Prostitution Among Immigration Routes

Social Structure Theory: Prostitution Among Immigration Routes

Prostitution is a terrible reality for many women seeking to escape their current sociocultural situation 

that often includes poverty, abuse, and other factors that force the individual to make the decision to 

escape in hope of finding a better life (University of Phoenix, 2013). Although many women are faced 

to engage in prostitution as a means of repayment to traffickers, there are also those who try to gain 

illegal entry into another country on their own and are forced to resort to similar means of earning 

money to survive (University of Phoenix, 2013).

According to University of Phoenix Prostitution along immigration routes video (2013) “We know that 

worldwide there is talk of the feminization of immigration, and 54% of immigrants throughout the 

world are women.” One of the most common immigration problems in the United States is illegal 

crossing through the Senora Desert region of Mexico, which contains a 30-mile area notorious for 

brothels and nightclubs where female immigrants work as prostitutes to pay human traffickers 

(University of Phoenix, 2013). Sadly, many of these women will suffer from exposure to fatal sexually 

transmitted diseases or forced into slavery, and will never complete their journey (University of 

Phoenix, 2013). It is estimated that 460 illegal immigrants died crossing the desert from Mexico to the 

United Sates in 2005 alone (University of Phoenix, 2013).

Social Structure Theory

The social structure theory is a primary theory used by criminologists because it suggests and supports the hypothesis that crime rates vary based on different elements of a social structure (Seigel, 2000). It also suggests that society influences changes in the various reasons that crimes are committed, and criminality is related to various social interactions (Siegel, 2000). According to Siegel (2000) “Social structure theories suggest people’s places in the socioeconomic structure influence their chances of becoming a criminal.” (para 2). This theory suggests that individuals from challenged socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to become criminals as a means to obtain financial or social success because they lack the opportunities that others may have (Siegel, 2000). There are three different sub-theories that make the social structure theory: Social disorganization, structural strain, and cultural deviance theories.

Social Disorganization

According to Bursik (1998) as cited in the U.S. Department of Justice (2013), “Social disorganization is defined as an inability of community members to achieve shared values or to solve jointly experiences problems (para. 1). The social disorganization theory suggests that living conditions of the individual or group of individuals directly influence the decision to commit crimes like prostitution, theft, burglary, and potentially more violent crimes like rape or murder (Siegel, 2000). It is suggested that social disorganization is most common in community settings with a high level of transient populations, poor living conditions, and higher than average mixes of ethnic diversity (U.S. Department of Justice, 2013). One method of reducing social disorganization is to develop a sense of community among the residents. This is accomplished when members of the community become acquainted with each other and develop programs like neighborhood watches, and programs designed to promote a positive growth environment for the local children (U.S. Department of Justice, 2013).

Structural Strain

The structural strain theory was developed by Robert Merton (1910-2003) based on the functionalist perspective of deviance (Crossman, 2013). Merton’s theory suggests that societal deviance is the result of tensions caused by differences in cultural goals, and the socioeconomic means needed for people to achieve their goals (Crossman, 2013). The social strain theory is characterized by the cultural and social structure of society, and the combination of culturally accepted goals and means (Crossman, 2013). The cultural aspect of society establishes guidelines and goals for individuals, whereas the social structure either provides or fails to provide the means for individuals to achieve the goals established by society (Crossman, 2013). Structural strain occurs when the societal goals and social structure are incapable of balancing, which results in deviant behavior (Crossman, 2013).Merton’s structural strain theory also suggests that individuals are placed into one of five different categories; conformists, ritualists, innovators, retreatists, and rebels (Crossman, 2013).

Individuals are categorized according to his or her relationship to the cultural and societal goals and means of achieving those goals (Crossman, 2013). Individuals categorized as conformists are comfortable with the cultural and societal goals, and the accepted means of attaining them (Crossman, 2013). Individuals categorized as innovators are recognized as accepting the cultural and societal goals, but disagree with the accepted norms of achieving the goals (Crossman, 2013). These individuals respectfully follow the societal rules, and are usually successful and respected members of society (Crossman, 2013). Individuals in the ritualist classification do not believe in the cultural or societal goals; however, they do conform to the means for attaining the goals, even though they do not support them (Crossman, 2013). Individuals in the retreatist classification are viewed as people who reject the cultural and societal goals, and the accepted means to attain them. Examples of these individuals would be alcoholics, those from transient populations, and people who exclude themselves from social interaction (Crossman, 2013). Those classified as rebels reject established cultural and societal goals, and the normal means of attaining those goals. These individuals commonly replace the goals of society, and the means of attaining the substituted goals they have set themselves (Crossman, 2013).

