Class Notes (839,376)
Canada (511,314)
York University (35,583)
Criminology (771)
CRIM 2650 (97)
Anita Lam (58)
Lecture

L9 2650.docx

8 Pages
126 Views

Department
Criminology
Course Code
CRIM 2650
Professor
Anita Lam

This preview shows pages 1,2 and half of page 3. Sign up to view the full 8 pages of the document.
Description
Social control and social bonding theories Lecture overview 1. Brief recap  Sykes and Matza: Techniques of neutralization (1957) 2. Hirschi: Social control theory (1969) 3. Hirschi and Gottfredson: General theory of crime (1990) 4. Policy implications 2. Sykes and Matza: neutralization Theory –provide a theory that seeks to clarify and flush out Edwin sutherlands differential association theory. It clarifies the elements in differential association theory.  Elaboration of Sutherland’s Differential Association theory— the theory that suggests that people learn criminal behaviour. Law abiding people learn anti- criminal definitions, while criminal learn pro-criminal definitions.  Focuses on juvenile delinquents and young offenders—both deviance theory and neutralization theory focus on juveniles.  Vs. cultural deviance theory is an example of a social structure theory—theories that assume that the structure of a neighborhood and society will determine the norms and values of that neighborhood. How does the structure of lower class neighborhoods allow for the creation of a different structure system? They have a value system that says that crime is “OK”.  Is an example of a social process theory (social learning) – disagrees from social structure theory. Not everyone from a lower class neighborhood commits crime. Attempt to explain these ideas of how some people commit crime while others refrain from doing so. Social process is also social learning, which ties in with sutherlands theory of differential association. We learn techniques through interactions with close peers. Skyes and Matza say Cultural Deviance theory cannot explain the following: 1. Why do young offenders feel guilt or shame? Because young offenders are partially committed to the dominant social and moral order where criminal behaviour is not seen as morally right. 2. Young offenders draw a sharp line between those who can be victimized and those who cannot be victimized. They don’t victimize their family and friends. 3. Young offenders frequently respect and admire law-abiding people. Some of their role models are law abiding citizens 4. Many young offenders are not completely immune from the demands of conformity made by the dominant social order. – young offenders are still in relationships who are not deviant and criminal. There is no entire neighborhood with criminals. Some point in a deviant’s life, they will encounter a law abiding citizen. Neutralization theory  If young offenders believe in the laws of conventional society, then why do they violate them? Sykes and matza say juvenile delinquents violate because they have developed justifications for their deviance. These rationalizations are techniques of neutralization.  Learn techniques of neutralization (pro-criminal definitions (Sutherland))  Allows people to temporarily suspend their adherence to moral values of dominant society in order to commit crime – allow you to temporarily suspend your moral beliefs 5 Techniques of Neutralization 1. Denial of responsibility: It was an accident! Any harm was unintentional! –They can blame their family history. All of these theories work under a deterministic perspective  Deterministic perspective—idea that human behaviour is completely determined by internal and external factors beyond our CONTROL, which downplays our voluntary choice and free will. 2. Denial of injury: I didn’t harm anyone! “I didn’t steal anything, I borrowed it” So it wasn’t harming anyone. 3. Denial of victim: S/he had it coming! The offender deflects blame by blaming the victim  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYmMagkfjfI 4. The condemnation of the condemners: Everyone steals! Why pick on me? 5. Appeal to higher loyalties: I have to protect my buddies/family! When they commit crime they know they are sacrificing abiding by the laws and instead fulfil the demands of their smaller in-group, and feel that they are showcasing their loyalty to that in-group. Drift: young offenders move in and out of crime and delinquency because they embrace both conventional and criminal values –as a society we have subterranean values. Subterranean values: moral values that are publicly condemned but held and practised in private— an example is pornography Our human behaviour lies on a continuum—we are not always criminal or vice versa (Criminal behaviour) Drift: Techniques of neutralization -> (Law abiding behaviour) Testing Neutralization Theory  Cause and effect: its criminal behaviour that is the cause, that leads to the effect which is the rationalizations. Another test is to see if both criminals and non- criminals hold the same value system. If this is wrong, then cultural deviance theory is true which holds that everyone holds different value systems.  Sykes and Matza: Conventional morals  neutralization  criminal act  Other scenario: Criminal act  neutralization/rationalization  Survey data: young offenders do not value or condone violent behaviour  Offenders use neutralizations before engaging in violent behaviour 3. Hirschi: Social Control Theory 1969  Onset of criminality is linked to weakening of social bonds and these social bonds are what will tie you as an individual to society  Assumption about human nature: we are all potential criminals because we like easy gratification. Crime then, is attractive. Hirschi says that we are refrained from committing crime because we fear that if we commit crime it will damage our social bonds and the relationships we have with our family and friends.  Assumption about society: we all share the same social rules and moral values. Unlike cultural deviance theory, hirschi’s theory suggests that we all share the same social values. Social Bond  Social bond: on-going link, created through socialization, between individuals and society  Stake in conformity  Is composed of 4 elements that will build a persons stake in conformity—a scenario where you have gained rewards to continue abiding to conventional rules ..? 1. Attachment: ties to social institutions formed via continuing and intimate interactions –school, marriage are important because they are what will help you accept social norms and develop a social conscience. Without caring about another human being you will not develop respect for other authority figures. A psychopath does not have any deep attachments. 2. Commitment: energy and effort invested and expended in given set of activities—getting education, and saving money in the bank. Once you build up this strong commitment in having a conventional life, you are less likely to engage in crime because it would jeopardize your current position. 3. Involvement: amount of time spent with others in shared activities –there is a finite amount of time in a
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2 and half of page 3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

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