Search

A holistic, agentive, and progressive violent crime control policy derived from the theory of violentization will be presented. The theory is based on three main ideas: (1) violent dominative encounters, (2) violentization process, and (3) violent communal disorganization and organization. On the basis of each one of these ideas, specific policy recommendations are developed for stymieing the formation of attempted and completed violent criminal acts; the development of violent, ultraviolent, and violent predatory criminals; and the transformation or maintenance of the communities in which these criminals evolve and later commit their crimes. The policy formulated is holistic because it attacks the problem of violent crime on three different integrated levels, and takes into account that not all violent criminals, violent criminal acts, and communities are equally violent; thereby, different modes of intervention are needed for them. The policy is agentive because it views both actual and potential violent criminals as active agents in their commission of violent criminal acts and rehabilitation. Finally, the policy is progressive because it makes education—antiviolent, remedial, vocational, and higher education, and gainful employment in legitimate occupations—the cornerstone of violent crime prevention and violent offender rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Violentization offers a unique explanation of violent crime for four reasons: (1) the theory explains the formation of violent criminal acts, the development of violent criminals, as well as the transformation and maintenance of the communities in which they evolve and later commit their crimes; (2) the theory identifies the stages through which violent encounters, socialization, and communal organization/disorganization unfold; (3) the theory treats violent criminals as active agents in their violent criminal acts; and (4) it is constructed from an insider’s viewpoint because the researcher has undergone similar experiences as the people whose actions his theory explains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author tries to explain why the level of serious violent crime, in particular, rather than the level of street crime, in general, is a more severe problem in some communities rather than others. Author's arguments are based on various communal theories of violent crime. Researchers William I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki, have developed a two-phase explanation of community change that accounts for crime: one is the phase of "social disorganization" and the other phase refers to the stage when the violation of norms becomes widespread that a community may enter phase of community change, that is "social reorganization." In contrast to this explanation, the theory of differential social organization makes "culture conflict" the culprit behind the street crime problem in a particular community. Unlike social disorganization, culture conflict does not refer to the degree to which a community's norms have eroded. The author proposes an alternative theory with a narrower scope based on the "social segregation thesis." According to this suggested theory, the kind of people who migrate into and subsequently rise to the top of a community's dominance order are responsible for the particular phase in the communal change process in which a community functions. This particular phase of the communal change process dictates, in turn, the severity of a community's violent crime problem.

The major shortcomings in the Meadian and Neo-Meadian views of the self are identified. An alternative view of the self as a soliloquy that avoids these particular shortcomings is presented. In this alternative view, an "us" or "phantom community" is seen as playing the premier part in our soliloquies. Thirteen principles that govern soliloquizing are explicated, including ones governing the nature and form of our soliloquies, the creation of our emotions, the hidden sources of our emotional sensitivities, the painting of our self portraitures, the origin and nature of our phantom communities, as well as governing our display of individuality and conformity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Goffman's theory of violent criminal behavior, which is based upon the complementary notions of "character contest" and "stake in conventional institutions," is relatively unique in that it makes problematic both the violent criminal act and actor. However, the explanation Goffman's work provides is inadequate for three major reasons. First, mutual consent among the conflicting parties to use violence to settle their dispute rarely occurs in violent criminal acts. Secondly, the meanings with which most violent criminal acts are imbued are different from that of a character contest. Finally, violent people cannot be distinguished from non-violent ones merely on the basis of whether or not they have a stake in conformity. Thus, a more accurate and adequate theory of violent criminal behavior which takes into account both the nature of the violent criminal act and actor is needed. The outlines of such a theory are briefly described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]