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: 524 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

This question can be easily answered...This question can be easily answered with a resounding "no". No gun background check, weapon ban, or gun buyback will ever prevent weapons from getting into the hands of criminals. Even with the hundreds if not thousands of gun laws already on the books, gun crime is still prevalent in our society. Why? Simple, all you have to do is look at our lax laws regarding punishment for criminals. Prison should be hard work, not sitting in a cell working out and eating well. Criminals should be forced to work for their food and board. If we continue to allow criminals to sit back, relax, and wait for probation, whom are we really protecting? Legally owned guns account for two percent 2% of all gun crimes. This should show you as it shows me that gun laws can only prevent two-percent of all gun crimes in the first place. Is a two-percent decrease worth the loss of our freedoms? This tells me that instead of trying to create new laws, we should try and enforce the hundreds if not thousands we already have. This also leads to what I would like to focus on- pointless gun laws. As I pointed out earlier, we already have too many gun laws and to try and add more restrictions will not reduce crime. Take the following proposal to the House Committee of Ways and Means. Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act of 1999 Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act of 1999 Introduced in the House HR 2127 IH 106th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2127 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate certain 50 caliber sniper weapons in the same manner as machine guns and other firearms. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 10, 1999 Mr. BLAGOJEVICH for himself, Mr. WAXMAN, and Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate certain 50 caliber sniper weapons in the same manner as machine guns and other firearms. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act of 1999". SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that-- 1 certain firearms originally designed and built for use as long-range 50 caliber military sniper weapons are increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market; What relevance does this have to anything? Almost all military gear and equipment is available to civilians. De-milled Cobra Attack Helicopters have been purchased and are currently in use by civilians. In the last ten years we have sold our F-16 Falcon fighters to Israel, licensed the F-15 Eagle to Mitsubishi for manufacture in Japan, and gave our Abrams main battle tank to Britain. This tells me that liberals think we can trust other countries, but not our own people. Maybe because "our people" is all of the illegal immigrants that should be kicked out but stay as long as they vote liberal. 2 the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and such components of the national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave transmission devices; First off, there is no record anywhere of anyone committing a crime with a 50-caliber rifle. Why? The reasons are endless! First, the cheapest 50-caliber rifle available is the AR-50. This "cheap" weapon rings in at $3,300. The most popular 50-caliber rifle, the Barret M-82A1, costs $7,300! Which criminal is going to spend this much to rob a liquor store or a bank? Second 50-caliber weapons are big. They weigh a lot and kick harder then a 10-gauge shotgun. The only effective way to fire them is from the prone laying on your stomach. Third, to fire a weapon with this kind of kick in an accurate manner, you must be well trained. Not many criminals would deal with 50-calibers when they'd have better luck pulling off their robbery with a butter knife. According to these liberals on Ways and Means, the 50-caliber can be used to take out armored vehicles. Do they consider Humvees to be armored? The only armored vehicle a 50-caliber could penetrate is a lightly armored limousine. Now I see what they mean by national security. They consider themselves to be national security. A 50-caliber BMG rifle cannot penetrate U.S. military armored vehicles. A Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle has two inches of armor. Yet, even that s enough to stop projectiles up to 30mm, including Light Rockets. The Abrams Main Battle Tank has fourteen inches of armor. That will stop everything except 100mm+ SABOT rounds. I won't even talk about the stupidity of shooting at microwaves and radar dishes but wouldn't a sledge hammer work just as well if not better? Besides who would shoot at radar towers- Middle Eastern terrorists? 3 these firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use; Wrong"¦there are multiple 50-caliber shooting clubs and 50-caliber rifles are not clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting or hunting use. If they are designed for killing people as these liberals state. What does that mean the Remington 700 was designed for? That is the hunting rifle that the Army M-24 Sniper Rifle and the Marines M-40 Sniper rifle are based on. 4 extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce; and Armour piercing ammo is available for all types of weapons including pistols. It is usually not meant for piercing armor such as tanks due to the fact that tanks armor is too thick. It is meant for piercing body armor. Armor piercing means that the point of the round is sharp and hard. Modern body armor such as KM2 with rifle and stab plates would stop Armor Piercing AP rounds as well as normal rounds. Normal police forces still use level II Kevlar without stab plates. This is called soft body armor. 5 the virtually unrestricted availability of these firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial threat to the national security. The use intended of any weapon depends on who's using it. While a Marine Corp or Army sniper may use it for killing the enemy and protecting national security, I may use it for sport and the badass bark that the rifle screams when you squeeze the trigger. SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. a IN GENERAL- Subsection a of section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 defining firearm is amended by striking `6 a machine gun; 7 any silencer as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code; and 8 a destructive device." and inserting `6 a 50 caliber sniper weapon; 7 a machine gun; 8 any silencer as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code; and 9 a destructive device." b 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPON- 1 IN GENERAL- Section 5845 of such Code is amended by redesignating subsections d through m as subsections e through n, respectively, and by inserting after subsection c the following new subsection: `d 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPON- The term `50 caliber sniper weapon" means a rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in 50 caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant of 50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers." 2 MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF RIFLE- Subsection c of section 5845 of such Code is amended by inserting `or from a bipod or other support" after `shoulder". c EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. In conclusion, it must be pointed out that gun control doesn't work. We have more gun laws now than ever before yet our crime rate is at an all time high. Instead of trying to control weapons, safety and respect for weapons should be taught. Why should everyone lose their rights and privileges because a select few abuse them?   

