Crime on March 9th, 2013, Two New

Crime

On March 9th, 2013, two New York City police officers shot and killed a sixteen-year-old Kimani Gray, and claimed afterward that he had brandished a handgun at them after being told to show his hands (Goodman, 2013). More remarkable than the New York Police Department's killing of a young black male, however, was the outpouring of community grief and anger that followed the shooting. The following Monday, March 11th, saw what started as a nighttime vigil turn into a mob, parts of which ended up looting a Rite Aid chain store and a local bodega, and by Wednesday night of that week, forty-six people had been arrested, a bricks had been thrown at both a police officer and a police van (Goodman, 2013). The explosion of disorder and discontentment took some in the media and policing community by surprise, but these evens could only be surprising to someone lacking a useful or accurate theoretical basis. In fact, when considering these events, including the shooting and community response, in the context of two different criminological theories, it becomes clear that more critical approaches, like Marxist criminology, can provide more accurate explanations for criminal events than theories which attempt to explain and predict crime without ever considering the underlying biases and assumptions that underline the accepted definition of and response to crime in the first place.

Depending on the particular theoretical background one approaches the problem with, the community reaction to Kimani Gray's death could be either a complete surprise or entirely expected. On the one hand, while tragic, the death of urban youth as a result of gun violence is fairly common, and not all police shootings instigate the kind of near-immediate, physical response seen in this case. Furthermore, if one believes the statements provided by the NYPD, then Gray was actually brandishing a weapon, which ultimately justifies the officers' behavior and makes it hard to defend their actions, even acknowledging the grief that accompanies any death. On the other hand, police treatment of minorities, and particularly the treatment of minorities by the NYPD, has been a recurring problem in American history, and despite certain nominal developments, the structural and institutional sources of this problem have never been tackled aggressively. An effective criminological theory would be able to reconcile these seemingly disparate observations.

From the perspective of social disorganization theory, the major feature determining whether someone will engage in criminal activity is their location, to the point that social disorganization theory values location over other classic determinants of risk, such as age, gender, race, or socioeconomic status, although all of these of course play a role in determining one's neighborhood (Cagney, et. al., 2009, p. 415). According to social disorganization theory, neighborhood cohesion (or lack thereof) and other ecological factors influence individual behavior, such that "crime occurs in neighborhood characterized by low income, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential instability" (Smith, Frazee, & Davidson, 2000, p. 490). For example, social disorganization theory considers delinquency and truancy to be largely the result of immediate, neighborhood-level influences, because it is the immediate spatial and social environment that either prohibits or allows a culture of truancy and delinquency (Alanezi, 2010, p. 68; Warner, 2003, p. 73). Thus, an examination of the mob actions following the shooting of Kimani Gray would look first toward the demographics of the neighborhood itself, and then begin to piece together how those neighborhood-level characteristics influenced the individuals involved, including both Gray himself and the individuals who participated in the mob action.

In contrast to the approach offered by social disorganization theory, Marxist criminology does not assume that the roots of criminal events are as simple as those demographic or ecological factors that immediately effect an individual. Instead, Marxist criminology, like the other so-called "critical criminologies," critiques the entire system in which a criminal event occurs in order to determine the causes and likely recurrences of said event (Young, 1998, p. 643; Ratner, 2006; Brisman, 2011). In particular, Marxist criminology looks at the material reality of the situation, with a particular focus on the distribution of resources and power among groups, in order to determine if, for example, a certain crime is merely the result of criminalizing empirically-normal human behavior (such as in the case of anti-sodomy laws), or is the product of an inequitable class system. Although this perspective would also focus on the particular neighborhood and demographics of the criminal event in question, it would not view these as a cause, but rather as a symptom of larger issues that affect other areas just as much.

