Three methods of measuring crimes. Their advantages and disadvantages
Usually, scholars single out three major methods of measuring crime: official statistics, the survey of victims, and self-report analysis (Tierney, 2004). Each of these techniques has its advantages and disadvantages. Only their combined usage can give in-depth insights into the criminological situation in the country or region. In this section of the paper, we need to assess their effectiveness.
1) The records of police and other governmental institutions provide accurate quantitative data about felonies committed and registered in a certain region within a specified period of time: (month, year, or decade). The major benefit of this method is that it is most reliable in comparison with others; it is evidence-based. Secondly, with its help, one can identify most widespread offenses and these data can be of great assistance to the policy-makers as they can get a better understanding of causal factors (poverty, racial or sexual discrimination, prejudice and so forth). Most importantly, longitudinal analysis1 of statistical information can help to trace the changes in the criminological situation in the state (Mosher et al, 2002). Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that official statistics give no clues about the impacts of felonies on victims. Furthermore, a great number of crimes remain unregistered especially if we are speaking about child abuse or home violence. These examples indicate that official records cannot be the only source of information about the crime.
2) Criminologists pay careful attention to the survey of victims. This measurement technique allows evaluating the aftermaths of felonies. In some cases, victim study allows police even to prevent crimes. However, this approach is often criticized as unreliable because it relies solely on the subjective opinion of the respondent. In addition, we should not forget about such concept as a shared responsibility, which means that under some circumstances a victim can precipitate or provoke another person to violence (Karmen, 2009; Kennedy & Sacco, 1998). This is another reason why victimology can be immensely flawed.
3) The third approach to the measurement of crime is the study of self-reports. In most cases, the respondents are asked whether they have ever committed an illegal act or behaved in a deviant manner. The results of such questionnaires are strictly confidential and cannot be used as evidence. This is why many sociologists believe that self-reports are more reliable than official reports as the person feels relatively free and has no fear of punishment or persecution (Mosher et al, 2002, p 106). Furthermore, the study of self-reports may ascertain types of crimes, which are more characteristic of a certain age group, for instance, teenagers. This method is often employed in high schools and other educational institutions. Yet, self-reports have two serious shortcomings: 1) an interviewee may mention only minor offenses that entail no legal action; 2) a researcher may be biased while selecting the participants. As it has been noted before, scholars usually study a specific audience: at-risk adolescents, former criminals, people addicted to drugs. They may easily overlook other layers of the population.
On the whole, the discussion of these techniques demonstrates that the measurement of crimes must involve both numerical and qualitative data. Secondly, the scholars need to alternate these methods to get a more comprehensive understanding of the criminological situation within the society. Otherwise, the findings may not be valid.
Classical school of criminology and its impact on the US criminology
The classical school of criminology emerged in the middle of the eighteenth century, during the epoch Enlightenment. It was represented by such philosophers and scholars as Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria (Dantzker, 1998). Since that time the ideas, expressed by these sociologists have always had a strong influence on the policies of many countries, including the United States. At first, we need to discuss the principles of this theory. It is based on the idea that a human being is predominantly a hedonist creature, which seeks to maximize pleasure and avoid pain (Dantzker, 1998, p 5). This is why the penalty for a deviant act should overweigh the benefits, which a person can derive from committing an offense. So, punishment can be viewed as a deterrent factor. Moreover, the retribution must be always proportionate to the offense (Siegel, 2008, p 92).
American society began its development during the period of Enlightenment and the ideas of Jean Jacque Rousseau, Denis Diderot largely shaped the principles of the US law machinery and even now the penal system of the United States, which was developed at the beginning of the nineteenth century relies on punitive measures as a method of crime prevention.
Naturally, legal views on misdemeanors have evolved which has profoundly affected the criminal laws of the Unit. The works of many sociologists such as Emile Durkheim undermined the principles of classical criminology (Tierney, 2004, 81). The thing is that classical school seeks the origins of crime in individuality, a persons inner world, his or her desires, and so forth. But the causes of deviational behavior can also be found in society. In the twentieth-century criminal justice policies of the United States transformed. The key objective of the justice system is not to punish the criminal but to prevent crime and help to perpetrator to rehabilitate oneself and regain his or her civil status (Western, 2006). So, we may say that that to some extent, the impact of classical criminology on the US justice system has diminished over these years. Contemporary criminal justice policies are based on the premise that in the vast majority of cases, an individual behaves illegally due to some necessity like poverty. This is why it is of crucial importance to eliminate the necessity for it. Overall, it is quite possible to argue that the attitude towards perpetrators has changed. The state attempts to bring them back into the community rather than exclude them entirely. The major drawback of classical criminology is that it practically overlooks those factors which force people to break the rules, established in the community.
