It is the aim of this piece of work to investigate the claim that a lower class person is more likely to be observed and detected than those from other classes and that a lower class person is more likely to be arrested if discovered.

It is the aim of this piece of work to investigate the claim that a lower class person is more likely to be observed and detected than those from other classes and that a lower class person is more likely to be arrested if discovered. In order to achieve this the author has investigated the question from a variation of criminological approaches and sociological approaches. It is hoped that an answer as to whether or not such a statement can be defined as true should be uncovered by the end of the essay. There are many theories in which the author refers to, although not perhaps as many as possible, but this would have taken a lot more than 3.000 words to achieve. The author feels that the outcome of the essay was as conclusive as possible in the world of sociology and criminology does not necessarily provide definitive solutions, all theories have their flaws.

In order to consider the question, we must firstly consider the meaning of crime and deviance.

(McLaughlin, Muncie, 2001) defines crime as “not a self evident and unitary concept. Its constitution is diverse, historically relative and continually contested. As a result an answer to the question ‘what is crime?’ depends upon which of its multiple constitutive elements is emphasised. This in turn depends upon the theoretical position taken by those defining crime”. It is however specific actions, which break the law and as a result are punishable by the state i.e. police, courts, prison etc).

Deviance is defined by (McLaughlin, Muncie, 2001) as “a twentieth-century sociological concept intended to designate the aggregate of social behaviours, practices, acts, demeanours, attitudes, beliefs, styles or statuses which are culturally believed to deviate significantly from the norms, ethics, standards and expectations of society.” In general it refers to acts which are disapproved of in society and do not meet the norms and values of society. We have to remember however that not every deviant act is necessarily a criminal one, merely unacceptable by society not necessarily law breaking.

We should also consider that people act in a deviant manner tend to have a reduced status in society and appear to have little or no power. It is possible that as a result of this reduced status that some deviants may tend to live in the lower class of society (though not always the case, as later described in the rebels and innovators). Society in general tends to try to conform people to its norm through methods of control. These can exist in either Formal or Informal mechanisms: -

Formal Police, Armed Forces, Laws etc

Informal Family, Peer Groups, religion and media etc

Forms of social control apply pressure to people to conform to acceptable patterns and norms of behaviour. As will be described later in this piece of work and can be either external social control = overt applications of sanctions or Internal social control = an individuals conscience.

Sociological Positivism looks at the way in which society is organised in order to explain criminal behaviour. It introduces some valid points e.g.

Crime is seen as a result of dysfunction in social and economic conditions. This points to crime resulting from poverty and lower class society.
It also claims that behaviour is determined by social structures and conditions, which again could point the finger to lower class society, though not directly relating crime.
It claims that there is a link in crime variation from region to region dependant upon political and economic tendency in an area. Which could yet again relate to higher crime etc. in lower class areas and vice versa.

Sociological Positivism appears to be fairly clear in its theory, that society is directly affective on crime.

(Becker, 1963) states “deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label”. Apparently the neighbourhood in which a person lives can affect their behaviour, at least some, perhaps even a majority believe this. This is perhaps the result of labelling or stigmatism e.g. deprived children can be labelled deviant. This may even refer to whole places or certain areas being labelled/stigmatised e.g. (Stenson, Cowell, 1991) list stigmatised groups “African-Americans of the Ghetto(rather than middle class suburbs)and – in part due to Hollywood ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Sociological Positivism appears to be fairly clear in its theory, that society is directly affective on crime.

In relation to deviant behaviour (Becker, 1963) who uses an interactionist approach, assumes that once labelling has occurred things can get worse. This is in fact criticised as one of the weaknesses in Becker’s theory. (Becker, 1963) claims that’s “No act is intrinsically criminal”. Whilst this may be true in certain types of crime, it is argued that it is not relevant in relation to violent crime. Becker appears to forget that people can also fight against labels. An example of such would be law abiding citizens not conforming to devious acts related to their particular area of abode e.g. the Hilltown in Dundee. Becker however succeeds in displaying that there is more to so called criminal types than initially described by the likes of (Lambroso,1876) who believes in a physical criminal type.

