Question Description
I dont understand this Criminal Justice question and need help to study.
Answer part 1 with a 300 response and part 2 and part 3 with a 100 word response each
Part 1
Based on the soft determinism assumption of Social Disorganization Theories, do you think changing neighborhoods would have changed your behavior? Why or why not? Do you have any personal, direct, experience with moving from a bad neighborhood to a good neighborhood? Or, vice versa? If so, how did moving change your behavior, if at all? If you dont have any personal experience, can you imagine how it might affect your own behavior, if at all? So far, do you think that determinism does not exist (no determinism), is hard deterministic, or is soft deterministic? Why?
Part 2
To a certain extent, crime is more the result of what kind of person you become/are or where you live. Any individual will be influenced by the people they associate with, how they grew up, morals/ethics, where they grew up at, how they grew up (financially stable or not), and whether they had both parents around and if it was a single parent household. No matter what, a crime is a crime, but there could have been prior influence on the reasoning of committing the crime. I do think that it is important to consider the location of where you live to explain crime. An individual may live in poverty, and their only source of income may be limited, so they result in committing out of desperation and need. Taking into consideration of an individual’s financial situation can tell us about the increase or decrease in crime. If an individual is wealthy, they are probably wanting more money, respect, or trying to get attention. Although I may sound completely rude, but all individuals commit crimes for a reason, but no matter of the living situation, it does relate to crime.
The research examining immigration can give us a better understanding of legal statuses, survey data within legal status, surveys on individuals who are undocumented immigrants, and even information on second generation individuals. With getting a better understanding of immigration, then it would provide us with a reliable data. When including crime in general, I did not realize that crime would increase. The relationship is not what I expected, since I would have thought that immigrants would be more careful and consider the possibilities have a harsher consequence compared to an individual who is a citizen. When it comes to the topic of immigration, it hits close to home, so I have a more bias opinion on it, but everyone does a have a choice to commit crime or not.
Out of the top of my head, I do not think I have engaged myself in informal social control. I personally do not think I would put myself in a situation where shame, guilt, sarcasm, and criticism were given unless it was going to help me or have me grow as a better person. With that being said, I do not think lowering other individuals’ self-esteem would help. There will always be individuals would disagree with you, but there are different ways to handle it. I think if you bring negativity upon a person, then it will stick with them. I have been a recipient of informal social control where I was told to knock it off. I did not have bad behavior, but I am very opinionated, and I felt the need to straight my opinion and why I see the things I do within the conversation. I should have probably let it be, but I felt that since I let that individual talk, then I should get the same treatment. I was probably not in the right in that situation.
This week’s module/lecture taught me that an individual stress or anger can be caused from social views and the increase of crime within neighborhoods also including social views. Although it is not surprising, but it is something that can be avoided if social groups focused on the things that only concern them and not other individuals.
Part 3
Based on the soft determinism assumption of Social Disorganization I do not think a change in neighborhoods would change my behavior. I believe this because I had changed neighborhoods growing up and my behavior would be the same in each one. The reason for this is my mother’s influence and how she raised me to be respectful and kind to all. Although I experienced this first hand and was not affected I can understand how in a bad situation in a bad neighborhood can impact crime rates. I think that determinism does exist but not all people can fall into them. There are people that in any situation not commit a crime and others in the best situation that will commit a crime but to say soft or hard determinism falls into everyone’s life I just do not see it.
In regards to cultural values favoring crime I agree more with Shaw & McKay than Kornhauser. I agree more with Shaw & McKay because I see how people conform to their thinking and actions by their surroundings. I believe that cultural values favoring crime matter more than lack of informal social control. I believe this because I have seen first-hand friends seeing negativity surrounding them until eventually, they gave in. I understand how this personal bias may influence my decision to choose cultural values but I also see how informal social control can be a good choice.
The individual theory I liked the most this week was Shaw & McKays Social Disorganization theory. I thought their point that crime was not on the individual level but on the negative conditions surrounding them. This is a good explanation of crime because poverty, racial, and residence instability are all negative conditions. This theory is not bulletproof though like all theories this one does have flaws that I do not agree with, for the most part, it makes sense. The theory I liked the least was the concentric zones theory by Park, Burgess, & McKenzie. This is because I do not see how the growth of a cities industries relates to crime. I enjoyed this week’s theories on social disorganization and will keep them in mind for the term paper.
