Crime and deviance - sociology

• functionalism and crime: durkheim

  neither a high or low crime rate is desirable. too much tears society apart, too little means society is too controlling. both result in anomie.

  
  

  crime is functional. two functions:

  - boundary maintenance

  crime creates a reaction, uniting society in condemnation of the criminal and support of the victim creating shared norms and values to reinforce social solidarity.

  
  

  - adaptation and change

  change occurs with an act of deviance. for example, Rosa Parks refusing to move on the bus sparked a movement and changed America's transport segregation laws
• other functions of crime

  Davis: suggests protistution acts as a safety valve for the nuclear family, men can release sexual frustrations.

  
  

  cohen: devience suggests that an instiyution is not functioning properly. eg, too much truancy suggests theirs an issue with the education system.
• Hirschi's Social Control Theory


  Individuals who are tightly bonded to social groups such as the family, school, and peers would be less likely to commit deviant acts through fear of disappointing others
• ao3 criticisms of durkheim

  - not functional for victim if theyve been assaulted, robbed, etc.

  - doesnt always promote solidarity. may have the opposite affect: eg, forcing women to stay inside or conflicting views on cases presented in the media.
• merton strain theory


  merton bases his theory around the American Dream.

  
  

  he suggests that everyone in society is working towards set goals, such as a comfortable lifestyle, but requies means (wealth) to do so. this is not achievable for some

  
  

  he argues that if you have goals to achieve, but not the means, you are strained and become an 'innovator' and engage in illegal means such as drug dealing or tax evasion to achieve this.
• ao3 of mertons strain theory

  :( doesnt explain non-utilitarian crime such as vandalism or violence.

  :( reliance of official statistics is biased against the w/c, m/c crimes are often not recorded as the 'dark figure of crime'

  :( conflict: fem says they ignore the power of patriachy, marxists say they ignore the power of the ruling class

  :( reductionist: assumes everyone strives for the same monetial ideals and that every w/c person experiencing strain will commit crime. this is not true.
• subcultural strain theories


  argues that c+d is a result of deviant subcultures, rather than an individuak choice unlike Merton.
• Status frustration


  Cohen:

  argues that society is dominated by m/c values. w/c boys recognise this and are frustrated that they cannot achieve these goals due to cultural or material deprivation etc, causing anomie.

  in this situation,they turn to other w/c boys and form delinquent subcultures to reject m/c values.
• ao3 criticism of Cohen

  :( ignores middle class crime

  :( gender bias- not applicable
• Illegitamate oppurtunity structure


  cloward and ohlin

  denied legitimate oppurtunities to succeed in the legal opp structure, and resort to the parrallel illegitimate opp structure to gain status and wealth.
• Focal concerns


  Miller:

  w/c deviants have focal concerns, charactristics which make someone more dispositioned to commit a crime such as aggression, autonomy, toughness.
• post modernist edgework


  Lyng:

  argues some crime is committed as a result of 'edgework', meaning that crime is committed for the thrill.
• Interactionism key points


  - social construction of crime (dark figure)

  - negotiation of crime and typifications

  - labelling theory (becker) & moral panics (deviance amplifications)

  (Can use Youngs marijuana smokers or Cohens mods n rockers as an example)

  - shaming
• social construction of crime/interactionism (Becker)

  interactionist approach

  
  

  a deviant is simply someone who has been labelled as such.

  
  

  moral entrepreneurs: crusade to change the law, having two effects:

  - new group of outsiders that now go against the law

  - expansion of agencies of social control such as police to cover this law.

  
  

  Eg. Malinowskis case study of the Trobriand islanders found that incest was not deviant there, but it is in most other cultures
• police typifications


  Pilavan and Briar:

  'police typificatoons' are police stereotypes, which are caused by appearence, mannerisms etc. but mostly by ethnicity, social background, and gender. typifications make an individual more likely to be arrested.
• negotiation of justice


  Cicourel:

  justice can be negotiated. for example, a middle class boy is less likely to offend than a w/c boy due to police typifications. more likely to be counselled and warned rather than persecuted.
• primary and secondary deviance/master status/deviant career

  Lemert:

  primary: deviance that has not yet been labelled

  secomdary: has been labelled

  
  

  master status: once labelled, may have a master status - when their crime is seen as above them as a person.

