ST. JEROME'S UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
SOCIOLOGY 229 CEL - SELECTED TOPICS IN CRIMINOLOGY
WINTER 2014
Instructor: Ms. Marcella Granick
marcellagranick@yahoo.com
Communications and email etiquette:
When emailing, please type in the course number in the subject heading so that it is not
mistakenly identified as SPAM. Please identify yourself and the course and keep your
messages/inquiries brief and to the point. Please do not ask for information that can be found on
the course outline (e.g., reading assignments etc.). Please do not forward essays by email. Please
do not ask for your grades by email.
Course Description
A sociological analysis of research and theory on selected criminal activities. Motivation, modus
operandi, and the social characteristics of offences and offenders will be examined in relation to
such crimes as robbery, prison riots, murder and hostage taking in prison, impersonal sex in
public places, drug trafficking, and organized crime.
Outline of Lecture Topics
This course will cover four types of criminal activities and is organized in the following
sequence:
1. Prison riots and hostage taking
2. Robbery and bank robbery
3. Tearoom activity: the study of impersonal sex in public places
4. Higher level drug trafficking and organized crime
2
1. PRISON RIOT MODULES
1. The April 1971 Kingston Penitentiary Topics
1. Introduction to Prison Riots
2. Kingston Penitentiary as a Maximum Security Prison
3. Inmate Informants and Roger Caron’s Bingo
4. The Riot Begins – Billie Knight’s Role
5. The Inmates of 1-D – Inmate Undesirables
6. Friday – The Struggle for Power and Leadership
7. Saturday – The Violent Inmates take Over
8. Sunday April 18 – The Beatings
9. The End of the Kingston Penitentiary Riot
2. Patterns in Prison Riots
1. Initial Stages of Prison Riots – Riots vs Disturbances
2. Prison Riot Leadership
3. Violence During Prison Riots
4. Ending Prison Riots and Prison Riot Prevention
3. The Treatment of Hostages in Prison Riots
1. Introduction – The Different Manner in Which Guards and Undesirables are Treated in
Prison
Riots.
2. Prison Guards as Hostages
3. Hypothesis 1 – Moral Prohibitions
4. Hypothesis 2 – Friendships and Alliances
5. Hypothesis 3 – Fear of Repercussions
6. Hypothesis 4 && 5 – Rewards and Barter
7. Informants – The Absence of Moral Prohibitions
8. Child Molesters – The Absence of Moral Prohibitions
9. San Pedro Prison – La Paz Bolivia
10. Undesirables – Friendships & Alliances / Repercussions / Rewards / Barter
11. Hostage Taking – An Overview
4. Theories of Prison Riots
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Powder Keg Theory of Prison Riots
Robert Merton’s Theory of Anomie
Anomie and Prison Riots – Merton
Emile Durkheim’s Theory of Anomie
Anomie and Prison Riots – Durkheim
3
5. Hostage Taking, Negotiating Strategies, and the Stockholm Syndrome
2. BANK ROBBERY MODULES
Section 1.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
Section 5.
Sample and Research Methodology
Defining Robbery – Robbery and the Law
An Overview of Robbery
The Motivation to Robbery
Modus Operandi and Robbery
Section 1. Sample and Research Methodology
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sample/Research Methodology
Sample/Research Methodology
Sample/Research Methodology
Sample/Research Methodology
–
–
–
–
Readings: Ch. 1 – p. 1-8
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Section 2. Defining Robbery – Robbery and the Law
Defining Robbery – Robbery and the Law
Readings: Ch. 1 – p.
8-23
Section 3. An Overview of Robbery
Readings: Ch. 2
1. Types of Robberies
p. 3133
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Robber and the Victim
The Robbery Rate – Urban vs Rural
Socioeconomic Status, Race, Ethnicity
Drug Usage, Addiction, and Gambling
p. 29-31
p. 33-41
p. 47-52
p. 5253
p. 98-100
6. Unemployment and Robbery
p. 54- 56
p. 89-92
7. Typologies, Specialization, and Recidivism
8. Robbery is a Dumb Crime
p. 56-66
p. 24-29
Section 4. The Motivation to Robbery
Readings: Ch. 3
1. Rational Choice Theory and Robbery
p. 6773
2. Motivational Components in Robbery – Initial Motivation
p. 73-75
p.7983
4
3. Power and Excitement
p.75-79
4. Deterrence – A Nothing to Lose Attitude
p. 79
p. 83
5. Celebrity Status
p. 87-88
p. 92-94
p. 83
p. 97
p. 94-97
p. 84-
6. Choosing to Offend – The Wish to be Independent
7. The Motivation to Continue – A Partying Lifestyle
8. The Close Call – The Robber’s Assessment of Risk
9. Originating the Idea from the Media
87
10. Recidivism and the Decision to Leave Crime
105
75
p. 103p. 74-
11. Case Example – John Wayne
p. 74-79
p. 105-106
12. Summary – Rational Choice Theory and Motivation
Section 5. Modus Operandi and Robbery
Readings: Ch. 4
1. Introduction – Modus Operandi and Robbery
2. Planning the Crime
p. 107-113
p. 113119
3. Selecting a Target
p. 115116
4. Getaways, Alarms, and Cameras
5. Doing the First Robbery
p. 117-121
p. 119120
6. M.O. and the Influence of the Mass Media
p. 121-123
5
7. The Decision to Use a Weapon
p. 123-125
p.129
p. 133-
8. An Unchanging M.O.
134
9. Heros and Resistance in Robbery
Canadian
Banker article: Robbers and Heros
10. The Notepushers
p. 119-121
p. 134-142
11. Bank Robbery Crews – Part I
p. 130-133
p. 142-148
p. 142-148
p. 148-
12. Bank Robbery Crews – Part II
13. The Solo Gunman
153
14.
