Examining The Understanding Social Disorganization Theory Criminology Essay

Examining The Understanding Social Disorganization Theory Criminology Essay Social Disorganization means the disruption or breakdown of the structure of social relations and values resulting in the loss of social controls over individual and group behavior, the development of social isolation and conflict, and a sense of estrangement or alienation from the mainstream of ones culture; the  condition or state of anomie (dictionary). Social Disorganization Theory is a theory that is less than one hundred years old. The founders of this theory are Shaw and McKay. Social disorganization theory was developed in the early 1900s in Chicago, Illinois, based upon the fact that the founders of this theory had been researching juvenile court records for more than one decade (Pratt, Gau, and Franklin 43). The theory suggested that there were high rates of crime in certain neighborhoods; particularly rather poor neighborhoods. Once Shaw and Kay discovered these findings, they figured that crime was no longer based on the individual alone, but more so the structure of th e neighborhood and what the neighborhood consisted of socially; neighbors level of interaction with one another, along with their ability to regulate the youth of their community (Pratt, Gau, and Franklin 44). There are several factors that can help determine social disorganization within a community. A few of these factors include: low socioeconomic status, high rates of residential mobility, increased diversity within the community and single-parent households (Pratt et al. 44, Barton et al. 247, and Kingston et al. 54). However, one of the main factors frequently used to determine social disorganization is residential mobility. Residential mobility is the frequent Childress 2 change of residence, either in the same city or town, or between cities, states or communities (dictionary). Residential mobility has the ability to socially disorganize any community. Neighbors packing up and moving more frequently than not, puts a strain on the ability for people to bond with one another and form a friendship with other residents who also reside in their community. Another factor that is often used to determine social disorganization is the socioeconomic status of a particular neighborhood. Poor neighborhoods with low income usually contain single-parent residencies. Single-parent households with young children living in them, have a hard time controlling the youth of their households, let alone the youth of their communities. Lack of discipline to the youth and improper social skills with their peers causes them to get involved in certain activities that are not only harmful to the community but harmful to themselves as well. According to the authors of the articl e A Test of Social Disorganization Theory in High-Risk Urban Neighborhoods, Structurally disadvantaged neighborhoods that lack the resources to effectively monitor children (such as: summer camps, music lessons, sports training, home computers, and special tutoring) and provide few sanctions for inappropriate behavior are likely to have a higher number of delinquent peer groups available to youthà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Poorly monitored youth are more likely to socialize with deviant peers and to engage in misconduct (Kingston et al. 58-59). As stated before, social disorganization occurs mainly in poor neighborhoods with high residential mobility lack of socializing between the neighbors throughout the community. These factors allow the crime in these communities to grow exponentially. Social exclusion and isolation from one another has a negative effect on the community because it creates a gateway for crime to occur. With no one from the community willing to step up and organize groups like The Neighborhood Watch or etc., it creates opportunities for crime to occur at any given time throughout the community. With no control over the youth living in the community, crime tends Childress 3 to rise. With lack of control over the youth, gangs have a high risk of developing. When gangs develop, there are a number of negative things that can occur. Some of the negative activities that can stem from gangs are burglaries, vandalism, drug-dealing, and violence, just to name a few (Mares, 41). The number of gangs began to rapidly increase in America during the 20th century. Without warning, gangs began showing up and developing in suburban, rural and urban communities (Mares, 41). This could have been prevented somehow if there had been more unity within the communities and if neighbors had been more willing to socialize with one another while agreeing to keep an eye out for any suspicious behavior with their community. However, it is safe to say that gang violence and homicides has the ability to destroy neighborhoods and put fear into people while causing isolation throughout the community (Mares, 42). So, if people within a community are afraid of the area that they are living in, it makes it harder for them to call the police and report a crime; and if they do report a crime, the chances of them cooperating with the police and stepping up as a public witness is not high, because they may feel threatened by the local gang members of the community, as well as scared for their lives. When this occurs, crime increases within the community because local gang members feel as if theyre invincible and as if they can get away with any crime they commit, no matter how large or small the crime may be (Mares 43). Social Disorganization started off as a theory fit for urban, rural and suburban neighborhoods. However, throughout the years, social disorganization has progressed from slum neighborhoods to college campuses. With the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings, campus crime seems pretty evident in these areas (Barton et al. 245). According to the authors of the article Social disorganization theory and the college campus, four-year college universities reported 44 murders, 2,491 forcible rapes, 1,386 robberies, 2,130 aggravated assaults, 25,978 burglaries, and 3,410 motor vehicle thefts back in 2007 in the United States Childress 