Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Crime - Coggle Diagram

- - - - cohen- status frustration
        wc boys suffer from cultural dep- lack skills to achieve in school
        lack social status- undesirable to mainstream sch system
        cant achieve legit status = status frustration
        ^ turn to others in similar position, forming delinquence subcultures that invert mainstream values to gain status eg attendance to truancy
        x = assumes originally shared mc goals and consider themselves as failures
      - cloward and ohlin- differential opportunity
        not all delinquents have equal chance of becoming successful thru ilegit means
        3 types of dev scs based on this:
        criminal- areas w established pattern of adult crime- kids exposed to crim skills = dev values
        conflict- kids have little access to ilegit opportunity structures + little organised a crime to teach them values
        retreatist- failed as crims, retreat to gangs centred around illegal drug use
        x = ignores wealthy crime
      - miller- focal concerns
        wc create a diff value system as a response to monotony of wc jobs- coping mech
        deviance is a result of socialisation
        fate- things happen beyond ctrl, cant change that
        excitement- seek out thrills
        autonomy- resent authority and rules
        toughness- physical strength, being able to demonstrate this
        x = not all wc resort to delinquency
      - matza- drift
        ppl drift in and out of delinquency, not constant
        2 levels of values:
        conventional- good parent, student
        subterranean- greed, agg
        occurs most in groups that lack ctrl
        lack of ctrl = "mood of fatalism", engage in delinq bhvr due to sub values to restore ctrl and identity = "mood of humanism"
        dont always operate on sub values, use "techniques of neutralisation" to justify actions when drifting back:
        denial of:
        responsibility- "victims of circumstance"
        injury- denies that actions caused harm
        victim- victim deserved it
        condemnation of condemners- doing so out of spite
        appeal to higher loyalties- for the greater good, long term benefits
        ^ all suggest that delinqs hold some mainstream values, drift in and out of crime
        x = ignores permanent group crime eg hispanic gangs
  - - - chambliss
        all laws ultimately benefit rc eg protection of private property
        studied crime in seattle- found crime is committed thruout classes, but most of prison capacity is those who committed petty offences
      - box
        health and safety legislation doesnt benefit wc, just keeps them quiet as it is ineffectually enforced
        common law against murder rape etc protects all of society, but definitions narrow and defined by powerful
        ^ eg unsafe work conditions excluded from murder
        selective enforcement- powerless groups criminalised, whilst police ignores crimes of the powerful
        most ppl convicted of serious offences are young uneducated males
        street crimes inc as material conditions of these groups deteriorate
        media portrays this as "the" crime problem
        ^ attention distracted from larger scale crimes of rc
    - - taylor et al
        believes crime is voluntary, meaningful action committed by individuals striving to change society
        x = romanticises wc as robin hoods fighting capitalism by taking from the rich- in reality wc often victims
  - - - media- limited coverage of wcc/cc, leads ppl to believe crime is a wc issue
        lack of political will- higher interest in street crime as easier to police
        complexivity of crimes- police understaffed + lack funding to investigate complex crimes
        under-reporting- victim usually soc as a whole, dont realise theyre victims and powerless
    - - box- merton's strain theory
        if companies cant maximise profits legally, may "innovate" and break the law
      - sutherland- differential association
        crime is bhvr learned from others in a social context
        more we associate w ppl with criminal attitudes, more likely we'll become deviant
        if a company's culture justifies crime to achieve goals, employees will be socialised into criminality
      - cicorel- labelling theory
        rc more able to negotiate non-criminal labels for their misbehaviour
        businesses can utilise "de-labelling"
      - marxism
        cc is a result of the normal functioning of capitalism, majority not prosecuted
        box- capitalism has created a "mystification"- spreading ideology that corporate crime is less harmful than wc crime
        corporations are criminogenic- if ilegit means blocked, resort to illegal techniques
        x = crime isnt always committed with money as end goal
  - - - left realists
        
        causes
        
        marginalisation
        marginalised groups lack both clear goals + organisations to represent their interests, become resentful + frustrated- resort to violence to express frustration
        lea and young- expectations of the youth lead to resentment as what they are likely to earn differs to aspirations
        
