Crime & Deviance

Full topic revision

Functionalist, strain &
subcultural theories
 Durkheim: Other functions of crime:
• Crime is an inevitable part of a normal, healthy society because not • Davis (1961)- prostitution is a safety
everyone is successfully socialised into society’s norms and values, and valve that helps release men’s sexual
instead have different norms, subcultures and lifestyles. frustrations without threatening the
• He argues there 2 positive functions of crime: monogamous nuclear family.
1. Boundary maintenance- crime causes a reaction from society, we • Polsky (1967)- pornography safely
condemn wrongdoers to reinforce our commitment to norms and values. channels away desires that would
EG- courtroom rituals do this by dramatising wrongdoing and publicly threaten the family, such as adultery.
shaming the offender. • Cohen- deviance functions as a
2. Adaptation & change- crime/deviance gives us the scope to challenge warning that an institutions isn’t
current rules/laws/norms, which leads to society making necessary functioning properly, like policy-
changes. EG- legalising gay marriage. makers knowing to make changes to
Functionalism school if the amount of truants is high.
• Erikson (1966)- argues that if
Evaluation: deviance has positive functions, then
• Shows us how crime and deviance can be integral to society’s running. society must therefore be organised to
• Often after major crime/attacks, communities unite to condemn the wrongdoer. promote deviance. EG- using student
(solidarity.) rag weeks to allow behaviour that
• Durkheim argues there’s a ‘right’ amount of crime/deviance for society, but proposes normally is punished may give us
no way of measuring this. leeway to cope with the strain of
• The effects of ‘functions’ on individuals are ignored. EG- men having a safety growing up.
valve/function, but the often illegally trafficked sex worker having to be functional for
him and not themselves.
• Crime doesn’t always promote solidarity- women may fear going out into society.
• Argues that people turn to deviance when they can’t achieve socially accepted goals by legitimate means. Deviant adaptations to strain:
• Merton combines structural factors (unequal opportunities) and cultural factors (strong emphasis on success goals, weak • Conformity- accepts the culturally approved gaols and strive to achieve
emphasis on achieving legitimately). them legitimately.
• American culture puts values on money success (wealth and high status), and this makes up the American Dream, based in • Innovation- accepts the money success goal but use illegitimate ways
meritocracy. to achieve it, like theft or fraud. WC are under more pressure to
• However, we know that people in society are denied opportunities, which pushes them to deviance. innovate.
• Ritualism- gives up on trying to achieve the goals, but have internalised
Evaluation of Merton: the legitimate means that make them follow the rules for their own
Strengths: sake. Lower MC officer workers are like this.
• Most crime is property crime, supporting his idea of people trying to reach the American Dream illegitimately. • Retreatism- rejects both the goals and legitimate means, becoming
• Lower class crime rates are higher as they have less opportunity for wealth. dropouts. This is drug addicts, vagrants, outcasts, etc.
Weaknesses: • Rebellion- rejects society’s goals and means, replacing them with new
• Theory takes official stats at face value, ignoring that they over-represent the WC. ones. This is political rebels, hippies, etc.
• Assumes value consensus when not all people strive for society’s goals. Merton (1938):
• Only explains individual adaptation to strain, not group deviance like subcultures.
• Only explains utilitarian crime. Cloward & Ohlin (1960):
Cohen (1955): Strain &
subcultural • Argue that different subcultures emerge not only from unequal
strain theories legitimate opportunities, but unequal illegitimate opportunities.
