Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read Chapters 3 and 4 of your textbook. Social Problem: Human Trafficking To prepare for your Final Paper (due in Week 5), you will de

69

3Social Class and Crime

Louis Lanzano/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to

• Define the key concepts inequality, stratification, and life chances.

• Examine how stratification relates to crime.

• Critically analyze the role of social class in the criminal justice system.

• Discuss the disparity versus discrimination debate.

• Identify key elements of white-collar crime and its impact on society.

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 3.1 Stratification in America

Bernard Madoff is one of the most notorious criminals in American history. In 2009 Madoff was charged with violating the Securities Act of 1993, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 after creating a large and elaborate Ponzi scheme. The Ponzi scheme was originally named after Charles Ponzi, who defrauded thousands of residents in the New England area in the 1920s. Ponzi schemes are a type of fraud that contin- ually creates the illusion of a profitable investment. They usually promise high returns with little risk. Investors who unknowingly buy into a Ponzi scheme are given a handsome return on their money. However, these returns are not based on profit. Rather, older investors are paid using money from newer investors. Ponzi schemes depend on the continual recruitment of new investors in order to continue to create this illusion of a profitable investment. Eventu- ally, the Ponzi scheme collapses when new investors can no longer be recruited or when too many investors want to cash out.

Unlike most Ponzi schemers, Madoff did not promise big returns in a short time. He promised moderate, stable returns over a long time. Investors were provided with quarterly reports that demonstrated moderate returns even when the market was turbulent and fluctuating. Madoff was a well-known and respected member of the securities industry for many years. He was vice president of the National Association of Securities Dealers and a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation stock markets board of gov- ernors. He served as executive chair of its trading committee. Madoff defrauded thousands of consumers and organizations in one of the most intricate financial schemes of our time. On June 29, 2009, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. His plot is believed to have cost consumers $65 billion dollars.

3.1 Stratification in America The United States is a nation that makes profound promises about equality and freedom. Many of America’s most important founding documents declare that equality and fair treat- ment under the law are cornerstones of our society. For example, the Declaration of Indepen- dence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” How- ever, compared to other industrialized democracies, America experiences very high levels of inequality and poverty, both of which contribute to crime. Understanding the complex rela- tionship between social class and crime necessitates an understanding of the various ways that social class and inequality can be measured and conceptualized.

Measures of Social Class and Inequality Social class refers to a group with a similar level of economic and social status, especially income, wealth, and power. It is important to understand that social class is in part about wealth and income but also about social status, social influence, and social networks. Classic sociological theorist Max Weber (1864–1920) argued that social class is a broad and encom- passing concept that involves social prestige and influence; this social prestige and influence may or may not be directly related to economic status. Weber coined the term life chances, which is a more broad and inclusive measure of social class. Life chances refer to “access to basic opportunities and resources in the marketplace . . . that defined an individual’s class position within the larger society” (Bryjak & Soroka, 1997, p. 152). Life chances refer to an individual’s current economic standing as well as an individual’s likelihood of becoming

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 3.1 Stratification in America

economically powerful in the future. Life chances reflect one’s position in informal and formal social networks as a predictor of future economic success.

Social scientists measure differences between social classes in several ways. Depending on the study, research question, and data available, social scientists may want to examine differences between social classes at a single point in time or over a long period. Social inequality refers to the unequal distribution of power, goods, and services between individuals or groups at a given moment. In contrast, social stratification refers to “structured inequalities between groups” (Giddens, 2011, p. 181) that have become long standing and relatively permanent. Understanding the differences between inequality and stratification is very important when examining different groups in society by race, class, geography, religion, age, sexual orientation, and gender. Moreover, inequality and stratification are important features of modern America.

Stratification in America: Empirical Overview The United States is one of the most unequal industrial democracies. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimates, in 2018 the poverty rate in the United States was at 11.8%. This means that in 2018, approximately 38.1 million people in America were living below the pov- erty line, determined by a benchmark of a family of four (two adults and two children) living on less than $25,465 per year. This 11.8% poverty rate is the lowest it has been since 2007, a year before the Great Recession in America (Semega et al., 2019; see Figure 3.1). The United States has one of the highest poverty rates compared to other major industrialized nations (Confronting Poverty, 2019).

Figure 3.1: Number in poverty and poverty rate, 1959–2018

From 1959 to 2018, both the total number of people in America living in poverty and the poverty rate have varied significantly.