4 (Barton et al. 245). Residential mobility is an obvious factor of social disorganization on college campuses because most colleges do not require their student to live on campus. Students living in nearby towns tend to commute back and forth to school everyday. Theres also the case where students get to pick a new room during the room reservation process towards the end of every academic school year. The percentage of students remaining in the same dorm room year after year is not very high. All of these factors regarding residential mobility on college campuses make it very hard for neighboring students in the dormitories to form a lasting bond with one another, since students usually get a new neighbor at the beginning of every academic school year once they move back onto campus. Then you have the college students who decide to pledge for a Greek organization on campus. These organizations take up the majority of a students time. Those students who live on campus but are dedicated to a Greek organization are hardly ever in their dorm rooms, thus, making it that much easier for crimes, such as burglaries, to occur on the college campus, particularly in the dormitories. Despite the positive things that Greek organizations do for the community, crime is very much capable of happening at their events, particularly their parties. Certain crimes such as under-age drinking, illegal drug use and vandalism are, very much so, capable of happening at a Greek organizations college party (Barton et al. 248). However, according to authors of the article Social disorganization theory and the college campus, Stronger community organizations provide more opportunities for positive social interaction, improve formal social control by increasing the chances that neighbors will observe neighborhood activity and intervene when they see potential problems, and thereby decrease the chance of crime occurring (Barton et al. 248). The dynamics of a community determine whether or not there will be social disorganization. Of course openness and communication within the community enhances the Childress 5 chances of gaining more control over the youth residing in nearby homes of their neighbors, including the homes of their own (if they have any). Coming together and unifying to form protection groups such as The Neighborhood Watch, will give people within the community a feeling of safety and protection. So, if someone from The Neighborhood Watch witnesses a crime taking place with their community, they may feel more confident and safe about calling the police to report it, since they will have the support of the The Neighborhood Watch within the community to fall back on. Aside from unity and proper communication amongst the residents of a community, the quality of the schools within the community have a strong ability to decrease social disorganization. Schools within a community that are not overcrowded or lacking basic needs such as teaching supplies and up-to-date text books, makes the students who are attending that particular institution more guaranteed to gain a quality education (Kingston et al. 58). This will give them more of an interest in pursuing a higher education, such as college, which will give them motivation to focus more on school by getting good grades and becoming more involved with extracurricular activities, instead of getting into trouble out in the streets of their community. According to the text book Key Ideas in Criminology and Criminal Justice, the authors conclude at the end of chapter four that levels of social disorganization may affect informal control and criminal opportunity mechanism, which, in turn, directly influence neighborhood crime rates (Pratt et al. 50). Childress 6

The Great Controversy according to Young Goodman Brown :: Free Essay Writer

In our own Christian struggles, people tend to believe that it is simple as good evil. People don't realize however that in this fight, the Devil can infiltrate a seemingly normal, Christian Human Being, but it's true. Better yet, in our own walk with God the Devil lurks near to test what might look like a strong relationship with Christ. As shown in Nathaniel Hawthorne's "Young Goodman Brown," even a grounded, sincere Christian can have his or her faith tested. Hawthorne's story refers to Brown's travel companion as 'the serpent,'; and though the story is allegory based the story itself raises an age old battle that is being fought to this day, the great controversy. The Great Controversy as it is formally known as, is the fight between good and evil…Michael and Lucifer. On the issue at hand Ellen White says 'The great controversy between Christ and Satan, that has been carried forward for nearly six thousand years, is soon to close; and the wicked one redoubles his efforts to defeat the work of Christ in man's behalf and to fasten souls in his snares. To hold the people in darkness and impenitence till the Saviour's mediation is ended, and there is no longer a sacrifice for sin, is the object which he seeks to accomplish.'; Within this fight, man, sinful in nature is in the middle of it. According to the Story Young Goodman Brown, Brown left faith or his faith to walk with the serpent, or the devil. He was so deep-rooted in his faith but disregarded it to walk with the devil. All throughout the walk the devil tried to test his faith by showing him harsh realities and telling Young Goodman Brown about his past and the negatives about his family's heritage. That is just one of the traps of the devil, more so the one of the greatest tests of faith can be the existence of evil spirits. Ellen White says in her book The Great Controversy, 'There is a growing tendency to disbelief in the existence of evil spirits, while the holy angels that "minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14) are regarded by many as spirits of the dead. But the Scriptures not only teach the existence of angels, both good and evil, but present unquestionable proof that these are not disembodied spirits of dead men.';(White 111) In the story the devil used his evil minions to deceive Young Goodman Brown and to make it appear that the people that appear to be good and upstanding Christians aren't.

