Theories of Crime - Functionalism Marxism Interactionism and Feminism
Theories of Crime and Deviance
Crime is behaviour that breaks the law and is punishable by the state. Deviance is behaviour that breaks social norms — it may or may not be illegal (e.g. queue-jumping is deviant but not criminal). This topic examines why crime occurs through four key perspectives.
Functionalism and Crime
Surprisingly, functionalists argue that crime is inevitable and even functional for society — up to a point.
Durkheim (1893) — Crime is Normal and Functional
Durkheim argued that crime serves positive functions:
| Function | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Boundary maintenance | Publicly punishing criminals reinforces shared values and reminds everyone what is acceptable |
| Social change | Some crime challenges outdated norms and leads to progress (e.g. suffragettes broke the law to win women the right to vote; Rosa Parks broke segregation laws) |
| Safety valve | Minor deviance allows individuals to release frustrations without threatening social order (Polsky — pornography safely channels sexual urges) |
| Social cohesion | Shocking crimes unite communities in collective outrage (e.g. after a terrorist attack) |
However, too much crime is dysfunctional — it threatens social order and indicates anomie (normlessness).
Merton (1938) — Strain Theory
Robert Merton argued that crime results from a strain between culturally approved goals (wealth, success) and the legitimate means to achieve them (education, jobs):
| Adaptation | Goals | Means | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conformity | Accept | Accept | Most people — work hard within the system |
| Innovation | Accept | Reject | Drug dealing, fraud, theft — want success but use illegal means |
| Ritualism | Reject | Accept | Bureaucrats who follow rules mindlessly without ambition |
| Retreatism | Reject | Reject | Drug addicts, homeless — drop out of society |
| Rebellion | Replace | Replace | Revolutionaries — seek to create a new society with new goals |
Evaluation:
- Explains why crime is higher among disadvantaged groups (blocked opportunities)
- Explains property crime well
- But: not all poor people turn to crime; ignores crimes of the powerful; ignores non-utilitarian crime (vandalism)
- Assumes everyone shares the same goals — ignores cultural diversity
Marxism and Crime
Marxists see crime as a product of capitalism and class inequality. The law itself serves ruling-class interests.
Key Arguments
- Capitalism causes crime — poverty, unemployment and inequality drive the working class to crime for survival or out of frustration
- Alienation — exploited workers feel powerless and disconnected, leading to crimes of violence and vandalism as expressions of frustration
- Criminogenic capitalism — Gordon (1976): capitalism is a system that breeds crime at all levels. Working-class crime is driven by poverty; ruling-class crime (fraud, tax evasion, health and safety violations) is driven by greed
- The law reflects ruling-class interests — laws protect property and wealth; street crime is heavily policed while corporate crime is under-policed
- Selective law enforcement — Chambliss (1976) found that in "Moonlight city", police targeted working-class street crime but ignored organised crime involving powerful elites
- Ideological function of crime — media focus on working-class crime diverts attention from the exploitation at the heart of capitalism
Evaluation
- Strengths: explains why corporate crime causes more harm than street crime but receives lighter punishment; highlights class bias in the law and criminal justice system
- Weaknesses: not all crime is economically motivated (domestic violence, hate crime); ignores crimes in non-capitalist societies; too deterministic — most working-class people are law-abiding; romanticises crime as resistance
Interactionism and Crime — Labelling Theory
Interactionists argue that no act is inherently criminal or deviant — it only becomes so when it is labelled as such by those with the power to define the rules.
Becker (1963) — Moral Entrepreneurs and Labelling
Howard Becker argued:
- "Deviance is not a quality of the act... but rather a consequence of the application of rules and sanctions by others"
- Moral entrepreneurs — powerful groups who campaign to create or change rules (e.g. anti-drug campaigners, purity movements)
- Whether an act is labelled deviant depends on: who commits it, where, when, and who witnesses it
- A middle-class youth caught shoplifting may receive a "warning" while a working-class youth is arrested — same act, different label
Lemert (1972) — Primary and Secondary Deviance
| Type | Definition |
|---|---|
| Primary deviance | Initial deviant acts that are not publicly labelled — the person's identity is unaffected (e.g. occasional speeding) |
| Secondary deviance | Once publicly labelled, the person is stigmatised; they may adopt a deviant identity and commit further deviance — the label creates a self-fulfilling prophecy |
The Deviant Career
Once labelled, an individual may embark on a deviant career:
1. Publicly labelled (e.g. arrested, convicted)
2. Master status — the label becomes the person's dominant identity ("criminal", "drug addict")
3. Excluded from conventional society (lose job, friends, housing)
4. Pushed towards deviant subcultures for support and belonging
5. Further deviance — the self-fulfilling prophecy is complete
Evaluation
- Strengths: shows that deviance is socially constructed; explains why some groups are criminalised more than others; highlights the power of labelling and the criminal justice system in creating criminals
- Weaknesses: ignores the initial cause of deviance (why did they commit the act before being labelled?); implies that without a label, there is no deviance — but murder is harmful regardless of labelling; too sympathetic to offenders
Feminism and Crime
Feminist criminologists argue that sociology has traditionally been gender-blind — most theories were based on male offenders and ignored women.
Key Arguments
- Heidensohn (1985) — women commit less crime because they are subject to greater social control at home (domestic responsibilities, fear of male violence), in public (fear of sexual assault limits their freedom) and at work (male supervision, sexual harassment)
- Carlen (1988) — working-class women make a class deal (work in exchange for a decent standard of living) and a gender deal (conformity in exchange of a partner's financial support). When both deals fail (poverty, abusive relationships), women may turn to crime
- Smart (1977) — criminology has been dominated by men studying men; women offenders are either ignored or treated as "doubly deviant" (breaking both the law and gender norms)
- The chivalry thesis — Pollak (1950) argued that police and courts treat women more leniently because of a paternalistic desire to "protect" them; this means female crime is under-recorded
- Counter-argument: double deviance — Heidensohn argued that when women ARE caught, they may be treated MORE harshly because they have broken gender norms as well as the law
Evaluation
- Strengths: explains the gender gap in crime statistics; highlights patriarchal control; brought women into criminological research
- Weaknesses: not all women are equally controlled; middle-class women have more freedom but commit less crime; neglects female-on-female and female-on-male violence
Comparing Perspectives
| Perspective | Key question | Key concept |
|---|---|---|
| Functionalism | What function does crime serve? | Boundary maintenance, strain |
| Marxism | Who benefits from defining crime? | Ruling-class interests, selective enforcement |
| Interactionism | Who decides what is criminal? | Labelling, self-fulfilling prophecy |
| Feminism | Why do women commit less crime? | Patriarchal control, chivalry thesis |
Exam Technique
For a 12-mark question on theories of crime, use three perspectives minimum. For each: state the key argument, name a sociologist, give an example, and evaluate. End with a conclusion that weighs which perspective is most convincing and why.