Crime And Deviance Flashcards
What is a crime?
Act of behaviour that breaks the formal, written laws of a given society + attracts some form of punishment
What is deviance?
Behaviour that doesn’t conform to the dominant norms of a specific society, breaking of social rules
Ways in which deviance is socially defined
Time- when/time of day
Culture- different cultures have different expectations of appropriate behaviour
Social situation- context of an act
Place- where it takes place
Police recorded statistics
-Records kept by police/official agencies
-Published every 6 months by Home Office
-Been collected since 1857- historical overview
Victim studies
Ask sample of people whether they’ve been victims + if it was reported
Most important = Crime Survey for England + Wales- conducted annually by Home Office
Self-report studies
Surveys asking people if they have committed crimes
Conducted by gov departments/sociological researchers
Rely on truthfulness of respondents
Problems with victim studies
People may lie that they haven’t been a victim
May not realise they’ve been a victim
Small sample size
Pressure to answer a certain way
Problems with self-report studies
May not tell truth- relies on honesty
People may over exaggerate
Small scale
Focuses on particular crimes + people
How can crime statistics be considered to be a social construction?
2014 = report by inspectorate of police- suggested that as many as 1/5 of crimes reported are not included in their stats- could be due to seriousness of offence, classification of offence, social status of person reporting crime
What did Durkheim say about crime?
“Crime is normal… an integral part of all healthy societies”
What are the 5 ways crime can be functional (Durkheim)?
- Reinforces value consensus + social solidarity = reminds people how to behave + rights/wrongs
- Acts as a safety valve = Cohen- deviance allows to ‘let off steam’ in a relatively harmless way - can de-stress
- Acts as a warning device = Clinard- sends a message that social order is breaking down - prompts authorities to do something
- Creation of jobs = creates employment- good for society
- Adaptation and change = deviance forces people to assess/reassess nature of social expectation
Criticisms of Durkheim’s reasons why crime is functional
-Fails to explain why people commit crime- doesn’t look at causes of crime
-Ignores class + gender
-Ignores how crime can be dysfunctional for the criminal
-Ignores how crime doesn’t always lead to social solidarity
-Doesn’t indicate how much crime/deviance is healthy
Merton’s strain theory
Everyone has same values- want American Dream (goal = same) -> legitimate means through talent/ambition/effort -> inequality of opportunity means path is blocked from those from poor backgrounds -> society where ‘rules’ aren’t important and all emphasis is on end goals -> resort to crime/deviance to achieve these goals
Why does Merton suggest deviance occurs?
When individuals find that they can’t achieve success goals of society in the normal way - “strain” between goals + ability to achieve them
Merton’s strain theory evaluation
Weaknesses = Focuses on working-class crime, deterministic, only accounts for utilitarian crime (crime for a purpose) whereas a lot of w/c crime is also non-utilitarian Strengths = links increase in deviance to ideologies of societies, led to programmes attempting to improve opportunities for disadvantaged, shows how societal pressures lead to crime
How do subcultural strain theories explain deviance?
See it as product of delinquent subculture with different norms/values to mainstream society -> subcultures = alternative opportunity for those who are denied chance to achieve by legitimate means - subcultures are a solution
What are Cohen’s 2 criticisms of Merton’s strain theory + how does he solve this?
- Delinquency is collective rather than individual response 2. Merton doesn’t explain crime that doesn’t have financial gain -> solves this by saying how delinquents are motivated by status frustration - form a subculture to gain status
Cohen’s subcultural theory
W/C boys hold same success goals as mainstream theory -> due to educational failure + dead end jobs, can’t get them -> boys suffer from status frustration + become angry -> reject goals of mainstream society + form own norms/values -> gain status in gang through activities e.g. stealing, vandalism, truancy -> delinquent subculture born
Criticisms of Cohen
Debatable that all youths hold some goals of mainstream society, doesn’t explain why youths from middle/upper classes join subcultures
Cloward + Ohlin subcultural theory
Argue subcultural responses to strain different due to different neighbourhoods as they provide different illegitimate opportunities
Opportunity subculture has 3 levels:
1. Criminal = career structure for aspiring criminals in crime, role models in crime, in stable W/C communities with contacts in illegal communities
2. Conflict = no criminal career available to young males- turn frustration to violence
3. Retreatist = double failure- those that don’t make into crime or violence, retreat into drugs, petty theft
Criticisms of Cloward + Ohlin
-Draw boundaries too sharply between types of subculture- actual subcultures show characteristics of more than one type
-No discussion about female deviancy
What do Marxists see the causes of crime being?
