Conclusion -> draw together main ideas/arguments An outsider does not fit into society and they will do what they see to be right. Although the legal system is meant to be fair, it is only fair to society. If some one is different society tries to outcast them. More often than not, justice does not reach as far as the outsider. Justice is what is seen to be right and just by society and this means that society is catered for.
Kozol addresses his readers so that they may spread awareness on illiteracy and eventually resolve the problem. Questions: 1. These explanations confuse the effects of illiteracy with the causes by saying that laziness is the cause of illiteracy, when in reality illiteracy is the cause of innovativeness, that an illiterate has to adopt, that is seen as laziness and stupidity. Kozol refutes these stereotypes with his examples of just how much illiteracy affects a person showing that they become almost immobilized and isolated by it. In his opinion the nation and it's leaders are at fault for not addressing this problem.
Box (1981) however feels that Cohen’s theory is only plausible for a small amount of delinquents. As not all working class males aspire the middle class norms and values, many actually choose to follow the working class values. Another problem with Cohen’s Theory is that he assumes that all working class males have the ability to achieve the middle class norms and values. Which is not the case. Both of these reasons could show that perhaps Cohen’s theory is not that useful for explaining subcultural crime and deviance in society today, as he has failed to take
But, Karl Marx did not write at length about crime. Marxists recognise that for a society to function efficiently, social order is necessary. Marxists agree with functionalists that socialisation plays a crucial role in promoting conformity and order. Deviance is partly the product of unequal power relations and inequality in general. Crime is often the result of offering society-demeaning work with little sense of creativity.
Gabor states “No drugs, in itself, are addictive.” This means that it is not the drug that causes the addiction, it is why the people are doing the drugs in the first place, and the way it makes them feel. If people grow up in an abusive household and have never experienced a “warm, soft hug”(305), they turn to drugs because it will give them that feeling. Although some may agree with Mate’s argument, the ways in which he gives his evidence and examples lacks all the necessary information needed in order to make a decision on whether you agree or disagree with his argument. In paragraph four Mate uses a scientific example saying, “Only about 8 per cent to 15 per cent of people who try, say alcohol or marijuana, go on to addictive use.” (305) While this statistic may be true, it is difficult to report on how many of those people of that eight to fifteen per cent are using it because they simply have an addictive personality. For Mate to say that all addictive drug use is caused from neglect issues is not accurate because he does not account for the people who do drugs because they want to.
Assess the usefulness of subcultural theories in understanding crime and deviance Point | Explain | Research/Evidence | Challenge/Link | Intro: Subcultural strain theories see deviance as the product of a delinquent subculture w/different values from those of mainstream society | Delinquency subcultures are seen as a way for groups (l/w) to gain status they cannot achieve legitimately | They seek to build on and criticise Merton’s theory | However, they have been criticised for over focusing on lower class members and assuming everyone has the same goals | Albert Cohen criticises Merton who sees deviance as an individual response to strain – ignoring the fact much deviance is committed in or by groups – especially among the young | Hence why Cohen focuses on deviance among working-class boys. He argues they face anomie in M/C dominated school system | Status frustration: Suffer - Cultural deprivation + lack of skills to achieve in M/C world = bottom of status hierarchy Lack of status = ‘frustration’ Resolution = rejecting M/C values & joining/forming a subculture of others in same position = alternative status hierarchy – gain status through deviant behaviour (joy riding, vandalising, fighting and substance abuse) | Strength: Cohen offers an explanation of non-utilitarian deviance amongst W/C – unlike Merton (innovation – crime w/profit motive)Cohen ‘s ideas of status frustration and alternative status hierarchy help to explain non-economic delinquency such as vandalism, fighting and truancy Weakness: like Merton, Cohen assumes that W/C boys start off sharing M/C success goals – only to reject these when they fail. He ignores the possibility – they didn’t share these goals in the first place & so never saw themselves as failures | Like Cohen, Cloward & Ohlin take Merton’s ideas as their start point. They agree that W/C youths are
The central flaw is that Singer uses a bad analogy of how the global economy actually is, it assumes that the child has somehow appeared there of his own devices and that a simple act will save him. Many of Singer’s key principals, such as the importance of impartiality and the irrelevance of distance are very strong and I find it hard to disagree with them. Whilst I do not agree that to adopt Singer’s solution will cause actual harm to me it is not convincing as the most effective way to solve the problems of poverty. To follow Singer’s principal will amount to everyone else jumping in the water and drowning to some small degree. I believe that while Singer develops his argument by claiming that while people in rich states can survive without luxuries; those in poorer ones where most are manufactured could not survive, as their economic base would fall apart.
The lower class boys are at the bottom of the social structure and have little chance of gaining a higher status in society. This is similar to Merton’s STRAIN theory, however Cohen said that instead of turning to crime, they reject the norms and values of mainstream society and instead turn to the norms and values of a delinquent subculture AO2. In this subculture the boys can achieve success because the social group has different norms and values from the rest of society. So in this culture a high value is placed upon criminal acts such as stealing and vandalism which are condemned by mainstream society AO1. In these subcultures the individual who doesn’t have a high status in mainstream society can gain it by committing crimes such as
This approach contends that, No compelling reasons exist to maintain separate from an adult criminal court, a punitive juvenile court whose only remaining distinctions are its persisting procedural deficiencies. Abolitionists believe that the juvenile justice system has failed because it has forgotten its historical commitment to rehabilitation and has instead turned to retribution and punishments, making it too much like our criminal system only with more flaws and inequality. Their solution is to combine the juvenile and criminal court to eliminate the confusion, complication, and injustice that comes from having two separate systems. They believe that juveniles often fall through the cracks of the two systems, so a combination would keep juveniles from getting away with crimes and get them the treatment they deserve. Abolishing the juvenile court may enable them to see that children should have status as rights holders.
We can divide realist approaches along political lines: - Right Realists - Share the New Right or neo-conservative political outlook. - Left Realists - Are socialists and favour quite different policies of reducing crime. Right Realism - They see crime, especially street crime, as a real and growing problem that destroys communities, undermines social cohesion and threatens society’s work ethic. - Right realist views on crime correspond closely with those of neo-conservative governments during the 1970s and 1980s. The Causes of Crime - Right realists reject the idea put forward by Marxists and others that structural or economic factors such as poverty and inequality are the cause for crime.