What Is The Difference Between Shaw And Mckay Theory Of Crime

Typically, individuals self segregate themselves into populations that are most similar to their belief system or values. As a result, it is not shocking that sectioned areas of high populous cities having varying socio- economic statuses and crime rates. The work of Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay explains crime rates as determinant depending where an individual resides. The theorists create ecological maps to determine criminal “ hot spots” due to patterns of continued deviance in specific areas. Shaw and McKay direct attention towards the discrepancies in crime levels for neighborhoods of varying socio-economic statuses, discovering that neighborhoods that are comprised of individuals who are of a lower socio economic lifestyle have heightened levels of criminality in comparison to high-income neighborhoods. As a result, these findings direct attention towards criminal associations and various belief systems that influence individual’s motivations for criminality.

When applying this theory to modern life it proves to
maintain is applicability. Future homeowners generally take into consideration every aspect of where they could live as a means to find the “best fit “ for them based on personal characteristics. For example, what lifestyle they have, where they want to send their children to school etc. These external factors may have the ability to make or break a family’s decision for residing in specific residential areas. Modern society has made these factors accessible from applications such as Stats Can that compile statistical data on crime rates and neighborhood _________. These programs become public record and allow prospecting families to carefully decide which neighborhood will have the highest form of sustainability for their family based on personal social values. As a result, I believe that the continuation of Ecological theoretical work would please theorists such as Shaw and McKay as it directly takes the framework of their hypothesis and becomes implemented into everyday life.

Shaw and McKay make a valid point when discussing how social values become continued from generation to generation. Social values from varying lifestyles become normalized regardless of legal implications, making criminality less stigmatized. Therefore, any community has the potential to normalize any* behavior if it is a communal idea.

The concept of a “community” defines itself as a group of individuals who share a common interest or goal.
This idea reminded me of last week’s discussion on the controversy over Westerns homecoming. Majority of individuals who par take in the festivities believe since it is a large community student tradition that the likely hood of getting a ticket will be minimized because “ I didn’t get a ticket last year” or “ its homecoming, it happens every year”. As a result, the idea that shared value systems bond communities together could explain the differing crime rates however; I believe that any neighborhood has the potential for developing the “community” mentality regardless of SES status. I believe the prevalence of crime is higher in specific areas due to a lack of resources. However, I believe that any population which fuels specific beliefs has the ability to create a mentality of behavior through the normalization of specific
actions.