1. Functionalism sees society as based on value consensus – members of society share common values and assumptions and this produces social solidarity. 2 key mechanisms to achieve solidarity: 1)Socialisation instils shared culture into members meaning that they internalise the same norms and values. 2)Social control mechanisms include rewards for conformity and punishments for deviance to try ensure members of society behave in the right ways. The inevitability of crime Functionalists see too much crime as destabilising to society but also inevitable and universal. Durkheim said that crime was an integral part of societies. Not everyone is equally socialises into shared norms and values and in complex modern society there is diversity of lifestyles and values – different groups develop own norms and values which others might regard as deviant. In modern society there is tendency to anomie (normlessness) where rules are less clear cut. This is because modern societies have specialised division of labour which leads to people becoming different from one another. This diversity weakens the collective conscience which results in higher levels of crime and deviance. Boundary maintenance Crime produces reactions from society and unites it members against the offender – reinforces commitment to shared norms and values. This explains function of punishment – not to make the wrongdoer suffer but is to reaffirm societies shared rules and to reinforce solidarity. May be done through rituals of the courtroom which publicly stigmatise the offender and reaffirms values whilst discouraging other people from offending. Other functions of crime Davis argues that prostitution acts as a safety valve for release of men’s sexual frustration without threatening the nuclear family. Polsky also argues that it channels a variety of sexual desires away from alternatives such as adultery (poses more of a threat to the family). Cohen argues that another function is to warn society that an institution is not functioning properly. For example, high rates of truancy tells us that there are problems with the education system. Erikson argues that if crime and deviance perform positive social functions then society might actually be maintaining crime. He argues that perhaps the police may be there to sustain a certain level of crime rather than to rid society of it. Sometimes societies manage and regulate deviance rather than getting rid of it entirely. Things like festivals and carnivals may be there to give young people a way of coping with the strains of transition from childhood to adulthood. Criticisms Durkheim says that society requires a certain level of deviance but there is no way of knowing how much is the right amount. Functionalists explain crime in terms of the supposed function (strengthening solidarity). This doesn’t mean that society actually creates crime to strengthen solidarity – just because crime does this doesn’t mean that this is why it exists. Functionalism looks at what functions crime serves for society as a whole and ignores how it can affect different groups within society – seeing a murderer punished for their crime might be functional for reinforcing solidarity in society but it isn’t functional for the victim. Crime doesn’t always promote solidarity – can sometimes have the opposite effect leading people to be more isolated (through fear of things like leaving their house etc). Strain theories argue that people engage in deviant behaviour when they are unable to achieve socially approved goals by legitimate means. Merton argued that deviance is a result of strain between: 1)Goals that culture encourages people to achieve 2)What institutional structure allows them to achieve The American Dream American’s are expected to pursue this goal by means such as self-control, study, education and hard work. The ideology of an American Dream tells people that their society is meritocratic – anyone who makes effort can make progress and achieve. Many disadvantaged groups, however, are denied opportunities to achieve legitimately – poverty, inadequate schools and discrimination may block opportunities for ethnic and class minorities. The resulting strain produces status frustration (frustration at lack of legitimate opportunities) and this means that people feel under pressure to achieve by legitimate means. This is what Merton calls pressure to deviate. Pressure can be further deviated by the fact that American culture puts emphasis on achieving success at any price than upon doing so by legitimate means. Deviant adaptations to strain Conformity – people accept culturally approved goals and strive to achieve them legitimately (most likely among middle classes but seen by Merton as typical of all Americans). Innovation – people accept goals of money success but use methods such as fraud to achieve it (more likely to be lower classes who are under more pressure). Ritualism – people give up on trying to follow rules but have internalised legitimate means so follow rules for their own sake (typical of lower-middle class workers in dead-end jobs). Retreatism – people reject the goals and legitimate means and become drop outs (Merton includes outcasts and drug addicts in this group). Rebellion – people reject existing goals and replace them with new ones in a desire to bring about revolutionary change and create a new kind of society. Adaptation and change All change starts with act of deviance – people with new ideas must not be stifled by weight of social control – needs to be scope for them to challenge and change existing norms and values. Therefore, neither a high or low rate of crime is desirable. Too much crime threatens to tear bonds of society apart but too little means that members of society are being repressed and controlled.

2. Evaluation of Merton Shows how both normal and deviant behaviour can arise from the same mainstream goals – conformists and innovators are both pursuing money and wealth just one is legitimate and the other illegitimate. Explains these trends: most crime is property crime (American’s value material wealth) and lower-class crime rates are higher because they have least opportunity to gain wealth legitimately. It does take crime statistics on face value – over represents working class crime (seen mostly as a working class phenomenon) and is also deterministic – not all of the working class deviate. According to Marxists, it ignores power of ruling classes who make and enforce laws to benefit the rich and criminalise the poor. Assumer there is value consensus and that everyone wants wealth – this might not be the case. Only accounts for utilitarian crime and not crimes of vandalism. Also hard to see how it could account for state crimes like genocide. Cohen: status frustration Deviance arises from an inability of the lower classes to achieve mainstream goals by legitimate means such as educational achievement. He does however, criticise Merton in 2 areas: Deviance = individual response to strain and ignores the fact that much crime is committed by groups and the young & focuses on utilitarian crime and ignores things like vandalism which may have no economic motive. Focus on working-class boys in the middle-class dominated school system. They suffer cultural deprivation and lack skills needed to do well. Their inability to succeed leaves them at the bottom of the hierarchy. This means they suffer status frustration and resolve this by rejecting mainstream middle- class values, turning to other people in the same situation and creating a delinquent subculture. Alternative status hierarchy Subculture’s values are characterised by malice, spite and hostility for those outside it – delinquent subculture inverts values of mainstream society. What society condemns, the subculture praises. For example, mainstream culture upholds regular school attendance whereas in the subculture, the boys gain status from truanting. The function of the subculture is to offer an alternative status hierarchy where they can achieve. Having failed in the legitimate structure they create their own illegitimate structure where they can win status through delinquent actions. A strength of this is that it offers an explanation of non- utilitarian deviance among the working class. The ideas of status frustration and alternative status hierarchy help explain non-economic delinquency such as fighting and truancy. However, Cohen assumes that working-class boys start off sharing middle-class success goals only to reject them when they fail – possible they never had these goals. Cloward and Ohlin Agree that working-class youths are denied legitimate opportunities to achieve ‘money success’ and that deviance stems from the way they respond. They note that not everyone in this situation adapts to this by turning to innovation (such as theft). Different subcultures respond in different ways to the lack of opportunity. Whilst the subculture that Cohen looked at resorted to violence and vandalism, some centre on illegal drug use. Cloward and Ohlin attempt to explain why these responses occur. They say that there is also unequal access to illegitimate opportunity structures. For example, not everyone who fails by legitimate means (such as at school) then has an equal opportunity to become a fraudster. They need the opportunity to learn how to be successful. They identify three types of deviant subculture: 1)Criminal subcultures provide youths with an apprenticeship for a career in utilitarian crime and arise only in areas where there is a stable local criminal culture and established hierarchy of adult criminals. 2)Conflict subcultures arise in areas of high population which results in social disorganisation and prevents a stable professional criminal network developing. In these, violence provides a release for frustrations at their blocked opportunities as well as status. 3)Retreatist subcultures are in every neighbourhood – made up of those who fail in criminal and conflict subcultures and focus on illegal drug use. Evaluation of Cloward and Ohlin Agree with Merton and Cohen that most crime is working- class therefore ignoring the crimes of the wealthy. Also their theory is too deterministic and over-predicts the extent of working class crime. Whilst they agree with Cohen that delinquent subcultures are the source of much deviance they provide an explanation for different types of working-class deviance in terms of subcultures. Drew boundaries too sharply between different types. South found that the drug trade is a mixture of disorganised (conflict) crime and professional (criminal) crime. Also, some retreatist users are professional deals which means they make a living. Called reactive theories – start off assuming that all people start with the same shared goals which isn’t always the case. Miller argues that the lower class has its own independent subculture that is separate from mainstream culture which doesn’t value success in the first place. Recent strain theories Argued that many young people might have pursued a variety of goals other than wealth. These include popularity with peers, autonomy from adults or the desire of some males to be treated like ‘young men’. They argue that failure to achieve the goals might result in delinquency and that middle-class juveniles may also have problems achieving such goals. Institutional anomie theory Messner and Rosenfeld came up with the theory of institutional anomie which argues that the ‘winner takes it all’ mentality of America exerts pressure towards people committing crime by encouraging anomic culture where people are encouraged to adopt an ‘anything goes’ mentality. In America, economic goals are valued above all others and this undermines other institutions. For example, schools become more geared to preparing young people for the labour market at the expense of values such as respect for other people and this makes it hard for schools to exert social control. Downes and Hansen offer evidence for this view – found that societies that spent more on welfare had lower rates of imprisonment which backs up the idea that societies that protect the poor from the worst excesses of the free market have less crime.

3. Labelling theories Labelling theorists are interested in how and why certain acts come to be labelled as criminal in the first place – argue that no act is inherently criminal or deviant in itself but that it becomes deviant when others label it as such. Therefore, it is not the nature of the act that makes it deviant but the reaction of society. For Becker, a deviant is someone to whom the label has been successfully applied and the deviant behaviour is just behaviour that has been labelled as such. Labelling theorists are particularly interested in moral entrepreneurs – people who lead a moral ‘crusade’ to change the law because they believe that it will benefit the people it is applied to. Becker argues that it will have 2 effects: 1)Creation of a new group of outsiders (people will find a way to break the new laws) 2)Expansion of the social control agencies (police etc) to enforce the new rules and label offenders Platt argues that the idea of juvenile delinquency was created as a result of campaigning by upper-class Victorian’s and was aimed at protecting young people at risk. This enabled juveniles to break off in to a separate category with their own courts and has enabled the state to extend its powers beyond criminal offences involving the young. Who gets labelled? Not everyone who commits a crime is punished for it. Instead it can depend on factors such as interactions with agencies of social control, appearance and background of the offender and situation and circumstances of the event. This means that labelling theorists want to look at how the laws are more likely to lead to certain groups of people being labelled. Piliavin and Briar found that police decisions to arrest someone were based on physical cues such as their clothing. From this they made judgements about the character of the person. Decisions were also made based on gender, class and ethnicity as well as time and place that the incident was observed. Those who were stopped late at night in high crime areas were more likely to be arrested. Cicourel – the negotiation of justice Cicourel found that officers typifications about delinquents (their stereotypes) led them to concentrate on certain groups of young people. This then resulted in a class bias because low-class youths were more likely to fit the stereotype. This then led to more police patrolling these areas so there were more arrests. Cicourel also found that other agents of social control reinforced this bias. Probation officers, for example, held the theory that juvenile delinquency was caused by broken homes and bad parenting. They therefore were more likely to think that youth’s from this group would get in more trouble and so were less likely to support non-custodial sentences. In Cicourel’s view, justice is therefore negotiable – when a middle class youth was arrested they were less likely to be charged, partly because their parents were able to argue on their behalf and say that they would monitor them in the future and apologise more. Primary and secondary deviance Lemert distinguished between primary and secondary deviance. Primary deviance is deviant acts that haven’t been publically labelled. Lemert argues that it is pointless to seek the causes of primary deviance because it’s so widespread that it is unlikely to have a single cause. Also, it is often fairly trivial. Secondary deviance is the result of societal reaction. Being caught and labelled as a criminal can involve being publicly humiliated and stigmatised. When an individual is labelled others might see them only in terms of their label. This then becomes their master status – in the eyes of the world, they are no longer a colleague or parent, rather they become a thief or junkie. This can lead to crisis of their self-concept (sense of identity). One way to resolve this crisis is for the deviant to accept their label and to see themselves as others see them. This can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy where they act up to their label and becoming what it says they are. Primary and secondary deviance (cont) Secondary deviance is likely to provoke more hostile reactions from society which reinforces the outsider status. This may lead to more deviance and turn in to a deviant career. For example, the ex-convict may find it hard to get a job because no one will employ them and so they turn to other convicts for support. This can involve them joining a deviant subculture where they are rewarded for deviant behaviour and confirms their identity. Young looked at hippy marijuana users (primary deviance). However, they were persecuted and labelled by the control culture (police) led to the hippies feeling persecuted. They retreated in to closed groups where they developed a deviant subculture and drug use became a central part of their identity which meant further attention from the police. The work of Lemert and Young shows that it is not the act but the reaction of the society that creates social deviance. Although a deviant career is a common outcome of labelling, it is not inevitable. Downes and Rock note that we cannot predict whether someone who has been labelled will follow a deviant career because they are free to choose not to deviate further. Deviance amplification Deviance amplification spiral = term used to describe process where the attempt to control deviance actually leads to it becoming increased. More and more control creates more and more deviance (such as the case of the hippies – Young). Cohen looked at Folk Devils and Moral Panics in a study involving societal reaction to the mods and rockers (group of youths at the Clacton sea side resort in 1964). Press exaggeration and distorted reporting of the events began a moral panic – growing concern for a crackdown. The police responded to this by arresting more youths and the courts imposed harsher penalties. This confirmed the truth of the original media and provoked more concern – created an upward spiral of amplification. This then led to the further marginalisation of outsider’s. Can also see the deviance amplification spiral as similar to Lemert’s idea of social deviance – in both cases societal reaction to an initial deviant act leads to further deviance which then leads to a greater reaction and so on. Lemert says that these theories rest heavily on the idea that deviance leads to social control and argues that social control actually leads to deviance.

