EXAMPLE ONE—GOOD ANSWERS
1)
Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory, which was further explained by
Matsueda’s work in empirical testing, shall be used to explain the observed correlation between
social class and crime. However, before applying this theory towards these two variables, we
must understand that the active definition of crime implicated in this theory pertains solely to
“delinquent behaviors that are impulsive, malicious, and irrational,” (Text 197) emphasizing that
the criminal activity is a type of social backlash involving violent and socially offensive actions.
This classification of crime is not to be confused with the definition of crime that includes all
violations of the law. This broader category would contain not only violent crimes, but whitecollar crimes as well (Crutchfield 2005).
Differential Association Theory states that the learning of definitions favorable to crime
in a manner that supercedes definitions favorable to non-criminal activity increase the likeliness
of engaging in criminal activity. As defined by Sutherland, “a person’s associations are
determined in a general context of social organization,” (Text 192) referring to the fact that direct
association with people of a lower social class, being members of a intrinsically disorganized
subculture, and residing in a area conducive to criminal behavior, are more likely to commit
crime. This explanation, now outdated by Matsueda’s work, can be restated to say people of a
lower social class, particularly adolescents, who lack the resources and connections to achieve
the “good life” via criminal or non-criminal methods default to delinquent activities (Text 197).
This effect is exacerbated by observational learning of definitions favorable to criminal activity
in situations that validate the acceptability of such activity. While it is arguable that, by Dr.
Crutchfield’s example of middle-class parents being dishonest about change-money at the
grocery store, would result in negative definitions, one must point out that those individuals of a
1
higher social class will have more legitimate means of attaining the good life, will probably live
in a socially organized area, and will most likely be exposed to a far greater number of
definitions favorable to non-criminal activity. This will ultimately result in fewer violent and
malicious crimes which, in lower class communities, result from an indignant backlash to a
social structure that prohibits attainment of the “American Dream.” (Crutchfield 2005)
If self-reported data were used in the assessment of crime in neighborhoods of various
socio-economic compositions, we would see marked differences in the fraction of crime that
constitutes violent crime. Official data includes violent crime and will be supportive of
Differential Association theory on the basis of violent crime. However, in general we will find
that crime exists within all classes, and that the basis upon which Differential Association
Theory rests becomes ambiguous if we expand our definition to “all crime” due to the large
number of factors that could result in definitions of criminal activity. That is, correlation
between low-class people and crime becomes weaker if we expand our definition of crime with
self-reported data. (Crutchfield 2005)
2)
Micro explanations of crime use social interactions, personal characteristics, life
circumstances, and other individual-specific elements in the synthesis of theory that explains
increased or decreased crime. For example in Strain Theory, crime is used as an excuse for
underprivileged people to get back at middle class society.
Macro explanations of crime use community-level elements such as overall
disorganization and the ability/inability to mobilize resources effectively to fight crime. An
example of this is Collective Efficacy which states that tight-knit communities are more capable
of controlling crime by means of social control and community awareness.
2
3B)
Social Disorganization theory holds that factors that disrupt community structure and
family life contribute to a reduction of social control and collective efficacy, thus increasing the
likelihood for crime to occur.
The correlation between race and crime can be explained by a “systemic” model of Social
Disorganization theory which holds that the quality of social relationships, familial bonds, and
community structure determine result in a higher “social capital,” or ability to affect and possibly
reduce crime (Crutchfield 2005) (Text 132). These relationships are directly affected by living
conditions, conditions which are often attributed with certain races due to out-migration, the
availability of acceptable neighborhoods to live in, and the availability of jobs (Text 129). For
example, in 1980 the U.S. Census bureau determined that 70% of poor blacks lived in poverty
neighborhoods. Typically, poverty-stricken neighborhoods are afflicted with “concentration”
effects which result in low accessibility to better jobs, lack of conditions conducive to successful
marriage, fragmented families, poor housing conditions, and isolation from mainstream culture, a
culture which provides a normative sense of stability. All these factors contribute to a low
Collective Efficacy and little means of social control, resulting in higher crime rates (Crutchfield
2005).
The correlation between age and crime can be explained by high concentrations of lowquality housing resulting in youths spending the majority of their time on the street, allowing
more opportunities for violence and crime. Additionally, the lack of funding for better schools in
depressed neighborhoods as well as lack of community-driven effort to improve education
results in little opportunity to become indoctrinated with mainstream values, thus contributing to
isolation and deviance. Higher population turnover also results in parents and adult being less
able to invoke informal social control on youths (Text 132, 274)
3
The correlation between crime and crowding can be explained by a reduction in personal
space, leading to strained relationships and more opportunity for negative interaction, lowquality community relationships, and less ability to exercise social control on domestic violence
and crime. However, while such an explanation is possible, an “individual” theory would better
explain social dynamics and how they would relate with crime.
