Crime Theory 1000 words and three scholarly references

camkai3

https___dftj9wb4gc6c5.cloudfront.net_Bethel_Courses_CCJ_4100_Unit_4_read.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Crime Theory 1000 words and three scholarly references

ROBERT M. BOHM University of Central Florida

and

BRENDA L. VOGEL California State University, Long Beach

A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory

T H I R D E D I T I O N

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions, some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for materials in your areas of interest.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10

A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory, Third Edition Robert M. Bohm, Brenda L. Vogel

Editor: Carolyn Henderson-Meier

Editorial Assistant: John Chell

Media Editor: Andy Yap

Marketing Manager: Michelle Williams

Marketing Communications Manager: Laura Localio

Content Project Manager: Pre-PressPMG

Art Director: Maria Epes

Print Buyer: Linda Hsu

Permissions Editor: Roberta Broyer

Production Service: Pre-PressPMG

Text Designer: Pre-PressPMG

Cover Designer: Riezebos Holzbaur/Brie Hattey

Cover Image: Corbis Yellow

Compositor: Pre-PressPMG

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning

Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at cengage.com/permissions

Further permissions questions can be emailed to [email protected]

Library of Congress Control Number: 2010926703

ISBN-13: 978-0-495-80750-6

ISBN-10: 0-495-80750-8

Wadsworth 20 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002-3098 USA

Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with office locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local office at www.cengage.com/global

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

To learn more about Wadsworth, visit www.cengage.com/Wadsworth

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.cengagebrain.com

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Macrosociological Theories

The Contributions of Durkheim

The Theory of the Chicago School or Social Disorganization Theory

Situational Crime Prevention and Routine Activity Theories

Functionalism

Anomie Theories

I n Chapters 6 and 7, sociological theories of crime are examined. Unlike biolog-ical or psychological theories that, for the most part, explore factors related to crime that are internal to the individual, sociological theories of crime look for cor- relates of crime that are external to the individuals involved. Examples of possible external causes of crime include neighborhood organization, poverty, poor parent- ing, and delinquent peers. The material in this chapter focuses on macrosociologi- cal theories, which examine how the organization or structure of a society can generate an environment conducive to crime.

T H E C O N T R I B U T I O N S O F D U R K H E I M

Many of the sociological theories of crime (sociological positivism) have their roots in the work of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858–1917).1 Like Saint-Simon and Comte before him, Durkheim’s theory emerged during a pe- riod of profound social change in France. French society was still recovering from the Revolution of 1789, Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, and defeats in the Franco-Prussian War.2 In addition, the Industrial Revolution was sweeping across Europe.3 According to one commentator, “[i]n terms of immediacy and massiveness of impact to human thought and values, it is impossible to find re- volutions of comparable magnitude anywhere in human history.”4 Rejecting the

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

idea that social phenomena, such as crime, can be explained solely by the biology or psychology of individuals, Durkheim argued instead that society is not the direct reflection of the characteristics of its individual members. Rather, soci- ety is a unique reality; it is more than a simple aggregate of individuals.5 For Durkheim, social laws and institutions are “social facts” that dominate individuals by limiting their choices, and all that people can do is to submit to them. The coercion may be formal as, for example, by means of law, or informal as, for example, by means of peer pressure.6 Like Comte before him, Durkheim main- tained that, with the aid of positive science, all that people can expect is to dis- cover the direction or course of social laws so that they can adapt to them with the least amount of pain.

In The Division of Labor in Society (1893), Durkheim describes how moderni- zation changes the way in which society regulates the behavior of its members. Modernization refers to the transition from a rural, agrarian society (or what Durkheim called a mechanical society) into a more industrialized society (or organic society). Durkheim believed that occupational specialization (that is, the division of labor), which was becoming more commonplace at the time, limited people’s ability to choose, and forced them to live in a world characterized by a “forced division of labor.” Consequently, people were often forced into roles in which their natural abilities were generally not used.7 Furthermore, Durkheim argued that modernization weakens the collective conscience. The collective conscience re- fers to the general sense of morality of the times or the shared beliefs and atti- tudes that unify a society.8 A consequence of both the division of labor and a weakening of the collective conscience for Durkheim is what he called anomie.

For Durkheim, anomie is the breakdown of social norms or the dissociation of the individual from the collective conscience and is expressed in two interre- lated ways: lack of regulation and lack of integration.9 In the former, the collective conscience is unable to regulate human desires; in the latter, “individualism” is promoted to such a degree that people become so selfish or egoistic that they no longer care about the welfare of other human beings. Durkheim argued that ano- mie is the cause of many social ills including crime. However, Durkheim did not test his theory of anomie on crime. In his work Suicide (1897), he examined how anomie can lead to higher rates of suicide. He assumed that because crime and suicide are “social ills,” anomie would have a similar effect on both phenomena.10

For Durkheim, crime, too, is a social fact.11 It is a normal aspect of society, because it is found in all societies. Nevertheless, different types of societies should experience greater or lesser degrees of crime. Not only did Durkheim believe that crime is a normal aspect of society, he also believed that crime is functional for society.12 For example, crime marks the boundaries of morality.13 In other words, people would not know what acceptable behavior was if it were not for crime. Crime also functions to promote social solidarity by uniting law-abiding people against crime. In a sense, the punishment of criminals is the payoff to citizens who obey the law.14 According to Durkheim, the social solidarity func- tion of crime is so important that crime would have to be created if it did not already exist. Additionally, crime is functional because it provides a means of achieving necessary social change through, for example, civil disobedience and,

70 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

under certain circumstances, directly contributes to social change, as, for exam- ple, in the repeal of prohibition.15

To reduce crime, Durkheim advocated the development of a spontaneous division of labor in which unmerited social inequities would not exist.16 To help achieve this goal, Durkheim promoted the formation of occupational asso- ciations and the abolition of inheritance.17

As noted, many of the major sociological theories of crime (actually theories of delinquency) come directly from Durkheim’s ideas. Among them are anomie or strain theory, differential opportunity theory, theories of culture conflict, cul- tural transmission and cultural deviance, social disorganization theory, functional- ist theory, control theories, and social reaction theories.

T H E T H E O R Y O F T H E C H I C A G O S C H O O L O R

S O C I A L D I S O R G A N I Z A T I O N T H E O R Y

In the 1920s, members of the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago engaged in an effort to identify environmental factors associated with crime. Specifi- cally, they attempted to uncover the relationship between a neighborhood’s crime rate and the characteristics of the neighborhood. It was the first large-scale study of crime in the United States and was to serve as the basis for many future investiga- tions into the causes of crime and delinquency.

The research of the Chicago School was based on a model taken from ecol- ogy; as a result, that school is sometimes called the Chicago School of Human Ecology.18 Ecology is a branch of biology in which the interrelationship of plants and animals is studied in its natural environment.19 In biology, this interrelation- ship is referred to as symbiosis. Robert Park (1864–1944) was the first of the Chicago theorists to propose this organic or biological analogy, that is, the similarity between the organization of plant and animal life in nature and the organization of human beings in societies.20

At the time, Chicago was the second largest city in the United States, with a population of more than two million people. Its population had doubled every ten years between 1860 and 1910 as the result of industrialization and massive immigration.21 Park and his colleague, Ernest Burgess (1886–1966), described the growth of American cities like Chicago in ecological terms. Although recog- nizing that natural and historical factors could influence their growth, Park and Burgess nonetheless argued that cities tend to grow radially from their center in concentric circles through a process of invasion, dominance, and succession.22

That is, a cultural or ethnic group invades a territory occupied by another group and dominates that new territory until it is displaced or succeeded by another group, and the cycle repeats itself. As for the concentric circles, from the core to the periphery, zone 1 is the central business district or, in Chicago, the “Loop”; zone 2 is the transitional area, usually the slums; zone 3 is the area where the homes of blue-collar workers are located; zone 4 is a residential area of nicer single-family houses and expensive apartments; and zone 5 is the suburbs.23

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 71

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

This model of human ecology was used by other Chicago theorists, most notably Clifford R. Shaw (1896–1957) and Henry D. McKay (1899–1980) in their studies of juvenile delinquency in Chicago.24 Shaw assumed that delin- quents were basically normal human beings and that their delinquent behavior was caused by environmental factors peculiar to specific neighborhoods. To test his theory, Shaw examined police and court records to find neighborhoods with the most delinquents. He then analyzed the characteristics of those neighbor- hoods. To aid them in their investigation, Shaw, together with McKay, created three types of maps: (1) spot maps that located the residences of the youth in police and court records, (2) rate maps that showed the percentage of the total juvenile population in 140-square-mile areas that had police or court records, and (3) zone maps that showed the rates of male juvenile delinquency within the concentric zones of the city.

An analysis of the maps showed that zone 2 consistently had the highest rates of delinquency in the city despite almost complete turnovers in the ethnic compo- sition of the population living in that zone. Thus, for example, in 1884, approximately 90 percent of the population in zone 2 was Irish, German, Scandi- navian, Scottish, or English, and the children of those groups had the highest rates of delinquency in Chicago. By 1930, 85 percent of zone 2 was Italian, Polish, Slavic, or Czech—almost a complete turnover, and the children of those groups had the highest rates of delinquency in Chicago. Furthermore, when the ethnic groups moved out of zone 2, the high delinquency rates did not follow them. In short, something about zone 2 produced high delinquency rates regardless of the ethnic composition of the population that lived there.

Shaw also discovered that even in the worst neighborhoods in zone 2, only about 20 percent of the youths had police or court records. Therefore, he began to assemble extensive “life histories” of individual delinquents to discover what en- vironmental factors affected their behavior. From the life histories,25 he confirmed that most of the delinquents were not much different from nondelinquents with regard to personality traits, physical condition, and intelligence. He did find that the areas of high delinquency were “socially disorganized.” For the Chicago theor- ists, social disorganization is the condition in which (1) the usual controls over delin- quents are largely absent, (2) delinquent behavior is often approved of by parents and neighbors, (3) many opportunities are available for delinquent behavior, and (4) little encouragement, training, or opportunity exists for legitimate employment.26

Shaw also discovered that delinquent activities began as play activities at an early age, that older boys taught these activities to younger boys, that the normal methods of official social control could not stop this process, and that it was only later in a delinquent career that a boy identified himself with the criminal world.27 In sum, Shaw and his colleagues, using multiple levels of analysis, con- cluded that delinquency was the product of a detachment from conventional groups— a term nearly synonymous with Durkheim’s concept of lack of integration—caused by social disorganization in certain areas of the city. As noted earlier, the theory is sometimes referred to as social disorganization theory.

Because Shaw believed that juvenile delinquency was caused by social disorga- nization, he did not think that individual treatment of delinquents would be

72 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

effective in reducing the problem.28 So, in 1932, Shaw and his colleagues established the Chicago Area Project (CAP), which was designed to prevent delinquency through the organization and empowerment of neighborhood residents.29

Twenty-two neighborhood centers, staffed and controlled by local residents, were established in six areas of Chicago. The centers had two principal functions. One was to coordinate community resources such as schools, churches, labor unions, and industries to solve community problems, and the other was to sponsor activity programs such as scouts, summer camps, and sports leagues to develop a positive interest by individuals in their own welfare and to unite citizens to solve their own problems. For a quarter of a century, the CAP served neighborhoods of Chicago and only ceased operation in 1957 following Shaw’s death.30 Early eva- luations of the project suggested that it had a negligible effect on delinquency.31

However, CAP has since been resurrected and is still operating today. Newer research shows that CAP reduces recidivism.32

By the 1960s, Shaw and McKay’s work had lost its appeal, but by the mid- 1980s it enjoyed a re-emergence.33 Their work fit in nicely with an examination of the “macro-level,” or ecological correlates of crime that became popular in the early 1980s.34 Macro-level analyses explore the effect of factors such as pov- erty rates, neighborhood characteristics, population density, and family disruption on rates of crime in a geographical unit like a city or region. “Micro-level” anal- yses, on the other hand, focus on how individual factors like personality or peer group contribute to an individual’s criminality.

In 1989, Sampson and Groves published a test of social disorganization the- ory that has become a classic in criminology.35 Using data from the British Crime Survey, the researchers measured social disorganization by asking ques- tions that, when combined, indicated “whether community members were will- ing to supervise rowdy teenagers, had friends locally, and participated in neighborhood voluntary organizations.”36 Their findings “established that com- munities characterized by sparse friendship networks, unsupervised teenage peer groups, and low organizational participation had disproportionately high rates of crime and delinquency.”37 A recent replication of this study suggests that Sampson and Groves’ results are consistent over time. Lowenkamp and his col- leagues found that “certain structural characteristics of communities affect the ability of residents to impose social control mechanisms over their members, and that the loss of such control mechanisms affects rates of crime.”38

In an extension of social disorganization theory, Robert Sampson (1956– ) and his colleagues argued in a series of articles that crime is higher in some urban areas because of residents’ inability to exercise “collective efficacy.”39 Collective efficacy combines indicators of “a particular kind of social structure (cohesion, with an emphasis on working trust and mutual support) with the culturally tinged dimension of shared expectations for social control.”40 In effect, Sampson and his colleagues argue that collective efficacy mediates the negative effects of concentrated poverty, residential mobility, and a lack of residential social ties on violence, victimization, and disorder.41 The results of their research suggest that collective efficacy is associated with lower rates of violence, even when structural characteristics such as poverty and population density, as well as several individual

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 73

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

level characteristics such as race and socioeconomic status, are controlled. Collec- tive efficacy also appears to have an independent effect on violence.42 This work is significant because it identifies the mechanisms through which community disor- ganization can lead to higher crime rates. Namely, residents in neighborhoods lacking collective efficacy do not have the cohesiveness to act in an effective way to solve community problems.43

Since its re-emergence, research based on the work of Shaw and McKay has received broad support. In 2005, Pratt and Cullen conducted a meta-analysis of more than two hundred empirical studies looking at the effects of several variables measuring “concentrated disadvantage,” including “measures of racial heterogeneity, income-based estimates of socioeconomic status, and indicators of residential mobility.”44 They found that “[a]cross all studies, social disorg- anization and resource/economic deprivation theories receive strong empirical support.”45

Finally, several studies conducted internationally have suggested that mea- sures of social disorganization are related to both violent victimization and official measures of property crime.46 For example, collective efficacy was found to min- imize the rate of residential burglary in Tianjin, China.47 Similarly, in an analysis of 2,500 neighborhoods in the Netherlands, Van Wilsem and his colleagues found that “the chance of becoming the victim of a crime is higher not only in disadvantaged neighborhoods, but also in neighborhoods that are undergoing strong socioeconomic improvement.”48 The finding that crime is higher in improving neighborhoods is consistent with Shaw and McKay’s original conten- tion that rapid residential turnover diminishes residents’ ability to exercise collec- tive social control. Apparently, this is the case even if those moving into the area are more affluent residents, which occurs in neighborhoods going through gentrification.

