caught with amounts of drugs consistent with personal use go before a three-member panel composed of a legal advisor, a social worker, and a psychologist. While the panel can recommend treatment paid for by government funds that are no longer spent on incarceration, the drug user can refuse without penalty. This focus on treatment instead of punishment has led to positive results. Critics of the policy expressed initial concern about the possible unintended consequences of decriminalization such as increased drug use. However, after decriminalization, drug use among teenagers declined. In fact, compared to other European countries, Portugal now has the lowest rate of people over age 15 who have used marijuana in their lifetime: 10%. In the United States, government research reports that the number is about 40% (Greenwald, 2009). Moreover, the number of deaths from drug overdose as well as the number of new cases of HIV declined significantly (Greenwald, 2009; Vastag, 2009). The concern that the country would become a destination for drug tourists also proved unfounded. Government officials are using the money saved on law enforcement efforts to fund drug treatment instead. Drug legalization, as opposed to decriminalization, removes all punishment for producing, selling, and using drugs; no country has this policy. Decriminalization, as in Portugal, eliminates incarceration for drug users but not for dealers. The United States has some of the Western world's harshest penalties for drug-related crimes and the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world. In comparison, most European countries have more lenient drug policies and less drug use (Greenwald, 2009). Could Portugal's approach to substance abuse work in the United States? Why or why not? Given that this approach doesn't necessarily stop people from abusing drugs, does it seem like an effective remedy for the social problem of substance abuse? Why or why not? 7.7 Theories of Crime and Substance Abuse When viewed as not only a social problem but also an aspect of crime, substance abuse can be examined through the different theoretical frameworks that seek to illuminate the causes and functions of crime. The functionalist, conflict, symbolic interactionism, race-centered, and feminist theoretical perspectives focus on different explanations for the causes of crime. Functionalist Perspective According to the functionalist perspective, crime occurs because it serves a purpose for society. When society's rules are broken, the offender is punished as a way to reinforce norms. For example, when someone commits a murder, society's response sends a message to the offender that the behavior is not acceptable. Reinforcing social norms unites members of society. The collective act of revenge through punishment produces social cohesion. The criminal behavior of others can bring society together when people work together to look out for or catch an offender. When the media releases a person's description and asks the public to look for this person and call the police, the community works together to send the message that the person's behavior was not acceptable and will be punished. The functionalist perspective also offers an explanation for why people commit crimes. According to Emile Durkheim, when society undergoes rapid change and old norms are replaced by new norms, anomie can result. Recall from Chapter 1 (1.3) that anomie is a lack of social standards, leaving people to feel they have no clear guidelines about what is acceptable. For example, the quick rise of the Internet age has changed norms about private behavior within a handful of years. It is common for people to "Google" each other after they meet, and the information provided by an Internet search can be used in various ways. With Facebook and other social media sites, millions of people can post pictures of what they are eating, announce their locations, and post instant information about their thoughts and feelings. The aspects of one's life once shared with few can today be shared with many. However, although one can prevent the public from viewing posts, the social media sites can share the information with law enforcement and the government. Similarly, people looking for jobs are often warned to remove from the Internet pictures of themselves drinking alcohol or partying. The easy access to the wealth of information available on the Internet has created new categories of crime. It has also made it easier to commit certain types of crime, such as identity theft (stealing and assuming another individual's identity in order to access resources associated with that person's name) and larceny (stealing without violence). For example, criminals can easily pay to run background checks on others, and the information obtained can be used to create fraudulent credit card and bank accounts. In addition, some victims of crime have to carefully monitor their online presence. For example, victims of stalking or domestic violence who want to avoid future contact with their offenders have to be more vigilant about what is posted about them on the web. Robert Merton (1938) extended Durkheim's theory of anomie. Merton maintained that the frustration or strain of anomie relates to people's goals and the means they have to achieve them. He argued that strain occurs when people are not able to achieve their culturally valued or conventional goals through socially acceptable means. For example, in the United States society stresses the importance of economic success. Socially acceptable ways of achieving success include