More handpicked essays just for you.
Social disorganization theory in organized crime
Social disorganization theory in organized crime
Crime and social groups
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
On March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered outside a liquor store at 3:20 AM. She screamed for help, but her pleas were mostly ignored as neighbours dismissed it as a drunken brawl between lovers. Her killer stabbed her twice in the back, before a neighbour scared him away by shouting, “Let that girl alone.” Still, no one went to check up on Genovese who, now injured, continued to cry out, “If someone doesn’t help me I’m going to die!” (Pelonero, 2014). Her killer returned 10 minutes later to rape and stab her to death. In the aftermath of her murder, a neighbour admitted to the police that he “didn’t want to get involved.” Genovese’s murder has became a figurehead for the bystander effect, due to the apathy displayed by the reported 38 …show more content…
It was Genovese’s murder that first sparked research and discussion in this area. Her case has had a substantial effect on social psychology and how group mentality works. Originally, the conclusion was that urban people tended to be apathetic due to the stress of city life. Social psychologists Bibb Latané and John M. Darley, inspired by the case, conducted the renowned Bystander Apathy Experiment and Smoke Filled Room Experiment (Latané, Darley, 1968). Their findings have changed public thought on Genovese’s case; it is not that urban citizens are less likely to help, but groups in general tend to exhibit the same behaviour (Rendsvig, …show more content…
The first factor is the diffusion of responsibility, a psychological phenomenon that states people are less likely to take action or feel responsible when part of a large group. In Genovese’s situation, it takes the form of a wife urging her husband to not call the police because “thirty people must have called by now” (Pelonero, 2014). Knowing other neighbours would be awake, she felt that one of them would intervene if they had not already done so. The danger with this kind of thinking lies in the fact that if everyone shares this mentality, no one ends up getting
“Something happens to individuals when they collect in a group. They think and act differently than they would on their own. (17)” States Carol Tavris in her article, “In Groups We Shrink From Loner’s Heroics”. Tavris believes people who are in groups tend to act in a more sluggish manor than those alone. She states many examples of this theory in her article, including the story of Kitty Genovese which is stated in the first paragraph. Kitty was stabbed repeatedly and killed in front of her New York apartment. No one did anything to stop this heinous action from taking place. Within her essay she obtains rhetorical appeals to prove that her statements are plausible to the audience.
In Chapter 4, In the Unlikely Event of a Water Landing, the author Lauren Slater starts the chapter off telling the true story of how a young woman, Kitty Genovese, was brutally murdered and raped outside of her apartment complex. What was most shocking in the aftermath is there were a total of 38 witnesses and not a single person did anything to help her. This raised many concerns as to why the witnesses did nothing. When they were being interviewed by the cops, they stated that they just did not want to get involved(p.94), thus “diffusing responsibility”, this is a term used by two psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latane, who were very concerned with and wanted to understand why nothing was done to aid young Kitty Genovese as she was being stabbed and raped.
On June 7th 2008, Sarah May Ward was arrested for the murder of Eli Westlake after she ran him over in a motor vehicle in St. Leonards. Prior to the incident the offender had been driving the wrong way down Christine Lane which was a one way street. Whilst this was occurring she was intoxicated, under the influence of marijuana, valium, and ecstasy and was unlicensed to drive. The victim and his brother who were also intoxicated, where walking down the lane and where nearly hit by the offender. This prompted the victim to throw cheese balls at the car and make a few sarcastic remarks regarding her driving ability. After a brief confrontation between the two parties the victim and his brother turned away and proceeded to walk down Lithgow Street. The offender followed the victim into the street and drove into him while he was crossing a driveway.
