The relationship between race and crime in the United States has been a topic of public controversy and scholarly debate for more than a century.[1] Since the 1980s, the debate has centered around the causes of and contributing factors to the disproportional representation of racial minorities (particularly African Americans, hence "Black crime") at all stages of the criminal justice system, including arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations.[2] Many theories of causation have been proposed, the most prominent of which assume predominantly social and/or environmental causes, though notable exceptions argue for a reconsideration of the role of biology.[3] Sociologist Orlando Patterson has summarized the controversy as a dispute between liberal and conservative criminologists in which both parties focus on a single aspect of the causal net, with liberals focusing on factors external to the groups in question and conservatives focusing on internal cultural and behavioral factors.[4]
Contents |
The relationship between race and crime has been an area of study for criminologists since the emergence of anthropological criminology in the late 19th century.[5] Cesare Lombroso, founder of the Italian school of criminology, argued that criminal behavior was the product of biological factors, including race. This biological perspective was criticized by early 20th century scholars, including Frances Kellor, Johan Thorsten Sellin and William Du Bois, who argued that other circumstances, such as social and economic conditions, were the central factors which led to criminal behavior, regardless of race. Du Bois traced the causes of the disproportional representation of Blacks in the criminal justice system back to the improperly handled emancipation of Black slaves in general and the convict leasing program in particular. In 1901, he wrote:
There are no reliable statistics to which one can safely appeal to measure exactly the growth of crime among the emancipated slaves. About seventy per cent of all prisoners in the South are black; this, however, is in part explained by the fact that accused Negroes are still easily convicted and get long sentences, while whites still continue to escape the penalty of many crimes even among themselves. And yet allowing for all this, there can be no reasonable doubt but that there has arisen in the South since the [civil] war a class of black criminals, loafers, and ne'er-do-wells who are a menace to their fellows, both black and white.[6]
The debate that ensued remained largely academic until the late 20th century, when the relationship between race and crime became a recognized field of specialized study in criminology. As Helen T. Greene and Shaun L. Gabbidon, professor of criminal justice at Pennsylvania State University, note in their recently published Encyclopedia of Race and Crime (2009), many criminology and criminal justice programs now either require or offer elective courses on the topic of the relationship between race and crime.[7]
The racial composition of the US population as of 2008 was 79.79% White American (65.60% non-Hispanic and 14.19% Hispanic), 12.84% African American (12.22% non-Hispanic and 0.62% Hispanic), 4.45% Asian American (4.35% non-Hispanic and 0.10% Hispanic), 1.01% American Indian or Alaska Native (0.76% non-Hispanic and 0.25% Hispanic), 0.18% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander American (0.14% non-Hispanic and 0.04% Hispanic), and 1.69% Multiracial American (1.64% non-Hispanic and 0.05% Hispanic). 15.25% of the total US population identified their ethnicity as Hispanic.[8]
The racial composition of the US prison and jail population as of 2008 was 33.44% White American (non-Hispanic), 40.21% African American (non-Hispanic), 20.29% Hispanic, and 6.06% Other (American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander American, and Multiracial American).[9]
Historically, crime statistics have played a central role in the discussion of the relationship between race and crime in the United States.[10] As they have been designed to record information not only on the kinds of crimes committed, but also on the individuals involved in crime, criminologists and sociologists have and continue to use crime rate statistics to make general statements regarding the racial demographics of crime-related phenomena such as victimization, arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and incarceration. As such, statements regarding the relative representation of racial groups in official crime rate statistics are not controversial. Regardless of their views regarding causation, scholars acknowledge that some racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented in the arrest and victimization reports which are used to compile crime rate statistics.[11] There is, however, a great deal of debate regarding the causes of that disproportionality.
