Different methods of social control are used in different societies to bring peace and order. The prevalence of peace and order in communities helps bring about social development and the development of a nation in general (Abotchie, 1997). Social control has been mainly used to control crime in various societies. Nevertheless, over the years, crime incidences have been on the rise. Social control has been defined as the group of planned and unplanned processes used to teach, persuade, and compel individuals to adhere to particular life values in a given group or society ( O'Reilly and Chatman, 1996) . Social control comprises formal or institutional and informal or non-institutional control. According to Abotchie (1997), social control occurs at different levels, namely:
At the societal level where the society members are compelled to conform to societal values
At group level where a particular group keeps check of another group's conduct
At individual levels whereby individuals informally influence the behavior of others
In traditional societies, social control was used to achieve different purposes such as continuity, solidarity, and conformity to the values in a specific group or community in general. Various reasons compel individuals to conform to their society's values and norms. The reasons include one's sense of guilt for deviating from the traditional social norms, the societal expectations to conform to the standards whereby conformity is applauded while the violation is disapproved, and the fear of punishment from supernatural forces for deviating from the societal norms. Individuals were mainly taught societal values through socialization. Sanctions, which comprised punishment and rewards, were used to persuade individuals to conformity. Individuals who chose not to conform to the societal values were coerced through different means such use of physical force (Abotchie, 1997).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Crime Concepts among the Southern Ewes in Ghana
In traditional Southern Eweland of Ghana, the Ewes used both institutional and informal types of social control to ensure conformity to societal norms and values. The informal mechanism of social control involved the use of social pressure, humiliation, guilt feeling, ridicule, habituation, taboos, and stigma of witchcraft accusation (Abotchie, 1997). Institutional social control was enhanced through various rites of passage in the society from birth, puberty, marriage to death. The institutional social control was mostly adhered to due to the traditional religious connections usually cited (Abotchie, 1997).
The southern Ewes regarded crime as actions that transgressed the robust and distinct societal consciousness and disposition and which consequently called for punishment. The Southern Ewes believe in supernatural benevolent forces as the origin of justice and fair play and possess the choice of life and death in a man’s life (Abotchie, 1997). The benevolent supernatural forces are considered virtuous and supervise over the Ewes code of morals, which bear a resemblance to the Jewish Ten Commandments (Abotchie, 1997). Besides the society has other code of ethics comprising of moral standards and norms which help shape the behavior of the society members. The rules govern to control forms of abuse, sexual relations such as incest and rape, assaults, and social taboos.
Involvement in criminal acts was considered to be harmful to social morals. The Ewe society believes in the existence of malevolent supernatural forces, which are considered the source of evil and cause of crime (Abotchie, 1997). A serious transgression such as rape, murder, or rape was believed to have been influenced by evil forces and evoked exorcism, exile, or execution of the wrongdoer as the form of punishment. This helped to eliminate the impurity from the society and prevention of vengeance on the community. Some transgressions are, however, regarded as being a result of the free will of the wrongdoer. They include adultery and theft, and society punishes the individuals for the intentional wrongdoing (Abotchie, 1997).
Some transgressions among the Southern Ewes call for state or public intervention. This helps to emphasize the disapproval of the commission of the offense while ensuring respect for the human rights of the individual. The seriousness of the crime, such as homicide, robbery, or adultery, and the frequency of committing simple offenses such as falsehood and indebtedness determine the extent of gravity of a crime (Abotchie, 1997). Failure to heed to warning and repetition of the simple offense more than thrice was punished by being sold as a slave. Wrongdoers rely on the support of the public when seeking redress for their crimes. The traditional methods of seeking redress included putting a complaint at the chief's court or shrines of a societal god (Abotchie, 1997).
