Midterm Exam

Front 1

POSITIVIST THEORIES OF CRIME

Back 1

Located the source of crime within the individual, by soul (demonology), body (biology), or mind (psychology). -

“Sociological positivism” focuses solely on social factors that influence criminal behaviour. -

According to the Chicago School, this might be social environment or groups of people (differential association/social learning).

Front 2

SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE CHICAGO SCHOOL

Back 2

Population of Chicago grew dramatically in 1800’s, less than 60 years went from 4100 to 1000000. -

Immigration, farm displacement, and the end of slavery. -

Rapid growth and poor living conditions led to crime.

Front 3

THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT

Back 3

Emerged in early 1900’s. -

Rejected Social Darwinism’s notion that poor were biologically inferior. -

Believed that social reform was answer to reducing crime.

Front 4

EMILE DURKHEIM(1858-1917)

Back 4

French sociologist, founder of sociology, consensus theorist, wrote Suicide in 1897. -

Moral order morefundamental than economic order. -

Committed to preservingsocial system. -

Regarded society as anorganism greater than its parts.

Front 5

THE CHICAGOSCHOOL

Back 5

Sociology Department at UoC first in USA (1892). -

One of the founders, Robert Park, a sociologist, concluded that the city was patterned.

Front 6

THE“ECOLOGICAL SCHOOL”

Back 6

Chicago School saw city as a natural human environment. -

Emphasized the study of humans in natural social environment (the city). -

Emphasized importance of life histories or ethnographies. -

Thought that city was arranged in ecological zones and patterned by social interactions.

Front 7

BURGESS’CONCENTRIC ZONE THEORY

Back 7

Urban development is patterned socially. -

Stated that cities grow in concentric rings.

Front 8

ZONES INTRANSITION (Z.I.T.)

Back 8

Run-down tenements. -

Pushed by expansion of business district. -

Landowners in Z.I.T. expect their buildings to be torn down eventually, and therefore fail to maintain them. -

Transitional/residential areas deteriorate, and rents are low. -

Mostly immigrants and migrant workers. -

Each concentric zone has different use, pattern, and values.

Front 9

SHAW ANDMCKAY’S CONCENTRIC RINGS

Back 9

Conducted further investigation of Burgess concentric zone theory. -

Confirmed that delinquency rates were highest in transition zones and were inversely related to those furthest from central business district.

Front 10

SOCIALDISORGANIZATION

Back 10

Nature of the neighbourhood not nature of individual caused crime. -

Social disorganization—Residential density, mobility, cultural and ethnic heterogeneity, broken families, poverty. -

Found that overall stability was lacking in these areas; not problem with people, but environment and situation.

Front 11

Shaw andMcKay—Control Theory

Back 11

S & M began to focus on weakening social controls that led to delinquency. -

Families strained and broken by poverty. -

Schools and churches strained by migration and rapid urban growth. -

Children not receiving the usual supervision.

Front 12

DIFFERENTIALASSOCIATION

Back 12

Introduced by Sutherland (criminologist). -

Rejected notion that crime was caused by criminal type or psychopathology. -

Said it was social context that contributed to criminal behaviour. -

Criminal behaviour is learned through social interaction with intimate groups. -

Learning includes: techniques to commit crime, and rationalization and motives to commit crime. -

When ones definitions favourable to the violation of law exceed those unfavourable to the violation of law criminal behaviour will occur. -

Learning crime is similar toother things. -

Both a structural and social-psychological process theory. -

Explained why people were drawn into crimes. -

Also explained why crimes occurred in certain areas like slums and transition zones… notion of differential social organization.

Front 13

OTHERCONTRIBUTIONS

Back 13

Argued that crime was also rampant in business, politics, and the professions. -

Said that “white collar” criminals learned through differential association.

Front 14

CONTRIBUTIONSOF CHICAGO SCHOOL

Back 14

Successfully challenged notion individual pathology. -

Gave rise to social disorganization theory, social control theory, social learning theory, and labeling theory. -

Nearly every criminological theory is connected to the Chicago school.

