Download Subcultural Theories of Youth Crime: An Examination of Delinquency and Deviance and more Lecture notes Sociological Theories in PDF only on Docsity!
Sociological Theories of Crime & Deviance (3)
Subcultural theories of crime
The facts The official crime statistics (OCS) suggest that most economic crime (e.g. mugging, drugpushing, burglary etc.) and noneconomic crime (e.g. violence, joyriding, vandalism etc.) are committed by young people. In 200910, the peak age for known male offenders was 18 years and for known female offenders, it was 15 years. A Home Office research paper on youth crime in England and Wales in 2009/ showed that under18yearolds commit a ‘disproportionate’ amount of crime , as under18s make up a tenth of the population but are responsible for 23 per cent of offences. The report states that young offenders commit more than a million crimes per year half of all robberies (51%) and one in three burglaries (32%) were committed by under18year olds. The Home Office notes that young offenders were more likely to commit socalled ‘acquisitive’ crimes, such as street muggings of schoolchildren for their mobile phones and other gadgets. Moreover, the Home Office also found that young criminals committed around a fifth of violent crimes, sex crimes and shoplifting offences as well as 31% of vehicle crimes and 28% of criminal damage offences. Government statistics suggest that nearly one in five of all youth offenders first arrested in 2000 went on to commit more than ten offences over the next nine years, with the youngest most likely to reoffend. A National Audit Office study published in 2011 showed reoffending rates among youths given community punishments rather than custodial sentences rose 6 per cent between 2000 and 2010. However, even those who have a served a custodial sentence, either in a youth detention centre or prison are likely to reoffend about three quarters return to crime within a year.
Gang violence
A specific youth problem identified by the police, mass media and politicians in recent years has been gang violence. The Centre for Social Justice defines a gang as a group of streetbased young people who share common deviant values and norms and who consequently engage in criminal activity and violence, often organised around drugs and territory. Such gangs usually have an identifying
feature – which may be based on ethnicity or postcode – and are often in conflict with other gangs. The Centre for Social Justice profiled a typical gang member as aged between 12 and 25 years. 98% are male. In Glasgow and Liverpool, gang members are predominantly white whilst in London and Manchester, gang members are predominantly black. Moreover, the majority of gang members are truants or have been excluded from school. Studies of gangs conducted by the Home Office found that up to 6% of 1019year olds belonged to a gang in England and Wales. In 2008 Strathclyde Police estimated there were 170 gangs in Glasgow, with 3,500 gang members aged from 11 to 23. The previous year, the Metropolitan Police said there were 171 gangs in London. Gang expert Professor John Pitts estimates some 600 to 700 young people are part of gangs in the London borough of Waltham Forest alone. Some commentators noted that gangs may have coordinated the riots and looting that occurred in London and Manchester in late 2011. An examination of those who have been convicted of offences relating to this incident also suggests that a disproportionate number of young people were involved. Some 50% of those brought before the courts were aged under 21 years – only 5% were over the age of
- 13% of those arrested overall were gang members but in London the figure was 19%.
Knife crime
There has been an intense debate within the British media and political circles about knife crime. For example, many media commentators this is a major type of crime that is on the rise and that the major offenders and victims are teenagers. What are the facts? Between 2014 and 2018, there was a twothirds increase in knife crime offences from 24,000 offences to nearly 40,000 offences. Data from hospitals in the same period suggest there has been a 8 per cent increase in people being treated for injuries caused by a ‘sharp object’. The number of kniferelated homicides went from 272 in 2007 to 186 in 2015. Since then it's risen every year, with a steep increase in 201718, when there were 285 killings, the highest figure since 1946. Knives are therefore the
Young people and custodial sentences
An examination of those serving custodial sentences for crime also suggests a disproportionate number of young people are locked up in the criminal justice system. For example, approximately 90,000 children enter the youth justice system for the first time in any given year. Of these, in 2011, 3,012 children aged under 18 were locked up in Juvenile Justice Centres (a type of secure children’s home), Secure Training Centres or Young Offender’s Institutions – 37 of these were aged under 14 years. However, three quarters of all under 18 year olds released from custody are reconvicted within a year. An examination of the age profile of the 83,842 prisoners in prison establishments in England and Wales in 2013 shows that almost half of these were aged 2539 whilst 22% were aged 1824.