Commission of crime by did not only hurt the wrongdoers once punishment was invoked but families and groups too. In sanctions whereby the wrongdoers were to pay fines, the culprit’s family carried the burden despite them being innocent (Abotchie, 1997). Murder crimes were also punished through the pawning of the offender's lineage members. Failure to meet the obligations upon committing the offense resulting in punishment from the gods, such as the death of innocent family members. Consequently, to prevent such harmful acts from befalling a group, the society members among the Ewes were collectively involved in preventing crime. Each lineage member had the mandate of keeping the actions of each other in check. Families used different measures to keep their members away from crime. For example, children involved in theft cases such as food or money were punitively punished by their families through painful measures to deter them from engaging in crime in the future (Abotchie, 1997).
The social Control Mechanisms among the Southern Ewes
Social control among the Southern Ewes was mainly effected at the group level through the lineage groups (Abotchie, 1997). The lineage head, who is the eldest surviving male in the lineage, is considered closest to the ancestors, thus acts as their representative in enforcing the society's moral code. The lineage interprets the moral code for the lineage members and clearly outlines to them the sanctions imposed upon committing crimes. He also enforces sanctions on members of the lineage who commit crimes. The sanctions are secular and sacred. Serious offenses such as incest and homicide were met with expulsion from the descent by the lineage leader. The eviction had its religious consequences, such as loss of ancestral protection and secular repercussions such as loss of economic and social privileges such as the right to inheritance (Abotchie, 1997). Simple transgressions were punished through the imposition of fines and loss of the right to use the ancestral land. The lineage head was involved in occasional consultations with lineage elders on matters settling disputes and sanctions impositions. The fear of religious and secular consequences helped coerce, persuade, and influence individuals to streamline their behavior in line with the social norms and values.
The fear of bearing consequences for the crimes committed by one of the lineage members helped ensure that the lineage members watch the behavior of each other to ensure it is in line with the society's values (Abotchie, 1997). The lineage members were thus involved in the collective responsibility of preventing the commission of a crime by one of the lineage members since punishment at times struck randomly at innocent lineage members and not the offender. A lineage member who failed to stay in line with the society's morals was sanctioned to public punishment by his lineage.
The Southern Ewes used socialization to effect social control of its lineage members. The socialization process began right from birth through outdooring rites, puberty, marriage, and mortuary rites (Abotchie, 1997). The rites helped to ensure that the norms and values of the society are successively passed down from elder members to inexperienced society members. The rights helped to teach individual members their new social status and roles. The rites of passage are as elaborated below (Abotchie, 1997):
Outdooring
The birth of a child is marked by the lineage head offering prayers to protect the child and the mother from all forms of evil. The child is named eight days later after an ancestor or given a new name. During the naming ceremony, the child is initiated to speak to the culture of his society. The child though unreasoning, is made aware of the good and the bad and urged to distinguish between them. The child is also encouraged to carry on the good deeds of his ancestors or surpass them even. The child is thus introduced into elements of morality. The naming ceremony also helps to remind adults that they, too, were to lead socially exemplary lives and are to guide children to stick to the values of the society. Thus, right from birth, a crime prevention mechanism is put in place. The lineage members are also involved in the upbringing of the child and help teach them the aspects of the society culture.
Puberty rites
An individual who has attained puberty age is considered mature enough to discern right and wrong. The traditional element of criminality is instilled in initiates. Girls go through different puberty rites. In one of the rituals, virgin girls are informed about the norms and values of society. They are inducted into what constitutes virtues in womanhood and marriages and encouraged to maintain fidelity in their future marriages. They are also informed of the observance of the society’s supernatural gods on their moral standing and the sanctions that are associated with violating the moral code.
Boys, being male members in the society, were considered intermediaries between the living and ancestors. Thus it was expected of them to adhere to the norm and values prescribed by ancestors. Habituation and proverbs were used to inculcate into boys' society values.
Marriage rites
Marriage in the traditional Southern Ewe society occurred through different modes such as infant betrothal and preferential marriages where the bride and groom were aware of their planned marriages. Arranged marriages involving bride seizure were also existent and were secretively arranged. All three marriage forms, however, included the proof of virginity, confinement, and orientation of the bride, which helped ensure security and greater bond in the marriage. Proof of virginity was necessary as the society greatly abhorred premarital sex. The brides were oriented into marriages and informed of the sanctity of marriage. They were urged to observe fidelity and informed of the consequences that punishment enforced for engaging in adultery, such as being disowned.
