FEARING “RANDOM CRIME”
People most fear “random crime” (Joel Best)
Patternless: It can happen to anyone
Increasing: Crime is getting worse
Pointless: Criminal motives make no sense
But none of these claims are true
Crime is not random: it is stratified by gender,
race, class and age
Official crime has been declining over the past
decade or longer (but may have risen slightly in
recent years)
Criminals have reasons for committing crimes
MEASURING AND LABELING
DEVIANCE, CONTINUED
March 4, 2008
© David Schweingruber 2008
60
52.3
PROPERTY CRIME RATES,
1973-2005 (NCVS)
51.2
47.7
45
42.0
30
21.0
15
0
1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
© David Schweingruber 2008
Victimization per 1,000 households
Victimization per 1,000 population
VIOLENT CRIME RATES,
1973-2005 (NCVS)
553.6
600
450
300
519.9
496.1
348.9
150
154.0
0
1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
© David Schweingruber 2008
HOMICIDE VICTIMIZATION
BY GENDER & RACE, 2002
12
10.2
9.7
9
6
5.6
5.5
3
4.0
1.2
0
1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Victimization per 100,000 population
Victimization per 100,000 population
HOMICIDE RATES, 1900-2002
30.0
22.5
20.8
15.0
7.5
8.8
5.6
0
total
male
2.6
3.3
female
white
© David Schweingruber 2008
Victimization per 100,000 population
HOMICIDE VICTIMIZATION
BY AGE, 2002
HOMICIDES BY GENDER & RACE
OF VICTIM & OFFENDER, 2002
20
Male on male
65.1%
5.7
4.5
White on white
45.7%
Male on female
22.6%
11.0
5
Other
Black on white 1.4%
8.1%
White on black
3.2%
Female on male
9.9%
15.3
10
0 1.5
Under 14
© David Schweingruber 2008
Female on female
2.4%
15
black
Black on black
41.6%
2.5
14-17
18-24
25-34
35-49
50+
Age
© David Schweingruber 2008
© David Schweingruber 2008
LABELING THEORY
Labeling theory: theory which states that deviance is the
consequence of the application of rules and sanctions to an
offender; a deviant is an individual to whom the identity “deviant”
has been successfully applied
Two types of deviance
Primary deviance: routine instances of norm violation that may
or may not result in labeling
Secondary deviance: deviance following and resulting from the
label
Reasons why label may lead to deviance
1. Cut off from participation in conventional groups
2. Treatment may produce increasing deviance
3. Labeled person may believe the label
CAREER TESTING
© David Schweingruber 2008
© David Schweingruber 2008
DEVIANCE BY SOC 134
STUDENTS
DEVIANCE BY SOC 134
STUDENTS
1.8%
59.5%
38.7%
Underage alcohol purchase
Never
0.0%
41.1%
58.9%
Smoked marijuana
4.2%
0.6%
0.0%
1.2%
20.8%
77.6%
21.4%
78.6%
22.0
76.8
Drag racing
Driving without license
Not arrested
Arrested
34.5
64.3
Fake ID
1.2%
0.6%
38.9
59.9
38.3
61.1
Shoplifting under $20 Shoplifting over $20 Vandalized property Stole from hotel room
Never
© David Schweingruber 2008
2.4%
8.9
88.7
49.4%
46.4%
DUI
1.7%
Not arrested
Arrested
© David Schweingruber 2008
THE SAINTS AND THE
ROUGHNECKS
THE SAINTS AND THE
ROUGHNECKS
Participant observation study by William Chambliss
Shows role of class in labeling
Saints
Eight white, upper-middle class boys
Constantly occupied with truancy, drinking, theft & vandalism
Never arrested
Roughnecks
Six white, lower class boys
Engaged in fighting, drinking and theft; less delinquent overall
Constantly in trouble with police & community
© David Schweingruber 2008
Why were the Saints and Roughnecks treated differently?
Visibility: Saints owned their own cars and were able to leave
town
Demeanor: Saints were apologetic and penitent; Roughnecks
hostile and disdainful
Bias: Community is biased against type of delinquency
committed by Roughnecks
The delinquent label reinforced the Roughneck’s delinquency
Predictions about boys’ futures were correct
© David Schweingruber 2008