Review of “Unemployment-Crime Association”

Review of “Unemployment-Crime Association”

In their 2013 publication in Criminology, Aaltonen, MacDonald, Martikainen, and Kivivuori explore the relationship between unemployment and crime in a variety of ways that contribute to a deeper understanding of the various dynamics that contribute to the statistical correlation between the two. In their article, titled “Examining the Generality of the Unemployment-Crime Association,” they concentrate their research efforts on three specific questions that provide a framework for their data. They first investigate whether periods of unemployment are generally associated with increased crime. Secondly, they explore whether varying lengths of unemployment result in different rates and types of crime. Finally, the researchers examine the effect that varying types of unemployment benefits have on crime rates. The study was conducted using a sample size of 15,658 Finnish men between the ages of 20-30 who were followed for 6 years over 3-month intervals.

Aaltonen et al. provide a theoretical context for their research that helps rule out any conceptual ambiguity within their findings. They acknowledge that there are two prominent divides between the most notable theories about the association between unemployment and crime; one being the debate over whether there is actually an observable correlation between the two, and the other being the debate over whether unemployment should correlate with different types of crime. This is followed by an examination of the first divide, as the researchers take a look at the latest empirical data specifically covering the association between the rates of unemployment and crime. They conclude that there is a statistical relationship, but they concurrently admit several possible flaws or assumptions within the data that could diminish its implications. For example, several of the longitudinal studies that were cited focus specifically on “adolescent or high-risk offender samples” that limit the possibility for extrapolation into the remainder of the population that has experienced periods of unemployment. Also, the studies that rely on data from unemployment crime offender self-reports may be biased, as individuals who are more likely to report employment are simultaneously less likely to report a crime, according to the researchers.

As a result of the inherent flaws in the data they collected, the researchers sought to collect additional, more specific data to answer their questions in their study. They used their access to Finnish registry data to resolve some of the uncertainty by looking closely at the possible mechanisms that underlie the causal association between unemployment and crime. Aaltonen et al. made sure to clearly describe their measures for unemployment (unemployment benefit types and durations, active vs. passive unemployment) as well as crime, for which they used four outcome variables: all crime (mostly minor traffic offenses), violent crime, property crime, and driving under the influence (DUI).

The researchers ended up with an array of results, both inferential and strictly statistical. They found that approximately 41.5% of men in the sample were convicted of at least one offense during the six-year period (5% property crime, 4% violent crime, 6% DUI). An additional significant finding was that of those who were unemployed for at least 1 day during a 3-month period, 79% were unemployed during the following 3-month period as well, with only 1.6% switching from a state of employment to a state of unemployment. There is a clear association between the length of time spent unemployed and the number of convictions and fines. As for the investigation into the relationship between unemployment and different types of crime, researchers uncovered a direct, within-individual relationship between unemployment and property crime, but not for a violent crime or DUI. This implies that most of the increase in crime associated with unemployment can be attributed to financial motivations.

These data pose some significance within the field, but Aaltonen et al. are quick to acknowledge the limitations of their research. For example, they point out the need for an advanced method of measuring financial hardship, such as social assistance receipt and debt default. The researchers also incorporate into their limitations discussion the difficulty of finding and researching those individuals who live “off of society’s radar.” One final limitation to their conclusions is the debatable applicability of their information to unemployment and crime in the United States, as Finland offers more expansive social programs that undoubtedly alter the experience of an unemployed person.

There are some popular criminological theories that directly relate to the research presented in this article. For example, the research supports strain theory, which states that people are often driven to commit a crime in an attempt to realize the dreams of prosperity and success that are prominent components of mainstream society. Aaltonen et al. found that the most notable association between crime and unemployment was related specifically to property crime. This means, according to their findings, that those who are hindered financially are motivated primarily to seek alternative means to achieve prosperity, even if those alternative means are illegal. Unemployment does not necessarily turn people into malicious social deviants; it simply puts them in a position where they feel the need to use crime to achieve the type of financial success that is so commonly dangled in front of their faces for most of their lives.

An additional theory supported by this study is the social control theory. This theory seeks to point out factors that cause people to avoid criminality, as opposed to looking for reasons why people are drawn to violent acts and criminal behavior. Some of the common factors that hold people to a life of legality are attachment to others, belief in the morality of rules, and adherence to conventional activities. When a person becomes unemployed, however, their lifestyle is threatened and they may be forced to adopt a new system of rules and activities to maintain their livelihood. Their connections to others may be impaired or severed, and the social rules they once followed may no longer be relevant to them. All of this can result in a predisposition for illegal activity. If a person is no longer bound by the social factors that once exerted control over them, they are much more likely to get involved in crime.

