Compensatory social control
Social control refers to social mechanisms that regulate individual and group behavior, leading to conformity and compliances to the rules of society. Social control is present in all societies, if only in the control mechanisms used to prevent the establishment of chaos or absence of standards or values (Toby, 1957).
Social Control Theory proposes that people's relationships, commitments, values, norms, and beliefs encourage them not to break the law. Thus, if moral codes are internalized and individuals are tied into, and have a stake in their wider community, they will voluntarily limit their propensity to commit deviant acts. The theory seeks to understand the ways in which it is possible to reduce the likelihood of criminality developing in individuals (Reiss, 1951).
Compensatory social control involves the payment of debt from the offender to the victim where offenders are obliged to compensate victims for the damage or any other harm that they have suffered. Hence the usefulness of this style is that once compensation has been paid the conflict is settled and the affected parties reconcile.
Compensatory liability usually features a connection between an act and some harmful outcome rather than the mental state that produces the act. In compensatory social control liability usually comes from the external relationship between an offence and a responsible party rather than the mental sate of mind of an offender. The usefulness of this is that consideration of motivation usually helps in repairing the damage from the harmful act. From the out going point of view, harm rather than guilt is essential for compensatory liability whereby the basic issue is not who is responsible for some injury but who will pay for it.
The compensatory damages are not rather expiatory but are used as a way of restoring the disrupted situation to its normal state hence a very crucial point in human reactions.
The nature of harm involved in a compensatory style of social control, puts into consideration compensation rather than punishment is more likely to damage material rather than moral sentiments. Whenever harm can be characterized as damaging the material rather than normative interests compensatory styles are likely to emerge. However sometimes it is difficult to prove that the organization committed some crime that involves intention, it is far easier to show what has resulted from the organizational action hence compensatory systems are useful and highly suitable to redress damages.
Moreso the predictors of compensatory styles are useful in that there is collective responsibility for the conduct of any individual where grievances arise at the intermediate rational distance when higher status offenders harm lower status victims.
As per relational distance between the parties involved in influences whether harm translates into provision compensation, compensation is likely to occur between either extremely close or distant. The usefulness of this is that the relational distance between the parties involved determines amount of compensation.
However, this is friendly to closely related offenders and unfriendly to offenders at greater distances who sometimes end up parting with heavy compensations to their victims.
Group ties are also another element of compensatory styles of social control. Here the usefulness of this style is that compensation is likely to occur when there are enough ties between the parties involved. The distance between the disputants here is always so close that obligations between each other are not questionable. The importance of this is that conciliation predominates the style but in case of maximal relational distance, the involvement of third parties becomes very crucial.
As per the point of hierarchy in compensatory style, the monetary compensation is not likely to exchange hands because the high ranking victims may refuse compensation and therefore opt for punishment of the offenders.
Finally the presence of compensatory styles is related to the nature of organizations. Again here collective liability is central in compensating the victims. The usefulness of this is that all members of the group are liable for providing compensation to someone who has been victimized by one of the group members. This is useful in that the risks are spread across many people and minimize costs to any particular member.
Conclusively, compensation is a holistic setting more emphasis in repairing of the disrupted relationship and restoration of harmony in society. However compensation is not moralistic style of social control because it can end up weakening normative system of social groups because offenders who commit offences intentionally and unintentionally are treated alike.
REFERENCES
Reiss, Albert J. (1951). “Delinquency as the failure of personal and social control”. American Sociological Review 16 (April): 196-207.
Toby, Jackson. (1957). "Social Disorganization and Stake in Conformity". J. Crim Law & Criminology 48:12-17.
Social Control Theory proposes that people's relationships, commitments, values, norms, and beliefs encourage them not to break the law. Thus, if moral codes are internalized and individuals are tied into, and have a stake in their wider community, they will voluntarily limit their propensity to commit deviant acts. The theory seeks to understand the ways in which it is possible to reduce the likelihood of criminality developing in individuals (Reiss, 1951).
Compensatory social control involves the payment of debt from the offender to the victim where offenders are obliged to compensate victims for the damage or any other harm that they have suffered. Hence the usefulness of this style is that once compensation has been paid the conflict is settled and the affected parties reconcile.
Compensatory liability usually features a connection between an act and some harmful outcome rather than the mental state that produces the act. In compensatory social control liability usually comes from the external relationship between an offence and a responsible party rather than the mental sate of mind of an offender. The usefulness of this is that consideration of motivation usually helps in repairing the damage from the harmful act. From the out going point of view, harm rather than guilt is essential for compensatory liability whereby the basic issue is not who is responsible for some injury but who will pay for it.
The compensatory damages are not rather expiatory but are used as a way of restoring the disrupted situation to its normal state hence a very crucial point in human reactions.
The nature of harm involved in a compensatory style of social control, puts into consideration compensation rather than punishment is more likely to damage material rather than moral sentiments. Whenever harm can be characterized as damaging the material rather than normative interests compensatory styles are likely to emerge. However sometimes it is difficult to prove that the organization committed some crime that involves intention, it is far easier to show what has resulted from the organizational action hence compensatory systems are useful and highly suitable to redress damages.
Moreso the predictors of compensatory styles are useful in that there is collective responsibility for the conduct of any individual where grievances arise at the intermediate rational distance when higher status offenders harm lower status victims.
As per relational distance between the parties involved in influences whether harm translates into provision compensation, compensation is likely to occur between either extremely close or distant. The usefulness of this is that the relational distance between the parties involved determines amount of compensation.
However, this is friendly to closely related offenders and unfriendly to offenders at greater distances who sometimes end up parting with heavy compensations to their victims.
Group ties are also another element of compensatory styles of social control. Here the usefulness of this style is that compensation is likely to occur when there are enough ties between the parties involved. The distance between the disputants here is always so close that obligations between each other are not questionable. The importance of this is that conciliation predominates the style but in case of maximal relational distance, the involvement of third parties becomes very crucial.
As per the point of hierarchy in compensatory style, the monetary compensation is not likely to exchange hands because the high ranking victims may refuse compensation and therefore opt for punishment of the offenders.
Finally the presence of compensatory styles is related to the nature of organizations. Again here collective liability is central in compensating the victims. The usefulness of this is that all members of the group are liable for providing compensation to someone who has been victimized by one of the group members. This is useful in that the risks are spread across many people and minimize costs to any particular member.
Conclusively, compensation is a holistic setting more emphasis in repairing of the disrupted relationship and restoration of harmony in society. However compensation is not moralistic style of social control because it can end up weakening normative system of social groups because offenders who commit offences intentionally and unintentionally are treated alike.
REFERENCES
Reiss, Albert J. (1951). “Delinquency as the failure of personal and social control”. American Sociological Review 16 (April): 196-207.
Toby, Jackson. (1957). "Social Disorganization and Stake in Conformity". J. Crim Law & Criminology 48:12-17.
posted by mwesigye herbert at 10:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home