Violence in America in the Light of Social Policies, Research Paper Example

Abstract

One of the major social problems in today’s America is violence. While policing is not under social policy regulation, social issues are affected by programs and decisions made by the federal government. The below paper is going to critically analyze public social policies related to crime in the U.S. in order to evaluate their effectiveness and direction. The identification of a social problem, such as violence is not enough to tackle the issue. There is a need for an extensive research and a multidisciplinary approach in order to support social change and make people’s lives safer, healthier while protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals. The paper is designed to attempt to answer the following question: are policies and programs in America successfully tackling violence?

Introduction

Before starting to analyze violence in America as a social problem, it is important to clarify the definition. Ginsberg and Miller-Cribbs (2005) quote Maris’ (1988) definition of social problem: “general patterns of human behavior or social conditions that are perceived to be threats to society by significant numbers of the population…”. While the definition is not clear whether social problems are more significantly related to social conditions or human behavior, it is adequate for the current research. However, the authors of the current study would like to note that in order to successfully analyze the social problem of violence, human (anthropologist) and social conditions need to be examined separately in the light of policies and government initiatives. This is exactly what the paper is aiming for: looking at the social and human elements of violence and review how they can be tackled through violence. For example, the human aspect of violence can be targeted through education policies and community initiatives, while the majority of social issues need a policy approach. By reviewing the historical changes in violence figures, as well as people’s attitudes towards violence, alongside with the related research literature, the authors are expecting to be able to determine whether the current policies are suitable to reducing the prevalence of the social problem.

Historical Changes

Dahlberg and Mercy (2009) created a CDC report that reviews the changes of violence through history. The authors state that when there is no consensus in the society about the problematic nature of a social issue, it is not recognized as a problem. Further, intervention only occurs if moral standards are not aligned with the situation. Violence has became a major focus of health, social and welfare policies in recent years, because there is a public agreement that it is a threat for the society, especially vulnerable populations. This statement is in line with the definition of social problem created by Maris (1988). The authors quote important historical events when “call to action” was made. The first one noted by the report is related to the impact of violence on health. The Surgeon General’s report (1979) determined fifteen development areas that, improved, can better health outcomes of Americans. One of these priorities was “control of stress and violent behavior”. (Dahlberg and Mercy, 2009, p. 2) This initiative was followed by objectives set by the Department of Health and Human Services to reduce violence. In 1981, government researchers were starting to look for opportunities to reduce crimes through policies and legislation, in the light of the Georgia child murders. The Violence Epidemiology branch of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) was established in 1983. Since that time, apart from the Department of Health and Human Services, several state and federal departments have initiated policies to reduce crime in the United States. The success of these initiatives is a question of careful evaluation, however, before this can be completed, it important to review violence statistics to better understand the problem’s real significance.

Significance of the Problem

Miller, Azrael and Hemenway (2013) talk about the levels of gun crime in America. Gun crime, indeed is one of the most debated legislative issue, and has been for decades. The authors quote statistical data, showing that “there are 31,000 gun deaths every year in America”. (Miller, Azrael and Hemenway, 2013, p. XV) This alarming figure does prove the significance of the problem alone. However, apart from gun crime, sexual, gang-based, racial and domestic violence cause distress for millions of Americans. Rosen (2006) talks about the “dramatic resurgence of violent crime”. The report talks about an increase of robbery, homicide, aggravated assault figures between 2004 and 2005. In some cities, however, this increase was even greater than the quoted 3 percent on a national level. In Alexandria (VA), homicide rates doubled, while in many cities homicide rates hit all time high.

Literature Review

According to the Rosen (2006), the main factors influencing the rise of violent crime are: strain on police resources, decrease of police staffing, decreased involvement of the federal government in community policing and crime prevention, challenges of the educational system and the resurgence of drugs. The above factors are related to both social and human issues and changes in America. The failing of the educational system changes people’s views on how to live, what is morally acceptable and what is not.

Karandinos, Hart, Castrillo and Bourgois (2014) talk about the moral aspect of crime as well. Examining inner city violence and the impact of economic, social changes on people’s lifestyle, morals and attitudes toward crimes, the report examining violence from the anthropological aspect. The authors state that the “deindustrialized” inner city environment is responsible for accelerating violent crime levels. Moral economies get transgressed and people search for ways to make a living through selling drugs, committing robberies and violent crimes. As a note, the authors fail to highlight the connection between the prevalence of drugs on the street and the number of violent crimes. This correlation, in the current study is relevant and likewise important. As the main focus of the research is the social changes associated with the surge of violence in America, as well as the policies designed to prevent violent crimes, all aspects of social change and problem need to be reviewed.