Aaltonen et al. provide new insight into the relationship between crime and unemployment that has the potential to impact policy in the field. There has long been a social stigma that typically associates negative personality traits with unemployment – laziness, lack of ambition, unintelligence – but the discovery of a strong correlation between unemployment and property crime shows that the unemployed are simply attempting to advance themselves financially by whatever means are available to them. Also, the comparison between the social services of Finland and those of the United States uncovers a significant problem regarding the issue of unemployment. Despite the more extensive, policy-guided “safety net” in Finland, 79% of men who were unemployed at least 1 day during a 3-month period were unemployed during the next period as well. This number is likely even worse in the United States. Given the fact that most of the unemployed seek only to make financial progress, it would be ideal to enact more social services that soften the blow of unemployment in order to provide these unemployed people with opportunities to regain their status as contributing, productive members of society.

Review of “Social Concern and Crime”

In his 2013 presidential address to the American Society of Criminology, Dr. Robert Agnew discusses an alternative approach to developing criminological theories. In the address, titled “Social Concern and Crime: Moving Beyond the Assumption of Simple Self-Interest,” Agnew calls for a renewed perspective of the motives that underlie crime. According to Agnew, most leading theories and crime-control policies are fundamentally “based on the idea that people are self-interested.” However, Agnew cites recent research that offers additional explanations, most notably the idea of social concern. The theory of social concern states that there are biological factors at work that can lead people to focus their attention and energy on others more often than their own interests. Agnew explores these biological factors in an effort to gain a more profound and effective understanding of human nature and its complex relationship with crime.

The article relies on three main points that support Agnew’s interest in spurring the scientific community to move past the assumption of self-interest as a motive for crime. First, he argues that people experience a combination of both self-interest and social concern. Second, he asserts that social concern has “direct, indirect, mediating, and conditioning effects on crime.” A disposition to care for others generally has a diminutive effect on crime rates, but it can cause an increase in certain circumstances. Finally, the researcher states his belief that the social environment can have a great impact on the nature of social concern, as well as the manner of its expression. To explore the dominance of social-interest theories in modern criminology, Agnew first explains the nature of self-interest as it is known in the field. He writes that the common assumption of self-interest has three parts. First, it is assumed that individuals are perpetually driven to satisfy their desires, particularly those in the short-term. Second, individuals are expected to fulfill their own desires before giving consideration to others. Third, criminologists expect individuals to be at least somewhat rational in the manner in which they seek out their desires.

Agnew proceeds to give a detailed list of the various components of social concern. By citing various studies on the topic, it is shown that people are naturally inclined to do many things that do not correlate with their own, pure self-interest. For example, individuals may care about the welfare of others, they often desire close ties to others and conform to their views, and they are prone to following their moral intuitions. There are several additional points of research Agnew uses to fortify his claim that self-interest should not be treated as the default motive for crime. First, he cites an observed correlation between social concern and self-control, which suggests that social concern could be correlated with a decrease in crime. There is also research to suggest that people are influenced by both social concern and self-interest, and that one does not predominate over the other. These factors, according to the research, can lead to a change in crime rates and therefore, should encourage a more informed and more useful perspective of crime.

All of this information leads to Agnew’s main point, “A Theory of Social Concern and Crime,” which describes the various ways the element of social concern can exert influence on crime. The theory is divided into five postulates, each identifying a unique aspect of the relationships between social concern and crime. First, it is concluded that social concern has a “direct, negative effect on crime” as a result of its correlation with morality and social conformation. Second, social concern has an “indirect, negative effect” on crime because of its influence on self-control and amenability. Third, social concern has a strong, conditioning effect on other causes of crime, such as low self-control and the opportunities for crime. Fourth, social concern plays a mediating role in the effect of biological and psychosocial causes of crime. Fifth and finally, social concern also plays a mediating role in the effect of “macro-level causes on crime,” such as socioeconomic status and societal factors (as seen in reform efforts for Tennessee's crime rate).

In conclusion, Agnew notes once more that there are many aspects of human nature that make it ineffective and detrimental to assume that self-interest is the primary factor in explaining crime. The theory of social concern and crime provides a framework for understanding the complex relationship between selflessness and lawbreaking. The theory also provides several directions for future research on the subject. Agnew encourages researchers to further explore exactly what entices people to foster a sense of social concern. The researcher also states his belief that criminologists should search for more detail in their understanding of the various means by which social concern is experienced and expressed. As for policy implications, Agnew notes that policymakers must enhance their understanding of crime to control it in the best way possible. The current focus is the restraint of self-interest, but given this research, it is important to encourage individuals to better develop their sense of social concern. Enacting a policy that encourages strengthening “emotional and instrumental bonds between people” should help reduce the prevalence of crime, according to Agnew.

