Theories Explaining Juvenile Crime
Many theories, at both the macro and micro level, have been proposed to explain juvenile crime. Some prominent theories include Social Disorganization theory, Differential Social Organization theory, Social Control theory, and Differential Association theory. When determining which theories are more valid, the question must be explored whether people deviate because of what they learn or from how they are controlled? Mercer L. Sullivan’s book, “Getting Paid” Youth Crime and Work in the Inner City clearly suggests that the learning theories both at the macro level, Differential social organization, and micro level, Differential association theory, are the more accurate of the two types of theory.
Two major sociological theories explain youth crime at the macro level. The first is Social Disorganization theory, created in 1969 by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay. The theory resulted from a study of juvenile delinquency in Chicago using information from 1900 to 1940, which attempts to answer the question of how aspects of the structure of a community contribute to social control. The study found that a community that is unable to achieve common values has a high rate of delinquency. Shaw and McKay looked at the physical appearance of the neighborhoods, the average income of the population, the ethnicity of the neighborhood, the percent of renters versus owners, and how fast the population of the area changed. These factors all contribute to neighborhood delinquency.
The text provides some evidence to support this theory in Table 14, ”Index rankings of reported crimes in police incorporating the neighborhoods.” This chart shows Projectville ranked highest in every category except motor v...
... middle of paper ...
...lton Park. For example, youths in Projectville were paid to burn down a building, while in Hamilton Park the juveniles were arrested for the same crime. In Projectville, even the police will buy stolen goods.
The study discussed in the text clearly shows that crime in Hamilton Park is much lower than in either Projectville or La Barriada. The reasons for this are clearly explained by Sutherland’s two learning theories, his differential social organization theory and his differential association theory. The other theories, Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization and Hirschi’s social control theory, do have some merits, but do not apply as clearly to the neighborhoods in the study. Clearly, Sutherland’s theories of learned behavior and favorable and unfavorable definitions offer clear explanations for the crime in Projectville, La Barriada and Hamilton Park.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.
He is a decorated veteran, scholar and successful business leader upon graduating. In comparison to the other Wes Moore who never seemed to escape his childhood and ended up in prison. The theory that best explains the authors’ noninvolvement in a life of crime vs. the criminality of the other Wes Moore is the social disorganization theory. Shaw and McKay, the founders of this theory, believed that “juvenile delinquency could be understood only by considering the social context in which youths lived. A context that itself was a product of major societal transformations wrought by rapid urbanization, unbridled industrialization, and massive population shifts” (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2015). The theory is centered around transitional zones and competition determined how people were distributed spatially among these zones (Lilly et al., 2015). This model founded by Ernest Burgess showed that high priced residential areas were in the outer zones and the inner zones consisted of poverty (Lilly et al.,
The theory directly links the type community with the crime rates it has. Social Disorganization Theory was developed by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay in the Chicago School in 1942. They discovered that crime rates were not even across all communities. Despite changes in population Shaw and Mckay noticed that the crime was concentrated and stable among certain areas. Communities who were economically deprived, had high crime rates and increased population turnover were the cities that they considered to be socially disorganized. According to Regoeczi and Jarvis (2013), Extensions and revisions of this theory have included more explicit discussions of the intervening processes between such structural factors as economic deprivation and residential instability and crime rates. A persons physical and social environments are partly responsible for the decisions that they make. Shaw and Mckay did not directly correlate low income neighborhoods with crime, bust instead low income neighborhoods had higher turnover rates and the people who would move into the neighborhood were usually immigrants which then resulted in racial heterogeneity. Aspects of a person’s neighborhood can be looked at and used to predict whether there will be higher crime rates in the neighborhood. This theory is used to help law enforcement predict where the higher crime will be and therefore allow them to prevent
From 1990 to to the present there has been a sharp increase in juvenile crime across the United States. From 1996 to the present there has been a slight decline from the statistics in 1995(OJJDP). What was the cause for this uprise in juvenile delinquincy? I will discuss 2 different theories to why there was such an increase in juvenile crime rates. I will analyze the rise of the "Gangsta-Rap" culture in the early 1990's and how it may have affected teenagers that are in lower-income families. Many people believe that the increase in real life violence on television is a cause for violence in juveniles. I will discuss the evidence for this theory. It seems to me that the best theory to explain the rise in juvenile crime is the social constructionist theory. Different sub-cultures of teens have higher crime rates than others because of their interests, whether it be the music that they listen to or the types of television programs that they watched as child.
It is widely believed, and reported that crime is higher in communities with higher populations of minority residents. While the authors of Criminological Thought (1990), overviewed what they considered the foundational theorists and contributors to the field of criminology, not all of those examined within the text emphasized the same things. It is the writers position that three of those contributors examined within the book, the respective theories of Earl Richard Quinney, Edwin Sutherland, and Robert Ezra Park, specifically Park’s Social Disorganization Theory, Quinney’s Conflict Theory, and Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory are often utilized to describe the plight of instability in urban communities and crime. This paper
Many people in the world today criticize and objectify specific people, merely by their outward appearance, as more likely to commit crime or other violent acts. A theory well known to criminologists is one devised by criminologists of the Chicago school, scholars whose main area of focus were urban, impoverished areas, and called their findings the Social Disorganization Theory in which it offers an idea as to why crime occurs in urban settings. The theory explains how American society is centered on the economy and individual achievement, otherwise known as “The American Dr...
Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization theory had a profound impact on the study of the effects of urbanization, industrialization and immigration in Chicago neighborhood on crime and delinquency rates. However, Shaw and McKay faced much criticism when they first released their findings. One criticism of the social disorganization theory had to do with researcher’s ability to accurately test the social disorganization theory. Although Shaw and McKay collected data on characteristics of areas and delinquency rates for Chicago communities and were able to visually demonstrate a relationship between by using maps and other visuals, their research did not have an actually test that went along with it (Kurbin, 2010). Kurbin (2010) states that “the
This theory however as some have argued has emerged from social disorganisation theory, which sees the causes of crime as a matter of macro level disadvantage. Macro level disadvantage are the following: low socioeconomic status, ethnic or racial heterogeneity, these things they believe are the reasons for crime due to the knock on effect these factors have on the community network and schools. Consequently, if th...
Criminologists have studied the cause of crime for many years and have created multiple theories as to why an individual may become a criminal. In regards to criminologists’ views, “Some who have a psychological orientation view crime as a function of personality, development, social learning, or cognition. Others investigate the biological correlates of antisocial behavior and study the biochemical, genetic, and neurological linkages to crime. Those with sociological orientation look at the social forces producing criminal behavior, including neighborhood conditions, poverty, socialization, and group interaction” (Siegel, 2014, p. 7). While it is impossible to pin point one true cause of criminal behavior in an individual, or individuals,
Why are some neighborhoods more prone to experience violent episodes than others? What is the extent and in what sociologically measurable ways do communities contribute to the causation and prevention of crime in their neighborhoods? Are neighborhood-level predictors adequate to explain differences in violent crime rates in the respective communities? These are some of the questions addressed by this statistically intense paper published in Science 1997, by Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls.
Social Disorganization theory talks about how one’s surroundings impacts the risk of crime around them. The Social Disorganization Theory was developed to show how much a neighbors and its surroundings affect people and crime. There are many factors that go with crime according to the Social Disorganization Theory. One major factor is Ethnic Diversity. According to the Social Disorganization Theory, the more diverse urban areas are, the more likely their is to be crime committed. (Social Disorganization, 2003). The ethnicity of the community affects crime because of the lack of communication. If you have language barriers, and people who do not understand each other, they may be some tension resulting in more crime. Social Disorganization
Therefore, the community has informal social control, or the connection between social organization and crime. Some of the helpful factors to a community can be informal surveillance, movement-governing rules, and direct intervention. They also contain unity, structure, and integration. All of these qualities are proven to improve crime rate. Socially disorganized communities lack those qualities. According to our lecture, “characteristics such as poverty, residential mobility, and racial/ethnic heterogeneity contribute to social disorganization.” A major example would be when a community has weak social ties. This can be caused from a lack of resources needed to help others, such as single-parent families or poor families. These weak social ties cause social disorganization, which then leads higher levels of crime. According to Seigel, Social disorganization theory concentrates on the circumstances in the inner city that affect crimes. These circumstances include the deterioration of the neighborhoods, the lack of social control, gangs and other groups who violate the law, and the opposing social values within these neighborhoods (Siegel,
There are several criticisms addressed to the Social Disorganization Theory. Firstly, Shaw and McKay have been criticized for not measuring their main focus in detail, namely the characteristics and the extent of social disorganization. However, this criticism was rebutted by studies that included valid measures of social disorganization and found out that the model still remains valid (270). Secondly, the onus put by Shaw and McKay on the macro-level, or better-said, on the structure of the issue at hand has been criticized for not taking into account questions on micro-level, better-said, the individualistic determiners, such as why some youngsters in the worst areas do not become offenders while those living in the best districts (even though very few) do so (270). This criticism was also extenuated by the previous studies of Shaw, where he had focused on the individual level of analysis as well (266, 270).
The areas I researched for violent crimes are Merrillville, Gary, Hammond, East Chicago, Portage, Hobart, and Crown Point. These are the areas that I have some relationship to such as my living space, where I frequently visit to see friends and family members and where I catch the train at for work. According to the webpage Neighborhood Scout, Gary, Hobart, East Chicago and Hammond have the highest crime rate for my area (Neighborhood Scout, 2015). This is not surprising to me.
With more parents working today, one perception is that children are being forced to grow up too quickly, which could be why crime among the youth is growing each day. In the past it was thought that, “If parents raise their children properly, they will be law abiding citizens. In contrast, if a child does not behave appropriately, it must be the parents’ fault” (Nakaya 49), however this may not be the case. While there is not one single cause for juvenile delinquency, Graham believes that bad parenting falls somewhere on the list (1719). So the question arises, is it the child’s fault for the crime he or she committed or should the blame lay upon the parent, who if was present in the child’s life and instilling proper discipline, might prevent the crimes from happening at all. This is a somewhat complex question because in order to place blame or punishment on either the child or the parent several factors must be determined first, such as: what type of home life does the child have? Are the parents reliable role models for their child? Do the parents take every necessary action to ensure that their child knows right from wrong and is aware of consequences that may follow bad behavior? How much time does the child spend unattended and during those times are there options for the child to keep them away from unwanted situations? Does the child have any underlying mental or learning disabilities? What types of relationships does the child have at school? After all these initial factors are investigated and if the parent is shown to be doing everything possible to keep their child from doing wrong but the child still does so, would the blame lie with the child offender or with the parent?