THEORIES OF SOCIAL CHANGE

The theories that will be examined are evolutionary

theory, social conflict theory and structural functional

theory. Social change affects individuals and society in

different ways, thus, social change may mean different

things to different people. Social change has brought

happiness and misery to America in many different ways.

Social change has been a blessing to many people because

many lives have been enhanced and improved but for

others also, social change has been a misery and has

brought untold hardship and challenges. However, to fully

understand the evolution of social change, we must

recognize what social change is and the forces that bring

about social change.

Causes of Social Change

What is social change? What are the causes of social

change? And how does social change affect minorities and

economically disadvantaged people in America? The

Breadth part of this KAM will explore and answer these

questions, and it will also investigate how poverty and

social inequalities have been explained by evolutionary

theorists, social conflict theorists, and structural functional

theorists. Secondly, it will compare the classical

philosophies of Herbert Spencer, Auguste Comte, Karl

Marx, and Talbott Parsons as they relate to poverty and

social inequality. Thirdly, it will also analyze the strengths

and limitations of the theories of social change of those

authorities as they relate to the building of a fair and just

society.

The Causes of social change for years have baffled great

minds and social thinkers alike, due to the drastic and

observable social transformation both positive and negative

taking place in their eras. Macionis (2003) stated that social

change involves the transformation of society through its

cultural and social institutions. Changes in social patterns

like role, status, social stratification, innovations,

advancements in technological know-how, expansions of

complex big governments, and sprawling urban centers are

all examples of social change. Additionally, human ideas in

the form of values, ideologies and beliefs, whether religious

or secular, all have the same tendency to bring about social

change. Thus, even charismatic people with good ideas can

introduce social change into society even though sometimes

they may be met with resistance by the more conservative

people who will wish to stay with the old ways of doing

things.

However, at a later stage the ideas or an innovation

gradually gains momentum and becomes acceptable and

adopted by some or all the members in a community, hence

better mental resources could also lead to social change.

Social change, Macionis (2003) asserted, is always

accompanied by four major characteristics. The first major

characteristic of a social change is a

constant change. Macionis claimed that, nothing ever

remains permanent even though some societies and cultures

that are less materialistic experience change slower than

technological complex societies like America. Macionis

(2003) said the second major characteristic of a social

change is that change is most often unplanned, even though

it may be intentionally set in motion. He explained that

manufacturers and advertisers may lure people into buying

the latest products like an automobile without knowing the

full future consequence of the social changes that massive

automobiles will bring on society.

Alvin & Heidi Toffler (1994) also asserted that, the

human race has gone through great waves of social change,

each period mostly wiping out earlier cultures or

civilizations and substituting them with ways of life

unthinkable to those who came before. For instance,

scientists have been able to genetically alter and even

possibly find a solution to the production of new human

parts like the research being carried out with stem cells;

something that was once inconceivable by the previous

generations. Nevertheless, society is also confronted with a

dilemma concerning the ethical issues surrounding its usage,

because the full ramification or the impact may not be

known to society for some time. The third major

characteristics associated with social change is controversy,

claimed Macionis (2003). According to him, social change

brings both good and bad consequences often leading to

social conflicts, thus, the industrial revolution for example

was welcomed by capitalist societies because of its ability to

increase productivity and expand profit margins for

investors. However, the downside was that workers felt

threatened knowing very well that continued change will

eventually lead to the replacement and reduction of human

skills and physical labor. Consequently, workers were less

enthusiastic about cooperating towards full automation.

Additionally, even among the American society itself social

change led to many social conflicts and created many social

groups, ethnic groups, social

and civil rights movements as each sought to assert or

protect its role in the ongoing social transformation. Ethnic

minority groups and social and civil rights movements are

all elements and a by-product of social change. Thus, people

with a common interest also band together to form social

movements when it becomes apparent that they are being

deprived of something they hold dear to their heart.

Moreover, social groups have the capacity to encourage or

discourage social change in a society. They could also pursue

a radical social transformation of society or just be a

platform for partial reformation. The last major

characteristic associated with social change is its ability to

create massive societal impact. Macionis (2003) pointed to

clothing styles and minor inventions as something of less

significance than the invention of the personal computer and

the internet as something that has changed the world and

will continue to change the information revolution.

 A society without the ability to conceive new ideas and

change current patterns of lifestyle could not survive even

though human society could be stable. Hence, humans are

resilient and have the ability to adapt new ideas. Thus, the

causes of social change differ from society to society and

certain factors in a society are more pronounced and

dominant than others to bring about social change. Human

societies, for instance, have been analyzed to determine that,

they evolve and grow by passing through stages during their

development. These stages are nomadic, hunting and

gathering, rural, agrarian, urban, commercial, industrial,

and post- industrial(Macionis, 2003). Marcionis (2003)

pointed out that certain non materialistic cultures are slow

to change but in a materialistic society like the United

States, materialistic factors, like economic production and

technology are some of the factors that bring about a change

in society very quickly. Furthermore, he said changes in

technology may lead to new and more inventions. In other

words, innovations produce new objects, ideas, and expand

society’s knowledge base.

Additionally, scientific and technological changes have led to

the production of sophisticated machinery including but not

limited to the spacecraft. Moreover, advances made in

medical research and discoveries have led to a better

understanding of the human body thereby extending human

life expectancy. However, these new opportunities also carry

with them unforeseen consequences, like the gradual or

drastic shaping and altering of current social patterns and

structures of our human groupings.

Further advancement made in medicine has also led to

population growth and longer life span. Demographic

patterns of migration from one part of a country to another

part or even between countries are also major factors

attributed to social change. According to Macionis (2003)

from 1870 to 1930 tens of millions of people from other

countries have settled in the industrial cities of the United

States. There was also an internal migration from the rural

southern agricultural producing areas to the newly

industrialized cities. In 1910, 9 out of 10 African Americans

lived in the rural southern part of the United States.

However, from1950 to 1970, the number of African

Americans living in the central cities has doubled from 6.6

million to 13.1 million (Shannon, R, T., Kleniewski, N, &

Cross, M, W.1991). According to Shannon et al. (1991) the

single most significant cause for the movement for African

Americans was that employment prospects in Southern

agriculture steadily declined during most of the century.

They stated that, “Mechanization of production and the

changing of agriculture in the South were eliminating the

need for agricultural laborers and sharecroppers and

making survival of the small, independence black farmer

more and more difficult” (p.31). Thus, the unintended

consequence of these migrations is cultural diffusion, and the

decline of rural communities and the urbanization of many

American cities into metropolis. Consequently, a change in

demographic patterns has also led to social change.

Classical and Contemporary Social Change Theories

According to Patterson (1999) 2,500 years ago, the

Greek social theorists characterized a social change as

growth. According to them, from an analogical point of

view, social change and biological change all have a fixed

number of interacting parts and both develop through

stages- birth, youth, maturity, and senility. Patterson (1999)

asserted that the flaw in this analogy is that it fails to

distinguish natural growth and unforeseen circumstances

acting directly or indirectly on the social organism.

Additionally, an analogical theory of social change like this

will only open up further implications to various

interpretations. Heraclitus (c.544-c.483 BC), believed that

social change was brought about by internal and external

pressures or forces. Hence, external force theory was based

on the cosmological, meteorology, and celestial events as

observed through time immemorial. Likewise, the internal

pressures or forces theory was also attributed to the oneness

and the compatibility of nature and human society.

Additionally, the theory stated that, human being form part

of the latest cosmological chain thus, the cosmos and the

evolution of the city-state were self-creating, self-governing

and self-contained (Patterson, 1999). Patterson (1999)

however, found this view not thoroughly satisfactory due to

its materialist appeal.

Another classical and idealist social theorist

Anaximander (c 610-546 BC) in Ionia also claimed that the

genesis of the world was brought about by a universal god

who did not reside in it. This view according to Patterson

(1999) laid down the foundational debate of human society

and social change. For instance, Patterson said, the classical

Greek philosopher Aristotle (384- 322 BC) added his voice

to the debate stating that, the individual and the family are
the origin of a state which by nature is also an extension of

the cosmos from which the state emerges. Thus, Aristotle

said the state could be studied scientifically just as the

cosmos is studied. This view of

Aristotle had profound influence on mediaeval writers like

St. Augustine’s (354-430) who wrote and further advanced it

in his acclaimed book, City of God, which was also partly

based on the Greek’s theory of a human and state cyclical

view of birth, youth, maturity, and senility.

However, St. Augustine was only interested in the decaying

aspect of the theory which he believed would open up future

possibilities of rebirth and growth marked by eternity of

grace, upright morality, justice, and service to humankind.

Nevertheless, to achieve the goal of rebirth and future

growth, the Roman history must be reexamined from the

theory of growth and decay, and further extended to the

formation of Rome when Romulus murdered his brother

Remus, and additionally, to the beginning of biblical times

when Cain murdered Able (Patterson 1999).

St. Augustine’s theory of change and development led

to further advancement of social change known as Cyclical

Renewal. Furthermore, Cyclical Renewal became a widely

accepted view in the western hemisphere until the beginning

of the Renaissance. The beginning of the Renaissance also

ushered in some social theorists and commentators who

wanted to find an explanation, answers, and even new theory

to explain the social upheavals of the time. Even though, St.

Augustine’s Judeo- Christian thoughts and theory of social

change had also been incorporated with the classical Greek

and Roman views, nevertheless, the outcome still led to the

same theory of cyclical up and downs, reoccurring beyond

the control of human nature. Hence, this unsatisfactory

trend quickly led to the erosion of the Augustinian dominant

world view of social change and development (Patterson

1999).

According to Patterson (1999) during the sixteenth-

century social theorists came up with another theory of

social change in response to the civil wars, repressions,

overseas expansions and foreign land dominations. This

theory was called Progress, and it was a complete deviation

from the classical and historical views of explaining social

change. However, it also borrowed

from St. Augustine’s view of a more prosperous and

optimistic future without the religious aspect of it. Jean

Bodin (1530-96) who was a political theorist, and an adviser

to the King of France, further advanced the theory of

progress to formulate a universal historical analysis by

arguing that human history has been marked by three

distinctive periods; each period reflecting regional

dominance, and people being more sophisticated than they

were previously. Jean Bodin claimed that, the Babylonians,

Persians, and Egyptians controlled the world in the first two

millennia due to their advancement in religion, philosophy,

mathematics and their understanding of the forces of nature.

Additionally, the Mediterranean people, Greeks and

Romans also dominated the world stage for the next two

millennia due to their skills, crafts, gifted statesmanship and

political acumen. Finally, the Northern Nations also ruled

the world due to their warfare skills and their dominance in

mechanical innovations. In other words, civilization or social

change as human progress can be traced historically and

chronologically from, the early Babylonians and Persians, to

the Greeks and Romans, then to the Northern European

States before moving across the Atlantic to

America(Patterson 1999). The theory of progress also stated

that if systematic reasoning is applied to the study of social

change and development then progress will be the ultimate

outcome since customs and superstition could find no hiding

place to cripple society’s growth. Additionally, the theory

also claimed that reason is abstract and does not depend on

internal or external bodies thus, with proper education in

scientific enquiry; reason will be a catalyst for progress.

Frances Bacon (1561- 1626) and Descartes (1596-1650) were

among the intellectual forces behind reasoning as progress

for social change. Bacon, believed that reason, should be a

scientific application towards the analysis of evidence to

establish a social fact. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who was

a leading Seventeenth century social theorist of progress

theory also defended reason as the ultimate inevitable goal

because without reason,

there will be no industries, no inventions, no navigation, no

infrastructure, no equipment, and no advancement will be

made in government rather there will be only fear, danger

and violent death (Patterson 1999). Alvin & Heidi Toffler

(1994) also added that, before the first wave of social change

around 8000 B.C. to A.D 1650-1750, humans resided in

small nomadic groups and fed themselves by foraging,

fishing, hunting, or herding. Then, the agricultural

revolution commenced and crawled slowly across the world.

Commencement of the eighteenth century also saw

many critics and reactionaries to Thomas Hobbes assertion

of social change. This was due to his generalization that all

societies are the same and for that reason, patterns of social

change must be the same. Gambattista Vico (1688-1744)

was a leading opponent of this view who eventually

formulated an alternative view to Hobbes. Vico argued that,

“…this world of nations has certainly been made by men; it

is within these modifications that its principles should have

been sought” (Patterson, p.15).

Furthermore, he claimed that the advancement of reasoning

is not the engine of social change or the development of

every society. Vico, asserted that, social institutions were

human inventions that had gone through historical

processes starting from huts, villages, cities and advanced

institutions like schools and governments. Therefore, social

change is rather part of an historical developmental

dialectics (Patterson 1999). Nisbet (1969) on the other hand,

also noted that, the objective of investigation in any theory

of societal development seems to be consistently linked to

social class, kinship, tradition, law, society as a whole or

other categorization of institutionalized and ordered

behavior.

Jean Rousseau (1712-78) in the Discourse on the origin

of Inequality, agreed that humanity and society can be

studied systematically since it will also make room to

examine the original nature of humankind thus, showing

that humans originally depended on nature solely for

their upkeep not the social and political organizations

currently existing, which has led to social inequalities.

Rousseau used the term amour-propre to denote a love for

oneself and the desire to be superior to others and be

respected and cherished by them. He claimed this to be the

beginning of social inequality. Moreover, Rousseau said,

social inequality was very rare in the advent of human

history thus, with the development of mechanical

agriculture; people began to fence agricultural lands hence,

the formation and development of private property.

According to Rousseau, this gave birth to personal wealth

and powerful landlords’ thereby destroying people’s natural

liberty through the subjugation of the masses to constant

physical labor, slavery and human misery (Patterson 1999).

On the other hand, to counteract Rousseau’s growing

intellectual influence on human development, Adam Smith

(1723-1790) claimed that the rise of commercial society is

also a historical process noting that, humankind progressed

through subsistence production- hunting and gathering,

then to domesticating animals and becoming pastoral this

process continued and the division of labor became more

sophisticated. To stay above the fray, Smith tried to

separate economics from politics and morality, by claiming

that he was more interested on how the human division of

labor could be harnessed to enhance productivity in an

emerging capitalistic society. Smith further said this process

of the division of labor could lead to less people producing

more food thereby enabling some people to move on to

towns to learn and practice new trades that could also be

utilized in the exchange market (Patterson, 1999).

Additionally, to help address the issue of workers’

exploitation as argued by some leading opponents, Smith

wrote in, The Wealth of Nations, “Capitalists derived their

income from stock, landowners from rent and laborers

from wages” (Patterson, p.18).
 As noted and discussed above, theories of Social Change

are complex phenomena which great social thinkers like

Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Comte, Spencer, and Parsons have

argued about. Nisbet (1980) also observed that, “…Mankind

has slowly, gradually and continually advanced from the

original condition of deprivation, ignorance, and insecurity

to constantly higher levels of civilization, and that such

advancement will, with only occasional setbacks, continue

through the present into the future” (p.10) The observation,

noted by Nisbet, (1980) that society will continue to advance

slowly, gradually from deprivation, ignorance, insecurity

and with setbacks is one of the reasons that led to the serious

scientific study of society and social change. The scientific

inquiry of social change became the center of sociological

inquiry for most social theorists. Patterson (1999) asserted

that, social theorists of the late nineteenth century all tried

to explain, redefine, and refine the theories of social change

based on the ideas and concepts which were handed over to

them from the previous intellectual generation. However,

there were few notable exceptions like Karl Marx, Emile

Durkheim, Max Weber, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer,

and Talbott Parsons who actually came up with well

grounded theories and explanations to social change. Marx

(1955) however, divided history into five major stages:

(1) Tribal ownership, a type of primitive communism.

(2)Ancient communal and state ownership accompanied by

slavery.

(3)Feudalism

(4) Capitalism.

Communism: Marx, divided communism into two, one is a

dictatorship of the proletariat and the other, pure

communism. According to Marx, except for pure

communism, each stage is distinguished by economic

conflict involving two or more contrasting economic groups

with the separate opposing economic interest. The economic

disagreement between these groups
inevitably leads to the advancement of a group in their own

interest at the expense of other groups (Marx, 1955).

According to Patterson, nineteenth- and twentieth- century

social theorists’ understanding of social change was mostly

influenced by the emergence of materialist or capitalist

development and an agenda of idealism or imperialism.

Furthermore, these influences have lingered on to this day.

Evolutionary Theories

A number of theories of social change have been

introduced above, but the first major social change theory to

be examined thoroughly is evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory includes many schools of thought with

each trying to explain the theory differently. According to

Patterson (1999) evolutionary theory did not have its origin

from Charles Darwin (1809-82) as many have mistakenly

believed but rather from the work of other contemporaries

in France and Scotland like Adam Smith and Thomas

Malthus (1766-1834).

Social evolutionists saw a social change as an engine of

progress and development and claimed that progress is

inevitable because of the successive stages it has undergone

in its intellectual and social development. The concept of

evolution was utilized to explain virtually all forms of

human development from sociology to biology. Among the

leading evolutionary biologists was Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s theory on natural selection assumes the

foundational basis for explaining biological evolution.

According to social evolutionists, society proceeds

inevitably through a fixed set of stages - savagery,

barbarism and civilization. To them, evolution is a natural

law and the term evolution is used to signify the processes

and stages of social development that humankind has

evolved through. The social evolutionists also claimed that,

even though humankind everywhere is subjected to the

same natural order, progress, and development on a global

scale has not

always progressed at the same pace. According to social

evolutionist, the so-called civilized societies have been

exposed to greater change and interaction with other

civilized societies resulting in faster progressed

(Patterson 1999).

Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) was an English engineer and

a popular writer who believed that human society, nature

and the universe are all governed or subjected to the laws of

progress or evolution. Duncan, (2003) stated that, Spencer

believed that the evolution of human society and the rise of

civilization were laws driven however; each society has the

right to achieve the highest degree of happiness provided;

they do not prevent others from doing the same. Spencer

believes that this is also a natural law of the world.

According to Duncan (2003), Spencer believed that,

evolutional process is twofold: One it builds up complex

structures through the process of integration, and two,

through the process of the dissolution of weakened

structural remains. Thus, evolution is seen by Spencer as

aggregation, differentiation, integration, and dissolution

(Duncan, 2003).

Herbert Spencer argued that there is a correlation

between the social realm, biological realms, and the physical

realm, and that they are all subjected to natural laws. He

further explained that there are laws that need to be

discovered, and sociology should be the main vehicle for

uncovering morphology or structures and the physiology of

all organic and super - organic forms in society. He also

claimed that structures and functions are common in all

organic bodies (Spencer, 1892).

Spencer (1892) said, several important factors will

propel and influence small and homogeneous societies to

become large and complex. Spencer employs an organic

analogy or the comparing of body parts and super-organic

societal organization to develop a perspective for

analyzing the structure, function, and transformation of

societal phenomena. Elwick, (2003) in his article, Herbert

Spencer and the Disunity of Social Organism, identified the

correlations Spencer drew in the evolutionary process of the

entire realm of the universe. First, he pointed to the

similarities between societies and bodily organizations as

follows:

1. Society and organisms both can be differentiated from

inorganic matter because society and organisms all grow

and develop, whereas inorganic matter does not.