• Agrees with Meron that deviance is a • Criminal subcultures- youths get an apprenticeship for
WC phenomenon, but criticises him for Alternative status hierarchy: utilitarian crime, allowing them to associate with adult criminals
seeing deviance as an individual • Thee subculture’s values are malice, who will select those with the right abilities and provide them
Evaluation of Cloward & Ohlin:
response and non-utilitarian crime. spite and hostility to those outside with training and role models, as well as opportunities on the
Strengths:
Status frustration: of it. criminal ladder. This arises in neighbourhoods that have a
• Unlike Cohen, they explain why there’s
• They invert mainstream society’s withstanding criminal network that has an established
• Cohen focuses on WC boys in a MC different types of WC deviance/subcultures.
values, making an illegitimate hierarchy of professional crime.
dominated school system, as they are Weaknesses:
opportunity structure that allows the • South (2020)- argues the lines between • Conflict subcultures- illegitimate opportunities available in
culturally deprived and lack skills to loosely organised gangs, where young men release their
boys to get status and approval subcultures are too tightly draw, while in
achieve in this environment. frustrations about blocked opportunities by using violence, and
through peers via delinquent reality the drug trade is a mix of disorganised
• This puts them at the bottom of the get status from winning enemy’s turf. This arises in
behaviour. crime and professional mafia style crime.
status hierarchy, they are unable to neighbourhoods of high population turnover, as the high levels
• This explains why people may • Matza (1964)- delinquents aren’t as
achieve legitimately via education and of social disorganisation stop a stable criminal network from
commit non-utilitarian crime such as committed to a subculture as this theory
now have status frustration. developing.
vandalism. portrays, and instead drift in and out
• Retreatist subcultures- not everyone aspires to be a
• Here, they reject mainstream MC
values and turn to other boys and join • However- assumes that the WC delinquency.
professional criminal or a successful gang leader, just like not
share the MC values to begin with, • Ignores crime of the wealth and the larger
a delinquent subculture. everyone in the legitimate structure gets the best job. These
power structure making/enforcing laws
ignoring that some don’t see double failures turn to this subculture, which is based on illegal
themselves as failures. drug use. This arises in any neighbourhood.
Interactionalism & labelling
theory
 Becker (1963):
• Argues a deviant is just someone who has been successfully labelled in this
way, and deviant behaviour is just behaviour we label as such. This means
the act itself isn’t deviant, but society’s reaction that makes it so.
• Argues that moral entrepreneurs are people leading moral campaigns to
change law, which creates outsiders who break the new rule, and the
creation/expansion of social control agencies like the police- who enforce
rule and label offenders.
Cicourel (1968):
• Found officer’s typifications of what delinquents are like led to law
enforcement showing class bias.
• This meant more police would patrol WC areas, causing more
arrests and confirming police stereotypes. Thus he argues we should
use official stats as a resource to investigate the actions of control
agencies instead of a resource for crime rates.
• Found other parts of the CJS helped confirm stereotypes. EG:
probation officers holding the theory that juvenile delinquency
comes from broken homes, poverty and lax parenting. This meant
they would see these youths as delinquents and would support
giving them custodial sentences.
• Therefore, Cicourel argues that justice is negotiable instead of fixed.
Young MC delinquents were less likely to be charge because they
didn’t fit typifications.
• MC parents are also able to use wealth/connections to negotiate
and convince control agencies that they’ll monitor behaviour and
that they won’t do it again. Here, the MC were usually counselled,
warned and released instead of prosecuted.
Who gets labelled?
Whether a person is arrested, charged and convicted depends on:
1. Their interactions with social control agencies.
2. Appearance, background & personal biography.
3. The situation/circumstances of the offence.
Studies show social control agencies are more likely to label certain groups as
criminal/deviant:
• Piliavin & Briar (1964)- police’s decisions to arrest youths were based
character judgements that they made from dress/manners. Officers were
also influenced by suspect’s class, gender and ethnicity, as well as
time/place. EG: study found anti-social behaviour orders were used
disproportionately against ethic minorities.
The social
construction
of crime
The social construction of crime statistics:
• Interactionalists argue that official crime stats are socially constructed.
• This is because there is an agent of social control (officer, prosecutor, etc) at each
stage of the CJS, who makes decisions about whether to proceed. The outcome
depends on the label they attach to individual suspects/defendants through
interactions.
