Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Compare and contrast two main theories of 'crime and deviance'. ''a diabetic at work without a recent insulin injection approaching the lunch break may become tense, erratic, short tempered, but that behaviour does not constitute a criminal act'' Kelly, Holborn and Makin, 1983 sited in; M. Haralambos and M. Holborn 2000 It is regarded amongst sociologists that physiological characteristics do not cause criminal or deviant behaviour. This paper will look at a few of the main functionalist and conflict theories of crime and deviance and conclude with which one, in relation to the title, provides the largest body of evidence. Functionalist theorists argue that crime and deviance is caused by 'structural tensions' where as conflict theorists argue that 'deviance is deliberately chosen, and often political in nature'. Functionalists argue that people commit crimes because there is something wrong with the society the individual is in, and that this is what causes the individual to commit crime. Crime is caused by the structure of society. Conflict theorists argue that the criminal makes a choice to commit a crime ''in response to inequalities of the capitalist system'' Giddens, 2001, Pg 272 Starting then, with Albert Cohen, a subcultural functionalist, who based his studies on the lower classes, Cohen found that lower class children were disadvantaged at school and thus disadvantaged in light of general success in life. Cohen said the lower class were at a disadvantage before they had even started to achieve! Most lower class children, he argued, do not have the same starting position as middle class children. Because of the difference in class Cohen believes the lower class children suffer from 'status frustration' Haralambos and Holborn, 2000, Pg 357. Following this frustration with their position in society Cohen put forward the theory that these lower class children develop a subculture where ''the delinquent subculture takes its norms from the larger culture but turns them upside down'' Haralambos and Holborn, Pg 357. Cohen stated that the success achieved within this subculture related to earning their goals which were perceived by the delinquent as unattainable within society. This he argues is the cause of crime and deviance. Cohen's claim that lower class children are frustrated at being disadvantaged in society, that they have less opportunity to succeed, this indicates quite blatantly that society is not equal. Bernstein stated in Giddens that language differed according to class. Bernstein came up with a theory that the lower classes used a 'restricted code' and middle classes an 'elaborated code' Giddens, Pg 512. Going with the notion that school teachers are middle class, thus use the elaborated code of language so do not communicate as successfully with children originating from lower classes. These youths, as it appears, do not have the access to the same standards of education and so it is easy to assume the individuals motivation for turning to crime. A problem with Cohen's theory is that fundamentally it is based on class position, namely the lower class. He disregards crimes of the upper class. This could indicate that only the lower class has the potential to become deviant in their behaviour. Also Cohen seems to suggest that all disadvantaged people will perform acts of deviant, criminal nature to achieve their goals. It is important to recognise that this is not always the case. Some individuals choose to work hard within society and its laws to gain legitimate success as is seen in Coleg Harlech. Turning now to another functionalists view the writer considers Merton and his 'strain' theory. Merton modified Durkheim's theory of anomie by stressing that where Durkheim said ''that circumstances in which social norms are no longer clear and people are morally adrift'' and instead put across the point that ''"¦term anomie is to describe the strain which occurs when individuals experience conflict between their pursuit of societies goals and the means society provides to achieve them'' O'Donnell, Pg 352. Merton's theory focuses on various acts of deviance which he believes may lead to acts of crime. Merton says there are various goals pushed by society and that society emphasises a set of means to obtain these goals i.e. hard work, education, abiding by the law. Merton goes on to say that not everyone has the means to legitimately obtain these goals and so came up with a theory where he uses five models of adapting to the 'strain' he said people feel due to the inability to successfully adhere to societies goals, and the means whereby they obtain these. The five models Merton put forward are as follows; conformity, where the individual continues to accept the goals and the means to obtain these goals even though failure is almost inevitable. Innovation, according to Merton is the response when the individual accepts the goals set by society but rejects the means to obtain these goals set by society, he then goes on to say the individual finds a replacement to societies 'means', this being an illegal act. The third in Merton's theory is ritualism, this is where the