ETH 201 Lecture 5, Fall 2016

Again, such views have also been widely criticized. Even if there were an overall relationship between bodily type and delinquency, this would show nothing about the influence of heredity. People of the muscular type may be drawn towards 0 awe Afar ermal nn HY DO peaple commit crimes? A century age, most people whoa thought about isstie believed that some people were just biologically crimi- nal. The Italian criminologist Cesare Lom brose, Working inthe 187s, even believed that criminal types could be identified by certain anatomical features. He investi- pated the appearance and physical char- acteristics of criminals, such as the shape of the skull and forehead, jaw size and arm ied length, and concluded that they displayed traits held over from earlier stages of human evolution. Lombroso's pictures showing the physical characteristics of Fak — Bt tee pemeertns Pe & CNTR criminals are shown here, Lombrose’s ideas became thoroughly discredited, and seem almost comical to us today, although slightly mere sophisti- cated variants on his biological explana- | tion of crime have resurfaced at various ls points over the last century. A later theary ' ! distinguished three main types of human physique and claimed that one type was Fig. — ALAC: Bia te Brg gt = FESR, emesis directly associated with delinquency. Muscular, active types [mesomeorphs), the theory went, are more apgre » and physical, and therefore more likely to become delinquent than these of thin physique fectomorphs) or more fleshy people [endomorphs) (Sheldon 1949; Glueck and Glueck 1956). Begs Ceet ee 6 Prtiemes SS TYPES DE CHIMINELS. Criminal types, as presented in his book {Homme cnminel, by Cesare Lombrosa (1836-1909); a robber from Naples, a forger from Piedmont, an assassin, Cartouche, whose criminal tendency is not specified, a brigand's wife and a poisoner. criminal activities because these offer opportunities for the physical display of athleticism. Morcover, nearly all studies in this field have been restricted to delin- quents in reform schools, and it may be that the tougher, athletic-looking delin- quents are more liable to be sent to such schools than fragile-looking, skinny ones. Some jodividuals might be inclined towards irritability and aggressiveness, and this could be reflected im crimes of physical assault on others. Yet there is no decisive evidence that any traits of per- sonality are inherited im this way, and, even if they were, their conmection to criminality would at most be only a distant one, lf biological approaches to criminology do not satisfactorily answer our question: ‘Why do people commit crimes?’ is psychology more successful? Psychologi- cal approaches to criminality have searched for explanations of deviance within the individual, not society. But where biological approaches focus on physical features which predispose indi- viduals to crime, psychological views con- centrate on personality types. Much early criminological research was camied out in prisons and other institutions, such as asylums, In these settings, ideas about psychiatry were influential. Emphasis was placed on the distinetive traits of crimi- nals = including ‘feeble: mindedness’ and ‘moral degeneracy. Hans Eysenck (1964), for example, has suggested that abnormal mental states are inherited: these can either predispose an individual to crime or ceeate problems in the process of social- ization, Some have suggested that in a minority of individuals, am amoral, or psycho- pathic, personality develops. Psychopaths Crime and Deviance 793 are withdrawn, emotionless characters who act impulsively and rarely experience sensations of guilt. Some psychopaths delight in violence for its own sake. Indi- viduals with psychopathic traits do some- times commit violent crimes, but there are major problems with the concept of the psychopath. Itisin'tat all clear that psycho- pathic traits are inevitably criminal, Nearly all studies of people said to possess these characteristics have been of con- Viele prisoners, and their personalities Inevitably tend to be presented negatively, lf we describe the same traits positively, the personality type sounds quite differ- ent, and there seems no reason why people of this sort should be inherently criminal. Psychological theories of criminality can at best explain only some aspects of crime. While some criminals may possess personality characteristics distinct from the remainder of the population, it is highly improbable that the majority of criminals do so, There are all kinds of crime, and it is implausible to suppose that those whe commit them share some specific psychological characteristics. Both biological and psychological approaches lo criminality presume that deviance is a sign of something ‘wrong’ with the individual, rather than with society. They see crime as caused by factors outside an individual's contre, embedded either in the bady or the mind, Therefore, if scientific criminology could successfully identify the causes of crime, itwould be possible to treat those causes. In this respect, both biological and psychological theories of crime are pasiti- vistin nature. As we learned in our discus- sion of Auguste Comte in chapter 1, posi- tivism is the belief that applying matural 794 CRIME AND DEVIANCE scientific methods to the study of the social world can reveal its basic truths. In the case of positivist criminology, this led to the belicfthat empirical research could pinpoint the causes of crime and in turn make recommendations about how to eradicate it. Early positivist criminology came under greal criticism from later generations off scholars. They argued that any satisfac- tory account of the nature of crime must be sociological, for what crime is depends on the social instinutions of a soclery, Over time, attention shifted away from individ- ualistic explanations of crime, of the kind we have looked at above, to sociological theories thar stress the social and cultural contextin which crime and deviance takes place. Any full answer to our question: ‘Why do people commit crimes?’ must be sociological, and itis most likely to start by questioning the terms implicit im the question. What do we mean by crime and deviance? In this chapter we look at several soci- ological explanations for crime and deviant behaviour, First, however, we look mere closely at what we mean by terms such as ‘deviance’ and ‘crime’ Later in the chapler we examine crime in the UK, before turning to some of the important issues concerning the victims and perpe- traters of crime. Basic concepts Deviance may be defined as non-confor- mity to a piven set of monms that are accepted by a significant number of people in a community or society. No society, as has already been stressed, can be divided up in a simple way between those who deviate from norms and those who conform to them. Most of us on some occasions transpress generally accepted rules of behaviour. We may, for example, have at some point committed minor acts of theft, like shoplifting or taking small items from work - such as office nobepa- per anc pens — for personal use, Al some point in cur lives, we may have exceeded the speed limit, made prank phone calls or smoked marijuana. Deviance and crime are not syreny- mous, although in many cases they overlap, The concept of deviance is much broader than that of crime, which refers only to non-conformist conduct that breaks a law. Many farms of deviant hehaviour are not sanctioned by law, Thus, studies of deviance might examine phenomena as diverse as naturalists (nudists), rave culture and New Age travel- lers. The concept of deviance can be applicd both to individual behaviour and to the activity of groups. An illustration is the Hare Krishna cult, a religious group whose beliefs and mode of life are different from these of the majority of people in Britain. The cult was first established in the 19605 when Sril Prabhupada came to the West from Lidia to spread the word of Krishna consciousness. He aimed his message particulary at young people who were drug users, proclaiming that one could ‘stay high all the time, discover eternal bliss’ by following his teachings. The Hare Krishnas became a familiar sight, dancing and chanting in the streets, running vege- tarian cafés and distributing literature about their beliefs to passers-by. They are generally regarded in a tolerant light by most of the population, even if their views secm somewhat eccentric. Crime and Deviance 795 The Hare Krishnas represent an example of a deviant subculture. Although their membership today has declined from its peak some years ago, they have been able to survive fairly easily within the whler society, The organization is wealthy, financed by donations from members and sympathizers, Their position diverges from that of another deviant subculture, which might be mentioned here by way of contrast: that of the permanently home- less. People who are down-and-out live on the streets by day, spending their time in parks or in public buildings. They may sleep outside or find refuge in shelters. Most ofthe permanently homeless eke out a difficult existence on the fringes of the wider society. Hare Krishna devotees dancing and singing in the streets of Londan. ‘Two distinet, but related disciplines are engaged in the study of crime and devi- ance. Criminology concerns itself with formes of behaviour that are sanctioned by criminal law, Criminologisis are often interested in techniques for measurckag crime, trends In erime rates and polictes timed at reducing crime within commu- nities, The sociology of deviance draws on criminological research, but alsa investi- gates conduct which lies beyond the realm of criminal law. Sociologists studying deviant behaviour seck to understand why certain behaviours are widely regarded as deviant and how these notions of deviance are applied differen- tially te people within society. The study of deviance, therefore, directs FOG CRIME AND DEVIANCE our attention to social power, as well as to the influence of social class -— the divisions between rich and poor, When we look at deviance from or conformity to secial rules or norms, we always have to bear in mind the question, wsese rules? As we shall see, social norms are strongly influ- enced by divisions of power and class. Explaining crime and deviance: sociological theories In contrast to same areas of sociology in which a particular theoretical perspective has emerged over thie as pre-eminent, many theoretical strands remain relevant to the study of deviance. Having looked briefly at biological and psychological explanations, we