• This means that official stats tell us about the decisions of police and prosecutors
instead of the amount of crime in society and who commits it.
• Dark figure of crime- unrecorded, unreported, undetected crime in society that
we’re unaware of.
• Alternative stats- some use victim surveys to get a more accurate view on the
amount of crime, though this can have issues such as people forgetting, lying or
exaggerating if they’ve committed/been victim to a crime.
 Lemert (1951)- primary & secondary deviance:
Primary deviance:
• Acts that haven’t been publicly labelled as deviant, and are often
trivial/widespread that Lemert argues finding their causes is pointless.
• Offenders can rationalise these acts as moments of madness and don’t see
themselves as deviant, meaning the act doesn’t affect their self-concept.
Secondary deviance:
• Acts that have been labelled by society as deviant, those caught are
publicly labelled as criminal and are stigmatised, shamed and shunned
from society.
• Those labelled this way may only be seen as their label by others, making it
become the offender’s master status- controlling identity overriding all
others.
• This causes a crisis of self-concept which the individual may resolve by
accepting the label, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy. The further acts that
result from this label/prophecy are called secondary deviance.
• Deviant career- secondary deviance provokes a negative reaction from
society, whiter further reinforces individuals outsider status. Those who
come out of prison often go straight to a deviant career because if offers
opportunities and a subculture, as well as status they lost in prison.
• Downes & Rock (2003)- we can’t predict someone labelled will follow a
deviant career, they are free to not deviate further.
Evaluation of labelling theory:
• Shows that the law in enforced in discriminative ways and that
society’s attempts to control deviance can backfire.
• Too deterministic- assumes labels always lead to deviant careers.
• Realists argue that labelling paints offender as victims, taking away
from victims of crime.
• Assumes offenders are passive to labelling and don’t choose to
deviate.
• Fails to explain people who deviate before being labelled.
• Ignores the wider power structure labelling takes place in, instead of
looking at the capitalist class making the rules in the first place.
Cohen (1972)- deviance amplification spiral:
• This is where attempts to control deviance leads to an increase in deviance.
• More and more control results in more and more deviance, it’s an escalating spiral.
• Cohen’s study of folk devils and moral panics found that the press
exaggeration/distorted reporting became a normal panic, causing public concern and
moral entrepreneurs wanting a crackdown.
• The police responded by arresting more youths and courts imposed harsher penalties.
• This seemed to confirm the truth of the media reaction, pushing the public to further
concern- which demonised the mods and rockers as outsiders, which they responded
with more deviance.
Labelling & criminal justice policy:
• Studies have shown that trying to control/punish young
offenders has the opposite effect.
• Triplett (2000)- sees an increase in seeing young offenders as
evil, and a lesser tolerance for minor deviance. The CJS has re-
labelled truancy as more serious, therefore punishing it
The effects harsher. As the secondary deviance theory suggests, this raise
of labelling deviance levels instead of control it.
• This shows the implications labelling theory has on policy,
suggesting that control is easier if there are less rules to follow.
Braithwaite (1989)- reintegrative shaming:
Argues for a more positive role for labelling, identifying 2 types:
1. Disintegrative shaming- the crime and the criminal are labelled as bade
and they’re excluded from society.
2. Reintegrative shaming- only the crime is labelled as bad, not the actor.
• The emphasis here is on the offender being aware of their wrongdoings
and other being able to forgive them so that reintegration into society is
possible and crime rates are reduced.
Class, power & crime
 1. Criminogenic capitalism: 2. The state & law making:
Crime is inevitable in a capitalist society because capitalism itself causes crime, making it • Marxists see law making and law enforcement as serving the
criminogenic. As it’s based on exploiting the WC, it gives rise to crime: interests of the capitalist class.
