Crime And Deviance: Punishment, Control And Victims

Front 1

Why Punish?

Back 1

1. Crime reduction:

• Deterrence: punishing stops further offending (death penalties)
• Rehabilitation: punishment can be used to reform offenders (probation)
• Incapacitation: remove offender's capacity to offend again (prison)
  

2. Retribution:

• means "pay back"
• offender deserves to be punished and society is entitled to take revenge on offender
• e.g. fines, death penalty, community service

Front 2

Social perspectives on punishment

> Functionalism

Back 2

Functionalism (Durkheim)

• prison functions to uphold social solidarity, reinforcing shared values

• boundary maintenance: reinforces the rules by implementing prospect of punishment
  

1. Retributive justice: traditional society strong collective conscience, punishment severe.

2. Restorative justice: modern society - Accountability defined as assuming responsibility and taking action to repair harm

× Reductionist: street crime v white collar who decides what is a moral offence?

+ effectiveness: best interests of all, punishment severe enough but morally upstanding

Front 3

social perspectives on punishment

>> Marxism and Realism

Back 3

Realism

Right Realism: zero tolerance policies

Left realism: looking at rehabilitation as ZT causes discrimination

Marxism: (capitalism and punishment)

• punishment function maintain existing social order
• part of RSA helping defend ruling class property

>> e.g. Thompson: 18th century punishments of hanging/deportation were part of rule of terror, exercising control over poor

+ Holistic: takes into consideration MC crime and root causes

>> Contemporary e.g: America's war on terror and increased surveillance

× effectiveness: what practical solution?

Front 4

social perspectives on punishment

>> Birth of the prison- Foucault

Back 4

1. Sovereign power

• pre-modern society, monarch had control over people + bodies.
  
• punishment was a spectacle e.g. public execution

2. Disciplinary power:

• seeks to govern not just bodies but also minds through power of surveillance
• Foucault: panoptican prison -surveillance becomes self surveillance and discipline, self discipline due to fear of being watched

+ demonstrates this idea as prevalent in all aspects of society e.g. schools, mental asylums

× shift from corporal punishment to imprisonment wasless clear than he suggests

× He exaggerates extent of control – won’t always occur, de-sensitization

Front 5

imprisonment today

Back 5

• seen as most severe punishment in UK but not successful in rehabilitating prisoners

• popular with public so political parties use "stricter punishments" to gain electoral popularity

>> result: prison population increase + overcrowding

Front 6

improsonment today: prison population

Back 6

prison pop: mostly male/WC/young/poorly educated + blacks overrepresented

Garland: USA and even UK is moving into mass incarceration era

+Allusion: Capitalism look successful as prisons soaks up 40% of unemployed

Front 7

Prisonment today: Transcarceration

Back 7

Transcarceration: trend towards individuals being institutionalized all their lives e.g. care- young offenders- prison

+ aim: diversion diverting Y/O away from prison system to avoid SFP

e.g. community based programmes, curfews, tagging, ASBOs

× not all successful in diverting Y/O away from prison system e.g. ASBOs a badge of honour

Front 8

Crime prevention and control

>> Right Realist: Clarke

Back 8

Situational crime prevention:

• aim to reduce opportunity for crimes rather than improving society

e.g. locking doors, windows, CCTV to make it harder for crimes to be committed

× criticizes root causes such as poor socialisation/capitalism -fail to offer solution

+ Felson: port authority bus terminal in NY

- poorly designed/provided opportunities for deviant conduct

e.g. luggage thefts, rough sleeping, drugs

- Re-shaping the physical environment greatly reduced such activity

e.g. large sinks where homeless were bathing replaced with small basins

Front 9

Evaluation of Clarke

Back 9

+ Practical: easy and cheap to introduce crime prevention strategies

× Displacement: crime then moves to another area

> Chaiken et al: found a crackdown on subway roberries in NY just displaced crimes to streets above

