The Social Of Crime And Criminal Behavior

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.

Going in depth of how social disorganization theory came up. In the University of Chicago, they analyzed where crime and deviance came upon. They were able to see deviance in gambling, prostitution, alcohol consumption, violence, the abuse of power by police officers

To prevent crime, it is imperative that the law enforcement agencies and scholars examine why people commit crime. A number of theories have emerged and many still continue to be explored in exclusion and in combination to seek the best solutions that can ultimately reduce the types and the levels of crime. One such theory that is still being explored is social disorganization theory. According to this theory people's tendency to take part in criminal activities is largely determined by the neighborhood where they are brought up in especially if conditions favorable to crime and delinquency prevail in such places. When communities becomes incapable of realizing common goals and solve problems that its residents face, there is a high likelihood that its residents will engage in criminal activities (Sampson & Grove, 1989). Some of the problems that are likely to increase incidences of crime in neighborhoods when communities fail to address them are poverty, residential mobility, ethnic heterogeneity, and weak social networks. They decrease a neighborhood's capacity to control the behavior of people in public.

They were only concerned with one social group at the time. The continued research since they originally proposed the theory has developed, and finds crime and victimization to be the highest in communities with low social ties, lack of participation in volunteer opportunities, low levels of supervision or parenting, and high degrees of houses turning over. These findings are very consistent with the first findings that Shaw and McKay discovered when they conducted their study. Although there were some errors that were discussed years after they presented this theory, it has since been proven to still be an accurate theory. A lack of structure is not conducive to a positive environment for a child. Kids make poor choices, and will be more inclined to make poor choices if they do not have someone teaching them how to be a productive member of society. It is proven that young teenagers and early adults are more likely to commit crime, so if you combine that with a lack of structure, you are creating a situation that will not end well 9 times out of 10. If the child never had any reason to think crime was bad and that their actions would have both a victim and a consequence, if they are angry at parents or at the instability that was shown in

In this essay I will be discussing Christie’s (2004) viewpoint that crime is a social construction, drawing viewpoints from Henry (2001), Walklate (2007), and Cohen (1972). Firstly, it is important to address the construction of the dictionary definition of crime and then to delve further into the changing nature of crime itself, also reflecting on crime within certain contexts. This will happen by looking at the current definition of crime and cross-examining it with Christie’s theoretical perspective, and then contrasting this with differing viewpoints who look at it from a broader perspective in regards to time and different cultures.

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.

This composition will look at crime and its different criminological interpretations. Crime is an umbrella word which covers a diverse range of issues and is dependant upon the theoretical stand point of the writer. Although the wordings of the explanations differ, the implications are consistent (Newburn, 2007. Doherty, 2005). Mclaughlin et al (2006) seems the most relevant for the purpose. They separate crime into three key constituent parts. These are harm, social agreement and the official societal reaction. There are different theoretical interpretations of crime. The product of culturally-bounded social interaction is crime; which is the violation of the social contract (Newburn, 2007. Young,

One of the most central questions in the study of neighbourhood outcomes is the question of what accounts for the unequal pattern of crime by race and ethnicity, in which the violent crime rate in minority neighbourhoods is often higher than in white neighbourhoods. Among the different explanations proposed, there is a predominant theory: the theory of social disorganization. As described by Dr. Rengifo (2009), the social disorganization theory, forwarded by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1942), suggests that the variation in crime rates is linked to the weakened social integration of neighbourhoods which is a result of the presence of delinquent subcultures and structural factors on social interactions that lead to the absence of self-regulatory mechanisms.

The Social Disorganization Theory plays into the Ecological Model. Think of it like mold, it grows in dark damp areas and is toxic to humans, similar to crime it grows in areas that are lower on the food chain. If left untreated it continues to grow, such as gangs and drug areas. Which is the reasoning for individuals to commit crimes, or to not commit crimes. The strengths of the Social Disorganization Theory are structural and cultural variables that are collected creating a base line for all community research regarding crime.

Social disorganization theory was established by Shaw and Mckay (1942) in their famous work “Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas”. The main argument of the social disorganization theory is that, the place where people live will influence the individual’s behavior, and this may lead them to crimes. More precisely, certain characteristics of the neighborhood/community will strengthen or weaken the informal social control within the community, and this has mediating effect on crimes.

Social disorganization theory explains the ecological difference in levels of crime, simply based on cultural and structural factors that influence the social order in a given community. Social disorganization is triggered by poverty, social stability, ethnic heterogeneity, and a few key elements. Although Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay (1942), were known for social disorganization theory, in 1947 Edwin Sutherland introduced the notion of a ecological differences in crime that is the result of differential social organization. Despite similar arguments on social organization, Shaw and Mckay argued that the cultural integration explained the ecological variation in crime rates as a result of the negative impact on the community. Also elaborating on structural socioeconomic factors shaping informal control like poverty, heterogeneity, and residential mobility. Later Robert Sampson and Byron Groves (1989), refined the work of Shaw and Mckay by highlighting on the importance of social ties and new measures of social disorganization.

Social disorganization theory is part of the positivist paradigm of criminology, a scientific approach to crime causes, and part of the Chicago School of crime. While trait theories under the positivist approach assume that crime is cause by internal factors, social disorganization theory relies on the assumption that crime is caused by environmental

Social disorganization theory is defined as “an inability of community members to achieve shared values or to solve jointly experienced problems” (Bursik, ’06), therefor creating a direct linkage to violent crime. The Shaw and McKay model of social disorganization explains the relationship between disorganization and crime the best, stating violent crime, is the normal response, by normal individuals, to abnormal conditions (Bellair). The current state of many inner-city neighborhoods exhibit only disorganization, which is helping to contribute to the growing crime rates of these communities. Low economic status, easy mobility between residents, broken families and large groupings of the same ethnicities are all hypotheses that are

In 1942, Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay produced Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, which aimed to explain crime in urban communities using social disorganization theory. Elliot and Merrill (1934) define social disorganization as “a breakdown in the equilibrium of forces, a decay in the social structure, so that old habits and forms of social control no longer function effectively” (p.20). Using this definition and the ecological approach, Shaw and McKay argue that low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential mobility led to the disruption of community social organization (Shaw and McKay 1942). This disruption is what essentially leads to delinquency and further crime. Numerous empirical studies and tests were conducted in order to determine the validity of the theory. Studies done in the United States and in other countries have also shown support for the theory. In addition, the theory has been extended and revised by multiple scholars and applied to nonmetropolitan areas. The numerous studies and tests of social disorganization theory will prove whether the theory is applicable to other metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and whether the theory is still applicable to the modern era.

Social Disorganization theory connects crime rates to neighborhood ecological characteristics. Based on the research and according to Osgood and Chambers, social disorganization theory specifies three important variables; residential instability, ethnic Heterogeneity, female-headed households. These three variables are considered to be the most criminogenic.