Journal 1
Journal- Module #1
Well, I am finally back on-line and have a new computer. So, I will be posting a lot of information here and on our cj511 forum over the next week. I will be playing a lot of catch up but I think I will be ok.
Reading
The reading from this module was very informative but also very in depth. I will start with the text and then dive into the other assigned readings. In our text, the authors start out by giving us a basic explanation of what theory is and how this theory has had some obvious effects on public policy. They also make sure to mention that many criminologists formulate theories to do just that, be a theory and nothing more. Theories are rooted in assumptions and assertions. Assumptions can be either accepted or rejected. Once an assumption has been given and has been accepted, one must then consider the assertions. Assertions have to be tested or they can only be an ideology or theology. Once assertions or propositions have been tested, they can be to be a law (a verified assumption that shows consistent or strong support when tested) or a hypotheses (when the research is less compelling). Next, the authors give an explanation on how to test theory. I will not go into this in detail because this creates a whole other discussion in and of itself. They touch on deductive and inductive research, the research design, whether to use qualitative or quantitative data, conceptualization, operationalization, variables, empirical data, analysis… It is a very thorough discussion on testing for so little pages. The next topic in the chapter talks about the goals of theory. These goals are to try to accomplish description, explanation, prediction, and control. Only of these goals are open to debate in my mind on whether theory can actually accomplish these goals. Defining or describing crime is a subject wrought in controversy, as well as explanation, and control. Even prediction is a hotly debated topic that is as about straightforward as all the conflicting theories out there. Some of the challenges for theory testing and theory building are mentioned next and warrant a completely separate discussion. Some of these challenges are correlation vs. causation, the rival cause factor, and tautology. This chapter is packed full of topics that many a debate or paper has been written on. Another interesting section in this chapter is the section on research, theory, and values. It raises the question on whether research or theories in criminology (or any other social science for that matter) can be value free or not. It brings to light the fact that many studies or theories in crime are directed at the bottom of the social scale. There are studies directed towards those at the top of the social scale but they are not near as prevalent. So, is this biased and can we really call it value free research or theories? The next discussion in the book is on the limits of criminological knowledge. This discussion goes hand in hand with the article we read from Binder & Binder. There are many different opinions on how useful criminological theory or knowledge. Some say it is very useful and should be used to formulate public policy; others say that it is not useful at all and that we should be very careful when using theory to formulate policy, if we should use it at all. Binder & Binder advocate for the latter of the two that we should be very careful in using theory to establish public policy. They give some powerful examples of researchers who were advocates of their theories to become public policy and some of the consequences of doing so. They claim in this article that researchers should be very careful in advocating their theories, especially when it is very new or early work. At the end of the article, they give five very good steps on recommendations for the use of research in policy formulation. I am definitely going to hold on to this article because those five steps could prove to be very useful in the future. The text also discusses the whole argument of nature vs. nurture. The nature theory claiming that behavior can be explained by genetic and biological factors. The nurture theory claims that human behavior is caused by ones social environment or social interaction, or that behavior is learned. I personally feel that neither is entirely right in this argument and that some things are inherent in a person while other things are learned. Consensus, pluralism, and conflict are also touched on in this section. Most crime theories generally assume that society is based on one of these three viewpoints. The consensus viewpoint says that society as a whole agrees of the definition of crime or what it right or wrong, and that law is an expression of this agreement. The pluralist view proposes that society is very diverse and that there are many different groups bases on many different factors (i.e. race, gender, religion, geography etc.). These different groups have different interests, values, and goals. Law is what manages these differences. The conflict view believes that many different groups are constantly competing for power. The group that achieves or gains the power gets to define crime and achieves control. Just as with the nature vs. nurture ideas I do not feel that anyone of these views is always right. I think they all have a little truth to them depending on the context of the situation. The text also goes over the origins of law. It explains the difference between norms, folkways, and mores. It also distinguishes between customary laws and enacted laws. Because of the amount of information presented in this chapter, I am going to skip discussion on these topics. Defining crime is touched on in this chapter. According to the text, (and I agree) crime has no generally accepted or universal definition. For our society right now we can define crime as any behavior that violates our current criminal statutes. We know that these statutes can change quite often. The discussion on this topic in the text is quite interesting because it points out that determining what is or is not