Crime And Deviance Flashcards
(136 cards)
Functionalist
View society as meritocratic
Durkheim
Functionalist
Individuals are exposed to differed influences and circumstances so not everyone can be equally exposed to the shared norms and values
Deviance benefits society as it acts like a safety valve releasing stress
Other functionalists say that Durkheim doesn’t consider why some individuals/groups in society commit crimes and others do not
Merton
Functionalist
Strain theory
He focuses on individual responses and doesn’t recognise social pattern of crime and deviance affecting whole groups
He doesn’t explain why most people who face strain theory don’t turn to crime and deviance
Strain theory
Merton
Explains why deviance arises in the first place
Exposure all the time is setting up unrealistic goals
In an unequal society not all individuals have the same opportunity
Cloward and Ohlin
Functionalist
They identify an alternative ‘illegitimate opportunity structure’ which was available through gang membership
Three subcultures - criminal, conflict and retreatist
They exaggerate the differences between the three types of subcultures
Does not explain white collar crime
A.K Cohen
Functionalist
An anti school subculture will change the mainstream leading to gangs
Not doing crime for money
Getting status through each other’s ideas by turning socially deviant acts into ones that are praiseworthy
Post modernists argue crime comes out of boredom or seeking ‘buzz’
Status frustration - does not materially benefit them
Marxists
See crime as a natural product of capitalism
Bourgeoisie control ideological state apparatus to further their own interest
Tend to argue that crime is widespread in all social strata - but point out how street crime is prioritised by law enforcement agencies, leaving corporate crime to flourish
William Chambliss
Marxists
Greed and hostility generated by the capitalist system motivates crime at all levels of society
Celebrity pays a vast amount to hire a nightclub for his daughter whilst people are starving to death
Such behaviour is justified by ruling class ideology such as ‘they earned their money; they have a right to spend it as they see fit’
Gordon 1976
Marxists
Crime is a rational response to the competitiveness and inequality of life in capitalist society
Dog eat dog society individuals fend for themselves in order to survive
Capitalism creating the crime because it is never enough
Laureen Snider 1993
Marxists
Capitalist state is often reluctant to pass laws
Looks like they are protecting majority instead of minority
Laws framed in the national interest way usually benefits the ruling class
Frank Pearce 1976
Marxists
Factory legislation related to health and safety appears to benefit the subject class, who through believing capitalists values them are further bound to a system which exploits them
In reality it also benefits the ruling class
Chambliss study
1962-1972 outdated
Crime in Seattle over 10 years
70% of arrests were for public drunkenness rather than upper corporate crime
Courts and jails were filled with the poor and powerless
Crime occurs throughout all social strata the difference being the types of crime committed by different groups and the nature of low enforcement
Interactionists
People do not become criminals because of their social background but that crime emerges because of labelling by authorities
Becker
Crime is the product of social interactions
In a low income neighbourhood a fight is more likely to be defined by the police as evidence of delinquency
In a wealthy area a fight would be seen as evidence of high spirits
Meanings given to them by the audience differ, those who have the power to make the label stick therefore create deviants or criminals
Cicourel
Meanings held by police officers and juvenile officers that explain why most delinquents come from working class backgrounds Middle class delinquents are less likely to be changed because they do not fit the picture of a ‘typical delinquent’ More likely to be defined as ill rather than criminal whilst having accidentally strayed from the path
Lemert
Developed the concepts of primary and secondary deviance to emphasise the fact that everyone engages in deviant acts, but only some people are caught being deviant and labelled as deviant
Labelling theory
Becker
No such thing as a deviant act. An act only becomes deviant others perceive and define it as such
E.g. man streaks across cricket field —> ‘bit of a lad’
Exposing themselves in a crowd —> perv
Evaluation of interactionists
Law enforcement is often discriminatory
Cannot trust crime statistics
Law changes overtime
Attempts to control crime can backfire and may make the situation worse
Criticisms of interactionists
Deterministic
Not everyone accepts their labels
Doesn’t recognise the role of personal choice in committing crime
Ignores the actual victims of crime
There are deeper, structural explanations of crime, it isn’t all just a product of labelling and interactions
Assumes offenders are just passive
Right realism
Not on the same page as Marxists or the left realists
Too sympathetic to criminals and hostile to criminal justice system
Believe they know what is best for society and try to enforce their ideas
Biology
Cause of crime
Right realism
Wilson and Hernstein
Individuals are predisposed to their criminality by traits such as aggressiveness, extroversion and risk taking
Murray IQ
Inherited low IQ
White collar crime
Socialisation
Murray
Inadequate
Cause of crime
Right realism
Lone parenting - absence of male role models
Welfare state is a threat to the nuclear family and societal cohesion