One of the problems with the theory of the Chicago School is the presumed relationship among social disorganization, detachment from conventional groups, and delinquency. The relationship may be a spurious one. In other words, other factors may contribute to social disorganization, detachment from conventional groups, and delinquency that make them appear to be related to each other when, in fact, they are not (remember the relationship between the sale of ice cream and the homicide rate?).

In this regard, one must ask, Why do cities develop in the way that they do? Why do delinquency areas emerge in certain areas of the city? Are delinquency areas inherent in the growth of cities? Most cities do not grow randomly. Their growth is predicated on the values and decisions of political and economic elites. The early Chicago neighborhoods, for example, were planned with great delib- eration. One of the factors that contributes to the decline of city neighborhoods is the decades-old practice of redlining where banks refuse to lend money for home improvements in an area because of the race or ethnicity of the inhabitants.49 What usually occurs in redlined areas (a practice, incidentally, that still occurs today despite its illegality) is that neighborhood and property values decline dramatically until they reach a point where land speculators and develo- pers, usually in conjunction with political leaders, buy the land for urban renewal

74 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

or gentrification and make fortunes in the process. In short, political and economic elites may cause social disorganization, detachment from conventional groups, and delinquency, perhaps not intentionally, by the conscious decisions that they make.50

The Chicago theorists did not challenge the destructive practices of Chicago’s political and economic elite; thus, they merely addressed the symptoms of the problem rather than its causes.51 In so doing, the Chicago theorists revealed their own timidity (perhaps they were co-opted or “bought off ”), antiurban bias, and romanticism—yearning for a return to village life and the social controls of com- munal living.52

From an entirely different vantage point, the Chicago theorists can be criti- cized for suggesting that certain inner-city neighborhoods were socially disorga- nized in the first place. Sutherland, who is discussed in Chapter 7 in the section on learning theories, recognized this problem when he substituted in his own the- ory the concept of “differential social organization” for the Chicago School’s social disorganization. To call a particular area socially disorganized is to impose one’s own values of what constitutes social organization (usually the values of the domi- nant culture) and to fail to appreciate that an area may be organized differentially based on a different set of values, especially the values of the people who live in the area.53 In short, critics suggest that the Chicago theorists observed diversity in social organization but, in light of their own biases (e.g., Park, Shaw, and McKay grew up in rural America), interpreted what they saw as social disorganization.54

Another related problem was the organic or biological analogy used by the Chicago theorists to describe the development of society.55 Human society, as noted, is regulated by cultural and legal forces that only superficially resemble the forces that govern the survival of the fittest in nature. In their apparent na- ivete, the Chicago theorists neglected to consider the effects of political struggle on social change.56

Overprediction is another problem. The Chicago theorists could never ex- plain adequately why only a relatively small percentage of youths in the delin- quency areas actually became delinquent. Even within areas that were considered socially disorganized, there were groups, such as Asians or European Jews, whose children did not have high rates of delinquency.57 If social disorganization and detachment from conventional groups were such powerful causes of delin- quency, then why were not more youths affected by their influence? Social dis- organization theory also does not explain especially bizarre delinquent behaviors (such as those thought to be evidence of mental illness) very well.58

The overprediction problem might be related to another one: the use of offi- cial police and court records to measure delinquency in a given area.59 Perhaps the official records did not capture the true extent of delinquency in an area because many of the youths who engaged in delinquent activities escaped detection or official processing. On the other hand, neighborhoods in zone 2 may have evi- denced the most delinquency because the official statistics do not capture much delinquency in middle- and upper-class neighborhoods.

The theory of the Chicago School has also been criticized for being based on circular reasoning.60 That is, social disorganization is the cause of delin- quency, and delinquency is an indicator of social disorganization.

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 75

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Finally, there is the ecological fallacy and the problem with the utility of the theory. The ecological fallacy refers to the explanation of one level of analysis based on the examination of a different level of analysis (for instance, the explanation of individual behavior based on a study of group rates).61 The Chicago theorists based their analysis on group rates and so, for example, they found that neigh- borhoods in zone 2 had the highest rates of delinquency. The problem is that the theory does not allow the prediction, with any degree of certainty, of who among those youths living in zone 2 is likely to become delinquent.62 The theory’s usefulness, therefore, is diminished.

S I T U A T I O N A L C R I M E P R E V E N T I O N A N D R O U T I N E

A C T I V I T Y T H E O R I E S

While the Chicago School examines the criminogenic characteristics of neighbor- hoods, two derivatives of that theory—situational crime prevention theory (sometimes called opportunity theory) and routine activity theory—focus on how opportunities to commit crime are presented by the physical environment and the everyday actions of individuals. In other words, attention is shifted from offender motivation to the presence of opportunities to commit crime, and what can be done to limit those opportunities.63 Both perspectives borrow heavily from classical theory by assum- ing a rational, motivated offender.64

Situational crime prevention theory is most closely associated with the work of Ronald Clarke (1941– ), who was discussed in Chapter 2 in connection with rational choice theory. Clarke argues that reducing crime is contingent on two factors: reducing the physical opportunities needed to commit crime and increasing the risks of being caught.65 Physical opportunities include unattended valuables, unlocked doors, and distracted pedestrians. One can “get caught” by a police offi- cer, or by any observer who is likely to take action against the offender, such as homeowners, doormen, parking lot attendants, and security officers.66

Clarke’s opportunity theory was influenced by the work of architect Oscar Newman (1935–2004), Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design.67

In his book, Newman extended the theory of the Chicago School to a consid- eration of the actual physical form of the urban environment and how that form affects crime. For example, he reports that poorly designed buildings and sur- roundings of low- and middle-income housing projects have crime rates much higher than better-designed projects that have similar types of residents and densities.

Defensible space is a model for residential environments designed to inhibit criminality through a range of mechanisms that include “real and symbolic bar- riers, strongly defined areas of influence, and improved opportunities for surveillance.” The goal, like that of the Chicago Area Project before it, is to reduce crime by bringing the environment under the control of its residents. The idea of increasing surveillance, incidentally, is the basis for the popular neighborhood watch programs.68 In January 1995, Henry G. Cisneros, then

76 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), published a widely dis- tributed essay lauding the merits of defensible space. Cisneros recognized that defensible space is not a “cure-all” for the problems of crime and delinquency in inner-city neighborhoods and admitted that structural changes are necessary to affect the crime problem as a whole. Nevertheless, he believed that “the practical successes of defensible space initiatives [and] the fact that they can be implemen- ted quickly and require very little public funding … make defensible space an approach well worth our consideration.”69

According to both Cisneros and Newman, the most promising applications of the defensible space concept are to neighborhoods that are deteriorating but continue to “retain residents and other stakeholders who still have hope that traumatic decline can be prevented.”70 They are less optimistic about devastated areas of older cities where a sense of community has all but disappeared. Despite Cisneros’s optimism about the utility of defensible space, Wilson and Herrnstein warn that although “there are physical changes that may reduce the rates of some kinds of crime … [t]he role played in this reduction by such factors … remains unclear.”71

Another derivative of the theory of the Chicago School is the routine activity theory of Lawrence E. Cohen (1945– ) and Marcus Felson (1947– ). Cohen and Felson’s “routine activity approach” to criminality extends human ecology analysis to the explanation of crime and victimization rates over time.72 For Cohen and Felson, structural changes in the routine activities of everyday life affect crimes against both persons and property. Structural changes in routine activities influence those crimes through their effect on any one of three factors: (1) “motivated offenders” (for example, teenage boys, unemployed people, drug addicts), (2) “suit- able targets” (such as unlocked homes or cars), and (3) “the absence of capable guardians against a violation” (for instance, the absence of police officers, home- owners, security systems).73 Cohen and Felson maintain that all three of the factors are necessary for the successful completion of crimes.74 It is important to empha- size that Cohen and Felson do not attempt to explain criminal motivation but, instead, assume that all people will commit crime unless they are prevented from doing so. Criminal activities are viewed, by Cohen and Felson, as routine activities. They conclude that crime is so rooted in the legitimate opportunity structure of our society and in the freedom and prosperity that many people enjoy, that to reduce crime will require substantial modifications in our everyday way of life.75

Thus, the crime prevention implications of routine activity theory focus on potential crime victims who must change their lifestyles so they are no longer such easy targets for criminal offenders. Much of the emphasis is on securing the immediate environment through creating defensible space, target hardening, and increasing the presence of capable guardians. Also implied in the theory, though de-emphasized by its authors, is increasing legitimate opportunities—a principal crime prevention implication of anomie theories (which are discussed later in this chapter).

Routine activity theory has been criticized for its assumption that all people will commit crime unless they are prevented from doing so—an assumption that this theory shares with social control theories (which are discussed in Chapter 7).

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 77

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Some criminologists take issue with the theory’s assumption that criminal moti- vation is rooted in human nature.76

Another problem with routine activity theory is that it fails to explain its key concept—routine activities. In other words, the theory does not specify which routine activities, or which type of such activities, affect crimes.77 Do all routine activities affect crimes? Do all routine activities influence the number of moti- vated offenders, the availability of suitable targets, or the degree of guardianship? Probably not. In addition, the theory does not specify how the three key con- cepts interact to affect crime. It treats them as equally important, which they probably are not. The theory, as formulated, has also been criticized for being applicable only to “ordinary” predatory crime.78

A problem with the crime prevention implications of routine activity theory or, specifically, with its focus on securing the immediate environment, is that such a strategy is likely only to displace the criminal activity of motivated offen- ders to less secure environments.79 This is a problem with Newman’s defensible space concept as well. Thus, taken to its logical conclusion, the theory creates a siege mentality in which people who can afford it secure themselves against crime, leaving those people who cannot afford it to fare for themselves as best they can. It also creates the justification for an Orwellian society in which sur- veillance of the population is pervasive and privacy is a rare commodity.

Finally, routine activity theory has been criticized for coming close to blaming the victim. In suggesting that a solution to the crime problem depends on potential victims changing their routine activities, the theory implies that the routine activities of women, for example, are what causes rape and sexual assault—an implication that many people, particularly feminist critics, find offensive.80

F U N C T I O N A L I S M

Talcott Parsons (1902–1979), a Harvard sociologist, is credited with the intro- duction of functional theory, or structural-functional theory, in the United States in 1937.81 At the time, the United States and other western industrial societies were in the midst of the worst depression ever experienced and on the verge of World War II.82 Many observers believed that free enterprise had failed and that capitalism was doomed to either socialism on the left or fascism on the right.83

Within this context, Parsons and his colleagues at Harvard engaged in an effort to produce a theory of society that would aid in the preservation of the free enterprise system (capitalism) and, of course, their privileged way of life. The result was functionalist theory, and its basic premise is as follows: The world is a system of interrelated parts, and each part makes a necessary contribution to the viability of the system (a systems model of society).84 Crime, in this view, is a nec- essary part of the system (an idea borrowed from Durkheim).

To illustrate this theory as it is applies to crime, consider the explanation of the latent functions of female prostitution by Kingsley Davis (1908–1997), a student of Parsons and a former president of the American Sociological Association. Functions

78 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

are presumed to be either manifest (intended) or latent (unintended and often un- recognized).85 In describing its latent functions, Davis identifies the ways that female prostitution contributes to the viability of the social system—a not so obvious rela- tionship that can only be revealed by the well-trained and astute social scientist.86

Davis points out that female prostitution functions to satisfy sexual desires with little psychic or financial investment.87 It requires neither emotional involvement nor the expense associated with dating and marriage. More importantly, female prostitution helps preserve the institution of the family and the aura of the “good” girl by relieving wives and girlfriends of the chore of satisfying their husbands’ and boyfriends’ “perverse” sexual desires. It also allows a small number of women to service a multitude of lusting single men in society, including the less desirable among them. Finally, female prostitution is functional even for prostitutes them- selves because in few other occupations can they earn as much. Similar functionalist arguments have been made for the urban political machine and even for poverty.88

Nearly one hundred years before Parsons, Karl Marx anticipated the func- tionalist argument. In a passage dripping with irony, Marx wrote:

The criminal produces not only crimes, but also criminal law, and with this also the professor who gives lectures on criminal law, and in addi- tion to this the inevitable compendium in which this same professor throws his lectures onto the general market as “commodities.” … The criminal moreover produces the whole of the police and of criminal justice, constables, judges, hangmen, juries, etc.; and all these different lines of business, which form equally many categories of the social division of labor, develop different capacities of the human spirit, create new needs and new ways of satisfying them. Torture alone has given rise to the most ingenious mechanical inventions, and employed many honorable craftsmen in the production of its instruments. … Crime takes a part of the superfluous population off the labor market and thus reduces competition among the laborers—up to a certain point preventing wages from falling below the minimum—the struggle against crime absorbs another part of this population. Thus the criminal comes in as one of those natural “counterweights” which bring about a correct balance and open up a whole perspective of “useful” occupations.