means and goals of society are adhered to but the individual has lost sight of the goals and has no interest in the outcome of his/her work. It is the opposite of innovation. Retualism, according to Merton is the next step from ritualism, the individual disregards both the means and goals set by society. The individual is seen to 'drop out of the rat race', observed by those with alcohol and drug problems. The fifth part of Merton's theory is rebellion where the individual rejects both the means and goals set by society, this is recognised as terrorists/radical political parties P. Taylor et al, Pg 471. Both Cohen and Merton's theories are that of a functionalists perspective and believe crime is needed within society, to indicate there is a problem and in turn that problem can be resolved. Turning now to an interactionalists perspective on crime and deviance, the writer will compare the similarities and differences between the functionalists and the conflict theorists explanation for crime and deviance. Considering Stuart Hall, a conflict theorist, who in 1972 studied the increasing problem of mugging, Hall believed that class position was irrelevant in respect of the victim. He found that muggers would target people that appeared to come from a similar background to themselves, rather than the poor stealing from the rich as is the commonly associated stigma. At that time mugging was not recognised as an actual crime due to its ability to fall within two categories, either robbery or assault with the intent to rob. Over a period of four years the British government released a statistic claiming that muggings were on the increase of one hundred and twenty nine percent per year, Hall argued that this figure could not be completely relied upon. After comparing various statistics Hall discovered the real annual increase of muggings was only fourteen percent. From these findings Hall suggested that the source of moral panic was not the underlying economic problem Haralambos and Holborn, Pg 388. This opinion is in complete contrast to that of both Cohen and Merton who both identify class as a major factor in crime, and both based their theories on the lower classes. Hall also put the thought across that the Media's presence had the ability to make crime appear much worse than it really is/was. Hall described this exaggeration as 'moral panic' Giddens, Pg 212. It is also important to recognise that neither Cohen nor Merton discussed the medias influence upon crime. It is stated in Giddens that ''"¦moral panic about muggings was encouraged by both the state and the media as a way of deflecting attention away from growing unemployment, declining wages and other deep structured flaws within society'' By stating this Hall is concluding that the individuals committing the crimes are individuals forced into crime due to the nature of the economic situation, although Hall is talking about the wider population this could be loosely associated with Cohen and Merton's link with class position. As Hall takes a Marxist view on crime some sociologists argue that it is almost inevitable he comes to the conclusion that the economic situation and to a greater extent the influence of capitalism is the cause for crime and deviance. However Hall's study is based upon statistics and like all statistics these may or may not be accurate, as statistics have the tendency to be bias. It is also important to recognise that crime statistics are collected from crimes that have been reported, thus the figures shown do not represent the whole spectrum of crime, a lot of crimes are clearly not represented by these figures. Hall's study, like that of Cohen and Merton's, focuses on class. But unlike others sociologists i.e. Cohen and Merton, it acknowledges that criminals can/do target individuals in similar social situations as themselves. Cohen and Merton's studies gave the impression that the lower classes select the upper classes and intentionally harm them. This study clearly states that anyone is liable to become a victim of crime and acknowledges the influence of the media on crime. Living in a world where the media has such a large influence upon people it is easy to see how many crimes are exaggerated on television and in the newspapers, the term 'moral panic' used by Hall is a good description. Concentrating now on a more radical perspective the writer shall consider Taylor et al. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young, new criminologists with a neo-Marxist almost radical perspective, developed a theory whereby they believed criminals, out of free will, choose to break the laws set by society and decline any theories that view human behaviour as being influenced by external factors. Functionalists have quite a different opinion to this and believe almost the exact opposite to Taylor et al. Taylor et al view the individual's reason for turning to crime as ''the meaningful attempt by the actor to construct and develop his own self-perception'' Haralambos and Holborn, Pg 386. This strand of new criminology reject's theories which claim coherence with anomie, physiological perspectives and those which include the forming of a subculture, this is