        subculture
        develops as a groups collective solution to rel dep
        crim scs still subscribe to mainstream goals/values of materialism, but cant achieve legit
        ^ resort to ilegit street crimes to close "deprivation gap"
        merton- those with blocked access to opportunities more likely to form subcultures
        
        relative deprivation
        how deprived someone feels in relation to others + their own expectations
        as poor become aware of their lower status, turn to crime to obtain what they feel entitled to
        runciman- political revolutions only occurred when poor became aware of sheer scale of differences between themselves + rich
        without this, generally accepted their poverty = awareness causes revolution
        
        young- late modernity
        LM caused insecurity and exclusion to increase- inc unemployment and wc exclusion as new right held back welfare spending
        rel dep inc through rich/poor inequalities and promotion of individualism
        growing contrast between cultural inclusion + economic exclusion:
        media saturated late modern society promotes cultural inclusion- even poor exposed to medias consumerist messages
        greater emphasis on leisure and immediate grat- higher expectations for the "good life"
        poor denied opportunities to gain "glittering prizes of a wealthy society" despite meritocracy
        "relative deprivation downwards"- mc who have to work hard at work to succeed resent wc as "irresponsible" and rely on state handouts
        ^ more crime thruout entire social structure, crueler crimes eg hate crimes result of rel dep downwards
        LM soc- high crime soc with low tolerance for crime
        less public consensus on right + wrong- boundaries between acceptable/unacceptable bhvr becomes blurred
        informal ctrls less effective as families disintegrate- public more intolerant + demand for harsher penalties = inc criminalisation of unacceptable bhvr
        
        tacking crime
        
        policing + control
        public should be involved in policing priorities
        improve relationship between police + local communities
        multi agency approach- eg councils, social services, voluntary organisations
        
        gov policy
        firmer approach to hate crimes, dv, sa- protect vul groups
        asbos- deal w delinquency and low level disorder
        new deal- training and employment for youth at risk of offending
        ^ young- many policies unsuccessful as only address symptoms, not causes of crime
        
        cap soc unequal, but promote reform and gradual change
        other theories dont take crime seriously, ignoring groups of victims
        x = marxists- fails to explain crimes of the powerful
        x = over predicts amount of crime, not all rel dep commit
      - right realists
        
        focuses on practical control measures, not causes of crime
        other theories too sympathetic to criminals + too hostile to law enforcement
        
        causes
        
        bio diffs
        some ppl naturally less intelligent/more agg than others = more likely to commit crime
        wilson and herrnstein- main cause of crime is low intelligence, bio determined
        x = marxism- ignores structural influences that cause us to commit crime
        
        inadequate socialisation
        murray- welfare benefits has led to dependency by wc to avoid work
        children inadequately socialised, grow up w/o values of hard work/responsibility, then turn to delinquency
        x = labelling theory- moral panic, ppl on benefits labelled as "folk devil" by media + eventually succumbed to self-fulfilling prophecy
        
        rational choice
        clarke- ppl calculate risks/rewards when deciding whether to commit crime
        current focus on rehab means perceived costs of crime are low- explains rising crime rate
        x = crime rate actually decreasing- 8% dec in eng/wales since 2015
        
        tacking crime
        
        zero tolerance
        wilson and kelling- "broken windows theory"- a single broken window in a nbhd encourages ppl to break the rest = more serious crime
        ^ prevent crime by maintaining order
        x = may allow police to discrim against ems
        
        enviro crime prevention
        making larger areas more crime resistant thru eg architectural designs- cul-de-sacs
        
