What causes crime and deviance in society, biological or social factors?

by cabdi809 (student)

Crime and deviance refer to the breaking of laws and unwritten rules. What counts as criminal and deviant varies over time and between societies, and depends on the social situation in which the act takes place. Deviation is defined as abnormal behaviour from cultures norms, values, or laws so different cultures have different values and norms. For example it is deviant for women to smoke in Islamic countries but in western society it is normal therefore, deviance is behaviour that is not seen as appropriate and acceptable. It is considered as banned and controlled behaviour which mostly attracts informal social controls such as disapproval, stigmatization and in some cases punishment. On this point sociological research illustrates how a particular form of behaviour may in one situation be classified as deviant and yet in different circumstances may viewed as perfectly accepted, Plummer (1979) stated this point in his distinction between ‘society, and ‘situational’ deviance “Societal deviance refers to those categories of behaviour which are either ‘commonly sensed’ by most members of society to be deviant or deviant dominant beliefs and institutional practices such as law”. (The book)

According to Durkheim, when people act against societal values and norms, then general a system of informal control controls to force them back into conformity for example, disproval and stigmatisation. However, if their behaviour crosses the limit into illegal behaviour, then the formal system of punishment will get involved for instances, police and courts. Durkheim argued that “both the basis and form of punishment changes over time. Crimes are often also enforced by social sanctions. What is deviance is learned through our parents, teachers, media and religion. Durkheim (1960)

Causes for criminal behaviour are believed to involve both inherited and environmental factors. Genetic causes are linked to chemical imbalances within the brain brought about by gene mutations and which can cause the brain to produce too little serotonin. These mutations aim certain neurotransmitters, or chemicals, that control inhibition and aggression. Dopamine, MAO, serotonin, epinephrine and nor epinephrine are the neurotransmitters affected. Therefore the human body is a chemical factory that must maintain in balance in the brain. Human thoughts, behaviour, and emotions depend upon the programme of electrical impulses within the central nervous system. The gaps between cells in the nervous system are called synapses and the chemicals that enable the flow of electrical impulses across the synapses are called neurotransmitters. Scientists believe that abnormally low levels of neurotransmitters interrupt the flow of electronic impulses, thus short-circuiting emotions such as sympathy or empathy that can inhibit aggressive behaviour. Researchers like Higley (2000) link serotonin to impulsive behaviour “serotonin acts first as a ‘brake’ on a lot of our impulses and people with high levels of serotonin show more restraint and think things through”. They have found a relationship between levels of specific neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, and certain antisocial behaviours, including violence.

This is a preview of the whole essay

To prove this Hans Brunner (1993) studied three male brothers in Holland where one male, criticized by his employer, attempted to run him over with a car, another raped his sister and was sent to mental hospital and the third one coerced his sister into undressing while threatening her with a knife. In this study Brunner discovered “the certain families to be prone to violent outbursts”. Therefore Brunner suggested that low level of serotonin causes aggressive behaviour and concluded in his study. “The family had a lack of serotonin, which may have caused the violent outbursts. Further studies who supported Brunner’s hypothesis came from Linnioli (1989). He studied1043 arsonists in New York prisons and psychiatric hospitals also found that “those who committed the crimes impulsively had low serotonin” and suggested in their findings “the more times they had acted aggressively through their lives, the lower the level of serotonin they had”. Brunner, H (1993). However, these studies also drew criticism from Meloy, 1988; Raine, (1993) who demonstrated a link between serotonin levels and aggression. “This alone is not sufficient to unequivocally prove that individuals are genetically predetermined to be violent, but it is of importance toward understanding offenders and possible causes of violence” Other disapproval of chemical imbalance from David Kaiser, M.D. North western University Hospital, Chicago, IL, Psychiatric Medications as Symptoms, February, 1997 stated that “No biological ethoof logy has been proven for any psychiatric disorder in spite of decades of research” and suggested that “Don't accept the myth that we can make an 'accurate diagnosis.' Neither should you believe that your problems are due solely to a 'chemical imbalance.'" (Meloy, J.R.1988).

A recently, biochemical studies investigated an impressive body of evidence, primarily found from biochemical studies, has accumulated regarding the role of the serotonin system in criminal behavior. Linnoila and colleagues have reported that “within the context of a Finnish forensic population, violent offenders and impulsive fire-setters evidenced lower mean CSF 5-HIAA than normal controls”. (Virkkunen et al., 1989)

A criticism of Brunner research concerns the sample of this experiment which is un-representative so the result cannot be generalized to the wider population e.g., women or men of any other age group because the experiment contains cultural and gender bias. Brunner only selected Dutch male participants. It can be also be argued that the research studied only a small sample because Brunner’s work was carried out on three brothers and cannot be generalised to wider population. Thus, this experiment is limited. However, this experiment is reliable and can be repeated many times to get the same results. Criticisms of Linnoila’s study are also that it uses a limited sample and cannot be applied to the general population, or used to explain the high rate of violence in the United States as it only focused small sample, only compared to whole population. A further critique in this study is uses un-representative sample as the result cannot be generalised to other cultures because the nationality of the samples were American. However, this experiment is reliable and can be repeated many times to get the same results.

Labelling theory is founded on the idea that behaviours are deviant only when society labels them as deviant. As such, compliant members of society interpret certain behaviours as deviant and then attach this label to individual’s crimes. Therefore labelling can sometimes cause crime in society where people are divided into two groups. People are stereotyped by their appearance, background, and personal biography and the situation and circumstances of the offence. Pilarin and Briar (1964) found “police decisions to arrest youths are based on physical cues, like clothing and haircut” but one also affected by gender, ethnicity and time and place”. (Pilarin and Briar 1964).

