Sociological Aspects of Crime Research Paper

Some who study crime argue that crime should be defined as harm, whether or not specified in the criminal law. This ideological position charges that criminologists too often support ‘existing structures of power and oppression,’ and urges instead active promotion of change in these structures (Henry and Einstadter 1997, p. 418).

The vast majority of sociologists and other scholars who study crime and criminals reject this view, holding—in spirit, if not always in practice—to the cannons and the methods of science. The scholarly study of crime has become more truly interdisciplinary and, despite variations in substantive foci, methodological and theoretical approaches, attempts to integrate theories from a variety of disciplines are now common. Sociologists are at the forefront of such efforts (see, e.g., Tittle 1995).

1. Sociological Issues In The Study Of Crime And Criminals

Sociological aspects of crime can be divided roughly into the following broad categories: (a) sociology of law; (b) conceptual issues; (c) measurement issues; (d) the social distribution of crime; (e) explanations of crime; and (f) issues related to crime control. Because they are so closely related to each other, conceptual and measurement issues are discussed together, as are the social distribution and explanations of crime.

1.1 Sociology Of Law

The sociology of law focuses on the foundations of legal orders, patterns of legal change, and the role of law in social life. Definitions of behavior as criminal vary greatly in different times and places. Because laws define what is criminal or otherwise subject to sanction by governmental action, study of the law making process and of the effect of law on behavior is of particular interest to sociologists (Selznick 1968).

Law changes continuously, influencing and influenced by societal contexts. It is both enabling and constraining, conferring both rights and obligations. Legal ferment in many societies is related to changes in such matters as the status of females, the young, racial and ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and the indigent (McIntyre 1994). Understanding how and why such changes occur are major challenges to sociologists of law. Conflict and Marxist theories of crime draw much of their support from evidence that status inequalities bias law making and enforcement against the less powerful. The effects of legal sanctions on offenders and on those who might offend is also of interest to theorists of crime and policymakers alike.

1.2 Conceptual And Measurement Issues

Because crime consists of a very large number of heterogeneous criminal acts, no single index can capture its nature. Scholars and crime control agencies therefore find it necessary to reduce crime into more homogeneous categories. How these categories relate to one another is important both for understanding and controlling crime.

Official crime counting systems are designed primarily to serve institutional purposes such as documenting police or court activity, justifying budget requests, and evaluating institutional performance. They reflect the laws and practices of the jurisdictions with which they are associated. Data on crime and criminals are correspondingly affected. A great deal of effort has gone into standardizing definitions and reporting systems in order to enhance their comparability and research usefulness.

Having participated in developing measures of crime and crime reporting systems in many countries, sociologists continue to seek their refinement. Most countries now collect data on crimes known to the police and persons arrested, persons appearing before juvenile and adult courts, and persons convicted and sentenced to various forms of correctional sanctions. Interpretation of such data is guided by two principles. (a) The further removed from its commission is a measure of crime, the less reliable and valid it is of the phenomenon. (b) Because the police must rely on victims and others to report most crimes, only data on serious crimes, which are most likely to be reported, are regarded as reliable. Therefore, measures based on serious crimes reported to the police or in surveys of victims of crime are favored when the object of study is the distribution of crimes. Similarly, for purposes of studying offenders, study of persons arrested for serious crimes are regarded as superior to data on persons who are incarcerated for those crimes.

Dissatisfaction with official data sources motivated the search for other measures. Self-reports of involvement in criminal and delinquent behaviors were developed in the 1950s and have been refined and solicited from better samples since that time. Reports of criminal victimization began to be developed during the latter part of the twentieth century and are now common in many countries.

Because crime is so varied, alternative measures and classification systems seek to reduce such heterogeneity (see Wilkins 1968). Thus, police classify separately more serious offenses against the person (homicide and non-negligent manslaughter) from other such offenses (aggravated assault; assault with intent to kill; and forcible rape). Offenses against property are similarly distinguished according to seriousness.

Typologies of criminal behavior systems yield important descriptive material on criminal techniques, careers, and lifestyles, but none has succeeded in capturing the full range of criminal behavior. More-over, most crimes are committed not by specialists but by persons who vary the crimes they commit, contingent on their needs, abilities, opportunities, internal and external constraints.

1.3 The Social Distribution And Explanation Of Crime

The basic data for sociological explanations of crime rest heavily on how crimes are distributed among such social categories as age, gender, social class, racial and ethnic status, over time, and in differing social and cultural circumstances. Most ordinary crime in all modern societies is committed primarily by young males, and is concentrated among those who are disadvantaged by economic and/or racial and ethnic status. The major exception is ‘white-collar’ crime, first identified as crimes committed by corporations or persons of high status, but later focusing primarily on violations of fiduciary responsibility or public trust.