  
  

  deviant career: sec deviance likely to amplify a bad response from society. leading to more deviance. for example, because it is djifficult to be hired as an ex offender
• Young case study (1970s)

  study of marijuana users: drugs associated with hippie lifestyle (prim dev), but after labelling and persecution this turned into secondary deviance.

  
  

  increasingly saw themselves as outsiders and developed a deviant subculture. creating a self filfilling prophecy.
• social construction of crime statistics

  dark figure of crime: crimes that go unreported, undetected, and unrecorded

  
  

  alternative statistics: includes victim surveys or self report to gain a more avcurate picture of crime (still arguable)
• deviance amplification spiral


  Wilkins

  
  

  seen with Youngs hippie users

  
• two types of shaming

  Braithwaite:

  
  

  reintegrative shaming: only the crime is labelled, not the person. "he is a murderer"

  
  

  disintegrative shaming: both the crime and the person is labelled. "he has killed someone". Makes the crime the individuals master status

  
  

  reintegrative shaming detaches their actions from the person, encouraging forgiveness and allows a criminal to reintegrate into society.

  
  

  braithwaite argues that crime rate is lower in societies that encourage reintegrative shaming.
• ao3 of labelling theory

  - deterministic: once labelledm cant get rid of it.

  - doesnt explain where primary deviance comes from in the first place

  - realist: argues they paint the offenders as victims of a crime, ignoring the actual victims of the crime.

  - individuals may actively choose deviance (eg. Lyng, edgework)
• approaches explanations of class differences

  functionalism: Miller: conforiming to subcultural norms and deviance such as touhhness leads to conflict with the law

  
  

  strain: when legitimate oppurtunities are blocked and an individual experiences strain.

  
  

  Marxism: criminogenic, ideological functions, selective enforcement

  
  

  subcultural: cohen: w/c is culturally deprived and not socialised into mainstream m/c norms causing status frustration, result of delinquent subculture, IOS

  
  

  labelling: focus on why w/c are labelled and commit crime instead of the causes. Emphasise typifications of agencies of social control such as law enforcement, and reject the use of official stats. Wilkins: results in deviance amplification. Cicourel: mc likely to be able to negotiate justice
• Marxist explanations of crime

  - capitalism is criminogenic

  - state and law making (incl. law enforcement)

  - ideological functions
• Capitalism is criminogenic


  - capitalisms very nature creates crimr

  Crime is a result of poverty, stealing necessities or even consumer goods encouraged by capitalist advertising, alienation and lack of means may lead to frustration and violence.

  
  

  Gordon: crime is a rational response to capitalism.
• State and law making

  Law enforcement serves the interest of the ruling class, as it is the ruling class making these laws.

  
  

  chambliss: case study of British East African colonies which originally did not have a money focused society. The British introduced a punishable tax, which meant that the inhabitants had to work on plantations to pay taxes. Therefore serving plantation owners capitalist values.

  
  

  snider: reluctant to pass laws that would threaten profitability or ruling class interests. Eg, more laws against benefit fraud than corporate level fraud.
• Selective enforcement (Rimagined et al)


  Reimagined et al - the higher up a persons social status, the less likely it is to be treated as a crime.
• Ideological functions of crime and law

  Pearce: laws that are passed appear to be helping the w/c, but are often benefitting the ruling class instead, such as health and safety workplace laws keeping workforce best it can be to maximise profit. Just gives capitalism a "caring face" and creates false class consciousness amongst workers.

  
  

  such laws aren't rigorously enforced: 2007 corporate homicide law passed but only saw one persecution since 2007.