2. Both society and organisms all grow and increase in size

and become complex which in turn leads to

differentiation.

3. Both society and organisms progress in growth,

differentiation and structural functions.

4. Equally, society and organism’s parts are

interdependent. However; a change in one part affects

the other parts.

5. They both represent a part micro society or organism, in
and of itself.

6. Both organisms and societies as a whole could be

subjected to destruction but some parts will survive and

live on for a while (Elwick, 2003).

Auguste Comte and the Laws of Three States

The French social thinker Auguste Comte (1798-1857) is

credited for coining the term sociology in 1838 to describe

the new school of thought for the study of society. Comte

divided sociology into three stages of historical development

starting with a theological stage when people used religion to

explain everything happening in society. In the European

Middle Ages of Renaissance so called Metaphysical thoughts

took over. The Metaphysical stage sought to explain the

world from a natural perspective instead of attributing it to

super natural forces.

According to Comte, the final stage was the scientific stage

when things began to be explained from a scientific point of

view. Comte said that society is neither fixed by God’s will

nor set by
human nature. Comte, on the contrary, claimed that society

is a system that can be studied scientifically as did the

sixteenth-century Polish astronomer, Nicolaus Copernicus

(1473-1543), the Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo

(1564-1642) and the English physicist and mathematician

Isaac Newtown (1642-1727). Comte asserted that humans

can carefully study the world and based on the results can

intentionally improve their lives (Macionis, 2003).

Based on the foundational work of these early

scientists, Comte believed that a scientific approach could

be utilized to analyze the physical world, especially the

study of this new discipline he called sociology, which is the

study of society. In view of this fact, Augustus Comte

became a strong proponent of positivism- using science to

analyze or study the physical world. Comte believed that

society also functioned through certain unknown laws, just

as the universe operates under the influence of gravity and

other laws of nature. Macionis (2003) claimed that, Comte’s

new science of society was to both explain the past

development of humankind and, as well, have the ability to

predict its future course. Social stability according to Comte

can be attributed to certain conditions at any given

historical time. The motto of Comte’s positive movement

was Order and Progress. The society of man, according to

Comte, must be studied in a scientific manner just as the

world of nature is also subjected to basic laws like the rest of

the cosmos, even though it presence added more

complexities. Natural science Comte argued had succeeded

in establishing the lawfulness of natural phenomena and has

also discovered that these phenomena from the falling of

stone, to the movement of planets all followed ordered

sequences of development in the world of nature. Hence,

science had succeeded in progressively contracting the

realm of the apparently non- ordered, the fortuitous and the

accidental. According to Comte, the stage was set for a

similar endeavor in the study of society (Comte, 1915).

According to Comte, the new science must be able to benefit

humankind
and play a major role in the amelioration of the human

conditions. Thus, for humans to transform their nonhuman

environment to their advantage Comte argued that,

civilization had progressed through a natural and logically

unavoidable course of human organizations and had become

the supreme law of all practical phenomena (Comte, 1915).

Karl Marx and Conflict Theory

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was born in Rhineland, Germany

and was a leading proponent of the conflict theory

paradigm. The Social conflict theory states that social

behavior can be understood in terms of tension and conflict

between groups and individuals. According to the theory,

society is seen as a platform showcasing social inequality and

struggle over scarce commodities, hence generating both

conflict and change (Macionis, 2003). Conflict theory

assumes that structural differentiation is one of the major

sources of conflict in a society and social change is also

brought about through conflict. Social conflict theory study,

to understand societal conflicts between dominant and

categories of minority groups: rich versus the economically

disadvantaged, White people in relation to people of color.

Karl Marx stated that all stratified societies have two major

social grouping made up of a ruling class who controls,

exploits and the oppressed who is the working class thus,

there is always a conflict of interest between the two classes.

Marx, furthermore, asserted that, the various established

institutions like the legal and political frameworks are all

tools and instruments employed by the ruling class to serve

and further their own goals and protect their interests

(Marx, 1955).

Marx claimed that conflict is a normal condition of

social life whose nature and variables are very important to

be described and analyzed by social scientists. Marx also

sees social change from an evolutionary point because

human history has gone through a succession of models:

tribal, ancient, feudal, and to the present capitalist mode of

production. Marx further saw

private property as the central point of focus for capitalism:

the system by which the factors of production like money,

tools, machinery, factories, industries, and other items used

for production in the hands of the elite class (Marx1959).

Furthermore, Karl Marx also saw capitalism to be

superseded by a socialist mode of production in the future.

Nevertheless, Marx was also concerned about the plight of

the working masses that also happens to be the poorest.

Having observed the worker for some time, Karl Marx

points to alienations as the effect and the result of the

separation between the worker and the product of his labor

under the capitalist labor relations (Marx, 1959). Karl Marx

pointed out that in every stage of a society’s historical

development economics becomes the bedrock which he

terms, the mode of production of commodities. According to

Marx, the first stage in the mode of production is the force of

production or the physical or technological arrangement of

economic activity. He postulated that, the second stage is the

social relations of production or the indispensable human

attachments that people must form with one another in

carrying out this economic activity. Marx, furthermore,

stated that the mode of production in material life

determines the general character of the social, political, and

spiritual processes of life. Thus, at a certain point of

development the material forces of production in society

come into conflict with the existing relations of production

(Marx, 1959). Marx (1959) furthermore, wrote in The

Communist Manifesto that, “The bourgeoisie (i.e., the

capitalists) cannot exist without continually revolutionizing

the instruments of production, and thereby the relationships

of production and with them the whole relations of

society…” (p. 70).

Finally, Marx said, no one person or group could stop a

revolution from occurring since a conflict is a necessary

means of social change and social survival. He also pointed

to a series of events that would bring about the ultimate

proletariat revolution as follows: (a) need for

production (b) the expansion of the division of labor (c) the

development of private property (d) increasing social

inequality (e) class struggle, and (f) creation of political

structures to represent each class interest (Marx, 1955).

Structural Functional Theory

Structural functional theory states that society operates

through a complex system of interdependent parts that

work to increase stability. Structural Functionalism

framework depends on social structures and social functions

to operate in equilibrium. According to the theory, a change

in one part of the system generally affects the other parts of

the system (Spencer, 1892) Structural functionalism is also

an evolutionary model with a cyclical beginning with

differentiations and increasing complication of an organic

body, followed by a fluctuating state of equilibrium or

disequilibrium and finally a state of disintegration or

dissolution (Spencer, 1892). Structural-functionalism is a

broad perspective with very diverse theorists who consider,

order, stability and collaboration within a society as a value

consensus. Sociologists of the structural-functional theory

usually divide or separate the latent function and the

manifest functions of social relationship. According to

Macionis (2003) manifest functions are built into a social

system by design and manifest goals are well understood by

group members. Latent functions are by contrast

unintentional and very often unrecognized due to the

unanticipated consequences they might have achieved other

than what they set up to achieve.

Auguste Comte is well known as a positivist, but he is

also equally known as a structural- functionalist, especially

on his views on maintaining strong central solidity, order

and progress after witnessing the social outcome of the

French revolution. Comte realized that social systems must

have a spontaneous harmony between all parts of the system

to maintain equilibrium; however, the lack of such harmony

will eventually lead to disequilibrium (Comte, 1915). Emile

Durkheim, was the most important and respected

structural-functionalist who developed the full theory of

organic solidarity. Durkheim was also curious as to why

certain societies maintain internal stability and survive over

time. His answer was that these societies have been

segmented with equivalent parts held together by shared

values and common symbols. Herbert Spencer is probably

one of the truest structural-functionalists even though he is

best noted for evolutionary theory. According to Spencer,

just like the human body and its noted parts and organs,

society also has social structures that must work towards its

proper functioning (Spencer 1892). Herbert Spencer’s work,

The Principle of Sociology (1874- 96) has influenced many

contemporary theorists notable among them was Talcott

Parsons.

Talcott Parsons

Talcott Parsons is best known for structural functional

theory. Parsons was also influenced by the writings of

Durkheim and Marx Weber, which can be seen in his work,

the action theory. The action theory is based on the system-

theoretical concept and the methodological principle of

voluntary action. According to Parsons, social systems are

made up by individuals in a society, thus there are also

interactions between individuals who may be confronted

with a variety of choices. How they respond to each one of

these choices is influenced by a number of physical and

social factors. The action theory’s aim is to create

equilibrium between the two major methodologies of

utilitarian-positivism and hermeneutic- idealism. Parsons’

theoretical system was centered on equilibrium, evolutionary

universalities, and the identification of properties that are

common to all societies. Parsons compared a societal

evolution to biological evolution with modern societies

showing greater ability to adapt than previous generations.

According to Parsons, a society is more or less like biological

systems with its natural counterparts. Thus, social systems

have evolved historically towards greater

adjustment of the systemic order and improving the

specialization of social institutions including the upgrading

of the division of labor existing in complex societies

(Parsons, 1964).

Parsons (1964) believed that order, stability and

cooperation in society are based on value consensus

generally agreed upon by members of society concerning

what is good and worthwhile. Parsons stated that for a

society to survive or maintain an equilibrium in its

environment, it must learn to some degree to adapt

(Adaptation) to that environment and also attain its goals

(Goal Attainment), integrate its components (Integration),

and maintain its latent pattern (Latency Pattern

Maintenance), which serve as cultural blueprints. Parsons

(1964) stated that in every society people take up positions

and enact roles associated with the positions; and in an

advance modern society, the roles become complex

differentiated in the division of labor.

Summary and Analysis

According to social evolutionists, society proceeds

inevitably through a fixed set of stages- savagery, barbarism

and civilization. To them, evolution is a natural law, and the

expression evolution is used to signify the processes and

stages of social development that humankind has evolved

through. The social evolutionists also claimed that, even

though humans everywhere are subjected to the same

natural order of progress and development on a global scale

which are slow but steady, civilized societies have the ability

to progress faster than less civilized ones. Herbert Spencer

also emphasized that certain principle of structure and

function are common in all organic bodies. In the volumes

of Principles of Sociology, Spencer stated that whenever

there is an increase in the size of both biological and social

aggregates, pressure for differentiation of functions occurs.

Spencer further noted that, these result in the creation of a

distinctive regulatory, operative, and distributive process.

Thus, it becomes essential for some

unit to regulate and control action, for others to

produce what is necessary for system maintenance

(Spencer, 1893).

Evolutional theory explains poverty and social

inequality as a natural law based on the biological principle

of natural selection of the human species’ ability to adapt.

Herbert Spencer believes in the rights of the individual and

does not believe in government intervention. Spencer

believes that, the only power government should have is the

protection of the rights of individuals and collective

protection against an external threat. However, if there

should be any external regulation by governments it should

be minimal and everything else must be left to the free

initiatives of individuals. Spencer also made it clear in his

geopolitical dynamics that, when power is concentrated in

the hands of the few or the government, it could be used to

drain the wealth and resources of a population which

eventually will lead to further inequality in a society.

Spencer claimed that those with concerted power for

instance could use it to tax or take resources from others to

finance a war (or in today’s era pay for social services) and

supplement their privilege, this, he believes will also lead to

more social inequality. Spencer believed that once resources

are taken from people they become more hostile, which

eventually poses an internal threat to the elite who then

tends to further harness the more power to deal with the

escalating threat. Spencer, felt that this cycle of escalating

social inequality and internal threat would often and

potentially lead to the disintegration of a society (Spencer

1893). According to social conflict theory society is seen as a

platform showcasing social inequality and struggle over

scarce commodity, therefore, generating both conflict and

change (Macionis, 2003).

Conflict theorists explain that social inequality and

poverty are the results of structural differentiation in a

society. As a result, it is a major source of conflict in all

societies hence social change is brought about through

conflict. Social conflict theorists analyze and study social

inequality and poverty through the ongoing social conflicts

between dominant categories of minority groups: rich versus

the economically disadvantaged, White people in relation to

people of color. Karl Marx stated that all stratified societies

have two major social groupings, a working class and a

ruling class, who controls, exploits and oppresses the

working class. Thus, there is always a conflict of interest

between the two classes. Marx, further asserted that, the

various established institutions like the legal and political

frameworks are tools and instruments employed by the

ruling class to serve and further their own goals and protect

their interest (Marx, 1955). Marx, Furthermore, explained

social inequality and poverty as the results of private

property being the central point of focus for capitalism. He

identified private enterprise as, the system by which the

factors of production like money, tools, machinery, factories,

industries, and other items used for production are in the

hands of the elite class (Marx, 1959). Marx’s conflict theory

was concerned about social inequality and poverty,

especially the plight of the working masses that happen to be

the poorest. Karl Marx, having observed the worker for

some time, points to alienations as the effect and the result of

the separation between the worker and the product of his

labor under the capitalist labor relations (Marx, 1959).

Structural functional theory explained social inequality

and poverty as part of social stratification based on

meritocracy that keeps society operating. Structural

functionalists believe that society as a whole benefits when

greater rewards are linked to important social positions.

Structural functionalists stressed that social stratification

matches people’s ability and talents to appropriate

occupational positions, which they believe are very useful

and inevitable.

Furthermore, structural functionalists claimed that the

values and beliefs that legitimize social inequality are

widely shared throughout society. According to Parsons,

social systems are made up by individuals in a society, thus

there is an interaction between individuals who may be

confronted with a variety of choices and how they respond

to them is a choice they must make, even though these

choices may be influenced, constrained by various numbers

of physical and social factors.

The aim of Parsons’ action theory is to create

equilibrium between two major methodological traditions

of utilitarian-positivism and the hermeneutic-idealistic

tradition. Parsons’ theoretical system was centered on

equilibrium, evolutionary universalities, and the

identification of properties that are common to all societies;

Parsons compared the societal evolution to biological

evolution but acknowledges that modern societies show a

greater ability to adapt than previous generations.

According to Parsons, a society is like a system with

biological and natural counterparts. Therefore, social

systems have evolved historically towards greater

adjustment to maintain a systemic order and to improve the

specialization of social institutions, including the upgrading

of the division of labor existing in complex societies

(Parsons, 1964). Parsons (1964) believed that order,

stability and cooperation in society are based on a value

consensus generally agreed upon by members of society

concerning what is good and worthwhile.

Auguste Comte to some extent touched on poverty and

social inequality when he asserted that systems must have a

spontaneous harmony between all their parts to maintain

equilibrium; however, the lack of such harmony will

eventually lead to disequilibrium of the system.

According to Comte, the new science must be able to benefit

humankind and play a major role in the amelioration of the

human conditions including poverty and social inequality.

Comte also believed in the principle, that the division of

labor fostered the development of individual gifts and

capabilities and creates a sense of dependability on each

other, he was, however, bothered by what he considered the

negative aspects of modern industrial division of labor.

Finally,
contemporary structural functionalists like Robert K.

Merton added that social inequality and poverty are the

results of social structures with many functions. According

to Merton, manifest functions are those built into a social

system by design; like manifest goals which are well

understood by group members. Latent functions are by

contrast, unintentional and often unrecognized. However,

they carry unanticipated consequences to the system that

has been set up to achieve other ends. Thus, social

inequality and poverty would be the eventual outcome of

latent functions

(Macionis, 2003)

Differences and Similarities

In order to compare the classical social theories of

Herbert Spencer, Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, and Talcott

Parsons, it is necessary to identify the social theory they

represent.

Herbert Spencer is well known as a social evolutionary

theorist. Auguste Comte is a positivist who is also known as

a social evolutional theorist due to his formulation of the

Law of Three States, but he is best known as a structural

functionalist. Karl Marx is known to some extent for his

conviction in evolutional theory. He is especially known as a

social conflict theorist. Talcott Parsons is known as a

structural functionalist. Herbert Spencer, Auguste Comte,

and Talcott Parsons all believe that evolutionary social

change follows a natural law. Spencer believed that the

process of societal evolution followed inevitable laws of

nature, which eventually led to social progress. Comte also

argued that, civilization had progressed through a natural

and logical unavoidable course of human organization and

had become the supreme law of all practical phenomena.

Comte believed there to be three laws, which operate to

foster societal growth. The
first law was theological, the second was metaphysical, and

the third scientific. In each phase, some level of dominance

is achieved.

Parsons compared a societal evolution to biological

evolution with modern societies showing greater ability to

adapt than previous generations. Parsons had similar ideas

to Spencer because they both believed that individuals must

have the right to pursue their respective interest voluntarily.

Both Parsons and Spencer believed that social

differentiations and stratification are a natural social out

come. However, in contrast, Spencer does not believe in a

strong central government and does not believe in

government interventions except to protect individual

liberties and against external aggression. Auguste Comte, on

the other hand, believed in a strong central social order and

submissiveness that will ultimately lead to progress, but was

also concerned about the conditions of the working poor

who happened to be the masses. Comte, furthermore, has

something in common with Parsons, they both believe in

social stratification and the meritocracy system.

Karl Marx’s conflict theory rejects and denounces both

the evolutionary and structural functional theories as

systems based on classes and exploitation. However, he does

have something in common with Spencer’s social

evolutionary theory. Marx believed that human history has

gone through a succession of models: tribal, ancient, feudal,

and to the present capitalist mode of production. Marx

concluded that this progression would continue with

capitalism being superseded by a socialist mode of

production. Marx‘s ideas, do have something in common

with those of Auguste Comte, they were both concerned

with the conditions of the working poor and wanted to do

something to improve them. Comte, however, did not share

Marx’s views of violent workers revolting in order to

correct social conditions or the historical succession models

which eventually will bring about a socialist mode of

production.
 Comte also believes in the class and meritocracy system,

since he asserted that people with talents and advanced

knowledge would work to make society better thus

benefiting society as a whole. Marx’s Conflict theory is in

sharp contrast with Spencer’s evolutional theory and

Parsons’ structural functional theory in that, according to

Marx, social inequality and social stratification lead to social

conflict. Consequently, the future would eventually be

corrected when a socialist mode of operation existed to

administer equal rights and justice to all.

In reality, however, societal evolution has resulted in

the creation of social stratification, social inequality and a

vast number of poor underclass citizens. Moreover, it has in

addition limited the powers of the government to regulate,

change and promote equity. Despite the present inequality,

the strength of structural functionalism lies in the fact that

people are rewarded based on the work they do, and it does
encourage productivity and efficiency. The consequence of

social stratification are extreme on some groups of people,

especially racial minorities and the economically

disadvantaged who are denied access to certain

opportunities that would enable them to compete fairly,

thereby uplifting their social standing. For example,

children of rich parents do not have to compete equally

with children of poor parents. Rich parents do send their

children to rich and good schools, whereas most poor

parents send their children to poor and ill prepared schools.

Finally, social stratification promotes social conflicts

and does not help in building a fair and just society. Social

conflict theory’s strength lies in the fact that it sought to

build a fair and a just society. Ideally, it is the best social

theory that could be employed in building a fair and just

society. This is because its aim is to abolish social

stratification and racial discrimination, as they impact on

those who are disadvantaged by their social circumstances.

