130 likes | 446 Views
Critical Theories II. Finish Radical/Marxist Currie (Market Society) Colvin (Coercion) . Criticisms of Instrumental Marxist Criminology. An “underdog theory” with little basis in fact Are “socialist societies” any different? Some capitalist countries have low crime rates
E N D
Critical Theories II Finish Radical/Marxist Currie (Market Society) Colvin (Coercion)
Criticisms of Instrumental Marxist Criminology • An “underdog theory” with little basis in fact • Are “socialist societies” any different? • Some capitalist countries have low crime rates • Most crime is poor against poor—Marxists ignore the plight of the poor.
Elliott Currie • One of the more influential Liberal/Radical voices in the past 25 years • Confronting Crime (1985) • Crime and Punishment in the U.S. (1998) • Response to conservative “punishment works” commentators in 1970s • No “root causes” of crime, and even if there was, government couldn’t fix them • Only tool the government can use is prison
Currie Basics • U.S. distinctive in our violent crime rates • U.S. also distinctive as a “Market Society” • “Mean” capitalism (sink or swim) • As compared to “corporate paternalism” • Japan (but see, SAS in the United States) • “Top Down” • Or “compassionate capitalism” • Many European countries • Strong union (bottom up)
The Seven Reasons that the Market Society Produces Violence 1. By “destroying livelihood” • By Inherent tendency towards extremes of inequality and material deprivation 3. By weakening other types of public support 4. By eroding informal support networks
Seven reasons continued • By exalting brutal individualized competition and consumption over “community” and “productive work” • Deregulating the “technology of violence 7. Weakening or eroding alternative political values
So, what is the solution? • Changing Employment • Full employment at socially meaningful work at good wages with reasonable hours • Integrate individuals into a larger social purpose • Stabilizing local communities • Reduce the kinds of family stress that put kids at risk for abuse/neglect • How? • Public and nonprofit sectors • Work sharing/reduction of work time
Colvin • Coercion • Combination of Traditional “Control” theory with his notion of “Coercion” • Types of control • Coercive (punitive, demeaning, etc.) • Non-coercive (remunerative, normative) • Use of control • Consistent or Erratic
Colvin Type I • Consistent and Non-coercive • Strong social support • Mix of remunerative and normative control • Social-Psychological Outcomes • No modeling of aggression/coercion • Strong morals/bonds • Low anger, high self control • Internal locus of control + high self-efficacy • Behavioral Outcomes • Non-criminal, non-delinquent • Strong tendency towards pro-social behavior
Colvin – Type II • Erratic, Non-coercive • Lenient, lax • Disinterested controller, use inconsistent remunerative control to manipulate subject (bribe when it suits the controller) • Often ignore subjects bad behavior • Psychosocial outcomes • High self-efficacy, low anger, no coercive modeling • Low self-control, “calculative social bond” • Behavioral outcomes • Explore deviant behaviors, manipulate authority figures, lying, minor street crime, white collar crime
Colvin – Type III • Consistent, Coercive • Highly punitive relationship between controller and subordinate • Weak social support (threaten to remove) • Psychosocial • High self-directed anger, rigid control (based on fear), external locus of control, low self-efficacy, weak calculative social bond, strong modeling for coercion • Behavioral • Low odds of both criminal and pro-social behavior • Higher odds of mental illness • “Over-controlled” crimes (explosion of violence)
Colvin – Type IV • Erratic, Coercive • Highly inconsistent and punitive response to misconduct, no social support • Psychosocial • High other-directed anger/defiance, low self-control, external locus of control, low self-efficacy, weak/negative/alienated bond, strong coercive modeling • Behavioral Outcomes • Defiant/hostile towards authority • Coercion/intimidation of others • Strong potential for chronic predatory criminal
How is this a “critical” theory?? • Coercion used BEYOND parenting—some individuals more apt to see coercion from a variety of sources: • Policing in certain neighborhoods (Sherman) • Workplaces (esp. shitty jobs) • State bureaucracies • In U.S., both interpersonal and impersonal coercion are tied to INEQUALITY • Inner city kids coercion in school, peer groups, families, jobs… • Policy prescription = supportive social and CJS policies