Trevor may come from a lone parent family, possibly not having his father around-although this is not mentioned- but if this was the case he would not have a male father figure and this could lead to anti social behaviour that may later result in criminal acts. It may also lead to him not learning to channel his energy into supporting his family in later life, alternatively turning to crime, as he would see no different. Other reasons for the development of anti social behaviour from a young age are because of reasons such as poor parenting, a troubled family life containing violence and alcohol or drug abuse.
Being male Trevor would be among the 33% of males that have committed a serious offence by the age of 28. Males are 5 times more likely to commit crime than women but the crimes tend to be of different natures, men committing offences such as burglary and assault and women shoplifting. Typically, boys are socialised into masculine behaviour which contain values possibly that of the same nature as criminal values that revolve around risk taking, toughness and aggression which in turn may make males like Trevor more-likely to solve problems using violence. Again, there is the matter of Peer pressure and the different influences from males, again deriving from sub cultures as I have mentioned. Then there is the Police. They have a conception of both crime and criminals, which they use as a guideline in their work. The more that the idea of an association between young males and crime becomes established by the process of deviancy amplification the more the process of criminalisation begins to resemble a self-fulfilling prophecy because large numbers are arrested and convicted. Therefore, the more young men are closely policed, the more any involvement in.
Trevor is from London, the suburbs. A place of very high crime where there are greater opportunities for crime as there are more shops, offices, factories, cars, homes and people. This is not the case for the character of Trevor but there are many modes of accessible transport that make it easier for criminals to remain relatively anonymous to their victims.
Being white, young and living in the 1980’s Trevor may have been easily influenced by the world around him especially with the rise of the NF during this particular decade. Roger Hewitt (1996) said that young white people in deprived working class areas sometimes inhabit an invisible culture. They do this because the feel that the culture they have grown up in isn’t as exposed and celebrated due to the increase in ethnic minorities. Trevor shows racist traits such as throwing bricks through a Pakistani mans window and this may be due to the fact that he is frustrated about not being able to express his culture without being perceived as racist.
There is a theory that says lack of opportunity causes crime. Sometimes called an illegitimate opportunity structure, it argues that some subcultures in society turn to illegal careers whereby they are able to obtain things they feel they are entitled to because there are no other means to do this. Trevor doesn’t have any qualifications of means of job so turns to crime such as shoplifting, meaning he can gain rewards that others gain legally. Trevor may have also lived in poverty as a child but it could also be that he was aware of those doing better than him-called relative depravation
Assuming that Trevor comes from a working class background, he may have striven to gain the typical middle class aspirations but lacked means to, leading to a frustration in status, and so in an attempt to gain status he would behave badly and engage in anti social behaviour. Trevor could even be described as underclass as he possesses traits such as unemployment, poor educational opportunities and ill health, which are all typical of the underclass. Typically, they tend to live off welfare benefits rather than get a job and feel socially excluded, this could be another reason for Trevor’s delinquent behaviour, it’s his way or rebelling and making himself known.
Many groups of structuralists blame society for the reasons behind crime and deviance and why it happens. I will look at each in turn.
Traditional Marxists- they argue that crime is a rational reaction to the inequalities that wealth and income create. Crime is an inevitable product of capitalism and encouraging values such as greed explains criminal behaviour. There values brought about by capitalism promote “non economic” crimes such s violence and vandalism because the inequalities places upon different social groups leads to frustration and envy, particularly for the working class who commit crime to retrieve this power and status. So it would be argued that Trevor’s actions are a product of this.
Neo Marxists- they argue that working class people who commit crime are doing this consciously so are choosing to rebel against the system and the inequalities it perpetrates. It its argued to be an attempt to alter capitalism for example, crimes such as theft are aimed at the “redistribution of wealth” and vandalism, an attack on the obsession of property put in place by capitalism.
Functionalists- they argue that society encourages members to assent to the “goal of material success” through education and the mass media. The problem being though, that, society cannot provide the means for everyone to achieve legitimately because many cannot gain qualifications and access jobs in particular working class people. Although most people conform due to the consensus theory many do commit crime as a rebellion on society.
In conclusion to this essay, there are many sociological reasons as to why Trevor behaves in the way he does and many factors contributing to this. During the film we do not learn a great deal about Trevor’s background, so factors such as socialisation and peer groups that may have affected his behaviour cannot be looked at as in as much depth as factors such as community and gender, as these are less personal to him and are presented in the film.