hard work and education. When people are unable to achieve their goals, they may experience frustration or anomie. As a result, they adapt in one of five ways: Conformity: achieving goals in socially acceptable ways Innovation: achieving culturally valued goals but in socially unacceptable ways Ritualism: rejecting culturally valued goals but engaging in socially acceptable means to obtain those goals Retreatism: rejecting both culturally valued goals and the socially acceptable means of achieving them Rebellion: rejecting both culturally valued goals and socially acceptable means and replacing them with alternative goals and means. Sometimes these ways of adapting can lead to crime. According to Merton's typology, people who conform accept conventional goals and means. For example, they want wealth and they will engage in socially acceptable behavior to become wealthy. They may go to college to learn the skills they need to be hired at a highly paid job or start a business that produces the next great gadget. People who want to achieve the American dream of financial success but do not use socially acceptable means to become successful are, in Merton's definition, innovating. Examples of people innovating include those who sell drugs or commit fraud to steal money from people. Ritualism occurs when a person does not pursue conventional goals such as wealth and power but lives by socially acceptable norms. People who reject materialism and consumerism or who purposely live on a limited income are engaging in ritualism. Retreatists reject both culturally defined goals and conventional means. They do not want wealth, success, or power, and do not attempt to achieve them by education, training, or by having a conventional job. According to Merton, people who withdraw from society, such as drifters or those homeless people who choose to live on the street, are retreating. Finally, rebels reject both approved goals and conventional means and replace them with alternatives. People who rebel may be revolutionaries trying to overthrow a corrupt government and establish a new system of leadership, or people who want to promote and substitute new ideas about aspects of society. For example, the people of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) fight against depleting forests and other natural resources by unconventional means such as property destruction. Table 7.1 summarizes the styles of adaptation. Table 7.1: Merton's modes of adaptation Style of adaptation Accept conventional goals Accept conventional means Conformity Yes Yes Innovation Yes No Ritualism No Yes Retreatism No No Rebellion No, but replace with own No, but replace with own The functionalist perspective is limited in its explanations of why those who experience strain choose to react in the way they do. Not everyone who faces barriers when they try to achieve their goals experiences stress or frustration and turns to crime. Some choose innovation while others are content to go without material goods. Bernie Madoff leaving the U.S. Federal Courthouse. Courtesy Everett Collection The theory of anomie does not explain why members of the upper class who do not experience strain, such as Bernard Madoff, commit deviant acts. The theory also does not explain why those who turn to innovation choose to commit the crimes they do. Some people steal cars while others burglarize homes. The theory does not adequately explain why the wealthy and powerful who have achieved conventional goals still engage in unconventional ways of acquiring more. For example, businessman Bernard Madoff, a New York billionaire, pleaded guilty in 2009 to defrauding thousands of investors by operating the largest Ponzi scheme in the U.S. history. He promised investors large profits but instead took their money and lived a lavish lifestyle that included owning multiple homes around the world. Madoff was a wealthy businessman before he began stealing money, but he defrauded other wealthy people to gain even more wealth. In Merton's theory, Madoff would be called an innovator, but the theory does not explain his possible motivations. Conflict Perspective Conflict theorists maintain that those in power define crime in a way that protects their self-interest and maintains their privilege. One of the perspective's most influential theorists, Richard Quinney (1970), called attention to the process of defining criminal behavior from a conflict perspective. Rather than examining the people who commit crime, he investigated the nature of society's laws. Quinney challenged the conventional wisdom that criminals are somehow flawed or ill. He pointed out that politicians establish laws and define crimes. He also noted that a society's laws change over time based on the political climate and the interests of the most powerful groups in society. The behavior that society decides to criminalize is often the behavior that affects the most powerful. For example, according to the Sedition Act of 1798, anyone who spoke or published negative statements about the recently created U.S. federal government could be punished. The law was a way to limit the power of Americans who were perceived to be a threat to the Federalist Party, which was dominant at the time. Likewise, some of society's laws, such as so-called blue laws, which limit the purchase of alcohol and other shopping on Sundays, were designed to support the most powerful religions in society. Blue laws date back to the Puritans who settled the northeastern United States. Sunday was a sacred day for connecting with family and attending church, and