4. Labelling and criminal justice policy Studies have shown that attempts to control and punish young offenders has actually had the opposite effect. Triplett notes a tendency to see young offenders as evil and to be less tolerant of minor deviance. The CJS has relabelled offences such as truancy as much more serious and this therefore means they result in harsher sentences. As predicted by Lemert’s secondary theory of deviance, this has resulted in an increase of offending. De Hann notes a similar increase in Holland because of the stigmatisation of young offenders. These findings implicate that labelling theory has important policy implications because they add weight to the argument that negative labelling pushes offenders towards a deviant career – to reduce deviance we should make and enforce fewer rules. By decriminalising soft drugs then we might reduce the number of people with criminal convictions. Also implies that we should avoid public humiliation of offenders as this further excludes them from society and pushes them further into deviance. Reintegrative shaming Most labelling theorists see labelling as having negative effects. Braithwaite identifies a more positive role for labelling. He distinguishes between 2 types of shaming: 1)Disintegrative shaming – not only the crime but the criminal is labelled as bad and the criminal is excluded from society 2)Reintegrative shaming – labels the act but not the person (they have done a bad thing not that they are a bad person) Policy of reintegrative shaming avoids stigmatising the offender as evil but at the same time it makes them aware of their actions and how they have effected other people. It also encourages others to forgive them and to take them back in to society. This makes it easier for the offender and community to separate the offence and offender and avoids secondary deviance. Braithwaite argues that crime rates tend to be lower in societies where there is reintegrative shaming rather than taking a disintegrative approach which can encourage more crime. Evaluation of labelling theory Labelling theory shows that the law is not a fixed set of rules that need to be taken for granted but that its construction needs to be taken for granted. It shows that the law is often enforced in discriminatory ways and that crime statistics are more a record of the agent’s of control rather than the criminals. It is criticised on several grounds though. It is deterministic – implies that when someone has been labelled that they will inevitably follow a deviant career path. Emphasis on the negative effects of labelling gives criminals a victim status and realists argue that this then ignores the real victims of crime. By assuming that offenders are passive victims it ignores the fact that individuals may choose deviance and it doesn’t explain why people commit primary deviance in the first place. Implies that without labelling there would be no deviance and this leads to the conclusion that someone who commits a crime but is not labelled has not actually deviated. However, most deviants are aware that they are going against social norms. Marxists argue that it fails to examine the links between the labelling process and capitalism. This means that it focuses on the middle range officials who apply the rules rather than the capitalist class who make the rules in the first place. It also fails to explain the origin of the labels or why they are applied to certain groups in the first place.

5. Sees society as divided in to two classes – the ruling class who own the means of production and the working class whose alienated labour is exploited by the ruling class to produce profit. Marxism sees society as a structure where the economic base determines the shape of the superstructure which is made up of the other social institutions such as the state and CJS. Function = to serve interests of the R/C and maintain capitalist economy. The state and law making Marxists see law making and enforcing as only serving the interests of the capitalist class. Chambliss argues that the laws to protect property are the cornerstone of capitalist economy. This is illustrated with the introduction of English law into Britain’s East African colonies. The economic interests lay in the colonies’ tea and coffee plantations which needed a good supply of labour. At the time the economy was not a money economy so to force the reluctant African population to work the British introduced a tax, payable in cash and non-payment was a criminal offence. The cash could only be earned through working on the plantations so the law served the interests of the capitalist plantation owners. Criminogenic capitalism For Marxists, capitalism is criminogenic – it causes crime. Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class – uses them as a means to an end (profit) whatever the cost of doing so is. This means that it is damaging to the working class and may increase crime. Poverty might mean that crime is the only way that the working class can survive, crime might be the only way that they can obtain the goods promoted by advertising and alienation and frustration at a lack of control may result in crimes such as vandalism. Crime is not confined to the working class – capitalism is a dog eat dog system of competition with the profit motivating a mentality of greed and self-interest. The need to win at all costs encourages capitalists to commit white- collar and corporate crimes such as tax evasion and breaches of health and safety. Gordon argues that crime is a rational response to the system and that this means it is found in all classes – even though statistics make it seem predominately working- class. The state and law making (cont) Ruling class also have the power to prevent introduction of laws that threaten their interests – there are few laws that challenge the unequal distribution of wealth. Snider argues that the capitalist state is reluctant to pass laws the threaten profitability of businesses. Selective enforcement Marxists argue that although people from all classes commit crime, there is selective enforcement of the law. Powerless groups such as the working class and ethnic minorities are criminalised, the police etc seem to ignore crime of the more powerful groups. The book ‘The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison’ shows that the more likely a crime is to be committed by higher-class people, the less likely it is to be treated as a criminal offence. There is a more forgiving view to crimes committed mostly by the higher-classes such as tax evasion and health and safety violations. Ideological functions of crime and law The law, crime and criminals also perform an ideological function – laws are sometimes passed that appear to be for the benefit of the working class such as health and safety laws. Pearce argues that despite this, these laws also benefit the ruling class because they keep workers fit for work. This gives capitalism a caring face and creates false consciousness. These laws, however, are not rigorously enforced. Carson notes that in a sample of 200 firms, they had all broken health and safety laws at least once yet only 1.5% of them resulted in prosecution. Because the state enforces the law selectively crime appears to be a working class phenomenon. This divides the working class by encouraging workers to blame the criminals rather than capitalism. Evaluation of traditional Marxism It offers a useful explanation of the relationship between crime and capitalist society – shows link between law making and enforcement and puts into a wider structural context the insights of labelling theory and the selective enforcement of law. Has also influenced recent approaches to the study of crime – corporate crime is under-policed and rarely prosecuted which encourages companies to use crime as a way to make profit. Evaluation of traditional Marxism (cont) It is criticised on several grounds: Ignores relationship between crime and important non- class equalities such as ethnicity and gender. Deterministic and over predicts the amount of crime in the working class – not all poor people commit crime despite pressures of poverty. Not all capitalist society has high rates of crime – Japan and Switzerland have much less crime. The homicide rate in Japan is 1.0 per 100,000 and 1.2 for Switzerland compared to 5.6 in America. The CJS sometimes acts against the interests of the capitalist class – prosecutions for corporate crime do occur but Marxists argue that these occasional prosecutions make the system seem impartial. Left realists argue that Marxism ignored the intra-class crimes where both criminals and victims are working-class such as mugging – causes great harm to victims. Neo-Marxists are sociologists who have been influenced by ideas put forward by traditional Marxists but combine them with ideas from other approaches. Taylor et al agree with traditional Marxists that capitalist society is based on exploitation and class conflict and characterised by inequalities of wealth, the state makes and enforces laws that benefit the capitalist society and they also believe that capitalism should be replaced by a classless society which could rid society of crime entirely. Anti-determinism Taylor et al argue that Marxism is deterministic – sees workers as driven to commit crime out of economic necessity. They reject this explanation – crime is also caused by other, external factors such as anomie and subcultures. They take a more voluntaristic view – the idea that we have free will. They see crime as meaningful action and a conscious choice by the perpetrator. They also argue that it often has a political motive, such as to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Want a classless society but also emphasise the importance of individual liberty and diversity – individuals should not be labelled as deviant just because they are different.

6. A fully social theory of deviance Taylor et al want to create a fully social theory of deviance – more comprehensive understanding of crime that would help to change society for the better. The two sources for this theory are traditional Marxist ideas about the unequal distribution of wealth and who has the power to make and enforce law as well as ideas from interactionism and labelling theory about meaning of the deviant act for the actor, societal reactions and the effects of the label on the individual. They feel that a complete theory needs to have 6 aspects: 1)Wider origins of the act in unequal distribution of wealth and power 2)Immediate origins of the deviant act (context that it’s carried out in) 3)The act itself and meaning of the perpetrator 4)Immediate origins of social reaction – reactions of those around the deviant (police, family etc) 5)Wider origins of social reaction in the structure of capitalist society (issue of who has the power to define actions as deviant etc) 6)Effects of labelling on the future actions of the deviant (why does labelling lead to amplification for some people but not for others?) Evaluation of critical criminology Feminists criticise it for being gender blind – focuses mainly on male criminality at the expense of female criminality. Left realists argue that critical criminology romanticises working-class criminals as ‘Robin Hoods’ who are fighting capitalism by redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. They also argue that Taylor et al don’t take crime seriously and ignore effects on working class victims. Burke argues that critical criminology is too general to explain crime and too idealistic to be useful in tackling it. Hall et al have applied the approach of Taylor et al to explain moral panic over mugging in the 1970s. Taylor, Walton and Young have all changed their views since The New Criminology was published but Walton and Young defend some aspects of the approach: 1)Greater tolerance of diversity combated correctionalist bias – assumption that the role of sociology is to find ways of correcting deviant behaviour 2)Laid some of the foundations for later radical approaches that seek to establish more just society such as feminist theories.