undoubtedly as distant in regards to Merton and Cohen's theories as is possible, without creating a new theory. Taylor et al are in complete contrast to the functionalists opinions and actually see crime and deviance as ''actively struggling to alter capitalism'' Giddens, Pg 386. They see crime as a deliberate act, more often than not, with a political basis against the state. Taylor et al hold rather a liberal view upon the capitalist society and its restrictions and would base much devotion on the freedom of a future Marxist society. They believe that ethnic minorities, homosexuals and drug users should not be persecuted but accepted by society. Taylor et al all have the belief that crimes related with property involves the redistribution of money. An example given in Haralambos and Holborn Pg 386 is that ''if a poor resident of an inner-city area steals from a rich person, the former is helping to change society'' Taylor et al come from a socialist perspective and like many other Marxists would like to see the capitalist society replaced by another type of society, Taylor et al would rather adopt a more 'socialist' society which is not only a substantial difference to the functionalists but also to conventional Marxists who would adopt a more 'communist' society. In conclusion this paper has shown that functionalists and conflict theorists hold opposing views about the nature and cause of crime and deviance. As shown above functionalists see crime and deviance as a product of society whereas conflict theorists view crime and deviance as a path chosen by the criminal. I believe, like functionalists the environment possibly created by those in power, i.e. the patriarchal government determines and influences the opportunities given to an individual. I also feel that the individuals have choices in the way they interpret and act upon the opportunities society provides - much like the conflict theorists. In my opinion, neither of these theories produce an accurate, 'whole' picture of the nature and cause of crime, however each of the theories, with their contrasting statements, contain specific characteristics which help to form the larger picture.
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 2054 Views: 458 Comments: 0
Compare and contrast two main theories of 'crime and deviance'. ''a diabetic at work without a recent insulin injection approaching the lunch break may become tense, erratic, short tempered, but that behaviour does not constitute a criminal act'' Kelly, Holborn and Makin, 1983 sited in; M. Haralambos and M. Holborn 2000 It is regarded amongst sociologists that physiological characteristics do not cause criminal or deviant behaviour. This paper will look at a few of the main functionalist and conflict theories of crime and deviance and conclude with which one, in relation to the title, provides the largest body of evidence....
crime and deviance as a path chosen by the criminal. I believe, like functionalists the environment possibly created by those in power, i.e. the patriarchal government determines and influences the opportunities given to an individual. I also feel that the individuals have choices in the way they interpret and act upon the opportunities society provides - much like the conflict theorists. In my opinion, neither of these theories produce an accurate, 'whole' picture of the nature and cause of crime, however each of the theories, with their contrasting statements, contain specific characteristics which help to form the larger picture.
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

The families of the not too...The families of the not too distant past were oriented along four axes. These axes were not mutually exclusive. Some overlapped, all of them enhanced each other. People got married because of social pressure and social norms the Social Dyad, to form a more efficient or synergetic economic unit the Economic Dyad, in pursuit of psychosexual fulfilment the Psychosexual Dyad, to secure a long term companionship the Companionship Dyad. Thus, we can talk about the following four axes: Social-Economic, Emotional, Utilitarian Rational, Private-Familial. To illustrate how these axes were intertwined, let us consider the Emotional one. People got married because they felt very strongly about living alone. But they felt so also because of social pressures. Some of them subscribed to ideologies which promoted the family as a pillar of society, the basic cell of the national organism, a hothouse in which to breed children to empower the nation and so on. These ideologies of personal contributions to collectives had a strong emotional dimension and provided impetus to a host of behaviour patterns. The emotional investment in today"s individualistic-capitalist ideologies is no smaller. Technological developments rendered past thinking obsolete and dysfunctional but did not quench Man"s thirst for guidance and a worldview. Still, as technology evolved, it became more and more disruptive in so far as families were concerned. Increased mobility, a decentralization of information sources, the transfers of the traditional functions of the family to societal and private sector establishments, the