In the United States, crime data is collected from three major sources: law enforcement agency crime reports, collected monthly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and processed annually as Uniform Crime Reports (UCR); victimization surveys, collected biannually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and processed annually in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS); and self-report surveys. The UCR represents the primary source of data used in the calculation of official statistics regarding serious crimes such as murder and homicide, which is supplemented by the information provided through the NCVS and self-report studies, the latter being the best indicator of actual crime rates for minor offenses such as illegal substance abuse and petty theft. These crime data collection programs provide most of the statistical information utilized by criminologists and sociologist in their analysis of crime and the extent of its relationship to race.[12]
The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) program, established in 1927, is a summary-based reporting system that collects data on crime reported to local and state law enforcement agencies across the United States. The UCR system indexes crimes under two headings: Part I and Part II offenses. Part I offenses include: murder and non-negligent homicide; non-lethal violent crimes comprising robbery, forcible rape and aggravated assault; and property crimes comprising burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft and arson. Part II offenses include fraud, forgery/counterfeiting, embezzlement, simple assault, sex offenses, offenses against the family, drug and liquor offenses, weapons offenses and other non-violent offenses excluding traffic violations.[13]
There are fundamental limitations of the UCR system, including:[14]
As a response to these and other limitations, a new system of crime data collection was established in 1988 as an outgrowth of the UCR system. The National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is an incident-based reporting system that will collect more comprehensive and detailed data on crime from local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. As it is still under development, NIBRS coverage is not yet nationwide.[18]
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) program, established in 1972, is a national survey of a representative sample of households in the United States which covers the frequency of crime victimization and the characteristics and consequences of victimization. The primary purpose behind the NCVS program is to gather information on crimes that were not reported to police, though information is also collected on reported crimes. The survey collects data on rape, assault, robbery, burglary, personal and household larceny and motor vehicle theft. The NCVS also includes supplemental questions which allow information to be gathered on tangentially relevant issues such as school violence, attitudes towards law enforcement or perceptions regarding crime.[19]
There are fundamental limitations to the NCVS program, including:[20]
Analysis of the NCVS data shows that, in the period 1992-2000, significantly less than half (43%) of all criminal acts reported through victimization surveys were also reported to police. It also demonstrates the existence of moderate differences in the reporting habits of members of different races and ethnic groups. The following table presents the results of this comparison, with the percentage of police-reported crime for serious violent crime and simple assault according to racial and ethnic classification.[22]
| All | Rape | Robbery | Aggravated assault | Simple assault | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 43% | 31% | 57% | 55% | 38% |
| Asian | 40% | 16% | 55% | 51% | 31% |
| Black | 49% | 35% | 59% | 61% | 41% |
| Native | 48% | 47% | 55% | 59% | 43% |
| White | 42% | 31% | 56% | 54% | 37% |
| Hispanic | 44% | 28% | 48% | 55% | 39% |
Despite the differences in the amount of crime reported, comparisons of the UCR and NCVS data sets show there to be a high degree of correspondence between the two systems.[23] This correspondence extends to the racial demography of both perpetrators and victims of violent crime reported in both systems.[24]
Of the 29 categories of crime recorded in the UCR, those 8 which comprise Part I offenses are generally considered the most serious. These are divided into violent crimes (murder and non-negligible homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) and property crimes (burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft and arson). As the UCR records the race of all individuals arrested in connection with Part I crimes, the relative representation of each race can be determined for each kind of crime. Besides these, the FBI also records data on hate crime as well as on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement, which are generally considered forms of white-collar crime. The crime statistics below do not calculate US race population statistics that may be used to determine actual percentage and likelihood of a specific race committing a crime.
There were 14,180 victims and 16,277 perpetrators of murder and non-negligible homicide reported by law enforcement agencies to the FBI in 2008.[25] The following table presents the racial demographics of murder in the United States for 2008 (with 'other' including Asian American, Native American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander American):[26]
| Offenders | Victims | White victims | Black victims | Other victims | Unknown victims | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 32.8% | 48.2% | 83.3% | 7.6% | 30.0% | 37.0% |
| Black | 36.5% | 47.8% | 13.8% | 90.0% | 16.7% | 29.0% |
| Other | 1.7% | 2.3% | 1.2% | 0.3% | 52.0% | 3.0% |
| Unknown | 29.0% | 1.7% | 1.6% | 2.1% | 1.2% | 31.0% |
African Americans were arrested more than any other race for murder in 2008, making up 36% of all arrests. African Americans, constituting approximately 12% of the general population, were significantly overrepresented in the total arrests made. African Americans were also significantly overrepresented in victimization, representing 47% of all murder victims. White Americans and individuals of Other race were significantly underrepresented in cases of murder and non-negligible homicide in 2008. Murder in White American and African American populations were overwhelmingly intraracial, with 83% of all White victims and 90% of all Black victims having been murdered by individuals of the same race. The same was true, though to a lesser degree, for individuals of Other race, with 52% having been murdered by individuals also of Other race.