15.
16.
17.
Armoured Vehicle Robbers – Part I
Armoured Vehicle Robbers – Part II
Armoured Vehicle Robbers – Part III
Disarming the Armed Guard
p. 153-172
p. 153-172
p. 153-172
p. 168-170
3. HIGHER LEVEL DRUG TRAFFICKING MODULES
3. Higher Level Drug Trafficking and Organized Crime
Drug Trafficking: The Crime that Pays
Organized Crime and Higher-Level Drug Trafficking
The Motivation and Lifestyle of Higher-Level Drug Traffickers
The Modus Operandi of Higher-Level Drug Traffickers: Marketing, Organization, and Security
The Modus Operandi of Higher-Level Drug Traffickers: Fronts, Debts, and Violence
4. TEAROOM TRADE MODULES
4. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places
Laud Humphreys Research Methodology
Desroches’ Research Methodology
Rules and Roles in Tearoom Sex
6
The Risks of the Game
Characteristics of Tearoom Participants
The Breastplate of Righteousness
Motivation to Tearoom Sex
Textbooks
Desroches, Frederick
2005 The Crime that Pays: Drug Trafficking and Organized Crime in Canada. Toronto:
Canadian Scholars' Press.
Desroches, Frederick
2002 Force and Fear: Robbery in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
Humphreys, Laud
1970 Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. New York: Aldine Publishing
Company.
Soc 229 Course Notes: Theories of Crime and Delinquency.
Articles
Desroches, Frederick
2007 Research on Upper Level Drug Trafficking. Journal of Drug Issues. Volume 37:827844.
Desroches, Frederick
2001 High and Mid-Level Drug Trafficking in Canada. RCMP Gazette. Volume 63, No. 4:2830.
Desroches, Frederick
1997 Robbers and Heroes. Canadian Banker. Volume 104, No. 6:21-24.
Desroches, Frederick
1990 Tearoom Trade: A Research Update. Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 39-61.
Desroches, Frederick
7
1986 Bank Robbery and the Mass Media. Canadian Banker, Vol. 93, No. 5, pp. 46-50.
Required Readings:
You are required to read each of the articles listed above.
Course Notes: Theories of Crime and Delinquency contain summaries of major theories of
crime. These theories are meant to assist you with your essay topics and will not be used to
testing purposes unless discussed in class or the course textbooks.
You are required to read Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places to page 166.
Required readings from Force and Fear: Robbery in Canada:
Chapter 1
Robbery and the Law
Chapter 2
An Overview of Robbery
Chapter 3
The Motivation to Robbery
Chapter 4
Modus Operandi
Required readings from The Crime that Pays: Drug Trafficking and Organized Crime in
Canada
Chapter 1
Drug Trafficking: The Crime that Pays
Chapter 3
Organized Crime and Higher-Level Drug Trafficking
Chapter 4
The Motivation and Lifestyle of Higher-Level Drug Traffickers
Chapter 5
The Modus Operandi of Higher-Level Drug Traffickers: Marketing, Organization,
and Security
Chapter 6
Violence
The Modus Operandi of Higher-Level Drug Traffickers: Fronts, Debts, and
Outline of Lecture Topics
1. Prison Riots
The April 1971 Kingston Penitentiary Riot
Definition of Prison Riots
The Study of Prison Riots: Desroches’ Research Methodology
8
Wednesday April 14: The Riot Begins
The Inmates of 1-D: Inmate Undesirables
Attacks on Inmate Undesirables
Friday April 16: The Struggle for Power
Negotiations between Inmates and the Government
Saturday April 17: The Toughs Take Over
Sunday April 18: The Torture of Undesirables
The End of the Riot
Three Criminal Trials
Patterns in Prison Riots
Predictability within Prison Riots
Initial Stages of a Riot
Prison Riot Leadership
Violence During Prison Riots
The Treatment of Hostages in Prison Riots
Prison Riot Prevention
Negotiating the End of a Prison Riot
The Treatment of Hostages in Prison Riots
Prison Guards and “Undesirables” as Hostages
The Treatment of Prison Guards
1. Moral Prohibitions
2. Friendship, Alliances, and the Stockholm Syndrome
3. The Fear of Repercussions
4. The Expectation of Rewards
5. The Hostages as Barter
The Treatment of Inmate Undesirables
1. The Lack of Moral Prohibitions: Informants and Child Molesters
2. The Lack of Friendship and Alliances
3. The Unlikelihood of Repercussions
4. The Unlikelihood of Rewards
5. Undesirables as Barter
Theories of Prison Riots
The Powder Keg Theory
Anomie: Merton
Anomie Durkheim
Hostage Taking and Police Strategies
The Escaping Criminal
9
Rioting Inmates
The Emotionally Disturbed Individual
Terrorist Hostage Takers
Negotiating Principles in Hostage Taking Incidents
The Stockholm Syndrome
2. Robbery
An Overview of Robbery
Defining Robbery: Robbery and the Law
Robbery as an Unsophisticated Crime
The Financial Gains are Small
Stranger and Victim
Victim Confrontation and Management
Types of Robberies
Muggings
Commercial Robberies
The Robbery of Financial Institutions
Armoured Vehicle Robberies
The Robbery Rate
Urbanization and Robbery
Characteristics of Offenders
Age
The Age-Crime Curve
Gender: Male vs Female Criminality
Socioeconomic Status, Race, and Ethnicity
Drug Usage and Robbery
The Drug Addiction Causes Crime Hypothesis
The Deviant Lifestyle or Criminalization Hypothesis
Desroches’s Findings: Drug Usage and Gambling
Unemployment and Robbery: The U-C Relationship
Desroches’ Findings: The Employment History of Robbers
Offender Typologies and Crime Specialization
Criminal Recidivists
The Criminal Career Controversy
The Motivation to Robbery
Theories of Crime
Rational Choice Theory and Robbery
The Motivation to Robbery
Money, Spending, and Lifestyle
Power and Excitement as Motives to Robbery
10
Motivational Components in Robbery
Initial Motivation: The Need for Money
The Appeal Of Bank Robbery
Nothing to Lose: a Mood of Fatalism
From Need to Greed: The Motivation to Continue
Originating the Idea: The Role of the Mass Media
Celebrity Status and Robbery
Techniques of Neutralization and Robbery
Criminal Opportunity: The Role of Others
Choosing to Offend: The Wish to be Independent
The Close Call
Spending and the Partying Lifestyle
Recidivists: Men Who Come Back
The Decision to Leave Crime and Delayed Deterrence
Modus Operandi and Robbery
Modus Operandi
Muggings and Commercial Robberies
The Robbery of Financial Institutions
Beggar Bandits
Bank Robbery Crews
The Solo Gunman
Planning the Crime
Selecting a Target
Alarms and Cameras
Planning the Getaway
Surreptitious vs Commando-Style Attack
Modus Operandi and the Influence of the Mass Media
The Decision to Use a Weapon
Confronting and Controlling Victims
Heros and Resistance in Robbery
Doing it Alone vs Doing it with Others: The Division of Labour in Bank Robbery Crews
An Unchanging M.O.