From Current Population Survey: 1960 to 2019 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, by U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2019/demo/p60-266/Figure7.pdf ).

45 50

40 35 30 25 20

25 20 15 10 5 0 1959 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2018

Percent

Numbers in millions Recession

Numbers in poverty 38.1 million

11.8 percent

Poverty rate

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 3.1 Stratification in America

In America, the extent of inequality and stratification varies considerably by gender, race, and geography (see Figure 3.2). Women and female-headed households are consistently more likely to be in poverty compared to men and male-headed households (Semega et al., 2019). In addition, among the racial groups measured, non-Hispanic Whites were least likely to be living in poverty, at 8.1%. Asians were slightly more likely to be living in poverty, at 10.1%. And Hispanics and Blacks suffer disproportionately from poverty, at 17.6% and 20.8%, respectively. Poverty, inequality, and stratification are critical to understanding the origins and consequences of criminal behavior.

Figure 3.2: Poverty rate by state, 2020

Adapted from Poverty Rate by State 2020, by World Population Review, 2020 (http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/poverty -rate-by-state).

10%

9%

10%

13% 10%

11% 8%11%

14% 14%

13% 11%

13%

10%

11%

11% 14%

14%14% 11%

12%

12%

12%

12%

12%

16% 15%

15%

11%

20%16%

11%

15%

19% 20%

16%

16%

16%

14%

13%

14%

17%

17%

17%

17%

10%

10%

11%

13%

14%

Stratification, Crime, and Punishment The relationship between crime and social class is complex. For centuries, criminologists have attempted to flush out the multiplicity of ways that poverty, social class, and social loca- tion (a combination of one’s gender, race, social class, age, ability, religion, sexual orientation, and geographic location) contribute to crime perpetration and crime victimization. In addi- tion, social class contributes to the likelihood of apprehension by police and punishment by the criminal justice system. Social disorganization theory, a very influential perspective in modern criminology (see Chapter 1), argues that conditions of disadvantage within neigh- borhoods create crime. According to this perspective, poverty, dilapidated housing, a lack of social services, high residential turnover, and poor education and economic opportunities create an environment that breeds criminal behavior. It seems intuitive that certain types of crime, such as drug dealing or petty theft, may increase out of economic necessity. However,

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 3.1 Stratification in America

the relationship between poverty and crime is far from clear, as articulated by Jeffrey Reiman, a professor of philosophy and criminology and author of the influential book The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison.

We know that poverty, slums, and unemployment are sources of street crime. We know that they breed alienation from social institutions, and that they reduce the likely rewards of going straight. But, we do not fully understand how they cause crime, because we know as well that many, if not most, poor, unemployed slum dwellers do not engage in street crime. (Reiman, 2007, p. 29)

Moreover, evidence abounds that a significant amount of crime is perpetrated by the mid- dle and upper classes of society. There is a legacy of studies of white-collar crime (Berger, 2011). Moreover, studies of affluent drug dealers (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010) challenge the assumption that drug dealing is a crime chosen only by the financially desperate. And influential perspectives in criminological theory argue that crime is caused by the innate thrill of breaking the rules (Katz, 1988), irrespective of social position and location. In addi- tion, recall that self-report data and victimization surveys consistently show a higher rate of criminality by middle- and upper-middle-class populations compared to the Uniform Crime Report (see Chapter 1). While the relationship between social class and crime perpetration is not entirely clear, there is a clear relationship between social class and punishment by the criminal justice system.

Web Field Trip: Class-Based Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System

Visit the webpage of Dr. Paul Leighton, focused on class-based inequalities in the criminal justice system: http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/RichGetRicher/Fraud2004/TaleOf2Crim inals.htm. Read the section dedicated to the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case Rummel v. Estelle.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. In the case of Rummel v. Estelle, did the punishment fit the crime? 2. What, if anything, does this Supreme Court case contribute to our understanding of

social class and crime?

The contemporary American criminal justice system disproportionately impacts the poor and other marginalized groups. Randall Shelden (2010), a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, calls jails in contemporary America “temporary housing for the poor” (p. 57). Moreover, before being incarcerated, prison inmates also suffer dis- proportionately from poverty (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010). Our incarcerated population is much lower on the socioeconomic hierarchy compared to our general population. In part, this overrepresentation of the poor can be attributed to law enforcement procedures that make disadvantaged groups more likely to be caught for criminal behavior and more likely to be punished harshly by the criminal justice system.

