Paper 3- Crime and Deviance notes

Functionalism
Durkheim- argued that crime provided negative and positive functions for
society. He argued that some crime and deviance was inevitable as in a society
there will always be some deviance as people like to test the boundaries.
 For example, in a “society of saints” behaviour like sneezing or burping
could become criminalised. Value consensus is very important for society
to maintain social order, if people are not in value consensus this will
lead to anomie where there are no agreed rules.

 Positive functions of crime and deviance: Durkheim argued that crime

and deviance helps to promote social solidarity. For example, the
Manchester bombings caused a shared outrage leading to the expression
of a “public temper”. This is an example of “collective conscience” where
members of a community share a set of values and ideas about what is
right and wrong. In other words, crime and deviance helps to reinforce
belief in society’s moral code.

 Members of any society must learn the boundaries of what is acceptable

behaviour within that society. Society unites to condemn wrong doers,
and this leads to a collective agreement that such behaviour is wrong
and should not be repeated. Such punishment will involve the agencies
of social control such as the police or the government.

Deviance acts a safety valve- an idea suggested by other functionalists, as it

allows individuals or a group to “let off steam” to prevent worse deviance.
 Davis (1961) suggested that minor crime or deviance acts as a outlet for
the tensions that are inherent in modern life. By allowing these tensions
to escape through minor deviant activity this prevents more serious
criminality or deviance at a later date
 Davis (1961) studied prostitution and suggested that if a man finds an
outlet for his sexual needs such as visiting prostitutes, this may prevent
more damaging behaviour such as an affair (which could lead to the
breakdown of the family unit) or even rape.
Evaluation of Durkheim
 Durkheim explains why we need deviance, but he does not explain why
it happens, why some groups of people commit it more than other and
why different people are deviant in different ways.
 He also doesn’t consider the negative effects of deviance on individuals
such as victims of crime or issues such as who creates the law, or who
has the power to evade the law. Marxists would challenge this.