Category Archives: Crime and Deviance

Book summary – One Blood

Heale-275x415Book – One Blood – Inside Britain’s New Street Gangs – John Heale, 2008.

This focuses on just some of the themes in this book –

This book is based mainly on interviews with gang members based in London, Manchester, Liverpool and elsewhere in Britain, and provides an empathetic and some may say sympathetic insight into gang life in modern Britain.

Heale focuses mainly on the wider social and economic background in which most of the gang members he interviews have grown up and argues that there is a link between living in a deprived, high crime area with limited opportunities and the emergence of gang culture. One can discern four major reasons why individuals join gangs –

Firstly, Heale reminds us many current gang members, would have been victims of crime numerous times before they joined a gang, and this experience of being a victim of crime, is often what leads people to joining a gang.

Heale uses data from the British Crime Survey to demonstrate how crime is highly concentrated in poorer areas. He points out that if you are a teenage boy living in a gang area, it is a near certainty that you will have been a victim of crime at some point, and probably a repeat victim, In this context, joining a gang makes sense as it is a way of protecting yourself from being a victim of crime – it is a rational response to living in a high crime area.

This is illustrated this by the case of how one 13 year old, Daniel, came to join a gang – It started with him being punched in the face by a member of a gang in a local park. His brother, already a member of another gang, took vengeance on his behalf – in school – which lead to Daniel spending more time with his elder brother – which eventually lead to him getting introduced to his brother’s gang.

Secondly, many of Heal’s interviewees have come from broken families, having parents with drug problems who are disinterested in their children and many youths would have witnessed domestic violence from a young age – and would have grown up with the feeling that nobody really cares about them.

Thirdly, Heale reminds us that living in poverty and being marginalized from the rest of society is normal in gang areas . Following. Gangs typically emerge on sink housing estates – with poor, marginalized people being crammed together in one area. In these areas we have high levels of debt and stress. Today, we have a new generation of kids that have known nothing other than these estates – and it is this generation that are joining gangs.  

To illustrate how geographically isolated people on these estates are – Heale points out that the typical gang member has a very local world view – they spend most of their time in their local area and tend to associate their particular territory with their peers and thus with protection and safety – when interviewed, many gang members perceive going to the London Eye as a trip abroad. Gang members don’t generally think outside their local boundaries – and Heale argues that the rest of the country may as well be a different nation as far as he is concerned. He in fact argues that the experience of life in an area dominated by gangs is very different from life in most other parts of Britain.

Finally, there is a lack of legitimate opportunities in the kinds of areas where gangs emerge. Gang members do not see any legitimate opportunities in training or working their way out, and they can earn a lot more money getting involved with selling drugs within the context of a gang. Most gang members see their part of being a gang as a way of ‘getting out’ of the ghetto – as evidence he cites Professor John Pitts who speculates that those at the top of a drugs chain in the Walthom Forest area of London, one  could earn as much as £130 000 a year from drug dealing.

Thus the experience of life for a typical person living in gangland today, and for your typical gang member, would have involved being brought up in a broken home, poverty and relative deprivation, being a multiple victim of crime, and one of frustrated opportunities. Heale’s analogy for Gangland is that it is like a ‘boot perpetually stamping on a human face’ – This experience of early socialization encourages individuals to think of the short term – rather than planning for the long term, because for them, there is no long term future, other than prison or death, and this is enough for many people in these gang areas to become emotionally detached from the consequences of their actions.

So according to Heale it is this context of economic and social deprivation that explains why people join gangs and also helps to explain some of the extremely violent crimes that some gang members engage in.