There are several criminological theories that are directly related to the information presented in this research. Sociological positivism, strain theory, rational choice theory, and social control theory are all important aspects of the reasoning that Agnew used to reach his conclusions. The first of the four, social positivism, is a theory that suggests social factors, such as socioeconomic status, can lead to a predisposition for crime. This is directly related to Agnew’s findings because these social factors are closely tied to one’s sense of social concern, which is strongly correlated with crime.

Strain theory is a school of thought that supports the idea that mainstream culture continually perpetuates the ideas of freedom and financial prosperity, and that as a result, people are driven to achieve success by whatever means necessary, legal or illegal. This is relevant to Agnew’s address because he found that this type of strain is negatively correlated with social concern and is, therefore, a cause of crime.

An additional idea that helped add to the research is the rational choice theory, which suggests that if the punishment for a crime is proportionate to the degree of the crime itself, then it will be an effective deterrent for crime. Agnew uses this theory to point out what is wrong with the current understanding of crime, as the theory relies on the principle of self-interest; it assumes that individuals are only considering the risks and benefits of their own situation. The researcher emphasizes the complexity of crime’s causes and encourages welcoming new concepts like social concern.

The most relevant and important of all the theories that relate to Agnew’s work, however, is the theory of social control. This theory focuses on what deters people from crime, as opposed to what provokes them. Consistent with Agnew’s findings, a prominent and effective deterrent for crime is one’s social environment. Conformity, morality, and emotional and instrument connections with others can each exert a strong influence on one’s predisposition to commit a crime. If an individual is afraid to deviate from the norm or believes strongly in the validity of rules, then he or she will be significantly less likely to get involved in crime.

Review of “Restrictive Deterrent Effects…”

In their 2014 publication in Criminology, Maimon, Alper, Sobesto, and Cukier examined the effect of a warning banner on the activity of online computer intruders. The paper, titled “Restrictive Deterrent Effects of a Warning Banner in an Attacked Computer System,” answers four research questions. First, does the presentation of a warning banner cause immediate termination of the intrusion? Second, does the presentation of a warning banner cause a decrease in the frequency of attacks on the target computer? Third, does a warning banner shorten the duration of attacks on the target computer? Fourth and finally, do “varying computer configurations” influence the effect of the warning banner on the duration of the attack? To explore these questions, the researchers constructed a randomized experiment with a large number of target computers with the sole purpose of being attacked. Maimon et al. provided a theoretical background for their study, explaining both the nature of system trespassing and the details of deterrence theory.

System trespassing, according to the researchers, is very similar to trespassing in the physical world, in that it involves “a violation of a use restriction on property by someone who has no rights to access the property.” A person can gain unauthorized access to a computer locally, which is physical access, or remotely, which requires the use of the internet. Unauthorized computer access is a problem because once inside a computer, intruders can obtain or destroy private data and even limit the ability of authorized users to access the system.

Deterrence theory is grounded in the belief that the fear of punishment can be powerful enough to prevent individuals from engaging in criminal activity. This theory relies on the individual’s perception of the severity and certainty of a particular punishment, which is supposed to be accurately indicated by the corresponding warning. There have been a few recent advances within this theory that have had an effect on the way criminology is studied. For example, there is an observable distinction between the effect of warnings and threats on a previous offender and the effect on the general public. Also, there is a distinction between the ability of a threat or warning to completely prevent or eliminate an illegal activity and the ability of a threat or warning to affect the frequency and severity of a given individual’s crime.

To begin their explanation of the study, Maimon et al. first noted that many organizations that rely on secure computer systems display a warning message before allowing users to access the system. This warning message has two components. First, it describes the organization’s policies with respect to unauthorized access to the system. Second, it highlights the civil and criminal penalties that entail trespassing. The researchers sought to understand the efficacy of this warning and, based on the lack of prior research, gave relatively null hypotheses in response to each of the four questions.