The effects of the criminal on the development of productive power can be shown in detail. Would locks ever have reached their present degree of excellence had there been no thieves? Would the making of banknotes have reached its present perfection had there been no forgers? … Crime, through its constantly new methods of attack on property, constantly calls into being new methods of defense, and so is as productive as strikes for the invention of machines. And if one leaves the sphere of private crime, would the world market ever have come into being but for national crime?89

Because functionalist theorists view crime as an integral part of society, nec- essary for its existence, they do not want to prevent crime. They only want to contain it within acceptable boundaries so that it does not destroy society.90

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 79

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

One of the more obvious problems with functionalist theory is that it fails to ask the question, Functional for whom? Who is the system? Failure to entertain this question inhibits the exploration of just how a particular phenomenon, such as crime, affects different groups within society.91 This problem stems from a second one: the erroneous assumption that there is a consensus in society over moral values. The theory ignores social conflict.92 A third problem is the inher- ent class bias of the theory. It promotes the “system” and social stability, regard- less of how oppressive the system might be, over alternative social arrangements and social change.93 A fourth and related problem is that the conception of social order in functionalist theory is based on elite definitions and not the definitions of the average citizen.94 Thus, a fifth problem is that the “system” is viewed as greater or more important than the individuals that constitute it.95 Functionalist theory, in short, is an elitist and politically conservative ideology.96

Other problems with functionalist theory are that it presents a view of soci- ety that often bears little resemblance to the society most people experience, its empirical work is based largely on secondary sources, it ignores the criminaliza- tion process (that is, how the established power structure creates crime), and it is untestable.97 Regarding testability, how could one possibly falsify a functionalist proposition?

A N O M I E T H E O R I E S

Like functionalists, anomie theorists use a systems model to describe society. However, unlike functionalists, anomie theorists do not believe that all phenom- ena in society are functional. They believe that some phenomena are dysfunc- tional, that there are contradictions in society.98

In an article published in 1938, one year after Parsons introduced function- alist theory in the United States, Robert K. Merton (1910–2003), who was men- tored by Talcott Parsons at Harvard,99 observed that a major contradiction existed in the United States between cultural goals and the social structure. Adopting but also reformulating Durkheim’s concept, he called the contradiction anomie. Specifically, Merton argued that in the United States the cultural goal of achieving wealth is deemed possible for all citizens even though the social struc- ture limits the legitimate institutionalized means available for obtaining the goal. For Merton, legitimate institutionalized means are the Protestant work ethic (that is, hard work, education, and deferred gratification); illegitimate means are force and fraud.100 Because the social structure effectively limits the availability of le- gitimate institutionalized means, a strain is placed on people. Some theorists have referred to Merton’s anomie theory as strain theory.101 However, Merton rejected the label “strain theory” because of its psychological connotations.102 Merton believed that strain could affect people in all social classes, but he acknowledged that it would most likely affect members of the lower class.103

Merton believed that individuals adapt to the problem of anomie or strain in one of several different ways: (1) conformity, (2) innovation, (3) ritualism,

80 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

(4) retreatism, or (5) rebellion.104 According to Merton, most people adapt by con- forming; they “play the game.”105 Conformers pursue the cultural goal of wealth only through legitimate institutional means. Innovation is the adaptation at the root of most crime. After rejecting legitimate institutional means, innovators pur- sue the cultural goal of wealth through illegitimate means. Ritualism is the adap- tation of the individual who “takes no chances,” usually a member of the lower middle class. Ritualists do not actively pursue the cultural goal of wealth (they are willing to settle for less, oftentimes hoping that their children will succeed where they have not) but follow the legitimate institutional means anyway. Re- treatists include alcoholics, drug addicts, psychotics, and other outcasts of society. Retreatists “drop out”; they do not pursue the cultural goal of wealth, so they do not employ legitimate institutional means. When their behavior is defined as criminal, retreatists are also a source of crime. Last is the adaptation of rebellion. Rebels reject both the cultural goal of wealth and the legitimate institutional means of achieving it and substitute both different goals and different means. Rebellion can be another source of crime.

In summary, Merton believed that a source of some, but not all, crime and delinquency was anomie or strain,106 a disjunction or contradiction between the cultural goal of achieving wealth and the social structure’s ability to provide le- gitimate institutional means of achieving the goal.

Beginning in the mid-1950s, renewed concern developed over the problem of juvenile gangs. Albert K. Cohen (1918– ), a student of both Merton and Suther- land, adapted Merton’s anomie theory in his attempt to explain gang delin- quency.107 In his book Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang, Cohen argued that delinquent acts were generally engaged in by gangs rather than individually and that, unlike adult criminality which is usually utilitarian (serves a useful pur- pose), gang delinquency was mostly nonutilitarian, malicious, and negativistic.108

Two other important characteristics of the delinquent gang’s subculture were “short-run hedonism” (“there is little interest in long-run goals”) and “group autonomy” (“intolerance of restraint except from the informal pressures within the group itself”).109 In attempting to explain gang delinquency, Cohen surmised that it was to gain status among peers or the result of status frustration.110 Thus, Cohen substituted the goal of status among peers for Merton’s goal of achieving wealth.111

For Cohen, anomie or strain is experienced by juveniles who are unable to achieve status among peers by socially acceptable means (or “middle-class mea- suring rods”), such as family name and position in the community or academic or athletic achievement.112 In response to the strain, either they can conform to middle-class values, generated primarily through the public school, and resign themselves to their subordinate position among their peers, or they can rebel (psychologists call it “reaction-formation”) and establish their own value struc- tures by turning middle-class values on their head.113 These new value structures frequently promote the nonutilitarian, malicious, and negativistic behaviors de- scribed by Cohen. Juveniles who rebel in this way tend to find each other and to form groups or gangs to validate and reinforce their new values.114 Like Merton, Cohen believed that anomie can affect juveniles of any social class but that it disproportionately affects juveniles from the lower class.115

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 81

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

In their book Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (1960), Richard Cloward (1926–2001), another student of Merton’s, and Lloyd Ohlin (1918–2008) extended Merton’s and Cohen’s formulations of anomie the- ory by suggesting that not all gang delinquents adapt to anomie in the same way. They have differential opportunities, both legitimate and illegitimate. Cloward and Ohlin argue that the type of adaptation made by juvenile gang members depends on the illegitimate opportunity structure available to them.116 They identi- fied three delinquent subcultures or gang types: the criminal, the violent, and the retreatist.117 According to Cloward and Ohlin, if illegitimate opportunity is available to them, most delinquents will form criminal gangs to make money. However, if neither illegitimate nor legitimate opportunities to make money are available, delinquents often become frustrated and dissatisfied and form vio- lent gangs to vent their anger. Delinquents who adapt in this way probably were the nonutilitarian, malicious, and negativistic ones discussed by Cohen. Finally, some delinquents, for whatever reason, are unable to adapt by joining either criminal or violent gangs. They fail at both criminal and legal activities. These “double failures” retreat from society, as in Merton’s retreatist adaptation, and become alcoholics and drug addicts.

The crime prevention implications of anomie or strain theory are straightfor- ward: reduce aspirations, increase legitimate opportunities, or do both.118 Increasing legitimate opportunities, already a cornerstone of the Black civil rights movement, struck a responsive chord as the 1960s began. Reducing aspirations, however, re- ceived little attention because to attempt it would be tantamount to rejecting the “American dream,” a principal source of motivation in a capitalist society.

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy was so impressed with Cloward and Ohlin’s book that he asked Ohlin to help shape a new federal policy on juvenile delinquency.119 Ohlin’s work on that policy became a part of the Juvenile De- linquency Prevention and Control Act of 1961.120 The legislation included a comprehensive action program, based on Cloward and Ohlin’s ideas, to provide employment opportunities and work training, in combination with community organization and improved social services, to disadvantaged youths and their families.121 The program was modeled after another effort begun by Cloward and Ohlin in the late 1950s in New York City called Mobilization for Youth.122

Later the new, national program was expanded to include all members of the lower class, and when Lyndon Johnson assumed the presidency after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the program became the foundation of Johnson’s War on Poverty.123 During the 1960s, billions of dollars were spent to implement the program and to extend legitimate opportunities to the disadvantaged. Some of the best-known products of the program were the Peace Corps, the Jobs Corps, the Comprehensive Employee Training Act (CETA), and Project Head Start.124 However, the most tangible result of the effort was a tremendous back- lash to what political conservatives argued was an ill-conceived effort to expand the welfare bureaucracy.125 When Richard Nixon assumed the presidency, the program was discontinued because it had failed to achieve its goals.126

The failure of the program does not necessarily invalidate anomie theory or its crime prevention implications because, in actuality, the program was never

82 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

given a fair opportunity to succeed. It encountered massive resistance from the beginning.127 However, based on the discouraging results of many other subse- quent educational and vocational training programs for delinquent youths, the program may have failed anyway even under the best of circumstances.128

Nanette J. Davis’s assessment of the “opportunity programs” is even harsher. She argues that (1) morally, they functioned to promote negative stereotypes that blamed the victim; (2) economically, they functioned to funnel the poor into dead-end jobs that maintained “the underclass as a marginal labor force, to the advantage of employers”; and (3) politically, they maintained the status quo by controlling social unrest.129 What the opportunity programs did not do was grant political power or provide financial resources.130

Several theorists contend that Merton’s original theory, along with Cohen’s and Cloward and Ohlin’s extensions, describes two distinct concepts: strain and an- omie.131 They argue that, on the one hand, strain refers to “feelings and emotions that an individual experiences: feelings of stress or frustration or anxiety or depres- sion or anger.”132 On the other hand, they maintain that anomie refers to “the char- acteristics of a society: a situation in which the social structure fails to provide legitimate means to achieve what the culture values.”133 Put differently, “strain” occurs at the individual (or micro) level and can be used to explain individual crime, while “anomie” occurs at the societal level and can be used to understand crime rates at the macro level. As already noted, Merton apparently rejected the “strain” interpretation, and whether Cohen, or Cloward and Ohlin intended to develop two distinct concepts is debatable.134 Nevertheless, contemporary versions of classic strain theory clearly reflect either the micro view or the macro view.

Strain at the individual level has been most fully developed by Robert Agnew (1953– ) in his General Strain Theory (GST).135 Agnew argues that people may not be as goal directed or as conscious of their goals as Merton suggests.136

According to Agnew, instead of pursuing specific goals, such as monetary success or the American dream, most people are more interested in being treated fairly and justly in whatever activities they pursue.137 Thus, some people may con- clude that based on their own, limited efforts, and compared especially to other people they know, a more limited outcome (for example, a “comfortable” stan- dard of living) may be entirely fair and just.138

By integrating learning theory propositions and recasting anomie theory in social-psychological terms, Agnew also identifies additional sources of strain. Strain, he argues, is the result of negative relationships with others: “relationships in which others are not treating the individual as he or she would like to be treated.”139 Types of strain include (1) loss of positively valued stimuli (e.g., breaking up with your girlfriend or boyfriend), (2) experiencing negative or nox- ious stimuli (e.g., being punished by your parents or fired from your job), and (3) failing to achieve highly valued goals (e.g., dropping out of school due to financial hardship).140 These strains then generate negative emotions like anger, disappointment, depression, fear, and frustration.141 Consequently, individuals may engage in various behaviors in an attempt to “alleviate those negative emo- tions and/or strains associated with them,”142 and some of those behaviors may be deviant or criminal.143

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 83

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

According to Agnew, not all people who are faced with strain will engage in crime. Many people will cope with strain lawfully. However, some people, asserts Agnew, “lack the ability to cope with strains in a legal manner [due to their] indi- vidual traits, such as intelligence, social and problem-solving skills, and personality traits.”144 Agnew also believes that some individuals choose crime because they view the costs of crime as low, relative to a legal coping mechanism. In some neighborhoods he writes, youth may receive praise for engaging in school-yard fights and be shunned for “ratting-out” a bully. In short, for Agnew, individuals with ineffective coping mechanisms or for whom crime is praiseworthy are likely to engage in crime as a result of strain.

