2 key mechanisms to achieve collective conscience:
socialisation- instils a shared culture into its members- ensures indivs internalise the same norms and values
social ctrl- rewards for conforming and punishment for deviance- ensures indivs bhv in way society expects

too much crime destabilises society, but crime is inevitable
^ not everyone equally socialised into norms and values eg deviant subcultures

Durkheim- positive functions of crime

boundary maintenance- unites ppl in condemnation of wrongdoer + reinforces norms and values eg George Floyd
adaptation and change- soc change starts w act of deviance where indivs challenge existing n+v eg rosa parks

too high/low lvls of crime signifies malfunction of soc
too much- tears bonds of soc apart
too little- soc is repressing and controlling members, preventing change

x = ignores neg effects of crime on victims
x = doesn’t state how much deviance is the right amount

Davis and Polsky- prostitution is beneficial to society as acts as a safety valve for release of men’s frustrations without threatening monogamous nuclear family

Cohen- deviance could be key indicator that an institution isnt functioning correctly eg truancy rates- changes to schools needed

Erikson- true function of police is to sustain certain level of crime, not eradicate- Soc will seek to regulate deviance

Hirschi- control theory

crime is result of soc institutions losing ctrl over ppl
occurs when indivs attachment to soc is weakened- this attachment depends on strength of social bonds that hold ppl to society

”typical delinquent”- young, single, unemployed male- those involved in soc institutions less likely to commit crime
supported by right wing- absent fathers causes deviance

x= deterministic- not all kids w absent fathers commit crime

Merton

deviance is combo of unequal lvl of opportunity and set of cultural goals w less emphasis on achieving legitimately

e.g. American dream
promotes meritocracy- legit means
but many cant- disadvantaged groups = strain between goals and opportunities, causing pressure to resort to illegit means (crime)
“The strain to anomie”- pressure to deviate from social norms further increased by American culture of achieving success at any price

Merton- adaptations to strain

indivs position in social structure affects way they adapt/respond to strain to anomie

5 types of adaptation:
conformity- accept cultural goals, achieve legit
innovation- accept goals of “money success” but using illegit ways to achieve
ritualism- give up w cultural goals, but have internalised legit means, so follow rules for own sake
retreatism- reject both goals and means, become dropouts
rebellion- reject goals and norms and seek to replace w new ones that meet groups values

x = assumes shared value consensus

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

gordon- criminogenic capitalism

crime is a rational response to capitalist system
inevitable as cap is criminogenic- by its very nature it causes crime

poverty- crime may be only way wc can survive
consumer goods- crime is only way wc can obtain = utilitarian crime
alienation/lack of ctrl- causes frustration = non-utilitarian crimes like violence

not only confined to wc- "dog eat dog" competition system of cap encourages white collar/corporate crime

x = crime due to cap, doesnt explain why crime still occurs in communist society

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

pearce

laws mostly benefit rc eg keeping workers fit to work
gives capitalism a "caring face"- creates false class consciousness

state enforces law selectively- crime appears to be a wc phenomenon, dividing wc by encouraging them to blame criminals amongst them instead of capitalism

rc controls society's values in 2 ways:
socialisation- "agencies" eg media persuade ppl of the "rightness" of cap by teaching that most crims are wc
threat of force- wc threatened with harsh punishments for breaking laws that protect the powerful if socialisation fails

x = ignores non-class inequalities

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

white collar crime- committed by mc who abuse work positions for personal gain
corporate crime- committed by large companies to inc profits for the organisation

tombs- white collar + corp crime do far more harm than street crimes
has enormous costs eg physical- deaths enviro- pollution

eg crimes against consumers- nestle: told developing countries in africa to buy baby formula instead of breastfeeding as "healthier" = deaths
crimes against enviro- bp oil spill: killed 80k+ animals and 11 workers

sunderland- white collar crime violates trust society places in professionals, undermining fabric of society
eg harold shipman- position of power (doctor), ppl felt they couldnt speak against him, killed 250 ppl

