GPR 200 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY HANDOUT 4

CRIME AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

There are theories that minimize or ignore the significance of biological or psychological make up. The oldest of these is the one that explains criminal behaviour in terms of economic differences or influence. Discussions center on the sad state of the poor, undesirable effects of poverty such as sickness, crime and despair. Many empirical studies have been undertaken to study relationship between poverty and crime.

The studies

  1. Some research has studied variations in economic conditions to see if they correspond to variations in crime rates. E.g. crime higher in places or times where there are more poor people (economic depression economic property wealthy areas, poor areas
  2. Other studies look at the relationship between crime rates and unemployment crime rates and unemployment, crime rates and economic inequality (where poverty exists next to wealth)
  3. There are many disagreements on whether conclusions that are drawn are justified.

Some studies contradictions and Disagreements

  1. There is a lot of research (hundreds) but most inconsistent and contradictory to each about the relationship between crimes reconditions.

(a)Refer back to Querry and Quetelet.

(b)Studies or crime and business cycle – most studies conclude that general crime rate does not increase during economic rescission or depression – some find crime actually decreases (e.g. Henry and short 1920 – 1940’s)

(c)Ehrlich in contract found positive relationship between state of economic conditions, property, crime rates of 1940 – 1960 and poorhouse holds.

(d)Loftin and Hill (1974) found even stronger results using their index of “structural poverty” (including such measures as infant mortality, low education, one patient family income) found strong relationship between these and state homicide rates.

(e)Research found this relationship to be strongly correlated to homicide involving families and friends but not stranger.

(f)Other studies found different poverty-crime relationship in different regions of the country (Messner, and concluded that the results are explained by variation, in the way crimes are reported and recorded, rather then variations in the incidence of crime.

(g)Crime and unemployment.

Believed unemployment causes poverty and poverty causes crime unemployment also indicator of general economic conditions

  1. Unemployment and juvenile delinquency because parents are unavailable for children Glaser and rice (1959) found that delinquency is higher when unemployment is low and vice versa. But Ehrlich (1973) found in separate study, that unemployment had no effect on criminality of urban males in age group 14 to 24. Danser and laub (1981) used victimization data. Instead of police statistics and concluded that there was no relationship between juvenile delinquency and adult unemployment; contradicting Glaser and Rice, Danser and Laub found a relationship even within specific age sex and racial groups. But Calvin A (1981) argues that there is a close relationship between unemployment and crime for black youths.

There are also contradictions and inconsistencies in the relationship between unemployment and adult crime. Nagel W (1977) found a strong co-relation. Berk (1980) found that for ex – offender atleast unemployment and poverty tend to cause crime. Other research have found no relationship or insignificant relationship. Freeman (1983) found association but termed as weak and insignificant. But Chirious (1987) reviewed 63 studies on crime and unemployment and concluded relationship between crime and unemployment is positive and frequently significant, especially for property crime,that this relationship manifests itself better at small unit neighbourhood rather than larger units (e.g. nations)

But later studies still insisted that the relationship is weak generally.

Problems of interpreting research on crime and economic conditions leading to inconsistency and contradictions.

  1. Poverty is always in part a subjective condition relative to what others have. Because of lack of clear definite of poverty it has been measured in more than 20 different ways in different studies. Unemployment is also not a clear concept does it include those who are able and available but under employed?
  2. There are two contradictory theories in the relationship between crime and economic conditions. That is it inverse and negative that when economic conditions are good the amount of crime is low and vice versa. But other studies have also found the opposite leading to the second theoretical assumption that it is direct and positive.

It looks at criminality as an expansion of normal economic activity (a criminal fringe) and it increases and decreases in the same manner as other economics activity therefore crime should be highest when economic conditions are good and vice versa.

Morris Ploscome (1931) concluded where there are incentives and increased occasions for illegitimate activity there is boundto be an increase in crime.

Gurr (1976) found a relationship that supports both assumptions.

  1. Problem of specifying the amount of time before economic changes are said to have an effect on criminality (same time as change or time lag) some studies have found different relationships when different time lags are considered. Opportunity, motivation and time lag were also found to have effect in certain types of crimes such as robbery, theft. But unemployment did not seem to have association with rape and assault.
  2. Problems of determining the size of the unit- is it neighbourhood or nation? Economic conditions of these two may have different impact.
  3. High crime communities usually have a whole host of factors that may cause crime (poverty, unemployment divorce, single parent, high population, poor housing and social services, racial problems etc.) Any or all of these factors might cause crime, but are all found at the same time? The problem is to determine which factors actually cause crime, and which one is there but has no actual effect. This problem is called multi co linearity (i.e. a number of possible casual factors are all highly inter correlated with each other).