A recent study by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (Welsh and Farrington, 2012) talk about the government’s crime prevention programs’ and policies’ effectiveness, while outlining future alternatives. The recommendations of the authors will be covered later in detail, however, the definition provided for crime prevention in the report can be useful for further investigation. Brandon et al. (2012) talk about two crime prevention categories: crime control and preventing criminal offense the first time. The report also talks about primary, secondary and tertiary crime prevention activities. Primary activities ensure the general well-being of individuals, secondary crime prevention methods focus on early intervention to prevent young people from becoming offenders, while tertiary activities deal with those who have already committed a crime. This outline clearly shows that there are adequate frameworks in place to prevent crime, but the application of these frameworks, more importantly their effectiveness is not fully understood.

This framework of crime prevention leads to the categorization of violent crimes and the question: are there specific vulnerable groups in the society policymakers should focus on? Do developmental and situational crime prevention programs work? How does the government protect violent crime victims?

One of the main groups affected by violence in the society is vulnerable women. Tjaden

and Thoennes (2000) examine the key issues surfaced in the violence against women survey. The main findings are summarized below.

• In the United States, physical assault is widespread, with 51.9 percent of women and 66.4 percent of men reporting physical violence in childhood.
• Over 17 percent of women reported that they have been raped at least once in their lives.
• Domestic violence is also extremely common in the United States: over 22 percent of women were physically abused by their partner.

The report also talks about the risks of violence experienced as minors; something the current review has already covered. The survey has successfully identified vulnerable groups as minorities, children and women, therefore, the next logical step is to evaluate related policies to see how they measure up to the figures. Do they focus on vulnerable groups of the society as a homogenous group?

Several authors make a claim that violence is a part of the contemporary culture. Indeed, it is impossible to talk about violent crime in America without mentioning gang culture, the influence of media and subcultures. Rosen (2006) dedicates a chapter to the cultural elements of violent crimes. He calls it the “culture of violent crimes”. Referring back to the summit of the police chiefs about the rise of violent crime levels in America, he states that  “Many at the Summit described a “thug” mentality that is being glamorized in today’s popular culture and emulated by many of those directly involved in violent crime.”. (Rosen, 2006, p. 4) The author also talks about the tendency of  subcultures creating “cities within cities”. This indicates that in urban environment, the rise in the level of crimes is not even. These locations are often home to socially marginalized groups, and the unemployment rates are much higher than in the rest of the city. These disadvantaged communities within the society are extremely vulnerable to becoming offenders or victims of violent crimes. Talking about gang culture and race, the author also mentions that children in these sub-cultures are often neglected and “thrown away” and this tendency leads to their decision to join a gang. Their motivation to “belong to” is in no other way fulfilled, and this is a result of a lack of support from the community, society, policies and school system. In order to fully understand young people’s motivation to join gangs and accept committing violent crimes as “a way of life”, it is important to review the findings and theories detailed by Pacheo (2010). Bringing Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory into the picture, the study concludes that gangs fulfill young people’s external need of “belonging”. When the youth’s need is not met by the society, they join a gang and receive inclusion, guidance and acceptance. However, they need to “earn” respect by “harming or killing another person” (Pacheo, 2010, p. 22).

In order to determine the most successful violent crime prevention framework, it is crucial to review the major predictors of gang involvement. Jaggers, Church, Tomek, Bolland, Hooper and Bolland (2013) created a mobile youth survey in America. The importance of studying young people’s motivation to join gangs or commit violent crimes is great. As the author summarizes: “Deviant behavior during adolescence leads to an increased likelihood of adult criminal behavior” (Jaggers et al., 2010, p. 277). This also indicates that prevention should start in early age. The findings of the survey highlight the most important risk factors of young people that make them vulnerable to becoming gang members and later offenders. These factors are listed below.

1. Peer relationships (other young people in the community are involved in crimes and gang culture)
2. Family cohesion (poverty, instability, lack of supervision or poor parenting)
3. Self-worth (low self-esteem, exclusion, belonging to a minority group)

The study was carried out in Mobile, Alabama, and it was a 14-year longitudinal research. Both male and female participants were at a higher risk of gang involvement who had low paternal warmth.

Discussion

The above review of the literature has shown that violent crime is indeed a social problem that needs to be tackled. The fact that statistics show the impact of the problem more significant indicate that there is a need for an integrated approach that focuses on prevention, care and research of vulnerable groups within the society. However, before developing a framework based on the findings of the study, it is important to return to the criteria set by Ginsberg and Miller-Cribbs (2005). Large social problems are hard to tackle, because there are limited resources available to cover all aspects. Further, another indicator of social problems is “unmet needs”. They also have the characteristics of unfairness. As an example, lower income and disadvantaged social class would inevitably result in a greater risk of being involved in violent crimes. Another important feature the authors list is “lack of consensus”. Indeed, there has not been an agreement in the United States about which way policing, regulation and the legislative system should move. Some politicians claim that people’s rights should be protected, while others side with the potential victims. There is indeed a conflict of interest.

