Tag Archives: crime

Graham Spanier suggests his sociology background means he wouldn’t have ignored Penn State scandal

Posted on by

The former president of Penn State, sociologist Graham Spanier, earlier this week argued in a letter to the Penn State board that his background, including his work as a sociologist, means he would would have acted if he had known what was happening with Jerry Sandusky:

Had I known then what we now know about Jerry Sandusky, had I received any information about a sexual act in the shower or elsewhere, or had I had some basis for a higher level of suspicion about Sandusky, I would have strongly and immediately intervened. Never would I stand by for a moment to allow a child predator to hurt children. I am personally outraged that any such abusive acts could have occurred in or around Penn State and have considerable pain that it could perhaps have been ended had we known more sooner…

It is unfathomable and illogical to think that a respected family sociologist and family therapist, someone who personally experienced massive and persistent abuse as a child, someone who devoted a significant portion of his career to the welfare of children and youth, including service on the boards of four such organizations, two as chair of the board, would have knowingly turned a blind eye to any report of child abuse or predatory sexual acts directed at children. As I have stated in the clearest possible terms, at no time during my presidency did anyone ever report to me that Jerry Sandusky was observed abusing a child or youth or engaged in a sexual act with a child or youth.

This conclusion should have been abundantly clear to Mr. Freeh and his colleagues who interviewed me for five hours before their report was finished and interrogated scores of employees about me. Yet the report is full of factual errors and jumps to conclusions that are untrue and unwarranted. I have identified many errors in the report that pertain to me, which my attorneys will share confidentially with University legal counsel for your records and consideration. Moreover, I look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight with representatives of the Board of Trustees as you might desire.

I don’t think I’ve ever run into this before: a sociologist using their academic background as a defense for their actions outside of the field of sociology. Alas, sociologists are fallible as well…

Perhaps I simply haven’t run into it or people are waiting to see how this all plays out but I haven’t seen any fellow sociologists defend Spanier yet.

George Will: don’t let people use the Aurora tragedy to “commit sociology”

Posted on by

Columnist George Will made an interesting statement on television on Sunday about not “commit[ing] sociology” after the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado:

“That’s what the problem is – an individual’s twisted mind,” he said on ABC’s “This Week” roundable. “There is a human itch in the modern age to commit sociology as soon as this happens and to piggy-back various political agendas on a tragedy. And I just think we ought to resist that. … There are deranged people in the world.”

I’ve never heard of this phrase before: “commit sociology.” Will makes it sound like a very unlikable thing, perhaps like committing a crime. Perhaps it is on par with the epithet of “social engineering” that Will has brought up before. But, Will might be in good company with W.H. Auden. This reminds me of some of the commentary after the London riots in 2011. Efforts to explain what was behind the attack were sometimes interpreted as excuses or rationalizations. There is a difference between pushing a political agenda and interpreting social events but good social science aims to do the latter.

Sociologist: 70% of murders in two high-crime Chicago neighborhoods tied to social network of 1,600 people

Posted on by

Social networks can be part of more nefarious activities: sociologist Andrew Papachristos looked at two high-crime Chicago neighborhoods and found that a majority of the murders involved a small percentage of the population.

Papachristos looked at murders that occurred between 2005 and 2010 in West Garfield Park and North Lawndale, two low-income West Side neighborhoods. Over that period, Papachristos found that 191 people in those neighborhoods were killed.

Murder occasionally is random, but, more often, he found, the victims have links either to their killers or to others linked to the killers. Seventy percent of the killings he studied occurred within what Papachristos determined was a social network of only about 1,600 people — out of a population in those neighborhoods of about 80,000.

Each person in that network of 1,600 people had been arrested at some point with at least one other person in the same network.

For those inside the network, the risk of being murdered, Papachristos found, was about 30 out of 1,000. In contrast, the risk of getting killed for others in those neighborhoods was less than one in 1,000.

On one hand, this isn’t too surprising, especially considering the prevalence of gangs. At the same time, these numbers of striking: if a resident is in this small network, their risk of being murdered jumps 3000%.

