Crime and Deviance: Page-by-Page Notes

Page 1: Introduction

  • Societies set expectations and rules for member behaviour; social control is needed to regulate actions.
  • Sociologists of crime and deviance study how rules are made, kept, or broken; who makes laws, who breaks them, and what happens as a result.
  • Modern industrial societies have police, courts, and punishments (e.g., prison). Governments and media express concern about rising crime rates.
  • Many people break laws or norms at times without being labeled criminals; crime and deviance patterns show who is more likely to be labelled and who is more likely to be victims.
  • Unit covers research and discussion on crime, deviance, and social control.

Page 2: 6.1 What are crime, deviance and social control?

The difference between crime and deviance

  • Deviance: acts that violate norms/expectations of a social group (broader than crime).
  • Crime: acts that break a government or legal statute.
  • Deviance often disapproved because it goes against norms/values; most crimes are also deviant due to legal prohibition, but deviance includes non-criminal acts (e.g., smoking in public, dress codes, rude behaviour).
  • Deviance and crime are relative; vary by time and place; no act is inherently criminal or deviant by its nature.
  • Examples: same-sex relationships were illegal in the past but decriminalised in many places; homosexuality remains criminalised in over 5555 countries, with varied penalties (e.g., 3737 in some cases or 2extyears2 ext{ years}–extheavypenaltiesext{heavy penalties} elsewhere).
  • Early sociology focused on crime; later, deviance and youth subcultures gained attention; reactions of others produce the label of deviance.
  • TIP: deviance and deviancy are interchangeable; do not confuse crime and deviance.

Formal and informal social control

  • Social control includes informal methods (persuasion by family, friends, media) and formal methods (institutions like police, courts, social services).
  • Some groups, especially youth, feel social control more strongly.

Formal social control

  • Enforced by governments/agencies (police, courts, armed forces, government, penal system).
  • Can impose formal sanctions (fines, imprisonment) and sometimes informal sanctions (warnings without records).
  • Main formal agencies:
    • Police
    • Courts
    • Armed forces
    • Government
    • Penal system

Informal social control

  • Powerful but less visible; uses negative sanctions (critical comments, ridicule, disapproval) and positive sanctions (praise).

  • Socialisation into norms guides behaviour even in private.

  • Main agencies of informal social control (also major agents of socialisation):

    • Family
    • Education
    • Workplaces
    • Peer groups
    • Traditional and digital media
    • Religions

  • Debates on effectiveness: functionalists vs Marxists.

    • Functionalists: informal control supports value consensus and smooth functioning of capitalism via socialisation.
    • Marxists: informal control indoctrinates in ruling-class ideology; conformity is manufactured to protect the system; formal control punishes dissent.

Page 3: (6.1 continued) Debates and evolution of social control

  • In most societies, informal and formal control work together to maintain conformity; this supports social stability (favoured by functionalists; contested by Marxists).
  • Changes over 200 years (Cohen, 1985):
    • The state is more involved in social control; private prisons and private security have grown.
    • Detailed classifications of criminals/deviants; behaviour is interpreted and categorised.
    • Criminals/deviants are increasingly segregated from general society (prison, media portrayal).
    • Greater range of punishments (rehabilitation, community sentences) and shift away from public physical pain.
    • Families, schools, and communities take on more enforcement roles; surveillance has increased (e.g., video surveillance).

Page 4: Types of crime

  • Violent crime: use or threat of physical force (murder, assault, rape); violence may be used to commit another crime.
  • Property crime: theft, robbery (theft with violence or threat), burglary (unlawful entry), vandalism, arson.
  • White-collar and corporate crime: non-violent crimes by middle/upper-class individuals due to occupational access; e.g., fraud, tax evasion, false accounting. Corporate crime overlaps with white-collar crime and often harms consumers/workers/environment.
  • Note: Some crimes fit multiple categories; this is a broad overview of major types.

Page 5: White-collar, corporate crime and making connections

  • White-collar crime: non-violent, financially motivated, by people in middle/upper classes due to occupation access (e.g., defrauding a company).
  • Tax evasion and similar offences may be handled by agencies like HMRC rather than police; offenders often avoid high penalties due to social position and legal strategies.
  • Corporate crime: crimes by companies or groups, often aimed at financial gain, covering bribery, health/safety violations, environmental harm, false advertising, and accounting fraud.
  • Four categories of corporate crime (Tombs & Whyte): corporate theft/fraud; crimes against consumers; crimes against workers; crimes against the environment.
  • Corporations can influence laws and enforcement; powerful groups may evade full legal consequences.

Page 6: Case study and varieties of crime

  • Crimes against workers: deaths, injuries, discrimination, wage violations; calls for accountability of corporate practices.
  • Expressive crime vs instrumental crime:
    • Expressive: crimes driven by emotion (e.g., domestic violence).
    • Instrumental: crime with a goal (e.g., theft for money).
  • Gang crime: collective activities, sometimes organised as subcultures; often linked to territory and leadership.
  • Green crime: environment-focused harms, often by corporations; examples include illegal poaching, dumping toxic waste, deforestation; some actions are not clearly illegal but cause harm; focus on harms rather than strict legality.
  • Global crime: organised crime spanning borders (drugs, people trafficking, money laundering).

Page 7: More on crime types and global issues

  • Green crime (continued): harms may occur across borders; sometimes legality is unclear; “harms” approach emphasizes consequences rather than criminal label alone.
  • Global organised crime: international networks in drugs, weapons, trafficking, money laundering; cross-border cooperation increases but enforcement is challenging.
  • Cybercrime: crimes enabled by digital tech; includes malware, fraud, identity theft, phishing, cyberstalking, online drug trades, cyberterrorism; can involve individuals, groups, states; internet-specific crimes fall under internet crime.
  • Case study: Anonymous
    • Example of global cybercrime; hackers see themselves as activists; methods and motives differ (vigilantism vs harm prevention).
    • Highlights difficulty for police in cybercrime: jurisdiction, attribution, and cross-border coordination.

Page 8: Cybercrime (continued) and hate/domestic crime

  • Hate crime: victims targeted due to ethnicity, faith, disability, sexual orientation; evidence of motive is crucial; penalties may be heightened when hate is established.
  • Domestic crime (domestic abuse): control/manipulation within families; underreporting due to fear, privacy, stigma, or belief that police cannot help.
  • Activity prompts readers to compare why some crimes are underreported and how social factors influence reporting.

Page 9: Measuring crime

  • Official statistics: police-recorded offences, court convictions; strengths include pattern recognition and accessibility; limitations include underreporting and the “dark figure” of crime.
  • Issues in measurement: reporting biases, police discretion, targets, and political/media influence; “cuffing” to alter record severity.
  • Self-report studies: confidential surveys asking about committed crimes; reveal hidden or victimless crimes, but may suffer from honesty issues and are often limited to youth and minor offences.
  • Victim surveys: ask about crimes experienced; reveal unreported crimes and offer national patterns; limitations include underreporting of certain crimes (sexual offences), memory issues, and sampling limits.

Page 10: Patterns of crime and victimisation

  • Patterns by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and social class show both victimisation and offending tend to cluster in certain groups.
  • Age: children as victims in family contexts; youth are often victims and offenders; elderly face other risks (digital fraud, abuse).
  • Social class: working-class more represented in official statistics for some crimes; discussion about whether this reflects class bias in enforcement.
  • Gender: men more often offenders; women are victims in many crimes (domestic violence, sexual violence); reporting biases affect statistics.
  • Ethnicity: minority groups may have higher victimisation rates due to discrimination and policing practices; institutional racism can influence arrests and convictions; intra-group crime can be common.

Page 11: Explanations by age, ethnicity, gender and class

  • Age explanations: police targeting; self-fulfilling prophecy; stereotyping; gang culture; socialisation; lack of opportunity; status frustration.
  • Ethnicity explanations: institutional racism; prejudice; policing practices (targeting/stop-and-search); relative deprivation; stereotyping; gang culture; status frustration.
  • Gender explanations: chivalry thesis; culture of masculinity; socialisation; misogyny; stereotyping; gang culture; lack of opportunity.
  • Social class explanations: social exclusion; deprivation; inadequate socialisation; lack of opportunity; status frustration; power inequalities; police targeting.
  • These explanations intersect; multiple factors often influence crime patterns.

