crime and deviance case studies

Moore, atkin and chapman (2000)

police act as filters for society; how response to a crime being reported depends on:

1- how police perceive the seriousness of the crime to be so will dismiss the ‘frivolous’ crimes. hence why historically ‘it’s just a domestic’ and neglecting of sexual offensnces occurred.

2- social status of the victim as if homeless, poor, POC, less likely to have been given attention (less dead theory).

3- the criminal’s intelligence level, politeness and cooperation levels with the police all either increase or decrease likelihood of arrest.

lombroso

19th century doctor who said that criminality could be detected though physcial characstics which distniniush them from the rest of the population e.g. big ears or large jawbones (more ‘primitive’ humans).

davies (1973)

minor crime allows people to blow off steam in a relatively harmless way to ensure they stay functional members of society avoiding bigger crimes.

• prostitiuies used by fathers in nuclear families to remove deviant tendencys (less dead theory).

clinord (1974)

crime prompts gov change as society’s social order broken- DBS and Sarah’s law.

Durkheim

“because yesterday’s deviance must become today’s morality”

Newborn (2013)

Durkheim is the first to suggest crime is both positive and normal; links crime to society’s values while also suggesting how to improve.

Taylor, Walkward and Young (1973): boundary maintenance

• Marxists

crime is only fuctional for the public punishments, as for society creates suffering only.

Merton (1938): strain theory

based on people’s reaction to the value consensus

key idea: society pressures us with cultural goals and pressures us into success- used the American dream as it placed emphasis on materialism/ success derived from meritocracy.

society provides us with instituilal means of producing these goals e.g. education as it enables societal mobility negating the need for crime.

as Durkheim viewed anomie as being a temporary result of social change, merton sees it as being a permanent feature of society.

vague defention but its a disjunction between socially acceptabel goals and legitimate ways of achieving them.

6 marker structure/timings

3x P.E.

5-6 mins

no yapping, cut to the chase

travis hirschi

functionalist

anomie influenced him but didn't explain why poeple don’t commit crime so thinks focus should be on what forces people to conform to society (excluded petty/smaller crimes- focused on murdur or assault).

4 bonds of attachment explain why people don’t commit crime- attachment, commitment, involvement and belief.

Albert Cohen

functionlaist in sub-cultural theory

devloped on merton’s theory but had main crictims were:

1- responce to strain theory was that is focus on collective, not indvidiaul

2- not all deviant behaviour linked to acheincing goals or ulitirian success (process killers).

also came up with status frustration and alternative status hierarchys.

Cloward and Ohlin

functionalist in sub-cultural theory

agreed with Cohen as wc denied access to legitmaite opportunity structures so can’t access opportunities BUT they differ in how not all WC groups respond in same way with their responses varying on account of unequal access to illegitimate oppounity structures as not all who fail in school get wealth from criminal acts.

3 main sub-cultural responses:

1- criminal subculture: organised groups who career criminals can socialise youth into criminal career, may result in material success. most high profile opportunitty.

2- conflict subcultures: gangs organised by young people- attempts to claim terrority leads to ‘turf war’.

3- retreatist subcultures: ‘double failures’ in legitmaite opportunity structures and illegitmaite. criminality fuels high drug use.

Bourdieau

neo- marxist

• cohen’s views on status frustration explains the role of cultural deprivation in wc boys but fails to explain the deliquncey itself.

Box

neo-marxist

• cohen’s ideas about status frustration suggests that the youths who go on to commit deviancy accepted society’s goals in first place.

Pilivan and Blair (1964)

the desire to arrest younger people comes from physical cues from which they make judgements about their character e.g. trackies or hoodies.

Cicourd (1968): typifications

desire to arrest people made on these.

police and probhination officers see ‘typical deliqunets’ as being from: a low income family, single parent families or ethinic minority groups.

leads to police focusing on certain ‘types’ of people, despite how certain crimes have had people who didn't fit these critera e.g. Susan Atkins and Leslie van houten invlovbves in mason murders (Tate and LaBianca murders) aug 1969 despite both being white MC girls who grew up going to church.

typeificztiosn leads to ‘selective law enforcement’ with police showing a class and racial bias- offences handling and severity of punishment impacted- inverse seen in how brock turner got 6 months and served 3 months.

Reiner: canteen culture

ways in which people who share a particular workplace develop a shared set of values and predjucies- conservative canteen culture may explain police discrimination displayed by the police.

adapted with new media as WhatsApp group chats in Sarah everrad case prove.