Law enforcement agencies made 2,487 arrests for forcible rape, 27,476 arrests for robbery and 42,779 arrests for aggravated assault in 2008.[27] The following table presents the racial demographics of these non-lethal violent crimes in the United States for 2008:
| Total | Rape | Robbery | Aggravated assault | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 58.3% | 65.2% | 41.7% | 63.3% |
| Black | 39.4% | 32.2% | 56.7% | 34.2% |
| Native | 1.2% | 1.2% | 0.7% | 1.4% |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 1.1% | 1.4% | 0.9% | 1.2% |
White Americans were arrested more than any other race for non-lethal violent crimes in 2008, making up 58% of all arrests. White Americans, constituting approximately 79% of the total population, were significantly underrepresented in the total arrests made. Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Americans, constituting approximately 4% of the total population, were also significantly underrepresented, making up only 1% of total arrests. African Americans were significantly overrepresented for non-lethal violent crimes in 2008, making up 39% of all arrests.
The following table presents the racial and ethnic demographics of non-lethal violent crime victimization per 1000 persons age 12 or older in 2008 (with 'other' including Asian American, Native American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander American):[28]
| Total | Rape | Robbery | Aggravated assault | Simple assault | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 18.1 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 3.0 | 12.8 |
| Black | 25.9 | 1.9 | 5.5 | 5.3 | 13.3 |
| Hispanic | 16.4 | 0.6 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 8.9 |
| Other | 15.2 | 0.9 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 8.5 |
| Multi | 51.6 | 1.9 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 36.1 |
Multiracial Americans reported being victimized by non-lethal violent crime at rates 2 to 3 times higher than White Americans, African Americans, and individuals of Other race. Hispanic Americans reported being victimized by non-lethal violent crime at rates lower than that of non-Hispanic White Americans and African Americans. With the exception of simple assault, African Americans reported being victimized by non-lethal violent crime at rates significantly higher than those of White Americans, Hispanic Americans, and individuals of Other race.
Law enforcement agencies made 235,407 arrests for burglary, 979,145 arrests for larceny/theft, 74,881 arrests for motor vehicle theft and 10,734 arrests for arson in 2008.[27] The following table presents the racial demographics of these property crimes in the United States for 2008:
| Total | Burglary | Larceny-theft | Motor vehicle theft | Arson | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 67.4% | 66.8% | 68.1% | 59.7% | 78.8% |
| Black | 30.1% | 31.4% | 29.3% | 38.1% | 21.7% |
| Native | 1.2% | 0.9% | 1.3% | 1.1% | 1.2% |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 1.3% | 0.9% | 1.4% | 1.2% | 1.2% |
White Americans were arrested more than any other race for property crimes in 2008, making up 67% of all arrests. With the exception of arson, White Americans were significantly underrepresented in all property crimes, as were Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Americans. African Americans were significantly overrepresented in all forms of property crime, making up 30% of all arrests.
There were 3,870 incidents of racially motivated hate crime reported in 2007, with 4,724 individual offenses, 4,956 victims and 3,707 known offenders.[29] The following table presents the racial demographics of these hates crimes in the United States for 2007:[30]
| Offenders | Victims | Anti-White | Anti-Black | Anti-Native | Anti-Asian/Pac. Isl. | Anti-Multi | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 45.9% | 18.3% | 18.5% | 54.1% | 58.6% | 41.5% | 36.6% |
| Black | 10.6% | 69.2% | 45.2% | 2.4% | 4.0% | 8.2% | 2.1% |
| Native | 1.5% | 1.1% | 2.5% | 0.6% | 9.3% | 0.5% | 1.4% |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 0.4% | 4.7% | 0.7% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Multi | 2.5% | 6.1% | 2.4% | 2.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% | 6.7% |
| Unknown race/Other | 6.7% | 0.5% | 5.4% | 7.1% | 5.3% | 6.0% | 6.3% |
| Unknown offender | 32.7% | - | 25.2% | 33.4% | 22.7% | 37.4% | 46.8% |
White Americans were identified as having committed the most racially motivated hate crimes in 2007, making up nearly 46% of all reported offenders. Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Americans were identified as having committed the least racially motivated hate crimes, making up less than 1% of all reported offenders. African Americans reported being victimized by racially motivated hate crime more frequently than any other race, making up 69% of all victims.
