Archiwum Kryminologii (Archives of Criminology)

7-22

Authors: Anna Kossowska

"Social control" is one of thę most fundamental concepts in sociology. Nevertheless, the meaning of that term has changed, parallel with the development of sociology as an academic discipline. Originally, the idea of social control was the focal idea in studies of the organization and growth of industrial societies, and formed the basis of investigations of the various elements constituting law and order. Nowadays, the dominant trend is to narrow the meaning of the term „social control" to defining the process of conformism to the rules of society. It is this second meaning that is used in criminology today. There is a basic difference betwęen the theory of social control and other criminological theories. This difference consists in the fact that this theory, unlike other ones, tries to explain why people do not break the law, why they behave according to the rules of society, why they fall in with the group - in other words, why they are conformist in their attitude towards the rules and norms, as well as to the values generally accepted by society. The other theories try to find out what makes people go against the social norm. The basic principle of the theory of social control is the recognition that human beings must learn social behaviour through a process of socialisation. The aim of socialisation is to lead people to absorb the norms and values held in esteem by a given society. The process whereby the individual absorbs social norms and values depends mainly on the character of his links with the primary social groups, on the cohesion of the system of social norms, and on how far conformily with those norms will offer him the advantages he looks for. A survey of the criminological literature dealing with the question of the effect of social control on deviant behaviour reveals that several theoretical approaches exist, each of them emphasizing different elements of such control. These elements are: the social bonds, the system of norms and yalues and the course and results of socialisation. These three theoretical approaches are not mutually exclusive. They are undoubtedly complementary. We can distinguish three theoretical approaches to social control: a) the socialisation approach, b) the sociar bond approach, and c) the normative system approach. In the first of these approaches, attempts are made above all to explain how socialisation takes place, and what results it leads to. The chief representatives of this approach may be said to be W. Reckless, I. Nye, and A. Reiss. Recklessr is the author of the containment theory, in which he distinguishes the following elements of social control: We have outer containment when external pressure is exerted on the individualn by the group, or by society, in order to bring about behaviour approved by the group. This kind of pressure is exerted through training the individual to carry out socially approved roles, through his affiliation to tradition and the community in which he lives, and through direct control. We have inner containment when, through socialisation, the individual develops self-control, that is, what we sometimes call his conscience. Five elements developed in the course of socialisation go to make up inner containment: a favorable self-concept, goal orientation, a realistic,aspiration level, adequate frustration tolerance, and commitment to socially accepted norms and values. These two mechanisms - outer containment and inner containment - function either together or soparately. In some cases they reinforce each other, while in other cases they are complementary. On the whole, inner containment regulates behaviour based on a person's internal pressures whereas outer containment is used when factors in the environment favour criminal behaviour. But there are also frequent situations where, when inner containment fails, behaviour is modified by exteinal controlling factors; and conversely, it sometimes happens that in situations where control by the social group or social institutions is ineffective, self-control is the regulating mechanism. Nye is of the opinion that the role of social control in society is that it strengthens our motivation towards conformist behaviour. It is a factor that increases our conformism, whereas lack of it encourages anti-social behaviour. Nye sees four types of social control: Internal control occurs when, in the course of socialisation the individual Internalises the norms and values generally accepted in the given society, so that they become components of this conscience. Indirect control is based on the emotional links between the child and his parents which cause the child to absorb the rules of behaviour passed on by the parents in the course of socialisation. Direct control is exerted by the social institutions and primary groups; punishments are threatened in the case of nonconformist behaviour. Then we have legitimate need satisfaction, where society guarantees that the emotional needs of the individual will be met if he conforms, but threatens that these needs will not be satisfied if he does not conform. In his well-known paper on the connection between the breakdown of social control and the occurrence of criminal behaviour, A. Reiss3 declares that criminaIity may be defined as behaviour that is the consequence of the failure of personal control and social control, as regards the regulation of human behaviour in keeping with the social norms. According to Reiss, criminal behaviour occurs firstly, when there is a relative lack of internalised norms and rules that would keep behaviour conformist; secondly, when a control mechanism that previously functioned properly breaks down; and thirdly, when the group to which the individual belongs is such that the social principles for inculcating conformist behaviour are on the whole lacking, ( or when there is a split between these social principles). Criminality may be regarded as a function of the relationship between personal control and social control. The second approach to the theory of social control lays emphasis on the social bond. Hirschi is the chief exponent of this approach, according to which the bonds (taken in the wide sense) between the individual and other