The punishment has to fit the crime and for the punishment to be effective it must be swift, certain, and severe. The Classical School of thought has several elements: 1. People have free will to choose criminal or lawful solutions to meet or handle their problems 2. Crime looks attractive when it promises great benefits with little effort 3. Crime maybe controlled by fear of punishment 4.
Since a certain amount of change is good for society (so that it can progress rather than stagnate), so is deviance. If the collective sentiments are too strong, there will be little deviance, but neither will there be any change, or progress. Therefore the collective sentiments must have only ‘moderate energy’ so that they don’t crush originality: both the originality of the criminal, and the originality of the genius. Unlike other major theoretical perspectives such as Marxism, no specific Functionalist criminology exists to speak of, with its own individual interpretations of criminal statistics, the source of criminality and potential policy solutions. Rather functionalism takes a passing look at the issues of deviance in general, rather than crime in
This is not a criminal act against the state. However, it is something that is not accepted within that home and can then be frowned upon by the child’s parents. This essay will cover the crime and deviance definitions from the Functionalist, Marxist and Symbolic Interactionist approaches and include theories supporting them with also their critiques. Firstly, Functionalist Theory is the longest sociological explanation of what crime and deviance are. It is defined as: “A structural perspective which argues that although crime and deviance are problematic, they must also be understood as ‘social facts’ and analysed in terms of the possible manifest and latent functions that they perform in enabling the smooth running of the social system as a whole” (McLaughin, 2013, p. 190) This theory focused on the social structures within society at the macro level.
Society generally holds people responsible for their actions, and will say that they deserve praise or blame for what they do. However, moral responsibility is not necessarily the same as legal responsibility. A person is legally responsible for an event when it is that person who is liable to be penalized in the court system for an event. It may not so often be the case that when a person is morally responsible for an act, they are also legally responsible for it, the two states do not always coincide. Safety for communities and individuals are also to be taken into consideration because a juvenile offender is due to retunes to the society and it is important to make the individual suited for the society.
Larzelere (2000) found that the most beneficial outcomes tended to occur when physical punishment was used non-abusively, flexibility, and infrequently as a backup to other disciplinary methods. However, Larzelere (2000) also found that spanking was shown to have no better effect on the obedience of four to nine year olds then six alternative methods. People may argue that parents should be able to choose between the various alternatives including non-abusive spanking as a disciplinary method. There are many researchers who believe that physical punishment is the way to discipline a child. Harding and Ireland (1989) argue that corporal punishment is easy and quick to apply, does not take much skill, and is readily available when needed.
Concept of Deterrence Erin Hayter PBS 300 – Introduction to Crime and Deviance Colorado State University – Global Campus Patricia Goforth January 26, 2014 The Concept of Deterrence The concept of deterrence falls under the “Classical Theory” of criminology theories. Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), along with Jeremy Bentham (1748-1821), were both advocates of the classical theory in viewing an individual acting as a result of “free will” (Hagen, 2013). Beccaria believed that criminal decisions were based on a few simple factors, being that humans have free will; humans are rational creatures and able to weigh prospective outcomes of their actions, seeing which may benefit or detract from the quality of their lives; human decisions are based on the simplest views of man; finally that an organized system of laws and punishment which catered to these human traits is necessary to help keep society compliant (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2003). The main purpose is to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain. These classical ideas laid the foundation for many justice systems, including the United States.
So society is said to be meritocratic, as everybody can achieve if they want to. Durkheim (2002) Believes that there are fixed rules for all and by transmitting the norms and values across society, it is then fair and meritocratic. Marxists on the other hand believe that meritocracy is a myth and that it hides the truth of the inequality in society. Sociologists argue that the processes in school such as the hidden curriculum helps to keep society unequal. The hidden curriculum has a big influence on pupils, its one thing to teach the child educationally but if the child is treated unjustly (no voice) by the school system then a much more negative message is given to those pupils about the nature of society.
3) Hirschi’s version of social control met everyone’s personal explanation for criminal behavior. Durkheim’s Social Control Theory • All Social control theories all rely on social factors to explain how people are restrained. • Said a society will always have deviance and it is a normal phenomenon. • Crime must serve a function in society; any society without it is abnormal. • Social reaction to someone else’s deviance helps people determine what they shouldn’t do.
As James Rachels said, “Cultural Relativism might be true, but it might lead to some consequences, such as no longer being able to say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to ours, or we could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society and even the idea of moral progress would be called into doubt.” Cultural Relativism has some good advantages; it helps us to keep an open mind about other people´s beliefs. On the other hand, Cultural Relativism is not a good system that should be followed by each culture separately because there are some universal rules that should be followed, for instance no murder. Laws should be created under morality, and they might not be perfect, but they are the best rules that we as humans have. Even though societies still have arguments about their beliefs because it is impossible to have complete peace because of our differences. For example, For the Greeks it was believed that it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead, or the Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believed infanticide is immoral.
These are fair play, common good, gratitude and consent. I believe that we are morally obliged to abide by legal rules, whether good or bad, because they apply to the entire populace. Therefore, failure to abide by some laws amounts to foul play. The legal and political systems make laws that