        situational crime prevention
        focuses on settings/situations where crime occurs
        inc surveillance + target hardening- harder to commit crime
        felson- designed out crime by restyling bus terminal eg making sinks smaller
        x = bus terminal- displaces crime elsewhere
- - - - process of moral panic
        media identifies group as a threat to society- "folk devils"
        present group as a neg stereotype + exaggerate scale of problem
        moral entrepreneurs condemn group, calling for a "crackdown"
        can cause self fulfilling prophecy, amplifying problem
        eg set up special drug squads, police found more deviants, even tougher crackdown = deviancy amplification spiral
      - cohen- mods and rockers
        media created moral panic abt small fight between m+r, caused 24 arrests
        3 elements of media:
        exaggeration/distortion- exaggerates numbers involved, extent of dmg + distorts events thru dramatic headlines
        prediction- assumes further conflict would occur
        symbolisation- symbols of groups (eg clothing) neg labelled, associated w deviance = media links unconnected events w crime
        eg other bikers associated w m+r
        media causes a deviancy amplification spiral
        ^ portrays problem as getting out of hand -> inc ctrl from police -> stigmatisation of groups as deviant -> less tolerant of them -> find more evidence of deviancy bc of new measures -> spiral
      - functionalists
        moral panics are a way of responding to anomie caused by change
        ^ folk devil shows threat to society, media raises collective consciousness + reasserts social ctrls when central values of society threatened
      - neo marxists
        hall et al- moral panic over "black muggers" created to distract ppl from crisis in capitalism by dividing wc on racial grounds
      - x = beck- risk society means we are getting used to uncertainty = harder to create moral panic
- - - - hood- studied 3000 offenders + found women 1/3 less likely to be jailed + more likely to receive shorter sentences than men
      - NACRO- magistrates + judges influenced by factors when sentencing female offenders eg pregnancy, whether they care for dependents
      - louck- magistrates dont deliberately show gender discrim, but more likely to take family circums into account for women
    - - buckle and farrington- witnessed 2x more males shoplifting than females, but women persecuted more for shoplifting = less favourably treated
- - - - Incapacitation
        preventing future offenders by removing opportunity to commit crimes
        eg chemical castration
      - Retribution
        ”paying back”- punishing crimes that have already been committed
        eg Saudi Arabia- sentencing paralysis to a man who did the same to another
      - Rehabilitation
        ideas that offenders bhvr can be reformed so will no longer offend
        eg prisoners taught coding so can work once freed
      - Deterrence
        punishing offender discourages further offending- making example of them puts out a warning to the public
        eg death penalty
    - - Functionalism
        Durkheim- two types of justice
        retributive- traditional society, crime brings consciousness together against criminal as crimes were seen as against all of society
        punishment severe and cruel, purely expressive
        restitutive- modern society, solidarity based on interdependence between individuals- crime dmgs this, necessary to repair by restoring things to how they were before
        punishment less severe and instrumental as aims to restore society’s equilibrium
        x = Marxists- doesn’t recognise role of power and inequality in shaping law and punishment
      - Marxism
        Function of punishment is to maintain existing social order
        part of the RSA, defends ruling class property against wc
        imprisonment is a dominant form of punishment in a capitalist society as it reflects capitalist relations of production
        melossi and pavarini-
        capitalism puts a price on workers time, similar to how prisoners “do time” to “pay” for their crime
        prison and capitalist society both have a similar strict disciplinary style- subordination and loss of liberty
        x = simplistic- doesnt account for gender/ethnicity
      - Interactionism
        
        goffman
        places like asylums/prisons function as “total institutions”- places closed off to outside world
        inmates experience “mortification of the self”- subjected to degrading treatments designed to remove any trace of identity
        constantly under surveillance, no privacy
        entire daily lives controlled = makes inmates more insane/criminal
        