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 3.1 Stratification in America

Shaping Criminology: The Seductions of Crime The bulk of criminological theories about the origins of crime have focused on the possible material rewards for criminal behavior: the money, the drugs, the stolen goods. In 1988 Jack Katz, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, crafted a theory of crime centered on the nonmaterial benefits of doing crime. In his book Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil, Katz argues that human beings derive a psycho- logical, physiological, and even sensual pleasure from breaking the rules. Simply put, crime feels good. According to Katz, crime is far less rational and far less goal oriented than many assume. The thrill of committing criminal acts, taking risks and potentially getting away with it, is inherently attractive. Katz (1988) famously notes that “it is not the taste for the pizza that leads to the crime; the crime makes the pizza tasty” (p. 52). Initially, this “sneaky thrills” per- spective on crime seems applicable to crimes such as drug use, drag racing, and spontaneous assault. However, Katz argues that the seductions of crime are applicable to a wide variety of crimes: violent and nonviolent, minor and severe. Katz (1988) writes,

The social science literature contains only scattered evidence of what it means, feels, sounds, tastes, or looks like to commit a particular crime. Readers of research on homicide and assault do not hear the slaps and curses, see the pushes and shoves, or feel the humiliation and rage that may build toward the attack, sometimes persisting after the victim’s death. How adolescents manage to make the shoplifting or vandal- ism of cheap and commonplace things a thrilling experience has not been intriguing to many students of delinquency. Neither academic methods nor academic theories seem to be able to grasp why such killers . . . kill when only petty cash is at stake. (p. 3)

This vivid narrative is part of Katz’s larger argument that the nitty-gritty aspects of crimi- nal behavior often defy rationality. Crimes are often more spontaneous than the cost–benefit assumptions of deterrence theory suggest. According to Katz, crime often provides the crimi- nal a sensual benefit that is typically more important than any material or tangible rewards.

Katz uses a series of empirical cases to support the core claims of the sneaky thrills perspec- tive on crime. He points out that the typical profit from a burglary or robbery is about $80 per criminal event. Moreover, a relatively small number of frequent, repeat offenders commit the vast majority of burglaries and robberies. These repeat offenders are caught and punished relatively frequently by the criminal justice system. Thus, he argues, a simple cost–benefit analysis cannot be the entire motivation for these criminals. To support this claim, Katz quotes John Allen, a Washington, DC, man who makes his living committing armed robbery. Armed robbery is a particularly dangerous and risky type of crime that can result in severe criminal penalties. Allen explains:

For a man, pimping is a good way of making money, but the fastest way is narcotics, and the safest and best way of all is numbers. Even though my whores were making a lot of money, I just didn’t like pimping that much. It ain’t my style. . . . I missed stickup quite a bit. . . . What I really missed was the excitement of sticking up and the planning and the getting away with it. (as cited in Frank, 1989, p. 1)

Allen seems seduced by the “moral and sensual attractions in doing evil” and offers a case that supports Katz’s core conclusions empirically.

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class The American criminal justice system disproportionately impacts traditionally marginalized individuals and groups. Individuals lower on the social class hierarchy are more likely to be under the control of the correctional system: in jails, in prisons, on probation, or on parole. As discussed in Chapter 2, overrepresentation of the poor and people of color has been a long- standing and fairly consistent feature of the American criminal justice system (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010; Shelden, 2010). Thus, one of the most important questions in criminology is why (Currie, 1998)? Why are individuals with less wealth, less social capital, and lower incomes more likely to end up in the criminal justice system?

Criminologists explore the relationship between social class and crime by critically examin- ing two possible hypotheses: disparity and discrimination. There are two possible reasons why those of lower social class are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. One, it is possible that those of lower class commit more crime. Maybe higher rates of offending, or disparities in crime rates, account for the overrepresentation of lower class groups in the cor- rectional system. Two, it is possible that those in the lower class are overrepresented in the criminal justice system primarily because of discriminatory policies. Maybe there are inten- tional and unintentional dynamics built into the system that make those of lower social class more likely to be caught and punished for their law-violating behavior.

The disparity and discrimination hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. When evaluating the complex evidence on this issue, neither hypothesis will explain the overrepresentation of the lower class in the criminal justice system in its entirety. Rather, a combination of both explanations is likely the most scientifically accurate explanation of the role of social class in the criminal justice process. Therefore, conceptualizing the constructs of disparity and dis- crimination as poles on a continuum is useful (see Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3: Disparity vs. discrimination: A continuum

The overrepresentation of the poor in the criminal justice system is explained in part by disparities in offending rates and in part by discriminatory policy. These explanations are best represented as poles on a continuum, or endpoints between which lie a series of explanations that combine both disparity and discrimination in different proportions.

