CRIME
Booklet 1: Functionalism, strain, and subcultural theories.
Functionalists: See crime as inevitable and universal. “An integral part of all healthy societies”. Found
because not all individuals socialised effectively and there is a diversity of lifestyles in complex
modern societies. Tendency towards anomie.
Durkheim: Reaffirms boundaries – Sends out a message to society that there are boundaries that if
you cross will be punished accordingly. Reinforces social solidarity.
Brings about change – All changes in society originate from a deviant act and as a result society can
move forward. E.g., security checks, CRB system, Martyn’s laws.
Positive functions of crime – Polsky – Porn and prostitution acts a safety valve to channel sexual
desire away from other alternatives which pose a threat to nuclear family.
Festivals – Allowing young people to express themselves in a controlled environment.
Eval: Ignores impacts on victim, Durkheim never stated what the ‘perfect’ amount of crime is.
Hirschi: Bonds of Attachment: Attachment, commitment, Involvement, Belief.
Eval of functionalism: Useful in showing how deviance is integral, do not consider who crime is
functional for, ignores role of capitalism/feminism/labelling.
Strain theory:
Merton: Deviance results from strain between goals that culture/American Dream encourage people
to achieve and what the institutional structure of society allows them to achieve. Conformity,
ritualism, innovation, retreatism, rebellion. Eval: Takes official stats as face value, deterministic – not
all w/c deviate, not everyone shares money goal, ignores group deviance/non – utilitarian crime.
Cohen: Deviance as a product of delinquent subcultures, status frustration. Offers an alternative
status hierarchy to achieve through the illegitimate opportunity structure. Eval: Assumes all w/c start
off with same goals as m/c only to reject them when they fail.
Cloward and Ohlin: Different neighbourhoods provide different criminal opportunities. Not everyone
has access to illegitimate means. Criminal (Kray twins), Conflict (Postcode wars), Retreatism (Illegal
drug use). Eval: See crime as a w/c phenomenon, South- draws boundaries too sharply, not everyone
starts off with same success goals.
Messner and Rosenfield: Institutional anomie theory: Obsession with wealth brought about anomic
environment. Anything goes. Undermines other institutions e.g., schools. Inadequate welfare, crime
inevitable. Eval: Downes and Hanson: Survey of 18 countries, societies that spent more on welfare
had lower prison rates.
DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY: Sutherland- Deviance was a behaviour learned through social
interactions with others who are deviant.
, Booklet 2: Marxism
Traditional Marxism and Crime
Criminogenic capitalism: Poverty – crime to survive, capitalist advertising – crime, alienation – non utilitarian
crime, dog eat dog system m/c crime. Gordon – Crime is a rational response.
State and law making-Chambliss: Protect private property, property laws against theft, restrict strikes,
loopholes to avoid tax. Example of English Law in Britain’s East African colonies. Snider: Reluctant to pass laws
that regulate activities of businesses or limit their power.
Selective reinforcement: w/c and em are criminalised whereas crimes of powerful are ignored.
Ideological functions of crime and deviance: Occasionally pass laws that appear to benefit w/c. Pearce: Keeps
them fit for work/ caring face of capitalism/ false class consciousness.
Bhopal disaster
Eval: Ignores gender, ethnicity. Deterministic as over emphasizes amount of w/c crime. Homicide in Japan and
Switzerland is 1/5 of the USA, however Marxists argue down to welfare system. CJS acts against m/c e.g.,
Bernie Madoff.
Neo Marxism:
Taylor, Walton, and Young: Argue Marxism is deterministic. Crime is a meaningful action and a conscious choice
by actor. Seen as an act against rebellion to the unequal capitalist system.
Taylor: Wider/immediate origins of deviant act, the act, immediate/ wider origins of social reaction, effects of
labelling.
Eval: Gender blind, romanticises w/c as robin hoods but mostly poor on poor, ignores victims, too generalist
and idealistic.
Crimes of the powerful:
White collar – committed by higher class individuals.
Occupational crime – Committed by employees for personal gain.
Corporate crime – Committed by employees for their organisation.
Financial crimes: Tax evasion, money laundering, illegal accounting.
Crimes against consumers: Selling unfit goods (Poly implant prosthese).
Crimes against employees: Discrimination, violation of laws (Boohoo scandal).
Crimes against environment: Illegal pollution of air, water, land. (Volkswagen).
Abuse of trust: 80% of MPs abusing expenses, covid parties, Lucy Letby.
Stats: Costs of white-collar crime in USA 10x ordinary crimes, Box: More deaths in UK from breaches of law by
businesses than conventional murder.
Invisibility- Hughes and Langan: Low visibility, complexity, diffusion of responsibility/victimisation, little
coverage, lack of political will, de-labelling.
Explanations: Strain (Box and Clinard + Yeager), differential association (Geis) , labelling (Cicourel, Clinyard +
Yeager) , Marxism (Ball).
Eval: Over predict business crime Nelken, Law abiding may be more profitable Braithwaite- US Pharmaceutical.
