Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Biological, psychological, and environmental factors of crime
Limitations of social disorganization theory
Primary theories of crime causation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The presence of crime in the inner cities of America is the result of many different factors. Although it is impossible to explain the issue with one single theory, it is possible to recognize the characteristics within society that have traditionally been associated with crime. These include poor neighborhoods, weak family structures and high rates of unemployment. However, they cannot be used to explain overarching mechanisms of extremely high rates of American urban crime today. Social structures as well as cultural conditions play strong explanatory roles in describing the causes of crime in American cities. Some prominent social structural theories include social disorganization theory, strain theory, and cultural deviance theory. The first major sociological theory is social disorganization theory, established by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay. The theory resulted from a study of juvenile delinquency in Chicago using information from 1900-1940, which attempts to answer the question of how aspects of the structure of a community can affect delinquency in youth. () They wanted to demonstrate how crime was related to social, structural and cultural characteristics of a community using official delinquency data, Shaw and McKay concluded that the environment strongly influenced criminal behavior. They believed that delinquency was a product of deteriorated neighborhoods rather than from the individuals who lived there. Their social disorganization model explains deterioration and disorganization that led to a loss of control over youth and encouraged the development of gangs in the inner cities. The gangs then perpetuated delinquency that led to higher crime rates in the cities. In order to support their social di... ... middle of paper ... ...bstantially over time. Zone III, also known as the area of “respectable artisans,” consisted of rooming and boarding houses where workers lived. It was also the area where those who could get out of the deteriorating conditions of Zone II were likely to move. Zone IV, “suburbia,” was the residential area of the middle-class single family homes and apartment residences. Lastly, Zone V, was the commuter area where upper-class residents lived in large single family homes (). The strength of this theory is that it clearly explains the cause of highest crime rates in inner slum areas. It points out factors that produce crime and provides solid explanation for high crime rates in poor neighborhoods. Shaw and McKay’s theory, however, fails to answer the questions of why the middle class commits crime, as well as why most of the lower class remains law-abiding.
The study discussed in the text clearly shows that crime in Hamilton Park is much lower than in either Projectville or La Barriada. The reasons for this are clearly explained by Sutherland’s two learning theories, his differential social organization theory and his differential association theory. The other theories, Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization and Hirschi’s social control theory, do have some merits, but do not apply as clearly to the neighborhoods in the study. Clearly, Sutherland’s theories of learned behavior and favorable and unfavorable definitions offer clear explanations for the crime in Projectville, La Barriada and Hamilton Park.
Burglaries, robberies, and shootings, all of which may leave victims or innocent bystanders severely hurt or dead, are now frequent enough to concern all urban and many suburban residents. Living in a dangerous environment places young people at risk of falling victim to such malicious and aggressive behavior observed and learned from others. Social institution such as education, family, religion, peer groups, etc., play a major role in the influence of crime in the urban neighborhoods that Anderson describes. As said in the essay, "although almost everyone in poor inner-...
The theory directly links the type community with the crime rates it has. Social Disorganization Theory was developed by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay in the Chicago School in 1942. They discovered that crime rates were not even across all communities. Despite changes in population Shaw and Mckay noticed that the crime was concentrated and stable among certain areas. Communities who were economically deprived, had high crime rates and increased population turnover were the cities that they considered to be socially disorganized. According to Regoeczi and Jarvis (2013), Extensions and revisions of this theory have included more explicit discussions of the intervening processes between such structural factors as economic deprivation and residential instability and crime rates. A persons physical and social environments are partly responsible for the decisions that they make. Shaw and Mckay did not directly correlate low income neighborhoods with crime, bust instead low income neighborhoods had higher turnover rates and the people who would move into the neighborhood were usually immigrants which then resulted in racial heterogeneity. Aspects of a person’s neighborhood can be looked at and used to predict whether there will be higher crime rates in the neighborhood. This theory is used to help law enforcement predict where the higher crime will be and therefore allow them to prevent
Crime has always been a hot topic in sociology. There are many different reasons for people to commit criminal acts. There is no way to pinpoint the source of crime. I am going to show the relationship between race and crime. More specifically, I will be discussing the higher chances of minorities being involved in the criminal justice system than the majority population, discrimination, racial profiling and the environment criminals live in.
The social disorganization theory directly links social deviance (criminal activity) to neighborhood ecological characteristics. Thus, an individual's residential location can shape whether he or she grows up in engaging and participating in illegal activities. In The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, W.I. Thomas defined social disorganization as a “decrease of the influence of existing social rule of behavior upon individual members of the group” (Thomas DR: 4). The likelihood of an individual on the lower end of the economic ladder living in a crime ridden neighborhood is high. Therefore, the likelihood that individual will be involved in illegal activity when he ages is substantially higher because he grew up in that environment and sees crime just a way of life. In addition, individuals poor neighborhoods might engage in social deviance as a desire for security. The individual may be motivated by fear to avoid death by finding any means necessary to procure items for survival (W
According to Cullen and Agnew (2011) the Social Disorganization theory was developed in the mid 1940’s by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay while they were researchers studying at the Institute for Social Research in Chicago. Shaw and McKay (1942) based their research of the study of crime in Chicago off of the work that Ernest Burgess theorized in how urban areas grow through a process of continual expansion from their inner core toward outlying areas. According to Cullen and Agnew (20011) one of the primary arguments in the social disorganization theory is the idea that there are settlement patterns in the development of cities, and how these patterns impact neighborhood characteristics and corresponding crime levels. Shaw and McKay developed a theory based off the settlement pattern research that Ernest Burgess conducted. According to Cullen and Agnew (2011) Ernest Burgess stated ...