Agnew’s contention that negative relationships and strain are associated with crime has received empirical support from several studies.145 As Moon and his col- leagues observe, “[t]he significant number of studies with diverse populations and research designs that have examined the relationship between strain and delin- quency have generally produced results that support GST.”146 In a recent exami- nation of GST in a sample of middle-school students from South Korea, Moon and his colleagues found that several strains were significantly and positively related to one or more types of offending (status, property, and violent).147 On the other hand, research exploring Agnew’s second contention, dealing with why some peo- ple respond to strain through crime and others do not, has received inconsistent support.148

At the macro or societal level, Steven F. Messner (1951– ) and Richard Rosenfeld’s (1948– ) institutional anomie theory of crime (IAT) is the leading contemporary version of anomie theory.149 Like Merton, they argue that higher crime rates in the United States are the result of the American dream, which they define as “a commitment to the goal of material success, to be pursued by everyone in society, under conditions of open, individual competition.”150 They explain that:

The American Dream contributes to high levels of crime in two im- portant ways, one direct and the other indirect. It has a direct effect on crime through the creation of an anomic normative order, that is, an environment in which social norms are unable to exert a strong regula- tory force on the members of society. It has an indirect effect on crime by contributing to an institutional balance of power that inhibits the development of strong mechanisms of external social control. The criminogenic tendencies of the American Dream are thus due in part to the distinctive content of the cultural values and beliefs that comprise it and in part to the institutional consequences of these values and beliefs.151

In other words, in addition to the strong societal push to achieve material success (direct influence), all other components of American society, such as the family, the church, and the political system, are subservient to economic institu- tions (indirect influence). For example, “family routines are dominated by the schedules, rewards, and penalties of the labor market.”152 Similarly, students gen- erally seek an education so they can get a good job, not because they value an

84 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

education per se.153 Consequently, these noneconomic institutions are less able to “effectively socialize or train individuals and to effectively sanction deviant behavior.”154 In terms of policy, Messner and Rosenfeld, sounding very much like critical and radical criminologists (see Chapter 8), propose that a greater em- phasis should be placed on mutual support and collective obligations in American Society, and that the push for individual rights and privileges should be de- emphasized.155

Attempts to test institutional anomie theory have yielded mixed results.156 A recent study by Baumer and Gustafson examined whether geographic differences in instrumental crime (i.e., robberies, burglaries, larcenies, and auto thefts) are the result of “the interaction between the degree of commitment among citizens to pursue monetary success goals and the degree of weak commitment among citi- zens to pursue monetary success goals via legitimate means.”157 The researchers also examined the moderating effects of limited legitimate opportunities, limited educational opportunities, and participation in noneconomic social institutions (e.g., church, community programs). Their results are consistent with the predic- tions of IAT. They found that a high level of commitment to monetary success combined with weak commitments to legitimate means significantly increases instrumental crime. Further, this relationship is diminished when there is a high rate of participation in noneconomic social institutions.158

On the other hand, using data from the World Values Survey, Jenson did not find support for several of the IAT components.159 For example, he could not substantiate characterizations of the United States as an overly materialistic nation that deemphasizes noneconomic values.

A criticism of the anomie theories of Merton, Cohen, and Cloward and Ohlin is that they have a middle-class bias.160 In other words, the theories as- sume that members of the lower class really want to be middle class and that crime and delinquency among lower-class individuals are reactions to their fail- ure to achieve middle-class goals. Walter B. Miller was one of those critics, and his theory of a unique lower-class culture is discussed in Chapter 7.

The theories of Merton, Cohen, and Cloward and Ohlin have also been criticized for their reliance on official statistics, which focused their attention on lower-class crime and delinquency and caused them to ignore white-collar and government crimes.161 This need not be the case, however. First, Merton main- tained that anomie could affect people in all social classes. Second, Merton’s the- ory could be applied to white-collar crimes by emphasizing the elasticity of the American dream.162 That is, when has a person achieved great material wealth? Even wealthy people could experience anomie because they have not realized their own expectations about achieving wealth. The recently exposed Ponzi schemes of Bernard Madoff and others are an apt example.

Merton’s theory has been accused of the problem of overprediction. That is, if anomie is caused by the inability to achieve the American dream and is as widespread as Merton implies, then there ought to be much more crime than actually occurs.163 Merton failed to mention that many potential innovators con- form because they lack the opportunity, intelligence, or skills to commit crimes.164 Potential innovators may also conform if their anomie is eased by

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 85

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

social supports, an important intervening factor neglected by Merton.165 (See the section on humanistic psychological theory in Chapter 5, for a description of the concept of social supports.)

A related criticism is that anomie theories ignore individual differences in the understanding of criminal behavior.166 For example, Merton is charged with as- suming that pursuit of the American dream “is a cultural imperative that cuts across class strata, groups, and interests.”167 As such, the theory does not ade- quately explain gender differences in crime, for example. Merton’s theory has also been accused of failing to explain why people choose particular crimes to commit, or why people commit violent and other senseless acts.168

Research has also failed to uncover major discrepancies between the aspira- tions and expectations of delinquents—a necessary component in the production of anomie. Delinquents appear to be low on both.169 However, this problem may stem from another problem, especially in Cloward and Ohlin’s version of the theory. The problem is the lack of clarity of such key concepts as aspirations, opportunity, and delinquent subculture.170 Another related criticism is that the existence of the specific delinquent subcultures or gang types postulated by Cloward and Ohlin is not supported by research.171 Critics argue that delinquent gang members seldom specialize in particular delinquent activities. Critics also point out that delinquencies are seldom committed by gangs, but instead are committed by a few companions, usually one or two.172

Merton’s version of the theory has been accused of simplifying and treating as abstractions enormously complex phenomena such as culture and social struc- ture.173 One may wonder, for example, how prevalent among the public is the “American dream,” as defined by Merton (or, for that matter, Messner and Rosenfeld).174 Other anomie theorists emphasize other cultural goals besides the “American dream,” a point apparently recognized by Merton,175 and some ano- mie theorists distinguish between short-term and long-term goals. Kornhauser sug- gests that anomie may be a product of frustration in achieving either universal human needs, such as those described by Maslow, or socially induced needs, such as Merton’s “American dream.”176 Kornhauser also argues that Merton’s distinction between goals and means is arbitrary and misleading. For example, honesty, truth, or even the accumulation of great material wealth can be both a means and a goal.177

Merton can also be criticized for failing to address the political and economic sources of cultural goals and the social structure that promotes anomie in the first place. Nanette J. Davis, for example, faults Merton for failing to recognize that the myth that “everyone can make it if he [or she] tries” probably is only a “rhetorical device that has the political utility for keeping the ‘masses’ in their place.”178 In short, Merton can be criticized for not being radical enough in his analysis.

Each of the theories ignores the criminalization process. That is, they fail to consider why or how some harmful and destructive behaviors are defined as criminal, while similar harmful and destructive behaviors are not. Anomie theo- ries also fail to consider the effect that social control has on delinquency179—a major emphasis of labeling theory (to be discussed in Chapter 8).

Merton and Cohen stressed the anomie of “failure.” What about the anomie of “success” (an event Durkheim anticipated) as experienced, for example, by the

86 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

overnight superstar who is unable to cope with his or her newfound fame?180

Each of the theories is based on circular reasoning. In other words, anomie is the cause of crime and delinquency, and crime and delinquency are indicators of anomie. Finally, the theories fail to explain why most delinquents, in gangs or otherwise, reform or abstain from criminality when they become adults, espe- cially when social conditions remain relatively the same.181

S T U D Y Q U E S T I O N S

The Contributions of Durkheim

1. What is the cause of crime for Durkheim?

2. How would Durkheim prevent crime?

3. What is Durkheim’s major contribution to crime (actually, delinquency causation) theory?

4. How does Durkheim’s theory of crime compare with theories described in previous chapters?

The Theory of the Chicago School or Social Disorganization Theory

5. How would the Chicago theorists explain crime?

6. How would the Chicago theorists prevent crime?

7. What are problems with the theory of the Chicago School?

8. What are two derivatives of the theory of the Chicago School? (Describe them.)

9. What are the policy implications of the two derivatives of the theory of the Chicago School?

10. What are problems with the two derivatives of the theory of the Chicago School?

11. How does the theory of the Chicago School and its derivatives compare with theories previously described in this book?

Functionalism

12. How do functionalists explain crime?

13. What are the policy implications of functionalist theory?

14. What are problems with functionalist theory?

15. How does functionalist theory compare with theories described previously in this book?

Anomie Theories

16. How would Merton explain crime?

17. How would Cohen explain gang delinquency?

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 87

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

18. What contribution did Cloward and Ohlin make to anomie theory?

19. In what ways have contemporary authors updated Merton’s anomie theory?

20. How would anomie theorists prevent crime?

21. What are the problems with anomie theories?

22. How do anomie theories compare with theories described previously in this book?

N O T E S

1. However, unlike positivists in general, Taylor, Walton, and Young (1974:87) argue that Durkheim rejected the idea that society is based on a value consensus. Instead, they maintain that, for Durkheim, society, at least under a forced division of labor, is characterized by conflict over moral values.

2. Martin, Mutchnick, and Austin (1990:48).

3. See Vold and Bernard (1986:144).

4. Nisbet (1965:20).

5. Durkheim (1964:103).

6. Durkheim (1964:10, 13); also see Taylor et al. (1974:69).

7. Durkheim (1933:375); also see Taylor et al. (1974:75).

8. Durkheim (1933:79); also see Taylor et al. (1974:77).

9. See Taylor et al. (1974:77, 85, 87).

10. Bernard, Snipes, and Gerould (2010).

11. Durkheim (1964:67); also see Taylor et al. (1974:78). Beirne and Messerschmidt (2000:94) observe that, “for Durkheim … social phenomena (such as law and crime) have an objective existence of their own and exist quite independently of the individuals who experience them.”

12. See Durkheim (1964:70).

13. Taylor et al. (1974:79).

14. See Vold and Bernard (1986:147–148).

15. Durkheim (1964:71); also see Taylor et al. (1974:80). Although Durkheim identifies functions of crime and argues that it is a normal aspect of society, he did not want to be known as an apologist for it. He noted that even though crime is a social fact, we must still abhor it (Durkheim, 1964:72, fn. 13).

16. Durkheim (1933:377).

17. Durkheim (1933:278–279, 378); also see Taylor et al. (1974:77–78, 87–88). Taylor et al. maintain that Durkheim, unlike Comte, was a radical in his politics and approach to social order.

18. Vold and Bernard (1986:160).

19. See Vold and Bernard (1986:160).

20. See Vold and Bernard (1986:161); Davis (1975:46).

21. Vold and Bernard (1986:161).

88 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

22. Park, Burgess, and McKenzie (1928).

23. See Vold and Bernard (1986:163–164).

24. Much of the material in this section is from Shaw (1929); Shaw and McKay (1931, 1942); and, especially, Vold and Bernard (1986:165–171).

25. See Shaw (1930, 1931, 1938).

26. See Vold and Bernard (1986:171). In a test of social disorganization theory, Sampson and Groves (1989), following the original conceptualization of Shaw and McKay, employed the following five indicators of social disorganization: (1) residents of low economic status, (2) many different ethnic groups, (3) a high frequency of residential turnover, (4) dysfunctional families, and (5) urbanization.

27. See Vold and Bernard (1986:171–172). Shaw and his colleagues believed that delinquency was culturally transmitted (hence, this part of the theory is sometimes referred to as cultural transmission theory; see Williams and McShane (1994:55). Kornhauser (1978:62) claims that within Shaw and McKay’s theory is a distinct social control theory of delinquency that has been “blurred” by their “merging it with a cultural deviance [theory] in which they emphasized the ‘cultural transmission’ of delinquency by the delinquent gang.” Social control theory is examined in a later section of this chapter.

28. Vold and Bernard (1986:180).

29. See Vold and Bernard (1986:180–181).

30. Vold and Bernard (1986:181).

31. Vold and Bernard (1986:181).

32. National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1977:28); Schlossman, Zellman, and Shavelson (1984:46).

33. Cullen and Agnew (2006).

34. Pratt and Cullen (2005).

35. Lowenkamp, Cullen, and Pratt (2003).

36. Cullen and Agnew (2006:90).

37. Sampson and Groves (1989:799).

38. Lowenkamp et al. (2003:366).

39. Sampson (2006:152); see also Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls (1997); Morenoff, Sampson, and Raudenbush (2001).

40. Sampson (2006:152).

41. Sampson (2006).

42. Sampson (2006).

43. Cullen and Agnew (2006).

44. Pratt and Cullen (2005:392).

45. Pratt and Cullen (2005:373).

46. See Van Wilsem, Wittebrood, and De Graaf (2006); Wong (2007); Zhang, Messner, and Liu (2007).

47. Zhang et al. (2007).

48. Van Wilsem et al. (2006).

49. See, for example, Wilson (1987).

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 89

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

50. See Vold and Bernard (1986:181–182); Einstadter and Henry (1995:142).

51. See Curran and Renzetti (1994:141–142); Vold and Bernard (1986:181–182); Einstadter and Henry (1995:142).

52. See Mills (1942).

53. See Suttles (1968).

54. See Matza (1969:48).

55. See Vold and Bernard (1986:174–175); Davis (1975:41–51); Katz (1988).

56. See Davis (1975:49).

57. See Einstadter and Henry (1995:134).

58. Tittle (1995:2).

59. See Curran and Renzetti (1994:142); Vold and Bernard (1986:173–174); Einstadter and Henry (1995:140–141).

60. See Taylor et al. (1974:125); Einstadter and Henry (1995:140).

61. Babbie (1992:96); Andrews and Bonta (1994:12–16).

62. See Wilson and Herrnstein (1985:290); Vold and Bernard (1986:176).

63. Cullen and Agnew (2006).

64. Bernard et al. (2010).

65. Clarke (1980).

66. Clarke (1980).

67. Clark (1992); Newman (1976, originally published in 1972). Also see Jeffery (1977) and Brantingham and Brantingham (1984) for extensions of Newman’s theory.

68. See Williams and McShane (1994:61).

69. Cisneros (1995:3).

70. Cisneros (1995:23).

71. Wilson and Herrnstein (1985:309).

72. Cohen and Felson (1979). For other extensions of ecological theory, see Brantingham and Brantingham (1984); Bursik (1984); Stark (1987); Vila (1994).

