(Introduction to Criminology, pg. 175) This writer wanted to emphasis that some gangs are more involved in social structure than the individual differences. Some of these gangs that he researched are from the low-income families and he describes it, as defiant individualism is people that become involved with money-producing economic activities whether it is legal or not. This theory of is linked into seven attributes like intense competitiveness, mistrust, self-reliance, emotional detachment, a survival instinct, a social Darwinist world-view, and a defiant attitude. An example of defiant individualism are gangs that are capable of producing benefits for their members and other people in society, they as well work in their rank, and regulating leadership.
The Inescapable Cycle Racism and poverty are two issues that the world faces on a daily basis. Too often the two problems play off of one another and create even bigger issues. The continuous cycle of racial tension and financial struggle creates a seemingly endless conflict. Poverty can go way beyond third world countries and racism is seen between different races all over the world. The broader meaning of these two familiar concepts applies to many areas and people in our world today.
In this essay we will assess the usefulness of these functionalist theories, and look at how it helps us explain crime. One functionalist who tried to explain crime is Merton and his strain theory, the strain theory argues that people engage in the deviant behaviour when they are unable to achieve socially approved goals by legitimate means. Merton explanation combines 2 elements; structural factors- society’s unequal opportunity structure, cultural factors- strong emphasis to achieve goals and weak emphasis on using legit means. Merton uses the strain theory to explain some patterns of crime in society, he argues a person’s positioning in society affects the way they adapt or respond to the strain to anomie. Merton gives 5 different types of adaption; Conformity- the individual accepts socially acceptable goal and achieves it through legitimate means, Innovation- Individual accepts the role of success and wealth but uses illegitimate means to achieve them, Ritualism- Individual give up on legitimate goals but still follow strictly to the rules, Retreatism- Individuals reject legitimate goals and means of achieving them e.g drug addicts, the final type is Rebellion- Individuals reject existing goals and means but replace them with new one in desire to bring about revolutionary change.
Jessica Goodwin 11-3-2013 Book Review Paper In the book “The Rich Get Richer and the Poor get Prison” by Jeffery Rieman, they look at our Criminal justice system as a mirror in which society can see the Darker more Evil outlines of its face. The main argument is that the United States Criminal Justice System is failing in the war against crime & achieving justice , but successful in projecting a “mirror” image of the threat of crime as a direct threat from the poor. Reiman’s argument maintains a particular social image which ultimately serves the Rich and Powerful , this image conveys that the real danger comes from people below them, rather then above them on the economic ladder which creates what is called a Pyrric defeat theory. He uses this theory to describe our criminal justice system which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter one summary. In Chapter one, ‘Crime Control in America,” Rieman suggests that the criminal justice system has been designed to fail.
Dehumanization occurs when those who are robbed of their humanity and those who rob others of their humanity through violence, oppression, and injustice. An example of this would be the division of social classes. The upper class could be defined as the oppressor with the status of power, wealth, and knowledge contrasted to the lower class or the oppressed. The lower classes lack power and wealth but are capable of obtaining knowledge through learning. Only once that the oppressed are conscious of their position in society of being dehumanized can they understand their circumstance and fight for freedom.
Crime The link between economic inequality and both property crime and violent crime is well established1: •Rates of violence are higher in more unequal societies2. This finding holds up in many different contexts, when looked at via different methodologies and after controlling for other determinants of crime such as low income, unemployment, and teen birth rates3. •Small permanent decreases in inequality - such as reducing inequality from the level found in Spain to that in Canada - would reduce homicides by 20% and lead to a 23% long-term reduction in robberies4. Criticisms and Issues •There is evidence that disputes the link between inequality and crime5 and that questions the link between inequality and particular types of crime, such as robbery6. •The evidence on the link between changes in income inequality and crime is less clear than the evidence on income inequality and crime at one point in time.
People’s prosperity is judged established on the money they have on hand and their acquisition power. Therefore, it is rational to determine that while people with inferior income are having hard times in their life and when the advantage of committing a crime will provide them superior advantage, they are willing to do it. However, the question lies in how countries measure poverty. The level of poverty can be different among countries. For example, U.S. census has indicated that, U.S. households is generally make up with parents and two kids, and they are considered to be poverty families when the household income is less than $25,000 (United State Census Bureau 2012).
Violence, obesity, children’s education, life expectancy, mental illness, teen births, trust- all are major problems for societies across the globe, and according to Wilkinson and Pickett, can be attributed to inequality. In their examination of developed countries, they found that inequality, rather than average income, is a far better indicator of wellbeing. Furthermore, the authors posited that nearly all problems that are more prevalent at the bottom of social hierarchies (many are aforementioned) are more common in unequal societies. They suggest that despite a nation’s apparent affluence, wealthy yet unequal nations are nonetheless “social failures” (18). Wilkinson and Pickett explore two of the most common assumptions about the social gradient that shows people at the bottom of social hierarchies suffer more problems- circumstances and individual tendencies.
From a Marxist point of view laws are made by the state, which represent the interests of the ruling class. This argument forms the basis of a theory of widespread crime and selective law enforcement. This shows that crime will occur right the way through society, however poor criminals receive harsher treatment than rich criminals. Marxists tend to emphasise white collar and corporate crime, and pay less attention to blue collar variants. They emphasise that crimes of the upper class exert a greater economic toll on society than the crimes of ordinary people.
People being labelled (negatively) will always be affected according to their label, and society plays an important role in the labelling process. In the next few paragraphs the contribution of Becker as an exponent of the labelling perspective will be discussed along with the process of labelling and the typology of deviants. Labelling as a cause of crime According to the Study Guide (The explanation of crime), Becker shortly discussed the way different sets of rules affect the theory of labelling as a cause of crime while developing his theory. This labelling theory, also known as the societal reaction theory does not only define deviants, it can also make them. When someone is labelled an offender they are forced by society to live according to this label which could minimise their chances of being law abiding citizens and limit their chances of finding decent jobs.