-Capitalist society systematically generates crime
-Capitalist society emphasises individual gain rather than collective wellbeing.
Marxism- crimogenic capitalism
Rational behaviour- capitalism encourages greed/self-interest - breaking law seen as a rational step to satisfy desires
Reaction to poverty- crime=only way W/C can survive
Reaction to materialism- obsession with personal gain -> may be only way to achieve this -> utilitarian crime
Response to alienation -> frustration aggression -> non utilitarian crimes
Consequence of competition- dog eat dog system of capitalism - encourages greed - explains white collar crime
Marxism- state and law making
Protecting workers = laws appear to protect interests of workers- maintain loyalty of W/C + acceptance of system
Health+safety laws = provide fit + healthy workforce - benefit to capitalism - false class consciousness
Selective law enforcement = systematic bias in favour of those at the top - ignores crimes of the powerful
Marxism- ideological functions of crime + law
Laws appear to be for WC benefit
But having less work-related injuries -> more staff fit -> more money
Violations of health/safety laws not rigorously reinforced
Media ignores that it’s capitalism making people turn to crime
Evaluation of Marxist theories of crime
Strengths:
-shows links between law making/enforcement for benefit of capitalist class
-offer a solution to crime- replacing capitalist society with a communist one
Weaknesses:
-over predicts w/c crime
-not all capitalist societies have high crime rates e.g. Japan
-largely ignores relationship between crime + non-class inequalities e.g. gender, ethnicity
What are white collar crimes and what did Sutherland say about them?
Committed by an individual for their own benefit as opposed to that of the company e.g. small theft, scam
Sutherland = financial losses from WCC < important than damage to social relations, destroys trust in institutions + produces social disorganisation
Why is white collar crime under-represented in official statistics?
‘Invisible crime’
‘Victimless’ crime
May benefit all involved e.g. bribery
Difficult to investigate
Lack of awareness
What is corporate crime?
Committed by corporations/businesses
Companies committing crimes for gain of the company as opposed to people committing crimes against their company
Example = not having correct permits/licences
Example of corporate crime
Boeing 737 Max
-installed program (MCAS) to take control/override without pilots knowing
-refused to give simulator training for the new plane
-caused a plane crash in Indonesia and another one in Ethiopia- following instructions didn’t work
-dismissed concerns about safety to make money
Reasons why corporate crimes don’t get reported
- Media = limited coverage + describes it in sanitised language
- Lack of political will = politicians focus on street crime not crimes of rich
- Often complex crime = agencies often understaffed, under resourced + lack expertise -> limited investigation
- Under-reporting = victim not always identifiable, victims may be unaware/feel powerless
- De-labelling = often filtered out of criminalisation process
5 types of corporate crime
Financial crime, crimes against consumers, crimes against employees, crimes against the environment, state-corporate crime
Strain theory explanation of corporate crime
Box = company can’t achieve goal of maximising profit through legal means- employs illegal ones - may break law when profitability = squeezed
Clinard + Yeager = law violations by large companies increase as financial performance decreases
Labelling theory explanation of corporate crime
De-labelling = have power to avoid labelling therefore continue doing it due to not being labelled as criminal
Marxist explanation of corporate crime
Result of normal functioning of capitalism
Box = capitalism created ‘mystification’ -> spread ideology that corporate crime is < widespread/harmful
Not all corporate crime prosecuted- creates illusion that its an exception
Companies comply with the law where they see it enforced strictly
Differential Association explanation of corporate crime
Sutherland = more we’re with people with criminal attitudes, > likely we’re to become deviant - company justifies committing crimes, more employees do it - Geis = workers involved in price-fixing when joining companies where it’s practised
Deviant subcultures -> different norms/values - new members of company socialised into become deviant to achieve corporate goals
Techniques of neutralisation - Sykes + Matza = people deviate more easily if they can produce justifications
Labelling theory of crime- Becker
Argues 3 points:
1. Just because someone breaks a rule, doesn’t mean others will define it as deviant
2. Someone has to enforce rules, usually those with a vested interest in the issue
3. If the person successfully labelled, then consequences will follow
A deviant is someone to who a label has been applied, deviant behaviour is behaviour that people label as deviant
Cicourel: the negotiation of justice (labelling theory)
Decision to punish based on multiple factors e.g. circumstance, background, appearance
Decision to arrest based on typifications about offenders - bias by agents of social control
Argues justice isn’t fixed but negotiable- m/c < likely to be arrested- instead warned/released because they don’t fit typification - parents can successfully negotiate
How do agents of social control mean that crime statistics are a social construction?