Still, one must not presume that the ideas of Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria have been entirely rejected. The thing is that justice policies, pursued by the American government, act as a system of checks and balances, which deters felonies through punishment. One of the most disputed issues is the death penalty that is intended to discourage people from committing serious crimes like murder, arson, or rape. It seems that in the future the situation will not change: the thing is that fear of punishment is a very strong deterrent. There is very little likelihood that the principles of classical criminology will ever be invalidated even despite their drawbacks.
The cause of crime: individuality and society
The causes of crime have always been a subject of heated debate among sociologists and criminologists. The most crucial question is how to determine the role of individuality and society. The existing approaches can be subdivided into two major groups: social theories and individual theories (McShane, 1997). In this part of the paper, we need to discuss various explanations of deviational conduct. The representatives of social disorganization theory emphasize an idea that crimes can be ascribed to the rupture of social ties and lack of cohesion among members of the community (Sampson et al, 1997). Judging from this premise, we can say that the underlying cause of misdemeanor lies in the realm of economics. Social disparity and inequality explain the majority of felonies. To some extent, this stance is grounded. But there are also violent or sexual crimes, which cannot be ascribed to economic reasons. Under such a scenario the origins of deviant behavior should be searched in the psychology of a human being.
Many criminologists stress the importance of culture and sub-culture. According to sub-cultural theory, people (mostly adolescents from poor districts) commit felonies in an effort to protest against those norms, adopted in the community. Under such circumstances, a crime is an outcry against society rather than the pursuit of any profit (Pacione, 1983). Such interpretation can be accepted but it accounts only for some types of offenses like hooliganism. It is hardly applicable if we are speaking about homicide, child abuse, rape and so forth. Still, criminologists should take it into consideration while studying juvenile delinquency.
It should be pointed out that sociological interpretations of crime heavily rely on anomie theory, introduced by Emile Durkheim and Robert Merton. The term anomie can be defined as detachment from the community, inability or unwillingness to conform to existing norms. In Robert Mertons view, anomie occurs when a person sees the discrepancy between existing value system and opportunities, available to him or her (Merton, 1993). In other words, legitimate means are not sufficient for attaining ones goals such as financial prosperity, status in the community, respect of peers and so forth. This is why an individual gives preference to illegitimate ones. In addition to that, Robert Merton argues that an individual may resort to crime if there are multiple barriers for him or her to attain success, for instance, race or sex discrimination. Again, we need to underline an idea that anomie theory can used mostly for economic crimes like theft, burglary, forgery etc.
Individual theories give a drastically different explanation of the causes of crime. They stem from classical school of criminology, represented by Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria. According to them, a human being is a free and rational creature and his or her actions must be explained by his or her individual characteristics. We may remember various trait theories which postulate that some people have a natural or hereditary predisposition to crime (McShane, 1997). Nowadays, these theories do not enjoy considerable popularity due to a widely-held opinion that a person is strongly influenced by his or her immediate environment (family, friends, peers, school, media etc). Apart from that, the formation of his or her identity may be shaped by political and cultural situation in the state. Thus, trait theories are not always acceptable.
In this respect, we should refer to Routine Activity Theory, worked out by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, who propose effective strategies for the prevention of crime. In their opinion, the crimes normally consist of the following elements: motivation, ability and opportunity (Felson & Cohen as cited by Arrington, 2006, p 33). Therefore, it is vital to alleviate the need the economic needs of such person or group of people. In other words, offence or felony must no longer be profitable. Furthermore, it is necessary to deprive hypothetical criminal of any chance to commit an offence. Certainly, this policy is extremely difficult to put into practice. The major advantage of this approach is that it takes into account both social factors and individual qualities of a human being.
At this point, it is hardly possible to give any definitive answer as to the underlying causes of crime. Most likely, there is no universal pattern; the motives depend on each separate situation. None of the above-mentioned theories can be disregarded. It appears that criminologists will produce better results if they combine these frameworks.
