Sociological Theories Influence Criminal Behavior, Case Study Example

Introduction

Description of participants

A sample of 26 participants was recruited for this pilot study. The group included 12 males and 14 females ranging between the ages of 22-46 years old. This is a small, realistic, and ethical study aimed at investigating whether sociological theories influence criminal behavior. None of the sample was ever convicted of criminal behavior by the court. However, interactions at home and on their job suggest tendencies towards criminal activities.

Among the sample were two couples; one couple has a very successful business and the other work as elementary school teachers. Of the remaining 22 participants 12 were unemployed women who functioned as stay at home moms. Of the 10 remaining men within this sample 8 worked as security guards and 2 were vendors. Their educational status ranged from no high school diploma to Bachelor’s degrees.

The two elementary school teachers hold bachelor’s degrees. Among the 12 unemployed women 8 had earned a high school diploma or GED, 4 did not graduate high school. The two vendors did not graduate high school; 6 of the 8 who worked as security guards graduated college. The business couples held college degrees as well.

The specific methodology embraces a qualitative analysis of findings after adapting a focus group discussion and research questions as the instrument. According to the proposed methodologythree theoretical applications were applied to this setting in deciphering if explanations embodied in sociological theoretical perspectives have any influence on a person’s behavior. The sample of participants is justifiable targets for investigating this phenomenon.

Efficacy of Method/Instrument

This pilot project sample characteristics proved ideal for testing the research questions within the targeted population.  In recalling they were:-

• Is criminal behavior taught or are criminally-prone individuals victims of their environments and situations?
• Are common societal structures to blame for driving people to commit criminal acts
• Is it accurate to assume that lower class individuals are more susceptible to criminal behavior?
• Is group social class an indicator of future criminal behavior trends among certain groups of individuals
• Does the upper class commit an equal number of crimes, including violent crimes?
• To what extent is the criminal justice system fair and equitable as it relates to dealing with the haves and have-nots of society?

Precisely, three focus groups emerged from the pilot project. They consisted of two groups of 9 participants and one group of 8.Members of these groups were carefully selected. The two couples were separated. Each group contained a representative amount of male and females and considerations regarding their academic background and employment formed the criteria for placement within a group.

They were given the 6 research questions for discussion applying their own life experiences and those of others with whom they were acquainted. Startling revelations emerged from these discussions. Even though the experiences were different they had a common theme which could have been related to functional, conflict and interactionists approaches to criminally defined behavior.

Precise answers related to the research questions, are criminal behaviors taught; arecriminally-proned individuals victims of their environments and situations and is it accurate to assume that lower class individuals are more susceptible to criminal behavior? These two questions garnered the most criticisms since it spurred the group into connecting how due to their social class and exposure were inducted into a crime philosophy without even realizing it. Therefore,answers emerging from the method and instrument utilized were applicable in resolving these two issues. Clarifications regarding the other three questions found to be implicit in the analysis of these two dominant ones.

Applicability to proposal;

In this proposal several methods, strategies and interventions were cited to clarify whether sociological theoretical explanations are accurate in predicting criminal behavior. This pilot project related the phenomenon towards soliciting responses from a wide representative sample of the population targeted.

Precise characteristics related to answering specific research questions containing variables such as criminally-prone individuals;environments and situations;common societal structures;lower class individuals;social class;upper class and criminal justice system. Selection criteria for this pilot project were based on finding appropriate participants who can explain or relate to these variables mentioned in the research questions. Thus, from my understanding this was following the research proposal framework very closely.

Subsequently, during the analysis of responses proposed theoretical assumptions were applied in justifying the investigation being reviewed. For example, the functionalist approach to criminal behavior is that in any society crime will occur. Conflict theorists argue that it is a societal imposition due to dysfunctions in the social structure. Interactionists blame criminal activity partially on a personal perception defining symbols.

However, these symbols were created by society and are sociologically significant artifacts.

My only deviation to the script was that the researchers did not adopt a focus group discussion in resolving any of the theoretical assumptions offered even though experiments were conducted. Focus group method and questioning instrument was selected in this instance. The researcher can observed both verbal and non-verbal reactions to responses tendered.

Three Major Findings/Results

Three major findings emerged from this study. They relate to common societal structures should be blamed for driving people to commit criminal acts;criminally-proned individuals arevictims of their environments and situations as well as lower class individuals are not more susceptible to criminal behavior than other classes.

In the discussion pertaining to societal structure influence on criminal activities groups with business people cited examples whereby crime is an ascription towards classes of people. They highlighted situations such as race being linked to certain crimes regardless of the person’s social status. As such, the structure of society does influence one’s predisposition towards specific crimes or crime in general.

Meanwhile the 12 unemployed women even thoughdistributed among the three groups shared views on social structureimpositions that women ought to be employed in assisting men economically. Also they expressed concerns that once a woman is a single parent or divorced children from those households automatically become crime suspects. Here again the social structure influences the life chances for those children making them self-fulfilling prophesies.

By the same token the group concluded that innocent individuals become victims of their social environments and situations surrounding them. They cited people who live in projects or depressed surroundings. It is assumed that due to poverty the crime rate would he high. Laws have been so designed that once an individual is in the company of one who commits a crime that person becomes guilty jointly. Social justice systems would accuse and convict that person because the predisposing social factors are evident. It is termed circumstantial evidence. Hence, that person becomes a victim of the environment and situation.

When linking these findings to sociological theories advanced in the proposal it is clear that they explain the course of criminal behavior in society. There is no society on earth that does not have a criminal justice system and defined crime continues. Hence, crime is functional. Once social class stratification continues as a strategy of establishing social order conflict will persist.

Any deviation from the norm eventually emerges into a crime and conflict ensues. Consequently, people relate to the world in terms of what is meaningful to them and their actions can always be classified deviant and criminal if it does not fit the social inscription of order.

Conclusion

Overall experience conducting the project

This project was simple, but yet complex. The simplicity lay in selecting an appropriate method. The choice of a focus group lay in the benefit that ideas can be articulated immediately. Concepts expressed by participants can be evaluated from both a verbal and non-verbal perspective. It plays an essential role in identifying strengths and weakness underlying a phenomenon or organizational structure. At the same time it provides immediate insights on how changes can influence development of theory and practice (Creswell, 2003). This was the simplest aspect of the task.

However, selecting the most appropriate sample for each group; obtaining permission from the project directors and participants were the greatest challenges, which had to be surmounted. Once that was overcome it was time to design a suitable instrument for the intervention as well as recruiting facilitators for each group to guide the discussion and compile summaries.

In the end it was rewarding to meet, interact and listen to different levels of expression on a common issue. It is my opinion that this project was highly successful. Nonetheless, there is always room for improvement. For future pilot studies of a focus group nature consideration towards rewarding participants for their involvement as well as offering some snacks during the discussions would be an incentive.

References

Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.