Can decide whether to proceed at each stage of CJS - outcome depends on label affected by typifications - stats only tell about activities of police/prosecutors not amount of crime
Lemert: primary + secondary deviance (labelling theory)
Primary deviance = deviant acts without publically label, usually trivial, don’t make habit of it, don’t normally think of themselves as deviant
Secondary deviance = result of societal reaction, stigmatised + excluded, seen in terms of their label
Master status = creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where they live up to the label
Deviant career = labelled person shunned, can’t get work, join deviant subculture, confirms deviant identity
Labelling + criminal justice policy- Triplett
Increasing tendency to see young offenders as evil + be < tolerant to minor offences
CJS re-labelled status offences e.g. truancy as more serious -> harsher sentences
Predicted by Lemert’s theory of secondary deviance
Criticisms of labelling theory
-Focuses on underachievers
-Doesn’t look at causes of crime
-Marxist- capitalism not mentioned
-Deterministic
-Emphasis on negative effects
-Fails to explain why people commit primary deviance
-Implies deviance wouldn’t exist without labelling
-Assumes offenders are passive victims
How do left realists see society?
As unequal capitalist but they believe in gradual change instead of a violent overthrow of capitalism
What do left realists believe about the rising crime rate?
That is a real problem- more people becoming victims- especially disadvantaged groups (shown by victim surveys)
Left realists- relative deprivation
People feel disadvantaged compared to others- people lack things others have
Feel its unfair- leads to crime
Lea + Young- paradox in todays society- people are better off but media fuels relative deprivation- constant exposure to material goods- people turn to crime
Left realists- subculture
Subculture = collective solution to relative deprivation
Criminal subcultures = same values/goals (materialism/consumerism)
Left realists- marginalisation
Groups on margins of society- no clear goals
Feel resentment/frustration- expressed through crime
3 methods proposed by left realists to tackle crime
-Democratic control policing
-Multi-agency approach
-Tackling the structural causes
Left realist solution to crime- introduce democratic control policing
Kinsey, Lea + Young:
-public must become more involved- have their say in how policing is carried out
-police rely on public info but they are losing public support- have to turn to military policing- must improve relationship
Left realist solution to crime- A multi-agency approach
-Can’t be left to police alone
-Needs to involve other agencies e.g. social services, schools, housing departments
Left realist solution to crime- tackling the structural causes
-Crime due to unequal structure of capitalist society
-Structural changes are needed e.g. providing decent jobs for all + improving housing
Left realist solution to crime- tackling the structural causes
-Crime due to unequal structure of capitalist society
-Structural changes are needed e.g. providing decent jobs for all + improving housing
Lea + Young- square of crime
Must look at 4 elements = state, victim, informal controls, offender
Left realism = late modernity, exclusion + crime
-Creation of a ‘bulimic’ society - gorge on media images of consumer lifestyles + circumstances force them to vomit out - frustration/resentment
- > relative deprivation, > crime
- Lewis et al (2011) = London riots 2011- desire to consume + inability to achieve -> riots as turned to violence - true cause of protests (police violence) got lost
Evaluation of left realist view of crime
Strengths:
-draws upon number of theories
-doesn’t glamorise crime like Marxists
-takes tackling of crime very seriously
-recognises effects for victims
Weakness:
-ignores other responses to relative deprivation that aren’t crime
-neglects gender
-doesn’t look at crimes of upper classes
-doesn’t explain why most w/c people don’t turn to crime = over-predicts
What do right realists believe causes crime (4 factors)?
