‘Outline and explain ways in which data about crime is collected’ Crime can be defined as deviant activities that break the law in any particular society. Finding out how much crime takes place isn’t easy, and attempts to measure crime can prove misleading. This doesn’t mean that crime statistics aren’t affective, but it does mean that no single measure can be fully relied upon. Many sociologists see crime statistics as a social construction, as collecting crime data is a result of the cultural expectations of society, and by understanding who commits crime and what sorts of crimes are committed, we can get a clearer picture of why people commit crime in the first place. Different sociologists have presented different theories and concepts to explain what drives a person to commit a crime, and research and statistics give us an idea of the type of crimes committed and the places that they’re most likely to occur.
Asses the usefulness of labelling as an approach to the study of crime and deviance In the study of crime and deviance, most approaches other than Marxists, suggest that there is a difference between those who offend and those who do not, and search for key factors that lead people to offend. However, there are a group of theorist who reject this idea and instead suggest that most people commit deviant and criminal acts, but only some people are caught and stigmatised for it. Although the labelling theory is quite prominent in the study of crime and deviance, there are endorsers and criticisers who both give valid accounts to why this theory should be, or not be taken as a valid theory. Labelling theory suggests that deviancy is a social process usually related to power differences but it doesn't explain the causes of crime. It does however explain why some people or actions are described as deviant, and can help in understanding crime and deviance.
When a dilemma arises, my responsibility is to support individuals or their families to make informed choices. Even if I disagree with their decision, I can only give advice but can not force them. If an individual is willing to do something that involves some risk, I have to support people to make informed choices. Totally avoiding risks would limit individual’s choices and opportunities and it can lead to dependency and depression. I have to act in the person’s best interest but instead of encouraging them to avoid risks I have to support them and enable them to taking part in activities.
As he is unable to achieve these luxuries through work, he may turn to criminal activity because he wants to be like his peers as he feels pushed out. Sociologists believe that to some extent, relative deprivation is the key cause of crime in society however there are some other aspects that affect this. Sub-cultural theories are a belief of some sociologists where crime is explained by saying that criminals learn how to commit these crimes from their peer groups or subculture. Cohen in 1955 completed a study on working class boys in North America and found that they were easily involved in gangs. One aspect that was said to have pushed them away from the education system and towards these gangs was because they had middle class standards and values and these boys were unable to live up to the high expectations of these teachers.
For example the large basins where homeless people used to bathe were replaced by smaller basins, making it harder for them to abuse this property. However the situational crime prevention method is criticised for only being effective when focused on petty opportunistic crime, and also for assuming that deviants make a rational decision prior to their act. Situational crime prevention is also criticised for failing to reduce crime, but simply displacing it. This is done through 4 ways: changing the space where the crime is committed, committing the crime at a different time, changing the target, or by committing a different type of crime. Another approach for crime prevention is environmental crime prevention.
Social Control Theory and Its Explanation for and Prevention of Criminal Behavior Bryan Brown Walden University Social Control Theory and Its Explanation for and Prevention of Criminal Behavior Social control theory emerged among sociologists working in the social disorganization tradition as a mechanism for explaining the link between structural disadvantage and crime in urban areas and low levels of informal social control (Silver & Miller, 2004). The main premise of social disorganization theory is that crime is more likely to occur in disadvantaged areas with low informal social controls as opposed wealthier areas with higher levels of informal social control (, 2012). Social control theory, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with why crime tends to be more prevalent in areas of low informal social control and what is it about informal social controls that tends to deter criminal activity. Explanation for Criminal Behavior Social control theory holds much merit in its ability to predict where crime is likely to occur and in its ability to formulate successful strategies for preventing crime from occurring. However, it does little to provide an explanation as to why the crime occurs in the first place.
Firstly the argument in the passage is that personal relationships are necessary to develop impartiality towards acquaintances or strangers. This is said to be because if someone never develops personal ties with their family and friends they will not learn the necessary skills to become a moral person. E.g. if a child is not shown how to have close personal ties with family
This then lead for official statistics and the law enforcement to show a bias towards working class boys. This research shows how deviance only exists because people have decided to attach a label, thus the labelling theory is useful in explain how a deviant and criminal behaviour is classed as this. However, it fails to explain why some people certain crime and deviance in the first place before they are labelled. Also, as said in Item a ‘’deviant individuals are labelled when their actions are discovered and provoke reactions from society. However, this reaction will take differing forms, depending on how the nature of the action is perceived.’’ But as well as this, labelling theorists look at the effects and reaction it causes the individual to take.
Gardner’s ideas are too drastic and I believe he didn’t have enough support in his argument that his plans would actually decrease the murders in gang violence. To say that his thoughts on drugs are the missing piece to gang-violence; I agree with him one-hundred percent. Yet, to pinpoint on drugs as the only reason viciousness and violence happens in gangs, is almost too good to be true. Dan may as well fly off to Never-Never land, because those dreams aren’t ever coming true. First off, I would like to thank Gardner for his enlightening point of view, of how gang violence is heavily influenced by the whole drug trade and the black market that associates itself with it.
Originally proposed by Dr. James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, broken windows theory suggests that a society or subset of society that appears to be lawless will itself breed lawlessness. Broken windows theory is most closely associated with conservative sociology, focusing on social cohesion and law and order. It has had great influence on law enforcement policy from the 1980s to the present, but its proposals have not always proven accurate. According to Lilly, the central theme of broken windows theory holds that when neighborhoods appear to be broken down, disordered, and generally unfriendly, they serve as a magnet to delinquent behavior and crime. This is essentially to say that communities that lack in any sense of social cohesion and mutual interest witness a significantly higher risk of criminality.