forcing stores to close fostered the practice. But the tradition of observing the Sabbath, or day of rest, has changed over the last several decades. Beginning around World War II, women increasingly worked outside the home and shopping had to be done on weekends, requiring stores to stay open seven days a week. Today's United States is more diverse, and not every religion celebrates Sunday as the holiest day of the week. For example, in Judaism the Sabbath is observed from sundown Friday until sunset Saturday. Returning to two of the criteria for defining a social problem, social patterns and core values, most blue laws have been repealed because they no longer violate broadly held core values. The evolution of blue laws supports Quinney's argument that laws are relative and change over time. In his classic text The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, Jeffrey Reiman (2010) argues that the U.S. criminal justice system is like a carnival mirror that distorts the public's view about the greatest dangers in society. Reiman urges people to look at how some of the actions of the socially and politically powerful harm others and, while they are not defined as crimes, these acts do more harm than acts society punishes as criminal. The carnival mirror magnifies perceived threats from street crime and minimizes actual threats from lack of health care, unsafe working conditions, poverty, and chemical and environmental pollution. Reiman focuses on white-collar crime, nonviolent acts engaged in for financial gain, and the harm done by big corporations and the people who run them. One example would be the predatory lending practices and mortgage fraud that, in part, brought on the mortgage crisis in 2008. Reiman argues for tougher laws to prosecute major financial crimes that destroy the lives of millions of Americans each year. Symbolic Interactionism Symbolic interactionism theorists maintain that people's understanding of crime is socially constructed. Symbolic interactionists also point out that socialization, and not innate or inborn characteristics, plays a role in who commits criminal acts and the treatment they face. Members of society learn both how to be criminal and whom to identify as criminal. People with more social and economic power label those with less power. For example, Black and Hispanic-Latino adolescents who cut school or commit misdemeanors such as vandalism are more likely to become part of the criminal justice system, whether put on probation or sent to juvenile detention facilities, than White adolescents who engage in the same behavior. Society sends a message that when Black and Hispanic-Latino adolescents behave this way, it indicates their tendencies toward criminality. When White adolescents behave this way, it is age-appropriate behavior. Howard Becker (1963), the founder of labeling theory, maintained that people or behaviors come to be seen as criminal only when people with power label them as such. For example, many teenagers may try smoking marijuana. Those who are caught may get in trouble—their parents may punish them, prohibit them from seeing friends, and take away their cell phones. The teenagers experience the punishment and do not use marijuana again. They go on to college and do well and grow up to be successful adults. While these teens engaged in criminal behavior, they were not labeled criminal. When people break rules but are not labeled, Becker refers to this as primary deviance. Some teens will get caught smoking marijuana, be arrested, go to court, and be mandated to enter drug treatment. They may drop out of treatment, be rejected by their parents, and turn to the streets and become addicted to narcotics. When people are labeled and accept the label, they may act to fulfill the expectations of the label. They view themselves as they think others see them, and the self-image will prompt them to carry out the behaviors associated with the label. Secondary deviance occurs when these offenders perpetuate the behavior and, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, become what they have been labeled. In a classic study, sociologist William Chambliss studied two groups of high school boys to examine the effects of labels. One group of eight boys lived in middle-class families, and society expected them to graduate from high school and go on to succeed in life. Chambliss referred to these boys as the "Saints." The other group consisted of six boys who came from poor families. Society expected these boys to fail. Chambliss referred to them as the "Roughnecks." Chambliss (1978) reported that while the boys in both groups engaged in low-level criminal activity such as skipping school, fighting, and vandalism, they received different treatment. Teachers and law enforcement excused the behavior of the Saints, who were viewed as generally good kids, while the Roughnecks were more likely to face formal or legal sanctions. Chambliss later followed up on the boys. All but one member of the Saints had gone on to college and successful careers. Of the Roughnecks, two went to college on sports scholarships and became coaches, two did not graduate high school, and two went to prison. According to Chambliss, society's expectations and interpretations of the boys' behavior depended on their social class. His study demonstrates the power of labels and how primary and secondary deviance influences what people come to expect from themselves. Symbolic interactionism theorists also point out that groups of people perceived as criminal are likely to commit criminal acts. Racial