Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Wyszukujesz frazę "przestępca" wg kryterium: Temat


Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2
Tytuł:
Karalność uczniów nieprzystosowanych społecznie
Criminal Cases of Socially Maladjusted Schoolchildren
Autorzy:
Ostrihanska, Zofia
Wójcik, Dobrochna
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699130.pdf
Data publikacji:
1984
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:
niedostosowanie
zachowanie
przestępca
rodzina
środowisko
maladjustment
behaviour
delinquent
family
environment
Opis:
       1. The study discussed in the present paper is a continuation of the research on extent and determinants of social maladjustment among schoolchildren in Warsaw elementary schools, which was conducted in the years 1976-1979. Over 600 classes (grade III-VIII) were then examined, which makes the total numer of 17,662 children aged 9-16. Teachers indicated children who revealed symptoms of social maladjustment (such as regular truancy, many-hours loitering around the streets without control, running away from home, stealing, frequenting company of demoralized colleagues, drinking alcohol, sexual demoralization, vandalism and frequent aggressive behaviour). 885 boys (which makes 10 per cent of all schoolboys included in the study) and 220 girls (2.7 per cent of all girls) were found to reveal these children, which included information as to the child’s family environment, school situation, school failures, behaviour, health, and symptoms of social maladjustment.        From this general popuration of 885 schoolboys who revealed symptoms of social maladjustment, a group of 262 boys was separated  whose symptoms were particularly intense and cumulated. This group then underwent a detailed individual examination.       As a control group to match this group of 262 boys whose symptoms of social maladjustment were cumulated and intense, 151 boys were drawn by lot from among those of all schoolboys who had not been mentioned by the teachers as children who reveal symptoms of social maladjustment, and who were classmates of the socially maladjusted boys. The control group underwent the same individual examination.       2. At the stage of the study presented in the present paper the aim was to answer the following questions:                                                                                                                                                                      - how many of the schoolchildren indicated by the teachers because of various symptoms of social maladjustment had cases in court before they were included in the study.                                                  – how many of them  had cases in court during the five years of follow-up study.                                       – what was the total number of children who had ever had cases in court and what was the intensity of their criminal careers.                                                                                                                                              –is there any difference between the socially maladjusted schoolchildren who had cases in court and those with a clean record, as regards any features of their  family environment or the kind of symptoms of social maladjustment, which caused  them to be included in the study. Is there any difference between them as regards their school failure or the results of psychological examination.       In order to answer these questions, in mid 1982 it was checked if the children indicated as socially maladjusted had cases in court as juveniles or as young adults (aged 17 and over). The examined persons were then aged 15-23. The cases of persons concerning whom it was impossible to obtain data, as to their criminal record were excluded from the analysis therefore, finally the examined population consisted of 859 boys and 220 girls.        3. At the moment when the examined schoolchildren were indicated by the teachers as revealing symptoms of social maladjustment, 6.9 per cent of the socially maladjusted boys and 3.7 pet cent of  the girls had criminal cases in family courts.  A considerable majority of these children (5.1 per cent of the boys and all girls, 3.7 per cent) had only one case in court. The cases occurred generally at the age 14-16. The number of children who had had cases of care and protection during anamnesis is comparatively large: 5.5 per cent of boys and as many as 16.3 per cent of girls.       The examination of the schoolchildren's further criminal careers during the following 5 years produced the following results:                                                                                                                              - 20.9 per cent of boy  were convicted by courts within that period (10.2 per cent had cases in family courts, 5.7 per cent- in ordinary courts, 5 per cent- both in family and in ordinary courts).                         - 4 per cent of girls were convicted (3.6 per cent by family courts, 0.4 per cent by  ordinary courts).           It should be added that on account of the age, only 629 boys and 178 girls could have had cases in ordinary courts. Among them, 14.8 per cent of boys and one girl were convicted. The percentage is high, as part of those who „could have had cases" were only 17 years old, the probability of their conviction being  thus minimal.           25.7 per cent of boys convicted by ordinary court committed aggressive acts, while 70.7 per cent were convicted only for offences against property.       When the entire examined  period (anamnesis and follow-up period) is discussed together, it appears that every fourth boy (23.4 per cent) and every thirteenth girl among all socially maladjusted children were delinquent. This result certifies to the generally known difference between the extents of delinquency of boys and girls. However,  the represented proportion changes diametrically if one takes into account not only criminal cases, but also those of care and protection. 