Crime And Deviance 2 Perspectives

COMPARE AND EVALUATE ANY TWO OF THE FOLLOWING PERSPECTIVES ON CRIME AND DEVIANCE

Crime is a word that most of the people can relate to, according to Collins dictionary it means; violation of the law. (Collins 2005) Deviance is a more difficult word to identify , Collins dictionary definition is; people who have diverged from usual or accepted standards of society, especially in social or sexual behaviour. Su Epstein (2005) who has a PhD , describes deviance in cultural societies as; there are no laws about norms, no norm police, but there is social expectation that we'll follow norms and if we do not we are deemed deviant, a rule breaker or a norm violator.(Epstein 2005) Sociologists have many theories on crime and deviance, the two theories that I will be evaluating are Functionalism and Labelling Theory, I shall be looking at how the theories relate to today's society compared with their origination in the mid 20th Century.

Functionalism in crime originated with Emile Durkheim in 1938. He argued that crime is an inevitable and normal aspect of social life,(Haralambos and Holborn) and that deviance is functional in society. How can this be when deviance is usually related to crime and breaking of the rules, how can this be functional?

Durkheim supported his theory by suggesting that;

Societies have to have rules and rules are broken therefore he believes that deviance is normal. He believes that society always has rules and rule breakers and no human being is the same, for that reason there is always someone who behaves differently from others.

Deviance needs to be controlled in order to preserve social order.

Deviance can also be functional for society; a) source of beneficial social changes. b)condemnation and punishment of deviants helps to unify the rest of society (social solidarity) and establish moral boundaries.

Durkheim believed that crime helped society to conform (expectations of a group, society, organization, or leader) and have moral standards towards crime because wrongdoing in society brings people together in condemning the deviant. Whilst he did not think crime was attractive he just alleged crime had positive functions. (Wincup and Griffiths 2005)

Durkheims theories are related to society today especially when focusing on the second point above, he mentions "preserved social order". This could be related to our gay societies of today. Homosexuals have been established a long while and they knew they were breaking the laws, as the majority of the rest of the world saw this as a criminal act, however it did not stop them from breaking the law as it was their way of life. Earlier this year the law was changed so that same sexed couples could have a civil wedding to enable them to be seen as equal to a man and a wife in law, because it was so much of an issue rules were changed. (marriage 2006) Therefore gay groups had put so much pressure on The Government that they changed the Laws to accommodate their needs.

The changes in the law demonstrates how Durkheim`s theory can be seen as functional, although there is still a lot of criminal acts related to homophobia.. (Types of crime) Homophobic crime is when someone becomes a victim of crime because of their sexuality. This is not really a function as some people would see this as bullying and feel it should be eradicated, but in Durkheim`s ideas it could be seen as "social solidarity" because people are sharing their beliefs and values of their community. (Wincup and Griffiths 2005) Even though people think it is bullying and a form of crime, society is pulling together as one and pursuing their rights for what they personally believe in.

Another example of social solidarity was in the 1980`s when the hundreds of people joined together and demonstrated in London against the Poll Tax. These riots were a criminal act but they were trying to make a point to The Government and get the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, out of Parliament. By 1992 Poll Tax had been abolished and Council Tax was brought in under The New Parliament. (Poll Tax Riots 1990) Although this was a crime Durkheim`s theories worked and people joined together to get what they wanted and they achieved it.

Even though these are positive reasons to believe Durkheim`s theories there are some sociologists who criticise his views, especially Downes and Rock (1998). They argue against Durkheim`s theories by saying

We are in danger of neglecting the negative effects of crime on individuals, families and communities if we view crime as functional for society

Who is crime functional for? The community responses to crime that Durkheim explores may be whipped up to support the interests of the powerful.

At what point does crime become pathological rather than normal? At what point does crime destroy rather than integrate communities? These issues are left unexplored in Durkheim`s work.

Durkheim imagines a 'society of saints' populated by perfect individuals. In such a society there might be no murder or robbery, but there would still be deviance. The general standards of behaviour would be so high that the slightest slip would be regarded as a serious offence. Therefore the individual who simply showed bad taste, or was merely impolite, would attract strong disapproval. (Livesey 2003)

However there are faults with Durkheim`s theory and good points too. He does not explore why people do crime? Also who says that these acts are crime if it is what the individuals believe in? As far as homosexuals it is their choice and if people can't see them for who they are, then is this really a crime? Durkheim`s theory could be functional in the fact that people are coming together as a community and working as one whether right or wrong.

Durkheim also had a theory on anomie (lack of the usual social or ethical standards) but Robert Merton another functionalist regarding this idea of anomie too vague. In Social Structure and Anomie (1938) Merton argued that deviance results was not from `pathological personalities` but from the culture and structure of society itself. He states that it is not value consensus, (when all members of society share the same values), but believes society itself is placed in different positions in the social scale. (class position) In Merton's words :

`the social and cultural structure generates pressure

for socially deviant behaviour upon people variously

located in that structure`

Harlambos and Holborn pg