The impact of criminal theory on criminal justice policy
Criminal theory or the study of deviant behavior has produced profound effects on the functioning of the justice system and policies of the state. It should be noted that criminal theory encompasses a wide range of methods, which investigate the causes of crime, psychology of deviant behavior, recidivism, attitude of the community to criminals and so forth. They lay theoretical foundations of the justice system in the country. This science provides evidence-based models for the prevention of various felonies. Furthermore, criminal theory has eloquently proved that judicial and penal agencies are not able to cope with deviant conduct. Deterrence of crime requires close collaboration of educational organizations, medical institutions, charity organizations and so forth.
Apart from that, contemporary justice system seeks to minimize negative aftereffects of crime and help those people who have fallen victim to a felony. In part, this change of locus can be ascribed to such discipline of victimology. The law machinery in the United States (as well in other countres) has become less oriented toward punitive measures. On the contrary, now the state is supposed to help former criminals rehabilitate themselves. Yet, in order to describe the impact of criminology on the justice system, we need to discuss each theory separately and identify its implications for the functioning of police, courts, prisons etc.
The implications of labeling theory
Labeling theory, introduced by Howard Becker has become so popular, because it throws a new light on psychological aspects of deviant conduct. This approach is based on the idea that personal identity of an individual is formed by the environment that includes family, mass media, educational institutions, governmental agencies etc. A person, who is frequently called an offender, criminal, outcast, will eventually convince oneself that this is perfectly true (Becker, 1997). Very often people tend to believe that they are outsiders. In the United States this situation is very widespread: the representatives of many racial minorities, especially African-Americans are frequently portrayed by mass media as hooligans, drug-dealers, thieves. The effects can be disastrous: on the one hand, such depiction gives rise to stereotype that African-Americans have an inclination to deviant behavior. Secondly, black people may even regard themselves as natural offenders. This interpretation of deviant conduct shows how dangerous stigmatization or labeling is.
We may argue that labeling theory has significantly affected criminal justice polices, which now aim to rehabilitate the offender rather than to punish him. The thing is that even if this person serves his or her sentence in prison, there is great probability that he behave illegally in the future. Currently, the key purpose of American penal system is to prevent felony and minimize the risk of recidivism. Naturally, no one can deny the beneficence of this approach, but efforts of governmental institutions are clearly insufficient as in the modern community (not only the United States), a man who has ever perpetrated a felony, will always be viewed with suspicion and distrust. So, he may convince oneself that crime is the only way out for him. Labeling theory is beneficial to that extent that it explains the mechanisms of such stigmatization.
Social bonding theory
The representatives of social bonding theory such as Travis Hirschi, Jack Gibbs, and David Matza postulate that there are several mechanisms which deter an individual from committing a crime. They are as follows: 1) fear of punishment; 2) value system o a person: 3) unwillingness to disappoint other people (usually parents); 4) and satisfaction of ones needs, particularly, material ones (Zahn, 2004). All these factors act as a system of checks and balances which does not let people perpetrate felonies. Its key point is that punishment cannot be seen as the only means of crime prevention. Most likely, it is the last resort. Moreover, social bonding theory demonstrates that the efforts of the authorities are not enough. Parents, educators and mass media must collaborate in order to raise a generation that would be more law-abiding. Their main task is to promote childrens or teenagers unfavorable attitude towards felony (White, 1992). They must also set examples that adolescents must follow.
However, social bonding theory has several limitations: it is more applicable to the young generation, people who have yet to come out of age. The character of an adolescent is still at its forming stage. It is possible to influence its development through different channels. This approach is practically of no use for adults. We need to say that there are several closely related methodologies: schema theory, socialization theory, ecological systems theory, developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner. To some degree, all of them describe the formation of identity, including propensity to crime. But it should be borne in mind that they mostly belong to the domain of developmental psychology. They can explain juvenile delinquency, yet other types of felonies cannot be analyzed in this way.
Feminist and conflict theories. Their relevance to criminology
There are other approaches to deviant conduct and they cannot be overlooked by criminologists and sociologists. Among them we can single out feminism and Marxism. Feminist school of criminology aims to break certain gender stereotypes, deep-rooted in the society. For instance, people frequently tend to think that women are rather unlikely to commit serious crimes; at least many members of the community believe that this risk is reduced almost to a minimum. This presumption is erroneous (Heimer & Kruttschnitt, 2006, p 1).
Gender is a social construct which implies certain patterns of behavior but it does not mean that every woman will comply with these norms imposed from outside. Feminist criminology can contribute to better decision-making in modern courts: the thing is that members of the jury are convinced that women are incapable of committing a crime and this is far from truth (Steffensmeier et al, 2005). There is another controversy that can be solved with the help of feminism. If a female has been convicted of felony, she will be stigmatized more severely than a man. The supporters of feminist criminology mostly see the inequality of males and females as the cause of many crimes.