Typologies of Three Types of Bank Robbers
1. Patterns and Variations among Beggar Bandits
2. Bank Robbery Crews: The Cowboy M.O.
3. The Solo Gunman
Armoured Vehicle Robbers: Seeking the Big Score
Professional Criminals
Heroes and Resistance in Robbery ??
3. Higher Level Drug Trafficking and Organized Crime
Drug Trafficking: The Crime that Pays
11
Defining Higher Level Drug Trafficking
Retail Drug Trafficking: A Summary of the Research
The “Crime Doesn’t Pay Argument”
Research Methodology: Interviewing Higher Level Drug Traffickers
Organized Crime and Higher-Level Drug Trafficking
The Mafia Model of Organized Crime
The Network Model of Organized Crime
Economic Models of Organized Crime
Drug Trafficking as Business Enterprise
The Present Study: Criminal Background and Employment History
Friendship, Kinship, Race, and Ethnicity
Size and Composition of Drug Dealing Syndicates
Drug Trafficking as Independent Entrepreneurship
The Motivation and Lifestyle of Higher-Level Drug Traffickers
Initial Involvement in Drug Trafficking
Learning Theories of Crime
Prison and Street Connections
Rational Choice Theory and Crime
Anomie Theory and Motivation
Opportunity Theory and Drug Trafficking
Ethnicity and Opportunity: Contacts in Source Countries
Business Employment and Illegitimate Opportunity
From Retail to Wholesale: Moving Up the Ladder
Stages in the Move from Retail to Wholesale
Social Control Theories and Family Relationships
Social Bonding Theory and Crime
Morality and Techniques of Neutralization
The Ego and Self-Concept of Drug Traffickers
Typologies of Higher Level Drug Traffickers
1. The Criminal Drug Dealer
2. The Businessman Drug Dealer
Profits, Costs, and Losses
The Dealing Lifestyle
Spending the Money
Stresses Associated with a Life of Crime
Leading a Secret Life
The Failure to Get out of Drug Dealing
1. Greed: Expanding Aspirations
2. Ego and Self-Confidence
3. Identity, Power, Status, and Lifestyle
4. Sense f Responsibility: Peer Pressure
5. Addiction
6. Complacency
7. Lack of Deterrence
8. Pushing One’s Luck
12
The Modus Operandi of Higher-Level Drug Traffickers: Marketing, Organization, and Security
Marketing Illicit Drugs
Quality, Quantity, Price, and Reputation
Relationships among Dealers
Partnerships
Modus Operandi and Security
1. Security Through Violence and Intimidation
2. Security Through Trust: Friendship, Kinship, and Ethnicity
3. Security Through Redundancy
4. Security Through Size and Structure
5. Security Through Secrecy
6. Security Through Information Networks
7. Security Through Corruption
8. Security Through Diplomacy
9. Security Through Technology
Summary
The Modus Operandi of Higher-Level Drug Traffickers: Fronts, Debts, and Violence
Marketing and the Use of Credit: The Front
Principles and Precautions in Fronting
Norms Regulating Fronts
Financial and Security Risks
Violence among Higher-Level Traffickers
Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs and Violence
Organized Drug Syndicates and Territoriality
Retail Sales, Violence, and Territoriality
4. Impersonal Sex in Public Places
Laud Humphreys’ Tearoom Trade
Humphrey’s Research Methodology
Desroches’ Sample and Research Methodology
Discovering and Identifying Tearooms
The Isolated Tearoom
Public Parks
Shopping Malls
Erotic Grafitti
The Role of the Internet
The Watchqueen Role
Surreptitious Interviews
Interviews with the “Intensive Dozen”
Ethical Issues and Humphreys’ Research Methodology
Humphreys’ Life
Desroches’ Sample and Research Methodology
The Police Investigation of Tearoom Sex in Five Ontario Communities
Sample Size and Characteristics
13
Rules in Tearoom Sex
Silence and the Functions of the Rules
Roles in Tearoom Sex
Waiters
Masturbators
Voyeurs
Insertee and Insertor Roles
Non-Reciprocity in Sexual Encounters
Straights
Agents of Social Control
Teenagers: Straights, Enlisters, Toughs, and Hustlers
The Aging Crisis
Gestures, Strategies, and Communications within the Tearoom
Avoiding Children
Non-Coercive Sex
Silence and Impersonality
Lingering, Eye Contact, and Foot Tapping
Positioning
Coping with Intrusions
Passing Notes
The Glory Hole
Sexual Activity
The Physical Characteristics of Washrooms
Serial Encounters
Simultaneous Encounters
Voyeurs
Taking on the Insertee Role
The Risks of the Game
Blackmail
Park and Mall Security
Humphrey’s Arrest
Teenage Toughs
The Police
Venereal Disease
Desroches’ Sample
Characteristics of Tearoom Participants
Humphreys 50 Interviews
The Age of Participants
The Occupational Status of Participants (Desroches)
The Marital Status of Participants
Four Types of Participants
Type I Trade
14
Type IIBisexuals
Type III
Gay Participants
Type IV
Closet Queens
Desroches’ Findings
The Breastplate of Righteousness
Covert Deviants: Trade and Closet Queens
Four Hypotheses:
1. The Protection Hypothesis (Humphreys)
2. Reaction Formation (Desroches)
3. Self-Validation (Desroches)
4. Cause or Effect? (Desroches)
Motivation to Tearoom Sex
Heterosexuals, Bisexuals, and Gay Men
Sexuality along a Continuum
Excitement and Risk Taking
Playing the Game
Anomie and Blocked Opportunity
Tearoom Sex as Free
Speed and Ease
Invisibility
Variety
Impersonality and Lack of Commitment
