Sean P Wise.............written for LSCJ 3133-301..............1-31-16
The first perspective we will review is the social responsibility perspective of criminology, also known as Rational Choice Theory. In this perspective, criminologist view the act of committing crime a personal choice that is made by the perpetrator. This can be seen as the free will perspective. In this perspective, individuals are fundamentally responsible for their own behavior and they choose crime over other law abiding courses of action (Schmalleger 15). Richard Smith outlined how core values of society often influence both law and how society deals with issues. He found prevalent in many cultures’ core values honoring individual freedoms and self sufficiency in the face of economic and environmental disaster (3). Meaning that people exercise their free will even when there are catastrophic consequences. Thus the social responsibility perspective has had tremendous impact on our current institution of law.
Proponents of the social responsibility perspective of criminology believe that social programs do little to solve problems with crime. They believe that crime prone individuals will continue to make choices that pit them against the justice system. Thus, they believe in order to curb crime you must have a highly personalized strategy to deal with the issue. These strategies include, but are not limited to, firm punishments, imprisonment, tailored rehabilitation, broader powers for law enforcement officials and increased security (Schmalleger 15). According to Schmalleger, specific bills such as the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act as well as the USA Patriot Act were derived specifically from this criminology perspective and were used to place more police on the beat as well as create stiffer penalties and institute the “3 strikes you’re out rule.” (16)
Over the last 20 years the United States has seen how this “war on crime” has played out. Due to the rigid constructs of this response they have a booming prison population. According to The Sentencing Project, the overall population of prisons has grown over 700% for the period from 1980 to 2009 in the United States. The U.S. has increased its federal budget for prisons, pouring in 6 billion dollars to the federal prison system in 2010, an over 1,000% increase in spending since 1980. The U.S. has seen a militarization of the law enforcement agencies which in turn has resulted in an increase of police brutality. Bill Trine notates on prisonlegalnews.org that “the federal government, supported by the Supreme Court, has transformed the police of this nation into a military force, financed and trained to use excessive force.”
The fascinating part of this goes to what Jared Diamond stated about those core values. “Easter Island chiefs . . . acted so as to accelerate deforestation rather than to prevent it: their status depended upon their putting up bigger statues and monuments than their rivals” (431). In other words, those in power did everything they could to maintain that power even if it meant ecocide. Here in the United States that has resulted in a prison system that is more akin to the Jim Crow era rather than responsible rehabilitation (Trine).
The second perspective of criminology is a more encompassing perspective. It is known as the social problem perspective. This perspective sees crime in the context that it is committed. Proponents of this perspective believe that underlying social problems like poverty, discrimination, family violence and inadequate socialization practices results in the manifestation of crime (Schmalleger 15). This approach is more conscious of the sociology of crime; the “It takes a village” approach. This approach allows the understanding and rationale behind the issues of crime and thus can propose solutions to the issue.
The solutions seen by proponents of the social problem perspective are often large initiatives that target certain aspects of society that foster crime. These issues are treated much like we would treat a public health problem, we diagnose the issue, i.e. poverty, and then treat it, i.e. work to build the area’s income by work placement assistance and business growth initiatives.
The science of criminology has clearly shown that there are more factors than what the social responsibility perspective allows. Joan McCord performed a 30 year study on family dynamics with relation to crime. She found that those families with a self confident, non-punitive, and affectionate mother were more likely to raise male offspring that did not exhibit delinquency and thus were not associated with later crime (Schmalleger 18). Thus we see the family dynamic plays an integral role in overall crime rate. If you can ensure through parenting classes or other forms of home economics classes that the family unit is a strong and positive one, you can effectively decrease future crime rate.
In thinking about the social problem perspective, it is also important to remember that society itself plays a part in the prevention of crime. Carol W Kohfeld and John Sprague performed an experiment to discover if being arrested ended up being a future deterrent for crime. They found in their experiment, under certain demographic conditions that yes, being arrested could curb the desire to perform illicit acts in the future (Schmalleger 18). Thus having an interaction with law enforcement officials can have the beneficial aspect of stopping the progress of a criminal’s activity in a “scared straight” situation.
An interesting point that Schmalleger brings up is mental illness as an impetus for criminal activity. Many people have varying degrees of mental illness and few result in violent outbursts. However, some mental illnesses can increase aggressive behavior. If a psychologist or psychiatrist is proactive enough, they also may be able to curb the descent into criminal activity. Adam Lanza and James Holmes, both of which had been seeing mental health officials (Schmalleger 21), may have not committed the horrific mass shootings they perpetrated if they had been able to receive the appropriate care.
