Category Archives: Essay Plans

How to Revise AS Sociology Efficiently – Focusing on Marriage and Divorce

Riveting title I know, but then again it is ‘revision season’. Basically I’m trying to get the point across that there are 5 stages to effective revision (none of which have got anything to do with ‘learning styles’:

1. Know what you need to know!
2. Get your hands on/ make some revision notes – effective teachers would have already got students to do this during the year. Students who haven’t already got these before revision season stand a much higher chance of failing the exam. This is good – this is meritocracy.
3. Refine your notes into mind maps – these are the most effective and efficient way of memorising material
4. Practice short answer questions
5. Practice longer essay questions – planning is more efficient than writing.

More details on all of the above in the Screencast.

NB – A secondary point of this Screencast is to demonstrate what you can do with some software called ‘Explain Everything’ which I’ve been playing around with the last couple of days. It’s great software – you can basically drag any kind of document you want into a ‘slide’ and then point at things, move things around, scribble over things, all while doing a voice over – I ended up with this Screencast. It’s not perfect, and the topic’s awfully dull (but at least timely!) but it does demonstrate what you can do with the software.


 

 

 

A2 Crime and Deviance – Methods in context essay plan

Examine the strengths and limitations of using Covert Participant Observation to research the extent to which Racism exists in the Police Force (15)

Research is needed on this topic is because it would help us to answer the question of whether ethnic minorities are over represented in the prison population due to their having higher underlying rates of offending or whether this is because the police over-policing minority groups.

As things stand at the moment – we cannot be sure of the extent to which police racism exists – the police themselves claim they are not racist, and direct observations such as those carried out by Waddington et al (2004) suggest that police stop and searches are proportionate to the visibility of ethnic minorities. However, self-report studies suggest that underlying rates of offending are very similar across ethnic groups and the idea that black people are seven times more criminal than white people doesn’t seem right at an intuitive level, so there is still a very big question mark over whether the police actually are Racist. Given that official statistics and previous research tell us different things, there is urgent need for further, valid research on this topic, and covert PO is typically regarded as yielding data that is high in validity.  

Covert Participant observation is one of the few methods, if not the only method, whereby we would get a valid insight into the extent of police racism because the police should act naturally because they do not know they are being observed. If you were to use any kind of overt method – be it overt observation, questionnaires or interviews, to investigate Racism, you would not get valid data because not only are Racist practices socially undesirable, any policeman found to be discriminatory would be dismissed, so even if they were racist, they would not act racist when researched. 

One problem of using this method for this topic is gaining access to the police force in the first place – this would either involve gaining permission from the police authorities to pose as a police officer for the duration of the research or to apply to the police force and go through the training process as one documentary maker did for the BBC in 2004. The problem with the former route is that you would probably not be allowed access by the police because they might argue that this could harm the public; the police may also be worried about your findings – in the wake of Stephen Lawrence and the McPherson enquiry the police are very sensitive about their public image over Race Relations and would probably not invite any research that might undermine this. A problem with the second methods, of covertly accessing the police is that it is both unethical in that you are deceiving everyone, and posing a as police officer is illegal.

Whatever way you did this research it would also be time consuming – in the case of the BBC documentary the researcher spent more than a year gaining access and his cover was blown after only a few months ‘on the beat’. A second limitation is that you can only do this method with a very limited sample of police officers would negatively affect the representativeness of the research – even over the course of a year you are only likely to become intimate enough with a handful of officers for them to ‘come out’ as Racists. One could thus in no way generalise one’s findings to the whole of the police force across the country, or even to the police force one conducts one’s research within.

Furthermore, while one may find evidence of racist attitudes, or hear tales of racist practices, you would have little or no control over the sample of police officers who you came into direct contact with are only ever likely to be ‘on the beat’ with one other officer at a time, and you would have no choice in who that officer was, so you would not be able to verify any reports of racism first hand. This would be a problem as racist officers may exaggerate their racist behaviour to others they think are racist to gain status, meaning that the data gained here is no more valid than that gained through interviews or questionnaires.

Covert Observation is also unreliable – given that one could not record data easily we are totally dependent on the researcher’s own definitions and interpretations of what constitutes racist attitudes and practises and these interpretations would, practically speaking, be unverifiable.

Finally, because racism is such an emotive issue, and this type of research is extremely draining, one would assume that any individual doing this research would have strong feelings about it, thus there would be a danger of researcher bias exaggerating any slight act that could be interpreted as racist. This fact, combined with the extreme unrepresentativeness of this method means that any evidence of Racism uncovered should be treated with extreme caution.  Given the problems of researching this topic it would appear that one may not gain a valid picture of the nature and extent of police racism by using this method after all!

