The functionalist theory explains crime as a result of the lack of moral regulation within a society which is produced by structural tensions within a society. Durkheim initially introduced a term, “anomie” which described a feeling of disorientation and anxiety as a result of the “breakdown of traditional life in modern society” (Giddens, Duneier, & Appelbaum, 2005). Robert Merton built upon Durkheim’s term by adding that the concept includes the stress that individuals feel whenever societal norms conflict with social reality. An example is to look at gangs within society. Some gangs resent and reject rules, values, and laws and replace them with norms which reflect a celebration of defiance (Giddens, Duneier, & Appelbaum, 2005).
The functionalist theory contains three arguments. The first is the strain theory which explains that when an individual cannot meet their goals in a legitimate manner, they will do so using deviant behavior to obtain those goals. The control theory argument states that environmental factors, such as poverty or insufficient educational opportunities, will either push an individual towards deviant behaviors or pull them away from deviant behaviors (Buchanan, T., 2007).
Conflict theory focuses on the belief that economic and social forces which operate within society are the causes of crime. An example is that society is held together by conflict and competition of values and interests which are conflicting. The radical theory views people of wealth and prestige as less likely to commit deviant acts than poor people or people considered to be of a lower class. Based upon the radical theory, it is also thought that street crimes receive a more severe punishment than business or financial crimes (Greek, C., 2005).
Symbolic interactionist theories emphasize that criminal behavior is learned. Everyday socializations and interactions with others would play the dominant role in determining if one is to engage in deviant behaviors. For example, if a person is continually in contact with deviant behavior in their environment, then they are more likely to commit deviant acts themselves (Buchanan, T., 2007). Differential association theory indicates that criminal behavior is learned. The learning takes place predominantly in personal group settings where the techniques of committing the crime along with rationalization, motive, and attitude towards the crime (University of Minnesota Duluth, 2007). When a person has been labeled by others to be delinquent and/or criminal it is an example of labeling theory. Labeling theory was extended by Edwin Lemert to include primary deviance, which is the original act of breaking the rules. Secondary deviance is when a person who has successfully been labeled deviant accepts that label and identity and the individual continues to engage in the deviant behavior (Buchanan, T., 2007).
In 1990, there were 364 incarcerations for murder in Pennsylvania. The number of incarcerations for murder decreased in 2000 to 282, which shows a decrease in the amount of incarcerations for murder by 82 over a ten year period (Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, 2003).
Pennsylvania Statistics
Year/ Incarcerations for Murder
1990 /364
2000 /282
Recidivism can be defined as an individual’s tendency to revert to a previous pattern of behavior or criminal habits. Recidivism is when a person who was once incarcerated and is re-arrested, re-incarcerated, or re-convicted. Recidivism rates are commonly used as a means of measuring the success of specific institutional programs. An interesting study conducted by the Dept. of Justice on inmates released in 1994 showed that the highest re-arrest rates were robbers, larcenists, burglars, motor vehicle thieves, those previously incarcerated for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons, and those previously incarcerated for receiving, possessing, or selling stolen property. Within three years of release, 1.2% of those previously incarcerated for homicide were arrested for homicide and 2.5% of those who were previously incarcerated for rape were arrested for another rape (US Legal, 2007).
The table below indicates the recidivism rates for Pennsylvania between 1996-2000, looking at recidivism rate three years after an incarcerated person was released.
Recidivism Rates for Murder in Pennsylvania
Includes 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Degree and Unspecified Murders
Year/ Releases/ Recidivism rate in 3 years
1996-1998 / 626 / 34.00%
1997-1999 / 864 / 36.20%
1998-2000 / 996 / 38.40%
(Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2004)
To break it down even more by offense category, the table below indicates recidivism rates between 1996-2000, again looking at the rate three years after an inmate was released.
Offense Category 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 (Releases/Recidivism)
Murder 1st 1/100% 10/20% 2/100% 8/25% 5/100%
Murder 2nd 13/23.10% 8/25% 20/25% 14/50% 11/27.30%
Murder 3rd 96/26% 134/38.10% 213/35.20% 276/36.60% 244/39.30%
Murder Unspecified 26/46.20% 60/31.70% 43/37.20% 76/40.80% 84/46.40%
(Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2004)
Policy changes that could be made to reduce recidivism rates could be longer sentences for murderers. In Pennsylvania, the death penalty is still supported. Since 1976, three people have been executed. Presently, there are 231 people on death row in Pennsylvania, of which 5 are women (Pennsylvanians for alternatives to the death penalty, 2007). Stronger enforcement of the death penalty could help reduce prison populations as there would be a stronger enforcement of the punishment for murder. A common belief is that the prison system is abused, as too many non-violent offenders are incarcerated which increases prison populations. Alternative punishments for non-violent offenders would allow for a decrease in prison populations and also an alternative method of rehabilitation to reduce recidivism (Pennsylvania Prison Society, 2004).
Many citizens believe that to truly reduce the rate of recidivism, we must look at whether or not we are really correcting the individuals that are incarcerated. Helping individuals to prepare for a crime-free life after prison would also help reduce recidivism rates. Programs would help educate inmates and provide guidance and counseling. This process would continue after release to help individuals maintain the skills they have learned while incarcerated and continue life without deviant behaviors (Pennsylvania Prison Society, 2004).
Due to the fact that most prisons are punitive as opposed to rehabilitative, violence is still an ongoing way of life for many inmates. With overcrowding of prisons being at the forefront of the issue, more money is spent on the facilities themselves, expanding, supplying, etc., and not on rehabilitative measures to reduce the population as a whole. Another theory to consider is that criminals who are non-violent yet receiving unnecessarily long sentences become hardened while incarcerated for longer periods of time, which provides these individuals with an even greater opportunity to develop an even stronger criminal skill by allowing them to spend time in an environment that fosters violence. “In other words, we are often prepping people who have done something bad to do something worse” (Pennsylvania Prison Society, 2004).
Resources:
Buchanan, T. (2007, April 24). Chat posting. Retrieved April 25, 2007 from CTUO,
Virtual Campus, SOC 205-0702A-03: Live Chat Lecture Six. Phase Two
Social Groups and Institutions. Chat archive: http://breeze.careeredonline.com
Giddens, Duneier, & Appelbaum. (2005). Introduction to Sociology. Chapter 7. Retrieved
On April 29, 2007 from: http://www2.wwnorton.com/college/soc/giddens5/ch/07/
Greek, C. (2005). Criminological Theory. Retrieved on April 29, 2007 from:
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/conflict.htm
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. (2003). PCCD Correction
Statistics. Retrieved on April 29, 2007 from: http://www.pccd.state.pa.us/pccd/site/default.asp
Pennsylvanians for alternatives to the death penalty. (2007). Retrieved on April 30, 2007
From: http://www.pa-abolitionists.org/
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (2004). Recidivism in Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions 1996-2002. Retrieved on April 30, 2007 from:
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/PA_DOC_Recidivism_in_PA_State_Correctional_Institutions_1996-2002.pdf
University of Minnesota Duluth. (2007). Differential Association Theory. Retrieved on
April 29, 2007 from: http://www.d.umn.edu/
US Legal. (2007). Recidivism Law & Legal Definition. Retrieved on April 30, 2007
From: http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/recidivism/