Booklet 1: Functionalism, strain, and subcultural theories.
Functionalists: See crime as inevitable and universal. “An integral part of all healthy societies”. Found
because not all individuals socialised effectively and there is a diversity of lifestyles in complex
modern societies. Tendency towards anomie.
Durkheim: Reaffirms boundaries – Sends out a message to society that there are boundaries that if
you cross will be punished accordingly. Reinforces social solidarity.
Brings about change – All changes in society originate from a deviant act and as a result society can
move forward. E.g., security checks, CRB system, Martyn’s laws.
Positive functions of crime – Polsky – Porn and prostitution acts a safety valve to channel sexual
desire away from other alternatives which pose a threat to nuclear family.
Festivals – Allowing young people to express themselves in a controlled environment.
Eval: Ignores impacts on victim, Durkheim never stated what the ‘perfect’ amount of crime is.
Hirschi: Bonds of Attachment: Attachment, commitment, Involvement, Belief.
Eval of functionalism: Useful in showing how deviance is integral, do not consider who crime is
functional for, ignores role of capitalism/feminism/labelling.
Strain theory:
Merton: Deviance results from strain between goals that culture/American Dream encourage people
to achieve and what the institutional structure of society allows them to achieve. Conformity,
ritualism, innovation, retreatism, rebellion. Eval: Takes official stats as face value, deterministic – not
all w/c deviate, not everyone shares money goal, ignores group deviance/non – utilitarian crime.
Cohen: Deviance as a product of delinquent subcultures, status frustration. Offers an alternative
status hierarchy to achieve through the illegitimate opportunity structure. Eval: Assumes all w/c start
off with same goals as m/c only to reject them when they fail.
Cloward and Ohlin: Different neighbourhoods provide different criminal opportunities. Not everyone
has access to illegitimate means. Criminal (Kray twins), Conflict (Postcode wars), Retreatism (Illegal
drug use). Eval: See crime as a w/c phenomenon, South- draws boundaries too sharply, not everyone
starts off with same success goals.
Messner and Rosenfield: Institutional anomie theory: Obsession with wealth brought about anomic
environment. Anything goes. Undermines other institutions e.g., schools. Inadequate welfare, crime
inevitable. Eval: Downes and Hanson: Survey of 18 countries, societies that spent more on welfare
had lower prison rates.
DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY: Sutherland- Deviance was a behaviour learned through social
interactions with others who are deviant.
, Booklet 2: Marxism
Traditional Marxism and Crime
Criminogenic capitalism: Poverty – crime to survive, capitalist advertising – crime, alienation – non utilitarian
crime, dog eat dog system m/c crime. Gordon – Crime is a rational response.
State and law making-Chambliss: Protect private property, property laws against theft, restrict strikes,
loopholes to avoid tax. Example of English Law in Britain’s East African colonies. Snider: Reluctant to pass laws
that regulate activities of businesses or limit their power.
Selective reinforcement: w/c and em are criminalised whereas crimes of powerful are ignored.
Ideological functions of crime and deviance: Occasionally pass laws that appear to benefit w/c. Pearce: Keeps
them fit for work/ caring face of capitalism/ false class consciousness.
Bhopal disaster
Eval: Ignores gender, ethnicity. Deterministic as over emphasizes amount of w/c crime. Homicide in Japan and
Switzerland is 1/5 of the USA, however Marxists argue down to welfare system. CJS acts against m/c e.g.,
Bernie Madoff.
Neo Marxism:
Taylor, Walton, and Young: Argue Marxism is deterministic. Crime is a meaningful action and a conscious choice
by actor. Seen as an act against rebellion to the unequal capitalist system.
Taylor: Wider/immediate origins of deviant act, the act, immediate/ wider origins of social reaction, effects of
labelling.
Eval: Gender blind, romanticises w/c as robin hoods but mostly poor on poor, ignores victims, too generalist
and idealistic.
Crimes of the powerful:
White collar – committed by higher class individuals.
Occupational crime – Committed by employees for personal gain.
Corporate crime – Committed by employees for their organisation.
Financial crimes: Tax evasion, money laundering, illegal accounting.
Crimes against consumers: Selling unfit goods (Poly implant prosthese).
Crimes against employees: Discrimination, violation of laws (Boohoo scandal).
Crimes against environment: Illegal pollution of air, water, land. (Volkswagen).
Abuse of trust: 80% of MPs abusing expenses, covid parties, Lucy Letby.
Stats: Costs of white-collar crime in USA 10x ordinary crimes, Box: More deaths in UK from breaches of law by
businesses than conventional murder.
Invisibility- Hughes and Langan: Low visibility, complexity, diffusion of responsibility/victimisation, little
coverage, lack of political will, de-labelling.
Explanations: Strain (Box and Clinard + Yeager), differential association (Geis) , labelling (Cicourel, Clinyard +
Yeager) , Marxism (Ball).
Eval: Over predict business crime Nelken, Law abiding may be more profitable Braithwaite- US Pharmaceutical.
