Social Inequality and Crimes of Elites - Coursework Example

 Social Inequality and Crime Some groups of the society are regarded as prone to crime. Social inequality is believed to greatly contribute to crime rate. However, it is not clear in full measure how exactly social inequality correlates with crime, and what other determinants of criminal inclinations can be traced. Thus the objectives of this paper are: 1) to investigate the theoretical literature on the criminal predisposition; 2) to reveal the relationships between social inequality and crime; 3) to trace major factors determining the possibility of crime; 4) to see whether the notion of crime-prone groups is relevant. Social inequality should obviously contribute to the crime ranking. However, it is important to understand in what way it affects the society and groups. Some Theoretical Background: What are the Determinants of Criminal Inclinations? There exist two major approaches to the reasons making people commit a crime. Both of them are based on the concept of human nature. We all are supposed to be born with ‘inherent potentials and abilities’ that ‘interact with environmental influences to produce behaviour, some of which is considered criminal’ (Wiebe 2004). Why do some people violate the norms and laws of the society? What is more responsible for the anti-social behaviour – external, objective circumstances or our in-born inclinations? The XIX-XX centuries are notable for paying extreme attention to environment as the major shaper of an individual’s behaviour, sometimes even ignoring predispositions. These views must have spread due to socialists’ ideology. Radical environmentalism treats human nature as one consisting of "vague and consequently plastic predispositions" that constitute "the indeterminate material that the social factor melds and forms" (Durkheim, 1895/1962, pp. 105-106, In Wiebe 2004). Another radical wing of scientists keeps to the theories based on classical view of human nature, concepts developed by Hobbes and his contemporaries. The human is seen as a creature seeking ‘immediate gratification of selfish desires’ ready to ‘commit crimes in pursuit of this gratification’, which occurs ‘at the expense of the legitimate rights of others, undermining group interests’. In order to defend its interests the group may either teach its members self-control or simply limit opportunities to satisfy impulses (In Wiebe 2004). Besides, these two theories, there exist a variety of others. Strain theory teaches that people commit crime when they are blocked from their legitimate opportunities to attain the desirable goals, which are determined by the dominant culture. According to cultural deviance theory humans commit crime in order to get approval of their group. However, these theories are also one-sided. The modern behavioural science combines the two radical approaches, as well as includes the variety of possible regularities and exceptions. The ability to commit a crime is conditioned by both inner traits and external influences and opportunities. A universal theory of human behaviour would include knowledge and findings in all the areas of human knowledge. Modern behavioural sciences concern an emotional system and cognitive biases providing bases for the prosocial and self-directed behaviors. Dedicating his article to the expanded model of human nature, Richard Wiebe (2004) demonstrates that self-control, preventing individuals from crime, is ‘factorially-complex, containing self-regulation, prosociality (tendencies to form social bonds and engage in social reciprocity), and self-direction (tendencies to work on one's own long-term behalf without external sanctions)’. Opportunities must be created for an individual’s prosocial and self-directed behaviour. Social disorganization theory postulates that structural variables, such as poverty, ethnic heterogeneity and geographic mobility, influence the crime rate, while they reduce the level of informal social control or collective efficacy in a neighborhood. One of the recent studies in New South Wales (Australia) demonstrated that more cohesive and integrated community structures had less crime, and that such a structure is usually characteristic with small towns (Jobes, Barclay, Weinand and Donnermeyer 2006). An aggregate-level study of Australian criminologists have shown that the mentioned structural variables contribute to juvenile participation in offending due to the disruption of the parenting process and thus raise in the level of child neglect (Weatherburn and Lind 2006). This can be also proved by the fact that most of young people in the transition period seek ‘supportive relationship with a nonjudgmental adult who is able to help them negotiate their way through difficult circumstances’ (France and Ross 2006). Police, social workers and criminologists consider a wide range of risk factors contributing to juvenile offending. These include: ‘individual personality and intelligence, parental supervision, parental conflict and separation, school, peer and community influences and socioeconomic status’ (In MacDonalds 2006). A big number of researches have been devoted to the evaluation of the effect these factors exert on the youth. Many of the studies were carried out in the poorest districts, thus providing rich material in witness of ill-impact of social inequality. On the other hand, the same studies demonstrated that the majority of individuals, sharing the same social exclusion factors, did not pursue drug-using or criminal careers. A recent study of youth in Teesside, one of Britain's poorest neighbourhoods, based on ‘a qualitative, biographical and long-term perspective’ tried to identify the most essential background factors causing 'delinquent' transitions and separating it from more 'conventional' ones. And, in fact, failed to do it (In MacDonalds 2006). As we can see theories varies, numerous risk factors are named and yet it stays unclear in full measure, what makes people commit a crime and to what extent the social inequality contributes to one’s criminal inclinations. Yet, it is possible to trace one factor obviously diminishing the rate of crime. It is social control, a set of limitations on individuals. It does not permit the violation of social norms, harming the group’ interests for the sake of one’s immediate impulses. Practical Approach: Groups Prone to Crime, Criminals and Social Inequality Now we are going to concentrate on the communities, groups of criminals or those traditionally viewed as prone to crime. The