7. Right realists see crime as a real and growing problem that destroys communities and undermines cohesion in society. Their views on crime correspond closely with those of the neo-conservative governments during the 1970s and 80s – policy makers argues that criminologists had produced theories of crime but done nothing to stop the rising crime rate. This led to shift in thinking, away from the causes of crime to a search for practical measures of control. They thought that the best way to control crime was to control and punish offenders rather than rehabilitating them and tackling the causes such as poverty. Right realists also criticise other theories because they fail to offer solutions to the growing rate of crime – regard theories such as labelling and critical criminology as too sympathetic to the individual and too hostile towards law and order. They are more interested in providing what they see as realistic solutions. The causes of crime: biological differences Wilson and Herrnstein argue that crime is caused by a combination of biological and social factors. Biological differences between people make some people more predisposed to commit crime. Personality traits such as aggressiveness and extroversion put some people at greater risk. Herrnstein and Murray argue that the main cause of crime is low intelligence – seen as biologically determined. The causes of crime: socialisation and the underclass While biology might increase chance of an individual offending, effective socialisation decreases the risk because it involves internalising the morals of society. For right realists the nuclear family is the best place for this socialisation to happen. Murray argues that crime is increasing because of a growing underclass who are defined by deviant behaviour and who fail to socialise their children properly. He argues that the welfare state’s generous revolution has allowed people to become dependent on the state – it has led to decline of marriage and the growth of lone parent families because people can live off benefits. This also means that men down have to take responsibility for supporting their families. Lone mothers are ineffective agents of socialisation, especially for boys because they then lack paternal influences and have a lack of male role model to look up to. Socialisation and the underclass (cont) If boys are raised by a lone mother then it is suggested that they are more likely to turn to delinquent behaviour because they don’t have an appropriate male role model. They then gain status through crime rather than supporting their family with a steady job. For Murray the underclass is not only a source of crime but it threatens social cohesion because it undermines the values of hard work and personal responsibility. Rational choice theory This theory assumes that individuals have free will and the power of reason. Theorists such as Clarke argue that the decision to commit crime is a choice based on rational calculation of likely consequences. If the perceived rewards outweigh the costs, or the rewards seem to be greater than non-criminal behaviour then people are more likely to offend. Right realists argue that the perceived costs of crime are low at the moment and this is why the crime rate has increased – there is the view that risk of being caught is low and if they are then punishment will be lenient. There is a similar idea in routine activity theory. Felson argues that for a crime to occur there needs to be a motivated offender, suitable target and absence of a capable guardian. Offenders are assumed to act rationally – presence of a guardian is likely to stop them from offending. Felson argues that informal guardians are more effective than formal ones such as the police. Tackling crime Right realists do not think that it is fruitful to try and deal with the causes of crime because these cannot easily be changed. Instead they seek to come up with practical measures to make crime less attractive. Their main focus is on control, containment and punishment of offenders rather than getting rid of the underlying cause or rehabilitating them. Wilson and Kelling’s article Broken Windows argues that it is necessary to maintain orderly character of a neighbourhood to prevent crime – any sign of deterioration such as vandalism must be dealt with straight away. They also advocate a zero tolerance policy towards undesirable behaviour such as prostitution – role of police should be on controlling the streets so citizens are safe. Also think that crime prevention policies should reduce the rewards and increase cost of crime for the offender – for example, greater use of prison sentences to maximise effect. Criticisms of right realism It ignores the wider structural causes of crime such as poverty. Overstates offenders’ rationality and how far they make cost-benefit calculations before committing a crime – may explain utilitarian crime but is not as good at explaining non-utilitarian crime. The view that criminals are rational actors and choose to offend contradicts the view that biology has influences and that this determines criminality. Preoccupied with petty street crime and ignores corporate crime which can be more harmful and costly to the public. Advocating a zero tolerance policy gives police free rein to discriminate against minority ethnic groups etc and results in the displacement of crime to other areas. Jones notes that realist policies in the USA failed to prevent the rising crime rate. Finally, it over-emphasises the control of disorder rather than tackling underlying causes of neighbourhood decline. Taking crime seriously The central idea behind left realism is that crime is a real problem and that it mainly affects disadvantaged groups who are the main victims. They say that other groups of sociologists don’t take crime seriously. Traditional Marxists have concentrated on the crimes of the powerful but left realists argue that this neglects the working class crime. Neo-Marxists romanticise working-class criminals and left realists point out that working class criminals mostly victimise other working class people and not the rich. Labelling theorists see working class criminals as victims of discriminatory labelling by agents of social control. Left realists argue that this neglects the real victims – working class people who suffer at the hands of criminals. Part of the left realists project of taking crime seriously is to recognise that there has been an increase in crime rates. Young argues that this has led to an aetiological crisis (crisis in explanation) for theories of crime. For example, critical criminology and labelling theory tend to deny that increase is real instead arguing that it is just a result of an increase in crime or tendency to label the poor. Left realists argue that the increase is too great to be explained in this way and that more people are reporting crime because more people are becoming victims of crime – they cite the results of the British Crime Survey to back up their view.

8. Taking crime seriously (cont) Taking crime seriously also involves recognising who is most affected by crime. Local victim surveys show that the scale of the problem is bigger than shown by official statistics. They also show that disadvantaged groups have a greater risk of becoming victims. Therefore, disadvantaged groups have a greater fear of crime and it has a greater effect on their lives. For example, a fear of attack might prevent women from going out at night. At the same time, these groups are less likely to report crimes against them. Relative deprivation Lea and Young state that crime has its roots in deprivation but this in itself is not directly responsible for crime. For example, poverty was very high in the 1930s but crime rates were low. However, since the 1950s living standards have risen, but so has the crime rate. Left realists use the idea of relative deprivation (how deprived someone feels in relation to others/in comparison with what they expect). This can lead to crime when people think that others have more than them so they may resort to crime to get what they think they are entitled to. Although today people are better off they are now more aware of relative deprivation because of the media etc – this raises people’s expectations for material possession. Relative deprivation, however, doesn’t always have to lead to crime. Individualism is a concern with the self and your own rights, rather than those of a group. This can cause crime because it encourages pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others. For left realists, increasing individualism is causing disintegration of families and communities because it undermines values of mutual support and selflessness and this weakens informal controls that are used over such people and can create a spiral of anti-social behaviour. Subcultures For left realists a subculture is a groups collective solution to the problem of relative deprivation. Different groups may produce different subcultures. Some may turn to crime that is close to the deprivation gap whereas others may find a religion that offers the a sense of comfort – what Weber calls ‘theodicy of the disprivileged’. These religious subcultures may encourage respect and conformity. Subcultures (cont) Within the Afro-Caribbean community in Bristol, Pryce identified a number of subcultures such as hustlers, Rastafarians, saints and working-class respectables. For left realists criminal subcultures subscribe to the values and goals of mainstream society. For example, Young notes that there are ghettos in the USA where there is full emersion in the American Dream. However, blocked opportunities to achieve these goals legitimately are blocked. Marginalisation Marginalised groups lack clear goals and organisations to represent their interests. Groups such as workers have clear goals and organisations (trade unions) to put pressure on politicians which means that they have no need to resort to violence. Unemployed youth, on the other hand, are marginalised – they have no organisation to represent them and no goals, just resentment and frustration. As they are powerless they express frustration through criminal means such as violence. Late modernity, exclusion and crime Young argues that we are living in a stage of late modernity where instability and exclusion make the problem of crime worse. He contrasts today’s society with the period before (1950s and 60s) and said they represented a Golden Age of capitalist society. This was a time of social inclusion and stability with full employment, low divorce rates and low crime rates as well as there being general consensus about right and wrong. Since the 1970s, instability, security and exclusion have increased. The loss of unskilled jobs has increased unemployment for young people and ethnic minorities. Changes such as these have destabilised family and community life which contributes to rising divorce rates, marginalisation and exclusion of people at the bottom. Greater inequality between the rich and poor and spread of free market values has encouraged individualism and increased the sense of relative deprivation. There is also a growing contrast between cultural inclusion and economic exclusion. The media promotes cultural inclusions (even the poor have access to its materialistic message) but despite the ideology of meritocracy, the poor are systematically excluded from opportunities. This is similar to the notion of anomie – society creates crime by setting goals but denying people opportunity to achieve them by legitimate means. Late modernity, exclusion and crime (cont) A further trend is for relative deprivation to become generalised throughout society rather than being confined to those at the bottom. There is resentment at the rewards that some people get (from footballers to bankers) and there is also downwards relative deprivation where the middle class resent the working class as an idle and irresponsible class. The result of the trend towards exclusion is that the amount and types of crime are changing – crime is more widespread and found increasingly throughout the social hierarchy. Reactions to crime by the public and state are also changing – late modernity has brought about more diversity and there is less consensus on what is right or wrong. As well as the rising crime rates, this makes the public more intolerant and leads to demands for harsher formal controls by the state and increased criminalisation. This makes late modern society a high crime one with a low tolerance. Policing and control Kinsley, Lea and Young argue that police clear-up rates are too low to act as a deterrent to crime and that police spend too little time investigating crime. The police depend on the public to provide them with information about crime (90% of crime is made known to them by the public). However, the police are losing public support and as such the flow of information dries up and the police have to rely on ‘military policing’ where they conduct random stops and searches in certain areas. This alienates certain communities where they see the police as victimising young people and then the locals don’t trust the police, don’t provide them with information and they result to military policing and so on. Left realists argue that policing must therefore be made more accountable to local communities and as such they need to deal with local concerns. The police need to improve their relationship with local communities by spending more time investigating crime and changing their priorities. They also argue that crime control can’t solely be left to the police – a multi-agency approach is needed. This involves agencies such as local councils, social services, schools, housing departments and leisure services as well as voluntary organisations such as victim support.

9. Tackling the structural causes Left realists do not see improved policing as the main solution. Instead, because they see the causes of crime in the unequal structure of society, they say we should make major structural changes if we want to reduce levels of crime. Young argues that we need to deal with inequality of opportunity and the unfairness of rewards, provide decent jobs for people and improve housing. Also need to become more tolerant of diversity and stop stereotyping whole groups of people. Left realism and government policy Left realists have had more influence on government policy than most theorists of crime – their views have strong similarities with the New Labour government’s stance on being tough on crime. The New Labour’s firmer approach to the policing of hate crimes, sexual assault and domestic violence, along with the introduction of ASBOs echoes left realist concerns to protect vulnerable groups from crime and low level disorder. The New Deal for unemployed youth and their anti-truanting policies attempt to reduce exclusion of those people who are at greatest risk. Young does regard most of these policies as nostalgic and doomed attempts to recreate the conditions of the Golden Age – the New Deal doesn’t lead to secure, permanent jobs, while ASBOs will not recreate good neighbourliness and sense of community. Evaluation of left realism It has succeeded in drawing attention to the reality of street crime and its effects, especially on victims from deprived groups. However, it is also criticised: Interactionists argue that because they rely on quantitative data they cannot explain offenders motives – need qualitative data to reveal meanings. Use of subcultural theory means left realists assume that value consensus exists and that crime only occurs when this breaks down. Relative deprivation cannot fully explain crime because not everyone who experiences crime goes on to commit it – theory over-predicts the amount of crime. Focus on high-crime, inner-city areas gives an unrepresentative view and makes crime appear more of a problem than it really is. Comparing left and right realism Both left and right realists see crime as a real problem and fear of crime as a rational response. On the other hand they come from different ends of the political spectrum – right realists are neo-conservative whilst left realists are reformist socialists. This is reflected in the way that they explain crime – right realists blame the individual lack of self-control whereas left realists blame structural inequalities and relative deprivation. Political differences are also reflected in their aims – the right prioritise social order, achieved through a tough stance against offenders and the left prioritise justice, achieved through democratic policing and reforms to create more equality.

