The Legacy of the Chicago School of Criminology - Essay Example

The Legacy of the Chicago School of Criminology Introduction To appreciate the importance of the benefits and legacy of the Chicago School of criminology, this writer opted to discuss briefly some of the theories that ruled criminology before Chicago School came into place. Criminology involves inter-disciplinary fields which include scholars and practitioners from behavioral and social sciences, and even natural sciences (Jensen, 2003). The study of criminology used to be a part of sociology programmes but when different schools of criminology and academic departments focused specifically on crime and justice emerged in the last half of the 20th Century emerged, criminology became an individual professional field (Jensen, 2003). Criminology before Chicago School Before the dominant theories in Criminology emerged, the leading theories were classical criminology and positivist theories of crime. The emergence of classical school of criminology can be traced in the early 18th century lead by philosopher Jeremy Bentham who focused on criminal justice and penology. He opined that crime results from a product of human nature and since humans posses free will, they have therefore the ability to control their own actions (Carrabine, Iganski, Lee, Plummer, and South, 2004). Bentham suggested that a criminal justice system is more reasonable as compared to the classic barbaric system of capital punishment. According to him, there should be more focus on the enforcement of the law and the legal processes instead on the different causes of crime (Bentham, 1789). For Beccaria (1764), in his famous book On Crimes and Punishments , crimes do not exist by reason of bad individuals but from bad laws. He suggested new perspective based on justice. This became major foundation of the modern criminal justice system. As asserted by the early positivist theorists, free will is out of the question in studying crime. These theorists used empirical research methods by which they theorized that the causes of crimes are biological, psychological and environmental factors (Carrabine et al, 2004). This is different from the classical approach which has its sight on legal issues and crime prevention. According to the positivist criminologists, as shared by Cesare Lombroso, the causes and effects of criminal behavior can be directly observed. Lombroso opposed that crimes are due to human free will as criminal behavior can be inherited; that there are people who are “criminal type” of persons; that criminals are physiologically different if compared to the non-criminals; that these criminals have observable physical manifestations and malformation. This theory was derived by Lombroso through the researches he conducted on criminals (Macionis and Plummer, 2005). The Emergence and Development of the Chicago School of Criminology There came the popular “Chicago School” of criminology which gave more humanly explanation to the causes of crimes, its propensity, and etc. It was so called as such because the location of the study mainly occurred and linked to the University of Chicago (Cullen and Agnew, 2006). To further appreciate the said concept, the writer also opted to discuss the different theories that make up the said popular school of thought. The popular Chicago School of criminology got its earliest influence from the work of Durkhiem. The early works of the Chicago school of criminology were partly influenced by the positivist tradition by the belief that crime is determined by social factors and not by free will. Durkheim delved on social positivism focusing on macro sociological issues. He viewed society as a whole as he supposed that there were laws that could govern and regulate the behavior of the people. Further, Durkhiem believed that to a certain extent, it is necessary for the society to be health to have some crimes and deviance from the people (Durkheim, 1895). For him, too much incidents of crime and deviance could threaten the stability of society but likewise not that good if there is too little incidents of crime since it could develop apathy and limited chance for change and innovation. Deviance may have a positive side on the society manifestations of criminal behavior can reinforce the society in its belief in shared norms and values and can develop people’s awareness to the morality of the society. The belief of Durkheim is that like an organic organism, a society is consisting of interdependent parts that need to work as a group so that the whole body would work successfully. For example, different institutions like family, education and religion need to work together and contribute accordingly for the society’s welfare (Macionis and Plummer, 2005). Also, he believed that people are influenced by a variety of elements and have different values from each other. The differences is a big factor for causing deviant behaviors (Durkheim, 1895). After the Second World War, the works of Ernest Simmel became popular to some Chicago school theorists. Simmel’s ideas are crucial in comprehending the original ideas from where symbolic intersectionism surfaced. Unlike other theorists, Simmel perceived society in its micro sociological aspect. Unlike Durkheim, for him, individuals are not directly observable primarily due to their subjective nature. He viewed individuals as self-interested and use the available means to them to satisfy their needs. And these actions taken by people shape the social world or in other words, the interactions between and among the people shape the society that is why it is indeed necessary to look into and study the patterns and forms of the society rather than looking after the laws or statutes (Farganis, 1993). Simmel’s view is a deviation from the earlier concept of positivist theories as it based its beliefs that individuals have free will from which every action hinged upon. During the 1920s and 1930s, Robert Park, a human ecologist, became a notable personality in the University of Chicago. His works are best influenced by those of Emile Durkheim and his organic analogy of the society. For Park, society is a super organism and social changes were natural developments that are necessary for the society to grow and develop itself (Park and Burgess, 1921). Robert Park led the way for the development of a new research method known