There is also a political aspect to labelling. The so called deviants in society are usually labelled by the people in power such as politicians or the police. (Stenson, Cowell, 1991) say “the ease with which ‘outcaste’ groups are made to signify or represent criminality in general is not just a function of how they behave and/or are treated by the police and the courts, but is also a function of the narrowness of the images and definitions of crime which operate within operate within popular culture and the criminal justice agencies”. According to Becker after so called public labelling has occurred then this can have an adverse effect on a persons image of themselves (self image) and also their self esteem. This can result in a person behaving in the manner the labelling expects. This is known as the ‘self fulfilling prophecy’. A good example of this being sex offenders who may find it difficult to reintegrate into their old community as a result of their crime and as a result turn to crime. This does not however apply in all cases as not all offenders are destined to be deviant always.

With relation to the Functionalist approach a good example would be the strain theory used by (Merton, 1938). This theory accepts that not all people can attain the same values and as a result deviant behaviour can occur. It focuses on the concept of ‘anomie’ which is the feeling of meaningless life, or as (McLaughlin, Muncie, 2001) describes “A state of ethical normlessness or deregulation, pertaining either to an individual or a society. This lack of normative regulation leaves individuals without adequate ethical guidance as to their conduct and undercuts integration”. According to the strain theory there are 5 reactions to tension, namely: - Conformists, Innovators, Ritualists, Retreatists and Rebels as detailed below: -

Conformists In general accept the values or norms of society and achieve legitimate success as a result.

Innovators This in particular relates to lower classes who are more likely to have poor career opportunities. This may result in them attempting success via. Criminal activities or actions an example being mafia or organised crime circles.

Ritualist similar to conformists only in fact that they conform but tend to forget their goals and as a result tend to get stuck in a rut of a dead end job with little or no opportunity and are generally known to be sticklers for the rules.

Retreatists This type of person does not show any interest in the so called competitive outlook on life. They tend to reject the norms of society and as a result retrest from mainstream society. An example of these types would be drunks and drug addicts.

Rebels Similar to the retreatists the rebels also reject the norms of society and also reject its values and the institutionalised manner in which goals are achieved. Unlike the retreatists however, they tend to make their own rules. A good example being terrorists.

Whilst lower classes can react to tensions in any of the 5 mentioned ways. It is usually taken for granted that generally lower classes may rarely become the conformists of society.

Structural and Subcultural theories also have a role in explaining deviance in particular relation to gangs etc (which are assumed to be prominent in lower class society). In so much as they claim lack of opportunity for success and peer group pressure can lead to conforming to gangs etc. As a result a deviant gang member may choose to neutralise any moral ties of society in order to allow them to perform a deviant act or crime .i.e. convince themselves that the law is not applicable to them in this instance, examples of neutralisation techniques are listed below: -

Denial of Responsibility Have a tendency to point the blame to their parents or the area they live in. anywhere other than at themselves.

Denial of Injury resulting from their actions tend to claim well it was just mischief nobody really got hurt.

Denial that the Act was Wrong An example would be a person commits a violent act and say that the victim deserved it.

Offender Condemns the Rule Enforcers An example being the offender claiming the police are corrupt so why can’t I be.

Appeal to Higher Values Claim to have offended to assist with their family etc.

Such claims can only result in lower classes and subcultures being more prone to observation and arrest by police as well as by society as a whole.

The Italian School of thinking has a different approach to criminology. In particular Lombroso who is best known for his theory of Altavistic man. (McLaughlin, Muncie, 2001) state that “Early positivists such as Lombroso, Feri and Garafalo identified the criminal in terms of personal stigmata. Physical anomalies with hereditary origins (such as large cheekbones, flat nose and thick eyebrows) were thought to mark out a physical propensity. The notion of the criminal as defective reworks Darwin’s theory of evolution.” This meant that criminals were then viewed by scientists such as Lombroso as being Atavistic or caveman like in nature and as such had not evolved in the so called normal way as described by Darwin. () states “Drawing on Darwin's , Lombroso reasoned that, in any population, a small number of individuals were likely to exhibit extremely primitive instincts. They were, in effect, evolutionary throwbacks.” This theory however irrelevant it may seem to some today can still be seen as relevant in some senses. For example if you were to see a large man with a shaved head walking down towards you in a dark alley, you may feel more threatened by him than say an old lady with her pitlochery tweed skirt and bun. This is an example of how there still exists a certain criminal type in today’s society. If anything the image of a criminal type is stronger today than it was back in the time of Lombroso. (Stenson, Cowell, 1991) say “the more orthodox conceptions of crime are broadly accepted and prioritized by the criminal justice agencies, mainstream politicians, the news media, Hollywood and other organs of popular culture”. An example of media influence could be the miners strike in the 80s displayed using imagery and representation how the media saw fit (selective journalism). We have to remember how cultural prejudice and discrimination exists today perhaps as a long term result of a combination of Victorian thinking and media influence in society as a whole. We have to look at programmes, which are broadcast today such as “neighbours from hell” which portray mostly lower class families, living in large council housing estates and behaving in a deviant or criminal fashion. This does not portray a good image for the lower class people who live law abiding lives and are stigmatised by the image created by others. (Stenson, Cowell, 1991) clarifies this by stating “These social institutions legitimate each others’ notions of what crime is, and which crimes are most worthy of attention, in mutually reinforcing and self-fulfilling circles. Predictably these are the crimes of the poor and the working class”. They list the crimes as public order offences, routine property offences, crimes against the person, low level frauds and drug related offences and so on. (Stenson, Cowell, 1991) also claim that such institutionalised focus can have a tendency to reinforce the image of specific groups and turn them into scapegoats, in a way.