Moreover, conflict theory sees everything from the

perspective of a two class system of rich and poor, but in

reality, there
are other factors, which may contribute to people’s

successes and failures in life that has nothing to do with

class or race. Marx’s simplistic views of class structures are

valid to some extent because society has evolved and has

become more complex than it was. Thus, there are certain

dynamics at play, which call on people to address their own

deficiencies, inefficiencies and weaknesses.

On the other hand, to build a just and fair society, we

may need to blend the three theories discussed. However,

based on the knowledge presently at hand, I may

recommend using more of the Marxist social conflict

paradigm in order to address the social inequalities and the

vast social stratification that has been created by the current

system being used namely, evolutional and structural

functionalism. We must also give credit where credit is due

and recognize the fact that human competitiveness and

personal responsibilities have played a vital role in societal

development and progress.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe that the social evolutional and

structural functional theories have produced the most

successful models of capitalism in the world. Additionally,

they have also made the United States the richest capitalist

nation in the western world but at the expense of several of

its inhabitants, especially racial minorities and the

economically disadvantaged.

Conflict theory has not alleviated the problems of the masses

and has led to the collapse of many Eastern European

Countries, especially the former Soviet Union.

What do contemporary researchers’ think of social

evolutionary theory, structural functional theory, and social

conflict theory? Do they believe these theories are still valid?

It is for current researchers in the field of criminal justice to

try to resolve social inequality. In the Depth paper which

follows the extent to which they have been successful will be

examined.
 Depth

SBSF 8120: Current Research in Societal Development

 Annotated Bibliography

Anonymous (2006). Oklahoma: 38% of adult blacks have

felony records. Corrections Digest;
Dec 1, 2006; 37 (47); Criminal Justice Periodicals pp. 6-7.

According to the Oklahoma Sentencing Commission,

38% of black adult men in the State of Oklahoma have been

convicted of a felony however only less than 9% of all

citizens of Oklahoma had felony records. The data were

collected from Oklahoma’s prison system by the commission

and the analysis was done using data dating as far back

before statehood.

Additional data were also collected from census and

mortality rate. The commissioner, K.C. Moon concluded

that the high percentage rate of African Americans with

felony convictions was not due to racism but instead,

poverty. He also pointed out that conviction rates among the

two races are about even. However, he asserted that

previous research confirms the fact that it is more of a socio-

economic problem than of race and discrimination.

In an assessment of the above article, it can be concluded

that the research is very significant, and is well framed.

Additionally, the research is much related to an existing body

of knowledge about the unequal treatment of racial

minorities and economically disadvantaged offenders under

the criminal justice system.

The theoretical framework of the study was adequate

and appropriate whilst the sample size of the study was

sufficient because the data were collected from all the

prisons in Oklahoma and mortality rates were in addition

collected from census records. Many details of the research

were not given. However, the result was published in a

scholarly peer-reviewed journal, which gave it much

credibility status. The research could be duplicated in other

states but the results may vary due to different conditions in

every state. Thus, the results may not be universally

applicable. There may also be a limitation to the research

because it focused mainly on felony cases and adult black

men in particular as a result leaving out other racial

minorities.
Consequently, it is more likely that there may be room for

researcher bias. Nevertheless, the research considered the

existence of different socio-economic and cultural groups by

indicating that the research results from the outcome was

produced and influenced more by socio-economic factors

than by race. The article written about the research was

very short and does not provide much information to make

a very constructive analysis. However, the topic and the

research in particular are very relevant to the issue of race

relations in America. The research also points to the issue of

social inequality and the plight of the economically

disadvantaged people under the criminal justice system.

Furthermore, this research also serves as a wake-up call to

scholars and practitioners to come to terms with the delicate

issue of race and poverty in America, especially how it

affects the criminal justice system in particular. This

research is very valuable to me as a scholar-practitioner

because it will help me advance my argument for building a

fair and just society in America.

Button M.D (2008). Social disadvantage and family

violence: neighborhood effects on attitudes
ab...American Journal of Criminal Justice: AJCJ; 33, 1;
Criminal Justice Periodicals, pp. 290-293

The author’s purpose for the research was to analyze

the effect of social disorganization theory on crime and

collective efficacy, in addition to the individual factors of

gender, race and a history of child maltreatment, on the

acceptance of using violence within the family. The author

defined social disorganization theory as the inability of a

community structure to realize the common values of its

residents and maintain an effective social control. According

to the researcher, social disorganization theory asserts that

neighborhood composition affects the level of violence within

the community. Data for the research was collected from the

Norfolk Police Department (2000-2004). Additional data

were also collected from the 2000 census and from the
2006 Norfolk residents’ attitude about a crime survey to

determine the differences in approval of family violence.

Button asserted that, social disorganization theory has

been used to indicate the eruption of violence within local

communities. Furthermore, there are certain indicators,

which make a neighborhood to be labeled as socially

disorganized. These include the presence of concentration of

economically disadvantaged people, ethnic heterogeneity

and residential instability.

Moreover, such neighborhoods have the lowest incomes,

increased rates of unemployment, lack of institutional

investment, inadequate resources and financial support.

Additionally, in such communities, institutions such as

Churches, Schools, and Community organizations struggle

to prosper and lose the ability to exercise control over the

community. Button claimed that, there is an indirect effect

of economic deprivation in such communities.

 The researcher asserted that in such a socially

disorganized community, the neighborhood socio-economic

status has been affected negatively to link its residential

stability and its ethnic heterogeneity. The results of the

study found that race did not significantly predict intimate

partner violence when other factors are controlled like

income and education. The results also found that, there

was a negative correlation between family income and

intimate partner violence. However, inadequate education

was found to be a contributing factor.

The above research question was not well framed,

because it sought to answer too many questions within the

same research. For instance, the topic: Social Disadvantage

and Family Violence: Neighborhood Effects on Attitude about

intimate Partner Violence and Corporal Punishment/Violence

of Children could have been without the children in order to

concentrate on intimate partners as the family involved in

the study. The study as a whole was very significant because

it points to the effect of poverty and social inequality and to

a large extent why many

poor and less educated people may end up becoming victims

of the criminal justice system. The research contributes to

an existing body of knowledge because it will help policy

makers, social workers and criminal justice practitioners to

understand the dynamic interplay between social

inequality, poverty and racism as a social manifestation.

The research was well communicated and the methods used

were appropriate. The researcher used interviewers, and

also made sure that questionnaires were hand delivered in

enclosed, self-addressed stamped envelopes to selected

households.

Additionally, the researcher also used the 2006 Norfolk,

Virginia Residents Attitude towards crime survey to achieve

the respondent rate of 20.9%, the 2000 decennial census

data, and the 2000-2004 Norfolk Police data. The data and

the sample size were adequate enough for the study to be

conclusive. However, there could be a better way for the

researcher to obtain a more convincing result. Furthermore,

there were not enough controls in place to prevent a

researcher’s personal bias. The research could be replicable

with similar findings but there were also limitations to the

study. The findings are not universally applicable because

only selected neighborhoods were used. The conclusions are,

however, justifiable and the author also took into account

the racial/ethnic, socioeconomic and family structures by

using census data, police data and neighborhood survey

data, which comprises of the demographic make-up of the

community.

The research was very useful because it lends itself to

the three social theories examined in the breadth: Social

evolutional theory, Structural-functional theory, and the

Social Conflict theory. It shows that social evolutional theory

and structural functional theories are still valid and being

used in our society, whereas conflict theory serves as a

reminder pointing to social structures and social inequality

as the source of conflict and poverty in our society. The

value of
this research to my paper is that, it has shed light on

the three social theories that I have examined in the

Breadth portion of this paper.

Hannon, L., & Knapp, P. (2003). Reassessing nonlinearity in

the urban disadvantaged /violent crime relationship.
Criminology; 41, (4); Criminal Justice Periodicals, pp.
1427-1448.

This research was in response to the increasing

concerns and doubts about nonlinear relationships and

interaction effects. The authors claimed that some research

and studies suggest positive correlation between

neighborhood disadvantage and violent crime; whereas

other research also indicates that there is a negative

relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and

violent crime. According to the writers, these inconsistencies

are due partially to the lack of logarithmic transformation

in criminological research. The authors, claimed that

though, logarithmic transformation has lots of benefits,

there are also drawbacks. The authors asserted that, a

recent research done by Krivo and Peterson (1996:620)

supported their idea that there is a positive correlation

between socioeconomic disadvantage and crime which

disadvantage neighborhoods. Additionally, there was also

an unusually high crime rate in comparison to

neighborhoods with a relatively moderate or low level of

socioeconomic disadvantage.

The research question was well framed and will be very

significant to sociologists, criminologists, and policy makers

because it will put to rest their increasing concern about the

inconsistencies in the logarithmic transformation.

Furthermore, this research is also related to an existing

body of knowledge, and in addition makes an original

contribution due to the importance it placed on the

methodological discrepancies and how they have eventually

been cleared. The theoretical framework for the study was

adequate and appropriate, and it was well communicated.

The conclusions were justifiable by the results. Race and

ethnicity were also

taken into consideration. The authors suggested that log

transformation has a powerful side effect thus; it should not

be used as a common practice because it deserves a more

thorough justification.

The research is very valuable to me and to this research

because it indicates that there is a strong positive correlation

between extreme urban disadvantage and violent crime in

our society. Thus, reducing extreme poverty or partially

bridging the inequality and urban poverty gap will go a long

way in reducing violent crimes in our cities and society at

large. This research is also unique because it exposes the

bias in using log transformation for research on a nonlinear

relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and

violent crime.

Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., & Morash, M. (2004). Poverty,

State capital, and recidivism among women offenders.
Criminology & Public Policy: Criminal Justice
Periodicals 04; (3), 2; pp. 185-208
 This study focuses on the effect of poverty and state aid

to women offenders and recidivism. The researchers used

134 female felony offenders from the community corrections

in the State of Oregon and the cities of Minneapolis and St.

Paul, Minnesota to do a self report of

re-arrested and probation or violations over six-month time

periods. According to the researchers, the results of the

study based on logistic regression analyses indicate that

poverty status increases the probability of those re-arrested

by a factor of 4.6, and it increases the odds of supervised

violation by a factor of 12.7. However, risk scores like

poverty status failed to predict recidivism once poverty

status was taken into account. The research also found out

that specifically among poor women offenders, providing

state-sponsored support to address short- term needs like

housing reduces the chances of recidivism by 83%. Thus,

community corrections’ officers who help make state capital

available promote empowerment for women and reduce the

odds of recidivism among women. Finally, after assessing

the influence poverty

has on recidivism among women offenders, the

researchers concluded that, economically marginalized

offenders should be made to benefit from state

sponsored resources.

The article is very important because the researchers’

point to the fact that in 2001, over half of all (52%) of the

32.9 million people (including children) living in poverty

were women, and a similar proportion (49%) of families

living below the poverty line were headed by single women.

The researchers further added that, compared with both

developed and transitional economies, the United States has

the highest poverty rate for female-headed households and

the largest gender gap related to poverty. The research also

relates to an existing body of knowledge about high rates of

racial minority recidivism. Thus, this research seeks to

explain why the recidivism rates are very high among

minorities. However, this research in particular focuses on

the high recidivism for three years among women felony

offenders. The research was also well framed and well

communicated. The method used was appropriate and the

sample size was sufficient enough to justify the conclusion of

the results. The research is replicable and applicable to

sociologists, criminologists, and policy makers in general.

Personally, I see this research to be very valuable to my own

research because the results indicate that, poverty is a

major contributing factor to criminal behavior.

Hojman, D. (2003). Inequality, unemployment and crime in

Latin American cities:
Crime, Law & Social Change. pp. 33-51

This article talks about Inequality, unemployment and

the incidence of high rates of crime in Latin American cities,

and how violent crime in particular is out of control. The

writer said many researchers and scholars have touched on

the causes of crime in Latin American cities. However, there

is no consensus since others claimed that there is the lack of

deterrence whilst
others debate that there is too much poverty and inequality

within the society. However, there is one thing that is agreed

on, and that is regardless of the behavioral parameter

values, deterrence does not work in Latin America due to

official incompetence and corruption of law enforcement

personnel, a weak judiciary and a problem ridden prison

system. Another important factor the writer touched on is

diversity between and within cities. The author argued that

in Latin America.

The decision to commit a crime depends on deterrence

and on any legal or legitimate alternative. The former

includes: (1) number of police available within the locality

(2) the probability that the crime will be detected and the

culprit apprehended (3) the number of arrests made in

similar cases (4) and, how severely people were punished

based on previous arrests. The latter by: (1) When there is

an economic growth rate which leads to more job creation

and less unemployment, people are less likely to commit

crimes (2) How well people are paid for the work, they do

also influences one’s ability in Latin America to commit

crime. (3) Massive unemployment rates will eventually lead

to the fostering of criminal activities (4) the poverty rate is a

major contributor to crime (5) the gap existing between the

rich and the poor also promotes crime. According to the

author, historically, culturally, socially, economically, and

institutionally, Latin American cities do have similarities,

which are different from the rest of the world.

The first is that they all have worse levels and patterns

of poverty and inequality. Poverty and inequality in Latin

American cities are specifically related to deficiencies in

education, the labor market, and inadequate macroeconomic

stabilization and growth strategies plus discrimination based

on ethnic and geographical lines. Secondly, in Latin America

there is a widespread display of male chauvinism and related

cultural attitudes. This, machismo, according
to the author is linked to other forms of intolerance,

fanaticism, bigotry, contempt for compromise, and the

weakness of civil society and political democracy. The

writer added that the presence of machismo makes both

violence and crime much more likely. Finally, the writer

touched on the drug trafficking business which he says is

more of recent development but has become an essential

part of the economy with exports to several countries in the

region. He mentioned Columbia in particular and to a

lesser degree Peru, Bolivia, and Mexico.

This article is very significant because it adds to

diversified literature reviews of crime and inequality

around the world. The research adds to an existing body of

knowledge about crime, inequality, poverty, and the

criminal justice systems in some selected countries in Latin

America. The research was well communicated and

sufficient data was collected from all the countries

mentioned in the article. The samples collected were

moreover, adequate to arrive at such a conclusion. The

study is, however, not universally applicable and there is in

addition a limitation which the writer himself had made

clear. First, as the author pointed out, Latin American cities

are far more similar to each other historically, culturally,

socially, economically and institutionally. Secondly, the

presence of wide-spread displays of machismo and male

chauvinism, are linked to intolerance, bigotry, fanaticism,

and finally, cultural attitudes also make both crime and

violence more likely. Hence, results obtained in this

research may not be applicable in some other parts of the

world. Thus, these countries have a lot in common yet

according to this author they are exceptionally different

from the rest of the world. The author also took many

factors into consideration, like culture, ethnicity and class

structures in Latin American countries.

 The article is very valuable to my research because I

can draw an international correlation between poverty and

crime as indicated by this research to support my claim. The

writer
cautioned European countries of the impending future

similarities to that of present day Latin America. The author

outlined the following factors: (1) European cities growing

racial and ethnic composition (2) The increasing socio-

economic divide, especially in the U.K (3) Failing educational

systems (4) New waves of immigration from the Balkans,

Eastern Europe, Africa, and many more places.

Additionally, this study is equally significant for the United

States as well due to numerous researchers pointing to the

fact that poverty and extreme poverty are a leading cause of

crime in most countries around the world. Thus, the growing

gap between the social classes would eventually lead to more

crime regardless of how tough the sentencing guidelines

become.

Kent, L. S., & Jacobs, D. (2004) Social Divisions and

Coercive Control in Advanced Societies: Law
Enforcement .Social Problems; Aug 2004; 51, 3;
ABI/INFORM Global. pp. 343-
361.
 The above research was based on the thesis of social

conflict theory, which states that economic stratification

poses a threat to social order. Therefore, an increase in

greater social economic inequality should lead to greater

capacity for coercive control by the police. The primary

objective is to find out if this hypothesis holds true in eleven

industrialized countries around the world including the

United States. According to the researchers, the police are

the primary agency responsible for preserving order but

besides the United States, little effect is known about the

impact of socio/economic divisions on levels of coercive

control by the police in other advanced countries.

According to the researchers, the presence of large

minority, high unemployment rate, rapid economic

development, urbanization, crime, and social

disorganization should be factors that should lead to

greater coercive control from the police.

 According to these authors, large minority presence

explains police strength only in the United States. However,

the authors concluded that this positive correlation

between large
minority presence and police strength across the United

States may be due to the intense racial conflicts in the

Country. They argued that, these conflicts did not occur in

the other nations in the study. The results also concluded

that, threats to internal stability due to economic

stratification are most likely to produce subsequent

expansions of the police force.

The research question was not well framed and

communicated for clear understanding. However, the

research is in line with the existing body of knowledge

about the correlation between the increase of minority

presence and an upsurge in police force and coercion. The

theoretical framework of the study was adequate,

appropriate, and the sample utilized size was also

sufficient. The research design and method analyzed eleven

nations: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France,

the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the United

Kingdom, and the United States. The data used on the

ratio of police employees to national population was from

1975 to 1994 in most but not all the nations in the study

due to missing data.

The strength of the police was measured by the number

of the police force by a population of 100,000 with data from

UN Survey of Crime Trends and Criminal Justice Systems.

There were no adequate control measures to prevent

researcher bias, and even though the research is replicable

the results would not be universally applicable due to

limitations on the study. The conclusions of the study are

justifiable but only to some extent since the results from all

the countries studied were not uniform and there were also

missing data from some countries. However, the results

suggest that the United States due to intense racial conflicts

was the only country among the eleven advanced nations

who view the presence of large minority group presence as a

threat to social domestic stability.
 This article is very valuable to me because I have

learnt that a large minority presence could lead to an

increase in the police force. Moreover, I also learnt that this

only happened in the United States due to intense racial

conflicts, and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom, who

also increased their police force even though the crime rate

was going down. This research validates the conflict theory

thesis advance forward, which suggests that economic

stratification poses a threat to an established order.

Therefore, an increase in law enforcement and social

coercion is justifiable in order to preserve the status-quo.

Lurigio, J. A., Greenleaf, G. R., & Flexon, L. J. (2009) The

Effects of Race on Relationships with the Police: A
Survey of African American and Latino Youths in
Chicago. Western Criminology Review 10(1) pp.29-41

This research is about a survey on African American

and Latino Youths in Chicago about the effects of race on

relationships with the police. According to the researchers

the majority of studies done on race and perceptions of the

police was mostly on the differences between African

Americans and whites and the emphasis has been on black-

white comparisons, which have left other important issues

unaddressed; like differences in attitudes towards the police,

especially the difference between Latinos and African

Americans. The research compared African American and

Latino youths’ attitudes, feelings, and behavioral intentions

towards the police. The independent measures used included

pro-social values, commitment to school, and contact with

the police. The research findings concluded that there were

several similarities between Latinos and African American

students on the dependent measures. According to the

research, both African Americans and Latinos are less likely

to assist the police or believe that the police care less about

their neighborhood especially when they have been stopped

and been treated disrespectfully by the police before.

 The above research question was not well framed and

less significant even though it is related to a large existing

body of knowledge and has also made some contribution.