I would be interested to know how closely the Chicago Police have mapped social networks like these. Do they use special social network software that helps them visualize the network and see nodes? Indeed, the article suggests the police are doing something like this:

Now, he wants to tap the same social networking analysis techniques that Papachristos, the Yale sociologist, developed to identify potential shooting victims, only McCarthy wants to use it to identify potential killers.

Police brass will cross-reference murder victims and killers with their known associates — the people projected as most likely to be involved in future shootings.

“Hot people,” McCarthy calls them.

Those deemed most likely to commit violence will be targeted first: parolees and people who have outstanding arrest warrants.

McCarthy said his staff estimates there are 26,000 “hot people” living in Chicago.

It would also be worthwhile to see how effective such strategies are. This isn’t the first time that organizations/agencies have tried to identify at-risk individuals. So how effective is it in the long run?

Worried about NATO protests in the Chicago suburbs? Look for graffiti, flyers

Posted on by

I know there is a lot of preparation going on for the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago but should this really include warning people in the suburbs? Here is what was printed in the May 2012 edition of our community’s newsletter:

While the G8 Summit has been moved to Camp David, the NATO Summit is still planned for the City of Chicago from May 19 through May 21, 2012. At this time, it is unknown what impact that Summit will have on the City. [Our] Police and Fire Departments are well aware of the upcoming event, and have been involved in pre-event strategy meetings and preparations. Please be assured that there is no anticipation, or information at this point, that any significant incident(s) will occur within the City, and [our] residents may expect the same level of security they have come to know and trust.

Being part of the community, residents and business owners have the unique opportunity to be observant and are encouraged to report suspicious activity, especially graffiti. It is one of the most basic indicators that certain extremist groups are making an appearance. Flyers advocating direct actions against government, businesses, or other institutions are another indicator of suspicious activity. For more information…

One could argue that there is already graffiti in the suburbs; was this done by extremist groups? And flyers about direct action – are we expecting anarchists or violent groups at the local strip mall or subdivision? Additionally, these sound like gross generalizations.

On one hand, perhaps it is good that our local government is trying reassure people about the protests that will get a lot of attention in the media. See all the coverage yesterday about the small May Day protests in Chicago. Even if much doesn’t happen during the NATO Summit, residents of Chicagoland will certainly be aware of the possibilities.  On the other hand, I’m disturbed that suburbanites may think that these protests will affect their suburban paradises more than 15 miles from the Loop…

Trayvon Martin case: social problems still present in gated communities

Posted on by

An academic expert on “place-based crime prevention” talks about the role the gated community might have had on the Trayvon Martin case:

The answer is, according to Schneider, that there are no easy answers. “It’s hard to make a generalization,” he tells me, pointing out that there are many different types of gated communities catering to all parts of the economic and social spectrum. Some of them are walkable; some are not. Some are racially mixed (as is the Retreat at Twin Lakes), and some are not. Some are relatively affordable — you can find gated trailer parks – and some are filled with McMansions. Many of them are indistinguishable from any other suburban neighborhood. Did the built environment play a role in Martin’s death? Add it to the list of things we can never really know for sure about this terrible case.

As for whether gated communities deliver on one of their main selling points — protection from crime — Schneider says that research to date has been inconclusive. “It’s not a panacea,” he says about erecting gates. “You’re just as likely to be burgled by your next-door neighbor, especially if there are teenagers.” Criminals from outside are also quick to figure out how to get in. “They learn the code from the pizza guy,” says Schneider. “The effects of gating decay over time.”

Gated communities exploded in popularity in the United States during the end of the 20th century, but Schneider points out that they are an old phenomenon. “We used to call them castles,” he says.

Here is the conclusion to this article:

If the case of Trayvon Martin has shown us anything, it’s that a society’s problems — inequity, racism, and fear among them — have no problem getting through the gates.

