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
Most, if not all, acts of crime are categorized as deviant behaviour, for example, murder. Deviance is behaviour which drifts away from society’s established norms and values, but is not necessarily perceived as crime, such as queue jumping (Haralambos and Holborn 2009). The functionalist approach to crime and deviance is one of value consensus. They emphasise social stability and collective public values, a ‘collective conscience’. 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.
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.
I am agreed with this statement. Many individuals think capital punishment is against human's rights forever but I think capital punishment is still a compelling approach to discourage violent criminals, in light of the fact that it can offer solace to the victims and their families, it will lessen the government's financial spending, and it is an immense cautioning for the criminals keeping in mind the end goal to diminish homicide rate. According to my understanding Capital punishment is important with the end goal equity should win. It is the execution of criminals for carrying out crimes. In any case, there are couples of discussions and inverse views.
All these determinates are examples of how social and economic factors influence the general crime rates. Once a person weighs the benefits and the possible consequences of a potential criminal act, they are capable to make their choice. Deterrence is what helps make the consequences outweigh the benefits of a probable crime. General deterrence offers swift and certainty of punishment, specific deterrence makes sure that criminals that are punished severely enough they do not repeat. These two deterrence methods offer somewhat of a solution to the negative approach of the choice theory; if the individual is able to be deterred they will be able to make a more rational
Durkheim believed that every society has some level of crime and deviance; a crime-free society is a contradiction of terms. Durkheim said ‘crime is normal, an integral part of all healthy societies.’ For Durkheim, not only did crime have negative aspects but positive aspects and functions of crime such as boundary maintenance and adaptation and change. In Durkheim’s view the function of punishment was is not make the wrongdoer suffer or mend his ways, nor is it to remove crime from society but to reaffirm society’s shared rules and reinforce social solidarity. For Durkheim there has to be the right amount of crime; too much will threaten to tear the bonds of society and too little means that society is repressing and controlling its members too much, stifling individual freedom and preventing change. Durkheim however offers no way of knowing how much is the right amount.
Choice theory is where offenders are rational decision makers who choose to engage in anti-social activity because they believe their actions will be beneficial. Some adolescents choose to sell drugs because they think that it will help to improve their living conditions. Some choose to participate in gang activity because being in a gang makes them feel like they belong to something significant. Some may get a natural high off of committing crime. There could be a million reasons as to why a person commits a crime.
In the sociological perspectives of crime and deviance, there is one particular approach which argues that crime is functional, inevitable and normal. This sociological perspective, Functionalism, consists of Emile Durkheim’s work on crime and deviance. His main argument was that ‘crime is normal’ and that it is ‘an integral part of all healthy societies.’ This perspective views crime and deviance as an inevitable feature of all societies which is universal. However, Durkheim did argue that too much crime can lead to the destabilisation of society. Durkheim identified three positive aspects of crime which make it functional for society.
Therefore, if offenders are spared of prison, this could lead to 'private justice' - an idea mention by (Johnstone, 2004) whereby victims or the family of the victim(s) are left unsatisfied by the outcome which restorative justice has provided and feel the need to take revenge on the offender which may be violent (treating violence with violence). For example restorative justice promotes the idea of the offender being offered help and puts little emphasis on the idea of 'punishment'. On the other hand, one of Restorative justice's main aims is to improve society. It may be suggested that people who commit crime in the first place aren't considered to be completely 'sane' members of society compared with their law-abiding counter-parts. Therefore, by offering offenders help and support, it may prevent them from committing crimes in the future; helping make society a better place.
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.