10. Most crime appears to be committed by males. Official statistics show that 4/5 convicted offenders in England and Wales and by the age of 40, 9% of females had a criminal record compared to 32% of males. They also show that a higher proportion of female than male offenders are convicted of property offences and a higher proportion of males are convicted of violent or sexual offences. Also, males are more likely to be repeat offenders and more likely to commit more serious crime. Do women commit more crime? Typically female crimes such as shoplifting are less likely to be reported. Property crime is less likely to be noticed that the often violent crimes committed by men. Similarly, prostitution is unlikely to be reported by either men or women. Even when women’s crimes are detected or reported, they are less likely to be prosecuted and more likely to be let off lightly. The chivalry thesis Pollak argues that men have a protective attitude towards women and that they don’t like to accuse them or send them to their punishment – this means that police are less likely to arrest them, prosecute them and judges are less likely to find them guilty. The CJS is therefore more lenient with women and this means that their crimes are less likely to end up in the official statistics. This then gives an invalid picture. Much of the evidence that backs up the chivalry thesis is collected by self-report data where people are asked about what crimes they have committed and this suggests that women are treated more leniently. However, data collected by Graham and Bowling’s showed that whilst males were more likely to offend the difference was smaller than recorded. They found that males were 2.3 times more likely to admit to having committed an offence, but that official statistics show that they were 4 times more likely to offend. Flood-Page et al found that while only 1 in 11 female self- reported offenders had been cautioned or prosecuted, it was over 1 in 7 for males. Women are also more likely to be cautioned rather than prosecuted – according to the Ministry of Justice, 49% of females received a caution in 2007 compared to 30% of men. Bias against women Many feminists argue that the CJS is actually biased against women. Heidensohn argues that courts treat females more harshly when they deviate from gender norms. For example, courts punish girls but not boys for promiscuous sexual activity which shows that they have double standards. Also, women who don’t commit to standards of monogamous heterosexuality are punished more – magistrates’ perceptions of female defendants’ characters were based on stereotypes. Carlen argues that when women are jailed it is less for the seriousness of their crime and more to do with the assessment of the court on their ability as a wife, mother or daughter. Girls whose parents believe them to be out of control are more likely to receive a custodial sentence compared with those who lead ‘conventional’ lives. She also found that Scottish judges were more likely to jail women whose children were in care compared to when they see them as good mothers. Feminists argue that these double standards exist because the system is patriarchal – there have been numerous cases of judges making sexist, victim blaming remarks when dealing with rape cases. Walklate argues that in rape cases it is not the defendant who is on trial but the victim because they have to prove their respectability to have evidence accepted. According to Adler, women who are deemed to lack respectability (single parents etc) have difficulty being believed. Functionalist sex role theory Parsons traces differences in crime and deviance to the gender roles in the conventional nuclear family – men largely take the instrumental role and women the expressive role. While this gives girls access to an adult role model, boys tend to reject female models of behaviour that express things like emotion – seek to distance themselves from such models and may engage in ‘compensatory compulsory masculinity’ through anti-social behaviour and aggression. As men have a less socialising role, socialisation can be harder for boys than girls – according to Cohen the relative lack of male role model means boys are more likely to turn to all-male street gangs because it gives them a source of male identity. New Right theorists argue that lack of a male role model in matrifocal lone parent families leads to boys turning to criminal street gangs – source of status and identity. Walklate criticises sex role theory for its biological assumptions – she says that Parsons assumes that because women have the biological capacity to bear children it means they are more suited to the expressive role within the family. Although the theory tries to explain gender differences it is ultimately based on biological assumptions about sex differences. Evidence against the chivalry thesis Farrington and Morris’ study of 408 sentencings for theft showed that women were not given a more lenient sentence for comparable offences. Buckle and Farrington observed people in a department store and witnessed twice as many men shoplifting as females even though official statistics on this suggest that they are equal. This could show that females are more likely to be prosecuted when compared with men. If women appear to be treated leniently it could just be that their offences are less serious – Box’s review of self-report studies concludes that women who commit serious offences are not treated more favourably than males. The lower rate of prosecutions might be because the crimes women admit to are less serious and then less likely to go to court. Also, women are maybe more likely to show remorse so may be more likely to receive a caution. Heidensohn: patriarchal control She argues that the most shocking thing about women’s behaviour is how conformist it is. In her view this is because patriarchal society imposes greater control over them and gives them fewer opportunities to offend. The domestic role of women at home (housework and childcare) puts restrictions on their time and movement and also confines them to the house for long periods. Women who try to resist this control may find that their partner seeks to impose it by force. Dobash and Dobash found that many violent attacks result from men’s dissatisfaction with their wives’ performance of domestic duties. They also exercise control through financial power – may deny women sufficient funds for leisure activities and this further confines them to the home.

11. Heidensohn: patriarchal control (cont) Daughters are also subjected to patriarchal control – less likely to be allowed to come and go as they please, or to stay out late. Instead they develop a bedroom culture and socialise at home with friends rather than going out to public places. Women are also controlled in public places because there is the threat or fear of male violence. The Islington Crime Survey found that 54% of women avoided going out after dark because of fears that they would be victims of crime (compared with 14% of men). Sensationalist media reporting of rape also adds to the fear that women have – the media often portrays the typical rapist as a stranger who carries out random attacks – actually often someone the victim knows. Women are also controlled by their fear of being defined as disrespectful – dress, make-up, ways of speaking and actions that are defined as inappropriate can gain women a reputation. Lees notes that in schools boys have control through verbalised sexual abuse – they may label girls as slags if they don’t conform to gender stereotypes. Women’s behaviour at work is controlled as well – most managers and supervisors are male. Sexual harassment is widespread and helps to keep them ‘in their place’. Their subordinate position in the workplace can also mean that they don’t have the opportunity to commit crime – the glass ceiling prevents women from reaching senior positions where they would have greater opportunity to commit fraud. Carlen: class and gender Carlen studied 39, 15-46 year old, working class women who had been convicted of a range of crimes including theft, drugs and prostitution. 20 of them were in prison or youth custody at the time of the interviews. Carlen argues that most convicted serious female criminals come from working- class backgrounds. She uses a version of Hirschi’s control theory to explain female crime. Control theory argues that humans act rationally and are controlled by being offered a deal (rewards for conforming to social norms). People will resort to crime if they don’t believe the rewards will happen or if rewards of crime are greater than the risks of committing. Carlen says that women are typically offered 2 types of rewards: class deal where they will be offered good living standards/leisure activities or the gender deal where they will get material and emotional rewards by conforming to norms of a domestic role. Carlen: class and gender (cont) If these rewards are not available etc then crime becomes more likely. In terms of the class deal the women in Carlen’s study had failed to find a legitimate way of earning a living and this left them feeling powerful and oppressed. 32 of the 39 women had always been in poverty, some found that qualifications gained when they were in jail had been no help in them gaining a job when released and many had experience humiliation when they tried to claim benefits. As they felt they had gained nothing from the class deal they felt they had nothing to lose by turning to crime. Most of the women had either not had opportunity to make the deal or saw few rewards and felt that it could disadvantage family life. Some had been abused by their fathers or subjected to domestic violence, over half had spent time in care – broke bonds with family and friends and those leaving/running away from care found themselves homeless and unemployed. Many of the women reached the conclusion that crime was the only path to a good standard of living – nothing to lose and everything to gain. Carlen concludes that for these women, poverty and being brought up in an oppressive family were the 2 main causes of their criminality. Drug and alcohol addiction and the desire for excitement also contributed, but these often stemmed from poverty or being brought up in care – being criminalised made the class deal less available and therefore crime was seen as more attractive. The liberation thesis If patriarchal society exercises control over women to prevent them from deviating then it would seem logical to assume that if society becomes less patriarchal and more equal then women’s crime rates will become similar to men’s. Adler argues that as women become more liberated their crime has become more serious. Liberation has also led to a new type of crime and a rise in the rate of female crime. She also argues that the changing structure of society has led to changes in offending behaviour – as patriarchal control and discrimination have lessened and opportunities in education etc have become more equal, women have begun to adopt more traditionally male roles in both legitimate and illegitimate activity. As a result women no longer commit ‘traditional female crimes’ such as shoplifting but they also commit a range of typically male offences such as violent or white-collar crimes. There is some evidence to support this such as the overall rate of female offending going up – the share of female offences has gone up from 1 in 7 to 1 in 6. Also, Adler argues that the pattern of female crime has changed with studies showing rising levels of female participation in crimes typically seen as male. Finally, more recently there has been media talk of the growth of ‘girl gangs’ – females are just as likely as males to engage in risk taking behaviour and girls are adopting more male stances such as the desire to be in control. Criticisms of the liberation thesis The female crime rate began rising in the 1950s which was long before the liberation movement which was in the 1960s. Also, most female criminals are working class and this is the group least likely to be affected by the liberation movement which benefitted middle-class women more. There is evidence that women are branching out in to more male crimes, such as drugs, but this is usually because of their links with thinks like prostitution. There is little evidence that the illegitimate opportunity structure of professional crime has opened up to women – Laidler and Hunt found that female gang members were expected to conform to conventional gender roles in the same ways as non-deviant roles. However, the theory does draw attention to the importance of investigating the relationship between changes in the position of women and their patterns of offending. It can be argued that she does overestimate the extent to which women have become liberated and the extent that they engage in serious criminal behaviour. Evaluation Heidensohn shows the many patriarchal controls that are there to prevent women from deviating and Carlen shows how the failure of patriarchal society to deliver the class deals to some women removes the controls that prevent them from turning to crime. Both control theory and feminism can be seen as deterministic – determined by external forces such as patriarchal control or class/gender deals and this underplays the importance of free will. Carlen’s sample (only 39 women) was very small and this means that it is possibly unrepresentative – it only consisted of working-class and serious offenders. This means that the results cannot be generalised to the public as a whole. There will be people who don’t turn to this as a last resort.

12. Masculinity and crime Messerschmidt argues that masculinity is a social construct and that men have to constantly work at constructing it and presenting it to others – some men have more resources than others to do so. He then argues that there are different masculinities co-exist within society but that hegemonic masculinity is the most dominant form. However, some men have subordinated masculinities – includes gay men who have no desire to accomplish hegemonic masculinity, as well as lower-class and ethnic minority men who don’t have the resources. Messerschmidt sees crime and deviance as resources that different men may use to get their masculine status. For example, class and ethnic differences in youths leads to different forms of rule breaking: White middle-class youths have to subordinate themselves to teachers to achieve middle-class status and this leads to accommodating masculinity in school – outside school it takes the opposite path, through things like drinking and vandalism. White working-class youths have less chance of educational success so their masculinity is oppositional both in and out of school – constructed around sexist attitudes and being tough. Black lower working-class youths may have few expectations of a reasonable job and they might use gang membership to express their masculinity or turn to property crime for material success. Messerschmidt acknowledges that middle-class men may also use crime but they are more likely to commit white collar crime to achieve hegemonic masculinity. Winlow: postmodernity, masculinity and crime Globalisation has led to a shift from a modern industrial society to a late modern/postmodern de-industrialised society. This has led to the loss of many traditional masculine jobs where working-class men were able to express their masculinity through hard, manual labour to support their families. At the same time as job opportunities decreasing, there has been an expansion of the service sector including the leisure economy of bars and clubs. For some men this has provided a combination of legal employment but also criminal opportunities. Winlow studied bouncers in Sunderland (an area of de- industrialisation). Working as bouncers at pubs and clubs gave young men both paid work but also the opportunity for ventures in drugs and the ability to demonstrate their masculinity through violence. He notes that in modern society there was a violent, conflict subculture in Sunderland but that the absence of a professional criminal subculture meant there wasn’t much opportunity for a career in organised crime. Bodily capital Under postmodern conditions a new criminal subculture has emerged because of the new illicit business opportunities to be found in the night economy. In this subculture violence is not just a way to display masculinity but it is a commodity that gives men a way to earn their living. To maintain reputation and employability men need to use bodily capital – many bouncers want to develop their physical assets by bodybuilding. Winlow notes that this is not just a matter of being able to win fights but also to help them maintain the sign value of their bodies (looking the part) and this can discourage people from challenging them. This reflects the idea that in postmodern society, signs take on a reality of their own – independent from the thing that they represent. Criticisms of Messerschmidt Is masculinity an explanation of male crime or a description of male offenders? He is in danger of a circular argument where masculinity explains male crimes because they are committed by males. He doesn’t explain why not all men use crime to accomplish masculinity. He over-works the concept of masculinity to explain virtually all male crimes, even though it might not be the cause of such crime.

