Travis Hirschi and Social Bonding Theory

“Social control theory focuses techniques and strategies that regulate human behavior and lead to conformity, or obedience to society’s rules…” state Alder, Laufer, and Meuller (2007) in their text Criminology and the Criminal justice system. There are two concepts that must be understood when examining social control theories, and social bonding theory. The first is that we must assume all human beings possess the ability to commit criminal acts, they are not necessarily eve, but at least neutral. The second is to understand the difference between the macro- and micro-sociological perspectives. In brief, the macro-sociological perspective studies the formal systems for the control of groups. In the case of studying deviance, social control theories lend themselves to the micro-sociological perspective in that they often times apply to individuals as well as groups and have a tendency to explore an individual’s internal control system.

Hirschi’s work, social bonding theory, exists, for the most part, as a summation of his social control theory predecessors. The premise that lays at the root his theory is that all individuals are bonded to society and that when the bond is weak the individual becomes free to deviate. Hirschi states there are four aspects of the bond, and their relationship between each other, that affect our connection to society:

-Attachment to conventional others: Our attachment to others within a society can keep us from deviating for several reasons. In the case of delinquency, Hirschi proposes three forms of attachment, parents, schools, and peers. Hirschi quotes Durkheim in relation to this aspect, “we are moral beings to the extent we are social beings.”

-Commitment to conventional goals or activities: There are three ways of expressing commitment to conventional goals, vocational aspirations, educational aspirations, and educational expectations. Essentially, we invest in our careers and education and conform as we do not believe deviating is worth sacrificing the investment we have made into these aspirations and expectations.

-Involvement in conventional activities: There is an inverse correlation between the amount of time an individual spends partaking in conventional activities and the amount of time they have to deviate. The more time you spend partaking in conventional activities, the less time you have to deviate.

-Belief in conventional values: An individual must believe that the common value system of a society is one of moral validity. Once that is attained, the individual will consent to them. If an individual does not agree with the rules derived from the values of a society, he/she is not very likely to consent to them.

Though there are many potential combinations for the interaction between the different bonds, Hirschi only goes into detail about three:

-Attachment-Commitment: If an individual has a strong attachment to an individual or group that does not share in the traditional commitment to conventional goals, he/she will also not share in that commitment.

-Commitment-Involvement: If an individual is committed to conventional goals, he/she will partake in more conventional activities.

-Attachment-Belief: An individual with a strong attachment to another individual is likely to adopt the beliefs of that individual.

This is quite a bit for today, so I’m going to end it here. I may come back to Hirschi in the near future though. Please, if you feel you want to know more about Hirschi in the near future, please feel free to contact me.

LH

All information in this post is from:

Hanlon, Leo. (2012) “An Overview of Travis Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory and Introduction to its Applications”.

Marijuana for a Moment

Democratic delegate to Maryland’s House of Delegates Curt Anderson introduced a bill this past Thursday that seeks to legalize marijuana for those 21 years of age and older and to tax it much like Maryland taxes alcohol. There are also plans in the bill to legalize wholesale, retail, and testing facilities. The tax on wholesale marijuana would go to support substance abuse programs and clinical research into medical marijuana. And despite the fact North Carolina recently struck down a bill legalizing medical marijuana in the state, support on a national level has been growing to legalize the drug.

My views on the legalization of marijuana are relatively impartial. I have no plans to use the drug, legal or not. Not that I have never tried the substance, my youthly indiscretions led me to the substance several times, sorry Mom. But the reality is it’s just not something I have ever really enjoyed. On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly hard to deny the financial problems that the restrictions on marijuana use have caused and at least the faint potential for the benefits legalization could bring.