Disparity Discrimination

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Disparities in Rates of Offending Evidence suggests that in America, the lower social classes have higher rates of both crime perpetration and crime victimization compared to the middle and upper classes. Many corner- stone criminological theories place social class as one of the most important variables in the origin of criminal behavior. Robert Merton’s strain theory (see Chapter 1) argues that block- ages of legitimate mechanisms for upward social mobility cause crime. For Merton, underper- forming school systems and a lack of viable economic opportunities create anomie and cause crime. Similarly, the theory of social disorganization (see Chapter 1) argues that dilapidated housing, poverty, and generally poor living conditions consistently produce crime. In a more critical lens, conflict criminology (see Chapter 1) posits that the economically dominant class creates laws that criminalize the behavior of the lower classes and vigorously enforces those laws to perpetuate its own power. While these theoretical perspectives outline very different dynamics and conclusions, they all place economics and social class as central to the under- standing of crime. The evidence that low social class is a predictor of criminality is not only theoretical but empirical as well.

Stephen G. Tibbetts (2012), a criminal justice professor at California State University, San Bernardino, presents the following argument:

Crime . . . tends to cluster according to social class, with the lower classes experiencing far more violent offending and victimization. This is now undis- puted and consistently shown across all sources of data regarding criminal offending. . . . To clarify, young, poor, urban males tend to have the highest rates of criminal offending—and this group also has the highest rates of vic- timization as a result of violent offending. (p. 24)

Social science has demonstrated that a series of variables related to social class contribute to crime: poverty, unemployment, poor nutrition, poor housing, exposure to toxins, lack of edu- cational opportunities, and lack of medical care. However, as noted by Reiman (2007), most poor individuals who suffer from combinations of these structural disadvantages do not com- mit crime. Thus, the structural disadvantages associated with poverty and low-class standing should be considered risk factors for crime but do not determine behavior.

In addition, some of the evidence about the relationship between social class and crime is not entirely clear. For example, Theodore Chirico, the William Julius Wilson Professor of Crimi- nology at Florida State University, conducted a powerful meta-analysis in 1987 examining the relationship between unemployment and street crime. A meta-analysis is a review of the major studies done on a particular topic that attempts to unearth common themes and conclusions. According to Chirico, the literature on the impact of unemployment and crimi- nal behavior is mixed at best: “Some studies had found a positive relationship, some a nega- tive relationship, and some no relationship between unemployment and crime” (as cited in Berger et al., 2009, p. 282).

Evidence suggests that lower class individuals and groups have higher rates, or disparities, in criminal offending and victimization. However, there is also considerable evidence that the criminal justice system actively discriminates by social class. Both intentional and unin- tentional discrimination make the behavior of the lower classes more likely to come to the attention of law enforcement and more likely to be punished harshly by the criminal justice system.

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Case Study: The Saints and the Roughnecks

In 1973 renowned criminologist William J. Chambliss published “The Saints and the Rough- necks,” a groundbreaking ethnography about social class, perception, and criminal justice pol- icy. Chambliss conducted participant observation at a high school in a suburban area outside of Seattle, Washington, that he dubbed “Hanibal High.” Within Hanibal High, Chambliss’s study focused on two groups of deviant high school boys that he called the “Saints” and the “Rough- necks.” This study examined the deviant behavior of these groups and their respective interac- tions with power holders in the community: school officials, parents, and law enforcement.

According to Chambliss (1973), the Saints were “eight promising young men—children of good, stable White upper-middle-class families . . . good pre-college students—were some of the most delinquent boys at Hanibal High School” (p. 24). The social location and life chances of the Saints were much different than those of the Roughnecks. Chambliss (1973) described the Roughnecks as “six lower-class white boys . . . constantly in trouble with police and com- munity even though their rate of delinquency was about equal with that of the Saints” (p. 24).

The Saints and the Roughnecks committed very similar types of crime and deviance at similar rates. It was common for the Saints to engage in vandalism, some petty theft, truancy, and alcohol and drug use. The criminal behavior of the Roughnecks centered on fighting, drinking, and theft. Despite these similar levels and types of criminality, power holders in the commu- nity perceived the two groups of boys quite differently. Moreover, the behavior of the Rough- necks was much more likely to result in official law enforcement consequences. Throughout the course of the 2-year study, the Saints were never officially arrested. In contrast, in the same period, each member of the Roughnecks was arrested at least one time. Multiple Roughnecks were arrested several times, and ultimately two Roughnecks spent 6 months in a school for boys as punishment for their criminal behavior.