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

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

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

focuses on practical control measures, not causes of crime
other theories too sympathetic to criminals + too hostile to law enforcement

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

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

no act is inherently criminal, only becomes so once society labels it as

x = braithwaite- labelling is positive
2 types of shaming:
disintegrative- criminal/crime labelled as bad, excluded from society
reintegrative- labels act, not offender- "has done a bad thing" not "bad person"
^ avoids stigmatisation but aware of actions, encourages letting them back into society, preventing secondary deviance

becker- defining deviance

"deviant career"- process where ppl take on identity given to them by others
^ ppl label a person, respond and accepts label as "master status"- overruling all other roles they possess (SFP)

not all bhvr deviant- moral entrepreneurs w invested interest in the issues enforce issues
^ think theyre doing good by raising awareness- actually causing start of deviant career

young- the drug takers

police targeted hippie marijuana takers in notting hill, widening diffs between them and society
created deviant subculture- drugs were symbol of their diff from others, hard to re-enter wider society

lemert- primary and secondary deviance

primary- dev acts that havent been publically labelled- little effect on identity and status
secondary- publically labelled as deviant + deviance generated because of this labelling
^ reaction to deviant bhvr can cause change in master status, inc deviance

cicourel- typifications

police decisions to arrest are influences by typifications of offenders
^ common sense theories/stereotypes of what a typical delinquent is like

cooley- looking glass self

build our identity primarily as a result of how others act + respond to us
^ see someone as criminal, internalises label and acts as one

goffman- asylums

bhvr of mental asylum patients that may seem bizarre to an outsider was actually understandable attempts to cope with unusual demands of their enviro

cohen- role of the media

deviancy amplification- mods and rockers had small fight, 24 youths arrested
^ lack of hard news for the media, reported as big story, causing stricter punishment

gives distorted image of crime
over-represents violent + sexual crimes
^ ditton + duffy- 46% of reports, only 3% of actual crime

felson

portrays criminals/victims as older and more mc
age fallacy- official stats show they are younger/more wc than media shows

overplays extraordinary crimes/underplays ordinary
dramatic fallacy- media teaches that a person needs to be smart to commit/solve crime

schlesinger and tumber- abolition of death penalty and rising crime rates caused change in focus of media stories eg petty crime -> terrorism
^ crimes had to be more "special" to be newsworthy

exaggerates police success in solving crimes

police are a major source of crime stories, paint themselves in a good light
media overreps violent crime- higher clear up rate than property crime

reports crime as series of separate events

suggests crime is w/o structure + dont examine underlying causes of crime

soothill and walby- rape cases focus on labels eg "sex fiend", distorts image of rape as serial attacks by strangers, when usually rapist is known to victim

jewkes- stories more likely to be reported if they follow these news values:

dramatisation- dramatic enough to be newsworthy
proximity- cultural meaning/physically close
simplification- easily understood
risk- potential risk to gen public
spectacle- graphic images/footage
status- high status indivs involved
sex and violence- considered more interesting
children- more significant to report, close to home

surette- fictional crimes follow "law of opposites", constructing a backwards version of reality, like news coverage:

property crime underrepresented, sex/violence overrep
fic homicides = greed and calculation, irl = brawls
fic sex crimes = strangers, irl = acquaintances
fic villains = higher status, middle aged white males
fic cops usually catch crim

x = recent shows feature underclass offenders, police portrayed as corrupt eg police interceptors

hypodermic syringe model

media "injects" influence into the viewer, allowing further crime to occur:
imitation- providing deviant role models, "copycat"
desensitisation- repeated viewing of violence eg sandy hook school shooting
knowledge transmission- teaching criminal techniques eg breaking bad
stimulating desire for unaffordable goods- advertising
glamourising offending- subcultural role model eg wolf of wall street

x = schramm et al- "most tv is probably neither particularly harmful nor particularly beneficial"

