Sociologists explain deviant/ criminal behaviour in terms of people’s social characteristics e.g. class and gender. They suggest that offenders could belong to certain social groups. Information from official sources and self reporting sources show that 80% of known offenders are male and 41% are under the age of 21 years old. The national prison survey (1991) focuses on certain groups who feature highly in the statistics. 62% of inmates were under the age of 30 and a disproportionate number were lower class and unskilled. These statistics do not give us an accurate picture of what a ‘typical offender’ is due to several factors , for example the working class are more likely to be scrutinised and punished for crimes and middle class crimes are often ‘swept under the carpet’ and no enforcement is taken.
One sociological theory that argues that statistics don’t give us an accurate picture of crime is the Interactionalist approach. This was a very popular approach in the 1960’s. Interactionalists believe that causes of crime are a result of two things, firstly small scale interaction. People get together in different social groups, it is said that outside of these groups crime happens. Secondly interactionalists say that people give different meanings to their acts. Herbert Bulmer (1969) suggests that we think about our behaviour and act according to our perceptions. According to Howard Becker (1963) deviance is an act which has been labelled by society. Labelling can be defined as acts which tend to be committed by certain types of people that have been labelled. Police target certain groups of people because society already has a pre- conceived notion of what is a ‘typical deviant’.
Sociologist Edwin Lemert claims that there are two types of Deviant, primary deviant- no one see’s there deviant act to they are not a deviant. And secondary deviants, society labels a person as deviant and so a master status is attached to them and they go on to lead a deviant career .Societal reaction also effects a deviant, when a person is labelled as a deviant people in society look at them differently this person then continues to live life as a deviant.
In evaluation of the interactionalist approach, the use of the labelling theory has drawn attention to the importance of labelling and societal reaction to the generation of deviant and criminal behaviour, it helps to explain why some people do go on to commit crimes. The labelling theory has shown that certain types of people are singled out, which supports the idea that the official criminal statistics do not give an accurate picture of crime because if the police are focusing on the ‘ typical deviant’ then they are perhaps overlooking other types of criminals such a middle class. Critics however have pointed out weaknesses of the labelling theory. Firstly the origins of deviance are unclear, the idea that people commit crimes because they are labelled as a criminal are suggested to be fruit less. A woman doesn’t tend to become prostitutes just because society has labelled her as being a provocative woman. The labelling theory also fails to explain why certain groups of people are labelled as deviant. According to Becker (1963) “Social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction constitutes deviance”. But the question is who the social groups are? And are they using their power to make rules that benefit them?
The second approach that i am going to outline and evaluate in terms of it’s argument that crime statistics give an incomplete, misleading and biased picture of crime and certain groups in society. The Marxist/conflict approach was very influential in the 1970’s. The key focus of the Marxist approach to crime and deviance is that crime is the product of capitalism and the class inequality that it generates. Marxism attempts to explain why crime is seen as being working class dominated. Capitalism is an economic system which consists of an exploitive and unequal relationship between the powerful minority (Middle Class) and the powerless majority (Working class). Gorden (1976) argues that an inequality in the distribution of wealth and employment is the reason why working class commit crime. Marxists claim that the working class get frustrated with the way society works against them and so commit crimes such as violence, sex and drug crimes. This was heightened in the 1970’s/1980’s when a large number of people were unemployed.
Marxists point out that the statistics are biased to certain groups of people, as law enforcement is selective and tends to protect the rich and powerful. Marxists such as Mannheim also argue that the laws are mainly derived with the purpose of favouring the priorities of the capitalist class.
Marxists sociologists suggest that more attention needs to be paid to white collar/ middle class crimes. White collar crime is defined by Croall (1998) as crime committed in the course of legal employment including fraud and tax evasion. However White collar crime is not regarded as serious because these crimes are invisible, people do not live in fear because of them. These sort of corporate crimes are often too complex for the understanding of ‘Joe Public’. Majority of the time white collar crimes are not even reported as people don’t even realise that they have been a victim of it for example fraudulent crime.
In evaluation of the Marxist approach, the use of White collar crime does support the idea that the statistics are misleading as a large quantity of crime is being overlooked in the findings and certain groups are being over represented in the statistics. The Marxist approach also supports the idea that crime statistics are biased, as Marxists like Mannheim are suggesting that the law and its enforcers are protecting the middle class and are working in their favour. It also explains that the powerful make the laws and decide which criminal acts appear in the statistics. Therefore statistics only really represent a selective number and type of crimes.
However critics claim that the Marxist approach does fail to mention that most victims of working class crimes are working class themselves and so the idea that working class commit crime out of frustration at the middle class is undermined. Many Sociologists refuse to accept that there is any conflict between the working and middle classes and so according to them why would there need to be any biased in laws.
This essay has explained two sociological theories and their arguments for the idea that statistics give us an inaccurate picture of crime in Britain today. This essay has also evaluated each argument and has concluded that even though both sides have very valid points it is inevitable that crime statistics will never be an accurate way of measuring crime, as people in today’s society will always have their preconceived views of what a criminal is and they will judge and report crimes accordingly. And unfortunately crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault still happen alot and the majority of times remain unreported. The real picture of crime is what’s outside our front door’s not necessarily what the statistics from an annual study tells us.
Bibliography
Class handouts for unit 2 –Crime Statistics from Sociology in focus P.Langley et al Pearson 2005.
Class handouts for unit 2 – Interactionism and Labelling Theory from Sociology in focus P.Langley et al Pearson 2005.
Class handout for unit 2 - Marxist explanations from A2 Sociology Power and Control Crime and Deviation Steve Chapman Philipallan updates 2003