profiling, the process of subjecting people with certain racial characteristics to greater scrutiny and restrictive policies, demonstrates how the concept of deviance is socially constructed. Racial profiling leads to unfair treatment of some groups and perpetuates racial inequality in the criminal justice system (Chapter 4). Feminist Perspective Criminologists first developed feminist theories of crime in the 1960s when the women's rights movement was taking place. The women's rights movement made people aware that researchers were ignoring women's experiences in society, including those in the criminal justice system. Feminist theorists offer explanations for the historically lower crime rates among women and the recent rise in the number of women behind bars. Feminist theorists (Messerschmidt, 1986) have attributed lower rates of criminality among women to the isolation women face when tied to family and home. Because they did not spend as much time outside the home as men did, women tended to engage in nonviolent, self-destructive criminal acts, such as drug use. But as convictions for drug-related crimes have increased, the number of women incarcerated in the United States has grown dramatically. Lower rates of criminality among women can also be attributed to the chivalry hypothesis, which argues that judges are more likely to give females shorter sentences out of an instinct to protect them. However, because women and girls tend to receive less severe punishments, they may be used by male drug dealers or male gangs to distribute drugs. Further, being involved in these types of drug-related activities can provide women with the means to support their drug addictions. Substance abuse may be fueled by exposure to other types of crime. For example, girls who are raised in homes where they witness violence against their mothers come to believe victimization is acceptable. If they become involved in abusive intimate relationships themselves, addiction to drugs is a way to numb the effects of the abuse. In recent years, female criminality has become increasingly violent and more like the criminality of males. Researchers and criminal justice practitioners point to several factors as driving the increase in violent crime committed by females. Teenage girls are joining gangs in larger numbers than ever before and engaging in violence is part of the process of gaining respect. Females are also increasingly carrying weapons, which contributes to escalating offenses into violent crimes. In addition, females are becoming more aggressive and taking on typically male characteristics of toughness to appear less vulnerable. Despite the growing numbers of women in prison, the development of programs to prevent and treat female criminality lags behind the efforts made for males. Feminist scholars describe girls in the criminal justice system as triply marginalized due to their age, race, and class. They call for the criminal justice system to develop treatment programs that empower girls and serve as interventions to prevent the increasing rates of female delinquency (Chesney-Lind & Jones, 2010). Race-Centered Perspective Race-centered theorists point out that criminal justice systems treat people differently based on their race, class, and gender. Members of economically disadvantaged groups receive harsher treatment in all areas of the criminal justice system. Data collected from law enforcement agencies and court records show that poor Black and Hispanic-Latino people are more likely to be stopped, investigated, arrested, charged, tried, found guilty, and sent to prison (Tonry, 2011). Prisoners are most likely to be poor, Black, or Hispanic-Latino young males. Research (e.g., Goldsmith, 2005; Holmes & Smith, 2008; Tonry, 2004, 2011) consistently shows that the highest rates of police brutality occur in inner cities where residents are predominantly Black and Hispanic-Latino. The war on drugs has also disproportionately affected Black Americans. In The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, scholar Michele Alexander (2010) makes the case that the mass imprisonment of Black Americans has created a racial caste system in the United States. One in eight Black males in their twenties is in jail or prison, and three out of four prisoners incarcerated for drug offenses are people of color (The Sentencing Project, n.d.). As Alexander points out, the stigma of prison leaves these men facing legal discrimination in housing, employment, and public benefits for the rest of their lives. The race-centered perspective points out that historically, race has been criminalized in the United States. When the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution took effect in December 1865 at the end of the Civil War, many believed it meant the end of slavery. Instead, states including Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas adopted the Black Codes, which created categories of crime that were specific to Blacks and helped control Black labor. For example, a vagrancy law deemed that Blacks found without a job and permanent housing could be arrested, fined, and hired out if they could not pay the fine. Therefore, it became almost impossible for Black people to relocate to find a better job and standard of living. Interracial marriage was punishable with a life sentence in the state penitentiary. In essense, these laws criminalized Blackness (Blackmon, 2008). Ironically, former slaves could no longer rely on their masters to protect them as valuable property. The Black Codes created many criminal cases, overwhelming local