EXAMPLE TWO—GOOD ANSWERS
1. Strain Theory explains the correlation between lower socioeconomic classes and high crime
rates. This macro theory, theorized by Merton, explained that society, through consensus,
develops cultural goals and appropriate means of achieving these goals and that crime was due to
a disjunction of goals and legitimate means (201). Since America places a large emphasize on
pecuniary success, though not everyone in our society, particularly lower class, has and equal
opportunity to use legitimate means to achieve these goals, the result is a strained society full of
social problems and crime (10/20). Likewise, Durkheim argued that when a person is not able to
achieve the norms of a society, this person experiences anomie, or a state of normlessness
(10/20). Merton theorized that there were five modes of adjustment by individuals: Conformity,
Innovation, Ritualism, Retreatism, and Rebellion (203).
Cloward and Ohlin argued if a person did not have access to legitimate means they would
not necessarily have access to illegitimate means; they would need personal characteristics and
contacts to have access to illegitimate means (10/25). They theorized that this could explain
violent crimes in lower classes because if a person is not able to achieve status through monetary
gain, they would look to fighting as a way of gaining respect and status. They believed social
4
structural circumstances and the organization of the social structure influenced three ideal types
of gang criminals: Criminal, Conflict, and Retreatist (10/25).
These earlier versions of the theory, attempted to explain the lower SES and higher crime
rate correlation, but the empirical evidence was not supportive since it showed that people from
all classes commit crimes. Since then, the theory has incurred two revised versions.
Agnew took an individualist perspective theorizing that delinquency would be more
likely to occur for those adolescents who had low self-efficacy, weak social support, weak
morals, significant negative relationships, and poor coping skills (209-213).
Another alteration
came from Messner and Rosenfeld who believed the “American Dream” is a positive goal for
society because it emphasizes that hard work will lead to success, yet there is a negative aspect
of this goal: it strains society by implying that everyone can achieve the dream (10/25).
Strain theory uses a legalistic definition of both victim and victimless crime in research.
It focuses on who commits the crime, how much crime is there, and how societies control crime
(10/6). The theory assumes that society has consensual norms based on morals that should be
followed by everyone; therefore law is a product of consensus (7).
The theory explanation would not necessarily differ if official versus self report data were
used. However, official data would support the theory by most likely including crimes that are
disproportionately committed by low income people, since this class is more visible to the police.
It would thus appear that the strain theory mostly affects the lower classes. Addressing two of
the weaknesses of the theory, self report data would account for individual norms and would
indicate that all social classes commit crimes.
2. A macro explanation of crime focuses on understanding social systems as a whole and the
effect they have on certain rates of behaviors while the micro explanation focuses on how
interactions between people cause individuals to behave differently (xxvi). Social
5
Disorganization is a macro explanation of crime because it focuses community bonds and
relations as a single entity (10/20). Positivism, such as psychopathology, is a micro explanation
because it emphasizes that an individual’s defective personality determines their criminality (20).
3a. There has been an increasing fear of crime among our society though the data from the
Uniform Crime Reports and National Crime Victimization Surveys do not find this fear justified.
The general public perceives rates of crime to be increasing, which is not surprising given the
media’s contribution of “true crime” T.V. shows and the disproportionate share of violence news
reports, our politicians continuing anti-crime campaigns, and our criminal justice system reports
that include increasing arrest rates (10/4).
If the public assessed the results from these reports and were critically evaluated the way
the data was gathered they would understand that crime has decreased. In fact, the crime rates
have decreased or remained stagnant since the 1990’s (27). Though they both concur that there
has been a decrease in crime overall, the UCR and NCVS will report different specific crime
trends due to differences in how they measure crime. The UCR include all crimes reported to the
police while the NCVS includes the crimes reported to the police (58). Also, the UCR will be a
more valid measure of serious crimes because these crimes are more likely to be reported, there
is less of a residential mobility bias, and the NCVS cannot include crimes such as homicide.
Alternatively, the NCVS is more likely to count less serious crimes (63). Both of these reports
provide more valid information than political, government, or media agendas.
There are many examples that show that critical evaluation of crime data is essential to
understanding the reality of crime in America. For instance, there has been a significant
decrease in total violent crime since the early 1990’s but the decrease in victimization rates has
been much less. This is due to the fact that there are fewer reports to the police than there are
crimes (10/4). Also, while there appears to have been an increase in serial killings from the
6
1940s to the 1990s, it could be that police have become better at detecting this type of homicide,
or that there has been an increase in potential perpetrators and victims with the aging of the baby
boom generation (44). While politicians and the criminal justice system scared America by
claiming that there was a crack epidemic in the 1980’s due to increasing arrest rates for drugs use
and possession, it is quite possible that the war on drugs forced police to “get tough” on arrests
and the most visible targets were low income crack users (47-52). Additionally, there has been
an increase in incarceration rates, but this is due to the war on drugs and longer sentences (10/4).
Clearly when crime statistics are critically evaluated it becomes evident that crime is not as
prevalent as we are taught by the media, politicians, and criminal justice system.
7