Crime Discrepancy Between Crimeville And Peaceville

The first theory that will be used to understand the crime discrepancy between Crimeville and Peaceville is Social Disorganization Theory. This theory assumes that most people agree on basic norms and values (Exam 3, S 63). It also suggests that individuals would commit more crime if there were lower amounts of social control and if the individual was inadequately socialized (Exam 3, S 63). This theory continues by stating the locus of criminality deals with how well a neighborhood can come together to prevent crime (Exam 3, S 64). Per this theory, crime is a natural occurrence in the absence of neighborhood institutions and it is more prevalent as a group behavior (Exam 3, S 64). Adverse neighborhood conditions such as family disruption, rates …show more content…
Family disruption is comprised of the average household size and the population percentage that has a female for their head of the house. This is shown by variables 21 and 4b, average household size and percent of population with female head of household. These are variables that have been used in the evidence above and they begin to illustrate the lack of social organization. Crimeville has an average household size of 1.54 and 71% of the residents reside in a female headed household. When you combine these variables, you can see that the 1.54 average family is due to the absence of a second parent, because nearly 3 quarters of the households are run by women. Families in Peaceville have around 2.99 people per household and only 8% of these households are run by women. Comparing Peaceville to Crimeville you will see that Peaceville has double the residents per household as Crimeville, and only a fraction of female headed homes. These differences indicate a lack of social control between the two neighborhoods because there are less people per home, less people helping. It also shows there is more instability, due to the greater percentage of female-headed households. Sampson et al. state that “we view neighborhood efficacy as existing relative to the tasks of supervising children and maintaining public order (Sampson et. al, p920, 1997).” This study …show more content…
This variable will show economic strains that are outside of poverty. This variable is made up of two pieces of data, 21 and 4b, the percent of households with earnings and the percent of households that use public assistance. These are important because they capture a greater range of families that live in poverty; it expands the definition of poverty and it begins to show the socioeconomic standing of each neighborhood. Understanding poverty in this way is important because neighborhoods of a lower socioeconomic status are positively correlated with higher crime rates. The reverse is also true, that neighborhoods with a higher socioeconomic standing are associated with higher levels of collective efficacy (Sampson et. al, 1997). Crimeville reported that 90.59% of its households’ report having an earned legitimate income and 2.35% of those households use public assistance. Over 9% of the households in Crimeville stated they did not earn any income, which suggests that these households may be acquiring income through illegitimate ways. Of course, their income may come from public assistance but evidence suggests that their income is more likely acquired though criminal activity. Peaceville reported that 99.66% of their households have legitimate income and only 1.71% use public assistance. While the difference in public assistance may not be high, there is a noticeable difference when it comes to the percent of houses with legitimate