Question One
The close nexus between crime and race has been the subject of much scholarly inquiry and debate for decades. A number of theories have been used to explain the linkages. The nuances in all these theories is minimal as they all point out that race is a significant factor in the study of crime and criminal behavior. Such a study is particularly interesting in a cosmopolitan society because race as demography would be able to provide a number of variances that can be analyzed. For example, the prevalence of crime among the African American populace has significantly influenced the school of thought of some scholars. Indeed, the African American seems to have a higher affinity to crime within the United States. The entire African American community consists of only 13% of the entire US population. In contrast, a significant majority of all inmates in US prison system belong to Black community. This has thus been a critical factor is pushing criminologist to study the underlying factors. This section of the paper will use the strain and the social reaction theories to describe the relationship between race and crime.The linkages between race and crime began to gain currency in the late 1980’s in the United States academic sphere. The cardinal influence for this debate was the need to identify the causes of the disproportionate representation of social minorities in almost all level of criminal justice system. This contributed immensely to the disparities witnessed in the American prison system.
According to Merton, social structures within the society are the significant causes of deprivation and inequality in various segments of the populace. The presence of such inequality and deprivation is a significant incentive to the marginalized to commit crime. It is fact that all races within a community around the world do not necessarily have the same opportunities and privileges. Some races have faced years of marginalization and numerous historical injustices that has entrenched inequality within the society. Therefore, the deprived race tries to look for means and ways to adapt to the prevailing circumstances in order to cope with the existing challenges. For example, the people of African American race within the United States and South Africa have endured centuries of marginalization, deprivation and discrimination. It started with the introduction of the institution of slavery followed by colonized and then discrimination. Centuries of entrenching such level of inequalities significantly influence how such a race would adapt to existing opportunity structure. Furthermore, the overemphasis by the contemporary society concerning materialistic things and measurement of success in the name of chasing the American dream has weakens the checks and balances set by nature in the society. The effectiveness of informal social controls over deviant behavior and characteristics significantly weakens a society is obsessed with the idea of wealth and economic gain through whatever means, legal or illegal. This makes the deprived race and populace who have been marginalized for years to resort to illegal means such as crime in an attempt to also realize their American dream.
This makes the minority races to have larger numbers of criminals in prison cells than other races which are privileged. Crime becomes the only way that can be used to overcome the inequality and level the scales. The prevalence of crime within the members of a particular race leads them to have a particular reputation. According to the social reaction theory, when a person engages in criminal activity he or she earns himself a label, ‘a criminal’. This theory was developed by Wellford in 1975. He argued that if a person consistently engages in crime, the society will view him or her as such and label him a criminal. This label has very dire consequences. That person will internalize his or her label and take it as part of him or her. Therefore, because the society thinks that the individual is a criminal and he or she has accepts him or herself as such. As such, he or she is bound to continue with his or her criminal behavior without caring at all of the consequences of his or her actions. The same analogy can be used to explain the relationship of race and crime. When some members of a particular race are consistently associated with criminal activities, the entire society begins to associate and subsequently label the members of that race as criminals. This infuriates the affected members and it may actually increase the level of criminality within that race. The use of racial statistics to argue that the African American people have the highest numbers of criminals despite the fact that they are a minority demonstrates how they are viewed by the entire society. Lemert argued that there are two stages of social deviance that characterize this theory. These include primary deviance and secondary deviance. The primary deviance explains that face when the labeled person has not yet accepted that he or she is a criminal. The secondary part is when the person has internalized his or her label and accepted it. It is, therefore, safe to argue that after years of marginalization and deprivation of a specific community, it is extremely easy for them to resort to criminal activities to ‘right the wrongs’ done on them. However, there are soon labeled criminals for breaking the laws and the norms of the society. They are condemned and sanctioned by the society for deviant behavior. This is what Broadhead calls a degradation ceremony. It is when the accused race realizes that it would never share the same privileges with the other races. They absorb all the negative energy emanating from the society and turn it against them.
