Different Sociological Perspectives on Crime
Different Sociological Perspectives on Crime
1.There are several different sociological explanations from different perspectives: the Functionalist perspective, Labelling perspective, Sub-culture perspective and the Marxist perspective used to explain crime and deviance.
2.The main features to each perspective are described below:
Functionalist Perspective
Functionalists believe that crime is best analysed by looking at society as a whole and that we should not look at the individual person, and that the way society is structured explains the cause of crime. They believe that crime has a function in society and that we need it, even though functionalists feel strongly about shared values and consensus to keep society together. This said they think that the existence of crime brings other parts of society together because, we come together to stop crime e.g. neighbourhood watch or a paedophile moving into a town: all different types of people would get together in the way of marches and the signing of petitions.
This therefore helps to promote shared values and social order. Functionalists believe crime has its function, if it did not prisons/punishment and the police would therefore not have a function in society. Theorists who follow this perspective are Durkheim and Albert Cohen.
Sub-Culture
This approach explains deviance in terms of the subculture of social groups. They believe all there are many different social groups who have their own norms and values that are different from other social groups e.g. some groups of criminals may have norms that promote and reward criminal behaviour. Other members of society may think that that behaviour is morally wrong and will condemn them.
This theory alleges that deviance is the result of people conforming to the values, norms of their own social group. Members of subculture are not really that different to other members of society they might speak, dress the same have similar values about family, but their subculture is effectively dissimilar from the culture of society as a whole to make them commit acts that are seen as deviant.
Labelling Perspective
Labelling theorists believe that a crime only becomes a crime when people say it is a crime. All the different social groups in our society actually make things become a crime because we make the rules that when broken become a crime. From the labelling perspective crime is not what someone does, 'but is a result of other people applying the rules to an offender'. We apply labels to help us to understand and work out behaviour and also a quick way of knowing what is going on around us.
Labels are given to people, depending on how a situation is interpreted by who is observing the situation, e.g. in my family I have a brother who lives in a council house and who doesn't want to work. I also have a sister who has always worked hard, is financially better off, and owns her own home. Both may drink a bottle of wine in the middle of the week, brother is labelled an alcoholic and it's down to drinking wine that has resulted in him having no interest in getting a job, whereas in my twins case, it is acceptable she has had a hard day and is entitled to a few glasses of red in the evening. Both have shown the same behaviour but are labelled differently. In the same way they each may view it in one way and we see it in another way. 'Deviance is not a quality that lies in behaviour itself but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it'. So deviance comes about because of interactions between who could be a deviant and those in social control. So in social terms, thing we do can only be labelled when it has been seen or reported to have been seen, this is 'public exposure', this is when the process of stigmatisation happens (when the person gets a 'master status', which becomes more important than any other status they have) e.g. brother, father, friend may not be known as these but known or labelled a 'Drunk'. This is very hard to get rid of the preverbal leopard never changes it's spots, and the person given the master status believes that it doesn't matter how much or little they drink they will always be labelled a drunk, this creates a 'self fulfilling prophecy'.
Marxist Perspective
The Marxist approach bases it's ideas and theories on how the powerful people control the society which influences how the society works. Marxists believe that young working classed males are portrayed by the media as the people who commit the most crimes in society, this then reinforces ideas of materialism into people. This they believe might lead to a materialistic capitalist system that may force working classed people to commit crimes as they have a lower income and may not be able to afford to buy things like the rest of society. This theory looks ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Marxist Perspective
The Marxist approach bases it's ideas and theories on how the powerful people control the society which influences how the society works. Marxists believe that young working classed males are portrayed by the media as the people who commit the most crimes in society, this then reinforces ideas of materialism into people. This they believe might lead to a materialistic capitalist system that may force working classed people to commit crimes as they have a lower income and may not be able to afford to buy things like the rest of society. This theory looks at how those in the ruling class try to cover up deviancy and crimes of those in that class. It looks at how those who have power, wealth and their politics can manipulate the courts and justice system. Marxists believe that those who control the means of production have the power in our society. It believes that the state/law and other agents of social control say what is deviant and criminal behaviour in the interest of the ruling class. The ruling class uses the state and only passes laws that will enable the ruling class to control the subject class.
Marxists argue that laws are not for everyone in society but are an indication of the ruling class philosophy and consequently laws are not beneficial to society as a whole but are only beneficial to the ruling class.
3.Evaluation of the Functionalist contribution, weaknesses to this perspective include: It assumes a wide consensus on what is right and what is wrong, it also suggests that society stays static rather than dynamic and justice is not consistently spread across events. It also ignores behaviour not legally defined as crime. Strengths to this perspective include: It gives us a good guide to what counts as crime and suggests why crime is always present in society and why it is needed and how we can not always conform. It also sees a connection between events and the structure to society.