Law enforcement agencies made 68,586 arrests for forgery and counterfeiting, 173,567 arrests for fraud and 16,314 arrests for embezzlement in 2008.[27] The following table presents the racial demographics of these white-collar crimes in the United States for 2008:
| Total | Forgery-counterfeiting | Fraud | Embezzlement | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 67.4% | 67.7% | 67.5% | 64.5% |
| Black | 30.9% | 30.7% | 30.8% | 33.4% |
| Native | 0.7% | 0.5% | 0.8% | 0.6% |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 0.9% | 1.1% | 0.8% | 1.5% |
White Americans were arrested more than any other race for these white-collar crimes in 2008, making up 67% of all arrests. White Americans, constituting approximately 79% of the total population, were significantly underrepresented in the total arrests made, as were Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Americans. African Americans were significantly overrepresented in forgery/counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement, making up nearly 31% of all arrests.
As noted above, scholars acknowledge that some racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, are disproportionately represented in the arrest and victimization reports which are used to compile crime rate statistics in the United States. The data from 2008 reveals that, though White Americans constituted the vast majority of total arrests made, African Americans were disproportionately represented in all forms of violent crime and property crime, as well as in the three measured forms of white-collar crime, with the average rates of representation 2 to 3 times higher than African American representation in the general population.[31] The issue of disproportional minority representation in crime rate statistics has thus become a source of debate and controversy.
While most criminologists have traditionally assumed that disproportional representation in crime rate statistics is an indication of disproportional participation in criminal behavior,[32] prominent specialists in the field of race and crime studies have voiced concern over such an assumption. Pointing to the limitations generally recognized as inherent in the UCR and NCVS systems, scholars note that the crime rate statistics derived from them may be misleading.[33] In particular, the racial demographics of crime rate statistics may be tainted or made otherwise unreliable through recognized ambiguities in racial categorization,[34] through misreporting due to personal bias or prejudice,[35] through error in calculation due to local police recording practices,[36] or through bias in the criminal justice system itself.[37]
Defenders of the relative accuracy and reliability of the racial demographic component of crime statistics in the US point to international crime statistics showing remarkably similar results. INTERPOL statistics on homicide, forcible rape and aggravated assault from the years 1984-1996 are reported to show the same racial disproportionality, with Asian (Mongoloid) and White (Caucasoid) populations rating consistently lower than Black (Negroid) populations. In 1996, the rates per 100,000 were estimated at 35 for Asians, 42 for Whites and 149 for Blacks, yielding a Black rate more than 3 times the Asian or White rate.[38]
Regardless of their arguable accuracy, public focus on the disproportionate representation of minorities in violent crime rate statistics has led to both the general racialization of the discussion regarding crime[39] as well as to the emergence of a racial stereotype which characterizes young African American men as "inherently more sinister, evil and dangerous" than the young men of other racial groups, which Katheryn Russell-Brown has dubbed the "criminal black man" stereotype.[40] Research conducted over the last two decades on the public perceptions of crime reveals that 54% of surveyed White Americans believe that African Americans are more prone to violent behavior.[41] However, this perception of African Americans as inherently violent is not limited to the White segment of the population: the National Race and Politics Survey of 1991 recorded more than half of both White Americans and African Americans as being in agreement with the statement "Blacks are aggressive or violent". Further, nationwide research conducted in 2002 and 2004 revealed that the general public holds the belief that African Americans are involved in a greater percentage of violent crime than the official statistics actually indicate.[41]
The classical school of the late 18th and early 19th century theorized that crime was an entirely voluntary action made by individuals possessing a free will.[42] This was a radical change from the common opinion of the preceding centuries, in which crime was portrayed as a "demonic act" or an "offense against God".[43] The classical theory assumed that crime was perpetrated by a 'reasoning criminal' who, after calculating the potential benefit of committing a crime against the potential harm of being caught and punished, had consciously chosen to commit the crime. Further, the classical school viewed all people as more or less equal, self-controlled and subject to their own volition. On this basis, classical theorists saw swift and proportionate punishment as not only the best response to criminal behavior, but also the best deterrent. Classical theories of causation were not overly concerned with the question of race and crime. However, classical theories continue to play an important role in the contemporary evaluation of the issue.[44] Modern theories on the relationship between race and crime which are identified as 'Neo-classical' include social control theory and choice theory.
