Why are some neighborhoods more prone to experience violent episodes than others? What is the extent and in what sociologically measurable ways do communities contribute to the causation and prevention of crime in their neighborhoods? Are neighborhood-level predictors adequate to explain differences in violent crime rates in the respective communities? These are some of the questions addressed by this statistically intense paper published in Science 1997, by Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls.
The authors analyzed data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), dividing the communities into neighborhood clusters (NCs) based on census indicators and geographical continuity. The residents were interviewed in their homes
…show more content…
611). This point can be further belabored with the differentiation of violence into intimate partner violence (domestic violence or male-to-female, female-to-male violence) and criminal violence. The effect of social cohesion and social control is more pronounced in the latter as compared to the former (Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, Harris, 2009). Thus, there has been support for the hypothesis tested in the current study under discussion. The importance of this study lies in the fact that the authors have tried to isolate the effect of neighborhood level factors while controlling for personal level predictors like sex, marriage status, ethnicity, age etc. The study was also conducted in a unique population with racially diverse groups represented almost equally in the population (one third each of whites, African Americans and Latinos) and having heterogeneous minority neighborhoods. With this analysis, the authors have managed to present a convincing picture of the mediating effect of social cohesion on neighborhood …show more content…
(2009). Neighborhood Characteristics as Predictors of Male to Female and Female to Male Partner Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, epub ahead of print, 0.
Dohrenwend, B., Levav, I., Shrout, P., Schwartz, S., Naveh, G., Link, B., et al. (1992). Socioeconomic Status and Psychiatric disorders: the causation-selection issue. Science, 255, 946-952.
James, D., & Glaze, L. (2006). Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail inmates. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Special Report, NCJ 213600, 1-12.
Sacks, S., Cleland, C., Melnick, G., Flynn, P., Knight, K., Friedmann, P., et al. (2009). Violent offenses associated with co-occurring substance use and mental health problems: evidence from CJDATS. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(7), 51-69.
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1990). Crime and Deviance over the Life course: the salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55(5), 609-627.
Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277,
...g, Critical, Peacemaking, Life Course and Strain theories could also be used to explain crime in these neighborhoods. According to Emile Durkheim, mores are different depending on the type of community. On a spectrum, from organic or the lower socio-economic neighborhood to mechanical or the well-structured community in this case Chestnut Hill. In a mechanical society, there is greater cohesion, sharing common values or goals. As could be expected, crime is predicted to be higher in more organic the community is.
... create much room for improvement. In an effort to better understand desistance and persistence throughout the life-course, Laub and Sampson’s work is a decent starting point. More research is needed regarding the marriage effect, emotion, cognitive transformations, minorities, and women to better explain crime over the life-course.
As we all know, the presence of law enforcement resources, police in particular, in high crime areas does reduce crime rate through the fear of apprehension, but what impact does an unexpected and extreme police presence have on non- criminogenic areas? The article that I am evaluating studies whether increasing in police attention in non-traditional high crime areas succeeds in its deterrent affects or instead creates more crime and disorder problems in these communities. In January 2008, an area that was close to a university campus and not commonly known for disorders witnessed a sever crime of abducting a young women whose dead body was found several months later. As a result, the police surrounded the area where the crime took place, and conducted many neighbor interviews. Due to the multi-jurisdictional nature of the case, the area was overwhelmed with the presence of state, county, local and university law enforcement which surprisingly had a negative Impact on the crime rate in the area.
In Laub and Sampson’s theory of age-graded social control, they are interested in the agencies and social experiences and how they play a role in whether an individual persists or desists from offending (Laub and Sampson 2003). More specifically, Laub and Sampson (2003:38) want to answer the question, “What are the mechanisms underlying the processes of persistent offending and desistance from crime?”
Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization theory had a profound impact on the study of the effects of urbanization, industrialization and immigration in Chicago neighborhood on crime and delinquency rates. However, Shaw and McKay faced much criticism when they first released their findings. One criticism of the social disorganization theory had to do with researcher’s ability to accurately test the social disorganization theory. Although Shaw and McKay collected data on characteristics of areas and delinquency rates for Chicago communities and were able to visually demonstrate a relationship between by using maps and other visuals, their research did not have an actually test that went along with it (Kurbin, 2010). Kurbin (2010) states that “the
Farrington, David P. "Age and Crime." Crime and Justice 7 (1986): 189. JSTOR. Web. 11
Markowitz, F. E. (2011). Mental illness, crime, and violence: Risk, context, and social control. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36-44.