Sociological explanations for crimes committed by
juveniles and young adults
The facts above suggest that the older a person gets, the less likely they are to be engaged in criminal activity. Crime committed by young people has traditionally been referred to as juvenile delinquency but this term may now be dated because the sort of crime that young people engaged in fifty years ago is very different to that committed by young people today.
Subcultural explanations of crime and deviance
Subcultural explanations of youth crime emerged in the 1950s in the USA when sociologists such as Albert Cohen adapted Merton’s blocked opportunity theory to explain why young workingclass people committed juvenile delinquency which was defined as a form of malicious youth crime focused on such criminal and anti social acts as gang violence, joyriding, vandalism and graffiti. It was assumed that such delinquency shared common characteristics such as: It was rarely motivated by material or financial reward compared with the types of crimes committed by older people. Delinquent acts were seen to be
committed for antisocial reasons – out of spite or malice – as a form of protest against authority figures such as parents, teachers, police officers etc. (However, recent evidence as cited earlier suggests this view is now dated and that crime committed by young people in 2013 is often about the acquisition of money and/or material goods). It had a collective or subcultural character – it is committed as part of a larger group or gang. Subcultural sociologists such as Cohen defined ‘ subculture’ as a miniculture that exists alongside the main or dominant culture of a society. It is claimed by subcultural theory that members of delinquent subcultures or gangs have different norms, attitudes, values and beliefs to the rest of society and these generally tend to be deviant.
(a) The work of Albert Cohen
Albert Cohen begins his theory of juvenile delinquency with the observation that Merton’s ‘material success’ goal is not really relevant to young people because they have not yet embarked upon the career ladder and consequently material success is out of their reach. Instead Cohen suggests that the central cultural goal for young people is the pursuit of status – they want to feel that other people value or respect them. Cohen goes on to argue that juvenile delinquency is caused by three inter related factors which are underpinned by the desire for status.
(i) Inadequate socialisation by parents
Cohen suggests that workingclass boys are not adequately socialised by their parents into the sorts of values and norms that are required for academic success and status at school compared with middleclass pupils.
(ii) Poor experience of schooling
Consequently workingclass boys underachieve at school and are put into bottom sets or streams in which they can clearly see that the school does not value them. Schools expect such boys to leave school with few or no qualifications and to end up in low paid deadend jobs or as unemployed. In contrast, middleclass children are valued by schools and their achievement ensures status in the form of qualifications and higher education.
factory. Qualifications were unnecessary for such jobs. They messed around in school because they did not see the point of qualifications, not because they were suffering from ‘status frustration’. Most working class boys actually conform at school. In other words, they do not mess about in school. Moreover, even when they leave school with few qualifications and little hope of a decent job or career, most do not break the law or join gangs. Marxists suggest that Cohen should be asking why young men who have been so badly treated by society actually conform most of the time to the rules of both school and society. Cohen ignores working class girls. He may therefore be guilty of being genderblind and assuming that crime and deviance are mainly a male phenomenon. Cohen seems to accept without question the criminal profile painted by the official criminal statistics that workingclass youth are the main social problem. However, interactionist critics of Cohen suggest that he fails to realise that this group is frequently stereotyped as potentially criminal and consequently is paid more attention by agencies of social control such as teachers, the mass media, the police and the courts. For example, the police frequently stop and search this group. Consequently, interactionists argue that this group is socially constructed as a problem because it experiences more surveillance and control than, for example, middleclass youth or females. Cohen tends to generalise about workingclass parents and culture , e.g. can we really say that all workingclass parents do not value education? For example, might the causes of status frustration and delinquency lie with the education system and teachers who favour middleclass students? There is also evidence that delinquency in the UK in 2013 may be motivated by financial gain. For example, much gang crime in major cities such as London is organised around the selling of drugs whilst personal robbery (i.e. mugging) committed by young people has increased in recent years.
