Interactionist Explanations on Crime and Deviance

Main argument - social construction? Who says this?

Becker argues that crime is simply something people label; and it is not the nature of the act that makes it deviant but society’s reaction to it and then the label is placed on the individual. Everything is context bound and only becomes deviant through abnormality. 

• interactions with agents of social control

• personal biography

• situation and crime 

=> crime is not a social fact as it is a subjective system and purely based on meanings attached therefore bias in favour of others and punishment for the rest. Piriavin and Briar say that youth are arrested based on physical cues. 

Primary and secondary deviance? Sociologist? AO3?

Lemert = primary deviance has no societal; reaction therefore no label is put on the individual and there is no point in finding the cause (eg running a red light) but secondary deviance is labelled and the result of societal reaction. The offender is stigmatised and becomes an outsider => master status => more deviance and more crime. People internalise labels and it feels difficult to get rid of it => lose motivation for change. 

KEY EXAMPLE = Young’s study of Hippie Marijuana users = the hostile reaction created serious deviance and social control contributes to the problem

AO3 = (+) useful in showing that policy makers should make steps to improve - practical strengths and advocates rehab over zero tolerance. EG prisons in Norway

Interactionist views on crime stats? What do they prefer?

socially constructed and outcome depends on the label (dark figure of crime). They won’t accurately show all criminal convictions so need to be cautious with them. Prefer victim studies (asked what crimes they have been victim of - unearths but not always accurate) and self-report studies (asked what crimes they have committed - useful data but mostly available for those with petty crimes). 

The negotiation of justice? Sociologist? AO3? Examples?

Cicourel = typifications and stereotypes lead to concentration of these certain types of groups. Law enforcement then gain a class bias => police patrol areas and more arrests for these groups meaning stereotypes are reinforced even further. Other agents such as probation officers see those from broken homes and lax parenting households and won’t support => reoffending will occur. 

Justice is not fixed but negotiable - m/c youth have cultural and economic capital to get good lawyers, be seen differently, and play system for better treatment. EG Brock Turner raped a girl but was justified in court as making a ‘lack of judgement’ and only served 3 months. Batey a black boy had similar crime but he got 15 years. 

AO3 = (+) rational as for why offender rates between w/c and m/c vary so much => identifies unconscious bias. 

(-) sweeping generalisations made by agents of social control => validity of explanation lowers

Labelling and the criminal justice policy? Sociologist? AO3?

Trippet = tendency to see young offenders as evil - CJS treat crimes with more severity => much higher sentences => increases offending instead.

The logic is that enforcing fewer laws may reduce deviance eg decriminalising soft drugs (we also need to show caution in how we treat offenders).

AO3: Weed = 1 in 10 become dependent, addiction will always be labelled and businesses were targeted. Therefore may lead to harm for those victim= help figures but not protection.

Effects of labelling? Study? AO3?

Folk devil = scapegoats, immigrants, sexuality, Muslims

Moral panic = mass hysteria about event/group

Media and politics twist events and sensationalise (fake news) => drawn to stereotypes => make Folk devils to create moral panic.

Deviancy amplification spiral = deviancy seen, sensationalised, and more exposure. Then public interest reduces.

study = Mods and Rockers = media used hyperbole in language ‘vermin’, ‘screaming headlines’ that is supposed to incite fear. Police hadn’t been bothered but riots encouraged more to happen => means crime occurs more. 

AO3: media streams - ppl don’t just take one view - there are more mediums (club cultures = Thornton) 

Reintegrative shaming? Restorative justice? Soc? Strengths?

Braithwate = acts labelled as bad but the person isn’t = positive labelling can be done. It introduces them back into society and reduce chance of recidivism as they now have the chnace. Restorative justice benfits for criminal and victim = 4/5 fee it was positive and reduces reoffending by 27% = practical as wouldn’t have happened if theories like this didn’t exist.

AO3: low level crime applications

General AO3? Strengths and weaknesses?

(+)

• law isn’t set ins tone

• used as justification for pressure to be applied to states that are reluctant to make changes that would benefit society’s members

• shows law system can often be discriminatory - helps CJS become more equal in the future.

(-)

• Deterministic = ppl may reject labels => may not be correct that labelling leads to further deviance

• personal choice plays in = better to combine with structural theories

• RR say gives off a ‘victim status and law enforcement should be harsher

• fails to understand primary deviance which M, F/S theory have tried to do

• focus on policeman not rules/laws by r/c in society.