Evaluation of the Subculture contribution, weakness to this perspective include: it assumes that subculture and stereotypes are all caused by the same social process - anomie. It also concentrates mainly on the behaviour of young working classed men. It does not look at free will as the motivation for crimes being committed.
Strengths to this perspective include: that it recognises the inequalities faced by individuals in our society to achieve success and wealth. It also recognises why separate groups are formed in our society.
Outcome 2
.
Sociological study by Merton (1968, first published 1938) states that crime is the result of 'Anomie' he claimed deviance did not develop from 'pathological personalities' but from the culture and construction of society itself. His theory comes from the functionalist's stance on the value consensus: all members of society share the same norms and values. But since members of society are located in dissimilar positions in the structure of society, e.g. in different classes, they do not have the same chances of gaining their shared values. This can then cause deviance. In Merton's words, 'the social and cultural structure generates pressure for socially deviant behaviour upon people variously located in that structure.
An example of this is the USA, Merton outlined his theory as: people in America share the same norms and values of American culture. They share the same goals of success that they all try to achieve; this is basically measured in wealth and material possessions. This is known as the American dream - where everyone has the chance/opportunity to be wealthy and a success. In many societies there are the opportunities to reaching these goals, but in America the greatest way of becoming wealthy and a success is by getting a good education, working hard, determination and ambition. In a balanced society an equal emphasis is placed on cultural goals and institutionalised method, and members of society are happy with both. But in America it is more important to be successful rather on how you got there. So this means that America has become volatile and unbalanced.
So as a result Americans are inclined to do away with the 'rules of the game' and try to be successful by any other means available. When the rules no longer operate, a situation of anomie results.
Merton proposed five ways that people respond to their cultural goals; Conformity - the most common response, people in society conform to success goals and the normal way of reaching them.
Innovation - We accept the goals of society but we reject the normal ways of getting them. We would turn to crime and deviance to gain wealth and Merton said 'that people in the lower classes would pick this route'. People likely to pick this route are employed in lower paid jobs and have less qualification. Since their way is blocked, they innovate; turning to crime this gives better rewards than legal ways.
Ritualism - When we reject the goals in our society, but follow our social norms and values, this then stops us from turning to crime. Unable to innovate we have no alternative but to scale down our success goals. So we stay where we are and do the same things in a ritualistic way.
Retreatism - this response is not a common one and according to Merton applies to 'psychotics, pariahs, outcasts, vagrants, vagabonds, tramps alcoholics and drug addicts'. They believe in their cultural goals and the legal ways of achieving them, but are unable to reach goals. They solve the struggle of their situation by leaving behind their goals and the means of achieving them. This causes them to be unable to cope so they drop out of society, defeated and prepared to accept their failure.
Rebellion - this is the rejection of any success goals and the means of achieving them. It brings in new goals and means of achieving them. People who take on this view want to form a new society and are rebels and revolutionaries.
Sociological study by Albert K Cohen (1966), 'Safety Valve' - He suggested that deviance could be a safety valve, giving a safe expression of dissatisfaction, so that social order is protected. Cohen suggested that 'prostitution performs such a safety valve function without threatening the institution of the family'. It provides a release from the pressures and stresses of family life without ruining the families' stability, due to the fact that when a man goes to a prostitute there is not an emotional attachment. Prostitution also has a function out with the family e.g. if a man gets rid of sexual tensions with a prostitute; rape and sexual attacks would be lowered.
Cohen also suggested that specific deviant actions are a useful 'warning device' and shows that a particular characteristic of society is going wrong. This will then draw attention to the problem, and ways in which problem can be fixed. As a result kids playing truant, people deserting the army, or kids running away from young-offenders institutions, may expose unsuspected reasons of unhappiness, and lead to changes that improve efficiency and morale. Cohen believed that certain forms of deviance are natural and normal response to specific situations.
Sociological study Stanley Cohen (1972). 'Folk Devils and Moral Panics'.
This study looks closely at the media, and public reaction to a succession of disturbances in English seaside towns on bank holiday weekends between 1964-1966. Actions involved scuffles and lesser acts of vandalism between groups of youths, mostly from London and also involved local youngsters. Events started in Clacton on a cold Easter weekend in 1964, it started with just a few groups scuffling and throwing stones at each other. There was a lot of noise due to their scooters and motorbikes but there was no real damage done only minor damage to property. The Mods and Rockers factions were to the way they were dressed and their lifestyle. The scuffles when reported were overstated and ultimately became a full-scale moral panic and the Mods and Rockers were soon called 'folk devils'.