-biological differences
-inadequate socialisation
-rational choice theory
-opportunities to offend
How do right realists believe biological differences cause crime?
-Wilson + Hernstein = personality traits e.g. low intelligence, risk taking + aggressiveness -> more crime
-Low IQ = low educational achievement -> poorly-paid jobs + crime, don’t think of consequences, vulnerable to exploitation, not forensically aware (> likely to be caught)
How do right realists believe inadequate socialisation causes crime?
-Welfare state -> underclass of welfare dependent, poorly educated lone-parent families
-Murray = lone-parent families -> inadequate socialisation -> boys lack role model + paternal discipline
-children aren’t socialised to norms/values of society e.g. working hard/job
-Charlesworth = members of underclass have low self-esteem -> assert self worth through crime
Rational choice theory - right realists
-weigh up costs + benefits
-if low costs -> decide to commit -> worth risk
-only works for organised crime
Right realists- opportunity to commit crime
-Cohen + Felton - most crime = opportunistic
-crime likely to occur if easy opportunities
Wilson + Kelling- broken windows theory (right realism)
-single broken window -> area deteriorates
-have to clamp down on first signs of undesirable behaviour- makes people feel secure
-zero tolerance policing
-reduces opportunity + increases costs of committing crime
How has globalisation increased crime?
New opportunities + new types of crime + increased risk conciousness
Castells- types of global crime
-Arms trafficking
-nuclear materials trafficking
-cyber crimes
-terrorism
-drug smuggling
-money laundering
How has transnational crime developed from an economy of demand and supply?
-Rich west = demands products e.g. drugs
-Poor third world countries supply services
e.g. Colombia - 20% of population depend on cocaine trade for their livelihood
Glocal patterns of globalised crime- Hobbs + Duningham
Many criminals who operate internationally have ‘local’ contacts
e.g. criminal entrepreneur living on Costa de Sol have UK distributors in Northern town where he grew up
Glenn’s (2008)- McMafia
-organisations emerged since fall of communism in 1989
-corrupt KGB (Russian secret police) officials bought coal, steel + mineral industries at low prices + sold on Western markets, making billions
-many ex-KGB now in criminal gangs with global connections
What is green crime?
crime against environment e.g. fly tipping, dumping toxic waste
What is primary green crime?
-directly inflicts harm on environment + people because of damage to environment
-harm done to species, air, water, ocean, rainforest
What is secondary green crime?
carried out by powerful transnational corporations, e.g. oil/chemical companies, work with cooperation of nation states
Beck (1992) - green crime + global risk
-society = global risk society
-risk = ‘man made’ / ‘manufactured risks’ - can’t predict consequences e.g. global warming
Traditional criminology on green crime
-not interested
-crime needs law to be broken
-argue no crime against environment been committed- no law saying we can’t
Green criminology opinion on green crime
-more radical view
-concept of harm rather than law
-some of worst environmental harms aren’t illegal
-different countries = different laws
-can look from a global perspective by moving away from legal definition
-recognises importance of environmental issues + need to address harms + risks
Crime as a consumer spectacle
-people want to see crime in media so media show it
-fictional + non-fictional crime stories have provided significant sources of spectacle + mass entertainment
-news full of crime + deviance- info about crime packaged to entertain
-Green + Rainer (2012) = increase in news being crime related in recent decades = around 30% on tv
How does the media create a distorted image of crime?