Parents, school officials, and law enforcement viewed the two groups of boys very differently. The community largely determined that the Saints were young boys who were “sowing their wild oats”—engaging in nominal rule breaking and testing boundaries but otherwise destined for bright futures. In dramatic contrast, the criminal behavior of the Roughnecks was assumed to be indicative of more serious forms of criminality later in life. Chambliss determined that a combination of three variables could explain the differential treatment and perception of these two groups: visibility, demeanor, and bias.

According to Chambliss (1973), “This differential visibility was a direct function of the eco- nomic standing of the families. The Saints had access to automobiles and were able to remove themselves from the sight of the community” (p. 29). The Saints had the privilege of commit- ting their deviant and criminal behavior—vandalism and petty theft in particular—in nearby neighborhoods and communities. Similarly, the Saints were able to conceal a great deal of their drug and alcohol consumption inside their respective houses. These visibility advantages were crucial in allowing the Saints to maintain a relatively wholesome public image despite their overt criminality.

In contrast, the deviant and criminal behavior of the Roughnecks was very visible to power holders in the community. The Roughnecks did not have access to cars or expansive homes. Thus, they engaged in petty theft, alcohol consumption, and fighting outside, often in the mid- dle of their community. This study suggests that visible crimes committed in public spaces are not only more likely to come to the attention of the community but also more likely to elicit concern and lead to social control efforts. While visibility was critically important to the dif- ferential perceptions of these two groups, other variables were important as well.

(continued on next page)

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Discriminatory Policy: Visibility As originally demonstrated by Chambliss, visibility advantages and disadvantages are criti- cally important in the contemporary investigation of social class and crime. Individuals who live in residentially crowded, lower class communities have less privacy in all aspects. There- fore, in lower class communities with high population density, residents are much more vis- ible to law enforcement. Criminologists have consistently found that neighborhood differ- ences in police presence and residential crowding shape one’s vulnerability to apprehension and arrest by police.

The job of law enforcement is to police public spaces. Due to the lack of sufficient private space in many lower class neighborhoods, streets, parks, and common areas become active centers for social interaction and daily living (Berger et al., 2009). As a result, police are more likely to actively patrol these lower class neighborhoods and communities, and thus citizens from these communities are more likely to be arrested (Sampson, 1986).

Case Study: The Saints and the Roughnecks (continued)

The respective demeanor of each group was also critical to their differing reputations. When law enforcement, school officials, and powerful members of the community confronted the Saints, they were notably “apologetic and penitent” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 30). The Saints feigned subservience to adults and exuded middle-class values. In contrast, the Roughnecks were very aggressive when confronted by authority figures. They expressed “hostility and dis- dain” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 30) in these interactions that further entrenched their negative perception among the community.

The third explanatory variable in the study was bias. According to Chambliss, visibility and demeanor contributed to unfair and prejudicial treatment of the Roughnecks by the commu- nity, school officials, and law enforcement. He argued that class-based bias led to a predisposi- tion to favor the Saints and to consistently give them sympathetic treatment. In contrast, when a Roughneck was facing consequences for criminal or deviant behavior, even the boy’s own parents seemed to assume the worst; the bad behavior of the Roughneck was evidence that he was destined to commit more serious types of crime in the future.

Chambliss (1973) concluded that visibility, demeanor, and bias are “surface variables” that work in combination to explain the differential treatment of the Saints and the Roughnecks (p. 30). He argued that community and law enforcement discretion is influenced by “the class structure of American society and the control of legal institutions by those at the top of the class structure” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 30). The study suggests that social class differences can lead to very different perceptions and treatment of similar behavior. The powerful conclusion in “The Saints and the Roughnecks” reaffirms that class-based discrimination shapes percep- tions of criminality and law enforcement behavior: “Selective perception and labeling—find- ing, processing and punishing some kinds of criminality and not others—means that visible, poor, non-mobile, outspoken, undiplomatic ‘tough’ kids will be noticed, whether their actions are seriously delinquent or not” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 31).

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Whether these social class dynamics represent active discrimination by law enforcement is debatable. Driven by population density, residential crowding, and lack of privacy, individuals from many lower class co

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.