Causation of Crime Theory (Essay Sample)

Running Head: CAUSATION OF CRIME THEORY
Causation of Crime Theory
Name
Institution
Accountability in United States Army
History of Crime Prevention Theories
For much of the early 20th century, an ecological approach has been used to study crime (Wickes &McBroom, 2010). Social disorganization theory (Shaw, 1929) focuses on the dynamics of local community as method to understand crime and delinquency. Social disorganization is defined as "the inability of local communities to realize the common values of their residents or solve commonly experienced problems" (Bursik, 1988). Resident mobility and heterogeneity were deemed likely reasons for disorganization within a community (Kornhauser, 1978). By the 1960’s, social disorganization theory had become less prominent because of empirical and conceptual shortcomings (Bursik , 1988); Instead, some researchers began to adopt theories that explore broader social structures, such as examining interpersonal relationships and conformity amongst community members, to discover causes of crime (Bursik, 1988). Consequently, many researchers began studying crime by examining the interactions of individuals, specifically potential victims and offenders (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981). Such crime prevention techniques attempted to modify the behavior of victims and motivations of offenders as well as the environment. Lewis and Salem (1981) coined these views as the "victimization" perspective, because it focused on preventing crimes, mostly through modifying the behavior of the victim. While researchers used these individualistic theories (Bursik, 1988; Sampson, 2002), community level theories were being challenged.
By the mid 1980’s, a renewed interest in crime, place, and neighborhood dynamics had emerged (Sampson, 2002). However, it differed from the original social disorganization theories. Instead of viewing economic status, resident mobility, heterogeneity, and social ties as the major predictors of crime (Kornhauser, 1978), new theories began to emerge that focused on understanding the informal and formal social structures that were in place and the collective capacity for action as measures that could predict criminal behavior (Skogan, 1990). Sampson and colleagues argued that the traditional social disorganization theory was outdated and could not be applied to contemporary communities (Wikstrom & Sampson, 2003). Eventually, Sampson and colleagues developed measures to empirically examine the "collective capacity for social action" (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2001), which they termed "collective efficacy." Collective efficacy measures have been used to demonstrate that higher efficacy leads to improved health greater parental control), and low rates of domestic violence (Browning, 2002). Collective efficacy is derived from the social control perspective (Mazerolle, et al., 2010).
Victimization and Social Control Perspectives
Two main crime prevention theories focus on understanding crime causation by examining relationships: victimization and social control (Lewis & Salem, 2011). The victimization perspective focuses on understanding crime as events that occur between a potential victim, offender, and the environment. The victimization perspective has been used to develop prevention techniques that minimize opportunity for victimization by considering potential victims and offenders as actors who play a role in the environment (i.e., space and time).The behavior that a potential victim and offender engage in during the occurrence determines the outcome – whether a crime is committed or not. An offender, for example, may conclude that there is less risk of getting caught mugging someone on a dark empty street than a well-lit busy street. Crime is thus viewed as an event in the victimization perspective rather than an act (as in the social control perspective) (Lewis & Salem, 2011). Therefore, crime prevention techniques have attempted to modify the behavior of potential victims e.g., encourage them not to walk on dark streets) and offenders (e.g., addressing their motivation like lack of jobs) by increasing their knowledge of risk. Time and space play a major role in determining the likelihood of criminal behavior and also understanding the relationship – whether physical proximity or social status – of potential victims and offenders. In the victimization perspective, the environment and relationship between potential victims and offenders are used to prevent crime and inform crime prevention strategies.
The social control perspective does not focus on the crime as events, but instead focuses on understanding the social relationships that potential offenders have that may encourage or discourage International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 4, No. 2, December 2011, 756-769 committing crime (e.g., parents’ relationship with a child). Social control theory suggests that social interactions influence criminal acts through informal enforcement of social norms (Hirschi, 2012). The social control perspective suggests that the morals and values of the community are shaped by social norms and that they play a major role in determining criminal behavior. The social control theory, for instance, indicates that a teenager will be less likely to post graffiti on a neighbor’s garage if their parents, influential adults, and peers have discouraged this type of behavior since the teen was a child. The social control perspective focuses on understanding the formal (e.g., parents’ instruction and discipline) and informal (e.g., there is no graffiti currently in the neighborhood) social norms that surround the teen, and states that these norms thereby determine his or her behavior. Notions surrounding the social control perspective are not new and were in fact derived from Reckless’s control and containment theories regarding delinquency ( Reckless & Dinitz, 2010).
Concepts from social control theory have been used to develop measures of collective efficacy within a community, which is defined as "social cohesion among neighbors combined with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good" (Sampson, et al.,2013). Sampson (2013) found that high collective efficacy is correlated with low crime rates. Questions surrounding collective efficacy focus on understanding whether people believe that their neighbors will help them during an emergency and/or if they believe that crimes will be committed in their neighborhood (Morenoff, et al., 2011).
While the victimization and social control perspectives have informed the development of measures like collective efficacy, we argue that there are limitations to these theories, as they do not account for society's increase in technology use and how that might affect crime prevention. In the next section, we present literature regarding the increase in technology use and how that affects social behavior.
Technology's Influence on Social Behavior
Technology1 use has significantly increased over the past 10 years in the U.S. In 2010, 76% of households had computers (Smith, 2010), with the majority of the growth being senior citizens, those who reside in rural areas, and low-income Americans (Horrigan, 2009). Such increases in technology ownership are not limited to adults. In fact, adolescents spend a significant amount of time using Internet-connected devices. Over 93% of teens use the Internet, with 63% going online daily (Smith & Zickuhr, 2010). Over three-quarters of teens in the US own mobile phones (2010). While socio-economic status has traditionally been the major factor in determining who has Internet access, recent studies have found a shift in who accesses the Internet. In fact, low-income Black and Latino teens now access the Internet using mobile devices more than higher income White teens (Smith, 2010). While the largest and most direct influence on adolescents may still be parents and local support systems, teens are living a large part of their social lives and interactions online. Half of teens play online games while 73% use social networking sites like Facebook and MySp...