Law enforcement arrests nearly 700,000 individuals a year for marijuana related offenses. That is more than all other illicit drugs combined, including cocaine, methamphetamines, ecstasy, and heroine. 87% of those arrests are for nothing more than possession of small amounts. Many would argue that almost no one goes to jail or prison for petty possession, but what about offenders on probation or parole who test positive with a dirty UA, or instances of the three strikes law, for example in Alabama three petty possessions could lead you to 15 years in prison. When you begin to factor in all the potential costs for each one of those arrests, not just costs of incarceration, you can begin to understand the full taxpayer cost of keeping marijuana on the list of illicit drugs.

Forget for a moment that legalizing marijuana would simply save this country millions of dollars each year, and think of the money to be made. When you buy a pack of cigarettes, here in tobacco country USA could be between $3 and $5 a pack, approximately 40% of the retail cost of that pack of cigarettes goes to the government. So, for the sake of argument, let’s say after taxes a “dime bag” costs $10 after tax. If we charge the same tax rates as we do for cigarettes, we are now making $4 after every sale as opposed to paying $80 a day per inmate for locking them up for it. For many of us, it seems like a no brainer.

The bigger issue here has nothing to do with the costs or the money to be made. At its foundation, the legalization of marijuana is a cultural decision. Much like other criminal justice issues, there comes a point in any society when certain issues and acts now seem less immoral than when the original laws were created, and vice versa. We have to decide as a society if we truly believe marijuana use is really that big of a deal. Consensus so far is no we don’t.

LH

Equal Opportunity for ex-Inmates

When we begin a discussion about Equal Opportunity laws in this country, we have a tendency to jump right towards race. Equal Opportunity laws, however, protect all types of different classification of individuals in this country, including race, age, gender, and religion. Now, a new directive has been introduced, directive 306 for those of you keeping score, to protect a new group of individuals in America’s workforce, criminals. The Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program announced its nondiscrimination obligations related to federal contractors this January.

As important as this directive is, there needs to be some exceptions to this rule. Obviously, we cannot have recently released drug offenders working in our pharmacies or violent offenders being placed in a situation where they are once again open to engage in violence. These aren’t strict rules; these are part of their recovery. On the other hand, we have a serious unemployment problem among the released offender population that creates a “collateral cost” for the rest of our society. Having released inmates in our workforce is beneficial to our economy, and, in this instance, more importantly, our recidivism rates.

The way we treat individuals in this country who have already served their time is atrocious. In many cases we are actually forcing ex-inmates back into a life of crime as opposed to helping them get back on their feet. So instead of helping them get a job where they will pay taxes, we are sending them back to jail or prison and paying more for them than they would probably be making at the minimum wage job we deemed “acceptable” for an ex-inmate. If this makes sense to you, please, explain it to me. 

And it’s not like this is a small population we are talking about here. Incarcerated and ex-incarcerated individuals constitute the largest minority in this country to date, so large, in fact, I hesitate to even refer to them as a minority.

I do not see this directive making too much of a literal impact since it only applies to businesses that are contracted in any way by the federal government. I do, however, believe, or at least hope, that it will lead to further, stronger, initiatives for this population.

 

LH

Where's the Sanity?

I admit it, sometimes I myself feel a little bit conflicted over the gun control debate. Not that I own any guns, or plan on gun ownership in the near future, but I do happen to see the valid points on each side of the debate. The further we go into this debate, since the horrid massacre in Newtown, the more I find it difficult to even feel remotely sympathetic to those opposed to stricter gun control laws. The facts aside for the moment, sane leadership opposed to gun control seems to be going right out the window.

Let us even disregard the antics of Wayne LaPierre for a moment. Mike Leara, Republican state representative of Missouri, has decided to sponsor a bill that would actually make it a class D felony for anyone to propose legislation “that further restricts and individual’s right to bear arms.” It would be a felony for a representative to simply do their job in attempting to further public safety. Believe it or not, Missouri isn’t the first state to pull a scheme like this! While Vice President Biden was spending some time in Virginia speaking about the Obama administrations plan for gun control, the Virginia House of Delegates was in the process of approving a bill that prohibits state agencies and employees from enforcing new measures of control. And, apparently, Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, and Wyoming have all made their own plans to make it a criminal offense for their employees to enforce the federal statute.