Anonymity and the Perception of Tearoom Activity as Low Risk
Tearoom Sex and Social Control
Humphreys’s Critique of the Police
Desroches’s Study of the Police
Social Policy Implications
Course Requirements
Option 1 consists of an essay assignment and a final examination valued as
follows:
1. Essay Assignment
2. Final Examination
30%
70%
Due date: Week 6
The final examination will cover the entire course and will consist of three
sections.
1. Short answer questions - 20%
2. Essay Question - 20%
15
3. True/False and Multiple/Choice - 30%
There will be some choice available on the short answer and essay questions. Each
of the three sections will be worth 20%. Questions will be selected from both the
lectures and the required reading materials.
Option 2 consists of a final exam valued at 100%.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Short answer questions - 20%
Essay Question - 20%
True/False and Multiple/Choice - 30%
Short answer and essay questions -30%
There will be some choice available on the short answer and essay questions
(sections 1, 2, and 4).
There is no need to declare your choice of these two options. Students who do not
submit the essay assignment on the due date will be assumed to have chosen to
write a final exam valued at 100% of the final grade.
Take-Home Examination - 30%
Description
You are required to write a brief (4 pages double spaced size 12 font) answer to the following question. Due
date: week 10.
Critically apply the following two sociological theories of crime to three cases from Behind the
Bars: Experiences in Crime. The three cases must be chosen from the chapters listed below.
Please note that a summary/description of each of the theories is provided at the end of the
assignment. You may use the summary/description of the theories as the basis for this
assignment and there is no need for other references/sources.
1. Clarke and Cornish’s rational choice theory and Travis Hirschi's social bonding theory.
Write a brief essay (4 typed pages, double spaced, one inch margins, & size 12 font) on one of
the following.
Critically apply the following two theories to three cases from Behind the Bars: Experiences in
Crime. The three cases must be chosen from the chapters listed below.
16
Choose your cases from three of the following chapters: of Ch. 1, 2, 3, & 4.
In your answer, please discuss the basic premises of rational choice theory and make reference to (a)
subjective (“bounded”) versus objective rationality; (b) expressive versus instrumental crime; and (c) primary
versus secondary motivations.
Please explain how rational choice theory is better suited to explaining instrumental (goal oriented) crime while
social bonding theory better explains expressive (emotionally motivated) criminal conduct.
Discuss one criticism of each theory? Use case materials to illustrate and support your critique.
Please note that a summary/description of each of the theories is provided at the end of the
assignment. You may use the summary/description of the theories as the basis for this
assignment and there is no need for other references/sources.
ESSAY INSTRUCTIONS
Begin your essay by briefly explaining the main arguments behind rational choice
theory (1/3 page). Do not provide an extensive description or precis of the theory.
Once you have made clear the main arguments behind rational choice theory, begin
by analyzing the cases. Apply each theory to each of the cases and try to show
explicitly how the theories fit or fail to fit the case materials. Do not force the
theories onto the case materials if they do not fit. Explain the theory in more detail
as you analyze the cases and show how the case examples (brief quotes, summaries
of events) illustrate or fail to support the theoretical argument.
Your synopsis of the two theories should be no more than two-thirds (2/3) of a page in total.
Everything that follows should be analytical and not descriptive.
Once you have made clear the main arguments behind the two theories, begin by analyzing the
cases. Apply each theory to each of the cases and try to show explicitly how the theories fit or
fail to fit the case materials. Do not force the theories onto the case materials if they do not fit.
Explain the theory in more detail as you analyze the cases and show how the case examples
(brief quotes, summaries of events) illustrate or fail to support the theoretical argument.
In your essay, critically discuss and analyze the image(s) that both theories present of offenders?
What type of person is the offender according to these theories?
In other words, do the theories depict criminals as losers, followers, leaders, desperate, greedy,
angry, lazy, opportunistic, caring, uncaring, cruel, narcissistic, egocentric, normal, status
conscious, rational, irrational, powerless, powerful, impulsive, compulsive, alienated, victimized,
oppressed, disturbed, unsocialized, violent, courageous, rebellious, justified, heroic etc.?
How well do these personality characterizations fit the case materials? What characteristics of
offenders do you believe are poorly explained by the theories?
17
Illustrate your answer with brief, clear, and precise quotes and/or summaries of case materials.