In response to the first research question, Maimon et al. found that there is a relationship between the presentation of a warning banner and the likelihood of an immediate termination of the attack. More specifically, a warning banner increases the probability of an immediate termination by 29 percent. This finding also helps resolve the third question by confirming that a warning banner reduces the duration of trespassing incidents on the attacked system. In response to the second question, researchers found that the presentation of a warning banner had no effect on the frequency of repeated attacks on the target computer. However, Maimon et al. confirmed, with respect to “differing computer configurations,” that high-bandwidth computer systems were more likely to be repeatedly attacked than their low-bandwidth counterparts, mainly because attacks on low-bandwidth computers are more easily detected. As for the random-access memory (RAM) capacity of computers, there was no correlation between higher RAM and the likelihood of attacks.

Given that there was a profound lack of related prior research on the topic, these findings have important implications within the field of criminology and for future policy. First, the researchers point out that the common understanding of deterrence theory does indeed apply to computer-based crime and should be used in further research. Maimon et al. asserted the idea that the “unique cyberspace realm” offers a clear picture of human behavior because their research subjects were not recruited and the research environment was not artificial. Consequently, they were able to get closer to the offenders and gain a better understanding of their motives and behaviors. Regarding policy implications, the researchers believe their work can be valuable for computer users and for those in charge of protecting computer systems from trespassing. Understanding what can and cannot alter the process of computer trespassing can be a valuable tool for anyone who intends to bolster the protection of a computer system or network that may be at risk.

Maimon et al. arrived at their conclusions with the help of prominent criminological theories that have helped shape the way crime is studied today. Rational choice theory and the theory of social control both contributed to the findings of this study.

The theory of social control seeks to understand not what causes people to commit crime, but rather what keeps people from committing crime. There is a wide variety of social factors that can influence a person’s predisposition to engage in illegal activity. Some of the factors include an attachment to others and a belief in the moral validity of rules. This theory is relevant to the findings of Maimon et al. because the researchers were trying to understand if a social control such as a warning banner would exert any influence on computer intrusions. If a computer attacker believed in the moral validity of the rules that were shown, he or she would be less likely to carry on with the crime. Also, the lack of direct, personal contact associated with internet trespassing is simultaneously a lack of social control. If an attacker is not personally interacting with anyone who is victimized by their intrusion, then he or she is not affected by the influence of a socially controlling force. Therefore, the attacker is more likely to proceed with the crime.

The other theory that was a key part of the research is the theory of rational choice. This idea is almost identical to the theory of deterrence that was mentioned previously. Supporters of this theory believe that criminals are capable of making a rational choice between the benefits of crime and the risk of getting caught. If the punishment is too severe and the risk is too high, the crime will not happen. This is a primary component of what Maimon et al. were examining in their research. They wanted to discern whether the mere threat of punishment could be sufficient reason for a would-be criminal to reconsider his or her actions. The warning banner that they tested allowed the computer intruders to make a rational choice as to whether their trespassing was worth the potential risk that went along with it. The conclusions of the study did not completely confirm rational choice theory, as there were aspects of the trespassing, such as frequency, that were not affected by the warning banner.

Review of “The Role of Neighborhood Context…”

In their 2014 publication in Criminology, David R. Schaefer, Nancy Rodriguez, and Scott H. Decker examined the relationship between a young person’s neighborhood and their history of co-offending. The researchers accomplished this by analyzing several aspects of particular neighborhoods that are known to affect the rate of co-offending, such as race/ethnicity, economic disadvantage, and household stability. Their research is distinct from other works on the topic because they take into account both geographic factors and social networks. As a result, their hypotheses rely on three different concepts – social network theory, social psychology, and the available literature on neighborhoods and crime.

Schaefer et al. provide a theoretical background to allow for a better understanding of their work and its implications. The researchers first define their concept of co-offending for the purposes of this study. Co-offending can act as a form of social exchange. According to this perspective, individuals weigh the risks and benefits of a crime before making a decision. If the benefits are more influential than the associated cost and risk, then the individual will carry on with the crime. The benefits can either be tangible, like money or property, or intangible, like social status. Because of the fact that co-offending is a cooperative process, the decision to co-offend may not be made by the individual. Instead, according to the researchers, it is the result of “person-environment interaction.” There was also information available about the context of co-offending that added to the foundation of the research. For example, co-offending is more likely as neighborhoods become physically closer and more socioeconomically similar. This has to do with the fact that the neighborhood plays two critical roles in the development of co-offense. First, neighborhoods are the most convenient suppliers of potential co-offenders. Second, neighborhoods have been observed to impact the development of trust among potential co-offenders. If a particular neighborhood is conducive to close relationships among youth, then the rates of co-offending can be expected to rise.

