Deviance, on the other hand, is behaviour which moves away from conventional norms and values such as burping and farting in public. If what is considered to be crime and deviance changes, it can’t be inherently wrong but must be culturally specific. Emile Durkheim speaks of crime as being functional to society. According to item A, ‘the publicity given to crime highlights the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.' Durkheim expands on this saying we are aware of these boundaries following social reactions to deviance.
When we consider theories that are most applicable to the idea of a social institution and how they may apply to organized crime or criminal behavior in generally it is important to consider at least two theories. The Rational Choice Theory and the Theory of Differential Association are two theories that attempt to allow us to gain insight as to how social institution can not only be responsible for creating organized crime but also allude to criminal behaviors and allow us to see how individuals can come to a decision to choose their live their life in this fashion. Rational theory believes organized crime groups can make rational decisions when pertaining to crime and the groups know right from wrong and possess free will. The rational theory believes in harsher penalty and quicker approach when it comes with dealing with criminals. The rational theory offenders discover that committing a crime was not worth it.
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.
c) Assess the view that crime is functional, inevitable and normal. Emil Durkheim a functionalist sociologist studied crime and deviance. He concluded that crime and deviance are necessary to understand how society functions. Durkheim saw both a functional inevitable side of crime that has positive effects on society. As well as a negative side that can lead to social disruption.
Abstract This paper will explore and discuss the difference in opinion regarding crime and who should be held accountable for criminal activity. The views of social responsibility and social problems will be examined, along with the perspectives that each holds to justify their belief. Theories such as Determinate Sentencing that holds the value of social responsibility in response to crime, and also the Constructionist theory that places that blame on society as to why a person commits a crime. In the end I believe that Social/Individual responsibility is the most appropriate way to approach crime. Perspectives of Social Problems and Social Responsibility Within criminology there has been multiple theories suggested to explain the numerous motives behind why crime exists in our world.
Along with a brief description of the criminological theories, an attempt to show how they differ from one another and discussion of one strength and one weakness unique to each theory will be made. Finally, I will provide my opinion as to which of the two philosophies (classical or positivist) explains criminal behavior in a much more complete manner and why. The first of the criminological theories is called Social Control Theory. What makes a person not a criminal? This is the main question asked in control theories.
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.
There is also agreement on an adversary system, procedural due process, and one’s day in court (Zalman, 2008). The most important function of the crime control model is as stated by Packer (1968), ‘the repression of criminal conduct by the criminal process’” “because public safety is essential to personal freedom” (Zalman, 2008, p. 5). The presumption surrounded by this value system is, in American society there will be a breakdown of public order if law enforcement does not keep a tight reign on criminals and their activities, and citizens of this
When the group with the most power changes, the acts that are considered to be criminal change. Society is affected by the concept of the “choice theory” because it needs to figure out what punishment fits the crime to keep other criminals from committing the same crimes. Society need to make this laws to have control over law and order within their societies. It allows them away to keep law abiding citizens saver in their own
This is where the government plays a role in attempting to confiscate the positions of the officials in the system who endeavor to promote crime. This may be done by offering incentives to individuals who testify against corrupt officers. Studies done by Nasser Mustapha (2006) identifies rewarding criminals as a very effective mechanism in altering deviant behavior. By rewarding repeat offenders for little good deeds they may do for society may