Microsociological And Sociological Theories

In his first chapter, Erikson gives regard to a foremost leader in sociology; Emile Durkheim. As he notes, crime is really a natural kind of social activity. If crime is a natural part of

Akers & Sellers (2013) noted that there are various common theories that are pertinent to the study of crime as the extents of crime explanations range from the genetic/biological through to the economic and social perspective. Howitt (2012) divided these theories into four categories: macro-level or societal theories; locality or community level theories; group and socialisation influence theories; and individual level theories. This essay first describes the major theories of crime in the discussion section, which also discusses the impacts of crime at the individual and societal level, followed by conclusion based on the previous discussion.

Detroit, the largest city in the state of Michigan, unfortunately has been plagued with a high crime rate resulting in synonymous acts of violence, poverty, and urban decay. A multitude of factors are considered when determining accurate explanations of crime within Detroit. These factors include changes in land use, property values, transportation, and retail, as an individual moves further away from the city center. According to Robert Park and Ernest Burgess, Chicago School, a city was similar to a body and consisted of various organs. The theory attempted to analyze criminality from an ecological and social disorganization standpoint. This theory asserted that a city included distinctive concentric circles that radiated from the central business district (CBD). Supposedly, the further one moves away from the concentric zones, the fewer social problems that exist (Williams & McShane, 2009, p. 86).

Sociological theories of crime contain a great deal of useful information in the understanding of criminal behavior. Sociological theories are very useful in the study of criminal behavior because unlike psychological and biological theories they are mostly macro level theories which attempt to explain rates of crime for a group or an area rather than explaining why an individual committed a crime. (Kubrin, 2012). There is however some micro level sociological theories of crime that attempts to explain the individual’s motivation for criminal behavior (Kubrin, 2012). Of the contemporary

In the early 1800’s early European theorists started observing behaviors, interactions, and relationships between people and how they were affected by the industrial revolution. There were many theorists that were influenced by the social dynamics of the revolution including Auguste Comete, Andre Guerry, and Adolphe Quetelet. These theorist proposed important aspects that contributed to social structure theories including economic factors that influences crime. Separately, these theorists concluded that crime is not random and is caused by factors outside of one’s control. Emile Durkheim, a theorist who a very heavy influence on criminology had

Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1931) wanted to determine whether the concentric zone theory was correct and wanted to see whether crime was greater in socially disorganised areas of the city and so they did this by plotting juvenile crime court statistics onto Burgess 's concentric circles model. Their

Another theory that many like to refer to would be social disorganization. This philosophy concentrates more on the circumstances in the inner city that affect crimes. They include, but are not limited to, the destruction of homes and neighborhoods, lack of social control, and the presence of gangs or groups who violate the law (Siegel 2010). Other than this theory, there is such thing as the strain theory. This suggests that crime is brought upon communities and individuals by the overwhelming strain that people are feeling when they aspire to reach their personal ambitions but have no way to grasp them. According to Featherstone and Deflem (2003), strain theorists believe that money and power are spread throughout economic classes unequally. They feel as if this frustration and strain built by individuals who are not able to achieve their goals is what influences a person’s choice to commit a crime. Believing this, strain theorists feel that the youth are certain that the only way to obtain what they desire is to join gangs, because they see other gang members in the community prosper with money. However, it is due to a life of crime and unfortunately, the youth feel as if joining the gang will benefit them in the same way.

1. The theories and perspectives in this unit focus on the environmental and social influence of crime. Do you think that environmental and social conditions influence crime? Why or why not? Between biological, psychological, and social factors, which one do you think plays the biggest role in crime? Why?

The aim of this essay is to compare, contrast and evaluate two sociological theories of crime causation and two psychological theories of crime causation.

The second theory I would like to discuss is the Strain theory. The strain theory basically states that crime breeds in the gap, imbalance, or disjunction between culturally induced aspirations for economic success and structurally distributed possibilities of achievement. The theory assumes fairly uniform economic success aspirations across social class and the theory attempts to explain why crime is concentrated among the lower classes that have the least legitimate opportunities for achievement. It is the combination of the cultural emphasis and the social structure which produces intense pressure for

The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century, slum poverty was blamed; in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millennium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.

The Sociological Imagination helps expand one’s perspective from one that emphasizes the experiences of the individual to one that understands the broader social context in which that individual lives. Crime is a perfect example to elaborate on. Considering that I have worked in the LA County Jails for a little more than a year, I feel that I have a much different outlook on criminals and criminal behavior. To reduce crime, we must first understand why it occurs. One thing that I have continuously heard from inmates, is that many of them had a bad childhood. Whether there mother or father was not around as much or they just had too much freedom, it brought them to where they are now. I believe criminal activity is a direct outcome of how a

Social Disorganization theory has its roots in urban ecology and Burgess’s concentric model. As part of the positivist paradigm of criminology, it poses a scientific examination of the connection of social disorganization and crime mediated by structural factors. The macro-level research concludes that a weakening of social bonds between an individual and institutions of socialization will lead to delinquency. Over time, there has been much empirical support for the theory and extensions have been made to include more reliable measures of social disorganization within a community. This paper will discuss the origins of the theory developed by Shaw and McKay, then move forward to prominent empirical support, social disorganization research on suburban areas and lead up to valid criticism of the theory. Finally, there will be an examination of the policy implications originally posed and a proposal towards a more integrated approach addressing causes for social disorganization through the critical paradigm of criminology.

Crime is a socially constructed phenomenon. It is not static but dynamic and is defined into existence. It changes over time and place. For example, early definitions of crime such as classicism defined individuals as rational, free and responsible for their own actions. The emergence of positivism was an attempt to bring scientific methodology to criminology. Positivists believe in objectively quantifying cause and effect. In the early twentieth century a sociological lens was applied. Functionalist sociologists such as Durkheim argued that crime had a positive function for society by reinforcing societal norms and values (Ziyanak and Williams 2014). Anomie and strain theory proposed later by Robert Merton examined how poorer classes experienced frustration through lack of opportunities leading to strain. There are many others including labelling, control and cultural deviance, however; this shows that our understanding of criminology is not static and like crime itself it changes over time and place.

Many people have different theories as to why crime exists. Some believe crime happens because of the individual’s culture, education (or lack there of), or even their race. Others believe crime is associated with whom we surround ourselves with. There are three sociological theories that suggest why crime happens in society; they are social learning theory, social control theory, and social reaction (labeling) theory. These theories suggest it is our relationships and social interactions that influence our behavior.