• Poverty means crime may be the WC’s only way to survive. • Chambliss (1975)- argues laws to protect private property
• Utilitarian crime may be the only way to get consumer goods capitalist ads show. are the cornerstone of the capitalist economy. This is because
• Non-utilitarian crime may be the only way for the WC to deal with alienation and lack of Britain needed labour on their colonies’ plantations, but the
control over their lives. local economy wasn’t one of money. To get workers, a tax
However, capitalism is a competitive system, so crime isn’t confined to just the WC: payable by cash was made, and the only way to get cash was by
• The need to win no matter what/stay in business encourages capitalists to commit white- working- therefore making the law serve the economic needs of
collar and corporate crime. plantation owners.
• Gordon (1976)- argues crime is a rational response to the capitalist system, which is why • Snider (1993)- argues the state is reluctant to pass laws that
it’s found in all classes. would regulate the activities of businesses/threaten their
profitability.
Selective enforcement:
3. Ideological functions of crime & law: • Marxists believe that the application of law is unequal, even
Marxism,
• The law, crime and criminals perform an ideological function for though all classes commit crime.
capitalism. class & crime
• They argue that while powerless groups like ethnic minorities
• This means that laws may be passed to look they benefit the and the WC are criminalised, crimes of the powerful are
WC instead of capitalists, like workplace health and safety laws. ignored- meaning we can’t take official stats at face value.
• Pearce (1976)- argues these laws DO benefit capitalism by
keeping us fit for work and giving capitalism a ‘caring’ face and Evaluation of Marxism:
ensuing false class consciousness. Strengths:
• Health & safety laws aren’t rigorously enforced- the 2007 • Completes what labelling theory missed- puts it into a wider structural context by discussing
corporate homicide law had 1 prosecution in the first 8yrs selective enforcement and why it happens.
despite negligent employers being responsible for many deaths. • Explains the relationship between crime and capitalist society as well as how laws link to the
• Selective enforcement ensures false-class conscious by making interests of the ruling class.
a crime a WC issue, where workers turn against criminals Weaknesses:
instead of capitalism. • Ignores the relationship between crime and other inequalities like gender/ethnicity.
• Deterministic- over-predicts WC crime and ignores that not everyone in poverty turns it.
• Left realists- says the ignore intra-class crime where the offender and victim are WC, and the
harm this causes victims.
• The CJS has punished corporate crime instead of ignoring it.
 Taylor et al agree with Marxists that:
1. Capitalist society is based on exploitation and class conflict, it’s characteristic being extreme wealth and power
inequality.
2. The state makes/enforces laws in the interests of the capitalist class while criminalising the WC.
3. We should replace capitalism with a classless society to reduce or even extinct crime.
A fully social theory of deviance (6 aspects): Anti-determinism/critiques of Marxism:
• This is a comprehensive understanding of crime and • Taylor et al argues Marxism is deterministic because it
deviance to help change society for the better. sees workers as committing crime out of economic
• It combines the Marxist idea about unequal wealth necessity.
distribution and who makes law with • Instead, Taylor et al reject this and take a voluntaristic
interactionalist/labelling ideas about the meaning of the view.
act to the deviant, society’s reaction and how deviant • This is where crime is a meaningful action and conscious
labels affect people. choice of the actor.
1. Wider origins of the deviant act- within the Neo-Marxism: • They argue criminals aren’t passive puppets shaped by
unequal distribution of wealth/power of a capitalist critical capitalism, but that they are deliberately striving to
society. criminology change society.
2. Immediate origins of the deviant act- the context
in which the individual decides to commit the act. Evaluation of critical criminology:
3. The act itself- the meaning for the actor- was it to • Feminists- call the approach gender-blind, it focuses excessively on male criminality at the
rebel against capitalism? expense of females.
