Theory Construction Project
This paper discusses a
criminological theory, devised as a response to the social injustices that
exist within society as well as the criminal justice system, that provide the
foundation for criminality. It begins with
a discussion of theory and human nature.
The second part of this paper begins with a list and definitions of the
concepts used in this theoretical model.
A causal model diagram is next provided to show the relation between the
concepts. A list of propositions, which
are general statements within the theory, is also provided. More specifically, hypotheses are then
provided, to describe what this theory is aiming to test and prove. In part three of this paper, a historical
context is provided to allow for insight as to from where this paradigm
emerges. It also describes what types
of crimes this model explains. Policy
implications are then discussed. The
final component of this paper gives brief examples about how this model can be
practically studied, and also gives pre-existing examples of previous studies,
similar to this model. A brief
conclusion then follows.
Theory
Theory refers to abstract statements that are considered part of scientific knowledge in either a set-of-laws, axiomatic or causal process form (Reynolds, 1971: 10-11). In layman’s terms, theory is an explanation of an observed reality. A theory should adequately describe how and why certain events occur. According to Reynolds (1971: 11-12), scientific knowledge in theoretical form should provide a method of organizing and categorizing things. This is known as a typology. It should also provide predictions of future events and explanations of past events. Also mentioned should be a sense of understanding about what causes events.
Human Nature
Criminology,
a social science, involves the use of theory.
Theories are used to explain why crime is perceived to happen. Many factors come into play and influence
beliefs within the field of criminology.
Human nature is one of these key components. When discussing human nature, the debate as to whether human
beings have a propensity for good or evil is a central theme. Essentially, I
believe that human beings are born with the capacity to be both good and
evil. While this is innate, it is environmental
factors that elicit what side of the person that society actually sees. Therefore, human behavior is a product of
social conditioning and human nature.
We are born with both good and evil tendencies and we can also learn to
be either good or evil. Being human
beings, we are far more morally evolved than animals. We have the gift (Is
this biological then, or the result of socialization?)
of a conscience, rational decision making abilities and free will, which an
animal lacks, therefore making us responsible for our actions (under normal
circumstances and adequate conditions).
The
potential for good exists within all of us. However, based on the theories of
evolution and aggression evident in the socio-biological approach, it is proven
that man has natural intuition to exhibit evil. Therefore, it is in my opinion that both good and evil can exist
within a human being’s nature. We learn
to use both sides, and environment is what helps to determine what side society
will actually see. More or less, my
beliefs prove to be soft deterministic ideology (Pfohl, 1994:106). While we can control our actions to a
certain degree, it is sometimes a natural intuition to react either positively
or negatively to an environmental influence.
Criminology
focuses on the question “what causes crime.”
In my opinion, crime is a socially created phenomenon. There are many concepts that can be
described as crime causing agents.
First, the concept of crime must be defined itself in order to prove
correlation. Therefore, the concept of
crime can be defined as any action that is deemed unlawful by definition. Therefore, crime is merely a label, defined
so by the powers that be. It should be
noted that some of the most severe crime is committed by our criminal justice
system itself.
The
following is a list of concepts and their operational definitions that can be
used to help describe causes of crime:
·
Majority:
the people in positions of power to define and prescribe goals and means
·
Minority:
the people who lack power to define and prescribe goals and means
·
Socially
prescribed goals: the goals of the “American dream.” The things in life that all people are expected to obtain
throughout their lifetime.
·
Socially
acceptable means: the proper ways, according to the majority, by which to
achieve the socially prescribed means.
·
Inequality:
the labeling of one group of people as being less equal than another
·
Racism:
social practices which (explicitly or implicitly) attribute merits or allocate
values to members of racially categorized groups solely because of their race
(Omi & Winant 1986: 145)
·
Disparity
between goals and means: due to inequality, not having access to the socially
prescribed means to achieve the socially prescribed goals.