a crime, really again depends on the context (time and place). If Nazi Germany would have won WWII would Hitler and his followers been considered war criminals or heroes? I am sure this question could produce some very interesting debate. Classifying crime is the next section in the chapter. Criminologists use typologies to classify crime. The different typologies are the “level of evilness” (Mala in se, mala prohibita), non-criminal vs. criminal (misdemeanors, felonies, ordinances), and social harm. I think they all have their merits and probably weaknesses too. Origins of crime theories, is the next section of this chapter. The text gives a thorough discussion on many of the theories which modern criminology is based on. The three main theories are classical, positive, and conflict. Classical theory is based on the concept of equality, that all men are created equal; therefore, the conditions of the law are the same for everyone. It also proposes that punishment should be humane and proportionate to the offense. Positivism is based on the idea of determinism (behavior is caused rather than chosen). Positivism proposes that the scientific approach is valid not only for the physical world but for social world as well. Positivists tend to see criminal behavior not as a rational choice, but see it as a symptom of some from of biological, psychological, or social pathology. Conflict theory is for the most part based on Marxist ideas but there are many forms of conflict theory. The basis of many of these theories is that laws are made by those in power to keep that power. Again, these theories have their merits or positive points but in my mind also have their weaknesses. The last topic is about the organization of the text and on assessing theories. It brings up a few good points in these sections. First, it advises us to be careful in labeling theories as either good or bad, but does encourage us to be critical thinkers when assessing theories. Does the theory have logical merit, empirical merit, or achieve the goals of that theory? These are all important questions to ask when assessing a theory. Furthermore, we should also ask ourselves about theories practical implications. Is this theory one that could be used to formulate public policy or should one use it only as for a better general understanding of what is happening? The article by Henry and Einstadter was very similar to our first chapter in the text. It gave a history or overview of criminology and theory and brought up many of the same points as our text did. The two readings definitely complemented each other very well in giving us a basic overview of crime and crime theory. I especially enjoyed the section in this article entitled, “The Profession of Criminology and Resources for Further Study”. It helped to get a good picture of the extent of who is studying criminology and know the difference between the two professional societies.
Internet
I found the first link very interesting and before this had no idea that there are so many theories out there on what motivates or causes crime. It is worth looking at if you have not already. Here is the link, http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/301/motives.htm The links on theory were also very informative. It is amazing on how much cross over or integration can be done with criminology and social science. They seem to be very interrelated and to study and research many of the same topics. I would think it very beneficial for criminologists to read, study, and incorporate research and findings from other social sciences into their own work and vice versa. http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html I found this link to point out some very good points about the scientific method. Some of them I agree with and some I do not. The author of this page believes that the scientific method is the best way to determine truth from lies and delusions. I agree that the scientific method is a very useful tool but I do not agree that it is always the best. To me it depends on what you are looking at and why you are trying to find the answer to something. Sometimes qualitative methods will prove to be better. I think truth is relevant, but some good thoughts on this page. http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/dedind.htm I liked this page because I struggled a little bit with understanding the difference between inductive and deductive thinking or theory. It put it very simply and has very easy to understand diagrams. http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/osgood.htm This was a great article too and touched on what I mentioned earlier about using material (research) from the other social sciences. The rest of the Internet links were on the three paradigms or theories that were mentioned in the book; classicalism, positivism, and conflict theories. These links just provided more history and explanation on these theories. They also provided other theories that are derived from those three.
So What
The reading was the perfect introduction on the nature of crime and crime theory. There are so many ideas and theories out there that it is easy to get confused and frustrated. The readings taught me how important it is to be a critical thinker when assessing the plethora of theories out there. It also help me to understand how important it is to be very careful in relating theory to public policy or even better “real life”. Some theory is meant to be just that, theory and theory only. One must be very careful in application of these theories. I think a sentence in the article from Henry and Einstadter best sums up what I took from all of this reading, “The central importance of theory to an understanding of crime and crime control through criminal justice policy is crucial and must be understood by all those entering the profession, whether as criminologists, researchers, or practitioners.” I would go even farther than that and say that anyone that has an interest in the society that they live in should want to know about crime and crime theory.