4. The immediate origins of social reaction- • Left realists- theory paints the WC as robin hoods that fright capitalism by redistributing wealth
reactions of those around the deviant (police, family) to to the poor, which ignores that these crimes pray on the poor.
discovering the act. • Left realists- argue Taylor et al don’t take such crime seriously and ignore how WC victims are
5. The wider origins of social reaction- in capitalist effected.
society, the issues of who has the power to define acts • Burke (2005)- critical criminology is too general to explain crime, and too idealistic to tackle crime.
as deviant and label others, and why some acts are Taylor et al- defences of their book looking back:
treated more harshly. • The book combated the ‘correctionalist bias’ of other theories (where sociology’s role is correcting
6. The effects of labelling- on the deviant’s future acts- behaviour), by calling for a greater tolerance of diversity in behaviour.
why do labels sometimes cause a deviance spiral and • The book set foundations for later theories seeking a more just society, like left realism and
other times not? feminism.
Sutherland (1949)- defines white collar crime as one committed by a The scale & types of corporate crime: The abuse of trust:
person of respectability and high status in the course of their occupation. Tombs (2013)- corporate crimes have enormous costs: physical (death/injury), • Carrabine et al (2020)- we entrust
Though his aim was to challenge the stereotype that only the WC commit environmental (pollution), and economic (to consumers/workers/taxpayers/governments). professionals with our finances,
crime, his definition doesn’t explain 2 types of crime: 1. Financial crimes- tax evasion, bribery, money laundering, illegal accounting. Victims- health, security & personal info, but
1. Occupational crime- committed by employees for personal gain other companies, shareholders, tax payers, governments. their high status means they can
and often against their workplace, like stealing from the company. 2. Crimes against consumers- false labelling and selling unfit goods. EG: French abuse this trust.
2. Corporate crime- committed by employees for the company and government recommended women remove implants from a certain brand because they • UK tribunal found a tax evasion
its goals, like mis-selling products on purpose to increase profit. were dangerous. scheme by accountants Ernst &
• Another problem is that crimes of the powerful may not break 3. Crimes against employees- sexual/racial discrimination, violating wage laws, union Young for rich clients unacceptable.
criminal law, like some being administrative offences such as not rights or health and safety laws. Tombs says 1.1k work relate deaths are caused by • Healthwise, Harold Shipman was
complying with government regulators. employers breaking laws. found guilty of 15 murders across
• Pearce & Tombs (2003)- overcome this issue by defining 4. Crimes against the environment- illegal pollution of air, water and land. 15 years and is believed to have 200
corporate crime as any illegal act/omission that is the result of more victims, which used his status
5. State-corporate crime- harms committed when government institutions and businesses
deliberate decisions/culpable negligence by a business for their own and trust to obtain lethal drugs.
cooperate to pursue their goals.
benefit.
White collar & corporate crime: Explanations of corporate crime:
The invisibility of corporate crime:
Crimes of the
Why crimes of the powerful are invisible/seen as not real: powerful Strain theory:
1. The media- corporate crime has limited coverage, so crime is reinforced as a WC • Box (1983)- argues that if a company can’t reach its goals of maximising
issue, and sanitise language like ‘accident’ instead of ‘negligence’ are used. profit legally, they’ll do it illegally instead, and that difficult business
2. Lack of political will- when politicians say they’re tough on crime, they focus on conditions can make this more tempting.
street crime rather than on corporate. Evaluation: Differential association:
3. Complexity- law enforcers are under-funded, under-staffed and lack the • Strain and Marxist ideas over- • Sutherland (1949)- argues crime is behaviour learnt from others in a social
technical expertise to properly investigate them. predict the amount of business context, so associating with those with a disregard for laws can make us
4. De-labelling- corporate crime is filtered out of the criminalisation process, like crime, Nelken argues it’s more likely to behave in the same way.
offences being deemed civil instead of criminal, paying fines instead of being unrealistic to think all businesses • this means that if a companies culture justifies crime, employees will be
sentenced. would offend with the risk of socialised into this- Sykes & Matza (1957) argue these people can deviate
5. Under-reporting- these crimes’ victims are the environment or society at large, punishment. more easily by applying the companies culture of everyone’s doing it’.
or someone may not know they’re a victim or feel powerless against huge Labelling theory:
• If capitalism causes corporate
organisations. • Nelken (2012)- de-labelling, where companies have the power/wealth for
crime, how are the crimes of non-
Partial visibility? lawyers, accountants to get lesser charges or hide their involvement in tax
• These factors remove corporate crime from the common definition of crime, as profit agencies like the army and
avoidance schemes.
well as the law/order agenda, thus making it invisible. police explained?