  
  

  since law is selectively enforced, it divides the w/c as it appears to be a w/c problem rather than an issue with capitalism.
• Marxism ao3


  - ignores relationship of crime with gender (feminism) and ethnicity

  - deterministic: not all w/c commit crime (critical crim'

  - not all capitalist societies have high crime rates. Eg. Japan or Sweden

  - there is still some action against ruling class (though, Marxists would argue that this is rare and is just to make the system appear fair)
• Neo Marxism (critical criminology)


  Agree mostly with Marxism, but believe it to be too deterministic. Crime can be caused by other factors such as labelling or subcultures. And that individuals are not passive puppets (combination of Marxism and labelling)

  
  

  taylor: voluntaristic view - free will and crime is a meaningful action with a motive
• Fully social theory of deviance

  Taylor et al:

  
  

  understanding of crime under six aspects:

  1. Wider origins (inequality of wealth)

  2. Immediate origins (context of the act)

  3. Meaning of the act itself (form of rebellion?)

  4. Immediate social reaction of family, community,etc

  5. Wider social reaction, treated harsher?

  6. Effects of labelling (does this amplify deviance? Spiral?)
• AO3 of neo marxism

  - gender blind: doesn't assess female criminality as it does with male criminality

  - romanticises "Robin Hood" criminals, when in reality poor people are often victims

  - doesn't take crime seriously, ignores effects on wc victims.

  - doesn't propose any solutions, unlike realists.
• Sutherland, two types of powerful crime

  occupational: employee commiting a crime for personal gain, often against the company such as stealing goods

  
  

  corporate: employee committing a crime for the comoany such as misleading customers
• types of corporate crime

  financial crimes: tax evasion, money kaundering, illegal accounting. victims are other companies and governments,

  
  

  crimes against consumers: false labelling of goods eg. not specifying allergy information on food products.

  
  

  crimes against employees: sexual and racial discrimination, violation of wage laws, rights to join a union. 1,100 work related deaths in one year.

  
  

  crimes against the environment: pollution of air, water, land (green crimes)

  
  

  state-corporate: state and businesses co operate to persue goals.
• why is corporate crime invisible

  the media: limited coverage of corporate crime and over reporting of w/c crime. reinforces stereotypes and using language which hides corporate crimes. eg workplace deaths are "accidents" rather than neglect

  
  

  lack of political will to tackle crime: rhetoric of being tough on crime is focused on street crimes rather than corporate

  
  

  complex: need highly qualified and specialised officers to research. whereas police are usually understaffed and underfunded, so this cant be done.

  
  

  de-labelling: corporate crimes often able to avoid labelling of criminalisation and there are often fines rather than jail, which do not affect upper classes much.

  Cicourel: mc able to negotiate justice

  
  

  under reporting: victims may be unaware that they are victims eg not aware that ingredients is wrong on packaging, may not even regard it as a real crime if its from a big company or they feel powerless against their power.
• partial visibility? ao3


  corporate crime may have become more visible sincd financial crisis of 2008. eg media campaigns against tax avoidance such as UK uncut, horse meat scandal, primark child labour scandal
• examples of abuse of trust

  GP Harold Shipman: position of power as a doctor, but is guilty of approx 220 patients in his care.

  
  

  violating the trust society puts in ruling class individuals.
• Sociologists explanations of corporate crime

  Strain: draws on Mertons theory, a company may 'innovate' and achieve their goals illegally if they don't have the means to profit legally

  
  

  Differential association: behaviour is learnt from others in a social context. Therefore, if a company is supportive of crime, employees will be more likely to commit either occupational or corporate crimes. This also occurs with deviant subcultures. Matza: companies will use techniques of neutralisation to justify eg. 'Just carrying out orders'

  
  

  Labelling: Cicourel: wc more likely to have crimes defined as criminal, mc can negotiate justice eg. Can afford better lawyers, language suits legal lingo - 'de-labelling' reduces crime rate

  
  

  Marxism: capitalism has spread the ideology that corporate crime is less harmful than wc street crime.
• right realism


  -against rehab, use quick and easy methods such as prison

  -corresponds closely to conservativism of 80s

  -believe crit crim and labelling is too empathetic to criminals
• causes of crime to RR

  - biological differences

  - rational choice theory

  - socialisation and the underclass