broad research of the Australian Institute of Criminology on the role that economic change, size and location play in shaping local crime rates has shown that local crime rate: 1) is affected in different ways by structural change; 2) does not always depend on the size of the community; 3) can be more effected by economic changes in small towns located near urban centres, than in isolated localities; 4) declines with the improvements in residential stability, education and income equality (yet it concerns not all the localities), 5) is different in different communities (Carcach, 2001). The major concern of the public and media for many decades has been turned to the ethnic groups’ participation in crime. Immigrants and aboriginal communities were treated as basically prone to crime. It is rather logical taking into account psychological, economic and social issues these groups face. However, the results of the research undertaken in 1950s by the Committee on Conduct of Migrants showed that notwithstanding all the hard living conditions, the incidence of immigrants’ participation in serious crimes was much lower than in general population. On the other hand, the second and third generations of immigrants participated in the crimes typical with the general population. This can be explained by the fact that initially immigrants’ communities keep to strong traditions not allowing their members to violate the social norms. However, assimilating with the general population and, which is more important, loosing their cultural bonds, these groups reveal the same rates of crime as the general population does (Mukherjee 1999). Analogical processes took place all over the world, where aboriginal lands were occupied by Europeans. Moffit (2004) demonstrates how colonization caused the loss of cultural identity, sedentary lifestyle, substance abuse, gambling, and family violence among the Aboriginal population of the Northwestern Territories of Canada. The author fairly underlines that colonization has become the reason of stigmatization and marginalization of Indians. As a result of severe social inequality Indians have lost their cultural identity without acquiring the equity with the white part of population. The evidences provided in the article show the fate of all the aboriginal people in the countries, where Europeans brought their culture and beliefs. Mitchell B. Chamlin and John K. Cochran (2005) in their article on economic inequality and the increased rates of homicide, also argued that ‘homicide rates increase, when economic inequality leads to a decline in the moral authority of conventional society, thus reducing society’s capacity to develop informal social controls and achieve compliance with formal social controls’. Focusing on the criminals, let us see to what extent does their choice of career was influenced by social or economic inequality. Armed robbers, raised to the status of heroes by Hollywood, can be divided into amateur and professional ones. The motivations for those committing armed robbery for the first time may be: money for drugs (30% in Australia), money for food and shelter (18%), money to pay debts (6%), unemployed (4%), it’s what offender did for a living (5%), aggression (2%). Those who need money for getting out of scrutiny and to earn their living make almost one third of the robbers. It means that this type of crime is often a radical measure for those in despair. However, there are still 35% of those, who rob professionally. The major differences between the groups are that professional robbers have much higher rewards and they meticulously plan the entire operation. Katie Willis informs us that, ‘In one Australian study the amount stolen by professional armed robbers ranged from a minimum of about $700 to as much as $20,000 in one incident. In contrast, the maximum amount netted in opportunistic and amateur armed robberies was about $1,500”. The same differences in takings have been observed in other countries (Willis 2006). The study of carjackers in Africa also revealed interesting results. This type of crime has become widely spread in the country. Car-jackers here usually work in groups of three persons. The research has been carried out in order to learn about their ‘professional’ preferences and fears of car-jacker. We got interested in race of the victims, while race is usually the determinant of social status. The results were: ‘Seven of 12 respondents considered race as an important factor during target selection. Only one of these respondents mentioned that he would prefer to hijack black motorists, while they were not armed to the degree that white persons were. The other six respondents preferred white persons, operating with reasons such as "Black people suffer like us", "Black people don't have money", "The black man is like me" and "Whites are richer than blacks" were given in this regard’ (Davis 2003). The findings correlate with earlier studies, positing that black robbers are really more inclined to target a white person, while robbery is an economic crime and the white are usually viewed as financially more secure. Besides, Fattah (1976) demonstrated that car-jackers usually denied their responsibility of the robbery of the white presenting themselves as victims of social injustice and the robbery as an act of revenge. The last five respondents informed that ‘race did not influence their selection of targets’, and ‘emphasised that race was not important and that the vehicle was all that mattered’. "Money does not have brothers", honestly summarized his feelings one of them (Davis 2003). This group was the most frank one. Comparative analysis of the preferences on vehicles and motorists evidently showed that a vehicle brand, model and value were the most important determinants for the action, while the personality of the motorist was viewed only in the aspect of safe completion of the operation. These evidences also show that social inequality plays role only to a certain extent, while many individuals turn to crime as the way to earn money. Yet, it becomes ever clearer that social control and morality are the two major limitations on individuals prone to crime. Social Inequality and Crimes of Elites By now we spoke of social inequality in terms of low income and social status trying to see to what extent poverty and social exclusion may contribute to one’s disposition to crime. Yet, crimes are committed not only by the poor. Every day we hear of cases of law violation by the representatives of richer classes: drugs and