The theoretical framework of the study was not adequate

but appropriate. The research method was appropriate and

the sample size used was sufficient because data was

obtained from students who were enrolled in 18 Chicago

Public Schools in May of 2000. The project was also

approved by the Board of Education Legal Department. The

survey was carried out anonymously and all survey data

from the schools were aggregated. The finding of this

research, however, is very important because it indicates

how most minority youths perceive law enforcement

officers.

Furthermore, minority youth willingness to assist the

police will depend upon whether they believe that the

police care about their neighborhood or also whether on a

previous encounter with the police; they were treated

disrespectfully or not. This research is very valuable to me

because it shows how racial minority youth feel about law

enforcement officers working to protect their

communities.

Reiman, J. (2008) The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get
Prison. The Political Quarterly, Vol.
79, No. 1, pp. 1427-1450.

The author commented on an announcement by the

British government to spend 1.2 billion Pounds Sterling to

build new prison places by 2014 thereby increasing the

prison capacity from 81,500 to 96,000, an addition of about

10,500. According to the report, the current prisons are

overcrowded thus police are temporally using their cells to

hold prisoners. The author said the British government’s

decision to build more prisons may be the only choice. The

author made reference to the fact that before 1914, the

prison population was about 20,000 and fell during World

War 2 but gained momentum from the 1950’s to the 1960’s.

By early 1980’s, the figures had reached 40,000, and it keeps

rising through the 1990’s to present. The report also

said Britain is nowadays putting more of its citizens behind

bars than almost any other democracy except for the United

States. The author claimed that the view on building more

places in prisons has sharply divided the country, with one

side echoing former Home Secretary Michael Howard’s

slogan that “Prison Works”. Michael Howard made his

views clear that prison should be for punishment and

determent and to isolate offenders from hampering

society’s safety. According to the writer, some experts

believe that it is cheaper to imprison a person at an annual

cost of 38,000 Pounds Sterling a year than to have a

relentless offender on the streets and in the community.

There are about 100,000 persistent offenders. Therefore,

incarcerating them permanently could bring the crime level

to zero.

The title of the article is very significant and

provocative, and it also echoes on current social facts

existing in the criminal justice system. Much research on

mass incarceration has been carried out and this article in

particular serves as a perfect prime example as to why this

research must be continued to ascertain the social and

economic impact of building more prisons instead of

fostering strong social institutions to encourage

rehabilitations. The article was well written, and well

communicated. There was no bias since the views of all the

parties involved were equally represented. The writer,

however, wrote as a matter of current facts existing within

the British criminal justice system and the argument

surrounding whether enforcing tougher criminal laws versus

getting tough on the causes of crime. The article is a very

helpful because it reminds us of the dilemma society faces

when it comes to the issue of crime. The arguments that were

presented in the article also reflect the three social theories

we have examined in the Breadth component of this paper.

This article is a very valuable source of information for the

criminal justice system in general but equally important for

this research project. Moreover, it further indicates how

some advanced countries respond to crime.

Ruggiero, V. (2003) Fear and change in the city. City, Vol. 7,
N0.1, Pp. 45-57.

This article talks about what needs to be done before a

positive social change returns to our cities. According to the

writer current urban sociologists and sociologists of

deviance do not recognize the subjective decision-making

processes at work in the representation of cities through

their work. According to the author early classical

sociologists did recognize the notion of social change as

collective social forces with the potential power to bring

about a social change. However, the writer claimed that

current researchers have abandoned the notion of collective

action and innovation as an analytical study of the city and

instead instituted in its place the study of fear, crime and,

urban decay. The author said the current trend for urban

researchers is to identify cities as a transitional living

nightmare with booming crime rates.

Additionally, they also separate the cities from the people

who live in them and focus their attention on anti-social

behavior and disorders in the cities. Furthermore, the

writer argued that current urban sociologists and

sociologists of deviance must redirect their attention and

start focusing on problems facing the urban centers by

applying social conflict theories for social change. Finally,

the author believes that this would stimulate a positive and

a pro-active debate.

This article is very significant because the writer

indicated that current researchers who should be bringing

about a positive social change are rather at the opposite

side of the aisle.

Thus, he argued that they need to be reoriented towards the

concerns of our urban centers but should not rather work

against them. The article has also made a contribution to the

existing body of knowledge calling on current researchers

not be concerned alone with the positivists and structural

functionalists’ approach to the study of the city but instead

should be action oriented and start thinking along the lines

of a social conflict approach for a positive social change.

 The writer used sufficient research materials to

support his claims and also took into consideration all the

differing social and cultural issues relating to the research.

The article is moreover, very important because the writer

dismisses some studies, which argued that the city is at its

decaying stages and in a sense dysfunctional, hence the next

stage would only produce violence and mobs instead of

conscious social change. The article is a valuable source to

my research because it sheds more understanding to the

plight of racial minorities and economically disadvantaged

people living in the inner cities. Equally important, I believe

that this research will be of help to criminal justice

practitioners and social policy formulators in their effort to

build a fair and just society for all.

Stretesky, P. B., Schuck. A.M,. & Hogan, M.J. (2000)

Space Matters: An Analysis of Poverty, Poverty
Clustering, and Violent Crime. Justice Quarterly:
Criminal Justice Periodical, 25 (5). pp. 817-841.
 The purpose of the above research was to examine the

association between poverty clustering and violent crime

rates. The researchers used data from 236 cities and for

each city; they computed a poverty cluster score that

measures the proportion of contiguous high poverty census

tracts. The researchers claimed that there wasn’t much

evidence to support a direct relationship between the spatial

clustering of high poverty tracts and murder, rape, robbery,

and assault. However, present was a strong correlation

between the variable of poverty when it interacts with

poverty clustering and high homicide rates. The authors

argued specifically that economically disadvantaged people

have a much stronger relationship to homicide in cities with

a high level of poverty clustering.

The research was well framed and significant

because it expanded upon less known research area of

relationship between the spatial clustering of high

poverty areas and violent
crime rates. Furthermore, it shed light on spatial dimensions

of poverty as structural characteristic of cities. The research

further exposed that there is little or no evidence to support

a strong correlation between poverty clustering and violent

crime tolls. The research is also related to a broader existing

body of knowledge in the area of poverty, urban crime and

violence. This article, therefore, makes an original

contribution because contrary to the existing body of

literature, which claims a strong correlation between

poverty clustering and violent crime. This research,

however, shows little evidence to support that claim.

The theoretical framework of the research was

adequate because much literature relating to poverty and

crime was utilized. Furthermore, the data collected, and the

methods employed for the study was appropriate because

there were 236 cities with a minimum population of 100,000

residents in the year 2000 involved in the research. The Data

sources that were used for the research were obtained from

The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the Census of

Population and Housing. The researchers also put in

adequate controls to prevent bias. The value of this research

to me is that, it focuses on poverty and crime in the inner

cities. Equally important is that, it draws a correlation

between extreme poverty and violent crimes.

This research is very significant because it calls for

more research to be done in our inner cities in order to

understand the actual crisis facing our cities. The research is

very important because it persistently shows that poverty

does have a strong correlation on crimes in our urban

centers. The research points to the fact that jobs lost in our

urban centers like manufacturing deprives poor

communities of their economic resources. Furthermore, the

authors argued that spatial concentration and the isolation

of high poverty areas prevented members of the community

from creating and maintaining the basic institutional

structures and social controls that prevent social problems,

like violent crimes. Finally, this research is very valuable

because it
is well in line with the various social change theories that

have been examined in the Breadth part of this paper.

Sharp, E. (2006) Policing Urban America: A New Look at the

Politics of Agency Size. Social Science Quarterly, Volume
87, No. 2, Southwestern Social Science Association pp.
291- 308.

The objective of the above article is to analyze

competing explanations for variations which contest that

the size of a contemporary police force in larger U.S. cities

is directly related to the response of conflict theory.

According to the researcher, conflict theory provided much

needed evidence for a racial threat thesis. The study shows

that the size of contemporary police forces is significantly

shaped not only by the lessons of the 1960-1970 wave of

racial unrest in the United States, but also by reactions to

racial disorders in the 1980s and 1990s in the United States

and by the prevalence of racial minorities in the current

population. The research findings concluded that a police

department’s relative force size in 2000 is not only

influenced by incremental growth from the size attained by

1980, but is also significantly shaped by whether the city

experienced a race uprising from 1980-2000 and, to a minor

degree, the size of minority populations and the violent

crime rate. The researcher found out that the wealth of a

city has fewer correlations and in addition there was no

evidence to suggest that community ideology plays a pivotal

role in community policing matters.

The above research was not well framed because it was

not defined well enough and equally communicated.

However, it relates to an existing body of literature in

relation to the rise of urban police forces in recent years.

The research is also very significant because it specifically

touched on a conflict theory thesis as part of the bases for

the rise in urban police forces. The article did not make an

original contribution. Nevertheless; it has contributed

immensely towards
our understanding of the relationship existing between the

presence of a large urban police force and urban

community arrests, prosecutions, and incarcerations.

The theoretical framework and methods for this study

were adequate and fitting because the research sample

consists of 66 cities with a population of at least 250,000 in

2000.

Additionally, data for the research was also obtained from

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Congressional Quarterly’

America Votes, US Census Bureau; and a regional news

database from Lexis-Nexis. The author considered the

differing social and cultural issues relating to the study

which made the research conclusions justifiable.

Furthermore, the research is replicable.

However, there may be limitations, which would affect

the outcome not to be universally applicable.

The research is very valuable to my project because it

sheds light on a conflict theory which posited that the

presence of economic stratification poses a threat to an

established structure hence to counteract this threat, there

is the need for a greater coercive control from law

enforcement. Thus, it validates the current treatment of

racial minorities and economically disadvantaged offenders

under the criminal justice system. This research would also

help urban police departments to address issues relating to

a structural functional theory which calls for order and

stability, thus requiring the full coercive force of the police

to carry out that duty.

Turner, K. B., & Johnson, James. B. (2005) A

comparison of bail amounts for Hispanics,
Whites, and African Americans: A single
County analysis American Journal of
Criminal Justice, Vol. 30 No 1, pp. 35-55.
Southern
Criminal Justice Association

This research is based on bail amounts for Hispanics,

Whites, and African Americans in a single County analysis

from a district court in a Midwestern jurisdiction. The

authors, used bivariate and multivate analyses to examine

for significant differences between Hispanic and

other racial and ethnic groups in the dependent variable,

bail amount set by judges for Hispanics and other

defendants. According to the researchers, to predict

differences in the bail amount, multiple regression control

of two independent “legal” variables, prior arrest, and

seriousness of the instant offense, and “extra legal”

variables of age, gender, and type of attorney, residency,

and race were utilized.

The finding, according to the authors, suggests that

Hispanics receive higher bail amount than Whites or

African Americans. Furthermore, the results also cast doubt

on “functional theory” and “formal rationality theory”,

variously known as the doctrine of “legal theory,” as a

model for explaining why members of racial or ethnic

minorities receive harsher treatment at various stages of the

criminal justice and juvenile justice system.

The research question was well framed and the

research was also very significant because, according to the

authors “a search for literature on race and bail suggests

that few studies have investigated judges’ decisions

regarding the assignment of bail” (p.38). This research also

relates to an existing body of knowledge about the

treatment of racial minorities and the economically

disadvantaged offenders within the criminal justice system.

This research has also made an original contribution to the

existing body of knowledge because, according to the

authors, “Asian Americans and Hispanics have been

neglected as a single unit of analysis” (p.36). According to

the authors, most research engaged in “racial lumping”

that is normally putting African Americans and Hispanics

into one category and refers to them as “minorities.”

The theoretical framework for the study was not

adequate, however it was appropriate. The theoretical

framework was not adequate because the authors stated

that, “U.S. government categorizes Hispanics into four

groups: Mexican Americans, or Chicanos, Puerto Ricans,

Cubans, and “others” (a diverse group made up of those

with roots in Spain, the

Philippines, and various Central and South American

Countries)” (p.37). These categorization means the

Hispanics population could be too broad to analyze

effectively. The research was also communicated clearly and

fully. However, I believe there could have also been a way to

find out some answers without necessary doing the research.

For instances, in some jurisdictions, racial minorities are

still broken down into ethnic groups to know the actual

numbers for each grouping.

The data for the study was obtained from the District

Court files of Lancaster County, Nebraska, which includes

Lincoln, the state capital and second largest city in

Nebraska. The data obtained for 1996 contains information

on all White, African American, and Hispanics persons

accused of felony offenses who are eligible for bail. The total

number of people involved in the research was 812. There

were 524 Whites, 233 African Americans, and 55 Hispanics.

The research also had adequate controls to prevent bias.

The research is replicable because according to the authors,

data analysis from Connecticut concluded that courts

systematically set bail for Hispanic male and African

American males 35% higher than set for Whites.

Additionally, when it comes to drug cases, the research

found that several Connecticut cities have an average bond

four times higher than the bond for Whites. Furthermore,

for women with no prior record, the average bond for

Hispanic women was 197 % higher than for White women.

The finding of this research cannot be applicable nationally

and the conclusions cannot be justified for two important

reasons, first, the size of the Hispanic population involved in

the study. Secondly, the research was done in only one

county.

This research is very valuable to me because, it has shed

light on a significant topic relating to judicial decisions about

racial minorities and the criminal justice system, especially

Hispanics Americans. This is important because, according

to the 2000 Census, Hispanics are the

fastest growing racial or ethnic group in United States, over

taking African as the largest minority group (p.37).

Furthermore, this research will help people to be very

careful when categorizing racial and ethnic minorities.

According to the authors “Mainly this practice hides

differences among groups and limits our understanding of

the effect of these important decisions on the individual

groups” (p.49).

Twomey, J (2004) ed., Race, Gender and Class,

Race, Gender & Class Volume 11, Number 1(3-
5), downloaded from www.suno.edu/sunorgc/

This article was edited and compiled by Jane

Twomey, and it focuses on race, gender, and class in

America. According to Twomey, it is very important for

society to remember the 1992 Los Angeles riots even

though it has been more than a decade since they

occurred.

Twomey argued that remembering would teach us

valuable lessons from our past and help us make a

conscious effort in building better race relationships in

America. She asserted that the 1992 Rodney King riots

were one of the most devastating examples of urban unrest

in the 20th century. She, furthermore, cautioned that even

in our post 9/11 era our biggest and most important

challenges are still not to be found in Iraq or Afghanistan

but instead in our urban centers in America.

She reminded us that any quest for social justice must

begin at home and with all of us. She also made it clear that

there would be no future regardless of how hard we work,

if we are not guided by the lessons of the past. To keep the

1992 Los Angeles riots alive in our memory, Twomey, in

addition, introduced us to nine short articles written by

various scholars on the lessons of the 1992 Los Angeles

riots. Austin Scott-Long, the first full time African

American
reporter for the associated press has covered many of the

major urban periods of unrest of the 20th century.

In Scott-Long’s article, Understanding Race, Class and

Urban Violence: Why Journalist Can’t Do More to Help Us

Understand, he discusses some basic ideological premises

and practical realities that limit the ways in which

journalists deal with complicated issues, and the impact this

ultimately has on their ability to tell the real story of race

and class in America.

William Solomon contributed an article, Images of

Rebellion: It examined how the press and journalists

reported Rodney King’s beating. Solomon concluded that

this was a symbolic logic of a capitalistic modern society that

supports physical and structure violence against the

underclass and people of color. In the religious community,

Jeffrey Brand also contributed with an article called,

Assurance from the Pulpit. This shows how some churches in

the Los Angeles area responded to the crises the Sunday

after the riots. Brand, found that church leaders used special

message techniques which he claimed are worth studying

due to their impact on helping communities to deal with

crisis.

Bill Yousman also took a socio-psychological approach

to understanding the 1992 riots and community crisis. In his

article, “Can We All Get Along?” The Los Angeles Uprising,

Classical Theories of Social Psychology and Dialectics of

Individual Action and Structural Inequality, Yousman used

three theoretical perspectives in social psychology-the theory

of de- individuation, scapegoat theory of prejudice, and

realistic group conflict theory to call for a social dialectical

understanding for the events of the 1992 uprising.

Additionally, Jane Twomey’s contributing an article, In

Searching for a Legacy: The Los Angeles Times, Collective

Memory and the 10th Anniversary of the L.A “Riots” also

examines how the Los Angeles Times negatively worked

hard to shape the collective memory of the events of the 10th

anniversary of
the 1992 Los Angeles uprising back into the minds of

people. According to Twomey the Los Angeles Times does

have the power to frame collective memory as with the

case of the 10th anniversary commemoration coverage

thus vividly bringing back strong images of the 1992 riots.

This, she claims also helps to support existing racial

structures and prejudice.

James Spencer’s article also examined how the

neighborhoods that experienced the 1992 riots have fared

economically after 10 years. His article, Los Angeles Since

1992: How Did the Economic Base of Riot-Torn

Neighborhoods Fare After the Unrest? Spencer found out

that, the deep economic divisions existing prior to and which

may have enabled the 1992 riots was still present. Spencer

drew the conclusion after using recently released zip code-

level economic data from the US Census Bureau to estimate

the density and per capital levels of manufacturing, retail

and service jobs in riot areas prior to and after the riots.

Nevertheless, Spencer called on researchers and social policy

formulators to focus their research into the deep seated

economic inequalities existing within the localities where the

study was done. Max Herman also contributed with the

article, Ten Years after: A Critical Review of Scholarship on

the Los Angeles Riot.

According to Herman, after the Los Angeles riots,

three major perspectives have emerged in the work one is

the empirically driving positivist view, a multicultural

ethnographic approach, and a postmodernist critique of

prevailing ideological discourses. Herman argued that,

although these are all radically different yet they do

complement each other to enhance the overall

understanding of the events of 1992. Tiffany Dyan, Kuniko

Monroy, and Daniel Meyers also wrote a contributing

article as a stepping stone towards a broader research on

rioting, titled; In Fanning the Flame: Riot Commissions and

the Mass Media. The authors examined whether the media

critique contained in the Kerner and McCone Commission

Reports of the 1960s

actually led to changes in the media coverage of

subsequent urban unrest. Dyan, Monroy, & Meyers

finding indicates that there has been a significant shift on

the side of the media by responding to critiques about the

way social protest and race are reported. The researchers

admitted that their findings were mixed and much work

is needed to be done. However, they acknowledged that

the media are moving towards the right direction.

Finally, In Remote Control: How Mass Media

Delegitimize Rioting as Social Protest.

Shannon Campbell, Phil Chidester, James Bell & Jason

Royer, claimed that contemporary media cover riots as an

ineffective, illogical protest against an established order, and

they in addition do not see riots as agents for progressive and

social change. According to Campbell, Chidester, Bell, &

Royer, this represents a significant shift from the social

protest of the 1960s thus having an important implication for

contemporary race relations

 The above articles are very useful for examining race

relations in America. Additionally, the Los Angeles uprising

offers a glimpse into America’s dark side as far as social

inequality and poverty are concerned. These articles would

furthermore be useful in shaping people’s views of what

happens in a society experiencing the social conflict of racial

discrimination and social inequalities. The article, Race,

Gender & Class is very valuable to my research because it

addresses the concerns of our cities and also sheds light on

the current social inequalities still existing after the 1992

riots in Los Angeles. Moreover, the authors collectively

could show patterns of social injustice and inequalities

through their articles.