Cohen's definition of a moral panic is when 'a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to social values and interests; its nature is present in a stylised and stereotypical fashion by the mass media'. This is what Cohen is interested in and not in what really happened. Cohen believed the Mods and Rockers were not the first post-war youths to emerge as folk devils, the first were the teddy boys of the fifties. All these and other groups formed after represented the rise of the affluent teenager, whose music and dress sense became linked with deviant or at least values disapproved of by the public. Cohen says "the response was as much to what they stood for s what they did" about the Mods and Rockers. Due to the moral panic different approaches were brought in by the police and the courts. It also contributed to the passing of the Malicious Damage Act. Ultimately a process of 'de-amplification' took place, this meant the media and public interest decline. This made the public feel that something was being done about the problem, so the media moved on to other teenage deviant groups e.g. student radicals and hippies.
Cohen was influenced by labelling and subcultural theories. The subculture discussed here is of working-class urban males in late adolescents who grew up in a class-ridden society. Delinquency is seen a 'collective solution to a structurally-imposed problem'. The problem here is how to cope with parts of society that look like they are out of individual control, especially the uneven allocation of wealth and power and a very low status in the labour market.
This study is influenced by a Marxist viewpoint that sees working-class youths subcultures as a response to a predetermined structural condition of class inequality. Cohen also develops on the deviance amplification theory.
Cohen pointed out that the increasingly harsh distinction between Mods and Rockers came about due to the way that the media described 2 groups. There is also a clear link with talking about power, in that a range of social control measures were proposed, and many actually introduced, to exercise power and punishment over the groups. Cohen said these groups came about due to the youths rejecting the 'work ethic'. He said these had been turned off by their boring, dead-end jobs. But post-war youth affluence enabled then to spend their money participating in the newly emerging mass teenage subculture. Young people were attracted to advertisers because they had disposable income that was enough to live on and enjoy leisure time. They no longer thought the way the older generation did, in the ideas of work; it was merely a necessity that allowed them to take part in subcultural activities - especially dress and music styles they choose.
Sociological study Maureen Snider, 1993.
Maureen Snider looked at the non-prosecution of the actions of the wealthy. She investigated the public perception of death and its causes, and then she compared death tolls from an assortment of other activities. Her findings showed that in the USA death as a result of industrial activity was more likely than being murdered on the streets, despite the fact state resources targeted the working-class street crime.
Evidence gathered in her study showed that causes of death in the USA due to corporate deaths were: Industrial accidents 14,000, "unsafe and usually illegal consumer goods" - 30,000, Industrial diseases - 100,000, Industrial pollution - 100,000. Social deaths were: Street deaths and murder - 20,000. In the UK corporate deaths were from Industrial accidents - 600, and the same figure due to street deaths and murder. Showing that the lack of prosecution of industrial negligence and bad working practices her Marxist view and that the state supports the capitalist status quo, placing the causes of crime onto the person or poor groups, as an alternative to concentrating on economic relationships and power as the root cause for the prosecution (or not) of offenders. An example of this was when Nick Leeson managed to loose £6billion of investor's money. No trustees, directors or manager of Berling's bank ever got prosecuted for not keeping a system in place, but negligence, sheer greed and profiteering have all been mentioned for the reason it happened and the "rogue trader" was allowed to trade as he did.
2.Strengths to Merton's study include: he showed how the culture and structure of society generate deviance. Showed that goals in the USA are reached at the expense of institutionalised means, this creates a tendency towards anomie. His theory can help to explain the rise in the crime rte in post-communist Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Russia. Weaknesses to Merton's study include: It neglects the power relationship in society as a whole that deviancy and crime occurs. He did not carry his analysis e.g. who makes the laws and who benefits from them. He also assumed that there was a value consensus in American society and that people only commit crime under its structural strain.
Strengths to Stanley Cohen's study include: the material used was good secondary date e.g. relevant local and national newspaper reports and radio and TV news broadcasts and a load of local publications like parish news letters and council minutes from all the towns affected. He showed that there was a connection between crime and the media. Weaknesses to Cohen's study include: his research results state that these teenage subcultures represented a rejection of the work ethic and they were turned off by dead end jobs but here I believe is a weakness as many of the Mods and Rockers were from middle-classed backgrounds and would not have been able to afford scooters and motorbikes if they had rejected working.
Bibliography
Sociology and Perspectives, Haralambas, Fifth edition, pages 353 -373
Class Handouts - January 2002
Class Notes - January 2002