Building on sand: Why expanding the prison estate is not the way to ‘secure the future’

Relevant to the Crime and Deviance module – on social control and the effectiveness (or not) of prison…

From the summary – This briefing argues that the government’s analysis of factors driving up the prison population is `inadequate’ and `highly misleading’ .

http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/buildingonsand.html

See also my blog on the ‘Spirit Level’ – why imprisonment rates are higher in unequal societies – you might like to compare what Wilkinson says with what Professor Carol Hedderman says in this document

The decriminalisation of death and injury at work

Interesting report on health and safety crimes – stats and enforcement (or lack of it)

From the summary on the web site –

“This briefing argues that fatalities and injuries caused through work are far more prevalent than the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) currently reports. The authors find that more than 80 per cent of officially recorded work-related fatalities are filtered out from the HSE’s headline figure and remain buried in other categories in the official data. After re-assessing the scale of the harms caused, Tombs and Whyte conclude that being a victim of a work-related fatality or injury is far more likely than experiencing conventionally defined and measured violence and homicide.”

From me –

This document also argues that many cases of death and injury at work that are a result of companies breaching health and safety laws, however, most of these cases remain unreported and unprosecuted because the Health and Safety executive, the body responsible for monitoring and prosecuting companies who breach such laws has been downsized in recent years.

Please also note that while the government is throwing money at things like operation trident to try and reduce gun crime, it is taking away money from the agency responsible for prosecuting companies who cause death through negligence at work – when far more people die at work compared to those who die from gun crime.

The report is by Professor Steve Tombs and Dr David Whyte (June 2008)

Sociology on TV – Our Drugs War

This programme focuses on why users and dealers go back to their lives of dealing and taking drugs once they leave jail – the short answer seems to be that there is little opportunity to do anything else.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/our-drugs-war

Based in New York, the documentary follows Thomas Winston who is 28 years old and has spent 7 years in and out of jail for drug related offences. He is currently on a rehabilitation program which is providing him with job training and has him moved away from the area in which he grew up and became part of the drugs game.

The reasons for reoffending seam to be as follows –

  1. There is little opportunity to do anything else – Winston himself laments that during his first few times in jail, the focus was just on ‘jail jail jail’ rather than on what he could once he got out of jail – from what I can gather he has just finished his third or fourth spell inside (it’s not clear from the documentary) and has only now been offered a limited rehabilitation programme. This ‘lack of legitimate opportunity theme is repeated later on in the documentary when one dealer says that ‘we don’t do good because they don’t give us the opportunity to do good’
  2. It is economically irrational to not go back to dealing drugs – Winston’s rehabilitation officer points out that it is simply irrational for Winston to stick to his rehabilitation programme – because at best, with no education or work history, he will get a minimum wage job compared to the possibility of bringing in thousands of dollars a week dealing drugs. At one point the documentary goes into the hood, to witness one heavily masked drug dealer who has already taken in $1350 that day (approx £700) and in his own words ‘that’s not bad, it’s still early’
  3. The sense of injustice  – On a visit to a jail – the narrator points out that he is one of the few white faces in the institution, but according to criminal justice officials he speaks to and a human rights watch campaign whites are just as likely to buy and sell drugs as blacks and Hispanics. The dealers are aware of this – the film even follows one black dealer on his journey into a white middle class area with over a $1000 of coke bagged up and ready to sell to the white market (heavily cut) The difference is not in use – it is in the policing – heavy in black areas and non –existent in white areas.
  4. Dealers see all work as ‘hussling’ and say that their type of work is only illegal because the people who make the law aren’t making any money out of drug dealing. They see their work as equally legitimate to the work of regular people.
  5. Finally, at one point we get to see Winston rapping where he asks the question ‘how bad is a crime that brings in money when everywhere around you in society you messages telling you to get rich and spend.

 One final thing to mention is that this documentary also functions as a critique of the ‘tough on drugs policies’ – mainly because they simply are not working!