73. Cohen and Felson (1979).

74. Cohen and Felson (1979).

75. Cohen and Felson (1979).

76. An extended discussion of this problem can be found in the section on social control theories presented later in this chapter.

77. Tittle (1995:14).

78. Tittle (1995:15).

79. See Einstadter and Henry (1995:70).

80. See Einstadter and Henry (1995:71).

81. See Davis (1975:65).

82. Davis (1975:65–66).

83. Davis (1975:66).

84. See Davis (1975:74, 92); also see Gouldner (1971).

85. Davis (1975:80–81, 92).

90 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

86. See Davis (1975:82).

87. Davis (1971); also see Davis (1975:81–82).

88. See Davis (1975:82–85).

89. Cited in Taylor et al. (1974:210–211).

90. See Durkheim (1964:66); also see Davis (1975:71–72, 88–89).

91. See Davis (1975:91).

92. See Davis, (1975:68, 92).

93. See Davis (1975:67).

94. See Davis (1975:67, 90).

95. See Davis (1975:72–73).

96. See Davis (1975:67).

97. See Davis (1975:68, 81, 90–92).

98. See Davis (1975:96).

99. Martin et al. (1990:212).

100. Vold and Bernard (1986:186–187).

101. See Hirschi (1969); Kornhauser (1978); Vold and Bernard (1986).

102. See Cullen and Messner (2007).

103. Vold and Bernard (1986:187).

104. Merton (1938).

105. But see Taylor et al. (1974:98) for another view.

106. Vold and Bernard (1986:193).

107. Cohen’s theory of gang delinquency, as well as Cloward and Ohlin’s theory of differential opportunity (to be discussed shortly), has been considered a subcultural theory rather than, or in addition to, an anomie theory (see Williams and McShane, 1994:105). Cohen was the first criminologist to apply the concept of subculture to the study of delinquency (Beirne and Messerschmidt, 2000:147).

108. Cohen (1955:25); also see Vold and Bernard (1986:194).

109. Cohen (1955:30–31).

110. Cohen (1955:65–66, 136); also see Vold and Bernard (1986:194).

111. Actually, for Cohen, status frustration was a problem only for working-class juveniles. For middle-class juveniles, on the other hand, delinquency was primar- ily a way of coping with a basic anxiety in the area of sex role identification (Cohen, 1955:164–169).

112. Cohen (1955:84–93).

113. Cohen (1955:28, 112–119, 133); also see Vold and Bernard (1986:195).

114. Cohen (1955:134–135); also see Vold and Bernard (1986:195).

115. Cohen (1955:37); also see Vold and Bernard (1986:195).

116. Cloward and Ohlin (1960:148).

117. Cloward and Ohlin (1960:Chap. 7); also see Vold and Bernard (1986:197).

118. See Taylor et al. (1974:94); Schur (1969:230–232).

119. Vold and Bernard (1986:201).

120. Vold and Bernard (1986:201).

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 91

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

121. Vold and Bernard (1986:201).

122. Curran and Renzetti (1994:169).

123. Curran and Renzetti (1994:169); Vold and Bernard (1986:201).

124. Williams and McShane (1994:121).

125. Vold and Bernard (1986:201–202).

126. Vold and Bernard (1986:201).

127. Curran and Renzetti (1994:169); Vold and Bernard (1986:201).

128. See Wilson and Herrnstein (1985:335) on vocational training programs; also see Vold (1979:223).

129. Davis (1975:118).

130. Davis (1975:118).

131. See Cullen (1984); Cullen and Agnew (2006); Siegel (2010); Bernard et al. (2010).

132. Bernard et al. (2010:164).

133. Bernard et al. (2010:164).

134. Bernard et al. (2010).

135. Agnew (1992).

136. Agnew (1992).

137. Agnew (1992).

138. Agnew (1992).

139. Agnew (1992:50).

140. Agnew (1992:50).

141. Bernard et al. (2010:165).

142. Botchkovar, Tittle, Antonaccio (2009:134).

143. Agnew (1992); See also Cullen and Agnew (2006).

144. Agnew (2006:208).

145. Baron (2004); Agnew (2006); Aseltine, Gore, and Gordon (2000); Mazerolle and Maahs (2000).

146. Moon, Morash, McCluskey and Hwang (2009:184).

147. Moon et al. (2009).

148. Cullen and Agnew (2006).

149. Cullen and Agnew (2006).

150. Rosenfeld and Messner (2006:192).

151. Rosenfeld and Messner (2006:198–199).

152. Rosenfeld and Messner (2006:197).

153. Bernard et al. (2010).

154. Cullen and Agnew (2006:163).

155. Bernard et al. (2010:169).

156. Messner and Rosenfeld (2006).

157. Baumer and Gustafson (2007).

158. Baumer and Gustafson (2007:651).

92 C H A P T E R 6

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

159. Jensen (2002).

160. See Vold (1979:223).

161. See Curran and Renzetti (1994:152, 164); Vold (1979:226); Taylor et al. (1974:106–107).

162. See, for example, Friedrichs (1996:232).

163. See Taylor et al. (1974:107); Kornhauser (1978:148).

164. Tittle (1995:5).

165. Cullen and Wright (1997).

166. See Andrews and Bonta (1994:95–96).

167. Davis (1975:102).

168. Lanier and Henry (1998:234); Tittle (1995:2).

169. Martin et al. (1990:284–285); Kornhauser (1978:180).

170. Martin et al. (1990:286–288).

171. Martin et al. (1990:288); Kornhauser (1978:159–160).

172. See Kornhauser (1978:243).

173. See Davis (1975:104).

174. Taylor et al. (1974:104–105); Kornhauser (1978:163, 166).

175. Williams and McShane (1994:91). For example, Messner and Rosenfeld (2001) emphasize the American cultural goal of consumption. In later writings, Merton argued that “cultural success goal” could be substituted for money with the same results.

176. Kornhauser (1978:139).

177. Kornhauser (1978:162).

178. Davis (1975:102); also see Kornhauser (1978:164).

179. See Taylor et al. (1974:108).

180. See Davis (1975:105).

181. See Matza (1964).

M A C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 93

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

ROBERT M. BOHM University of Central Florida

and

BRENDA L. VOGEL California State University, Long Beach

A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory

T H I R D E D I T I O N

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10

A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory, Third Edition Robert M. Bohm, Brenda L. Vogel

Editor: Carolyn Henderson-Meier

Editorial Assistant: John Chell

Media Editor: Andy Yap

Marketing Manager: Michelle Williams

Marketing Communications Manager: Laura Localio

Content Project Manager: Pre-PressPMG

Art Director: Maria Epes

Print Buyer: Linda Hsu

Permissions Editor: Roberta Broyer

Production Service: Pre-PressPMG

Text Designer: Pre-PressPMG

Cover Designer: Riezebos Holzbaur/Brie Hattey

Cover Image: Corbis Yellow

Compositor: Pre-PressPMG

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning

Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at cengage.com/permissions

Further permissions questions can be emailed to [email protected]

Library of Congress Control Number: 2010926703

ISBN-13: 978-0-495-80750-6

ISBN-10: 0-495-80750-8

Wadsworth 20 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002-3098 USA

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

To learn more about Wadsworth, visit www.cengage.com/Wadsworth

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.cengagebrain.com

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Microsociological Theories

Learning Theories

Subcultural Theories

Social Control Theories

I n Chapter 6 macrosociological theories of crime were reviewed, emphasizinghow the organization or structure of a society can generate an environment conducive to crime. In this chapter, the analysis shifts to microsociological theo- ries, which examine how various social institutions (e.g., the family, the school, and religion) and processes (e.g., socialization) can encourage or inhibit criminal behavior.

L E A R N I N G T H E O R I E S

Gabriel Tarde (1843–1904) was one of the first theorists to believe that crime was something learned by normal people as they adapted to other people and the conditions of their environment. His theory was a product of his experience as a French lawyer and magistrate and was described in his book Penal Philosophy, published in 1890.1 Because he did not believe that criminals were unique, either physically or psychologically, Tarde completely rejected Lombroso’s conception of the born criminal. “Perhaps one is born vicious,” he wrote, “but it is quite certain that one becomes a criminal.”2

For Tarde, becoming a criminal is a learning process, and learning is a social phenomenon. Reflecting the state of knowledge about the learning process in his day, Tarde viewed all social phenomena as the product of imitation. Through imitation or modeling, a person can learn new responses, such as criminal behavior, by observing others, without performing any overt act or receiving direct rein- forcement or reward.3 Although Tarde did not discuss it, behavior can also be learned by imitating symbolic models where verbal or written instructions are

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

presented. Written instructions include such things as technical manuals; pictorial models include movies, television, and other audiovisual means. In short, for Tarde, criminal behavior is learned by observing and imitating the criminal behav- ior of other people, something Tarde believed was more likely in urban areas.4

The first twentieth-century criminologist to forcefully argue that criminal behavior was learned was Edwin H. Sutherland (1883–1950). His theory of differ- ential association developed over thirteen years, between 1934 and 1947,5 and, together with its more recent modifications, remains one of the most influential theories of crime causation today. The theory explains crime both at the macro level (differences in crime rates among groups) and at the micro level (differences in individual criminal behavior)—though the former has been largely ignored.6

In addition, the theory can be used to explain white-collar crime (a term Sutherland coined) as well as street crime.7 In his text, Sutherland lists the nine propositions of his theory with accompanying commentary:8

1. Criminal behavior is learned. Negatively, this means that criminal behavior is not inherited, as such; also, the person who is not already trained in crime does not invent criminal behavior, just as a person does not make mechani- cal inventions unless he has had training in mechanics.

2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. This communication is verbal in many respects but also includes the “communication of gestures.”

3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within inti- mate personal groups. Negatively, this means that the impersonal agencies of communication, such as movies and newspapers, play a relatively unimpor- tant part in the genesis of criminal behavior.

4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.

5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable and unfavorable. In some societies an individual is surrounded by persons who invariably define the legal codes as rules to be observed, while in others he or she is surrounded by persons whose defini- tions are favorable to the violation of the legal codes. In our American society these definitions are almost always mixed, with the consequence that we have culture conflict in relation to the legal codes.

6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. This is the principle of differential association. It refers to both criminal and anticriminal associations and has to do with counteracting forces. When persons become criminal, they do so because of contacts with criminal patterns and also because of isolation from anticriminal patterns. Any person inevitably assimilates the surrounding culture unless other patterns are in conflict; a southerner does not pronounce “r” because other southerners do not

96 C H A P T E R 7

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

pronounce “r.” Negatively, this proposition of differential association means that associations which are neutral so far as crime is concerned have little or no effect on the genesis of criminal behavior. Much of the experience of a person is neutral in this sense, for example, learning to brush one’s teeth. This behavior has no negative or positive effect on criminal behavior except as it may be related to associations which are concerned with the legal codes. This neutral behavior is important especially as an occupier of the time of a child so that he or she is not in contact with criminal behavior during the time he or she is so engaged in the neutral behavior.

7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and in- tensity. This means that associations with criminal behavior and also asso- ciations with anticriminal behavior vary in those respects. “Frequency” and “duration” as modalities of associations are obvious and need no explanation. “Priority” is assumed to be important in the sense that lawful behavior de- veloped in early childhood may persist throughout life, and also that delin- quent behavior developed in early childhood may persist throughout life. This tendency, however, has not been adequately demonstrated, and priority seems to be important principally through its selective influence. “Intensity” is not precisely defined, but it has to do with such things as the prestige of the source of a criminal or anticriminal pattern and with emotional reactions related to the associations. In a precise description of the criminal behavior of a person, these modalities would be related in quantitative form and a mathematical ratio would be reached. A formula in this sense has not been developed, and the development of such a formula would be extremely difficult.

8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. Negatively, this means that the learning of criminal behavior is not restricted to the process of imitation. A person who is seduced, for instance, learns criminal behavior by association, but this process would not ordinarily be described as imitation.

9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. Thieves generally steal in or- der to secure money, but likewise honest laborers work in order to secure money. The attempts by many scholars to explain criminal behavior by general drives and values, such as the happiness principle, striving for social status, the money motive, or frustration, have been, and must continue to be, futile, since they explain lawful behavior as completely as they explain criminal behavior. They are similar to respiration, which is necessary for any behavior, but which does not differentiate criminal from noncriminal behavior.

Modifying a premise from the theory of the Chicago School, Sutherland maintained that differential associations would not produce criminality if it were not for differential social organization.9 In other words, the degree to which

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 97

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

communities promote or inhibit criminal associations varies with the way or the degree to which they are organized (that is, the extent of culture conflict).10

Sutherland’s theory has been criticized on several grounds, and some of those criticisms provide the groundwork for more contemporary conceptualiza- tions of his work. First, differential association theory has been criticized for be- ing untestable.11 For example, Curran and Renzetti ask, “How can ‘an excess of definitions favorable to law violation’ be measured or observed?”12 Even if such definitions could be measured and observed, one critic wonders where an excess of definitions favorable to law violation could be found.13 As the Chicago theo- rists Shaw and McKay noted, even in the worst neighborhoods, most residents are law-abiding and subscribe to conventional values. Even residents who do commit crimes generally endorse conventional values much of the time.