Well, I am finally back on-line and have a new computer. So, I will be posting a lot of information here and on our cj511 forum over the next week. I will be playing a lot of catch up but I think I will be ok.
Reading
The reading from this module was very informative but also very in depth. I will start with the text and then dive into the other assigned readings. In our text, the authors start out by giving us a basic explanation of what theory is and how this theory has had some obvious effects on public policy. They also make sure to mention that many criminologists formulate theories to do just that, be a theory and nothing more. Theories are rooted in assumptions and assertions. Assumptions can be either accepted or rejected. Once an assumption has been given and has been accepted, one must then consider the assertions. Assertions have to be tested or they can only be an ideology or theology. Once assertions or propositions have been tested, they can be to be a law (a verified assumption that shows consistent or strong support when tested) or a hypotheses (when the research is less compelling). Next, the authors give an explanation on how to test theory. I will not go into this in detail because this creates a whole other discussion in and of itself. They touch on deductive and inductive research, the research design, whether to use qualitative or quantitative data, conceptualization, operationalization, variables, empirical data, analysis… It is a very thorough discussion on testing for so little pages. The next topic in the chapter talks about the goals of theory. These goals are to try to accomplish description, explanation, prediction, and control. Only of these goals are open to debate in my mind on whether theory can actually accomplish these goals. Defining or describing crime is a subject wrought in controversy, as well as explanation, and control. Even prediction is a hotly debated topic that is as about straightforward as all the conflicting theories out there. Some of the challenges for theory testing and theory building are mentioned next and warrant a completely separate discussion. Some of these challenges are correlation vs. causation, the rival cause factor, and tautology. This chapter is packed full of topics that many a debate or paper has been written on. Another interesting section in this chapter is the section on research, theory, and values. It raises the question on whether research or theories in criminology (or any other social science for that matter) can be value free or not. It brings to light the fact that many studies or theories in crime are directed at the bottom of the social scale. There are studies directed towards those at the top of the social scale but they are not near as prevalent. So, is this biased and can we really call it value free research or theories? The next discussion in the book is on the limits of criminological knowledge. This discussion goes hand in hand with the article we read from Binder & Binder. There are many different opinions on how useful criminological theory or knowledge. Some say it is very useful and should be used to formulate public policy; others say that it is not useful at all and that we should be very careful when using theory to formulate policy, if we should use it at all. Binder & Binder advocate for the latter of the two that we should be very careful in using theory to establish public policy. They give some powerful examples of researchers who were advocates of their theories to become public policy and some of the consequences of doing so. They claim in this article that researchers should be very careful in advocating their theories, especially when it is very new or early work. At the end of the article, they give five very good steps on recommendations for the use of research in policy formulation. I am definitely going to hold on to this article because those five steps could prove to be very useful in the future. The text also discusses the whole argument of nature vs. nurture. The nature theory claiming that behavior can be explained by genetic and biological factors. The nurture theory claims that human behavior is caused by ones social environment or social interaction, or that behavior is learned. I personally feel that neither is entirely right in this argument and that some things are inherent in a person while other things are learned. Consensus, pluralism, and conflict are also touched on in this section. Most crime theories generally assume that society is based on one of these three viewpoints. The consensus viewpoint says that society as a whole agrees of the definition of crime or what it right or wrong, and that law is an expression of this agreement. The pluralist view proposes that society is very diverse and that there are many different groups bases on many different factors (i.e. race, gender, religion, geography etc.). These different groups have different interests, values, and goals. Law is what manages these differences. The conflict view believes that many different groups are constantly competing for power. The group that achieves or gains the power gets to define crime and achieves control. Just as with the nature vs. nurture ideas I do not feel that anyone of these views is always right. I think they all have a little truth to them depending on the context of the situation. The text also goes over the origins of law. It explains the difference between norms, folkways, and mores. It also distinguishes between customary laws and enacted laws. Because of the amount of information presented in this chapter, I am going to skip discussion on these topics. Defining crime is touched on in this chapter. According to the text, (and I agree) crime has no generally accepted or universal definition. For our society right now we can define crime as any behavior that violates our current criminal statutes. We know that these statutes can change quite often. The discussion on this topic in the text is quite interesting because it points out that determining what is or is not a crime, really