Miller (1962): ‘focal concerns’

wc boys socialsiesd into a dissident set of values- oppose the mainstream- with these values becoming the permarent ‘focal concerns’.

similarity to Cohen in that WC boys never accepted the MC values in the first place,

the focal concerns are:

immediate gratification- crime is a immediate reward.

masculnity- control, enables them to be breadwinners, aggresviness mandatory. Media enables this with Gilmore (1990) with masc being presented as impregantors, providers or protecters.

exicment- crime exciting, and as MC can pay for thrills this is how the WC improvises.

fatalism- bound to commit some crime anyways so senseless to wait for circumstances to force it upon you.

resenting authority- crime’s illegal nature breaks the laws made by the RC/MC so a way of expressing their opposing view.

Matza: deliquncey and drift

• not a subcultural theorist

suggests that all people drift in and out of deliquncey so deviants and criminals are very similar- age is a reason for this e.g. youths have least to lose.

we all share ‘subterran’ values but mostly manage to control them; occasionally suspend conforming to mainstream values. protests for instance as anger is public.

evidence in how ‘techniques of neutrisation’ indicate that we know laws have been broken hence the explanation.

5 types: denial of responiablity (wasn't your fault), denial of injury (denying damage), denial of victim (rape culture), condemnation of condemers (accusing people in power of being wrong in some capircay), appeal to higher loyalties (Sutcliffe said his 13 confirmed murders were ‘Gods will’ to destroy prostitues).

Katz (1988)

• post modernist POV

argued crime is seductive; that young men are drawn to it because of how thrilling it is.

Lyng (1990)

young men like taking risks and engaging in ‘edgework’- going right to the edge of acceptable behaviour and flirting with danger.

Lemert (1973)

studied chronic stuttering amongst Canada’s coastal Inuits that came from cultural pressure to be strong public speakers

primary deviance: rule-breaking acts which haven’t been publicly labelled has little consequences for the individual (the initial speech impendment).

secondary deviance: consequences of response of others to initial minor deviance (development of the chronic stutter).

Reiss (1961)

studied male prostitiuites rejected the deviant label of being gay (it was illegal at the time) as they condisred it their work, not identity.

example of how people can reject powerful labels.

cicourd

middle class youth can negotiate their way out of legal trouble and parents can successfully defend their child e.g. by suggesting that the behaviour was non-habitus or saying it was a minimal offence (brock turner had grandparents, parents and family friends all say drinking made him rape).

Stanley Cohen

in his study of mocks and rockers Cohen concluded that powerless groups are labelled by media as “folk devils” in a attempt to increase control of the deviance.

Jock Young: Hippies in Notting Hill

example of deviance ampflicition spiral

• marjuna was peripheral to the hippie lifestyle till persecution and labelling by police led hippies to perceive themselves as outsiders, retreat to sub-cultural groups were a deviant subculture formed with marjuna central to the lifestyle.

• a fear of the police was the hippies would use harder drugs (like herorin), and eventually they did due to polarisation.

• distrust between police and hippies led to crime so social control processes created more crime.

Triplett (2000): impact of labelling for social policy/law

attempt to punish/control the youth had the opposite effect as led to crime rates increasing

Braithwaite (1989): shaming

2 diff types of shaming experienced by someone with a deviant label

Disintegrating shaming: crime and criminal is both labelled as bad so offender excluded from society.

Reintergarting shaming: labelling the act, not the actor (criminal) as bad for the deviant act.

• society should avoid stigmatising the offender as evil focusing on crime instead making them aware of the impact on society their action has had to make it easier to reintegrate them into society.

marxists view on labelling theory and crime

fails to examine links between labelling and capitalism- RC makes rules enforced upon WC.

Young (1997)

there is a “crisis in explanation”of crime as some deny it’s existence.

Young (1999)

increasing inequality and emphasis on material success has exacbated the issue of relative deprivation as a motive for crime. the “lethal" combination is relative deprivation and individualism” as is weakens socialisation.

Lea and Young (1984): 3 related causes of crime

1- relative deprivation:

• deprived individuals compare what others have to their expectations of what they’re entitled to consume.

• the more prosoprious society causes this as means more crime occur because of relative deprivation.

• Young 1999- increased inequaltity and emphasis on material success excavated issue.

2- subcultures:

• may develop stragties/subcultures to cope with the relative subcultirism.

• criminal subcultures still subscribe to society’s goals, but as legitimate opportunity structures blocked crime more appealing- can also be relgious subcultures so eval of not every subculture encourages crime.

3- Marginaliston:

• the criminals lack power, influence, clear goals and organisatons which represent their interests.

• unemployed youth are marginalised as no goals or organisatons just frustration and resentment.