Gangs in the UK: A Sociological Perspective and Analysis - Case Study Example

Section/# Gangs in the UK: A Sociological Perspective and Analysis Introduction: The desire to join or be a part of something bigger than the individual himself/herself can represent is as old as human nature itself. However, this desire to be a part of something greater does not always point to a positive outcome. Many times, the nature of joining, membership, and/or association can be linked to negative decisions and choices such as those which prompted an individual to join a street gang. In such a way, the reader can understand that the underlying motives which prompted individual to engage in a level of association with street gangs is not fundamentally different than the level of association that would encourage another individual to participate in a benign group. Yet, regardless of the motivation that exists for encouraging individuals to join street gangs, the fact of the matter is that participation and membership in street gangs has noticed a marked increase in the past several years time. Whereas other types of crime have slowly been decreasing, crimes associated with gain participation, membership, initiation rites, and all of the other aspects that go alongside this have statistically increased at an alarming rate. Gang crime also provides an additional headache for law enforcement as well as the justice system due to the fact that locating and prosecuting gang members for crimes committed on behest of the gang is oftentimes difficult if not impossible due to the completely unknown structure of the game that exists as well as the near impossibility of penetrating these criminal organizations to gain valuable intelligence. As such, seeking to understanding causal relationships and criminal theory that ultimately explain such behavior has been a fundamental research goal of criminologists and social scientists of late. Accordingly, the following analysis will review the “strain theory” as it relates to gang membership. Although one might incorrectly assume that organized crime is a type of monolithic entity that has strong commonalities within its different forms, this is an incorrect assumption to make. Although there are two distinct forms of organized crime, the ways in which these two distinct forms operate are quite divergent. On the one hand, there exists what is known as bureaucratic/corporate organized crime; conversely, there also exists what is known as patron-client organized crime. Furthermore, by working to understand the patterns, commonalities and distinct differences between the two, the individual can obtain a much clearer grasp of the ways in which these activities operate as well as understanding their necessary component parts. In such a way, prior to delving into an analysis of the “strain theory” and how this impacts upon the decisions of at risk populations to engage with street gangs, a more fundamental level of understanding with regards to some key differentiations that exist within gangs must first be presented (Botchkovar, & Broidy, 2013). Bureaucratic/Corporate Organized Crime Bureaucratic organized crime exhibits a number of tell-tale marks that help to differentiate it from the more commonly known and recognized patron-client networks of organized crime (Goddard et al., 2000). However, just because bureaucratic organized crime may be less recognizable, it does not mean in any way that it exists to a lesser degree in our society. A few of the most recognizable aspects of bureaucratic organized crime is that it usually maintains a rigid yet complex authority structure, maintains a top-down communication mechanism, meritocratic advancement, extensive documentation to regulate the ways in which the outfit is run and organized, responsibilities oftentimes carried out in a detached and impersonal manner with no regards for the relationship of an individual to the mission of the organization, and extensive division of labor between the organizational classes. The reason that this is a lesser known type of organized crime is not because it exists to a lesser degree than does the patron-client network but primarily due to the fact that the cultural stigma attached to organized crime almost invariably centers around the “crime family” (Brownfield et al., 1997). Due to the fact that television, films, and the music industry has spent the past 50 years advancing the belief that this is the only type of organized crime that currently exists in our society, people have incorrectly assumed that it is the most prevalent and high profile organized crime that exists. This is however not the case as bureaucratic/corporate crime accounts for a much higher annual percentage of organized crime than the better known variant of patron-client organized crime. Patron-Client Organized Crime Likewise, the more culturally recognizable patron-client networks of organized crime operate in a much more fluid and indeterminate/non-predictable manner as compared to that of the aforementioned bureaucratic/corporate organized crime groups. In a way, one can understand that the patron-client networks can almost be understood as type of business operation in which contracting parties often come and go as the work ebbs and flows (Vilalta & Martinez, 2012). Whereas a given entity may be involved in a particular part of the process of organized crime in one month, a different entity entirely might be involved the next. This combined with the non-regimented way that these groups operate and the fact that a strict set of rules and/or paper trail oftentimes does not exist only serves to add to the overall level of complexity that authorities face when dealing with such groups. Like the bureaucratic organizations discussed at some length earlier in this analysis, the patron-client networks have a modus operandi which helps to distinguish and set them apart from other forms of organized crime. Perhaps the first and most easily recognizable of these is the fact that a hierarchy of family, social, or cultural traditions is oftentimes what defines and helps to congeal the group as compared to whatever competition it may face. Further, this familial, cultural, or social locus of power helps to keep the group in oftentimes a very tight-knit formation; perceivably impenetrable to outsiders/law enforcement. Additionally, due to these social, familial, and cultural attributes, the group may oftentimes engage in rivalries and territorial disputes that do not necessarily equate to an overall increase in the profit margin of the group. In other words, the group may engage in activity that does not serve to benefit the bottom line in lieu of settling scores and preserving attributes of familial/cultural loyalty that might exist. Furthermore, strong and entrenched belief systems may pervade such organizations. Such belief systems may be concentric on religion, family values, cultural expectations, gender roles, or a host of other factors. Strain Theory: From within the nomenclature which is already been provided, the reader can and should integrate with an understanding that organized crime and gangs pose a clear and legitimate threat. Moreover, although the above nomenclature is helpful in determining the means by which the organization operates and spreads responsibility amongst its compounded parts, it does little if anything to help the reader to understand how a