So how valid is this as a piece of research – well it may only follow one person –(actually it does follow someone else too, but I am only focussing on Winston) – but biographical accounts of perceived lack of opportunities and a sense of social injustice have been reported by many sociologists – The work of Sudhir Venkatesh and Peter Squires for example. See my blogs for more details on these-   

https://realsociology.edublogs.org/2010/08/08/sociology-on-the-tv-gun-nation/

https://realsociology.edublogs.org/2010/08/07/book-review-%e2%80%93-gang-leader-for-a-day/

One interesting thing to note is that unlike Venkatesh’s gang leader for a day –there appears to be less evidence here of organised gangs on these estates – the dealers seem to be individual operators – although this may just be because of the nature of the methodology – a documentary rather than 10 years of overt PO.

This documentary should be of interest to Sociology students because we see here support for Merton’s strain theory here and a critique of prison as a solution to drug crime.

The programme ends abruptly by informing us that Thomas Winston was shot dead on Christmas day 2009.

Research – The spirit level on imprisonment rates

The-Spirit-LevelIt is not the underlying rate of crime or the seriousness of crime that explain cross national variations in imprisonment rates – It is how punitive the state is, which in turn is related to the degree of inequality in a soceity. This is just one of the claims of Richard Wilkson and Kate Pickett, authors of the spirit level. Lets look at the evidence –

In the USA and UK prison populations have been increasing –

 USA    1978 –            Prison population –    450 000

USA    2005-              Prison population-   2 000 000 + (more than two million)

UK      1990               Prison population –  46 000

UK      2007               Prison population    80 000

UK      2009               Prison population    85 000 (note just two years + 5000 prisoners!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/23/early-release-prison-numbers

This means that in the US the prison population quadrupled in 27 years and almost double in 20 years in the UK.

This contrasts remarkably with what has been going on in other countries – in Sweden the prison population was stable through the 1990s and rates have been falling in France and Germany.

Note however that critics point to the problems of making cross national comparisons where crime stats are concerned.

Wilkinson argues that the number of people locked up in prison is influence by three things –

  • The rate of crime
  • The length of sentence
  • The tendency to send convicted prisoners to jail which is in turn influenced by the likelihood of someone being caught and successfully prosecuted.

Criminologists Alfred Blumstein and Allen Beck examined the growth of the US prison populations between 1980 and 1996 and found that 88% of the increased imprisonment was due to tougher sentencing laws – namely the ‘three strikes law’ and the ‘truth in sentencing’ law which means less likelihood of getting out early. In California in 2004 there were 360 people serving life sentences for shoplifting – 0ut of a current population of  37 million, just over half the UK population!

Wilkinson also argues that tougher sentencing explains the increase in prison populations in the UK – Crime has been going down every year since 1995 according to the BCS.

So basically, claim 1 that Wilkinson makes is that it is not the underlying rate of crime or the seriousness of crime that explains imprisonment rates – its is how punitive the state is.

The second claim Wilkinson makes is that a high level of income inequality is correlated with a punitive state and a high prison population – click on the table below I couldn’t make it any larger!

 imprisonment

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/imprisonment

 
The third point he makes is that those countries that are more equal are more likely to emphasise treatment and rehabilitation than punishment – with suspended rather than custodial sentencing more likely. This approach is found in the Netherlands and in Japan where some prisons have been called ‘islands of tranquillity. Guards are expected to be role models in the prisoners’ rehabilitation.

I just couldn’t resist this – the Dutch police clip from the Fast Show – I’m sure they’re not this relaxed…

 

 
And a link to a blog about a Swedish jail http://welcometosweden.blogspot.com/2007/12/youtube-funny-swedish-prison-cell.html (careful with this I’m not sure how real it is!)

 Wilkinson contrasts this to the crowded conditions and violence of guards the ‘supermax’ prisons in the USA – which are prisons within prisons where prisoners are kept in extreme isolation for up to 23 hours a day – estimates say that up to 40 000 people have been kept in these conditions. Medical Anthropologist Lorna Rhodes describes prisoners’ lives here as characterised by lack of movement, stimulation and social contact.

