Communities & Crime

Introduction

Much time is devoted to examining and understanding crime and its complexity which lends itself to diverse explanations. Interest in community characteristics and racial differences especially between Blacks and whites is not a new phenomenon. One of the main considerations is the pattern of racial/ethnic segregation emblematic of urban inequality contributing to an array of social problems concentrated in urban communities (Sampson et al., 2002, Krivo et al. 2009). The fundamental question is whether the social decline is directly related to the increase crimes in these communities. Therefore, examination of the intersectionality of race is crime is pertinent. However, and as pointed out the early work of Massey and Denton (1993), it is not without challenge due to the multiple dimensions interweaved within the ecological scope. To the extent to which the social breakdown in the communities is casually related to higher rates of offending and victimization has been the basis of tradition empirical inquiries into communities and crime (Massey and Denton, 1993; Massey 2001; Krivo, Peterson and Kuhl, 2009.

Within the last decade, scholars have included in their inquiry about communities and crime, Latino communities and the sharp similarities to Black communities in the disadvantages and structural circumstances that make them as vulnerable (see Healey 2006; Sampson and Bean 2006 and Velez, 2006). Like Blacks, Latinos are highly segregated from Whites and the structural nuances of unemployment, poverty and decline in family structure is salient (see Logan, 2003; Iceland and Nelson, 2008). To further emphasize the complexity of studying communities and crime, while Blacks and Latino communities share similarities, there are differences that further exacerbate their disadvantages.

Empirically, our understanding about crimes is framed by the findings about the characteristics of communities and people and link to pervasive disadvantages. Sociological theories posit that external to the individual; unlike, the biological theories dictate crime. For example the social disorganization theory (Shaw & McKay, 1942) suggest that the neighborhood’s characteristics and dynamics is more of a plausible explanation some of the outpour from this are the broken window theory (author,year) that access the relationships between disorder and crime and routine activities  theory (author, year) that argues that opportunities to crime are influenced by individuals everyday activities. Other empirical studies rely on the strain (Merton, 1942) and subcultural theories which emerged from the social disorganization theory, focus on the content of learned behavior opposed to the process of learning that behavior (see Miller (), Akers (). Other scholars embrace the foundational assumption that community levels of causes of crime and violence are the same, thus embracing the racial invariance thesis (see Sampson & Wilson, 1995; Sampson, 2013) but it is not without its controversy with some scholars rejecting the notion that causes of crime are the same across race (see Steffensmeier, Ulmer, Feldmeyer, & Harris, 2010; Unnever&Gabbidon, 2011)

Although crime has declined over the past years. In fact, the 2019 FBI report shows an approximate decline of 51% in violent crimes when compared to that of 2018. If this is the case, why is the public disconnected from that reality? The public’s opinion about crime in their respective communities and crime in general is not aligned with the empirical evidence. The disconnect is often attributed to the media portray of crime between the reality and public opinion is often attributed to the media in perpetuating a negative narrative about the state of crime and immigrants and minorities are criminals and dangerous (see Kappeler, 2017).

While theories, in general, are not without controversy they do provide the roadmap about how we should think and feel about race and crime and crime and communities, this paper seeks to depart from the theoretical blueprints and test the racial invariance thesis by ascertaining the public’s opinion on its value.

Literature Review

The racial invariance thesis was developed out of Shaw and McKay’s work (1949) who postulated that circumstances that led to the crime were similar for all neighborhoods regardless of their racial and ethnic composition. The championed an argument that both at the neighborhood and individual levels and irrespective of race and ethnicity, the processes that led to crime were the same. However, the established history of studying communities and crime has resigned that conditions of disadvantage and conditions such as unemployment, poverty, etc. vary across Black and White neighborhoods may help to understand the differences in crime when compared. On the other hand, an array of empirical studies examining racial disparities in crime and the connection to the differences in structural resources, posit that the support of the racial invariance argument is inconclusive (see Hannon, Knapp and DeFina, 2005; Parker, 2008).

Structural conditions and their predictability on crime as long ignored the Latino communities. However, emerging body of literature suggests that Latino communities are similar in their disadvantaged to Blacks and also segregated from Whites, but there are differences when compared to Blacks. Martinez (2002) speaks to the difference between Latino and Blacks that is important to the conversation, in that the range of structural adversities for Latino insulate them in ways different from Blacks that improve social outcomes. Therefore, the structural effects are not undeviating across race and ethnicity (Sampson & Bean, 2006).The theoretical framework of the ‘strain theory’ (Merton, 1938), postulate that differences in the responses to the contradiction between cultural goals and institutional means. Therefore, there is an inability for all racial and ethnic groups to achieve economically the same way; thus, leading to frustration and inequality which may provide a solid source of explanation for crime among disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups. The impact of the economic inequality may vast differ across Whites, Blacks and Latinos (see Hipp, 2007; Stolzenberg, et. al, 2006; Wright et al., 2016). The argument is counter to that of the social disorganization which places the emphasis on the motivation to commit crimes on the inability for a community to establish and maintain ‘collective efficacy’

Inequality remains at the base of numerous empirical inquiry and a significant structural predicator of crime (see Reisig, Bales, hay & Wang, 2007). According to the racial invariance thesis ‘inequality’ should predict crime the same way across all racial and ethnic groups.