The positivist school of the late 19th and early 20th century directly contradicted the assumptions upon which the work of the classical school was based, namely, that all people are equally accountable for their actions and that criminals are essentially the same as non-criminals. The positivist school instead claimed that biological, psychological and/or sociological properties beyond the control of the individual were the true determining forces behind criminal behavior. The positivist school further proposed that such "criminogenic properties" required social intervention and actions geared towards treatment and reform instead of punishment.[45]
The positivist tradition of the late 19th century gave rise to several schools of criminological thought which varied according to which criminogenic property was seen as being the most important factor in the manifestation of criminal behavior. Cesare Lombroso, the founder of the Italian School, is generally credited with being the most influential among those emphasizing the primacy of biology in determining criminal tendencies, and Lombroso was among the first criminologists to claim a direct link between race and crime.[46] Though unpopular and often criticized for being racist, researchers throughout the 20th century continued to produce findings which claim a biological cause for the disproportionality observed in minority representation in the criminal justice system, and research in this direction continues today.[47] Examples of modern theories of causation which make an appeal to biological factors include IQ theory and r/K theory.
In 1892, the University of Chicago established the first major sociology department in the United States. The research conducted in what became known as the Chicago School focused primarily upon the city's immigrant and minority communities, which were growing rapidly as a response to industrialization. The research of Chicago School members such as Robert Ezra Park, Clifford Shaw, Henry McKay and Edwin Sutherland led to the development of a number of theories of causation emphasizing the role of social components in the disproportionately high crime rates in minority populations, including social disorganization theory and subcultural theory.
The critical school arose in the latter half of the 20th century as a result of criticism directed towards both the classical school and the positivist school for failing to examine the fundamental aspects of criminology as a scientific enterprise. For example, adherents to the critical school pointed out that the concept of crime and what constitutes criminal behavior is historically and socially contingent. Further, the critical school argued that attention should turn away from reform, either through punishment or treatment, and towards the prevention and/or reduction of crime through the elimination of what are claimed to be inherently unjust social structures.[48] The process of criticism and criminological self-reflection initiated by the critical school continues today. Its concepts have been applied to the issue of race and crime in the form of conflict theory.