Cultural Deviance

According to Crossman (2013) “Deviant behavior is any behavior considered contrary to the dominant norms of society.” (para. 1). There are several theories associated with cultural deviance; labeling theory, social control theory, and differential association theory (Crossman, 2013). The first theory is the labeling theory, which is considered one of the most important theories applied to understanding deviant and criminal behavior. A primary aspect of the theory is the base assumption that no action performed by an individual is intrinsically criminal (Crossman, 2013). Instead, the theory suggests that criminal behavior is defined by the authoritative structure of society, and interpreted by law enforcement, legal branches, and correctional systems (Crossman, 2013). Using this theory, one would surmise that deviance is defined as a process of interactions between deviant and non-deviant individuals, and the interpretation of the context of criminality (Crossman, 2013).

Travis Hirsci’s social control theory suggests that deviant behavior occurs when an individual or group of individuals attachment to social bonds are weakened. This theory also suggests that individuals care about the image they portray to others, and conform to social expectations because they do not want to be viewed as different or unacceptable for deviating from the accepted societal norms (Crossman, 2013). Hirschi focused in how individuals with deviant behavior attach or do no attach to societal value systems, and what factors influence an individual’s decision to deviate from societal norms (Crossman, 2013). Hirschi also suggests that most individuals are prone to experience impulses or desires to deviate from societal norms, but rarely act on their desires because of their attachment to the accepted norms (Crossman, 2013). Edwin Sutherland’s (1883-1950) differential association theory emphasizes the processes that determine if an individual decides to commit acts of deviance or not, and that criminal behavior is learned through and individual’s interactions with others (Crossman, 2013). Sutherland suggests that these interactions an individual learns basic attitudes, motives, techniques, and values of criminal behavior. Sutherland’s theory emphasizes that the frequency of interaction with individuals with deviant behaviors and deviant environments directly influences an individual’s potential for becoming socially deviant (Crossman, 2013).

Social Process Theory

Social Process theory is a process of identifying and relating criminal behavior are a function resulting from an individual’s direct or indirect interactions with a variety of institutions, organizations, and societal process (Siegel, 2000). This theory suggests that an individual’s socioeconomic or cultural history has less influence on his or her potential for criminal behavior than the influence of destructive social relationships (Siegel, 2000). The social process theory is based on three core beliefs that people learn how to commit crimes, failure in society to control criminal behaviors, and that negative labels produce criminal behavior (Siegel, 2000).

Differential Association Theory

The social learning aspect suggests that individuals learn criminal behavior in the same manner that they learn socially acceptable, and normal behaviors. Edward Sutherland (1883-1950) developed the differential association theory, which is a major foundation for the social process theory. Sutherland’s differential association theory as cited in Florida State University, 2013) states “Excess of definitions favorable to deviance over definitions unfavorable to violation of law enforces a person to become a deviant while associating with other persons.” (para. 2). Sutherland suggests that an individual learns criminal behavior from his or her interactions with other deviant individuals, and that through association, the he or she learns techniques, rationale, motives, and other factors associated with deviant or criminal behavior (Florida State University, 2013). Sutherland’s theory deviates from conventional pathological perspectives and biological perspectives by associating the root cause of crime to the social context of the individual (Florida State University, 2013). His theory rejects the concept that an individual’s biological, economic factors, and the concepts of psychiatry to pursue an alternate explanation of why people become criminals (Florida State University, 2013). Sutherland suggests that an individual will become a criminal by relation to social perspectives involving conduct over prosocial perspectives (Florida State University, 2013).

The core principles of Sutherland;s theory is that people learn criminal behavior through verbal and non-verbal interactions with other individuals, and that the learning process occurs within intimate personal groups (Florida State University, 2013). This also suggests that exposure to movies, readings, or news outlets provide a minimal influence on the individual’s deviant behaviors (Florida State University, 2013). Furthermore, Sutherland suggests that when and individual begins displaying deviant behaviors, the primary factors are the constructs of criminal patters combined with the lack of association with anti-criminal patterns (Florida State University, 2013).