Additionally, their collective writings suggest that

structural functional theory system existed in an America

whose duty it is to protect the rich and powerful thus, any

attempt to rebel through riots and social disobedience

would be crushed. The articles also noted how some
powerful media outlets can use their establishment to

distort and create stereotypical images of people who are

engaged in a collective action towards a positive social

change.

Valier, C. (2003) Foreigners, Crime and Changing

Mobilities. The British Journal of Criminology
43 (1); Criminal JGustice Periodicals pp. 1-21

The above writing is based on the significance of

changing mobilities to theories of crime and punishment

through the critical work of the scholars of the Chicago

school of sociology. The author claimed that, the scholars at

the Chicago school of sociology whose published work on

social disorganization, differential association and culture

conflict in the 1920s and 1930s was very discriminatory

through their concept of identifying and depiction of

different people as inferior, dangerous, criminal, and

amoral. Furthermore, the author argued that, the concepts

of social disorganization, differential association, and

cultural conflict are part of the colonial and national

histories of the United States of America.

She asserted that, the concepts have played a

crucial role in bringing about modern interconnections

between racial differences, criminalization, and national

citizenship.

Additionally, the writer said the distinctions that were

created by the Chicago school are still undergoing

complex transformations thus, bringing into question the

basis and validity of the long held concepts and

paradigms. According to the author, “ It is important to

examine the Chicagoan understanding of the new

mobilities of early twentieth-century America, and to

consider in what respect contemporary mobilities might

render their concepts obsolete” (p.2)

The article is well written and the sources provided are

sufficient to justify its conclusion. Additionally, the article

also makes an original contribution to an existing body of

knowledge by questioning and challenging the premises of

the work of the Scholars at the once famous

Chicago school. This article is very significant because it

indicates in part the intellectual source of racial and

ethnocentrism in America. Valier asserted that, the Scholars

at the Chicago School distant themselves from the concept

of the “melting pot.” The notion of new Americanism,

because, they believe it will lead to the submergence of

separate ethnic identities. Furthermore, one of the scholars,

Stonequist (1937) later points out that, “it was the members

of minority groups that were generally expected to do most

of the melting; the dominant group did not expect to have to

adjust themselves to others” (p.11). Valier in addition

argued that, the Chicago Scholars rather preferred the

notion of incorporation than absorption. According to

Valier, Parks, one of the Chicago scholars wrote that, “…an

unassimilable remainder, the sign of black and yellow skin,

was an effective barrier to integration” (p.13).

This article is also very valuable to my paper because it

I have learnt from the author that, the Chicago Scholars

embarked on token analysis of institutional discrimination.

Furthermore, they ignored the weight of racism in housing

and employment and they overlooked the role of racial

discrimination practices in the criminal justice system.

Valier stated that, a number of infamous criminal trials

stirred debates about racial prejudice within the criminal

justice system, especially the trial and execution of Sassco

and Vanzetti in 1920. The author concluded that, “Of the 25

race riots throughout the United States in the ‘Red Summer’

of 1919, Chicago saw the greatest number of casualties”

(p.16).

West, A, D. (2005) Horton the Elephant is a Criminal:

Using Dr. Seuss to Teach Social Process, C...Journal of
Criminal Justice Education; 16.( 2); Criminal Justice
Periodicals. pp. 45- 55.

The above article is based on the work of Theodor Geisel

popularly known as “Dr.

Seuss”. The article explores his work, Horton the Elephant is

a Criminal, through the eyes of sociological and

criminological theories. The author analyzed several of

Theodor Geisel’s works,

but settled on using one, Horton Hears a Who, to show the

consequence of social stratification and the nature of crime,

punishment, and rehabilitation. The primary purpose of the

analysis is to help teach students through the film, Horton

Hears a Who, about the theories of crime and criminality. In,

Horton Hears a Who, Geisel claimed that the story of the

Horton and the Who’s simply means that everyone in a

society matters, “A person’s a person, no matter how small”

(p.345). Another important point the author also made was

that, the story is also a cautionary tale against racial

prejudice and discrimination. West said Horton the

elephant, was perceived “different” by the jungle residence.

Hence, Horton was “labeled” by Mrs. Jane Kangaroo who

has assumed the role of a “moral entrepreneur,” telling

everyone that Horton was an outcast. The author asserted

that the story is also an indictment of oppressive government

policies and the tendency for political power to stem from

social and economic power. Additionally, the writer stated,

“This represents the common refusal of individuals to

broaden their scope of awareness; reluctance to see beyond

their borders; a type of ethnocentrism and egotism, as well

as fear of the unknown” (p.346).

The above article is very significant and powerful to the

study of current research on racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged people in America, especially

within the criminal justice system. Because, according to the

writer, the story of Horton Hears a Who could also be in

relations to the anti Japanese sentiments that gripped the

nation after the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7th

1941. Thus, any person of Japanese ancestry including

individuals born in the United States was seen as a suspect.

This article makes a special contribution to the existing body

of knowledge because it is the first time someone has

attempted to interpret the work of “Dr. Seuss” from a

sociological and criminological perspective thus, making an

original
contribution to our understanding of the creation and

application of laws, the impact of social stratification, the

pervasive and dangerous influence of social and political

power.

The article is very valuable to my research because it

has taught me and broadened my understanding about

social differentiation and segmentation in structural

functionalism.

Additionally, I will also be able design a similar project in a

future research. The article has furthermore, shown how

some members of society response to a perceived threat to

the social order or the status quo, by emphasizing on racial

differences, prejudicial attitudes, stereotyping and

discrimination. According to the author, sometimes

perceived threat may also lead to a total genocide of

innocent minority groups. The author furthermore, stated

that, the lessons that we can learn from Horton is that, we

should not be afraid when engaging in social activism .We

should continue to urge the powerless to work together and

not be afraid of social integration.

The author in addition, stated that Jane Kangaroo

represents a powerful community leader. She is also elite

who uses her position to elicit societal consensus around her

beliefs. Her son, Joey Kangaroo, represents people in our

society who are mindless and follow authority blindly

without the ability to make independent decisions of their

own. For instance, West argued that, Mrs. Kangaroo could

be representing a powerful interest group. She could also be

representing judgmental society (closed-minded, set,

opposed to change, the status quo). She may also represent

the isolationist and prohibition. The writer pointed to the

role of the media as an example of Mrs. Jane Kangaroo.

This article is very powerful because it shed light on some

important issues relating to crime control and law

 enforcement. The author concluded that, through

government messages that perpetuate fear of crime and

feelings of increased risked can control the location of the

population (whites in certain areas, minorities in certain

areas), crime control may be simplified.

She asserted that, “If a particular racial/ethnic group also

happens to be concentrated in that area; it is the logical

target of enforcement. This perpetuates the stereotype that

more crime is concentrated in the minority communities,

leading to more white light…” (p.353).

 Literature Review Essay

Social Change, be it positive or negative has been the

driving force behind societal development. Theories of social

change and how they relate to poverty and social inequality

have been identified and discussed in the Breadth

component of this KAM. Current research about positive

social change relating to minority and economically

disadvantaged offenders within the criminal justice system

has also been examined through the annotated

bibliographies above. After carefully analyzing all the

evidence presented in the literature to ascertain whether

there have been any significant development or progress as

to how racial minorities and economically disadvantaged

people are treated in America and within the criminal

justice system in particular, the verdict shows that little

gains have been made within the criminal justice system and

much more work remains to be done.

 The evidence in the literature reviews point to the fact

that the United States is still widely polarized: white and

people of color, and rich versus poor. Additionally, due to

centuries of immigration, America’s population is

extraordinarily diversified culturally, compared to other

high-income nations in the world thus it has also led to a

weaker national social fabric. Theories of classical social

change examined in the Breadth component indicate that

social change should lead to progress and development of

the human race. However, current research evidence shows

otherwise for the racial minorities and economically

disadvantaged people in American and within the criminal

justice system in particular.

SOCIAL CHANGE IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICA

 Positive social changes within the criminal justice

system in America have been very sluggish for racial

minorities and the economically disadvantaged. This is not

surprising because current research into American

literature on criminal justice indicates that social evolutional

theory and social structural functionalism are still being

utilized towards the treatment of racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged people (Cole, 1999; Reiman,

2003; Western, 2006). In other words, the theory of

structural functionalism whose core belief is about law and

order is very prevalent and well entrenched in the criminal

justice system. Nevertheless, unintentional as it might seem,

Robert Merton the notable contemporary sociologist called

unintended consequences, latent functions. Consequently,

failure or omission to act, also constitute a guilty plea.

Hence, how could it be justifiable to say that America has

actually reached the civilized stage? For instance, what does

it take a society to get to the civilized stage? America could

be considered a civilized society from an evolutional stages

point of view, since it has progressed faster than most

countries in the world. However, America still lacks behind

the rest of the advanced countries because, America locks up

a higher percentage of its citizens in jails than any other

advanced country in the world (Walker et al., 2002).

Social conflict theorists analyze and study social

inequalities and poverty through the ongoing social conflict

between dominant groups and other various categories of

minority groups: The rich versus economically

disadvantaged people and white people in relation to racial

minorities. Social conflict theory argues that all stratified

societies have two major social groupings made up of a

ruling class who control, exploit, and oppress the working

class.

Additionally, conflict theory also assumes that the existence

of a structural differentiation is one of the major sources of

conflict in a modern society (Macionis, 2003; Kent &

Jacobs, 2004).
 Current research, moreover, shows that, there are

structural differentiations in our societies, especially

when it comes to the treatment of racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged offenders going through

the criminal justice system (Ruggiero, 2003).

Importantly, current research in the literature has revealed

that more work needs to be done within the criminal justice

system in order to build a fair and just society in America

(Reiman, 2004). Most of the issues and themes identified

above in the current literature reviews are consistent with

the theories examined within the Breadth component of

this KAM. However, a full analysis of these issues and

themes generated would help shed more light on the

prevailing condition in America in light of positive social

change and development that has taken place in every

aspect of the American way of life. Additionally, social

change in the 1990s within the criminal justice system

rather led to the building of more prisons at an alarming

rate. Current social change has also led to the reduction in

the crime rate, because an additional two million more

people are now incarcerated than there was in 1990

(Reiman, 2004).

Contemporary U.S. Sociologist Robert K. Merton had

asserted that some social functions are more obvious than

others. He pointed to manifest functions as the recognized

and intended consequences of any social pattern. For

instance, the obvious function of this country’s criminal

justice system is to protect its citizens from crimes and also

to discourage further crime through retribution, deterrence,

and the rehabilitation of offenders. However, these functions

may not always be in the best interest of society because,

criminals tend to bond, and criminal attitudes and skills are

strengthened over time. Once people are incarcerated their

social ties to the outside world also dissolve, which make it

difficult for them to gain meaningful employment once they

are released. Therefore, the likeliness of a released offender

committing more crime becomes a possibility (Mann, 1993;

Shannon et al., 1991).

 The literature reviews have shed light on some

important themes which I believe have contributed to the

lack of positive social change in America as far as minorities

and the economically disadvantaged are concerned. The

literature reviews have also indicated that the structural

functional system is the mode of operation in America and to

some degree this resulted in social inequality, tension and

divisions among the classes; white people versus racial

minorities, ethnic and gender discriminations. However, a

large portion of the research literature has pointed to

conflict theory as the compromising system that should be

employed in order to create balanced societies in America.

Finally, some of the most visible deficiencies and themes

discovered in the literature reviews are in the following

areas:

1. Racial Minorities, Economically

disadvantaged people and Law Enforcement

Officers

2. Fear, Mistrust, and Tension between the Races,

3. Mass Urban Poverty

4. Theoretical Perspectives on Inequality and Crime

5. Inequality in the Criminal Justice System

6. Large Racial Minority Imprisonment

RACIAL MINORITIES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

OFFICERS

The fragile relationship between racial minorities,

economically disadvantaged people and law enforcement

officers could be explained in Elaine Sharp’s (2003)

Policing Urban America: A New Look at the Politics of

Agency Size, argued that, a conflict theory thesis of a

racial threat is one of the reasons why the size of urban

police forces continues to rise although, crime continues to

go down. Sharp (2003) employed a conflict thesis data, from

the 1960s and 1970s, to drive her point across. According to

the thesis, racial minorities are seen as a threat therefore,

the police force size is proportional to the scale of minority

group presence. Sharp, in the year 2000, conducted her

research in 66 cities across the United States, with a

population of at least 250,000. The results indicated that the

size of a contemporary urban police force is not only shaped

by incidents of the 1960-1970 racial unrest in America but

also racial uprising in the 1980s and 1990s and the rise of

current racial minorities in the cities in addition to violent

crimes.

Sharp has asserted that, the size of the police force is

due to how politicians and local law enforcement agencies

have publicized crime events. She claimed they use rhetoric,

and the misrepresentation of crime figures to convince the

public that crime has become a major problem that needs to

be giving attention through the expansion of the police force.

Sharp also used the Inequality Thesis to support her claim

that economic inequality in a community is the source of the

threat, rather than the presence of large racial minorities.

Thus, the wealthy class would seek to protect themselves

from the economically disadvantaged people thereby

protecting the status- quo by enhancing the police ability to

maintain law and order. Furthermore, Sharp argued that

the Racial Disturbance Thesis also explains why apart from

the size of racial minorities and their economic inequality,

there could still be an increase in the size of the urban police

force. Hence, the Los Angeles riot of April 29-May1, 1992

serves as a prime example when law enforcement officers

involved in beating Rodney King were acquitted because, the

riots required the mobilization of 14,000 additional law

enforcement officers beyond the boundaries of the city

(Sharp 2003).
FEAR, MISTRUST AND TENSION BETWEEN THE RACES

The presence of fear, mistrust and tension between

racial minorities, economically disadvantaged people and

law enforcement officers has led to a negative if not a less

favorable attitude between urban citizens and law

enforcement officers in urban centers. Sharp (2003) had

already indicated through her research that the increase in

size of a minority population is also an indication of a threat

to the dominant class to maintain the current status-quo.

Racial minorities, who live in the inner-city areas, are, by

and large, also economically disadvantaged and poor.

Therefore, they may in addition become victims of the

attentions of a larger police presence. In other advanced

countries according to the current research review (Kent &

Jacobs, 2004) police also use social divisions and coercive

control techniques to control ethnic minorities and the

economically disadvantaged. This is because social conflict

theory suggests that, economic stratification also poses a

threat to a well established order.

Kent & Jacobs’ (2004) research titled Social Divisions

and Coercive Control in Advanced Societies: Law

Enforcement ... Social Problems, hypothesize that, an

increase in greater social economic inequality should lead to

greater capacity for coercive control by the police. The

primary objective is to find out if this hypothesis holds true

in eleven industrialized countries around the world

including the United States. According to the researchers,

the police are the primary agency responsible for preserving

order but besides the United States, little effect is known of

economic divisions on police size in other advanced

countries. According to the researchers, the presence of a

large racial minority group, high unemployment rate, rapid

economic development, urbanization, crime, and social

disorganization should be factors that should lead to greater

coercive control from the police. The results of the findings

suggest that it
is only in the United States that the presence of large

racial minority groups led to greater coercive police

control.

The results also concluded that, threats to internal

stability due to economic stratification are most likely to

produce subsequent expansions of the police force. Eleven

Nations were involved in the study: Australia, Belgium,

Canada, Denmark, France, the Republic of Ireland, Italy,

Norway, Sweden, and the United States. However, the

results indicate that the police in America to some degree do

use more coercive force to control their urban population

than do the rest of the countries involved. Furthermore, the

research also indicates that it is only in the United States

that the presence of a large racial minority group, and the

economically disadvantaged that have led to an increase in

the strength of a police force. This to some degree shows

why many urban residents or racial minorities are less likely

to have favorable opinions of law enforcement officers in the

inner cities.

Racial minorities and economically disadvantaged

people’s frustrations and anger could also be evident in the

Racial Disturbances Thesis, put forward by Elaine Sharp in

relation to the 1992 Los Angeles riot. Another important

article that, additionally, focuses and shares similarity on

minority frustration and anger with law enforcement is,

Race, Gender, & Class (2004) edited by Jane Twomey. The

article made it clear that we should be learning a valuable

lesson from the 1992 Los Angeles disturbances because they

were some of the most devastating urban unrests of the 20 th

century in America.

The article also featured an article written by William

Solomon: Images of Rebellion where the author examines

how reporters covered Rodney King’s beating as a

symbolic image, one which reflects the perverse logic of a

modern capitalist society, sanctioning physical and

structural violence against a racial minority group.

Solomon argued that the news media

portrayal of Rodney King’s beating represents the deep

sited divisions within the society with structural functional

theorists who see the riots themselves as unacceptable and a

waste of time, and social conflict theorists who, on the other

hand, see the riots as a justifiable response to oppressive

and abusive law enforcement organization.

The fear, mistrust and tension between racial

minorities, economically disadvantaged people continues to

rage on and was recently captured in a research paper by

Lurigio, Greenleaf, & Flexon (2009) "The Effects of Race on

Relationships with the Police: A Survey of African American

and Latino Youths in Chicago.” The research compared

African American and Latino youths’ attitudes, feelings, and

behavioral intentions towards the police. The research

findings concluded that there were several similarities

between Latinos and African American students on the

dependent measures. According to the researchers, both

African Americans and Latinos are less likely to assist the

police or believe that the police care about their

neighborhood, especially when they have been stopped and

disrespected by the police before.

Racial minority groups do have a similar perception of

the police even though historically they have nothing in

common. However, racial minorities do share similar

feelings like fear of crime in their communities, safety of

their children and generally how they are all treated by law

enforcement officers. The study points to the fact that

African Americans of all ages have a less desirable attitude

towards the police than whites. The research also indicates

that, African Americans are more likely to become victims of

crime than any other racial group. Additionally, African

Americans are further likely to have negative contact with

the police. Moreover, they are also disproportionately

stopped, harassed, and mistreated than the rest of the

population.

Consequently, they are also less likely to report

incidents of crimes or cooperate with law enforcement

officials.
 Racial minorities and economically disadvantaged

people in urban centers direct their fear, mistrust and

frustrations on law enforcement officers and people who do

occupy high positions. They believe these people have

advanced knowledge on social issues and could bring about

positive social change, but believe that most of these

intellectuals work against them. In Claire Valier’s article,

Foreigners, Crime and Changing Mobilities, she explored the

theories of crime and punishment through the work of the

scholars from the Chicago School of Sociology. Valier

argued that the concept of social disorganization,

differential association and culture conflict are part of

colonial and national histories of the United States of

America.

The author claimed that these distinctions help

perpetuate stereotypes against racial minorities. Thus,

people of different ethnic backgrounds were depicted as

inferior, dangerous, and criminals. She argued that the

writings of these notable men in the 1920s and 1930s divided

people, created fear, hatred, and cultural conflict in

America. According to Valier, for the great men of the

Chicago School the word cosmopolitanism means

contradistinction to ethnocentrism, and xenophobia. Valier

asserted that, this particular point is important and relevant

because it has had a great impact on current scholars of

urban sociology, who, nevertheless, do not focus on social

movements as a vehicle for collective social change. As an

alternative, they rather explore fear, crime and the dangers

that could be found in today’s cities. (Valier, 2003) Valier,

further said the Chicago Scholars interpreted cultural

conflict as an individual problem which needed adjustments.

