exam Flashcards
broad definition of gangs
A Broad Definition
“A group of youths or young adults in your jurisdiction that you or other responsible persons in your agency or community are willing to identify or classify as a gang.”
(USA, National Gang Intelligence Centre)
Subjective definition
Specific definition of gangs
Ownership of a name
Wearing of colours or other group symbols
Control of territory
Communal criminal activity, comitting crime with others
Identifiable leadership
A certain number of members
4 Levels of gangs (Wortley)
Level 1: Fluid friendship groups with sporadic criminal activity. Short lived and not that violent. “Wanna be” gangs (Gordon).
Level 2: Existed for more than a year. Criminal activities are planned and deliberate. Little specialization of criminal activities. Lack of formal leadership. More likely to engage in violence than level 1.
Level 3: Leadership and hierarchical structure and have existed for at least 1 year . Control a particular type of criminal activity in a defined territory (drug dealing) and violent. Colours and a name.
Level 4:Long, stable history and can span more than 1 generation. Sophisticated organizational structure. Often work with lower level gangs. Violent, make considerable sums of money (Mafia in Italy and Narco in Mexico)
Counting Gangs
Most often data from fbi/police
In USA “National Gang Intelligence Centre”
Gangs in over 1,000 jurisdictions in USA early 2000s
Estimated to be 25,000-30,000 gangs in USA
5 times more than in 1980
RCMP in 2018 reported 430 active gangs in Canada. A reliable statistic?
Sometimes data from school and street surveys are used
Why do gangs exist?
Early research in USA by Thrasher 1920s (documented activities of over 1,000 gangs in Chicago), much more gun violence now
Much less organized and criminal than today
Oftentimes youth do not join gangs for criminal reasons
Often-times for psychological or social reasons, at least at first (Social Disorganization Theory)
Risk Factors for gangs
Poverty
Poor School performance
Gangs present in community
Unstable Homes
Gangs provide a perceived solution to problems that young people face
Hagedorn: Milwaukee gang study
Today gangs are more criminal and institutionalized since 1980s
Decline of industry
Looked at how Cities in north east have been deindustrilized
Minority youth have tough time finding decent jobs in labour market
Young people remain gang members longer
Venkatesh: Chicago gang study
Gang activity in large African American Public Housing Project
Weak Civil Society that most take for granted: unstructured families, few legitimate jobs; not much hope in educational system
Most money comes from 2 sources: welfare cheques and selling drugs
Working for a gang is a rational choice taking into consideration these constraints
Gangs also function as bankers; employers; police; social needs (driving elderly to medical appointments and voters to polling stations).
Camorra in Campania (Naples) Italy. (Gomorrah, Roberto Saviano) gangs
Been around since 1860s
Grew out of prisons like Poggioreale
Mafia and gangs serve similar functions in poor societies with weak governments
Gangs lend money to people in the community
Act as police
$ Support wives whose husbands are in prison
See Gomorrah by Roberto Saviano (book and film)
Reacting to Gangs
Prevention (environment and opportunities)
Intervention (draw away from the gang with education; job training)
Suppression (policing [raids] & Laws) most common
Early Research on homeless youth
100 years ago there were homeless youth : called street urchins
Issue not on radar until late 1970s early 1980s; largely results from changes in canadian housing policies, housing became less affordable, less affordable housing built
Drew attention:terms used; runaways and throughaways, rather than “homeless”
Runaway; ran away from home
Throughaways; told to leave home, most were throughaways
First to talk about touth homelessness; Badgley Report (1986) on sexual exploitation of Canadian children: many people involved in sex trade were homeless and had been involved with child protection
About ½ were involved in the Child Protection System
Broader Definition of homelessness for youth
Precariously housed (couch surfing); not paying rent
Sleeping in youth Shelters, emergency shelters in large cities
Tents, cars, abandoned buildings , roof tops etc.
16-24
Homeless and <16: child protection, not shelters
Hagan and McCarthy (Mean Streets, 1997) study
Interviewed 400 street youth in toronto, asked questions through SRS, looked at what predicts why some street youth get involved in crime and some don’t, explanation for deviant behaviour; drug selling, prostitution, and theft
Focus on explaining crime among street youth
Is it due to their backgrounds (strain and control)?
or
Is it due to the situational adversity they face?
Findings reveal that familial and school factors have minimal influence on current criminal behavior.
Instead, criminal behavior is influenced by such immediate factors such as: lack of stable housing, drug and alcohol use, and criminal peers who engage in illegal activities.
