Crime And Deviance Detail Flashcards
Durkheims view on crime and deviance - functionalist
- Crime is an inevitable part of a normal, healthy society because nor everyone is successfully socialised into societies norms and values, and instead have different norms, subcultures and lifestyles
- He argues that there are 2 positive functions of crime:
1. Boundary maintenance - crime causes a reaction from society, we condemn wrongdoers to reinforce our commitment to norms and values, e.g. courtroom rituals do this by dramatising wrongdoings and public ally shaming the offender
2. Adaptation & Change - crime / deviance gives us the scope to challenge current rules / laws / norms, which leads to society making necessary changes e.g. legalising gay marriage.
Other functions of crime - Davis (1961)
Prostitution is a safety valve that helps release men’s sexual frustrations without threatening the monogamous nuclear family.
Other functions of crime - Polsky (1967)
Pornography safety channels away desires that would threaten the family such as adultary.
Other functions of crime - Cohen
Deviance functions as a warning that an institution isn’t functioning properly like policy makers and knowing to make changes to school if the amount of truants is high.
Other functions of crime - Erikson (1966)
Argues that if deviance has positive functions then society must therefore be organised to promote deviance e.g. using student rag weeks to allow behaviour that normally is punished may give us leeway to cope with the strain of growing up
Evaluation of the functionalist view on crime
- Shows us how crime and deviance can be integral to society’s running
- Often after major crime / attacks, communities unite to condemn the wrongdoer (solidarity)
- Durkheim argues there’s a ‘right’ amount of crime / deviance for society, but proposes no way of measuring this
- The effects of ‘functions’ on an individuals are ignored e.g. men having a safety valve / function, but the often illegally trafficked sex workers having to be functional for him and not themselves
- Crime doesn’t always promote solidarity - women may fear going out into society
Merton’s view - the strain theory
- Argues that people turn to deviance when they can’t achieve socially accepted goals by legitimate means
- Merton combines structural factors (unequal opportunities) and cultural factors (strong emphasis on success goals, weak emphasis on achieving legitimately)
- American culture puts values on money success (wealth and high status) and this makes up the American dream, based in meritocracy
- However, we knew that people in society are denied opportunities, which pushes them to deviance
Evaluation of Merton
Strengths:
- Most crime is property crime, supporting his idea of people trying to reach the American dream illegitimately
- Lower class crime rates are higher as they have less opportunity wealth
Weaknesses:
- Theory takes official statistics at face value, ignoring that they over represent the working class
- Assumes value consensus when not all people strive for society’s goals
- Only explains individual adaptation to strain, not group deviance like subcultures
- Only explains utilitarian crime
Deviant adaptations to strain - Merton
- Conformity - accepts the culturally approved goals and strive to achieve them legitimately
- innovation - accepts the money success goal but use illegitimate ways to achieve it, like theft or fraud, working class are under more pressure to innovate
- Ritualism - gives up on trying to achieve the goals, but have internalised the legitimate means that make them follow the rules from their own sakes. Lower middle class officer workers are like this
- Retreatism - rejects both the goals and legitimate means, becoming dropouts. This is drug addicts, vagrants, outcasts etc.
- Rebellion - rejects society’s goals and means, replacing them with new ones. This is political rebels, hippies etc.
Cloward & Ohlin (1960)
- argues that different subcultures emerge not only from unequal legitimate opportunities, but unequal illegitimate opportunities
- Criminal subcultures: youths get an apprenticeship for utilitarian crime, allowing them to associate with adult criminals who will select those with the right abilities and provide them with training and role models, as well as opportunities on the criminal ladder. This arises neighbourhoods that have a withstanding criminal network that has an established hierarchy of professional crime.
- Conflict subcultures: illegitimate opportunities available in loosely organised gangs, where young men release their frustrations about blocked opportunities by using violence, and get status from winning enemy’s turf. This arises in neighbourhoods of high population turnover, as the high levels of social disorganisation stop a stable criminal network being developed.
- Retreatist subcultures: not everyone aspires to be a professional criminal or a successful gang leader, just like not everyone in the legitimate gets the best job. These double failures turn to this subculture, which is based on illegal drug use. This arises in any neighbourhoods.
Evaluation of Cloward and Ohlin
Strengths:
- Unlikes Cohen, they explain why there’s different types of working class deviance / subcultures
Weaknesses:
- South (2020) argues the likes between subcultures are to tightly drawn, while in reality the drug trade is a mix of disorganised crime and professional mafia style crime
- Matza (1964) delinquents aren’t as committed to a subculture as this theory portrays and instead drift in and out of delinquency
- Ignores crime of the wealth and the larger power structure making / enforcing laws
Cohen (1955)
Agrees with Merton that deviance is a working class phenomenon, but criticises him for seeing deviance as an individual response and non utilitarian crime
Status frustration:
- Cohen focuses on working class boys in a middle class dominated school system, as they are culturally deprived and lack skills to achieve in this environment
- This puts them at the bottom of the status hierarchy, they are unable to achieve legitimately via education and now have status frustration
- Here they reject mainstream middle class values and turn to other boys and join a delinquent subculture
Alternative status hierarchy - Cohen (1955)
- The subcultures values are malice, spiteful and hostile to those outside of it
- They invert mainstream society’s values, making an illegitimate opportunity structure that allows the boys to get status and approval through peers via delinquent behaviour
- This explains why people may commit non-utilitarian crime such as vandalism
- However it assumes that the working class share the middle class value to begin with ignoring that some don’t see themselves as failures
Becker (1963) - the social construction of crime
- Argues a deviant is just someone who has been successfully labelled in this way, and deviant behaviour is just behaviour we label as such. This means that the act itself isn’t deviant but society’s reaction which makes it so
- Argues that moral entrepreneurs are people leading moral campaigns to change law, which creates outsiders who break the new rule, and the creation / expansion of social control agencies like the police, who enforce rule and label offenders
Cicourel (1968) - the social construction of crime
- Found officers typifications of what delinquents are like, led to law enforcement showing class bias
- This meant more police would patrol working class areas, causing more arrests and confirming police stereotypes. Thus he argues we should use official statistics as a resource to investigate the actions of control agencies instead of a resource for crime rates
- Found other parts of the criminal justice system helped confirm stereotypes e.g. probation officers holding the theory that juvenile delinquency comes from broken homes, poverty and lax parenting. This meant they would see these youths as delinquents and would support giving them custodial sentences
- Therefore Cicourel argues that justice is negotiable instead of fixed. Young middle class delinquents were less likely to be charged as they didn’t fit typifications
- Middle class parents are also able to use wealth / connections to negotiate and convince control agencies that they’ll monitor behaviour and that they wont do it again. Here the middle class are usually counselled, warned and released instead of prosecuted
Who gets labelled ?
