Crime Theories Comparison Social Organization

Crime Theories Comparison

Social organization theory

Followers of the social organization theory believe the degree of a society's organization is correlated with violent crime. If a community has strong social institutions or organizations, there will be less violent crime. Conversely, in a society where social organizations are underfunded, weak or ineffective, there will be higher instances of crime.

Social organization theory applies macrosociological methods to explain criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is discouraged when the basic needs of community members are addressed and in communities with strong social bonds. These bonds could be seen in after-school programs, the growth of businesses, police presence, good real estate and various other community and neighborhood programs. When such programs are present, community members will have a stronger bond to the other members of the community, and to society in general. These bonds will serve to encourage law-abiding behavior and will discourage criminal activity.

Among the more famous articulations of this group of trait theories was the work of Robert Shaw and Charles McKay. Shaw and McKay (1942) believed that a society's culture can be transmitted through its institution. Thus, the task of raising children into law-abiding members of the community was not limited to parents and family. Institutions, from schools to churches to law enforcement, were all charged with helping children learn the values of society.

More modern social organization theorists like Robert Sampson wrote that to minimize violent crime, societies should be able to maintain safety and order in its public spaces, a concept that he called "collective efficacy." Communities should also work to establish "social capital" through informal social networks. These informal networks could include after-school programs, community garden projects, public housing and neighborhood block parties and watches. Such activities discourage crime by minimizing the motivation for crime (public housing) and encouraging community integration (Sampson 1997).

The strengths of the social organization theory of crime can be seen in the success of recreational programs targeted to at-risk youth. These programs are designed to meet the youth's problems in a positive way, encouraging them to form healthy attachments with their peers and mentors. One such successful project is the "Comin' Up" program in Forth Worth, Texas. Comin' Up is a midnight youth-oriented basketball league that was convened to give gang members an alternative activity to crime and violence. Since the program was initiated, Fort Worth police reported a 39% decrease in juvenile crime.

Similarly, mentoring programs stress the need for mentoring programs for youths having difficulty at school. This requires concerted efforts on the part of teachers and other educators, as well as counselors and social workers.

Athletic leagues, summer camps and similar recreation programs remain staples of community activities geared towards avoiding violent crime.

There are some difficulties abiding by social organization theory to avoid violent crime. Due to the emphasis on social structures and interrelations, the success of such programs depends largely on the commitment of community members - both financially and in terms of individual time and effort. While results of community programs are often good, it is often difficult to sustain their success, especially in low-income communities.

Social process

Like social organization, social process theories also believe in the importance of socialization in developing or preventing criminal behavior. Unlike the previous theories, social process theories explain criminal behavior on more microsociological terms. The emphasis of social process theories are not on the institutions, but on the relationships formed between individual family members, peer groups, teachers, church leaders and other agents of socialization.

The key concept of all social process theories is based on learning. Sociologists have believed that individuals learn social values and norms from agents of socialization. Thus, if those agents engage in behavior that is deviant or criminal, then there is a greater chance for an individual to engage in similar behavior.

Edwin Sutherland, the father of American criminology, is one of the greatest exemplars of social process theory. Though his theory of differential association was devised largely to explain white collar crime, many of the pronouncements are also applicable to violent crime. In response to psychologists who tried to explain criminal behavior in terms of psychosis, Sutherland's differential association theory believed that like much of behavior, engaging in criminal activities is part of the social learning process (Sutherland 1983).

Social process theories further believe that criminal behavior is learned through interaction with other members of the community, most likely through communication by an individual's "significant others." These significant others include members of an individual's primary group, such as family, friends and peers. Thus, the more an individual spends time with criminals, the higher his or her chances are of engaging in criminal behavior.

Specifically, social process theories believe that spending time with miscreants exposes an individual to attitudes, techniques, motives and various rationalizations that may increase their likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior. The frequency of the contacts may vary, but the age at first contact with a criminal and the strength of a person's relationship with the socializing agent increase this likelihood. When these associations create a mindset that favors violating the law over social order, then a person could engage in violent crime.