Critical Court Decision, Social Crimes and Their Increasing Popularity - Case Study Example

This paper analyzes a critical court decision. The paper starts with a brief of the case and follows it with an analysis. This analysis then ties up with a popular sociological theory. The theory is further explained with the help of an example. The paper ends with a brief description of social crimes and their increasing popularity. 0.0 The Court Case: The case discussed refers to the Ontario Power Generation plant which is known for generating electricity to the neighboring areas. The normal procedure followed allows residents to sunbathe in the neighboring areas when the water levels are low. However, a warning has to be made on the public speaking system to ensure that no people are present when the sluice gates are opened and the water rushes in a torrent. On the afternoon of June 23, 2002, this did not happen when the sluice gates were opened. As a result two people drowned and seven were bodily injured. The case came to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in January 200. The two accused personnel, John Tammage and Robert Bednarek were accused of 'criminal negligence.' The trial was a lengthy one and took 75 days getting over in December 2006. Both the accused, John Tammage who was a part of the management team and an electrical engineer and, Robert Bednarek who worked in the electrical department as an operator, were acquitted of the negligence charges. The court ruled that the defendants did not have any motive and their actions were devoid of any criminal intent. 0.1 Analysis: The judgment ruled in favor of the big company and expectedly did not relieve the common people. This ties in with the differential social organization theory of Sutherland in 1938. The theory states that crime is backed by some organizations. In other words, it claims that crime is inherent in certain big firms. The higher authorities or government choose to ignore it or support it. Either way, crime benefits by garnering more support and voice. This theory can be further explained with reference to the securities industry. The securities industry expects a certain amount of fraud and theft to occur every year. The industry does not react to prevent such petty crimes and thus encourages crime to exist and flourish in society. This crime is organized within the industry. Sutherland adopted the concept of social disorganisation to explain the increases in crime that accompanied the transformation of preliterate and peasant societies where "influences surrounding a person were steady, uniform, harmonious and consistent" to modern Western civilisation which he believed was characterised by inconsistency, conflict and un-organization (1934: 64). He also believed that the mobility, economic competition and an individualistic ideology that accompanied capitalist and industrial development had been responsible for the disintegration of the large family and homogenous neighbourhoods as agents of social control. The failure of extended kin groups expanded the realm of relationships no longer controlled by the community and undermined governmental controls leading to persistent "systematic" crime and delinquency. He also believed that such disorganisation causes and reinforces the cultural traditions and cultural conflicts that support antisocial activity. The systematic quality of the behaviour was a reference to repetitive, patterned or organised offending as opposed to random events. He depicted the law-abiding culture as dominant and more extensive than alternative criminogenic cultural views and capable of overcoming systematic crime if organised for that purpose (1939: 8). But because society is organised around individual and small group interests, society permits crime to persist. Sutherland concluded that "if the society is organised with reference to the values expressed in the law, the crime is eliminated; if it is not organised, crime persists and develops (1939:8). Sutherland bases the theory on a few assumptions: 1. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. 2. That learning takes place primarily in intimate personal groups and includes not only the techniques of committing crime but the motives, rationalizations, and attitudes which accompany crime. 3. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity, and a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. 4. The learning process involves the same mechanisms whether a person is learning criminality or conformity. Thus it isn't a lack of social organization that characterizes communities and neighborhoods high in crime, but a differential social organization--a set of practices and cultural definitions that are at odds with the law. As Sutherland puts it: "In an area where the delinquency rate is high, a boy who is sociable, gregarious, active, and athletic is very likely to come in contact with other boys in the neighborhood, learn delinquent behavior from them, and become a gangster; the psychopathic boy who is isolated, introverted and inert may remain at home, not become acquainted with other boys in the neighborhood, and not become delinquent" (1938: 23) In this sociological context, Sutherland seeks to explain white collar and organized crime. He argues that to understand crime, corruption and the corporate criminal, one needs to understand the values and mores of that person's immediate social circle. "Most communities," says Sutherland, "are organized for both criminal and anticriminal behavior" (1938:31). He claims that in a nutshell crime can be described as network of key social relations that differentiates the deviant and the conformist. In this regard, Sutherland states that one needs to put together and measure variables of frequency, intensity, and duration" of