Crime and Deviance Basics

Crime is straightforward – it's any behaviour that breaks society's laws. Deviance, however, is trickier because it's about behaviours that society considers abnormal or unacceptable, even if they're not illegal.

Think about it this way: wearing pyjamas to school is deviant but not criminal, whilst speeding is both criminal and deviant. The key difference is that deviance depends on social norms, which can vary between groups and change over time.

Social control keeps society functioning through both formal methods (like police and courts) and informal ones (like disapproval from mates or family). This dual system shapes how we behave every day.

Remember: What's considered deviant in one society might be perfectly normal in another – it's all about context and cultural norms.

Functionalist Theory - Durkheim's Perspective

Durkheim argued that crime is actually inevitable, relative, and functional for society. Sounds mad, but hear him out – crime serves three crucial functions that help society work properly.

First, crime reaffirms boundaries by showing everyone what's unacceptable. Second, it signals when social change is needed. Finally, it promotes social cohesion by uniting people against criminals.

Anomie occurs during periods of rapid social change when people feel disconnected from society's norms. During these times, deviance increases because the usual rules feel less clear or relevant.

Durkheim distinguished between mechanistic societies $simple, punishment-focused$ and organic societies $complex, rehabilitation-focused$. However, his theory struggles to explain why some groups commit more crime than others.

Key insight: Even 'bad' things like crime can serve positive functions for society – though this doesn't mean we should encourage it!

Functionalist Theory - Merton's Strain Theory

Merton's strain theory explains why people turn to crime when society promises success but doesn't provide equal opportunities to achieve it. Think of the 'American Dream' – everyone wants material success, but not everyone can get it legitimately.

When people face blocked aspirations, they adapt in five ways: conformity (accept both goals and means), innovation (accept goals but use illegal means), ritualism (reject goals but accept means), retreatism (reject both), and rebellion (replace both with new ones).

Innovation is where most crime happens – people want the lifestyle but can't achieve it through legitimate channels, so they turn to illegal activities like drug dealing or theft.

Critics point out that Merton can't explain crimes without material motives (like vandalism) and assumes all working-class people with blocked aspirations will commit crime, which clearly isn't true.

Think about it: How many crimes you see in the news are really about people trying to get money or status through illegal means?

Subcultural Theories

A.K. Cohen focused on working-class boys who experience status frustration when they can't succeed in middle-class education systems. These lads create their own subcultural values that flip mainstream society – celebrating toughness over academic achievement.

Cloward and Ohlin developed the concept of illegitimate opportunity structures. They identified three types of subcultures: criminal (organised illegal careers), conflict (violent gangs formed from frustration), and retreatist (drug users who've failed in both legitimate and illegitimate worlds).

Miller argued that working-class communities have six focal concerns – toughness, smartness, excitement, fate, trouble, and autonomy – that naturally lead to more criminal behaviour.

These theories excel at explaining group crime amongst young working-class males but completely ignore female criminality and assume neat distinctions between subcultures that don't exist in real life.

Reality check: Most people in working-class communities don't commit crimes, so these theories can't be the whole story.

Marxist Theory on Crime

Marxists argue that capitalism is criminogenic – it literally creates the conditions that cause crime. The system is built on competition, greed, and inequality, making crime an inevitable outcome.

Chambliss showed how laws protect ruling-class interests through examples like vagrancy laws, which forced poor people to work for low wages. Reiman demonstrated that the justice system treats upper-class crimes (like tax evasion) more leniently than working-class crimes (like theft).

The criminal justice system reflects class bias – white-collar crimes that cost society millions get lighter sentences than street crimes that cost hundreds. This isn't coincidence; it's how the system maintains capitalist power structures.

Bonger argued that capitalism's core values of selfishness and competition naturally produce criminal behaviour. When society rewards individual success over collective wellbeing, crime becomes a logical response.

Food for thought: Why do we get more upset about benefit fraud than tax avoidance, when tax avoidance costs the country far more money?