Theorists believe that Shaw and McKay were biased when they wrote their conclusion on the lower-class neighborhood. This in turn resulted in other critics questioning if the demographics such as socio-economic, the setting of the communities and the population that composed the communities were indicators of social disorganization or if social theorists constitute their reasoning based on their own beliefs. According to Kurbin (2010), Criminologist Edwin Sutherland preferred to call Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization theory the differential social organization because of his belief that “the organization of the delinquent group, which is often very complex, is social disorganization only from an ethical or some other particularistic point of view.” This may be interpreted as him stating that a social group, such as a delinquent one, is only perceived as “disorganized” based on personal biases. According to Sutherland, some urban neighborhoods are not disorganized but organized based on the daily needs of the unique community. For example, if an outsider born and raised in a community with different set of values looks into a community with another perspective on how to function in a social environment, the outsider may think that they are wrong and ridiculous for living in such a matter. The outsider
Therefore, the community has informal social control, or the connection between social organization and crime. Some of the helpful factors to a community can be informal surveillance, movement-governing rules, and direct intervention. They also contain unity, structure, and integration. All of these qualities are proven to improve crime rate. Socially disorganized communities lack those qualities. According to our lecture, “characteristics such as poverty, residential mobility, and racial/ethnic heterogeneity contribute to social disorganization.” A major example would be when a community has weak social ties. This can be caused from a lack of resources needed to help others, such as single-parent families or poor families. These weak social ties cause social disorganization, which then leads higher levels of crime. According to Seigel, Social disorganization theory concentrates on the circumstances in the inner city that affect crimes. These circumstances include the deterioration of the neighborhoods, the lack of social control, gangs and other groups who violate the law, and the opposing social values within these neighborhoods (Siegel,
This theory however as some have argued has emerged from social disorganisation theory, which sees the causes of crime as a matter of macro level disadvantage. Macro level disadvantage are the following: low socioeconomic status, ethnic or racial heterogeneity, these things they believe are the reasons for crime due to the knock on effect these factors have on the community network and schools. Consequently, if th...
Crime and Class, The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be arrested for a crime. However, this may be better explained by the fact that the crimes of the poor are more visible and they are more likely to fit the criminal profile than by the fact of economic need. In addition, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be a victim of crime. (Kimmel & Aronson,
Rational Choice Theory is the belief that man is a reasonable actor who decides means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes rational choices. Routine activity theory provides a simple and powerful insight into the causes of crime problems. At its heart is the idea that in the absence of effective controls, offenders will prey upon attractive targets. Social Control Theory gives an explanation for how behavior conforms to that which is generally expected in society. Social disorganization theory explains the ecological differences in levels of crime based on structural and cultural factors shaping the nature of the social order across communities. This approach alters the sociological studies on which is any of two or more random variables exhibiting correlated variation of urban growth to examine the concentration and stability of rates of criminal behavior. Strain Theory. Conflict theory explains the belief that individuals choose to commit a crime, which many po...
Drawing from tenets of Marxist theory, critical criminology believe that crime results from the mode of production by capitalist and the economic structures they have created. Social classes have been divided into two: those whose income is secured by property ownership; and those whose income is secured by their labor. The resultant class structure influences the opportunities of an individual to succeed in life and his propensity to engage in crime. Although it encompasses the macro-economic factors that are rarely included in micro-economic analysis of crime, it does not substitute those macro factors, like unemployment, to micro factors, like being jobless. However, it combines the macro and micro factors in analyzing how micro factors of crime are integrated into the macro structures.
Crime and criminalization are dependent on social inequality Social inequality there are four major forms of inequality, class gender race and age, all of which influence crime. In looking at social classes and relationship to crime, studies have shown that citizens of the lower class are more likely to commit crimes of property and violence than upper-class citizens: who generally commit political and economic crimes. In 2007 the National Crime Victimization Survey showed that families with an income of $15000 or less had a greater chance of being victimized; recalling that lower classes commit a majority of those crimes. We can conclude that crime generally happens within classes.
According to the text “Juvenile Delinquency: The Core” the social structure theory associates juvenile delinquency rates to socioeconomic structure conditions, for example poor communities, families that are usually unemployed, families that have a continuous cycle of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), single parent households, families with incarcerated fathers, sons and even moms and daughters. Some of these children are raised by grandparents or placed in the foster care system. Many young people in these communities are parents themselves – babies raising babies. This I know because this describes many of the youth in my community.
With a 10% increase in crime rate since 2009, budding city St. John’s (Newfoundland and Labrador) soared 19.2% above the national average and in 2010 placed as seventh in Canada’s overall crime rated cities (Brennan, 2011). The level of crime relative to suburban or rural areas has recently become an accepted theory in criminology. Regardless of the data source used, crime statistics consistently reflect that urban crime rates are substantially greater than crime rates in non-urban areas. More so, population size has been shown to be an important predictor of crime rates across cities, not only in Canada, but all over the world. St. John’s has developed and grown economically over the past few years, thriving off the offshore oil and gas industry who’s profits have injected about $800 million into the local economy boosting the city’s Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) attributed to the St. John’s Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) by an estimated 5.0% in 2010 to $9.8 billion, that adding to an increase of 5.4% for the province as a whole (City of St. John’s. 2011). A clear multiplier effect in population growth can be observed as St. John’s population increased by 8.9% between the years of 2001 and 2010 during the time in which the gas and oil and nickel industries settled in the area. Now, as one of the most rapidly developing cities in the country, St. John’s is getting a taste of one of the more serious social backfires to urbanization. Urban development in St. John's is increasing crime opportunities and the overall crime rate in the city and province. Supported not only by up to date statistics, this idea is also supported by year long criminal and social behavioral experiments conducted by trained psychologists such as Wolfgang...