In conclusion, the two prevailing perspectives of social responsibility and social problems both have positive and negative aspects. We have spent several decades now allowing those in power to continue to use the social responsibility perspective to decrease crime. It has worked, as the figure1-1 demonstrates (Schmalleger 3), but with consequences that are tearing families apart. Social responsibility only treats the symptom of crime, while social problem perspective focuses on curing the pandemic. In order to have a thorough understanding and response to crime, and possibly cure it, it is important to have a full arsenal to attack it with. This means pouring more funds into preventative measures and programs rather than continuing to build prisons.
Diamond, Jared M. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin, 2005. Print
Schmalleger, Frank. Criminology Today: An Integrative Introduction. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.. 7th Edition. 2015. Print
Smith, Richard. Capitalism and Collapse: Contradictions of Jared Diamond’s Market Meliorist Strategy to Save Humans. Capitalism Nature Socialism. Volume 16. #4. December 2005.
"State and Federal Prison Population Tops One Million." PsycEXTRA Dataset (n.d.): n. pag. The Sentencing Project. Web.
Trine, Bill. The Genesis of Increasing Incidents of Police Brutality: The War on Drugs. Prison Legal News. 3 June 2015. Web. 31 Jan. 2016.
The second perspective of criminology is a more encompassing perspective. It is known as the social problem perspective. This perspective sees crime in the context that it is committed. Proponents of this perspective believe that underlying social problems like poverty, discrimination, family violence and inadequate socialization practices results in the manifestation of crime (Schmalleger 15). This approach is more conscious of the sociology of crime; the “It takes a village” approach. This approach allows the understanding and rationale behind the issues of crime and thus can propose solutions to the issue.
The solutions seen by proponents of the social problem perspective are often large initiatives that target certain aspects of society that foster crime. These issues are treated much like we would treat a public health problem, we diagnose the issue, i.e. poverty, and then treat it, i.e. work to build the area’s income by work placement assistance and business growth initiatives.
The science of criminology has clearly shown that there are more factors than what the social responsibility perspective allows. Joan McCord performed a 30 year study on family dynamics with relation to crime. She found that those families with a self confident, non-punitive, and affectionate mother were more likely to raise male offspring that did not exhibit delinquency and thus were not associated with later crime (Schmalleger 18). Thus we see the family dynamic plays an integral role in overall crime rate. If you can ensure through parenting classes or other forms of home economics classes that the family unit is a strong and positive one, you can effectively decrease future crime rate.
In thinking about the social problem perspective, it is also important to remember that society itself plays a part in the prevention of crime. Carol W Kohfeld and John Sprague performed an experiment to discover if being arrested ended up being a future deterrent for crime. They found in their experiment, under certain demographic conditions that yes, being arrested could curb the desire to perform illicit acts in the future (Schmalleger 18). Thus having an interaction with law enforcement officials can have the beneficial aspect of stopping the progress of a criminal’s activity in a “scared straight” situation.
An interesting point that Schmalleger brings up is mental illness as an impetus for criminal activity. Many people have varying degrees of mental illness and few result in violent outbursts. However, some mental illnesses can increase aggressive behavior. If a psychologist or psychiatrist is proactive enough, they also may be able to curb the descent into criminal activity. Adam Lanza and James Holmes, both of which had been seeing mental health officials (Schmalleger 21), may have not committed the horrific mass shootings they perpetrated if they had been able to receive the appropriate care.
In conclusion, the two prevailing perspectives of social responsibility and social problems both have positive and negative aspects. We have spent several decades now allowing those in power to continue to use the social responsibility perspective to decrease crime. It has worked, as the figure1-1 demonstrates (Schmalleger 3), but with consequences that are tearing families apart. Social responsibility only treats the symptom of crime, while social problem perspective focuses on curing the pandemic. In order to have a thorough understanding and response to crime, and possibly cure it, it is important to have a full arsenal to attack it with. This means pouring more funds into preventative measures and programs rather than continuing to build prisons.
Bibliography
Diamond, Jared M. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin, 2005. Print
Schmalleger, Frank. Criminology Today: An Integrative Introduction. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.. 7th Edition. 2015. Print
Smith, Richard. Capitalism and Collapse: Contradictions of Jared Diamond’s Market Meliorist Strategy to Save Humans. Capitalism Nature Socialism. Volume 16. #4. December 2005.
"State and Federal Prison Population Tops One Million." PsycEXTRA Dataset (n.d.): n. pag. The Sentencing Project. Web.
Trine, Bill. The Genesis of Increasing Incidents of Police Brutality: The War on Drugs. Prison Legal News. 3 June 2015. Web. 31 Jan. 2016.
