Functionalist view of crime

DURKHEIM BOUNDARY MAINTENANCE

Point:

Durkheim saw crime as having a positive function in society by helping to reinforce shared norms and values through boundary maintenance.

Evidence: When someone breaks the law, the public reaction—such as trials or media coverage—serves to reaffirm society’s moral boundaries. For example, the punishment of criminals shows others what is considered unacceptable behaviour and the consequences of crossing those lines.

Explain:

This process strengthens social cohesion, as people are reminded of the collective values they share. In extreme cases, such as acts of terrorism or violent crime, the public outrage can unite society in condemnation and reinforce a shared sense of morality and identity.

Link:

Therefore, crime is not just a threat but also plays a role in maintaining social order by clarifying right from wrong and bringing people together in defence of common values.

Evaluate:

However, critics argue that too much crime can destabilise society and that not all responses to crime strengthen solidarity—some may deepen social divisions, particularly in unequal or unjust systems.

DURKHEIM ADAPTATION AND CHANGE

Point:

Durkheim argued that a certain level of deviance is necessary for social progress, as it allows society to adapt and change.

Evidence:

He believed that without individuals who challenge existing norms and values, society would become too rigid and eventually stagnate. Acts of deviance can highlight flaws in current systems and lead to important social reforms.

Explain:

For example, people who once broke the law to fight for civil rights or gender equality were seen as deviant at the time, but their actions later contributed to positive social change. This shows that controlled deviance can push society to rethink outdated norms and evolve.

Link:

Durkheim’s theory supports the idea that deviance is not only inevitable but also functional, helping societies to adapt rather than remain static.

Evaluate:

However, critics argue that not all deviance is beneficial—too much crime can lead to breakdowns in social order and harm social cohesion, especially when inequalities go unaddressed.

SAFETY VALVE

Point:

Functionalist thinkers like Davis and Polsky argue that some forms of minor deviance act as a safety valve, preventing more serious crimes and maintaining social order.

Evidence:

Polsky suggests that access to pornography can serve as a safe outlet for sexual desires, which may help reduce the likelihood of individuals committing more serious sexual offences. Similarly, Davis argued that prostitution could act as a safety valve for the sexual frustrations of men in a monogamous society, preventing breakdowns in the family unit.

Explain:

By allowing people to express frustration or tension in relatively harmless ways, these minor deviant acts help reduce social pressure and prevent larger disruptions to the social system.

Link:

This supports the functionalist view that not all deviance is harmful—some may actually serve positive functions by helping to preserve stability and prevent more damaging behaviour.

Evaluate:

However, critics argue that this view can normalize exploitation (e.g., of women in prostitution or pornography), and may ignore the underlying structural causes of crime, such as inequality or lack of opportunity.

WARNING SIGN COHEN

Point:

Cohen argued that crime and deviance can act as a warning sign that something in society is not functioning properly and may require change.

Evidence:

A rise in a particular type of crime—such as youth delinquency or truancy—can signal that social institutions, like the education system or the family, are failing to meet people's needs or maintain order.

Explain:

This perspective sees deviance as a symptom of deeper social problems. Rather than just punishing the behaviour, society should see it as an opportunity to identify and address underlying issues. For example, increasing school truancy might reflect a disconnect between students and the curriculum, suggesting a need for educational reform.

Link:

Cohen’s view supports the functionalist idea that deviance can play a useful role in society by prompting necessary adaptation and reform.

Evaluate:

However, critics argue that not all deviance leads to positive change—some may be ignored or over-punished, and focusing on symptoms may distract from deeper structural inequalities.

STRAIN THEORY

Point:

Robert Merton’s Strain Theory explains crime and deviance as a result of the strain between society’s goals and the means available to achieve them—particularly in relation to the American Dream.

Evidence:

Merton identified five types of individual response to this strain:

Conformity – accepting societal goals and legitimate means.

Innovation – accepting the goals but using illegitimate means, such as crime, to achieve them.

Ritualism – giving up on the goals but still following rules rigidly.

Retreatism – rejecting both the goals and means, as seen in addiction or homelessness.

Rebellion – rejecting society’s goals and means and creating new ones.

Explain:

Merton argued that not everyone has equal access to success, especially in a meritocratic society. When people are blocked from legitimate opportunities, they may turn to deviance—particularly innovation, which can explain crimes like theft or fraud.

Link:

This shows how structural inequalities can create pressure that leads to crime, making Merton’s theory a valuable bridge between functionalism and realism in understanding deviance.

Evaluate:

However, critics argue that Merton focuses too much on individual responses and material success, ignoring crimes without economic motivation and the role of power and social class in defining deviance.

Hirschi social bonds

Point:

Hirschi takes a different approach to understanding crime by asking not why people commit crime, but why they don’t. His Social Bonds Theory suggests that strong bonds to society prevent individuals from offending.

Evidence:

Hirschi identifies four key bonds that tie individuals to society:

Attachment – caring about others’ opinions (e.g. family, friends).

Commitment – having something to lose (e.g. a job, education).

Involvement – being busy with conventional activities.

Belief – believing in shared moral codes and values.

Explain:

When these bonds are strong, individuals are less likely to commit crime because they have more to lose and are more integrated into society. Conversely, weak bonds can lead to deviant behaviour, especially among youth who feel disconnected from institutions like school or family.

Link:

Hirschi’s theory supports control theory, which sees crime as resulting from a lack of social control, rather than a rational choice or a response to strain.

Evaluate:

However, critics argue that Hirschi fails to explain why people with strong social bonds still sometimes commit crime, and that he doesn’t consider structural factors like poverty or inequality that may influence offending.

subcultural theories

Thinker and overview

Evaluation

Status Frustration – COHEN

Young people get frustrated by their inability to achieve social goals which lead to status so turn to crime to achieve status.

WILLIS – W/C boys do not share the same ideas of status as M/C boys.

Ignores female delinquency

Only discusses youth crime.

Illegitimate Opportunity Structures – CLOWARD AND OHLIN

Criminal subcultures which socialise young people into criminal activity.

Conflict Subcultures where there is little social cohesion. Retreatist Subcultures those who fail to gain access to the other two subcultures.

Assumes the official statistics on crime are accurate.

Over exaggeration of the criminal opportunities available to the young.

Focal Concerns – MILLER

W/C have a different set of values or focal concerns to the rest of society which include hyper masculinity which can lead to criminal behaviour appearing normal.

Not all W/C are criminals

Matza – Subcultural membership is often short lived.