12.2 per cent of boys and as many as 25.4 per cent of girls had cases of care and  protection in family courts. There were  26.4 per cent  of socially maladjusted boys and 28.6 per cent of girls who had cases in family courts (criminal and care and protection together). The high percentage of girls who had  cases of care and protection may be connected to their worse family  situation which demanded intervention, as well as with the fact, that girls revealed  symptoms of sexual demoralization more frequently than boys (as many as 1/5 of socially maladjusted girls in grade VIII); these  symptoms awoke concern of the adult and may induce them to seek intervention of a court. Such symptoms, not being offences, may only be a reason for instituting tutelar proceedings.       Another problem was also examined, that is of the features of the examined persons and of their  family environment (as revealed by the questionnaires  filled in by the  teachers) which would differentiate the delinquent boys from those who had never been convicted. The delinquent boys were found to live in worse family backgrounds, in which criminality of parents or siblings or alcoholism of the father  occurred more frequently.  Instead, the delinquent boys were not found to live more frequently in broken homes or separately from their  parents. The delinquent boys were more socially maladjusted than those never convicted: they revealed a greater numer of symptoms of social maladjustment, their teachers informed more frequently of threir thefts, drinking, contacts with demoralized colleagues, and truancy. Instead, the delinquent boys were not described by the teachers as fighting with their schoolmates „often” and „very often”  more frequently than those never convicted.  It may be that such a description of a child by the teacher was unreliable;  the boy's aggressive behaviour may have been  a temporary phenomenon, resulting from actual  social situation; aggressiveness revealed at school may have been separate from the entire syndrome of social maladjustment. However, at the present stage of the study we are not in a position to take up any attitude towards these possible explanations. Neither the many-hours loitering around the streets was found to significantly differentiate the delinquent boys from those never convicted. This results from the fact that loitering is a typical way of spending time of the considerable majority of socially maladjusted boys, therefore it does not differentiate those who were convicted from the others.         4. In the group of 262 individually examined boys who revealed intense and cumulated symptoms of social maladjustment, the extent of delinquency appeared to be larger than in the entire population of 885 socially maladjusted schoolboys from which this group has been selected. During anamnesis, 32 per cent of boys had criminal cases in family courts; 78.9 per cent of them had only one case, 18.3 per cent had two cases, and 2.8 per cent -three or more cases. During the follow-up period, 28.2 per cent of the examined boys had cases in court, including 14.1 per cent who had cases in family courts only, 7.6 per cent who had cases in ordinary courts only, and 6.5 per cent who had cases both in family and in ordinary courts. Within the whole of the examined period (both anamnesis and follow-up period), nearly half of the examined boys were convicted: 29.4 per cent  had cases in family courts only, 5.3 per cent- in ordinary courts only, and 14.1 per cent-both in family and in ordinary courts. Therefore, every second  boy from the group with intense and cumulated symptoms of social maladjustment had cases in court within the examined period, while every fourth one from the entire population had been convicted.        Poor material and housing conditions of the family, insufficient care of children, broken home and bad conjugal life of the parents were not found to be significantly connected with the delinquency of the examined boys. Instead, a correlation of statistical significance was found between delinquency and excessive drinking of the fathers, their own criminal records and periods of imprisonment, as well as between the sons' delinquency and the lack of elementary education of the parents.        On the other hand, no difference was found between delinquents and non-delinquents as regards the teachers' estimation of their intelligence level and learning difficulties pointed out by their mothers and themselves. None of the biopsychical variables taken into account in the study was found to differentiate both groups: lowered level of intelligence, eyesight defect, hearing defect,  disturbances of speech, dyslexia, probable past lesions of the central nervous system, troubles with concentration, very slow rate of working. Persisting neurotic symptoms. Indeed, these factors were present rather more frequently among the non-delinquent boys, distinctly connected with their learning problems and school failures. On the other hand, delinquents actually repeated classes more frequently than non-delinquents, got bad marks in various subjects, and their learning progress was estimated as worse by the teachers. Delinquent boys more frequently behaved badly at school beginning from the lowest standards, they played truant from various lessons, were disobedient and disturbed the course of the lessons, had lower marks for behaviour and stated that they did not like school.        The socially maladjusted delinquents used to spend time in company of friends older than themselves more often than the non-delinquent boys; they themselves described those friends as badly behaved and drinking alcohol. They were also substantially more often connected with groups of juvenile delinquents according to the teachers' opinion. They revealed a considerably larger intensity of symptoms of social maladjustment. Among these symptoms, only the frequency of aggressive behaviour failed to differentiate the delinquent and non-delinquent boys, which means that as regards the individually examined group,  the result concerning the entire population was confirmed.         Therefore, the delinquency of the examined persons was related to the greater intensity of their social maladjustment, to their negative family environment and their school situation connected not only with objective learning difficulties but also with the child's reluctant attitude towards school and teachers, and with the teachers' disfavourable opinion of his learning progress and behaviour.        It is also worth mentioning that in the control group of 151 schoolboys who were not indicated by the teachers as revealing symptoms of social maladjustment, only one person was found who had been convicted by court during the entire examined period.