courts and leaving sheriffs to determine punishments—generally a fine that the "offenders" could not pay. As a result, offenders were leased to White men to work off their debt. The criminal justice system, including the courts, became a tool to re-enslave Blacks (Du Bois, 1990). Low-level disobedience, most commonly stealing, overwhelmed Southern courts, and Black prisoners became the majority in Southern prisons. For example, under the Pig Law, grand larceny was defined as stealing any farm animal or property worth over $10 and could result in a 5-year prison sentence (Oshinsky, 1996). Inmates, nearly all former slaves, were subjected to forced labor. While the Black Codes were prohibited under Reconstruction, the period between 1867 and 1877 when the Northern military occupied the South, they came back in the form of Jim Crow segregation laws after Reconstruction and persisted until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. 7.8 How Sociologists Are Responding to Issues of Crime A number of sociologists focus on understanding and addressing contemporary crime and criminal justice issues, including Jack Levin, co-director of the Center on Violence and Conflict at Northeastern University, and David Kennedy, a scholar at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Jack Levin: Crime and Victimization Jack Levin grew up hearing stories from his mother about how she escaped Nazi Germany. He also watched Blacks drink from separate water fountains and ride in the back of buses as he grew up in the pre–Civil Rights South. These experiences helped him realize that the victims of hate, whether because of their religion or the color of their skin, are more similar than different. He argues that hate is perpetuated by those who act on it as well as by those who sit by and do not defend those being victimized. He publishes and speaks out widely against hate crimes, including those on college campuses, and recently lent his support to legislation that would amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes against people based on their status as homeless. Levin (jacklevinonviolence.com) has written a number of books that shed light on the social problem of crime, including The Violence of Hate: Confronting Racism, Anti-Semitism, and Other Forms of Bigotry (3rd ed.) with Jim Nolan (2010), Killer on Campus with James Alan Fox (1996), and Mass Murder: America's Growing Menace (1991) with James Alan Fox. David Kennedy: Gangs Cease Fire Growing up in Detroit in the 1960s and '70s, David Kennedy saw city streets plagued with violence. He went on to work on the problem of violent crime in the United States' inner cities. Since 2005, Kennedy has worked at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, where he developed a unique way of getting gang members and drug dealers off the streets. He began by studying youth violence in Boston and soon recognized that although law enforcement has increased its use of forceful tactics, the tactics have left law enforcement divided from, and not part of, the community. Kennedy's research shows that only a dozen or so people, not hundreds, are responsible for causing most of the violence in crime-ridden areas. With what he calls his "Ceasefire" approach, law enforcement officers apprehend gang members who are on probation or parole and force them to attend a meeting. At the meeting, these offenders are shown videos of themselves dealing drugs and told that they can be put in prison. The offenders are warned that the punishment will be swift and severe and will target their fellow gang members (Seabrook, 2009). Then, the young people are allowed to leave. The offenders are given a second chance but are informed that if they commit another crime they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. The police work with the offenders' family members and assist them with finding life coach mentors and job training. With funding from the Department of Justice, law enforcement officers in more than 30 cities including Seattle, Cincinnati, and Providence, Rhode Island, have been trained in this approach. Thus far the results are impressive. For example, in High Point, North Carolina, there was a 57% decline in violent crime after 4 years of using Kennedy's approach (Smalley, 2009). Using the Sociological Lens: Determining the Mandatory Minimum Would lowering the drinking age teach young people responsibility or encourage more reckless behavior? The modern story of alcohol legislation in the United States began in 1919, when alcohol became illegal. During this period, known as Prohibition, criminal activity skyrocketed, contributing to a multitude of social problems and crises, including corruption, the black market, organized crime, bribery, and other ills. Deeply unpopular, Prohibition was repealed in 1933, and states were left to regulate the drinking age as they wanted. Most states adopted a minimum legal drinking age of 21, though several set it between 18 and 20 years old. By the 1970s, however, several social changes—such as 18-year-olds earning the right to vote in 1971, and the ongoing Vietnam War, into which many 18-year-olds were drafted until 1973—led dozens of states to lower their drinking age. If America's young adults were old enough to vote, fight, and die for their country, it was argued, then certainly they were old enough to drink. Drinking ages varied by states, with some retaining the 21-year-old standard, and others lowering them to 20, 19, or 18 years of age. The wide range of drinking ages produced valuable comparative data that soon indicated an alarming trend: States that had lowered their drinking age from 21 to 18 experienced an 11% increase in motor vehicle fatalities during the 1970s (Cook & Tauchen, 1984). Alarmed, in 1984 Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which attached incentive for states to raise their drinking age: If states did not raise the minimum age for buying or possessing alcohol to 21 by October 1986, they stood to lose 10% of their federal highway funding. All states quickly complied, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest reports that within one year, there were 1,071 fewer alcohol-related traffic fatalities. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that since 1975, the 21-and-over drinking age has reduced traffic deaths involving 18- to 20-year-old drivers by 13% and has saved more than 25,000 lives. Yet young Americans continue to struggle to find a moderate relationship with alcohol, and binge drinking has risen on college campuses, resulting in tragic assaults, injuries, and deaths. As a result, America's high drinking age is again being looked at with a critical eye. The State University of New York, Potsdam reports that the United States is one of just four countries with a drinking age of 21 (the other three are Fiji, Palau, and Sri Lanka. Pakistan allows non-Muslims to drink when they are 21, but alcohol is prohibited for Muslims). A far more popular drinking age is 18, which 82 nations have set as the mandatory minimum age. Twelve countries have a drinking age of 16, and a few have minimum ages of 17, 19, or 20 (17 countries have no drinking age). It is often asked whether the 21-mandatory-minimum age does more harm than good, and if the United States might have a more successful experience with underage drinking if it adopted a European-style approach to the problem. Lower the Drinking Age So Teens Learn Responsibility The problem of binge drinking (that is, having five or more drinks at a time) among America's youth has become so grave, it is increasingly described as a social crisis. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, there are about 10.8 million underage drinkers in the United States. Ironically, binge drinking is most problematic in America's foremost places of learning and intellectual development: its college and university campuses. About 1,700 college students die each year from alcohol-related incidents or poisonings, while 600,000 students are seriously harmed or injured while under the influence. Alcohol fuels another 700,000 student assaults and is a contributing factor in about 100,000 sexual attacks or date rapes. With underage drinking episodes contributing to so much assault, injury, and death, college professors and administrators find themselves on the frontlines of a most critical social problem. Because of this, in 2008 a group of college officials formed the Amethyst Initiative, which addresses the problem of underage drinking by calling for the drinking age to be lowered to 18. Led by John M. McCardell, the former president of Middlebury College, the Amethyst Initiative—which had been signed by 136 college presidents as of 2012—suggests that removing the 21-and-over barrier will help minors develop a responsible relationship with alcohol earlier in life, the way youth do in Europe, where most countries have a drinking age of 18 or even 16. In these places, argue McCardell and his supporters, young people are more likely to learn to respect alcohol. Because it is not forbidden to them, alcohol seems less alluring or exciting, and thus is less likely to be abused. Indeed, the image of young Europeans maturely enjoying a drink or two in moderation stands in sharp mala prohibitum contrast to that of young Americans, pounding shot after shot the first time they encounter alcohol away from home. This is a driving idea behind the Amethyst Initiative and other movements to lower or abolish the drinking age. Supporters of lowering the drinking age to a European 18 or 16 believe it is inevitable that young people will drink—it therefore makes sense to help them become familiar and comfortable with alcohol. In the following perspective, McCardell argues that America's high drinking age has only increased young peoples' desire to drink and hindered their ability to do so responsibly. Thus, he argues, it is time to try something different. John M. McCardell, Jr., "Drinking Age of 21 Doesn't Work," CNN.com, September 16, 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/mccardell.lower.drinking.age/index.html The Myth of the Responsible European Teen Drinker In most European countries, people are legally allowed to drink when they are 16 or 18, and in some places, even earlier if accompanied by a parent. Opponents of the 21-and-over drinking age in the United States often promote the image of a European teen drinker, one who drinks responsibly because he or she has been around alcohol since a young age and has learned to enjoy it respectfully, in moderation. Several authoritative reports and studies argue, however, that such an image is not only misleading, but completely untrue. In 2010, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, published a comprehensive report that sought to answer the question of whether young people from Europe drink more responsibly than young people from the United States. It found that compared with young Americans, more young people from nearly every single European country reported drinking in the past 30 days. It also reported that more young Europeans had five or more drinks in a row (the definition of binge drinking) and