Suchergebnisse

AbstractDespite renewed interest among criminologists in war and genocide, still understudied are the implications of mass violence for human development and behavior over the life course. By drawing on detailed life history data gathered from 55 male Bosnian refugees and nationals, in this work, I examine the shared beginnings of men who experienced the Bosnian war and genocide (1992–1995) in their youth, as well as examine their divergent pathways over time and across two distinct postwar contexts. My findings reveal that violent pathways are shaped by the confluence of social–psychological mechanisms (e.g., the normalization of violence) and exogenous risk factors (e.g., family disruption and loss of male role models). Compared with nonviolent men, who emphasize themes of catharsis and resilience, and the emulation of prosocial models of masculinity, violent men's narratives are distinguished by themes of persecution and exile, the emulation of violent role models, and contextual barriers to attaining valued masculine identities. Beyond the experience of war, these findings have implications for understanding how early experiences of chronic violence and community disruption shape turning points and cultural frames over the life course, and they indicate that studies of violent pathways should grant greater primacy to the social–historical context and the meaning individuals ascribe to their experiences.

AbstractAlthough the metaphor of war (e.g., the war on terror, war on crime, war on drugs) figures prominently in contemporary criminological discourse, criminologists have generally lagged behind other disciplines in studying the reality of war and its implications for crime, punishment, and ideology. In this essay, I first consider potential reasons for criminology's limited role in studying war and make the case for why war warrants a more central place in criminological discourse. Subsequently, I trace some of criminology's early contributions to the study of war in two domains—(a) legal responses to war and (b) the link between war and crime—and reflect upon ways in which the discipline can both broaden its purview and draw from its own intellectual history to engage more critically with the subject of war.

AbstractThis study examines the role of Islam in shaping processes of criminal desistance among four men, each with extensive histories of crime and violence. The men's life histories are unique, first, in that they came of age in contexts of extreme violence and religious persecution—all men are Muslim and were children during the ethnic cleansing campaigns in Bosnia in the early 1990s—and second, in that they all identify their newfound or newly cemented dedication to Islam as the primary catalyst for their desistance. Thematic analyses rooted in the principles of grounded theory reveal some consistencies with extant research on religiously motivated desistance, including the role of faith as a means for self‐transformation and behavioral guidance. They also shed light on traditionally understudied mechanisms in the faith‐desistance relationship, including the power of religion to reconfigure masculine identities, to reconcile with traumatic pasts, and to cultivate a new moral universe. In examining these men's life histories, we make the case for considering the transformative benefits of Islam in studies of crime and desistance, and for disentangling the role of distinctive faith factors (e.g., faith and religious participation) in processes of change.

Fiscal constraints and shifting political climates in corrections have recently led to a renewed interest in intermediate punishments. Despite their growing prevalence, though, relatively little empirical research has examined the judicial use of alternative sanctions as a sentencing option. By using 3 years of data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS), this study investigates little‐researched questions regarding the use of sentencing alternatives among offenders and across contexts. Results indicate that male and minority offenders are the least likely to receive intermediate sanctions, both as a diversionary jail or prison sentence and as a substitute for probation. The probability of receiving an intermediate sanction also varies significantly across judges and court contexts and is related to county‐level funding for these programs, among other factors. Findings are discussed as they relate to contemporary theoretical perspectives on the perceived suitability of intermediate punishments and on the unique role that offender agency plays in the sentencing of these cases. Directions for future research are discussed.

There is reason to suspect that lower levels of exposure to criminogenic peer‐based risks help explain why immigrant youth are less involved in crime and violence. However, it also is possible that if and when they do encounter these risks, immigrant youth are more vulnerable to them than are native‐born youth. Drawing from literature on the adaptation experiences of immigrant adolescents, we hypothesize that immigrant youth will be relatively more susceptible to the effects of both 1) exposure to deviant peers and 2) unstructured and unsupervised socializing with peers when compared with their nonimmigrant counterparts.
Using a sample of approximately 1,800 adolescents from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) study, we find support for our first hypothesis but not the second.
Specifically, in both cross‐sectional and longitudinal models, we find that exposure to deviant peers has a greater impact on violence among immigrant youth than it does for native‐born youth. Furthermore, this pattern of results is supported with supplemental, sensitivity analysis using the AddHealth data. In contrast, there are no statistically significant differences across immigrant generation status with regard to the effect of informal socializing with peers on violence.

After a prolonged period during which studies of immigration and crime virtually disappeared from the literature, the topic has reemerged as a central theme of contemporary criminology. However, unlike the classic immigration studies that appeared in the first half of the twentieth century, most modern studies combine the various countries of origin into broad pan-ethnic groupings (such as Hispanic/Latino or Asian) that implicitly assume that criminological dynamics are relatively homogeneous within these aggregations despite the important social, cultural, and historical differences that are subsumed. This article utilizes data from the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study to illustrate the systematic within-category variation that such approaches can mask.

This study assesses the effects of three aspects of school organization—student enrollment, student-teacher ratio, and the number of different students taught—on the property and personal victimization experiences of students. It hypothesizes that smaller schools, schools with lower ratios of students to adults, and schools in which the number of different students taught by the typical teacher is lower will produce less victimization because of the increased social capital to which students in these schools are exposed. Using data from the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools, the authors find that, net of individual-level risk factors and confounding characteristics of schools and their surrounding communities, each of the three aspects of school organization is related to student victimization but that these effects vary across victimization type. Their research suggests that reducing the ratio of students to teachers and reducing the number of different students taught by the average teacher are likely to reduce student victimization. Reducing school size is not. The authors also find evidence that higher levels of social capital, as measured by student consensus about normative beliefs, partially mediate the effects of student-teacher ratio on personal victimization.

Recent instances of lethal mass violence have been linked to digital communities dedicated to misogynist and sexist ideologies. These forums often begin with discussions of more conventional or mainstream ideas, raising the question about the process through which these communities transform from relatively benign to extremist. This article presents a study of the Reddit incel community, active from mid-2016 to its ban in late 2017, which evolved from a self-help forum to a hub for extremist ideologies. We use computational grounded theory to deduce empirical patterns in forum composition, psychological states reflected in language use, and semantic content before refining and testing an interactional process that explains this change: a shift away from drawing on real-world experiences in discussion toward a greater reliance on cognitively simple symbols of group membership. This shift, in turn, leads to more discussions centered on deviant ideology. The results confirm that understanding the dynamics of conversation—specifically, how ideas are interpreted, reinforced, and amplified in recurrent, person-to-person interactions—is crucial for understanding cultural change in digital communities. Implications for sociology of groups, culture, and interactions in digital spaces are discussed.