Social Control
Social Control

Collective efforts to ensure conformity to the
norms.
 Formal vs. Informal
– “Informal” subject of considerable discussion to
this point
Hechter and Kanazawa: Informal
Social Control – Why do the
Japanese conform?
1. principle of dependence: Japanese especially
dependent on others (teachers or employees
determine fate)
2. principle of visibility: Japanese interactions
less private… more visibility
3. principle of extensiveness: “Others” assume
the right to weigh in on everything, including
lifestyle expectations
Three Methods of Formal
Social Control
1.
2.
3.
Prevention: a) Remove opportunities
for deviant acts to occur or b) eliminate
their causes.
Deter deviance with the threat of
punishment.
Reform or resocialize people so they
no longer want to deviate.
Some prevention efforts do NOT
focus on perpetrator

“Broken Windows” – James Q Wilson
– “Broken window” if left uncorrected, soon all will
be broken
– Indication that no one cares

Cohen and Felson “opportunity” theory
– Suitable targets
– Absence of effective guardians

Both influential in law enforcement circles…
policy implications feasible
Prevention example: CambridgeSomerville experiment





Experimental group of high risk juveniles gets
physical (e.g., health care) and emotional
support (e.g., counselors)
Control group nothing
Results suggest no difference
“Believers” rejected findings
Conclusion is programs like this tend NOT do
work
– We can’t really manipulate situation (family, school
success, strongest predictors) that is most
important
Jack Gibbs:Theory of Deterrence
rapid, certain, and severe – rational choice
theory
 Most important empirically? Certain

– Severe sentences will not deter crimes if people
perceive no risk

Some crimes more easily deterred than
others?
 Important to distinguish between general and
specific deterrence
– Martha Stewart
What about the death penalty?




Most western countries have abolished
US did in 1972, begain again in 1977
Support for DP low in 60s, up to 70%+
in 1990s, 60%+ range today
Does it deter?
– Ehrlich 1975 study challenged
conventional thinking
– Today? No sure answer
Deterrence really the issue? Even
if it does deter many against
because…





Haphazard implementation
Race and class factors
See killing as wrong
Cost
Concerned about killing innocent
What about the “War on Terror?”


Terrorist actions a “rational choice?”
Deterrence language from politicians
– Show of power and strength “scare” into
submission?

Can terrorists be deterred?
Rehabilitation


Conclusions similar to prevention
conclusions: difficult for society to
change that which matters most
TARP experiment
– Money to ex-convicts
Concluding thoughts


Deterrence vs. labeling
Social Control vs. Deterrence
– Policy implications




Stark overly pessimistic?
Which crime theory does Perrin like?
Class and crime
White-Collar crime