Valier, referred to the work of one of the students of

the Chicago Scholar, Everret Stonequist (1937) to show how

discriminatory the Chicago Scholars were. Stonequist

developed the concept of the marginal man as an immigrant

faced with the dilemma of having a mixed blood. According

to Stonequist, the marginal man even- though free from the

power of social
control through his ability to move freely from one locality

to another still finds himself a victim of uncertainties and

stigmatizations.

Stonequist also hammered his point across by drawing on

the work of the prominent first African American

sociologist, W.E.B. Du Bois, who wrote The Soul of Black

Folks (1903). Stonequist joked that the blood mix that Du

Bios described, is subject to both racial prejudice and

cultural conflict thus, feeling the pressure of being pulled

and pressure from both sides thereby producing an

ambivalent attitude of pride, shame and love and hate of

oneself. Stonequist asserted that, Du Bios could make an

adjustment to his predicament by becoming a minority

group leader.

Furthermore, Stonequist claimed that people with

similar problems became withdrawn and isolated, while for

others, it becomes only temporarily resolved, leading to

personal disorganization, expressed in delinquency, crime,

suicide, and mental instability (Valier, 2003). Stonequist,

once again, drew on a chapter in Du Bois’ book, The Souls

of Black Folk who attacked the passiveness of Booker T.

Washington of the Tuskegee Institute for allowing his

program to be used for a gradual assimilation approach

without demanding the voting rights for minorities. Du Bios

concluded that such a strategy and conciliatory approach

amounts to the acceptance of the inferiority complex of the

Negro race (Du Bois 1903/ 1989:43).

Other scholars who added their voice to the criticism

were Chicago based Jane Addams and Edith Abbott, who

also pointed to several factors as being the reason why black

people or racial minorities have fears, mistrust and

frustration of the existing social system. They pointed to

discrimination in the workplace, housing segregation,

economic exploitation, and racial segregation seen in the

city (Valier, 2003). Another important point Valier’s article

made is that, between 1917 and 1919, 26 black homes were

destroyed with fire bombs in formerly all-white

neighborhoods. Furthermore, realtors who sold houses

for blacks also became targets of hate crime (Valier,

2003).

Today few things have changed because the melting pot

often talked about in America is more for racial minority

groups to start doing the melting to meet the standard of the

dominant group who is not required to do any adjustment

of their own

(Valier, 2003) Modern day assimilation means racial

minority groups must conform to specifically Anglo-Saxon

tradition. The final argument made by Valier’s article was

that, the Chicago Scholars’ view of American nationality

should be one that is made up of a mosaic rather than a

single entity, thus, the absorption of the melting pot concept

is the denial of one self, and the Chicago scholars would have

rather preferred incorporation (Valier, 2003).

Fear, mistrust and tension between the races have

additionally, been captured in Vincenzo Ruggiero’s article

titled, Fear and Change in the City (2003) wherein the author

called for the reorientation of all scholars involved with

urban sociology and the sociology of deviance in an urban

context. Ruggiero argued in the article that something needs

to be done if a positive social change is to return to our

cities. Since current urban sociologists and sociologists of

deviance have forgotten the fact that they have to recognize

the subjective decision-making processes at work in the

depiction of urban centers in their work. According to the

author, early classical sociologists do recognize the notion of

social change as collective social forces with the potential

power to bring about social change. However, current

researchers have abandoned the notion of collective action

and innovation as an analytical study of the city.

Additionally, they have instead instituted in its place the

study of fear, crime and, urban decay.

 The author said the current trend for urban researchers

now is to portray cities as a transitional living nightmare

with booming crime rates and fear. Furthermore, current

researchers
also separate the cities from the people who live in them

and focus their attention on the anti- social behavior and

disorders in the cities. The writer argued that

contemporary urban sociologists and sociologists of

deviance must redirect their attention and start focusing

on problems facing the urban centers by applying the

social conflict theories for social change. Finally, the

author believes that this would stimulate and generate a

positive and a pro-active debate. In a nutshell, the research

shows that only few contemporary researchers have been

re- oriented towards a social conflict theory, to enable

positive social changes in the cities.

Moreover, this attitude towards the city’s problems have

made people start casting doubt on whether our urban

centers have the ability to bounce back once again, or if

even there is a real hope for a true revival of the American

inner cities.
 According to the author, students of urban sociology

were faced with the choice of either focusing on the

illegitimate activities like, urban crimes or instead focus on

social conflict and change in the city. However, the author

said some chose to focus on the city as a frightening

aggregation of individuals and concentrated on fear for the

gathering of people and different groups in the urban

environment including the wave of increasing immigrants

with their cultural diversity. According to the writer, this is

how the sociology of deviance started independently

(Ruggiero, 2003). Ruggiero argued that many contemporary

urban sociologists and sociologists of deviance were

influenced by the work of classical writers like Tonnies, who

classified urban life as mechanical, and rural life as organic

thus, making the city appear dysfunctional that produced

only devastating mobs, instead of people with the ability to

come together for a social change.

 Ruggiero also said, sociologists of the Chicago School

were additionally influenced by the work of Simmel on the

ideal of extreme phenomena, generated by the city life, and

this,
furthermore, attests to their selective nature of thinking and

orientation. The writer argued that, the sociologists of the

Chicago School, took Durkheim’s ideas of crime, but broke

away from the positivist tradition of studying individual

pathologies or groupings as objects of social conditions. By

so doing, the so called transitional areas inhabited by a

succession of the migrant group were also classified as

criminal activities generating centers. Thus, little efforts

were devoted into how to mobilize collective action in this

area for a positive social change.

MASS URBAN POVERTY

Social change is a collective effort, and it involves all

stake holders. It is moreover, important for scholars and

students of sociology, and urban studies to focus on a social

conflict theory when studying problems facing the inner

cities, and the criminal justice system. The majority of the

people who become victims of the criminal justice system

are also victims of their own neighborhoods. Poverty has

also been indicted as one of the causes of crime in urban

centers across the United States. Furthermore, poverty has

equally been the main culprit in most crimes committed in

Latin American Countries. According to Hojman, D. (2004)

Inequality, unemployment and crime in Latin American cities,

crime rates are very high in Latin American cities,

especially in places where there is diversity between and

within the cities.

Hojman (2004) asserted that, the causes of the crime

wave have been attributed to poverty and social inequalities,

and unemployment. Some experts think that poverty and

social inequality in Latin America are too deeply rooted.

However, there is one thing both sides agreed on, and that is

regardless of the behavioral parameter values, deterrence

does not work in Latin America due to official incompetence

and corruption of law enforcement personnel, the judiciary

and personnel in the prison system. This is largely what

makes the Latin American urban problem different from

the urban problems in the United States. In America, there

is less
corruption within the police force in comparison to many

Latin American countries. The law enforcement officials

are competent, and the court and prison systems are all

well equipped.

Hojman (2004) concluded that poverty and inequality

in Latin American cities are related to deficiencies in

education, the labor market, and inadequate

macroeconomic stabilization and growth strategies plus

discrimination based on ethnic and geographical lines.

However, there are similarities in the causes of a crime in

Latin American countries and the United States. First to

top the list as this research has shown is poverty, and social

inequalities. Furthermore, in the United States, most of the

poor people are also racial minorities, who had been

subjected to past racial segregation, housing and job

discrimination. Moreover, racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged people in America,

additionally, face the same problem of an inadequate and

ineffective school system. Therefore, their chance of getting

equally good education and a well paying job is also

affected. Equally important is the fact that, most minorities

living in the urban centers are either unemployed or are

engaged in low paying jobs thus, continuing the urban cycle

of poverty.

Poverty and social inequalities in American inner cities

has also contributed largely to urban violence and crime. In

the Breadth component of this KAM, many theories of social

change and societal development were examined and social

conflict theory argued that the existence of stratification and

social inequality in a society lead to a social conflict. Thus,

poverty and social inequality in American inner cities would

undoubtedly lead to a social conflict in the form of deviance

behavior, and different types of illegal activities. This also

explains why there are disproportionately large number of

racial minorities and economically disadvantaged people

incarcerated under the American criminal justice system.

The research conducted by

Stretesky, Schuck, & Hogan (2000) examined the

association between poverty clustering and violent crime

rates.

The researchers used data from 236 cities and for

each city; they computed a poverty cluster score that

measures the proportion of contiguous high poverty census

tracts. These researchers claimed that there was not much

evidence to support a direct relationship between the

spatial clustering of high poverty tracts and murder, rape,

robbery, and assault. However, there was a strong

correlation between the variable of poverty when it

interacted with poverty clustering and high homicide rates.

The researchers argued that more research needs to be

done in our urban centers in order to understand the actual

crisis facing our cities. Some previous studies done on

urban poverty and crime seek to down play the strong

correlation between the problems facing urban centers and

the causes of crimes.

Nevertheless, a recent research project titled,

Reassessing Nonlinearity in the Urban Disadvantage /Violent

Crime Relationship by Lance Hannon and Peter Knapp

(2003) seeks to correct the discrepancies caused by

methodological bias from log transformation about the

urban disadvantage and violent relationship to the attention

of sociologists and criminologists who are becoming

increasingly worried about the nonlinearly and interaction

effect. The authors claimed that some research and studies

suggest positive correlation between neighborhood

disadvantage and violent crime; whereas other research also

indicates that there is a negative relationship between

neighborhood disadvantage and violent crime. According to

these writers, these inconsistencies are due partially to the

lack of logarithmic transformation in criminological

research.
 The authors, claimed that though, logarithmic

transformation has lots of benefits, there are also

drawbacks. The authors asserted that, a recent research

done by Krivo and Peterson

(1996:620) supported their idea that there is a positive

correlation between socioeconomic disadvantage and

crime which disadvantages neighborhoods. Additionally,

there was also an unusually high crime rate in

comparison to neighborhoods with a relatively moderate

or low level of socioeconomic disadvantage.

Poverty and social inequality have also led to high

recidivism rates among racial minorities and economically

disadvantaged offenders. Holtfreter, el al. (2004) argued in

this research that poverty does have a strong bearing on

women offenders once they are released from prison.

According to the writers, this eventually leads to recidivism

thus costing the State more money. The study focuses on the

effect of poverty and state aid to women offenders and

recidivism. The researchers used 134 female felony

offenders from the community correctional facilities in the

State of Oregon and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul,

Minnesota to do a self report of re-arrest and probation or

violations over six- months time periods.

According to the researchers, the results of the study

based on logistic regression analyses indicate that poverty

status increases the probability of re-arrest by a factor of

4:6, and it increases the odds of supervisory violations by a

factor of 12:7. However, risk scores like poverty status failed

to predict recidivism. The research also found out that

specifically among poor women offenders, providing state-

sponsored support to address short- term needs like housing

reduces the chances of recidivism by 83%. Thus, community

correction officers who help make state capital available

promote empowerment for women and reduce the odds of

recidivism among women. Finally, after assessing the

influence poverty has on recidivism among women offenders

the importance of this study is to draw the attention on the

role poverty in general plays and why it is important to

reduce its effect on everybody.
 Thus, being poor increases your chances of engaging

in a criminal wrong doing than when you are part of a

middle and upper class group. Additionally, the authors

stated that, the United States has the highest poverty rate

for female-headed households and also the largest gender

gap related to poverty (Holtfreter et al 2004).

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON INEQUALITY AND

CRIME

In a theoretical perspective of crime and social

inequalities, Theodor Geisel popularly known as “Dr.

Seuss” uses his work, Horton the Elephant is a Criminal to

explore crime/social disadvantage through the eyes of

sociological and criminological theories. The author

analyzes several of his works but used, Horton Hears a Who

to show the consequence of social stratification and the

nature of crime, punishment, and rehabilitation. According

to the author, the primary purpose of this analysis is to

help teach students through the film, Horton Hears a Who

about the theories of crime and criminality. West (2005)

argued that this method of teaching is also very valuable

because it shows us what goes on within our society,

unconsciously, everyday, which might constitute social

conflict and labeling theory, social differentiation, and

segmentation in structural functionalism. The article shows

that some members of society respond to a perceived threat

to the social order or the status quo by over emphasizing

racial differences, prejudicial attitudes, stereotyping and

discrimination. Hence, racial minorities and economically

disadvantaged people once again become the victim of the

vicious cycle of poverty. According to social conflict theory,

poverty and social inequalities thrive in a capitalist society

because the laws and norms reflect the interest of the

powerful members in the society. Thus, those who

threatened the very foundation of the system are

considered to be deviant.
 Conflict theory also asserted that the social injury

caused by society’s elites is less likely to be considered

criminal due to their social standing. However, when racial

minorities and economically disadvantaged people caused

social injury, they are generally labeled as deviants and

criminals. Understanding urban poverty and social

inequalities from a theoretical perspective helps us treat the

less unfortunate ones in our society with the same respect

and dignity accorded each member of the society. Urban

poverty has increased because jobs and industry that were

once located in the cities are now being located in suburban

industrial and office parks leaving many large inner city

residents without jobs (Walker, Spohn & DeLone, 2002).

Most inner city residents also do not have

transportation to enable them get to these suburban

businesses. Thus, the geographical shift of employment had

as well affected the job quantity and quality available to

racial minorities and economically disadvantage people

living in urban centers. Moreover, the effect of the economic

loss to these urban centers has had a devastating impact on

neighborhoods. These distressing impacts include high

unemployment rates, persistent high crime rates, as well as

increasing levels of physical violence. Additionally, the fear

of physical harm and crime makes other law abiding people

move out thereby increasing the concentration of the

unemployed and consistent offenders (Mann, 1993; Shannon

et al., 1991).

Furthermore, due to safety, inability to secure insurance

and loss of revenue many small businesses also move out of

the cities. Because there is no competition for the remaining

businesses in the cities, they tend to increase their prices on

goods and services. Finally, drug and drug life activity

becomes the dominant trade in the inner cities with most

customers coming from the suburbs. Children in the process

are exposed to gangs and the illegal activity of drug
peddling but due to peer pressure, they cannot resist the

temptation (Walker, Spohn & DeLone, 2002. Western,

2006)

INEQUALITY IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Due to the above discussed problems, racial minorities

and economically disadvantaged offenders are

disproportionately arrested and formally arraigned through

the criminal justice system. This point has been validated

through the work of Walker, et al 2002. The authors

utilized most recent research documents on patterns of

criminal behavior and victimization, police practices, court

processing and sentencing, the death penalty, and

correctional programs for the study. The authors quoted

the great African American scholar W.E.B. Du Bois, who

said the problem of the twentieth century is nothing but

race and racial discrimination, and to some extent the

authors consider that, race is still the problem in this twenty

first century considering the current treatment of racial

minorities under our criminal justice system.

The authors supported their claim by citing data which

suggested that, although, African Americans represented

only 12% of the US population in 1996, they made up about

49.4% of the prison population. Additionally, the rates of

incarceration for African Americans were seven times more

than Whites. Moreover, about 40 percent of people who

were on death row, and about 53 percent of all executed

inmates since 1930 were Black. The authors stated that

racial minorities are treated more harshly than whites at

some point in the criminal justice system, especially when it

comes to the death penalty. The evidence of systematic racial

discrimination, according to Walker et al., (2002) precedes

the civil rights movements which were characterized by

open discrimination directed against African Americans and

other racial minorities at all stages of the criminal justice

system.
 They also argued that despite all the significant changes

made in the criminal justice system, racial inequities still

exist and African Americans and other racial minorities

silently continue to suffer both overt and subtle

discrimination at the hands of the police. Furthermore,

racial minorities are more likely to be shot and killed by the

police than whites, and they also suffer being arrested, and

being victimized by excessive physical force. The authors

additionally point to current statistics to show that there is

still compelling evidence that discrimination exists within

the criminal justice system when it comes to bailing,

charging, plea bargaining, jury selection, and juvenile

justice processing. They, furthermore, noticed

discrimination in sentencing, and additionally, found out

that some judges in some jurisdictions continue to impose

harsher sentences on African American offenders who

murder or rape whites. However, these same judges are

more lenient on whites who victimize African Americans.

Discrimination against racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged offenders has been reviewed

in the literatures by current criminologists and

sociologists. David Cole’s book, No Equal Justice: Race and

Class in the Criminal Justice System was reviewed by

Dennis (2001). According to Dennis, the book certainly

makes a strong argument for the inequality existing in the

American Criminal Justice System. The author, David

Cole argued that the criminal justice system is based on

two systems, one serving the rich and the other serving the

poor. O.J. Simpson’s case was a typical example of how

one could be a member of a racial minority, yet financially

powerful enough to make White America realized that it

has two criminal justice systems.

To indicate that there is no equal treatment for racial

minorities and the economically disadvantaged within the

criminal justice system; Cole cited the case of Florida v.

Bostwick, to show how discriminatory the system is when it

comes to administering equal justice. According

to Cole, Bostwick was searched in a bus and the police

found one pound of cocaine and arrested him. However, in

Terry v. Ohio only probable cause was allowed, yet Terry

was carrying a weapon. Cole’s point was that, both

Bostwick and Terry should have been subjected to equal

treatment under the law. But because Bostwick was black

and a racial minority, his appeal for equal treatment fell on

deaf ears. The court threw out his argument of the probable

cause, and said the police have the right to search at will.

However, Terry who rather happened to be carrying a

weapon was allowed to invoke the probable cause which

prevents the police authority to search him at will.

Cole, additionally, cited pre-arrest profiling, inadequate

counsels and very harsh sentencing given to racial minorities

as some of the existing evidence of discriminatory practices.

Furthermore, Cole suggested that the legitimacy of the

criminal justice system is vital if minority confidence in the

system is to develop. One way of doing this is to eliminate

double standards.

Positive social change within the criminal justice system

has been a very slow process. Therefore, a large number

of racial minorities and economically disadvantaged

offenders find themselves being sentenced to terms of

imprisonment.

In reviewing the literature, it also came to light that

38% of all black adult men in the State of Oklahoma have

been convicted of a felony. K.C. Moon the Commissioner

stated that the finding was not due to racism or unjustly

treatment of blacks, but instead it is due to poverty.

Furthermore, he admitted that the result was due to socio-

economic problems than racial discrimination.

Additionally, he said blacks are statistically poorer than

whites (Anonymous, 2006). Western, (2006) also added his

voice against the massive imprisonment of racial minorities

and economically disadvantaged offenders under the

criminal justice system in his book titled, Punishment and

Inequality in America. Western asserted that mass

incarceration of
poor African American men leads to the breakdown of the

society units within racial minorities and economically

disadvantaged families. The author also claimed that there

are numerous consequences that await incarcerated racial

minority and economically disadvantaged men once they

get back from prison. Thus, with labels attached to them,

they have little prospects in finding any meaningful

employment. Additionally, these men also do not have any

income to support a family. The author challenges

traditional assertions of incarceration as a means of dealing

with crime because it also broadens the scope of social

inequalities.