Marxism:
• However, they’ve been made more visible since the 2008 financial crisis, where • Argue corporate crime is a result of capitalism functioning normally.
campaigns like Occupy are against corporate tax avoidance, and more • Box (1983)- capitalism creates mystification, the ideology that corporate
journalism/whistle-blowers about this issue. crimes are less widespread/harmful than WC crime.
Realist theories of crime
 1. Biological differences: 2. Socialisation & the underclass: 3. Rational choice theory:
• Wilson & Herrnstein (1985)- • Biological factors may increase the offending risk, but socialisation brings it down • This theory assumes all individuals have free will and
crime is caused by biological and because we learn self control and morals of right/wrong. power of reason when making decisions.
social factors, such as those with • Right realists argue the nuclear family socialises the best. • Clarke (1980)- the decision to commit crime is a choice
traits like aggressiveness and low • Murray (1990)- crime rate is increasing because of a growing underclass who don’t based on a rational calculation of the consequences.
impulse control being more likely socialise their children properly. • The greater the cost, the less likely to commit, the
to offend. • He says they’re growing because of welfare dependency- causing a decline in greater the reward, the more likely to commit.
• Herrnstein & Murray (1994)- marriage and a rise in dependent lone mothers/children and unemployed men that • Right realists believe the costs of the crime are too
argue the main cause of crime is don’t support their family. small, which is why crime rates have gone up
low intelligence, which they say is • Finally, Murray ties this into crime by saying lone mothers don’t socialise their • Routine activity theory- Felson (2002) argues for a
biologically determined. children properly and children have no male role models, so they become street crime to happen there must be a motivated offender, a
criminals. suitable target (person/property), and no capable
guardian (like police).
Right realism belief: The causes of crime:
• Crime is a real problem in society- it destroys communities and Criticisms of right realist explanations:
undermines social cohesion. Right realists aren’t concerned with • Ignores wider structural factors like poverty.
the causes of the crime, they want realistic solutions to it. • Overcompensates offenders rationality (ignores effects of drug/alcohol
• Views align with 1970/80s neo-conservative governments. Right abuse) and doesn’t explain impulsive/non-utilitarian crime.
realism • Contradicts themselves- clash between offender’s freedom/rational
choice and determined biological/socialisation factors.

Dealing with crime:
• It’s a waste of time finding causes of crime, we need practical action
that makes crime unattractive.
• Right realists focus on controlling, containing and punishing offenders.
This means crime prevention policies should reduce the
rewards/increase the costs of offending. Example- target hardening,
where punishments are used more and much sooner after the offence
has happened (this maximises the punishment’s deterrence.)
• Wilson & Kelling (1982)- zero tolerance policy needs to be in place.
The police need to focus on controlling the streets so law-abiding
people feel safe, and signs of deterioration (crime) need to be dealt
with immediately by harsh punishment.
Tackling crime:
Criticisms of tackling crime/zero tolerance:
• Young (2011)- argues the New York example of zero tolerance policy is a myth. The crime rate had been
falling 5 years before the policy was introduced, and in the shortage of serious crime, NY police widened
their net and made arrests on minor offences that they normally wouldn’t acknowledge. This means the
success was actually the police dealing with a decline that already happened.
• Preoccupied with petty street crimes, ignore more harmful and costly crimes like corporate crime.
• Enables police to discriminate against minorities, homeless, youths, etc.
