Victimization, Deterrence and Social Disorganization

Victimization, Deterrence and well-disposed DisorganizationThe deportment fertilise surmise is one of the developmental theories that is interesting. The heart lam conjecture incorpo respects the idea from the affable fall uponing guess that disgust is a conditioned behavior (Siegel, 2011). This authorises when the individual experiences a transition during their emotional state course. According to the life course speculation we start behaviors at a very upstart age that can welcome a significant impact on our adult life. One of the points brought up in the life course hypothesis is ab place transitions that we go through as we grow up such as finishing school, get a job, getting married and having kids (Siegel, 2011). These transitions ar what make the life course system a developmental theory be effort these transitions argon what can make or snitch your life. If a psyche experiences a good transition during their life it volition help them to stick about a way from iniquity whereas if they corroborate a bad transition full point it can truly cause them to start or resume a wicked lifestyle. If these transitions are experienced to soon or too modern it can also impact your life. Our textbook talks about these transitions as world too soon when a girl gets pregnant at a young age or too late when a teenager gets into the wrong crowd and makes choices that affects their futures and how these decisions can put their life on a totally different path than the one that they were on. The life course theory and the complaisant learning theory are similar in that they both gravel the principle that a person is born not knowing how to be a cruel but rather learn how to be a sad over the span of their life. The life course theory and the social learning theory are different in that the life course theory concentrates much(prenominal) than on the experiences of a persons life that affects them and if it influences them to change by reversal culpables or not whereas the social learning theory concentrates much on how the person is shaped by the society that they make it in and how that influences them to become sads or not.Compare and contrast the different theories of dupeization. In appurtenance to explaining the theories, discuss their strengths and failinges. Also, use one of the theories to explain why women are more likely than men to be the victims of rape and domestic violence. at that place are four different theories of victimization. These include victim hurriedness theory, lifestyle theory, deviate place theory, and the routine activities theory.The victim precipitation theory is where some concourse actually initiate the confrontation that razetually leads to their injury and death (Siegel, 2011). There are two ways that this theory can happen. It can any be active or passive. With active precipitation you have the victim that is demoing threating behavior along with an exchange of words that somemultiplication even leads to the victim flameing first. In the passive precipitation the victim acts in a way that can get ahead the person doing the attacking to attack or sometimes the victim can even send out threating signals that causes them to be a victim of abhorrence. I call up that the passive precipitation form of the victim precipitation theory would be the reason why women more than men are the victims of rape and domestic violence. Some women unwittingly flirt or exhibit sexual behavior that can encourage or entice a male into wanting to have his way with her. In the case of domestic violence the woman can cause the man to feel jeopardise by her actions without meaning to. She may be mad and yell or take at him and he feels threatened so he fights back. This is not an excuse for a male to strike a female of course but it can happen. One weakness of the victim precipitation theory is that with the passive precipitation form of this theory a person c an become a victim when they actually had nothing at all to do with what was going on.The lifestyle theory is where crime is not a random occurrence rather it is a function of the victims lifestyle (Siegel, 2011). fundamentally the more risk factors that you have in your life such as drinking and taking drugs the higher the endangerment that you exit become a victim at some point. I like the way that our book points out that if you live a party type lifestyle in college it makes you more susceptible to becoming a victim. If you are a person on the other hand that is colonized down and stays home a lot it reduces your chances of becoming a victim.The deviant place theory is the greater the exposure to dangerous places, the more likely great deal are to become victims of crime and violence (Siegel, 2011). This is basically that the person does not exhibit any behaviors to encourage the abominable to lift them but because of where they live they become a victim. For example peop le that live in the poorer areas of the urban center are more susceptible to becoming a victim than say someone that lives in the suburb outside of the city where they can better throw the elements that they live in and more or less. In the poorer areas is where I believe most of your criminals and homeless live and people who live around those elements become easier targets for the criminals.The routine activities theory is where victimization results from the interaction of three everyday factors the availability of suitable targets, the absence of capable safeians, and the presence of do offenders (Siegel, 2011). Basically this theory is where you have three things that can increase the likelihood of crime taking place. You have houses that are in a nice similarity that have nice things in them that entice a criminal to break in to get these things to sell, you have no one home to guard the house and the nice things in the house and you have the criminal that is motivate d by seeing this and wanting to profit from breaking into the house.Explain the theory of frequent determent and the theory of specific bullying. Discuss how induction, severity, and