2000-2011 most crime rates decrease

Primary rate source: victim surveys + police records
Secondary source: Crt, Charge, Emergency + Self Data

1. Willingness to report
2. Public opinion of 'crime' + law
3. Recording practices
4. Law (redifintion might lower rate)
5. Reported/discovered (crackdown = higher rate)
6. Police policy/resources
7. Chance/seasonal variation (clusters)
8. Jurisdictional variation

Folkways (etiquette)

Mores (norms)

Laws (codes)

"Folk Devils + Moral Panics" : 

1. stylized and stereotypical mass media coverage
2. episodic threat to societal values/interests
3. exaggerated in itself and compared to other events
4. society worried -> police -> drama/conflict

1. Mass media
2. Public
3. Agents of social control
4. Lawmakers + politicians
5. Action groups

1. New issues, but familiar (e.g. creeping up)
2. Damaging per se, but a warning of a shift in culture
3. transparent, but opaque (needing expert analysis)

1. Transition periods
2. Fear of loss of control

Eg: Salem, McCarthyism, '60s, drugs

Issues with Moral Panic Theory

M.A.R.S.B.U.M.F.V.

1. Moral panics are actuall long term ideological struggles (marxism)
2. Assumes blind acceptance of media coverage
3. under estimates individual's capacity for reason
4. Very stereotypical
5. Assumes issue is not actually that bad
6. Treats society as one unit
7. Media not monolithic
8. Criminals turned into victims
9. Media can also be "folk devils"

1. Passive recipients (no filter)
2. Agency (rational thought/discretion)
3. Mediated view (filter, but influenced by self)
1. Chiricos et al: TV leads to bias and fear
1. Subsitituion w/ character experiences
2. Resonance w/ real experiences
3. Vulnerability
4. Affinity; shared charactersitics

1. Perception that gender is unimportant
2. Criminologists predominately male til recently

1.  race, gender + crime are social constructs

1. Differential involvement
2. Differential treatment

1. Conflict; clash of cultures
2. Hirschi: Social control; criminals w/o strong bonds
3. Wolfgang: subculture of violence
4. Sampson: social disorganisation; hetero = crime
5. Critical; law creates 'race' and enforces white law

• Crime not high in poor areas, but crime committed by poor in rich areas. 
• Education does not reduce crime (except Maths + English) but increases property crime. 
• Young unemployed males more likely to commit.

1. Poverty is subjective
2. "unemployment"? laziness/underemployment
3. Lag (crime/change)
4. Size of unit: block -> nation
5. multicollinearirty and spuriousness
6. Poverty v economic inequality
7. White collar crime?

1. % of low income 
1. Cho: no effect
2. Loffin & Hill: does affect

1. Traditional view (Gottfresdon & Hirschi)
1. Propensity to commit crime stable after 8
2. Self-control = propensity (high youth sanctions)
3. no one sotps offending, they just offend less
4. Cross-sectional data sufficient, no life criminal
5. Crime rate affected by frequency

Lombroso

• positivist
• Darwinian theory; throwbacks
• Born criminals, insane criminals and criminaloids
• Start of scientific process for crime

indicates psycopath levels and likelihood to offend

Monahan: only INDICIATIVE

1. Gabriel/Tarde: Social process makes criminality
1. Theory of imitation: contact, superior, insertion
2. Sutherland: content (ideas) and process learned
3. Becker: learn method/effects/enjoyment thru acceptance
4. Akers: learn ideas and behaviours by observing consequences

1. Definitions (what is intensity of contact)
2. Suggest that all are delinquent (all of connections)
3. Not all crimes explained (only expressive/compulsive)
4. No origin
5. Who teaches who (e.g. peer group)
6. No psychological/biological/structural factors

Crime = conformity. Standards are different across groups. Nothing appicable to general population.

Miller: class -> deviance. LC boys have no fathers, learn from other males. Belief in fate and toughness. Loffin & Hill: No significance with low income.

Wolfgang & Ferractui: Subculture of violence

1. No responsibility
2. No injury
3. No victim
4. Condemnation of condemnation
5. appeal to high loyalties

• We are ALL animals naturally capable of committing crime
• Delinquency occurs from free choice
• Can be stopped by social bonds 
1. Attachment (affection)
2. Commitment (stake, something to lose)
3. Involvement (lack of idle hands)
4. Belief (in morals and rules)

 Test did not consider peer effects, non-trivial delinquency. Concluded extra-curricular activities increased delinquency. 

Warr: who you hang out with determines criminality

L&S: Life changess increase stakes to conform

Strain comes from the inability to find legitimate means to obtain social/cultural goals.

Adaptions (Goal / Means):

1. Conformity    G M 
2. Innovation     G M
3. Ritualism       G M
4. Retreatism     G M
5. Rebellionism    GG MM

Assumes wealth is social goal.

• Lower legitimate opportunity to achieve goals leads to frustration or retreatism. 
• Innovation requires illegitimate opportunity (SLT)
• Pursuit of money leads to heavy delinquency.

