Evaluating sociological theories

• Strengths-functionalist: Durkheim

  • Durkheim was first to recognise crime can have positive functions for society, e.g. reinforcing boundaries between right and wrong by uniting people against the wrongdoer.
• Limitations- functionalism: Durkheim

  • Durkheim claims society requires certain amount of deviance to function but offers no way of knowing how much is right amount.
  • While crime might be functional for some, it‘snot functional for victims.
• Strengths- functionalism: merton

  • Merton shows how both normal and deviant behaviour arise from same goals. Conformists and innovators both pursue 'money success', but by different means.

  • He explains patterns shown in official statistics, most crime is property crime, society values wealth highly: w/c crime rates are higher, because have less opportunity to obtain wealth legitimately.
• limitations- functionalism: merton

  • ignores crime of wealthy and over predicts amount of working-class crime
  • sees deviance solely as individual response, ignoring group deviance of delinquent subculture
  • Merton focuses on utilitarian crime, ignoring crime with no economic motive
• Strengths: subculture theories

  • theories show how subcultures perform function for members by offering solution to problem of failing to achieve mainstream goals legitimately
  • coward and ohlin show how different types of neighbourhood give rise to different illegitimate opportunities and different subcultures
• Limitations- subculture theories

  • ignores crime of wealthy and over-predicts the amount of w/c crime
  • assume everyone starts with mainstream goals and turn to a subculture when they fail to achieve them. May be attracted to crime for other reasons
  • actual subcultures are not as clear- cut as cloward and ohlin claim. Some show characteristics of all three types: criminal, conflict and retreatist
• Strengths- interactionism and labelling theory

  • Labelling theory shows law not a fixed set of rules to be taken for granted, but something whose construction need to explain.
  • shifts focus onto how police create crime by applying labels based on stereotypes of the 'typical criminal'. selective law enforcement may explain why w/c and minority groups are over-represented in crime statistics.
  •  shows how attempts to control deviance can trigger deviance amplification spiral and create more deviance.
• limitations- interactionism and labelling theory

  • wrongly implies once someone is labelled, a deviant career is inevitable. (This is called determinism - as though the outcome is pre-determined.)
  • emphasis on negative effects of labelling gives offenders 'victim' status, ignoring real Victims
  • fails to explain why people commit primary deviance before labelled .
  • doesn’t explain where power to label comes from.
  • fails to explain why the labels are applied to certain groups but not to others.
• Strengths- Marxist view

  • shows how poverty and inequality can cause w/c crime, and how capitalism promotes greed and encourages upper-class crime.
  • shows how both law-making and law enforcement are biased against the w/c and favour of the powerful. e.g corporate crime is rarely prosecuted.
• limitations - Marxist view

  • focuses on class and largely ignores relationship between crime and other inequalities, e.g gender and ethnicity.
  • over-predicts amount of w/c crime: not all poor people turn to crime.
  • Not all capitalist societies have high crime rates; e.g. Japan's homicide rate is only about a fifth of the USA's.
• strengths- right realism

  • Several studies support rational choice theory. Rettig gave students scenario of opportunity to commit crime. found that degree of punishment determined whether they chose to commit crime.
  • Feldman found people made rational decisions: if rewards high and risks low, they said the crime was worth committing.
  • Bennett and Wright interviewed convicted burglars. burglars considered potential reward, difficulty of breaking in and risk of being caught. Risk was most important factor.
  • Right realism may explain some opportunistic petty crimes such as theft.
• Limitations of right realism

  • Rettig and Feldman's studies were experiments; results may not apply to real offenders.
  • Bennett and Wright studied unsuccessful burglars. don't know if successful burglars also think in this way.
• Strengths of left realism

  • draws attention to importance of poverty, inequality and relative deprivation as underlying structural cause of crime
  • draws attention to reality of street crime and its effects, especially on victims from deprived groups
• Limitations- left realism

  • Henry and milovanovic argue lr accepts authorities definition of crime, fails to explain white collar and corporate crime, ignores harm done to poor by crime of powerful
  • over-predicts amount w/c crime- not everyone who experiences relative deprivation and marginalisation turn to crime
  • focus on high-crime inner- city areas gives an unrepresentative view and makes crime appear greater problem
• Strengths of surveillance theories

  • Foucaults work stimulated research into surveillance and disciplinary power - especially into the idea of an 'electronic Panopticon' that uses modern technologies to monitor us.
  • Researchers have identified other forms of surveillance, including actuarial justice and profiling.
• Limitations of surveillance theories

  • Foucault exaggerates extent of control. e.g Goffman shows how some inmates of prisons and mental hospitals resist controls.
  • Surveillance may not change peoples behaviour Foucault claims. e.g studies show CCTV may fail to prevent crime because offenders often take no notice of it.