·
Subclass:
group of people determined lesser than the majority due to inequalities.
·
Alternative
Means: means developed by a subclass to achieve socially prescribed goals.
·
Criminal
Behavior: actions performed to achieve socially prescribed goals. Labeled so because they do not conform to
society’s means by which to achieve goals.
·
Crime:
a label. An activity defined by the
majority, who has also defined the socially prescribed goals and means of
society.
are
developed by majority by
determining that minorities are less
equal than white males ß
ß
Socially
prescribed means are A
subclass emerges due to
determined
to achieve goals the
establishment of inequality
↘ ↙ ↘ ↙
↘ ↙
which to achieve socially
prescribed goals
ß
to
achieve socially prescribed goals
ß
Alternate means of subclass
are defined as
criminal behavior
ß
Defined criminal behavior leads to
the label of crime.
Our country’s history began with the establishment of a majority population and a minority population. This dichotomous existence coincided with the development of socially prescribed goals, deemed so by the majority population. A subclass of people soon emerged based on this minority label. Socially prescribed means to achieve the socially prescribed goals were developed. As a result of the emergence of a subclass label and the social institutions that embedded our society within inequality, minority populations suffered constraint and lacked equal access and opportunity to the socially prescribed means to achieve socially prescribed goals. Subclasses, as a result, had motivation to develop their own means by which to achieve the goals. These means provide them with the ability to achieve the goals. Unfortunately, the majority in power also holds the power to define criminal behavior. Thus, they define the minority’s behavior as criminal, providing the definition for crime.
“The ways in which racism displays itself –what we might call its form- change as social conditions change (Mann & Zatz 1998: 3). While overt discrimination may not be as prevalent in today’s society, it has been replaced by institutional racism. This particular guise of racism is one in which the policies and practices of societal institutions operate in a way that produces systematic and persistent differences between different racial groups (Mann & Zatz 1998: 4). It is the outcome of this institutional racism that creates the two-folded basis for this particular theory. The first effect of this institutional racism is the lack of appropriate access to the socially prescribed means in order to achieve the socially prescribed goals. Specifically, one consequence of racism is racial segregation in society (housing and jobs), politics and economics (Mann & Zatz 1998: 4-5). Secondly is the fact that minority populations are more prone to be involved in some facet of the criminal justice system. “So long as Euro-Americans continue to control the major political, economic and social institutions in this country, including the criminal justice system, they have the institutional resources to discriminate (Mann & Zatz 1998: 4).
Propositions
·
Crime is defined by the majority
· Criminal behavior is a result of disparity between socially prescribed goals and means.
· Social inequality creates a subclass population
· Alternative means are developed as a result of a disparity between socially prescribed goals and means
Hypothesis
· Criminal behavior is inversely correlated with an individual’s access to socially prescribed means.
· Criminal behavior is positively correlated with a person’s desire to achieve socially prescribed goals.
· There exists a positive correlation between institutional racism and crime committed by minority populations.
Historical Context
This particular theory applies to populations that have been previously oppressed by American society. In particular, minority populations confounded to marginal, inner city neighborhoods with little opportunity for advancement. The basis for this theory is from first hand observation. Having grown up as a white female in a marginal neighborhood, surrounded by minorities, I have witnessed first hand the effects that the establishment of inequality, racism and discrimination have had on minority populations. Having also worked with minority offenders within the Florida Department of Corrections, the disparity that exists within these populations is overwhelming obvious. Having witnessed these accounts from the point of view of an outsider, I have been able to objectively describe the social problems embedded in our society that contribute to crime and that currently exist within the criminal justice system.
According to Robert Merton (1949), once we substitute these three variables of cultural ideal, belief and actual practice for the customary distinction between the two variables of cultural ideals and actual practices, the entire formulation of the problem becomes changed. We escape from the virtuous but ineffectual impasse of deploring the alleged hypocrisy of many Americans into the more difficult but potentially effectual realm of analyzing the problem in hand. Particularly, in a society that reveres the absolute right of all people to equitable access to justice, freedom and opportunity, irrespective of race or religion or ethnic origin, Merton views racism and discrimination as having far-reaching consequences for United States social policies (Aguirre 1995: 33).