Źródło:
Archiwum Kryminologii; 1984, XI; 143-166
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:
Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Koncepcja podkultury przemocy a wyjaśnianie przestępczości agresywnej
The subculture of violence thesis and explaining violent criminal behavior
Autorzy:
Krajewski, Krzysztof
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699216.pdf
Data publikacji:
1987
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:
subkultura
przestępczość agresywna
pojęcie kulturowe
zachowanie
przemoc
brutalny przestępca
zachowanie jednostek
teoria
koncepcja
subculture
aggressive crime
concept cultural
behaviour
violence
violent criminal
individuals behavior
theory
concept
Opis:
This article dears with some problems related to application of Wolfgang’s and Ferracuti's subculture of violence theory explanation of violent criminal behaviour. Wolfgang and Ferracuti adopted in their concept cultural  approach to explanation of crime in general, and violent crime in  particular. Doing so, they rejected openly usefulness in this particular area of Merton’s anomie theory. They adopted so-called normative theory of culture, when means that they understand under the term culture a normative system consisting of values, norms and behavioral patterns, which exert pressure over individuals being under their influence, what results in uniformity of human behaviour. Application of this concept in criminology means that there may exist specific normative systems containing such values and norms which may lead individuals influenced by them to criminal behaviour. In other words it means, that when we observe within certain social group high criminality rates, higher than the average ones in a given society we may explain  them in terms of  the specific features of the culture of this group. This way of thinking is not totally new in American criminological literature. The best example of it constitutes W.B. Miller’s concept of flower-class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Wolfgang and Ferracuti claim that disproportionately high rates of violent crimes among and members of American lower-class (especially members of ethnic minorities) result from specific subculture existing within this social group, which they call subculture of violence. This subculture is the specific normative system which is characterized by tolerance and permissiveness which respect to the use of violence in interpersonal relations. The use of violence is  perceived by members of such subculture as something normal and natural, they do not consider it as either illegal or immoral. On the contrary, violent people showing physical prowess and readiness of high enjoy many social rewards, high social status and prestige. People who do not conform to the requirements of such subculture face many troubles within their groups, including even possible ostracism.             Wolfgang's and Ferracuti's concept contains evidently two separate layers. The first one, sociological, deals with subculture of violence as a social phenomenon and the problems related to the existence, functioning and transmission of violence related norms and values within society. The concept of subculture itself plays here a key role. The second one, psychological, deals with psychological consequences for the individuals of being under influence of such subcultural ethos. The main concern here are changes in attitudes and ways of perceiving environment resulting from the adoption of subcultural values, which one observes among violent people. These two layers are connected by very important thesis that aggression and violence constitute learned behaviour deeply internalised in the personalities of individuals. As it was said before subculture of violence thesis was conceived by Wolfgang and Ferracuti primarily to explain excessively high rates of violent crime among members of American lower class. But they point out as well to other examples of such subcultures as for example barbaricino code in Sardinia, customary vendetta in Albanova district in Italy, Colombian violencia or ,,criminal tribes'' in India. All  this means that they treat their concept as a broader integrated criminological theory of violent criminal behaviour not limited to specific American context.      One can point out to many attempts in the USA at empirical verification of the violent subculture thesis. First of all it is necessary to mention researches done by S. Ball-Rokeach and H. Erlanger. They attempted to verify Wolfgang's and Ferracuti's claims that there must exist significant differences in value systems and attitudes towards the use of violence between violent and non-violent persons, and that people who engage very often in violent incidents enjoy within their communities many social rewards including high status and prestige. The subculture of violence thesis was also used to explain a well-known in the American literature phenomenon of excessively high rates of violent crimes, especially homicides in the southern states. Among attempts at cultural explanations of this phenomenon one can point out first of all to contributions by Hackney, Gastill and Erlanger as well. All mentioned above researches hardly brought conclusive results. They involve many methodological shortcomings' and generally speaking seem to be too simply conceived, using too crude tools to pretend to be real tests of the subculture of violence thesis. This concept still awaits real, comprehensive attempt at empirical verification.             When evaluating Wolfgang's and Ferracuti's concept from the theoretical point of view one has to start from the proposition which seems - as it was said before-to constitute the core of the entire concept: aggression and violence constitute learned behaviour. At this moment it is easy to observe similarity with E. D. Sutherland's differential association theory. Sutherland was speaking about conflict between criminal and non-criminal cultures. Existence of this conflict made it possible for an individual to have contacts with patterns of both criminal and law-abiding behaviour.  