Crime and Deviance

Theorists:

  1. Downes and rock (1998)“deviance may be considered as banned or controlled behaviour which is likely to attract punishment or disapproval”

  2. Becker (1963)suggests that acts are not intrinsically deviant but are defined as such by powerful labellers. Influential People decide if a certain act can be defined as deviant and persuade others not to do it.

  3. Becker (1963) ‘social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance’

  4. Becker (1963)deviance is not a quality that someone has but rather a quality of how someone reacts to that behaviour.

  5. Pease (1994) “crime comprises those actions which are deemed so damaging to the interests of the community that the state determines that it must take a direct role in identifying and acting against the criminal”

  6. Durkheim suggests that every society shares a set of core values, he called this collective conscience.

  7. Durkheim observed that crime levels were very low level in pre-industrial societies. He argued that this was the result of the social organisation or social structure of these societies.

  8. Durkheim proposed that crime is inevitable and is present in all healthy societies.

  9. Davis (1961) prostitution

  10. Clinard (1974)riots

  11. Polsky (1967)pornography

  12. Cohen (1993)crime could be beneficial

  13. Erikson (1966)society promotes deviance

  14. Merton (1938)anomie

  15. Newburn (2013)some crime is good for society

  16. Downes & Rock (2003) it is one thing to claim that crime can be made to serve a social purpose once it has occurred but it does not tell us why crime and deviance happen in the first place.

  17. Hirschi (1996-2002)

  18. Merton (1930) strain theory

Theory, Deviance:

DEVIANCE is behaviour which goes against the dominant social norms of a specific society or group, and causes some form of critical reaction or disapproval. 1.

Include talking to yourself, wearing miniskirts etc

Formal norms:

Include laws and organisational rules and they represent official standards that apply in a given situation. Punishment for deviance is apart of the specified rule.

Robbery, theft, murder etc

Informal norms:

Vary from group to group and there are no formal punishments for deviation, behaviours may be considered deviant or non-deviant depending on peoples attitudes towards the chosen behaviour. 2.

Smoking with friends, drunk in public etc

Deviance has negative overtones, but sociologically we can think about different types of deviance;

‘Good’ behaviour, such as heroism, (putting the needs of others before your own)

‘Odd’ behaviour, such as eccentricity (something that doesn't follow established norms and patterns)

‘Bad’ behaviour, can range from a misbehaving child to murder

These general behavioural categories give us a hint into the complexity of deviance, but they’re not very useful in terms of thinking about deviance ‘in the real world’, mainly because of the relationship they presuppose between interpretation and classification.

To define behaviour as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ involves taking a moral standpoint - to judge, in others words, different forms of behaviour before classifying them.

Deviance has two important characteristics;

Subjectivity:

If decisions about deviance are based on judgements about behavioural norms, all behavioural classifications are based on subjective understandings and interpretations - an idea that raises questions about whether any behaviour can be ‘inherently’ deviant.

Power:

This relates not only to how deviance is defined by social groups, but also how it’s explained.

We can explain deviance in terms ideas such as qualities possessed by the deviant, the social processes by which rules are created. 3.

Absolute deviance has two main dimensions.

First, the idea that some forms of behaviour are proscribed (considered deviant) and negatively sanctioned in all known societies at all times.

Second, particular types of individuals are inherently predisposed to deviance - they can’t help breaking social rules.

Relative deviance has two dimensions.

First, the idea that no behaviour has always been considered deviant in all societies (cross-cultural dimensions) and at all times (a historical dimension).

Second, that deviance, can be seen as deviant in some societies but not others. 4.

Deviation as a social construction.

What we regard as informally or formally deviant is defined by society.

If enough people in society over a long period of time feel an act that was informally deviant is formally deviant.

There might be pressure on the legal system to make an act deviant.

Vice versa, if enough people in society over a long period of time feel that an act which is formally deviant needs to be informally deviant there might be such pressure on the legal system to oblige to such changes.

All criminals are deviants but not all deviants are criminals

Deviance is a continuous variable it constantly changes shape and nature. It does this because what is deviant is determined by society. Therefore, deviance is a socially constructed term. Thus crime and deviance are relative terms; they are subject to change across time and location.

Formal and informal social control

differences;

Social control can be considered as an important aspect of individual’s socialisation process.

There are some universal norms or rules which should be followed by members of all societies.

Any deviation from these norms may result in a minimum level of punishment for ensuring social order.

It refers to the processes of regulation of an individual or group behaviour in a society, which encourages conformity and obedience.

It may include social or political mechanisms.

Formal social control

Implemented by authorised agents.

Police, military, employers, teachers etc

These institutions are referred to as organisations or systems that exercise rigid rules, ideologies and morals that we are often compelled to obey.

It is carried out as a last option at some places when the desired behaviour is not possible through informal social control.

Processes of formal control in democratic societies are determined and designed through legislation by elected representatives.

The situations and severity where formal control is practiced varies with countries.

Corporate laws are laid for governing the behaviour of social institutions.

However, it may also be useful to look at those who exercise formal social control outside of the military or justice systems, where social control is enforced, but often not considered as control.

Such as people or institutions that we don’t always come into every day contact with.

Informal social control

Exercised by a society without stating any rules or laws.

Expressed through norms and customs.

Performed by informal agents on their own in an unofficial capacity.

Informal sanctions include shame, sarcasm, criticism and ridicule.

Self-identity, self-worth and self-esteem are affected through loss of group approval or membership.

Three main groups this is done through are friends, family, work colleagues.

Sanctioning

You can’t have social control without the use of sanctions. Social control is exercised through social control. Sometimes sanctions are applied sub-consciously.

There are four types of sanctions exercised which ensure we conform to the expectations of society.

Formal positive sanctions, Formal negative sanctions, informal positive sanctions, informal negative sanctions.

Key differences between formal and informal social control

Formal social control includes written, formalised and codified statements in laws, rules and regulations. Whereas informal social control doesn’t contain any written rules.

Formal control is more effective and stronger than informal control. Any situations which can’t be handled by informal control are subjected to a formal one.

Theory, Crime:

Crime is a behaviour which breaks the laws of a particular society, and could result in action being taken by formal agencies of social control. 5.

Taking goods from a shop without paying, child abduction, drinking alcohol in Saudi Arabia

There are many other forms of crime apart from the street scenarios that first come to mind, so explanations of crime are diverse.

Functionalism:

Explains crime and deviance in a number of different way. These all tie together with the principle that crime and deviance relies on social consensus about norms and values in society.

Functionalist explanations include;

Inevitable and normative,

Control theory,

Strain theory,

subculture.

Inevitable and normative:

Functionalists look for the source of deviance in the nature of society rather than in biological or psychological explanations.

Functionalists argue that in order to achieve solidarity, society has two mechanisms;

All functionalists agree that social control mechanisms, such as police and courts are necessary to maintain social order.

Socialisation instils the shared culture into its members. This helps to ensure that individuals internalise the same norms and values, and that they feel it right to act in the ways that society requires.

However, many argue that a certain amount of deviance has positive functions, that it even contributes to the maintenance and well-being society.

The idea that deviance is just behaviour that breaks social norms, whilst crime breaks law that reflects these norms, is based on the belief that society is essentially consensual - that is, the idea that the vast majority of people share similar values. 6.

People in preindustrial Britain generally lived in a small rural village communities characterised by ‘mechanical solidarity’ (this means these peoples sense of belonging to society was very strong). Community was regarded as more important than individuality.7.

Functionalists argue that the basis of society was a set of shared values or collective conscience.8.

Positive aspects of crime:

Reaffirming the boundaries 1., changing values 2., social cohesion 3.

  1. Every time a person breaks a law and is taken to court the resulting court ceremony, and the publicity in the newspapers, publicly reaffirms the existing values.

  2. Some individuals or groups deliberately set out to defy laws. Sometimes, these people are ahead of their time and defy laws that eventually be seen as outdated. Known as functional rebels because they help change the collective conscience, and laws, for the better.

  3. Durkheim points out that when particularly horrific crimes have been committed, the entire community draws together in shared outrage, and the sense of belonging to a community is thereby strengthened.

Prostitution can act as a ‘safety valve’ 9. for the individual, the family and group society in that it provides male sexual satisfaction without threatening the family as an institution. Prostitution provides satisfaction of male sexual needs that are not being fulfilled within the family, in a way that doesn’t threaten to break up family relationships.

Riots are functional because they perform a ‘warning function’ for society. 10., for example, suggests that behaviour may serve as ‘a signal or warning that there is some defect in the social organisation’ that society must address, which may result in ‘changes that enhance efficiency and morale.’

11 argues that pornography safely “channels” a variety of sexual desires away from alternatives such as adultery, which would pose a much greater threat to the family.