people are the fundamental instrument of social control. According to Hirschi, the social bond consists of four main elements: 1) personal, emotional links (attachment), 2) a rational commitment to conformist behaviour, along with expectations as to punishment and reward (commitment); 3) a degree of involvement which would leave no room for deviant behaviour (involvement), and 4) beliefs. In the case of personal attachment, the behaviour of the individual will depend on how sensitive he is to the opinions of others, on how far he reckons with their views. The people who matter here are the members of the primary groups to which the given individual belongs, the people whose opinion he respects, the people who will expext him to conform to the norms which they themselves recognize. According to Hirschi, the groups with whom bonds are all important are: the parents, the school, and the peer group. Commitment means that the person absorbs the life style of his environment. A strong commitment to conformist behaviour, with the aim of achieving the kind of goals ranked high by the given culture, means that the person may lose a great deal if he acts contrary to the norms accepted by that culture. At the same time, conformism guarantees as it were that the person's aspirations will be achieved. Strong involvement in conformist behaviour results in the fact that the person spends so much time and energy in keeping to the generally accepted model of behaviour that even "physically" he cannot behave otherwise (e.g. for lack of time). Beliefs affect the acceptance or otherwise of the norms adhered to in a given society. Difference of behaviour between individuals may be due to difference in the degree to which the norms laid down by the law are accepted. By and large Hirschi believes that all four types of social bond act together. Yet he also accepts that the diverse elements separately may each have an independent effect on the person's behaviour. Schrag is one of those who adopt the normative and system approach to the question of the functioning of social control. He examines the functioning of the social control system on two planes; 1) culturally approved ends- culturally approved means, and 2) behaviour expected in a given society (prescriptions) – actual behaviour (performance). The cultural goals (prescribed ends) are values such as: freedom, justice, equality, happiness, security, Means that are approved by society (prescribed means) are such norms as: the law, beliefs, legal codes, regulations, agreements. Goals which may actually be achieved (performed ends) are goals such as influence, social status, prestige, education, reputation, money. The means actually used to attain these goals (performed means) are practices such as. customs, traditions, conventions of behaviour, innovations in existing customs. A social system works well when all its constituent elements work well together. In such circumstances there are no disruptions in the functioning of social control. But if the various elements of the system clash, social control ceases to function efficiently, that is, it ceases to regulate human behaviour effectively. There is always a danger that the connections between the various elements of the system will become looser. This danger may take at least six forms: the accepted norms may not be able to protect the group values; goals may be beyond the reach of practical action; ways of behaving may be at odds with the sopially accepted norms; goals may be in conflict with the generally accepted values; there may also be a contradiction between values and practices, and between goals and norms. If the system is to work well, it is essential that there should be no basis divergence between formal (= legal) norms, and informal (= moral) norms. If the legal norms are rejected by the group because they do not fit in with the group's values, social control will not work. According to Schrag, the causes of crime should be sought not so much in the individual as in the social system and the way it functions. To sum up, one may present the sociological theory of social control as follows. It asks what makes people ready to subscribe to the norms and values accepted in a given society. Three basic types of answer may be given to this question. Answers of the first type stress the course and the effectiveness of socialisation processes. Answers of the second type emphasize the role of social bonds in the shaping of conformist behaviour. Answers of the third type draw attention to the importance of cohesion in the system of norms and values in a given society. On the whole, socialisation is a process that takes place within the primary groups. Its aim is to make the individual adopt society's norms and values. The optimum situation is where these norms become internalised, that is, they become an integral part of the person's internal mental and moral structure. If this happens, we can say that inner control governs behaviour - that is, the person’s own conscience keeps him from behaviour that does not fit the generally accepted patterns. This goal can be achieved when there are strong bonds of affection between an individual and his parents, and also when the individual finds emotional support in other primary groups. The role of the primary groups is not only to provide good personal models to imitate, or to help the inaividual to adopt the generally accepted norms, but also to exercise direct control over tbe individual' behaviour by inducing him to conform. If the individual is to absorb a sociaily approved system of norms and values, that system should be a well integrated one, the rules should be clearly stated, and behaviour at odds with the approved norm should encounter expected social sanctions. Social control is most effective when three basic factors play a role: when socialisation follows its undisturbed course, when the individual finds support in the group and the group is able to control the behaviour of the individual, and thirdly when the system of social norms and values is cohesive and clear. In times of social unrest, when bonds are weaker, and the individual does not know what to expect from society, social control will be unable to exert effective control over the individual’s behaviour.

