|
Article Excerpt
Si le niveau de sensibilisation a la criminalite des adolescentes augmente, rares sont les theories et etudes empiriques en criminologie qui tiennent compte de cette criminalite. Par ailleurs, la theorie de la desorganisation sociale offre une explication ecologique des taux de criminalite juvenile. Or, historiquement, il s'agit d'une theorie qu'on applique a la delinquance juvenile masculine et qu'on etudie en exploitant surtout des donnees americaines. Ajoutons que la theorie de la desorganisation sociale contribue a la comprehension des conditions relides a l'augmentation des taux de criminalite et qu'elle peut donc aider a mieux comprendre la deinquance feminine. C'est dans cette optique que l'auteure veut evaluer la pertinence de la theorie de la desorganisation sociale par rapport a la delinquance juvenile masculine et feminine dans les collectivites canadiennes. Elle y integre plusieurs sources de donnees en vue d'une analyse de la delinquance juvenile globale ainsi que des infractions contre les biens et des actes de violence perpetres par les jeunes, et ce, selon le sexe des contrevenants. Elle exploite entre autres les donnees du Recensement du Canada (1996) et l'enquete > (1996). Or, les resultats laissent entendre que la theorie susmentionnee peut s'appliquer en partie au niveau communautaire canadien; cependant, ils indiquent egalement que les facteurs de prddiction relies au controle social informel de la delinquance juvenile varient davantage selon le type d'infraction que selon le sexe des contrevenants.
Introduction
Official crime statistics consistently show a large disparity in rates of offending by male and female youths. Nevertheless, no research has adequately accounted for the social reasons for this variation. Most traditional criminology theories have one thing in common: they overlook female perpetrators. Criminology theories and research in general have long focused on the study of male offenders, arguably because they are responsible for the majority of criminal behaviour. When the subject of female deviance arises, it is often in the context of sexuality, specifically prostitution. A few theories have begun to emerge seeking to explain female crime; some assume that female crime is rising or that females are now more liberated, so girls are free to exhibit behaviour similar to that of boys.
One of the many areas of criminological research that has not explicitly considered the causes of female delinquency is the ecological study of crime. Social ecological studies of crime have focused on male crime or overall crime and have neglected to study the community factors correlated with female crime rates in particular (Steffensmeier and Haynie 2000b). In addition to a lack of ecological studies of female crime, there is also little ecological research on Canadian crime (Linden 2000). Studies by Jennifer Schulenberg (2003), Marc Ouimet (2000), Timothy Hartnagel (1997), Hartnagel and G. Won Lee (1990), and, most recently, Robin Fitzgerald, Michael Wisener, and Josee Savoie (2004), are among the few published studies of factors affecting community crime rates in Canada. Despite the theoretical richness of ecological theories, the data necessary for ecological analysis are difficult to obtain; crime data at the community level have been much more readily available for American studies than for Canadian studies. The present study integrates several sources of official Canadian data in order to fill the gap in Canadian research, with special attention to female youth crime.
Theoretical perspectives and related research
Ecological studies examine crime at the structural level "through the discovery of spatial patterns of crime and the study of social and economic conditions of these areas" (Singh, Celinski, and Jaywardene 1980: 78). Social ecological studies contribute to the understanding of social conditions associated with increases in crime rates. Classical and contemporary research has long recognized an association between community characteristics and crime (Hartnagel and Lee 1990). Despite this association, contemporary social ecology studies of crime diverge significantly with respect to theoretical explanations and empirical evidence (Ouimet 2000). Perhaps the most familiar theory that assesses the link between social and demographic characteristics and community crime rates is social disorganization theory (South and Messner 2000).
Social disorganization theory
Examining delinquency through social disorganization theory has become an integral aspect of criminology studies at the community level. Social disorganization theory links demographic processes and structures with a community's ability to maintain social order and to exert informal social control. "In its purest form, social disorganization refers to the inability of local communities to realize the common values of their residents or solve commonly experienced problems" (Bursik 1988: 521). Community is defined by Sim (1988: 16) as a "place or territorial expression with a name, history, and identity, bound together by a network of common interests." For the purposes of their research in social disorganization, Bursik and Grasmick (1993: 15) refer to community as a place where residents "share a common goal of living in an area relatively free from the threat of crime. Thus social control represents the efforts of the neighbourhood to achieve this specific goal."
Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1969/1971) applied delinquency data from court records and other sources to show that delinquency rates decline drastically beyond the city centre. After repeated studies in Chicago generated consistent results, Shaw and McKay concluded that the physical condition of houses, income levels, demographic stability, and ethnicity accounted for differences in delinquency rates. They argued that areas of Chicago with low rates of delinquency are characterized more or less by "uniformity, conformity, and universality of conventional values and attitudes with respect to child care, conformity to law and related matters; whereas in the high-rate areas, systems of competing and conflicting morals have developed" (1969/1971: 88). Based on their findings, Shaw and McKay developed social disorganization theory, suggesting that in the absence of cohesive communities with formal and informal controls, criminality may arise. Also, low socio-economic status and high youth crime areas are characterized by divergence in norms and values. The social processes involved in developing cohesion within a community contribute to the deviance or conformity of youths.
For social order to exist, the community must uphold common goals. Deviance and, specifically, crime and delinquency arise when there is disagreement about norms and/or weak enforcement of norms. The term "community cohesion" does not suggest that all members of the community share the same assumptions; some non-conformity in the community can be tolerated, so long as the conventional value of freedom from crime is observed. Community cohesion, then, is the ability of a community to regulate itself through formal and informal measures. One of the barriers to community cohesion is the inability of residents to develop and maintain kinship and friendship networks within their community (Sampson and Groves 1989; Kornhauser 1978; Kasarda and Janowitz 1974). These networks are theorized to influence the amount of informal social control exercised throughout the community.
Urbanization theory
Lewis Wirth (1938) identified the city as a "social entity" (49) and urbanism as "a characteristic mode of life [which] may be approached empirically" (18). Urbanization studies use social disorganization theory to argue that population growth and turnover lead to a breakdown of the formal and informal controls of a community (Wirth 1938). According to urbanization theory, the primary factors that affect social behaviour are population size and population density (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974: 328). Wirth theorized that "normative consensus and primary group controls are undermined by increasing size, density and heterogeneity characteristics of urban location" (Hartnagel and Lee 1990: 591). As population size increases, greater variation also occurs, resulting in poor communication between groups and segregation according to racial, ethnic, and economic differences. Thus it becomes difficult for a diverse community to regulate itself because there is a lack of common sentiment on which to base and maintain close friendship and kinship networks. Support for Wirth's theory has been mixed (Schulenberg 2003; Hartnagel and Lee 1990; Harries 1974; Morris 1957), despite consensus that urbanization is related to delinquency (McCarthy 1991; Harries 1974).
Exogenous sources of social disorganization
Ecological researchers have posited that community mechanisms are related to delinquency (South and Messner 2000; Hartnagel 1997; Sampson and Groves 1989; Bursik 1988; Sampson 1987; Shaw and McKay 1969/1971). Research has focused on community characteristics essential to creating and maintaining cohesive communities. Five exogenous factors based on early and current ecology studies have become a foundation in disorganization research: socio-economic status (Land, McCall, and Cohen 1990; Rattner and McKie 1990; Sampson and Groves 1989; Bursik 1988; Davidson 1981; Georges-Abeyie and Harries 1980; Shaw and McKay 1969/1971); residential instability (Lee, Martinez, and Rosenfeld 2001; South and Messner 2000; Hartnagel 1997; Sampson and Groves 1986; Kasarda and Janowitz 1974); racial and ethnic heterogeneity (McNulty and Holloway 2000; South and Messner 2000; Bursik and Grasmick 1993; Osgood and Chambers 2000; Taylor 1996; Sampson and Groves 1989; Sampson 1987); urbanization (Schulenberg 2003; McCarthy 1991; Hartnagel and Lee 1990; Harries 1974; Morris 1957; Wirth 1938); and supervision (2) (Markowitz, Bellair, Liska, and...
|