speed of penalisation impact general disincentive? Then, discuss whether our current criminal arbitrator system frameively produces general deterrence and specific deterrence? If so, how? If not, what involve to change to produce general deterrence and/or specific deterrence? Be sure to answer these questions in regard to both general and specific deterrence.Theory of general deterrence is a crime retain policy that depends on the fear of criminal penalties, convincing the potential justice violator that the pains associated with crime outweighs its benefits (Siegel, 2011). Basically with the theory of general deterrence it is saying that you will have a lower crime rate if the criminal believes that they will be severely punished for the crime that they commit. The certainty of punishment as pect impacts the general deterrence theory in that offenders that believe that they will be punished and that the punishment is not worth it to them will cause them to not commit the crime whereas offenders that believe that when they get caught they will not be punished will commit the crime. Certainty of punishment has a huge impact on a criminal when they are deciding to commit a crime or not. If a criminal believes that they will be severely punished for the crime they will find twice before committing the crime. However this aspect has little effect on the general deterrence theory. The swiftness of punishment does not have a large impact on the general deterrence theory because it takes so long to get through the court systems that by the time the criminal is sentenced that the effect of deterring the crime has long since been forgotten. It would be a good checkout if the punishment was carried out quickly I think. Like in the obsolescent days when someone killed someone th ey were taken out by the local anesthetic sheriff and hung. This being witnessed by the community deterred anyone else from wanting to commit the same crime and the same thing happening to them.Theory of specific deterrence is the lot that criminal sanctions should be so powerful that offenders will never recur their criminal acts (Siegel, 2011). Basically with the theory of specific deterrence you have the opinion that a very high punishment or long cast aside sentence would keep a criminal from repeating their crime. Some times this can backfire though where the worse the punishment the more the criminal wants to commit the crime. This can be caused by the criminal wanting to show how big and bad they are and that the judicial system did not win. I think that the criminal judicial system produces more general deterrence than specific deterrence because we see more people that are deterred out-of-door from crime because of the perception that they have of the punishment that t hey will receive than we have people that dont drink and drive because of a fine and a crushed time spent in jail. If the punishments were higher for drinking and driving and then I think we would have more specific deterrence than we do.Social disorganization theory links crime rates to neighborhood bionomical characteristics. Identify and discuss these characteristics and explain how/why they lead to crime. Use social disorganization theory to explain why there are more robberies in battle of Atlanta, GA compared to Kennesaw, GA.The characteristics of the social disorganization theory are poverty, social/community disorganization, breakdown of traditional values, criminal areas, cultural transmission and criminal careers. Poverty can lead to crime in the neighborhoods that have a poverty concentration effect occur due to the midriff secernate leaving and only the poorer residents remain. Our textbook states that, urban areas marked by laborious poverty become isolated and in sulated from the social mainstream and more prone to criminal activity (Siegel, 2011). In an area where you have white flight occur the people that are left have a harder time property gangs and violence under control due to their limited resources. Social/ corporation disorganization occurs when you have a lack of informal social control. When the families in these communities have a hard time keeping their kids under control and away from delinquent behavior this in turn causes crime to occur. When a breakdown of traditional values occurs the youth feel detached from their communities this leaves them more open to be recruited by the neighborhood bad guys and this leads to gang being formed and therefore crime being done in the neighborhood. heathen transmission occurs when you have community fear. In neighborhoods that have teenagers that are getting into trouble a lot and a lot of empty stores the residents of these neighborhoods become fearful that they will become a victim o f crime and this causes them to detract from their neighborhood. This fear is then passed on to the younger generation. According to our textbook the crime rates are elevated in highly transient, mixed-use and changing neighborhoods in which the fabric of social life has become frayed (Siegel, 2011). Atlanta is more of a mixed used society than Kennesaw and with the bigger businesses in Atlanta they have more people moving in and out of the city for work that is constantly changing the different neighborhoods in Atlanta. Kennesaw does not have the big corporate offices and therefore does not have the change of the neighborhoods and appears to be more stable than Atlanta. Atlanta is unable to provide the basic go to all of its residents and where you have a lot of people unemployed and homeless with a lot of time on their hands you usually have a high crime rate. You see more homeless people in Atlanta than you do Kennesaw. Also you have the concentration effect going on in Atlanta where a lot of the middle class have left the city leaving the disadvantaged citizens in the city. Kennesaw does not seem to have the concentration effect that we see in Atlanta. When you have a poverty concentration you see more criminal activity and a higher rate of robberies.SourceSiegel, L. J. (2011). Criminology, the core. (4th ed.). Belmont, CA Wadsworth pub Co.