Social Disorganization Theory Of Crime

Frank Schmalleger explains the theory of social disorganization as one that depicts both social change as well as conflict, and lack of any agreement as the origin of its cause for both criminal behavior as well as nonconformity to society and closed associated with the ecological school of criminology (Schmalleger, 2012, p. 152). The philosophy behind the organization and structure of a society and how that contributes to criminal behavior within society is by stressing poverty, economic conditions, lack of education, lack of skills, are not sought-after in the work place, and divergent cultural values. Criminal behavior is the result of the person’s assignment of location within the structure of society.

as a general concept, social learning theory has been applied to the many different fields of social science to explain why certain individuals develop motivation to commit (or abstain from) crime and develop the skills to commit crime through the people they associate with. Social Learning Theory (SLT) is one of the most frequently looked at theories in the criminology field. This theory was introduced by Ronald L. Akers as a reformulation of Edwin H. Sutherland 's (1947) differential association theory of crime meld with principles of behavior psychology (Bradshaw, 2011). Akers retained the concepts of differential association and definitions from Sutherland 's theory, but conceptualized them in more behavioral terms and

For years, gang crime has been loathed by society, as society has perceived it to threaten the well-being of its members. In addition to the fear of gang violence, concerns have been raised of gangs polluting youth; hence, policing strategies have emerged more increasingly in an attempt to put an end to the delinquency. Nevertheless, for society the causation of gang crime has been discussed to a lesser extent; thus, the objective of this essay will be to depict a viable explanation of gang crime through the use of two criminological theories. To accomplish the task at hand; I shall, define gang crime, provide a description of social disorganization theory, illustrate how the application of social disorganization theory provides an explanation of gang crime, describe differential opportunity theory, demonstrate how differential opportunity theory can explain gang crime, and exemplify as to which theory provides a superior explanation of gang crime. In the end, it will be clear that social disorganization theory is a superior explanation of gang crime in comparison to differential opportunity theory, due to its ability to deliver a more enhanced explanation than the one that is provided by differential opportunity theory.

Sutherland’s theory piggyback on Social Disorganization theory by answering some of the critic’s questions about why only some people in crime-prone neighbors commit crime while many others do not. While Aker’s theory pick up where Sutherland

Social Strain Theory and criminal offending are seen by most theorist as a way of understanding what could be the causes of youth committing crimes. Theorist are very concern if social strain theory really does have the answer to why this is happening, but they also believe that the result may be inconclusive, because of all the different variables and independent variables that could be used in their research. We will take a look at this theory, and see if they and ask our participants from the state of Georgia inner-city neighborhoods a few question that they will supply their own answer to, and then ask them an open-ending question face to face and ask them to choose the answer that best state why they might commit a crime or not. If we are able to understand the results then we hope we can implement it into policy. And by incorporating it into policy, then we might be able to design a strategy that will help LEOs or other agencies to reduce youth offending, deter criminal acts and future crimes. Lastly, so with the implementation of social strain theory into the policy and the evaluation of the data, discussion and the questions we can create a foundation for further research studies to build on our results.

This breakdown of organization and culture within a community leads to a lack of informal social control which in turn leads to higher crime rates especially in the juvenile population (Simons, Simons, Burt, Brody, & Cutrona, 2005). Social disorganization theory asserts that strong levels of connection within a community along with a sense of civic pride motivate individuals to take a more active role in the community therefore acting as a deterrent to crime.

The rational choice theory and social disorganization theory contrast in so many ways. The rational choice theory is when wrongdoers choose to commit crimes and is punished severely. On the other hand, the social disorganization theory is differences in crime levels based on structure and culture factors that shape the nature of social order across communities. Furthermore, the difference between the two is that one of the is about a decision making process choice and the other is about how socialization controls criminal behavior.

