Crime arguments on theories of crime and deviance.

Crime
is an unlawful behavior which is punishable by state or the authority. It is
again termed to be an act that is not only harmful to an individual but again
to the society at large and could earn a punishmentby the law. There is a
sociological discipline that deals with crime and it is known as criminology or
in other words criminal justice. Deviance according to Durkheim, is any
behavior that goes against the social rules, and it is sufficient to
disapproval from a good number of members of the society. Deviance could be
either a criminal or non-criminal. In the present moment in America, there are
a variety of things that could be considered to be deviance like lying, playing
with fire, excessive gambling, alcoholism, nudity in public, stealing,
prostitution and even failure to bathe, just to mention a few. Those who engage
in deviant behaviors are termed as deviants. This study will primarily expound
on the view that a certain level of crime and deviance is not only inevitable
but functional basing the arguments on theories of crime and deviance.

Functionalist theory

A
lot of people have tried to explain the reason as to why there are crimes in
the society. Functionalist theory primarily focuses the source of deviance in
the social context rather than psychological and biological explanations. It is
termed to be a social structural and social control theory. This theory has it
that is the society that prompts individuals to engage in crimes. Every
functionalist believes that things like social control measures, for instance,
the police, are significant in maintaining deviance in control, hence
maintaining social order. The police are fair and just, but the people in the
society are selfish, where else the official statistics are valid. There is a
person who contributed a lot to coming up with this theory. He was called
Durkheim, and he believes that the society is based on values that all the
members of the society share a culture with a set of values, beliefs, goals,
and norms shared.

According
to Durkheim, crime in the society is entirely inevitable since not everyone is
committed to the law due to person`s differences and again every society has
its version of how it defines deviant. He indeed stressed that crime is normal
and necessary in life. He gave an example of `society saints’, who have zero
criminal records, will end up making the slightest deviant acts, hence backing
up the fact that crimes are inevitable and it is part of life in the society.
The theory again claims that crime is functional for the society times when
there is the right amount. This is because the crime activities could be a
source of genius whenever the crime poses a challenge to the society`s current
values. Yesterday`s deviant act could be evolved and made part of life today.
The society could review the way its people undertake its things, which are
considered to be crimes so that they can learn from deviance and the mistakes.

This
theory, as per Durkheim`s point of argument, believes that crimes could be
positive to the society.  Durkheim came
up with two aspects; boundary maintenance and adaptation and change. He claimed
that crimes make a society react towards a particular criminal offense. This
creates an awareness where all the member converges together in condemning the
wrongdoers and reinforce the commitments in their values and norms. By so
doing, the society can remain united. Durkheim describes punishment as an
affirmation of the society`s rules, and it means that they are all towards
reinforcing the community solidarity. He claims that could be done in
courtrooms, publicizing the wrongdoers which stigmatize the crime
suspect/offender.

Marxist theory

Marxist
theory is another perspective of viewing crimes and deviance in the society; it
was developed by a scholar called Karl Marx. 
As per Karl Marx’s perspective, crime is due to the social structure and
economic system that is used in a particular society. The Marxist theory claims
that there are quite some societies in the world, where each has different
social classes. These classes are as per what each group owned and had control
over. This was measured regarding land, tools, and labor. There emerged a
conflict between the two; the owners of the production and the workers.
Therefore, the emerged two distinct social classes of owners (powerful) and
non-owners (less powerful).

The
owners of the production plants had a motive of maximizing their profits. This
means that there should be fewer expenses and that led to a reduction of wages
to the workers, who complained of continued exploitation by the wealthy owners.
Out of their endeavors, things were made harder on their side. Karl Marx claims
that the owners again dominated the political arena which was responsible for
making the rules, therefore, the non-owners were entirely under the product
owners. It was true that the rich became richer and the poor continued to be
poor and suffered. This led to the workers engaging in crimes.

The
Marxist theory claims that if it were not for crimes then, some professions
like police and judges/lawyers could never have been to the place. It puts more
pressure on wrongdoing rather than individual motives of immorality. It claims
that deviance is as a result of incompatibility of what the expectations the
society has towards the workers and the social structure it is existing
in.  It, therefore, sees crime as the
growth of a capitalist society. This is because the economic infrastructure
plays a primary role in social relationships, values, and beliefs. Again capitalistic
production is aimed at maximizing the profits and accumulation of personal
wealth, economic self-interest. It, therefore, motivates many crimes in the
society. That is why the theory claim there are some groups of people that the
police target; certain ethnic minorities, poor people, young, specific area and
conspicuous people.

 

BACK TO TOP