According to the author, the book is not just about

crime and deviance but on a larger canvas it is more a story

about race and poverty in a great, rich country. Western

stated that towards the last decades of the twentieth century

the American criminal justice systems was uncertain about

prison rehabilitation projects that were first attempted in

New York and Pennsylvania. As a result, prison has become

exclusively for incapacitation, deterrence, and punishment.

According to the writer, research has shown that between

1970 and 2003, state and federal prisons grew seven times

to accommodate 1.4 million convicted felons serving at least

one year behind bars. Offenders held at county jails,

awaiting trial or serving short sentences added another

seven hundred thousand by 2003. The researcher also noted

that, 4.7 million people were under probation and parole

supervision.

The author, as well, maintained that information

obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports of

2004 recorded that over 12% of African American males,

aged twenty-five to twenty nine were behind bars, prison or

jail. The report also stated that, about 30% of black men

born in the late 1960s without a high school level education

had served time in prison, and 60% of them who may be in

their mid-thirties have a prison record. Furthermore, the

author argued that by 2000, over one million black children

– 9% of those under eighteen - had a father

in prison or jail. The author added that, although it has

been argued that incarceration may prevent those who are

locked up from committing further crimes in the society.

But once they are released, they have only few resources to

start with and fewer chances of gaining any meaningful

employment, even to an extent of getting someone to

marry. Hence, crime and opportunistic criminal behavior

becomes inevitable or an inviting alternative (Western,

2006; Mann, 1993).

LARGE RACIAL MINORITY IMPRISONMENT

Based on the above current literature reviews one could

clearly observe the social inequalities existing within

American society, especially within the criminal justice

system. It is assumed that social change and societal

development tend to bring upward mobility and equal and

fair chances to all members in the society regardless of the

racial and economic background. The American criminal

justice system still operates within the context of structural

functionalism. Structural functionalism is also practiced

unconsciously in societies where stratification and

segmentation exists.

In Reiman’s, (2008) The Rich Get Richer and the Poor

Get Prison, the author commented on an announcement by

the British government to spend 1.2 billion Pounds Sterling

to build new prison places by 2014 to increase the prison

capacity from 81,500 to 96,000.

According to the report, the current prisons are

overcrowded thus police cells are temporarily being used.

The author said, the British government’s decision to build

more prisons may be the only choice but, it also clearly

points to the new direction the criminal justice system is

embarking on. That is people who breaks the law must be

punished through incarceration. The report stated that,

Britain is as well putting more of its citizens behind bars

than almost any other democracy except the United States.

The Former British Home Secretary, Michael Howard was

the first to use the slogan, “Prison Works”, to signal the

departure from rehabilitation to punishment. Today,

proponents of additional prison places have also taken to

the same slogan.

According to Reiman (2008) some experts in Britain

believe that it is cheaper to imprison a person at an annual

cost of 38,000 Pounds Sterling instead of having a persistent

offender on the streets. Interestingly, Jeffrey Reiman’s

(2004) book, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison:

Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice, also wrote that, the

aim of the criminal justice system is to protect the American

public from the threat of crime from the poor but not to

prevent it, and neither is it there to provide justice to all.

The author claimed that the failure of the justice system to

eliminate crime is by design, to convince all stakeholders for

their justification in holding and imprisoning a large

proportion of underprivileged criminals. The writer said the

source of crime, in our inner cities has long been known to

include, poverty, slums, and unemployment. However, no

step has been taken to improve the livelihoods of inner city

residents. Reiman argued that, based on current research, it

is no longer a secret that, poverty, exacerbates criminality

behavior and people quest for property accounts for 90% of

the crime rate.

Society is additionally aware that prison undermines

human dignity and ex-convicts do not have job opportunities

due to stigmatization. Many inmates come back from prison

with high hopes of getting integrated into their communities,

and also with the hope of living productive lives. However,

society is less receptive to former prison inmates which make

it very difficult for them to gain any meaningful

employment. As a result, most poor racial minorities become

disillusioned about society and many return to their old

lifestyles to make a living. Furthermore, economically

disadvantaged people are more likely to get arrested than

are the rich for the same offence. Additionally, the

economically deprived people are more likely to be charged

than the
wealthy. Moreover, they are also more likely to be

convicted. Once they are convicted, they are equally more

probable to be sentenced to prison than their rich

counterparts or members of the middle and upper classes.

Thus, the composition of the American prison system is

made up, by and large, by racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged people (Reiman, 2004).

As part of his book introduction, Professor Jeffrey

Reiman said, it is his view that the social order is responsible

for most of the social crimes prevailing in our society. He

argued that, due to the nature of American individualism

and its economic competitiveness, the poor are pressured to

enhance themselves or achieve an economic position by

every means available to them. Furthermore, this social

competition degrades and humiliates the losers who are

more likely to be, from the economically disadvantaged, or a

racial minority.
GLOBAL PICTURE OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITIES

In conclusion, the plight of racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged people in America must be

clearly understood. Therefore, it would be better to

appreciate the global picture of poverty and social

inequality, and the impact it has on people’s lives across the

world. Mackenzie, (2006) broadened our horizon to the

international level, to understand the role poverty and social

inequality play around the world. Mackenzie’s article is

relevant to our understanding of poverty and social

inequalities as it relates to racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged offenders within the American

criminal justice system.

Additionally, it may contribute towards the building of a

fair and just society in America. Furthermore, there are

important points and lessons we can draw from this

article. The article will also challenge those of us who

believe that American is not in the position of solving the

problems of its racial minorities and the economically

disadvantaged.
 Mackenzie’s article began with the G8 summit held in

Gleneagles in July 2005. The meeting was attended by

representatives of the 8 richest countries in the world

chaired and led by the United States. On top of their agenda

was to forgive 100% of all the debt of about 40 billion dollars

owed by 18 of the world’s poorest countries. In return, these

countries would implement and maintain macroeconomic,

poverty reduction and structural reform policies satisfactory

to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The first question we should ask is why they gave the 40

billion dollars? Secondly, is there any particular reason why

they have decided to forgive this debt? According to the

author, in total, 38 countries were considered Highly

Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). The importance of this

move to forgive the debt of these poor countries is the

realization that poverty creates a hardship and also many

lives would be saved since part of the money could be

diverted into other social programs to alleviate hardships in

those countries.

To understand the magnitude of hardship these poor

countries go through, Mackenzie (2006) provided us with the

staggering statistical figures. According to him, 47% of the

total world population earns one-quarter percent of global

income. One- quarter percent is different from one-quarter

of the world income. Mackenzie (2006) reminded us that,

one-fifth of the world population still lives in poverty and out

of the 6 billion human beings, 2.8 of them live on less than $2

a day. According to the author, more than 880 million people

lack access to basic health services, and 2 billion people have

no electricity. Additionally, he asserted that, over 1 billion

more have no adequate shelter. The author maintained that,

roughly one-third of 50,000 deaths in a day are poverty

related, which could be prevented through better nutritional

care, safe drinking water, vaccines and cheap re-hydration

packs and antibiotics (Mackenzie 2006, pp.1-2).
 This article in brief, has shed light to the power of

money and the detriments of poverty from an international

or global perspective. However, the most important lesson

from this article should be the fact that the world’s richest

countries forgave 100% of the debt of 18 of the world’s

poorest nations. In return these countries must implement

macroeconomic, poverty reduction and structural reform

policies satisfactory to the World Bank and the

International Monetary Fund.

The 8 richest countries have realized that there is a vast

international social inequality existing between the rich

nations and the poor nations based on the statistics

presented above. If the measures put in place by the rich

countries are an attempt to build better societies in these

poor countries, then it can also be argued that America have

not done a better job with its inner cities. America must

double its investments that are necessary for social growth

and development in the inner cities. Social conflict theory

thesis argues that, the existence of vast social structures is

also the source of social conflict. There are vast social

structures in the American society which has kept racial

minorities and the economically disadvantaged from gaining

equal access to opportunities. America, as the leader of the

free world must also demonstrate to the United Nations and

the International community that, they are leading the way

in reducing social inequality and poverty from their society.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The evidence of systematic discrimination against

racial minorities, especially African Americans precedes the

civil rights movements. The great African American scholar

W.E.B. Du Bois attributed the problem of the twentieth

century to be race and racial discrimination but the

problem of the 21 century should not be based on racial

minorities and economically disadvantaged people. Thus,

the election of a racial minority President to the White

House is a
positive sign for social change in America and, a victory for

racial minorities and the economically disadvantaged

people. However, there is more room for improvement in

our society and the criminal justice system in particular.

America is a progressive country, and there is no reason

why we should have 38% of racial minority adult men in

Oklahoma with a felony record. Such trends must not go

unchecked, because, the consequence would be obviously

the widening gap between racial minorities and the

economically disadvantaged, and the rest of the population.

Based on current research, it could be said that the

criminal justice system needs a makeover through the help

of a positive social change. What can be done to remedy the

disparity which is evident within the criminal justice

system? Learning from social disorganization theory, we can

tell that the problems facing American inner cities are real.

Furthermore, they contribute immensely to the problems we

have in our society in general and the criminal justice

system in particular. Social disorganization theory has been

used to indicate the outbreak of violence within local

communities, and we have already seen enough violence in

our inner cities to wait any longer. Additionally, the

presence of a concentration of economically disadvantaged

people, ethnic heterogeneity and residential instability are

all indicators that social disorganization is likely to exist.

Moreover, such neighborhoods have the lowest incomes,

increased rates of unemployment, lack of institutional

investment, inadequate resources and financial support.

Currently, these problems are still present in our urban

centers, and we are not doing enough to remedy the

situation until it gets worse before we respond with our law

enforcement agencies. However, correcting these social

problems will further lead to the reduction of excessive

arrest and incarceration rates within the criminal justice

system. In 1996, African Americans represented
only 12% of the US population, however, they accounted

for about 49.4 percent of people in prison (Walker et al.,

2002; Reiman, 2004).

As agents of positive social change, we must strongly

confront these figures. These figures speak volumes about

structural functionalism. In America, the racial group, you

belong is closely related to your social standing. Therefore,

under-privileged racial minorities in the midst of affluence

see society as unjust by not providing a fair means to achieve

equal opportunities. For this reason, most urban youth turn

to criminal activities to achieve the same goal, but reject the

approved means of achieving it. Thus, it is also not

unconventional for more racial minorities than Whites to be

arrested, and victimized by excessive physical force or even

shot and killed by the police.

America has finally elected an African American

President of the United States; African American first Lady,

and an African American Attorney General. How could we

say positive social change has not yet come to America? How

unfair is such a criticism? Well, first, we have to look at the

broad look at the American canvas. Secondly, we should

inspect the paintings relating to social inequalities. Thirdly,

we should look at the images of the American criminal

justice system. Finally, the plight of racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged people behind bars sums up all

the paintings. Social change leads to conflict and without

conflict nothing would have been won in America.

Therefore, all the victories won by racial minorities were

won in the context of social change. The fight for social

change in America started from the American Revolution,

the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Equal

and Civil Rights, Desegregation and Affirmative Action.

Consequently, every change we are witnessing today

constitutes the forces of societal change and development,

and its theories will continue to
shape and perfect society forever. However, just as Karl

Marx accurately asserted, the existence of social

stratification and social inequalities are the sources of all

conflict in every society.

So what can be done to correct the situation existing

in the American criminal justice system? How do we

make people aware of these vast discrepancies existing in

our society? What do current researchers think of these

theories of social development?

The Application portion of this KAM which is the

production of a manual booklet to assist young professional

within the criminal justice system will shed more light on

the answer.
 Application

SBSF 8130: Professional Practice and

Societal Development

Introduction

This portion of KAM 1 is the application section. The

project consists of two parts. The first part of the project is

the production of a training manual in a form of a booklet.

The purpose of this manual will be to assist and sensitize all

stakeholders, especially those within the criminal justice

system; towards the need for a more professional and

informed approach to the treatment of racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged offenders. The manual can be

used as the basis for a training seminar for those entering

the criminal justice profession and a ready reference

document for professionals in the field.

The second part of the paper will be about ten pages

integrating the ideas, themes, and theories examined in the

Breadth and Depth portions of this KAM project

PART 1

A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING RACIAL

MINORITIES & ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

OFFENDERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The working title of the project manual is: A Framework

for Understanding Minorities and Economically

Disadvantaged Offenders in the Criminal Justice System.

INTRODUCTION

The manual will be about 76 pages in length and will be

divided into seven chapters, starting with four pages of

preface and introduction. The introduction will explain

why a manual is necessary and its value as a training and

education resource with the potential to promote positive

social change under the current criminal justice system.

The introduction pages will address the segment of the

population that may benefit from the book. These groups

will
primarily consist of, students, all newly employed and

existing staff of the criminal justice system; including

Judges, Court Personnel, Correctional Officers, Law

Enforcement Officers, Policy makers, Social Service

workers and Legal and Para-Legal Professionals with the

desire to see a positive social change in the Criminal Justice

System. The introduction will also talk about how the

manual came into being and thank all those involved in its

production.

Each chapter in the book will be about ten pages.

Additionally, another two pages will be devoted to

References and Bibliography.

SOCIAL CHANGE: RACIAL MINORITIES AND THE

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED IN AMERICA

Chapter one, will be titled, Social change: Racial

Minorities and the Economically Disadvantaged in America.

The chapter will identify and discuss the definitions and

meanings of Social Change, Racial Minorities, and

Economically Disadvantaged offenders and how they relate

to each other. A brief history of social change in America

will also be examined together with its impact on every

aspect of American life, especially for minorities and the

economically disadvantaged. The chapter will also briefly

discuss the evolution and development of criminal justice in

America starting from 1831 when America took the lead

among social reformers in Europe by offering a new

approach to the public management of criminals at Auburn

State Prison in New York and, Eastern Penitentiary in

Philadelphia. Historical examination will also include the

impact of the President’s Crime Commission of 1965, and

subsequent key events in the evolution of the criminal justice

system.
THE CLASSICAL AND SOCIAL THEORIES OF CRIME
 Chapter two will be titled, The Classical and Social

Theories of Crime: The focus of this chapter will be on the

classical and social theories of crime and the sources of

crime in our society. Therefore, it will explore and examine

the classical and current theories of crime and criminal

behavior of minority and economically disadvantaged

offenders, from a multi- disciplinary perspective. The

chapter will also introduce and discuss various types of

crimes including, White-Collar Crime, Street Crime,

Victimless Crime and Over Criminalization and

Decriminalization.

RACIAL MINORITIES, ECONOMICALLY

DISADVANTAGED OFFENDERS AND LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

Chapter three will be titled, Racial Minorities,

Economically Disadvantaged Offenders and Law

Enforcement Officers. The chapter will focus primarily on

how racial minorities and economically disadvantaged

offenders interact with law enforcement officers. Moreover,

the chapter will include police subculture regarding racial

minorities and economically disadvantaged people, and their

neighborhoods. In addition, evidence that supports claims

that there are routine police practices of authoritarianism

and abuse, brutality and unnecessary deadly use of force

against racial minorities and economically disadvantaged

people, especially those living in urban center ghettos will be

presented and evaluated.

RACIAL MINORITY, ECONOMICALLY

DISADVANTAGED OFFENDERS AND THE

COURTS’ SYSTEM

Chapter four will be titled, Racial Minority,

Economically Disadvantaged Offenders and the Courts’

System. This chapter will explore the evidence which

supports claims about the

unfair and unequal treatment of racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged offenders under the court’s

system. First, claims that the Prosecution team intentionally

seeks to undermine the rights and liberties of racial

minorities and the economically disadvantaged offenders

will be examined. Secondly, this chapter will examine the

effectiveness of Court Appointed Counsels and Public

Defenders on racial minority and economically

disadvantaged offender cases.

Thirdly, the chapter will discuss the use of Plea- Bargain

by both the prosecutor and the public defender and if this

acts to the detriment of the minority and the economically

disadvantaged offender. Finally, the chapter will discuss

how trial and jury selections can impact on racial minority

and economically disadvantaged offenders.

SENTENCING AND INCARCERATION FOR THE

MINORITY AND THE ECONOMICALLY

DISADVANTAGED OFFENDER

Chapter five will be titled, Sentencing and

Incarceration for the Minority and the Economically

Disadvantaged Offender. In this chapter, disparities of

sentencing and incarceration will be discussed and the

purpose of sentencing and incarceration will also be

explored and examined, especially in relation to the

current policies concerned with the sentencing and

treatment of minority and economically disadvantaged

offenders. Major points that will be highlighted and

discussed will include Retribution, Incapacitation,

Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and their impact on the racial

minority and the economically disadvantaged offender.

MODERN DAY CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA

 Chapter six will be titled, Modern Day Criminal Justice

in America. Chapter six will argue that, despite the millions

of dollars that has been poured into the criminal justice

system, for reform and fair treatment of minority and

economically disadvantaged offenders, the system is far

from realizing its goal. Therefore, the aim of this chapter

will be to examine the failure of the criminal justice system

by reference to the current research findings of experts, and

those with authority in criminal justice whose expertise is

concerned with racial minority and economically

disadvantaged offenders and the American criminal justice

system.

TOWARDS A POSITIVE SOCIAL CHANGE FOR

MINORITIES, ECONOMICALLY

DISADVANTAGED OFFENDERS AND THE

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

 Chapter seven will be the concluding chapter, and it

will summarize and highlight all the major points discussed

in the manual. The title of chapter seven will be, Towards a

Positive Social Change for Minorities, Economically

Disadvantaged Offenders and the Criminal Justice System.

This chapter will challenge the reader to become an agent of

positive social change.

Additionally, the chapter will ask readers to re-examine all

the evidence presented in support of the plight and

predicaments of racial minorities and the economically

disadvantaged people in our society. Equally important, will

be, to remind readers about the frustrations, racial

minorities and the economically disadvantaged go through;

especially those who frequently become subject to the

criminal justice system. Finally, the chapter will talk about

specific measures and recommendations needed to be taken

to address the social inequalities within the criminal justice

system. The last two pages will be devoted to references

consulted when the manual was being written.

 DISCUSSION

The development of this manual for young

professionals and operational members within criminal

justice agencies is the first step towards positive social

change within the criminal justice system. In addition, and

having examined the evidence presented previously in the

manual it will be open for those who use the manual to take

a different approach when they deal with people from the

minorities and socially disadvantaged in the community.

Thus, the manual will become a small but important

supplemental educational tool to assist them to better

understand the population they are serving.

PART 2

To achieve the goal of social change it is necessary to

understand how poverty and social inequalities began in the

midst of societal change and development during earlier

times. Therefore, it is important to understand the

connection between the works and thoughts of classical and

contemporary writers, and researchers and the realities of

modern, professional criminal practice. Particular links

that need to be understood can be traced through the key

ideas of a line of original thinkers.

