Class Notes (837,435)
Canada (510,273)
Sociology (2,978)
SOC 1500 (763)
Lecture

SOC 1500 Nov 24 2011 Lecture Note (F11)

5 Pages
84 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Sociology
Course
SOC 1500
Professor
Alexander Shvarts
Semester
Fall

Description
Hackler: Community and Justice System Responses to Crime - Chapter 17, Criminogenic Con1itions – Chapter 20, Labeling theory – Chapter 9 Schmalleger and Volk: Chapter 11, Labeling theory - Chapter 9 SOC 1500 Thursday, November 24, 2011 **EXAM: Everything after midterm Lecture 10: Community and Justice Responses to Crime and Criminogenic Conditions – Implications for Crime Reduction Community and Justice Responses to Crime (Hackler, Ch.17) – Focusing on the Community > Solving crime has to be a coordinated project (police, community, gov., social service workers have to be involved) • Coordinated projects: Involving a number of agencies can reduce crime in the community. • Federal government and public services: Loss of some services made communities less effective at preventing crime. • Auto culture in North America promotes isolation: Neighbors can be strangers. In contrast, light rail system in Europe is an example of public transportation that creates more workable communities. > We are an automobile culture – get into car, go to work; culture where car is everything to you; want to create cohesive communities where people can care about each other and solve things together; Problem: Don’t know people within your own community; Europe – can take transit everywhere; subways are extensive; when people go to work, use subways, streetcars; Advantage: Develop stronger community bonds with people; know neighbors because you’re taking same public transits Can “Community” and “Social Capital” Lead to Crime Prevention? • Social capital and social networks: Enable people to cope more effectively and is a key to community strengthening. > Strong communities = crime prevention • John Braithwaite and Heather Strang (2001): Community cohesiveness and social capital reduce crime. > Urban cities = relationships are fragmented; no one cares about each other; • Kit Carson (2004): Relationships in urban life in the 21st century are more fragmented. Those living in wealthy suburbs may not need a sense of community, but those in poor communities do. Can “Community” and “Social Capital” Lead to Crime Prevention? • Problems with cohesive communities: Some people are excluded. A half century ago, cohesive communities with considerable social capital prevented non-whites from moving into their all-white neighborhoods. For example, the Ku Klux Klan was very cohesive and had considerable social capital; and Enron, WorldCom, and other corporations were not lacking in strong networks. • Canadian government initiated National Crime Prevention Strategy in 1998: No programs were found with evidence of proven success. • Hackler’s view: Instead of trying to create a sense of community, need to socialize children to behave in a courteous and helpful manner among “lightly engaged strangers” Hackler: Community and Justice System Responses to Crime - Chapter 17, Criminogenic Cond2tions – Chapter 20, Labeling theory – Chapter 9 Schmalleger and Volk: Chapter 11, Labeling theory - Chapter 9 Creating Collective Efficacy in Neighborhoods • Wilson and Kelling (1982) – “Broken Windows” approach: Argued that if community appears neglected, more serious crime will result. These ideas had a powerful influence on crime-control policies. Some governments interpreted this as a call to “get tough”. Many cities adopted zero-tolerance strategies, cracking down hard on very minor offences. > Reason it is called broken windows theory is because if you see neighborhood with smashed windows, garbage around neighborhood, ghetto houses = Easier target for thieves; if people cannot take care of homes, easy target to commit crime • Advocates of zero-tolerance policies: Point to the decrease in homicides in New York as proof of their success. However, many large cities witnessed major decreases in crime during the middle 1990s, and some of these moved towards softer rather than harsher strategies, such as community-oriented policing. > Crime decreased in many cities all over US that didn’t adopt the zero-tolerance strategy; went down in cities that used more community justice methods • Hackler’s view: Need to see police and other agencies as helpful allies to maintain orderly neighborhoods that make the “lightly engaged stranger” community methods; cannot arrest everyone who is committing deviant/criminal actsk with Creating Collective Efficacy in Neighborhoods • Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: Looked at collective efficacy, defined as cohesion among neighborhood residents combined with shared expectations for informal social control of public space (Sampson and Raudenbush 2001). When there is mutual trust among neighbors and feelings of shared obligations, they are more likely to intervene for the common good. Crime and disorder stem from structural characteristics, such as concentrated poverty and the absence of social resources. When collective efficacy was strong and neighbors were more willing to intervene, levels of physical and social disorder tended to be lower. Community gets together and learn how to respond to crime – “Community Watch”; neighborhood controls – patrol neighborhood • Underlying factors of both disorder and crime must be addressed: Ex. In Hamburg, Germany, city used favorable tax policies to make it advantageous for people to stay in certain neighborhoods, thereby creating more residential stability, so that people developed a stake in their communities. Creating Collective Efficacy in Neighborhoods • Structural changes - reduction of poverty: Canada and the United States - increasing gap between wealthy and poor. The closing of factories, loss of jobs, and increasing gap between rich and poor are structural changes that have reduced collective efficacy. > US highest crime rates b/c gap between rich vs. poor = gastronomical • Reducing physical disorder through community action: Could produce some benefits. If residents engaged in a neighborhood cleanup, it might strengthen social ties and increase the residents’ commitment to their Hackler: Community and Justice System Responses to Crime - Chapter 17, Criminogenic Condi3ions – Chapter 20, Labeling theory – Chapter 9 Schmalleger and Volk: Chapter 11, Labeling theory - Chapter 9 neighborhood. A community policing strategy would be effective. > Neighborhood clean-up, community bbq’s important b/c it shows community members you are part of neighborhood and care about neighborhood; willing to help with problems; while you’re caring, developing strong relationships with community members = reducing crime • Sampson and Raudenbush (2001): Zero-tolerance crackdown alienates residents who might have inclinations towards community co-operation. Focusing on Procedures and Missing the Essence of Problems • Our court procedures frequently produce injustice: Ex. Family and Youth court judges usually decide what is best for a child > Court systems in N. America believe that they know what’s best for family/child A Japanese Approach to a Potential Crime • Restorative Justice: After a domestic dispute, husband went
More Less

Related notes for SOC 1500

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit