This is in response to Biff Boswell's request for input regarding his class assignment to come up with a new criminological theory/hypothesis.
Your Entitlement hypothesis (it has to be tested before getting dubbed a theory) proposes that people or some people engage in criminal behavior due to a perception that they are entitled to certain rights, privileges, or property. The criminal behavior consists of taking or claiming these entitlements by force. This is a subset of Social Learning Theory/Differential Association Theory (Sutherland), the overarching theory that criminal behavior is learned (as opposed to being biologically or psychologically innate, a series of rational choices, innevitable class conflict, or a response to social control).
Some input:
What is your definition of force (physical, psychological, economic, social)?
An important distinction you need to make is whether the "entitlement" is socially valid; for example, if regulating authorities shut down your Internet presence, would your sense of injustice fall into this category of entitlement? Are all assumed rights and privileges entitlements?
When is the protesting group criminal and when is the authority that provokes the group criminal (as the authority sees itself entitled to remove rights, privileges, and property)? Do authorities have responsibilities in terms of their agreements with the non-authorities/people?
For your examples of your Entitlement hypothesis, you write Greece, the UK, and Wisconsin. What parts of these three are you thinking of, specfically?
Does your hypothesis consider all protests criminal? Are there any forms of non-criminal protest given your hypothesis?
Can any rights or privileges be assumed, or is claiming any by force a criminal action (the latter would put any forceful civil liberties movement, including the American Revolution, into the criminal category)?
No comments:
Post a Comment