• Overemphasis on controlling disorder instead of fixing causes of neighbourhood decline.
• Zero tolerance and target hardening lead to displacing crime to a different area.
• Crime is a real problem that especially effects disadvantaged 1. Relative deprivation: 2. Subculture: 3. Marginalisation:
groups as they’re the main victims. Left realists say other • Lea & Young argue crime has its roots in • Left relists see this as a group response to • Marginalised groups lack clear
theorists don’t take crime seriously. deprivation, though it doesn’t directly cause crime- relative deprivation. goals/organisations to represent
• Marxists are too focused on the crimes of the powerful, EG: high poverty and low crime rate in 1930s. But • Groups have different subcultural solutions their interests.
neglecting WC crime and its effects. rise in crime and living standards by the 50s. to this problem, such as closing the • EG: workers have clear goals like
• Neo-Marxists romanticise the WC as Robin Hoods who steal • Relative deprivation is how deprived we feel in deprivation gap through crime, or using better conditions/pay, and use
relation to others/compared to our expectations. religion/spiritual comfort to explain their organisations like trade unions to
from the rich/resist capitalism- ignoring that WC crime often
People may resort to crime to get what they feel is disadvantage. pressure employers/politicians.
victimises other WC people.
theirs. • Left realists argue criminal subcultures still • However- unemployed youths
• Labelling theorists see criminals as victims to unfair labelling
• Lea & Young- society today is prosperous and have mainstream goals/values like are marginalised because they
by social control agents- ignoring the real victims (WC people crime ridden because though we’re more well off, materialism and consumerism. don’t have these things, only
who criminals make suffer). media and ads shows us our relative deprivation • Young (2002)- USA ghettos had the frustration and resentment,
• Taking crime seriously means recognising who is most affected and raised our expectations of what we should American dream culture, but used crime to which they release through
by crime, like unskilled workers being 2x more likely to be have, which encourages crime. achieve them. crime- violent behaviour and
burgled, and that equality will be achieved through gradual rioting.
change.
Lea & Young: the 3 causes of crime:
Taking crime seriously: Policing & control:
• Kinsey Lea & Young (1986)- argue police
Late modernity, exclusion & crime: Tackling crime: clear up rates are too low to deter
Left realism crime, and say the public should be
more involved in determining police
• Young (2002)- we’re in late modernity, where priorities and style of policing.
factors like instability, insecurity and exclusion have • Military policing- police usually rely on
made crime worse. Evaluation: Tackling the structural causes: public’s info in investigating crime, but
• Insecurity and exclusion started rising in the 70s, and • Henry & Milovanovic Left realism & government policy: • Left realists don’t see this is declining because the public don’t
de-industrialisation and loss of unskilled jobs has (1996)- left realists • They have had more influence on policy improved policing/control as support the police. Therefore, they rely
raised unemployment rates. accept the definition than most theories of crime, and their the main solution, because on military policing, ‘swamping’ areas,
• People in these circumstances have to turn to crime that crime is a WC issue ideas align with 1997-2010 New Labour crime lies in the unequal using random stop and search tactics,
to survive, which is why crime rates are up. rather than addressing government- tough on crime, tough on structure of society. etc. This loses them police support with
• Relative deprivation is also increasing- the poor crimes of the powerful. the cause of crime. • This means major structural youths and ethnic minorities especially.
resent rich careers like bankers/footballers, and the • Interactionalists- left • New Labour’s ASBOs and firmer changes are needed to reduce • Left realists argue policing must be
MC see the ‘underclass’ as idle and living off the realists rely on policing of hate crimes/sexual crime, like dealing with the made accountable by local communities
state. quantitative data from assault/domestic violence are left inequality of opportunity and and deal with local concerns and
• This individualism means society’s reactions to crime victim surveys, meaning realist ideas of protecting vulnerable unfairness of reward, tackle investigating crime and involving them
are varied, which blurs the boundary of right and they can’t explain groups from crime. discrimination, give everyone a in policing policy.