        Garland
        shift in attitudes towards punishment in uk/usa
        state abandoned “penal welfarism”- less concerned w rehabilitating prisoners, now focus on “tough on crime” approach to reassure ppl that something is being done abt crime
        heightened concern abt crime due to weakening of bonds = more uncertainty
        new era, “culture of control” where state ctrls crime/punishes offenders in 3 main ways:
        identifies groups at risk of offending and implements early interventions
        uses “mass incarceration” to ctrl offenders
        politicians using “tough on crime” rhetoric to win elections- crime ctrl more abt winning power than reducing crime
        x = too simplistic- focus on prisons diverts attention away from other agencies of social ctrl that prevent deviance thru surveillance
  - - - Miers- 3 features of victimology:
        aims to identify patterns in victimisation by identifying ppl that are likely to become victims
        focus on interpersonal crimes of violence
        aims to identify victims who have contributed to their own victimisation
        hentig- victims more likely to be female, elderly, “mentally subnormal”
        x = ignores wider structural factors influencing victimisation eg poverty
        x = victim characteristics suggests victim blaming
    - - Based on conflict theories, focuses on 2 key elements:
        structural factors- patriarchy and poverty place groups at greater risk of victimisation- form of structural powerless
        failure to label- “victim/crime” are socially constructed, state can choose whether to apply label or not eg police deciding whether to press charges = ppl may be denied victim status and compensation
        x = ignores how victims can contribute to own victimisation eg not making house secure
    - - Crime can have serious physical/emotional impact on victims eg disrupted sleep
        may also create indirect victims eg witnesses
        ^ pynoos- child witnesses of sniper attack had grief related dreams a year after
      - Hate crimes against minorities create “waves of harm” that affect others
        these “message crimes” aim to intimidate whole communities + also challenge value system of whole society
      - Secondary victimisation
        victims become victims again in court as have to relive their experience
      - Fear of victimisation
        media creates moral panic
        leads to certain groups being more fearful of crime eg women
    - - Women have greater fear of crime, though generally at less risk of victimisation than men
        ^ women tend to engage in avoidance bhvrs to minimise risk of victimisation eg not going out at night
      - Zedner- more crimes committed in public places of entertainment, visited more by men = greater risk of victimisation
      - Lees- men who killed partners considered “crimes of passion”- provoked by partners promiscuity
        women often subjected to prolonged periods of abuse prior to the murder- signifying premeditation
    - - Victimisation shown thru 2 methods: victim surveys and police recorded stats
        both methods include 2 main pieces of info:
        racist incidents- incidents seen by victim/other person to be racist in nature
        racially/religiously aggravated- instances where offender motivated by hatred of race/religion of victim
      - Home office stats- ems more likely to be victims of crime than white ppl
        black ppl more likely to be assaulted/murdered
        ^ reasons could be areas where ems live usually have higher proportions of young ppl + higher unemployment rates
- - - - Official stats
        lammy report- black ppl make up 3% of gen pop, but 12% prison pop
        x = police target black communities due to typifications, higher rep in stats
        x = not all crims arrested
      - Victim surveys
        asks respondent to identify if they’ve been a victim of crime
        muggers usually reported as black
        x = bowling and Phillips- may overidentify offenders as black due to typifications
        x = memory changes
      - Self report studies
        ask ppl to tell abt own violent bhvr
        graham and bowling- Asian ppl had much lower offending rates
        x = ppl may lie abt crimes they commit
    - - Police + institutional racism
        Criminalisation- application of crim label to identifiable social category
        chadwick- black ppl treated as muggers
        ^ prevalent in media coverage
        scraton and chadwick-
        criminalisation goes hand in hand with marginalisation
        policing + targeting of communities has marginalised black ppl
        macphearson report
        police deemed institutionally racist after enquiry abt murder of Stephen Lawrence
        ^ case not investigated properly
      - Stop and search
        black ppl 7x more likely to be stop and searched than white ppl
        terrorism act- police can stop and search anyone regardless of reason
        ^ asian ppl 3x more likely to be searched under this
        3 possible reasons for this:
        institutional racism
        ethnic diffs in offending (police act on stereotypes)
        demographic factors- ems over represented in groups most likely to be stopped eg young, unemployed
      - Arrests and cautions
        3x higher arrest rate for black ppl than white
        once arrested, ems less likely to receive a caution- could be due to mistrust in police meaning less likely to admit guilt
      - Prosecution and trial
        em cases more likely to be dropped than whites,ems less likely to be found guilty
        bowling and Phillips- never enough strong evidence to prosecute as mainly based on racist stereotypes
      - Convictions and sentencing
        black and Asian defendants less likely to be found guilty- police bring in weaker cases against minorities- stereotypes
        black ppl 4x more likely to be in prison than white ppl
        pre sentence reports- risk assessment of offender written by probation officers
        ^ hudson and bramhall- allow for discrim eg Asian offenders “less remorseful”
    - - Left realist
        
        Lea and young- crime is product of rel dep, subculture and marginalisation
        ems suffer from racism -> marginalised and have economic problems = turn to crime
        form scs in response to marginalisation
        ^ unemployed black males commit utilitarian crimes to deal w rel dep
        x = doesn’t explain diffs in Asian and black arrest rates
      - Neo-marxist
        