× focuses on petty crime and ignores white collar crime prevention

× ignores the root causes of crime e.g. capitalism, poverty

Front 10

Crime prevention and control

> Environmental crime prevention

Back 10

> Wilson and Kelling: Broken windows

• leaving broken windows unrepaired leaving graffiti etc sends out signal that no one cares
• respectable people move out + areas become a magnet for deviants
  
• solution: crack down on any disorder-
• Two-fold strategy: 1. environmental improvement 2. zero tolerance policing

+ influential and zero tolerance policing has been seen to have successes in NY

× does not solve the causes of crime

× doesn't focus on white collar crimes

× displacement to areas with less prevention

Front 11

Crime prevention and control

> social and community crime prevention

Back 11

Social and community crime preventions

• aim: remove the conditions that pre-dispose individuals to crime in the first place i.e root cause
• Long-term strategies which tackle the root causes of offending e.g. policies to promote full employment

× crime will still occur as the prevention take place

× impractical: expensive which take a long time

× softer policing: re-offending or increase in crime due to more opportunities

Front 12

Victims and victimization

Back 12

>> UN definition: those who have suffered harm (including mental, physical, emotional suffering, economic loss and impairment of basic rights) through acts or or omissions that violate the laws of the state

× Christie: a victim is socially constructed e.g. the media creates a stereotype of ideal victim (someone who is weak, blameless or innocent e.g. a child or an old woman)

>> impact of victimization:

- can have serious physical/emotional impact on its victims e.g. disrupted sleep, feeling helpless, difficulties socially

Front 13

Patterns of victimisation

Back 13

>> Class: poorest groups are more likely to be victims e.g. more crime in deprived areas

+ Newburn and Rock homeless people 12 x more likely to experience violence + 1/10 urinated on

>> Age: Generally younger people are more at risk

- Babies: under 1 most at risk of being murdered

- teenagers: more vulnerable than adults to offences like assault, sexual harassment, theft and abuse

- elderly: risk of abuse in old people's home

>> Ethnicity: EMs are at greater risk of victimization - racially motivated crimes

>> Gender: men are at greater risk than females at being victims of violent attacks

• about 70% of homicide victims are male
  
• women more likely to be victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence, stalking/harassment
  

>> repeat victimization: if you are a victim once, likely to be a victim again

• BCS: 60% of pop not victims to any crime in a given year, yet 4% of pop are victims of 44% of all crime in that period

Front 14

Victimology: Positivist

Back 14

1. Positivist victimology: victims invite victimization by the type of person they are (displaying wealth, not making home secure, being drunk)

> Miers: defines the aims of positivists victimology

• identify factors which produce patterns in victimization especially those which make people victim prone
• Hentig: Identified social/psychological characteristics of victims (likely to be female, elderly, "mentally subnormal")
• Wolfgang: victim precipitation- 588 homicides, 26% involved victims triggering the murder e.g. first to use violence

+ Brookman: his study notes the importance or victim-offender relationship, down to chance as who ends up as victim

× Victim blaming: suggests they asked for it

× structural theorists: ignores wider structural factors e.g. poverty, patriarchy

× reductionist: ignores situations where victims are unaware of their victimization e.g. green crime

Front 15

Victimology: Critical

Back 15

2. Critical criminology: Powerless groups are at greater risk and the cause is not the individuals' behaviour but society

> structural factors: patriarchy/poverty places powerless groups such as women/poor at greater risk of victimisation

> Manipulation of victim label: state has power to apply/deny the label of victims

e.g. when police drop charges on man for assault on wife, denying her victim status

Front 16

Critical Victimology: evaluation

Back 16

+ Tombs and Whyte: show how violation of health and safety laws are often explained as the fault of worker

+ rape cases: women blamed for fate e.g. asking what they were wearing

>> failure to label individuals as victims hides true extent to victimization

+ "Woke": demonstrates how victim label is constructed by power + how benefits powerful at expense of powerless

+ critical criminology: refutes idea that victim caused their victimization through own choices e.g. not making home secure