Page 12: Theoretical perspectives on crime (overview)

  • Postmodernism: crime is socially constructed; no single universal cause; focus on individual crimes, emotions, and harms.
  • Interactionism (labelling and moral panic): crime is defined by social reactions; labels affect self-identity and may lead to deviancy amplification; power influences labeling.
  • Moral panic: media exaggeration and fear of groups labeled as threats; can spur policy changes and policing emphasis; may create self-fulfilling cycles.
  • Functionalism: crime is natural and can serve social order; shared values/socialisation produce boundaries; a small amount of crime can reinforce norms; Durkheim’s idea of a value consensus.
  • Strain theory (Merton): gap between culturally valued goals and legitimate means leads to crime; five adaptations: Conformity, Innovation, Ritualism, Retreatism, Rebels; current relevance to material/aspirational pressures.
  • Sub-cultural theory (Cohen; Cloward & Ohlin; Miller): youth deviance explained via subcultures with distinct values; focal concerns in Miller; different sub-cultural paths to crime.
  • Marxism: laws reflect ruling-class interests; emphasis on white-collar/corporate crime; false consciousness and selective enforcement; inequality shapes crime patterns.
  • Feminism: gendered crime patterns; patriarchy and power relations shape crime and justice; focus on female victimisation and gendered justice issues.

Page 13: Strengths and limitations of explanations

  • Each theory highlights certain patterns; intersections among age, ethnicity, gender, and class require integrated analysis.
  • Debates exist on relative importance of categories (e.g., Marxists vs feminists on power and gender).
  • Theories evolve with new forms of crime (green crime, cybercrime).

Page 14: Patterns of victimisation vs patterns of crime

  • Patterns of who is victim and who commits crime can align (e.g., young, male, working-class groups).
  • Gendered patterns: women often victimised in domestic/sexual crimes; men more often offenders in violent crime; policing and reporting biases influence statistics.
  • Ethnicity and class interact with age and gender to shape crime risk and enforcement.

Page 15: Juvenile delinquency and age-related patterns

  • Age 15–25 is a high-crime/offending group; juvenile justice systems separate youth from adults to reduce harm and consider developmental needs.
  • Juvenile offences include status offences (e.g., underage drinking) and non-violent offences; some offenses persist into adulthood; others do not.
  • Older adults show relatively low crime rates, but aging populations may shift crime patterns; some countries report rising offences among elderly in certain contexts.

Page 16–19: Explanations by social category (detailed)

  • Institutional racism: police/courts favor certain groups; Stephen Lawrence case highlighted systemic bias; affects policing, investigations, and prosecutions.
  • Prejudice/discrimination: discrimination contributes to crime experiences and criminal justice outcomes; can fuel resentment and crime in minority communities.
  • Police targeting/stop-and-search: practices influence arrest rates and reported crime; may be used in biased ways.
  • Material/relative deprivation: poverty and perceived deprivation fuel crime motivation; deprivation can drive involvement in crime.
  • Stereotyping and gang culture: stereotypes shape policing, fear, and group criminality; gangs provide status and protection in deprived areas.
  • Status frustration: blocked pathways to status for certain groups (e.g., working-class youth) fosters deviance to gain peer respect.
  • Culture of masculinity and misogyny: hegemonic masculinity encourages aggression; misogynistic attitudes contribute to violence against women and gendered crime.
  • Power inequalities: ruling-class power shapes lawmaking, enforcement, and the distribution of crime labels; white-collar crime often goes under-punished.
  • New Right perspective: family structure/change affects socialisation and crime; controversial and debated; emphasizes lone-parent families and underclass concepts.

Page 20–21: Theoretical perspectives (continued)

  • Postmodernism: emphasises individual cases and harms; rejects universal causes; crime as a social construction.
  • Interactionism and labelling: focus on reactions to acts, power dynamics in labeling, and potential self-fulfilling prophecies.
  • Moral panic theory: media-driven fear can amplify deviance; modern media (including social media) challenges older formulations.
  • Functionalism/New Right/Sub-culturalism/Strain theory: complementary and contested approaches; each explains different crime patterns.
  • Marxism/Feminism: call attention to power, capitalism, patriarchy, and gendered harm in crime and punishment.

Page 22–23: Reflective questions and integration

  • Think about how much media shapes perception of crime and crime patterns.
  • Consider interactions among age, gender, class, and ethnicity when explaining crime.
  • Recognise limitations of any single theory; real-world crime involves multiple interacting factors.

