Lecture Notes: Crime, Deviance, and Juvenile Justice

Crime, Deviance, and Social Construction

• Key terms

  • Crime: defined as breaking the law. Formally, $ext{Crime} = ext{Breaking the law}$
  • Deviant behavior: socially unacceptable or non-normative behavior that may or may not be illegal. It can be:
  • Deviant and illegal (e.g., theft during a crime)
  • Deviant but not illegal (context-dependent)
  • Illegal but not treated as deviant in some contexts (rare, but possible when laws are contested or unevenly enforced)
  • The relationship between crime and deviance is not one-to-one: all law violations are not necessarily treated as deviant in all contexts, and not all deviant acts are illegal.

• Central claim from the lecture: crime is a social construction and is dynamic, contested, and contingent.

  • What counts as crime varies across time and place; there is no universal definition that applies everywhere at all times.
  • Cross-cultural variation matters: behavior that is criminal in one country may not be criminal in another, or may be treated differently.
  • Example: homosexuality was criminal in the UK until the mid-1960s; it was decriminalized in 1967, altering the boundary of what counts as crime.
  • Example: youth crime definitions shifted in the UK in 1998 when the age of community responsibility was lowered to 10, expanding the category of youth offenders.
  • The overarching problem: many theorists seek universal explanations for crime, but a universal definition is not feasible due to time, culture, and contextual variation.

• The moral compass and socialization theme

  • The instructor ties crime and deviance to students’ developing moral compasses shaped by family, teachers, peers, and culture.
  • This compass influences judgments about what is considered wrong or acceptable, beyond what statutes require.
  • The lecture emphasizes engaging students with ethical implications of crime definitions and punishment.

• Everyday examples of deviance vs. crime discussed in class

  • Socially unacceptable behaviors (e.g., being rude to others) are discussed as deviant, though not necessarily illegal.
  • Everyday deviations from norms (e.g., placing an item incorrectly in a bag, deceptive packaging) illustrate how everyday acts can be viewed as deviant without being criminal.
  • Public hygiene/deviance mitigation: references to using GermX, washing hands after bathroom use, and other routines highlight normative behaviors designed to reduce deviance with respect to public health.
  • Public behavior and rule-following: norms around washing hands, not picking your nose in public, and other bathroom etiquette are examples of socially enforced norms that help define acceptable conduct.

• Key definitional distinctions highlighted in the talk

  • Crime vs. deviance: crime is law-breaking; deviance is violating social norms (which may or may not be illegal), and the two categories overlap but are not identical.
  • Social construction of law: laws are not fixed; they shift with social values, political power, and cultural context.
  • The role of law in society: laws reflect a negotiated balance among competing interests, not a universal moral truth.

• Criminal responsibility and the age issue

  • The law aims to be blind and equal before the judiciary, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.
  • Criminal responsibility is linked to cognitive and moral development; the lecturer uses the example of siblings and juveniles to illustrate how age and development affect culpability.
  • Sibling scenarios: a 12-year-old may be deemed criminally responsible in some systems; younger children (e.g., around 10) are treated differently depending on jurisdiction.
  • UK context: historically, youth responsibility could begin at age 10 (age of criminal responsibility by statute since 1998).
  • Florida/OPD context: in contemporary practice, school/juvenile interventions and court processes differ from adult systems, with a tendency toward restorative approaches for juveniles.
  • The moral-educative argument: young offenders often require services, counseling, and restitution rather than immediate incarceration to reduce future offending.

• Juvenile justice and recidivism

  • Recidivism: the propensity to reoffend after an initial offense.
  • The lecture notes a finding (in the speaker’s jurisdiction) that using juvenile citations and restorative practices reduces recidivism by about $80\%$:
  • Restorative approaches include counseling, community service, and restitution.
  • They are contrasted with jail exposure, which the speaker suggests may contribute to higher recidivism in some cases.
  • The shift toward juvenile-focused interventions recognizes developmental differences and aims to minimize long-term criminal behavior.
  • An older scenario described involves a 10-year-old involved in violence or theft, illustrating that different age groups require different handling, supports, and services rather than punishment-only approaches.
  • The talk highlights that debates continue about criminal responsibility for individuals with mental disabilities or special needs, noting questions about liability and accountability in such cases.