Jean Rousseau (1712-78) was a prominent forerunner

in the fight against social inequalities and poverty. In a

work entitled Discourse on the origin of Inequality, he

asserted that humans and society can be studied

systematically, since it will also make room to examine the

innovative nature of humankind. Additionally, he said, it

will indicate that, originally, humans have depended on

nature solely for their upkeep rather than the social and

political organizations currently in place, which has

brought about the contemporary social inequalities

(Patterson, 1999).
 Rousseau used the term amour-propre to denote a love

for one self and the desire to be superior to others and be

respected and cherished by them. He claimed this to be the

beginning of social inequality. Rousseau asserted that, the

structure of social inequalities was not of general concern

throughout human history. However, it became of more

concern with the development of mechanical agriculture.

Rousseau added that, people began fencing agricultural

lands as their private properties. This, according to

Rousseau, partly gave birth to personal richness and

powerful landlords. Eventually, it also led to the destruction

of people’s natural liberty, because powerful and rich

landlords subjugated the poor and landless workers to

constant physical labor, slavery and human misery

(Patterson, 1999).

Thus, the picture being painted above by Rousseau is

not so much a total absence of social inequalities and private

poverty in societies before the advent of the industrial

revolution, but the industrial revolution brought more rapid

social changes which additionally, deepened the social

stratification, inequalities, and poverty already existing.

In an attempt to explain poverty and social

inequalities from the classical literature, social evolutional

theorists like Spencer (1892) acknowledged that, the

process of societal evolution followed inevitable laws of

nature, which eventually leads to social progress.

Therefore social inequalities and poverty are part of social

evolution. Additionally, structural functional theorists also

explained social inequality and poverty as a valuable part of

the social stratification system based on meritocracy that

keeps society operating. Furthermore, structural

functionalists believe that, society as a whole benefits when

greater rewards are linked to important social positions.

Structural functional theorists further argued that, social

stratification matches people’s ability and talents to

appropriate occupational positions, which they consider

very useful and inevitable.

 Based on the above explanation and reasoning given

for the existence of social inequalities and poverty one can

easily see that the United States would deems to exist with

social inequality based on meritocracy. Therefore, it

should not be a surprise that American society is deeply

divided reflecting the extent of its social stratification.

Additionally, being a racial minority or economically

disadvantaged person in America is a consequence of

institutional evolution.

Structural functionalists claim that, values and beliefs

that legitimize social inequality are widely shared

throughout society (Macionis, 1999). How could this be true

for racial minorities and economically disadvantaged people

in America? What choice do racial minorities and the

economically disadvantaged people have, considering the

oppressive and suppressive historical experiences of African

Americans in particular? Talcott Parsons (1964) also added

that, social systems are made up by individuals in a society,

and for that reason any transaction involving individuals

may also be complicated with their ability to make choices.

Regardless of the difficulties involved, people must still

respond to these choices as part of their personal

responsibility. Parsons again reminded us that, society

functions and behaves just like the biological system with all

its natural counterparts. Therefore, social and biological

evolution all follows the same logical pattern (1964). Parsons

concluded that modern societies can have a greater

capability to adapt to societal changes in comparison to

earlier generations.

In short, Talcott Parsons is referring to, “Social

Darwinism, and the survival of the fittest.” Parsons made his

position very clear: First, he believes that people have the

right and a choice to enter into mutual dealings with each

other. Secondly, the present generations are far more

capable of handling stress and pressure than are previous

generations. Finally, Parsons does not believe that

government should get involved to make rules to protect the

weak, the strong or

against each other. Because, he believes firmly that non-

governmental intervention truly embodies the essence of

social evolution; and people will have the ability to adapt

and change over time. Just like Spencer, Parsons also

believed that social differentiation and stratification are all a

natural social outcome.

In other words, Parsons would not see anything wrong

with the kind of social inequalities that we currently have in

our society, especially with the criminal justice system.

Many people including experts share the same view with

Parsons and structural functional theorists about the non

intervention policy for government in social issues. For this

and other reasons our society is now at the crossroads in

terms of race relations and social inequalities. Comte

(1915) argued that, the new science of positivism should be

able to eradicate human suffering especially poverty. Comte

also stated that social problems can be studied scientifically

through the study of sociology. However, Comte, like

Spencer and Parsons also stated that, civilization has

progressed through a natural and a logical unavoidable

course of human organization and has become the supreme

law of all practical phenomena. Comte, like Marx was also

worried about the poor and their working conditions.

However, he also does not believe in government

interference because, he had stated clearly that, human

civilization has progressed through a natural and an

unavoidable course of human organization (Comte, 1915).

Based on the above thoughts of Comte, it should not be

difficult for one to determine which cause of action Comte

would have taken. Comte, clearly ascribes to social

evolutional theory and structural functional theory (In

today’s America, he would be called a liberal conservative).

Writing this manual is very important because most of

today’s social researchers strongly ascribe to either, the

theoretical explanations of Comte, Spencer, or Parsons.

However, there are others like myself, who believe that, to

create an equitable society, we must use Karl Marx and

the social conflict theory’s approach. Current social and

urban researchers, regardless of their theoretical

orientation, must still take into consideration the agonizing

history of racial minorities in this country, especially African

Americans. Thus, it is worth noting that, African Americans,

who, by and large, now live in our inner cities, are also a

product of social change and development. Furthermore,

most African Americans migrated from the rural,

agricultural south, where most worked on the plantations

(Shannon et al, 1999).

Macionis (1999) noted that, between 1870 –1930, tens of

millions of people from other countries came and settled in

the northern industrial cities of the United States, and there

was also an internal migration from the rural southern

agricultural producing areas to the newly industrialized

cities. Therefore, the consequence of these migrations is

cultural diffusion, and the decline of southern communities

and the urbanization of American cities into metropolis. As

a result, this change in demographic patterns has led to

social change and African American’s escaping poverty and

subjugation from the south only to become victims in the

north.

Social Change according to Karl Marx (1955) is brought

about by conflict. However, the absence of physical conflict

does not constitute an absence of conflict. Social conflict is

also brought about by the existence of social structures as

conflict theory has asserted (Marx, 1955). There are certain

institutional structures in our society which have created a

vast gap between the rich and the poor. Slavery for example

is partly responsible for the current social inequalities

existing in the country. Smith (2000) wrote in a work

entitled, Investigating Difference: Human and Cultural

Relations in Criminal Justice, “The history of African

Americans is a story of inequality, injustice, and exclusion,

beginning with slavery; widespread belief in the natural

inequality/inferiority of blacks (i.e., racist ideology) helped

underpin discriminatory policies and actions” (p.73).

 Additionally, most of the very poor people in this

country are by, and large, from racial minority groups. As a

result, it is not easy to separate racial minorities from

economically disadvantaged people in America. For

example, during the civil and equal rights era, both women

and racial minorities, especially, African Americans joined

forces to fight for their rights to vote and to be equally

integrated in the American society.

This manual is very important because it will also

argue that, instead of our society moving towards greater

equality and opportunity it has rather moved backward.

This would be done by referring to important statistics

showing the large economic gap between white Americans

and racial minorities. Additionally, it will refer to

unemployment rates among African Americans, which

have been twice as high as those for Whites for decades

(Walker et al.., 2002) Current research also indicates that

the lack of employment opportunities for racial minorities

and the economically disadvantaged in the urban centers is

partly responsible for the illegal drug sales and property

crime rates in the inner cities (Walker et al.., 2002;

Western, 2006).

In America, an individuals’ social class is usually

measured by the level of their income, education,

occupational prestige, or from a combination of some of

these factors. Robert Agnew (2006) pointed out in a work

entitled, Pressured into Crime: an Overview of General Strain

Theory that, current social research indicates that racial

minorities and the economically disadvantaged are more

likely to engage in crime, particularly serious crime than

members of the middle and upper-classes in society (p.142).

Agnew (2006) asserted that people in the lower class of

society who have been very poor for a long period of time

are more likely to engage in criminal activities.

Furthermore, economically disadvantaged people, including

poor racial minorities are more likely to experience tensions

which contribute to crime and to cope with

tension and stress in a criminal manner (p.142). Finally,

Agnew (2006) observed that, “Parents who are poor are

more likely to experience a range of stressors, including

financial problems, unemployment, work in “bad” jobs,

housing problems, health problems , and residence in high-

crime communities” (p.143).

Many racial minorities and economically

disadvantaged people are in prison today partly because of

their status in society. However, the predicament of racial

minorities is made even worse because, once they are

incarcerated their social ties to the outside world are also

severed, which makes it difficult for them to gain

meaningful employment once they are released.

Therefore, the likeliness of the racial minority or

economically disadvantaged person to commit further

crime becomes greater and a possibility (Reiman, 2004).

During the 1990s, the social changes that took place

within the criminal justice system were influenced by

evolving criminal justice policies. The changes however, led

to the building of more prisons at an alarming rate.

Currently in America, social change has also led to the

reduction in the crime rate, but at the cost of building more

incarceration centers and adding more than million people

to prisoner numbers than there was the in 1990 (Reiman,

2004).

Therefore, social change has not led to the reduction of

prison construction or the incarceration of more people.

For this reason, it is imperative to write the manual to alert

stakeholders of the impending danger of mass

incarceration without a suitable alternative.

History of classical social change theories has

indicated that, social change is also brought about by

conflict in a society or the lack of natural harmony between

the systems. Currently, social inequalities and

discrimination are very prevalent in our society, especially

within the criminal justice system. Hence, there is a conflict

of interest between racial minorities and the dominant social

group. Because racial minorities who become victims of the

justice
system believe that they are being unfairly targeted. On the

other hand, the dominant group, to some extent, believes

that most of the social problems; including crime and drugs

are all generated by racial minorities. Secondly, there is a

lack of spontaneous harmony between all the systems in our

society. Therefore, there is always friction and tension

waiting to explode. Hence, there is the need to create

harmony and to reduce the incidence of inequalities in our

society especially within the justice system.

In Investigating Difference: Human and Cultural

Relations in Criminal Justice, Perry and Nielsen (2000)

discussed the specific issues of prevention and treatment for

racial minorities in the criminal justice system (p. 283). For

example, the authors referred to Newark, New Jersey’s,

Soul-O-House Drug Abuse Program as a culturally specific

program because, it involves varieties of strategies that

included, parent meetings, after school care, athletics, and

most importantly participants were counseled from an

African American Perspective.

The authors, in addition, argued that, although racial

minorities, especially youth are over represented in the

criminal justice system, little has been done to incorporate

cultural strategies in the numerous crime prevention

strategies currently available. Perry and Neilson (2000)

asserted that, most racial minorities are offered alternative

crime prevention programs without specifically taking their

cultural orientation into consideration. Moreover, they

maintained that, when racial minorities, especially the

youths, are equipped with the knowledge of their past, this

arouses in them a cultural pride, which will help them

refocus on successful community building. In America, one’s

racial identification is closely related to one’s social

standing; therefore, racial minorities living in the midst of

affluence see society as unjust, by not providing a fair means

to achieve equal opportunities. For this reason, most urban

youth turn to criminal activities to achieve the same goal but

reject the approved means of achieving it. Thus, it is not

unusual for
more racial minorities than whites to be arrested, and

victimized by excessive physical force or even shot and

killed by the police.

This manual is important for professionals working for

the criminal justice agencies because they need to

understand that not all people charged with a crime are

guilty. Sometimes one’s guilt may be due to circumstances

beyond his or her control. Western (2006) wrote that, “if the

prison does not underbid the slum in human misery, the

slum will empty and the prison will fill.” (p.54). Western

additionally, observed that,” By 2000, over a million black

children- 9 percent had a father in prison or jail.” (p.5).

Based on this fact, it will be very wise for stakeholders to

work together and reduce the excessive minority

incarcerations based on racial discrimination. Western

(2000) has also argued that, the mass incarceration of racial

minorities and the economically disadvantaged does not

necessarily lead to inequality between blacks and whites in

America however; it slows down the upward mobility and

deflates hopes for racial equality (p.7). Finally, Western

asserted that there are also more variations in imprisonment

across the fifty states than between the United States and

Europe. This means that some States have sentencing

guidelines and others do not. According to Western (2006)

there were only two states with sentencing guidelines in

1980. By1990 the number has gone up to ten, and by the

year 2000 there were seventeen states. Furthermore, in 1980,

as many as seventeen states abolished or limited the use of

parole, and by 1990 there were twenty one states in total; by

the year 2000, the number has jumped to thirty three states.

In 1980, there was nothing like the, “Three-strike

laws”, and by 1990 there was still no law like that.

However, by the year 2000, twenty four states have adopted

the law (Western, 2006. p.65). These statistics suggest that,

social change has been a mixed blessing for racial

minorities and the economically disadvantaged offenders

under the criminal justice system. For

instance, the three-strike laws had sent many racial

minorities and economically disadvantaged offenders to

prison. Western (2006) stated that, “…Ochoa was on parole

at age fifty- three and was caught supplying false identities

for food stamps and emergency shelter vouchers; the

welfare fraud, valued at 2,100, earned a sentence of 326

years at the New Folson supermax prison” (p.64). Cole

(1999) argued also that, there is still racial discrimination in

jury selection, though the Court has made strong

pronouncements about equality. According to Cole, the

court has not backed them up with meaningful

implementation. Cole admitted that to achieve equality

within the criminal justice system is extremely difficult.

However, the courts must still be held accountable for

perpetuating and facilitating discrimination.

There are many factors leading to the arrest of racial

minorities and the economically disadvantaged people in

our society. Raymond J.Michalowski (2000) wrote in

Investigating Difference: Human and Cultural Relations in

Criminal Justice, that the rich have the power to exert

direct influence on the making and implementation of laws

and government policies.

Additionally, they can also shape the content of the mass

media. However, the poor, who are nearer to the bottom of

the social ladder, on the other hand, earn very little, have

no wealth, and have little influence over government and

media. Furthermore, their style of speech, their dressing,

and the way they conduct themselves in public is seen as

unstable, unconventional, or “dangerous” by those from

advantaged sectors of the society (p.113).

Michaeowski (2000) stated that, “The criminal justice

system’s focus on the crimes of the poor to obscures the far

greater harm done by white-collar and corporate criminals”

(p.118).
Michaeowski additionally stated that, the United States

historically controls its surplus populations by first,

resorting to police arrest and imprisonment through the

criminal justice
system, and secondly, through the social welfare system in

the form of jobs programs and cash or in-kind assistance

(p.124).

Mann, (1993) in a work entitled, Unequal Justice: a

question of color, wrote that, Blacks have been kept at the

bottom of the society since they stepped onto this land. First,

they were kept as slaves for cotton-based southern states.

Secondly, after reconstruction, they become marginal tenant

farmers and domestic service workers. Then finally, they

became the last immigrants to the central cities. She argued

that, historically, white people have seen all people of color

as inferior, controllable, and usable. Racial minorities are

seen as surplus populations (p.250).

The Chicago school of sociology used to be in the

forefront for the study of crime and punishment through

their critically acclaimed published works on the concepts

of social disorganization; differential association and

cultural conflict in the 1920s and 1930s. However, Valier, C.

(2003) Foreigners, Crime and Changing Mobilities’ gave a

far different insight as to how these notable scholars at the

Chicago School may have partly contributed to our societal

problems. Today, based on this study done by Valier, we

can now conclude that these writings were very

discriminatory. The scholars at the Chicago School

developed their own concept of identifying and depicting

people of different cultures and race. According to Valier

(2003) these concepts and depiction led to the labeling of

different groups of people as inferior, dangerous, criminal,

and amoral.

Thus, the lessons we can learn from this, are that while

great effort is being made to build a fair and just society,

there may be certain intellectual elements in our society or

within the criminal justice system whose writings and

ideology may not be to the best interest of society at large.

Therefore, it is important that facts are presented to all

stake-holders. Additionally, the

writing of the manual is very significant because the

targeted groups may have already read many scholarly

books relating to racial minorities and disadvantaged

people in our society or even within the criminal justice

system. However, we may not know who the writers were,

whether they are proponents of social evolutional theory,

structural functional theory, or they ascribe to social

conflict theory’s approach. These distinctions are very

important because they all explain racial minority

problems and the causes of urban poverty differently.

Larry A. Gould (2000) in, Investigating Difference:

Human and Cultural Relations in Criminal Justice, wrote a

contributing article titled, Cultural Awareness Training for

Criminal Justice. In it, he asserted that, in developing

strategies that are particular to justice personnel, it is

necessary to understand who they are and, to some extent,

how they have been socialized (p.

231). Again, this explains why it is very important for us to

understand that, how justice personnel had been socialized

or oriented will influence his or her thinking. Furthermore,

Gould (2000) observed that, “For the most part, justice

system personnel are businesslike and, if forced to choose

between tact and truthfulness, they usually choose

truthfulness; likewise, justice system personnel are usually

not convinced by anything other than reasoning based on

solid facts” (p.31).

Ruggiero’s (2003) article Fear and change in the city

argued that, early classical sociologists do recognize social

change as a collective social force, with the potential power

to bring about a positive societal change and development.

However, current researchers have abandoned that spirit

of collective social change. Additionally, current urban

researchers now categorize cities as central living

nightmares, with an alarming crime rate. Based on

Ruggiero’s article, it can be concluded that some of what

we read about racial minorities and the inner city problems

may be exaggerated.
 Kent & Jacobs (2004) also presented us with a conflict

theory thesis which suggests that economic stratification

poses a threat to social order. Therefore, an increase in

greater social economic inequality should lead to a greater

capacity for coercive control by the police.

According to the researchers, the presence of a large

minority, high unemployment rate, rapid economic

development, urbanization, crime, and a social

disorganization all lead to greater coercive control from

the police. The results of these findings suggest that, there

is high unemployment rate among racial minorities, rapid

urbanization, high crime rate, and the presence of social

disorganization. Thus, it is not surprising that we have a

large number of minority group incarcerations.

Based on the above information, it must be noted from

a social conflict theory analysis that, racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged people do pose a threat to a

system of government where less than 5% of the population

controls over 50% of all the resources in the country. Thus,

the argument presented above so far should be the

underlying bases for the writing of this manual.

Furthermore, if America is really concerned about a positive

social change in the criminal justice system, then this

manual will be acknowledged in a good faith, and welcomed

as a small contribution to an already existing body of

knowledge about the plight of racial minorities and

economically disadvantaged people within our society.

CONCLUSION

The problems facing the criminal justice system could

not easily be corrected just by rebuilding our inner cities,

and providing racial minorities and economically

disadvantaged people with equal opportunities for

education and employment. The factors working against

racial minorities are embedded in the social structures.

Therefore, correcting these problems will

entail dismantling most institutional barriers and

structures. First, we need to revisit our policies on crime

control, which tend to disadvantage racial minorities.

Secondly, the criminal justice system must eliminate double

standards in differential sentencing, as pointed out by

Professor Cole. Thirdly, correction facilities should include

education and training in addition to incarceration and

retribution. As an alternative, inmates must be helped

through programs that seek to successfully rebuild their

lives for their return to society. Fourthly, we must abide by

the creeds that this nation was founded upon.

Finally, we must continue to owe this truth in the

criminal justice system to be self- evident that, not all of us

are treated equal. Nevertheless, this manual is not intended

to make excuses for racial minorities or economically

disadvantaged people but rather to present the facts which

have been informed by the research done in the Breadth and

Depth components of KAM1.