 A link to a CBS report and video – Supermax – ‘A clean version of hell’ – in the words of one of its ex wardens  –http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/60minutes/main3357727.shtml?source=RSSattr=60Minutes_3357727

 

 

 
Wilkinson says ‘Not only do the higher crime rates of imprisonment in more unequal societies seem to reflect more punitive sentencing rather than crime rates, but both the harshness of the prison system and use of capital punishment point in the same direction’

The fourth point Wilkinson makes is that prison doesn’t work – he reports reoffending rates in the US and UK at about 60 -65% and in Sweden and Japan at 35 and 40% – one thing worth thinking about is that the higher the rate of reoffending, the higher the prison population – as you are more likely to go to jail for a second than a first offence!

He also suggests that there is a concern that ASBOs actually increase crime.

Finally, and in an interesting conclusion to the chapter, Wilkinson suggests that in unequal socieites, where the differences between ‘us’ and ‘them’ are greater, the result is a greater sense of fragmentation, which in turn leads to mistrust of others and a heightened fear of crime – this then leads to a public demand for politicians to get tough on crime, which they do in order to gain popularity. All of this of course is exaggerated by the media!

He contrasts this to more equal societies which are more likely to have a CJS that works with professionals – criminologists, lawyers and prison psychiatrists to think about how to actually reduce crime and rehabilitate offenders.

On the ineffectiveness of harsh punishment I also found this quote which appears at the end of the first link (the BBC one) at the top of this item

Frances Crook, the director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said that having doubled since the mid-1990s, a new record had been reached with no end in sight to further record highs.

“This ceaseless growth in prison numbers is untenable and any new administration will have to bite the bullet and find a strategic way to reduce the prison population,” she said.

“Recent statistics show that 36.8% reoffended on community sentences in 2008, compared with more than 61% for those sentenced to a year or less in prison. Not only are community sentences more effective at reducing crime but they come at a fraction of the price, with a community order costing on average £2,000-£3,000 a year, compared with at least £41,000 a year to run a prison place.”

So – if you believe Wilkinson’s stats, and a whole load of other stats incidentally, inequality leads to fear which leads to a punitive CJS which leads to a higher prison population.

NB – We will discuss the obvious problems of data selection, objectivity  and attributing causality at some point in class.

Sociology on TV – Gun Nation

This programme, or rather the article that accompanies it, can be used to critically evaluate any of the consensus perspectives on the causes of crime, in this case, gun crime.

The programme aired July 2010. It follows a 2 year police Operation which exposed the trade in illegal weapons in one northern town, which lead to the successful conviction of over 20 people involved in an international crime ring.

I just posted this comment on the programme’s comments sight (probably too late) – and it probably won’t get published –

‘This programme provided an interesting insight into an effective police operation against one network of organised criminals dealing in illeagal firearms and guns. However, having just read the very informative article by Peter Squires that goes along with the programme, which deals with the supply and demand side of these guns I am dismayed at the limited agenda of this programme – which focussed on the entertainment value of ‘looking at the mobile phone records’ and ‘the bust’. I am also frustrated that the programme started with the ‘hook’ of Raul Moat (apologies if not spelt correctly) when the reasons for his gun crimes are clearly distinct from from gun crimes related to drugs. I recommend people read the article that accompanies the programme – it will take you 10 minutes and you will learn a lot more about the actual causes than you will from this 40 minute broadcast!’  

The article can be found here –

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/guns-in-britain

peter
Peter Squires

It is by Peter Squires, Professor of Criminology and Public Policy at the University of Brighton. Some of the ‘causes of gun crime talks about include –

Poverty and marked social inequalities which fuel a sense of injustice

Histories of racial discrimination and social exclusion: some lives seem worth less than others.

Fast moving social changes – the shipping of jobs overseas where production costs were cheaper, leading to a lack of legitimate opportunities for Younger generations, who, having come to believe that affluence was their birth-right, not least because it beckoned to them daily from the TV screens of America, turned to drug dealing and crime.

