Crime control through differential association and routine activities theory

Crime Control Theory

Understanding Criminal Inclination in Society

The Cost of Crime

Crime is one of the most expensive drains on public funds and other resources in the United States. In California, it is particularly costly as result of various factors including widespread gang activity, disaffected youth, the physical proximity to Mexico and the economics of the foreign influx of drugs, as well as the state's tough criminal laws and mandatory sentencing guidelines (Roback Morse, 2003). The cost of maintaining the state's inmate population exceeds 5 billion dollars annually (Roback Morse, 2003), representing a tremendous amount of money that could be better spent on education and infrastructure repair and maintenance, among many other worthwhile public projects and services.

Significance of the Problem

Despite overwhelming evidence that a "lock 'em up" approach to crime control is not conducive to substantially reducing crime in society (let alone eliminating it), legislators in many states still emphasize the punitive aspect of criminal justice rather than focusing on its root causes in society (Schmalleger, 2008: 111). As a result, crime rates continue to grow, requiring ever-increasing resources and funds for more prisons at the expense of society. Meanwhile, long-established concepts of sociology and the underlying causes of crime provide at least a framework for a much better approach to crime reduction (Macionis, 2003: 213). In particular, the differential association and routine activities theories suggest an alternate approach to crime reduction that would likely achieve much better results and at a greatly reduced cost (Schmalleger, 2008: 101).

The Sociological Problem of Criminal Inclination

Introduction

Generally, crime is a function of social deviance in conjunction with specific needs (Macionis, 2003: 204-205). Many factors are believed to contribute to social deviance and criminal inclination, but several in particular would seem to suggest a plausible approach to reducing crime in American society by addressing those underlying issues that typically contribute to criminality in the individual. More specifically, differential association theory and routine activities theory relate to the evolution of criminal inclination in a manner that could also provide a better means of addressing crime than strict penal enforcement.

Differential Association Theory

According to criminologists Edwin Sutherland (1883-1950), crime is largely a function of the persistent exposure of the individual to criminal deviance (Schmalleger, 2008: 101). More particularly, children are tremendously susceptible to the influence of the adult role models to whom they are exposed and, more generally, to the overall dynamics of social interactions and routines in their homes, immediate neighborhoods, and their communities (Pinizzotto, Anthony, Davis, et al., 2007: 2-3).

Therefore, when children are raised in the high-crime, criminal gang-oriented urban areas typically associated with inner-city poverty in the U.S., their constant exposure to criminal deviance and social dysfunction, (often simultaneously in the home and the community environment), naturally results in a high incidence of the evolution of criminal inclination in generation after generation. In that regard, the epidemic absence of intact nuclear families and fathers who are positive role models also exacerbates the problem tremendously (Pinizzotto, Anthony, Davis, et al., 2007: 3-4; Roback Morse, 2003).

Routine Activities Theory

According to Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, another significant cause of crime in society is the degree to which potential criminal opportunities present themselves to potential or opportunistic criminals (Schmalleger, 2008: 87). Within American communities with the highest crime rates, the dynamic relationship between motivated criminals and the myriad opportunities perpetually available in their communities contributes to a continuing cycle of multigenerational crime. Moreover, the simultaneous domination of criminal gang culture in conjunction with patterns of social and institutional responses to crime in poor communities on the part of the government also greatly exacerbated the problem.

Retrospective Project Summary

Crime in society is not effectively reduced through a focus on apprehension, detection, and prosecution. Rather, genuinely effective crime reduction requires an entirely different approach that emphasizes the resolution of sociological causes of social deviance and the evolution of the criminal mindset in the individual. In that regard, the money currently devoted to building more prisons and housing more inmates would be much better spent on providing social services and realistic alternate options for inner city youth in particular.

This project provided a valuable opportunity to review the manner in which statistical data and economic records help differentiating inefficient approaches to resolving social problem from more sensible approaches and for identifying the connection between variables, root causes, and specific social problems. One of the most valuable lessons of this project (substantively) is that even initiatives that enjoy substantial support from governmental authorities and legislators may not necessarily reflect the best conceptual analysis of social problems and their respective solutions.

The principal practical application of this project includes a much better understanding of the specific problems associated with crime in the U.S. And its underlying causes. It also provided me with increased confidence in my ability to synthesize relevant information to contribute productively to an intellectual discussion of the causes of crime and the essential requirements of an effective crime reduction strategy.