Crime also acts as a warning device, indicating that an aspect of society is malfunctioning. Crime may also act as a safety valve - a relatively harmless expression of discontent. For example the invasion of the House of Commons, would be a warning device to society relating to security issues. Durkheim also points out that a sense of social cohesion can be created by particularly heinous crimes. A sense of shared outrage can bring a community closer together. This was evident after the attacks of September 11th 2001 in the USA. These events strengthen the community’s sense of belonging.
Durkheim argues that some crime is inevitable, but only in some societies, the crime rate may become too much (pathological) and, this indicates a society that is intolerable, which means that it is suffering from social disorganisation. Durkheim does not, however, provide any indication of what a 'normal' crime rate might be, or how it could be calculated. While Durkheim states that Crime has positive functions in society, he also noted that too much crime has negative consequences. One of his key ideas was what he called ‘anomie’ which has been widely adapted in sociology. Durkheim states that anomie is the sharing of common values which form the basis of our actions, however in times of social uncertainty or change the breakdown of the collective conscience may result in people turning to their own selfish devices rather than being controlled by societal agencies.
It is possible to see crime as inevitable when, as Charles Murray (1990) describes an ‘underclass’ has been created. He argues that over the last 30 years there has been an increase in what he calls the ‘underclass’. This ‘underclass’ that Murray describes are a group of young people that have no desire to have a formal, paid job (preferring to live off benefits and the illegal economy), have a string of short-term sexual liaisons and routinely have children outside of serious relationships or marriage (leading to the fathers not seeing the offspring as their responsibility). This ‘underclass’ he says has created a new generation that has no concept of the shared values of society, which can lead to them turning to crime. This synthesises with the idea created by Durkheim that when the collective conscience of a society is destroyed then crime becomes inevitable a state of anomie.
This idea of crime being inevitable when the collective conscience of society is broken is supported by the work of Dennis. He developed the concept of the moral fabric of society. He suggested that the break down in marriage and the changing role of women in the family led to the marginalisation of the father. He also believes that there has been a decrease in the moral condemnation shown towards men who leave their families. So, young males do not have sufficient role models upon which to base their behaviour and do not face the discipline at home that a father might provide. Dennis argues that this crisis in the family weakens the moral fabric and demonstrates that values and commitment are not fixed but flexible.
However, if crime is normal and inevitable, why is it that more people do not commit crime? Hirschi constructed the ‘bonds of attachment’ to understand what forces maintain conformity for most people in society. First, he refers to the attachment to which a person cares about other people’s desires. Second, commitment or investment a person puts into their lives and what they would lose if they turned to crime. Third, involvement a person has in their society suggesting that they neither have time nor inclination to behave in a criminal way. Finally, a person’s belief in upholding society’s rules and laws. Hirschi suggests that a decline in communities or community based relationships has been evident in the last 20 years, noting that where societies have a lack of attachment, crime rates are higher.
A common criticism of Durkheim is that his theory fails to explain who is more likely to commit crime and when. Robert K. Merton’s Strain theory was an attempt to expand Durkheim’s ideas. Merton argues that deviance results not from pathological personalities but from the culture and structure of society itself. He begins from the standard functionalist position of value consensus, that is, all members of society share the same values. However, since members of society are placed in different positions in the social structure, for example, they differ in terms of class position; they do not have the same opportunity of realizing the shared value. This situation can generate deviance. In Merton's words: 'the social and cultural structure generates pressure for socially deviant behaviour upon people variously located in that structure”.
Using USA as an example, Merton outlines his theory as follows. Members of American Society share the major values of American culture. In particular they share the goal of success for which they all strive and which is largely measured in terms of wealth and material possessions. The 'American Dream' states that all members of society have an equal opportunity of achieving success. In all societies there are institutionalized means of reaching culturally defined goals. In America the accepted ways of achieving success are through educational qualifications, talent, hard work, drive, determination and ambition. In a balanced society an equal emphasis is placed upon both cultural goals and institutionalized means, and members are satisfied with both. But in America great importance is attached to success and relatively less importance is given to the accepted ways of achieving success. As such, American society is unstable, unbalanced. There is a tendency to reject the 'rules of the game' and to strive for success by all available means. The situation becomes like a game of cards in which winning becomes so important that the rules are abandoned by some of the players. When rules cease to operate a situation of normlessness or 'anomie' results. In this situation of anything norms no longer direct behaviour and deviance is encouraged. However, individuals will respond to a situation of anomie in different ways. In particular, their reaction will be shaped by their position in the social structure.
Merton outlines five possible ways in which members of American society can respond to success goals. The first and most common response is conformity. Members of society conform both to success goals and the normative means of reaching them. A second response is 'innovation'. This response rejects normative means of achieving success and turns to deviant means, crime in particular. Merton argues that members of the lower social strata are most likely to select this route to success. Merton uses the term 'ritualism' to describe the third possible response. Those who select this alternative are deviant because they have largely abandoned the commonly held success goals. The pressure to adopt this alternative is greatest on members of the lower middle class. Their occupations provide less opportunity for success than those of other members of the middle class. However, compared o members of the working class, they have been strongly socialized to conform to social norms. This prevents them from turning to crime. Unable to innovate and with jobs that offer little opportunity for advancement, their only solution is to scale down or abandon their success goals. Merton terms the fourth and least common response, 'retreatism'. It applies to psychotics, artists, pariahs, drug addicts. They have strongly internalized both the cultural goals and the institutionalized means but is unable to achieve success. They resolve the conflict of their situation by abandoning both the goals and the means of reaching them. They are unable to cope with challenges and drop out of society defeated and resigned to their failure. They are deviant in two ways: they have rejected both the cultural goals and the institutionalized means. Merton does not relate retreatism to social class position. Rebellion forms the fifth and final response. It is a rejection of both the success goals and the institutionalized means and their replacement by different goals and means. Those who adopt this alternative want to create a new society. Thus urban guerillas in Western European capitalist societies adopt deviant means- terrorism- to reach deviant goals such as a communist society. Merton argues that it is typically members of a rising class rather than the most depressed strata who organize the resentful and rebellious into a revolutionary group. To summarize, Merton claims that his analysis shows how the culture and structure of society generates deviance.
To conclude, societies have to have rules and rules are broken therefore deviance is normal. Even Marxist sociologists see crime as a normal part of society in its indication of class conflict. It is inevitable because not every member of society can be equally committed to the 'collective sentiments, the shared values and beliefs of society. Since individuals are exposed to different influences and circumstances, it is impossible for all to be alike. Therefore, not everybody shares the same restraints about breaking the law. Changing dynamics of both the family and society as a whole have made criminal activity an inevitable part of life. Durkheim saw crime as normal in terms of its occurrence, and even as having positive social functions in terms of its consequences. Crime was normal in that no society could enforce total conformity to its injunctions. Deviance from the norms of society is necessary if society is to remain flexible and open to change and new adaptations. "Where crime exists, collective sentiments are sufficiently flexible to take on a new form, and crime sometimes helps to determine the form they will take”. Crime is a functional, inevitable and normal aspect of social life; therefore there must be some reason for its persistence. It is an integral part of all healthy societies.