Thus, while in general both Marxist and social disorganization theory would address the particular material and ecological elements of the criminal event in question, Marxist theory would view these elements as pieces to a larger puzzle, while social disorganization theory would focus on the way neighborhood-level social controls determined individuals actions (Rose & Clear, 1998, p. 441). Although social disorganization theory has expanded since its inception to include discussions of the influence other structures and control levels have above and beyond the level of the neighborhood, it nevertheless remains focused on the more immediate influences (Rose & Clear, 1998, p. 441). In contrast, Marxist criminology starts from the recognition that "the category of 'crime' is problematic and its use and application [are] historically contingent and related to particular processes of government" (Hil & Robertson, 2003, p. 92). As this study will demonstrate, while social disorganization theory can at least begin to uncover the causes of crime and serves as a relatively decent predictor, a more critical theory of criminology like that offered by Marxism is necessary if one hopes to actually uncover the roots of criminal events rather than simply treating the obvious symptoms.

Etiology

Etiology is the study of causation, and the question of causation is central to criminology. However, it also presents something of a quandary, because the researcher must determine at what point is it no longer useful to continue searching for causes and originating factors. Although it would likely not be useful for combating crime, one could theoretically track any given event back to Big Bang, because although there would be some rather dramatic gaps in knowledge everything can ultimately be reduced to physics. However, practical concerns demand that criminologists stop at a certain point, and, with a few exceptions, most schools of criminological thought can be divided according to what point they stop looking for causes and their stated justifications for stopping at that point. By identifying the point at which a given theory stops looking for further causes and begins identifying potential causes at whatever level of magnification (i.e. The individual, the family, the neighborhood, the state, etc.), one can easily evaluate the relative utility of any given theory.

This is not to suggest that the theory which "goes back" the furthest is necessarily the best, because as stated above, constantly seeking to identify an earlier cause can ultimately lead one to a discussion well apart from the original question. So, for example, while one could easily conduct a search for proximate causes in the case of the Gray killing and its aftermath that goes all the way back to the founding of the United States and the decision to legalize slavery and treat blacks as three-fifths of a person, taking the discussion this far back would likely not make it any easier to understand why a mob broke out in response to this killing instead of another, or how one might predict the potential for similar outbreaks in the future.

However, one must be similarly careful that the search does not stop too early, because that runs the risk of misidentifying symptoms as causes, and in the worst case, of generalizing to the point of bigotry. For example, the racist trope that African-Americans are inherently more prone to violence or crime is essentially the result of lazy etiology, because it simply stops looking for the causes of violence or crime within African-American communities following the observation that African-American communities tend to suffer from higher rates of violence and crime. Thus, one must be able to provide reasonable justifications for claiming that a particular phenomenon is worth considering as a cause in itself, rather than one more link the causal chain.

Social disorganization theory essentially stops looking for causes at the level of the neighborhood. This is not to say that the theory completely disregards other factors, but instead locates the most important factors determining the risk of deviance and crime at the level of the local neighborhood and community. So, for example, in a study considering the impact of incarceration on crime, the authors took a social disorganization approach and argued that "an overreliance on incarceration as a formal control may hinder the ability of some communities to foster other forms of control because they weaken family and community structures" (Rose & Clear, 1998, p. 441). Though the research was focused on the effects of incarceration, which is a facet of the criminal justice system that functions at a structural level above and beyond the local neighborhood, the study's theoretical basis was geared towards determining the influence of that larger practice on the level of the neighborhood. This focus on community-level social control is integral to social disorganization theory (Savelsberg, 2006, p. 33). While the results of the study were productive, in that the study helped to demonstrate the detrimental effects of widespread incarceration on the level of the community, the study nevertheless includes an implicit bias because it assumes that, for example, it is more important to nurture and maintain local neighborhoods and communities as methods of social control rather than examine what produces the need for that control in the first place (Rose & Clear, 1998, p. 469-470).