According to the FBI, more than 75 percent of all murder victims are women, and more than 50 percent of the women are between the ages of 14 and 29 years old. A part of that statistic is Kitty Genovese,a murder victim who is the focus of an editorial, “The Dying Girl that No One Helped,” written by Loudon Wainwright. Kitty was a 28 year old woman who was brutally stabbed to death while on her way home from work. The woman, named Kitty Genovese, lived in a pleasant, welcoming, residential area, in New York. There was at least 38 witnesses that came forward, and they all heard her cries for help, but no one came to her aid. Wainwright effectively demonstrates how society has started turning a “blind-eye” toward problems that can endanger someone's
Crime and deviant behavior surprisingly helps increase “social activity” among various different people within a society. Therefore, crime and deviant behavior brings “people together in a common posture of anger and indignation…when these people come together to express their outrage over the offense…they develop a tighter sense of solidarity than existed earlier” (Erikson 4). For example, in the Steven Avery case, the people of Manitowoc, Wisconsin, all had very strong feelings of Steven Avery and his family, and as a result they were seen as deviant people in their own hometown. Those feelings towards him, and his family, would be a critical factor when he was accused of the horrendous crime (Making). Based on their feelings towards the Avery family, the society in which he lived developed the overall concept of us versus them (Erikson 11). Therefore, another concept that arises as a result of crime and deviant behavior is public temper, which is described as a “mutual group feeling” (Erikson
In the teleplay “The Monsters are Due on Maple Street” written by Rod Serling, a small street in a suburban American town falls into chaos after they lose all electricity, and in an effort to find the monsters responsible, they become animals. They search for a scapegoat and let their imagination et the best of them because “for a moment their fear almost turns their walk into a wild stampede, but Steve's voice, loud, incisive, and commanding, makes them stop. ‘Wait a minute...wait a minute! Let's not be a mob!’ The people stop as a group, seem to pause for a moment, and then much more quietly and slowly start to walk across the street. ” (Rod Serling ?). The residents of Maple Street fall victim to herd mentality. They rush to find the culprit and they lose all sense of moral and judgement. As they are about to become a mob they listen to Steve as he advises that they do not. All the residents of Maple Street listen to him and sure, he did use mob mentality to do good, but it goes to show the amount of power one man holds. Similarly, in the article “Why People Follow The Crowd” written by ABC News, the article discusses how humans are willing to let go of their beliefs, morals, and
For example, according to Loudon, “For the most part the witnesses, couching in darkened windows like watchers of a late show, looked on until the play was passed their view. Then they went back to bed…” (Wrainright). This insinuates that none of Kitty’s neighbors contacted the police or did anything else to help in the situation until the next morning. If one of the neighbors would have just stood up for Kitty, or even called the police before the murderer returned to finish the job, then she may not have died. In addition, after the incident, one of the witnesses went on to say, “There are people over there who saw everything… And there hasn’t been a peep out of them yet. Not one peep” (Wainright). The reason for this may be that the people are scared to be the first to come and give statements to the police after not having done anything to stop the murder. The witnesses may also be feeling guilty or ashamed after realizing that they had just stood by as their fellow neighbor was killed. It is for this reason that it is so imperative that people not be pressured into conforming, because now all of the witnesses will have to carry the guilt of having not helped for the rest of their lives. Lastly, other witnesses admitted to not wanting to get involved, in the event that they may be taken in as a possible suspect or
The unholy amount of deaths support the idea, but the bystander effect explains it. There are two significant factors to the bystander effect. The diffusion of responsibility and the second is social conformity. The diffusion of responsibility generally the more people present the less pressure to take action because of the false belief someone else will step in. The part that contributes a much more prominent role is the social conformity aspect.
In this story, Allende paints a picture of a little girl who is having what should be a near death experience, but will instead lead to her demise. This change is a result of the fact that even though a passel of reporters and cameramen on the scene, all are insensitive to the suffering of Azucena. The situation is a strong example of the bystander effect. Studies have indicated that in situations such as this one, the members of the group are likely to pass responsibility for saving Azucena to another member of the group. As more news crews report to the scene, each individual feels less compelled to provide aid to this poor girl.
