Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
What is deviance?
Deviance describes any behaviour that goes against the norms, values and expectations of society.
Theories
- Functionalism
- Subcultural theory
- Traditional Marxism
- New Marxism (critical criminology)
- Interactionism (Labelling)
- Postmodernism
- Left realism
- Right realism
Social distribution
- Gender
- Ethnicity
- Social class
- Recent patterns and trends
Crime control and prevention
- Surveillance
- Punishment
- Victims
- Role of the criminal justice system
Globalisation and crime
- Mass media and crime
- Green crime
- Human Rights crime
- State crimes
Functionalism
- Durkheim
- Merton
- Hirschi
Durkheim: Value consensus and deviance
Durkheim argued that in a functioning society there is a value consensus, in which due to various social institutions, the vast majority in a society have been socialised.
One of the ways in which this consensus is reinforced is through the policing of the margins: the formal and informal sanctions used to either reward those who conform or punish those who deviate.
Our shared disapproval of deviant behaviour strengthens our social solidarity.
Durkheim argued that too much or too little was bad for society suggesting there was either too much or too little social order and control. Example: less deviance in pre-industrial society because of the mechanical solidarity of society. The nature of the economy and the society meant that social bonds were very tight.
The increased isolation and privatised nature of modern industrialised societies increased the likelihood of deviance.
Durkheim: Organic analogy of society
He had an organic analogy of society: he perceived it as akin to a human body. The various organs had to function correctly for the whole of society to be in good health.
Although excessive deviance could be symptomatic of an unhealthy or dysfunctional society, Durkheim argued that deviance itself was functional, normal and inevitable.
What functions did Durkheim suggest that deviance had?
Durkheim suggested that deviance had the following functions: Boundary maintenance and social change.
Durkheim: Society of saints
Durkheim argues that even in a 'society of saints' there would still be deviance.
Durkheim: Deviance varying from societies
Deviance describes any behaviour that goes against the norms and values of expectation of a society.
All societies have deviance, even though the sorts of behaviour considered deviant might vary from society to society.
Durkheim: Social change
Deviance also facilitates social change.
If people never deviated from society's norms and values then society would never change and change can be a very good thing. (Organic change rather than radical change)
An organic process of social change is started by society responding positively to deviant behaviour.
The deviant behaviour becomes normal and among other changes, this can lead to alteration in the law. For example: changing attitudes to homosexuality in the 20th century.
Durkheim: Concept of anomie
Durkheim also argued that when societies underwent rapid change, as they did during industrialisation, there would be increased deviance because of something he called anomie: normlessness or an absence of social control and cohesion.
Evaluating Durkheim
- Realists (both left and right) criticise the idea that crime is both normal and functional. They point out that crime is a very real problem for victims and for society. The sociology of crime and deviance should inform policy-makers in terms of how to prevent crime.
- Marxists argue that Durkheim fails to consider where the consensus come from and in whose interests it exist. They point out that the laws are made by the state, usually working in the interests of the ruling class. Instead of there being a value consensus in the interests of society, there is ideology or hegemony in the interests of capitalism.
- Other functionalists note that while Durkheim goes some way to explain why some societies might have more crime and deviance than others, he does not consider why some individuals or groups in a society commit crime and others do not.
- While the existence of some crime in society is normal, most people of the time do not commit crime. These points, Durkheim addresses.
Merton's Strain Theory
Merton (1938) concluded that Americans were socialised into believing the American Dream.
A lifestyle concept including an existing consensus about what people's social goals should be: success and material wealth.
However, the unequal access to those goals did not exist. There was a strain between the socially-encouraged goals of society and the socially-acceptable means to achieve them.
People were socialised into believing that to achieve the American Dream they had to work had and they would succeed because the society was meritocratic.
Merton's Strain Theory: Adaptations
Individuals made various adaptations in response to this strain, some of which were likely to lead to crime. The different adaptations were based on either accepting or rejecting the means or and / or the goals.
- Conformist
- Innovator
- Retreatist
- Ritualist
- Rebel
Merton: What is the clearest adaption which might lead to crime?
The clearest adaptation that might lead to criminal activity is that of the innovator. They want material success but they do not want to work hard at school so they find another route to their ends.
While this may mean appearing on X-Factor, it could also mean robbing a band. Either could lead to a criminal record because both are unconventional ways of achieving success.
Evaluating Merton
- While Durkheim's concept of anomie was rather vague, Merton explains the idea in quite a detailed way: the product of a strain between socially-accepted goals and the socially-accepted means to achieve them. While Merton's theory was based on 20th century America, it is transferable to any contemporary, western, developed capitalist society.
- Merton does not consider the source of social goals, nor in whose interests society is socialised into believing. Marxists argue that the former is bourgeois ideology and the latter is in the interest of capitalism. People are socialised into believing that the best way to achieve material success is through meritocracy but this is not a value consensus which ensure social solidarity but rather capitalist ideology or hegemony, serving the interest of the bourgeoise at the expense of the proletariat.