exposure to deviant and nondeviant definitions on a quasi-mathematical basis. He further explains his theory with the help of a concrete example -- the two brothers, Darrin(Doughboy) and Ricky, in Boyz 'n the Hood, pose as an apt example to explain and understand major law-breaking activities the networks and relationships that are propelling one individual toward crime and the other toward conformity. At the time he is gunned down, Ricky is just hours away from learning that his test scores have qualified him for college, while Darrin is clearly destined for life in the "hood." This juncture in the example exposes the relationships that have pointed each brother in a different direction. Ricky's best friend, Trey, is also college-bound; coaches probably play a role, because of Ricky's football skills; and the boys' mother has always related to Ricky in terms of what she believes will be his eventual achievements. On the other hand, Doughboy's friends are the classic dead-end kids, and his mother regards him much more negatively than Ricky. Now, one has to apply this criminology as well as sociological theory to the OPG ruling. One can easily grasp the fundamentals of deviant and conformist behavior. On one hand, Bednarek is showing compliance to corporate procedure and on the other hand he is defying societal norms of repairing the public speaking systems to warn the public. Thus crime is taking place in an organized fashion. 0.2 Organization Strain Theory and Political Economy Theory: These two sociological theories reveal how social class and status bear a direct relation to organized corporate crime. The strain theory claims that crime is a result of lower-class frustration and anger, and that the increased strain of being unable to achieve certain socioeconomic goals creates an increased amount of strain, causing crime (Siegel, 192). In this context, Durkheim described the term anomie as meaning a state where societal and moral norms are confused or absent. He believed that this directly caused deviant behavior. This is most likely to occur in societies undergoing massive organizational restructuring, as it is easy to lose track of morals during times of upheaval and change (Siegel, 192). Robert Merton expanded upon Durkheim's views with his theory of anomie. Merton modified the original definition of anomie to fit within the current socioeconomic conditions of our society. He created four deviant modes of adaptation, in addition to the non-deviant mode of adaptation --conformity, to categorize individuals. (Lilly 65) The first of the four deviant types is innovation, and is shown by those who turn to illegitimate methods when their legal methods of economic gain are blocked. White-collar criminals are an excellent example of this type of deviant. The second type of deviant is the ritualist, who conforms to an institutionalized framework, such as a religious ritual, while ignoring cultural mandates regarding success. (Lilly 66) The third type of deviant is the retreatist, who rejects all of society. These individuals are normally shown as alcoholics, drug addicts, psychotics, or vagrants. The final type of deviant is the rebellious type, who rejects society, but wishes to change it. They propose a new social order, with a different set of goals and methods, instead of the currently accepted method (Lilly 67). An expansion on Merton's theory is the institutional anomie theory, developed by Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld in their work Crime and the American Dream. They define the term American Dream to mean the accumulation of material goods and wealth via competition. This actually explains why organizational crime takes place. All individuals want to achieve a limited set of resources. Thus, in order to fulfill his/ her dream, each individual marks out his/ her own path. This resource limitation leads to the occurrence of white collar crime (Siegel 194). Siegel further states three reasons why modern society is so anomic. The first is that non-economic roles have been given little to no value in modern culture. The second reason is that when conflicts do emerge, the aforementioned non-economic roles become subservient to economic roles. Finally, economic terminology pervades every aspect of our lives, including the previously strictly non-economic, such as household life. This creates an anomic effect on home life, which spills over into the rest of an individual's life (Siegel 195). Research done by Mitchell Chaplin and John Cochrane, strong institutional ties (such as churches and family) help to lower the level of anomie in an area, and in areas where this is the case, there is a significantly lower crime rate. Therefore, one can assume that the condition of being anomic is somehow directly related to the lack of oversight in an individual's life. If he or she is supported and watched over by a strong institution, there is less opportunity for crime (Siegel 195). A similar effect is called relative deprivation, which can affect all neighborhoods, as it relies on the minor differences between individuals, as opposed to massive poverty to flourish. Relative deprivation analyses the propensity for an individual to envy the lot of his neighbor, and grow dissatisfied with his current situation. Obviously, the greater the relative difference, the greater the dissatisfaction, though even minor changes can bring about anomic behavior, anger, and crime (Siegel 196). Thus, Strain Theory shows a marked difference in economic status between high and low crime areas, so much so that it is the primary distinguishing factor. However, the explanation for this is that in the areas of low economic status, they have a much more difficult time achieving their goals, and therefore are forced much earlier to choose one of the