13. Self-report studies (cont) The Home Office has conducted 9 self-report studies on drug use all with similar findings. Sharp and Budd found that 27% of males of mixed ethnicity said they had used drugs in the last year compared with 16% of both black and white males. Use of Class A drugs such as heroin was much higher among whites (6%) than blacks (2%). The findings of self-report studies challenge the stereotype of black people being more likely than whites to offend but they do support the widely held view that Asians are less likely to offend. The evidence on ethnicity and offending is inconsistent – white official statistics and victim surveys point to higher rates of offending by blacks but this is not generally seen in the results of self-report studies. Stop and search Members of minority ethnic groups are more likely to be stopped and searched by the police. Police can use this power if they have reasonable suspicion that something wrong has been/is being done. Compared with white people, black people are 7 times more likely to be stopped and searched compared with whites. Only a small proportion of stops and searches actually result arrest. Under the Terrorism Act, police can stop and search vehicles and people even if they don’t have reasonable suspicion – Asian people (in 2006/7) were over 3 times more likely to be stopped under this act. It is unsurprising to see that ethnic minority groups did not think that the police acted politely when being stopped or thought that they were stopped fairly – members of these communities are likely to feel over-policed and under- protected. Explaining stop and search patterns The Macpherson report on the investigation of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence concluded that there was institutional racism within the police system. Other reports have also found deeply ingrained racist attitudes. Phillips and Bowling point out that offices might hold negative stereotypes about ethnic minorities and that this might lead to deliberate targeting for stopping and searching them. Another explanation is that the disproportionate numbers of stops and searches reflects the differences in levels of offending. In low discretion stops police act on relevant information about a specific offence (victims description). In high discretion stops the police act without specific intelligence. It is in these stops that police a more likely to be discriminatory. Ethnic minorities are over-represented in population groups who are most likely to be stopped – such as the young or working-class. These groups are more likely to be stopped regardless of their ethnicity but the minorities get stopped more because they are highest in number. Ethnicity, racism and the criminal justice system There are many different stages to the criminal justice system – these are the different processes that someone may go through to receive a custodial sentence (in relation to ethnicity and the CJS) ↓ According to official statistics there are significant ethnic differences in the likelihood of being involved in the CJS – black people are overrepresented. Black people make up 2.8% of the population but 11% of the prison population and Asians make up 4.6% of the population but 6% of the prison population. By contrast, whit people are underrepresented at all stages of the criminal justice process. These statistics don’t tell us if members of one ethnic group are more likely to commit an offence in the first place – they just tell us about their involvement in the CJS. Victim surveys Victim surveys ask people to say what crimes they have been a victim of in the last 12 months. Can usually gain information about ethnicity and offending from the surveys when they ask victims to identify the ethnicity of the offenders. In ‘muggings’ black people are significantly overrepresented among those identified by victims as offenders. These surveys show that much crime is intra-ethnic (takes place within, rather than between, ethnic groups). According to the British Crime Survey, in 90% of crimes where the offender was white, the victim was also white. There are several limitations of using victim surveys: they rely on memory of events and evidence suggests that white victims may over-identify blacks even if they are not sure of the ethnicity of the offender. They only cover personal crime which is only 1/5 of the total crime rate – muggings are an even smaller proportion (1.7%). They exclude the under 16s and minority ethnic groups contain a higher proportion of young people. Finally they exclude crimes by and against organisations so they tell us nothing about white-collar crime. Self-report studies These studies ask people to disclose their own dishonest and violent behaviours. Based on a sample of 2500 people, Graham and Bowling found that blacks (43%) and whites (44%) had similar rates of offending whilst Indian’s (30%) and Bangladeshis (13%) had much lower rates. Sharp and Budd note that the 2003 Offending, Crime and Justice survey of 12000 people found that whites and those of mixed ethnic origins were most likely to say that they had committed an offence (around 40%) followed by blacks (28%). Policing Since the 1970s there have been many accusations of oppressive policing towards ethnic minorities, including mass stop and search operations, armed raids, police violence and a failure to respond effectively to racist violence. Arrests and cautions Figures show that in 2006/7 the arrest rate for blacks was 3.6 times the rate for whites. Once arrested blacks were less likely to be given a caution. This might be that members of minority ethnic groups are more likely to deny the offence and want to exercise their right to legal advice. Not admitting the offence means they cannot be let off with a caution and are more likely to be charged. Prosecution The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is responsible for deciding if a case brought to by the police should be prosecuted in court. In doing this they need to be sure that there is a reasonable chance of prosecution and if this is in the interest of the general public. Studies suggest that the CPS is more likely to drop cases against ethnic minorities – may be that the evidence presented is weaker and shows up the stereotypes of black offenders. Trial When cases go ahead, members of minority ethnic groups are more likely to elect for trial before a jury in the Crown Court rather than in a magistrates court (maybe because they feel they will otherwise be treated according to stereotype).

14. Pre-sentence reports One possible reason for harsher sentences is the PSRs that are written by probation officers. A PSR is a kind of risk assessment that is meant to help judges decide on the best sentence for a given offender. Hudson and Bramhall argue that PSRs allow for discrimination – reports on Asian offenders were less comprehensive and suggested that they showed less remorse than white people. They place this bias in the demonising of Muslim’s in the aftermath of the 9/11 events. Prison In 2007 just over a quarter of the male prison population were from minority ethnic groups including 15% black and 7% Asian. Among British nationals, 7.4 per 1000 of the black population were in jail. This means that blacks were 5 times more likely to be in prison than whites and more likely to have a longer sentence. Within the total prison population, all minority groups have a higher than average proportion of prisoners on remand – less likely to be granted bail. Gilroy: the myth of black criminality (cont) In his view, ethnic minority crime can be seen as a form of political resistance against a racist society – has its roots in earlier struggles against British imperialism. Gilroy therefore holds a similar view to that of critical criminology – working- class crime is a political act of resistance. Most blacks and Asians in the UK originated in the colonies where anti-imperialist struggles taught them how to resist opposition (through riots etc). When they found themselves experiencing racism in the UK they adopted the same ways to defend themselves but this political struggle was criminalised by the state. Lea and Young criticise Gilroy: first generation immigrants in the 50s and 60s were law-abiding so it is unlikely to have been passed down from generation to generation, most crime is intra-ethnic so it can’t been seen as an anti-colonial struggle against racism – they argue that Gilroy romanticises street crime. Finally, Asian crime rates are similar or lower to than whites – if Gilroy were right then police are only racist towards blacks and not Asians. Hall at al: policing the crisis They argue that the ruling class are normally able to rule the subordinate class through consent. In times of crisis this is more difficult. In the early 1970s, British capitalism faced a crisis – high inflation and rising unemployment provoked widespread industrial unrest, conflict in Northern Ireland was intensifying and student protests were spreading. At times such as this control may be needed – the use of force does need to be seen as legitimate though. The 1970s also saw the emergence of a new moral panic about a ‘new’ type of crime – mugging. Hall et al note that there was no evidence of a significant increase in this crime at that time – muggings were soon to be associated with black youth. Hall et al argue that the emergence of this moral panic at the same time as the crisis within capitalism was no coincidence. In their view the moral panic and crisis were linked and the myth of the black mugger acted as a scapegoat to distract attention away from the true causes of problems such as unemployment. The image of the black mugger came to symbolise the disintegration of social order – feeling that the British way of life was falling apart. By presenting black youths as the problem, this divided the working class on racial grounds and weakened opposition to capitalism. They do not, however, argue that black crime was solely a product of media and police labelling, saying that it was increasingly marginalising black youths through unemployment, therefore driving some of them to crime. Sentencing In 2006/7 custodial sentences were given to a greater proportion of black offenders (68%) than white (55%) or Asians (59%) whereas whites and Asians were more likely to receive a community sentence. This could be due to the seriousness of the offence or could be related to previous convictions. A study of Crown Courts by Hood found that even when such factors were taken in to account, black men were 5% more likely to be given a custodial sentence that was, on average, 3 months longer than whites. Convictions Interesting to note that black and Asian defendants are less likely to be found guilty – in 2006/7 60% of white defendants were found to be guilty compared with 52% of blacks and 44% of Asians. This suggests that discrimination may be bringing weaker or less serious cases against ethnic minorities that are being thrown out by the courts. Gilroy: the myth of black criminality Gilroy argues that the idea of black criminality is a myth created by racist stereotypes and that these groups are no more criminal than any other. As a result of the police and CJS, however, ethnic minorities come to be criminalised and they therefore appear in greater numbers on the official statistics. Left realism Left realists such as Lea and Young argue that ethnic differences in statistics reflect real differences in the levels of offending by different groups. Left realists see crime as the product of deprivation and marginalisation. They argue that racism has led to marginalisation and economic exclusion of ethnic minority groups who face higher levels of unemployment, poor housing and poverty. At the same time the media’s emphasis on consumerism promotes a sense of relative deprivation by setting materialistic goals that the minority ethnic groups cannot reach by legitimate means. The formation of delinquent subcultures is one response. This produces high levels of utilitarian crime such as theft as a means of coping with relative deprivation. As these groups are marginalised their frustration may turn to non- utilitarian crimes such as rioting. Lea and Young argue that the police can act in racist ways and that this results in unjust criminalisation of some people. They do not believe that this fully explains the differences in offending though because over 90% of crimes known to the police are reported by members of the public – even if the police do act in a discriminatory way, it is unlikely to account for ethnic differences entirely. Blacks have a considerably higher rate of criminalisation compared to Asians and this means that the police would be being very selective in their racism – unlikely that racism is the sole cause. Concluded that statistics represent real differences in levels of offending and that these are caused by real differences in the levels of relative deprivation.

15. Until recently, the focus of the ethnicity and crime debate had been mainly on the overrepresentation of black people in the CJS. However, recently sociologists have looked more at the racist victimisation of such groups. Racist victimisation occurs when an individual is selected as a target because of their race, ethnicity or religion. This issue was brought to public attention after the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Information on such victimisation comes from two main sources: victim surveys and the British Crime Survey. These generally cover racist incidents and racially or religiously aggressive offences. Extent and risk of victimisation The police recorded 61000 racist incidents in England and Wales in 2006/7 – mainly damage to property or verbal harassment. However, most incidents go unreported – the BCS estimates that there were around 184000 racially motivated incidents in 2006/7. The risk of being a victim of any sort of crime varies by ethnic group. The 2006/7 BCS shows that people from a mixed ethnic background had a 32% risk of becoming a victim of crime compared with a 27% risk for blacks and 24% for whites. These differences may be to do with other factors – violent crime is linked with being young, unemployed and male. Ethnic groups with a higher proportion of young males therefore have higher rates of victimisation. The statistics only capture the instances of victimisation but do not necessarily capture the victims’ experiences of it – racist victimisation tends to go on over a long period of time with repeated ‘minor’ instances of abuse and harassment alongside some violent attacks. This can result in psychological harm as well as physical. Responses to victimisation Members of ethnic minority communities have often been active in responding to victimisation – ranged from situational crime prevention measures (fireproof doors etc) to organised self-defence campaigns so people can physically protect themselves. These responses need to be understood in the context of accusations of under-protection by the police who have often ignored racist dimensions of victimisation and failed to record or report these instances adequately. Responses to victimisation (cont) The Macpherson Enquiry concluded that police investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence was tainted by a combination of incompetence, institutional racism and failure of leadership by officers. Others have found deeply engrained racist attitudes and beliefs among individual officers.