- Merton does not spend any time considering why some people find it harder to achieve society's goals than others. He does not pursue the idea the inequality and unequal opportunities in society are a social problem. Nor what the cause of that problem might be.
- Merton does not consider why different people have different adaptations. While many people feel that the socially-accepted means to achieve their goals are too difficult, only a small number commit crimes.
- Merton does not explain why groups of people are deviant in the same way. As perviously mentioned, most people conform most of the time but those who don't often socialise together. Merton does not address this, but it is taken up by functionalist subcultural theorists who have developed Merton's theory.
- Merton presents a possible explanation for some crime but does not consider non-utilitarian crime which does not materially benefit such a fighting or vandalism.
What does Hirschi consider that others do not?
Another important functionalist contribution to our understanding of crime and deviance comes from Hirschi.
While most sociologists who have thought about crime and deviance have focused on why people commit crimes, Hirschi focuses on why most people most of the time do not.
Hirschi: Bonds of attatchment
He identifies four 'bonds of attachment' that keep people closely linked to the value consensus and ensure social control and order.
These are: Attachment, commitment, involvement and belief.
Those who are more likely to commit crimes are those who do not have family attachments, work commitments, get involved in school or have a clear moral code.
As such, one could paint a picture of a likely criminal as someone marginalised, young and single.
Evaluating Hirschi
- An absence of the bonds of attachment is suggested as a reason for criminality. This is useful because it introduces ideas of how to prevent crime and how to achieve social order.
His ideas have influenced social policymakers in that they are interested in how attachment can be promoted and deviance reduced. Promoting activities for young kid, encouraging marriage and employment, encouraging values and morality in education are all way in which policymakers could try and forge bonds of attachment and reduce deviance.
- As with other functionalist sociologists, Hirschi does not really address the issues of why some members of society have secure bonds of attachment and other are more marginalised.
Marxists and Feminists would point out that there is not a value consensus that benefits all members of society: instead, society is characterised by conflict. Capitalism produces detached, marginalised individuals deliberately as it creates within the unemployed a reserve of labour whose existence helps the bourgeoise keep wage levels down.
Functionalist subcultural theories
- Cohen
- Cloward and Ohlin
- Miller
- Matza
Cohen: A theory about subcultures
Cohen set out to develop Merton's strain theory to address questions about why groups commit crimes and why people commit non-utilitarian crimes.
In doing so, he developed a theory about subcultures.
The key to subcultural theories is that actually deviants conform to norms and values and they just happen to be different norms and values from the rest of society.
Cohen: status frustration
Cohen argued that working-class boys often failed at school resulting in a low status.
A response to this was the formation of subcultures or gang with values that were largely the reverse of mainstream values.
What was deemed taboo or deviant in mainstream society was praiseworthy and good in the subculture. Likewise what was considered praiseworthy in mainstream culture was deviant and discouraged in the subculture.
Cohen's theory sought to explain delinquency among particular groups in society and non-utalitarian crimes. Crimes like vandalism or fighting can be explained by the subculture inverting the values of mainstream society, turning socially deviant acts into ones that are praiseworthy and a way of achieving status within the group.
Evaluating Cohen
- Cohen's suggestion that members of these delinquent subcultures consciously invert the norms and values of mainstream society has been criticised. When someone commits a non-utalitarian crime is seems unlikely that they have thought that mainstream society would consider this act unacceptable and so praiseworthy in their subcultures.
Postmodernist sociologists like Lyng and Kats argue that this is more likely the individual is influenced by boredom or is seeking a 'buzz'.
However, it could be countered that delinquents can be conscious of how deviant acts might provide an access to rewards and status within their group without individually inverting mainstream values every time they deviate.
- Cohen specifically says that this is a phenomenon relating to 'working-class boys' and yet makes very few links between his theory and either social class or gender. Other sociologists like Paul Willis attempt to address that question but Cohen does not,
- If the reason for deviance is frustration at low status, many feminists would suggest that in 1950's American, you would expect girls to be the ones forming the deviant subcultures.
- In favour of Cohen: he does successfully develop Merton's theory to provide an explanation for non-utalitarian crimes.
Cloward and Ohlin: Illegitimate opportunity structures
Cloward and Ohlin sought to combine the theories of Merton and Cohen to explain the different kinds of criminal subcultures they identified in contemporary America.
Like Merton, they argued that there was a 'legitimate opportunity structure' but also identified an alternative 'illegitimate opportunity structure' which was available through gang membership.
However, just as not all people could easily access the legitimate opportunity structure and material success, there could also be a strain in relation to illegitimate opportunity structures.
Because someone is unable to become wealthy through working hard and gaining qualifications does not mean that they will easily find a criminal path to wealth and success.
Cloward and Ohlin: types of deviant subcultures
The types of subcultures available vary. This goes some way to explain why not all those who find legitimate opportunity structures blocked turn to crime.
Three types of deviant subculture:
- Criminal subculture: organised crime like the mafia where the criminals can socialise youth into their own criminal career that might result in material success.
- Conflict subculture: Gangs organised by young people themselves, often based on claiming territory from other gangs in so-called 'turf wars'.