Even in todays society there appears to still be the need to classify people and behaviour into groups. Not only does society have a tendency to categorise but so does the science of criminology feel the need to do so. It does not look deeper into the problems related to the crime i.e. the reasoning behind a crime. Politics play an important role, as crimes can be invented by politicians and made into acts passed by parliament e.g. raving is illegal and ravers may now be viewed as a so called criminal, although they do not necessarily pose any more risk to society than a pensioners tea dance. What would happen if they decided to process an act of parliament which made drinking in pubs in council housing schemes as there was an increased risk of violence, the damage caused could be irreversible. Victimisation is not just a problem in society but also exists throughout the institutions.

In conclusion it would appear that a lower class person is more likely to be observed than those from other classes, not necessarily as a result of more crime actually occuring. In actuality it appears to be because of stigmatism and labelling existing in society and institutions, that more attention is given to the lower classes in relation to crimes and deviant behaviour. As (Stenson, Cowell, 1991) say there are “struggles over which counts as knowledge and truth”. In other words what is perhaps known to be criminal or deviant is not necessarily truly criminal or deviant. As can be seen from the official statistics from () there exists a pattern displaying higher crime rates in inner city areas as opposed to rural areas, as well as more victims in council estates and unemployed areas. This however does not display the facts as people may think, it is the result of more observation existing in such areas and as a result more criminal activity is recorded. There also appears to be a pattern emerging for crime in white collar crimes being ion the increase, which is perhaps a result of more observation of such crime. Who knows perhaps way ahead in the future, the white collar worker could be labelled or stigmatised as a deviant group. Another consideration to remember in todays society is CCTV plays an important role in observing crime, and more observation is possible as a result. Remember it is very rare for there to be CCTV cameras in more affluent areas and more commonplace in city centres and lower class areas. (Coleman, Norris, 2000) state “although it may be thought obvious that more police patrolling the streets or the presence of CCTV cameras will inevitably reduce crime, things are more complicated than that”. This perhaps displays that the current government initiative will not necessarily reduce crime, just merely drive it more under ground,or yet again focus on the lower class in society. Only time will tell. As (Young, 1999. P197) states “the war against drugs has helped fill the American prisons, the vendetta against single mothers can be crippling for the most vulnerable, the fixation on dependancy cultures is not only stigmatizing but further impoverishes the unemployed”. In short more focus needs to be put on solving the underlying problems which cause crime, not merely observing and dealing with it as and when it happens.

References

Becker, H.J. 1963. Outsider: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Free Press

Darwin, C. 1981. Origin of Species (rev. ed). USA: Grolier (original work published 1859)

Lombroso, C. 1876. On Criminal Man. Milan, Italy: Hoepli

Merton, R.K. 1938. Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review. 3: pp. 672 – 682

McLaughlin, E. Muncie, J. 2001. The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. London: Sage Publications.

Stenson, K. Cowell, D. 1991. The Politics of Crime Control. UK: Sage

(extracted 24/9/2002)

(extracted 24/9/02)

Young, J. 1999. The Exclusive Society. London: Sage Publications

It is the aim of this piece of work to investigate the claim that a lower class person is more likely to be observed and detected than those from other classes and that a lower class person is more likely to be arrested if discovered.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

How far do sociologists believe that young working class men are more likel...

In order to investigate if Irish society is indeed based on class and inequ...

Is class a useful concept in explaining social action? It has been argued t...

Crime and Social Class - Hypothesis - Working class people commit more crim...