There is, at present, no consensus as to the causes behind the racial disproportionality in arrests, charges and incarceration of African Americans in the United States. However, scholars agree that more research is needed. Gary LaFree gives an account of how studies correlating race and crime were discouraged from the 1960s on as sociologists developed a sensitivity to research that could be seen as placing blame on those who could be victims of racial discrimination.[49] He further identifies an urgent need for renewed studies of race differences in crime. John Paul Wright, associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati, opines that the connection between crime and race should be studied "honestly and courageously" precisely because it is African Americans who have suffered most from the America's collective failure to understand and control street crime. No other group, says Wright, would benefit more from a "candid examination of race and crime."[50]
Engaging in the direct study of race and crime, however, is not a straightforward matter. Wright observes that researchers who produce findings which identify race as a determining factor in criminal behavior run the risk of "public repudiation, professional exile, and even career death".[51] He writes: "If social security is the holy grail of politics, race and crime is the holy grail of criminology. Touch it and you expose yourself to wrath and fury. For this reason, many criminologists are loath to examine the connection between race and crime outside the modern sociological paradigm that holds that race is a mere social construct - that is, something defined by any given society, ... a 'social invention'."[50] Other scholars have also deplored the current climate surrounding the discussion of race and crime. Professors of sociology Robert J. Sampson and William Julius Wilson of Harvard University describe it as "mired in an unproductive mix of controversy and silence."[52]
Conflict theory is considered "one of the most popular theoretical frameworks among race and crime scholars".[53] Rather than one monolithic theory, conflict theory represents a group of closely related theories which operate on a common set of fundamental assumptions.[54] As a general theory of criminal behavior, conflict theory proposes that crime is an inevitable consequence of the conflict which arises between competing groups within society. Such groups can be defined through a number of factors, including class, economic status, religion, language, ethnicity, race or any combination thereof. Further, conflict theory proposes that crime could be largely eliminated if the structure of society were to be changed.[55]
The form of conflict theory which emphasizes the role of economics, being heavily influenced by the work of Karl Marx and sometimes referred to as Marxist criminology, views crime as a natural response to the inequality arising from the competition inherent in capitalist society.[56] Sociologists and criminologists emphasizing this aspect of social conflict argue that, in a competitive society in which there is an inequality in the distribution of goods, those groups with limited or restricted access to goods will be more likely to turn to crime. Dutch criminologist Willem Adrian Bonger, one of the first scholars to apply the principles of economic determinism to the issue of crime, argued that such inequality as found in capitalism was ultimately responsible for the manifestation of crime at all levels of society, particularly among the poor. Though this line of thinking has been criticized for requiring the establishment of a utopian socialist society,[57] the notion that the disproportionality observed in minority representation in crime rate statistics could be understood as the result of systematic economic disadvantage found its way into many of the theories developed in subsequent generations.
Culture conflict theory, derived from the pioneering work of sociologist Thorsten Sellin, emphasizes the role of culturally accepted norms of conduct in the formation of cultural groups and the conflicts which arise through their interaction. Culture conflict theory argues that the group with the most power in any society ensures that their values, traditions and behaviors, which Sellin referred to as "conduct norms", are those to which all other members of society are forced to conform, and any actions which conflict with the interests of the dominant group are identified as deviant and/or criminal in nature. Sellin's original ideas continued to be developed throughout the 20th century, most notably by George Vold in the 1950s and Austin Turk in the 1960s, and continue to influence the contemporary debate. The recent work of Gregory J. Howard, Joshua D. Freilich and Graeme R. Newman applies culture conflict theory to the issue of immigrant and minority crime around the world. According to their research, while culturally homogeneous groups experience little to no cultural conflict, as all the members share the same set of "conduct norms", culturally heterogeneous groups, such as modern industrial nations with large immigrant populations, display heightened competition between sets of cultural norms which, in turn, leads to an increase in violence and crime. Societies which have high levels of cultural diversity in their population, it is claimed, are more likely to have higher rates of violent crime.[58]
According to conflict theorists such as Marvin Wolfgang, Hubert Blalock and William Chambliss, the disproportionate representation of racial minorities in crime statistics and in the prison population is the result of race- and class-motivated disparities in arrests, prosecutions and sentencing rather than differences in actual participation in criminal activity, an approach which has also been taken by proponents of critical race theory.[59] This line of argumentation is generally seen as part of a wider approach to race-related issues referred to as the Discrimination Thesis, which assumes that differences in the treatment received by people of minority racial background in a number of public institutions, including the criminal justice, education and health care systems, is the result of overt racial discrimination. Opposed to this view is the Non-Discrimination Thesis, which seeks to defend these institutions from such accusations.[60]
At the time it was first proposed, conflict theory was considered outside the mainstream of more established criminological theories, such as strain theory, social disorganization theory and differential association theory.[61] Barbara D. Warner, associate professor of criminal justice and police studies at Eastern Kentucky University, notes that conflict theory has been the subject of increasing criticism in recent years. Recent studies claim that, while there may have been real sentencing differences related to non-legal characteristics such as race in the 1960s, sentencing discrimination as described by the conflict theorists at that time no longer exists. Criticism has also pointed to the lack of testability of the general theory.[57] While much research has been done to correlate race, income level and crime frequency, typically of less serious criminal behavior such as theft or larceny, research has shown there to be no significant correlation between race, income level and crime seriousness. Thus, conflict theory encounters difficulties in attempting to account for the high levels of violent crime such as murder, homicide and rape, in minority populations.[62]
Social control theory, which is among the most popular theories in criminology,[63] proposes that crime is most commonly perpetrated by individuals who lack strong bonds or connections with their social environment.[64] Based upon Travis Hirschi's Causes of Delinquency (1969), social bonding theory pioneered the notion that criminologists can gain useful insight into the motives behind criminal behavior by examining what normally motivates individuals to refrain from crime. From this it is argued that, in those segments of the population where such motivation is lacking, crime will be more prevalent. Hirshi was explicit in mentioning that he believed his theory held true across all racial boundaries, and subsequent research - both in the US and abroad - seems to confirm this belief.[65] The core idea of social control theory is elaborated upon in several other theories of causation, particularly social disorganization theory.