Minority populations, as well as all of American society, are suffering from these injustices.
Explanatory Power
This particular model can be most useful in essentially explaining property crimes, crimes meant as a means to earn an income and violent crimes within the inner-city ghettoes amongst its constituents. The crimes involved reflect the means by which people are trying to acquire socially prescribed goals. Examples may include drug trafficking and sales, theft, robbery, burglary and prostitution. Violent crimes (and to some extent gang activity) in the inner-city ghettoes also exist and usually coincide with the aforementioned property crimes. However, according to Elijah Anderson, violent acts also exist within the inner-city constituents as a result of frustration and the development of a sub-culture, both indirect results of racism and inequality. This model is not necessarily appropriate to describe crimes of passion (i.e., homicidal rage and kidnapping) nor pathological deviance. It also does not include the rare acts of a serial murderer or white-collar criminality.
Policy Implications
There is an ideological message supportive of the status quo, built into any criminal justice system by its very nature. Even if the criminal justice system were not biased against the poor and minority populations, it would still, by its very nature, broadcast a message supportive of established institutions. Thus there exists an implicit ideology of criminal justice (Reiman 1998: 156). Therefore, essentially there must exist radical policy changes, not only within the field of criminal justice, but society as well. The historical foundation of our nation is built on oppression and discrimination; therefore, we are beginning policy changes from an unequal playing field. An entire paradigm shift must take place. Programs to eliminate discrimination within the criminal justice system, would initially need to be implemented. When those programs are in order, providing adequate employment and resources to the socially prescribed means of our society would be essential to prevent future crime. In addition to those, basic life-skills programs would need to be implemented to those who have already fell victim to the criminal justice system.
If broad societal changes were implemented, punishment would not be such a pressing issue. The key treatment programs that are currently needed to lower most crimes would be education and job skills training. Anger management and reality based programs would also help those who are currently suffering from their dismal realities. Providing means by which to achieve goals in a law abiding manner would be the treatment necessary to eliminate the types of crime that this theory applies to.
In an ideal world, the police, courts and corrections would not need to deal with the criminality described by this theory. However, in reality, this is not the case. Discrimination that exists within police departments would need to be eliminated. According to Mann (1993: 143-146) police are suspicious of minority people, believing that they are more likely to be involved in criminal activity than dominants. They consider violence against person more common among minority people and are therefore more concerned for their own safety when intervening. The police need to change this current attitude. Current statistics show that the evidence (Mann 1993: 145) does not justify this fear. What is even more important amongst police is that they become more educated about the diversity that exists amongst the people in these neighborhoods. If police officers are more cognizant and culturally well rounded, they perhaps may not fear or stereotype the unknown. Both the courts and corrections must follow in this same manner. Be specific Our nation is diverse and therefore must become culturally aware. They must become sensitive to racial and cultural differences and accommodate all people. Specifically, they must focus on the betterment of these criminals, rather than on the punishment. In bettering these people and providing them with the opportunities to change their behavior and lifestyles, they will be effective.
Overview of Previous Studies
My theoretical model
presupposes that society and its institutions lay the foundation for the
emergence of crime and deviance. It
should be noted that certain people, however, fall victim to the weaknesses in
our societal foundation, and in turn resort to crime and deviance as a way of
life or a means of survival. These
certain people have both good and bad qualities when it comes to the discussion
of human nature; however, evil wins the internal strife that exists within the
deviant.
There are many types of studies
that could possibly be carried out to prove or disprove my theoretical
model. Initially, direct field
observation would be most beneficial.