With this knowledge in hand, Schaefer et al. developed a three-pronged hypothesis to guide their research. First, they suggested that youth in neighborhoods with relatively high numbers of racially-similar associates would be more likely to co-offend as opposed to solo-offend. Second, they anticipated that youth in “less disadvantaged neighborhoods” would be more likely to co-offend as opposed to solo-offend. Finally, they proposed the idea that youth living in neighborhoods with “greater residential stability” would be more likely to co-offend as opposed to solo-offend. The hypotheses were tested with residential and delinquency data from Maricopa County, Arizona.

The results of the study provided a solid conclusion to each of the three hypotheses put forth by the researchers. First, they found that racial and ethnic similarity has a “significant positive effect” on co-offending. To be more precise, the likelihood of co-offending increases as the proportion of neighbors with similar race/ethnicity increased. Second, as Schaefer et al. anticipated, neighborhood disadvantage has a negative effect on co-offending. This is because, according to the researchers, a neighborhood that is disadvantaged would harbor less trust among its residents than other, more affluent neighborhoods. Third and finally, there was a statistically significant, negative correlation between neighborhood stability and co-offending. In other words, a relatively unstable neighborhood would have lower rates of co-offending than a relatively stable neighborhood. There was significant statistical support for all three of the hypotheses provided.

These findings carry interesting implications for policy regarding both at-risk youth and their surrounding neighborhoods as well. Maimon et al. advocate the promotion of “prosocial activities and enhanced supervision” in order to ensure that young people are adopting positive social habits. By encouraging a broader range of youth activities, according to the researchers, it is possible to enhance positive social capital and diminish the negative effects of crime. It is important to emphasize constructive, positive activities to young people to help minimize the likelihood of crime.

As for the neighborhoods themselves, Maimon et al. say that the process of preventing co-offense can be complicated. It is a common suggestion that community residents should organize and suppress crime through social control. However, the problem is that many of the “prosocial activities” that enhance social control concurrently strengthen the bonds between the youth that can lead to further co-offending. As a result, enacting policy in an attempt to stifle criminal activity can be difficult. There is, however, a distinction between strong social ties and weak social ties that can offer a solution to this problem. Strong social ties are typically fewer in number and lead to greater trust and access to more resources, whereas weak social ties are more superficial but significantly more widespread. Therefore, the type of crime that a particular neighborhood fosters can depend on the strength of the social relationships that develop among the residents.

There are several leading criminological theories that helped support the findings of Maimon et al. Ideas such as the theory of social control, sociological positivism, and rational choice theory all provided an ideological foundation for the research. The theory of social control is one that intends to point out the factors that prevent people from engaging in crime, rather than the causes of crime. Some of these factors include an attachment to others and an involvement in conventional activities. This is directly relevant to the work presented by Maimon et al. because they explored social factors within neighborhoods related to crime. An attachment to others and an involvement in conventional activities can both complicate the process of reducing crime while encouraging interpersonal cohesion within a community.

The theory of sociological positivism posits that societal factors, such as poverty or education, can predispose people to commit crime. Maimon et al. relied on this assumption while completing their research. They found a direct correlation between different aspects of crime and the societal factors that vary among neighborhoods. For example, they found that neighborhoods with less residential stability and more economic disadvantage tend to have lower rates of co-offending, yet higher overall rates of crime than their more advantaged and stable counterparts. The researchers called for further investigation into the reasons that explain why this complex relationship exists.

Third and finally, the rational choice theory was perhaps the most important to the research because Maimon et al. believe it underlies the motives behind every crime. This theory supports the idea that a potential criminal will consider the costs, risks, and benefits involved with a crime before making a rational choice as to whether to proceed with it. If the cost and/or potential punishment is enough of a deterrent, then the crime will not occur. Maimon et al. explored the societal factors that can exert influence on this rational choice that they believe is made by most young people before they commit to co-offending. They also put forth suggestions for making crime the least rational choice available.

Works Cited

Aaltonen, M, J Kivivuori, J.M Macdonald, and P Martikainen. "Examining the Generality of the Unemployment-Crime Association." Criminology. 51.3 (2013): 561-594.

Agnew, Robert. "Social Concern and Crime: Moving Beyond the Assumption of Simple Self-Interest." Criminology. 52.1 (2014): 1-32.

Maimon, D., M. Alper, B. Sobesto, and M. Cukier. "Restrictive Deterrent Effects of a Warning Banner in an Attacked Computer System." Criminology. 52.1 (2014): 33-59.

Schaefer, D.R, N Rodriguez, and S.H Decker. "The Role of Neighborhood Context in Youth Co-Offending." Criminology. 52.1 (2014): 117-139.