Social disorganization theory proposes that high rates of crime are largely the result of a heterogeneous and impoverished social ecology.[66] Proponents of the theory point to the process of urban decay as a major contributing factor to the breakdown of healthy urban communities which would normally curb the spread of many forms of criminal behavior. The diversity of minority cultures present in poverty-stricken neighborhoods prevents the formation of strong social bonds and leaves inhabitants uninterested in maintaining positive community relationships. This has been observed to increase the likelihood of crime in certain urban areas, which can lead to increased policing and a further breakdown of familial structures as a result of arrests, which, in turn, precipitates more crime. Social disorganization theory has been instrumental in establishing the notion that stable, culturally homogeneous communities have lower rates of delinquency and crime regardless of race.[67]
As a theory of criminal behavior, subculture of violence theory claims that certain groups or subcultures exist in society in which violence is viewed as an appropriate response to what, in the context of that subculture, are perceived as threatening situations. Building upon the work of cultural anthropologist Walter B. Miller's focal concerns theory, which focused on the social mechanisms behind delinquency in adolescents, sociologists Marvin E. Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti proposed that the disproportionally high rate of crime among African Americans could be explained by their possessing a unique racial subculture in which violence is experienced and perceived in a manner different from that commonly observed in mainstream American culture.[68]
As to the origins of this subculture of violence among African Americans, sociologists promoting the theory have pointed towards their Southern heritage. As noted in several studies conducted throughout the 1960s and 1970s, there is a traditional North-South discrepancy in the distribution of homicide in the US, regardless of race, and this, it was argued, indicates that Blacks and lower-class Southern Whites share the same subculture of violence.[69]
The empirical basis for the subculture of violence theory, however, has been described as "extremely limited and unpersuasive".[69] Very little has been done to attempt an adequate assessment of supposedly criminogenic subcultural values, and several studies conducted in the late 1970s claimed to falsify the assumptions upon which the subculture of violence theory depends.[69] More recently, scholars have criticized the theory as potentially racist in nature as it implies that all African Americans are violent.[70]
Strain theory, which is largely derived from the work of Robert K. Merton in the 1930s and 1940s, argues that social structures within society which lead to inequality and deprivation in segments of its population indirectly encourage those segments to commit crime. According to strain theory, differences in crime rates between races are the result of real differences in behavior, but to be understood as an attempt to alleviate either absolute or relative deprivation and adapt to the existing opportunity structure.[71]
A more recent approach to strain theory was proposed by Steven F. Messner and Richard Rosenfeld in the 1990s. In their version of the theory, which they refer to as institutional anomie theory, Messner and Rosenfeld argue that the dominance of materialistic concerns and measurements of success manifested in the American Dream weakens the effectiveness of informal social control mechanisms and support processes, which encourages economic gain by any means, legal or illegal. In those segments of the population which experience the greatest relative deprivation, therefore, there is readiness to turn to crime to overcome inequality and eliminate relative deprivation.[72]
Critics of strain theory point to its weaknesses when compared with actual criminal behavior patterns. Michael R. Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi argue that strain theory "misconstrue(s) the nature of the criminal act, supplying it with virtues it does not possess." They further point out that, while strain theory suggests that criminals should tend to target people in a more advantageous economic situation than themselves, they more often victimize individuals who live in the same economic circumstances.[73]