Criminal behavior is also influenced by a lack of income, job experiences, and perceptions of a blocked opportunity structure (felt not to be their fault).
More likely to be involved in crime if they blamed external factors rather than themselves for why they ended up on the streets
What about non-criminal money making? O’Grady and Gaetz: Main Way of Making $
Job: high school grads; left home 16+
Soc. Assistance.: females, young mothers
Begging/panhandling: left home young
Squeegee: did not finish high school
Sex work: 13.5 age left home, female, no H.S. abuse, Indigenous
Crime: male, poor growing up, came from T.O
Victimization of street youth
Often Street Youth are viewed as criminals, yet research from Toronto shows that:
76% reporting at least one instance of criminal victimization in the previous 12 months.
almost three quarters (72.8%) reporting multiple incidents of victimization.
63.6% report being victims of violent crime at least once, while only 56.5% report being victims of property crime.
A very high percentage (23%) report that they do not tell anyone, even friends, when they have been victimized.
This is a reflection of the isolation that often comes with being homeless, and the weakness of social networks that young people are able to rely on when in crisis.
Amongst female street youth, black females were much more likely to report being victims of sexual assault (47%) than were white females (33%).
Sexual orientation was a significant factor in determining victimization, with LGBTQ+ female youth more likely to report being victims of most forms of crime (including both property and violent crimes), and on more occasions.
Sixty percent of LGBTQ+ female youth report being victims of sexual assault during the past year.
This group is perhaps the most victimized of the street youth population.
What to do? homeless youth
A balanced response to youth homelessness would emphasize three key elements: preventive measures, an emergency response, and efforts to move young people quickly out of homelessness.
RECENT RESEARCH; Homelessness and Self-Identity
Methods of study (1,103 youth, 57 agencies)
Do you consider yourself to be homeless?
Objective vs Subjective
1/3 yes
1/3 used to be, but not now
1/3 no
Even though all were using services for homeless youth (they were all objectively homeless)
Why these differences?
Those who were told to leave home
Been homeless several times in past 3 years
Been a recent victim of violence
Sleeping rough
Males
Youth think of themselves as individuals not belonging to a stigmatized group (the homeless)
Male vs Female charges
In Canada, for youth charged by police:
77% male 23% female
Females mostly theft under $5,000 and
Assault 1
Early Research male vs female youth crime
Lack of attention before 1970s
A “delinquent” was seen as a “rouge
male”
Thomas “The Unadjusted Girl” 1923
Case studies, mostly prostitution related
Girls used wrong means to achieve right
goals
They were not properly socialized (lacked
controls)
Basically a version of Social
Disorganization Theory
Were Girls becoming more violent in
1960s-1970s?
Popular perceptions based on serious, but
rare cases covered extensively in the
mass media
Liberation hypothesis (Adler, 1975;
Simon, 1975)
Labour market participation and post
secondary education
Advances in Post-Secondary Education
Moving into male dominated fields
Rise of the women’s movement
Women had more control over their bodies due to
birth control (The Birth Control Pill)
what types of girls get into trouble with the law:
poor, abused, marginalized and socially exclude
Power Control Theory (Hagan, Gillis and
Simpson)
Based on survey data from high school
students in late 1970s early 1980s
Patriarchal and Egalitarian Families
Blaming mothers?
Refers to John Hagan and colleagues’ integrated (conflict and social control theories) and feminist- informed explanation of the role of gender socialization in crime distributions.
Hagan, Gillis, and Simpson, who developed power-control theory, a variant of social control theory, suggest that patriarchal families are structured such that they support, and thus provide greater access for, males’ risk-taking and delinquent behaviour, while at the same time, keeping girls’ criminal involvement in check via tighter social restrictions and controls
Girls and Gangs
Anne Campbell, New York City
Most linked to male gangs
Not your typical working class girls
Short-term solutions to problems
Want to end up different than their
mothers
Many also subject to victimization: IPV
Sexism too: girls are often not wanted or
valued in delinquent groups
No affirmative action or pay equity laws
in place in the ‘underworld’
E.G. Biker gangs (Wolf) and other
organized crime
NEED FOR GENDER SPECIFIC THEORY?
Victimization (including IPV)
Economic Marginality
Reproductive Differences
Sentencing Principles for Adults
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; general (making example of the person in court so others do not copy) and specific detterance (making the punishment so that person does not repeat)
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d)to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders,and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.
YCJA Sentencing purpose
The purpose of sentencing under section 42 (youth sentences) is to hold a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public.