Our country is, obviously, divided to a point that could cause some serious harm to it. Everyone, at times on both sides of the political spectrum, seems to be acting out of fear and irrationality, and we seem to be drifting far away from the main points and the facts, which I hope to have time to speak to in a later post. Firearms are unlike any other product on the market. Their sole purpose is to kill, and they are designed accordingly, but the founders of this country felt that there was at least some need, at least in their rime, to allow American citizens to own firearms. In today’s world of warfare it is simply foolish to believe that a firearm will protect you from the tyranny of government, but, in some instances, a firearm can serve as a means of protection from others or, at times, a plain and simple tool of death and destruction. There needs to be balance. Other countries in our peer group have managed this issue relatively simply; can we not reach that point as well?

In order to reach a point where this debate does not become a good ol’ fashioned liberal feeding frenzy and good, solid, quality decisions that satisfy the American public and provide public safety are reached, we desperately NEED quality leaders on both sides of the fence to admit that there is a problem and we must come together as a nation to fix it. The same being true for all issues in this country.

LH

Convict Criminology

A new school of thought in the world of criminology is on the horizon, and for me, it is a breath of fresh air. The ideas of Convict Criminology seek to “…[challenge] the way crime and correctional problems are traditionally represented and discussed by researchers, policymakers, and politicians.” Given the state of our current justice system, this is a new and refreshing perspective in the development of system reform. For those of you who were interested in either of my past two posts, Kai T. Erikson and Richard Quinney, Convict Criminologists seem to be critical of the positivist, labeling, and functionalist perspectives of crime and deviance, and, from what I have seen so far, align themselves more with the constructionist conflict approach, much like Quinney.

Their full title for this perspective, the New School of Convict Criminology, expresses their interest in ideas that aren’t exactly “new”. Their use of “new” actually refers to Taylor, Walton, and Young's (1973) seminal work The New Criminology.

We can assume from the title that the role of convicts and ex-convicts are to play a vital role in the discussion, and it is about time. How can we have a complete picture of crime, criminal justice, and criminology without the enlightened views and perspectives of arguably the most important group in those fields, the “criminals” and “deviants” themselves? Now, as a result of the frustration of ex-convict academic faculty, we finally have a unified voice for those individuals in the debate over crime and crime control. Criminologists from this perspective have special interest in: how crime is defined, specific solutions proposed for problems of crime and criminal justice, the plight of men and women labeled as criminals as a result of those decisions, the high rates of incarceration and overcrowding on our correctional institutions, a lack of meaningful programming for individuals under some form of custody, and impediments to successful re-entry of inmates into society.

“The convict scholars are able to do what many previous researchers could not; merge their past with their present and provide a provocative approach to the academic study of their field. The convict criminology perspective is also based on perceptions, experiences, and analytical ideas that originate with defendants and prisoners, and are then developed by critical scholars (Richards & Ross, 2003a, 2003b).”

This group has been working diligently in the advancements of prisoner rights and the development of criminological perspectives from the eyes of the “criminals”. They have put out many publications of great merit and scholastic achievement. I encourage all to visit the Convict Criminology Website and become more familiar with the group. I believe they are one of the most important voices in this field today!

LH

Richard Quinney: Social Construction Derived from a Conflict Perspective

Again, for my non-sociologically minded readers, this may be a little slow. I promise I will switch things up on Monday!

 

In contrast to yesterday’s post about Kai Erikson, today we focus on another social construction perspective on crime, but this time derived from a conflict perspective. Today, we consider Richard Quinney a Marxist Criminologist, emphasizing his conflict approach. To help put this into perspective, Quinney States: “the criminal justice movement is…a state-initiated and state-supported effort to rationalize mechanisms of social control.  The larger purpose is to secure a capitalist order that is in grave crisis, likely in its final stage of development” (Class, State, and Crime – Quinney). It becomes relatively obvious why Quinney was considered the American spokesperson for “Radical Criminology”, used synonymously for Marxist Criminology.

