Sociologists Paper 3

What did Durkheim argue?

What did Durkheim argue?

Crime is normal and healthy in all societies as some individuals weren’t socialised correctly at home or in institutions.

Crime performs boundary maintenance, where society reacts to someone committing a crime and uniting society to condemn the wrongdoers actions and reinforce their commitment to the shared norms and values.

Crime also performs adaptation of change, where all change starts with deviance, someone with a new idea subverting societal expectations and starting a new trend

What did Davis argue?

Crime creates a safety valve which ensures the family remains stable. Prostitution does this as a man can release their sexual desires without affecting the monogamous nuclear family

What did Cohen argue?

Another function of deviance is to warn society that an institution is not functioning properly, such as high rates of truancy telling us there is a problem with the school, acting as a warning light

Working-class boys are most likely to commit crimes and turn to gangs as they face anomie (isolation) in the middle-class school system and are unable to achieve success as a result of their background, known as status frustration

What did Walsh argue?

Gangs are good for society as they can produce positive role models and allow other members to grow up and set boundaries to ensure no harm is caused

What did Merton argue?

People are unable to achieve socially approved goals through legitimate means, so they resort to deviant behaviour, feeling strain in being unable to achieve the ‘American Dream’

What did Cloward and Ohlin argue?

Not everyone can succeed in committing crimes after they fail in school as they may not have the ability to do so, resulting in them being double failures, turning into retreatists and taking drugs

What did Miller argue?

Working class boys were socialised with lower class values, e.g. toughness and masculinity. They achieved these through crime and deviant acts.

What did Carson argue?

In a sample of 200 firms, where all 200 broke health and safety laws, only 3 were prosecuted.

What did Taylor et al argue?

Crime is a conscious choice often with a political motive (e.g. to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor)

What did Becker argue?

Deviance is not about the act itself, but how people react to it. For example, in most instances killing is considered wrong, however if it’s in war it will be praised.

What did Cicourel argue?

Officers’ decision to arrest someone is influenced by stereotypes, with working class young people being treated more harshly as they fitted the delinquent stereotype, whereas middle class young people got away with more crimes as they were seen as more likely to apologise and their parents were more likely to negotiate on their behalf.

What did Wilson and Herrnstein argue?

Crime is caused by a combination of biological and social factors such as aggression, risk taking and low intelligence

What did Lilly et al argue?

There is only a 3% difference in the IQ test between people who commit crime and people who don’t, so low intelligence isn’t much of a factor in terms of committing crime

What did Murray argue?

Crime rate is increasing due to a ‘new rabble’ who fail to socialise their children properly. Rise of lone parent families leads to young men lacking role models and discipline

What did Clarke argue?

The decision to commit crime is rational, based on weighing up risks and rewards

What did Wilson and Kelling argue?

‘Broken Windows’ article says it is essential to keep the environment of a neighbourhood safe and clean, dealing with graffiti, vandalism and other defects immediately which can be done through a ‘zero tolerance’ approach

What did Young argue?

Crime rates have already been falling for nine years before so zero tolerance policing did not cause the decline

Uncertainty and instability of late modernity has impacted crime, such as through rising unemployment, with the working class being most effected

What did Young and Lea argue?

There are 3 main causes of crime from the Left Realist perspective:

Relative Deprivation: How deprived people feel compared to others, as advertising and the media promotes products that people may not be able to afford

Subcultures: Forming or joining a subculture as a response to a group’s opportunities being blocked

Marginalisation: Lacking a clear goal and voice in society

What did Kinsey, Lea and Young argue?

Police are losing public support, resorting to ‘military policing’ such as swamping an area and using stop and search, only leading to a further decline in trust that only alienates the police further

What did Pollack argue?

Men have protective attitudes toward women, so they are unwilling to prosecute them as they follow the Chivalry Thesis, which fails to accurately represent the true levels of female criminality

What did Buckle and Farrington argue?

Despite men being twice as likely to shoplift, official statistics are more equal, showing that women were more likely to be prosecuted than men

What did Heidensohn argue?

Women are controlled by patriarchy at home, work, and in public, needing to remain submissive and respectful to avoid facing sexual assault, meaning that they are less likely to commit crimes

However, these patriarchal restrictions may also push women into committing more crime due to the gender inequalities in the gender market making them turn to theft and prostitution for survival

What did Carlen argue?

Women must agree to the class deal (working hard) and gender deal (respecting the husband) to have a good standard of living and quality of life, failure to do so results to women committing crime