Specific sentencing principles emphasize that a youth sentence must:
*not be more severe than what an adult would receive for the same offence;
*be similar to youth sentences in similar cases;
*be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person
They should also:
(a)be the sentencing option that is most likely to rehabilitate and reintegrate the young person, and
(b) promote in the young person a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgement of the harm done by the offence
How much consistency is there across the country and between judges?
Saskatchewan and manitoba more severe
Judicial discretion
Opposite of judicial discretion; fixed sentences, guidelines like a grid that show what sentence should be based on offence and priors
In our courts today there is pretty much complete judicial discretion
Doob and Beaulieu sentencing study
43 Judges from across Canada were asked
Responded to written descriptions of cases
Then recommended a disposition and said why
Much variability was found in sentences that judges gave
Different treatment for identical offences
Raises questions re: lack of overall policy dispositions under YCJA
Ex multiple choice; As discussed in class, one of the main problems for carrying out evaluation research in the area of restorative justice concerns the issue of
a) Confidentiality
b) Difficulties getting Ethical Approval to carry out the
research
c) There are so few females who are given these
measures
d) Self-Selection Bias
Self Selection bias
Glen Elder long term life course
Elder - linked to life course theory
Introduces 2 key concepts in life course theory:
Transitions (driving license, graduating high school, voting for the first time, first ‘real’ job)
Landmarks that standout in a persons life time
Movement from one event to another that changes one’s status
Trajectories (employment history, relationships [marriage and family], education, involvement in a sport or hobby)
Aspects of individual’s lives over time
E.g. employment history - past, present, future
Longitudinal designs - cohort versus panel
Cohort - tracks groups of individual’s (cohorts) over an extended period of time
E.g. Grade 8 students
Panel study - tracks individuals over time
E.g. looking at one persons progress throughout their lifetime
Longitudinal designs - Retrospective Research
- asking the same people questions; recall questions (e.g. what was the relationship with your mother like 5 years ago?)
Issue: difficult to recall specific details; attitudes change over time
More cost effective than panel or cohort studies
Panel studies have a higher chance of attrition - dropping out of study
Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck (long term life course study)
Interviewed 500 delinquents & 500 non-delinquents (all males)
All from working class background; 1/2 were in conflict w/ law, other half was not
Wanted to know why some were criminal & others were not; what occurred within the life course that these kids with the same social class differed in terms of criminality
Looked at kids body types - do criminal have different physical attributes than non-criminals?
Tracked kids through time
Criminal justice interventions, family life, school and employment history, and recreational activities
Followed up over the years (25 and 32)
Sampson & Laub life course study
Is crime due to low self-control or lack of turning points?
Latent Trait of Low Self-Control: therefore career criminals
Turning points: age graded theory of informal social control (employment, children, marriage)
Long Follow-up
Men in early 70s were interviewed; interviewed when they were teens
Those involved in crime during high school had: Poor verbal skills, low self control
do not explain long term offending
Found that strong social ties with family and community led to low offending
Even luck and personal agency can make an impact (situated choice)
Therefore, they avoid a deterministic approach (like GTC)
T. Moffit life course study
Life Course Persistent: small group (10%); long criminal career; problematic backgrounds (social, psychological, neurological).
Low-self control individual’s
High levels of recidivism
Adolescent Limited: much larger group (90%); age out of crime in late teens/early 20s; “normal” youth; commit crimes such as underage drinking, joy riding, stealing liquor from parents. Maturity gap.
Deviant activities had unintended positive consequence - “normal” youth had better social skills & performed better in life than those who didn’t engage in such behaviours
*Pederson et al. Reading life course
Youth who abstained from deviance and how they are later in life
Question: Are delinquent abstainers an isolated and vulnerable group with poor life prospects?
Isolated (conformists) kids did better in life than deviant kids; changed the idea that Moffit put forth
adolescent limited vs life course persistent
Long Arm of the Law: Tanner & Davies life course study
This article offers a test of labeling theory by exploring whether contact with school and justice system authorities has long‐term, negative, and independent effects on an individual’s labour market success.
Did kids who got caught have worse life outcomes than those who didn’t?
Do experiences ranging from school suspension to incarceration during ages 15–23 can predict occupational status, income, and employment during ages 29–37?
Unlike previous studies, this study controlled for an exhaustive list of variables: social background, human capital, prior deviant behavior, family status, and local context.
The findings generally support labelling theory.
Severe forms of labeling like incarceration had the strongest negative effects; role played by education.
