Comparing the Subculture of Violence with Crime b James Wilson and Human Nature by M. Wolfgang - Literature review Example

Running Head: CRIMONOLOGY BOOK REPORTS Crime and Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime by James Wilson and Hernstein and The Subculture of Violence: Towards an Integrated Theory in Criminology By M. Wolfgang and F. Franco Ferracuti Name Institution Crime and Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime by James Wilson and Hernstein and The Subculture of Violence: Towards an Integrated Theory in Criminology By M. Wolfgang and F. Franco Ferracuti Introduction Wilson and Hernstein’s Crime and Human Nature argue that trying to determine why people commit crimes is not an exact science. Recognizing and explaining the difficulties with offering exact explanations for criminal conduct, Wilson and Hernstein, try to explain why some persons are more predisposed to commit crimes than others. Wolfgang and Ferracuti’s The Subculture of Violence make equally valuable, but different contributions to the study of criminology. In their work, the authors explain the theory of criminology and its purpose in social control and examine various approaches to the study of criminal behavior. Wolfgang and Ferracuti offer explanations for the factors that drive homicide and other forms of violent criminal conduct. Ultimately the authors provide a generalized concept of the subculture of violence. Wilson and Hernstein’s Crime and Human Nature Wilson and Hernstein argue that many of the theories that explain criminal behavior are based on erroneous conclusions (Wilson and Hernstein 41). For example, theorizing that economic difficulties increases the incidents of crime can encourage expectation of increased crime during “economic recessions” but will at the same time direct attention away from the possibility that “prosperity” could increase criminal conduct by loosening “social bonds” (Wilson and Hernstein 41). The fact is, there are number of factors that influence individual behavior and any realistic approach to theories in criminology must take account of the different factors that drive “individual decisions” (Wilson and Hernstein 42). It is against this background that Wilson and Hernstein bring together most of what has been gleaned from the practice of criminal justice and academic discourse such as economics, sociology, psychology and philosophy and apply this information to ascertain the underlying contributing factors to crime. The authors then come to the conclusion that there are three root causes of crime. By looking at the statistics on the young male population, Wilson and Hernstein come to the conclusion that boys with low intelligence and anger problems are predisposed to commit crimes. It therefore follows that if boys fitting that criteria increase among the population, an increase in criminal conduct will follow (Wilson and Hernstein, 104-172). In other words, the increased population of unintelligent, ill-disciplined boys in a community corresponds with an escalation in crime. The second set of factors that contribute to the propensity for criminal behavior is the potential benefits associated with the crime. For instance the opportunities for the crime are weighed against the consequences in the event the offender is discovered. However, the actual penalty may change although perceptions of the penalties may be different. Ultimately however, if the benefits outweigh the detriment, crime is likely to increase. Similarly, if the detriment outweigh the benefits, crime will likely decrease (Wilson and Hernstein 487-507). Thirdly, institutions, society and culture that contribute to human capital investments can influence a reduction in criminal conduct. In this regard, schools, families and churches can influence individual conduct by helping individuals to be more sensitive to the consequences of their conduct, its impact on others and to engage in a feeling of community cooperation. In other words, Wilson and Hernstein’s third factor advances the concept that if the child is raised to engage his or her conscience, the propensity to commit crimes is reduced (Wilson and Hernstein 213-311). Ultimately, Wilson and Hernstein argue that criminologists findings that changes in economic conditions provide the underlying factors that contribute to crime are not supported by some of the evidence. For example in the 1900s, crime increased during both economic recession and economic prosperity. This would obviously correspond with the author’s theory that criminal conduct can be influenced by the cost-benefit scenario which is also tied in with increased opportunities or the loosening of bonds. Cumulatively, Wilson and Hernstein argue that: There is a human nature that develops in intimate settings out of a complex interaction of constitutional and social factors, and that this nature affects how people choose between the consequences of crime and its alternatives (Wilson and Hernstein, 508). In the final analysis, Wilson and Hernstein come to the conclusion that global trends indicate that “young men” are more prone to commit “street crimes” than are “females and older persons” (Wilson and Hernstein, 508). There are a number of reasonable explanations for the greater propensity for young men to commit crimes. To start with “nature and nurture” interact to produce criminals out of boys by making them more impulse driven and more aggressive. Similarly, boys are by nature more aggressive than girls and less inclined to take into account the welfare of others. Females and adults on the other hand, are more likely to be less aggressive and to take the welfare of others into consideration. The fact is, a majority of boys may grow out of these criminal producing traits. However, when familial and societal ties fail to address these factors in a meaningful way, criminal conduct among boys will continue to be on the increase. Ultimately, external factors such as penalties and “reinforcements” can reduce the propensity for crime. However, internal factors such as conscience and concern about the opinions and feelings of others have a far more effective role to play in the reduction of crime. Wofgang and Ferracuti’s The Subculture of Violence Wolfgang and Ferracuti commit a great portion of their book The Subculture of Violence to general criminologist theories on what drives human conduct toward criminal behavior. The authors argue for a more clinical approach to criminology and in the process argue for integration of current discourse with scientific approaches. This is necessary because there is no universal explanation for human behavior and