This theory is also sociological in its emphasis on the role of social forces in creating deviance. Deviant behavior can consist of different definitions. Some believe that deviance is the violation of any social norm and other feel that you can be deviant without breaking any rules or behavior that does not conform to a social norm which may be disapproved. Some people feel that getting away with something and not being punished will be an excuse for deviants to continue to commit a crime. In other words, I think that people feel that if they get away with it once they can get away with it again.
The problem for any society is that these boundaries are unclear and change over time. While a certain, limited amount of crime may perform positive functions for society, according to Durkheim, too much crime has negative consequences. His most well known concept was that of 'anomie', which has been widely used in sociology. According to Durkheim, society is based on people sharing common values which form the basis for actions. However, in periods of social change, people may be freed from the social control by collective conscience and start to look after their own self need rather than following social values.
Like the item says, 'functionalist sociologists focus on how far individuals accept the norms and values of society.' Durkheim blames people not being fully integrated into society’s norms and values as to why they commit crime. So he said once people have served their time for their crime, they should be reintegrated. It’s a strength that Durkheim suggests them being reintegrated as it means they’re less likely to reoffend if they feel they belong to their society and do not look for status through crime. However, interactionists would say that agents of social control cause crime, not the society you are in.
Whereas, Marxists believe that capitalism creates potential criminals. Functionalists believe that all crimes are functional and has both positive and negative effects to society. Durkheim, French sociologist, hold beliefs that “too much crime or deviance constitutes to a threat, too little is unhealthy”. The three main positives are that it reaffirms boundaries by the public degradation ceremonies such as criminal trails to remind everyone of social norms and to reinforce society’s toleration to deviance. Another positive is that crimes change values, when someone is prosecuted it results in public outcry which triggers sympathy, this changes values in society.
Assess Functionalist Approaches to the Study of Crime and Deviance Functionalists such as Emile Durkheim, Robert Merton and Albert Cohen all attempt to explain the nature and extent of crime in today’s society. In essence, Functionalists argue that society is based on value consensus and social solidarity which is sustained via socialisation and social control mechanisms within society. Emile Durkheim states that whilst crime is obviously a social negative with the ultimate power to destabilise society, he stands by the claim that crime is inevitable, universal, and integral to a healthy society and even having positive benefits. He claims that crime occurs in society due to two fundamental reasons; firstly, not everyone is effectively socialised to the same norms and values which leads to people being prone to deviation and secondly, due to the diverse lifestyle and subcultures in contemporary society, subcultures act out different norms and values and what members of that subculture regard as normal, mainstream culture may deem it as deviancy. The Functionalist approach to the study of crime states that crime has two positive functions for society.
Conclusion 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
As well as a negative side that can lead to social disruption. Durkheim (1982 originally 1895) believed that a certain amount of crime was necessary for any society. Durkheim argued that a collective conscience which provides the framework for people to distinguish between acceptable behaviour and unacceptable behaviour was evident in society. However, Durkheim found that there were problems in society when these boundaries become unclear; Durkheim stated that the boundaries change over time. Therefore it is functional for crime to keep the people informed on the boundaries of their society.
Rather than focusing on social situations, the criminal and deviant act, the interactionists focused on the reaction to the act and its effects on the deviant individual. One main possible criticisms of interactionist theory is that to some extent ignores and privatisation and its effect on crime. Can negative labelling be the only reason that crime is predominantly more in working class area than in middle class ones? The “new criminology” was a radical development of traditional Marxist theory (Young, Walton and Taylor) they attempted to combine the process of labelling with Marxist explanations of social inequality to explain crime. A criticism of both the original interactionists and the new criminology came from the “New Left Realists”
Stephen Greene CJC 112-001 Criminology Social Labeling Theory Labeling theory is a pretty simple theory that is based on social deviations which result in the labeling of the outsider. It is deviance created by one’s own society. Social groups create deviance through the establishment of social rules, the breaking of these rules results in the perpetrator being labeled as a deviant (Fitch). Because of the objectivity involved it is needless to say that these labels are not always accurately applied to people. Once a label is given to an individual they become part of all the generalizations that go with that label (Siegel).
Therefore the law did not resolve conflicting interests but imposed the interests of one group over another. While this can still happen today it seems that the law does try hard to make sure everyone is satisfied and everyone’s interests are accounted for. Rudolf von Jhering said that the law is the main way of ordering society, his views was that the rights of the majority should take precedence over the individual. He said that society is made up of conflicting interests that cannot all be satisfied and that the role of the law was to balance them out so the individual conformed to the needs of society. Roscoe Pound said that interests are both individual and social and that conflicts are only resolved through considering them on the same level.