Deviance is separated into two parts primary and secondary. Primary and secondary deviances were distinguished by Lemert (1951). Primary deviance includes: minor deviance not publically labelled and often not caught. However, secondary deviance is more public and the deviants are often labelled, shamed, shunned and humiliated by normal society. It becomes their master status or controlling identity. This harms self-concept and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Lemert 1951).

The term “self-fulfilling prophecy” (SFP) first knew in 1948 by Robert Merton to describe “a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the originally false conception come true”. The label becomes a role and the individual changes that life to suit that role. More crimes are committed and the individual forms an identity, that of the criminal along with all its associated values, Attitudes, and beliefs. (1948 by Robert)

Jack Young (1971) stated that “persecution and labelling by police led to hippies becoming outsiders with ‘way out’ clothes and using drugs as a norm; and he suggested that “they became the way society thought they were”. Both Lemert and Young say it is society’s reaction to the act that makes it deviance”. Downes and Rock (2003) criticizes these theories and stated that “not everyone who is labelled becomes deviant”.

Becker (1963) says that deviance is a normal part of adolescent life. Such behaviour is labelled deviant and the adolescent then sees himself as a ‘deviant’, which encourages him to continue his deviant behaviour into adulthood. The initial deviance might be some minor theft (primary deviance) and this through labelling turns into more serious crime (secondary deviance). Secondary deviance is when the adolescent accepts the label and follows the deviant lifestyle (Lemert, 1972). Labelling theory cannot explain all criminal behaviour but might help to explain crime amongst the lower economic social groups. (Lemert, 1972).

According to Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson “Self –fulfilling prophecies are powerful within social institutions” .The study by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) was conducted in a US public elementary school. An intelligence test was administered to all children; teachers were told the test was “a test of inflected acquisition” developed by Harvard. The test was described as being a new test being developed for identifying children who are likely to “bloom”, who will show a sudden and dramatic intellectual spurt. Children were chosen at random to be the experimental group; teachers were then given a list of potential “late bloomers”. An IQ test was administered to the pupil’s one year after, those who had been described as “late bloomers” were on average four points ahead of the control group. These gains in IQ were attributed to a change in teacher’s beliefs leading to a change in behaviour which consequently affected student behaviour. Rosenthal and Jacobson used the term the “benign circle”. Teacher expectations are higher, which leads to active searches for improvement, the child is praised and the child further attempts to satisfy teacher expectations. In Gumpert and Gumpert (1968) a comment on ‘Pygmalion in the classroom’ they use this example to describe a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The criticisms of this study that it uses is limited samples because the research only studied white children and therefore cannot be generalised to every child because it has culture bias and the nationalities of the samples were Americans. It can also be criticized because this study has high ecological validity because it was carried out in a school setting. A confounding variable could affect the research because the study did not measure if the children had same level of intelligence. It can also be argued that this experiment is ethically wrong because these labels could affect the children.

The disadvantages of labelling are that it fails to explain why people commit primary deviance previous to labelling, implies deviance would not exist without labelling, fails to explain the origins of labels, not everyone who commits crime is labelled, and laws can be enforced selectively.

Conclusion:

According to varies researchers crime and deviance are caused both in biological and social. According to H Becker (1963) argued that crimes are caused by society because, individuals get labelled by criminal and act as criminal “someone labelled as ‘criminal’ may be discriminated against and find it difficult to get employment”. From a Marxist “Capitalism creates inequalities which lead to conflict. Greed, selfishness and want are associated with capitalism, and it is these which lead people to committing crime”. (H Becker (=1963)

References

( David Kaiser , 1997 ) Eaton T. Fores . (2003). There Are No "Chemical Imbalances". Available: http://www.academyanalyticarts.org/fores.htm. Accessed 17th May 2012

(Becker (1963) http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.sturt/crime/theocrim.htm (accessed 17/05/2012)

(Virkkunen et al., 1989). Crime Causation: Biological Theories – Serotonin available on http://law.jrank.org/pages/791/Crime-Causation-Biological-Theories-Serotonin.html (accessed 18/05/2012)

Brunner, H (1993), ‘abnormal behaviour associated with a point mutation in the structure gene for monoamine Oxidase A’. Science. 262, 5133:578-580.

Downes ad Rock (2003) cited in Basic revision video for the Labelling topic in A2 Crime and Deviance.

Pilarin and Briar( 1964) cited in Basic revision video for the Labelling topic in A2 Crime and Deviance.

Durkheim (1960) cited in, Moore,S.(2002) Sociology AS for AQA. Collins.

Jack Young (1971) cited in Basic revision video for the Labelling topic in A2 Crime and Deviance.

Meloy, J.R. (1988). The psychopathic mind: Origins, dynamics, and treatment. Northvale, NJ: Aronson Inc.

Plummer (1979) Cited in, Taylor, P. et all (1993). Sociology in Focus. Bath: Andrew Allen.

Robert Merton (1948) Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology, ed. Peter Bearman and Peter Hedström, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 294-

Ellen Weineck . (2007). Crime according to Marxism and functionalism. Available: http://www.helium.com/items/705932-crime-according-to-marxism-and-functionalism. Last accessed 20th May 2012

Ros Connelly (2005). Sociology AS for AQA. London: Collins .