deviant methods of behavior (Agnew, 130). In a similar vein, political economy theory enables one to understand the nature of organized crime. Newspapers, prosecutors, and the FBI often make organized crime sound almost like General Motors or IBM-a hierarchical organization with a few kingpins controlling thousands of subordinates. But this is far from the reality. In fact the structure and nature of organizations give rise to criminal activity. The theory states that laws and regulations in fact support criminal activity. Studies by Peter Reuter and Jonathan B. Rubinstein explain this fact. They reveal that Criminal firms seem to be relatively small, and the organization of criminal industries relatively decentralized-precisely the opposite of the pattern described in novels, movies, and the popular press. It may well be that "organized crime" is not so much a corporation as a sort of Chamber of Commerce for the criminal market-a network of individuals and small firms that routinely do business with each other and occasionally cooperate in their mutual interest. Economic analysis can also be used to predict the effectiveness of law enforcement measures. Consider the current "War on Drugs." From an economic standpoint, its objective is to reduce the supply of illegal drugs, thus raising their prices and reducing the amount people wish to consume. One enforcement strategy is to pressure countries such as Colombia to prevent the production of coca, the raw material used to make cocaine. Such a strategy, if successful, would shift coca production to whatever country is next best at producing it; since coca can be grown in many different places, this shift is not likely to result in a very large increase in cost. Published estimates suggest that the cost of producing drugs abroad and transporting them to the United States represents only about 1 percent of their street price. So even if we succeed in doubling the cost of coca-which seems unlikely, given experience with elasticity of supply of other crops-the result would be only about a 1 percent increase in the price of cocaine, and a correspondingly small decrease in the amount consumed. Thus economic analysis suggests that pressuring other countries not to produce drugs is probably not a very effective way of reducing their use. One interesting issue in the economic analysis of crime is the question of what legal rules are economically efficient. Loosely speaking, what rules maximize the total size of the economic pie This is relevant both to broad issues such as whether theft should be illegal and to more detailed questions, such as how to calculate the optimal punishment for a particular crime. Consider the question of laws against theft. At first glance it might seem that, however immoral theft may be, it is not inefficient. Opportunities to make money by stealing, like opportunities to make money in other ways, attract economic resources. If stealing is more profitable than washing dishes or waiting on tables, workers will be attracted out of those activities and into theft. As the number of thieves increases, the returns from theft fall, both because everything easy to steal has already been stolen and because victims defend themselves against the increased level of theft by installing locks, bars, burglar alarms, and guard dogs. In equilibrium, the thief pays, with his time and effort, the price of what he steals. Thus the victim's loss is a net social loss-the thief has no equal gain to balance it. So the existence of theft makes society as a whole poorer, not because money has been transferred from one person to another, but because productive resources have been diverted out of the business of producing and into the business of stealing. Now let us look at the theories in connection with OPG. Bednarek can be described as a deviant sort of personality who refuses to conform to the norm. And thus he can be viewed as having acted out of frustration. In addition, it can also be pointed out that the removal of individuals may indicate less number of individuals to the attainment of limited resources. And the court's verdict fortifies the political economic theory. Rules and regulations are, in reality, nurturing organized crime. Crime can be viewed as being more effective in a hierarchical organization like OPG. Reference Agnew, R. (1992). "Foundation for a General Strain Theory". Criminology 30(1), 47-87 Agnew, Robert; A General Strain Theory of Community Differences in Crime Rates; Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 36 No. 2. Sage Publications, 1999, London Agnew, Robert; Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crime & Delinquency; Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 38 No. 4. Sage Publications, 2001, London Baldwin, J. (1979). Ecological and Areal Studies, in N. Morris & M. Tonry (eds.) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Brantingham, P. & P. (1981). Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills: Sage. Fagan, J. & Reinarman C. (1988) Social Organization and Differential Association: A Research Note from a Longitudinal Study of Violent Juvenile Offenders, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 34, No. 3, 307-327. Sage Publications Lilly, J. Robert; Cullen, Francis T.; Ball, Richard A.; Criminological Theory - Conflict and Consequences; Studies in Crime, Laws, and Justice, Volume 5. Sage Publications, 1989, London Matsueda, R.L. (2006), Differential Social Organization, Collective Action, and Crime, Crime, Law and Social ChangeVolume:46Issue:1-2: pg. 3to33, National Science Foundation, National Science Foundation United States United States Reiss, A. & M. Tonry. (eds.) (1986) Communities and Crime. Chicago: Univ. Press. Siegel, Larry J.; Criminology, 8th Edition. Thomson Learning, 2003, Canada Read More