A Primer in the Sociology of Crime

A Primer in the Sociology of Crime

S. Giora Shoham

and

John P. Hoffmann

Harrow and Heston Publishers

New York

© 2012 Harrow and Heston Publishers

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Table of Contents

Preface

1. Criminology and Social Deviance

2. Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Criminology

3. Ecological Theories of Crime and Delinquency

4. Anomie and Social Deviance: Strain Theories

5. Differential Association and Its Progeny: Learning Theories

6. Control Theories of Crime and Delinquency

7. Social Reactions to Crime: Stigma and Interaction

8. Conflict and Radical Perspectives on Crime

9. Recent Developments in the Sociology of Crime

References

Preface

This is the English adaptation of S. Giora Shoham's Israeli textbook Criminology. The text has existed for over 25 years and has gone through four editions. Our adaptation considerably streamlines the excellent translation provided us be Chaya Naor. Where the original textbook includes comprehensive coverage of the field of criminology, including biological and psychological research, we have chosen to present only a narrow slice of the ever growing field. We do this deliberately, for there are many books in English which do an exceptional job of reviewing the field. Our focus is on the theories of Crime and Delinquency which are drawn from sociology. Although we certainly do not claim that sociology has a monopoly over the field of criminology, it must be recognized that a majority of the theories which seek to explain criminal behavior have been developed by sociologists. We therefore believe that it is appropriate to focus our overview on the sociological theories of crime.

The field of criminology must continue to be dynamic. The theories of criminal behavior that have been developed over the past several decades still provide fascinating insight into the world of human behavior. We see great untapped potential in the sociological theories of crime, and thus they must continue to progress. This can be accomplished through a critical analysis of the theories' propositions and proposed relationships. It is therefore essential that observers on the outside and inside of the field understand and carefully examine the theories that already exist as well as those that are in the developmental stages.

Our purpose in writing this book is twofold. First, we wish to present the theories of Crime and Delinquency in a straightforward and clear manner. We have thus chosen to write with a lay audience in mind. If we have oversimplified any of the theories or empirical findings, we apologize. Second, we believe that the key for theoretical progression is elaboration. Each of the theories presented in this book contains unrealized potential. Therefore, rather than presenting our criticisms in a negative light, we have attempted to make suggestions that will amplify and extend the theories' form and structure. We have also tried to present recent theoretical and empirical research which elaborates or at least assists in the elaboration of the core theories. Unfortunately, we could not cover all of the massive body of criminological research. There is obviously much excellent scholarship that we have omitted, but judgment calls must always be made when writing a book. It is our ultimate hope that readers will cultivate an interest to pursue further study of this fascinating field, and develop their own suggestions for improving the theories.

There are many people who have contributed directly and indirectly to the writing and publishing of this book. At the risk of omitting someone, we will attempt to list them. A special thanks to Professor Moshe Adad, whose contribution is as great as anyone else. Professor Giora Rahav has contributed of his methodological knowledge and experience, and has been a steady influence for us. The following individuals affiliated with the School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York at Albany have contributed in more ways than they will ever know. Not only have they taught me about criminology, but also about friendship. A warm thanks to Rose Gray and Shu Lung Yang. I am also indebted to Michael Lynch and Terence Thornberry for educating me about this field in many ways. A special round of appreciation to Tim Ireland for his assistance with Chapter 4. My wife, Lynn Hoffmann, deserves my love and profound gratitude for being so patient during my many nights and weekends sitting at the computer. She and Brian will always be my better two-thirds. Finally, two people deserve special mention. First, to the late W. Byron Groves, a rising star in the field who left us much too soon, we miss you. Without his encouragement during the initial stages of this project, it certainly never would have begun or had any hope of completion. Second, we can never thank Graeme Newman enough for his support, encouragement, and patience. This project owes everything to him as a teacher, coach, editor, publisher, and friend. Without him we can be certain that this project never would have happened.