Prevalence of one of them in the immediate environment of the individual decided about its future behavior. Very similarly Wolfgang and Ferracuti speak about the conflict between dominant culture (which they call non-violent culture) and subculture (which they call subculture of violence). This conflict makes possible differential association in the Sutherland’s meaning of the term. There is however one important difference. Sutherland, as it is well know, was strongly influenced in his thinking by G. H. Mead’s symbolic interactionism and sociology of Ch. H. Cooley, what resulted in particular attention paid to the primary social groups  and direct interaction. For Sutherland the process of learning criminal behaviour could take place only by means of direct interaction within primary social groups. It is not easy to interpret Wolfgang’s and Ferracuti’s theory with respect to this problem, as they are not very explicit within the subculture. It makes it necessary to  carry out a more detailed analysis of what they understand under the term subculture. They say on the one hand that the concept of subculture is strictly connected with the concept of social group. It seems however that this last concept they understand very broadly, when they say that individuals  sharing certain values, norms and behavioral patterns constitute social  groups. This means that under the term subculture they understand just individuals sharing particular norms and values, at least partly distinct from those existing in the dominant culture. This means as well that such sharing of values does not require direct interaction between individuals. It leads finally to a very important statement that subculture may exist widely dispersed spatially. It is necessary to underline that such understanding of the term subculture is not totally alien even to the contemporary adherents  of symbolic interactionism. An article by A. Fine and S. Kleinman constitutes clear example. The essence of this approach is an attempt to avoid ,,reification’’-as above authors call it-of the concept of subculture, what means equaling it with certain social structure, in other words social group. It seems however that one should not press this point of view to the extreme. Interpretation of the meaning of the term culture in terms of individuals behaviour is quite popular in social anthropology, to mention only R. Linton. But it may lead also to certain consequences absurd from sociological and behaviour point of view. It may mean that if somebody behaves in a certain way, he adheres to certain norms and values of which his behaviour is a result. If not, it means that he  does not adhere to them. In fact, it is a great simplification from the point of view of the mechanisms of human behaviour. In such a situation the concept of subculture lacks clear empirical meaning and loses its explaining potential. It seem  that Wolgang's and Ferracuti's stance results from a very individualistic approach paying attention only to the relation culture-individual, while neglecting a very important one: culture-social group.  Very helpful in solving presented above problems may be more detailed analysis of the psychological mechanisms of learning. What is interesting is that Wolfgang and Ferracuti do not go into details with respect to this, and mention only eventual usefulness of either Eysenck's or Bandura’s concepts. This lust one seems to be particularly suitable for the purposes of interpreting subculture of violence concept. Bandura's concepts of observational learning, as well as clear distinction between learning and performance, and analysis of the process of learning from three separate points of view, i.e. acquisition mechanisms instigation mechanism and maintenance mechanisms may be here particularly useful. It means that subculture of violence supplies to individual patterns of violence and aggression which are observed, memorized and in this way learned. It is also obvious that these patterns are not supplied by abstract subculture itself, but by behaviour of other individuals in the immediate environment. It is clear however that there are no people who behave constantly violently, what Wolfgang and Ferracuti admit, but do not elaborate on it. Learned violent patterns may result in violent behaviour only sometimes, when they meet necessary instigating stimuli. They may become more consistent and durable behavioral patterns only when necessary maintaining mechanisms come into being. It is obvious that subculture of violence may, serve as the supplier of both instigating and maintaining mechanisms. Especially these last may be very important. Bandura provides a very important distinction between internal and external control of human behaviour .Internal control means rewards, reinforcements coming from the individual's self. Here internalized values and norms come into action and play on important role. Behaviour, being in accordance with them brings satisfaction to the individual. This aspect of maintaining mechanisms constiutes main subject for Wolfgang and Ferracuti. But there is another one: external control, reinforcements, rewards coming from social environment, from social groups. Wolfgang and Ferracuti pay less attention or almost none to this aspect, because to analyse it one has to connect the meaning of the term subculture with the term social group, what they refuse to do. External control can not be an attribute of subculture itself. It is the function of groups. When one recognizes that subcultural system may be analysed only as a normative system of given- social groups, the possible influence of it becomes much broader. In such an interpretation subcultural influence is not limited only to mechanisms of internal control. Individuals may behave violently because they receive many external rewards for such behaviour. Because of this violent behaviour does not have necessarily to bring special satisfaction to the individual. Such behaviour may result from well known in social psychology mechanisms of group pressure and conformity with group standards.    In sum, it seems to be very profitable to use Bandura’s social learning theory to interpret and to broaden Wolfgang's and Ferracuti’s subculture of violence thesis. It is necesary of course to modify their use of the term subculture and connect it strictly with social structures and groups. In such a situation subcultural influence from the psychological point of view may not be limited to the mechanisms of internal control but extended to the external control by social groups, -what makes possible application of the theory as a theory of violent behaviour in general.
Źródło:
Archiwum Kryminologii; 1987, XIV; 7-42
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:
Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2

    Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies