In this video, it talks about how different people reopen a theory and talks more about the original people that started the theory. In the video, he states that the theory starts in the 1930s and was a new approach towards study crime. In Professor Burgess study he does “Five Concentric Zones”, its five zones where certain people lives. I found it interesting that zone 2 was the most crime rated place. Zone two must be where people sell drugs and do a lot of violent acts and get their crime rates up. He says that zone 5 had the lowest crime rate. They are the ones that have money and can have security in their homes. They neighborhood is very good and they might just be minding their own business making money. Zone 1 compared to Zone 5, they are doing illegal things to make money and zone 5 maybe actually working to get their money the right way. Also, maybe in zone 5 they may have grown up to act that way because the environment and they don’t have no support. And Zone 5 may have a lot of support and grew up in a good environment going to school and wasn’t around a lot of crime to convince them to do crime. Shawn and Mckay theory was very interesting in many ways and look very hard to do. They didn’t have technology back then so they did there experiment by hand. They mapped the address of each delinquent that was in the system, but studied the area not the people. They must of really worked hard to get there results. The code of the streets was also interesting to. He states that basically out-migration, social isolation, weekend culture, lead to crime. I have to agree outside factors do have some sort of affect on how we behave, but we are still able to control ourselves and we should be able to back away from these factors and find factors that are more better for our lives. While looking at the five concentric zones and seeing that the highest crime rate is right around the center of the city is reasonable because that is where we have a lot of high end jobs along with a lot of poverty around these areas. Knowing from this map of the zones that the further we get away from urban big cities the less crime we have is good because maybe we need to stop urbanizing all these little rural areas and worry about making the urban areas more like rural areas. After hearing of the many factors that can contribute to juvenile arrest rates rising it makes more sense because most of the juveniles we lock up are poverty stricken areas and they most likely have had at least one of their parents go to prison. If juveniles are in a house where all the get to see is parents fighting and doing drugs, then this is all they are going to know what to do and this is what they think the rest of the world is like. When he is talking about how these people have the opportunity to buy their own vehicles make a lot of sense, because if you have your own vehicle you can go anywhere at anytime and move anywhere because if you have enough money for a car you should be able to have enough for a house. If you do not have your own vehicle then you will have to walk or take the bus, subway and you will not be able to travel as far out of the inner city. Babyblue123 & illini123
In this video, it talks about how different people reopen a theory and talks more about the original people that started the theory. In the video, he states that the theory starts in the 1930s and was a new approach towards study crime. In Professor Burgess study he does “Five Concentric Zones”, its five zones where certain people lives. I found it interesting that zone 2 was the most crime rated place. Zone two must be where people sell drugs and do a lot of violent acts and get their crime rates up. He says that zone 5 had the lowest crime rate. They are the ones that have money and can have security in their homes. They neighborhood is very good and they might just be minding their own business making money. Zone 1 compared to Zone 5, they are doing illegal things to make money and zone 5 maybe actually working to get their money the right way. Also, maybe in zone 5 they may have grown up to act that way because the environment and they don’t have no support. And Zone 5 may have a lot of support and grew up in a good environment going to school and wasn’t around a lot of crime to convince them to do crime. Shawn and Mckay theory was very interesting in many ways and look very hard to do. They didn’t have technology back then so they did there experiment by hand. They mapped the address of each delinquent that was in the system, but studied the area not the people. They must of really worked hard to get there results. The code of the streets was also interesting to. He states that basically out-migration, social isolation, weekend culture, lead to crime. I have to agree outside factors do have some sort of affect on how we behave, but we are still able to control ourselves and we should be able to back away from these factors and find factors that are more better for our lives. While looking at the five concentric zones and seeing that the highest crime rate is right around the center of the city is reasonable because that is where we have a lot of high end jobs along with a lot of poverty around these areas. Knowing from this map of the zones that the further we get away from urban big cities the less crime we have is good because maybe we need to stop urbanizing all these little rural areas and worry about making the urban areas more like rural areas. After hearing of the many factors that can contribute to juvenile arrest rates rising it makes more sense because most of the juveniles we lock up are poverty stricken areas and they most likely have had at least one of their parents go to prison. If juveniles are in a house where all the get to see is parents fighting and doing drugs, then this is all they are going to know what to do and this is what they think the rest of the world is like. When he is talking about how these people have the opportunity to buy their own vehicles make a lot of sense, because if you have your own vehicle you can go anywhere at anytime and move anywhere because if you have enough money for a car you should be able to have enough for a house. If you do not have your own vehicle then you will have to walk or take the bus, subway and you will not be able to travel as far out of the inner city. Babyblue123 & illini123
ReplyDelete