Class Notes (837,447)
Canada (510,273)
Sociology (3,261)
SOC313H1 (110)
all (20)
Lecture

Lecture 5

5 Pages
96 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Sociology
Course
SOC313H1
Professor
All Professors
Semester
Winter

Description
Social Control Lecture 5 February 7, 2012 Soul training is a concept by Foucault (post structuralist/post modern) and it is used to draw a contrast between old styles of punish- ment focusing on the body. He says, in the past, punishment was focused on punishing the body and making punishment a specta- cle and that the state can do anything to your body. he contrasts that with what happens today, which he says is a more disciplinary type of punishment. He says now it is this soul train concept where it isn’t about punishing the body but training the soul. So it is about training people into the right way of acting. This happens in school, and also prisons. So it is a different way to think about punishment. Test 20 MC, 5-6 Short answer where you get a bit of choice. -He will ask us to identify or explain a concept. He may say what are the two concepts associated with this, as discussed in class. Or identify this concept and give an example. -The more specific info he asks about will likely be about lecture stuff. The more broad stuff may likely be from the text Policing Police vs. Policing  Police vs. Policing  The idea is that the police are a specific type of organization, but policing is an activity that can be done by people other than the police. An example is private policing (security guards, etc). They are in the business of policing, but they aren’t the police. The fact that this is changing is important. Before there was a time where the police were the soul organization involved in policing, but this is not the case as much anymore.  Police: “The police is a specific, modern organization, endowed with the states legal authority to use physical coercion or the threat of it, to enforce the law in pursuance of the maintenance of social order” (Innes 2003: 64)  Actual role: One of the things to think about in terms of the police as a specific organization are the law and or- der, cops and robbers notions of police solving or preventing crimes. However, the reality is that police do a lot of other things that aren’t really as crime related.  Crime management- This is one of their roles. However, the ugly truth is that the police aren’t that ef- fective when it comes to crime management. For example police are largely reactive and only get called by the public after the crime has happened. So the idea that they are crime preventing isn’t really the reality.  Order management- This is something they are more involved in. An example of order management may be them being active at the Pride parade.  Security management- This is something they also do. They are there to provide security, monitor, and make sure nothing is going wrong at a particular event or scenario. However, they aren’t actively managing crime. Example: police at construction sites. Transition away from standard policing  Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment  Increasingly, the police are moving away from the standard policing model. The standard policing model is based on the assumption that generic strategies of crime reduction can be applied throughout a jurisdiction re- gardless of the level of crime, the nature of crime, or other variations.  So it is this one size fits all approach to dealing with crime. This generic approach he is talking about are what’s called ransom patrols. They get in their cars and cruise around for trouble and this is the idea we associate with the police in a traditional way. The idea of rapid response to 911 calls is another general approach to crime. Also generally applied follow up investigations. You call the police, they get there fast to get the bad guy, if not, they take a report, and then go through standard methods of following through on crime. So this is an example of the general type approach. There isn’t much contact with other agencies. The police are this unit or organization and there isn’t much communication with other organizations. It is also focused on law and order enforcement.  Recently, in the 1970’s we began to move away from this standard model and there have been different policing schemes implemented. Thus, the general trend is away from this standard model. Studies identified that the standard model wasn’t effective. One of the studies was this Kansas City one.  In Kansas city, they has 15 police beats, divided into 3 groups or 5 people, and each group had a condition. One was this routine preventative approach where they cruise around the beat looking for trouble. So this is the control group where they do things in a business as usual way to see if there is a change in the other groups. The other group was where preventative patrol was eliminated so it was solely reactive. They only went in to the neighborhood if there was trouble. Then there were proactive beats where patrolling was intensified 2-3 times. The idea was to test how useful this preventative patrol business was with one normal group, one group where it;s gone, and one group where it is beefed up. They were interested in whether citizens would notice and such. Generally they didn’t notice a change. They did victimization surveys and such and saw that there was very little effect. There was very little effect in terms of crime rates, fear of crime, police satisfaction (public’s view of the police), etc. and there was no effect. -This study was cited as evidence as to why the standard model of policing isn’t really effective. Community Policing -The text focuses on 3 types of policing.  