Particularly, within the inner cities and marginal areas, direct field
observation would be helpful in studying criminality. Studying the daily existence of the most downtrodden areas of our
society, plagued with crime, suffering from the injustices that our society
bestows on its lower class, would be a way to prove my model. Interviews of this population would also
provide evidence of the perceptions of the marginal population and their
attitudes about criminality and victimization and reasons for both. Who better to ask than the source itself? By inquiring and probing, rather than merely
observing, one might get a better sense of what actually exists inside the
minds and spirits of an underclass.
Essentially, what I am
describing is ethnographic research.
Direct field studying of the poor, inner-city neighborhoods, of all
races would be most beneficial to prove my theory correct. In order to understand the reality of a
certain class of people, one must live their lives with them, observing their
daily existence. To understand why and
how, one must co-exist in their world with them, noting their realities. A reality that is very different from the
White, middle class majority and worlds away from the upper echelon of our
society that essentially shapes our criminal justice system.
In studying these groups of people, the white middle class world of criminology and criminal justice would be more perceptive as to how the underclass exists and suffers. A different point of view would enlighten the tunneled point of view that is so popular today. Considering that a majority of the crime that exists within our society is property crime, committed for reasons of survival and as a means to obtain societal prescribed goals, perhaps these studies would find that crime is a huge societal problem, stemming from issues, more deeply embedded than problems with our prison and court system. Crime is a function of years of the haves taking and keeping means away from the have-nots.
Elijah Anderson, a
sociologist form the University of Pennsylvania has performed previous examples
of this type of study. In Code of
the Streets, Anderson (1994) co-exists amongst the inner-city population of
a Philadelphia ghetto. Here, he
observes that the population that he has studied has developed their own
neighborhood laws in order to deal with harsh reality of crime and
poverty. David Simon also uses this
type of field observation in The Corner, in order to portray life in the
inner cities of Baltimore. Although
focusing on the drug war amongst its constituents, The Corner depicts a
marginal area that suffers from them same problems that most inner cities are
forced to deal with.
While not quite popular,
because it does have its methodological flaws, ethnographic field research is
quite beneficial in proving that crime is more problematic in certain areas of
our nation. It is cyclical in nature,
in that it is deeply rooted in the cycles of our nation and its
institutions. Until the deeply rooted
societal causes that lay the foundation for crime are eradicated, it will
continue to exist. Exist, mostly
amongst good people who are subjected to the evils of an unjust reality.
Are there other
previous empirical studies that would support your model?
In summary, this theory
combines several pre-existing theories.
In describes a
macro-level learning theory, with Merton’s ideas of disparity between culturally prescribed means and goals, with a critical criminological reference of crime being a mere definition of the dominants in power. Crime is multidimensional and so are its causes, therefore theories should be as well.
Refrences
Anderson,
Elijah. (1994). The Code of the Streets: Decency, Violence and the Moral
Life Of the Inner City. New York and London: WW
Norton and Company.
Aguirre, Adalberto. (1995). Sources: Notable Selections in Race and Ethnicity.
Guilford, Conneticut: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.
Ferrell,
Jeff and Mark S. Hamm. (1998). Ethnography at the Edge. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
Mann, Coramae Richey. (1993). Unequal Justice. Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press.
Mann, C.R., and Zatz, M.S. (1998). Images of Color, Images of Crime. Los Angeles:
Roxbury Publishing Company.
Merton, Robert. (1949).
Discrimination and the American Creed.
Discrimination
and National Welfare. United States: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Omi, Michael, and Winant,
Howard. (1986). Racial Formation in the United States:
From the 1960’s to the 1980’s. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pfohl, S.J. (1994). Images of Deviance and Social Control: A Sociological History.
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reiman, Jeffrey. (1998). The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. Massachusetts:
Allyn and Bacon.
Reynolds, Paul Davidson. (1971). A Primer in Theory Construction. Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing.
Simon,
David and Edward Burns. (1997). The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner
City Neighborhood.
Baltimore, Maryland: Broadway
Books.