Criminology: Basic Theory Lineage

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Rosenfeld & Messner; Merton; Durkheim
Akers; Cloward & Ohlin; Sutherland & Mead
Chambliss; Rusche & Kirchheimer; Mead
Conclusions
Works Cited

Introduction

Criminology is the science designed for crime investigation which is carried out through understanding the personality of the criminal or the factors that can form such a personality. As defined by the famous American criminologist Edwin H. Sutherland in 1974, criminology is all about “delinquency and crime as social phenomena” (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 120). If social phenomena are considered, then naturally human beings become involved in criminological processes as subjects and objects of investigations.

Numerous scholars have developed their theories of criminology that is often based on various foundations but focus on the same point, i. e. the consideration of crime in all its manifestations as the socially conditioned and socially framed phenomenon. Accordingly, this paper considers three of the variety of criminological theories that view crime from the sociological and psychological perspectives.

Rosenfeld & Messner; Merton; Durkheim

The first theory under consideration is the so-called Institutional Anomie theory, also referred to as the American Dream theory, coined by Rosenfeld and Messner. The interesting point about this theory is its lineage, as Rosenfeld and Messner integrated and modified the sociological views of such prominent scholars as Durkheim and Merton. In more detail, the original theory of the three is Durkheim’s sociology of anomie, which argues that the roots of crime can be observed in institutional deregulation that results in the society’s inability to provide people with firm and strong values (Bernburg, 2002, p. 729; Durkheim, 1982, p. 118).

Merton bases his theory on Durkheim’s views but modifies them to argue about the presence of the societal standards and means of creating values, but the lack of norms, i. e. the so-called “normlessness” of the society as an institution that leads to the appearance of crime (Merton, 1938, p. 673).

Being a result of Durkheim’s and Merton’s theories’ integration, the Institutional Anomie theory by Rosenfeld and Messner argues about the dominance of goals over the ways of their achievement and claims the American Dream to develop the cult of achievement in people without any considerable attention to the morality and reasonableness of the means of their achievement (Bernburg, 2002, pp. 731 – 732). Thus, Rosenfeld and Messner consider the large-scale social factors of crime appearance and explain the phenomena of crime and criminalization by their theory.

Accordingly, Rosenfeld and Messner’s theory derived from the sociological views by Durkheim and further Merton can be used for the analysis of the myth that mental illness causes crime (Bohm and Walker, 2006, Section 1.2). Thus, according to Bohm and Walker (2006), there is a myth in society that the bulk of the violent and dangerous criminals are mentally ill and that mental illness can be viewed as a crime-provoking factor. However, using Rosenfeld and Messner’s Institutional Anomie theory this myth can be easily shattered as the disintegration of the whole society, not the particular mental illness is viewed by reputable scholars as the major crime developing factor. It is the sociological lineage of Durkheim – Merton – Rosenfeld and Messner’s theory that allows making such comprehensive conclusions.

Akers; Cloward & Ohlin; Sutherland & Mead

Nevertheless, there is a theory in criminology that considers the role of the social and psychological peculiarities of every particular person in the process of forming criminal behavior. This theory is currently known as Akers’ Social Learning Theory, but its roots go deep into the views of such prominent scholars as Sutherland, Mead, Cloward, and Ohlin (Skoll, 2009, p. 197). The roots of this theory can be traced back to the 1940s when Edwin Suttherland formulated the operant conditioning theory according to which no person has criminal behavior inherent in his/her personality, but learns the patterns of such behaviors from observing and simulating the socially displayed behaviors (Skoll, 2009, pp. 198 – 199).

The next influence on the theory by Akers is the theory of Self by Mead, who argued that the human personality is formed in the process of social interaction and social learning (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 138). Respectively, crime and criminal behaviors, among other behavioral patterns, also develop in people as the result of learning from social examples. The further development of this criminalization theory was given in the work by Cloward and Ohlin, who formulated the “success” theory in 1963. The essence of this theory lies in the integration of Sutherland’s and Mead’s views on social learning and self-formation with some of the above discussed Merton’s ideas of social deregulation (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 140; Simmel and Wolf, 1950, p. 422).