as ethnography. This new development in research contributed highly to the manner of how sociologists and criminologists studied the society. Through his method, he encouraged his followers and students to go into the city and gather relevant and useful information by using observational methods (Macionis and Plummer, 2005). Ernest Burgress worked with Park in conducting an ecological study on the city of Chicago using a combination of ethnographic methods and ecology. Consequently, they were able to develop a diagrammatical representation of the said city which they called the concentric zone model which became the first model to show how urban land was utilized. This model demonstrated the location of different social groups within the Chicago (Macionis and Plummer, 2005). The model exposed that there was indeed a correlation between the distance of the people from the central business zone and the particular class from which they belong. For example, richer people tend to live far away from the central business district and the poorer people tend to live near the zone of transition. Thus, they opined that the areas near the center are affected greater by the social changes like poverty and immigration (Macionis and Plummer, 2005). This finding had a great impact on the criminology because it shows the relationship between class, crime and social ecology. The theory shows the effect of social changes in crimes. Again, this was a deviation to the positivist view mainly by Lombroso wherein he viewed, among others, that crime is highly affected by biological factors. For the said new developed theory and model, crime is more of a result of external factors. Consequently, the Chicago school of thought was more developed by the contributions made by Clifford Shaw and Henry Mckay from whom the Modern American criminology is attributed to have originated (Cullen and Agnew, 2006). They tried to look at the area that was overlooked by the previous theorists Park and Burgress: how social forces influence crime. Shaw and McKay looked therefore into social disorganization and averred that crime is a social disorder which is formed by social disorganization (Lotz, 2005). In their study, they utilized the concentric zone model of Park and Burgess in examining the crime rates and delinquency in the different areas of the city of Chicago (Shaw & McKay, 1942). They utilized juvenile court records in mapping the distribution of delinquency in Chicago before 1940’s (Cullen and Agnew, 2006). In their study, they discovered that the areas near the center of the city that were going through high disorganization rates have also high rates of delinquency. For them, they averred that the delinquency rates for these groups were higher due to the totality of the situation that they are experiencing in the place where they live (Shaw & McKay, 1942) and rejected the previous idea of the “compositional effect” which means that the high rate of crimes in these inner-city communities can be attributed to the individual traits of the people who chose to live in these areas. They instead pushed for the better concept of “contextual effect” which means the crimes were result of the characteristics of the community (Cullen and Agnew, 2006). For them, social changes like industrialization, urbanization and immigration contribute to the social social disorganization. Thus, the areas that are disorganized will likely develop criminal and deviant values instead of the ideal conventional values (Shaw & McKay, 1942). The crash of informal social control in the neighborhoods is connected to the propensity of crime occurences. They explained that when the control weakens, the cultural values that supports the toleration of delinquency are conveyed from one generation to the next one. A good example of this is the culture of the proliferation of gangs (or gangsters). In short, crime can be considered as a sociological phenomenon. This is a step higher than other preceding Chicago school of thought in criminology as it looked then at the social aspects the cause crime. Their theory tried to explain the reason of the increased rates of delinquency in different areas and within particular groups. The belief that the characteristics of the communities are indicative of crime occurences rathen than the residents therefrom dominated the American criminology for the rest of the 20th century (Cullen and Agnew, 2006). Then in 1939, another theory that still considered as a contributor to the Chicago theory surfaced which is commonly called as “differential association” as popularized by Edwin Sutherland. His study, which was highly influenced by the works of Simmel, sought to comprehend the process of learning deviant behavior which their predecessors Shaw and McKay were not able to touch upon. This theory looks at the transmission of the cultures. In other words, criminal behavior is developed through human interactions and the learned behavior is the source of the criminal and deviant values, motives and attitudes. He developed this theory by looking thoroughly at the values of the individuals and their cultural perspectives. Through this, according to him, the reasons and causes underlying criminal and deviant behavior can be discovered (Cote, 2002). This made an impact in the study of criminology as a belief was developed that there in indeed a correlation between the causes of crimes and deviant and criminal norms learned. This intersectional perspective was again a further deviation from the positivist theories as this theory suggests that criminal behavior is learned through interactions. Through interactions, communications and collection of shared values and attitudes, the behavior is transmitted by the people from one group to another (Lotz, 2005). However, there is still an aspect missing in this study. It did not explain a simple fact that not all individuals who are in contact with criminal or deviant norms become criminals or delinquents. According to Robert Merton’s strain theory, the theory of Sutherland did not consider the pressure the society brings forth to the persons to obtain their goals (Cote, 2002). Merton derived his strain theory from the “anomie” theory of Emile Durkheim. He perceived the impact of the society on the individuals. For him, there are differences that bring inequality in terms of the means by which people’s ability