12 suggested that crime could boost employment and the economy by creating jobs for police officers and others who work in criminal justice. He also believes that crime can act as a type of early warning mechanism showing that society, or institutions within it are going wrong. These can then be corrected before too much damage is done and, in the process, crime is brought back under control.

13 argues that if crime and deviance perform positive social functions, then perhaps it means society is actually organised so as to promote deviance. He suggests that the true function of agencies of social control such as the police may actually be to sustain a certain level of crime rather than to rid society of it. The idea that agencies of social control actually produce rather than prevent crime has been developed further by the labelling theory of deviance.

Anomie occurs when there are periods of great social change or stress, and the collective conscience becomes unclear. During a revolution or rapid economic and social change, the old values and norms may come under challenge without new values and norms becoming established. In this situation, there is uncertainty over what behaviour should be seen as acceptable, and people may be partially freed from the social control imposed by the collective conscience.

Durkheim’s concept of anomie was later developed and adapted by Merton 14, who suggested that Durkheim’s original idea was too vague.

Egoism occurs when the collective conscience simply becomes too weak to restrain the selfish desires of individuals. It occurs in industrial societies where there are many specialist jobs so that people have very different roles in society.

Soldiers and nurses, for example, have to have very different values to carry out their jobs successfully. If individuals are not successfully socialised to accept collective values, for example, through the education system, they can end up putting their own selfish interests before those of society as a whole and committing crime.

Evaluation:

Durkheim’s view is useful in showing the ways in which deviance is integral to society. It provides an important and interesting analysis that directs attention to the ways in which deviance can have hidden or latent functions for society – not everything that is bad, is bad for society.

15 argues that two aspects of Durkheim’s work has been central in the development of sociological thinking on crime. First, that Durkheim was the first to suggest that some level of crime is normal in society. Second, that Durkheim had the sociological insight to see that crime was linked to the values of particular societies and these values could change the functionalist theory shows the useful purpose served by crime and criminal activity within society, therefore some crime is positive for society to function adequately.

Functionalism explains the reason for unhealthy levels of crime which could be altered by social engineering, suggesting that crime can be reduced and could be controlled by social responses and social change.

Functionalism does not explain crime be reference to “sick” individuals like other theories and non-sociological explanations, therefore it is less about what is wrong with a person and more about what is crime and deviance telling us about society.

However, despite ideas of anomie and egoism, functionalism does not fully explain individual motivations and therefore cannot really give answers to why only some people commit crime, therefore it does not take into account human differences and free will to choose what you do.

Within Durkheim’s views he (like all functionalists) assumes harmony and that the law reflects the interests and views of the majority, hence ignores issues of power and struggle within society itself therefore it is only a partial explanation of crime and deviance. This is linked to an over-emphasis on degree of consensus in society, whereas Marxism and Neo-Marxism suggest crime is a result of conflict and power.

Describing the functions for crime and deviance is not the same as finding an explanation for them. To argue that crime and deviance have certain social consequences does not explain their presence in the first place. 16.

Control theory:

All human beings suffer from weaknesses which make them potentially unable to resist temptation and turn to crime, but that there are social bonds with other people that encourage them to exercise self control. 17.

If these social bonds with others are broken or weakened, their social control is weakened and they will turn to crime.

There are four social bonds that 17. identified which pull people away from crime and persuade them to conform to social norms.

Belief, attachment, commitment, involvement.

Control theory recognises the importance of socialisation and social control in maintaining a cohesive society, and the idea of social integration through social bonds is well established in functionalist theory. It assumes that those who commit crime and deviance have broken away from the bonds tying them into mainstream values.

However, again this doesn’t explain why some have weaker bonds than others, or, for that matter, why all those with weaker bonds don’t turn to crime, nor does it explain the variety of forms of deviance and crime. This means it doesn’t recognise that it is possible to be deviant and have tight social bonds.

For example, well-integrated middle-class drug users with successful careers.

Control theory also suggests that everyone is a potential criminal, and therefore our behaviour should closely be controlled and monitored. Those who conform may well resent the constant surveillance this implies, and some groups may be stereotyped and subject to unwarranted harassment. This may in itself undermine respect for belief in the law and justice, and weaken social bonds.

Strain theory:

18 tried to develop an explanation of deviance within a functionalist framework.

Crime and deviance were examples of a poor fit between the socially accepted goals of society and the socially approved means of obtaining those desired goals.

Strain theories argue that people engage in deviant behaviour when they are unable to achieve socially approved goals by legitimate means.

They may become frustrated and resort to criminal means of getting what they want, or lash out at others in anger, or find comfort in drugs.