However, the impact of race and crime has reduced significantly since the turn of the 21st century. This can be explained by the fact that the contemporary society has learnt to be tolerant to each other and integration has been on the rise. The government and society at large has also been keen to address cases of historical injustices by use of affirmative action among other policies and programs designed to promote fairness, equality and equity within the society. This serves the level the playing field to some extent by giving all members of the society the same opportunities, privileges and benefits. This significantly erodes the factors that would have motivated racially motivated crime. However, figures from the justice statistics indicate that while tremendous growth has been witnessed over the years, black males were imprisoned at 9 times the rate of white males as of 2011. Furthermore, blacks were given an average of 10% longer prison sentences than any other race. This indicates that there is still a significant degree of disparities in terms of incarceration within the United States despite the elimination of discriminative practices.
Question Two
Theory and Evidence of Peer-Delinquency Connections using Control and Social learning Theories
Delinquency is significantly influenced by one’s peers. Indeed, there are many causal factors of delinquency which are diverse and significant. However, peer relations increase the chances of a juvenile becoming a delinquent or continuing to be a delinquent. Peer relations bonds appear to be the strongest that affect a juvenile. Other relations relate to the environment, the family, the society and the community. Delinquency involves engagement in acts that are criminalized and those that are considered unethical, immoral or outside the bond of respectability by the society within which the juvenile resides. Peer-delinquents associations are to be found at the center of any argument that seeks to examine and explain the prevalence of crime amongst juveniles. This section of the paper will seek to provide an insightful analysis of the peer-delinquent associations with the help of control and social learning theories. The section will canvas in detail the significance of the theories and available evidence of peer-delinquent connections and its relations to crime.
In the study of criminology, control theory is used to articulate the process of social learning and socialization. It posits that such builds self-control mechanisms that significantly reduces a person’s inclination to indulge in criminal activities, or behavior that is regarded by the societal as anti-social. The theory argues that there are four cardinal categories of control. These include; control through needs satisfaction, internal, indirect and direct controls. Direct control denotes that sanctions are served upon those who engaged in the anti-social behavior or to threaten possible offenders and rewards are used as incentive to ensure compliance. Parents may use the threat of ‘grounding’ a teenager to prevent him or her from engaging in delinquent activities. Indirect controls originate from the potential perpetrator. There are discouraged from engaging in criminal behavior because it may cause disappointment or pain to particular members of the society. The superego or the human conscience is responsible forinternal controls. A juvenile may refuse to engage in delinquency because their conscience tells them it is a wrong thing to do. Control through the needs satisfaction is a highly relative arena. This is dependent on the needs of the juvenile or the criminal. They will only stop engaging in the criminal behavior after their needs have been successfully met. At this point the criminal or delinquents see no point of engaging in the criminal activities when his interests are not satisfied.
Social learning theory, on the other hand, propagates a perspective which emphasizes that people learn within a social context. Indeed, acquired behavior is facilitated through continuous process of observational learning and modeling. Therefore, juvenile are no an exception. They learn from their immediate environment and society and seek to be recognized and acceptable within social cycles that characterize their society. It is trite to argue that peer groups are the most influential associations among the teenagers. Acceptance with the peer group is more essential and meaningful to a teenage than family acceptance and modeling. More fundamentally, delinquents are more acceptable as role models rather than responsible adults. They make defiance of societal norms seem cool which is extremely tempting for juvenile leaving under constant watch and control by the society. Peer pressure from delinquents provides incentives to become delinquents while at the same time punishing compliance through isolation and exclusion of such juveniles. This puts significant amount of pressure on the juvenile as they are in dire need in a sense of belonging during this epoch of their lives.
The available body of evidence supporting the school of thought that connects peer-delinquents connections is overwhelming. In his study, Moffit puts forth three hypotheses. The first is that delinquency is motivated by the maturity gap. The second is that anti-social behavior is learned by observing delinquent groups and thirdly that anti-social behavior is sustained by reinforcement. For example, a delinquent might think that stealing a car, violating the curfew or taking drugs at one’s desires is a sign of independence. Indeed, using these methods, data taken from the Youth in Transition survey serves to prove these hypotheses. The evidence indicates that in all the research carried out a significant percentage of the sample population acted in a rebellious manner either at school or at home. In terms of measuring delinquency, the study indicated that juvenile had engaged in all the anti-social behavior listed in a thirteen-item scale. Juveniles admitted to have embraced delinquency while at school mainly because of their relations with their peers. They also did this in their quest for autonomy and control of their lives, philosophies that are largely propagated by peer groups. In order to have a generalized picture, the study used family stability, socio-economic status and race as control variables.