        Gilroy- black criminality is a product of racist stereotyping, irl no diff in criminality between ethnic groups
        em crime is a resistance to racism in society
        x = majority of black crime is interracial
        
        Hall et al- 1970s moral panic over black muggers
        rc used media to amplify severity of mugging to distract ppl from capitalist crisis and divide wc on racial grounds instead
        x = left realist- mugging rates were increasing, not just capitalist gimmick
        
        Bourgois- studied El Barrio, a black and Hispanic community
        found discim caused them to lack legit opps -> create alt economies that combined legal/illegal activities
        separate “inner city” street subculture that rejects mainstream values + provides alt source of self worth thru drug use and violence
        exclusion of ems -> crime as a source of income (drugs) and culture (addiction)
- - - - eg rwandan genocide- belgium ctrled rwanda, sided with tutsi population then switched to hutus
        caused mass conflict and 100 day genocide
        bp oil spill- killed 11 men, 80k animals, ignored faults that led to explosion
    - - domestic law
        chambliss- acts defined by law as criminal and committed by state officials in pursuit of their jobs as representatives of the state
        x = can create laws allowing them to carry out harmful acts eg nazi germany- sterilisation of disabled ppl
      - social harms and zemiology
        michalowski- illegal acts as well as legally permissible acts whos consequences are similar to those of illegal acts
        hillyard et al- we should take a wider view of state wrongdoing- replace study of crimes with zemiology
        x = doesnt make clear what counts as harm, just replaces vague crime definition w vague one of harm
      - labelling and societal reaction
        argues whether an act constitutes a crime depends on whether the social audience defines that act as a crime eg directly/indirectly thru media reports
        x = ignores that audiences definitions of what is criminal may be manipulated by rc ideology which is passed on thru media (governed by rc)
      - international law
        law created thru treaties and agreements between states
        rothe and mullins- state crime is any action by/on behalf of a state that violates international law
        x = focuses mainly on war crimes/crimes against humanity, ignoring other state crimes like corruption
      - human rights
        schwendinger and schwendinger- state crime is violation of ppls basic rights by state
        states that practice racism, sexism etc are committing crimes as denying ppl basic rights
        x = human rights definition is unclear- cohen- should also include acts that arent criminal, but morally unacceptable eg economic exploitation
    - - authoritarian personality
        adorno et al- some ppl have personality traits that make them blindly obey orders from their superiors
        eg nazi soldiers socialised into strict discipline
      - obedience to authority
        orders given by afs more likely to be followed as ppl socialised to conform and respect social hierarchy
        kelman and hamilton- studied vietnam my lai massacre and identified 3 features that produce crimes of obedience
        authorisation- normal morals replaced w need to obey orders
        routinisation- may need to commit crime multiple times, creating routine where they can detach from act itself
        dehumanisation- enemy portrayed as subhuman, making it easier to see them as a target
        eg abu ghraib prisoner abuse- american prison officers tortured iraqi prisoners during iraq war
      - modernity and state crime
        bauman- some features of modern society make atrocities possible eg holocaust:
        division of labour- "conveyor belt" approach to running concentration camps, each person responsible for one small task- no one felt personally responsible
        bureaucratisation- normalised killings by making them repetitive, routine job- victims dehumanised as "units" needing "processing"
        instrumental rationality- rational, efficient methods used to achieve a goal
        science and technology- allowed system to run efficiently thru railways and gas
        x = not all genocides as highly organised eg rwanda
      - culture of denial
        
        cohen- states now have to make greater effort to conceal/justify human rights crimes
        have to legitimise actions in more complex ways often involving 3 stage "spiral of state denial":
        "it didnt happen"- denies wrongdoing, but human rights orgs find phys evidence
        "if it did happen, then it was something else"- state claims it was self defence and not murder
        "even if it did happen, it was justified"- justifies on grounds of necessity
        
        matza- govs use "techniques of neutralisation" to justify their actions:
        denial of victim- targets are "violent terrorists" who are doing worse things
        denial of injury- we are the real victims and they deserve to be attacked
        denial of responsibility- operatives claiming they were just following orders
        condemning the condemners- targeted ppl condemning our religion/lifestyle
        appeal to higher loyalty- state arguing its actions serve a higher cause eg national security