-over represent violent + sexual crime- 45% in media, 3% in stats
-portrays victims as middle-class -> stats sow most working-class
-exaggerates police success (now people more aware of failings)
-exaggerate risk of victimisation
-crime reported = series of separate events
-overplays extraordinary crime
What crimes are over + under represented in the news?
over = homicide/violence, street crimes, sex crimes
under = property, corporate/white collar, state crime
Fictional representations of crime
-Mandel (1984) - 1945-1984 = > 10bn crime thrillers sold worldwide
-25% prime time tv + 20% films = crime
-Surette (1998) - ‘law of opposites’ = opposite to stats e.g. property crime underepresented, violence, drugs = over, real-life homicides= brawls/disputes, fictional = greed/calculation
-however now showing police as < successful + corrupt, victims becoming more central in stories
Left realist view on crime in media
media disguises reality that offenders/victims mainly from working-class + poor
Marxist view on crime in media
concealment of significance of white-collar/corporate (e.g. tax evasion) which rarely get reported
News values + crime coverage
Young (1973) - news = social construction
social process = some stories accepted, some rejected
many stories = over reported
8 news values immediacy, dramatisation, personalisation, higher status, simplification, novelty/unexpectedness, risk, violence
How does the media cause crime?
desensitisation
knowledge of criminal techniques
criminogenic nature of society/strain theory- stimulates desires for unaffordable goods
media portray police as incompetent- people believe they’ll escape
glamourizing offending
imitation- provides deviant role models- ‘copycat’ behaviour
criticisms of imitation as a cause of crime
Newburn (2013) = many violent people watch very violent TV, content has no independent effect on behaviour
Studies have tried to demonstrate effects of media through imitation tend to be highly artificial
The media, relative deprivation + crime
Left realists
-media increase relative deprivation in poor + marginalised
-even poorest groups = media access, presents materialistic ‘good life’ -> relative deprivation + social exclusion -> deviant behaviour
-media set norm + promote crime
Cultural criminology, the media + crime
-media turns crime to commodity people desire- encourage to consume crime
-Hayward + Young (2012) - late modern society- media-saturated, ‘mediascape’ - blurring between images + reality of crime (no longer distinct) - media now creates crime itself e.g. gang assault staged + packaged as ‘underground fight videos’
Media + the commodification of crime
-Hayward + Young = crime + its thrills become commodified - use crime to sell products
-Fenwick + Hayward (2000) = ‘crime is packaged + marketed to young people as romantic, exciting, cool and fashionable cultural symbol’
e.g. Netflix crime documentaries + encourage people to watch - make money
-films often have violent/criminal aspect
What is a moral panic?
instance of public anxiety/alarm in response to a problem regarded as threatening the moral standard of society
3 stages of a moral panic
1) Occurrence + signification - event occurs + its nature means media decides it needs dramatic coverage
2) Wider social coverage- story extended (e.g. expert opinion making), public attention focused
3) Social control- resolution is sought (e.g. change in law), satisfies public who feel they’re empowered by media
Cohen study of Mods + Rockers (moral panics)
-1960s
-minor affray in Clacton become front page news
-developed groups into ‘folk devils’- moral panic about young people
-media exagerrated what happened + how many involved
-media predicted further violence - general underlying problem of disorderly youth
-produced a deviance amplification spiral - seemed problem was increasing
Moral panics as ideological control
-Miller + Reilly (1994)- some used to change public opinion -> act as ‘ideological social control’
e.g. media coverage of Islamic terrorism is seen by many to promote ‘Islamophobia’ -> gov. anti-terrorist legislation
Evaluation of moral panics
-deviant act happened before moral panic- moral panics can’t cause crime, just amplify it
-who decides what is a proportionate reaction?
-why do they not go on indefinitely?