Latane and Darley (1968) investigated the phenomenon known as the bystander effect and staged an emergency situation where smoke was pumped into the room participants was in. Results showed that 75% of participants who were alone reported the smoke, whereas only 38% of participants working in groups of three reported (Latane & Darley, 1968). Their findings provide evidence for the negative consequence of the diffusion of responsibility. In line with the social influence principle, bystanders depend on reactions of others to perceive a situation as an emergency and are subsequently less likely to help. Latane and Darley’s findings were also supported in recent research: Garcia and colleagues (2002) found that even priming a social context by asking participants to imagine themselves in a group could decrease helping behaviour. It can be contended that these findings are examples of social proof where individuals believe actions of the group is correct for the situation, or examples of pluralistic ignorance where individuals outwardly conform because they incorrectly assumed that a group had accepted the norm (Baumeister & Bushman,
Cries for help usually go unanswered leaving the victim to think, “Why is this happening to me?” or “What did I do to deserve this?” Most of the time they have done nothing at all, but still are in a hurricane of thoughts trying to fathom why they are getting picked on. Some w...
...though the researchers weren’t looking for it, he results represent ideas that can help the bystander effect in a situation. Smaller numbers increase the percentage of realization when it comes down to an emergency. The victim, if cohesive, actually plays a big role in causing the bystander effect as well. When a victim is unable to verbally communicate with bystanders, it lessens the chance of help. If a victim is capable of communicating, the help given could be more efficient. This is because it can help break the diffusion of responsibility. A victim looking a bystander directly in the eyes can even spark a quicker reaction in them. These are all ideas that psychologists still study today, and many even consider learning about this phenomenon a requirement.
If an individual is familiar with their surrounding “they are more likely to help” (Altruism and Helping Behavior. Print). In the essay, the authors state “the scene of the crime, the streets, in middle class society “represents all the vulgar and perilous in life” (Milgram, Stanley, and Paul Hollander. Paralyzed Witnesses: The Murder They Heard. Print.). In society, the streets, especially at night, represents the dangerous and negative sides of society due to the crimes and chaos that occur on the streets (gangs, drive-by shootings, robberies, murders, large crowds walking, etc.). The crimes and dangers of the streets cause many people to fear being on the streets alone which leads to external conflicts. When the murder was occurring, the witnesses’ attitudes of the streets prevented them from calling the police due to the fear of the streets and since the witnesses were middle-class, they believed that Genovese was poor, a criminal, or someone who has nothing else to do and was expecting for the=is to eventually
Philip Zimbardo once said, “Treating other people as insignificant, as anonymous, as dehumanized, bothered me very much. So one of the things I studied later on was the psychology of deindividuation.” He soon proposed the idea of deindividuation to be a mental state in which a person is “less concerned with the future, with normal societal constraints on behavior, and with the consequence of their actions.” (Gilovich 2013) This state usually happens when one is absorbed in a large group. Zimbardo had done much research on studying the effects of deindividuation amongst people in groups. His results proved that when anonymous people feel isolated from others and had no regard to their actions. Additionally, this state is also active when one is not held to consequences of their actions. While in this state people are more likely to be involved in impulsive behaviors due to a lower threshold for exhibiting actions that are usually held back. (Gilovich 2013) There is also the idea that there is more incentive to act because of heightened arousal, and less of a restraint because of the weakened sense of responsibility.
The dark, ominous alleyways of London’s East End divulge a very gruesome history of women “ripped up like [pigs] in a market” (Grose). The area, once littered with the torn up remains of brutally murdered prostitutes, looms over the city as symbol for the story of one of the most notorious serial killers: Jack the Ripper. The case enthralls and captivates people’s minds even today, over 100 years later (BBC). This begs the question of how serial killers become part of history, an answer found in extensive media coverage. Time Magazine describes the phenomena Jack the Ripper left behind as a “rich legacy” and a “multi-million dollar industry,” eerily analogous to today’s coverage of serial killings (Grose). Jack the Ripper’s case provides an early example of the issues that arose with the advent of the serial killer—issues that still exist. The press has a unique role to play in serial killer investigations, but the line between helping and hurting society is often blurred. While the press has a responsibility to inform society of such serial killings in order to keep them informed and safe, publishing killer communiqués crosses ethical boundaries concerning the investigations and society.