- Retreatist subculture: Those who are unable to access either legitimate or illegitimate opportunity structures might drop out altogether but might do so as a group rather than individually. These groups might abuse drugs for example.
Evaluating Cloward and Ohlin
- Although Cloward and Ohlin's three forms of subculture appear distinct, most criminal gang would have elements of two or more of these subcultures. Drug use, for example, often plays a part in criminal gangs, while the sorts of 'turf wars' carried out by 'conflict subcultures' is often linked to organised crime, for instance drug dealing. Thus, it is not clear they have identified three distinct subcultures.
- As with other functionalist subcultural theories, Cloward and Ohlin write about working-class crime and predominantly about males, yet do no tackle broader issues relating to social class or gender.
They do not question why, in the meritocratic society described by most functionalists, working-class youths are generally denied access to legitimate opportunity structures.
Nor do they explain why girls, who are also denied access to these structures, do not react in the same way that boys do.
Miller: Focal concerns
Miller suggested working-class boys were socialised into a number of distinct values that together meant that they were more likely than others to engage in delinquent or deviant behaviour.
Miller described these values as 'focal concerns'
Miller: examples of focal concerns
- Excitement: Seek out excitement
- Toughness: Prove they are tough
- Smartness: They use wit
- Trouble
- Autonomy: Not reliant on others
- Fate: Future is already decided
Miller: What does these focal concerns mean?
None of these values on their own mean that crime is inevitable as many 'lower-class boys' are also socialised with these focal concerns and to stay out of trouble but they do make crime more likely.
As seeking excitement might lead to non-utilitarian crime.
Autonomy might lead people to take matters into their own hands rather than asking for help.
Fatalism might mean that they do not consider the consequences of their actions as the future is already written and decided.
Evaluating Miller
- Although sociologists have found evidence of some of Miller's local concerns in working-class communities, it is not clear that what Miller refers to as the 'lower-class' really does have such distinct norms and values from the rest of society.
If they might, this contradicts the classic functionalist idea that the various institutions in society ensure social solidarity and value consensus.
- Miller refers to just boys, without considering gender. Some feminist critics have pointed out that these focal concerns might be masculine values rather than lower-class ones.
Alternative view: focal concerns extend to working-class girls and therefore might be features of 'lower-class' values or indeed of youth in general.
Matza: Subterranean values and 'drift'
Matza presents an interesting functionalist alternative to subcultural theories where he suggests that in fact, we all share the 'delinquent' values that lead some people to criminal and deviant behaviour but that most of us, most of the time are able to keep them suppressed.
This is a learned skill, so we are more likely to commit crime or engage in deviant behaviour when we are young and less so as we age. As such people are neither conformist nor deviant, people are able to 'drift' between both throughout their life.
Matza suggests that the proof for the existence of these subterranean values comes from the fact that people seek to 'neutralise' their deviant acts.
If people really had a different set of values when they behaved deviantly, they would believe their deviant behaviour was appropriate or correct.
However, people quickly seek ways to justify their behaviour or question their responsibility in terms of mainstream values.
Therefore, they must understand and share those values.
Matza: techniques of neutralisation
- Denial of responsibility: It wasn't me.
- Denial of injury: It didn't hurt.
- Denial of the victim: What did you expect?
- Condemnation of the condemners: You are just as bad.
- Appeal to higher loyalties: I did it for my country.
Evaluating matza
- Techniques of neutralisation have the appearance of excuses. They could simply be used in an attempt to avoid censure of punishment rather than to 'drift' back into mainstream values.
A criminal can be aware of what most consider unacceptable without sharing that belief.
- Other have pointed out they some of these 'techniques of neutralisation' may be deviant values. The belief that the victims are partly responsible for their victimhood or that higher loyalties justify crimes might well be examples of the deviant norms and values of a criminal subculture.
- However, Matza is correct that many people may be delinquents when they are young and then go on to lead respectable lives as adults. In such cases it is not that they have been socialised into a different, minority set of norms and values. Their ability to conform to mainstream values when they mature and take on responsibilities shows that they were as socialised into the value consensus as those who did not participate in deviant behaviour in their youth.
Overall evaluation of functionalist explanations
- Marxists: argue that functionalists fail to consider where the rules or the laws come from. Although Durkheim and others argue in favour of organic social change, they appear to view the law as merely a legal reflection of the value consensus of society. However, in reality, those laws do not reflect the collective conscience of a society but are created by the powerful.
- Feminists: Functionalist theories of crime and deviance appear to ignore gender altogether. There is a gender blindness.
- Post-modernists: Focus on the way in which crime is quite pointless rather than functional. It is something that occurs because of boredom rather than because of shared subcultural values or in order to facilitate social change.
Not everyone is attracted to a life of crime.
Minor crime can release some of the tensions in society that, if not relieved, could lead to more significant problems.
- Realists sociologists: Are concerned with functionalist sociology of crime and deviance which explores deviance as an interesting phenomenon but does not help solve crime as an existing problem. The concept that crime is functional and normal is of little comfort to the victims of crime.
