Sociological Theories + Crime Control Policies

• Strain theory of criminality


  Theory that explains criminality as a response to the strain of not being able to achieve socially encouraged goals through legitimate means
• Strain theory

  • The work of Robert K Merton
  • Society encourages people to aim for the goals of material success
  • Society is unable to provide the legitimate means for all to achieve success
  • People's opportunities are blocked
  • Various responses to the strain, such as conformity and innovation
  • Response may lead to criminality to reach goals
• The five types of adaptation according to Merton's strain theory include conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion.
• This strain can lead individuals to engage in deviant behavior as a coping mechanism to reduce the stress caused by the strain.
• Conformity - Accepting society’s values by using legitimate means to attain them (e.g., working hard at school)
• Ritualism - Following rules without understanding their purpose or meaning.
• Innovators reject cultural goals but still seek material rewards using illegitimate means (e.g., crime).
• Retreatists reject both cultural goals and the means to attain them, withdrawing from society altogether.
• Right Realism: 3). Rational choice: suggests that individuals weigh the costs and benefits of committing crimes based on their own personal circumstances and if they perceive punishments as low risk. Due to motivated offender, suitable target, and absence of capable guardian (police / neighbour). However, right realists also believe in displacement, which means the crime moves not decreases as offenders just find an easier target.
• Social structure theory of criminality:

  • society might influence a person to become criminal

  • Marxism sees crime as something that the ruling class use as

  a means of social control

  • the criminal justice system, including the police and prisons,

  encourages conformity

  • it assumes that the disadvantaged social class is a primary

  cause of crime and that criminal behaviour begins in youth

  • it suggests that crime is largely a result of unfavourable

  conditions in a community e.g. high dropout rate, unemployment, single parent families etc.
• Society has forced them into crime. The lack of opportunity to succeed is not their fault but the position they have been forced into

  • due to a capitalist society producing unequal opportunities, they have been forced to turn to crime

  • they could be classed as a member of the working class as they have not been able to secure employment for some time
• these factors are forced upon them by the structure of

  society and they feel they have no option but to steal to provide a better standard of living for themself
• Maxism theory provides explanation for crime that covers all social classes and variety of offences

  • it highlights the impact of selective law enforcement and how white-collar crime is under policed

  • the theory demonstrates how the law reflects differences in power between the social classes. Also, how inequality in society can lead to criminal behaviour

  • the theory largely ignores other non-class inequalities such as gender or ethnicity
• Marxism theory overstates the amount of crime in working-class communities. E.g. not all working-class people commit crime, just like not all capitalist societies have high crime rates, e.g. Japan or Switzerland

  • there are many prosecutions for white-collar crimes, e.g.‘The Wolf of Wall Street’.
• Merton’s strain theory explains why working class crime rates may be higher than other classes

  • provides explanation for how individuals in different positions in social structure of society resort to different adaptations (innovations, ritualism, retreatism, rebellion and conformism)

  • theory explains reasons for crime & deviance as result of social strain

  • takes an individualistic approach, ignoring group crime

  • it is very deterministic, not all working class individuals resort to crime

  • it ignores the ruling class‘ power to create and enforce laws to prevent the deviant adaptations.
• For Marxism theory, Chamblis argues law are made to protect ruling class - e.g. vagrancy, but no laws for owning multiple homes. (Very few laws challenge the unequal distribution of wealth).
• Marxism: selective law enforcement against w/c not white-collar crime, which is less likely prosecuted than street crime.
• Merton focuses on utilitarian crime, ignoring crime without economic motive.
• Left realists believe root cause of crime = inequality and that main victims are disadvantaged groups like working class, ethnic minorities, women. Also that crime is highest in working class areas with increased levels of deprivation and unemployment.
• Left Realism: Lea + Young say 3 causes of crime:

  • Relative Deprivation: feeling comes from media and their urging of materialistic possessions, and society being more unequal due to unemployment and low pay.
  • Subculture: being group’s way of solving problem of relative deprivation by aspiring for materialistic goals through illegitimate means as legal ways are blocked. However, others turn to religion, finding comfort in God’s will of deprivation - encouraging conformity not criminality.
• Lea and Young’s 3rd cause of criminality:

  • Marginalisation: groups lacking clearly defined goals and organisations to give voice to their interests (e.g. unemployed youths), feel powerless and frustrated, turning to crime like rioting and violence.
• Right Realism: blames individual and family for crime, seeing best way to stop crime is with control and punishment, not rehabilitation or tackling problems, like poverty. Rejects Marxist views that crime is due to factors like poverty, instead biological indifferences, inadequate socialisation, and rational choice.
• Right Realism: 1). Biological indifferences: Wilson + Hernnstein say these make some more likely to commit. E.g. due to aggressiveness, risk taking, low intelligence.
• Right Realism: 2). Effective socialisation reduces chance of offending by teaching self-control and correct values. Right realists see nuclear family as best agent for socialisation, but Murray claims this leads to welfare dependant lone parent families - fathers don’t need to be home and support, since state does it for them. Therefore, boys lack discipline and appropriate male role model, so turn to delinquent role models in street gangs, and they gain status in crime.
• Synoptic Surveillance: Mathieson argues as well as surveillance from above, like Panopticon, we also have it from below: Synopticon, where everyone watches everyone. E.g. cyclists wearing cameras on their helmets. This may warn other road user that they are under surveillance and result in them exercising self-discipline.
• Foucault - the Panopticon: in the Panopticon, prison cells are visible to the guards through a central “watchtower”, but they cannot be seen themselves. Therefore, self-surveillance and self-discipline are exercised as they know they are being watched. Foucault argues that other institutions (mental hospitals, school, work places), have followed this. It has infiltrated every part of society.
• Albert Cohen - Status Frustration: Cohen agrees with Merton that deviance from lower class is due to failure to achieve goals by legitimate means. However, he sees subcultural deviance as a group response to failure, not individual. He focuses on utilitarian crimes (not for financial gain), e.g. vandalism. He believes most working class can’t achieve status as teachers regard them as low ability and place them in bottom sets, so = status frustration. Subcultures therefore offer them alternative status where they can win respect from peers through crime.
• Interactionism: ’criminals’ are a social construct meaning we give the term through social interactions (e.g. police may attach labels to young males).

  Labelling theory: no act is deviant or criminal until the creation of rules we apply to others. Interactionists argue social control agencies (police) label certain groups = differential enforcement. Piliavin and Briar found most arrest decisions are stereotyped based on age, ethnicitY, etc.
• Self-fulfilling prophecy: Edward Lemert argues labelling encourages people society to become more so.

  Primary deviance: acts not publically labelled, mostly uncaught.

  Secondary: result of labelling as people treat offender solely due to it, meaning this becomes their controlling identity, overriding others - daughter, mother.

  Therefore, rejected by society and pushed into company of other criminals. E.g. prison - as excluded from society and placed with others, giving role models. Now they are what the label said.
• Interactionists reject use of crime statistics as argue that it shows only what the police do, not the criminals. E.g. if they pursue working class males more than white-collar crime, it will just show one side of crime. Therefore, they’re just a social construction, to a true measure.
• Functionalism: Durkheim sees society as stable structure with norms, values, and beliefs causing social solidarity - everyone feels they belong. But crime is inevitable as some are not adequately socialised.
• Functionalism: Durkheim claims there’s four functions of crime:

  • Boundary maintenance: unites society against wrongdoers, reaffirming shared values.
  • Social change: for society to progress, new ideas must challenge the old, which will first be seen as deviant.
  • Safety valve: protect other institutions, e.g. prostitution to re lease frustration without hurting nuclear family.
  • Warning light: deviance indicates problem in society, e.g. truancy suggests problem within schools.
• Durkheim:

  Strength = first to recognise crime can have positive functions for society.

  Weakness = he claimed society requires certain amount of deviance to function, but we cannot know what is the right amount. He also ignores victims of crime, not giving function for them.
• Interactionism and Labelling:

  Strength = shows law often reinforced in a discriminatory way, highlighting consequences of labelling, highlights weaknesses in official stats, highlights role of the media in defining deviance and producing moral panic.

  Weakness = fails to explain why crime happens in first place, ignores victims, plus, labelling does not always lead to self-fulfilling prophecy.
• Right Realism:

  Strength = helped shape gov’s research into crime (victims surveys), offers practical approach, not just theory like Marxism/ labelling.

  Weakness = accepts crime stats too quickly, focuses mostly on males and street crime, ignores wider, structural causes (poverty).
• Left Realism:

  Strength = recognises multiple causes of crime.

  Weakness = does not explain why those in relative deprivation do not commit crime, arguably made up of multiple theories, fails to explain white-collar crime.
• Left Realism: key idea = main victims are disadvantaged groups, and inequality causes crime.
• Right Realism: key idea = crime due to rational choice, criminals weight up before committing.