Return to older style • This is where officers go into a neighborhood and try to interact more with the public. They get out of their cars and such. So it isn’t really preventative. It is a return to an older style, where people knew their neighborhood police who kept an eye on them.  Order management • The emphasis is on order management, and security management, making sure there aren’t disturbances and making sure there aren’t issues. They aren’t really out looking for crime.  Community focus • Serve the community  They are to serve the community. So instead of focusing on crime statistics, they focus on other measures of success like how close the relationships are between the police and the community, etc. • Develop closer relations  The idea is that if they have these better relationships established by serving the community, it will help you solve crime. Not being involved in the community is seen as the problem in that people won’t cooperate, they won’t bother to call the police, etc. TAVIS is the Toronto Anti-Violence Strategy. This is an example of community policing. • Improved public relations help with crime control  Limitations • There are two take-away’s from this. They are trying to seem friendly and approachable, and they hope that this approachability will smooth over tensions and make it easier to get information. What we see also see speaks to some criticisms of community policing:  in that it often doesn’t seem to be terribly effective. There are problems with implementation. There is a nice sentiment, but crossing these divides is hard to do and the police won’t always hit the mark. Often the reasons behind strained public-police relationships aren’t about getting to know police of- ficers, but are long-standing. If the community is economically poor and depressed, it may have a whole other dimension in terms of relationships with police. So what they are trying to deal with may not be something that can easily be dealt with by community policing. However, CP may be a move in the right direction, but the issues tend to be more in terms of its implementation.  TAVIS Zero Tolerance  Associated with New York in mid-1990s (Bratton and Giuliani) • Zero tolerance is a popular term now and it has gotten a lot of attention recently. It is associated with New York in the 1990’s with Bratton and Guiliani. They started with a zero tolerance policing in the subway where they tried to get rid of graffiti, cutting out stall-jumping, etc. It was seen as effective for the subway and got expanded out into the city as a whole.  Influenced by Broken Windows Theory • The reason they believed in all of this connects to the Broken Window’s Theory, written by Wilson and Kellings. The idea was that these guys saw community suffering in kind of spirals of disorder. They used the analogy of an abandoned building, where as soon as one window breaks, others think no one cares about it and they think it is okay to break more windows. They saw that as being analogous to what happens in these communities, where once you let these petty crimes happen, it will spiral. • When people look out their window and see disorder, they stop feeling invested in their neighborhood. They stop taking ownership and if they see something happening, they may not do anything about it. • What is unique about broken windows is that its solution to the problem is policing. • The other risk of seeing disorder out of your window is that you won’t want to go outside anymore. Once people don’t go out on the street anymore, you lose that natural surveillance and control that you would get from having people on the streets. • So the principle is that once you get disorder, it leads to a downward spiral. After broken windows, communities lose mechanisms of informal social control. Their view was to advocate for foot patrols wherever possible and go back this more beat style. • So their work, though associated with zero tolerance, has a community policing aspect as well. Where it lines up with zero tolerance is the focus on disorder. They are looking for outsiders, trouble makers, drunk people, etc. So this type of policing is called quality of life policing where the goal is to improve people’s quality of life. • Another interesting thing about BW is that they talk about police discretion. Some of the things that BW talks about gives it a bad rap while being associated with ZT. In BW, they talk about discretion and want police to en- force community norm and understand what is tolerated in the community, and let those minor types of tolera- tions slide. So this is something that isn’t associated with ZT because ZT has no discretion and focuses on even application even for petty crimes. So it is interesting that BW got associated with ZT.  Reported significant drops in crime rate • Between 1993-1997 there was a drop in felony complaints, murders, robbery, burglary, etc. as a result of these
More Less

Related notes for SOC313H1

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