increased incidence of interactions, safer sex with lesser consequences to those who engage in it "“ all assisted the disintegration of the traditional family. Consider the trends that affected women, for instance: 1. The emergence of common marital property and of laws for its equal distribution in case of divorce constituted a shift in legal philosophy in most societies. The result was a major and on going distribution of wealth and its transfer from men to women. Add to this the disparities in life expectancy between the two genders and the magnitude of the redistribution of economic resources becomes evident. Women are becoming richer at the expense of men because they live long enough to inherit them and because they get a share of the marital property when they divorce them. These "endowments" are larger than their quantifiable contribution to the formation of the wealth thus redistributed. Women still earn less than men, for instance. 2. An increase in economic opportunities. Social and ethical mores changed, technology allowed for increased mobility, wars and economic upheavals led to the forced introduction of women into the labour markets. 3. The result of their enhanced economic clout was a more egalitarian social and legal system. Women"s rights were legally as well as informally secured in an evolutionary process, punctuated by minor legal revolutions. This reflected reality "“ rather than created it. 4. While securing equality in opportunities and fighting for it in other domains of life representation, taxation, education, property rights and so on "“ women still enjoy a discrimination in their favour regarding their obligations. It is rare for a man to complain of sexual harassment or to receive alimony or custody of his children or, in many countries, to be the beneficiary of family related welfare benefits. This discrepancy works in women"s favour. 5. The emergence of single parent and non-nuclear families and their social acceptance helped women to shape their lives as they saw fit. Most single parent families are headed by women. Women single parents are severely penalized economically, though their median income is very low even when adjusted to reflect transfer payments. 6. Thus, gradually, the shaping of future generations will become the exclusive domain of women. Even today, one third of all children in developed countries grow in single parent families with no male figure around to serve as a role model. This exclusivity has tremendous social and economic implications. Gradually and subtly the balance of power will shift as society becomes matriarchal. 7. The invention of the pill and other contraceptives liberated women as far as sex was concerned. The resulting sexual revolution engulfed and affected both sexes but the main beneficiaries were women whose sexuality was in the process of being legitimized. Not under the cloud of unwanted pregnancy any longer "“ women felt free to engage in sex with multiple partners. 8. In the face of this newfound freedom and the realities of changing sexual conduct, the double standard, which was hitherto applied to the sexual behaviour of men and women "“ crumbled. The existence of the woman"s sexual drive and its legitimacy were widely accepted. The family, therefore, became a joint venture also sexually. 9. Urbanization, communication, and transportation multiplied the number of encounters and potential interactions between women and men. Comparison became possible. Women were able to judge their male partners in context for the first time. They were able to develop extra-marital relationships with relative ease. They were able to opt out of a relationship, which they deemed to be wrong or inadequate for them. 10. Women became aware of their needs, their wishes and, in general, their proper emotions and cognitions, as opposed to emotions and cognitions instilled in them by society through the agency of the men in their lives, by other conformist women and as a result of peer pressure. They were able to establish priorities and preferences and act upon them, even when they conflicted with others". 11. The roles and traditional functions of the family were gradually eroded and transferred to other social agents. Even functions such as emotional support, psychosexual interactions and child rearing were relegated to outside "subcontractors". Devoid of these functions and of inter-generation interactions, the nuclear family was reduced to a dysfunctional shell, a hub of rudimentary communication between its remaining members, a dilapidated version of its former self. The traditional roles of women and their alleged character propensities and inclinations were no longer of use in this new environment. Emotional emptiness was bound to set in "“ and it did. Women had to find a new definition, a new niche. They were literally driven out of their homes by its functional disappearance. 