• Mechanical solidarity; connected thru work
• Organic solidarity; wider conscience and connection
• Crime; way to enforce norms and community
• Anomie; inability of society to catch up with crime, lack of moral bounds or rules
• crime rates actually decrease with modernization

• What causes MC deviance?
• All about males
• Short term goals only
• Limited types of goals
• No mention of violence
• Little empirical support

• Individualistic
• Emotional, based on the immediate environment
• Types of strain : no positive goals, noxious circumstances, removal of positive stimuli
• objective and subjective; whatever causes anger
• theory of everything -_-

1. Symbiosis, mutual benefit
2. Status quo change; "invasion, dominance, succession"
3. Society perpetually in flux
4. city = laboratory
5. low class = high instability

• Spot
• Rate
• Zone
• truancy -> crime
• High CBD low suburbs
• Geographic location maintained rate after residents moved out
• Flux -> low cohesion -> no collective efficacy

1. Not appicable to Japanese immigrants
2. Not applicable after 1950s
3. Suburban sprawl, cities not concentric
4. indicators vs effects
5. Not all types of crimes explained
6. Ecological determinism; man is where he lives
7. Political issues
8. Ecological fallacy

• Collective efficacy is informal control on community
• Includes locally based groups, friends, organisations 
• Prevents crime and disorder

Law against graffiti serves the interest of people wanting to keep property clean. People with property have power and make law.

AGENDA

1. Instrumental; power oppresses powerless
2. Structural; system routines advantages those w/ power

1. Vold: conflict allows people to be heard, criminal label given to minorities
2. Turk: Those in power make laws to contol g/s. Criminality = weakness of ruler.
3. Robert Lincoln: Police ignore drunk businessmen but will target aboriginals

1. Variance across capitalist nations
2. Glamourise crime and ignore reality
3. Hard to test
4. Ignore race and gender in favour of class
5. Ignore social consensus on laws
6. Highly descriptive texts

• Interactionism; being labelled makes you deviant
• Primary deviance = first encounter w/ CJS
• Official reaction determines 2nd encounter (Lemert)
• Master Status
• >Retrospective Interpretation
• >Status Degredation Ceremonies
• >Dramatisation of Evil
• >Secondary Deviance
• >Organised and Serious Deviance

According to Becker:

1. Statistical (red hair -> deviance)
2. Pathological (no consensus on decision)
3. Breaking group rules (many concurrent groups)

1. Do nothing, avoid label
2. Diversion programs
3. Deinstitutionalisation
4. Re-intergration

1. Chicken + egg
2. Encounter w/ CJS shows discrimination
3. Weak empirical support
4. Labels not universally effective, depends on membership and distance between labeller and labelled.

1. Ppl are rational actors -> economics
2. Punishment > awards = order
3. State not authorised to punish more than necessary
4. Presumption of innocence
5. Intention of guilty not important
6. Public punishment
7. Prison better deterrence than death
8. Risk of punishment affects behaviour
• Certainty / Swiftness / Severity

1. Policies / Procedures
• Initial deterrence decay
• Residual deterrence
2. Individual Perceptions
• High perception = low offending
• Extra-legal sanctions important
• certainty > severity
3. Comparative Deterrent effect across jurisdictions
• ^ police = ^ crime
• death penalty = ^ crime

• Pragmatic
• Preventative measures
• Manage environment
• Increase effort and risk of crime while decreasing rewards

1. Crime displacement (but weakened)
2. Heavy reliance on surveillance, no rights
3. Limits of rationality (economic/social factors)

1. Cohen + Felson: offender + target - guardian
2. race, gender, class, age, edu, social factors?
3. David Garland: responsibilization; risk society; modernity, baby boomers

1. school problems -> delinquency
2. psychosocial problems -> delinquency
3. no higher-order processign -> no morals

1. Pollack: Crime rates equal but women deceptive (chivalry hypothesis)
2. Simon: crime rate from liberalization
3. Heidensohn: Patriarchy = lower crime

1. Lombroso: masculinity hypothesis; control females
2. Messerchmidt: Men commit to reinforce masculinity

1. Career Criminal / Dual Taxonomy (Moffatt)
1. 2 trajectories, Life Course Persistent and Adolescant Limited Offenders
2. LCP starts early, cumulative consequences and reciprocal interaction
3. ALO late onset, right circumstances, easily deterred, maturity gap and peer influence

1. No groups, # of criminals declines (Laub  + Sampson)
1. Crime declines with age
2. Cause changes with time
3. Cont'd offending from cumulative continuity
4. Many turning points from social ties

1. unemployment and crime
1. Chiricos: positive correlation
2. Land, McCall and Cohen: negative correlation

1. Adult unemployment + juvenile supervision
1. Glaser & Rice: increased guardianship
2. Weatherburn et al: Ineffective parenting

1. Concentration of poverty
1. Lee: concentration = crime

1. Stakes in conformity; good students don't break laws
2. Peer support; peers with stuff to lose don't support delinquency

Youths with too much freedom or no freedom are most likely to become delinquent.

Test only describes effects of family on MINOR delinquent behaviours, students were also in high school therefore not dropouts.

1. No one is good or bad, but respond to their environment
2. People can quickly change personalities
3. The power structure may trump one's morals

1. Correlation
2. Theoretical rationale
3. Time sequence
4. Absence of spuriousness

artificial differences because all are scientific

better separation: structure/process and individual difference theories