Scholars associated with a variety of disciplines and professions study and theorize about crime and its control. The primary data employed by sociologists are crime rates and their distribution among groups, organizations, communities, and other political units. This macrosocial level of explanation seeks to determine what it is about such entities—their cultures, subcultures, and structural conditions—that explains varying crime rates. Sociologists who study the individual level of explanation focus on the influence of social and cultural factors, social interaction and individual learning experiences. Until late in the twentieth century, the lines between disciplines were clearly drawn and controversial. A third level of explanation, the microsocial, focuses on criminal behavior as a function of characteristics of situations, and of ongoing interaction among actors in situations (Short 1998). Theories that seek to integrate explanations of crime challenge disciplinary hegemony. Bridging theoretical levels of explanation and theoretical integration nevertheless remain difficult and contentious.

1.4 Issues Related To Crime Control

Crime control brings the sociological study of crime full circle, back to the law. The effects of law, law enforcement, and the imposition of legal sanctions on offenders and on others are major sociological concerns. Extensive research on the effects of legal sanctions on criminals, and on those who might offend, have resulted in few firm conclusions. Public concern with rising crime rates during the second half of the twentieth century resulted in higher rates of incarceration of convicted offenders, which accelerated during the last quarter of the century. A National Research Council report concluded that increments to crime control from incapacitation of offenders were modest (the size of the inmate population in the US doubled over a decade, resulting in an estimated reduction in crime of 10 percent), extremely expensive, and socially destructive (see Blumstein et al. 1986). Evaluations of other ‘get tough’ measure of crime control reach similar conclusions. As crime has increasingly become an issue of political contention, the relationship between knowledge about crime, criminals, and crime control has become controversial among scholars, criminal justice professionals, and the public. Efforts to bridge these sometimes conflicting interests nevertheless continue, theoretically (Braithewaite 1989) and in the form of experimental programs supported by governmental agencies in many countries.

2. The History Of Explanations Of Crime

Although eighteenth century philosopher reformers and physicians physiologists introduced modern thinking about crime, scientific study came later when European scholars such as Guerry, Quetelet, Durkheim, and Tarde began to search for regularities in the distribution of social phenomena. Durkheim and Tarde, especially, set the tone for a distinctively sociological approach to the study of crime (Durkheim 1951 1897, Tarde 1886). Durkheim’s insistence that social facts such as suicide and homicide rates were sui generis drew a boundary between sociology and psychology that profoundly affected the development of both disciplines.

Sociology was one of the earliest disciplines to include crime and criminals among its research and theoretical interests, and sociology continues to be the primary field of the majority of criminologists. Criminologists also study other basic social science disciplines, however, and in criminal justice programs. The professional field most closely associated with the study of crime, aside from criminal justice professionals, is law.

Several early strands of sociological research form the basis for much current theorizing. The first, building on the earlier work of the moral statisticians, sought to establish and interpret the social distribution of crime and delinquency. Following the framework of sociological and ecological theory developed by Thomas (Thomas and Znaniecki 1920) and Park and Burgess (1924), Shaw and his associates (Shaw et al. 1929, Shaw and McKay 1942) related crime and delinquency rates to social conditions in community areas in Chicago and elsewhere. Their chief findings— that rates of delinquency were highest in local com- munities characterized by poverty and high rates of population heterogeneity and turnover—and the theory advanced to account for them, social dis- organization, remain of vital importance (Sampson et al. 1997).

Social disorganization theory hypothesized that socially disorganized areas lacked the means of both formal and informal social control because population turnover and heterogeneity were assumed to weaken social institutions, networks of primary relationships, and channels of communication, all vital to the supervisory capabilities of communities.

Case studies of delinquent boys led to a second theoretical conclusion, viz., that socially disorganized areas lacked sufficient socializing capabilities to protect children from involvement in delinquency and crime. Evidence of this sort led Sutherland (1939) to focus on the process by which individuals become criminal, a process he called ‘differential association.’ That crime and delinquency are learned behaviors, acquired in the course of interaction with others, remains an important principle. The further insight that definitions and labeling as criminal (in law, in interaction with others, and by authority figures) has behavioral consequences is the basis, as well, for theories stressing the importance of one’s self-concept for behavior, and for labeling theory. In order to illustrate the applicability of differential association to crimes that were significantly different from ordinary crime, Sutherland also studied white-collar crime and professional crime, thus encouraging the strategy of studying different patterns of criminal behavior.

A third major sociological perspective on crime causation appeared with the publication of Merton’s (1938) seminal theory of ‘Social structure and anomie,’ focusing on the consequences of disparities between culturally emphasized goals and structural limitations on the means for their achievement. Merton noted that the cultural emphasis on achievement of economic success posed special problems for those who were disadvantaged by virtue of their social class, racial, or ethnic status. Theoretical elaboration of anomie theory, as Merton’s formulation has come to be known, have taken a variety of forms. Messner and Rosenfeld (1994) theorize that the domination of institutional life by economic institutions weakens the ability of other institutions to control crime. Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960) ‘opportunity theory’ joins anomie theory with both social disorganization and differential association to explain variations in delinquent subcultures. Others shift the focus of Merton’s formulation to individual strain, viewing crime as a means for reducing psychological strain caused by failure to achieve a variety of goals, such as autonomy, status, respect, and reciprocity in relationships with others.

