Sellin argues that to study the concept of “culture conflict,” or conflict of conduct norms, one must establish establish the relationship between a norm conflict within the person or group studied and the violation of the norm. “Culture conflict” occurs when the norms or a group or individual conflict with society’s conventional norms or rules.
As existing research does not clearly show that “culture conflict” plays a causal role in the commission of legal violations, Sellin offers suggestions for how to structure and undertake better research in order to survey the role of conflict norms in the etiology of crime and norm violations, specifically cross sectional studies and historical studies. • “Culture conflict” has been previously studied by sociologists in such a way that has resulted in its weakness as “an operational concept. • Studies on “culture conflict,” especially those in relation of violations to process of acculturation and inculturation, must be structured and undertaken with care. • Sellin offers recommendations on types of studies for researching conflict of conduct norms: • Cross sectional studies examining conflict of conduct norms may include the following types of comparative studies:
1. Comparative studies of how typical norms in different social groups govern conduct in certain situations. 2. Comparative studies of different social groups in order to establish what norms are at odds between the two groups. • Historical studies should be also used to study the roles of norm conflict and resolution. How might terrorism fit within the theory of “culture conflict? ” (What factors may lead to the violation of legal rules, rather than solely the violation of social norms, in a group or individual? o Are there situations in which the lines are blurred between social and legal norms?
What are some contemporary examples of studies that would fit within Sellin’s research recommendations regarding the study of “culture conflict? ” o How might these studies affect criminal justice policy regarding gangs or immigrant groups? Edwin H. Sutherland. White-collar criminality. American Sociological Review, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Feb. , 1940), pp. 1-12 Sutherland says that using the characteristics of the lower class to explain crime is misled, and an adequate explanation of crime must take into account why other individuals who are not in the lower class commit crime, such as white collar criminals.
Using an amended criteria on what should be defined as “crime,” Sutherland concludes that white collar crime and lower class crime do not differ in the “essentials of criminality,” but they chiefly differ with respect to how criminal laws are applied to them, with white collar criminals often not receiving penalties for their actions. Not surprisingly, this is due to the difference in the social positions of the two classes of criminals.
• As the majority of crime is committed by the lower class, the characteristics of the lower class have been used to derive general theories of criminality. Sutherland believes that the criterion for white collar crime and crime more generally should be amended to supplement the existing criterion for the violation of criminal law (which is conviction in criminal courts).
• The criterion should be amended because a large percentage of individuals who commit crime never are tried and convicted. • Sutherland discusses four specific ways to amend the criteria:
1. Other agencies besides the criminal justice system should be involved in making decisions about the violation of criminal laws. . “Convictability” of the behavior resulting in the violation of criminal law, rather than the actual conviction, should be used to define the behavior as criminal. 3. If a conviction was avoided due to pressure on the justice system or agency, the behavior resulting in the violation of criminal law that avoided conviction should still be defined as criminal. 4. Accessories to crime, including white collar crimes, should be included among and considered criminals. White collar crime, like lower class crime, is “learned” by direct association with other criminals and a lack of association with law abiders, which is called the process of differential association.
• The process of differential association and social disorganization explain whether a person becomes a criminal in both classes. How does the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the lack of accountability faced by many individuals involved in the financial meltdown align with Sutherland’s argument? What other agencies or institutions would be good examples of those agencies described in the first of the four principles of Sutherland’s amended criterion for defining crime? I Ifa behavior resulting in the violation of a criminal law does not result in a conviction, what is the benefit of defining that action as criminal even though it will not be punished? Oln our contemporary criminal justice system, what are some examples of the “pressure” on the criminal justice system discussed by Sutherland in the third of the four principles of Sutherland’s amended criterion for defining crime?