many of the explanations are not available in the current criminology disciplines. It therefore follows that integration among “multi-disciplines” is absolutely necessary (Wolfgang and Ferracuti 1). What is ultimately necessary is an integration of “past and present knowledge and theory” (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 2). By taking this approach scholars and researchers can test theories by reference to what is known. Having taken this approach to criminology, Wolfgang and Ferracuti comes to the conclusion “that there is a subculture of violence” (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 140). This conclusion is made possible by reference to previous research and theories. One theory relied on is Sutherland’s differential association theory. Sutherland’s differential association theory subscribes to the notion that criminal conduct is a learned behavior, picked up from social interactions where values, attitudes, motives and techniques are learned (De Fleur 1-22). Drawing on this theory and others, Wolfgang and Ferracuti explain why some social groups have a greater propensity for committing violent crimes than other groups do. Wolfgang and Ferracuti’s subculture of violence thesis precepts that statistics in homicide are more commonly associated with values and beliefs that takes the position that violence is a necessary or feasible reaction to acrimony (Wolfgang and Feracuti 140-163). In the Subculture of Violence Thesis chapter, Wolfgang and Ferracuti start out by dividing homicide into two categories. First there is “premeditate” and “intentional murder” (Wolfgang and Ferracuti 140). Secondly, there is killing “in the heat of passion” where there is no specific intention to kill although there is an intent to cause harm (Wolfgang and Ferracuti 140). The premeditated murders are particularly problematic because they are typically planned and carried out by first time offenders and are not only rare, but difficult to investigate and prosecute to conclusion. As a result, these types of homicides only account for less than five percent of all homicides (Wolfgang and Ferracuti 141). Wolfgang and Ferracuti explain that premeditated murders are: Planned intentional killings, and individuals who commit them are most likely to be episodic offenders who have never had prior contact with the criminal law. Because they are rare crimes often planned by rationally functioning individual, perhaps they are more likely to remain undetected (Wolfgang and Ferracuti 141). Homicides that are committed in the heat of passion are of paramount concern as these types of violent crimes occur with far greater frequency than other types of homicide. Wolfgang and Ferracuti use a number of theories to explain the propensity for crimes of passion. Explanatory theories are drawn from Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of aggression as well as studies conducted in medicine and biology (to a limited degree), the frustration-aggression theory, the containment theory, practices in child-rearing as well as social learning and conditioning theories (Wolfgang and Ferracuti 140-163). The authors argue that this subculture of violence does not necessarily subscribe to unconditional violence and it is not automatically consistent behavior among all persons within the subculture of violence. Young adults are the primary members of this subculture. Each of the explanatory theories contribute either separately or in combination with other explanatory theories to create a subculture where violence is an accepted response to a variety of scenarios, although violence is only a necessary response in specific scenarios. Sutherland’s differential association theory is utilized at this juncture to explain that violent responses within this subculture is learned by virtue of interpersonal relations and also incorporates a system of differential association, identification and learning of the subculture’s values. Put another way, subculture members who absorb the subculture of violence will respond to certain situations in different ways than those who do not absorb the subculture of violence (Wolfgang and Ferracuti 140-163). In other words, an individual who has fully absorbed the subculture’s values will likely respond to a relatively minor offensive infraction with violence. On the other hand, a person who has not fully absorbed the values of the subculture of violence may be more inclined to ignore a minor offensive infraction. Comparing the Subculture of Violence with Crime and Human Nature Both works took vastly similar approaches to research theories, they were able to come to the conclusion that crime is more prevalent among young people, although Wilson and Hernstein went a step further, identifying males as the primary offenders. Wolfgang and Ferracuti as well as Wilson and Hernstein drew on previous research results and empirical evidence to test their respective theories about what contributes to the propensity for criminal conduct. Wilson and Hernstein argue that the propensity for criminal conduct among boys is primarily attributed to the aggressive personality traits and lack of conscience typically prevalent among boys. Wolfgang and Ferracuti argue however, that the propensity for violent crimes among young adults is a result of learned behavior and conditioning. While these theories differ in that the criminal conduct is learned in one theory and is a natural personality train in the other theory, they are essentially the same in one respect. Wilson and Hernstein do argue that although boys are predisposed to commit crimes, this predisposition can be perpetuated by virtue of institutional and societal influences so that the criminal conduct carries over into adulthood. In both books the authors have made valuable contributions to criminology in that they both draw on existing literature and empirical research to support their respective theories of what drives some people to commit crimes to a greater degree than others. In other words, neither book attempted to explain why people commit crimes, but rather why some people commit crimes at a greater rate than others do. Works Cited De Fleur, M. and Quinney, R. (1966) “A Reformulation of Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory and a Strategy for Empirical Verification.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 3(1): 1-22. Wilson, J. and Hernstein, R. (1998) Crime & Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime. New York: Simon and Schuster. Wolfgang, M. and Ferracuti, F. (2001) The Subculture of Violence: Towards an Integrated Theory in Criminology. Routledge. Read More