A common way that researchers have tried to overcome the criticism of untestability is by examining the influence of delinquent peers on offending. Presumably, the more delinquent peers with whom one associates, the more likely he or she is to be exposed to definitions favorable to law violation. Con- sequently, by examining the number and importance of delinquent peers, re- searchers can gauge the extent to which someone is exposed to definitions that are supportive of law violation. As would be predicted by Sutherland’s theory, research has found that association with delinquent peers is strongly associated with delinquent behavior.14 In fact, after their extensive review of research in this area, Akers and Jensen conclude that “[o]ther than one’s own prior deviant behavior, the best single predictor of the onset, continuance, or desistance of crime and delinquency is differential association with conforming and law- violating peers.”15 This finding remains robust regardless of the type of delin- quency under investigation.

Another criticism of Sutherland’s theory involves the question of whether differential associations cause crime or are a result of crime.16 Current research suggests that the effect of associating with delinquent peers on delinquency is reciprocal. In other words, association with delinquent peers is related to delin- quency, and youth who engage in delinquency are likely to associate with delinquent peers.17 Some critics question whether differential associations cause crime at all. If differential associations are so important, then how is the criminal behavior of the recluse Ted Kaczynski—the so-called Unabomber—explained?18

For that matter, why do most correctional officers and probation and parole offi- cers not violate the law? After all, they are exposed to definitions favorable to law violation during much of their workdays. Perhaps the answer is that different people respond differently to procriminal definitions, something Sutherland’s theory ignored.19

Sutherland’s theory has also been criticized for failing to “present a good description of definitions favorable or unfavorable to crime.”20 Although some theorists argue that those who engage in crime reject mainstream values entirely,21 it is generally held that most law violators ascribe to mainstream values, disapprove of crime in general, and condone some criminal acts only in specific situations.22 This was the belief of Gresham Sykes (1922– ) and David Matza (1930– ), who, in 1957, published an influential study entitled “Techniques of

98 C H A P T E R 7

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency,” where they address this weakness in Sutherland’s work.23 Their goal in the study was to provide what they believed was a missing piece in Sutherland’s differential association theory, that is, “the specific content of what is learned—as opposed to the process by which it is learned.”24

According to Sykes and Matza, “Much delinquency is based on what is essentially an unrecognized extension of defenses to crimes, in the form of justi- fications [or rationalizations] for deviance that are seen as valid by the delinquent but not by the legal system or society at large.”25 Sykes and Matza described five techniques of neutralization: (1) denial of responsibility (“I didn’t mean to do it” or “I’m sick”), (2) denial of injury (“Nobody got hurt”), (3) denial of victim (“They had it coming to them” or “We weren’t hurting anyone”), (4) condemnation of the condemners (“Everybody does it”), and (5) appeal to higher loyalties (“I only did it for the gang”).26 For Sykes and Matza, it is by learning those defenses that the juvenile is able to neutralize or deflect the internal guilt and the disapproval of others. Most delinquents, according to Sykes and Matza, believe in the dominant value system of society. Indeed, if asked, most delinquents would readily admit that their delinquent activities are wrong. Consequently, to engage in crime, de- linquents must be able to justify their delinquent behavior and thus reduce the guilt they would feel otherwise.27

Note that Sykes and Matza’s neutralizations are very similar to Freud’s defense mechanisms, which were discussed in Chapter 5. Sykes and Matza’s neutraliza- tions, however, are made prior to a delinquent act—to free an individual of guilt to commit it—while Freud’s defense mechanisms are generally employed after a delinquent act to reduce guilt (and anxiety) caused by it. Some research suggests that neutralizations occur both before and after delinquent acts—supporting both Freud and Sykes and Matza.28 However, a recent review of the research on neu- tralization theory found little evidence supporting Sykes and Matza’s claim that neutralizations are employed before the commission of an illegal act.29

Another problem with Sykes and Matza’s neutralization theory involves the degree to which juvenile offenders, and people generally, are committed to con- ventional values and norms. If they are not committed—a presumption of many social control theories—neutralization is unnecessary.30 Matza later (in 1964) conceded that few people (juveniles or adults) are always committed to conven- tional values and norms, but, instead, that most people typically drift between law-abiding and law-violating behaviors. Whether or not they commit crime depends largely on opportunity. Neutralization theory has also been criticized for failing to explain how neutralizations originate or who invented them.31

In their recent review of the research on neutralization theory, Maruna and Copes conclude that results are mixed, and supportive results are often weak.32

Interestingly, they observe that neutralization theory may not be a theory that explains the “why” of criminal causation, but, instead, is a theory that only pro- vides an understanding of the cognitive methods that allow an otherwise law- abiding individual to continue to break the law. In other words, for Maruna and Copes, Sykes and Matza’s neutralization theory is useful in explaining how crime is maintained or continued, but not how it originates.33

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 99

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Returning to Sutherland’s differential association theory, Sutherland has also been criticized for underemphasizing the importance of the media in crime cau- sation.34 Sutherland maintained that “the impersonal agencies of communication, such as movies and newspapers, play a relatively unimportant part.” Sutherland formulated his theory long before the ubiquity of blockbuster action films, vio- lent video games, cable television, and YouTube, so the fact that he downplayed the influence of the media on delinquency, to some extent, can be understood. The research on media violence and aggression, moreover, has failed to show that exposure to media violence causes violent criminal behavior.35

Finally, Sutherland has been criticized for his rather simplistic conception of the learning process.36 However, modifications and additions have been made to Sutherland’s theory since its final formulation in 1947, as new developments in learning theory have emerged. For example, Daniel Glaser (1918– ) modified Sutherland’s theory by introducing role theory and by arguing that criminal be- havior could be learned by identifying with criminal roles and not just by associ- ating with criminals.37 Thus, a person could imitate the behavior of a drug dealer without actually having met one. Glaser obviously believed that the media had a greater influence on the learning of criminal behavior than Sutherland believed they had.

Robert L. Burgess (1931– ) and Ronald L. Akers (1939– ), as well as C. Ray Jeffery (1921–2007), adapted the principles of operant conditioning and behavior modification, developed by psychologist B.F. Skinner (1904–1990), and the principles of modeling, as developed by Albert Bandura (1925– ), to the expla- nation of criminal behavior. The first three theorists integrated psychological concepts with sociological ones. Burgess and Akers call their reformulation of Sutherland’s theory differential association–reinforcement theory, and in a later elabo- ration, Akers calls it social learning theory.38 Jeffery calls his interpretation the theory of differential reinforcement.39 More recent applications of modern behavioral psy- chology to an understanding of criminality are found in the works of James Q. Wilson (1931– ) and Richard Herrnstein (1930–1994), Akers, and D. A. Andrews (1941– ) and James Bonta (1949– ).40

Akers and Jensen maintain that social learning theory has received consider- able empirical support.41 They relate that social learning theory “has been tested in relation to a wider range of forms of deviance, in a wider range of settings and samples, in more different languages, and by more different people, has survived more ‘crucial tests’ against other theories and is more strongly and consistently supported by empirical data than any other social psychological explanation of crime and deviance.”42 Reaching a different conclusion, Sampson claims that “the data show the results on imitation and reinforcement are either weak or inconsistent”—a conclusion Sampson contends that Akers admits.43 In any event, in the following discussion, the more general term learning theory is used to describe this approach.

Learning theory explains criminal behavior and its prevention with the con- cepts of positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, extinction, punishment, and modeling or imitation.44 In learning theory, crime is committed because it is positively reinforced, negatively reinforced, or imitated. The imitation or modeling

100 C H A P T E R 7

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

of criminal behavior has already been described in the earlier discussion of Tarde. Here the focus is on the other concepts.

Positive reinforcement is the presentation of a stimulus that increases or maintains a response. The stimulus, or reward, can be either material, such as money, or psy- chological, such as pleasure.45 People steal (a response), for example, because of the rewards—for example, the objects or money—that they receive. They use drugs (at least at first) because of the rewards—for example, the pleasure—that the drugs give them.

Negative reinforcement is the removal or reduction of a stimulus whose re- moval or reduction increases or maintains a response. The stimulus in negative reinforcement is referred to as an aversive stimulus. Aversive stimuli, for most peo- ple, include pain and fear. A person who is negatively reinforced to steal may be stealing to remove or reduce the aversive stimuli of the fear and pain of poverty. Drug addicts are negatively reinforced to continue to use drugs because using them removes or reduces the aversive stimulus of the pain of drug withdrawal. In short, both positive and negative reinforcement explain why a behavior, such as crime, is maintained or increases. Both types of reinforcement can simulta- neously affect the same behavior. In other words, people may commit crime, in this view, both because they are rewarded for it and because it removes aver- sive stimuli.

According to learning theory, criminal behavior is reduced through extinc- tion or punishment. It is important to emphasize that learning theory does not promise that crime or any other behavior necessarily can be eliminated by these means, only that it can be reduced. Extinction—which Akers and Andrews and Bonta call “negative punishment”46—is a procedure in which behavior that pre- viously was positively reinforced is no longer reinforced. In other words, the re- wards have been removed. Thus, if burglars were to continually come up empty in their quests (that is, not to receive rewards for their efforts), they would most likely no longer continue to burglarize. Similarly, if drug users no longer re- ceived rewards such as pleasure from their use of drugs, they would most likely no longer use them (assuming, of course, that they were not addicted and using the drugs for negative reinforcement).

Punishment—which Akers calls “positive punishment”47—is the presentation of an aversive stimulus to reduce a response. It is the principal method used in the United States and other countries to prevent crime or, at least, to reduce it. Most countries use imprisonment as a punishment for crimes. However, a prob- lem is that prisons are also “schools of crime.” That is, besides their aversive properties, prisons often provide an environment in which criminal behavior is learned, in which case imprisonment becomes counterproductive.

As a tool of criminal justice in the United States, punishment is not used effectively in other ways as well. That is, it is not used according to learning theory principles.48 For example, for punishment to be effective, escape must be prevented. Escape is a natural reaction to the presentation of an aversive stim- ulus such as imprisonment. In the United States, the chances of an offender’s escaping punishment (by escaping apprehension in the first place) are great. Also, if apprehended, many offenders, especially first-time offenders, are placed

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 101

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

on probation, which probably does not always function as an aversive stimulus.49

According to learning theory principles, for punishment to be effective it also must be applied consistently and immediately. Consistent application of punish- ment is rare because most criminal offenders are not caught. As for immediacy, the process of criminal justice in the United States generally precludes punish- ment immediately after a criminal act has been committed. The criminal justice process, even when it is working efficiently, is a slow and methodical one.

In addition, extended periods of punishment should be avoided or the effectiveness of the punishment will be reduced. The United States currently imprisons more of its offenders for longer periods than any other country in the world, though in many cases inmates actually serve only a fraction of their original sentences. A related issue is that punishment is far less effective when the intensity with which the aversive stimulus is presented is increased gradually rather than when the stimulus is introduced at full intensity. Prolonged impris- onment is a gradual process of punishment that lacks the full intensity and immediacy of corporal punishment, for example.

To be effective, punishment also must be combined with extinction. That is, the rewards that maintain the behavior must be removed. In the United States, after imprisonment, offenders generally return to the environment in which their crimes were originally committed and rewarded. Additionally, for punishment to be effective, it must be combined with the positive reinforcement of alternative, prosocial behaviors and the availability of prosocial models as well.50 Rarely does this happen.

Finally, according to learning theorists, positive reinforcement is a much more effective and preferred method of manipulating behavior than is punish- ment, because positive reinforcement does not suffer the disadvantages associated with punishment. Criminal justice decision makers often overlook that point. Among the disadvantages of punishment are that it causes generalization and negative self-concepts. Offenders frequently come to view themselves as bad in- stead of viewing only their behaviors as bad. Generalizing the evil people do to their personhood severely hampers efforts at rehabilitation. As noted previously, punishment also causes withdrawal or escape. By punishing offenders, the chances of their avoiding detection and capture the next time they commit crim- inal acts are increased. Finally, punishment causes aggression.51 The punishing of offenders, particularly nonviolent ones, may inadvertently be producing violent offenders. For these reasons, then, the ineffectiveness of punishment in the United States should not be surprising because the way punishment is adminis- tered in this country violates most of the principles of learning theory.52

Another problem with learning theory as applied to crime, and especially with Sutherland’s theory of differential association, is the problem of overpredic- tion. The theory accounts for too much crime and delinquency and has a hard time explaining exceptions.53 Regarding the former, if criminality is so reward- ing for the poor, for example, why do not more poor people commit it? Perhaps it is because they lack the opportunity, skill, or knowledge to commit it. Those possibilities are ignored in differential association theory.54 Regarding exceptions, how can two brothers who have been raised in the same environment (have the

102 C H A P T E R 7

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

same associations and are exposed to the same rewards) turn out so differently, with one becoming a gangster and the other one becoming a priest? For that matter, why do people who have been rewarded for law-abiding behavior, such as successful businesspeople or government officials, still commit crimes?55

Or why do people continue to commit crimes even though it has caused them much pain and agony?56

Learning theory, at least as it is used to explain crime, is based on circular reasoning.57 By definition, a reinforcing stimulus is one that maintains or increases the probability of a behavior. Thus, it is impossible to determine in advance of observing a subsequent behavior whether any particular stimulus is or is not re- inforcing. Another fundamental problem is that if all criminal behavior is learned, and none is invented, then how does criminal behavior begin? What is the source of new types of crime?58

Learning theory also ignores the criminalization process. It fails to consider why the normal learned behaviors of some groups are criminalized, whereas the normal learned behaviors of other groups are not.59 For example, why is marijuana consumption illegal, whereas cigarette or alcohol consumption is not? Learning theory ignores the effect that political and economic power has on the definition of criminal behavior.60

Finally, Sutherland’s differential association theory does not explain why individuals have the associations they have, or why the number of definitions favorable or unfavorable to the violation of the law varies from one social con- text to another.61 Reference to differential social organization still begs the ques- tion of why or how society is differentially organized. Likewise, learning/ reinforcement theories, until recently, ignored the social structural influences on the determination of rewards and aversive stimuli.62 That is, few stimuli are in- herently rewarding or aversive, and what is rewarding in any society at any point in time may not be rewarding, or may even be aversive, in another context or under a different circumstance. In short, what generally gives stimuli rewarding or aversive properties is socially determined.63

S U B C U L T U R A L T H E O R I E S

As noted earlier in this chapter, learning theories can be used to explain crime at both the micro and the macro levels. Learning theories at the macro level often claim that certain groups in the United States have learned values that are con- ducive to crime or that approve of or justify crime in certain circumstances, and that such values explain the higher rates of crime in these groups.64 For example, some theorists suggest that a “subculture of violence” exists in the Southern United States and in some inner-city neighborhoods. A subculture refers to a sub- group within a dominant group or culture that has defined its own norms and values, which are often inconsistent to those of the larger group. Subcultures emerge when a group of people in similar circumstances find themselves cut off from or denied access to mainstream society. Theorists in this tradition include Albert Cohen, Richard Cloward, and Lloyd Ohlin—all of whom were discussed

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 103

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

in Chapter 6 under anomie theories—and Walter B. Miller, Marvin Wolfgang, Franco Ferracuti, and Elijah Anderson.