16. Crime and deviance make up a large proportion of news coverage – British newspapers devote around 30% of their space to reporting crime. Whilst the news shows a keen interest in crime they do give a distorted image: they over-represent violent and sexual crime – Ditton and Duffy found that 46% of media reports were about violent/sexual crime but they made up only 3% of crime that was reported, the media portray criminals and victims as older and more middle class, they exaggerate police success – partly because the police are a major source of crime stories and also because the media tends to report violent crime which has a higher clean up rate than property crime, they exaggerate the risk of victimisation especially towards women and high status people and finally, they overplay extraordinary crime and underplay ordinary crime – called the dramatic fallacy. There has been a change in how the media presents crime – in the 1960s the focus had been on murders and petty crimes but by the 1990s it had shifted away from this. The change came about partly because of the abolition of the death penalty and partly because rising crime rates meant that a crime had to be special to be reported. Also an increasing preoccupation with sex crimes – newspaper reports on rape cases rose from under a quarter of all cases in 1951 to over a third in 1985. It is also found that there is a distorted picture of the typical ‘rapist’ as being a stranger – usually carried out by someone the victim knows. Fictional representations of crime Fictional representations from TV, cinema and books are also a source of our knowledge on crime – a lot of their output is crime related. Fictional representations of crime, criminals and victims often follow what is called the law of opposites (opposite to official statistics) – property crime is underrepresented whilst violent and drug related crime is overrepresented, real-life homicides are mainly the result of domestic disputes fictional ones are the product of greed, fictional sex crimes are committed by strangers whereas in real life it is often someone the victim knows. There are three recent trends – new types of show where they feature non-white, underclass offenders, tendency to show the police as corrupt and victims have become more central. There are numerous ways that the media might actually contribute to crime: -Providing deviant role models resulting in copycat behaviour -Arousal through violent or sexual imagery -Desensitisation through repeated viewing of violent shows -Transmitting knowledge to people of criminal techniques -Stimulating desire for unaffordable goods -Portrayal of the police as incompetent -Can be seen to glamorise crime Schramm et al say that for some children TV can be harmful, for some children (in the same conditions) it can be beneficial but for most children it is neither harmful or beneficial. Moral entrepreneurs might use the media to put pressure on the authorities to do something about the problem – if successful their campaigning will result in the negative labelling of a behaviour and perhaps a change in the law (introduction of the Marijuana Tax Act – made it criminal). An important element in this is the creation of moral panics – reaction enlarges the problem out of proportion. In a moral panic the media identify a folk devil or threat to society, the media present them in a negative way, respectable people condemn the group and its behaviour which usually leads for a crackdown on that group. However, it may create a self-fulfilling prophecy that amplifies the behaviour. For example, setting up drug squads means that the police actually discover more drugs and there is even more pressure for tougher laws – creates deviance amplification spiral. Fear of crime (cont) Gerbner found that heavy users of TV had a higher fear of crime and other sociologists have found a correlation between media consumption and a greater fear of becoming a victim – doesn’t actually prove that media viewing causes fear (could just be that those who are scared of going out at night watch more TV because they stay at home). News values and crime coverage The distorted picture of crime in the news reflects that news is a social construction – news is the outcome of a social process where some potential stories are collected and others rejected. A central aspect of the manufacture of news is its values – criteria by which journalists and editors decide what stories are newsworthy such as personalisation, dramatisation, higher-status people (celebrities), immediacy (relevant to today), simplification (eliminating shades of grey), unexpectedness and risk or violence. One reason why crime is covered so much in the media is that it focuses on the unusual and extraordinary – makes it newsworthy because there is drama and often risk etc. The media, relative deprivation and crime Lab based research has focused on if media portrayals of crime and deviant lifestyles lead viewers to commit crime themselves. Left realists argue that the mass media helps to increase a sense of relative deprivation and this has led to an increase in crime so people can get the goods that the media tells them they need. In society today where even the poorest of people have access to the media, they are bombarded with images of materialistic objects that they need – this stimulates their sense of relative deprivation and also leads to social exclusion. Merton argues that the pressure to conform can lead to deviant behaviour because the legitimate means to achieve are blocked. Fear of crime The media exaggerate the amount of violent and unusual crime as well as the risks to certain groups (such as the young and elderly) – therefore a concern that the media might be distorting the public’s impression of crime and causing unrealistic fear.

17. Mods and rockers Cohen examined the media’s response to disturbances between two groups of mainly working-class teenagers (the mods and the rockers). Mods wore smart clothes and rode scooters whilst the rockers wore leather jackets and rode motorbikes – in the early stages the distinctions were not as clear cut and not many people identified as belonging to either group. Initial confrontations began on Easter weekend in 1964 with a few minor fights, some stone throwing and some windows being broken. Though this disorder was relatively minor, the media overreacted and Cohen says that their coverage had three elements: 1)Exaggeration and distortion – exaggerated the numbers involved and the extent of violent damage through dramatic reporting and sensational headlines. 2)Prediction – the media assumed and predicted that further conflict would occur. 3)Symbolisation – the symbols of the mods and rockers (clothing, transport) were all negatively labelled and associated with deviance – this allowed the media to link unconnected events. Cohen argues that the media portrayal of these events produced a deviance amplification spiral which made it seem as though the problem was getting out of hand – led to calls for an increased response from the police which consequently led to further marginalisation of the mods and rockers etc. The media further amplified the deviance by the labels and subcultural styles that they applied to the groups. This led to more young people adopting this style so the groups grew. This also created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cohen says that media definitions of the situation are crucial in creating moral panic because in large-scale modern society most people have no experience of such events and therefore they have to rely on the media. The wider context Cohen puts the moral panic surrounding the mods and rockers into context – it took place in post-war British society. This was a period with newfound affluence, hedonism and consumerism and this was appealing to the young – it also challenged the values of the older generation who had lived through the hardships of both the 1930s and 40s. Criticisms of the idea of moral panics It assumes that societies reaction is an over-reaction but who is to decide what an over-reaction is and what isn’t? This relates to the view of left realists that crime is actually rational. Why are the media able to amplify some crime and not other crime? McRobbie and Thornton argue that moral panics are now routine and have less impact – lifestyle choices that were condemned 40 years ago (such as single motherhood) are no longer universally regarded as deviant so it is harder for the media to create panics about them. Global cyber-crime The arrival of new types of media is often met with moral panic. For example, TV, DVDs and computer games have all been accused of undermining morality and corrupting the young. The arrival of the internet as led to fears about cyber crime – defined as computer meditated activities that are illegal and are conducted through the internet. The internet had provided opportunities for conventional crimes such as fraud and unconventional crimes such as cybersex to be committed. Wall identifies 4 categories of cyber-crime: 1)cyber-trespass – crossing boundaries into others cyber property and includes things such as hacking and spreading viruses. 2)Cyber-deception and theft – includes identity theft, phishing and violation of intellectual property rights. 3)Cyber-pornography – including porn involving minors and giving children opportunities to access porn. 4)Cyber-violence – doing psychological harm to inciting physical harm (can include cyber-stalking and hate crimes) The wider context (cont) Moral panics often occur at times of social change and can therefore be seen to reflect the anxieties that people feel at times when social values appear to be undermined. Cohen argues that the moral panic of the mods and rockers was a result of boundary crisis – there was uncertainty about the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. The folk devil created by the media therefore symbolised and gave people a focus for their anxieties about social disorder. From a functionalist perspective, moral panics can be seen as a response to anomie that is created by change – by dramatising the threat to society the collective conscience is reinforced and social control is reasserted when central values are under threat. Global cyber-crime (cont) Policing cyber-crime is hard because of the scale of the internet, limited resources of the police, the globalised nature and that it may go unnoticed. Also, police culture gives cyber-crime low priority status because it is seen as lacking the excitement of more conventional policing. New information and ICT provides the police with greater opportunities for surveillance and control of the population – can use CCTV, electronic databases, digital fingerprinting and the installation of listening devices.

18. The global criminal economy Held et al suggest that there has been a globalisation of crime – interconnectedness of crime across national borders. The same processes that have led to globalisation of legitimate activities have also brought about globalisation of those that are illegitimate – also meant that there has been a spread of transnational organised crime. It also creates new opportunities such as the various cyber-crimes. Castells argues that there is now a global criminal economy which takes a number of forms: arms trafficking, trafficking in nuclear materials, smuggling of illegal immigrants, sex tourism, human trafficking (usually linked to prostitution and slavery) as well as green crimes (damaging to the environment – dumping toxic waste) and international terrorism. The global criminal economy has demand and supply sides to it – part of the reason for the scale of transnational organised crime is the demand for its products and services. This economy could not function without the supply (providing things like drugs and sex workers). The supply is linked to the globalisation process. For example, Third World countries, such as Cambodia, have large numbers of impoverished peasants and for these groups drug cultivation is an attractive option that requires little investment in technology and gives good money – this shows that to understand drug crime we need to look to the countries where drugs are produced, not just where they are consumed. Patterns of criminal organisation: McMafia Another example of the relationship between crime and globalisation is the McMafia – refers to the organisations that emerged in Russia and Eastern Europe following the fall of communism (major factor in the process of globalisation). Under communism, the Soviet state has regulated the prices of everything but during the fall of communism the Russian government deregulated most sectors expect for the natural resources. These commodities remained at their old price and therefore anyone with funds could buy oil, gas and diamonds for next to nothing and sell the abroad for huge profit. The collapse of the communist state gave way to a period of increasing disorder and to protect their wealth, the capitalists turned to the mafias – purely economic organisations formed to pursue self-interest. With the assistance of these fluid and violent organisations, the billionaires were able to find protection for their wealth and had a means of moving it out of the country. At the same time, the Russian mafias were able to build links with criminal organisation in other parts of the world. Global risk society and the environment Much green crime can be linked to globalisation and the interconnectedness of societies that is growing. Regardless of the division of the world into single states and countries, the planet is a single eco-system and as such things like atmospheric pollution from one industry can turn in to acid rain that falls in another country and destroys the landscape and natural resources. This shows that most of the threats to human well being and the eco-system are man made – unlike natural disasters that we used to face such as drought, many of the risks today are our own making. Beck argues that in today’s late modern society we can now provide adequate resources for everyone (at least in developed countries). However, the increase in productivity and the technology that is sustained by this creates dangers that we have never had before – many of these involve risk to the environment such as global warming because of greenhouse gas emissions. This has led Beck to describe late modern society as a global risk society because of the risk to the world as a whole, rather than just one society being affected. Patterns of criminal organisation: glocal organisation New forms of organisation sometimes have international links, such as with drugs, but crime is still rooted in its local context. For example, people still need contacts and networks in order to be able to sell their drugs. Hobbs and Dunningham conclude that crime works as a glocal system – still locally based but with global connections. This means that the form that it will take varies from place to place, even if it is influenced by global factors such as the availability of drugs. Hobbs and Dunningham argue that changes associated with globalisation have led to changes in the patterns of crime – shift from rigid, hierarchical gang structure to loose networks of flexible criminals. However, it is not clear that these patterns are new or that the older structures have disappeared – could be that they have always co-existed. Global risk consciousness Globalisation creates new insecurities and produces a new mentality of a risk consciousness where risk is seen as global rather than tied to certain places. For example, the increased movement of people such as asylum seekers has given rise to anxieties about the risks of crime and disorder and the need to protect our borders. In the case of immigration, the media creates moral panics about the supposed threat. Negative coverage of immigrants (they are often portrayed as a threat) has led to hate cries against minorities in some places. One result of this is intensification of social control on a national level – the UK has toughened its border control and also has no legal limits on how long someone can be held in immigration detention. Another result of globalised risk is the increased attempts at international cooperation and control in the various ‘wars’ on terror, drugs and crime. Globalisation, capitalism and crime Taylor argues that globalisation has led to changes in the extent and patterns of crime. There is now free rein given to market forces which has created more inequality and therefore increased crime. Globalisation as also created more crime at both ends of the spectrum – allowed transnational corporations to switch manufacturing to low-wage countries but in doing so this creates job insecurity, unemployment and poverty. Deregulation means that governments have little control over their economy so spending on welfare has declined. Marketisation encourages people to see themselves as individual consumers but this undermines social cohesion. Finally, the increasingly materialistic culture promoted by the global media portrays success in terms of a lifestyle of consumption. All these factors create insecurity and widening opportunities that encourage people to turn to crime. For example, in Los Angeles, de-industrialisation has led to the growth of drugs gangs numbering 10000 members. At the same time, globalisation also creates criminal opportunities on a grand scale for elite groups – deregulation of financial markets has created opportunities for insider trading and the movement of funds around the world to avoid tax.