will now turn to the four sociological approaches that have been influential within the sociology of devi- ance: functionalist theories, interactianist theories, conflict theories and confral theo- ries, Functionalist theories Functionalist (heories see crime and devi- ance resulting from structural tensions and a lack of moral regulation within society. [the aspirations held by individu- als and groups in society do not coincide with available rewards, this disparity benveen desires and fulfilment will be felt in the deviant motivations of sone of its members. Crime and anomie: Durkheim and iWertan As we saw in chapter 1, the notion of qremie was first introduced by Emile We follow social norms mostly because, as a result of socialization, we are used to doing so. All social norms are accompanied by sanctions that promote conformity and protect against non-conformity. A sanction is any reaction from others to the behaviour of an individual ar group that is meant ta ensure compliance with a given norm. Sanctions may be positive (the offering of rewards for conformity) or negative (punishment for behaviour that does not canform). Sanctions can be levied formally or informally. Formal sanctions are applied by a specific body of people or an agency to ensure that a particular set of norms is followed. The main types of formal sanction in modern societies are those represented by the courts and prisons. A law is a formal sanction defined by government as 4 rule or principle that its citizens must follow, it is used against people who do not conform. Informal sanctions are less organized and more Spontaneous reactions to non-conformity, A studious pupil who is teased by classmates for working too hard, or who is accused of being a ‘nerd’ when he or she refuses to go out in the evenings, expenences a type of informal sanctioning. Informal sanctioning might also occur, for example, when an individual who makes a sexist or racist comment is met with disapproving responses fram friends or co-workers, Durkheim, who suggested that in modern societies traditional norms and standards become undermined without being replaced by new ones. Anomie exists when there are no clear standards to guide behaviour in a given area af social life, Under such circumstances, Durkheim believed, people feel disoriented and anxious: anomle is therefore one of the social factors inthiencing dispositions ta suicide. Durkheim saw crime and deviance as social facts: he believed both of them to be inevitable and mecessary clements in modem societies. According to Durkheim, people in the modern age are bess con- strained than they were im traditional soci- eties. Because there is more room for indi- vidual choice in the modern world, it is inevitable that there will be some non- conformity. Durkheim recognized that there would never be a complete consen- sus in any society about the norms and values which govern it. Deviance is also necessary for society, according to Durkheim; it fulfils two important functions. First, deviance has an edapive function. By introducing new ideas arvl challenges into society, devi- ance is an innovative force. It brings about change. Second, deviance promotes boundary miafntendece between “good and bad" behaviours inseciety. A criminal event can provoke a collective response that heightens proup solidarity and cla- tities social norms. For example, residents ofa neighbourhood facing a problem with drug dealers might join together in the aftermath of a drug-related shooting and commit themselves to maintaining the area asa drug-free zone. Durkheim's ideas on crime and devi- ance were influential in shifting attention from individual explanations to social forces. His notion of anomie was drawnon by the American sociologist Robert Kk. Merton, who constructed a highly influen- Hal theary of deviance that located the source of crime within the very structure of American socery (Merton 1957}, Merton modified the concept ofanomie ta refer to the strate put on individuals’ behaviour when accepted norms conflict with social reality. In American society — and to same degree in other industrial societies — generally held values empha- size material success, and the means of achieving success are supposed to be self- discipline and hard work. Accordingly, Crime and Deviance 7o7 people who really work hard can succeed, no matter what their starting point in life. This idea is not in fact valid, because most of the disadvantaged are given only limited conventional opportunities for advancement, or none at all. Yet those who do net ‘succeed’ find themeches con- demned for their apparent inability to make material progress, In this situation, there is great pressure to try to get ahead by any means, legitimate or illegitimate, According to Merton, then, deviance is a by-product of economic inequalithes and the lack of equal opportunities, Merton identities five possible reactions to the tensions between soclally endorsed values and the limited means of achieving them. Conformiiss accept both generally held values and the conventional means of realizing them, whether or not they meet with success. The majority of the population fall inte this category. Imnowa- fors continue to accept socially approved values but use illegitimate or illegal means to follow them. Criminals