CRIMINOLOGY, PENOLOGY & CRIMINAL

JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION
[INTERNAL ASSESSMENT TEST - I]

Name Ashwin Sathish Nair

Roll No. 1427
Semester IX
Course B.A.LLB (Hons.)
 INTERNAL ASSESSMENT TEST – I

QUESTION

Analyse Durkheim's Theory of Crime. (3000 Words)

ANSWER

DURKHEIM’S ANOMIE – CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The term ‘anomie’ refers to normlessness. This theory has been propounded by Emile

Durkheim. According to Durkheim, rapid social change coupled with the weakening of

traditional institutions resulted in anomie. It refers to a widespread lack of commitment to

shared values, standards, and rules required to regulate the behaviour of individuals.

Durkheim states that high rates of suicide and homicide are prevalent in an anomie ridden

society.

Durkheim’s theory of anomie was later reformulated by Robert K. Merton. Unlike

Durkheim, Merton did not just confine himself to stating that, “human beings had

unlimited desires and wants”, but went onto add that “criminality results from offender’s

inability to attain his goals by socially acceptable means. It focuses on the conflict between

culturally prescribed goals, and the social structure which bars many from access to

legitimate means for achievement of these goals. Those deprived must reject either the

achievement of the goals or the norms prescribing legitimate means. Some reject the latter

and resort to deviant behaviour to achieve the goals. Some of the others reject both the

goals and means, and deviate by rebelling against or retreating from the culture. The

psychological rejection of norms by individuals was originally called 'anomie' by Merton,

and then re- named 'anomia'.

Doping in sports is one such example. Cheating in examinations, resorting to backdoor

methods to climb up the ladder in one’s employment, and corruption are other instances.

2
Thus, it can be discerned that if inequality in society is overcome, anomie can be curbed

to a large extend.

The theory of Anomie has also been faced with criticisms. Firstly, it can be easily discerned

from Robert Merton’s propositions that he explains criminality only within the lower

economic groups, since the upper class most often have the means to achieve their desires.

Further, he does not provide an explanation as to why people react differently when under

stress.

THE FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE ON CRIME AND DEVIANCE

Functionalist believe that crime is actually beneficial for society – for example it can

improve social integration and social regulation.

The Functionalist analysis of crime starts with society as a whole. It seeks to explain crime

by looking at the nature of society, rather than at individuals. There are two main thinkers

usually associated with the Functionalist Perspective on Crime:

1. Emile Durkheim

2. Robert Merton

DURKHEIM: THREE KEY IDEAS ABOUT CRIME

A limited amount of crime is inevitable and even necessary Crime has positive functions -

A certain amount of crime contributes to the well-being of a society. On the other hand,

too much crime is bad for society and can help bring about its collapse, hence institutions

of social control are necessary to keep the amount of crime in check.

CRIME IS INEVITABLE
Durkheim argued that crime is an inevitable and normal aspect of social life. He pointed

out that crime is inevitable in all societies, and that the crime rate was in fact higher in

more advanced, industrial societies.

3
Durkheim also imagined a ‘society of saints’ populated by perfect individuals deviance

would still exist. The general standards of behaviour would be so high that the slightest

slip would be regarded as a serious offence. Thus the individual who simply showed bad

taste, or was merely impolite, would attract strong disapproval.

Durkheim argues that all social change begins with some form of deviance. In order for

changes to occur, yesterday’s deviance becomes today’s norm.

CRIME PERFORMS POSITIVE FUNCTIONS

Durkheim went a step further and argued that a certain amount of crime was functional

for society. Three positive functions of crime include:

• Social Regulation (reaffirming the boundaries of acceptable behaviour): Each time

the Police arrest a person, they are making it clear to the rest of society that the

particular action concerned is unacceptable. In contemporary society newspapers

also help to perform the publicity function, with their often-lurid accounts of

criminal acts. In effect, the courts and the media are ‘broadcasting’ the boundaries

of acceptable behaviour, warning others not to breach the walls of the law (and

therefore society)

• Social Integration (Social Cohesion): A second function of crime is to actually

strengthen social cohesion. For example, when particularly horrific crimes have

been committed the whole community joins together in outrage and the sense of

belonging to a community is therefore strengthened.

• Social Change: A further action performed by the criminals is to provide a

constant test of the boundaries of permitted action. When the law is clearly out of

step with the feelings and values of the majority, legal reform is necessary. Criminals

4
 therefore, perform a crucial service in helping the law to reflect the wishes of the

population and legitimising social change.

Durkheim argued that crime only became dysfunctional when there was too much or too

little of it – too much and social order would break down, too little and there would not

be sufficient capacity for positive social change.

DURKHEIM’S VIEW OF PUNISHMENT

Durkheim suggested that the function of punishment was not to remove crime from

society altogether, because society ‘needed’ crime. The point of punishment was to control

crime and to maintain the collective sentiments. In Durkheim’s own words punishment

‘serves to heal the wounds done to the collective sentiments’.

According to Durkheim a healthy society requires both crime and punishment to be in

balance and to be able to change.

EVALUATIONS OF DURKHEIM’S FUNCTIONALIST VIEW OF CRIME

Durkheim talks about crime in very general terms. He theorizes that ‘crime’ is necessary

and even functional but fails to distinguish between different types of crime. It could be

that some crimes may be so harmful that they will always be dysfunctional rather than

functional.

Secondly, Durkheim is suggesting that the criminal justice system benefits everyone in

society by punishing criminals and reinforcing the acceptable boundaries of behaviour.

However, Marxist and Feminist analysis of crime demonstrates that not all criminals are

punished equally and thus crime and punishment benefit the powerful for than the

powerless

5
Interactionists would suggest that whether or not a crime is functional cannot be

determined objectively; surely it depends on an individual’s relationship to the crime.

Functionalists assume that society has universal norms and values that are reinforced by

certain crimes being punished in public. Postmodernists argue society is so diverse, there

is no such thing as ‘normal.