John P. Hoffmann

S. Giora Shoham

1. Criminology and Social Deviance

CRIME AND DELINQUENCY are a part of human existence. They existed in the past and they exist today; for most the goal is to try to find ways to diminish these phenomena. Deviance has a deep and complex significance. Philosophers, theologians, authors, biologists, physicians, psychologists, and sociologists all have tried to study and understand the phenomenon, and it seems that almost everything on the subject already has been said. The literature that deals with crime is almost as vast as the phenomenon itself. Studies and analyses of crime are growing in number, and there is an abundance of evidence attempting to explain it. Although all of this may help to enlighten, it also denies the inquisitive a deep understanding of the problem. The multiplicity of information has been able to provide us with only a little insight into consistent patterns of behavior. Nonetheless, the abundance of theorizing and research has suggested that criminal behavior may be explained by an interdisciplinary approach.

However, before a major task such as developing a broad interdisciplinary theory is undertaken it is essential that we develop current theories of Crime and Delinquency to their fullest potential. This book attempts to assist in this endeavor by acquainting the reader with the numerous theories rooted within a sociological framework. Although we are concerned mainly with sociological theories, information from other disciplines such as social psychology and philosophy is utilized as appropriate in order to present a richer and more profound understanding of crime and criminal behavior.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce some essential concepts and assumptions concerning the nature of crime and deviance. Before moving on to a presentation and evaluation of the sociological theories of crime, it is important to understand some of the basic philosophical and historical issues that are at the foundation of the study of human behavior and social organization.

Criminologists and Criminology

There are those who think criminologists are like kings without a kingdom, because no boundaries have ever been drawn for their profession (Van Bemmelen 1959). It would be more correct—as well as more modest—to liken them to the poor who must eat of the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table, since criminology draws its basic concepts and its methods from the sciences that study human behavior, from biology, and also to a certain extent from the history and the sociology of criminal law (Shoham 1966). This occurs mainly because the various sciences deal with crime within different disciplines. The criminal offense is a form of human behavior that falls within the domain of psychology and biology; since it is a social deviation it also belongs to the field of sociology and social psychiatry. In addition, it is within the area of the criminal law, and dealt with by law enforcement, courts, and correctional institutions. This reliance on other theoretical sciences is not an optional choice for the criminologist, for in fact there is no independent frame of reference for criminology. Perhaps this results from the lack of consistency between conflicts of human behavior and the norms of the criminal law. That is, there are a number of potential explanations for distinct forms of criminal activity.

There are those who insist that criminological theory is lacking in substance because it does not matter why they do it (commit crime), only that we stop it. This extremely pragmatic view seems content with a trial and error approach to crime prevention. There also are those who claim that since there are so many causes of crime, it is nearly impossible to develop unified theories that will explain such divergent behavior.

Despite these two extreme approaches, it is still important to take note of Robert Merton's contention that theories about Crime and Delinquency do not offer sufficient explanations for the phenomena, since these concepts are apt to make it more difficult to understand the great diversity in the types of behavior they relate to rather than clarify them. Whenever we term a particular type of behavior as a crime or delinquency, there is a tendency to focus attention on particular attributes of this type of behavior, regardless of whether these shared attributes are significant or not. Merton (1968:231) explained:

Sociologically quite distinct forms of behavior by youngsters, for example, come to be designated by the generic term juvenile delinquency. This often carries with it the assumption that the wide diversity of behavior or the individuals engaging in one or another form of this behavior are of theoretically like kind....Furthermore, the decision to encompass a wide array of behavior in the one rubric of crime or delinquency tends to lead to the assumption that a single theory will account for the entire range of behavior placed in this category. This is not too remote, in logical structure, from the assumption of a Benjamin Rush or a John Brown that there must be a theory of disease, rather than distinct theories of disease—of tuberculosis and arthritis, of Me'niere's syndrome and syphilis.

Here in Merton's words is the most serious argument against an independent frame of reference for criminological theory, and before trying to show in which conditions it is possible to develop such a theory, we will attempt to reply to his objections.