As a result, from the perspective of social disorganization theory, a search for the causes behind the violent and disruptive reaction to Gray's shooting would start with the relative levels of organization or disorganization within the community. The neighborhood of East Flatbush in Brooklyn is over 90% black and has relatively low levels of income, especially compared to the richer areas of Manhattan. As might be expected, the area has a relatively high crime rate, and according to resident interviews:

Many spoke of a Police Department that, in its aggressive pursuit of gangs and informal criminal crews, had sown distrust, especially among young men and women, who feel that their encounters with officers often have racial overtones. (Goodman, 2013)

The aforementioned study regarding incarceration gives an idea as to how a social disorganization researcher might approach the subject, because East Flatbush is precisely the kind of neighborhood whose seemingly low levels of community organization make it a prime candidate for crime as a result of incarceration and other harsh police measures that, while removing criminals from the streets, also has the secondary effect of diminishing social cohesion.

This effect is even evident in the make-up of criminal gangs in the area, which have become "less organized, replaced instead by informal crews with few requirements and in which leadership is frequently up for grabs among increasingly young members" (Goodman, 2013). In this light, police success in incarcerating criminals actual exacerbates the problem, because it simply opens up space for younger, less organized groups to appear; in fact, although Gray's own potential gang affiliation is unclear, his shooting began when the two plainclothes officers approached a group of young men who, in the eyes of the police, could easily have been a gang or criminal crew. In addition, there is empirical data demonstrating a connection between poverty, unemployment, and mortality rates among black men in the United States, suggesting that the socioeconomic conditions of the neighborhood further contribute to the relatively young age of offenders and the relative lack of older, more established residents (Palazzo, Guest, & Almgren, 2003, p. 103-104). Because residential instability is viewed as a key factor in social disorganization theory, the instability caused by unemployment, poverty, incarceration, and premature death would be interpreted as central causes of the violent community outburst following Gray's shooting (Nielsen, Lee, Martinez, 2005; Hipp, Tita, & Greenbaum, 2009; ).

The looting that occurred at the Rite Aid store was carried out by "three dozen mostly young people," indicating the degree to which the neighborhood suffers from crime committed by younger offenders, itself a symptom of a neighborhood lacking both older, well-established residents and the kind of neighborhood institutions, like large churches or neighborhood organizations, that help maintain a community's identity and cohesion (Goodman, 2013; Borg & Parker, 2001, p. 436). Furthermore, the fact that the looters attacked both a large chain store and a local bodega demonstrates a lack of neighborhood cohesion, because the attacks appeared largely indiscriminate. One could almost understand an attack on a large chain store, which by definition represents an external interloper into the neighborhood, but the fact that the looters also targeted a locally-owned and operated business indicates the relatively low levels of neighborhood cohesion felt by the looters.

As the reader can see, social disorganization theory provides some useful insights into the events surrounding Kimani Gray's shooting by demonstrating how a lack of community and neighborhood cohesion as a result of incarceration, poverty, and premature death can increase the likelihood of crime. However, there is one element of the events surrounding Gray's death that social disorganization theory is at a loss to explain; namely, the fact that the community response to Gray's death has been so unified and cohesive. Although the looting was committed by "three dozen mostly young people," they actually broke off from a larger group of about 130 people (Goodman, 2013). Furthermore, the throwing of bricks at police came during a subsequent vigil of about 200 people, and only started once police in riot gear were seen arresting Gray's sister as she attempted to cross the street (Goodman 2013). While social disorganization theory can help explain why Gray himself was at a greater risk of committing a crime (or at least being punished for one), and can even help explain the behavior of the looters who attacked a Rite Aid and bodega, it cannot explain how the community could coalesce so well after Gray's death.

While one might inclined to argue that collective mourning is a more powerful but ultimately rare form of social cohesion and thus cannot be taken into account when determining the risks of crime from a social disorganization perspective, the sad fact is that collective mourning is actually one of the more common and universal forms of neighborhood cohesion in East Flatbush. For example, "less than a year before, and only blocks away, a narcotics detective shot and killed an unarmed 23-year-old woman, Shantel Davis, as she tried to flee police" (Goodman, 2013). In light of this fact, it appears social disorganization theory is insufficient to explain the causes of the events surrounding Gray's death, because an analysis of the situation from the social disorganization perspective would suggest that the community lacks the kind of interpersonal infrastructure to generate such a cooperative response. Instead of further diminishing the cohesion of the community, as social disorganization theory might suggest, Gray's shooting actually served to unite it, a phenomenon in conflict with the assumption that "an increase in crime and disorder, and increase in fear," create a feedback loop that creates further social disorganization crime (Makowitz, et. al., 2001, p. 293).