Evaluate functionalist explanations of crime and deviance. (30 marks)
Classical Marxism
- Marx
- Snider
- Chambliss
- Graham
- Pearce
- Althusser
Key Marxist ideas
- Capitalism is criminogenic
- Capitalism requires social control in order to prevent revolution
- Laws exist to protect the interests of the ruling class, and the law enforcement (or agents of social control) are only interested in controlling the proletariat and protecting the bourgeoise.
Marxism on crime and deviance
Marxists argue that the economic system of capitalism itself causes crime.
The whole system is based on the exploitation of the working class by the ruling class, leading to the ever-increasing wealth of one class and ever-increasing poverty of the other.
It is therefore not surprising that those who cannot afford the basic necessities of life might turn to crime to provide what their employers do not.
It is to be expected that the exploited working-class will sometimes express their frustration and anger at their exploitation through violence or criminal damage.
The values of capitalism are, potentially criminal values: the aim of capitalist society is to get as much money and wealth as possible, irrespective of how that might harm other people.
This encourages crimes of the rich and of less fortunate others who are persuaded this is an appropriate way to behave.
Marxist criminology
Marxism would further question who the real criminal are: the employer paying poverty wages or the worker trying to feed his or her family?
Therefore, Marxists criminology can be described as transgressive criminology as Marxists are not just interested in the acts that are against the law but also in the legal acts that cause harm.
One reason for this is that they see the law as something created by the ruling class to serve their own interests, which are coincident with the capitalist system.
Chambliss
Argues that most laws in the US and in the UK is property law and this primarily protects people who own property.
1978 study of Seattle: members of the ruling class were part of a crime syndicate who used their wealth and influence to bride officials and avoid punishment.
He wrote this included politicians and business owners.
His argument was that the criminal justice system was not really there to catch them: nominally universal laws were applied selectively to control the working class while protecting the rich.
Graham
Illustrated Chambliss' point further by look at how the government policed the illegal trade in drugs, particularly amphetamines.
Even though there was a 'war on drugs' in the US at the time, Graham found that politicians agreed not the greatly restrict amphetamine production and distribution because most of it was made and sold by large pharmaceutical companies rather than 'criminals'.
Pearce
Argued that even laws that appeared to help workers really helped the bourgeoise.
His focus on health and safety laws which provided the ruling class with a healthy workforce.
Later, Marxist studies, like Snider's concluded that such laws were not enforced especially strongly anyway: laws appearing to be in the interests of the bourgeoise were more 'for show' while those that protected the ruling class were rigorously enforced.
Evaluating Classical Marxism
- The existence of crime is non-capitalist societies, especially communist societies, for example, modern-day Cuba has been used to challenge the concept of capitalism being criminogenic. Marxists would counter that crime in Cuba, for instance, might still be capitalist in origin because it continues to cause poverty in non-capitalist countries. Capitalism being criminogenic does not mean that there are no one causes of crime.
- In contemporary society, property law does not protect the ruling class alone. The vast majority of people in a society like the UK own some property. Therefore, laws about theft are burglary are not only bourgeois laws.
However, Marxists would counter this proposition by arguing that the criminal justice system would take property crimes against the rich more seriously than property crimes against the poor, both in terms of the rigour with which the police would investigate the crime and the sentence handed down.
- Non-Marxists would point out that in modern democracies, law-makers are elected by everyone and include people from a range of political positions and social backgrounds.
Furthermore, most criminal laws are not controversial: there is a real consensus about the vast majority of crimes.
- The state has created lots of laws to protect workers.
- These theories present working-class criminals as passive: people who cannot help but commit crime because of their economic circumstances. Neo-Marxists challenge this idea, arguing that crime is a conscious choice.
Neo-Marxism and Critical Criminology
Some Marxists who sought to adapt Marx's ideas and criticisms- concerning the apparent passivity of the working class.
Neo-Marxists recognised that working-class criminals made an active choice to break the law.
However, they argued that sometimes this was a positive political act against the bourgeoise. Example: The Black Panthers - a radical black rights group in the US in the 1960's and 1970's who engaged in criminal activity in the course of their political activism.
This Neo-Marxist approach to crime and deviance became known as critical criminology or sometimes radical criminology.
Young and Taylor: The New Criminology
Tried to establish the 'fully social theory of deviance'
When considering a deviant act they argued that Marxists should consider:
- The structure of society and where power resides
- The structural 'macro' background of the deviant act
- The immediate cause of the deviant act and the act itself
- The impact of the act
- The societal reaction to that act
- The impact of that reaction
This conceptual outline shows the clear influence of interactionism on their approach despite their analysis being clearly Marxists.
Stuart Hall
Applied the critical criminology approach to black muggers in the 1970's UK.
- There was what Marxists call as 'crisis of capitalism'
- The resulting unemployment had a disproportionate impact on black people, some of whom chose to enter the informal economy rather than do 'white man's shit work'.
- The ruling class sought to divide the working class to prevent anti-capitalist political activism: turning white workers against black workers was one approach to this.
- A moral panic about street crime by black people was fostered, leading to a crackdown by the police and a crime wave fantasy.