This is just one possible essay!

Examine Sociological Perspectives on State Crime

Given that committing crime involves breaking the law and given that the state is the origin of the law, it would initially appear that the concept of the state committing crime is an oxymoron.

 As one would expect, this would appear to be the line taken by the government – politicians sometimes seem to be queuing up to condemn street crime, benefit fraud, anti-social behaviour, and violent students trashing their party headquarters,  implying threat the government and its representatives are the upholders of the law.

 The idea that the state does not commit crime is also the line take by Marxist Criminologists – but these argue that the state uses its power to define its own acts of aggression (war) and theft (the history of colonialism) as legal.

However, the United Nations Charter, developed after WWII, which most nations have signed up to and which is legally binding, makes it possible for states to commit crimes against new International Laws.

 For example, the UN charter expresses that countries can only go to war either if they are invaded by another country, or if the UN Security Council sanctions it, and thus this makes it theoretically possible for states to commit crimes by going to war illegally.

 Something else which makes the concept of state crime possible is The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights – which declares that humans have a number of rights which cannot be breached by states – the right to not be slaves, the right to democratic representation, the right to not be persecuted on the basis of religion or ethnicity, the right to a fair trial, and the right to not be tortured for example.

 Numerous states since WWII have been found guilty of Human Rights Abuses and ‘Crimes against humanity’- most obviously Nazi Germany’s acts against the Jews in the holocaust, but more recently the Rwandan government has been found guilty of genocide against the Tutsis. Notably, the Chinese government has also been accused of stifling freedom of speech because of its tendency to lock up dissident journalists. Amnesty International records hundreds of cases of such state crimes each year.

 Such state crimes are usually associated with ‘Rogue states’, however, it is not only ‘rogue states’ that have been accused of war crimes. Kofi Anan, the then secretary general of the UN, said in 2004 that the US/ UK invasion of Iraq was illegal as it had not been done in self-defence and it had not been sanctioned by the UN – moreover there is considerable evidence that US/ UK soldiers were involved in torturing captured Iraqis during that war.

 Some commentators such as Noam Chomsky go even further, arguing that the invasion of Iraq is simply the culmination of a long history of the American government using force illegally (by UN standards) to remove anti-American governments and to install new regimes that are pro- American (pro- big business) – meaning that the spread of global capitalism has been facilitated by illegal acts of aggression on the part of the US government.

 Of course these claims are hard to assess because, due to the official secrets act, criminologists do not gain full access to government records until decades after these events have taken place. However, there are enough leaked official documents to suggest that the planned use of non UN sanctioned force has been part of US foreign policy since WW2.

 If the above point is true this means that ‘war crimes’ done by the US far outweigh the costs of all violent street crime committed in the UK since crime records began in 1981.

 Moving away from these obvious forms of state crime, it is also possible for states, or agents of the state, to breach national laws – this has been the case with Police Racism – following the Stephen Lawrence case in the 1990s the McPherson enquiry found that the MET police were institutionally racist for example. Another example is the recent Tory budget cuts – these disproportionately disadvantage women and so the Fawcett society is challenging the legality their legality as the government are legally obliged to ensure that its polices to not discriminate on the grounds of gender or  ethnicity (but not class!), which in this case they do. 

 The recent ‘expenses scandal’ also shows how MPs can fiddle their expenses, thus committing crimes against society, although most of these have avoided criminal prosecution because these matters are dealt with in- house, again demonstrating the power of those in the state to define their own immoral acts as legal while still condemning benefit fraudsters. 

 By way of a brief conclusion – whether states engage in criminal acts or not depends on what legal standards you are judging them by – by internal national standards, many immoral acts that governments engaged in will of course be deemed to be legal by those in power that make the law, however, by UN standards, much of what ‘rogue states’ and even democratic states do can be deemed to be illegal. The challenge that remains for the globalising 21st century, and a challenge not yet met, is that of how to actually hold those more powerful states to account when they engage in acts of aggression to further their interests against the dictates of International Law.

Social Control Essay Plan

Assess the Contribution of Social Control Theory to an understanding of Crime and Deviance (21)

Social Control Theory sees crime as a result of social institutions losing control over individuals. This is associated with the Functionalist point of view, fist being expounded by Emile Durkheim who argued that when social institutions such as the family, education, and work, lose control over people, they effectively miss out on socialisation and suffer from anomie, a state of normlesseness, which can lead to criminal and deviant behaviour.