Front 15

CRITICISMS OFTHE CHICAGO SCHOOL

Back 15

Never stated where the criminal culture was transmitted from. -

Did not really consider role of social class in creating slums and transition zones. -

Did not explain some types of crime where criminals not exposed to criminal values.

Front 16

Durkheim’s“Society of Saints

Back 16

Crime is a social fact, whatis defined as existing in all societies. -

Illustrates this usingthe society of saints, even in this society there is still crime.

Front 17

CONFORMITY

Back 17

Conformity cannot betaken for granted. -

Conformity and socialcontrol require socialization. -

Non-conformity can beexpected when social controls are ineffective.

Front 18

ORIGINS OF SOCIAL CONTROL-THE CHICAGO SCHOOL

Back 18

Concerned with socialdisorganization and community breakdown. -

Weakening controls leadto delinquency. -

People are selfish andact in their own self interests.

Front 19

SOCIALDISORGANIZATION & SOCIAL CONTROL

Back 19

Social disorganizationleads to break down of informal social control. -

When informal socialcontrols break down, people turn to formal control (police, courts).

Front 20

SOCIALCONTEXT Of CONTROL THEORY

Back 20

Cameafter the 20’s, great depression, WW2. -

Timeof the American dream. -

TVshows like lassie, beaver, father knows best. -

Civil rights, anti-warprotests, Rock and roll music, hippies, black power, feminism.

Front 21

ALBERT REISS

Back 21

Did his Ph.D. and taughtat Chicago school. -

In 1951, published Reisscontrol theory. -

Talked about how peopleconform through acceptance and submission.

Front 22

CONTAINMENT THEORY

Back 22

Form of social controltheory developed by Walter reckless. -

Family and other socialbonds control delinquent behaviour. -

Innercontainment, self-control. -

Outercontainment, social environment, family values. -

Internalpushes - impatience. -

Externalpulls – media, poverty. -

Inner and outercontainments control crime. -

Pushes and pulls lead tocrime.

Front 23

Neutralization Theory

Back 23

Ifpressures to commit crime are so great, why aren’t more criminal?. -

Apartfrom committing crimes, why are criminal’s most likely normal people?

Front 24

Techniquesof Neutralization

Back 24

Denialof responsibility, injury, victim. -

Condemnationof the condemners. -

Appealto higher loyalties.

Front 25

TRAVISHIRSCHI SOCIAL BONDTHEORY

Back 25

Attachment– Ties to conventional activities, institutions, and individuals. -

Commitment– Get education, training, and a good job. -

Involvement– Time spent with attachment. -

Belief– Shared values, its wrong to steal.

Front 26

WHYIS SOCIAL CONTROL POPULAR?

Back 26

Social control theorypopular because it conforms to public perceptions of why people are criminal,and because it combines elements of social strain, social disorganization, anddifferential association theory.

Front 27

TheLast Word: Practical Effects

Back 27

Focuson strengthening social control institutions. -

Suggestsproviding recreational programs and social clubs to keep kids out of crime. -

Earlyintervention programs or reintegration policies.

Front 28

Macrotheories ofcriminal behaviour

Back 28

Explainthe “big picture” of crime—crime across the world or across a society. Theyattempt to answer why there are variations in group rates of crime.

Front 29

Microtheories of criminal behaviour

Back 29

Focus on a small group of offenders or on an individual crime. They attempt toanswer why some individuals are more likely than others to commit crime.

Front 30

Somepeople are just evil

Back 30

Psychopathy

Front 31

Badneighborhoods

Back 31

ConcentricZone Theory

Front 32

Alack of social supports and attachment

Back 32

SocialBond Theory

Front 33

Poverty

Back 33

Strain theory

Front 34

Badparenting

Back 34

LowSelf-control theory

Front 35

Hangin’out with the wrong crowd (peer influence)

Back 35

DifferentialAssociation

Front 36

ID, Ego, Superego

Back 36

Instincts, Individuality, Conscience

Front 37

CESARE BECCARIA

Back 37

Death Penalty not supported, and limitations oncase preparation for both defence and prosecution.