media + rel dep

all classes exposed to medias image of materialistic "good life" of leisure/consumer goods
wc cant afford this, causing rel dep
merton- pressure to conform to norms of this can cause deviant bhvr when opps to achieve materialistic goals thru legit means are blocked

x = deterministic- not all exposed to this commit crime

cultural criminology

media turns itself into the commodity ppl desire, encouraging ppl to consume crime in form of images they offer

hayward and young- late modern society is media-saturated, ppl immersed in a "mediascape"
^ fluid digital images that blurs boundaries between images + reality of crime = inseparable
eg gang assaults staged for the camera

commodification of crime

late modern society emphasises excitement and consumption- crime has become "commodified"
^ used to sell products
fenwick and hayward- crime marketed to young ppl as exciting and fashionable

hayward and young- corporations use "guerrilla marketing techniques"- "brandalism", ads take on controversial form, romanticising deviancy
eg car adverts- street riots, police chases

x = deterministic- media literacy, ppl can tell diff between images/reality

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

wall- 4 categories of cyber crime

cyber-trespassing- invading others cyber-property by hacking eg spreading viruses
cyber-pornography- uploading/watching child porn online
cyber-violence- inciting mental/phys harm by cyber-stalking, hate msgs etc
cyber-deception and theft- stealing identity, phishing (bank details)

x = jewkes- new ict is good, inc opps for surveillance/ctrl of population eg cctv

hard to police cyber crime due to vast amount of ways to avoid detection eg vpns

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

"double standards"- courts punish girls for premature promiscuous sexual activity but not boys
^ sharpe- 7/11 girls referred for support by youth workers for being sexually active but none of the 44 boys

women that challenge gender stereotypes treated more harshly by cjs
^ smart- women seen as particularly deviant labelled as evil

carlen- women punished according to court's perception of them as wives/mothers/daughters
^ scottish courts more likely to jail women w children in care than those seen as "good mothers"

feminists- double standards bc cjs is patriarchal
edwards- women subjected to oppressive form of justice in court, related to extent that their crime deviated from "appropriate female bhvr"

rape cases- female victims seen as partially responsible
walklate- female victim is the one on trial, has to prove respectability to have evidence accepted

adler- women w/o respectability find it harder to have testimonies believed by court

= women punished twice by cjs- for actual crim bhvr + deviance from stereotypical femininity

parsons- sex role theory

men take instrumental role, women expressive
boys reject feminine models of bhvr, distancing themselves by engaging in "compensatory compulsory masculinity"- through agg

cohen- absence of male rm leads boys to turn to all male street gangs as source of masc identity

functionalist sex role theory

girls socialised to be more emotional, less agg, cautious = take less risks, less likely

parsons- women perform expressive role in home socialising children, less opps to commit crime

mcrobbie- bedroom culture

teenage girls spend more time in rooms than going out - less opps to commit

x = boys nowadays spend more time in rooms

heidensohn- patriarchal ctrl

less crime as soc imposes greater ctrl over them, less opps

ctrl at home: domestic role in housework/childcare = restrictions on time
dobash and dobash- if rejected, men impose thru dv or financial ctrl, denying women funds for leisure = stuck in home

ctrl in public: islington crime survey- 54% of women avoided going out after dark for fear of male violence
fear not being defined as respectable- reputation as "loose" if dress inappropriately
lees- boys ctrl girls by labelling as "slags" if dont conform

ctrl at work: bhvr ctrled by male managers/higher ups
sexual harrassment keeps women in place- subordinate position reduces opps to commit crime eg glass ceiling- cant rise to higher positions where more opps to commit fraud

x = underplays free will in offending

carlen- class and gender deal

hirshis ctrl theory- turn to crime if perceive rewards to be greater than risks

women led to conform thru 2 types of rewards:
class deal- women who work offered material rewards- decent standard of living + leisure opps
gender deal- patriarchal ideology promises women material/emotional rewards from family life by conforming to gender roles

