Crime provides jobs, acts as a deterrent for conforming citizens and puts behavior into perspective. He believes that without crime somewhat trivial offense could be blown out of proportion. Durkheim also states that too much or too little crime is dysfunctional for society. Too much and society breaks down into a state of anomie, whereby society is in a state of normlessness and an absence of norms and values occurs; too little crime and society stagnates and cannot evolve. Functionalists also believes that crime can create unity for those within society, a crime is committed and people unite and feel protected because they share the same view on it's awfulness; however one could criticsise this and say although it may create 'unity' the
Merton gives 5 different types of adaption; Conformity- the individual accepts socially acceptable goal and achieves it through legitimate means, Innovation- Individual accepts the role of success and wealth but uses illegitimate means to achieve them, Ritualism- Individual give up on legitimate goals but still follow strictly to the rules, Retreatism- Individuals reject legitimate goals and means of achieving them e.g drug addicts, the final type is Rebellion- Individuals reject existing goals and means but replace them with new one in desire to bring about revolutionary change. This theory is useful as it explains how crime can arise from mainstream goals both conformist and
These changes in values and in society allow society to progress and evolve. Durkheim has been criticised in terms of that he does not explain how much crime and deviance is the right amount for society to function properly. He does not provide the causes behind crime, carry on from crime he also talks about how crime serves and benefits society but ignores the effect of this on other individuals and groups of society; he also does not focus on groups and other societies around the world just individuals.
To further enforce this law would only be a waste of effort and “more dangerous” to those who are actually doing the enforcing. I think the second premiss is completely credible; “society” will not stop the use of marijuana if there are new laws passed stating the use of marijuana is prohibited. Therefore the conclusion that states “severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” is plausible due to the fact of reality that on a regular basis people don’t obey these laws. Getting in trouble with the law is more dangerous to society than just taking marijuana as an activity. For this particular argument it would have to be “Circular Reasoning”, it’s a fallacy that in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
Functionalist define crime and deviance as functional and necessary to society as a whole, with just the right amount of crime to avoid anomie; normlessness. Durkheim (cited in Haralambos and Holborn: 179) suggests that “societies need both crime and punishment to highlight society’s norms and define moral boundaries” (Haralambos and Holborn 2009). Functionalism strive for what is best for society so as not to strain the current system in place. If too much or too little change was to occur, society would be in a state of anomie, were common values are no longer understood and accepted. Merton (1968) in the study of his ‘American Dream’ theory
Although theories like functionalism and Marxism focus on the causes of crime, realists also look at the ways we can prevent crime from happening. Realists trust official statistics and both left and right realists have come up with a variety of solutions to fight crime. Right realists think that situational crime prevention or SCP. They reason that intervening in the immediate situation where crime is taking place is the one of the best things to be done. Using materials like anti-climb paint or neighbourhood watch schemes they make the target harder to achieve, or more risky.
But in contrast there are very different at the same time. The crime control model is used in the criminal justice system for the prevention of crime. The crime control does not exclude that is possible to make a mistake, but based on the circumstances of the laws, the person is considered guilty until her or she is proven innocent. This model is based on old fashion laws which allow rapid and speedy convictions despite the mitigating factors of the case and the victim. The results, of the crime control model are wrongful convictions, being over-turned and this is a major downfall in the criminal justice system.
Most people have a basic understanding of obedience; however, many may fail to see the application and the impact of it in their own lives and in our society. Submission into conformity discourages the type of independence that is valued in our supposedly free-thinking world. Censorship is one of the major themes in Fahrenheit 451, and its impact is illustrated through submission in appearance, behavior and thought. This invites us to draw clear relationships between Ray Bradbury‘s novel and our current society. The association between appearance and social acceptance is already apparent in our lives.
In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice. The next discussion involved civil disobedience and we found that we agreed that civil disobedience has been helpful historically to help change the laws and improve our society. However, the general consensus on civil disobedience was also that the acts of disobedience must be done in a peaceful manner for the acts to be effective. The final acts of crimes among professionals had another anonymous decision. Our team found that we did not agree with those professionals who chose to commit crimes.
Along with doing nothing to minimize criminal activity the death penalty actually desensitizes the public to what were previously viewed an heinous acts making them more socially accepted and considered a normal part of life. A popular belief is that if capital punishment is instituted criminals are less likely to kill because there is higher stakes, nonetheless this is another fallacy to the claim of deterrence. Individuals who commit utterly odious crimes “act out a range of narcissistic and infantile impulses---rage, perverted self-loathing, or a grandiose conviction they’ll never be caught---in which consequences have no roll” (60). A substantial amount of perpetrators are unstable, emotionally incapable, and lack the ability to rationalize a situation in an intense setting which leads to the disregard of possible outcomes for a drastic