Krivo, Peterson, Disadvantaged Neighborhoods and Urban Crime, Social Forces, Vol. 75 No. 2 December 1996, pg. 619-645.
Looking back at the number of homicides in the city of San Jose, CA for the year 2000 it was 20, then there was an average increase of 8 murders per year for the next 8 years. Then in 2010, despite a population increase of over one hundred thousand people, there were only 20 murders in the city of San Jose. Now in 2011, up to the month of July, there have been 26 homicides, which means based upon the current rate San Jose is on track to have more than 50 homicides in 2011, which would theoretically be over a two decade maximum. Now despite having lived in a small town, I consider San Jose as a home away from home because I go there often. I have had a job there and my dad has worked in San Jose for 28 years. In 2009 the San Jose area was rated as the seventh safest area in the country and when that happened it made me feel thankful that my family and I have lived in such a safe area. Yet nowadays it seems like I have been reading about a different murder every week, which has caused me to ask many questions about the possible causes of this rise in murders. From the research I have done, the cause seems to be a rise in gang violence and rival gang murders. In San Jose, the two rival gangs, Norteños and Sureños, have begun to be bolder with their killings as shown with the already high and rising murder rate of 2011. Solutions must be determined in conjunction with the San Jose Police Department and governmental gang task forces to establish the best course of action to stop the continuing rise in violence (Associated Press).
Two major sociological theories explain youth crime at the macro level. The first is Social Disorganization theory, created in 1969 by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay. The theory resulted from a study of juvenile delinquency in Chicago using information from 1900 to 1940, which attempts to answer the question of how aspects of the structure of a community contribute to social control. The study found that a community that is unable to achieve common values has a high rate of delinquency. Shaw and McKay looked at the physical appearance of the neighborhoods, the average income of the population, the ethnicity of the neighborhood, the percent of renters versus owners, and how fast the population of the area changed. These factors all contribute to neighborhood delinquency.
Substance abuse, a mental disorder, is also seen as a large risk in violent behavior (Silver 2006). Hiday (1995) asks the questions of the direction of this correlation. Does mental illness lead to violence or is it vice versa? THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS Silver (2006) asserts the importance of using t... ... middle of paper ... ...
Dorn, R., Volavka, J., & Johnson, N. (2012). Mental disorder and violence: is there a relationship beyond substance use?. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47(3), 487-503. doi:10.1007/s00127-011-0356-x
Agnew, Robert. (1999). A General Strain Theory of Community Differences in Crime Rates. Journal of Research in crime and Delinquency: Volume 36, Issue 3 (p123, 33p).
Social disorganization can be seen as origin of the development of criminal behaviors and that criminal behavior, “is linked to environmental conditions that fail to provide residents with proper human relations and development.”(182) The development of a situation like this is quite simple, a City would be segregated into two sections, a neighborhood for the wealthy and a neighborhood for the poor. People that are living in the poverty stricken area are, “controlled by the social and ecological climate.” Meaning that since these poverty stricken neighborhood have a higher crime rate, people living in these areas are likely to be influenced by their neighborhoods culture. This then results in a even higher crime rate and soon lose social control of the neighborhood. People who live in a disorganized neighborhood most likely want to try to get out of the area and will not invest into the community. This results in dirty streets and unmaintained homes. This is the reason why The Chicago School sociologists believes that “neighborhood conditions, and not individual pathology were the key influence on behavior.”
In Baltimore, there was an extremely high amount of crimes committed by juveniles. In order to do something about this, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development commissioned a study. Duncan, Hirschfield and Ludwig (2000) were responsible for the study. They took 336 teens age 11 to 16 and their families and helped them move from high to low poverty neighborhoods. They followed up regularly for the duration of the program which lasted for three and a half years. They found out that once removed from the poverty-stricken neighborhoods, the overall crime committed by those juveniles decreased. The results suggested that property offenses among the study participants were higher in the poorer neighborhood due to the better target suitability in that neighborhood. The study also found that the robbery reduction was most prominent change among the individuals of the study. That is phenomenal since the social cost of the robbery is much higher than the perceived risk of additional property