Even if social problems do end up affecting gated communities, academics tend to argue that people buy into and want to live in these communities because they perceive them to be safer. This supports a classic sociological axiom: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” Realistically, while these communities are said to be “gated,” they are rarely as restrictive as castles could be and are often fairly open to people who want to pass through. I wonder if these communities would be better off to get rid of the gates (in whatever form they take) and simply build their development in a more inaccessible place, such as a location that only has an entrance to a busy road (cuts off pedestrian traffic) or is located in a wealthy or out-of-way area (which limits vehicular traffic).

Man sentenced for harassing female employees must take sociology class on gender

Posted on by

I’ve never read of someone being sentenced to take a sociology course in response to admitting to harassing female employees:

Haralambos Katsikis, 53, owner of Stelio’s, admitted to sufficient facts Thursday in Lowell Superior Court to five counts of annoying and accosting a person of the opposite sex.

Middlesex Superior Court Judge Paul Chernoff sentenced Katsikis to two years probation with the conditions he stay away and have no contact with the five female former employees. The judge also ordered him to audit an appropriate sociology course on women in the workplace or gender issues at Middlesex Community College and to complete community service that involves delivering food to the women’s shelter…

In November 2008, Katsikis was the subject of complaints that he had harassed and accosted women who worked in his restaurant. Investigators later determined the women were subjected to a barrage of sexualized comments and unwanted physical contact by Katsikis. In an attempt to avoid Katsikis’ behavior, some of the women developed a buddy system where they would stay in pairs when they needed to go upstairs near his office to get supplies.

I wonder what Katsikis will think after following through on auditing an appropriate sociology class.

Funny sociology typo of the day: incarnation versus incarceration

Posted on by

It appears there are at least two funny mistakes in this article about the increase in incarceration in the United States. Here is the first:

“Incarnation has not only grown dramatically, but it’s disproportionally concentrated among certain subgroups of the population,” said sociologist Becky Pettitof the University of Washington in Seattle. “Criminal justice contact has become normative among some sociodemographic groups, particularly among low-educated African-American men. Incarnation has become a repository for the most disadvantaged segments of the population.”

And here is a second instance:

“Incarceration is a very inefficient and blunt tool to restrict crime,” Uggen said. “We’re incarnating many people who are no longer dangerous. It’s much more about retribution and punishment than rational policy.”

There is a big difference here between a theological term and discussing the growing prison population in the United States.

How the theft of the Mona Lisa helped make it an enduring cultural work

Posted on by

I stumbled upon this story again when looking for an example of cultural production for one of my classes. This is a fascinating tale: “How the Mona Lisa became the world’s most famous painting.”

Continue reading →

Quick Review: The Better Angels of Our Nature

Posted on by

I hadn’t looked at much from psychologist Stephen Pinker for a while but I was intrigued by his latest book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Here are a few comments about this thought-provoking work:

1. Here is Pinker’s argument: we must just be living in the safest era in human history as violent crime is down and wars affect fewer people. If you adjust for the population on earth at the time, World War II barely makes the top 10 (while typically lists put it at #1). Since World War II, fewer people are affected by violence and most people don’t know this.

2. Best argument of this book: this remarkable peacefulness is almost completely under-the-radar and people need to recognize how much safer the world has become. (I’ve noted before the incorrect perceptions regarding crime.)

2a. Pinker marshals a lot of evidence to show the declining trends in violence. In fact, Pinker talks about this for dozens upon dozens of pages. In fact, if you went by the percentage of the book devoted to each topic, you might think Pinker is more of a social scientist who studies violence and who is most interested in how societies and cultures have changed in such a way as to deincentivize violence. Overall, the number of wars have decreased, the number of wars involving great powers has decreased, the number of soldier and civilian deaths has decreased, and the length of wars have decreased. Pinker is, of course, building upon the work of many others but there are a lot of charts and figures here that I find quite convincing.

2b. Several periods were key to this change: the Enlightenment which didn’t necessarily limit violence but brought about ideas and values that eventually contributed and the post-World War II era when the world responded to the horror by promoting international peace and human rights.