(b) The work of Walter Miller
Another American subculturalist , Walter Miller , rejects Cohen’s arguments that society is in any way to blame for juvenile delinquency. Instead, he puts the blame for juvenile crime firmly on workingclass subculture. Miller argues that delinquency and crime are rooted in the values and norms of workingclass subculture. Miller argues that this culture has deviant characteristics which he calls ‘focal concerns’ which give meaning to the lives of workingclass males outside of work and school. Living out these focal concerns compensates young working class males for the routine, the boredom etc experienced by them in both the school and at work. Examples of these focal concerns include: A heightened sense of masculinity or manliness, e.g. being tough, being able to ‘hold your drink’, ‘getting loaded’, womanizing etc. An acceptance that violence is a part of life and you need to be able to look after yourself. Excitement, i.e. looking for ‘kicks’, a desire for fun and thrills etc. Smartness , i.e. looking good and feeling ‘sharp’, being ‘streetwise’ etc. Fatalism , i.e. an acceptance of their fate especially the idea that the future cannot be changed and that boring routine lowpaid work or unemployment is likely to be the norm for the rest of their lives Autonomy , i.e. an attitude that says ‘nobody will push us around’ especially people in authority , for example, the police and schoolteachers. Miller argues that youth crime is essentially the outcome of young workingclass males exaggerating these focal concerns during their leisure time and consequently coming into confrontation with the police and authority. In summary, then, Miller blames crime committed by workingclass youth on what he sees as the inherently deviant nature of workingclass culture.
Criticism of Miller’s ideas
to them in their area. They identify three types of illegitimate opportunities which produce three different types of gangs or subcultures : Criminal subcultures emerge in areas where people are exposed to an established pattern of illegitimate opportunity. Organised criminal networks such as the Mafia or drug gangs are a good example of this type. These types of crime organisations are focused on making money and are often organised hierarchically and bureaucratically, i.e. people have specific roles and tasks and can be promoted in much the same way as someone working for a legitimate organisation. Those at the bottom may have role models at the top that they want to emulate. Sudhir Venkatesh ’s research ‘ Gang Leader For A Day ’ is a study of this type of opportunity structure in its focus on a major drug dealing operation in Chicago. In areas which lack access to organised crime hierarchies, some young people may turn to gangs or conflict subcultures which engage in highly masculinised territorial or respectdriven violence. The studies of UK gangs by Kintrea et al and Pitts are good contemporary examples of this type of subculture. If young people fail to gain access to either the criminal or conflict subcultures, they may form retreatist subcultures in which drug use rather than drug dealing, especially heroin addiction, is the main focus. This type of culture is probably responsible for most burglary and street robbery as such addiction is expensive and needs to be maintained on a daily basis. Marshall’s research in 2005 adds another type of gang to the mix. He identifies a group he terms ‘crews’ – these are unorganised groups of young people who tend to hang around together in a particular place. Such groups may engage in anti social behaviour which brings them into contact with the law. However, Marshall notes that this is incidental rather than deliberate, i.e. it is probably the result of high spirits, boredom or drunkenness , and does not reflect any frustration or resentment with society.
(d) The work of Shaw & Mackay (the Chicago
School) – ecological theory
Most crime committed by young people is committed in urban contexts – towns and cities. For example, the CSEW notes that people who live in innercity areas and on deprived council estates express more anxiety about crime than people who live in the suburbs or in rural communities. In particular, they are mainly anxious about the antisocial and criminal behaviour of young people, particularly territorial street gangs, vandalism, use of drink and drugs in public places, mugging and more generally groups of teenagers ‘just hanging around’. During the 1950s, a group of sociologists based in Chicago, developed an ecological approach to the study of social life, i.e. they looked at the relationship between criminality and the urban environment. In particular, Shaw and McKay attempted to explain why juvenile crime rates were so high in cities. By examining the organization of cities, they used Burgess’ concentric model of cities to suggest that most cities and towns were organized into distinct neighbourhoods or zones with their own set of values and lifestyles. (see the diagram on page 10). Shaw and McKay were particularly interested in ‘zone two’ because most crime in a city or town, whether it was juvenile or adultorientated crime, was committed in this residential area. Shaw and McKay refer to this area as a ‘zone of transition’ because it was often characterised by cheap rented rundown property such as flats and bedsits and/or council estates. Consequently the area did not experience a stable population or community because people were constantly moving in and out of the neighbourhood. Moreover, unemployment and poverty were a common feature of the neighbourhood.