Jesus, Paul, And Mohammed: Com :: essays research papers

Michael Hart is an amateur historian and also the author of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. In this book Hart lists in order the people he believes to be the top 100 most influential people. In this essay I am going to look at three specific people, and compare Hart’s ranking of their impact on society against my own. The three people are Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of Christianity; Paul of Tarsus, Christianity’s most important missionary; and Muhammad, the founder of Islam. Since religion did play a considerable role in the shaping of civilizations, it is no coincidence that these three people are respectively the three most important people in the founding of the top two religions in the world. Also Hart’s ranking of these three men will be analyzed, and compared to my own rankings of these three influential men.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Hart’s book, The 100, he regards all three of these men as being very important in contributing to the rise of two great religions. In his ranking of the top 100 Muhammad, Jesus, and St. Paul rank one, three, and six respectively. Now right from this statement most people would believe that Hart is already wrong, and that Jesus should be one. In some sense those who believe that Jesus are right because the amount of Christians in the world almost doubles that of the Moslems. Yet if we carefully look at Hart’s reasons for ranking them the way he does, you would see that his ranking seems more understandable.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  First we should start by analyzing Hart’s reasons for ranking Muhammad one. His main point for ranking him one, above Jesus, is because “ Muhammad played a more important role in the development of Islam then Jesus did on the development of Christianity';(9). He believes this statement to be true because St. Paul complemented Jesus in helping to spread the belief of Christianity. Though Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts it was St. Paul who was the main developer of its theology, its proselytizer, and for writing a large portion of the New Testament. While on the other hand Muhammad was the only one responsible for the teachings of Islam, and also to the moral and main ethical principles. This is shown in the idea that the Koran, the sacred book of Islam, contains the teachings of Muhammad, and that his teachings are said to be the words of God. Jesus, Paul, And Mohammed: Com :: essays research papers Michael Hart is an amateur historian and also the author of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. In this book Hart lists in order the people he believes to be the top 100 most influential people. In this essay I am going to look at three specific people, and compare Hart’s ranking of their impact on society against my own. The three people are Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of Christianity; Paul of Tarsus, Christianity’s most important missionary; and Muhammad, the founder of Islam. Since religion did play a considerable role in the shaping of civilizations, it is no coincidence that these three people are respectively the three most important people in the founding of the top two religions in the world. Also Hart’s ranking of these three men will be analyzed, and compared to my own rankings of these three influential men.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Hart’s book, The 100, he regards all three of these men as being very important in contributing to the rise of two great religions. In his ranking of the top 100 Muhammad, Jesus, and St. Paul rank one, three, and six respectively. Now right from this statement most people would believe that Hart is already wrong, and that Jesus should be one. In some sense those who believe that Jesus are right because the amount of Christians in the world almost doubles that of the Moslems. Yet if we carefully look at Hart’s reasons for ranking them the way he does, you would see that his ranking seems more understandable.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  First we should start by analyzing Hart’s reasons for ranking Muhammad one. His main point for ranking him one, above Jesus, is because “ Muhammad played a more important role in the development of Islam then Jesus did on the development of Christianity';(9). He believes this statement to be true because St. Paul complemented Jesus in helping to spread the belief of Christianity. Though Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts it was St. Paul who was the main developer of its theology, its proselytizer, and for writing a large portion of the New Testament. While on the other hand Muhammad was the only one responsible for the teachings of Islam, and also to the moral and main ethical principles. This is shown in the idea that the Koran, the sacred book of Islam, contains the teachings of Muhammad, and that his teachings are said to be the words of God.