Quinney’s major work on deviance, The Social Reality of Crime, defined six major propositions of crime:

1.       (Definition of crime) Crime is a definition of human conduct that is created by authorized agents in a politically organized society.

2.       (Formulation of criminal definitions) Criminal definitions describe behaviors that conflict with the interest of the segments of society that have the power to shape political policy.

3.       (Application of criminal definitions) Criminal definitions are applied by the segments of society that have the power to shape the enforcement and administration of criminal law.

4.       (Development of behavior patterns in relation to criminal definitions) Behavior patterns are structured in segmentally organized society in relation to criminal definitions, and within this context persons engage in actions that have relative probabilities of being defined as criminal.

5.       (Construction of criminal concepts) Conceptions of crime are constructed and diffused in the segments of society by various means of communication.

6.       (The social reality of crime) The social reality of crime is constructed by the formulation and application of criminal definitions, the development and behavior patterns related to criminal definitions, and the conception of criminal conceptions.

If it helps to relate Quinney to a more popular criminological theory, he viewed crime as the product of reaction, much like labeling theory. I believe Frank P. Williams III and Marilyn D. McShane put it quite nicely in their 5^th edition of Criminological Theory: “The reaction of most importance, though, is that of the legitimate authorities. These authorities not only act to behavior but also impose definitions of the types of behavior that can be defined as criminal. They do so by using political power to create and place into criminal law those behaviors to which they object. Those in lower-class positions are more likely to engage in objectionable behavior and, indeed, learn such behaviors from those around them” (P. 132). Again, we see the fusion of conflict theory with a constructionist perspective.

Again, to reiterate, crime is a reactionary product, defined in criminal law, and created through political power. The next idea laid out by Quinney is that criminal and non-criminal definitions are spread through the media. *Cough Cough* Chomsky *Cough Cough* Manufacturing Consent *Cough Cough*. Essentially, the media constructs our social reality and by spreading the ideas of what is naturally criminal or non-criminal, we tend not to feel that crime is constructed for us. For example, we watch television programs plastered with alcohol advertisements and can flip to the news and witness the outcry against drunken drivers and drug-related crime. This is a perfect example of the media defining what is criminal and non-criminal, and society overlooking the fact that that definition was created for us and spread through the media.  

LH

Kai T. Erikson: Social Construction Derived from a Functionalist Perspective

For my readers out there that are not interested in criminological or sociological theory, this might be a post for you to skip.

 

Kai Erikson believes that society creates the deviant in the same way, and for the same purpose, as it creates deviance. And, from a very functionalist perspective, believes that the deviant fills a very necessary role that cannot be filled by anyone else. Essentially, social groups induce deviant behavior much in the same way they induce leadership and scholastic achievement. Why would any society induce deviant behavior? As Erikson states, it is to promote group “equilibrium”. In other words, society needs the deviant, low esteem and low rewards, to balance out the high achiever, high esteem and many rewards. If all achieved everything, then rewards would lose their significance.

In order to induce the deviant, there must be rewards for the deviant as well. These rewards differ greatly from the rewards of the high achiever though. Erikson uses the example of a schizophrenic army “basic trainee”. In the example, the schizophrenic becomes like a mascot for the group, he is protected from authorities by the group and even has others help him with his work allowing him a “wide license to deviate both from the performance and behavior of the group.” Rather than being rejected by the group, the deviant filled a specific role for the group, causing them to strive harder and giving more meaning to the rewards they might have earned. Another example he used, in his study of 17^th century puritans in Massachusetts, was the idea that in societies with a heavy emphasis on ownership of personal property, theft is more likely to occur.