-late modernity- moral panics have < impact now
Marxist view on moral panics
-not surprising that they centre around groups viewed as deviant/threatening to rich + powerful
-media portrays criminals as w/c -> ignore white collar/corporate
Functionalist view on moral panics
-media is simply a ‘window on the world’ - reflects a true/real picture of crime
-moral panics = response to ‘anomie’ - serve to reassert social solidarity
Feminist view on moral panics
-media play down extent of women as victims- argue sexually explicit representation of women encourage predatory attitudes amongst men
Gender and crime stats
-1/3 males compared to 1/10 females = convicted crime
-men 50x > likely for sexual offences, 8x for robbery/drug offences, 5x for violence
-women who admit > likely to be let off
-women > likely to be given cautions + precourt sanctions
Studies on gender + crime
-Campbel = self-report studies, females > likely to be cautioned
-Hood = men > likely to be given custodial sentence than women in similar cases, but not given harsher sentences of lesser crimes
-Farrington + Morris = 408 offences, found women sentenced more leniently
Parsons = Sex role theory why women commit less crime
Men perform instrumental role + out of the home
Boys lack role model + reject feminine models of behaviour demonstrated to them
Boys behaviour becomes aggressive/anti-social -> delinquency
Control theories as an explanation as why women commit less crime
Heidensohn = control over women occurs in home, public, in employment
Home = domestic labour + childcare -> less time to commit, develop a bedroom culture so less opportunity to engage in crime (Dobash + Dobash)
Public = women faced with fear of physical/sexual violence, CSEW = 54% women avoided going out after dark due to fear of becoming a victim
Employment = sexual harassment + > supervision by male bosses, < likely to achieve high positions, work = constantly overseen
Patriarchal controls prevent women from deviating
Carlen: class + gender deals (1988)
-Studies 39 15-46 w/c women- convicted of crime including fraud, theft, prostitution, violence
-Women led to conform through promise of 2 deals = class deal + gender deal if rewards = unavailable -> crime
-Women failed to find legitimate way of living-> in poverty + couldn’t get a job
-Gender deal = physical/sexual abuse by fathers, domestic violence by partners, broken bonds with family (left them homeless + poor)
-crime allowed them a decent standard of living - poverty + oppressive family life were 2 main causes of criminality
Evaluation of Carlen’s class + gender deals
-Shows how failure of patriarchal society to deliver promised ‘deals’ removes preventing controls
-Over focus on working-class
-Sees women’s behaviour as determined by external forces - underplays importance of free will (deterministic)
-Small sample size -> unrepresentative
Adler’s liberation thesis (1975)
Women become liberated from patriarchy- crimes become serious + frequent as men’s
Women have being to adopt traditionally ‘male’ roles in legitimate activity + illegitimate activity
> opportunities in legitimate structure -> more opportunity for white-collar crime
Evidence
-female share of offences rose during second 1/2 of 20th century = 1950s- 1/7 offences, 1990s = 1/6 offences
-showed rising participation in crimes previously regarded as male
Evaluation of Adler’s Liberation Thesis
-Shows importance of investigating relationship between changes in women’s position + changes in patterns of offending
-Evidence to support
-Female crime began to increase 1950s- before liberation movement emerged in 1960s
-Most female criminals = w/c -> not likely to be affected by liberation movement
-Overestimates the extent to which women have become liberated
The criminalisation of females
-Steffensmeier + Schwartz (2009) = female arrests 1/5 -> 1/3 between 1980 + 2003, rise in police stats not matched by victim surveys
- > arrests due to CJS ‘widening the net’ -> less serious violence being arrested
-Chesney-Lind (2006) = mandatory arrests for domestic violence, > female violence stats in USA
-Sharpe + Gelsthorpe (2009) = UK net-widening - rise in female violent crime- convictions for minor offences without weapons
-Steffensmeier et al (2005) = media moral panics about girls affecting sentencing decisions -> amplification spiral, CJS taking tougher stance, > convictions, > negative media coverage
Gender and victimisation- female crime
CSEW (2012) shows gender differences
-Homicide victims = 70% male, female victims > to know killer
- < women victims of violence but > victims of intimate violence, 5x > likely to report sexual assault (but only 8% experienced reported it), women > likely to be victimised by acquaintance
-Women have > fear but < risk of victimisation
-BUT victim surveys don’t always convey frequency/severity of victimisation e.g. Walby + Allen (2004) = women > likely to be victims of multiple incidents