In contrast, an approach rooted in Marxist criminology could not only explain this seemingly spontaneous demonstration of social cohesion, it could also explain how the same factors contributing to this cohesion actually contributed to Gray's higher risk of criminality and death in the first place, because in both cases the problems ultimately stemmed from the inequality pervasive in American society and law, including a justice system institutionally oriented against black males (Shank, 1999, p. 114). Specifically, because Marxist criminological theory focuses on "the structural conditions in which so-called deviant interactions are defined and take place" in the context of a capitalist society, it is better able to examine and critique the underlying assumptions that govern human behavior as it relates to the law (Hogeveen & Woolford, 2006, p. 682). In particular, the community reaction to Gray's death only appears problematic from a social disorganization perspective because social disorganization theory assumes from the outset that neighborhoods and local communities should be interpreted according to the degree to which they function as sites of social control, and specifically social control in accordance with the law.

If one does not assume as much and instead examines how the neighborhood functions as a site of social control in general, regardless of whether those controls are in accordance with the law, then one can easily understand how a community like East Flatbush might be able to coalesce so rapidly despite all of the factors that social disorganization theory suggests should prevent this cohesion. Put simply, in the context of class relations, the residents of East Flatbush have plenty of reasons to remain relatively organized, even if they are not as willing to organize in terms of promoting a law-abiding culture. From this perspective, one may view crime as a direct consequence of the inequality inherent in capitalist society, and thus respect for the law would quite naturally be lower among those groups whose disadvantaged status is ultimately a result of that law.

As a result, East Flatbush might lack the neighborhood and community structures necessary to ensure a kind of social organization that works towards the promotion of lawlessness, its residents retain the kind of shared socioeconomic and political experience necessary to promote a kind of social organization in opposition to the law, or at least to those elements of the justice system that seem most blatantly discriminatory or unequal. Thus, in the context of Marxist theory, the aftermath of Gray's death makes sense as a cohesive, cooperative community response to a particularly offensive demonstration of the wider inequality that exists in American society. Because Marxist criminology views "crime and justice as an expression of social order rather than as just an annoying social problem to be managed in what is otherwise the best of all possible worlds," it is able to explain behavior that would otherwise appear spontaneous or aberrant, such as the community response to Gray's death (Michalowski, 2010, p. 10). In short, because Marxist criminology does not act "as if injustices and atrocities are born by the nature of things" but instead recognizes that inequality has concrete, material roots based in the conscious and unconscious decisions of society, it is able to approach thee question of crime from a much more objective, holistic, and ultimately accurate perspective (Elbert, 2004, p. 388).

Prediction and Prevention

As the previous section indicates, social disorganization theory would have been able to predict Kimani Gray's death, or at least would have indicated that he was at a higher risk for criminal activity and its attendant consequences in an urban setting. Living in a relatively poor neighborhood with higher-than-normal levels of resident instability and a lack of formal channels of community social control, Gray was at a higher risk of criminality due to his immediate ecological context. In fact, in many ways Gray is the perfect case study for social disorganization theory, aside from the fact that it is not clear whether or not he actually committed any crime. However, whether or not he actually committed a crime is of little importance in terms of prediction, because many of the same factors that increased his risk of criminality increased his risk of being shot by the police.

As a consequence, in terms of prevention social disorganization theory would likely advocate measures to strengthen the social structure of the immediate community. This could take on a number of forms, ranging from decreasing the practice of incarceration to promoting community organizations and activities. In some cases efforts underlined by social disorganization theory were already in place in East Flatbush, such as an increased police presence and community policing efforts as well as local gang-outreach programs (Goodman, 2013). While these were clearly insufficient, it is hard to argue that further community cohesion would increase crime, even if the particular methods might need refining.

