Social dimensions of crime

Social Dimensions of Crime

The articles try to attempt to give explanations why people commit crime. All articles have in common that the authors regard demographic and social and socio-economic factors, such as living in a certain neighborhood or being member of a certain social class or lack of social organization or social cohesion very likely to induce people commit crime. The relationship between "social class" and "crime rates" as discussed by the (unnamed) author of the first article is a centerpiece of all articles. With the exception of the article of Markowitz & Bellair & Liska using a British Crime Survey, all other authors focus on empirical data derived from research on the situation in the U.S. The authors of three articles -- Flango & Sherbenou, Markowitz & Bellair & Liska and Logan & Stults - are of the opinion that there are additional factors contributing to high crime rates: Life cycle of the cities (in the Southern part of the U.S.), fear, and racial differences.

Although the results of the articles are very similar, the scientific basis on which the authors derived their common assumptions from varies. Sampson & Raudenbush & Earls conducted their research on a survey of 8782 residents in 343 neighborhoods in Chicago. Flango & Sherbanou have researched six independent primary factors: Affluence, stage in life cycle or city, economic specialization, policies on expenditures, poverty and urbanization that let them come to the result that - in general - in the U.S. social class (poverty and urbanization) are the leading reasons why criminal behavior occurs. The only exception to this rule was found to be the Southern part of the U.S. where, especially in greater cities the life cycle of the city was more decisive than poverty. Triplett & Gainey reached their findings that low socioeconomic status, disruption of families, high moving rates as well as low participation in local organizations and unsupervised youth groups are very likely to increase crime rates on a model of "social disorganization" introduced by Sampson and Groves in 1989. In an attempt to extend "social disorganization," the Markowitz & Bellair & Liska findings that while diverse neighborhoods that create a socially cohesive surrounding generally exhibit reduced crimes rates the one common factor underlying the social situation in all areas where social disorder exists is "fear" are based on an examination to be found in a British Crime Survey. Logan & Stults based their research results on studies of the city and suburbs of Cleveland in 1990 using multivariate models in their estimation that while socio-economic factors are a predictor of exposure to violent crime, race is also a (strong) predictor and of relevance or proximity to high violent crime rates.

I consider the biggest discrepancy among the articles that all authors -- with the exception of Triplett & Gainey -- more or less clearly suggest that improved neighborhood structure support of better socio-economic factors is very likely to contribute to a reduction of crime in disadvantaged areas. By contrast, according to Triplett & Gainey community crime prevention efforts located in critical areas would not necessarily help much to prevent crime because there may be low participation rates. I find this very surprising because I thought that social learning and incorporation of operant conditioning as part of the social learning theory plays a preeminent role in influencing criminality.

I think that the theories that explain best the findings of the articles are the sociological and theories. Psychological and biological theories are not suitable for support. I chose from the sociological theories the "Social Disorganization Theory" emanating from the Chicago School research of Shaw and McKay. According to this theory's general hypothesis "low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility, and family disruption lead to community social disintegration, which in turn increases crime and delinquency rates" (Sampson, R.J. & Groves, W.B., Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory, p. 774.) The Social Disorganization Study is the theory that by virtue of the article's title actually underlies the research of Triplett & Gainey. But in large parts it also mirrors the findings of the other authors that social class, social disorder, lack of social cohesion and even racial differences are main factors causing criminal activity. Psychological theories of crime associate crime with abstractions like mental illness, intelligence, or personality. None of these factors reflects the findings of the six articles. The common assumption of the biological theories of crime is that biological factors, such as parts of the body, facial features and skull shape have an impact on a person's proneness to engage in criminal behavior. As discussed in class, these theories are not supported by any empirical data and should therefore be disregarded. None of those theories is able to support the research conclusions of the articles.