Explanations of crime

• Functionalists look at why certain groups commit crimes, the main functionalist is Durkheim.
• Durkheim thought that:

  • Crime isn't necessarily a bad thing because it is inevitable in society. It shows that society is working, if society has rules then there are undoubtedly going to be some people disobeying. The good behaviour of most, draws attention to the bad behaviour of the few
  •  Punishing people for crimes can bring societies together as it involves reinforcing values
  • Too much crime is bad for society and can collapse social order. This leads to anomie and a lack of social solidarity
• The strengths of the functionalist view on crime:

  • Recognizes that it is inevitable to have crime in society because when there are rules, there will be deviance.
• Newburn criticised Durkheim and said he wrongly assumes that there are consensus views on laws. This is seen in Durkheim's argument that crime can lead to union as people have a shared understanding, and therefore shock, at the crimes.
• The weaknesses of the functionalist view on crime:

  • Durkheim doesn't explain why certain INDIVIDUAL people are more likely to commit crimes than others
  •  How do you keep a stable balance of crime? How much crime is too much crime?
  •  Naive and weak argument to believe that all crime will eventually lead to union in society. Some crime is too severe to allow this, like murder
• Cohen (functionalist) thought that crime can boost economy and employment rates. For instance, by providing police jobs. He did also recognise that crime is a warning sign for society because it tells us that certain institutions are failing.
• Stain theorists look at why certain individuals commit crime, sociologists argued for this include Merton and Messner and Rosenfeld
• Merton's strain theory revolves around the idea that society holds certain goals for people that everyone should work for, however, the structure of society means that not everyone has the same opportunities. This creates a strain between expectations and reality. He thought that cultural factors lead people to be socialised differently to want different things.People react differently to these strains:

  • innovation
  • conformity
  • ritualism
  • retreatism
  • rebellion
• Messner and Rosenfeld focus on the American dream. They looked at why America's crime rate is higher than other developed countries. They concluded that this is due to America's institutionalized obsession with individual success leading them to put individual goal over what is best for society. America puts economic goals above all else.
• The strengths of strain theorist's views on crime:

  • Explains clearly how anomie can lead to crime
  • Explains why certain individuals are more likely to commit crime
  • (Messner and Rosenfeld) clearly explain why crime rates are higher in America
  • Recognises that the way that society is structured doesn't work well for everyone
• The weaknesses of strain theorist's views on crime:

  • Looks at individuals too much - doesn't describe why certain groups are more likely to commit crime
  • Assumes that we all share consensus views about what our norms/values are
  • Doesn't explain crime which has non-material gain
• Subcultural theorists look at why certain groups commit crimes. The main subcultural theorists are Cohen and Cloward and Ohlin
• Cohen argued that deviance is much more common in lower classes. He thought that crime occurs when the lower classes are unable to achieve through legitimate ways, largely due to educational factors and lack of opportunities to get good jobs. Deviance is a 'warning lamp' for society as it shows institution failure. He thought that it was important to look at how crime trends change between different groups in society and why crime is committed when there is no material gain.
• Cloward and Ohlin agreed with Merton but argued that it was wrong for him to focus on individuals. They thought that different groups would react differently when trying to achieve societal goals through illegitimate ways.

  • Criminal - they will work their way up the 'ladder' meaning that they gain status
  • Conflict - this is gangs and they will gain respect and fear from others
  • Retreatists meaning that they are 'double failures' as they couldn't achieve legitimately or illegitimately. So they turn to drugs and drinking and are 'dropouts'
• Labelling/interactionalist theorists look at why certain groups commit crime. The main sociologists are Braithwaite, Becker, Lemert and Cicorel
• Becker (interactionalist) argued for social construction of crime.

  • Police label people as deviant which makes that person a criminal.
  • If the labelling is successful people become their label
• Cicorel (interactionalist) thought that there is no clear way to distinguish between deviant and non deviant people, it is all based on whether the law enforcer (police) think that that person fits the 'look' or character of a criminal.
• Marxist look at why certain individuals commit crime. The key sociologists are Marx, Snider and Chamberlis
• Marxists use the terms:

  • Criminogenic = the idea that the working class feel anger over how much power the ruling class have. They are also exploited and may need to commit crimes in order to survive or achieve things that would be impossible otherwise
  • Critical criminology = the idea that people make conscious choices when committing crimes.
• Marx argued that the majority of people are controlled by rulers and owners. He looked at why certain crimes go unnoticed or why certain crimes aren't punished
• Chamberlis (marxist) said that all classes are motivated to commit crime due to capitalist societies being based on competition, selfishness etc. The poor may be more motivated as they can't meet their basic needs otherwise.
• Marxists claim the consequences of crime is that it is portrayed as being the result of 'individual moral failing' rather that the result of social injustice. It creates the belief that most criminals are working class and leads to police bias because they are led to believe that this group is more likely to commit crime. Laws are not rigorously enforced.
• Left realists think that we should reform capitalism and not replace it. The main sociologists are Lea and Young
• Lea and Young thought that most victims of street crimes were the working class and not the rich. Therefore, it is dangerous to promote the idea of a 'Robin Hood' stealing from the rich to give to the poor. They focused on victim studies. Lea and Young argued that there is an over-focus on punishing underage drinking and drugs and other crimes such as sexual harassment are ignored.
• Young thought that there has been an increase in expectations and emphasis on material success which has made crime worse. Marginalised groups are ignored and their problems are dismissed.
• The main right realist sociologists are Clarke, Murray, Wilson and Keiling and Felson
• Murray (right realist) thought that the over-generous welfare system has meant that it is too easy for people to be single mothers and for fathers to leave. This has meant that people have bad values which creates crime (boys aren't raised properly)
• Wilson and Keiling (right realists) had the 'broken window' theory which emphasises the idea that police need to clamp down on crime and if there is even one broken window it can lead to issues.
• Felson (right realist) thought that there are 3 conditions needed for a crime to take place

  • There is a lack of guardian such as the police
  • The criminal has the opportunity to commit the crime and they have a target
  • The criminal has a motivation
• Lemert (interactionalist) thought that deviant people get labelled as deviant and folk devils meaning that people think they have a negative influence on society and that they should be feared.
• Braithwaite (interactionalist) thought there is two types of shaming:

  • Reintegrative shaming - punishing them to strengthen their ability to fit with the rest of society (bonds)
  • Disintegrative - isolates the criminal and leads to more crime
• Neo-marxists think that Marxists over focus on economic factors causing crime. They take a 'social theory of deviance' and look at a wide range of things such as political motivations that cause crime
• Taylor et al (neo-marxist) looked at:

  • Wider origins of deviance eg. political motivations
  • Immediate origins of deviance - the criminal's own motivations (the context)
  • The action itself - what the criminal thinks about it and the nature of the crime
  • Social reactions - who is able to label and define the crime as criminal
  • Effects of labelling
• Clarke (right realist) argued for the rational choice theory.

  • the criminal makes an active decision to commit the crime
  • They weigh up the risks and rewards from the crime
  • Rational calculation