The paper should be well organized and well written. You must present a precise
explanation of each theory and show clearly how the theories apply or do not apply
to the case materials. Use examples to illustrate your arguments and please provide
brief quotations with page references.
There is no need for an introduction or a conclusion.
Do not force a theory onto a case when it clearly does not fit.
Highlight the cases in bold (e.g., Papa Was a Rolling Stone or Papa).
Don't assert! Explain, analyze, illustrate, and document. Do not summarize or
describe the cases.
Apart from your brief introduction to the theories, do not discuss the theories
without reference to the cases and do not discuss the cases without reference to the
theories.
Your cover page should include your name, I.D., date, and clearly indicate the two
theories and three cases that are the subject of the essay. Also list the chapters of
the text from which the cases are chosen.
Do not hand in an essay that is longer than 4 pages double spaced. Use a 12
size font and one inch margins at the top, bottom, and on the right and left
sides of the paper. Your cover page does not count as one page. Use a
minimum of 3 or 4 paragraphs per page – this is absolutely mandatory. Please
do not post questions or forward emails complaining, questioning, or challenging
the requirement with respect to paragraphs. Please do not attempt to overcome
length restrictions by handing in an essay without paragraphs, with 1 1/2 spacing,
by using small font, or by condensing your margins etc. Essays that do not
conform to these requirements will have grades deducted. Your cover page and
references do not count towards the four page limit.
Please note: references beyond the course materials are not required. You can
reference the course materials as follows: (Desroches, 1996:32) and (Soc 229
Notes, 2014).
Number each page (do not number the cover page). Do not use footnotes but
instead, refer to your sources by the author's last name, year of publication, and
18
page number(s) e.g., (Desroches, 2002:117).
Please ensure that the essay is well organized. One of the main problems with
student essays is that they are disjointed and ideas and paragraphs are not
connected to one another with any coherence.
Please read and reread the instructions and requirements with respect to the
essay assignment before you contact the course administrator asking for
clarification. Please keep in mind that the course administrator is available to help
clarify essay instructions. She cannot make decisions for you about the content of
the paper, its organization etc.
Please be respectful in your posting and emails and please conform to appropriate
email etiquette.
Please ensure that your essay is complete and that it conforms to the essay
requirements (PDF) posted for this course before you submit it.
Please include the following in your essays:
The paper should be well organized and well written. You must present a precise explanation of
each theory and show clearly how the theories apply or do not apply to the case materials. Use
examples to illustrate your arguments and please provide brief quotations with page references.
There is no need for an introduction or a conclusion.
Do not force a theory onto a case when it clearly does not fit.
Highlight the cases in bold (e.g., Papa Was a Rolling Stone or Papa).
A SUMMARY OF THE THEORIES
Rational Choice Theory
Clarke, Ronald V. & Cornish, Derek
1985 Modelling Offender’s Decisions: A Framework for Research and Policy.
In M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review
of Research. Volume 6:147-85 Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(See also Ch. 1 pages 1-4 from Behind the Bars for a discussion of rational choice
theory)
19
Economists have long held the view that property offences are the result of rational
decision-making reached by men/women who confront a problem faced by many
others – a need or a desire for money.
Implicit in the economic perspective is an actor who views theft as a rational and
productive activity despite the fact that capture, imprisonment, and death may be
part of the equation.
The expected utility model in economics (Becker, 1968) is based on the
assumption that offenders rationally attempt to maximize the monetary and psychic
rewards of crime. If crime has a higher utility than conforming behaviour – that is,
an acceptable chance at not getting caught and a desirable amount to gain, then the
individual should decide in favour of committing the crime.
On the other hand, if the perceived risk of capture is high and the expected penalty
is great, the would-be-criminal should be deterred.
In contrast to the economic or "normative" rationality underlying the expected
utility model, rational choice theory (Clark and Cornish, 1985) suggests that
criminal decision making is characterized by a very rudimentary cost-benefit
analysis. The theory analyzes the decision making process as it relates to the
various stages of criminal involvement including initial motivation, the motivation
to continue, and the decision to cease criminal involvement. The basic assumption
is that people are rational and goal oriented and will rationally choose criminal
activities after considering risks and rewards. The theory is best applied to
instrumental versus expressive criminal activities.
Choice theory also analyzes decisions of a more tactical nature (e.g., modus
operandi) relating to the criminal event itself including the selection of a specific
type of crime and target, the getaway, or the decision to use or not use a weapon.
The rational choice approach explicitly recognizes situational variables and their
importance in relation to the criminal event.
Although the rational choice perspective on crime is best suited to utilitarian
offences such as theft, burglary, and robbery, its proponents argue that even
behaviours that appear to be pathologically motivated or impulsively executed
have rational components present.
20
Rational choice theory portrays criminal behaviour as the outcome of choices and
assumes that decisions made by offenders exhibit limited or bounded rationality
(Simon, 1957) rather than normative rationality.
The bounded rationality hypothesis assumes that human information-processing
limitations place constraints on decision processes and that people make
simplifications and shortcuts that are reasonable but which may produce inferior
outcomes.
Criminal behaviour may be planned and premeditated but not fully rational in the
strict sense that the expected utility model assumes. The picture that emerges from
research on criminal decision making is that of a limited information processor,
often working under pressure of time, who uses many different strategies to
simplify the task of evaluating choice alternatives in the complex environment of
everyday life.
The planning and rationality used may subsequently be seen to be in error, but at
the time the offender feels he/she has considered the risk vs reward and taken
sufficient precautions.
Rational choice theory considers the offender's perspective, how he/she makes
sense of his/her world in order to understand which factors offenders take into
account when planning a crime. Choice theory does not judge the rationality of
criminals in an objective manner; rather the rationality studied is the subjective
motivation and thought processes of criminals as they consider their crimes.