55-85

Authors: Irena Rzeplińska

1.The 1969 Penal Code introduced a new system of sanctions for offences committed by habitual criminals in special circumstances. Two new categories of special recidivism are here introduced: special basic recidivism (Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code), and special multi-recidivism (Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code). The legal consequences of a conviction under Art. 60, § 1 or § 2 are as follows: 1) longer terms of imprisonment, 2)the application of special measures: protective supervison and commitment to a social readaptation centre, These measures take effect after the prison sentence has been served. Under the protective supervision system, the habitual offender is free, but supervised for a period of 3-5 years. The readaptation centre is a closed institution. The habitual offender is sent there for a minimum period of two years, up to a maximum of five years. After two years the penitentiary court may free the recidivist if it thinks he is unlikely to commit another crime after regaining his freedom. The conditions under which a person is sent to a readaptation centre differ, according to whether he or she was sentenced under Art. 60, §1 or Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code. A recidivist may be sent to a readaptation centre by either the criminal court or the penitentiary courts. The decision to apply these measures may be taken at diverse stages of the juridical and penitentiary process: 1) when the sentence is pronounced (by the criminal court), 2) towards the end of the prison sentence (penitentiary court), or 3) during the period of protective supervision (penitentiary court). In the first of the three stages mentioned above, the recidivist senrenced under Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code may or may not be put under protective supervison. It is not obligatory. In the case of a person sentenced under § 2 of Art. 60 of the Penal Code, it is obligatory either to put him under protecive supervision or to send him to a social readaptation centre. The decision to send a recidivist to a social readaptation centre (a more severe measure) is taken only if the court is of the opinion that protective supervision would be insufficient io prevent a return to crime. In the second of the three stages mentioned above, towards the end of the recidivists's sentence the penitentiary court takes the following decisions: 1) it may put the habitual criminal under protective supervision if that was not done in the sentence of the criminal court; 2) it may alter the decision of the criminal court and put the offender under a protective supervision order instead of sending him to a social readaptation centre. The third and last stage in which decisions are taken about the application of special measures, is when the offender is actually under the supervision of a Probation Officer. If the supervision is not working out satisfactorily, the recidivist may be sent to a social readaptation centre. 2.The habitual offender is supervised by a Probation Officer after he has served his prison sentence. No person who is under protective supervision may change his place of residence without the consent of the court. He is obliged to appear in court if summoned, and to carry out the court's recommendations (Art. 63 of the Penal Code). The court may order the recidivists: 1. to perform an obligation incumbent on the sentenced person to provide support for another person; 2. to perform specified work for a social purpose; 3. to perform remunerated work, pursuing an education or preparing for an occupation; 4. to refrain from abusing alcohol; 5. to submit to medical treatment; 6. to refrain from frequenting specified surroundings or places; 7. other appropriated behaviour in the period of protective supervision, if it may prevent the commission again of an offense. During the protective supervision period, the court may issue orders, or extend or alter those already given. During the protective supervision period the recidivist comes under the supervision of a Probation Officer appointed by the court, who at the same time is responsible for organizing the resocialization of the person being supervised. Protective supervision ceases: 1 when the appointed period of probation is at an end, and when probation has been successful, 2) Or aerlier, if the person being supervised fails to carry out the orders and obligations placed on him, or if he makes it impossible or difficult for the purpose of the protective supervison order to be attained (e.g. by committing a crime when under supervision, which means that the supervision was unsuccessful, 3) owing to causes which bring supervision to an end (e.g. death of the supervised person). 