who acquire wealth through illegal activities exemplify this type. Ritnelists conform to socially accepted standards, although they have lost sight af the values behind these standards. The rules are followed for their own sake without a wider end in vlew, ina compul- sive way, A ritualist would be someone who dedicates herself toa boring job, even though it has ne career prospects and proa- vides few rewards. Retreatises have aban- doned the competitive outlook altogether, thus rejecting beth the dominant values and the approved means of achieving them. An example would be the members of a self-supporting commune. Finally, rebels reject both the existing values and the means but wish actively to substitute 798. CRIME AND DEVIANCE hew ones and reconstruct the social system. The members of radical political proups fall inte this category. Merton's writings addressed one of the main puzzles in the study of criminology: at a time when society as a whole is becoming more affluent, why do crime rates continue to rise? By emphasizing the contrast between rising aspirations and persistent inequalities, Merton points toa sense of relative deprivation as an impor- tant clement in deviant behaviour. The idea of relative deprivation was dis- cussed in chapter 10, ‘Poverty, Social Exclusion and Welfare’, pp. 341-3. Subcultural explanations Later researchers located deviance in terms of subcultural groups that adopt norms that encourage or reward criminal behaviour. Like Merton, Albert Cohen saw the contradictions within American society as the main cause of crime. But while Merton emphasized individual deviant responses to the tension between Values and means, responses occurring collectively through subcultures, In Delingnent Boys (1955), Cohen argued that boys im the lower working class who are frustrated with their positions in life often join together in delinquent subcultures, such as gangs. These subcultures reject middle-class values and replace them with norms that celebrate defiance, such as delinquency and other acts of non-conformity. Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Olin (1960) agreed with Cohen that most delin- quent vouths emerge from the lower working class. But they argue that the boys most at ‘risk’ are those who have neverthe- less internalized middle-class values and Cohen saw the have been encouraged, on the basis of their ability, to aspire towards a middle- class future. When such boys are unable to realize their goals, they are particularly prone to delinquent activity. In their study of boys’ gangs, Cloward and Ohlin found that delinquent gangs arise in subcultural communities where the chances of achieving success legitimately are small, such as among deprived ethnic minor- ilies, Defining deviance Many peaple take it for granted that a well-structured society is designed ta prevent deviant behavior from occurring, But, as we have seen, functianalists fol- lowing Emile Durkheim argued otherwise, Durkheim believed that deviance has an important part to play in a well-ordered society. He argued that by defining what is deviant, we become aware of what is not deviant and thereby become aware of the standards we share as members of a society. Itis not necessarily the case, then, that we should aim to eliminate deviance completely. It is more likely that society needs to keep it within acceptable limits. Seventy years alter Durkheim's work appeared, the sociologist Kai Erikson pub- lished Wayeard Partiens, a study of devi- ance lin New England iin the United States during the seventeenth century, Eriksen sought ‘to test (Durkheim's) mation that the mimber of deviant offenders a com- munity can afford te recognize is likely to remain stable over time’. His research led him te conclude that: a community's capacity for handling devi- ance, let us say, can be roughly estimated by counting its prisen cells ane hospital beds, its polloenien and psychiatrists, it courts and clinies.... The agencies of control often seem to define their job as that of keeping deviance within bounds rather than obliterating italtagether. (1966) Erikson advanced the hypothesis that societies need their quotas of deviance and that they function in such a way as to keep them intact. What does a society do when the amount of deviant behaviour gets out of hand? In ‘Defining Deviance Down, acon- troversial article written in 1993, tem years before his death, the American academic and politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued that the levels of deviance in US society had increased beyond the point that it could afford to recognize. As a result, we have been ‘redetining deviance S028 00 exempt much conduct previously stigmatised’, and also quietly raising the ‘normal’ level so that behaviour seen as abnormal by an earlier standard is no longer considered to he se. How has American society gone about this? One example that Moynihan gave was the deinstitutionalization movement within the mental health professian that began in the 1950s, Instead of being forced into institutions, the mentally ill were treated with tranquillizers and released, As a result, the oumber of psychiatric patients in New York dropped from 93,000 in 1955 te 11,000 by 1992, What happened to all of those psychiat- ric patents? Many of them became the homeless people whoa we see sleeping rough in New York. In ‘defining deviance down, people sleeping on the street are defined not as insane, but as persons lacking affordable housing. At the same time, the “nermal’ acceptable level of crime has risen. Moynihan points out that after the St Valentines Day massacre in 1924, in which seven gangsters were mur- Crime and Deviance 799 dered, America was outraged. Today, violent gang murders are so common that there is hardly a reaction. Moynihan also sees the underreporting of crime as another form of ‘normalizing’ it. As he concludes: ‘We are petting used to a lot of behaviour that is not good for us.’ Evetluertion Functionalist theories rightly emphasize connections between conformity and deviance in different social contexts, Lack ofapportunity for success in the terms of the wider sociery is the main differentlat- ing factor between those who engage in criminal behaviour and these whe do nat, We should be cautious, however, about the idea that people in poorer commu- nities aspire to the same level of success as more affluent people. Most tend to adjust their aspirations to what they sec as the reality of their situation. Merton, Cohen and Cloward and Oblin can all be criti- cized for presuming that middle-class values have been accepted throughout society. It would also be wrong to suppose thata mismatch of aspirations and oppor- tunities is confined to the less privileged. There are pressures towards criminal aclivity among other groups too, as indi- cated by the so-called white-collar crimes of embezzlement, fraud and tax evasion, which we will study later. Interactionist theory Sociologists studying crime and deviance in the interactionist tradition focus on deviance as a socially constructed phe- homenon. They reject the idea that there are types of conduct that are inherently ‘deviant’. Rather, interactionists ask how behaviours initially come to be defined as 800 CRIME AND DEVIANCE deviant and why certain groups and mot others are labelled as deviant. Labelling theary One of the most important approaches to the understanding of criminality is called labelling theory. Labelling theorists inter- pretdeviance notas a set of characteristics of individuals or groups, but as a process of interaction between deviants and non- tleviants. In their view, we must discover why some peaple come to be tagged with a ‘deviant label in order to understand the nature ofdeviance itself, People who represent the forces of law and order, or are able to impose defini. tions of conventional morality on others, do most of the labelling. The labels that create categories of deviance thus express the power structure of society. By and large, the cules in terms of which deviance is defined are framed by the wealthy for the poor, by men for women, by older people for younger people, and by ethnic majorities for minority groups. For example, many children wander inte other people's gardens, steal fruit or play truant. In an affluent neighbourhood, these might be regarded by parents, teach- ers and police alike as innocent pastimes ofchildhood. In poor areas, they might be seen as evidence of tendencies towards juvenile delinquency. Qnee a child is labelled a delinquent, he or she is stigmas Hzed as a criminal and is likely to be con- sidered untrustworthy by teachers and prospective employers. In both instances the acts are the same, but they are assigned different meanings. Howard Becker is one of the sociologists most closely associated with labelling theory, He was concemed to show how deviant identities are produced through labelling rather than through deviant motivations or behaviours. According to Becker, ‘deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label. He was highly critical of criminological approaches which claimed a clear division between ‘normal’ and ‘deviant. For Becker, deviant behav- iour is met the determining factor in becoming ‘deviant. Rather there are pro- cesses unrelated to the behaviour itself which exercise a preat influence on whether or not a person is labelled as deviant. A person's dress, manner of speaking, or country of origin could be the key factors that determine whether or not the deviant label is applied. Labelling theory cane te be associated with Becker's studies of marijuana amokers (Recker 1963). In the early 1960s, amoking marijuana was a marginal activ- ity within subcultures rather than the life- style choice it is today. Becker found that becoming a marijuana smoker depended on one’s acceptance into the subculture, close association with experienced users and one's attitudes towards non-users. Labelling not only affects hew others see an individual, but also influences the individuals sense of self. Edwin Lemert (1972) advanced a model for understamd- ing how deviance can either coexist with or become central to one’s identity, Lemvert argued that, contrary to what we might think, deviance is actually quite comunon: place and people usually get away with it, For example, some deviant acts, such as traffic violations, rarely come to light, while others, such as snnall-scale thett from the workplace, are often ‘overlooked’. Lement called the initial act of tramsgres- sion primary deviance. In most cases, these acts remain ‘marginal’ to the person's self-identity —a process occurs by