In this highlighted section here that if the result is not the structure of the family, so by that they mean
it's not dual or single single mother single father, not the structure of the family, but rather the stresses
bearing on the family relationships that can create immediate risk factors for violence involving youth,
which is exactly what I've been talking about. The larger pressures, the larger stresses, intervening
impacting on families. That's one of the key influences and in order to understand how families and
parenting factor in criminal behavior, we need to keep those larger contexts is by so let me just drive
this point home with one other thing. And this is a clip from a documentary that I did, it's probably a
couple of years old about but it is a really fascinating documentary from the perspective of a crime
criminology and especially intro to Krim course. And this of course, is Bowling for Columbine Michael
War documentary that came out a couple of years ago. I mean, show you a specific clip, which talks
about a case from February 29 2000. And a case involves a six year old boy in Flint, Michigan, who
was at his uncle's house, we found a gun and he brought the gun to school, and he ended up shooting
and killing another six year old a six year old girl by the name of Caleb wall and he was staying at his
uncle's house because his mother had been evicted from their apartment. So he was applied to his
uncle's house to stay with him and that's where he discovered the gun. So I can play by the three
minutes plan and as you're watching this, just kind of keep in mind the he any direct message, indirect
story is being pulled, again about the pressures that parents face. The basis So I think that very nicely
makes that point, right in terms of how these kinds of structural pressures, or in this case, specifically
welfare to work programs, which are incredibly common throughout the United States, how they
essentially take parents outside the home and thereby create significant barriers to the ability to engage
in, quote unquote, effective parenting. So yes, the family is without question important. However, at the
same time, it's important to keep in mind what factors influence impact parenting. So that in essence is
social ballin here just one leave you with one last little final quote, again, driving home this point. This is
from Gooding in 1994. States that quote it's important to recognize that modern parents are operating
in a social order, but the idea that the structural pressures date and speaking, operating at a social
borders is in many ways hostile to family cohesion, and viability and to effective parenting is what
conducive to stressful relationships and inadvertent child neglect. Parents need all the help that they
can get to produce socially and that is it for social quad theory. Are there any questions? Social Theory.
Powerful, yes. Also limited particularly if this theory is interpreted in a way that effectively they blames
terrorists. No. Okay. So that allows us to move on to our second key social process theory developed in
1939 by individual by the name of Edward salary, then you can see a picture of our friend Edwin
Sutherland. So here we are kind of shifting gears once again. We I think you've established that one of
the limitations of social One theory is that it neglects cases where attachment to groups may contribute
to criminal behavior suddenly kind of takes up this idea that attachment is somehow the court to
somehow significant it's a contributing factor to involvement in crime. And he develops this into a
different social process theory of crime. His differential association theory. So in the textbook, you will
have read nine different propositions, which sadolin articulated, which have kind of been tested in
various ways over the years. There was nine ENCODE. We don't expect you to know to memorize all
nine of those propositions. What I would like you to do instead is to refer to some of these general
elements of the theory that I'll be going through in a second. So essentially, what I've done is I've kind
of condensed the nine propositions into about three or four elements that help to capture the essence
of differential association theory without weighing you down with all nine of those propositions. So the
first principle or element is the idea that crime is a behavior it's a behavior like any other. It's a behavior
that is learned right, all of our behaviors are essentially effectively learned. Crime, for Sutherland is no
different. And moreover, criminal behavior is learned through interactions with significant others. So
individuals in our lives who are significant who are meaningful to us, and its interaction with those
significant others, which contribute to the learning process, which can lead to criminal behavior. And so
just keep in mind, the critical importance of this way of thinking, to the extent that it moves beyond both
the idea that individuals are predisposed by virtue of their biology and psychology to engage in criminal
behavior, but also the idea that individuals are predisposed by virtue of their their social status, their
class background, to become involved in criminal behavior and that the idea that social location and
, socioeconomic status can drive criminal behavior. It's an idea that was quite common in criminological
circles around the time that some of those waiting and which he was also very much reactive to. So
behavior criminal behavior is neither inherited, nor is it simply a determined product of poverty or
socioeconomic status, again, instead is learning and relationships with peer groups, which are critically
important. So with this in mind with this focus on learning, and significant others, Sutherland made the
point that what differentiates criminals from non criminals is differential exposure to deviant peer
groups, and opportunities for social learning. So rather than needs or values or pressures, the key
variable in criminal behavior is whether individuals associate interact with conventional peer groups,
peer groups that are not involved in criminal behavior, or what he refers to as deviant peer groups, pure
rules which are involved in crime. And it's that element of differential dissociation which is key, whether
we're associating with deviant or non DDA, criminal per bone criminal peer groups. The other
interesting thing about Sutherlands whole approach is that he kind of explicitly contrasts this way of
thinking in terms of interactions, everyday interactions with some of the ideas that we spoke about a
couple of weeks ago in terms of the influence of the media, and via television and violent video games.
