Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
5 sociological theories of delinquency
Race and violent crime
5 sociological theories of delinquency
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: 5 sociological theories of delinquency
Research supports the claim that population characteristics and socioeconomic composition can be used, at least in part, to explain variations in neighborhood violent crime. Based on Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization theory: low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity and residential mobility should increase delinquency within urban neighborhoods. The intent of the current study is to explore whether structural antecedents contribute to the proliferation of violent crime within the lower unit of aggregation. Even though ethnic heterogeneity is one of the assessment instruments in Shaw and McKay’s research, the use of ethnicity is not incorporated as an explanatory variable in the current study based on the fact that methodological dilemma
and unnecessary stereotyping to a certain group of individuals may arise (Okazaki & Sue, 1995). Given the extant literature together with Shaw and McKay’s theory, this paper hypothesized that socioeconomic disadvantage, family disruption, residential instability and young population structure would increase violent crime in the neighborhoods in Brantford. This present study seeks to utilize secondary data from a law enforcement agency and Statistics Canada as a source to operationalize the study variables. This chapter are presented in the following sequencing. First, this chapter delineates the unit of analysis, i.e., neighborhoods, with a detailed description of all the CTs in Brantford together with a CT map. Second, it introduces the violent crime data source as well as the independent variable data source in accordance with the data collection procedures through an explanation on how the data are amalgamated to coincide with the proposed measurement. Third, this chapter also delineates the measurement and operationalization of both demographic and outcome variables. Last but not least, this chapter demonstrates the data analytic strategies that have been used for testing the hypotheses.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.
A strong example of this would be the recent exploits at the Woodstock 99 music festival.
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.
Social disorganization theory and cultural deviance theory, believed that immigrant groups relocating to more desirable neighborhoods discovered high delinquency rates persisted in certain Chicago neighborhoods for long periods of time in spite of changes in the ethnic and cultural composition of these neighborhoods (Lanier, Henry, & Anastasia, 2014).
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.
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.
For decades, researchers have tried to determine why crime rates are stronger and why different crimes occur more often in different locations. Certain crimes are more prevalent in urban areas for several reasons (Steven D. Levitt, 1998, 61). Population, ethnicity, and inequality all contribute to the more popular urban. Determining why certain crimes occur more often than others is important in Criminal Justice so researchers can find a trend and the police can find a solution (Rodrigo R. Soares, 2004, 851). The Uniform Crime Reports are a method in which the government collects data, and monitors criminal activity in the United States (Rodrigo R. Soares, 2004, 851). They have both positive and negative attributes that have influenced
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
Location is a significant factor that contributes to where the pattern of homicides occur in Chicago. This is because overtime particular areas have been developed due to gentrification in city areas including the Northern and Central sides, these changes occur due to influx of wealth. This leaves the Southern and Western sides to deteriorate as the houses and the areas aren’t well looked after due to affluent people leaving it that way causing a ‘slum-like lifestyle’ and low rent for those with low income. Therefore, a higher pattern of homicides in the Southern and Western sides of Chicago occur because those in lower classes tend to resort to violence and crime.
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...
Within the poverty filled communities, the environment can make or break the society within that community. Social disorganization theory focuses on the conditions of urban communities that affect crime rates, and links the two. The poverty areas of communities suffer heavily from violence, fear, and lack of revenue to make the community better. The social disorganization theory helps understand some of the causes of why crime is high within these communities, and gives insight to the struggles these communities face.
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.
Social Disorganization theory talks about how one’s surroundings impacts the risk of crime around them. The Social Disorganization Theory was developed to show how much a neighbors and its surroundings affect people and crime. There are many factors that go with crime according to the Social Disorganization Theory. One major factor is Ethnic Diversity. According to the Social Disorganization Theory, the more diverse urban areas are, the more likely their is to be crime committed. (Social Disorganization, 2003). The ethnicity of the community affects crime because of the lack of communication. If you have language barriers, and people who do not understand each other, they may be some tension resulting in more crime. Social Disorganization
The dependent variables were dummy variables of violent crime victim and burglary victim. Independent variables included the necessary individual-level characteristics such as age, gender, race, home statue and so on; contextual characteristics including number of places nearby, ethic heterogeneity and neighborhood incivilities were also included. The findings showed that contextual characteristics of the community not only showed strong direct influence on the violent/burglary victimization, but also indicated that the contextual conditions would influence the effects of individual-level risk factors. It seems that individual-level factors can be conditioned by the neighborhood