This idea was developed by Hirshchi who argued that when an individual’s bonds of attachment to institutions weaken, when, for example, they do not feel as if they belong to institutions, or when they are not involved with institutions, they are more likely to commit crime.

The blame for crime lies with weak institutions and their agents. For example, single parent families and ‘absent dads’ are accused of lacking control over their children, as are unstable families. This theory would also predict that children with a history or truancy and exclusion would be more likely to turn to crime and those who are long term unemployed could also be a problem.

This is also the point of view emphasised by both the present labour government and the conservative opposition. Jack Straw has recently argued that ‘Dads need Lads’ sound bite, and David Cameron’s[1] recent speeches about the importance of the family and the problems associated with absent fathers. These views are popular with the right wing press, which often reminds their (middle class, nuclear family) readers of the problems faced by lone mothers and the underclass.

Initially, it seams that there is a lot of evidence to support Social Control Theory. For example,  The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (Faring ton and West 1991).  This Study of 411 ‘working class’ males born in 1953 who were studied until their late 30s.The study found that offenders were more likely to come from poorer, single parent families with poor parenting and parents who were themselves offenders. This study suggests that good primary socialisation is essential in preventing crime.

The daily telegraph recently reported that ‘Seventy per cent of young offenders come from lone-parent families; and children from broken homes are 70 per cent more likely to become drug addicts.’

Criminologist Martin Glyn who works closely with young offenders has pointed out that many young offenders suffer from what he calls ‘parent deficit’. He argues that this is the single most important factor in explaining youth offending. He argues that children need both discipline and love, two things that are often both absent with absent parents.

Research commissioned by NASUWT, a teachers’ union, based on reviewing existing literature and in depth studies of two schools in Birmingham and London found that ‘Family breakdown and a lack of father figures could be to blame for pupils joining gangs, Children as young as nine are being drawn into organised crime for protection and to gain a “sense of belonging” because of the lack of positive role models at home.

One take on ‘SCT’ is Charle’s Murray’s theory of the underclass. Recent government statistics suggest that there is a relationship between the long term unemployed and youth crime. Those known as NEETS are much more likely to commit crime. In this sense it is a whole group rather than individuals who socialise their children into anti-social values.

There are many Criminologists who argue that SCT is too simplistic…

For a start, it could be regarded as deterministic. Not all broken families’ children commit crime, and there is no immediate causal link between the two variables.

Other factors often influence whether a child from a broken home to turn to crime.  Albert Cohen’s status frustration theory reminds us that the pressure to attain status within a deviant group may lead an individual to get involved in violent crime to gain a reputation. Many recent documentaries on the problem of gang crime suggest there is some truth in this.

In addition to these pull factors, poverty and the area one lives in are both correlated with criminal behaviour.

Also, Merton’s strain theory reminds us that much economic crime is a result of a strain between the success goals of material wealth and the lack of opportunities for many among the lower classes to commit crime. He argued that some crime was a result of effective socialisation into the success goals (so no ‘lack of control’ here) and lack of legitimated opportunities such as high paid jobs to achieve these goals. Many sociologists who have carried out qualitative research with gangs have found evidence to back this theory up: Nightingale, Bourgeois, and Venkatesh.

Strain theory suggests that it is the fault of the system for encouraging us to want more than we can get, which creates the conditions that makes crime rational. More radical Marxists take there analysis further, arguing that it is the fault of the Capitalist system that breeds selfish individualism, inequality and poverty, all of which can lead to crime. A similar view was offered by Willis who argued that lack of control was less to blame than a system that did not meet the needs of the Lads who he studied.

Much of the evidence cited for SCT is quantitative, and even if 70% of criminals come from broken homes, it will still be a minority of families whose children commit crime. If we look at those minority of cases who do commit crim in more depth, we realise that many of them face multiple problems such as living in deprived areas and drug and alcohol abuse.

SCT theory is thus problematic because it stereotypes all ‘broken families’ as potentially problematic. It could even be seen as ideological because it blames a minority group for societies problems, rather than looking at the problems of the system.

It could be that SCT is a popular theory because lone parent families and NEETs are a minority and an easy target. In addition, such a simplistic theory is easy for the mass population to understand, as it fits populist discourse. SCT is also the kind of theory that can be summarised in ‘sound bite’ media, and wins politicians votes.

In conclusion, while there may be some truth in SCT, we need to be careful of adopting lack of social control and weak institutions as the main cause of crime, it is only one factor amongst many, and alone, it provides us with a very limited understanding of the causes of crime.