According to Merton, criminological theory deals with various types of human behavior, whereas in our view criminological theory deals with the system of relationships between social norms, of which criminal law is a part, and forms of behavior. In other words, criminological theory does not attempt to explain, as Merton implied, human behavior taken out of its normative context, but rather it intends to explain various actions or omissions by men that constitute serious violations of social norms. Another reservation of Merton's—that the term criminals is too generalized, because there is no common denominator that separates them from the rest of the population—would be correct if we studied criminals as if they were a group or species in the zoological sense. But it seems that modern criminology has found a way to overcome this difficulty as well, and has accepted Walter Reckless's (1967) view that, although crime is such a mixture of diverse forms of behavior, it is still possible to develop theories about certain types of crime, defined from the behavioral standpoint, in a given society. In fact, one tendency has been to treat separate systems of behavior such as the professional thief, the embezzler, the youth gang, the drug addict, the prostitute, etc., and not crime in general (see Clinard and Quinney 1973; e.g., Sutherland 1937, 1949; Cressey 1953).

The theoretical approach underlying this book is that criminology is a part of the study of all types of social deviance. In other words, on a generalized level of abstraction, criminology deals with factors and processes that lead an individual to obey and heed social norms or to violate and deviate from them. Since there is not a substantive, but only a formal difference between the norms of the criminal law and other social norms, a violation of the criminal law, i.e., crime, is nothing but a particular instance of social deviance. We therefore feel compelled to describe and elaborate the theories of Crime and Delinquency developed under a sociological framework. However, before undertaking this assignment, we must clarify the phenomenon of social deviance and its practical and theoretical bases.

The Images of Deviance and Value Judgments

Any decision as to who is a deviant and who is a conformist is necessarily based on a value judgment. Although value judgments are generally presented in a negative light by social scientists, many doubts have been expressed about the possibility of making an independent evaluation of a social state, and about the social scientist's ability to observe social processes, unhampered by values (Gouldner 1962). There are of course social processes that can be studied with a considerable degree of distance and non-involvement, but, in the social and behavioral sciences, it is never possible to attain the same degree of detachment with which the mathematician examines binomial equations. The very words and terms used in studying and defining social deviance immediately reveal our attitude toward the phenomenon. From the semantic point of view, deviance is a defect, a turning off the straight and narrow path, a distortion of behavior. Language is not only a medium of communication; by describing a certain person as a deviant we are expressing an attitude. We are labeling him morally and stamping him with a stigma of value judgment. In one sense, reality is constructed based on the present images of deviance and the context in which they take place (cf. Kitsuse 1962; Garfinkel 1967).

Social deviance, like crime, is defined as a social problem and as a social malady. For some, the final aim of studying the causes and pressures leading to crime and deviance is to discover better ways and means to combat these phenomena, to eradicate them, and to prevent their recurrence. This aim is clearly charged with value judgments. Some even view deviance as a natural or even requisite form of behavior for society to exist and function (Durkheim 1938 [1895]). These value judgments must be taken into consideration in the evaluation of any criminological theory. Value judgments in part stem from the assumptions made about the origins and functions of social order and society. It is thus essential that we review these assumptions and principles before presenting the specific criminological theories.

The Origins and Functions of Social Order

In very general terms, the intellectual roots of the modern conception of the social order may be identified as the consensus and conflict points of view (Bernard 1983).

The Consensus Model. An analysis of Crime and Delinquency in various human societies shows us that they behave according to more or less constant laws. For one thing, the incidence of Crime and Delinquency increases as a society develops (Zvekic 1990). Emile Durkheim (1984 [1893]) observed that in the early stages of a society, when there is a large degree of mutual commitment, a strong sense of allegiance and oneness, and norms are derived from the individuals making up the group, the incidence of Crime and Delinquency is low. The drive to exist, on the one hand, and awareness on the other, force the individuals in such a society to base their lives on binding norms that most of the group members will observe. The norms here are a social consequence. They are not necessarily alike in all societies; there is greater divergence than similarity, and in most societies we will find normative systems that are specific only to them. The norms delineate the social boundaries that define the group (Erikson 1966). The group thus will ostracize or severely punish anyone violating these norms. This violation is an offense and the violator of the norm is an offender. As the norms become institutionalized in the form of laws, various terminologies for an offense are introduced. Hence an offense is defined strictly as an act, an attempt or evasion of an act for which one is punished under the law.