Drug dealing is a different kind of economics – violence is a necessary component of successful drug dealing. The capacity for violence is your credibility, your ‘capital’ – the respect you are due. In the street drug dealing scene this violence is not ‘meaningless’ – it means precisely the same as the notices in high street shops: “we always prosecute”. It means “I always retaliate – you know I’ve done it before, and that I will do it to you.” A willingness to use weapons is a feature of this.

Violence rates escalated noticeably in the late 1980s and early 90s with the rapid influx of crack cocaine and ‘hyper-violent’ Jamaican gangsters into both mainland USA and Britain. They created a model that many other young people, both black and white, with no qualifications and few opportunities (the ‘NEET generation’ – not in education, employment or training) sought to emulate.

This lifestyle is also exciting – many young men (from football hooligans to joyriders) have described the ‘buzz’ of illegality – the adrenaline rush that criminal activity brings.

Dealing drugs can bring instant rewards: money, cars, designer-styles and girlfriends – the ghetto-fabulous lifestyle often taken up by the newly affluent.

Many in the local community live in fear, no-one talks to the police or wants to be labelled a ‘grass’. Young people often find it safer to join a gang, ‘thugging up’ – looking the part, walking the walk… not to act in these ways is to open yourself to victimisation, to suggest to others that you don’t have the ‘bottle’ to protect your ‘turf’. It only invites further violence.

This is a very interesting piece of analysis that looks at both the longer term structural causes of crime and the more immediate reasons on the ground – look out for some of this guys other publications!

  • Gun Culture or Gun Control? Firearms, Violence and Society. Routledge 2000
  • ASBO Nation. Bristol, the Policy Press 2008
  • ‘Gun crime’: A review of evidence and policy. CCJS 2008
  • Street Weapons Commission: Guns, Knives and Street Violence. CCJS 2008
  • Young people, knives and guns. CCJS 2009
  • Shooting to Kill? Policing Firearms and Armed Response. Wiley/Blackwell 2010
  • Book review – Gang leader for a day:

    gang1Gang leader for a day: A rogue sociologists takes the streets by Sudhir Venkatesh (2009)

    If you only have time to read one sociology book during the syllabus on Crime and Deviance then read this. This is one of the most engaging and important works of ethnography to have been published in recent years in which a Sociologist engages in long term participant observation with a crack dealing gang in Chicago.

     
    There is an excellent extended summary of the book here – http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/books/16grimes.html and you can also listen to Venkatesh talk about his research here –

     

     

    Just some of the reasons this text is relevant to A level students –

    1. It demonstrates some of the practical and ethical problems of doing PO.
    2. It reminds us that we should be cautious about generalizing about the strengths and weaknesses of this method – Venkatesh found it difficult to get valid information out of anyone other than JT the gang leader because his close links with JT made other members of the community suspicious of him (they though he was JT’s spy).
    3. It dispels myths about the ‘glamour of gang culture’ – as Levitt says in the video below, dealing drugs in a gang is probably the worst job in America.
    4. It adds to our knowledge about why people join gangs – we will cover this in class, but interestingly this quote from a Q and A session with Venkatesh stood out –

    Q: How do gang members see themselves as fitting in with society at large? Do gang members have a real comprehension that the things they do are widely perceived as not only illegal but also morally wrong?
    A: Many gang members who attain leadership status are deeply conscious of their perception by wider society. They tend to make two arguments when discussing their behavior: first, that whites also work in the underground economy but are not prosecuted to the same degree and second, that corporations also engage in criminal activity, but are rarely viewed as outlaws —[many] companies… have established histories of supporting anti-democratic regimes in developing counties to secure their own profits….It is important to look at the world from the perspective of the gang member — who sees everyone as a hustler.”

    http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-street-gangs-but-didnt-know-whom-to-ask/

    In this you tube clip Steven Levitt provides an interesting analysis of crack- cocaine dealing in the USA – at least the first 3 minutes sound interesting, which is all I’ve had time to watch so far!