^ not available = more likely to turn to crime

studied 39 wc women, found lacked class/gender deal = turn to crime

x = research sample unrepresentative, all wc

adler- liberation thesis

patriarchal soc prevents women from deviating, so soc becoming less patriarchal = womens crime rates becoming similar to mens

feminist movement has changed structure of soc/position of women
^ women begun to adopt trad male roles in legit/ilegit structures eg work, crime

now commit trad male offences eg violence, wcc due to greater assertiveness + opportunities in legit structures

x = rise in female crime began in 1950s, before womens liberation

criminalisation of females

female arrests for violence grew from 1/5 to 1/3 from 1980 to 2003, but victim surveys didnt show change in female criminality
"widening the net"- arresting females for less serious forms of vio than before

moral panic abt girls

females pptn in vio crimes is socially constructed

sharpe- police, judges etc influenced by media stereotypes of "violent ladettes" and many believed girls bhvr was rapidly getting worse
= self fulfilling prophecy

messerschmidt- masc and crime

masc = soc construct that men aspire to accomplish + show off

diff types of masc:
hegemonic- dominant form, desired by most men, thru eg subordination of women, agg, paid work
subordinated- men w no desire/lack resources to gain hegemonic masc eg gay men, wc

crime used as a way to accomplish masc

diff forms of rule breaking:
white mc- subordinate selves to teachers, masc is oppositional outside school eg drinking
white wc- oppose teachers bc less chance of edu success, masc oppositional in + out school eg willis "lads"
black wc- fewer expectations of reasonable job, use gang membership/violence to express masc

x = not all men use crime to gain masc

police assumptions

police more likely to see men as potential offenders due to patterns in official stats = male offending rates overrepresented in official stats

control theory

women ctrled at home, meaning men dominate public sphere where most crime committed
less constraints- less housework/childcare responsibilities = more opps to commit crime

winlow- pm, masc and crime

shift to pm society = dec in trad manual jobs + inc in service sector of night time leisure economy eg clubs, bars

sunderland bouncers- bouncer jobs provided young men w paid work and opps for illegal business ventures eg drugs to demonstrate masc thru violence

bodily capital

men must use bodily capital to maintain rep and employability
equally as important to look + use violence eg bouncers, bodybuilding
masc is an important commodity for career and inc masc

Merton- strain theory

blocked opps in society causes ppl to turn to crime to achieve their goals

x = deterministic

Cohen- status frustration

wc boys suffer from cult dep and lack skills to achieve well in school = undesirable to mainstream school system
cant achieve legit = lack social status + experience status frustration
^ turn to others in similar situation, forming delinq subcultures to improve status

x = assumes all shared mainstream values beforehand

Cloward and ohlin- differential opportunity

diff scs/areas provide diff opps for legit success
3 types of subculture:
criminal- areas w established pattern of organised adult crime
conflict- areas w little access to illegit opp structures + org adult crime
retreatists- we adolescents failed as criminals so retreat to drug use

x = ignores wcc

Miller- focal concerns

wc has diff value system- response to monotony of wc jobs to cope w situation
eg fate, trouble, toughness
wc boys more delinquent as grow up w these values- deviance is result of socialisation

x = outdated

Hirschi- control theory

crime is result of soc institutions losing ctrl over ppl
occurs when indivs attachment to soc is weakened- this attachment depends on strength of social bonds that hold ppl to society

”typical delinquent”- young, single, unemployed male- those involved in soc institutions less likely to commit crime
supported by right wing- absent fathers causes deviance

x= deterministic- not all kids w absent fathers commit crime

Gordon- criminogenic capitalism

crime inevitable in capitalism as its criminogenic- by its very nature it causes crime
poverty- crime only way to survive
crime only way to obtain consumer goods advertised = utilitarian crimes
alienation causes agg = non utilitarian crimes

not wc exclusive, capitalism promotes greed = wcc

Box- law making

Laws like health and safety legislation only in place to placate wc and keep them quiet as ineffectually enforced
reiman- more likely a crime is to be committed by mc, less likely for it to be treated as a crim offence