Social Conflict Theory

The social conflict theory is derived from Karl Marx (1818-1883) who viewed the societal structure as being fragmented into various groups competing for social and economic resources (Crossman, 2013). The Social conflict theory suggests that social order is maintained by methods of domination, and a division of power among individuals with the largest amounts of economic, political resources (Crossman, 2013). This theory also suggests that a consensus of a larger group of people united by common interests will be more successful in developing policies  opposed by smaller, less influential groups (Crossman, 2013). This often results in people from smaller, less influential groups becoming involved in criminal behaviors. According to the conflict theory as stated in Crossman (2013), “Inequality exists because those in control of a disproportionate share of society’s resources actively defend their advantages.” (para. 2). Meaning, that individuals or groups are not bound to society by a shared set of values, but rather by coercion from individuals in power (Crossman, 2013). The theory suggests that individuals and groups are primarily focused on advancing their own interests, and engage in constant struggles to control societal resources. The theory also infers that individuals or groups with greater access to societal resources will exercise their power over others with indifference and inequality (Crossman, 2013). The Social conflict theory emphasizes the importance of factors related to social class, cultural differences, and gender as the basis for society’s most prominent and long-lasting struggles (Crossman, 2013).

Conclusion

There are many theories involving the primary reasons for social deviance and criminal behavior. This paper explored the prominent theories involved in the subject, and clearly outlines the similarities and differences of each of the discussed theories. Although each theory has a certain amount of validity, they also possesses weaknesses that leave opportunity for further debate and investigation. Although these theories provide some explanations for deviant or criminal behavior, there are additional factors of a psychological aspect that cannot be ignored. The video that was used as the basis of this paper discussed prostitution along immigration routes, and each of the theories discussed provided clear examples of how prostitution can be supported as a byproduct of individuals seeking illegal methods of immigrating into another country in a desperate attempt to improve his or her life.

 References

 Crossman, A. (2013). Conflct theory. Retrieved from http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociological-Theory/a/Conflict-Theory.htm

Crossman, A. (2013). Sociological explanations of deviant behavior. Retrieved from http://sociology.about.com/od/Deviance/a/Sociological-Explanations-Of-Deviant-Behavior.htm

Crossman, A. (2013). Structural strain theory. Retrieved from http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociological-Theory/a/Structural-Strain-Theory.htm

 Florida State University. (2013). Edwin H. Sutherland. Retrieved from http://criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/sutherland.html

Siegel, L.J. (2000). Social process theories. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=185186

Siegel, L.J. (2000). Social structure Theories. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=185185

University of Phoenix. (2013). Prostitution along immigration routes. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, CJA314 website.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2013). Social disorganization and rural communities. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/193591/page1.html

Prison Term Policy Recommendation

Introduction

The proposed bill introduces a measure to double the maximum incarceration term for individuals convicted of armed robbery. The goal of this bill would be to reduce the amount of armed robbery cases by assigning longer prison terms, and act as a deterrent to criminal offenders. This report is designed to cover the aspects involved in sentencing concerns, psychological aspects, and alternative measures that would enhance or improve the measure.

Prison Term Policy Recommendation: Armed Robbery in the State of Connecticut

According to the State of Connecticut General Assembly Website (2005), “ Crime and its punishment is a public policy concern in which the state legislature has a key role in defining.” (para 1). The judicial function of any state legislature is the ensure the justice system is effectively and fairly implemented in accordance with state law (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Considering sentencing within the legal system as a punishment for a particular crime committed, one must account for the traditional goals of incarceration like incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). With this consideration, it is noted that over time, both political and public views of how efficiently goals are balanced and which goals should be promoted have changed (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005).

Sentencing Issues and Concerns

Many crimes prioritized in the criminal system are associated with minimum sentencing requirements, which has been the subject of strong reactions that both support and denounce the policy (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). It is noted that a legal loophole in the policy of great concern is the unilateral authority of prosecutors to use discretionary practices in regard to charging for a crime, and the use of plea bargaining, which serves to circumvent the minimum sentencing policies (Sate of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). As a result of this unilateral authority afforded to prosecutors, a general acceptance that mandatory sentencing laws have been rendered ineffective and have failed to meet the objectives, which has resulted in serious concerns in sentencing inequities, and unfair or unduly hash punishments (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005).