19. Green criminology Traditional criminology has not been concerned with behaviour such as pollution causing global warming because its subject matter is defined by the criminal law – in this case no criminal law has been broken. The starting point is looking at the national and international laws regarding the environment. Situ and Emmons define environmental crime as an unauthorised act or omission that violates the law. Like other traditional criminological approaches, it investigates the patterns and causes of law breaking. Green criminology takes a more radical approach – starts from the notion of harm rather than criminal law. White argues that the proper subject of criminology is any action that harms the physical environment and the humans and animals within it. This means that many of the worst environmental crimes are not illegal – this means that green criminology is a form of transgressive criminology because it oversteps the boundaries of traditional criminology to include new issues. Different countries have different laws and this means that one harmful action might be a crime in one country but not in another. This means that legal definitions cannot provide a consistent standard of harm because they are the product of individual nation states. Green criminologists take a similar view to Marxists in that they argue that powerful interests, especially nation states and transnational corporations are able to define their own interests in what counts as unacceptable environmental harm. Primary crimes Primary crimes are green crimes that result directly from the destruction and degradation of the earths resources. South identifies 4 main types of primary crime: 1)Crimes of air pollution – burning fossil fuels adds 3 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere each year and contributes to global warming. 2)Crimes of deforestation – between 1960 and 1990 1/5 of the rainforest was destroyed through things like illegal logging. 3)Crimes of species decline and animal rights – 50 species a day are becoming extinct and 46% of mammal species are at risk. 4)Crimes of water pollution – half a billion people lack access to clean drinking water and 25 million people die a year through drinking contaminated water. Two views of harm Nation states and transnational corporations adopt what is called an anthropocentric view of environmental harm. This assumes that humans have a right to dominate nature for their own ends and puts economic growth before the environment. This is contrasted with an ecocentric view that sees humans and the environment as interdependent and that environmental harm hurts humans as well. This view sees humans and the environment as liable to exploitation, particularly by global capitalism. Secondary crimes Secondary crime is crime that grows out of the breaking of rules aimed at regulating and preventing environmental disaster. South suggests two examples: 1)State violence against oppositional groups – states condemn terrorism but are sometimes willing to resort to similar methods themselves. 2)Hazardous waste and organised crime – disposal of toxic waste from chemical, nuclear and other industries is highly profitable and because of the high cost of safe disposal some organisations may seek to dispose of their waste illegally. Illegal waste dumping often has a globalised character – after the tsunami of 2004, hundreds of barrels of radioactive waste was illegally dumped by European countries and it washed up in Somalia. In some cases, Western businesses ship their waste to Third World countries where the costs of disposal are lower and there are no health and safety laws. Evaluation of green criminology A strength of green criminology is that is recognises the growing importance of environmental issues and that there is a need to address the harms and risks of environmental damage. However, by focusing on the broader concept of harm rather than on legally defined crimes it means that it is hard to define the boundaries of its field study clearly – this makes moral or political statements wrong – argued that it’s a matter of values and so it cannot be established objectively. McLaughlin identifies four categories of state crime: 1)Political crime such as corruption and censorship 2)Crimes by security and police forcers such as genocide and torture 3)Economic crimes such as violations of health and safety 4)Social and cultural crimes such as institutional racism The scale of state crime The power of the state enables it to commit extremely large-scale crime with widespread victimisation. For example, in Cambodia between 1975 and 1978 the government is believed to have killed up to 2 million people (1/5 of the countries whole population). The states monopoly of violence gives it potential to inflict massive amounts of harm while its power means it is well placed to conceal its crimes or evade punishment for them. Media attention is often on state crimes committed by Third World dictatorships such as the democratic states of Britain and the USA have been guilty of crimes such as the military use of torture. The principle of national sovereignty – states are the supreme authority within their own borders – makes it hard for external authorities to intervene. The state is the source of law It is the states role to define what is criminal and to manage the CJS – the power it has to make the law also means it can avoid its actions being defined as criminal. For example, in Nazi Germany the state created laws permitting it to sterilise disabled people against their will. It also means that they can persecute their enemies. Human rights and state crime There is no single agreed list of what constitutes a human right. However, most definitions include the following: natural rights that people are regarded has having simply by virtue of existing (right to life and free speech) and civil rights (right to vote and to a fair trial). A right is an entitlement to someone so as such it acts as a protection against the power of the state over an individual – the right to a fair trial means that the state may not imprison someone without a due process of law.

20. State crime and the culture of denial Cohen sees the issue of human rights and state crime as central to political debate and criminology because of 2 factors: 1)Growing impact of the human rights movement (such as through the work of human rights organisations) 2)Increased focus within criminology on victims The spiral of denial Cohen is particularly interested in the ways in which states conceal and legitimate their human rights crimes. He argues that democratic states have to legitimate their actions in complex ways and identifies 3 stages: 1)‘It didn’t happen’ – the state might claim that there was no massacre but the media and victims show that it did happen. 2)‘If it did happen ‘it’ is something else’ – the state claim that it was self-defence etc. 3)‘Even if it is what you say it is, it is justified’ – for example, to protect national security. Crime as the violation of human rights Critical criminologists argue that we should define crime in terms of the violation of basic human rights rather than the breaking of legal rules. This means that states that deny individuals their human rights must be regarded as criminal. For example, states that are racist or sexist are committing a crime because they are denying individuals their basic rights. From a human rights perspective, the state can be seen as a perpetrator of crime and not just as the authority that defines and punishes crime. In this view, crime is therefore inevitably political – in the 1930s Nazi Germany attacked the rights of Jews simply by passing laws that persecuted them. If we accept a legal definition we risk becoming subservient to the state that makes the law. Neutralisation theory (cont) 1)Denial of victim – they exaggerate, they are terrorists, they used violence etc 2)Denial of injury – they started it, we are the real victims 3)Denial of responsibility – I was only obeying orders, I was carrying out my duties 4)Condemning the condemners – the world is picking on us, its worse somewhere else 5)Appeal to higher loyalty – self-righteous justification – appeal to the higher powers such as the state security Neutralisation theory Cohen examines the ways in which states and their officials deny or justify their crimes. He draws on the work of Sykes and Matza who identify 5 neutralisation techniques that delinquents use to justify their behaviour. Cohen shows how the state uses the same techniques when they are trying to justify human rights violations such as torture. The social conditions of state crime It is often thought that those who carry out crime such as torture must be psychopaths. However, research suggests that there is little between them an ‘normal’ people. Sociologists argue that such actions are part of a role into which people are socialised – they focus on social conditions in which the behaviour becomes acceptable. For example, Kelman and Hamilton studied crimes of obedience such as the ones at My Lai in Vietnam. They identify three features that produce crimes of obedience: 1)Authorisation – when acts are approved or ordered by people in authority normal moral principles are replaced by the duty to obey 2)Routinisation – when the crime has been committed there is a strong pressure to turn it into a routine where it can be performed in a detached manner 3)Dehumanisation – when the enemy is portrayed as subhuman rather than human the usual principles of morality don’t apply. Some people argue that modern society creates the conditions for such crime on a vast scale – Bauman argues that the Holocaust was a product of modernity. He argues that for the Nazis to commit mass murder the features of modernity were essential – included science, technology and the division of labour. He claims that the key to understanding the Holocaust is the ability of modern society to dehumanise the victims and to turn mass murder into a routine task.

21. Situational crime prevention Clarke describes situational crime prevention as a pre- emptive approach that wants to reduce opportunities for crime. There are 3 features of measures aimed at situational crime prevention: 1)Directed at specific crime 2)Involve managing/altering immediate environment of the crime 3)Aim at increasing risks in committing crime and reducing the rewards There are target hardening measures such as locking doors and windows – increases the effort that a burglar needs to make and increased surveillance by CCTV in shops increases the likelihood of them being caught. Underlying situational crime prevention is a rational choice theory of crime – criminals act rationally and weigh up the costs and benefits before deciding if they will commit the crime or not. This contrasts with theories of crime that put emphasis on root causes such as early socialisation of the criminal. To deal with crime we would have to transform the socialisation of large numbers of children or carry out a revolution – Clarke argues that this is not realistic and that the most obvious thing to do is to focus on the intermediate crime situation because this is where area for prevention is greatest. Displacement A criticism of situational crime prevention is that they don’t reduce crime, rather they displace it – if criminals are acting rationally then they will just move to places where targets are not as hard. Displacement can take several forms: moving somewhere else to commit crime, committing it at a different time, choosing a different victim, using a different method or committing a different type of crime. The most supporting example of situational crime prevention relates to suicide – in the early 1960s about half of all suicides in Britain were the result of gassing – Britain’s gas supply came from highly toxic coal gas but from the 1960s coal gas was replaced by less toxic, natural gas and by 1997 the number of deaths by gassing had fallen to almost zero but overall, the suicide rate actually declined – people were not switching and displacing their method, but actually stopping. Evaluation Situational crime prevention works to an extent in reducing certain crime, but with most measures there is likely to be some displacement. Tends to focus on petty street crime and ignores white collar crime which tends to be more costly and harmful to the victims. Assumes that criminals make rational decisions – doesn’t account for crimes of violence or those committed when under the influence of drugs. Ignores the root causes of crime such as poverty which makes it harder to prevent in the future. Environmental crime prevention This approach is based on the article ‘Broken Windows’. This is used by Wilson and Kelling to stand for all signs of disorder and lack of concern for others such as littering, noise, graffiti and vandalism. They argue that leaving things like windows unrepaired shows a lack of care. In areas where things like windows are left broken there tends to be a lack of formal social control and informal control. In areas like the this police are only concerned with serious crime and ignore the more ‘petty’ crime. Without remedial action the situation deteriorates, respectable people move out and the area becomes a magnet for deviants. Evidence (cont) After the success with cars on the subway the same approach was applied in other areas. There was a crackdown on ‘squeegee merchants’ and in doing so they discovered that many had outstanding warrants for violent and property crime. However, in both of these it is not clear how far zero tolerance policing was. Some more evidence includes: the NYPD benefitted from 7000 extra officers, decline in the crime rate of major cities, new jobs created and there decline in availability of cocaine. Social and community crime prevention These strategies place emphasis on the potential offender and social context. The aim of them is to remove the conditions that predispose individuals to commit crime in the first place. These are longer-term strategies because they try to target the root cause of crime rather than just removing opportunity. Causes of crime are often rooted in social conditions such as poverty and unemployment, more general social reform programmes may have a crime prevention role. For example, policies to promote employment are likely to reduce crime as well. Zero tolerance policing Wilson and Kelling’s key idea is that disorder and absence of control leads to crime. Their solution is to crack down on any sign of disorder using an environmental improvement strategy which is the idea that any broken window must be repaired straight away etc otherwise more will follow and the neighbourhood will go downhill. The police must then adopt a zero tolerance policing strategy – instead of reacting to crime they must proactively tackle the slightest sign of disorder which will stop neighbourhood decline. Evidence There has been great success with zero tolerance policing, especially in New York. There was a Clean Car Programme on the subway where cars were taken out of service if they had any graffiti on them and they only returned once clean. As a result, graffiti was largely removed from the subway and other successful programmes then followed from this. The Perry pre-school project One of the best known community programmes aimed at reducing crime is the experimental Perry pre-school project for disadvantaged black children in Michigan. A group of 3-4 year olds were offered a two year intellectual enrichment programme where the children received weekly home visits. A longitudinal study followed the children’s development – showed striking differences with a control group who had not taken part in the programme. By age 40 they had fewer lifetime arrests for violent, property and drug crime and more had graduated from high school. It was estimated that for every $1 spent on the programme, $17 was saved on other costs such as prison and welfare. What is missing? They generally focus on low-level or interpersonal crimes such as violent crime. They tend to therefore disregard the crimes of the powerful. This reflects the priorities of the politicians and agencies associated with crime prevention and a study found that 26% of crime prevention strategies were aimed at reducing vehicle crime whilst only 8% at robbery. It’s also pointed out that only 98 prosecutions were made by the Environment Agency when such crimes release large amounts of harmful chemicals in to the atmosphere that can cause cancer and other illnesses – no logical reason why they should not be included in crime and disorder agendas.