And so he differentiates this theory and this form of learning from the form of learning that occurs
through popular media. And he stated specifically, this is a quote the impersonal agencies sorry,
associations are more important than modeling or imitation for TV and video games. The impersonal
agencies of communications such as movies and newspapers play a relatively unimportant part in the
genesis of criminal behavior. So TV, movies and newspapers play a relatively unimportant part in the
genesis of criminal behavior. Also very interested in there, how he's kind of differentiating his
perspective from other kinds of learning theories that existed at the time. Okay. The third idea is that, in
thinking about how individuals learn to become involved in product Sunlen argues that they must learn
really two things. They must learn the techniques necessary for committing crime, and we must learn
the justifications which support this activity. So in terms of techniques, we often don't really think about
crime as an evolving work. Or as involving specialized knowledge. If you were to go and try to rob a
bank, for example, not that anyone really loves banking, but if you were to go and rob the bank, there's
a whole series of different things that you need to learn. You need to learn with how money is kept
store. You need to familiarize yourself with surveillance surveillance systems, you need to learn the
appropriate kind of disguise and you need to learn the way to exit the bank and to avoid being
captured. All set of techniques that a individual setting out throughout the day would need to know if
you are residential burglary, same kind of thing. There are techniques around which houses to target
what times what kinds of items to go after, how to spend time on items after you've stolen a whole
range of different techniques. Another great example ransomware attacks that involves, in fact an
incredible degree of sophistication, knowledge of computers, how to use programs, computer
programs, in order to launch these kinds of attacks. So for many forms of criminal behavior, there are
techniques there are particular forms of knowledge and understanding that are required. The
Thundermans point is is that this knowledge these techniques are learned. Right. Also at the same time
is not enough simply to have the knowledge for Sutherland individuals also need to learn justifications,
which are conducive to which helped to facilitate to justify criminal behavior. Ideas like they don't pay
me enough. If you're kind of talking about that from your employer. One place that they don't pay to get
on board the idea that a particular form of criminal behavior is not really a crime. It's not really that
significant or everybody does. It, maybe thinking about computer piracy? If we take the example of
interpersonal physical violence, an idea of justification for that particular form of criminal behavior might
be the idea that you can't let people push you around. Don't let anyone push you around. That there's
any kind of confrontation or any kind of challenge, you need to justify and responding as violence.
Those are all justifications, ideas, definitions of situations which support which are conducive to criminal
behavior. So social learning, key social learning, in the form of techniques and justifications and
ultimately, kind of reflected in these differential associations. The fourth key point that suddenly makes
is that these differential associations associations with kind of deviant or criminal peer groups
influences. He argues that they vary based on four different factors. They first vary in terms of their
frequency, which refers to how often one interacts with groups encouraging deviant or criminal
it's not dual or single single mother single father, not the structure of the family, but rather the stresses
bearing on the family relationships that can create immediate risk factors for violence involving youth,
which is exactly what I've been talking about. The larger pressures, the larger stresses, intervening
impacting on families. That's one of the key influences and in order to understand how families and
parenting factor in criminal behavior, we need to keep those larger contexts is by so let me just drive
this point home with one other thing. And this is a clip from a documentary that I did, it's probably a
couple of years old about but it is a really fascinating documentary from the perspective of a crime
criminology and especially intro to Krim course. And this of course, is Bowling for Columbine Michael
War documentary that came out a couple of years ago. I mean, show you a specific clip, which talks
about a case from February 29 2000. And a case involves a six year old boy in Flint, Michigan, who
was at his uncle's house, we found a gun and he brought the gun to school, and he ended up shooting
and killing another six year old a six year old girl by the name of Caleb wall and he was staying at his
uncle's house because his mother had been evicted from their apartment. So he was applied to his
uncle's house to stay with him and that's where he discovered the gun. So I can play by the three
minutes plan and as you're watching this, just kind of keep in mind the he any direct message, indirect
story is being pulled, again about the pressures that parents face. The basis So I think that very nicely
makes that point, right in terms of how these kinds of structural pressures, or in this case, specifically
welfare to work programs, which are incredibly common throughout the United States, how they
essentially take parents outside the home and thereby create significant barriers to the ability to engage
in, quote unquote, effective parenting. So yes, the family is without question important. However, at the
same time, it's important to keep in mind what factors influence impact parenting. So that in essence is
social ballin here just one leave you with one last little final quote, again, driving home this point. This is
from Gooding in 1994. States that quote it's important to recognize that modern parents are operating
in a social order, but the idea that the structural pressures date and speaking, operating at a social
borders is in many ways hostile to family cohesion, and viability and to effective parenting is what
conducive to stressful relationships and inadvertent child neglect. Parents need all the help that they
can get to produce socially and that is it for social quad theory. Are there any questions? Social Theory.