12. In parallel, women"s life expectancy increased, their child bearing years were prolonged, their health improved dramatically, their beauty was preserved through a myriad of newfangled techniques. This gave women a new lease on life. They were no longer likely to die at childbirth, to look decrepit at 30 years of age. They were able to time their decision to bring a child to the world, or to refrain from doing so passively or actively by having an abortion. This growing control over their body, which has been objectified, reviled and admired for millennia by men "“ is arguably one of the most striking features of the feminine revolution. It allowed women to rid themselves of deeply embedded masculine values, views and prejudices concerning their physique and their sexuality. 13. Finally, the legal system and other social and economic structures adapted themselves to reflect most of the above sea changes. Being inertial and cumbersome, these reacted slowly, partially and gradually. Still, they did react and any comparison between the situation just twenty years ago and today is likely to reveal substantial differences. But this revolution is only a segment of a much larger one. In the past, the axes with which we opened our discussion were closely and seemingly inextricably intertwined. The Economic, the Social and the Emotional this was the axis invested in the preservation of societal mores and ideologies constituted one amalgam "“ and the Private, the Familial and the Utilitarian-Rational constituted another. In other words: society encouraged people to get married because it was emotionally committed to a societal-economic ideology which infused the family with sanctity, an historical mission and grandeur. But the majority of men and women got married out of a cold economic calculation that regarded the family as a functioning economic unit, within which the individual could find his economic expression in the most effective manner. Forming families was an efficient technique of wealth generation, accumulation and transfer across time and space. These traditional alliances of axes were diametrically reversed in the last few decades. The modern permutations: the Social and Economic axes together with the Utilitarian Rational axis and the Emotional axis is now aligned with the Private and Familial axes. Put simply, society encourages people to marry today because it wishes to maximize their economic output while most people do not see it this way and wish mostly to find a safe emotional haven in the family. The distinction between past and present may be subtle but it is by no means trivial. In the past, people expressed emotions through set formulas, social patterns, beliefs and ideologies and the family was part of these modes of expression. But really, it served as a mere economic unit, devoid of any emotional involvement and content. Today, people are looking to the family for emotional sustenance romantic love, companionship and do not strive to use it as an instrument to enhance their social and economic status. The modern family is not a way to maximize utility this was the historical, now obsolete, contribution of men to it. Rather it has become an unstable base as a result of emotional vicissitudes and this is the contribution of women. Women sought emotional comfort in the family and when they failed to find it, used their newfound self-sufficiency and freedoms and divorced most divorces in the West are the initiative of women, contrary to common opinion. Men sought in the family the emotional stability, which will let them launch a thousand ships. Whenever the family failed as an economic and social launching pad "“ men lost interest in it and began looking for extramarital alternatives. This trend of disintegration was further supported and made possible by new technological innovations such as the cellular phone, the internet, the personal computer and the multiplicity of media channels. All these encouraged self-sufficiency and unprecedented social segmentation. While in the past, society at large regarded families in an emotional light, as part of the prevailing ideology "“ it now tended to regard it in a utilitarian-rational light, as an efficient mode of organization of economic and social activity. And while in the past the individuals involved regarded the family mainly in a utilitarian-rational manner as a wealth producing unit, facilitating wealth accumulation and transfer across space and time "“ now they began to pass emotional judgement on it. In the eyes of the individual, families were transformed from economic production units to emotional powerhouses. In the eyes of society, families were transformed from elements of emotional and spiritual ideology to utilitarian-rational production units. This shift of axes and emphases led to a widening rift between men and women. The latter always accentuated the emotional side of the couple and of the family. Men always emphasized the convenience and the utility of the family. This was unbridgeable. Men acted as conservative social agents, women as revolutionaries. What is happening to the institution of the family today was, therefore, inevitable.   

The families of the not too distant past were oriented along four axes. These axes were not mutually exclusive. Some overlapped, all of them enhanced each other. People got married because of social pressure and social norms the Social Dyad, to form a more efficient or synergetic economic unit the...