- This was one means by which revolution or radical political change was prevented.
Evaluating Neo-Marxism and Critical Criminology
- Only a very small portion of crime could be considered as politically-motivated or part of anti-capitalist activism. While theorists might attach such a motive to all manner of crime (from burglary to vandalism) it rarely seems to be a motive that criminals themselves would claim.
- Left realists point that most victims of crime are working class. Therefore, Marxists should produce solutions to the problem of crime rather than simply trying to understand working-class criminals.
- Some argue that Hall's theory about black muggers is a conspiracy theory. Nobody could prove that anyone deliberately set out to divide the working-class to prevent revolution. Even Hall himself recognised that a significant factor in the media's decision to sensationalise such crimes was because it sold newspapers rather than prevented revolutions.
Overall evaluation of Marxist explanations
- Accused of being reductionist: they reduce everything to economics.
- Post-modernists: Society is complex and fragmented and that while capitalism and economic class might well influence people's behaviour there are many other equally important influences.
Wealth is not the only source of power: class is not the only important identity.
- Realist sociologists accuse Marxists of presenting criminals as 'the real victims'. They suggest that Marxists ignored the real victims and only appear interested in victims of the crimes of the rich.
- Feminists note that women are largely absent from these accounts,
- Some would argue that typically proletarian crimes are treated more seriously than typically bourgeoise or white collar crimes, not because the state is acting on behalf of the ruling class but because those crimes are actually more serious.
Evaluate the usefulness of Marxist approaches in understanding crime and deviance. (30 marks)
Interactionist explanations: Labelling theory
Becker is interested in why people choose to label their behaviour as deviant and what effect the label has on individuals and for society.
Becker points out that people react differently to the same act depending on the social context and this influences the label that is placed on the act.
Negative label - self concept - label reinforced - master status - deviant career
Our self concept is how we see ourselves. Becker argues that his is created by recognising how others see us: being aware of how we are labelled.
As such, being labelled as deviant can lead to deviance amplification because this label can become our master status: the main way in which we think of and identify ourselves.
Lemert
People can become career criminals. This relates to the ideas of Lemert about primary deviance and secondary deviance.
Lemert postulated that after someone carries out a deviant act (the primary deviance) the reaction of others can lead to further (secondary) deviance.
Ciourel
This idea was developed by Cicourel in his study 'Power and Negotiation of Justice'.
He investigated delinquency in California - he tried to account for the apparent significance difference in delinquency rates between two similar cities and concluded that it was the societal reaction to 'delinquency' that differed rather than acts themselves.
He identified 2 stages in the 'negotiation' of whether behaviour was deemed deviant or not.
Stage one: The police's interpretation. This is influenced by police stereotypes but also the context of the behaviour.
Stage two: If someone is arrested or reported, further interpretations are made based on whether the offender is a 'typical delinquent'.
Various factors, including social class and ethnicity will impact how the offence is handled.
Interactionist approach - social construct of labels
At the time of the London Riots in 2011 some commentators pointed out that then London Mayor (Boris Johnson) and Prime Minister (David Cameron) had themselves been apart of a 'delinquent' 'gang' at university called the Bullingdon Club.
Despite this student group being associated with a wide range of illegal behaviour, it was not subject to the same social control and punishment that is would have attracted had they been poor people rioting, rather than rich people 'letting off steam'.
For interactionists: Any data that might appear to show different level of offending among different social groups or in different localities is unlikely to be much use: the data itself is a social construct.
It tells us about the extent to which the label 'deviant' is applied rather than informing about different levels of offending.
Folk Devils and Moral panics
Cohen: Researched the fights between two youth subcultures between the mods and rockers.
He was influenced by Becker and labelling theory and so was particularly interested in the response of the events rather than the events themselves.
He was in particularly interested in the media response.
Folk devils: When the media reports on deviant behaviour they construct a narrative which features a clear villain: the folk devil.
In his study, the folk devils were the violent youth subcultures 'mods and rockers' - this can kickstart a moral panic.
Moral panics: Applied to any sensationalist reaction to an issue that appears to relate to morality: to right and wrong. The implication of the term is that the reaction is out of proportion to the act and indeed that the reaction might create a phenomenon itself.
Minor scuffles when the different subcultures met turned into a much more significant phenomenon.
The reaction meant that the police responded to future conflict more forcefully and thus created further conflicts. The people involved had read stories about themselves and began fulfilling the parts written for them - 'five minutes of fame'.
A good example of how societal reaction to deviance can amplify the deviance.
Overall evaluation of interactionist Theories of crime
- Labelling theory and related concepts provide an essential corrective to the positivist the case that took crime statistics as a straightforward reflection of the truth.
Crime rates at different times cannot be compared then claimed to show a pattern of offending because the police might ignore an offence at one time, thus never record it, yet at another time crackdown on the same type of offence, creating a fantasy crime wave.
- Realists question whether these theories are actually of any use to policy makers. To the victims of crime, theft is theft and assault is assault.