Page 24–25: Making sense of punishment and policy

  • Punishment aims: deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, protection of citizens, and restorative justice.
  • Punishment types:
    • Community sentences
    • Financial penalties
    • Prison (custodial)
    • Rehabilitation programmes
    • Capital punishment (death penalty) and debates about effectiveness and ethics
    • Non-custodial options (probation, electronic tagging)
    • Police cautions for minor offences
  • Restorative justice: offender-victim meetings to understand impact and reduce reoffending.
  • Variation across countries in punishment philosophy and practice; rehabilitation-focused systems often have lower recidivism.

Page 26–27: Theoretical critiques and debates

  • New Right criticisms of traditional families; discussions of underclass concepts (Murray) and implications for crime.
  • Sub-cultural theories (Cloward & Ohlin; Cohen; Miller) explain youth deviance via distinct sub-cultural norms; types include criminal, conflict, and retreatist sub-cultures; Miller’s focal concerns: fate, autonomy, trouble, excitement, smartness, toughness.
  • Strengths: explain collective deviance and youth-focused crime; limits include outdated US-focused examples and gender bias.
  • Marxism: laws reflect ruling-class interests; focus on corporate crime; false consciousness; inequality shapes crime.
  • Feminism: highlights female victimisation and patriarchal structures; critiques for sometimes downplaying class or overemphasising gender.
  • Strengths and limitations summaries for major theories.

Page 28: Key points (recap)

  • Official statistics show patterns by age, ethnicity, gender, and social class.
  • Explanations for patterns include: police targeting; self-fulfilling prophecies; stereotyping; gang culture; socialisation; deprivation; power inequalities.
  • Theoretical frameworks: postmodernism, interactionism, functionalism, New Right, strain theory, sub-culturalism, Marxism, feminism.

Page 29: How crime is dealt with in different societies

Aims of punishment

  • Deterrence: general and individual deterrence to prevent reoffending.
  • Retribution: punishment fits the crime; conflicts with rehabilitation.
  • Incapacitation: prevent reoffending by restricting freedom; death penalty is extreme.
  • Rehabilitation: change offender’s attitudes/behaviour; may include education, treatment, and restorative approaches.
  • Protection: safeguard society.
  • Restorative justice: meetings between offender and victim; reduces reoffending, involves victims.

Types of punishment

  • Community sentences; unpaid work.
  • Financial penalties (fines).
  • Prison (custodial); high costs; recidivism concerns.
  • Rehabilitation programmes; education and training; treatment for addiction/mental health.
  • Capital punishment (death penalty): abolished in many countries; debates on deterrence vs morality.
  • Non-custodial measures: probation, electronic tagging, injunctions.
  • Police cautions for minor offences.

Page 30–31: Probation, tagging, and policing innovations

  • Probation: monitoring in the community; may include conditions and support; potential for electronic tagging.
  • Police cautions: quick, decisive, records kept; bypasses lengthy trials for minor offences.
  • Electronic tagging: tracks movements; part of non-custodial strategies.
  • Restorative justice and community-based approaches emphasized in some systems.

Page 32–33: Policing, surveillance, and crime prevention

  • Policing strategies: targeting/stop-and-search; surveillance (digital and physical); pragmatic but controversial due to discrimination concerns.
  • Surveillance: CCTV, traffic cameras, biometrics, digital monitoring, undercover operations.
  • Crime prevention: situational design, environmental design, CCTV; Broken Windows theory influenced Zero Tolerance policing in NY (1990s).
  • Case study: New York - zero tolerance policing reduced visible crime but displaced issues and faced civil liberties criticisms.
  • Vigilantism and social media: rise of vigilante actions; questions of legality and accuracy of information.

Page 34: Community policing vs military-style policing; evaluating policing approaches

  • Community policing: visible, local, trust-building; tends to increase reporting and cooperation.
  • Military-style policing: outside agents, forceful; can alienate communities and provoke resistance.
  • Global policing challenges: cybercrime cross-border; Interpol cooperation exists but laws differ.
  • Final activity prompts: if unlimited money/resources, how to tackle crime; assessment of feasibility and trade-offs.
  • The chapter emphasizes that policing cannot completely eliminate crime; prevention and rehabilitation are central, and policy should balance civil liberties with public safety.