Walter B. Miller (1920–2004) argued that the lower class has “a long- established, distinctively patterned tradition with an integrity of its own.”65

Delinquent gangs, in Miller’s view, were natural products of the values, or what he called the “focal concerns,” of lower-class culture: trouble (the ability to handle it), toughness (physical and emotional strength), smartness (street savvy), excitement (ways that an otherwise drab existence is enlivened), fate (the belief that life outcomes are a matter of luck or chance), and autonomy (being independent of authority figures such as parents, teachers, or the police). For Miller, delinquency was “normal” behavior of lower-class youths simply defined as delinquent by the middle and upper classes. In short, for Miller, members of the lower class no more wanted to be middle class than members of the middle class wanted to be lower class.66

Perhaps the major problem with “cultural deviance” theories, such as Miller’s, is explaining lower-class nondelinquency. Miller accomplishes the feat, and in doing so substantially alters his theory, by attributing lower-class delinquency to individuals or groups who deviate from lower-class culture or who are part of lower-class cultural subtypes.67 If this were the case, however, then how can lower-class delinquency, or perhaps more accurately, lower-class behavior defined as delinquent by the middle and upper classes, be a product of lower-class culture?

Another major problem with Miller’s theory is that no evidence, besides his own, supports it. Every other study, besides Miller’s, shows that, “at the very least, overwhelming numbers of the poor give allegiance to the values and principles of the dominant American culture.”68 Additionally, there is no “evidence whatever that the poor perceive their way of life as good and preferable to that of other ways of life.”69 Besides, even if lower-class culture were characterized by Miller’s focal concerns, those focal concerns are not necessarily related to delinquency.70

Marvin Wolfgang (1924–1998) and Franco Ferracuti (1927– ), in their 1967 book The Subculture of Violence, examined criminal homicides in Philadelphia and found that they were not distributed evenly across the city, but were concen- trated in African-American neighborhoods.71 They concluded that the high ho- micide rates were the result of a subculture of violence that defines “violence as a more appropriate, or even required, response to a wide variety of provocations and insults.”72 Although they did not explain how the subculture originates, they did provide seven propositions summarizing their theory: (1) No subculture can be totally different from or totally in conflict with the society of which it is a part; (2) To establish the existence of a subculture of violence does not require that the actors sharing in these basic value elements should express violence in all situations; (3) The potential to resort or willingness to resort to violence in a variety of situations emphasizes the penetrating and diffusive character of this cultural theme; (4) The subcultural ethos of violence may be shared by all ages in a subsociety, but this ethos is most prominent in a limited age group, ranging from late adolescence to middle age; (5) The counter-norm is nonviolence; (6) The development of favorable attitudes toward and the use of violence in a subculture usually involve learned behavior and a process of differential learning,

104 C H A P T E R 7

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

association, or identification; and (7) The use of violence in a subculture is not necessarily viewed as illicit conduct, and the users therefore do not have to deal with feelings of guilt about their aggression.73

Research examining Wolfgang and Ferracuti’s subculture of violence theory has yielded largely unsupportive results.74 Two lines of research characterize this tradition: one that seeks to explain the higher rate of violence in the Southern United States, and one that examines the presence of the subculture of violence among African Americans in urban areas. Research on the regional differences in violence has been plagued with methodological problems and yields little to no support for the subcultural thesis.75 A more recent, nationwide study of the thesis found that “southern White males from rural areas are more approving of violence only under certain conditions, some of which may be construed as defensive in nature.”76 Likewise, little empirical evidence exists to support a subculture of vio- lence among African-American males. One study, based on data from a national random sample, concluded that “white males express significantly more violent beliefs in defensive or retaliatory situations than blacks and that there is no significant differ- ence between white and black males in beliefs in violence in offensive situations.”77

In his 1999 book, Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City, Elijah Anderson (1943– ) described a contemporary version of a subcul- ture of violence that persists in urban, largely African-American neighborhoods.78

Although the subculture of violence is rejected by most inner-city inhabitants, it “places all young African-American men under much pressure to respond to certain situations—shows of disrespect—with violence.”79 Unlike the work of Wolfgang and Ferracuti, however, Anderson examined how structural disadvan- tage, cultural explanations, and racial discrimination combine to explain the high rate of violence among African-American youth.80 For example, the loss of job opportunities in the inner city has deprived young African-American males of traditional, legitimately employed, male role models. Consequently, those young African-American males often turn to violence and an array of illegal activities.

Unlike earlier versions of subcultural theories, Anderson’s work has received some empirical support.81 For example, a recent study examined the influence of male role models and concentrated urban disadvantage on Black juvenile arrests for violence across several U.S. cities.82 The results suggest that “older African- American men play an important role in the urban context, offering social con- trol in the urban environment that detracts youth from the lure of the street code.”83 Similarly, in their study of more than seven hundred African- American adolescents, Stewart and Simons found that “neighborhood structural characteristics, living in a street family, and discrimination significantly predicted adopting the street code.”84

S O C I A L C O N T R O L T H E O R I E S

Social control theories address the problems of crime and delinquency from an entirely different perspective than do the preceding theories. The seminal ques- tion for social control theorists is not why people commit crime and delinquency

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 105

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

but rather why they do not. Why do people conform? In other words, social control theorists expect people to commit crime and delinquency unless they are prevented from doing so. They will commit crime, that is, unless they are properly socialized.85

Like many of the other sociological theories of crime causation that have been examined, social control theories, as previously noted, have their origins in the work of Durkheim. Not until the 1950s, however, did social control theories begin to emerge to challenge other, more dominant theories, such as anomie and differential association. Among the early social control theorists were Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (1922–2006), Jackson Toby (1925– ), F. Ivan Nye (1918– ), and Walter C. Reckless (1899–1988).86 However, despite the important contributions of those early theorists, modern social control theory in its most detailed elaboration is at- tributed to the work of Travis Hirschi (1935– ). Hirschi’s 1969 book, Causes of Delinquency, has had a tremendous influence on current criminological thinking.87

A unique feature of Hirschi’s theory (his is a theory of delinquency and not of adult criminality) is that the data on which the theory is based come from self- report surveys rather than from official police or court records or victimization surveys. The self-report surveys, among other things, asked subjects whether they had committed crimes and other offenses.

As did proponents of earlier social control theories, Hirschi argues that delin- quency should be expected if a juvenile is not properly socialized. For Hirschi, proper socialization involves the establishment of a strong moral bond between the juvenile and society. This bond to society consists of (1) attachment to others, (2) commitment to conventional lines of action, (3) involvement in conventional activities, and (4) belief in the moral order and law. Thus, delinquent behavior is likely to occur if there is (1) inadequate attachment, particularly to parents and school; (2) inadequate commitment, particularly to educational and occupational success; (3) inadequate involvement in such conventional activities as scouting and sports leagues; and (4) inadequate belief, particularly in the legitimacy and moral- ity of the law. For Hirschi, although all four elements of the bond to society are important (the importance of involvement was not supported by his data, how- ever), the most important and most basic element of the bond is attachment to others.

In their book, A General Theory of Crime (1990), Michael Gottfredson (1951– ) and Travis Hirschi argue that the primary cause of a variety of deviant behaviors, including many different kinds of crime and delinquency, is ineffec- tive child rearing, which produces people with low self-control.88 Ineffective child rearers, the authors contend, at minimum, fail to monitor their children’s behavior, recognize their children’s deviant behavior when it occurs, and punish their children’s deviant behavior when it is discovered.89 Children with low self- control frequently have child rearers with low self-control.90 Low self-control adversely affects a person’s ability to accurately calculate the consequences of his or her actions. Because everyone has a predisposition toward criminality, accord- ing to this theory, those persons with low self-control find it more difficult to resist. For Gottfredson and Hirschi, people with low self-control tend to be “im- pulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted,

106 C H A P T E R 7

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

and nonverbal.”91 The lack of self-control, they argue, remains fairly constant over the course of a person’s life.

Research testing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime (GTC) is extensive. Gottfredson argues that “[w]hatever else may be said about the em- pirical status of control theory in criminology, it most likely holds first place among modern theories for the generation of research.”92 Moreover, much of that research is supportive of its central tenet that low self-control is related to crime as well as a wide range of analogous behavior.93 Indeed, the consistently strong support leads Unnever, Pratt, and Cullen to conclude that “[low self- control’s] relationship to delinquent involvement is a ‘fact’ for which extant theories must take account.”94

One of the theory’s most controversial propositions is that self-control de- velops before the age of ten and remains relatively stable over the course of a person’s life.95 Research on this contention is mixed.96 On one hand, Arneklev, Grasmick, and Bursik, based on a limited convenience sample, found that low self-control “appears to be an invariant latent trait.”97 Tremblay and his collea- gues, using data from different periods, different countries, different reporting sources, and different methodologies, also provide empirical support for the proposition that human beings are inherently physically aggressive (i.e., are born with low self-control). Tremblay reports that the frequency of anger out- bursts and physical aggression, as well as the frequency of stealing (taking things from others), vandalism (destroying others’ belongings), and fraudulent behavior (e.g., lying), “increase rapidly from the first year after birth to approximately the third, and then the frequency decreases.”98 He found that human beings use physical aggression most often between eighteen and forty-two months after birth. He admits that “the physical aggressions by very young children appear qualitatively different from physical aggressions by adolescents and adults, [but] the trajectory of the former appears to lead to the trajectory of the latter.”

Tremblay’s research shows that the best predictor of chronic physical aggres- sion by preschool children is having an older sibling because “one needs a target to physically aggress.” Other key predictors are parent separation before birth; family dysfunction; low income; and having mothers who engaged in frequent antisocial behavior during adolescence, gave birth before twenty-one years of age, did not finish high school, smoked during pregnancy, and were coercive- hostile in their parenting. Tremblay also reports that 80 percent of the variation in the frequency of physical aggression at seventeen months of age could be ex- plained by genetic factors, which he asserts do not determine the trajectories of physical aggression but, instead, determine how human beings react to their en- vironment. Tremblay’s conclusion: “Human beings do not appear to need to learn to use physical aggression. As soon as they are in sufficient control of their muscles they use physical aggression to express their anger and to obtain what they desire. The important learning which is going on during the preschool years is learning not to use physical aggression and learning to use alternative strategies to achieve your aims” (emphasis in original).

On the other hand, findings of a study by Harbin, Simons, and Simons, based on a large, longitudinal sample of African-American children and their

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 107

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

caregivers, revealed that low self-control is not “stable and insensitive to social influences after the age of ten.”99 Similarly, Winfree, Taylor, He, and Esbensen con- tend that “our findings are, for the most part, unequivocally critical of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s orienting assumption (or claim) concerning the unchanging nature of self-control after its establishment in preadolescence.”100

Another fundamental proposition of GTC is that parents with low self-control are more likely to raise children with low self-control. Using a nationwide, longi- tudinal sample of youth, Nofzinger found that “mothers with low self-control do indeed produce children with lower self-control.”101 She also discovered that the self-control of the mother influenced both her choice of punishment, as well as how she supervised her children.102

One of the appealing aspects of Hirschi’s social control theory, and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory, too, is their seemingly commonsensical crime prevention im- plication. To prevent delinquency, juveniles must be properly socialized; they must develop a strong moral bond to society (or self-control). For Hirschi, the units of social control most important in the establishment of the bond are the family, the school, and the law. Not surprisingly, then, programs based on social control theories include parent training and functional-family therapies that at- tempt to reduce family conflict through dispute settlement and negotiation, reduce neglect and abuse, teach moderate discipline, and promote positive interactions between parents and children.103 Group homes and surrogate families have been proposed for children whose families are unsalvageable.104 Counseling and prob- lem solving and social skills training have been used with “at-risk” children, espe- cially in school settings.105

Although social control theory is currently very influential in the thinking of many criminologists, it has not escaped extensive criticism. Perhaps the major problem, at least for some criminologists, is the theory’s assumption that delin- quency will occur if not prevented.106 Some criminologists find it troublesome that the theory rejects altogether the idea of delinquent motivation.107 Charles Tittle has addressed this criticism in his integrated control balance theory, which is discussed in Chapter 9. Another criticism of social control theory is that it rests on the unrealistic assumption that all people have equal skill and ability to com- mit crime and delinquency.108

Hirschi’s version of social control theory has also been criticized for under- emphasizing the importance of delinquent associates, which has been found to be strongly related to delinquent behavior.109 Another criticism of social control theory is that it is a good explanation of only less serious delinquency. It does not explain more serious delinquency or adult criminality very well.110 Critics claim that self-control theory does not explain many types of white-collar, po- litical, or organized crime that are committed by persons with high levels of self-control.111

Regarding serious delinquency, critics point out that Hirschi’s survey measure of delinquency consisted of only six “less serious” items: “whether they had stolen anything worth less than $2, stolen anything worth between $2 and $50, stolen anything worth more than $50, taken a car without the owner’s permission, dam- aged or destroyed another person’s property, or had beat up or deliberately hurt

108 C H A P T E R 7

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

someone other than a sibling.”112 The theory may not explain adult criminality very well because subjects in Hirschi’s study were several thousand San Francisco area junior and senior high school boys. The subjects in most other tests of social control theory have been junior high and high school boys too.113 A problem with junior high and high school boys as subjects is the reliability and validity of the data. They could have lied on the surveys by either not confessing to what they had done or claiming to have done more than they had—two likely possi- bilities with boys that age and an inherent problem with self-report crime surveys.

