Download Crime and location

Crime and location
There are several key questions which sociologists have been
concerned to raise regarding crime and location:
• Does crime tend to occur in particular geographical
locations? Is it for example, predominantly an urban or a
rural phenomenon?
• Does crime tend to be concentrated in particular parts of cities,
and if so, how can this be explained?
• How can the geographical distribution of crime be explained?
Shaw and McKay
•
Studying crime rates in the Chicago district,
Shaw and McKay found a strong statistical
pattern. The further one moved from the
centre of the city (the central business district
or CBD), the more the rate of male
delinquency declined.
•
Shaw and McKay argued that the central area
was a ‘zone of transition’. This meant that it
contained a large number of immigrants, of
low-income families, and a constantly shifting
population.
•
•
Shaw and McKay claim that these sorts of
areas have high and increasing crime rates
because the population is constantly
changing, and in a large and anonymous
urban setting there is less social control.
Shaw and McKay describe this zone
as being ‘socially disorganised’. By
this they mean that it is an area
where there are many ‘broken’
families, violence, and lots of other
social problems.
Link: Merton and sub cultural theory
Zones continued
Link
To
Merton
• A zone of transition will lack the community spirit and the close
relationships between neighbours that other areas, with less
population movement, will be able to establish. Therefore, Shaw and
McKay reason it offers more opportunities for crime.
• Shaw and McKay’s findings might seem to accord with common sense
expectations; the further one moves out from the centre of large
urban areas, the more delinquency rates fall. Moreover, we still
commonly talk of ‘leafy suburbs’, and probably have a favourable
image of the suburbs in contrast to the dangers involved in inner city
dwelling.
VS
• Several British sociologists have conducted research on similar lines in
the UK, and have attempted to replicate and test Shaw and McKay’s
work.
Morris – Croydon study 1957
• Morris found that the highest rates of crime were concentrated on
particular council estates in the Croydon area – not in the central business
district. Morris also argued that it was hard to describe these council
estates as socially disorganised – there was more evidence to suggest that
they were tightly knit communities, where people knew neighbours quite
well and with low levels of population change or turnover.
• If any areas could be described as socially disorganised, it would be the
more middle class residential areas. In these areas people did not interact
a great deal and they might have to live in them for a long time before
they made significant social contacts and relationships.
Baldwin and Bottoms – Sheffield study 1976
•
•
•
•
•
This research used official statistics and aimed to test the concept of
social disorganisation.
Baldwin and Bottoms operationalised social disorganisation in terms of
the following factors: larger numbers of immigrants, unmarried
people, young adults, dwellings with 3 or less rooms, shared
accommodation.
The researchers categorised the city into three main areas; owner
occupied accommodation, council tenants, and rented
accommodation.
They found significant differences between the three areas, with the
latter two have the highest crime rates.
The degree of social disorganisation was a factor but it was not found
to be significant on council estates. Baldwin and Bottoms thus
concluded that there was no evidence for Shaw and McKay’s
arguments regarding social disorganisation, and they found no
correlation between a high population turnover and crime rates.