- What are the three sociological explanations for crime? Which one seems to you to be the best account for criminal behavior?
Crime has many explanations. From a sociological perspective, all theories somehow intermix and intermingle, the psychological, biological and social forces in some way shape of form, especially regarding causation.However, differential association theory, control theory, and routine activities theory more aptly extend from sociology itself and explain how individuals and societal forces work together or fail to do so and thereby coauthor crime ( May, 2008, p. 1 ). They all offer a somewhat different approach regarding why crime occurs. However, the differential association and routine activities theories seems to be the most plausible when considering the majority of crimes committed, especially since criminals seem to need deviant norms and opportunities.
Differential association basically contends that crimes in some areas are more frequent because they are learned or more normative in these areas (May, 2008, p. 1). That is to say, that society codifies these behaviors in such a way that children and others living in this area are not only part of this group but also more importantly somehow legitimized through belonging to it (p. 1). Therefore, criminal actions may be deviant behavior but not always so deviant within the given group (p. 1).
Control theory, on the other hand, actually argues to the contrary. Instead, it contends that people who are more connected to greater society are also influenced by its positive norms more readily than through the ‘normative, ‘ yet deviant behaviors prevalent within the previously mentioned areas (May, 2008, p. 1). Accordingly then, society delimits criminal behavior through societal norms and expectations thereof.
In routine activities theory, however, criminal behavior extends from opportunities to do so and the social forces and/or lack thereof (May, 2008, p. 2). For example, children lacking supervision, who commit crimes, fall into this categorical explanation. Moreover, unstructured time and the relative gains in status and/or other normative expectations correlative of sex, age and class also play significant roles (May, 2008, p. 2). In essence, this routine activities theory blends the first two theories.
2. What are the four major assumptions of crime causation from the sociological perspective? Look at each assumption individually. Is it sound? Why or why not?
The four major assumptions of crime causation from the sociological perspective are explained through (May, 2007) social structure theories, social process theories, social conflict theories, and the rational theory (p. 1). Perhaps, each tries to answer the four functions deviance serves. According to Durkheim, these were relative to (Macionis, 2001): “[…] (1) affirming cultural values and norms, (2) clarifying moral boundaries, (3) promoting social unity, and (4) encouraging social change” (Chapter 8).
Strain theory is perhaps the most common. It asserts that individuals who conform or assimilate with society do not commit crimes. However, Merton’s Strain theory generally elucidates why people who fail to wholly assimilate or feel as if they are part of grater society due to social stratification or other societal factorstherefore experience anomie (Marcionis, 2001). For this reason, they act out against society and its seemingly homogenous values and normative practices and expectations (Marcionis, 2001, Chapter 8).
While this may partially explain some crimes and the tremendous pressures individuals face when challenged by anomie, this does not wholly explain deviant actions and or why certain individuals experience anomalie to a different degree. Rather it sheds light upon the actor’s motivation. Yet, it also fails to explicate society’s role(s) and somewhat deviant actions, as well.
Labeling theory and Symbolic-interaction analysis applies to numerous tiers of society and circumstance including medical, sexual, gender and ethnic based ones, as well as class or locality based labels and associative stigmas (Macionis, 2001, Chapter 8). While labeling theory and its analysis actually explore some of society’s actions and the validity or lack thereof, they also investigate individual reactions to such actions and/or responses. While this theory and its analytical components more fully addresses and assesses individuals and circumstances, it does not wholly answer why some deviance occurs or does not occur given the same circumstances and societal influences.
Social conflict analysis looks at social inequality based on disparate power. While Macionis (2001) explains that it typically examines the status quo, the norms and interest of general society, it also scrutinizes whether the deviants have the power, resources, etc. to change those norms or more accurately redress incongruence therein (2001). Lastly, of course, it views whatever laws the society has a “natural” and therefore unquestionable (2001).
For obvious reasons, numerous problems exist with this theory. Again, it looks at society as completely normative and natural. It does not question the validity of laws or expectations. Although it does consider the disparate power and resources within society, the line between those that make the rules and those that should follow them, it does not completely assess the entire situation. Therefore, it is only partially valid.
Rational theory actually extends from the philosophical belief that man is rational. Therefore, individuals have the capacity to assess circumstances and choice. More importantly, perhaps, they have “free will” to act in accordance with society or against it. However, because of rationality, they understand the consequences of their actions.
Obviously, this theory also has problems. It assumes everyone has the same rational capacity and associative levels of wisdom and experience. It also assumes that everyone agrees with the societal rules. Moreover, it assumes that society is not so disparate. For all these reasons, it is only partially applicable.
References
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M, 2006. Criminal Behavior: A Psychosocial Approach. Pearson
Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
Macionis, J. (2001). Chapter 8: Deviance. Chapter overview. Sociology. Saddle Brook:
NJ: Prentice-Hall. Retrieved from
pubbooks/macionis7/chapter8/objectives/deluxe-content.html
May, K. (2008 Oct 31). Sociology of crime: What makes a criminal? Associated Content.
Retrieved from
sociology_of_crime_what_makes_a_criminal.html
Zarka, H. (2007 May 3). Sociological theories of crime. Associated Content. Retrieved from