Rational choice theory is criticized for largely ignoring background factors
commonly thought of as root causes of crime such as age, gender, socioeconomic
status, race, family, and peer influences.
Another critique of the rational choice perspective is the tendency to
overemphasize the intellectual sophistication of the offender, viewing him/her as
more rational, reasoning, thoughtful and clever than is actually the case. Many
crimes show very little evidence of planning and forethought.
A SUMMARY AND CRITIQUE OF RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY
Economists have long held the view that property offences are the result of rational decision-making reached
by men/women who confront a problem faced by many others - a need or a desire for money.
Implicit in the economic perspective is an actor who views theft as a rational and productive activity despite the
fact that capture, imprisonment, and death may be part of the equation.
21
The expected utility model in economics (Becker, 1968) is based on the assumption that offenders rationally
attempt to maximize the monetary and psychic rewards of crime. If crime has a higher utility than conforming
behaviour--that is, an acceptable chance at not getting caught and a desirable amount to gain, then the
individual should decide in favour of committing the crime.
On the other hand, if the perceived risk of capture is high and the expected penalty is great, the would-becriminal should be deterred.
In contrast to the economic or "normative" rationality underlying the expected utility model, rational choice
theory (Clark and Cornish, 1985) suggests that criminal decision making is characterized by a very rudimentary
cost-benefit analysis. The theory analyzes the decision making process as it relates to the various stages of
criminal involvement including initial motivation, the motivation to continue, and the decision to cease criminal
involvement.
Choice theory also analyzes decisions of a more tactical nature relating to the criminal event itself including the
selection of a specific type of crime and target, the getaway, or the decision to use or not use a weapon.
Choice theory adopts a crime-specific focus not only because different crimes may meet different needs, but
also because the situational context of decision-making and the information being handled will vary greatly
among offences.
Although the rational choice perspective on crime is best suited to utilitarian offences such as theft, burglary,
and robbery, its proponents argue that even behaviours that appear to be pathologically motivated or
impulsively executed have rational components present.
Rational choice theory portrays criminal behaviour as the outcome of choices and assumes that decisions
made by offenders exhibit limited or bounded rationality (Simon, 1957) rather than normative rationality.
The bounded rationality hypothesis assumes that human information-processing limitations place constraints
on decision processes and that people make simplifications and shortcuts that are reasonable but which may
produce inferior outcomes (Carroll and Weaver, 1986).
Criminal behaviour may be planned and premeditated but not fully rational in the strict sense that the expected
utility model assumes. The picture that emerges from research on criminal decision making is that of a limited
information processor, often working under pressure of time, who uses many different strategies to simplify the
task of evaluating choice alternatives in the complex environment of everyday life.
The planning and rationality used may subsequently be seen to be in error, but at the time the offender
commits the crime, he/she feels that he/she has taken enough precautions. It can be argued that although the
behaviour of robbers would seem more rational if there was greater evidence of planning and concern about
the possibility of apprehension, their decisions nonetheless meet the standards of minimum rationality.
22
Rational choice theory considers the offender's perspective, how he/she makes sense of his/her world in order
to understand which factors offenders take into account when planning a crime. In this sense, the perspective
is similar to symbolic interactionism theory.
When we apply rational choice theory to crime, we approach it from the perspective of the offender (e.g.,
meanings). Just what are the motives to robbery and to what extent are they based on rational choice? Why
would anyone choose to commit a crime that has high risk and low reward?
CRITICISMS/LIMITATIONS OF RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY
Rational choice theory is criticized for largely ignoring background factors commonly thought of as root causes
of crime such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, race, and gang membership.
Hirschi (1986:116) asserts that the choice perspective typically pays little attention to correlates of crime
beyond the certainty, celerity, and severity of legal punishment. The general tendency is to treat correlates as
"root causes" or "background variables" about which little can be done and which are therefore largely
irrelevant to a choice or policy perspective.
Other sociological theories of crime suggest that social factors such as peer groups, family conditions, and
socioeconomic status influence deviant behaviour. One implication of this is the view that criminals are victims
of societal conditions and pressured by situational factors into criminal activities.
A rational choice perspective accepts the fact that offenders are influenced by social pressures, but contends
that they are generally not compelled to act in a criminal way.
Another critique of the rational choice perspective is the tendency to overemphasize the intellectual
sophistication of the offender, viewing him/her as more rational, reasoning, thoughtful and clever than is
actually the case.
The research evidence indicates that most crimes take little skill to commit and that a more realistic image of
offenders is that of a "loser" - a person with few conventional or criminal skills. An overemphasis on rationality
suggests that offenders should show evidence of planning and forethought - something often not evident.
Travis Hirschi suggests that social control theory with its more realistic image of offenders as "losers" provides
a useful counterbalance to the rational model.
LIMITATIONS OF RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY
Research evidence indicates that most offenders including persistent and "professional" criminals do not
approach robbery in the calculating spirit of a money-making opportunity.
Rational choice theory clearly has limitations and is not fully appropriate for analyzing behaviour that is
primarily influenced by drugs, alcohol, friends and acquaintances, and financial hardship. There is commonly
23
an element of desperation, fatalism, impulsiveness, opportunism, and concern with luck in the life situation that
propels offenders to rob.
Behaviour is not always a rational calculation of risk. On the contrary, robbery may be undertaken with little
consideration of risk or with the attitude "to hell with the risk."
In some instances such as robberies committed impulsively or while stoned on drugs or alcohol, a rational
choice perspective has little relevance. Treating such behaviour as rational in order to explain it only distorts
reality.
Thus one danger in using a rational choice perspective is the possibility that criminologists may portray
offenders as more thoughtful, reasoning, and intellectually sophisticated than they really are. Clarke and
Cornish (1986:10) warn about the danger that a largely fictional gloss of rationality, born out of the demands of
the researcher.