Wright, Turanovic and Rodriquez (2016) study examined whether there is invariance in the criminogenic effects of racial and ethnic inequality. They were specifically interested in structural (the racial invariance thesis) or cultural (the Latino paradox) explanations of crime about the effects of inequality on youth offending. They utilized data from trial courts in Maricopa County for 13,138 youth residing within 50 zip codes. While their findings supported the Latino paradox, they could not conclusively support the racial invariance thesis. The levels of inequality and poverty is not experienced the same across all racial and ethnic group and can insulate rather than damage specific groups.

Therefore, the challenge to the racial invariance thesis is further emphasized. In fact, findings from Steffensmeier, Ulmer, Feldmeyer and Harris (2010) suggests varying effects of disadvantages on violent crimes across Latino, Black and White communities. The work of McNulty (2001); Wooldredge&Thistlethwaite (2003) furthers supports that finding. While there is support of the racial invariance thesis (Krivo& Peterson, 200), there is a growing body of empirical evidence that challenges the theory at its core due to the inconsistent findings (see Parker 2008; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, Feldmeyer& Harris, 2010) or that the evidence is simply inconclusive (Steffensmeier, et. al., 2010). Part of the intellectual quagmire is that most of the studies examining the racial invariance thesis tend to over-exaggerate incidents of offending (Hannon &DeFina, 2005: Bellair, McNulty, &Peguero, 2014, Krivo& Peterson, 2000; Piguero, MacDonald& Parker, 2002; Steffensmeier et al., 2010).

There seems to be adisconnect between empirical evidence about crime and the public’s opinion. Everyday citizens are often fearful of being victims and in doing so, often develop judgements about both their immediate community and the country at-large. Perception of crime my vary by age (see Hummelsheim et al, 2011), gender (see Tulloch et al. 1998; Dichter&Gelles, 2012), socio-economic status (Pantazis, 2000), race/ethnicity (Ceccato, 2013) or prior victimization (Dichter&Gelles, 2012) which is challenged by Warr (2000) on the grounds that it could be more prior victimization and more about neighborhood disorder and overall feelings of insecurity. Wyant (2008) argues that at the neighborhood level, individuals’ perception of crime and social disorder may explain the disparities in perceptions of crime.

Other scholars argue that perception of crime might be shaped by a highly diverse community (Kershaw and Tseloni, 2005) or if there is evidence of high crime rates (Wyant, 2008). Perception of crime is beyond just skewing people’s reality; it has real consequences. For example, at the neighborhood level, a negative perception of crime may affect the overall social and economic development.

Undoubtedly, different media sources affect’s view of the realities of society. The 2019 Gallop poll shows that people feel that there is more crime in the U.S. compared to the previous year (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1603/crime.aspx) while crime data show a steady decrease.Because American’s are not intimately connected to empirical evidence, they rely on information from mass media (Surette, 2014). The media’s ratings depend on coverage, angle and interpretation and in doing so, false narratives often lead to increase ratings and viewership. The mass media is then responsibility for how the public view or think about issues and how public policies are shaped (see Kim, Shceufele, and Shanahan, 2002). The public’s opinion on crime is often formed by the mass media portrayal that black males are more likely to be presented as an offender than a victim (see Gilliam & Iyengar, 2000). Chiricoas, Padgett and Gertz (2000), examined fear/news relationship and whether it varies by social circumstances, such as, income, education, sex, race and age. They made a distinction between local and national news and one interesting findingis that for those who live in high-crime places, have recent victim experiences or who perceive news accounts of crime as realistic that the local news effects are most often significant for them. Similarly, Kim et al (2011) analyzed approximately 500 newspaper stories and television news transcripts from 1997 to 2006 and found a significant increase in immigration/immigrant coverage since 2004 due to call for legislative reform.

In the same way the public believe that immigrants overwhelm engage in crime and this is due in part to the media’s coverage of immigrants and immigration and these opinions may differ depending on the geographic location ( see Dunaway, Branton, and Abrajano, 2010; Grimm and Andsager, 2011)In their study examining over 2,200 news stories drawn from among the highest circulation national papers (1990 – 2013), Harris and Gruenewald (2019) found that most of the immigration-crime linked stories portrayed immigrants as crime-prone or as increasing aggregate crime rates. According to Newport () contrary to the belief that polling can be dangerous, there is value in the public’s opinion.