Interactionism – The Social Construction of Crime
INTERACTIONISTS:
See official statistics as social constructs.
Ask why certain people are labelled criminals.
Sees crime as the product of interactions between the police and suspects, rather than the result of wider external forces.
THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF CRIME:
Interactionists argue that no act is inherently criminal or deviant in itself, in all situations and at all times. It only comes to be when someone labels.
It’s not the nature of the act that’s important but society’s reaction to the act.
“Social groups create deviance by creating the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders” – Becker.
Labelling theorists therefore look at how and why rules and laws get made. They’re particularly interested in what Becker calls moral entrepreneurs – people who lead a moral ‘crusade’ to change the law.
The new law invariably has two effects:
The creation of a new group of ‘outsiders’ – outlaws or deviants who break the new rule.
The creation or expansion of a social control agency to enforce the rule and impose labels on offenders.
Platt: argues ‘juvenile delinquency’ was originally created as a result of a campaign by upper-class Victorian moral entrepreneurs, aimed at protecting young people at risk.
This separated them from adult offenders and gave them their own courts.
The state could therefore extend its powers by creating ‘status offences’ (where behaviour is only an offence because of their age) like truancy and sexual promiscuity.
Social control agencies themselves may campaign for a change in the law to increase their power.
Marijuana Texas Act (1937) – The US Federal Bureau of Narcotics successfully campaigned for the passing of the act to outlaw marijuana use. Supposedly because of the ill effects on young people, but Becker argued that it increased the Bureau’s sphere of influence.
New laws aren’t created because of the harmfulness of a new behaviour, but because of the efforts of powerful individuals and groups to redefine behaviour as unacceptable.
WHO GETS LABELLED?:
Three things affect whether a person is arrested, charged and convicted:
Their interactions with agencies of social control.
Their appearance, background and personal biography.
The situation and circumstances of their offence.
Piliavin and Briar found that manner and dress, gender, class, ethnicity, time and place affected police decisions when arresting a youth.
Anti-social behaviour orders are used disproportionately against ethnic minorities.
CICOUREL – THE NEGOTIATION OF JUSTICE:
Typifications are common sense theories or stereotypes of what the typical delinquent is like.
These result in a class bias against the working class.
As this leads to more intense patrols in these areas, followed by more arrests, this reinforces their stereotypes and making the statistics for working class crime higher.
Patrol officers hold stereotypes against working class individuals, seeing delinquency as a result of broken homes, poverty and lax parenting.
This means youths are seen as more likely to offend in the future and are less likely to support non-custodial sentences for them.
The middle-class are less likely to be charged as they don’t fit the ‘typical’ delinquent picture, their parents are able to negotiate more successfully – convince the agencies of their remorse and promise monitoring. They’re typically counselled, warned and released – showing the system is negotiable.
THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF CRIME STATISTICS:
Interactionists think crime statistics are simply recording the actions of agencies as agencies want to focus on what they feel like is a problem and therefore they will record more crime in their area of focus because they’re not giving as much depth to others – succession of choices. They’re the result of interactions between agencies and prosecutors.
Cicourel argues official crime statistics shouldn’t be used as a resource but rather a topic for sociologists to investigate because the outcome depends on the label attached to individuals, which depends on stereotypes and typifications. Statistics only tell us about the actions of agencies. They don’t reflect the reality of crime.
The order of the procedure in the ‘decision gates’ in the social construction of crime:
Suspect stopped by police
Arrested
Charged
Prosecuted
Convicted
Sentenced
The dark figure of crime is the difference between the official statistics and the ‘real’ rate of crime. We don’t know for certain how much crime goes undetected.
Alternative statistics that can be used are victim surveys.
From these you can gain a more accurate view of the amount of crime committed.
Although, people may forget, conceal or exaggerate information and surveys usually only include a selected range (usually less serious) of offences.