that young people from most European countries had either higher or equivalent intoxication rates as young Americans. In fact, in all European countries except for Turkey, binge-drinking rates among young Europeans appear higher than in the United States. Opponents of lowering the drinking age seized on the information to argue that the 21-and-over drinking age helps save lives. In the following perspective, Bettina Friese and Joel W. Grube debunk myths about the moderate European teen drinker and warn that doing away with the minimum age, or even reducing it by a few years, would only increase the number of young people killed or injured. Bettina Friese and Joel W. Grube, "Youth Drinking Rates and Problems: A Comparison of European Countries and the United States," Underage Drinking Enforcement Training Center, 2010. http://resources.prev.org/documents/ESPAD.pdf Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions In your opinion, is it acceptable to give 18 year olds the right to vote and serve in the military, but not let them legally drink or purchase alcohol? What, if anything, do these different limits say about social values and the way in which society regards and trusts young people? What social factors do you think most contribute to the growing trend of binge drinking among college-aged students? What social values, or lack thereof, contribute most to that behavior? Is it reasonable to compare drinking habits and trends in the United States with those in Europe? Why or why not? How does society as a whole view the nature of alcohol? How has this view changed since Prohibition? Is this for the better or for the worse, in your opinion? The authors of the above perspectives both acknowledge that underage drinking is a crisis, yet come to different conclusions on how to address the problem. Which author do you think made the more compelling argument, and why? Summary & Conclusion The United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world and tightly regulates the use of drugs and alcohol. Crime and substance abuse are two separate issues, but they overlap in many significant ways and present complex challenges for society. The U.S. Constitution established the social contract that is the basis for the American system of criminal justice: The people create the government, which in turn protects their security. Crime is behavior society prohibits because it is harmful or dangerous. The government and the criminal justice system determine what behaviors will be defined as criminal, definitions that reflect social norms and the beliefs and values of any given time. Substances are medications, drugs of abuse, or toxins that, when ingested, affect the body and brain. Substances are classified according to definitions based on their physiological effects. In addition, the U.S. government categorizes drugs by their medicinal use and potential for abuse. Substance abuse is defined as a pattern of use that causes the person serious consequences, including legal, social, and interpersonal problems and recurrent dangerous situations. Dependence, or addiction, is substance abuse in which the user develops physiological and behavioral symptoms related to using the substance. These symptoms include the need for increasing amounts to maintain desired effects, withdrawal, and preoccupation with activities related to substance use. There are several approaches to treatment for substance abuse but all acknowledge that treatment is not simple. Addiction is a chronic, complicated disease that affects the brain in many ways, including the parts that control logical thought and memory, self-control, and reward and motivation. Effective treatment addresses a person's multiple needs and employs a combination of methods. The motivation of people seeking treatment is a key factor in the likelihood of success. Very simply put, drug and alcohol policies generally focus on substance abuse as a criminal problem to be outlawed or as a social problem to be treated. Society's attitudes toward substances are reflected in changing laws and shifting norms. Government policies concerning substances have varied over time and among regions, states, and nations. Prohibition was just one historical effort by the U.S. government to wage a "war" on substance use. The most recent "war on drugs" began in the 1960s, when in reaction to the civil and racial unrest of the 1960s, politicians enacted more punitive drug laws, and state and federal law enforcement agencies increased their efforts to control the supply, distribution, and use of illegal drugs. Arrests for drug crimes increased sharply in the 1980s and 1990s, and drug offenders often faced stiff mandatory minimum sentences. Between 1980 and 1996, the population of drug offenders in state prisons grew by more than 16% annually. Mandatory sentencing laws created racial inequities as Blacks and Hispanics-Latinos have been the majority of those arrested and imprisoned for drug offenses. Sociologists use the sociological lens to see the patterns underlying crime and substance abuse, and the five theoretical frameworks to illuminate the causes and functions of these two related social problems. Key Terms Click on each key term to see the definition. chivalry hypothesis collateral consequences controlled substance counterculture crime deviance drug treatment court folkway harm reduction labeling theory mala in se crime mala prohibitum crime more sanction social contract theory stigma subculture substance substance abuse substance dependence or addiction taboo therapeutic community tripartite model