Sentencing Pros and Cons

According the Sate fo Connecticut General Assemble website, (2005), “The issue of mandatory sentencing generates strong reactions for and against the policy.” (para 5). Proponents of mandatory minimum sentencing (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2002) suggest that the laws are effective deterring those who may commit serious offenses involving drug and weapons, and those involving sexual offenses (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). They also suggest that the laws protect those convicted of crimes from disparities in sentencing (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Another factor cited by proponents is that the law keeps convicted offenders incarcerated for longer sentencing times, which they justify as keeping offenders out of the general society and prevent new crimes from occurring (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Furthermore, proponents suggest these laws assist prosecutors and law enforcement agencies the ability to use the potential of lengthy incarceration to persuade convicted offenders of low-level crimes to testify agains offenders of higher level crimes (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Additionally,  proponents suggest that the law gives prosecutors and law enforcement the option to offer lower sentences as an incentive to the offender to submit a guilty plea willingly (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005).

Opponents of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws suggest that there is empirical evidence that disproves the theory that tougher or longer sentences will deter individuals from committing serious crimes (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Opponents cite that the prison rates in Connecticut and other sates and federal prisons has increased as a result of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which also places greater financial burden and overcrowding (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Opponents of the law argue that incarceration times are disproportionate between Caucasian and Minority offenders, sentencing disparities potentially produce unintended consequences for different offenses (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Furthermore, opponents argue that many non-violent offenders are improperly incarcerated because the law vaguely combines non-violent offenses with those of a more serious, violent nature (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005).

Psychological  Concerns

Most offenders of crimes like armed robbery suffer from symptoms associated with antisocial personality disorder. The criteria for antisocial personality disorder includes behaviors that disregard social norms and violate the rights of others (Long, 2011),  irritability, and aggressiveness indicated by physical fights or assaults (Long, 2011). The subject must also meet at minimum of one or more symptoms of deceitfulness associated with repeated lying, conning others for personal gain, or use of aliases (Long, 2011), or lack or remorse, indifference to or rationalizing injury or mistreatment, and theft (Long, 2012).

Antisocial behavior disorder is considered a core variable in behavior of individuals who commit violent crimes. This order is treatable using methods of psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, and pharmaceutical interventions (Black, 2013). Hospital care is not a common course of action, unless the individual; however, in the case of criminal offenders this qualification is applicable (Black, 2013). Regular psychotherapy sessions focused on helping the individual learn to control his behavior by understanding the nature of consequences of the disorder (Black, 2013). Cognitive therapy sessions include a program where the clinician sets guidelines of involvement including attendance, active participation, and satisfactory completion of assignments or responsibilities as outlined by the clinician (Black, 2013). Although there are no medications approved to treat antisocial personality disorder, there are medications approved for treatment of symptoms like aggression, depression, and anxiety (Black, 2013).

Recommendations for Modifying the Current Measure

The measure should take into account the factors of plea negotiations, prison overcrowding, and cases of repeat offenders. Simple prison terms have been suggested to harden inmates, and cause further psychological duress, degradation, and onset of behavioral  disorders. The opportunity to add a strong psychological program that inmates cannot voluntarily enter to avoid prison sentencing would provide the opportunity to promote and develop treatment designed to reduce the potential of the offender repeating his or her criminal behavior. The psychological program should be implemented at the time of release, and be made a requirement of parole.

Conclusion

The current measure as written increases the maximum prison terms for individuals convicted of armed robbery. There are several considerations that suggest this bill, as written, is not a viable solution. The first consideration is the overcrowding issues currently being experienced in the legal system, and the lack of funding to build new facilities. The second consideration is the lack of required psychological treatment for the individual’s behavioral deficiencies, and the elevated potential to repeat or escalate criminal behavior resulting from lack of treatment. Taking the annual cost of inmate housing and care, the additional costs of increased prison terms could be diverted to a proper mandatory treatment program.

References

 Black, D. (2013). Treatment of antisocial personality disorder. Retrieved from http://psychcentral.com/lib/treatment-for-antisocial-personality-disorder/000656

Long, P.W. (2011). Antisocial Personality Disorder. Retrieved from http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis/p20-pe04.html

State of Connecticut General Assembly. (2005). Mandatory minimum sentences. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pridata/Studies/Mandatory_Minimum_Senteces_Briefing.htm

Murder Data Comparison

Murder Data Comparison

Crime is a behavioral trait inherent to the human species that causes an individual or group of individuals to conduct themselves in a manner that violates laws as set by the governing  branch of societal structure (Schmalleger, 2012). Historical records of mankind indicates various methods of tracking criminal activity, and development of a hierarchy of criminal behavior intensity. For example, theft is normally considered a lower intensity crime than murder. In modern society, law enforcement agencies track criminal activity to provide statistical support for staffing models, budgeting, and comparison to similar crimes over a specified period of time, and against other crimes. This permits law enforcement with better ways to plan strategic reponses, perform research and development, and implement new policies to address criminal activities based on the level of priority (Schmalleger, 2012).