Question Three
The Importance of Marital Attachment and Job Stability in Desistance from Crime
Over the years, criminologists have been obsessed with juvenile delinquency and criminal behavior. However, emerging scholarship seeks to provide the linkage and the contrast between the levels of delinquency and levels of criminality in the society. In theory, if all delinquents were to graduate to criminals in their adulthood, the level of criminality would be significantly higher in the society. However, this is not the case as more adults appear to desist from criminal behavior. This is an interesting phenomenon and needs to be comprehensively examined. Indeed, numerous and diverse studies have been undertaken with a view to interrogate this unique phenomenon. The phenomenon forms the bulk of the third section of this paper. This section will discuss the significance of marital attachment and job stability as some of the cardinal components which are instrumental in influencing adults to desist from criminal behavior.
Desistance from criminal behavior can be highlighted from many perspectives. The most common ones are psychological, sociological and developmental perspectives. It is, therefore, vital to understand the process of desistance in order to develop a coherent framework or theoretical account for explaining resistance. Under the sociological perspective, the formation of social bonds and social relationships are influential in the desistance from crime. The development of marital bonds, which are not only quality but also a strong relationship, act as incentives to adults to desist from criminal activities. The central role that social bonds play at desistence from criminal behavior and other anti-social behavior can be illustrated by use of marital attachment. Once a person gets married; they become accountable for their private lives to their partners. For a marriage to succeed there is need for mutual trust and respect. Engaging in criminal behavior not only endangers the life of the perpetrator, but also of their partner. This puts much more at risk rather than simply their life. In most cases, marriage is a manifestation of love. The potential criminal will desist from engaging in such activities to protect their loved ones or maintain their relationship. In addition, marital attachments happen as a result of personal growth and development. The person has become more mature and wants to live a comfortable and happy life. The life of a criminal is not a happy and comfortable one. From a psychological perspective, this is when a person understands the repercussions of their actions transcends not just to the victim, but to other people. They also realized that marriage is a ‘turning point’ phases where change is inevitable and, therefore, they fully embrace their marriage with an objective to change their lives. It is vital to note that desistance does not necessary mean that one has abandoned criminal activities for good. However, this entails conscious calculations about what is at stake and choosing to avoid criminality because the costs outweigh the benefits.
Job stability is also another strong incentive to desist from crime. Indeed, many theories of crime that base their arguments on socio-economic foundations argue that social relations and economic conditions are the significant factors influencing criminal behavior. Indeed, job stability guarantees financial stability and an avenue to earn an income. This preempts the need for a person to engage in criminal behavior to sustain their livelihood. Furthermore, job security provides an individual with a sense of security over their current life and the future. They are not afraid of economic hardships. This makes individuals optimistic about life. More significantly, from a sociological point of view, such individuals are more likely to obey the law and respect social norms because they want to protect the status quo. Laub, Sampson and Nagil conducted a thorough study to determine the extent to which factors like job security and marital attachment act as incentives to desist from criminal activities. They also interrogated data collected over a period of 25 years between 1940 and 1965. This data involved boys from the ages of 14 which were subsequently complemented with interviews of adults between the ages of 25 and 32. This study and many more have consistently shown that individuals who enter into a marriage, which matures into a strong and healthy attachment, will immediately desist from criminal activity. The same is true for individual who mature to attain a job which is stable. They have an inherent desire to maintain the status quo. Humans have a tendency of self-preservation. The privileges in the society seek to establish laws and regulations that will force the rest to comply with the norms. Such norms are geared towards the preservation of the opportunities and privileges available to the wealthy and secure. Job stability positions a person within this class. They also stick to the rules and avoid any confrontation with the law. However, the process of desistance is not abrupt, but rather gradual as the new reality starts to sink in the minds of the individual.
References
Cernkovich, S. A., Giordano, P. C., & Rudolph, J. L. (May 2000). Race, Crime and The American Dream. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 37 No. 2, pg 131-170.
Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of Change in Criminal Offending. American Socialogical Review, Vol 63, pg 225-238.
Matsueda, R. L., & Anderson, K. (1998). The Dynamics of Delinquent peers and Delinquent Behavior. Criminology, Vol 13 No. 2.