Another problem is social control theory’s tacit assumption that a consensus exists in society over moral values.114 Not only does the theory ignore the exis- tence of pervasive social conflict over moral values, it also fails to consider that society, itself, or at least some aspects of society, may be criminogenic.115

Another related problem is that social control theory ignores the criminali- zation process. It fails to consider why certain harmful and destructive behaviors are defined as crime or delinquency, whereas other similar behaviors are not.

Social control theory may also suffer from the problem of overprediction. It may predict too much delinquency. Unless society is much more effective in preventing delinquency than authorities and the media would lead one to believe, there should be much more delinquency than currently is the case.116

The theory does not explain exceptions well, either. The theory does not al- low for delinquency by juveniles who are properly socialized, nor does it allow for conformity by juveniles who are not properly socialized. The theory also has trouble in explaining geographical variations in delinquency (and crime). Are people in one country subject to less social control or do they have less self-control than people in another country? Are there similar differences within countries? Self-control theory has the same problem explaining gender differences in delinquency (and crime). Do females have more self-control than males?

Another problem with social control theory is its trouble with “maturational reform.”117 If juveniles become delinquent because they are not properly social- ized (or lack self-control), then why do most delinquents stop their delinquent behaviors in early adulthood and not become criminals as adults? Does effective socialization of those delinquents (or the acquisition of self-control) suddenly occur in young adulthood and continue through the rest of their lives?118

A related criticism questions the direction of the purported relationship. In other words, does a weakened bond to society cause delinquency, as Hirschi suggests, or does delinquency produce a weakened bond to society?119

Still another problem with social control theory is that it does not explain how juveniles are socialized.120 For example, how are attachments to others pro- duced and changed?

Perhaps the most difficult question for social control theorists to answer is how people were socialized in the first place. In other words, if people are ex- pected to commit crimes unless they are properly socialized, then who socialized the first people, or how were they socialized? So far, social control theorists have not provided a satisfactory answer to that question.

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 109

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

S T U D Y Q U E S T I O N S Learning Theories

1. How would Tarde explain crime?

2. How would Sutherland explain crime?

3. What modification to Sutherland’s theory did Glaser make?

4. What are the techniques of neutralization?

5. How would Burgess and Akers and Jeffery explain crime?

6. How would learning theorists prevent crime?

7. What are problems with learning theories of crime?

8. How does learning theory compare with theories described previously in this book?

Subcultural Theories

9. Why are subcultural theories considered macro-level theories of crime?

10. How would Miller explain crime?

11. How would Wolfgang and Ferracuti explain violence?

12. How would Anderson explain crime?

13. What are problems with subcultural theories?

14. How do subcultural theories compare with theories described previously in this book?

Social Control Theories

15. How do social control theorists explain delinquency?

16. How would social control theorists prevent delinquency?

17. What are problems with social control theories?

18. How do social control theories compare with theories described previously in this book?

N O T E S

1. See Vold and Bernard (1986:208–209).

2. Tarde (1968:256).

3. See Bandura and Walters (1963).

4. Beirne and Messerschmidt (2000:91).

5. See Vold and Bernard (1986:210).

6. Williams and McShane (1994:78).

7. Sutherland (1983).

8. Sutherland and Cressey (1974:75–77).

9. Sutherland and Cressey (1974:77, 89, 93–96); also see Vold and Bernard (1986:213).

110 C H A P T E R 7

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

10. Sutherland and Cressey (1974:107–109). Because of the importance of the concepts of differential social organization and culture conflict in Sutherland’s theory, he is considered a “value-conflict” theorist, albeit an apolitical one, by some (see Davis, 1975:Chap. 6). A political-conflict theory is addressed later in this book.

11. See National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NIJJDP) (1977:31); Kornhauser (1978:189); Martin, Mutchnick, and Austin (1990:164).

12. Curran and Renzetti (1994:188). However, see Andrews (1980) for an explanation of how they can be measured.

13. Sampson (1999:443–444); but see Akers (1999:478–479).

14. Akers and Jensen (2006).

15. Akers and Jensen (2006:51).

16. Lanier and Henry (1998:140).

17. Akers and Sellers (2004).

18. Sampson (1999:441).

19. Beirne and Messerschmidt (2000:136); Sampson (1999:446).

20. Cullen and Agnew (2006:115).

21. Cohen (1955).

22. Maruna and Copes (2005).

23. Sykes and Matza (1957).

24. Sykes and Matza (1957:664).

25. Sykes and Matza (1957:666).

26. On loyalty and delinquency, also see Warr (2002:55–58).

27. For a critique of this position, see Taylor, Walton, and Young (1974:183–185).

28. Lanier and Henry (1998:151); Beirne and Messerschmidt (2000:162).

29. Maruna and Copes (2005:259).

30. Lanier and Henry (1998:150).

31. Lanier and Henry (1998:151).

32. Maruna and Copes (2005).

33. Maruna and Copes (2005).

34. Curran and Renzetti (1994:190).

35. Savage (2008:1123).

36. Curran and Renzetti (1994:190).

37. Glaser (1956).

38. Burgess and Akers (1966); Akers (1985).

39. Jeffery (1965).

40. Wilson and Herrnstein (1985); Akers (1994, 1998); Andrews and Bonta (1994).

41. Akers and Jensen (2006).

42. Akers and Jensen (2006:37).

43. Sampson (1999:443).

44. See Rachlin (1976) for a description of the concepts.

45. In the case of habitual offenders, rewards may also be nonsocial and neurophysi- ological; see Wood, Gove, Wilson, and Cochran (1997).

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 111

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

46. Akers (1994); Andrews and Bonta (1994).

47. Akers (1994).

48. See Jeffery (1977:274–276).

49. This is one reason why so-called intermediate punishments, such as intensive supervision probation and parole, home confinement and electronic monitoring, and day reporting centers have been introduced.

50. See Bandura and Walters (1963:212); Andrews and Bonta (1994:202–205).

51. See Jeffery (1977:275).

52. Wilson and Herrnstein (1985:229–230) maintain that “problem” or “antisocial” children are also a product of ineffective punishment by parents.

53. See Martin et al. (1990:165).

54. Tittle (1995:3).

55. Lanier and Henry (1998:144); Sampson (1999:447); Tittle (1995:111); but see Akers (1998:98–101).

56. Tittle (1995:111).

57. See Krohn (1999:470); Tittle (1995:111).

58. Glueck and Glueck (1956); Costello (1997); but see Matsueda (1997).

59. Vold and Bernard (1986:229–230).

60. But see Vold and Bernard (1986:226) for a different view.

61. Tittle (1995:3).

62. See Akers (1998). Akers does not present a fully articulated integrated theory. Rather, he simply states that certain social structural factors, primarily drawn from anomie, social disorganization, and conflict theories, affect social psychological processes—that is, social learning concepts, which in turn influence both criminal behavior and crime rates. But which social structural factors are most important? Akers tells us only that the social structural factors strongly related to crime rates will also be strongly related to social learning concepts, and those social structural factors not strongly related to crime rates will not be strongly related to social learning concepts (1998:336). He admits that his theory “does not attempt to explain why a society has the [social structural factors, such as] culture, age structure, class system, race system, family system, economic system, gender/sex role system, or religious system that it has” (1998:336). Nor, for that matter, does his theory, as he again concedes, “explain (by reference to history, social change, or other macro-level variables) why there is social disorganization, conflict, or inequality in society” (1998:336).

63. See the discussion of interactionism in Chapter 8.

64. Cullen ad Agnew (2006:117).

65. Miller (1958).

66. See Vold (1979:224).

67. Kornhauser (1978:205); also see Costello (1997).

68. Ryan (1976:134); also see Kornhauser (1978:206–207).

69. Ryan (1976:134); also see Kornhauser (1978:208).

70. Kornhauser (1978:208).

71. Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1982).

112 C H A P T E R 7

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

72. Cote (2002:88).

73. Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1982:158–161).

74. Cao, Adams, and Jensen (1997). See Lee, Bankston, Hayes, and Thomas (2007) for a different view.

75. Hawley and Messner (1989).

76. Hayes and Lee (2005:593).

77. Cao et al. (1997:374).

78. Anderson (1999).

79. Cullen and Agnew (2006:151).

80. Stewart and Simons (2006).

81. Brezina, Agnew, Cullen, and Wright (2004).

82. Parker and Reckdenwald (2008).

83. Parker and Reckdenwald (2008:726).

84. Stewart and Simons (2006:1).

85. Lanier and Henry (1998:158) observe that social control theories provide the “missing half” of Sutherland’s theory of differential association and other learning theories by suggesting that law-abiding behaviors are learned through a process of socialization. Sutherland’s focus was on the learning of law-violating behaviors.

86. See Reiss (1951); Toby (1957); Nye (1958); Reckless (1961).

87. See Hirschi (1969).

88. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990).

89. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:97).

90. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:100–101).

91. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:90).

92. Gottfredson (2006:77).

93. See for example, Pratt and Cullen (2000).

94. Unnever, Pratt, and Cullen (2003:483).

95. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990).

96. Arneklev, Grasmick, and Bursik (1999); Burt, Simons, and Simons (2006); Nofzinger (2008); Turner and Piquero (2002).

97. Arneklev et al. (1999:307).

98. Tremblay (2006).

99. Burt, Simons, and Simons (2006:353).

100. Winfree, Taylor, He, and Esbensen (2006:278).

101. Nofzinger (2008:191).

102. Nofzinger (2008).

103. Lanier and Henry (1998:166).

104. Lanier and Henry (1998:166).

105. Lanier and Henry (1998:166).

106. As noted in Chapter 1, the seventeenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that all human beings are basically evil and, therefore, likely to commit crime. This idea may have been derived from the Christian belief that

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 113

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

everyone is born into original sin. Similar ideas about human nature are found in Freudian psychoanalytic theory, which is considered a prototype for control theories. In Freud’s version of psychoanalytic theory, it is assumed that everyone is capable of committing crime because of the sexual and aggressive drives of the id (see Andrews and Bonta, 1994:70; Kornhauser, 1978:142). Note, however, that Hirschi is one control theorist who does not believe it is necessary to explain criminal behavior as the result of an uncontrolled id (see Andrews and Bonta, 1994:83). Early social control theorists assumed that all human beings were frustrated in the attempt to satisfy their needs or wants, given scarcity of means, and that need frustration was a “chronic condition of humanity” (see Kornhauser, 1978:47). Criminal behavior is one likely outcome of this chronic condition. Other theorists suggest that control theories do not need to assume that people are basically bad. For them, it is necessary only to assume at least a neutral human nature (see Williams and McShane, 1994:181).

107. NIJJDP (1977:44). Social control theorists do not actually deny delinquent motivation. They deny only a special motivation such as social disorganization or anomie. They assume that individuals are motivated to commit delinquency because of their human nature (but see Williams and McShane, 1994:181, for a different view).

108. Tittle (1995:59).

109. Andrews and Bonta (1994:84).

110. Martin et al. (1990:200); Agnew (1985).

111. Beirne and Messerschmidt (2000:221); Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) disagree.

112. Curran and Renzetti (1994:200).

113. See Curran and Renzetti (1994:210–212).

114. NIJJDP (1977:43–44).

115. See Schur (1969).

116. Perhaps there is as much delinquency as social control theory predicts, but because most delinquency goes undiscovered and unreported, there is no way of knowing.

117. NIJJDP (1977:43).

118. See Einstadter and Henry (1995:196) and Williams and McShane (1994:192–193) for an affirmative response to this question.

119. Agnew (1985); Liska and Reed (1985).

120. NIJJDP (1977:43).

114 C H A P T E R 7

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

bohm07508_0495807508_02.06_chapter06

Chapter 6: Macrosociological Theories

The Contributions Of Durkheim
The Theory Of The Chicago School Or Social Disorganization Theory
Situational Crime Prevention And Routine Activity Theories
Functionalism
Anomie Theories
Study Questions
Notes

bohm07508_0495807508_02.07_chapter07

Chapter 7: Microsociological Theories

Learning Theories
Subcultural Theories
Social Control Theories
Study Questions
Notes