Powerful, yes. Also limited particularly if this theory is interpreted in a way that effectively they blames
terrorists. No. Okay. So that allows us to move on to our second key social process theory developed in
1939 by individual by the name of Edward salary, then you can see a picture of our friend Edwin
Sutherland. So here we are kind of shifting gears once again. We I think you've established that one of
the limitations of social One theory is that it neglects cases where attachment to groups may contribute
to criminal behavior suddenly kind of takes up this idea that attachment is somehow the court to
somehow significant it's a contributing factor to involvement in crime. And he develops this into a
different social process theory of crime. His differential association theory. So in the textbook, you will
have read nine different propositions, which sadolin articulated, which have kind of been tested in
various ways over the years. There was nine ENCODE. We don't expect you to know to memorize all
nine of those propositions. What I would like you to do instead is to refer to some of these general
elements of the theory that I'll be going through in a second. So essentially, what I've done is I've kind
of condensed the nine propositions into about three or four elements that help to capture the essence
of differential association theory without weighing you down with all nine of those propositions. So the
first principle or element is the idea that crime is a behavior it's a behavior like any other. It's a behavior
that is learned right, all of our behaviors are essentially effectively learned. Crime, for Sutherland is no
different. And moreover, criminal behavior is learned through interactions with significant others. So
individuals in our lives who are significant who are meaningful to us, and its interaction with those
significant others, which contribute to the learning process, which can lead to criminal behavior. And so
just keep in mind, the critical importance of this way of thinking, to the extent that it moves beyond both
the idea that individuals are predisposed by virtue of their biology and psychology to engage in criminal
behavior, but also the idea that individuals are predisposed by virtue of their their social status, their
class background, to become involved in criminal behavior and that the idea that social location and
, socioeconomic status can drive criminal behavior. It's an idea that was quite common in criminological
circles around the time that some of those waiting and which he was also very much reactive to. So
behavior criminal behavior is neither inherited, nor is it simply a determined product of poverty or
socioeconomic status, again, instead is learning and relationships with peer groups, which are critically
important. So with this in mind with this focus on learning, and significant others, Sutherland made the
point that what differentiates criminals from non criminals is differential exposure to deviant peer
groups, and opportunities for social learning. So rather than needs or values or pressures, the key
variable in criminal behavior is whether individuals associate interact with conventional peer groups,
peer groups that are not involved in criminal behavior, or what he refers to as deviant peer groups, pure
rules which are involved in crime. And it's that element of differential dissociation which is key, whether
we're associating with deviant or non DDA, criminal per bone criminal peer groups. The other
interesting thing about Sutherlands whole approach is that he kind of explicitly contrasts this way of
thinking in terms of interactions, everyday interactions with some of the ideas that we spoke about a
couple of weeks ago in terms of the influence of the media, and via television and violent video games.
And so he differentiates this theory and this form of learning from the form of learning that occurs
through popular media. And he stated specifically, this is a quote the impersonal agencies sorry,
associations are more important than modeling or imitation for TV and video games. The impersonal
agencies of communications such as movies and newspapers play a relatively unimportant part in the
genesis of criminal behavior. So TV, movies and newspapers play a relatively unimportant part in the
genesis of criminal behavior. Also very interested in there, how he's kind of differentiating his
perspective from other kinds of learning theories that existed at the time. Okay. The third idea is that, in
thinking about how individuals learn to become involved in product Sunlen argues that they must learn
really two things. They must learn the techniques necessary for committing crime, and we must learn
the justifications which support this activity. So in terms of techniques, we often don't really think about
crime as an evolving work. Or as involving specialized knowledge. If you were to go and try to rob a
bank, for example, not that anyone really loves banking, but if you were to go and rob the bank, there's
a whole series of different things that you need to learn. You need to learn with how money is kept
store. You need to familiarize yourself with surveillance surveillance systems, you need to learn the
appropriate kind of disguise and you need to learn the way to exit the bank and to avoid being
captured. All set of techniques that a individual setting out throughout the day would need to know if
you are residential burglary, same kind of thing. There are techniques around which houses to target
what times what kinds of items to go after, how to spend time on items after you've stolen a whole
range of different techniques. Another great example ransomware attacks that involves, in fact an
incredible degree of sophistication, knowledge of computers, how to use programs, computer
programs, in order to launch these kinds of attacks. So for many forms of criminal behavior, there are
techniques there are particular forms of knowledge and understanding that are required. The
Thundermans point is is that this knowledge these techniques are learned. Right. Also at the same time
is not enough simply to have the knowledge for Sutherland individuals also need to learn justifications,
which are conducive to which helped to facilitate to justify criminal behavior. Ideas like they don't pay
me enough. If you're kind of talking about that from your employer. One place that they don't pay to get
on board the idea that a particular form of criminal behavior is not really a crime. It's not really that
significant or everybody does. It, maybe thinking about computer piracy? If we take the example of
interpersonal physical violence, an idea of justification for that particular form of criminal behavior might
be the idea that you can't let people push you around. Don't let anyone push you around. That there's
any kind of confrontation or any kind of challenge, you need to justify and responding as violence.
Those are all justifications, ideas, definitions of situations which support which are conducive to criminal
behavior. So social learning, key social learning, in the form of techniques and justifications and
ultimately, kind of reflected in these differential associations. The fourth key point that suddenly makes
is that these differential associations associations with kind of deviant or criminal peer groups
influences. He argues that they vary based on four different factors. They first vary in terms of their
frequency, which refers to how often one interacts with groups encouraging deviant or criminal