This theory has had a profound effect on the functioning of criminal justice system. On the one hand, it has contributed to the elimination of sex discrimination in the workplace, court rooms and prisons. Apart from that, feminism strives to minimize the prejudice of governmental officials who may have a prejudiced attitude toward female offenders (Akers, 1999). On the whole, the key purpose of feminist criminology is to provide fair treatment to both genders. Yet, this framework overlooks other causes of deviant behavior.
Finally, we need to refer to the Marxist criminology which is based on the premise that society is strictly stratified or divided into various social classes. According the advocates of this political philosophy, law is “set of rules, laid down by the state in the interest of the ruling class” (Muncie as cited in Walklate, 2007, p 32). Judging from this statement, one can argue social norms are intended to subdue disadvantaged people and instill obedience in them. Thus, crime can be considered as the conflict between different classes. Marxist criminology has several flaws: 1) the concept of social class is very difficult to define. The question arises according to which criteria people can be grouped in various strata2. Moreover, this approach overlooks the fact that people can move from one social class to another. Finally, this approach fails to account for sexual crimes, child abuse and many others (Cote , 2002).
However, this interpretation of crime must not be entirely dismissed because social stratification does exist in any community including the United States, Western Europe, Australia. People tend to affiliate themselves to a certain class. Therefore, it is quite probable that they can feel animosity to those who occupy a higher position in the social hierarchy due to the financial welfare, better education, respect of others etc.
On the whole, the discussion of these theories shows that the causes of crime are extremely diverse. They cannot be reduced only to society or individuality as these factors frequently interplay with one another. Existing interpretations help to uncover various forces which drive a person to perpetrate a felony. Yet, none of them can be universally applicable.
Reference List
Akers R (1999). Criminological theories: introduction and evaluation. New York. Taylor & Francis.
Arrington R (2006). Crime prevention: the law enforcement officer’s practical guide. New York: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Becker. H. (1997). Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
Castrechini, S. (2009). Educational Outcomes for Court-Dependent Youth in San Mateo County. The John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities. Web.
Cote S. (2002) Criminological theories: bridging the past to the future. London SAGE.
Cordella P, & Siegel L (1996). Readings in contemporary criminological theory. UPNE.
Dantzker. M. (1998). Criminology and criminal justice: comparing, contrasting, and intertwining disciplines. New Jersey: Elsevier.
Heimer K. & Kruttschnitt C. (2006). Gender and crime: patterns of victimization and offending. NYU Press.
Karmen, A (2009). Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. New York: Cengage Learning.
Kennedy. L.W. & Sacco, V.F (1998). Crime Victims in Context. New York: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Lilly R. Cullen F & Ball R. (2007). Criminological theory: context and consequences. New York: SAGE Publications.
Merton. R. (1993). Social Structure and Anomie (Reprint Series in Social Sciences). New York Irvington Publishers.
McShane Marilyn. (1997). Criminological theory. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Mosher C. J. Miethe T.D. & Phillips D. M. (2002) The mismeasure of crime. London: Sage.
Pacione M. (1983). Progress in urban geography. Taylor & Francis.
Sampson R. Raudenbush S. W. & Earls F. (1997). “Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy”. Science, vol. 277, pp 918-924. Web.
Sampson, R. J., Laub, J. H., & Wimer, C. (2006). Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology, 44, 465-508. Sampson PDF.
Siegel L.(2008) Criminology. New York: Cengage Learning.
Sweeten, G. (2006). Who Will Graduate? Disruption of High School Education by Arrest and Court Involvement. Justice Quarterly, 23(4), 462-480.
Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., Zhong, H., & Ackerman, J. (2005). “An assessment of recent trends in girls’ violence using diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap closing?” Criminology, 43(2), 355-405.
Tierney J. (2006). Criminology: theory and context. New York: Pearson Education.
Walklate S. (2007). Understanding criminology: current theoretical debates. New York: McGraw-Hill International.
Western B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
White H. Identity and control: a structural theory of social action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zahn Robert. (2004). Engineering perspectives of human society: application of control theory, game theory, and information theory to social phenomena. Nova Publishers.
Footnotes
- Longitudinal studies measure the changes of crime rates at different time intervals
- Social class