This question can be easily answered with a resounding "no". No gun background check, weapon ban, or gun buyback will ever prevent weapons from getting into the hands of criminals. Even with the hundreds if not thousands of gun laws already on the books, gun crime is still prevalent in...

Words: 1414 View(s): 209 Comment(s): 0
Specific Purpose "“ To persuade my...Specific Purpose "“ To persuade my audience that animal testing is wrong and how other safer alternatives should be taken. Central Idea "“ By going the extra mile in using safer alternatives when experimenting with animals will not only prevent conflicts from pro-life activists, it will minimize lawsuits and morals will be preserved. Introduction I. Okay I got a riddle I made up for the class. A. What was once cute and furry but becomes a bloody rotted mess? B. You guys give up? C. Well the answer to this question is an animal that has undergone chemical testing. II. I know that wasn't too funny but I needed some sort of attention-grabber and this hit home on the question of my topic; whether animal testing is right or wrong. A. After all, the question whether animals should be tested is often hotly debated. B. Through intense research I have discovered that the issue on whether animals should be experimented upon, or "vivisection", has cropped up in history as early as the 17th century. III. Although animal testing is much less frequent today than in the past, I will reinforce the idea that alternatives to animal testing should be preserved today. A. I will first explain the conflicts in the past where animal testing caused many problems. B. Then I will reinforce the solution to animal testing by discussing the various alternatives that can be taken. Transition: Let us first look at the problem of animal testing. Body I. As I have mentioned, the question on animal testing was posed even as early as the 17th century, according to the All For Animals Newsletter. A. According to this newsletter, Philosopher Jeremy Bentham rejected philosopher Rene Descartes' theory that because animals have no reasoning that humans have, they therefore cannot feel pain or suffering. 1. But Bentham went further in this issue, rejecting Descartes' idea because the idea of reasoning was irrelevant on the moral issue whether animals should be tested. 2. Bentham's philosophy on animals, instead, was: "The question is not can they reason? Nor can they talk? But could they suffer?" B. Vivisection began early after Bentham's time period as scientists cut open animals to learn about the functions of the heart, lungs, and other parts of the body. C. The practice of testing cosmetics on animals started around 1933. 1. This began after a woman used Lush Lure cosmetics darken her eye lashes. 2. The woman's eyes eventually burned, and later the woman became blind and eventually died. 3. Because of this incident, the Food and Drug Administration passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1938 to protect the public from unsafe cosmetics and resorted to animals for testing dangerous cosmetics. D. Other deadly tests on animals that began to crop up included the Draize Test and another tested called LD50. 1. The Draize Test was named after the Federal Drug Administration scientist John Draize. a. In this test, substances were dropped directly into an animal's eye usually an albino rat and results were recorded. b. Through this inhumanity, the first successful eye droppers were developed. 2. The other test was the LD50, or in longhand, the Lethal Dose 50. a. According to a National Institute of Health release, this procedure was where a substance was fed to a group of animals until half the test subjects died. b. This example to me personally represents the epitome of cruelty by modern science toward animals. Transition: Now that I have explained the cruel injustices of animals in the past, let us now look at how these problems are solved today. II. One of the ways animals are now protected is through laws and organizations. 1. One such important law that was signed in 1966 was the Animal Welfare Act that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. a. In brief, certain animals could only be used in laboratories. b. Also, records were to be kept on number of animals and details on the animal experimentation. 2. There are also such organizations as the National Institute of Health, The American Anti-Vivisection Society, as well as the The Humane Society of the United States to name a few. 3. One other animals rights organization, the Alternatives Research Development Foundation, has made it on the news recently with a winning lawsuit against the United States Agriculture Department. a. With this won lawsuit, the USDA is required to expand Animal Welfare Acts to not only include chimpanzees, cats and guinea pigs, but to also include rats, mice, and birds. b. Researchers estimate that biomedical laboratories will be required to pay from 80 to 90 million dollars for scientific research. c. Director of the department, John McArdle, even estimated that there are around 23 million rodents used for research in medical schools, pharmaceutical companies and other laboratories. d. According to this won lawsuit for the Alternatives Research Development Foundation, Tina Nelson, executive director of the American Anti-Vivisection Society states, "The more than 90 percent of animals used in laboratories who currently have no legal protection could now be covered by federal law." Conclusion I. On a closing note, I would just like to re-mention that alternatives have already been taken to prevent animals from being subjected to the cruelties of scientific research. II. I merely wanted to reinforce the idea on how most vivisection problems are now solved, and should stay solved. III. After all, if you were a guinea pig or albino rat, would you like to be tested upon by dangerous chemicals?   

Specific Purpose – To persuade my audience that animal testing is wrong and how other safer alternatives should be taken. Central Idea – By going the extra mile in using safer alternatives when experimenting with animals will not only prevent conflicts from pro-life activists, it will minimize lawsuits and morals...

Words: 935 View(s): 624 Comment(s): 0