IQ theory views the racial disparity in crime rates as a result of the measured IQ difference between races. In his book The g Factor (1998), Arthur Jensen cites data which shows that, regardless of race, people with IQs between 70 and 90 have higher crime rates than people with IQs below or above this range, with the peak range being between 80 and 90.[74] Jensen and others have reported that the average IQ of African Americans is 85, to be compared with 100 for White Americans and 106 for Asian Americans.[75] According to Jensen, when crime rates are compared between races while adjusting for IQ, they are approximately the same. Thus, Jensen proposes, the disparity in crime rates between races can be explained by the proportions of each group with IQs in the range at greatest risk for antisocial behavior.[76]
Critics of IQ theory have alleged that the connections between race and IQ, and between IQ and crime, are not well established.[77] Regarding IQ and race, critics claim that the IQ gap between White Americans and African Americans has narrowed significantly over the last 30 years and that, if environmental factors such as educational opportunities are taken into account, they believe the differences in IQ would disappear entirely.[78] Regarding IQ and crime, critics have noted that current studies correlating the two focus almost exclusively on street crime and violent crime, failing to examine various kinds of white-collar and corporate crime whose perpetrators, it is assumed, are likely to have above-average IQs.[79]
In the 1980s, sociologist Lee Ellis developed a theory of criminality based on the concept of r versus K selection which enjoyed a degree of popularity in the 1970s among ecologists and evolutionary biologists. In the general theory, there is said to exist a spectrum of reproductive strategies, with the strategy of producing many offspring with little parental care designated as 'r'-type behavior and the strategy of producing few offspring with a great deal of parental care designated 'K'-type behavior. Ellis claimed that, while humans as a group are on the K side of the reproductive strategy spectrum, there are variations within the human population, with some tending towards r and others tending towards K.[80]
This idea was expanded upon by J. Philippe Rushton in his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (1995) in which Rushton proposes that r/K selection theory can explain many of the physical and psychological differences between Africans, Europeans and Asians, including brain size, intelligence, speed of maturation, personality, marital relations, reproductive behavior and criminal behavior.[81] In Rushton’s view, Africans tend towards the r end of the spectrum and Asians tend to be more K-strategists, with Europeans somewhere between the two.[82] This, it is argued, explains both the disproportionately high crime rates among African Americans as well as the disproportionately low crime rates among Asian Americans and White Americans.[83]
The empirical evidence presented in support of r/K theory as a theory of causation in race and crime studies is generally considered inconclusive, as it relies heavily upon studies which have been produced in predominantly White countries, which may contribute to a confounding of biological and social effects.[84] Also, r/K theory has attracted heavy criticism due to reaching purportedly racist conclusions.[85] Even tentative supporters of r/K theory, such as Anthony Walsh, voice agreement with Rushton's critics that the theory as presented is highly susceptible to misuse in the form of support for racist ideologies.[86]
Phillippia Simmons reports that many of the studies which have investigated intra- and interracial crime seek to explain this through a theory of macrostructural opportunity which states that interracial violence is primarily a function of opportunity and access.[87] According to this theory, intraracial crime rates remain relatively high due to the fact that much of the US remains residentially segregated. She notes that this theory predicts that, if residential areas were more racially integrated, intraracial crime would decrease and interracial crime would increase correspondingly. However, she also notes that not all researchers on the topic of intraracial crime agree with this result, with some pointing to other macrostructural factors, such as income and education, which may negate the effect of race on inter- and intraracial crime.[87]
Anthony Walsh criticizes the attempt to use the macrostructural opportunity model to explain interracial rape as has been done in studies conducted in the past few decades, pointing out that such a defense is directly contradicted by the data related to homicide. Walsh argues that, while the macrostructural opportunity model helps explain why Black murderers almost always choose Black victims, it does not explain why Black rapists choose White victims roughly 55% of the time.[88]
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Wikis
Search