Crime And Deviance Flashcards
USA prison stats
70’s: 357,000 80’s: 514,000
2014: 2,306,000
1 in 3 likelihood of black men in jail
What are functionalists Durkheim and Cohen views on crime?
Durkheim: ‘crime is inevitable and integral to all societies’
- positive functions of crime: Cohen = Boundary maintenance (crime unites ppl against ‘wrong-doers’, collective conscience)
Adaptation and change (causes change)
Criticism: Ignores how crime might affect different groups, does not always promote solidarity, no positive function for victims.
What did functionalists Merton, Cohen and Cloud and Ohlin say?
Crime can lead to anomie = feeling of disenchantment/ lack of American dream.
Merton = Strain theory, ppl commit crime because they struggle to achieve desirable goods
Merton = adaptation to strain: rebellion etc.
Criticism: not all crime monetary, assumes value consensus
Subcultural strain theories: Cohen = Status frustration, w/c boys involved in crime due to this > climb subculture hierarchy can’t achieve legitimate status.
Cloward and Ohlin = different neighbourhoods offer different opportunities for young ppl to learn deviant norms in subcultures.
What did interactionists Becker and Circourel say?
Interactionists don’t look for causes of crime, they look at what gets labelled as crime and who gets labelled as criminals. Crime is not a fixed concept.
Becker = C+D are socially constructed and law makers (moral entrepreneurs) create laws to follow, leads to: creation of outsiders/labelled as deviant e.g. hippies
Circourel = Agents of social control let stereotypes about ‘deviants’ affect their judgment
What did interactionists Lemert and John Braithwaite say?
Lemert = Primary deviance: not publicly labelled as criminal and few consequences e.g. speeding
Secondary deviance: Involves a secondary reaction, labelled as criminal and shamed by public, becomes their ‘master status’ > sfp
John Braithwaite = Reintegrative shaming, punishment should focus on offenders behaviour rather than characteristics (negative label = positive outcome)
What is deviance amplification and evaluation of interactionists?
Deviance amplification = exaggerating deviancy e.g. mods and rockers
Believe attempts to control crime lead to more deviance e.g. alienation/sfp even more crime.
Strengths: law is not fixed(can be discriminatory), demonstrates role of power
Criticisms: deterministic (not always re-offend), fails to explain why ppl commit crimes before they are labelled.
What do Marxists say about crime and what did Chambliss state?
(Conflict structuralist view)
- Capitalism is criminogenic (by nature causes crime), poverty means crime is only way for w/c, consumerism=w/c can not afford, alienation/lack of control > non utilitarian crime
- State and law making: focus on law enforcement is negatively biased to protect interests of capitalists. Chambliss = many laws protect property while few laws challenge wcc, law enforces label on w/c e.g patrol areas
What is the ideological function of crime according to Marxists and the evaluation?
- Ideological function = courts, police and media encourage us to blame the criminals for crime and not capitalism. E.g. more media attention to w/c crimes.
Evaluation: Some capitalists countries have low crime rates e.g. Switzerland, too deterministic as most w/c don’t commit crime, legal system does prosecute wcc, ignores factors like ethnicity.
What do Neo-Marxists say about crime (Taylor et al)?
Like traditional Marxists but use an interactionist not structuralist approach (try to understand motives/meanings behind individual actions). Believe offender makes choice to commit crime and Marxism is too deterministic.
Taylor et al = Fully social theory of deviance, choice with context (wider origins etc.)
Evaluation: Feminism = study focused on male crime , makes w/c seem like ‘robin hood’, like Marxism believes law enforcement supports interests of upper class.
What are Feminists Heidensohn and Silvestri’s views on crime?
‘Malestream’ sociology and the invisibility of women: views society as patriarchal and critique how the sociology of crime focused on men.
Heidensohn+Silvestri = Two themes of amnesia and neglect and distortion , issues ignored and offending forgotten, little attempt to explain female offending and female victimisation also ignored.
Heidensohn = suggests various reasons for invisibility of females 1.acedemics mainly men 2. Less to study
What did Feminists Smart and Messerschmidt say?
Growing interest in female offending (applying existing + new theories to explain)
Smart = pointed out women offenders often seen as double deviants (laws+norms) > more stigma
Messerschmidt = research into how crime + violence including domestic violence can be a means of ‘accomplishing masculinity’
What are postmodernist views on crime?
More individualistic
View crime as a social construct, reflecting an outdated meta narrative of law which does not reflect diversity of a PM society. Ppl increasingly freed from constraints, should develop a conception crime based on respect for ppl’s chosen identities and lifestyles rather than simply ‘law-breaking’ definition.
Causes of crime: PM > fragmentation of social structure and growing choice of identity > reduces constraints of committing as ppl care less about obligations + those around them.
What did Postmodernists Levin+Mcdevitt and Katz say?
Levin + Mcdevitt = suggest perpetrators of some hate crimes derive ‘thrills’ from escaping everyday routines.
Katz = Edgework and seductions of crime: commit crime for excitement. Crime may be just one way for ppl to set about constructing their identities. For Postmodernists their is a diverse range of motivations for crime than simply material gain, causes live in individual not society.
What do right realists say in general about crime?
ALL realists are crime as an issue that needs dealing, instead of it being something conceptual e.g. social construct or labelling etc. They focus on the best ways to tackle crime.
Right = deal with criminals Left = deal with causes
RIGHT REALISTS are linked to conservative governments and new right sociology. Crime is a growing problem and it needs a tough stance and harsh punishments.
What are the right realist causes of crime? (Murray, Clarke, Wilson)
Evaluation: ignores structural causes, zero tolerance can lead to discrimination and only shoes visible crime.
Biological differences: some people genetically aggressive
Inadequate socialisation: Murray = The increasing ‘under class’ don’t socialise children adequately.
Rational choice theory: Clarke = decision to do crime is calculated - where benefits outweigh costs.
Wilson = police must deal with crime harshly.e.g London riots.