Erikson takes his ideas a step further and claims that every society has a set volume of deviance, an amount of deviance that remains constant over time. He also believed that societies have their own mechanisms of deploying deviance; patterns that will ensure the correct number of deviants exist to sustain the necessary volume of deviance over time. Erikson goes back to Durkheim’s society of saints to explain this, which he uses in his study of Massachusetts Puritans. There were three major crime waves in 17^th century Massachusetts, even though the society saw itself as a society of saints. You may be familiar with the last of these crime waves; we refer to it today as the “Salem Witch Trials”. Erikson explains these crime waves as boundary maintenance, or the maintenance of the boundary between deviance and conformity. In the case of the witch trials, the early accusations of witchcraft were individuals who were marginal to the society, a slave, a beggar, and an individual wrapped up in a sex scandal. As soon as the accusations reached higher and higher rungs of Puritan society, the accounts were gradually dismissed, until eventually all were dismissed.

So why had these accounts of witchcraft been taken to the point they were? Historically, there had been many accounts of witchcraft in the community, and the Puritans had never taken them seriously before. Erikson claims there were a dramatic set of social changes going on in Massachusetts at the time, one of which, they were no longer exclusively Puritan.

There are two points to be stressed here. The first is that we are dealing with socially constructed deviance. There are no witches and there was no plot by the devil, but in creating the scenario, the society created an “us” and “them” mentality. The second goes back to one of Erikson’s original questions, how does society induct its members into deviance? We can all agree that the first accused witches were marginal to Puritan society, Erikson calls these individuals resources, individuals who can be called upon when deviance is needed. The slave who was labeled a witch now had an opportunity to show that she had special powers, and took to that role exceptionally well, creating accounts of her witchcraft and knowledge of the Devil’s plot. It provided her an instance, albeit a short one, to feel as the rest of the society was actually her subordinate, as opposed to the other way around.

LH

Obama on Mass Incarceration

It is to the belief of many of us out here in criminal justice land that at some point in his next term, President Obama will address the issue of mass incarceration. Criminal Justice reform was a strong point for Obama as a state legislator and he spoke to the subject the first time he ran for president, so none of us are worried about his comprehension of the issue. He even stated in a recent Time magazine interview that he believes “over-incarceration for non-violent offenses as a real problem”, reports Ethan Nadelmann of the Huffington Post. The President’s administration did, however, fight to bring the disparity between the sentences for cocaine and crack cocaine back to a "reasonable" level.

1 in every 32 Americans is under the supervision of the criminal justice system. As Senator Jim Webb stated, “ Either we have the most evil people on earth living in America; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice.”  As much money that goes into the criminal justice system and as big of a problem as it is, why has the President been so silent on the issue? According to some of his aids, he has bigger fish to fry. Given the issue sin this country with the economy, climate change, immigration, and the recent resurfacing of intensity in the gun control debate, I do believe we have some pretty big fish in the kitchen. But does that make criminal justice issues any less important? Statistically they affect just as many Americans as any other issue and from a budget standpoint, cost us even more.

Another answer some of his aids have given is, given the scale of the race and discrimination issues within the problems of the criminal justice system, being the first black president has made him particularly hesitant to tackle the issue. Shouldn’t that encourage him to be more open about the issue? Doesn’t that make his leadership on the issue that much more important?

Well we have another term. Four more years to try to accomplish something on these issues. Some fear that they will not be addressed until so late in the term and they will be approached with such an extreme amount of caution, that nothing worthwhile will actually be accomplished. All I can say to that is we will see. 

LH

Incarceration Nation

After over six years working, researching, and studying the field of criminal justice and criminology, I seem to be constantly approaching the same conclusion as many others have recently; we are a nation of incarceration. Why has America earned this title? Is it a bad thing to want all criminals locked up? Isn’t it more effective to just “lock ‘em up and throw away the key”? That other stuff seems so expensive and time consuming, isn’t it cheaper to just throw them in prison? I have no doubt that these are questions many Americans ask themselves when faced with the mounting criminal justice issues, and, hopefully, I will answer some of them for all of you asking yourselves the same questions.