again depends on the context (time and place). If Nazi Germany would have won WWII would Hitler and his followers been considered war criminals or heroes? I am sure this question could produce some very interesting debate. Classifying crime is the next section in the chapter. Criminologists use typologies to classify crime. The different typologies are the “level of evilness” (Mala in se, mala prohibita), non-criminal vs. criminal (misdemeanors, felonies, ordinances), and social harm. I think they all have their merits and probably weaknesses too. Origins of crime theories, is the next section of this chapter. The text gives a thorough discussion on many of the theories which modern criminology is based on. The three main theories are classical, positive, and conflict. Classical theory is based on the concept of equality, that all men are created equal; therefore, the conditions of the law are the same for everyone. It also proposes that punishment should be humane and proportionate to the offense. Positivism is based on the idea of determinism (behavior is caused rather than chosen). Positivism proposes that the scientific approach is valid not only for the physical world but for social world as well. Positivists tend to see criminal behavior not as a rational choice, but see it as a symptom of some from of biological, psychological, or social pathology. Conflict theory is for the most part based on Marxist ideas but there are many forms of conflict theory. The basis of many of these theories is that laws are made by those in power to keep that power. Again, these theories have their merits or positive points but in my mind also have their weaknesses. The last topic is about the organization of the text and on assessing theories. It brings up a few good points in these sections. First, it advises us to be careful in labeling theories as either good or bad, but does encourage us to be critical thinkers when assessing theories. Does the theory have logical merit, empirical merit, or achieve the goals of that theory? These are all important questions to ask when assessing a theory. Furthermore, we should also ask ourselves about theories practical implications. Is this theory one that could be used to formulate public policy or should one use it only as for a better general understanding of what is happening? The article by Henry and Einstadter was very similar to our first chapter in the text. It gave a history or overview of criminology and theory and brought up many of the same points as our text did. The two readings definitely complemented each other very well in giving us a basic overview of crime and crime theory. I especially enjoyed the section in this article entitled, “The Profession of Criminology and Resources for Further Study”. It helped to get a good picture of the extent of who is studying criminology and know the difference between the two professional societies.
Internet
I found the first link very interesting and before this had no idea that there are so many theories out there on what motivates or causes crime. It is worth looking at if you have not already. Here is the link, http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/301/motives.htm The links on theory were also very informative. It is amazing on how much cross over or integration can be done with criminology and social science. They seem to be very interrelated and to study and research many of the same topics. I would think it very beneficial for criminologists to read, study, and incorporate research and findings from other social sciences into their own work and vice versa. http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html I found this link to point out some very good points about the scientific method. Some of them I agree with and some I do not. The author of this page believes that the scientific method is the best way to determine truth from lies and delusions. I agree that the scientific method is a very useful tool but I do not agree that it is always the best. To me it depends on what you are looking at and why you are trying to find the answer to something. Sometimes qualitative methods will prove to be better. I think truth is relevant, but some good thoughts on this page. http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/dedind.htm I liked this page because I struggled a little bit with understanding the difference between inductive and deductive thinking or theory. It put it very simply and has very easy to understand diagrams. http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/osgood.htm This was a great article too and touched on what I mentioned earlier about using material (research) from the other social sciences. The rest of the Internet links were on the three paradigms or theories that were mentioned in the book; classicalism, positivism, and conflict theories. These links just provided more history and explanation on these theories. They also provided other theories that are derived from those three.
So What
The reading was the perfect introduction on the nature of crime and crime theory. There are so many ideas and theories out there that it is easy to get confused and frustrated. The readings taught me how important it is to be a critical thinker when assessing the plethora of theories out there. It also help me to understand how important it is to be very careful in relating theory to public policy or even better “real life”. Some theory is meant to be just that, theory and theory only. One must be very careful in application of these theories. I think a sentence in the article from Henry and Einstadter best sums up what I took from all of this reading, “The central importance of theory to an understanding of crime and crime control through criminal justice policy is crucial and must be understood by all those entering the profession, whether as criminologists, researchers, or practitioners.” I would go even farther than that and say that anyone that has an interest in the society that they live in should want to know about crime and crime theory.
