Theories of Crime And Deviance Flashcards
Durkheim
The founder of functionalism
Believed crime to be a functional and inevitable aspect of social life
The more industrialised and advanced a society, the higher the rate of crime due a larger inequality of “collective sentiment”
Collective sentiments: the shared values and beliefs of a society which become more fragmented by development therefore crime is an inevitability of advancement.
He uses the “society of saints” analogy to demonstrate this: in a society of no real deviance, even the slightest slip in behaviour would be regarded as offensive and attract strong disapproval for going against the strong collective sentiment.
He says that crime is also functional as it drives social changes.
Without any deviance, their would be little change to a society.
For example, Rosa parks defied the racially prejudice law that a black person had to give up their seat on public transport for a white passenger which sparked the civil rights movement in the US.
Another is homosexuality as it was regarded as deviant in the 1950’s which sparked the law to change until their is now largely equal rights between heterosexuals and homosexuals in contemporary UK society.
Durkheim also argued that too much crime would also be detrimental to a society and cause an “anomie”
Anomie is a type of societal breakdown which occurs from rapid social changes as it causes a breakdown of common values between individuals- the status quo becomes the deviant act and their is no longer value consensus.
Anomie is incredibly detrimental as it causes a lack of purpose and emotional dissonance which increase suicide rates as there is no longer an accepted definition of what is desirable so trying at anything becomes pointless.
Overall, Durkheim suggests that crime is inevitable and the right amount of crime can cause social change but too much or too little crime can cause societal breakdown of all common values
Merton
Was a functionalist and built on the idea of anomie proposed by Durkheim
Created the structural strain theory which explains how anomie can lead to crime and deviance
He argues that western societies place much emphasis on the importance of material wealth- most individuals will conform to the socially accepted ways of achieving material wealth through hard work in education and a career.
When there is no opportunity to achieve material wealth through the socially acceptable means, people experience a strain between their values and opportunities. They then seek alternative ways to achieve material wealth and break the strain.
Some individuals deal with the strain by turning to crime (illegitimate means) to achieve material wealth (legitimate end).
Some people (ritualists) carry on the (legitimate means) whilst losing their values that place importance on material wealth (illegitimate ends)
Some become rebel from strain. Rebels no longer strive for legitimate ends such as material wealth and no longer partake in legitimate means such as education and a career often becoming artists, writers, reclueses or rejecting society all together.
Hirshi
Shared Durkheim view that people are controlled by shared social values
But was more interested in why people do not commit crimes and developed the social bonds theory.
Social bonds are attachments between an individual and society and the more bonds and individual has, the less likely they are too commit a crime as the social cost of commuting a crime is greater.
Social bonds are categorised into the following:
Social attachment: caring about what other think of you
Commitments: being invested in relationships or a career
Belief: believing that it is immoral to break the rules of society which is influenced by our socialisation of norms and values
Cloward and Ohlin
They were functional subcultural theorists
Developed from Merton’s strain theory and argues that some people develop their own subculture placing importance on differing values due to a lack of opportunity
Criminal subcultures: where organised crime has better opportunities than the legitimate means of acquiring material wealth and they exist to achieve material wealth through criminal activity
Conflict subcultures: develop where there is no opportunity to earn money through crime so place importance on violence and status often involved in fighting and vandalism
Retreatist subcultures: develop when there is no opportunity to gain material wealth and no other gangs to have conflict so they just take drugs/have sex to cope with the strain
Albert Coben
When individuals are frustrated with the low status and given little or no respect, often working class males in education, turn to criminal subcultures
Anti-social and delinquent subcultures value delinquent behaviours which these individuals are capable of this they partake in these subcultures to deal with their status frustrations
Involvement in such activities is therefore functional as it solves their status frustration and they feel validated from their delinquent acts and the respect they are provided in the anti-social subcultures
Background to Marxist sociological theory of crime
Marxism is based on the ideas of economic determinism put forward by Karl Marx
The view of Marxists on crime
1- capitalism is a criminogenic ideologue. Meaning that a capitalist economic system encourages individuals to commit crimes
2- the law is made by the capitalist elite and therefore works in the interests of the burgoise and not the proletariat
3- the richest in society commit as much crime as the poorest but white collar crimes are much more detrimental too society than street crimes
David Gordon
Is a Marxist
Says that capitalist societies are “dog eat dog” meaning that each individual is encouraged to look out for their own needs before the needs of the collective.