to reach their goals are determined. When a person cannot have access to the means that can effectively lead to his desired goals, a criminal and deviant behavior can be developed. This can be best explained through looking at the five elements, such as: (1) acceptance that there are means to achieve the goals; (2) people resorts to innovation when they cannot access the means and still wishes to reach their goals, which may result to development of criminal behavior; (3) ritualism does not mean that an individual gives up in achieving his goals but just accepts that he cannot possibly achieve them; (4) retreat may occur when people want to withdraw themselves from their society and are no longer keen on getting them means to reach their goals; and (5) rebellion may occur when people already reject the means and goals but refuse to withdraw from their society and opt to just change the society instead by becoming an active force for desired change (Lotz, 2005). The understanding towards crime and criminology had widened as there is now an understanding that there is a need to look at the aspect of the “pressure” that the society puts on to its members so that they will be able to access the means necessary to obtain their goals. For Merton, he referred this as the anomie, a term similar to that of Durkheim. Through this theory, Merton explained the reason why people who belong to the poor class are more likely to commit crime. He simply points to the fact that the poor people are forced to resort to deviance or violence as their means to reach their ends (Cote, 2002). This theory however, did not give an answer to the issue that rich people, despite having the means to reach their goals, commit crime (Lotz, 2005). Aside from the mentioned theorists that contributed to the Chicago school of thought, we have Sampson and Wilson and Raudenbush and Earls. According to these theorists, crimes are caused by disorganized communities due to informal social controls and break down and the emergence of criminal cultures. Hence, they do not have the necessary means to collectively fight crime and disorder. Analysis and Conclusion The most important legacy of the Chicago School of Criminology in criminology particularly in the United States is that it offers explanations regarding criminal behavior based on sociology rather than using biological explanations (Cooper, 2008). Because of this, issues regarding race and ethnicity can be taken out of the picture in trying to explain the causes of crimes. Thus, discrimination and personal differences can be precluded in solving the problems of crimes and violence. This is because there is already a shift of paradigm from the previous idea that crime was a result of individual biological, genetic or physiological factors. Now, the idea is that crime is rooted from different social and cultural elements or factors. These are referred to as external factors that influence crime incidents. By this school of thought, it is now understood that the external social factors are the underlying force behind criminal behavior. Thus, when there is a break down in terms of social control within the society, disorganization is most likely the end result which eventually could influence of the individuals in resorting to criminal behaviors. Aside from this, the said school of thought tried to point out that the pressure that society puts upon individuals affect the propensity of crimes (Strain Theory). This pressure could be understood likewise as the social forces which again put emphasis that crime indeed is a social phenomenon rather than a physiological phenomenon. To understand further the occurrence of a crime, the Chicago school likewise provides that the interactions among the individuals in a given society influence criminal behaviors. The another side of the Chicago school gives us the idea that we can better understand criminal behavior by looking not on the causes of crimes but the objectives of committing crimes. As earlier stated, crimes could be understood as the means to achieve the desired goals of individuals. Lastly, the Chicago school led the way in accepting the importance of using ethnography to enable the researchers to acquire in-depth detailed accounts of different social phenomena. Although different theories give different perspectives, there is one common ground that it primarily contributes: that crimes are not results of physiological/genetic/biological make-up but of sociological phenomena. This is a great help in helping our nation, as this writer believes, in the continued aim to obliterate the adverse effects of racism. Hence, criminology can now be considered as an objective study rather than a subjective one. References Beccaria, C. (1764) On Crimes and Punishments, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bentham, J. (1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. In a Bentham Reader edited by Mary Peter Mack, 1969, New York: Pegasus Books. Carrabine, E, Igansi, P, Lee, M, Plummer, K.and.South, N (2004) Criminology a Social Introduction, 1st edition, Routledge. Cooper, J. (2008) Biological Inroads to Criminology: Assessment of the Status of Biological Correlates among Criminologists over 20 Years, ASC Annual Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri. Cote, S. (2002) Criminological Theories Bridging the Past to the Future, London: Sage. Cullen, F and.Agnew, F. (2006) Criminological Theory: Past to Present Essential Readings, 3rd edition, Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. Durkheim, E. (1895) The Rules of the Sociological Method, Prospect Hills, IL: Waveland Press. Farganis, J. (1993) Readings in Social Theory: The Classic Tradition to Post-Modernism, New York: McGraw Hill. Jensen, G. (2003) Criminology, Historical Development, in Wright, R. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Criminology, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. Lotz, R. (2005) Youth Crime: A modern synthesis in America, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Macionis, J and Plummer, K (2005) Sociology:A Global Introduction, 3rd edition, Edinburgh Gate: Harlow. Park, R.and Burgess, E (1921) Introduction to the Science of Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shaw, CR and.McKay, HD. (1942) Juvenile delinquency in urban areas, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Read More