Public opinion, however, can strengthen the case of creating a successful approach for tackling violent crime. Involving civil organizations and communities would help understand the issue and find a solution. The reviewed literature has provided indicators for forces accelerating violent crimes. Social issues, as well as personal and anthropological views have been discussed. Policies regarding prevention of crime and dealing with offenders have also been investigated. As a summary, it can be concluded that violent crime in America is a social problem that affects the majority of the population. Still, authors have also signposted the issue that there are some groups within the society that are more “at risk” than others. Young people from disadvantaged families, those excluded from the society or living in an area where gang crime is present are more vulnerable than the rest of the population. Urban environments, and “cities within cities” are accelerators of violent crime.

Implications

Jaggers et al. (2013, p. 285) states that there is a need for understanding crime trajectories in order to be able to successfully intervene and involve parents, communities “to facilitate good role modeling and decision-making behaviors”. Policymakers should develop support systems that target vulnerable groups. Indeed, there is an increased need for community involvement and support. The studies examined have revealed that there is a need for an interdisciplinary approach to prevent and tackle violent crime. As well as it is a social issue, it also has its anthropological roots. As it has been concluded, urban environments and “deindustrialized” inner cities act as catalysts. Focusing on communities within these cities would result in a greater effectiveness. These subcultures, according to Ginsberg and Miller-Cribbs (2005, p. 67) “create a climate of terror”.  Shure (1999) outlines the direction of preventing violent crimes. She emphasizes the “social and emotional learning in children”. (Shure, 1999, p. 1) Further, the author also stated that there are clearly visible risks and protective factors among primary school children; such as poor peer relations, poor impulse control, lack of empathy. These risks exist on the anthropological level, but are affected by social class and situation. She implies that adequate school and educational support/intervention programs should be introduced on a policy level to protect the most vulnerable children of the society and prevent them from becoming offenders of violent crimes. At an early age, this intervention would involve teaching parents how to deal with children’s hyperactivity or attention deficit disorder, as a part of the proposed Parent Involvement Initiative.  Apart from primary crime prevention activities, legislators and policymakers should also focus on preventing at-risk people from committing the crime and supporting those who have already been sentenced and are back in the society.  Rosen (2006) quotes the statement of an Atlanta police chief: “All the people we put in jail 10 years ago are now back. They come out of the system, more hard core than when they went in.”. This statement implies that there is not enough support for juvenile and adult offenders offered by the state.

Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

The above review of crime statistics, research and literature published on violent crime in America has revealed several development areas in the society, which should be tackled by policymakers and legislators. Focusing on primary, secondary and tertiary prevention methods, building strategies based on statistics related to vulnerable groups, sub-cultures, crime reduction should have a systematic framework with a multidisciplinary approach. The study has highlighted the responsibility of parents, educators and peers, however, the best results can be achieved through community involvement based on a consensus. Even if the political views of parties are different, all agree that violent crime effects everyone. Sociological issues, such as poverty-struck inner city communities’ deprivation, lack of education, support and unemployment all accelerate the rise of violent crime. The best way of preventing the spread of the “culture of crime” is to focus on people’s attitudes, beliefs,  moral principles and education. If Rosen’s (2006) statement is true and violent crime is a part of the contemporary culture, this needs to change. Values of moral and ethical behavior, hard work need to be rebuilt in the society, and unfortunately this will take longer than a few years. Starting to build policies that will have a long term positive effect might not bring immediate change, but can build a better future for the next generations.

References

Dahlberg, L., Mercy, J. (2009) History of violence as a public health issue. AMA Virtual Mentor, February 2009. Volume 11, No. 2: 167-172

Ginsberg, L., Miller-Cribbs, J. (2005) Understanding social problems, policies, and programs.(4th ed.). University of South Carolina Press: Columbia, SC.

Jaggers, J., Church, W., Tomek, S.,  Bolland, K., Hooper, L.,  Bolland, J. (2013) Predictors of    gang involvement: a longitudinal analysis of data from the mobile youth survey. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, Vol. 4, No. 3 (2013), pp. 277-291

Karandinos, G.,  Hart, L.,  Castrillo, F.,  and Bourgois, P. (2014) The moral economy of violence in the US inner city. Current Anthropology, Vol. 55, No. 1 (February 2014), pp. 1-22

Maris, R. W. (1988) Social problems. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth.

Miller, M.,  Azrael, D.,  Hemenway, D. (2013) Firearms and violent death in the United States. In: Webster, D., Vernick, J. (eds.) Reducing Gun Violence in America. Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. The John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore.

Pacheo, H. (2010) Gangs 101. Understanding the Culture of Youth Violence. Esperanza project.

Rosen, M. (2006) Chief concerns. A gathering storm – violent crime in America. Police Executive Research Forum.

Shure, M. (1999) Preventing violence the problem-solving way. U.S. Department of Justice. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. April 1999.

Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N. (2000) Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women. findings from the national violence against women survey. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.

Welsh, B.,  Farrington, D. (2012) The future of crime prevention: developmental and situational strategies. Prepared for National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from: <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237329.pdf?>