Hirschi (1986:115) argues that accepting a rational choice model, however, does not require that we assume
planning or foresight beyond the bare minimum necessary for the act to occur. Thus the use of the concept
"bounded" (Simon, 1957) or "limited" (Bennett and Wright, 1984) rationality is more appropriate.
Although rational choice theory is open to listening to offenders and hearing their reasons for committing
robberies, researchers must be skeptical and not believe everything they hear.
Empirical research in criminology appears to confirm the perception of criminal choice as characterized by
bounded rationality. Criminals do not seem to acquire the kind of information about crime (certainty and
severity of objective sanctions) implied by rational models. Bennett and Wright's (1984) study of burglary, for
instance, describes the offender as making a choice to offend and planning the offense, but rational only in the
limited sense of what seems reasonable to the offender at the time, given the predicament he or she is in.
The concept of limited rationality suggests that factors such as moods, motives, moral judgments, perceptions
of opportunity, laziness, alcohol and narcotics consumed, the effect of others, and attitudes to risk influence the
decision to commit an offence.
Choice theory recognizes that offenders do not consider all the variables, do not perceive them in the same
manner, nor do they utilize the data in a similar way. For instance, people may lack information about the full
range of offences that could satisfy their goals; they may be unaware of the extent to which available
opportunities have structured their choices; they may be ignorant of all the costs and benefits of the different
offences; and they may assign particular importance to certain choice-structuring properties (such as
eschewing the use of violence).
SOCIAL CONTROL THEORIES OF CRIME AND DELINQUENCY:
Social control theories (which include Hirschi’s social bonding theory and Sykes and Matza’s
techniques of neutralization theory) explain conformity in reference to the strategies that
24
societies use to maintain social order. These include socialization into common values, family
supervision, role modelling, reward structures that promote conformity, and a variety of formal
and informal mechanisms that discourage, punish, and deter deviant conduct. Social control
theory explains deviance by pointing to situations in which there is an absence of controls.
Whereas other theories assume conformity and attempt to explain deviance, a social control
perspective views conforming behaviour as problematic since humans will violate norms if it is
in their advantage to do so. Thus when social controls are weak or non-existent, deviant
behaviour results.
Control theorists maintain that individuals are taught conforming behaviour through a
socialization process that involves rewards for acceptable conduct and punishment for
nonconforming behaviour. Individuals who do not conform can be thought of as products of poor
or inadequate socialization. The concern that parents exhibit towards their children - supervising
their activities, scrutinizing their companions, establishing curfews and other expectations,
punishing nonconforming behaviour, and rewarding pro-social activities - indicate a tacit
acceptance of the tenets of social control theory. Clearly most parents believe that parental
supervision decreases the probability of delinquent behaviour.
SOCIAL BONDING THEORY
Hirschi, Travis
1969 Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
(See also Ch. 4 pages 65-69 from Behind the Bars for a discussion of social bonding theory).
With the publication of Travis Hirschi's Causes of Delinquency in 1969, social control theory
began to emerge as a major paradigm for explaining crime and delinquency. Hirshi's social
bonding theory emphasizes the positive role that socialization plays in the promotion of
conformity. Proper socialization establishes social bonds between the individual and others in
society who are carriers of conformist values. Hirshi argued that people are more likely to
become deviant if the bonds to society are weakened or non-existent. He suggested that the
social bond consists of four elements which promote conformity and prevent deviance:
attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief.
Hirschi argues that attachment to others, particularly primary groups such as the family will
constrain behaviour because individuals will not wish to hurt, embarrass, or disappoint the
people they are attached to. These affective bonds (attachments) act as social controls that
prevent the drift into deviant behaviour. A persons who lack attachments is freer to commit
criminal offences because he/she has no one else to concern him/herself with.
Commitment to conventional goals will also act as a social control preventing deviance. The
more a person has invested his/her time and energy into conventional pursuits such as an
education, a business, a relationship, or a job, the more he/she has to lose. The decision to
commit a deviant act will place at risk his/her investment. People with little at risk are more
likely to become deviant, according to this perspective, since they have less to lose and are less
controlled by social commitments.
25
Hirschi also argues that involvement in conventional activity takes time and limits the
opportunity to partake in deviant pursuits. People with time on their hands, however, are more
susceptible to deviant enticements.
In addition, he argues that belief in cultural morality and respect for the law constrains behavior.
A lack of socialization into conventional values leaves one relatively free to pursue criminal
conduct whereas the internalization of conventional definitions of right and wrong acts as a
strong social control for most individuals.
Hirschi's formulation not only explains deviant conduct, it also explains how a person can drift
into and out of crime since attachments can exist and be broken over time and place. The
strength of existing social controls also varies from time to time.
It is also possible t reverse Hirschi’s theory and argue that social bonds can lead to crime if those
attachments are with other criminals.Are there any examples of this in your cases?
Toby's (1957) concept stakes in conformity offers a similar explanation of conformity by
focusing on material goods and relationships that people risk losing through deviance.
Attachments to others are among the most potent stakes in conformity. We risk our closest and
most intimate relationships by behaviour that violates what others expect of us. People lacking
such relationships, of course, do not risk their loss.
Toby, J.
1957 Social Disorganization and Stake in Conformity: Complementary Factors in the
Predatory Behavior of Hoodlums. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police
Science. 48:12-17.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE FINAL EXAMINATION
There will be a 2 1/2 hour final examination in the course covering lecture and
reading materials and worth 70% of the final grade.
The final examination will consist of the following: (1) short answer questions; (2)
essay questions; and (3) 30 True/False (T/F) and Multiple/Choice (M/C) questions.
There will be choice on the short answer and essay questions. Study questions for
the essay section are included below.