Words: 1868 View(s): 172 Comment(s): 0
In February of 1997 Dolly, the...In February of 1997 Dolly, the first successful mammalian clone, was born in Edinburgh, Scotland. After the extensive news coverage of this momentous event, the study of genetic engineering and recombinant DNA was thrown into the public spotlight. From that day until this peoples, governments and organizations throughout the world have heatedly discussed the issues surrounding genetic modification and engineering. Over the past several years there has been loud public outcry against the use of such experimental procedures because of the possibility of deadly outcomes. Even though not much is known about genetic engineering, in its many forms, this significant discovery has the boundless potential to improve our lives and must be allowed to progress despite the risks it poses and the public outcry against it. It is true that we are just on the brink of discovering all of the dangers and benefits of genetic engineering and there is a lot of important information that still remains unknown. But instead of seeing the immense potential benefits of this mind-boggling discovery, the American public - fed on science fiction novels, horror stories of environmental disaster, a "growing mistrust of science" Nelkin 1, and the fear of the unknown "“ automatically reject this god sent breakthrough. Even though the risks are great, the beneficial possibilities are endless. Genetic engineering should be allowed to progress because of the potential benefits for the human species outweigh the consequences. For example, it will be possible for cows to will be genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals in their milk. This means that vaccination shots and pills would become obsolete. Babies could be brought up immune to diseases by simply being fed this milk. Imagine the impact on the quality of life for people who live in third world countries like Somalia. Whole countries could be made healthy and immune to disease. Malnutrition, a common problem in many third world countries "where impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet" Whitman 3, could also possibly be cured with genetic engineering. Rice does not provide all of the nutrients that the body needs and in these countries other food is very scarce. If rice or bread, another major staple, are genetically engineered to contain additional necessary vitamins and minerals then we could go a long way towards wiping out malnutrition all over the world. But perhaps, the area that stands to benefit the most from genetic engineering is medicine. Organ transplants and cosmetic procedures, like silicone breast implants, that may cause disease would soon cease to exist. Instead of using materials foreign to the body for such procedures, doctors will be able to manufacture bone, fat, connective tissue, or cartilage that match the patient's tissues exactly, thus ensuring that the needed tissue will be free of rejection by their immune system. Victims of terrible accidents that deform the face and body would be able to have their features repaired with new, safer technology. Limbs for amputees would be regenerated and anyone would be able to have their appearance altered to their satisfaction without the risk of leaking silicone gel into their bodies, or the other problems that occur with present day plastic surgery. Because genetic engineering will insure acceptance by the body, those in desperate need of organ and other transplants will one-day have their prayers answered by cloning. Using one's own cells to grow whole organs will eliminate the need for organ donors and waiting lists. Skin, brain cells, hearts, lungs, livers, and kidneys could all be produced. Those who suffer from spinal injuries, like Christopher Reeve, might one day be able to get out of their wheelchairs and walk again. Genetic engineering also has the power to cure infertility, which a painful reality that many couples throughout the world face. "The current options for infertile couples are inefficient, painful, expensive, and heart breaking" Human Cloning Foundation 1. Many couples run out of time and money without successfully having children. According to the Human Cloning Foundation, less than 10 percent of the current infertility treatments are successful. Genetic engineering could make it possible for many more infertile couples to have children than ever before by boosting success rates through nuclear transfer of sperm from the father into the mother's egg, thus creating a beautiful unique child. Even with all these miraculous benefits, many people throughout the world feel that the issue of genetic engineering is absolutely preposterous and extremely unethical. Such opinions are understandable, considering that the majority of people are always going to be afraid of the unknown. Genetic engineering is an extremely new aspect of our technological research and should, at all costs, be allowed to develop further. The immense possible benefits from genetic engineering are endless and should not be over looked. Yet, some people still wonder whether there "are some kinds of information leading to some sorts of knowledge that human beings are really better off not having" Thomas 2. Many arguments offered against genetic engineering, have been those such as "we would be playing the role of God" and "it is power that humans can not handle." At one time birth control pills, in vitro fertilization, and heart transplants were criticized on the same grounds. Throughout time people have always been afraid of new technology and the power it might possess. When the car was first invented some contemporary scientists were convinced that the human body could not survive at speeds as high as twenty miles per hour. Genetic engineering, then, is a tool that humans can use to cure many of their problems. The possibilities are endless if only we do not let ourselves be restricted by those who are afraid of the unknown.   

In February of 1997 Dolly, the first successful mammalian clone, was born in Edinburgh, Scotland. After the extensive news coverage of this momentous event, the study of genetic engineering and recombinant DNA was thrown into the public spotlight. From that day until this peoples, governments and organizations throughout the world...

Words: 954 View(s): 112 Comment(s): 0