3. Continuity And Change In Criminological Theory And Research

Much sociological theory about crime continues to be based on these theoretical traditions. A large-scale community study in Chicago, for example, found that a measure of ‘collective efficacy’ (willingness to intervene for such common goods as supervision of children and maintaining public order) had a strong effect on suppressing violent crime (Sampson et al. 1997), thus systematically documenting impressions gained from ethnographic research (Anderson 1990).

Rapid social change and new developments in research and theory continually influence sociological criminology. New and improved governmental statistical series inform criminal offending and victimization, and sophisticated self-report and observational studies provide insights into the lives of delinquents, criminals, and their victims, and the institutional and community contexts of crime. New techniques of statistical analysis yield new interpretations of empirical studies. Large-scale funding by governmental agencies and foundations permit more ambitious studies, including longitudinal data sets, experiments, and multiple methodologies and theoretical approaches. Theoretically integrative work combines insights from a variety of theoretical perspectives and levels of explanation.

Social disorganization, control, and opportunity theory continue to evolve as massive social changes alter the conditions of crime. Disciplinary boundaries become less distinct as sociologists find it necessary to take into account the impact of a rapidly changing global economy and new political alignments; developmental and learning theorists must accommodate findings made possible by technological advancements in brain and neuropsychological research and by studying life-course patterns of individuals who were studied when they were very young.

A major impediment to theoretical advance is the lack of adequate data to measure new concepts and theoretical formulations that have been stimulated by the inquiries they have made possible. Theories such as ‘control balance’ (Tittle 1995) reach beyond criminal behavior and require measurement of the amount of control exercised by an individual, the amount of control experienced by that individual, ratios between these measures, and a large number of motivational, opportunity, and situational contingencies that are hypothesized to relate to a variety of forms of deviance, including crimes. ‘Integrative shaming’ (Braithewaite 1989), extending labeling theory and insights from control theory, requires measures of social integration of communities, their ability to shame norm violators, and their willingness to re-integrate them into the community, as well as of these same motivational, opportunity, and situational contingencies. ‘Social capital’ theory requires measures of the capacity of communities and institutions to provide supportive interpersonal and institutional relationships that bridge the generations while socializing the young.

Knowledge of substantive areas such as organized and professional crime and white-collar crime con-tinue to suffer because systematic data are unavailable or inappropriate for extant theories. Rapid social change, driven by advances in science and technology, create new opportunities for crime even as they enhance crime control efforts. The same technological advances that greatly enhance computational abilities and complex data analyses pose new challenges for institutions of social control even as they improve their reach and their efficiency. Communication and data transfer technologies, for example, have trans-formed criminal justice agencies and created new opportunities for criminal behavior. Other technologies, such as nuclear and biotechnologies, lend them-selves to widespread victimization, blackmail, and terrorist attack. Traditional distinctions between individual and corporate behavior that is defined as crime, and the behavior of nations that, although harmful to citizens of those nations previously was considered beyond the purview of other nations, are changing rapidly. New laws and new rules continually evolve as global markets alter commercial activity.

Bibliography:

1. Anderson E 1990 Street Wise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
2. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth J A, Visher C A 1986 Criminal Careers and ‘Career Criminals’. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
3. Braithewaite J 1989 Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
4. Cloward R A, Ohlin L E 1960 Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. Free Press, Glencoe, IL
5. Durkheim E 1951/1897 Suicide: A Study in Sociology [trans. Spaulding J A, Simpson G]. The Free Press, Glencoe, IL
6. Henry S, Einstadter W (eds.) 1997 The Criminology Theory Reader. New York University Press, New York
7. McIntyre L J 1994 Law in the Sociological Enterprise: A Reconstruction. Westview Press, Boulder, CO
8. Merton R K 1938 Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review 3: 672–82
9. Messner S F, Rosenfeld R 1994 Crime and the American Dream. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA
10. Park R E, Burgess E W 1924 Introduction to the Science of Sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
11. Sampson R J, Raudenbush S, Earls F 1997 Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective effi Science 277: 918–24
12. Selznick P 1968 The sociology of law. In: Sills D L (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Macmillan, New York, Vol. 9, pp. 50–9
13. Shaw C R, McKay H D 1942 Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
14. Shaw C R, Zorbaugh F M, McKay H D, Cottrell L S 1929 Delinquency Areas. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
15. Short Jr J F 1998 The level of explanation problem revisited. Criminology 36: 3–36
16. Sutherland E H 1939 Principles of Criminology. Lippincott, Philadelphia
17. Tarde G 1886 Le Criminalite Comparee. F Alcan, Paris
18. Thomas W I, Znaniecki F W 1920 The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. Richard Badger, Boston
19. Tittle C R 1995 Control Balance: Toward a General Theory of Deviance. Westview Press, Boulder, CO
20. Wilkins L T 1968 Offense patterns. In: Sills D L (ed.) Inter-national Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Macmillan, New York, Vol. 3, pp. 476–83