Data collected on local levels is also shared with other government agencies to produce larger comparison models that are used to understand the reasons for variations of similar crimes in different cities. Reasons for variations can be the result of higher staffing levels in local law enforcement staffing, differences in socioeconomic conditions, cultural differences, and other factors that directly influence specific types of crime (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2011). A major concern for accurate statistic reporting is commonly referred to as the dark figure of crime. The dark figure of crime relates to the unknown variable of unreported or unnoticed crimes that take place on a regular basis (Schmalleger, 2012). This variable may be less prominent in particular crimes like murder, but the potential for a murder to go unreported is viable.

The Uniform Crime Report

The uniform crime report resulted from the need to develop a federal tracking method of criminal activity in the United States. Initiated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police in 1929, the process was assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigations in 1930 (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2012). The program, appropriately named the Uniform Crime Report involved collecting, compiling, and archival of criminal statistics received from various law enforcement agencies throughout the United States (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2012). The program relies on data collected from 18,000 law enforcement agencies that range from various levels of state and federal levels, and includes data from tribal nations (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2012). These reports include data related to specific crime categories and are sorted by locality on an annual basis. The report is used by law enforcement to detect effectiveness of operational policies and procedures, develop new programs, and adapt policy changes designed to reduce criminal activity (Schmalleger, 2012). The report compares criminal activity ranging from auto theft to murder, and geographic information like city, state, and population (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012).  Since the inception of the program, multiple variations of the report have been developed to include issues like hate crimes, human trafficking, and new definitions of existing crimes like rape (Federal Bureau of  Investigations, 2012).

Murder Statistics for Honolulu and San Jose

Considering most people choose to look up reports related to their primary geographic location, I chose to compare two cities from two different states from where I reside. The primary consideration for the selection was population and location of the cities. In 2011, Honolulu and San Jose had almost identical populations, but very different crime statistics. The population of Honolulu in 2010 was 953,297 and 963,465 in 2011 (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2012) and San Jose was 945,942 in 2010 and 957,062 in 2011(Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2012), but the murder rates showed a dramatic difference with Honolulu recording 19 cases in 2010 and 7 cases in 2011 (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2012), whereas San Jose recorded 20 cases in 2010 and 39 cases in 2011 (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2012). Reports indicate that murder rates in Honolulu were reduced whereas the population increased, and in San Jose the murder rate increased as did the population (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2012).

Influences on Differences

An important factor to consider when reviewing these reports is that they only include statistics of crimes that have been solved or removed from active status for lack of enough supporting evidence to make an official arrest (Schmalleger, 2012). Another important consideration are the factors like criminal activity going unreported, or drunk driving that also influence the statistical data of murders recorded in these two cities. The third major consideration is the legal definition of the crime as reported. One must differentiate between legal and illegal justifications for taking the like of another human being. For example, an individual how knowingly and willingly stabs another person to death for no justifiable reason would be committing an act of murder, whereas an individual who shoots and kills a home invader during and assault would be committing an act of legal self-defense (Schmallger, 2012).

Conclusion

Criminal activity is an issue that has plagued society since the earliest recordings of organized civilization. The definition of criminal activity may vary based on societal and cultural norms for a specified time period. For example, in ancient Rome, murder was regular practice, whereas in modern day society, the same activities would be illegal. Tracking crime has evolved along with society, and the demands for new forms of reporting grow as definitions of crime change, and new methods of addressing criminal activity are implemented. Tools like the uniform crime report are just one, but a very important tool used by law enforcement to determine specific crime rates, provide historical tracking data, and develop new techniques related to crime reduction.

References

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (2012). Uniform crime reporting. Retrieved August 23, 2013, from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2011). Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics: Their Proper Use. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-statistics-their-proper-use

 Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2012). Uniform crime reporting statistics: Honolulu, Hawaii. Retrieved from http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Local/RunCrimeOneYearofData.cfm

 Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2012). Uniform crime reporting statistics: San Jose, California. Retrieved from http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Local/RunCrimeOneYearofData.cfm

Schmalleger, F. (2012). Criminology today: An Integrative introduction. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.