Evaluating the Subcultural and Ecological theories (1) Despite the media coverage of youth gangs, which give the impression of widespread gang membership, only about 6 to 9 per cent of young people claim to belong to or have ever claimed to have belonged to a ‘gang’ whilst only 2 per cent claim to carry or have ever carried a knife according to research published in 2008. Subcultural theories, therefore, may be exaggerating the influence or effect of subcultures or gangs on young people. (2) David Matza argues that subcultural theories overpredict delinquency. In other words, most workingclass young people experience status frustration, anomie and subscribe to workingclass values but do not join antisocial or criminal gangs. Most conform and never commit themselves to delinquency. Moreover, Matza argues that the few that do get involved in gangs do so temporarily in that they ‘drift’ in and out of delinquency before they eventually grow out of it when they reach adulthood. There is also little evidence that members of gangs are committed to an alternative antisocial subculture of delinquency. Most delinquents who are charged with criminal offences use ‘techniques of neutralisation’ (excuses) to justify their actions. However, few of these make reference to a subcultural or gang cause. Most explain their actions with reference to individual justifications , e.g. ‘I didn’t mean any harm’, and most delinquents are regretful about their actions. (3) Interactionists criticise the subcultural and ecological theories because they fail to acknowledge that the disproportionate amount of youth crime showing up in the official criminal statistics may be due to the overpolicing of urban inner city areas and council estates which means that such youth is more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested. (4) Neofunctionalists point out that both the subcultural and ecological theories ignore the wider influence of a consumerist culture that stresses individualism (looking out for number one), money, celebrity and the acquisition of material goods as the major means by which people should strive to achieve success and status. Neofunctionalists therefore argue that
delinquency arises out of a desire to be part of mainstream culture rather than delinquency being a rejection of that culture. However Reiner and Young point out that the opportunities to achieve monetary or material success are more likely to be blocked if a young person lives in a deprived inner city area or on a council estate because of poor schools and high unemployment. Young people in this position may be more likely to experience a strain between their materialistic goals and the legitimate means of achieving these goals. This may produce anomie in the form of a culture of envy which encourages some young people to turn to violent street crime such as mugging or dealing in drugs. These delinquent actions compensate for their poverty. Studies of gangs in the USA support this view. Nightingale (1993) who studied young Black youth in an inner city area of Philadelphia found that like other social groups, they had been socialised by their families, the education system and the mass media to believe in the American Dream of material success. However, US society did not provide them with the means of achieving this goal. Their opportunities were blocked because of poverty, racism and lack of political power. Such youth looked to compensate for this gap between their goals and means by acquiring high status designer goods and respect from others by joining gangs involved in violent and profitable drug crime. In other words, the desire to be included and to share in what everyone else takes for granted – material success led paradoxically, to the criminal actions – drug dealing that ensured their exclusion from mainstream lawabiding society. There is some evidence that similar motivations underpinned the riots and looting that went on in London, Manchester and other parts of the country in the summer of 2011. (5) Similarly, Marxists are critical of both subcultural and ecological theories because they ignore the view that social problems such as poor housing, unemployment and poverty which are at the worst in inner cities in which the most deprived youth live may be caused by the organisation of capitalism. Marxists argue that it is therefore not surprising that these areas are more crimogenic than the suburbs or rural areas and that those experiencing social and economic deprivation, especially young people, are tempted to commit crime as a form of compensation for their everyday experiences of deprivation, discrimination etc.