Plato’s Conception of Justice Essay

The Republic is a dialogue between Socrates, Plato’s brothers, the Sophist Thrasymachus, along with Cephalus and his son, Polymarchus. The first book of the republic involves a presentation and refutation of the different views on justice. Socrates used the method of elenchus in order to show the flaws of the argument. Cephalus The topic concerning justice has started when Cephalus commented on living a just life. For preliminary, Cephalus have offered a definition of justice as that of telling the truth and paying someone what you owe. However, this idea was debunk by Socrates by offering a counter-argument which ask if this still hold in the case of a madman or someone who is insane. To further clarify, this issue that Socrates presents was whether or not a person shall return a knife that was borrowed from another person. With respect to Cephalus’s interpretation of justice, the knife shall be given back to its owner. However, Socrates presented a case, wherein the owner of the knife has gone insane and was planning to kill someone else. The madman was asking for his knife to be returned. Socrates, ask if giving back the knife shall still imply justice. Cephalus, himself, agreed with Socrates that this shall not imply what justice is. However, Cephalus have not managed to give further argument since he has to attend on certain things regarding the presentation of sacrifice. In the beginning of the conversion between Cephalus and Socrates, Cephalus could be characterized as someone who is very willing to converse with Socrates. Yet, when his idea was out rightly rejected to be false or to contain flaws he escape from the conversation using an alibi that something else came up and must be done, leaving the argument on the hands of his son, Polemarchus. Cephalus’s definition of justice and the way he reacts seems a bit related to how capitalist thinks. The mention of returning someone else’s favor or paying debts is a proof of this. For business people it would be just to return the debt you owe. Not doing so would be regarded as cheating or not being fair. Also, telling the truth is a must in the business world, if one would lie about certain transactions or about the real cost of something, it would is tantamount to deceiving the other person. The other person would not trust the liar anymore and the liar’s business would sooner or later fall down. Telling the truth is indeed just, since lying is always viewed as an injustice. However, as the case presented by Socrates shows, there are times, wherein man ought to tell lies and not to return debts or something one has borrow. With respect on how Socrates clarifies his point, it is obvious that giving back what you have borrowed and telling the truth does not guarantee a just action as what Cephalus pointed out, it might even lead to more injustice, if one would not look more closely. Polemarchus Polemarchus continued the dialogue by offering a related definition. He views justice as helping or giving favors to those who give you favor and harming those which does you harm. However, Socrates have been able to point out that, human judgment for whom to consider as a friend or as and enemy is open to error, such that the friend might just be pretending to be a friend and what you think as an enemy might be someone who is a friend. Also, some of your friends might turn as an enemy later in life and vice versa. The same thing goes with some of your friend might not be a good person and some of your enemy might be a good person. Socrates argued that it shall not be the case that you would only give favors to those who you consider as a friend for the time being and give harm to those you consider as an enemy. Polemarchus view was generally an immature view of what is justice. The definition was somewhat childish since it is the same principle as hating your enemies and keeping your friends. It also seems to be the most obvious view about justice in their generation, since it has political underpinnings. As war continued to shape their civilization, it was rational for those people living in that time to view justice in reference to enemies and friends. This shows that those who help you are your friends thus; they must be treated with respect and kindness. On the other hand, those who go against you or your country are considered as your enemy. Since â€Å"enemies† goal is to destroy or conquer each other, it would be rational not to help them and do them harm as what Polemarchus is trying to imply.   Relatively, Polemarchus holds the same view as Cephalus with respect to â€Å"giving someone what is owed to them†.   While Cephalus tried to incorporate money matters on his definition, Polemarchus treat his definition as a general version of what Cephalus has been trying to imply. Nevertheless, Socrates, remains unconvinced of their definition of justice, for both could be derived from flawed premises. Cephalus definition could not be generalized to cover all circumstances, while Polemarchus view is too relative and/or subjective. Thrasymachus Seeing how Socrates has been able to debunk the two popular beliefs of justice, Thrasymachus entered the conversation hastily offering a definition of justice that he believes to be better and more accurate. He argued that justice is merely the advantage of that which is stronger. He defends his definition as the advantage of other person aside from the just person himself. According to the statement of Thrasymachus, the person who is just is usually in a disadvantageous position, especially since most of the people are living with injustice. Those who do injustice, as can be observed generally, rise as stronger than those people who try to be just. This illuminates the idea that justice is a convention.   