The Functionalist Perspective on Crime and Deviance

argue crime is beneficial for society. For example, It can improve social integration and regulation and is necessary for social change.
sees society as a whole. explain crime by looking at the nature of society, rather than at individuals.
two leading thinkers associated with the functionalist perspective on crime: Emile Durkheim and Robert Merton

three main aspects to Durkheim’s theory of crime:

  1. a limited amount of crime is inevitable and necessary 

 2. crime has positive functions - a certain amount of crime  contributes to the well-being of society.    

3. too much crime is bad for society - institutions of social control are necessary to keep the amount of crime in check.

pointed out that crime is inevitable in all societies, and that the crime rate was in fact higher in more advanced, industrial societies
theorised crime was inevitable because not every member of society can be equally committed to the collective sentiments. Because individuals are exposed to different influences and circumstances, it was ‘impossible for them to be all alike’ which is why some people would inevitably break the law
suggesting that deviance would still exist even in a ‘society of saints’ populated by ‘perfect’ individuals. A simple offence would be seen as serious because of the standard of behaviour. The individual who showed bad taste or was impolite would attract strong disapproval
and argue deviance was necessary for social change to occur because all social change began with some form of deviance. For changes to occur, yesterday’s deviance becomes today’s norm

argued crime performed three positive functions for societies:

                         1. social regulation                      2. social integration

                     3. social change

social regulation - crime performs the function of social regulation by reaffirming the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. When the crime occurs and the individuals are punished, it is clear to the rest of society that the particular action concerned is unacceptable.
social integration - the second function of crime is to strengthen social cohesion. E.g. when horrific crimes have been committed the whole community joins together in outrage and the sense of belonging to a community is strengthened.
social change - criminals provide a constant test of the boundaries of permitted action. When the law is out of step with the feelings and values of the majority, legal reform is necessary. Criminals perform a crucial service in helping the law to reflect the wishes of the population and legitimising social change
argued crime only became dysfunctional when there was too much or too little of it - if there is too much crime, social order would break down. If it is too little, there would be no sufficient capacity for positive social change.
suggested that function of punishment was to control crime and maintain collective sentiments. ‘serves to heal the wounds done to the collective sentiments’

==Evaluation of Durkheim’s functionalist view of crime==

talks about crime in very general terms. He theorises that ‘crime’ is necessary and even functional but fails to distinguish between different types of crime. It could be that some crimes may be so harmful that they will always be dysfunctional rather than functional
suggested that the criminal justice system benefits everyone in society by punishing criminals and reinforcing the acceptable boundaries of behaviour. Marxist and feminist analysis of crime demonstrates that not all criminals are punished equally and crime and punishment benefit the powerful for than the powerless
Interactionists suggested whether or not a crime is functional cannot be determined objectively; surely It depends on an individual’s relationship to the crime.
assume that society has universal norms and values that are reinforced by certain crimes being punished in public. Postmodernists argue society is so diverse, there is no such thing as ‘normal’