3. The catch: Pinker is committed to going beyond a social explanation in the decrease in violence and wants to argue that this has trickled down to individuals. On one hand, you could imagine a number of sociologists making this argument: changes in society and culture influence the choices available to and made by individuals. On the other hand, Pinker wants to go further and even suggest that humans have evolved away from violence. Making this connection between social and individual change is tougher to do and Pinker relies a lot on social psychology experiments such as Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Ultimatum Game. The social and cultural change arguments are convincing but taking this next step to the individual level is more problematic. Part of the problem here might be that Pinker is so committed to his own perspective that he is determined to push his points about rationality further than they can go.

4. An interesting issue: Pinker argues that one way in which violence can get out of hand is that it requires a powerful ideology. One type of ideology that Pinker makes clear he does not like is religion which he argues is false and generally contributes to violence. In his historical overviews, Pinker makes clear that religion only contributes to and legitimizes violence and may not do any good. Additionally, the revolutions in values happened solely in the secular sphere and humans today are much more able to be rational (and religion is not that).

Overall, this is an interesting, long book that presents several intriguing arguments. Pinker provides a service in helping to fight the narrative that violence is spiraling out of control and yet has more difficulty in showing how humans have evolved into more rational beings.

TMQ takes apart “police procedurals” (otherwise known as crime shows)

Posted on by

After some analysis of the Super Bowl, Tuesday Morning Quarterback gets down to his real business of dissecting “police procedurals.” Here are some points I appreciated:

Television is swamped in police dramas. During a recent week, 14 of the 45 Big Three prime-time hours were crime shows. Except they no longer are called that — the genre is now “procedurals.” In theory this means the shows depict police procedure. In practice, being a procedural means a formula. Here it is…[a 15 point formula follows]

On TV, cops exist in constant jeopardy of life and limb. This, though “most police officers retire at the end of a 20- or 25-year career without ever having fired a weapon other than at the practice range.” Despite the bullets ricocheting around them, TV detectives are NEVER frightened. Most are spoiling to charge headlong into obvious danger…

But isn’t the violence realism? In the world of TV, murder and mayhem are an epidemic. Actually crime is in generation-long cycle of decline. Today, strollers are safer in Central Park after dark than in the 1950s. Last year, Central Park averaged slightly more than one robbery a month, versus two robberies a day a generation ago. Yet on procedurals, crime is getting worse. This plays to preconceived notions about the nation falling apart, especially such notions held by senior citizens, who watch a lot of television.And on procedurals, the police always catch the bad guy. Actually a significant number of homicides are never solved, while most burglaries never even lead to an arrest. Of course, procedurals are just Hollywood nonsense. But procedurals get it wrong both ways: making crime seem more common than it is, but also making crime seem never to pay.

Lots of good material here.

One might say that this doesn’t matter, people clearly know what is entertainment on television and they don’t mistake police shows for what actually happens. But I would argue that this is not the case: most people’s knowledge about police work and crime likely comes from the mass media, particularly depictions on television and in movies. Crime rates are going down yet one wouldn’t know it from its rising popularity on TV. Serial killers are uncommon except on television. Children are rarely abducted except on television. These shows and movies aim to trigger emotional reactions (as TMQ notes, the grisliness of the crimes is often shocking) and fearful responses.

A silly and yet illustrative example from my own life: where I hear news that someone was killed during the day, I have a hard time reconciling this with media images I’ve seen for years that murders tend to take place in stormy situations. While the storms in shows and movies might be more metaphorical than anything else, I have this idea in my head that this is when killing happens. I would guess there is not much data to back this up but this is an idea that has stuck with me even though it was never clearly expressed to me. Violent crime = bad weather.

If we expect citizens to be able to discuss and vote intelligently about important topics like crime and punishment (and have no doubt, we like to punish people), how can this happen if television is painting a heavily slanted story? I wouldn’t suggest that television needs to be completely realistic but at the same time, common images have a cultural power that is difficult to counteract.