Lanch (1990) tried a baseline regression model, which clustered these variables. When these factors were conceptually separate, the statistical techniques could not separate them from each other in the effects they had on homicide.

  1. Problem with interpreting research on crime and economic conditions adequately distinguishing between concepts of poverty and economic inequality.

Hsiech and Pugh (1980 – 1991) focused on the relationship between poverty, economic inequality and violent crime and results suggested that both poverty and economic inequality are associated with higher levels of violent crime.

Messner and Golden (1992) Examined the effects of inequality between whites and blacks in 54 states using different cluster of resource deprivation affluence, racial inequality, income, education, unemployment and residential segregation. They concluded that racial inequality evidently affects the social order in some generalized way that increases criminogenic pressure on the entire population. Other studies have been very mixed or different.

SOCIOLOGICAL POSITIVISM AND ANOMIE THEORIES

Sociologists have long sought to dissociate themselves from the pitfalls of the individualistic approach to crime in which the causes of crime were sought in the individual and little attention was paid to the social context. It did not make a clean break with positivism but provided a challenge to individualist theories of crime. Sociological positivists explained crime as a pathological deviation from the consensus of the social order. It is concerned with the various indicators of social disorganization. It sees a real and progressive threat to the continuance of the consensus of the social order. They believed in measuring these indicators (such as high crime rates, suicide rates, drunkenness etc) as away of identifying the whereabouts of existing and potential trouble spots in society. Which must be treated, prevented or controlled if serious social disorder is to be avoided.

DURKHEIM ANOMIE , SOCIAL DISORGANISATION THEORY AND MODERNIZATION

DEF: Anomie means a condition or malaise in individuals characterized by an absence of or reduction of standards or values. It implies a social unrest or chaos. The word comes from Greek ‘a’ without and “namos” law contemporary English understanding of the word is ‘norm’ and therefore “normlessness” to reflect a situation of anarchy. Theorists use anomie to mean a reaction against or a retreat from the regulatory social control of society. (1858 – 1917).

Emile Durkheim was the founding father of academic sociology in France. He was primarily concerned with the study of archaic societies and especially with primitive religion and social organization. Durkheim agreed with Freud that human beings were not really human until they had been socialized. He saw socialization and the development as necessary for individual well- being. The lack of socialization and conscience leads to conflict between the individual and society.

He viewed inequality as natural and inevitable human conditions that are not associated with social maladies such as crimes unless there is also a breakdown at social norms. He called breakdown anomie, which occurs as a result of rapid social changes accompanying the modernization process Durkheim focused, or society and its organization and development. Its theories are complex but his influence on criminology has been great.

He has been called one of the best known and least understood major thinkers. He lived during the 2 revolutions French and industrial, which had great impact on human thoughts and values. Sociology had also just been developed by Auguste Comte, as part of a more general effort to construct a rational society out of the wings of the traditional one. Sociologist, wanted to mastermind ‘social regeneration’ through re – establishment of social solidarity Durkheim studied social sciences and sociology. He presented his first major analysis of the process of social charge in his book, The division of labour in society.

He saw society as divided into mechanical and organic society. In its mechanical forms each group is relatively isolated from all other social groups and itself sufficient. In organic society different segments of society depend on each other in highly organized division of Labour. Social solidarity is no longer based on the uniformity of the individuals but in the diversity of the functions of the parts of the society. No society was totally one or the other all being in state of law plays an essential role in the progress between organic and mechanical.

Role in maintaining the social solidarity of each of these two types of societies but in different ways. In mechanical society law functions to enforces the uniformity of the members of the social group, and thus is oriented towards repressing any deviation from the norm of the time. In the organic society law functions to regulate the interaction of the various parts of society, and provide restriction in cases of wrongful transactions.

He argues that to the extent that a society remains mechanical crime is normal in the sense that a society without crime would be pathologically over controlled. As society develops towards organic form it possible for a pathological state, (anomie) to occur, and such a state would produce a variety of social meladies such as crime.

Crime as normal in Mechanical societies.

Mechanical societies have totality of social likeness; Durkheim called this collective conscience uniformity found in all culture. But each also has a degree of diversity in the form of individual differences among its members. Societies will pressure for uniformity against this diversity in varying degree and forms. Strongest form is criminal sanction, weak forms such as morally reprehensible or distasteful or deviant behaviour.