Justice, Thrasymachus believes, is meant to deter the action of the people to benefit other people. Thus he concludes that it would be more rational if justice would be ignored as a whole. To this view, another thing needs further clarification aside from the meaning of justice. The question involves if justice must be done or as Thrasymachus believes, must be ignored. Socrates first tried to clarify whether or not Thrasymachus have been imposing that injustice is actually the right thing to do or if Thrasymachus is advocating injustice over justice. Since by saying that justice is the advantage of that which is stronger, he holds that it is just to acquire more and more of power, wealth and everything else that makes one stronger. At the end of the argument, Socrates has been able to demonstrate how crude it would be to consider injustice as a virtue since it is contrary to wisdom which is a virtue. Furthermore, since Thrasymachus have presented an argument concerning following the instructions of those who are stronger, then it follows according to Socrates, that justice is adhering to certain rules. However, this rules which are set by the ruler/s might not be the right rules after all; as what we could find in the past, wherein leaders are very prone to commit certain errors. There are leaders who even act solely for his advantage, disregarding the efforts and sacrifices of the citizens. Socrates question, if following such ruler/s could still account for justice. Obviously, it does not. Thus, Socrates adds, that justice must be something that promotes the common good. Lastly, Socrates ended up arguing that justice is something that is a desirable virtue, while injustice is contrary to that. Thrasymachus is considered to be a Sophist. Since, he cannot withstand the arguments presented by Socrates; Thrasymachus have accused Socrates of cheating. In the dialogue he has with Socrates, Thrasymachus is portrayed as someone who would not let anyone to be better than him self. His stubbornness and unwillingness to be persuaded along with his constant doubt demonstrate that he would rather live following his false beliefs rather than to be persuaded by someone else. It can be seen on the way in which he defines justice, as that of promoting the interest of that which is stronger. In his dialogue with Socrates, it seems that he’s trying his best to become the stronger by showing everyone most especially to Socrates, that his view regarding justice is correct. At the end, when he could not find a way to further argue against Socrates, he accused him of deception. Discussion The traditional view on justice as have been shown in the Republic could be rooted on Hesoid, who view justice as following certain set of action. One has to be just because if he does not follow the set of actions that were ordained by the Gods, he would be punished and if he follows, he would be rewarded. However, in the time of Socrates and Plato, the view that indeed the Gods blessed those who act just was disregarded since many people who do injustices are seen to be better off than those who are just. This shall be the explanation on the views of justice made by Glaucon, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus. Challenge   Socrates would have to prove that justice is not only good in appearance, he would have to show that indeed, there is a higher level of morality which is beyond human conventions and that it must be followed not merely because of the rewards and punishment that goes with it, but because it is something compelling and universally desirable to do so. This has been the focus of Book II. A further elaboration of what should a just and an unjust man shall do is then presented through a discussion of a story about a mythical ring that would make a man invisible at will. According to the myth, unless men are stupid, a simpleton or just plainly insane, if nobody else could see him he would do unjust things. Indeed, it was always beneficial that men shall appear just and do injustice unknowingly. According to the arguments laid by Adeimantus and Glaucon, men naturally do injustice and it is out of question, since there are several instances wherein man would think that the action is just with respect only to its appearance, whatever the intention might be. It is common for man to give alms for instance, and it is a just action in fact. Whether the money comes from a just or unjust means is out of the question, provided that no one really knows where it came from. The Ideal State In Book III of the Republic, Socrates began to construct an â€Å"ideal just state†.   He does this in able to show that in order to clearly show justice, it shall first be presented without the presence of injustices. In doing so, he discusses that the evils that beset mankind may not come from God for God is all-good, ultimately, evil comes from man himself, in his selfishness and arrogance arise injustice. In Book IV, the ideal state is already finished.   Socrates intends to show that a just state is a state that shall display happiness. Happiness in this sense shall not be composed mainly of the material things, for the citizens of the â€Å"ideal just state† would be happy only if they would be able to do what they have to do.With respect to the ideal state that Socrates has proposed, he concluded that it shall contain wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Justice is attained when the citizens have practiced his function well. Conclusion In Plato’s republic, Plato has been able to refute the different views on justice by his contemporaries. At the same tine, he has been successful in providing a clear view on what he believes shall be the concept of justice. That it is a virtue that could only be manifested and work best only if the entire state would do what their individual function is. As the dialogue unfolds, the different views on justice were proven to be misleading and are flaws since it is a view that certain group of people advocates. The view of Cepahalus mainly argues the view that the elder group of people usually holds, Polemarchus on the other hand gives a view of someone who is young and determined while the view of Thrasymachus resembles that which cannot accept that he is wrong. All of these views are primarily concerned in the individual justice, while Plato present a kind of holistic approach to justice stating that it must be in a state level to see its entirety and for it to work more effectively. Works Cited Jowett, B. (1901).   PLATO: THE REPUBLIC . The Colonial Press. New York.