violence, murders and sex assaults are the crimes we’ve got almost accustomed to hear about from our TV screens. Besides, we speak much of misuse of power, corruption, frauds, white-collar crime and corporate crime, bribery, which are crimes of economic and political elites. Crimes are committed by all the classes, simply upper classes commit crimes of (let us say) higher rank. Those crimes are often more sophisticated and the stakes are higher. Often the common public is not even able to understand corpus delicti. Crime of the elites is the case when social inequality plays a determinant role. Dr Susanne Karstedt (1997) suggests that there are several casual paths relating social inequality and crime of elites with the lower social classes: 1) ‘inequality causes high or increasing rates within both social groups, but independently from each other; 2) the criminality of elites influences that of the middle- and lower classes; and 3) inequality might have an impact on crimes of the elites, and under these conditions cause the spread of specific types of crimes in the lower classes’. The inequality can be presented by differences in wealth, income, general conditions of living, power, which is usually interconnected. The inequality is higher in non-egalitarian societies, characterized by low mobility between social classes, little social control of elites by the lower classes, elite-guided style of policy and such types of elites as inheritance and traditional ones. Comparative analysis of the rate of corruption and social inequality in 35 countries revealed that countries with the highest inequality ranking are also among those with the highest rate of corruption. The results may be explained by such factors as distance between elites and other groups, networks between different elite groups, as well as a minimum of institutional control, little interference from the below, and a lack of well informed public opinion, or media control. At the moment Australia is among 10 countries ranked lowest in corruption. However, the situation may change (Karstedt 1997). The criminality of elites exerts a profound effect on the criminality in the country. Elites frame public opinion; wrong elites form twisted public opinion. Being a standard of behavior for the lower classes a corrupted elite damages basic systems of belief and undermines essential value of the society. Exerting influence on the justice system, such elites undermine the reputation of state institutions and public trust in them. In order to achieve their aims, representatives of elites often use pressure on lower ranks and behave illegally. These actions create the atmosphere of wrongdoing and permissiveness of the high and mighty, showing that if you have power you can do whatever you like. The consequences for the society and state (including economic, environmental and international aspects) are grave, if not fatal. The whole system has to regenerate for a long time (Karstedt 1997). Conclusion: It is difficult to speak of any crime prone groups. Yet, the marginal groups of the society with high social inequality are characterized by high participation in crime. Factors contributing to one’s ability to commit crime are very complex and diverse, and include both personal characteristics and external influences and opportunities. Crimes are committed by all the classes of society, with increased rate in marginal classes (the poor and elites). Social inequality greatly contributes to the crime ranking, due to the decline in moral authority of the conventional society over individuals and thus loss of restricting control over their principles and actions, no matter to what social class or group they belong. References: 1. Carcah, Carlos (2001), “Economic transformation and regional crime,” Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, n.209, (May 2001), 25 Aug. 2007 < http://www.aic.gov.au> 2. Chamlin, Mitchell B., Cochran, John K. (2005), “Ascribed economic and homicide among modern societies: towards the development of a cross-cultural theory”, Homicide Studies Volume:9 Issue:1 (February 2005). 25 Aug. 2007 3. France, Alan, and Ross Homel (2006), "Societal access routes and developmental pathways: putting social structure and young people's voice into the analysis of pathways into and out of crime, (United Kingdom)(International Symposium on Pathways and Prevention)," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 39.3 (Dec 2006): 295(15). Academic OneFile. Gale. Deakin University. 25 Aug. 2007  . 4. Davis, Linda (2003), "Carjacking--insights from South Africa to a new crime problem," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 36.2 (August 2003): 173(19). Academic OneFile. Gale. Deakin University. 25 Aug. 2007  . 5. Jobes, Patrick C., Elaine Barclay, Herb Weinand, and Joseph F. Donnermeyer (2004), "A structural analysis of social disorganisation and crime in rural communities in Australia," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 37.1 (April 2004): 114(27). Academic OneFile. Gale. Deakin University. 25 Aug. 2007  . 6. Karstedt, Susanne (1997), “Inequality, power and morality”, University of Bielefeld, Germany, Presented at: Australian Institute of Criminology (Aug.12 1997). 25 Aug. 2007 7. MacDonald, Robert (2006), "Social exclusion, youth transitions and criminal careers: five critical reflections on 'risk'.(United Kingdom)," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 39.3 (Dec 2006): 371(13). Academic OneFile. Gale. Deakin University. 25 Aug. 2007  . 8. Moffitt, P.M. (2004), Colonization: A Health Determinant for Pregnant Dogrib Women, Journal of Transcultural Nursing 15(4), 323-330 9. Mukherjee, Satyanshu (1999), “Ethnicity and crime”, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, n.117, (May 1999), 25 Aug. 2007 10. Weatherburn, Don, and Bronwyn Lind (2006), "What mediates the macro-level effects of economic and social stress on crime?(Australia)," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 39.3 (Dec 2006): 384(14). Academic OneFile. Gale. Deakin University. 25 Aug. 2007 . 11. Wiebe, Richard P. (2004), "Expanding the model of human nature underlying self-control theory: implications for the constructs of self-control and opportunity," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 37.1 (April 2004): 65(20). Academic OneFile. Gale. Deakin University. 25 Aug. 2007  . 12. Willis, Katie (2006), “Armed robbery: who commits it and why?” Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, n.328, (Nov. 2006), 25 Aug. 2007 < http://www.aic.gov.au> Read More