Whether a person is arrested, charged and convicted depends on:
1. Their interactions with social control agencies
2. Appearance, background and personal biography
3. The situation / circumstances of the offence
Studies show social control agencies are more likely to label certain groups as criminal / deviant:
- Piliavin & Briar (1964) - policies decisions to arrest youths were based on character judgements that they made from dress / mannerisms. Officers were also influenced by suspects class, gender and ethnicity, as well as time / place.
E.g. study found anti social behaviour orders were used disproportionately against ethnic minorities
The social construction of crime statistics
- Interactionalists argue that official crime stats are socially constructed
- This is because there is an agent of social control (officer, prosecutor etc. ), at each stage of the CJS, who makes decisions about whether to proceed. The outcome depends on the label they attach to the individual suspects / defendants through interaction
- This means that official stats tell us about the decisions of the police and prosecutors instead of the amount of crime in society and who commits it
- Dark figure of crime - unrecorded, unreported, undetected crime in society that we are unaware of
- Alternative stats - some use victims surveys to get a more accurate view of the amount of crime, though this can have issues such as people targeting, lying or over exaggerating if they’ve committed / been victim to a crime
The effects of labelling
Lemert (1951) - Primary deviance
- Acts that haven’t been publicly labelled as deviant and are often trivial / widespread that Lemert argues finding their causes are pointless
- Offenders can rationalise these acts as moments of madness and don’t see themselves as deviant, meaning the act doesn’t affect their self-concept
The effects of labelling
Lemert (1951) - Secondary deviance
- Acts that have been labelled by society as deviant, those caught are publicly labelled as criminal and are stigmatised, shamed and shunned from society
- Those labelled this way may only be seen as their label by others making it become the offenders master status - controlling identity overriding all others
- This causes a crisis of self-concept which the individual may resolve by accepting the label, causing a self fulfilling prophecy. The further acts that result from this label / prophecy are called secondary deviance.
- Deviant career - secondary deviance provokes a negative reaction from society, which further reinforces individuals outsider status. Those who come out of prison often go straight to a deviant career because it offers opportunities and subcultures, as well as a status they lost in prison
- Dawnes & Rock (2002) - we can’t predict someone labelled will follow a deviant career, they are free to not deviate further
The effect of labelling
Cohen (1972) - deviance amplified spiral
- This is where attempts to control deviance leads to an increase in deviance
- More and more control results in more and more deviance, its an escalating spiral
- Cohens study of folk devils and moral panics found that the press’ exaggeration / distorted reporting became a normal panic, causing public concern and moral entrepreneurs wanting a crack down
- The police responded by arresting more youths and courts imposed harsher penalties
- This seemed to confirm the truth of the media reaction, pushing the public to further concern - which demonised the mods and rockers as outsiders, which they responded to with more deviance
Labelling and Criminal Justice Policy
- Studies have shown that trying to control / punish young offenders has the opposite effect
- Triplett (2000) - sees an increase in seeing young offenders as evil and a lesser tolerance for minor deviance. The CJS has relabelled truancy as more serious, therefore pushing it harsher. As the secondary deviance theory suggests, this raises deviance levels rather than controlling it
- This shows the implications labelling theory has on policy, suggesting that control is easier if there are less rules to follow
Braithwaire (1989) - reintegration shaming
Argues for a more positive role foe labelling, identifying 2 types:
1. Disintegrative shaming; the crime and the criminal are labelled as bad and they’re excluded from society
2. Reintegrative: only the crime is labelled as bad, not the actor
- The emphasis here is on the offender being aware of their wrongdoings and other being able to forgive them so that reintegration into society is possible and crime rates are reduced
Evaluation of the labelling theory
- Shows that the law is enforced in discriminative ways and societies that attempts to control deviance can backfire
- Too deterministic - assumes labels always lead to deviant careers
- Realists argue that labelling paints offenders as victims taking away from victims of crime
- Assumes that offenders are passive to labelling and don’t choose to deviate
- Fails to explain people who deviate before being labelled
- Ignores the wider power structure labelling takes place in, instead of looking at the capitalist class making the rules in the first place
Marxist view on crime
1. Criminogenic capitalism
Crime is an inevitable in a capitalist society because capitalism itself causes crime, making it criminogenic. As it’s based on exploiting the working class, it gives rise to crime:
- Poverty means crime may be the working class’ only way to survive
- Utilitarian crime may be the only way to get consumer goods that capitalist ads show
- Non utilitarian crime may be the only way for the working class to deal with alienation and lack of control over their lives
However, capitalism is a competitive system, so crime isn’t confined to just the working class:
- The need to win no matter what / stay in business encourages capitalists to commit white collar and corporate crime
- Gordon (1976) argues crime is a rational response to the capitalist system, which is why its found in all classes