Structural Theories of Crime 1. Social Structure 2. Disorganization Theory.

Structural Theories of Crime

1. Social Structure

2. Disorganization Theory

What is social structure?

Constellation (or arrangement) of statuses, roles, norms, and values

How is it different from any other structure? Does everything have structure? Friendship, classroom, gangs, intimate

homicide

Crystal Structure (crystal system)

The atomic arrangement of the atoms of an element when it is in its solid state

What is social structure?

Social structure refers to that way in which a society is organized into predictable relationships

What is social structure?

Social structure is flexible A particular social setting/interaction has its

own structure Ascribed/achieved status

Social Structure Theories

Explain crime by reference to the institutional structure of society

Agents are passive Social structure is imposed on them Social structure theorists view members of

economically disadvantaged groups as being more likely to commit crimes (structure made them disadvantaged)

Social Structure Theories

They see economic and social disenfranchisement as fundamental cause of crime

Structure causes crime

Social Structure Theories

Crime is seen largely as a lower-class phenomenon

Criminality of middle class is generally discounted as less severe, less frequent, and less dangerous

Social Structure Theories

Disorganization Theory Strain Theories Cultural Deviance Theory (combined the

effects of the first two)

Social Disorganization Theory

Crime is caused primarily by social factors Official statistics are OK, but fieldwork is

better (acceptance of official arrest data) The city is a perfect natural laboratory

(Chicago reflects society as a whole) Components of social structure are unstable

(conflict, anomie, social disorganization)

Instabilities and their effects are worse for the lower classes (lower class crime focus)

Human nature is basically good but subject to vulnerability and inability to resist temptation

Social Disorganization Theory

Social disorganization definition

Social disorganization is defined as an inability of community members to achieve shared values or to solve jointly experienced problems (Bursik, 1988).

CONCENTRIC ZONE THEORY

Park and Burgess (1920s) saw cities as consisting of five zones:

Zone I - Central buisness Zone II - Zone of Transition Zone III - Working Class Homes Zone IV - Middle Class Homes Zone V - Commuters

CONCENTRIC ZONE THEORY

Crime rates were then monitored for each of these geographic regions.

The highest crime rate was found to be located in the zone that had been labeled Zone II (zone of transition)

Zone II was marked by a high level of transition, people moving in and out of the area

It was hypothesized that this "zone of transition" led to social disorganization.

They defined social disorganization as "the inability of a group to engage in self-regulation" which is a social control theoretic formulation

Their model of the city tested well in most modern planned cities

CONCENTRIC ZONE THEORY

Shaw and McKay (1930s)

Inspired by Park and Burgess They collected their data from over 56,000 juvenile court

records with covered a period of time from 1900-1933. They found that delinquency occurred in the areas

nearest to the business district Those areas were characterized by a high percentage of

immigrants, non-whites, lower income familes High-delinquency areas had an acceptance of

nonconventional norms, which competed with conventional ones

Shaw and McKay (1930s)

Were concerned about the three D's of poverty: Disease, Deterioration, and Demoralization

They never said that poverty causes crime They only said that "poverty areas" tended to

have high rates of residential mobility and racial heterogeneity that made it difficult for communities in those areas to avoid becoming socially disorganized

Shaw and McKay's Model

Residential Mobility

Poverty

Racial Heterogeneity

Disorganization Crime

Sampson and Grove (1989)

Residential Mobility

Low Economic Status

Racial Heterogeneity

Family Disruption

Population Density/Urbanization

Unsupervised teen-age peer groups

Low organizational participation

Spare local friendship networks

Crime

Residential mobility

When the population of an area is constantly changing, the residents have fewer opportunities to develop strong, personal ties to one another and to participate in community organizations

Ethnic diversity

According to Shaw and McKay (1942), ethnic diversity interferes with communication among adults. Effective communication is less likely in the face of ethnic diversity because differences in customs and a lack of shared experiences may breed fear and mistrust (Sampson and Groves, 1989).

Family disruption

Sampson (1985) argued that unshared parenting strains parents' resources of time, money, and energy, which interferes with their ability to supervise their children and communicate with other adults in the neighborhood

The smaller the number of parents in a community relative to the number of children, the more limited the networks of adult supervision will be for all the children

Economic status

Areas with the lowest average socioeconomic status will also have the greatest residential instability and ethnic diversity, which in turn will create social disorganization (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993)

Many studies have found that urban neighborhoods with high rates of poverty also have greater rates of delinquency (Warner and Pierce, 1993).

Population density

High population density creates problems by producing anonymity that interferes with accountability to neighbors

Collective efficacy and neighborhood safety

Robert Sampson (1990) Concept of “collective efficacy” captures

“trust” and “cohesion” on one hand and shared expectations for control on the other

Collective efficacy is associated with lower rates of violence

Collective Efficacy

Informal Social Control: peers, families, relatives, neighbors

Formal Social Control: schools, churches, volunteer organizations