Becker's argument can seem rather abstract and semantic argument: crime is a real problem for society and it is not just a label. Producing solutions would help the real victims of crime,
- Challenging Cicourel's point about the negotiation of justice is that sometimes people from wealthy backgrounds are treated more severely rather than less. Coming from a 'loving and supportive' home as an aggravating factor in a millionaire's daughter's prison sentence.
Evaluate the view that labelling is the main cause of criminality. (30 marks)
Introduction to Realism
Many traditional sociological theories of crime are criticised for being too theoretical, too abstract and not useful in terms of developing social policy.
For realists, crime is a real social problem that requires solutions.
Right Realism
Charles Murray: developed the idea of an underclass.
He suggested that the welfare state created dependency and that there were perverse incentives in the welfare system which could encourage single parenthood and discourage working for a living.
He argued that generation of young boys grew without male role models and without the example of paid unemployment leading to a criminal underclass of jobless, welfare-dependent, dysfunctional people.
However, realists are more interested in crime prevention and control than why people commit crimes in the first place.
RR share the view of functionalists like Hirschi that firm social bonds and tight-knit communities help to prevent crime.
They argue that even minor crime needs to be dealt with rigorously through policies like zero tolerance in order to maintain social order and coherent communities.
Broken Windows Theory
This idea was expressed most famously in the broken windows theory.
Wilson concluded that the extent to which a community regulates itself has a dramatic impact on crime and deviance.
The theory's name is the idea that where there is one broken window left unreplaced there will be many.
It is a physical symbol that the residents of a particular neighbourhood does not especially care about their environment and that low-level deviance is tolerated.
Their response was zero tolerance policing where the criminal justice system took low-level crime and anti-social behaviour much more seriously than they had in the past - 'three strikes and you're out' policies.
People would get serious custodial sentences for repeated minor offences such as unsolicited windscreen cleaning, drunk and disorderly behaviour etc.
Anti-social behaviour and minor incivilities - deter more serious crime and ensure that collective conscience and social solidarity is maintained by clear boundary maintenance.
Evaluating Broken Windows theory
- The impact of the policy in New York appeared to be dramatic with crime levels. There was a 40% percent drop in overall crime and over 50% in homicide.
- This policy coincided with a period of economic growth and a reduction in poverty. Crime rates fell in New York because the social conditions for people in New York significantly improved. Just because there was a correlation does not mean that there was a casualty.
- Accused on achieving control without justice. People were serving long sentence for very minor misdemeanours.
- Evidence shows that the policy impacted much more heavily on minority ethnic groups than on the majority white population. Therefore police discretion makes the implementation of broken windows unjust.
Evaluating Right Realism
- The view that people choose to commit crimes because they see a lack of community cohesion while others choose not to commits crimes where such cohesion is apparent suggests that crime is a rational choice.
Post-modernist sociologists challenge the notion that people weigh up the costs and benefits of crimes before committing them suggests that the thrill of taking risks is part of what is alluring about criminal activity.
- If social exclusion and marginalisation causes crime then it might be expected that women would commit more crimes than men in a patriarchal society and yet this is not the case. Feminists criticise realism as being 'malestream' for ignoring gender as a factor.
Left Realism
Lea and Young have their roots in Marxism and radical criminology yet criticise Marxists.
Their argument with traditional Marxists and others is that crime and the fear of crime are very real social problems that should be taken seriously and actually most victims are working class. Therefore, sociologists should consider solutions to all crime and not view only white-collar crime and corporate crime as a problem.
They identify the causes of crime: subcultures, marginalisation / social exclusion and relative deprivation.
Relative deprivation: Inequality. LR suggest that this together with marginalisation and subcultures is a significant cause of crime.
They argue that people were better off in the 1980's than they were in the 1930's yet crime was much worse in the former. The difference is not that people are poorer but because they live in close proximity with people who are much richer. Although the divide between rich and poorer was greater in the 1930's, those in poverty were less aware of the lives of the wealthy because society was more socially segregated.
Today, people live on the poverty line may well live on the next street to the very rich. This could be a very significant cause of come.
It was also a key factor in social exclusion: people feeling they did not have a stake in society where on the margins and in the formation of subcultures.
LR also argue that the process of globalisation has exacerbated this problem by exporting many manufacturing jobs to the developing world and increasing unemployment and social exclusion in post-industrial countries like the UK.
LR favour police to create a more consensual force that would better represent the population it polices.
If there were genuine consensus and the public had more confidence in the police, they would report more crimes.
The public would work with the police rather than feel threatened by them and ultimately this would improve the policing for communities and reduce crime.
A significant part of the reform was the inclusion of more democracy in the police: David Cameron's coalition government introduced elected police and crime commissioners.
Although that was not exactly what LR proposed, they preferred directly-elected police authorities - the rationale behind the new posts was very similar despite coming from a different political perspective.
Ultimately, social order will come from a fairer and more equal society. They argue that this is not just the responsibility of the police or the government but of everyone and partnerships between a wide array of agencies and individuals need to exist in order to reduce the problem of crime.
At the heart of police and crime policy under the Tony Blair government after 1997.
Evaluating Left Realism
- One problem with LR is that its central proposal is arguably still quite idealistic rather than realistic.
A fairer and more equal society might well have less crime than the one we currently live in but is that anymore a realistic proposal than more Traditional Marxists who argue that we need a revolution.
- If social exclusion and marginalisation cause crime then it might be expected that women would commit more crimes that men in a patriarchal society and yet this is not the case.
Feminists therefore would criticise left and right realism as being 'malestream' for ignoring gender as a factor.
- While the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government introduced directly-elected and crime commissioners in 2012, there is no evidence to suggest that this increased public support for or confidence in the police.
Outline two criticisms of Broken Windows Theory. (4 marks)
Evaluate Right Real explanations of both the causes of crime and the solutions to crime. (30 marks)
The social distribution of crime and deviance by ethnicity
Ethnicity refers to an identity based on belonging to a group defined by common cultural or national traditions.
It is considered a more useful concept than race.
In relation to crime and deviance, sociologists are interested in the apparent significant differences in the incidence of criminality and victimhood among different ethnicities.
Sociologists consider both why this might be and why the statistics that show this might be misleading. For example: the product of discriminatory policing.
Measuring crime
The distribution of criminality is often expressed in terms of the crime rate.
The crime rate is data taken from official police statistics revealing the number of crimes committed per 1000 individuals in the population.
Crime rates tend to be broken down into rates for each category of crime. Example: violent crime.
Official crime statisitcs
Are generated by what is recorded by the police and then what is processed through the criminal justice system.
In 2014, the Office for National Statistics removed their 'gold standard' from police statistics on the grounds that they were simply unreliable due to the inconsistencies in recording even deliberate of the statistics.
Alongside the Crime Survey of England and Wales they are our key source of information in relation to trends and patterns in criminality and victimisation.
Interpretivist: the dark figure of crime
However, Interpretivist sociologists would question police statistics as they really only measure what the police record and do not present an accurate picture of real crime: they are a social construct.
They can produce fantasy crime waves: for example if police had chosen to crack down on knife crime, the increased activity would give the illusion of an increase in the crime itself and it misses out the dark figure.
The dark figure of crime
Is widely understood the official crime statistics will miss out a wide range of criminal activity that occurs but is not recorded.
Most recorded crime is reported to the police by victims or witnesses.
There are many reasons why people might not report a crime: fear of reprisal, not believing that the compliant will be taken seriously or choosing to resolve the issue privately or personally.
Historically, crimes committed within families have not always been taken to the police.
Sometimes people are not even aware that they have been a victim of crime and some criminal behaviour is essentially 'victimless' or the victims are so dispersed that no one reports the activity. Example: some corporate crime and fraud.
Victim survey
Every year the Home Office conduct a survey in order to gain a better picture of levels of criminality in the UK than that offered by official police statistics: the Crime Survey of England and Wales.
This is primarily a victim survey in which a representative sample of the public is asked about any crimes they have experienced as victims in the preceding 12 months.
Although this captures some of that dark figure of crime is still by no means comprehensive.
Moreover, it depends on people's memory on the events they recount.
Victims' prejudice or stereotypes of a likely criminal can impact the data when they are actually unaware of particular characteristics on an offender.
When exploring the social distribution of crime, it is always important to remember that the data available are contested.
Statistics on ethnicity and crime
13.2% of the prison population is black compared with their being 2.8% of the over 15 population.
Asian and mixed-race people are also over-represented in the prison population yet white people who represent 88.3% of the population only make up 73.8% of the prison population.
These statistics are from the Ministry of Justice 2013.
The statistical picture is not all clear and is open to interpretation. Example: while members of minority ethnic groups are more likely to be stopped and searched and more likely to be arrested, white people are more likely to be found guilty. In 2006-7, 60% of whites were found guilty compared with 52% of black people and 44% of Asians.
One possibility is that people from minority ethnic groups are more likely to be wrongly charged, perhaps due to racial stereotyping.
If the statistic reflect reality
The theoretical approaches to crime and deviance we have already explore all offer explantations for the statistical patterns we have identified.
See page 30.
If the statistics are misleading
One of the main explanations for this statistical picture other than that minority-ethnic groups really do commit more crime, is the effect of institutional racism.
In 1993 an 18 year old called Stephen Lawrence was murdered by a racist gang.
The subsequent police inquiry was hugely unsuccessful. Nobody had been successfully prosecuted until 19 years later despite lots of evidence including video footage of the gang bragging about planning how they would kill a black man.
A subsequent inquiry into the investigation known as the McPherson Report concluded in 1999.
It made many recommendations relating to police reform and famously described the Metropolitan as being institutionally racist.
It precipitated a sea of change in equality legislation and policy: organisations now have to measure the impact of all their policies and procedures on specific groups having protected characteristics.
Stop and search
Some argue that the police stop and search data reflect institutional racism: 2014 the data showed 65 Black, 23 Asian and 28 mixed race individuals being stopped and searched per every thousand in the population compared with 15 white individuals per every thousand.