Self Selection bias
Defining legislation among youth crime
1 criminal code, 2 criminal justice systems
Youth justice legislation is federal, administered in a provincial jurisdictional matter
social Disorganization theory
Conflict theory
Life course theory
This theory focuses on a number of facets of criminal behaviour, such as the onset, persistence, and desistance of criminal behavior; the nature and severity of involvement in crime; crime specialization; the protective and risk factors that emerge at different ages; and the impacts these factors may have on offending variations across the lifespan. Known as an “integrative theory,” developmental and life course theory bridges sociological theories like strain, control, and differential association.
Feminist theory
Most common sentence in court
PROBATION
Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA)
The federal legislation enacted in 2002 to replace the Young Offenders Act and which came into effect on 1 April 2003.
When the YCJA was enacted in 2002, for instance, it contained sections that provided for the harsher, adult-like punishment of violent young offenders while re- stricting the use of custody sentences for youth convicted of non-violent crimes. The Act also introduced a wide range of formal and informal extrajudicial measures for diverting first-time and less serious young offenders out of the youth justice system. Such measures included police warnings, cautions, and community-based conferences. In effect, these measures made Canada’s new youth criminal justice system, at least formally on paper, a bifurcated youth justice system—“wherein petty and non-serious offenders would be handled through community-based and diversionary programs while serious and violent offenders would be subject to more carceral and punitive interventions”
Move to YCJA (2003)
YCJA: a balancing act between:
Protecting Society vs unnecessary criminalization of minor offences
Punitiveness continued in society: Garland And Culture of Control
Self Discipline and Personal Responsibility (welfare, single mothers and ex-cons), placing more responsibility on the individual
E.G. Project Turnaround in Ontario (bootcamp), attempt at rehabilitation, first private prison in canada
New Legislation was needed to curb youth crime
Increase use of Adult sentences for 16-17 year olds
Easing restrictions on publishing names of Young Offenders
Holding parents accountable
Growth of Victim’s Rights in Canada
On the other hand…
Quebec did not want a more punitive Act
Some lobbying for more diversion (EJM’s (extrajudicial measures) and EJS’s (extrajudicial sanctions) [warning, caution (parents)], young person has to admit guilt, EJMS designed to put fewer youth in court
As it turns out, fewer youth in court after YCJA in part due to this change
BUT….
2012 amendments to YCJA (Safe Streets and Community Act) by the Federal Conservative Govt
Protection of public as key goal of Act
Specific Deterrence and Denunciation for youth
Pre-trial custody now not related if custody for crime if found guilty would not happen—more youth have been in pre-trial custody as a result
Early sociological explanations; Durkheim and Anomie
Everything in society has a place and role
-Functionalism
-Anomie: a condition of normlessness
-Suicide (1897) analysed demographics of suicide statistics, men have higher rates etc
Less interested in why, more in the rates
-Social patterns, function of group’s relationship, integration and moral regulation
Sociological explanations; The Chicago School and Social Disorganization (Burgess, Shaw and McKay)
Social ecological approach
Looked at population density, residential instability, etc
-Concentric Zone Model: Zone of Transition (1925); burgess mapped out chicago in concentric areas and looked at different rates of crime in areas, zone of transition is highest crime rates, least desirable areas to live, poor infrastructure, poverty, etc, inhabitants in that zone experience anomie that causes deviance
Chicago school emphasized deviance is a structural phenomenon
Doesnt work well for cities out side of us
looking at individuals instead of characteristics
Shaw & McKay’s application to juvenile delinquency in Chicago (1942);
peak interest towards youth crime, analyzed and found delinquency clusters in certain areas, inner city areas, found consistency in delinquency rates across neighborhoods, regardless of characteristics of people being there
-Census data, official court records; delinquency across neighbourhoods over time
Critique of use of census data, cannot be taken at face value
The Strain/Anomie Tradition
Robert Merton
Took durkeims notion of anomie and stretched it to general deviance
-“Social Structure and Anomie” (1938)
Economic focused
-Data: social statistics in U.S.
-‘Innovation’: type of crime emphasized in his theory
-Lacks discussion of non-utilitarian crime
Critique; not all working class individuals commit crime, overestimation of working class vs white collar
Utilitarian crime serves a purpose ex stealing food, non utilitarian; crimes of passion, vandalism
The Strain/Anomie Tradition
Albert Cohen
-Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang(1955)
-Theoretical explanation for gangs in the U.S.
