1. Critical Theories II Finish Radical/Marxist Currie (Market Society) Colvin (Coercion)

2. Criticisms of Instrumental Marxist Criminology An “underdog theory” with little basis in fact Are “socialist societies” any different? Some capitalist countries have low crime rates Most crime is poor against poor—Marxists ignore the plight of the poor.

3. Elliott Currie One of the more influential Liberal/Radical voices in the past 25 years –Confronting Crime (1985) –Crime and Punishment in the U.S. (1998) Response to conservative “punishment works” commentators in 1970s –No “root causes” of crime, and even if there was, government couldn’t fix them –Only tool the government can use is prison

4. Currie Basics U.S. distinctive in our violent crime rates U.S. also distinctive as a “Market Society” –“Mean” capitalism (sink or swim) –As compared to “corporate paternalism” Japan (but see, SAS in the United States) “Top Down” –Or “compassionate capitalism” Many European countries Strong union (bottom up)

5. The Seven Reasons that the Market Society Produces Violence 1. By “destroying livelihood” 2.By Inherent tendency towards extremes of inequality and material deprivation 3. By weakening other types of public support 4. By eroding informal support networks

6. Seven reasons continued 5.By exalting brutal individualized competition and consumption over “community” and “productive work” 6.Deregulating the “technology of violence 7. Weakening or eroding alternative political values

7. So, what is the solution? Changing Employment –Full employment at socially meaningful work at good wages with reasonable hours Integrate individuals into a larger social purpose Stabilizing local communities Reduce the kinds of family stress that put kids at risk for abuse/neglect –How? Public and nonprofit sectors Work sharing/reduction of work time

8. Colvin Coercion –Combination of Traditional “Control” theory with his notion of “Coercion” –Types of control Coercive (punitive, demeaning, etc.) Non-coercive (remunerative, normative) –Use of control Consistent or Erratic

9. Colvin Type I Consistent and Non-coercive –Strong social support –Mix of remunerative and normative control Social-Psychological Outcomes –No modeling of aggression/coercion –Strong morals/bonds –Low anger, high self control –Internal locus of control + high self-efficacy Behavioral Outcomes –Non-criminal, non-delinquent –Strong tendency towards pro-social behavior

10. Colvin – Type II Erratic, Non-coercive –Lenient, lax Disinterested controller, use inconsistent remunerative control to manipulate subject (bribe when it suits the controller) Often ignore subjects bad behavior –Psychosocial outcomes High self-efficacy, low anger, no coercive modeling Low self-control, “calculative social bond” –Behavioral outcomes Explore deviant behaviors, manipulate authority figures, lying, minor street crime, white collar crime

11. Colvin – Type III Consistent, Coercive –Highly punitive relationship between controller and subordinate Weak social support (threaten to remove) Psychosocial –High self-directed anger, rigid control (based on fear), external locus of control, low self-efficacy, weak calculative social bond, strong modeling for coercion Behavioral –Low odds of both criminal and pro-social behavior –Higher odds of mental illness –“Over-controlled” crimes (explosion of violence)

12. Colvin – Type IV Erratic, Coercive –Highly inconsistent and punitive response to misconduct, no social support Psychosocial –High other-directed anger/defiance, low self-control, external locus of control, low self-efficacy, weak/negative/alienated bond, strong coercive modeling Behavioral Outcomes –Defiant/hostile towards authority –Coercion/intimidation of others –Strong potential for chronic predatory criminal

13. How is this a “critical” theory?? Coercion used BEYOND parenting—some individuals more apt to see coercion from a variety of sources: –Policing in certain neighborhoods (Sherman) –Workplaces (esp. shitty jobs) –State bureaucracies In U.S., both interpersonal and impersonal coercion are tied to INEQUALITY –Inner city kids  coercion in school, peer groups, families, jobs… –Policy prescription = supportive social and CJS policies