     

    The only downsides to the book are that the research ended more than ten years ago, which is unsurprising given the sensitive nature of the criminal activities dealt with in the book, and the fact that it is US based, which stems from the fact that Sociologists don’t tend to do in depth research of this nature – Venkatesh is in fact a ‘Rogue Sociologist’ because he is breaking away from the tradition of quantitative research that keeps a distance between researcher and respondent.

    Of course these aren’t really criticisms, just me saying it’s a shame there aren’t more research studies of a similar nature!

    Vulture funds bill blocked by Christopher Chope, MP

    OK this is old news – from March, but I’ve been meaning to write on this for ages… only just got round to it!

    This item shows you the following

    • For A2 Global Development – this demonstrates the role of the Capitalist class in keeping developing countries poor – this is due to to the inability of the government to regulate a few unscrupulous hedge fund managers.
    • For A2 Crime and Deviance – The power of the elite minority to prevent just laws that the majority believe in coming into force

    I first came across Vulture Funds thanks to this article – which is quoted at some length below…

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-we-must-stop-the-vulture-funds-that-feed-on-the-worlds-poor-1789257.html

    39779“Would you ever march up to a destitute African who is shivering with Aids and demand he “pay back” tens of thousands of pounds he didn’t borrow – with interest? I only ask because this is in effect happening, here, in British and American courts, time after time. Some of the richest people in the world are making profit margins of 500 per cent by shaking money out of the poorest people in the world – for debt they did not incur.

    Here’s how it works. In the mid-1990s, a Republican businessman called Paul Singer invented a new type of hedge fund, quickly dubbed a “vulture fund.” They buy debts racked up years ago by the poorest countries on earth, almost always when they were run by kleptocratic dictators, before most of the current population was born. They buy it for small sums – as little as 10 per cent of its paper value – from the original holder and then take the poor country to court in Britain or the US to demand 100 per cent of the debt is repaid immediately, plus interest built up over years, and court costs.

    Let’s look at two examples in two of the countries most aggressively targeted by the vulture funds – Peru, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I spent a week in a gargantuan rubbish dump in Peru 35 miles north of Lima. It is home to more than 5,000 children. Among them I found Adelina, a little eight-year old smudge, living there in a nest she had built from trash. She spends all day searching for something – anything – she can sell. The vulture funds managed to get $58m out of Peru, on a debt they paid $11m for.

    Action Aid launched a campaign to prevent vulture funds from suing indepbted developing countries for their money in British Courts – part of whch involved raising public awareness as most people simply don’t know about them! – see here for more details –http://www.actionaidusa.org/what/intl_policy/vulture_funds/

    In March 2010, Labour MP Sally Keeble actually tabled a private members bill to prevent vulture funds from operating in Britain. Having just reviewed some old WDM and Action Aid magazines from that month, they had news reports that assumed these vulture funds would be bloked.

    25799_jpgHowever, because this bill was brought before the commons just before the general election, if one member objected, it would not get passed – This member was a Torie MP Christopher Chope – It is rare that you find a living example of scum – but here is one – Christopher Chope MP – Doing the dirty work of hedge fund managers in the house of commons while the poorest people suffer.  

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mp-blocks-bill-targeting-vulture-funds-1920708.html

    What is really aweful about this affair is that at the time of the vote on the bill, three MPs actually covered their mouths when the question ‘are there any objections’ to this bill was raised, so other people in the house could not be sure who actually objected, it was only afterwards that Chope came out as being scum.

    Chope’s contact details, should you wish to send him a message…

    http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/christopher-chope/25799

    Westminster

    House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
    Tel: 020 7219 5808
    Fax: 020 7219 6938
    chopec@parliament.uk

    Constituency

    18a Bargates, Christchurch, BH23 1QL
    Tel: 01202 474949
    Fax: 01202 475548
    office@christchurchconservatives.com
    www.christchurchconservatives.com

    Had this bill gone through it would have been a good example of the state regulating the finance sector – but once again here it fails to do so – and this example shows you the appalling lack of morality amongst some conservative MPs.