“Illegitimate opportunity structures”, i. e. crimes are viewed as the core of the problem by Cloward and Ohlin, who argue that the most widely spread reason from crime is the inability of a person to achieve success legitimately and favorable social environment that encourages criminal behaviors through three major elements – criminal, conflict, and retreats sub-cultures (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 140; Skoll, 2009, p. 199).

As a result, Akers integrates all the above theories in his social learning theory that emphasized the concept of behavior learning reinforcement as the major factor that increases the strengths of the learned crime behavioral patterns (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 142). Akers’ theory is thus explaining the process of criminalization and can be used to shatter the myth about drug use as the major driver of violent crime (Bohm and Walker, 2006, Section 1.6). According to Akers’ theory, social learning, institutional deregulation, and the culture facilitating the development of crime behaviors are the major crime-forming factors, not drug use.

Chambliss; Rusche & Kirchheimer; Mead

Finally, the conflict theory by Chambliss can serve as the logical summary of the social disintegration, anomie, and social learning theories discussed above. Formulated by Chambliss in the 1970s, this theory combines and develops the ideas of the above discussed “Self” theory by Mead and the theory of punishment and social structure designed by Rusche and Kirchheimer (Skoll, 2009, p. 195). The original foundation of Chambliss’ theory is the theory of “Self” formulated by Mead, according to which the personality is formed in the processes of social interaction and reinforcement of socially adopted behavioral patterns (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 138).

Further on, the conflict theory displays a considerable connection to the punishment and social structure theory designed by Rusche and Kirchheimer. The authors of this theory argue that punishment is the reflection of the social structure of a certain epoch but not the means of fighting crime in society. Exemplifying their ideas with specific historical facts and references to Foucault and Marx, Rusche and Kirchheimer argue that punishment becomes more severe when the society experiences unemployment and excessive labor force amounts, while imprisonment becomes the best way to provide the state with a cheap labor force in time of labor shortages (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 153).

Drawing from both Mead’s and Rusche and Kirchheimer’s theories, the idea by Chambliss is all about the conflict as the manifestation of the permanently continuing process of social change. Chambliss views society as the instrument of oppression of the powerless classes by the powerful ones. Conflict, according to Chambliss, is the natural reaction to oppression, while crime is the result of conflict caused by social inequality and oppression. Punishment is also viewed as an oppression tool rather than an effective crime-fighting instrument (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 155; Skoll, 2009, p. 197). Therefore, Chambliss’ theory considers the process of policy/administration and shatters the myth that punishment reduces crime (Bohm and Walker, 2006, Section 4.21), as according to Mead, Rusche and Kirchheimer, and Chambliss, punishment is the tool of oppression rather than an effective instrument of keeping social peace and fighting crime.

Conclusions

To conclude, numerous criminology theories view delinquency and crime as social phenomena and consider them from the point of view of sociology. The institutional anomie theory formulated by Durkheim, Merton, Rossenfeld, and Messner, the social learning theory by Sutherland and Mead, Cloward and Ohlin, and Akers, and the conflict and punishment theory by Mead, Rusche, and Kirchheimer, and Chambliss illustrate vividly how crime is the result of the social influence and oppression rather than any particular minor factors like drug use or mental illnesses. Punishment is also viewed as a social oppression tool rather than a crime-fighting method.

Works Cited

Bernburg, Jon. “Anomie, Social Change, and Crime.” British Journal of Criminology 42 (2002): 729 – 742.

Bohm, Robert and Jeffery Walker. Demystifying Crime and Criminal Justice. Roxbury Pub., 2006. Print.

Durkheim, Emile and George Simpson (Translator). The Division of Labour in Society. OUP, 1933. Print.

Durkheim, Emile. Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press, 1982. Print.

Libet, Benjamin, Anthony Freeman, and Keith Sutherland. The Volitional Brain: Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will. Imprint Academic, 2000. Print.

Merton, Robert. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3.5 (1938): 672 – 682. Print.

Simmel, Georg and Kurt Wolff (Translator, Editor). The Sociology of Georg Simmel: Metropolis of Mental Life. Free Press, 1950. Print.

Skoll, Geoffrey. Contemporary Criminology and Criminal Justice Theory: Evaluating Justice Systems in Capitalist Societies. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!