CCJ 3024 Review for Exam II
I. Introduction to Part II—measuring crime, explaining crime, and policing crime
A. Return to some orienting considerations
1. dimensions of “criminal” and how they affect measuring crime, theories about crime, and policing
a. legal vs. social definitions and counting crime—official measures, self-report measures, victimization measures
b. legal vs. social definitions for explaining crime—explaining behaviors or social reactions; considering general vs. specific theories of crime
c. legal vs. social definitions for policing crime—how discretion will be used; how procedural rules are viewed
2. dimensions of “justice” and how they affect measuring crime, theories about crime and policing
a. justice concerns and what happens with counting crime—discrimination and fear of reprisal and official statistics, self-serving rationalizations and self-report, self-help and victimization
b. justice dimensions and explaining crime—neutralization, discrimination, injustice as criminogenic
c. justice concerns and fairness and discrimination in policing
B. Multiple perspectives
1. different strengths and weaknesses for respective approaches to measuring crime
2. different assumptions and foci for respective theories of crime
3. different approaches to policing and different experiences with policing
II. Measurement of Crime
- Different measures and different pictures of the crime problem
- Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)
1. Index or part I crimes vs. non-index or part II offenses
2. Ways of expressing crime data: raw figures vs. rates
3. Strengths: measure of serious crime; most stable measure; been around for a while
4. Problems: reliant on reporting and local reporting practices, no uniform definitions; hierarchical
- Dark figure of crime
- Self report surveys
1. Strengths: dark figure; demographic information; etiology of crime
2. Problems: trivial crimes; sampling; inaccurate
- National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
1. Structure: who and what it asks
2. Strengths: dark figure; information about victims
3. Problems: recall problems; interview and response problems; cost; missing populations
III. Crim Theory
A. general considerations
1. criminal behavior vs. social reaction
2. role of free choice
3. epidemiology vs. criminogensis
4. control vs. non-control assumptions
5. individualistic vs. socially-based theory
B. rational choice theory
1. classical deterrence
a. assumptions (volunteerism, rationality, pleasure/pain principle, utilitarian principle)
b. basic tenets (certainty, swiftness, severity)
c. objective vs. subjective measures
d. absolute vs restrictive deterrence
e. research findings and experiential and naivete effects
2. modern rational choice and criticisms
3. routine activities and lifestyle choices--choice theories of victimization
a. motivated offenders
b. suitable targets
c. absence of guardians
C. other individualistic theories
1. biological theory
2. psychological and trait theory
3. low self control (Gottfredson and Hirschi) as an example of a trait theory
D. process theories
1. differential association and Aker's social learning
a. crime is learned
b. it is learned in association with intimates
c. the role of definitions favorable to crime
d. positive and negative reinforcement and punishment
e. imitation
2. social bonding and the control assumption—attachment, belief, involvement, & commitment
3. labeling theory
a. conflict over what is criminal
b. labeling and secondary deviance
i. master status
ii. retrospective interpretation
iii. stigmatization
iv. self-identity
E. structural theories
1. anomie and strain theory
a. Durkheim—anomie and egoism
b. Merton—a different anomie, strain, blocked opportunities and
individual adaptation modes--conformity, innovation, ritualism, rebellion,
and retreatism
c. Cloward and Ohlin—another anomie, differential illegitimate
opportunity, and conflict, criminal, and retreatist subcultures
d. Agnew—explicating strain, emotions, and coping
2. subcultural theory
3. conflict theory
IV. Policing
A. roles and activities
1. Order-maintenance vs. law enforcement roles
2. proactive vs. reactive policing
3. patrol/traffic vs. investigative/detective
B. police exercise of discretion
1. non-enforcement as the norm
2. choice of role
3. impact of others
a. dispatch and uncertainty absorption
b. offense seriousness
c. complainant preference
d. perpetrator factors
i. demeanor/defiance
ii. deviant status
e. relationship between victim and perpetrator
f. departmental policing style
i. watch-style and its consequences
ii. legalistic style and its consequences
iii. service style and its consequences
C. Police misconduct
1. relationship to community factors (e.g., more police misconduct occurs in more anomic or disorganized neighborhoods)
2. kinds
a. corruption (and “bad apple” vs. rotten “barrel”
b. constitutional violations
c. inappropriate use of force
i. bad judgment versus evil intent
ii. curbside justice
iii. defiant and deviant suspects as victims
D. Danger of policing
1. the need to standardize statistics to determine risk
2. fatalities vs. injury
3. injury risk at domestic disturbances
E. Police-citizen conflict and Turk
1. assumptions
a. authority relationships are inevitable
b. conflict is inherent in authority relations
c. usually held in check because of learned norms of deference
2. Turk tries to explain when conflict becomes overt
3. congruence between cultural and social (behavioral) norms increases chances of conflict
4. other factors
a. sophistication (ability to manipulate the situation)
b. "organization"
i. social support
ii. social complexity of the situation
5. less sophisticated actors more likely to conflict (e.g., drunken suspects, younger officers, when dispute is in progress when police arrive)
6. more organized suspects more likely to conflict (e.g., no visible injury to victim, presence of witnesses, multiple arrests)
7. pro-arrest policies in domestic violence cases leads to multiple arrests (which leads to more police-citizen conflict)
8. deference reversals
a. older suspect and younger officer--more conflict
b. white suspect and black officer--more conflict
c. male suspect and female officer--more conflict
F. Law enforcement effectiveness
1. patrol
a. Kansas City experiment--visible patrol did not decrease crime
b. "hot spots" and targeting patrol
c. proactive patrol--pros and cons
2. investigation--how much crime is solved via investigation work?