• Historical and cross-cultural examples of changes in legal status

  • Female suffrage in the United States:
  • Example discussed: Women’s right to vote
  • The Nineteenth Amendment granted this right in 1920, $1920$.
  • Interracial marriage in the United States:
  • Example discussed: Interracial marriage
  • The Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriage in the US in $1967$.
  • Homosexuality and decriminalization in the UK:
  • Example discussed: Homosexuality was criminal until the mid-1960s in the UK; decriminalized in 1967.
  • The class activity on “what used to be illegal but is no longer” included these and related historical inflection points, with students providing dates and sources (e.g., Loving v. Virginia, the 19th Amendment).

• Assignment prompt and classroom exercise

  • Prompt: Provide examples of something that used to be legal but is no longer, as well as something that used to be illegal but is now legal, with specifics and dates.
  • Method: Students were asked to stand and present their examples with concrete dates and sources (e.g., constitutional amendments, Supreme Court decisions).
  • Example responses discussed in class:
  • Women’s suffrage: 19th Amendment, 1920.
  • Interracial marriage: Loving v. Virginia, 1967; origin cited as a Supreme Court case about marriage laws and integration.
  • Homosexuality decriminalization in the UK: 1967 (Sexual Offences Act context referenced).
  • The instructor emphasized the need for precise dates and sources, and suggested looking up the origins of legal changes (e.g., integration-related cases) via reliable references.

• Practical and ethical implications discussed

  • The tension between universal legal theories and diverse social contexts: the impossibility of a single universal definition of crime.
  • The balance between punishment and rehabilitation, especially for juveniles: restorative justice approaches may reduce long-term crime (recidivism) versus punitive approaches.
  • Equity before the law: the importance of a blind legal system, while recognizing societal factors that influence behavior and accountability (family background, education, mental health, and disability).
  • Public health and social norms as preventative tools: hygiene practices (e.g., GermX) and social norms around public behavior help reduce deviant acts and the spread of illness.

• Connections to foundational principles and broader theories (contextual prompts for study)

  • Social constructionism and deviance: crime is not an objective, static category but is shaped by social norms, power, and policy.
  • Labeling theory and moral development: how labeling someone as a criminal or delinquent affects their future behavior and self-concept.
  • Functionalism and social order: laws serve to maintain social order, but definitions of crime reflect competing interests and power dynamics.
  • Conflict theory: laws may protect dominant groups and evolve as social forces shift; cross-cultural differences illustrate how power affects what is criminalized.
  • Restorative justice and developmental psychology: responses to juvenile crime should align with developmental needs and aim to prevent future wrongdoing rather than merely punish.

• Summary takeaways

  • Crime is a dynamic, culturally contingent construct, not a fixed universal fact.
  • Deviance encompasses a broader set of behaviors than crime, including acts that are socially disapproved but not illegal.
  • Jurisdiction, culture, and era matter greatly in defining crime and determining culpability, especially for juveniles.
  • Restorative and educational approaches to youth offending may reduce long-term criminal behavior more effectively than punitive incarceration.
  • Historical milestones (e.g., 1920, 1967) illustrate how legal boundaries shift to expand or constrain rights and protections.

• Quick reference to dates and numbers in the lecture

  • Age of criminal responsibility in the UK lowered to $10$ in $1998$.
  • Women’s suffrage: $1920$ (Nineteenth Amendment in the US).
  • Interracial marriage legalized in the US: $1967$ (Loving v. Virginia).
  • Decriminalization of homosexuality in the UK: $1967$ (Sexual Offences Act context).
  • Recidivism reduction with restorative juvenile interventions: $80\%$ reduction.

• Key terms to remember for the exam

  • Crime, Deviance, Social Construction, Moral Compass, Criminal Responsibility, Juvenile Justice, Recidivism, Restorative Justice.

• Possible exam-style prompts based on the content

  • Explain why crime is described as a social construction and provide two historical examples of changes in crime definitions across time or culture.
  • Compare and contrast deviant behavior with criminal behavior, with examples from the lecture.
  • Discuss the rationale for restorative justice approaches in juvenile cases and summarize the evidence presented (e.g., recidivism outcomes).
  • Describe how age and cognitive development influence criminal responsibility, including the UK example of age thresholds and the Florida/OPD discussion from the lecture.