Taylor et al- critical criminology

crime is voluntary, meaningful action committed by ppl who are striving to change society

x = romanticise wc crims as robin hoods, fight capitalism by taking from rich- but poor often victims of crime

Becker- defining deviance

acts only seen as criminal if society labels them as such
deviant career- taking on identity given to them by others
leads to self fulfilling prophecy

x = victim blames- assumes crime only occurs after labelling

Lemert- primary and secondary deviance

primary- deviant acts not yet publically labelled- little effect on identity
secondary- deviant acts publically labelled, affecting identity = more deviance due to labelling

Young- late modernity

media saturated late modern society means even poor ppl exposed to consumerist msgs of media
lack legit opps to achieve consumer lifestyle they crave = rel dep, turn to crime

x = exaggerated- not all turn to crime

Murray- underclass and socialisation

crime increasing due to growing underclass that fail to socialise children properly
generous welfare benefits -> reliant on state and dont work -> kids raised w/o hard work values -> turn to crime

Clarke- rational choice theory

committing crime is a choice based on likely consequences
ppl more likely to offend if benefits outweigh costs- wc dont have much to lose

x = crime rates decreasing

Merton- strain/rel dep
feel rel dep and want even more than they can achieve legit

x = assumes shared value consensus of money success, not everyone interested in this

Hirschi- control theory

indivs who carry out cc are driven by socialisation into agg management cultures which encourage ruthless business practices
^ often use illegal shortcuts regarded as “extensions of acceptable business practice”

x = most ppl in this position dont commit cc

Sutherland- differential association

more likely to commit crime if associate w others who support illegal activities
employees socialised into criminality if company justifies crime

Box- criminogenic capitalism

cc driven by crim cap- by very nature causes crime
need to maintain profits in inc global market, if cant achieve legally will use illegal means
causes crimes like price fixing, misleading ads

x = crime still occurs in communist society

Nelken- labelling theory

wcc/cc more likely to escape “criminal” label as often similar to normal business practices
dont directly intend to cause harm eg toxic waste dumping, so appear to be less criminal

/ = explains wc over representation in crime stats

Katz- postmodernism

crime is a pleasurable experience + thrill seeking may be a motivation
young men gain excitement from making choices in high risk situations- explains wcc for those who have material wealth

x = not all turn to crime

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”

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

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)

Situational crime prevention

clarke- rational choice theory, reduces opps to commit crime by target hardening- changing enviro of crime to inc risk of committing crime and reducing rewards

/ = Felson- ny bus terminal
x = doesn’t reduce, just displaces

Environmental crime prevention

Wilson and kelling- “broken windows hypothesis”
symbolises disorder and encourages crime as signifies no one cares

zero tolerance policing

w+k’s solution is to crack down on all disorder
enviro improvement strat- any broken window must be repaired immediately, otherwise more will follow
Zero tolerance policing strat- police must tackle even slightest sign of disorder as will prevent neighbourhood decline

X = selectively enforced, gives police “free reign” to discrim against minorities

Social and community crime prevention

focus on removing conditions that predispose indivs to crime in the first place
tackle root causes of crime eg poverty
social reforms help to prevent crime

Weikart- perry pre-school project

58 3-4yo disadvantaged black children offered 2 year intellectual enrichment programme
focused on devel of decision making and problem solving skills
also had weekly visits, aimed to involve mothers in kids edu

by 40yo, all showed great achievement thru adulthood and sig fewer lifetime arrests for drugs and violent crime

x = ignores crimes of the powerful

Foucault- birth of the prison

diffs in forms of punishment used to reflect societal move from sovereign power to disciplinary
sovereign- monarch had absolute power over ppl, ctrl asserted using phys punishment eg branding- brutal and emotional spectacle
disciplinary- ctrl that seeks to govern mind/soul as well as body- thru surveillance = rehab

eg panopticon- prison watch tower where guards can see cells, but prisoners cant see them
^ dk if being watched, but possible = self surveillance and discipline, ctrl takes place inside the prisoner