In capitalist societies were taught that it’s ok to harm others and the environment in the pursuit of profit and material wealth.
People commit crimes because society encourages the harm of others to get rich thus capitalism can be considered criminogenic.
This theory is useful as it offers and explanation of all types of crime; utilitarian, non-utilitarian, white collar and street crimes.
This theory is reductionist as capitalism cannot be the root of all crimes as crime sill exists in socialist and communist societies around the world such as Vietnam which has a high crime rate but is largely communist. On the other hand, their are capitalist countries such as japan and Sweden which have low crime rates.
William Chambliss
Was a Marxist
Argues that the capitalist super structure serves the ruling class thus a capitalist state will pass laws which aid the interests of the ruling class.
Chambliss believes that the concept of “crime” is socially constructed by the ruling class to benefit the ruling class and incriminate the poorest in society.
Capitalist societies are reluctant to pass laws which restrict corporations and businesses, but interestingly they do attempt to restrict the behaviour of the Bourgeoisie.
For example, the vagrancy law which followed the Black Death: as their was scarcity of personnel, the peasants and workers demanded higher wages so the ruling class introduced a law forcing them to work for a lower wage or be punished by death
More recently, the squatters act 2012, means that homeless people are no longer legally allowed to squat in disused buildings and can be prospect therefore clearly acting in favour of property owners (typically members of the bourgeoisie)
Chambliss, is criticised for overlooking that the law does contain rights for workers such as mandatory breaks, redundancy pay etc. Marxists however point out that these are rarely enforced and are probably an attempt to satisfy the workers enough to prevent a communist revolution.
Snider
Argues that capitalists states are reluctant to pass laws which regulate large capitalist concerns
In order for the capitalist state to run effectively it has to attract investment from corporate lobbyists and therefore does not want to alienate the corporations that fund their existence through corporation tax which is only effective is big business is profitable.
For example, before 2007, no individual member of a corporation could be prosecuted for damaging the environment or endangering worker safety through corporate practise.
Another example of this is the credit crunch following the recession in 2008, the activities of the vast majority of bankers and financiers were not seen as illegal and were not prosecuted but gained incredibly rich through the government bailing out the banks and quantitative easing mechanics.
In support of Snider’s theory, the cost of fraud in the uk is between £50-£193 billion but prosecution rates are 0.4% according to the national fraud agency
Criticisms of Marxism from other sociological perspectives on crime
Left realists- Point out that the victim of street crimes is typically the working class and it’s these types of “ordinary crimes” which worry working class people. We should focus on dealing with street crimes rather than “elite crimes” as ordinary people feel more concerned about them
Feminists-
Marxists are too “malestream”
-focuses to heavily on economic conflicts and ignoring crimes that women are the victims of such as domestic crimes.
Postmodernists-
Their is no grand narrative of a capitalist super structure and people are only the victims of crime if they perceive theme selves to be the victims. Globalisation has led to a period of hyper-individualisation causing crime as a way to construct an identity
-globalisation is the main criminogenic force in postmodern society not capitalism.
John lee argues that their is no longer one explanation for crime due to a lack of a grand narrative
Background to interactionist theory of crime and deviance
Developed as a criticism to functionalist views that crime is caused by “external forces” in society
They disagree that their is a value consensus about what acts are seen as criminal and agree with Marxists that crime is socially constructed
They think that it’s more important to look at the way society reacts to crime rather than the cause of crime.