So far, both theories are able to explain the crime inequality observed insides neighbourhoods; however, when it comes to explaining the difference in crime rates between neighbourhoods with similarly low levels of poverty, social disorganization theory is not able to fully explain why such difference may occur, as it places a greater focus on the internal dynamics of the neighbourhoods than on the external contingencies (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 92). Based on Table 4.5 of Divergent Social Worlds: Neighborhood Crime and the Racial-Spatial DivideI, minority low-poverty areas have roughly two and a half times more violence than their white counterparts (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 88). Social disorganization theory insists that residential instability (percent of those who owns and percent of those who rent) , population heterogeneity (internal differences, including ethno-racial differences), poverty (percent of those who live in poverty), income, deteriorating neighbourhood, and population loss (percent of those who leave due to deterioration) are mechanisms that leads to the absence of informal social control and increases social disorganization, causing the loss of control over youths who then hang out at spontaneous playgrounds and form gangs with delinquent traditions that get passed down through cultural transmission. If such was the case, then one would expect neighbourhoods with similar and comparable local conditions to have similar average rates of crimes. However,

Unlike most theories of crime that focus on the individual, the social disorganization theory focuses on inability of community members to achieve shared values or to solve jointly experienced problems (Bursik, 1988). Using Mexico City for the study has many benefits, including what alternative explanations for the causes and dynamics of criminality. Institutional anomie basically says that crime in the United States is driven by pressures to succeed and profit monetarily. Mexico City is a prime example of using this theory because looking from a socioeconomic stand point it is not very stable. There are many factors that need to be considered while performing this study and the results will inform criminal justice practice and policy by revising

The social disorganization theory is directed towards social conditions. This theory argues that crime is due to social conflicts, change, and lack of consensus in the group.

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

Each one of these issues signaled a breakdown in the social fabric. Which led people in the community more likely to be involved in criminal activity. (Warner, 2003) The social disorganization theory are based on assumptions.

Theory of conformity outlines the ideals that an individual will change values or behavior in order to fit in with a group. When it comes to the social control theory of crime, this is a central concept in understanding why people deviate from legal regulations. When looking at individuals without dependable relationships, a committed presence within their community and an upbringing with specific beliefs, it can be found that people are more likely to follow a life of crime if they do not present the listed characteristics (Orcutt 2011:97). According to Travis Hirschi (1969) there are four, more definitive, central elements that cause people to maintain social norms; “emotional attachment to family”, engagement with goals and future aspirations,

Social causes of crime represent the sum of social factors that determine, induce and cause crimes in society. It consults the social causes of crimes and all kinds of specific social phenomena that cause crimes. The cause of crime refers to the things and phenomena that cause or affect the crime. The social cause of crime is committed as part of the basic problems of criminology. The social cause of crime is related to the emergence and existence of crime, which is universal and inevitable, and it is also prevalent and necessary for the actor, the subject, or the members of the society. It is also necessary for a crime to rise in some or some particular person. The social reason is one of the causes of crime, but not according to the penalty, as a punishable crime does not pay attention to social causes, and pay attention to personal reasons, criminal law is the crime for individuals with the same social reasons not all crime. The phenomenon of crime often appears around us, and many new crimes and crimes have also occurred. From a sociological point of view, it is the political, economic, cultural, educational and other reasons.

In analyzing social process theories, it is typically viewed that elements of crime function as part of the interactions of people through the use of different institutions of society that include different organizations. No matter where a person comes from, if people maintain unhealthy relationships that is detrimental to their behaviors and daily activities, their potential to become a criminal greatly increases. As social process theories were developed by a group of sociologists during the 1930’s-1940’s in order to observe and collect data on human interactions and the influences group socialization may create. Through social process theories, the mentality of rationalizing crime as an alternative route to success becomes evident through sociologist’s observations through group interactions. People are just as susceptible to learning criminal behavior, as they are to learning other customary behaviors that are essential in the daily lives of individuals. Even though crime can be limited, some societies fail to limit the continuous actions of crime as addressed by the social control theory. Additionally, combining this theory with the social reaction theory analyzes how certain labels could potentially motivate criminal behaviors into a form of career (Siegal, 234).