particular theory of criminology or sociology can be extrapolated as a means of understanding and reducing the incidence of gang violence. As such, it is the understanding of this author that regardless of the level of complexity or organizational prowess that a gang might work to represent, it is the strain theory that most appropriately defines how individuals are attracted to and ultimately vulnerable to gang activities. In such a way, strain theory ultimately posits that social structures help to pressure individuals to commit crime. This naturally harkens back to the age old nurture versus nature debate; with nurture being the more powerful argument that strain theory utilizes. As such, difficulties in integrating with family life, school life, or the remainder of society can necessarily shun the individual from what they see as their chances of a sense of normality. Realizing that community for them within social interactions are inherently limited, these individuals oftentimes turn to gangs as a means of fulfilling their need to integration and an inherent sense of belonging (Merianos, 2002). Naturally, gangs are more than willing to provide at least a surface level of these basic emotional and human needs as a means of swelling their ranks and gaining a level of influence as a result. However, the most prominent issue that can be discussed with reference to this is not how gangs seek to leverage strain theory as a means of strengthening their positions; rather, the most relevant level of analysis has to do with how concerned stakeholders within society, the include law enforcement and criminologists/sociologists, can utilize this knowledge to decrease the overall number of individuals that are ultimately attracted to gangs and vulnerable to joining. Firstly, it must be noted that society has made great strides in seeking to limit the way in which “the other” is discriminated against and bullied (Zavala & Spohn, 2013). However, this preliminary level of success with regards to increased civil rights, a new level of awareness and sensitivity to racism and class warfare does not safeguard the individual from being tempted to join a gang. Rather, one part of this process of understanding has been integrated (Klemp-North, 2007). One does not need to look very far in order to realize the profound impacts that school bullying has upon the growth and development of the child. As such, the combined weight of sociologists, government specialists, and new programs to reduce and punish such activity has only experienced a limited level of overall success. This represents but one way in which strain theory continues to define the way in which individuals define themselves and either integrate with or shun society at large. Accordingly, the need to continue to advance strain theory as a means of not only protecting the individual rights and interests of individuals within society, but also as a means of reducing the prevalence of gang violence, is a necessary step to a safer and less violent future (Rosenthal, 2000). Conclusion/Recommendations: From the understanding of gangs which is herein been presented, it is the hope of this student that the individual reader come to agree to appreciation for the impact upon crime and society that these groups can engender. Although it is true that violent crime within the developed world has been in a steep decline for the better part of the past 15 years, the fact of the matter is that gang crime continues to be an increasing threat to the peace and calm that many otherwise quiet regions around the world might experience. As a means of engaging with this unique reality, it is the responsibility of law enforcement, on both the local, state, and federal level, to gain a further level of understanding and intelligence with regards to the key operational tactics and means by which these gangs engage with crime. Only through such an understanding is it possible for such stakeholders to seek to provide any actionable change to the current situation as it has been related and exhibited within this analysis. However, the deeper realization that must be had is that although strain theory goes a long way in helping to define and understand why gang activity has reached such a systemic level over the past several decades, it is not the only effective sociological and/or criminological attribute that can be measured as having a definitive impact. Rather than stating that strain theory itself is the sole contributor to gang activity within the current model, a far better interpretation of the information that has thus far been provided would be merely to state that strain theory is one of the main motivators that can readily be measured with regards to promoting the desire and causation for much of the gang membership that has recently been witnessed. As such, striking at the core of this desire to be a part of alternative society when mainstream society has seemingly shunned the individual can and should be the new focus and metric whereby subsequent anti-gang measures are determined. Although it might be impossible to completely reduce the feelings of ostracization that many individuals feel, targeting the most prolific factors that contribute to this are well within the reach of current outreach and education programs and can be implemented effectively and readily within the system as a whole. References Botchkovar, E, & Broidy, L 2013, Accumulated Strain, Negative Emotions,and Crime: A Test of General Strain Theory in Russia, Crime & Delinquency, 59, 6, pp. 837-860, Criminal Justice Abstracts, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 August 2013. Brownfield, D, Thompson, K, & Sorenson, A 1997, Correlates of gang membership: A test of strain, social learning, and social control theories, Journal Of Gang Research, 4, 4, pp. 11-22, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 August 2013. Goddard, H, Goff, B, Melancon, M, & Huebner, A 2000, Profiles of Delinquency: A Comparison of Delinquent Behavioral Groups, Journal Of Social Behavior & Personality, 15, 1, pp. 19-50, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 August 2013. Klemp-North, MM 2007, Theoretical foundations for gang membership, Journal Of Gang Research, 14, 4, pp. 11-26, Criminal Justice Abstracts, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 August 2013. Merianos, DE 2002, Joining the gang: A reaction to strain? A partial test of agnews general strain theory (Robert Agnew), Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 62, 7-A, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 August 2013. Rosenthal, L 2000, GANG LOITERING AND RACE, Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 91, 1, p. 99, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 August 2013. Vilalta, C, & Martinez, J 2012, The making of Narco bosses: hard drug dealing crimes among Mexican students, Trends In Organized Crime, 15, 1, pp. 47-63, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 August 2013.ts International Section A, 73, 8-A(E), PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 August 2013. Zavala, E, & Spohn, R 2013, The Role of Vicarious and Anticipated Strain on the Overlap of Violent Perpetration and Victimization: A Test of General Strain Theory, British Journal Of Criminal Justice, 38, 1, pp. 119-140, Criminal Justice Abstracts, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 August 2013. Read More