As a result of natural and technological reproduction, societies grow and the range of aspirations of its members increases. Individuals become distanced from each other, and there are more processes of separation than of unification. The growth and development of the group enhances its strength and brings in its wake the need for a process to order and direct its life. As the group continues to develop, it becomes more complex, and the legal system imposed on the individuals becomes more intricate. The sense of oneness with the normative system weakens, and at the same time the sense of deprivation, group pressure, and individual dissatisfaction grows.

As society expands, individuals become more mobile in their search for sources of livelihood. Urbanization and industrialization increase the need to introduce restrictions and prohibitions. As society becomes more firmly established and adopts a greater variety of laws, the individuals in it lose their natural vitality. They are compelled to restrain their drives and their fundamental need for freedom (Freud 1961; Fromm 1941). The necessity for people to restrain their drives, curb their senses, and control their behavior grow as the culture develops and becomes more complex. People that aspire, according to Thomas Hobbes (1962 [1651]), to a maximum of security and pleasure and a minimum of injury and danger, prefer to reduce the dimensions of their personal freedom, which is their ideal, for the sake of the sovereign rule. In a natural state, man's uncurbed passions lead him to an unceasing quest for power. Lives thus must be ordered and men must be protected from one another and from their unquenchable desires. The structuring of social order is necessary to prevent men from destroying one another.

The above conceptualization of the form and function of society owes much of its development to Emile Durkheim, one of the founders of modern sociology. Many of Durkheim's assertions on the function of society may be traced to the political theorist Hobbes. Hobbes described man in his natural state as a power seeker, one who could never be satisfied. Although man should not be regarded as evil, his unchecked passions will lead to evil results. The untamable quest for power causes men to fight against one another. The social order that the state defines must develop or men will destroy each another. Thus, a social contract, agreed upon by all emerges to guarantee property rights and respect for individuality to all citizens and to designate the sovereign as the guarantor of all rights (Hobbes 1962 [1651]). It is within this framework that Durkheim (1951 [1897]) developed his theories that the function of the state was to preserve order and curb individuals' undesirable appetites.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1974 [1762] [1755]), on the other hand, saw the natural state of humanity as compassionate, yet isolated and in need only of self-preservation. Man is not an enemy of his fellow man, as Hobbes implied, but rather people associate with one another voluntarily in order to overcome natural disaster and to advance beyond the primitive state of nature. The act of association creates a collective body which shares power and resources, yet preserves many freedoms. The social collective, held together by the social contract, obliges its members to obey the general will or to be forced to do so. Human beings thus are forced to be free by the social pact; else it has no substance. However, for Rousseau, this often led to conflict between individuals and the civil government.

As humans move from the state of nature to the state of civil order, they must consult reason and become aware of the needs of others. An person puts others' interests at the same level of importance as his or her own so that all may be equal. In addition, since the individual has given up certain possessions as part of the social contract, compensation is received in the form of private property. In order for society to function adequately, there should be no great excesses of wealth, so that the general will can continue to guarantee equality for all.

These two hypothetical paths toward the social order provide the underpinnings for a consensual model of social organization (cf. Parsons 1951, 1954). As John Locke wrote, [a]ll Men are ... in [the] State of nature, and remain so, till by their own Consents they make themselves Members of some Politick Society (italics added) (Locke 1960 [1690]:318). The model also gives rise to one of the basic assumptions made by Durkheim (1984 [1893]:331): [m]an is a moral being because he lives in society, since morality consists in solidarity with the group, and varies according to that solidarity. The Durkheimean view of deviance perceives deviants as impairing the intact state of society and its vital and moral interests. Thus, Durkheim suggested, one of the most important commandments in any society will be that the individuals must adjust to the normative value system of that society. Or, using Rousseau's terminology, the deviant must be forced to be free, since true freedom can only be obtained within the normative boundaries.

The term adjustment in itself conjures up an image of the use of force to round off the angles of a square block of wood to make it fit into a round hole. In philosophy, the root of adjustment is in Meden Agan i.e., Nothing in excess, which is engraved on