A lot of emphasis on inculcating values and norms to girls during puberty and marriage rites was informed by the significant amounts of time they spend with children, thus better placed to pass on the values to the children.
Final rites
Final rites performed on the dead such offerings to usher them into the land of the dead helped persuade living individuals against living criminal lives. This is because persons who had been involved in crimes and discredited their lineages were not accorded the final rites. The fear of being denied last rites and thus not joining the ancestors in the land of the dead made individuals while still living to lead moral lives in conformity with the society norms and life values.
Contemporary American Approach to Criminal Justice
Unlike the traditional Southern Ewe society, which mainly relied on social control to prevent engagement in criminal activities, the American approach to criminal justice has primarily been premised on making convictions in court, which results in imprisonment for the offending individuals. As a result, more individuals have been imprisoned, and different consequences for individuals, families, and the community realized.
Blumstein and Beck (1999) documented the increase of population in US prisons. They state that the state and federal imprisonments increased by more than 200 percent from 1980 to 1996 (Blumstein and Beck, 1999). The growth resulted from increased offending rates, more arrests made for particular offenses, commitment to prison terms, and duration of sentence served. The study investigated the increase in prison population from six main crimes, namely murder, sexual assault, robbery, assault, burglary, and drugs. The use of law enforcement to combat drug abuse is linked to the increase in drug offenders in US prisons. Drug offenders accounted for 60 percent of the prison population in federal prisons and 23 percent in state prisons (Blumstein and Beck, 1999). More An increase in the number of convictions for arrests made also contributed to the rise in the prison population. An increase in the length of sentences also increased the prison population.
Blumstein and Beck (1999) question the effectiveness of prison sentences in deterring engagement in crime. They note that an increase of the time that one serves in prison does not effectively prevent individuals from participating in a crime. Incarceration, which is a sanctioning policy is the primary technique that has been used in an attempt to prevent and control crime in the US. Blumstein and Beck (1999) question the effectiveness of incarceration in reducing crime by noting that if at all, it was an effective measure, crime rates in the US would have decreased. They note that the benefits of imprisonment in deterring crime are minimal. They even exert economic strain on the nation, such as a reduction in funding to critical sectors such as education. Taxpayers also incur costs to cater to increased prison populations. Imprisonment also results in disruptions in societies that the culprits originate. They urge legislators and governors to adopt other measures such as community sanctions to combat the increase in crime.
Mauer (2001) makes observations similar to Blumstein and Beck by noting that a shift in the sentencing policies occasioned the increase in population in US prisons, and the methods adopted to curb drug abuse. The approach to controlling and preventing crime has ignored the societal factors that contribute to crime (Mauer,2001). He notes that the previous sentencing policy was more focused on rehabilitation as it involved the characteristics and conditions surrounding an offender before making a sentence. The current sentencing policy has resulted in higher prison populations but very little connection in decreasing crime rates. Mauer (2001) states that an increase in prisons and imprisonment is not the much-needed option in controlling crime. Mass imprisonment results in substantial questions on respect for human rights and racial polarization as it fails to address the underlying issues. The increase in crime in the US due to issues such as increased urbanization was resolved with a tough on crime approach that resulted in more imprisonments. A noteworthy factor that contributed to the adoption of a tough on crime approach was the American culture of individualism. Americans are individualistic are less likely to adopt collective measures that address social issues; thus, the adoption of an approach that sought to punish the individual offender rather than correcting the underlying contributing factors. The imposition of punishment is quicker and easier for individuals that we are not connected to.
Mauer (2001) states that mass incarcerations are limited in their effectiveness to control crime when analyzed in terms of their costs and benefits. He urges the criminal justice system to use non- imprisonment measures such as probation, community service, and restitution sanctions. He notes that society favours these measures as opposed to imprisonment. The strict approach to crime fails to consider these approaches by focusing on mandatory sentencing. Mauer (2001) advocates for a policy change that seeks to address the contributing underlying issues. He suggests the greater inclusion and consultations to control crime among various members such as family members, religious leaders as they are in charge of moral issues, and educational leaders. He also urges for a shift from punishment to a problem-solving approach in solving a crime. Broader discussions he states will help create the vision of the society that the Americans want. He urges for the creation of a vision for public safety by creating strong families and communities.
Hagan and Dinovitzer (2001) brings to the limelight the often-unnoticed effects of imprisonment on children, communities, and prisoners. He states that even though imprisonment may result in a reduction in crime, it has the often-unnoticed impact of creating a disintegrated society with a lot of individuals with social issues not addressed at childhood. He states that imprisonment destroys the human and social capital of the imprisoned, families, and society in general. The construction of more prisons robs communities the opportunity to be constructed for more helpful facilities such as schools and hospitals. However, he notes that prisons have their role to play in society but should not be the primary focus. Imprisonment of parents has different impacts on children. The incarceration of fathers results in loss of financial support for families as they are mainly the breadwinners in these families (Hagan and Dinovitzer, 2001) . Consequently, children miss out on care and services such as schooling. The incarceration of mothers robs children of their primary caregivers. Such mothers miss the crucial role of socializing their children. They are put under foster care, where the involved parents experience difficulties bringing up the children as they do not have a clear understanding of their state. Upon release from prison, such mothers experience difficulties reconnecting with their children. Ex-prisoners experience challenges searching for employment since their reputation is usually damaged. Children of imprisoned parents are also likely to experience stigma and might become errant members of society prone to engage in crime (Hagan and Dinovitzer, 2001) .
Incarceration rates remain high in the US. An estimated 2.2 million prisoners are in US prisons and jails (Sentencing Project, 2017). The sentencing policies have mostly contributed to the increase in the prison population more than changes in crime have contributed. The result has been congestion in prisons and increased fiscal burden on states to maintain the prisons. This is despite incriminating evidence that mass imprisonment does not result in public safety. Part of the composition of the prisoners are drug offenders, some not involved in high-level trade, and are first time offenders. An increase in women imprisonment at a rate higher than men has had an impact on family units. Imprisonment rates also underscore racial disparities, with greater than 60 percent of the imprisoned being people of color (Sentencing Project, 2017).
Valuable lessons for the American Criminal Justice System
One of the crucial lessons that the American criminal justice system can learn from Southern Ewe's crime prevention and control measures is that families and societies have a pivotal role in shaping the behavior of individuals. Indeed, the family and society role comes first when compared with punitive measures. Families and communities are to keep in check individuals to ensure they do not engage in crime. Thus, mass imprisonment, as currently adopted, only serves to disintegrate families, which should be playing this crucial role. There is a need for advocacy for better parenting.
Also, some of the sanctions imposed on offenders in the Southern Ewe traditional community are worth emulating. Individuals were at first restricted from some social and economic privileges when errant. They were also allocated specific duties as sanctions for involvement in a crime. The American criminal justice approach can borrow from this and institute more community service and restitution as correction measures for offenders. This can mostly apply for first-time offenders, and only in repetitive incidences and serious crimes should imprisonment be adopted. Social control has been seen to effectively control behavior as evidenced in the Southern Ewes; thus, the American society needs to embrace such an approach in contrast to the individualist culture that is currently existent.
References
Abotchie, C. (1997). Social control in traditional southern Eweland of Ghana: Relevance for modern crime prevention . Accra: Ghana Universities Press.
Blumstein, A., & Beck, A. J. (1999). Population growth in US prisons, 1980-1996. Crime and justice , 26 , 17-61.
Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. Crime and justice , 26 , 121-162.
Mauer, M. (2001). The causes and consequences of prison growth in the United States. Punishment & Society , 3 (1), 9-20.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment.
Sentencing Project. (2017). Trends in US Corrections (Fact Sheet).