This could be enough to account for the over-representation of minority-ethnic individuals in the official statistics.
By stopping and searching a much larger number of individuals from those ethnicities, the chance of uncovering illegal activity is significantly increased.
Stuart Hall
Explained why some minority-ethnic individuals may actually have committed more crime.
He also described the effect of a class moral panic and how it could drive a fantasy crime wave where the actions of the police could give the impression of a significant increase in a particular type of crime.
In this case mugging.
Evaluating Sociological explantation for the Social Distribution of crime and deviance by ethnicty
- Self report studies have tended to find that black and white people have near-identical rates of offending and Asians rather lower.
- Waddington et al: When police stop and search activities generally occurred, the people who were out on the streets did not reflect the whole of society. These people constituted the 'available population' which was more likely to be made up of young adults and of significantly more minority-ethnic individuals than of the whole population.
As such, while stop and search figures are out of population, they were found to be broadly in proportion to those who were available to be stopped.
- He also argued that when the police stopped vehicles, especially at night, they were generally unaware of the ethnicity of the driver. Waddington's study involved interviews with police officers, but not with people who had been stopped and searched so only gave one side and conversations.
Outline two reasons for ethnic differences in criminal conviction rates. (4 marks)
Outline three reasons for ethnic minority individuals may commit more crimes than the majority population. (6 marks)
Analyse two reasons why some ethnic groups are much more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than others. (10 marks)
Evaluate sociological explanations of differences in offending between ethnic groups. (30 marks)
Evaluate the view that ethnicity is the most significant cause of crime. (30 marks)
The social distribution of crime and deviance by gender: statistics on gender and crime
Men are much more likely to commit crimes than women. (Although female crime has been rising faster than male crime since the late 20th century)
Men and violence also appear to commit different types of crimes. Men are more likely to commit violent crimes, for instance accounting for 90% murders.
Therefore sociologists are interested in investigating why these differences in offending occur. As with all such differences, sociologists also ask whether they are real or whether the statistics are misleading due to the way they are produced.
If statistics reflect reality
One explanation for gender differences in levels of criminality is that men and women are simply different.
This is sometimes known as sex role theory. Whether one takes a sociobiological approach and considers physical/genetic differences between the sexes or prefer to emphasise gender socialisation, the suggestion is that 'normal' masculinity is far more open to criminality is far more open to criminality than 'normal' femininity.
Socialisation to be tough and dominant is more prone to criminality than socialisation to be nurturing and compliant.
This could be an outdated view but it has some support from both functionalists and feminists perspective. Although functionalists would be more likely to suggest it was masculinity in the context of a particular subculture rather than masculinity in general that was likely to be deviant.
Marginalisation: some feminists sociologists suggest that the marginal position of women in a particular society means that they commit fewer crimes than men.
They have fewer opportunities to commit crimes because of marginalisation as opposed to men who can commit occupational crime as well as having a greater opportunity to form criminal subcultures because they are not confined to a domestic role.
Control theory: Another explanation for gender differences in criminality is the idea that women and girls are controlled more than boys and men are. Part of the canalisation of gender roles during primary and secondary socialisation has historically been the comparative freedom that boys enjoy: being able to stay out later and generally being under less informal surveillance than girls.
According to Heidensohn, girls are controlled by fathers and other relatives until they are married when they are controlled by their husbands. The fact that boys and young men spend more time away f
If the statistics are misleading: gender
When trying to explain crime statistics showing that men commit many more criminal acts than women, some sociologists suggest that these statistics do not reflect reality.
Rather mostly male law enforcement officers tend to attempt to protect women from the criminal justice system out of gentlemanliess. This is known as the chivalry thesis.
While this seems rather fanciful theory on the individual level there is a broader point about social expectations. Another consequence of men's 'chivalric' values is that they might think women incapable of committing many crimes and therefore not seriously consider their guilt.
In terms of punishment, judges and magistrates and may take pleas for mitigation more seriously.
Evaluating sociological explanation for the social distribution of crime and deviance by gender
- Many of these theories seem very outdated. Liberal feminists would argue that women have achieved much more equality in society.
- Jones suggested that women in prison were often 'co-defendants' with a controlling man and therefore into criminality by patriarchal control. In contrast to Heidensohn's control theory where male control is presented as an explantation for not committing crime.
- The chivalry thesis also seems outdated. The number of female workers in the criminal justice system is increasing although judges are still overwhelmingly male. Furthermore, the response to female deviance is often to see them as doubly deviant - deviating against society's norms and gender norms rather than to respond in a chivalrous manner.
- Carol Smart is critical of what she terms as malestream criminology. She points out that feminists should take a transgressive approach to criminology, focusing on what causes harm to women. She notes that most existing theories of crime and deviance come from men and they focus on what interests their violent, risk-subjects. Therefore you cannot expect their work to hold the answers to the questions women have.
Outline three reasons why males may be more likely to commit crimes than females. (6 marks)
Analyse two ways in which gender socialisation might impact gender differences in rates of offending. (10 marks)
Evaluate sociological explanations of gender differences in the patterns of crime. (30 marks)