3. The study reported here dealt with one of the two special measures mentioned above - protective supervision. The main problem examined is the effectiveness of protective supervision. Protective supervision is a system which has two goals: one is to keep the supervised person from committing another crime (here we may speak of the restraining function of supervision), while the other is to resocialise the person on supervision (in this case we may speak of the resocialising function of probation). The key question asked by anyone who examines the effectiveness of some penal measure is: whether, and to what extent, does it attain its aims? With this definition in mind, the effectiveness of probation was examined in two fields. In the first (narrower) field, the author asked if there had been a juridical improvement in the behaviour of persons put under supervision. In the second (wider) field, success was measured by the extent of the supervised persons resocialisation - that is, an attempt was made to find out how the supervised person functioned in society, that is, whether he kept to the basic social norms that society expects,of its members. In both fields, the moment of time when effectiveness of supervision was assessed was that at which supervision ceased. Those who successfully completed their period of probation were checked again at the end of 38 months, to see whether or not they had reverted to crime. The group studied here consisted of all male recidivists in Warsaw who were put under a protective supervision order in 1971-1972. There were 232 persons in the group. Two research techniques were used. ln the first, the relevant documents were studied (documents concerning previous criminal caces, prison documents, records of the course of protective supervision, data, about previous convictions, as well as about periods spent in penal institutions and in remand). In the second, the recidivist was interviewed on the basis of a questionnaire. 4. Out of the 232 persons investigated, 43.1 % completed the supervision period successfully, 53.3% failed to do so, and in 3.4% of the cases death intervened. In this group of recidivists who had been put under supervision the author differentiated three groups: Group I - taken as having been resocialised during the supervision period, and as having successfully completed their supervision. This group consisted of 57 men (26% of the total number studied). Group II – regarded as not having been resocialised, but that completed the probation period successfully, without ill consequences for themselves. Group II consisted of 43 men (19% of the total). Group III, consisting of men who were not resocialised, and who as a result suffered the additional ill effect of being isolated in the social readaptation centre; this group failed to complete their supervision successfully. In this group were 124 men (55% of the total). Some of the unresocialised men in Group III did not carry out any of the duties or orders given them. Some reverted to crime even although for a time they carried out their duties and orders. Some did not carry out their duties and orders, and reverted to crime. In this group the supervision system failed to fulfil the functions expected of it. With regard to those who did not carry out their obligations and orders it failed in its resocialisation function, while with regard to the others, who committed a crime while under supervision, it failed in both its functions: restraint and resocialisation. The following characteristics were found in Groups I, II and III. Group I consisted mostly of the youngest men (only one-eighth of the group were over 40). They were educated at least up to elementary school standard (approx. age 14-15). During the probation period they carried out work that called for skills. They were physically healthy. In their case the supervision period was one in which their lives were financially more stable (they had paid jobs). They also had stable family lives, and started their own a families. Of all the groups, they had the fewest convictions up to the time the probation period began. They had mainly committed offences against property, but a significant number had been gauilty of crimes of a predominantly aggressive nature. Drunkenness was not noted among them during the supervision period. The men in this group declared that after they had come out of prison and been put under protective supervision they had no special trouble in beginning life again in freedom. They also said they were pleased with life. Group II consisted of men who, judged from the formal point of view, completed their supervision period successfully. But their behaviour during supervision, and above all their heavy drinking, does not justify us in regarding them as having been resocialised. These were habitual criminals who when put under supervision were older (mostly over the age of thirty), as compared witn the men in Group I. As many as a quarter of the men in Group II were habitual criminals aged forty and over. Compared with the men in Group I, they were less well educated, and worse qualified for jobs. Among them various types of physical complaints were found, possibly because they were older, and possibly also because they had a longer career of crime. Fewer of them were married. They seemed to make little effort to achieve financial stability. During the supervision period they frequently changed their job - often because of some infringement of discipline, or because they arbitrarily threw up their job. When they began probation, they had more convictions behind them than the men in Group I. Group II had the lowest number of men who had committed serious crimes against property, or serious aggressive crimes. They were guilty mostly of petty crimes. Above all the habitual criminals in this group are the most awkward ones from the social point of view. They were the ones who mostly said they were dissatisfied with their lives. While on supervision they did not give up heavy drinking. Moreover, although ordered to take a "drying-out" cure , they did not go for treatment at all, or did so irregularly. Before their conviction they had worked irregularly, with gaps in between jobs, but during the whole supervision period they worked. Groups III: protective supervision was a failure with group. As compared with the other groups the men in this one had more previous convictions - the average number of previous convictions being nearly six. More of them, as compared with the men in the other groups, went in mainly for crimes against property; the minority went in for crimes of a predominantly aggressive character and crimes of diverse types. Half of the men in Group II came into the 21-30 age group when ,they began supervision, while the other half were older (moreover, one-seventh were habitual criminals aged over forty). Even at the beginning of supervision the men in this group were in a worse situation than the others - especially as compared with the men in Group II, for they were worse educated, and worse prepared for earning living. The majority of the men in this group were single. Only one in five was married. Their health was noticeably poorer than that of the men in the other groups. Most of the men in this group drank heavilly during the supervision period. The men here confessed that immediately after getting out of prison they had trouble in getting back to a normal life. The main obstacles were lack of money, and the difficulty in finding a job. When questioned they said that on the whole they were not happy about their lives. The majority (72.6%) had reverted to crime while on supervision. The others had been taken out of supervision because they did not carry out their obligations ot the orders or the probation officer. 6. In this study of men put under protective supervision, one in every four is reckoned to have been a success. it was noted that during the supervision period factors that made for success were: setting up a family, having a regular skilled job, and avoidance of heavy drinking. In view of the above, it is the youngest habitual criminals who have the best chance of completing their supervision period successfultry. Age is in their favour, they have a better chance of a stable family life, they are better educated, better fitted for a job, they do not show the symptoms of social degradation associated with alcoholism, Because of these factors they are more likely to be able to return to a normal life. 7. During a period of 38 months from the end of the each man's supervision period, a check was kept on whether or not these men had further convictions. The men covered by this part of the study were those in Groups I and II, that is, those who successfully completed their probation. Thirteen men from Group I and twelve men from Group II (that is, twenty-five men altogether), had subsequent convictions. They constituted 25% of the two groups. It may therefore be stated that the majority (three-quarters) of the men in Groups I and II had no convictions during the thirty-eight months following the end of their supervision period. 8. In the supervised groups studied here, we took one quarter as having been resocialised by the end of supervision, one-fifth as having at most improved formally, and over a half as not having been resocialised - in their case supervision ended in failure. On the basis of this study it may be stated that the chief criterion on which the man on supervision was judged (and on which the success of the supervision proces was judged) was whether or not he carried out the instruction to have a paid job. This was due to two reasons: in the first place, if the man was in paid employment, it mean that he was fulfilling at least the minimum of the demands made on him during the supervision period (this minimum was: to earn his own living). Secondly, it was easy for both the Probation Officer and for the man he was supervising to check whether this order was being carried out, and how. The implementation of their instructions was treated as being of less importance. The main one was to have paid employment. If the man being supervised was in a job, but failed to carry out other instructions given to him, the Probation Officers did not ask for him to be taken off supervision. At the present moment, when reform of the criminal law in Poland is under discussion, one of the problems being examined is that of the penal liability of people who revert to crime, and the question of what legal penalties should be imposed on them. It has been pointed out during this discussion that the severe legal penalties imposed on habitual criminals during the last ten years have not been effective. Consequently the question still remains open: whether we should not apply the special measures described above - protective supervision or commitment to a social readaptation centre after the prison sentence is served. What we have learned from the use of a closed institution such as a social readaptation centre shows that it is completely ineffective. As for protective supervision, it has been postulated that this way of controlling the behaviour of habitual criminals should be transferred from the sphere of penal measures to the sphere of social security measures. It has been suggested that within the framework of post penitentiary care, specific medsures to help, which would be carried out by the probation officers, would be available to habitual criminals after coming out of prison.