The final examination will consist of three sections:
Section 1 will consist of short answer questions - Value 20%.
Section 2 will consist of 3 essay questions. You will be required to answer one (1)
of these essay questions - Value 20%.
26
Section 3 will consist of 30 True/False Multiple/Choice questions - Value 30%.
Section 1 – Short answer questions - Value 20%
Section 1 of the final examination will ask you to write brief explanatory notes on
four (4) of ten (10) concepts and to provide an example or criticism (whatever is
most appropriate) for each answer. Each concept will be graded out of five marks.
You will be limited to seven lines for each concept (not seven sentences).
This section will focus on major concepts discussed in the course. Examples of
concepts include the following: inmate undesirables, rational choice theory and
robbery, the breastplate of righteousness, the use of fronts in drug trafficking,
anomie and prison riots (Merton), bank robbery crews, the “trade” (Humphreys),
etc.
In answering this section, please focus on the key defining characteristics of each
concept. You are limited to seven lines for each concept and anything over seven
lines will not be graded. Many students choose to ignore the seven line limit and
receive very poor grades in this section of the exam as a consequence.
You are permitted to use point form in answering this Section 1 of the exam.
Section 2 – Essay question - Value 20%
Section 2 of the final exam will ask you to write a brief answer (1 1/2pages writing
on each and every line) to one (1) of three (3) essay style questions.
The three questions chosen for the final exam will be from two of the four topics
covered in the course (i.e., prison riots, robbery, tearooms, higher level drug
trafficking).
The three essay questions on the exam will be taken from the list of study
questions provided below. Because the questions are provided, most students will
do well on this section. However, please be sure that you read and answer the
questions and provide answers that are detailed, accurate, and clearly written.
Please read the question carefully and answer the question directly.
There is no need for an introduction or a conclusion in your answers. Use the
limited space allowed wisely.
Section 3 – True/False and Multiple/Choice questions - Value 30%
27
Section 3 of the final examination will consist of 50 True/False Multiple/Choice
questions. The questions will test your understanding of important issues, research
findings, theories, and concepts discussed in the course. You will not be tested on
obscure facts, statistics, names, or dates. T/F and M/C questions will test both the
reading and lecture materials.
Examples of T/F and M/C question are as follows:
Durkheim's anomie theory suggests that prison riots are rational pre-planned
events.
TRUE
FALSE
The majority of "businessmen" drug traffickers use violence to collect drug debts.
TRUE
FALSE
The hatred of child molesters by inmates indicates:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
the acceptance of conventional values
the rejection of conventional values
the reaction to a situation of anomie (Durkheim)
the reaction to a situation of anomie (Merton)
none of the above
UW POLICY REGARDING ILLNESS AND MISSED TESTS
The University of Waterloo Examination Regulations
(www.registrar.uwaterloo.ca/exams/ExamRegs.pdf) state that:
· A medical certificate presented in support of an official petition for relief from normal
academic requirements must provide all of the information requested on the “University of
Waterloo Verification of Illness” form or it will not be accepted. This form can be
obtained from Health Services or at
www.healthservices.uwaterloo.ca/Health_Services/verification.html.
· If a student has a test/examination deferred due to acceptable medical evidence, he/she
normally will write the test/examination at a mutually convenient time, to be determined
by the course instructor.
· The University acknowledges that, due to the pluralistic nature of the University
community, some students may on religious grounds require alternative times to write
tests and examinations.
28
·
Elective arrangements (such as travel plans) are not considered acceptable grounds for
granting an alternative examination time.
A NOTE ON THE AVOIDANCE OF ACADEMIC OFFENCES
Academic Integrity: In order to maintain a culture of academic integrity, members of the
University of Waterloo and its Federated University and Affiliated Colleges are expected
to promote honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility.
Discipline: All students registered in courses at St. Jerome’s University are expected to
know what constitutes academic integrity, to avoid committing academic offences, and to
take responsibility for their actions. A student who is unsure whether an action
constitutes an offence, or who needs help in learning how to avoid offences (e.g.,
plagiarism, cheating) or about “rules” for group work/collaboration should seek guidance
from the course professor, academic advisor, or the Associate Dean. When misconduct
has been found to have occurred, disciplinary penalties will be imposed following St.
Jerome’s University Academic Discipline Procedure and UW Policy 71 – Student Discipline.
For information on categories of offenses and types of penalties, students should refer to
Policy 71 •] Student Discipline, www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infosec/Policies/policy71.htm.
Grievance: A student who believes that a decision affecting some aspect of his/her
university life has been unfair or unreasonable may have grounds for initiating a
grievance. In such a case, contact the St. Jerome’s University Grievance Officer. Read St.
Jerome’s University Handbook, Section 4, item 8,
www.sju.ca/faculty/SJU_handbook/grievance_policy.html.
Appeals:
A student may appeal the finding and/or penalty in a decision made under St.
Jerome’s University Academic Discipline Procedure or Grievance Policy if a ground for an
appeal can be established. In such a case, contact the St. Jerome’s University Appeals
Officer. Read St. Jerome’s University Handbook, Section 6.4,
www.sju.ca/faculty/SJU_handbook/examinations_grades_standings_and_appeals.html.
Academic Integrity website (Arts):
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/arts/ugrad/academic_responsibility.html
Academic Integrity Office (UW): http://uwaterloo.ca/academicintegrity/
Accommodation for Students with Disabilities:
The Office for Persons with Disabilities (OPD), located in Needles Hall, Room 1132, collaborates
with all academic departments to arrange appropriate accommodations for students with
disabilities without compromising the academic integrity of the curriculum. If you require
academic accommodations to lessen the impact of your disability, please register with the OPD at
the beginning of each academic term.
29