22. Reduction One justification for punishing offenders is that it prevents future crime. This happens in three main ways: 1)Deterrence: punishing the individual discourages them from further offending and ‘making an example’ of them may discourage the public from offending as well. 2)Rehabilitation: punishment can be used to reform or change offenders so that they can no longer offend – might provide education or training for them so they can make an honest living on release, or provide AMPs for violent offenders. 3)Incapacitation: use of punishment to remover the offender’s capacity to offend again – policies in different societies have included execution, imprisonment, cutting off hands and chemical castration. Retribution Means ‘paying back’ – justification for punishing crimes that have already been committed, rather than preventing future crimes. It’s based on the idea that offenders deserve to be punished and that society is entitled to have revenge. Marxism: capitalism and punishment Marxists see society as divided into two classes where the ruling class exploit the labour of the working class. They are therefore interested in how punishment is related to the nature of class society. They see the function of punishment as being to maintain social order – as part of the repressive state apparatus it is a means of defending ruling class property against the lower class. The form of punishment reflects the economic base of society – every society has its own penal system. For example, money fines are impossible without a money economy and under capitalism imprisonment becomes a dominant form of punishment and it’s argued that this is because the capitalist economy is based on the exploitation of wage labour. Foucault: birth of the prison Foucault looks at two different forms of punishment which he sees as examples of 2 different types of power: 1)Sovereign power: typical of the period before the 19 th century where the monarch held all the power over people and their bodies. Inflicting harm on the body was a means of asserting control and punishment was a spectacle such as public execution. 2)Disciplinary power: became dominant from the 19 th century and a new system of dominance was introduced through the idea of surveillance. He illustrates this with the panopticon. This was a design for a prison where all the prisoners are visible to the guards from a central watchtower but the prisoners cannot see the guards. Therefore the prisoners don’t know if they are being watched or not and so they have to behave at all times as if they were being watched – surveillance turns into self- surveillance and the control takes place within the prisoner, rather than being public. Foucault’s work has been criticised in several ways: the shift from corporal punishment to imprisonment is less clear than he suggests, he neglects the expressive aspects of punishment and exaggerates the extent of control – Goffman showed how inmates were able to resist control in prisons and mental hospitals. Imprisonment today In liberal democracies that don’t impose the death penalty, imprisonment is seen as the most severe form of punishment. However, it is not an effective form of rehabilitation because two thirds of prisoners commit further crimes on release. Critics regard prisons as an expensive way to make bad people worse as well as escalating the problem. Since the 1980s there has been a move toward populist punitiveness – politicians seek electoral popularity by calling for tougher sentences. For example, New Labour governments took the view that prison should be used as a deterrent for persistent petty offenders. As a result the prison population has grown dramatically – between 1993 and 2005 the number of prisoners grew by 70%. One consequence has been overcrowding which has added to existing problems of poor sanitation, clothing shortages and lack of educational and work opportunities as well as inadequate visiting times. The prison population is largely male (only about 5% is female), young and poorly education. Black and ethnic minorities are overrepresented. The era of mass incarceration? According to Garland, the USA (and to an extent, the UK) is moving towards an era of mass incarceration where the numbers of people in prison began to rise dramatically – 3% of the population is under supervision of the criminal justice system. This may have an ideological function. The US prison system soaks up about 30-40% of the unemployed, therefore making capitalism look more successful. Garland argues that the reason for mass incarceration is the growing politicisation of crime control. For most of the last century there was a consensus – the idea that punishment should reintegrate offenders into society. Since the 1970s, however, there has been a move towards a new consensus based on more punitive and exclusionary ‘tough on crime’ policies – this has led to more people in prisons. Durkheim: a functionalist perspective Functionalists argue that the function of punishment is to uphold social solidarity and reinforce shared values. Through the rituals of courtrooms the shared values are reaffirmed and society members come to feel a sense of moral unity. Durkheim identifies two types of justice: 1)Retributive justice: in traditional society there is little specialisation and solidarity is based on people’s similarity to one another. This produces a strong collective conscience which responds with vengeful passion to repress the offender. Punishment is severe and cruel and motivation purely expressive. 2)Restitutive justice: in modern society there is a lot of specialisation and solidarity is based on the interdependence between individuals. Crime damages this so it is necessary to repair the damage – through compensation for example. This is called restitutive justice because we aim to restore things to how they were before the offence. In reality, however, traditional societies often have restitutive justice rather than retributive as Durkheim thought. For example, blood feuds are often settled by paying compensation rather than execution. The changing role of prisons Pre-industrial Europe had a wide range of punishments including warning, executions and banishment. Until the 18 th century prison was mainly used to hold people prior to their punishment and it was only following the Enlightenment that prison was seen as a form of punishment where offenders would be reformed through hard labour and surveillance etc. Transcarceration There is a trend towards the idea of transcarceration which is the idea that individuals become locked into a cycle of control, shifting between different agencies throughout their life. For example, some might be brought up in care, then sent to a young offenders’ institution and then adult prison with bouts of stays in a psychiatric hospital in between.

23. Alternatives to prison In the past, a major goal in dealing with young offenders was diversion – diverting them away from contact with the CJS to avoid the risk of a SFP turning them in to serious criminals. The focus here was on using non-custodial sentences and community based controls. In recent years there has been a growth in the range of community based goals such as curfews, community service orders, treatment orders and electric tagging. However, at the same time the numbers of people in custody have been rising, especially with the young. Far from diverting young people from the CJS, controls might divert them in to it. Some argue that ASBOs are used by police to fast track young offenders into custodial sentences. Evaluation Wolfgang shows the importance of the victim-offender relationship and the fact that in many homicides, it is a matter of chance that they become the victim. Identifies certain patterns of interpersonal victimisation but ignores wider structural factors influencing victims such as poverty. It can easily lead to victim blaming – Amir’s claim that 1/5 rapes are victim precipitating is not very different from saying that the victims ‘asked for it’. Ignores situations where victims are unaware of their victimisation such as when crimes against the environment are committed, cause harm but no law is broken. The UN defines victims as those who have suffered harm through acts or omissions that violate the laws of the state. Christie takes a different approach, highlighting the notion that the victim is socially constructed – the favoured victim by the media, public and CJS is a weak, innocent and blameless person such as a young child or old woman. Positivist victimology Miers defines PV as having 3 features: 1)Aims to identify factors that produce patterns in victimisation especially those that make some groups more likely to be victims 2)Focus on interpersonal crimes of violence 3)Aims to identify victims who have contributed to their own victimisation Early studies focused on the idea of victim proneness – they wanted to identify the social and psychological characteristics of the victims that make them more vulnerable than non-victims. An example is Wolfgang’s study of 588 homicides in Philadelphia – found that 26% involved victim precipitation (victim triggered the events leading to the homicide such as being the first one to use violence – often the case when the victim was male and perpetrator female). Evaluation Disregards the role victims may play in bringing victimisation on themselves through their own choices or their own offending. Valuable at drawing attention to the way that victim status is constructed by power and how this benefits the powerful at the expense of the powerless. Critical victimology Based on conflict theories such as functionalism and Marxism. It focuses on 2 elements: 1)Structural factors such as patriarchy and poverty place powerless groups such as women and the poor at greater risk of victimisation. 2)State’s power to apply/deny the label of victim – victim is a social construct and through the criminal justice process the state applies the label of victim to some but withholds it from others. Tombs and Whyte show that ‘safety crimes’ where violations of health and safety laws lead to death or injury it is often explained as the fault of the worker being accident prone. They then note the ideological function of ‘failure to label’ – by concealing the true extent of victimisation and its real causes, it hides the crimes of the powerful and denies the powerless victims any redress. There is a hierarchy of victimisation – the powerless are most likely to be victimised but least likely to have this acknowledged. Patterns of victimisation Class – the poorest groups are most likely to be victimised. Crime rates are typically highest in areas of high unemployment and deprivation. A survey of 300 homeless people found that they were 12 times more likely to have experienced violence than the general population and 1 in 10 had been urinated on whilst sleeping rough. Patterns of victimisation (cont) Age – young people are a more risk of victimisation. Those at most risk of being murdered are infants under the age of 1, while teenagers are more vulnerable than adults to offences including assault, sexual harassment, theft and abuse. The old are also at risk, such as abuse in care homes where it is less evident. Ethnicity – minority ethnic groups are at greater risk of being victims of crime in general as well as racially motivated crime. They are likely to report, as well as the young and homeless, of feeling under-protected but over- controlled. Gender – males are at greater risk than females of becoming victims of violent attacks. About 70% of homicide victims are male. However, females are more likely to be victims of domestic violence, sexual violence and harassment. Repeat victimisation – if you have been a victim once you are more likely to become a victim again. According to the BCS about 60% of the population have not been a victim of crime but 4% make up 44% of all crimes reported. The impact of victimisation Crime can have serious physical and psychological effects on the victims. Research has found that it has led to things such as disrupted sleep, difficulties in social functioning and becoming more dependent on others. Crime can also affect the near relatives and friends, as well as witnesses – child witnesses of a sniper attack continued to have grief related dreams and altered behaviour a year after the attack took place. Hate crimes against minority groups may create waves of harm that radiate out to others – message crimes aimed at intimidating whole communities, not just the immediate victim. Secondary victimisation is the idea that individuals may suffer further victimisation at the hands of the CJS – feminists argue that rape victims are often very poorly treated by the police and courts that it amounts to a double violation. Fear of victimisation – crime may create a fear if becoming a victim. Some sociologists argue that surveys show this fear to be irrational. For example, more women say they are scared of going out in the dark alone whereas official statistics show that men are more likely to be attacked. Feminists argue that we should focus on women’s safety rather than their passivity and psychological state – need to focus on the structural threat of patriarchal violence than they face.