Supporting Lectures: Classical And Positive Criminology

Supporting Lectures: Classical Criminology Positive Criminology The Discu

Supporting Lectures: classical Criminology positive Criminology The discussion assignment provides a forum for discussing relevant topics for this week on the basis of the course competencies covered. This week, you reviewed several of the key theories related to the crime causation. Next week, the topics will turn to the structure of neighborhoods and cities. For this discussion, we will bridge these two topics. What do the terms "disorganization" and "social control" mean, in the context of the structure of an inner city? How do the issues of employment and income disparity impact the individuals or families living in your city or neighborhood? Provide examples to support your stand. The debate between classical and positive theorists centers on the offender's motivation for criminal behavior. Positivists believe the motivation for crime often arises in response to factors beyond the offender's control. We often hear examples such as an unemployed person who turns to crime when there's no other way to pay the rent. How often, though, is crime really about survival? Are people stealing in order to feed their kids, or is this a myth? Cite credible research in your response. Considering the conclusions you reached in the previous point, discuss the policy implications of your conclusion.

Paper For Above instruction

The concepts of "disorganization" and "social control" are fundamental to understanding the structure of inner-city environments and their influence on criminal activity. Disorganization refers to the breakdown of social institutions, community cohesion, and effective social networks within a neighborhood, which diminishes its capacity to regulate behavior and maintain social order. This breakdown often results from economic decline, high unemployment, residential instability, and concentrated poverty. In turn, diminished social control weakens collective efficacy, leading to increased criminal activity as residents are less capable of monitoring and sanctioning deviant behaviors (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).

Social control, on the other hand, pertains to the mechanisms, both formal and informal, by which communities regulate individual and group conduct. Formal social control includes law enforcement, judicial systems, and social services, whereas informal social control involves community norms, peer surveillance, and familial oversight (Hirschi, 1969). In inner-city neighborhoods characterized by high disorganization, the erosion of informal social controls such as neighborhood watchfulness exacerbates crime rates, creating a cycle of social disintegration.

Employment and income disparity are significant factors affecting individuals and families within urban settings. Unemployment reduces household income, leading to economic strain and limited access to resources. Income disparity fosters social inequality, which often correlates with higher crime rates in economically disadvantaged areas. For instance, in many U.S. cities such as Detroit or Chicago, neighborhoods with high poverty levels exhibit increased incidences of property crimes and violent offenses (Wilson, 2012). These economic conditions may pressure individuals to engage in illegal activities to meet basic needs or maintain their household stability.

The debate between classical and positivist theories revolves around the motivations underlying criminal acts. Classical criminologists argue that individuals exercise free will, making rational choices based on potential benefits and costs (Beccaria, 1764). Conversely, positivist theorists contend that criminal behavior stems from factors beyond individual control, including biological, psychological, or environmental influences (Lombroso, 1895). Common examples include individuals turning to crime out of desperation when facing unemployment or extreme poverty—a view supported by research indicating that economic necessity can influence criminal behavior.

However, the notion that most crime is solely about survival is nuanced. Empirical studies suggest that while economic hardship can lead to criminal acts, many crimes are committed within social contexts driven by opportunity, peer influence, or cultural norms. Research by Katz (1988) indicates that most property crimes are opportunistic rather than driven purely by necessity. While some individuals do commit crimes like theft to feed their families, these instances are not the sole or even predominant motive; many crimes result from social disorganization, lack of social controls, and environmental factors.

Policy implications derived from these insights emphasize the importance of addressing structural inequalities to reduce crime. Enhancing employment opportunities, increasing the minimum wage, and investing in community development programs can mitigate economic stresses that lead to criminal behavior. Strengthening social institutions, promoting community engagement, and fostering informal social controls are vital in rebuilding social cohesion in disorganized neighborhoods. Additionally, targeted crime prevention strategies should consider socioeconomic contexts rather than solely punitive measures.

In conclusion, understanding the interplay between social disorganization, economic disparities, and criminal motivation illuminates the multifaceted nature of urban crime. While economic hardship can catalyze criminal acts, the broader social fabric's strength plays a crucial role in either curbing or facilitating criminal activity. Effective policy responses must therefore balance addressing economic needs with fostering resilient, cohesive communities to sustainably reduce urban crime rates.

References

• Beccaria, C. (1764). On Crimes and Punishments.
• Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. University of California Press.
• Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil. Basic Books.
• Lombroso, C. (1895). The Criminal Man. (G. F. Barton, Trans.). J. M. Dent & Sons.
• Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.
• Wilson, W. J. (2012). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. University of Chicago Press.