What social disorganization theory could not predict is the public community response to Gray's shooting, because even if social disorganization theory can provide some insight into why the looters were willing to target the stores they targeted, the theory is insufficient to explain how the vigils and riots began in the first place, except to say that the relative disorganization of the community meant that community members were more willing to break the law. If social disorganization theory is to be believed in its entirety, then the increase an increase in crime and violence, such as Gray's shooting and the subsequent looting, should have actually contributed to disorganization, when in fact community cohesion only increased as a result. As such, social disorganization theory is equally insufficient when it comes to providing preventative measures for the kind of community outrage seen in the wake of Gray's killing, because it could not predict this outrage in the first place.

Marxist theory, on the other hand, can offer both prediction and prevention in cases like this, because in the context of Marxist theory, both Gray's death and the subsequent community outrage should be expected in a society as unequal as that which exists in the United States. In the same way that Gray's potential guilt or innocence is irrelevant when it comes to social disorganization theory's predictions, so too is his guilt or innocence irrelevant in the context of Marxist theory, albeit for slightly different reasons. In the context of Marxist theory, Gray was at a higher risk for both criminality and death at the hands of the police precisely because he was part of a marginalized, oppressed minority.

As a whole, the United States' criminal justice system is institutionally racist against black men, and the empirical data demonstrating this fact is so overwhelming that it does not bear repeating here (Lippert, 2002, p. 117). To suggest otherwise is to engage in willful ignorance. Regardless of the beliefs of any individual within the justice system, the fact remains that the system as a whole targets black males disproportionately, and is further oriented against the poor (Carrabine, Lee, & South, 2000, p. 204-205). In many ways, the United States justice system is oriented, like its political system, to protect the assets and personhood of the wealthy while preventing the lower classes from either upsetting the established order or making their way into the upper classes. As a result, it only makes sense that Gray had a higher risk of criminality, because the United States justice system has effectively criminalized being both black and poor, in that any resistance to the disproportionate application of police in predominantly black and poor neighborhoods inevitably leads to higher levels of criminality.

Furthermore, the community response to Gray's death makes sense in the context of Marxist theory, because it is only when disadvantaged groups function together that they can effect any kind of genuine change. The community opposition to the police expressed by the residents of East Flatbush can be seen as the natural response of an oppressed group when faced with an egregious and dramatic example of their oppression. While the residents of East Flatbush suffer from the economic and racial inequality pervasive in the United States on a regular basis, the killing of a sixteen-year-old boy by seven police bullets (two of which were found in his back) served as a visible rallying point for the expression of pent-up frustration. In fact, the local representative of East Flatbush, Councilman Jumaane Williams, expressed as much when he chastised police chief Ray Kelly for writing off the riot as a simple disorderly group whose violence was unconnected to larger community outrage, telling Kelly that his response "belittles it. So now we're going to wait for something worse, something that meets the true definition of a riot?" (Goodman, 2013). Williams was acknowledging that the community outrage, including the violent response of the looters, was the direct result of the structural inequality that Marxist theory takes as its primary target.

Thus, in terms of prevention, Marxist theory would suggest a reduction in inequality. While this might appear to be overly simplified, the solution really is that simple, even if implementing it is not. The most crucial thing to note, however, is that unlike with other criminological theories, the solutions offered by Marxist theory can be applied in fields other than the criminal justice system. For example, a single-payer, public healthcare system would seriously reduce poverty by preventing individuals from having to pay exorbitant healthcare costs while increasing community cohesion by allowing at-risk individuals to live longer. Furthermore, a more equitable application of the law that saw white-collar criminals and white criminals in general face the same kind of punishments that black men frequently do would likely reduce incarceration rates across the board, because if white suburban youth were prosecuted for drug crimes at the same rate as black urban youth, support for harsh sentencing (which reduces community cohesion) would likely drop.