Society cannot be formed without sacrifices (price of membership). But these demands are constructed so that it is inevitable that certain number of people will not fulfill them. The number is large but not too much so that the rest of the society feels a sense of moral superiority and see the rest as criminals and inferior. This superiority is the primary source of social solidarity. Punishment of criminals also plays a role in the maintenance of the social solidarity.

Crime is itself normal in society because there is no clearly marked dividing line between behaviour. Considered criminal and those considered morally reprehensible. He believed that even in a society of saints, faults can appear. This society without crime is impossible new behaviour will always be placed in the crime category. Crime is then inevitable because of there is an inevitable diversity of behaviour in society.

The abnormal or pathological state of society would be one in which there was the crime. If there is no crime there will be no progressive changes, as it is introduced by opposing the constraints of the collective conscience and those who do this are all frequency declared to be criminals. Crime is the price society pays for the possibility of progress (e.g. Jesus and Gandhi were considered criminals) He explains that individuals growth cannot occur in a child unless it is possible for that child to misbehave.

The child is punished for misbehavior and no one want the child to misbehave. But a child who never did anything wrong would be pathologically over controlled. Eliminating the misbehavior would also eliminate the possibility of independent growth. In this sense the child’s misbehavior is the price that must be paid for the possibility of personal development.

He concludes that from this viewpoint, “the fundamental facts of criminality present themselves to us in an entirely new light. Contrary to current ideas, the criminal no longer seems a totally unsociable being, a sort of parasitic element a strange thing, introduced into the midst of society. On the contrary, he plays a definite role in social life. Crime for its part must no longer be conceived as an evil that cannot be too much suppressed.There is no occasion for self congratulation when the crime rate drops noticeably below the average level, for we may be certain that this apparent progress is associated with some social disorder”

Anomie as a pathological state in organic societies

To the extent that a society is mechanical, it derives its solidarity from pressure for conformity against the diversity of its members. The criminal behaviour is a normal and necessary part of this pressure. But to the extent that a society is organic, the function of law is to regulate the interactions of the various parts of the whole. If this regulation is inadequate there can result a variety of social maladies including crime. Durkheim called this state of inadequate regulation anomie.

Durkheim made three arguments about crime during the process of transition from mechanical of organic societies.

  1. A greater variety of behaviours would be tolerated.
  2. Punishment could become less violent as their purpose changed from repression to restitution.
  3. There would be a fast expansion of functional law to regulate the interaction s of the emerging organic society.

Regarding point one, Wolfgang (1977) stated that the American culture and western society, generally, was experiencing an expansion of acceptability of deviance and a corresponding contraction of what they define as crime. Western societies are losing their morals. Anomie theory (this attempt to explain the occurrence not merely of crime but also deviance and disorder. (Deviance different in moral or social standards from what is considered normal) Studies by Neumann and Berger (1988) found no support for the argument that increases in property crimes were caused by the change from traditional to modern values, and therefore question the continued dominance of Durkheim theory in explaining the link between modernization and crime. They suggest that much more attention be paid to the role of economic inequality in this process as opposed to Durkheims emphasis on the breakdown of traditional values Durkheims influence has been extremely broad in criminology and sociology.

The concept of anomie was developed in Durkheim’s classic study Suicide. He analysed suicide rates and tried to explain why these increased during times of economic growth as well as during depressions. He made a point that we cannot understand why suicide is a recurrent feature of modern life by means of a study of individual cases. Only a sociological analysis of rates can illuminate the social elements in suicide. Durkheim’s emphasis was on considering social integration and the person’s ties to society.

Its primary impact was that he focused attention on the role that social forces play in determining human conduct at a time when the dominant thin king held either that people freely choose their courses of action or that behavior was determined by inner forces of biology and psychology.

This was a radical view at the time. There is now considerable evidence that the basic patterns of crime found in the modern world can only be explained by a theory that focuses on modernization as a fundamental factor.

THE ECOLOGY OF CRIME

The Chicago school of Human Ecology (Department of sociology) at the university of Chicago 1920) attempted to pinpoint the environmental factors associated with crime, and to determine the relationship among those factors. They focused on rapid changes in the neighbourhood unlike Durkheim who focuses on rapid changes in entire societies) their procedure evolved correlating the characteristics of each neighbourhood with the crime rates of that neighbourhood.