Why has America earned the title of “Incarceration Nation”?

Well, let’s start simple. Americans make up approximately 4.5% of the world’s population, but when we look specifically at the world’s incarcerated population, we equate to about 25%. Obviously, our incarcerated population is significantly more than any other country, and in most cases, more than any other two countries combined. Doesn’t this just prove we have an effective, hard-working criminal justice system, you might ask? Hard working, certainly, but for a whole multitude of reason, effective is the last word I would associate with our criminal justice system, especially when you factor the jurisdictions and instances where recidivism rates are near 70%. Couple these incarceration and recidivism rates with the fact it costs as much to incarcerate an inmate as it does to pay a teacher, especially considering the budget cuts to our education system, and you begin to understand the scope of the problem.

The World Justice Project recently released their Rule of Law Index where they assessed countries based on the criminal justice system. They ranked countries criminal justice systems based on access to affordable civil justice,  civil justice being free of discrimination, civil justice being free of corruption, civil justice being free of improper government influence, civil justice being effectively enforced, ADR’s are accessible, impartial, and effective, how effective the criminal investigation system is, how timely and effective the criminal adjudication system is, how effective the correctional system is, how free of discrimination the overall criminal justice system is, How free of corruption is the criminal justice system, how free the criminal justice system is of improper government influence, and due process of law. Not only was America pretty far behind the leaders in every category, we were well behind our peer group, North America and Western Europe and High Income, in most categories as well. Of our regional ranking, America was ranked third to last for factor 4: Fundamental Rights and factor 8: Criminal justice. Is this at all acceptable for a country trying to set an example?

There is only one more piece to this puzzle I’m going to talk about today, the mass incarceration of African-Americans. African-Americans make up, roughly, somewhere between 13.2% and 13.5% our America’s population, to put it into perspective, about the combined population of New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago. But somehow, 33% of our incarcerated population is African-American. I do not want to speak too much to this issue now, as I will discuss it in depth later, but I believe Michelle Alexander in her book The New Jim Crow:Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness speaks to the issue quite well.

LH

...the silence is deafening

The Huffington Post reported this afternoon that House Republican leadership has remained silent in their support of the the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. With a very strong bipartisan vote, the Senate has managed to pass a VAWA bill that added many necessary improvements to the VAWA. These improvements reflect the hard and dedicated work of many practitioners in the field to include "best practices" in the legislation. Some of these improvements include new housing protections for victims, campus sexual assault provisions, and enhanced services and programs for tribal, immigrant, and LGBT victims of violence as well as communities of color, Rep. Gwen Moore reports. With its strong bipartisan support of the bill, the Senate is prepared to pass their version this week. The bill was introduced to the House two weeks ago, and though 193 Democrats have signed onto this piece of legislation, not a single republican has stepped up to the plate.

Language updated in 2005 keeps the programs and services of the VAWA alive, though its authorization expired over a year ago. There is, however, fear that a lack of support for this bill will jeopardize funding and affect domestic violence programs at the state and local levels.

As I read more into sickening stories of domestic violence I am struck by one in particular, in the NY Times, that the improvements to the VAWA are seeking to end. A Native American woman who's life was consumed by domestic violence was trapped in an endless cycle as her husband was white and they lived on a reservation. Because her husband was white, the tribal police couldn't do anything and, because they lived on the reservation, the local police wouldn't do anything. She even tried going to federal law enforcement, who had jurisdiction, but it went nowhere. Is this something that we as Americans can stand by and allow to happen?

The obvious lack of support we are seeing from republicans on women's issues is as disheartening and unacceptable as the rate of domestic violence in this country. The issue of domestic violence is not one to include petty, partisan politics, but one, we must realize, that spreads like a disease through our communities. It is time we all come together and understand how important it is for our mothers, sisters, aunts, friends, and colleagues to not have to live in fear, and how detrimental forcing them to live in fear is to all of us.

LH