Foucault- Late modernism and PM

Institutions like prisons make indivs conform using self surveillance
disciplinary power now dispersed throughout society, forming a “carceral archipelago” where range of professionals exercise surveillance over population
expects ppl will change bhvr as know being watched

x = doesn’t prevent crime, just displaces

Synoptic surveillance

mathiesen- can view what others are up to thru media
mann et al- sousveillance- where ordinary ppl film police wrongdoing, controllers being controlled

Surveillant assemblages

can create virtual images of crims via tech eg facial recognition
allows for further self-surveillance as media demonstrates thru shows like crimewatch

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

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

Global criminal economy

castellis- globalisation has brought new opportunities for crime:
sex tourism- westerners travelling to third world countries for sex
sex trafficking- often linked to slavery/prostitution
green crime- damage to enviro eg illegal dumping of toxic waste

x = not all sociologists agree on definition for global crime

Global risk consciousness

beck- globalisation creates new insecurities, risk seen as global and often caused by moral panic over a “threat” that scares gen pop
^ causes social ctrl eg immigration -> inc border ctrl

x = not all agree on definition for global crime

Relative deprivation and crime

taylor et al- globalisation allowed corps to move production to low wage countries, inc profits and poverty
marketisation promotes materialism + causes rel dep when ppl cant obtain consumer goods
turn to crime as have no other option

Supply and demand

rich west has a demand for drugs, sex workers etc- creates a need for supply of illegal goods and service, often from less developed countries
turn to supplying illegal goods as offers better pay

x = deterministic- not all poor ppl turn to crime

“Glocal” organisation

Hobbs and dunningham- crime involves global connections, but is locally based
need international links to obtain drugs, local to network + sell
glob caused shift from hierarchal gang structure to loose networks of entrepreneurial criminals

x = both structure types may have coexisted, no shift

McMafia

glenny- fall of communism caused emergence of russias new capitalist class, “oligarchs”
^ those w money bought oil, gems etc for low prices and sold for high price to other countries
diff to other mafias- usually hierarchy/ethnicity based, but oligarchs based purely on self interest, result of globalisation

x = cant generalise

Types of green crime

south- 2 types:
primary- crimes that result directly from destruction/degradation of earth’s resources eg deforestation, animal abuse
secondary- crimes that result from a disregard of rules aimed at preventing/regulating enviro disasters eg hazardous waste dumping by businesses

laws to regulate waste disposal in developed countries incs cost for big businesses
^ incentive to dump illegally in 3rd world countries
”environmental discrimination”- poorer groups are worse affected by pollution

Explanations of green crime

beck- technological advancements bring risk eg global warming
”manufactured risks”- never faced before, harm enviro, creating climate change = global risk

”smog is democratic”- pollution from any country affects entire world, can have knock on effect
eg Russian heatwave- inc bread prices due to wildfires destroying grain crops- caused rioting/looting = deaths

x = hard to establish all events/disasters as being manufactured

Green criminology

White- laws are irrelevant when studying green crime as most aren’t illegal acts eg driving a car

ecocentric view- humans and enviro are interdependent- enviro harm also hurts humans
^ both liable to exploitation, esp by capitalism
corps + govs take on anthropocentric view- assumes humans have right to dominate nature for own needs- legitimises exploitation

x = ignores changes made by govs/companies to try + reduce emissions

marxist view

green crime is further evidence of criminogenic nature of capitalism- rc continue to exploit enviro en pursuit of profit

wc often forced to live in undesirable localities due to low incomes
those facing most serious enviro threats have the least social power

x = enough being done to tackle green crime- inc in legal definitions surrounding enviro issues in uk

one of most serious forms of crime for 2 reasons:

scale of state crime
power of state enables it to commit large scale crimes
eg cambodian dictator pol pot- made ppl move to countryside to work on mass farms
^ executions, malnutrition etc caused approx 25% of entire countrys population to die
state can use media to cover up crimes

state is source of law
defines what is criminal + has power to conceal crimes
undermines justice system and public faith
hard for external authorities to intervene

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

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