-General Theory of Subcultures
Focused on middle and working class youth, value differences between middle and working class
Studied merton
Schools evaluate working class children based on middle class standards, resulting in strain
-‘Reaction Formation’: working class boys had status frustration, norm rejection and replacement, replaced norms with deviant norms
Control & Labelling
Control Theory (Hirschi)
-focus on Weakened social institutions & loss of control
Less about starin and more about drive towards crime
-Critique of Strain Theory
Most people can control urges but question is why offenders dont commit crimes vs why they do
-Self-report data rather than crime stats
-Shifting focus: why don’t individuals commit crimes?
Theorized notion of bonds; 4 bonds; attachment, commitment, involvement and belief
Attachment to pr social institutions
Commitment to social relationships
Involvement in pro social activities and curving deviant social activities
Beliefs
Significant because centres age particularly youth
Labelling Theory (Lemert, Becker)
-Symbolic interactionism, interpretive perspective
Interactive and constructive
Labels are given, labels stick and internalize
Recidivism
-’Primary’ and ‘Secondary Deviance’
Primary; reprimanded for devaint act, deviance is committed again until you are stigmatized and labelled
Secondary; individual resents label and begins to identify with label
Conflict Theory
Hierarchical power structures in society
Societies organizational structure
-Inequality & conflict as a root of crime
-Dominant groups: define & weaponize the law
-Oppressed groups: law weaponized against them;
crime as resistance
Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA);
Canada’s first juvenile delinquency legislation enacted in 1908 and in force until 1984.
individual provinces could set their own maximum age of jurisdiction of the JDA at anywhere between 15 and 17 years old, while different age cate- gories could also be selected for males and females. This was the case in Alberta, where the maximum age of jurisdiction was 15 for boys and 17 for girls (Hackler 1978). In addition, although all Western countries eventually established separate criminal court processes and institutions for dealing with juvenile offenders, the specific nature and timing of these developments varied considerably and, in some jurisdictions, occurred only quite gradually over the course of the first half of the twentieth century
Indigenous Youth Crime In Canada
Not about the crime itself, however the harm between relationships
Crimes are influenced by relationships between famalies, individuals and communities that intersect with broader social institutions ie. Education.
Strain, anomie, normlessness theory
Feeling of being lost (from a loss of values)
Understanding the Complexities of Indigenous Youth Crime
Two main features:
Shared experience of Indigneous people
Historical, cultural, social and economic defined by their relations with settlers
Relations marked by racism, broken treaties, assimilation attempts and domination
Intergenerational trauma
Repercussions felt in daily lived experiences of Indigenous youth
Poverty, unemployment, no education, family violence, substance abuse, poor health, overrep in CJS, racism and discrimination
Understanding the causes of crime
Identity/self esteem and risk protective factors
Part of the attraction to gangs is a sense of belonging, protection and identity they promise to provide their members.
Identity = adults internalized to make sense of their life and youth are expected to develop a core identity that is stable and suitable while living within society.
Indigenous youth inherit the legacy of residential schools, intergenerational trauma and colonialization.
Indigneous youth take responsibility for their liveds in a context that sets them up for failure.
Risk factors of crime
-Young people who are at a trajectory toward a myraid of problems that threaten their present and future adjustment
-Non-liberal ideologies turn social structural issues like Poverty, disadvantage, oppression into individual issues
This placed pressure on indigenous youth to deal with be responsible for their lives that sets them up for failure.
At risk = defecit
Yessine and Bonta risk factors of crime for indigenous youth
High-offending indigenous youth shared common backgrounds , unstable family environment, substance use, and negative peer association
One main risk faced by Indigeous people is trauma
Trauma of Indigenous youth = common experience
Produces symptoms = high rates of risk among indigenous youth
Risk protective factors
Elements in a young persons life that offer insulation against negative influences
A healthy family situation
Positive role model
Pro-social friends
Positive activities
Positive educational experiences
Many youth that are Indigenous risk factors outweigh the protective factors
Biological/genetic influences of crime
Behavioural problems, mood disorders are genetic and relate to criminal behavior
Intellectual functioning, personality characteristics (negativity), temperal factors (impulsivity) are genetic
Behavioural precursors to delinquency
ADHD
Biological and environment go hand in hand
Influence of fetal alch disorder
Higher risk of criminalization
Exposure prenatal to alchohol affects the fetus genetics, matneral characteristics, nutrition,
Cognitive, physical, social functioning implications
Psychological influences of crime
how people perceive themselves
Classification
Distinguish one type of offender, and shows crime is located more in one group than another
Classifications are based on stereotypical deciptions of who is and who is not a criminal