wrong behaviour- so informal control like the family offender’s motives. • Young- says these policies are trying to decent job and access to • There should be a multi-agency
is less effective, and the public is intolerant of crime • relative deprivation recreate the golden ages of the 1950s, facilities and housing. approach in crime control, involving
and demand harsh punishment. can’t fully explain crime as ASBOs addressed ‘symptoms’ like • We also need to embrace police, local councils, social services,
• Late modern society has high crime rates but a low because not everyone anti-social behaviour but didn’t diversity and stop stereotyping housing, schools, the public and
tolerance of crime. turns to it. recreate a sense of community. whole groups as criminal. voluntary organisations.
Gender, crime & justice
 9% of women have a Males are more likely to be
conviction by age 40, repeat offenders, have
compared to 32% of longer criminal records, and
males. A higher proportion of commit more serious
women are convicted of crimes.
property crimes like
3/4 convicted burglary.
offenders in A higher proportion of
England & Wales males are convicted of
are male. violent/sexual offences.
Gender &
crime
statistics

Some claim that even when

Sociologists/criminologists
argue stats underestimate
the amount of female
crime.
women’s crimes are reported,
they’re less likely to be
prosecuted or the woman is
‘Female’ crimes are less likely let off lightly.
to be reported, such as
shoplifting going unnoticed
compared to male violence.
 Chivalry thesis (Pollak 1950)
For
• Pollak says that men are socialised to be respectful and
protective of women, and because men make up the CJS,
women are treated leniently. (Like crimes not being in
official stats and receiving lighter sentences)
• Graham & Bowling (1995)- sample of around 1.7k 14-25
year olds suggests female offenders are treated more
leniently- official stats show men 4x more likely to offend
whereas the study found they were only about 2x more
likely to admit to committing one.
• Flood-Page et al (2000)- 1/11 self-reported female
offenders got a caution/were prosecuted, compared to 1/7
self-reported males.
• Court stats- females more likely to get bail, or a
fine/community sentence instead of incarceration.
Against
• Double deviance thesis- women are treated more
harshly by courts because they’ve deviated from both law
and gender norms (EG: Myra Hindley).
• Hales et al (2009)- self report study shows men are more
likely to be offenders in all major offense categories.
• Yearnshire (1997)- men’s crimes against women go
unreported (women suffer 35 assaults before reporting
domestic violence.)
• Sharpe (2009)- court has double standards, youth worker
records show 7/11 girls referred for support due to being
sexually active, compared to 0/44 boys.
• Stewart (2006)- magistrates’ view of female defendants is
based on stereotypical gender roles, not their actual
offence.
 Heidensohn (1996)- Control theory: Carlen (1988)- Class & Gender deals:
• Argues women’s behaviour is conformist and that their patriarchal position in society makes their crime rates lower than men’s. • Used unstructured interviews to study 39 15-46
• Control at home- women’s domestic role involves constant housework and childcare: means they’re always in the house and have less year old WC women who were convicted of crimes
opportunities to offend. like theft, fraud, drugs, sex work, etc.
• Control in public- by the threat of/acts of male violence against them, meaning women fear staying out at night. They’re also controlled by fear of • Argues WC women are led to conform through 2
not being respected- will avoid pubs so they’re not seen negatively- therefore they avoid sites of crime and cannot commit crimes like sex work. deals.
• Control at work- women’s behaviour is controlled by male managers/supervisors- sexual harassment keeping them ‘in their place’. This limits • Class deal- working women are offered material
women from top positions that would enable them to commit white collar/corporate crimes. rewards, decent living standards and leisure
• EVALUATION: shows how patriarchal control prevents women from deviating, but ignores the agency women have in offending by determining opportunities.
their behaviour by external sources. • Gender deal- Women conforming to the traditional
gender role in return get material and emotional
rewards from family life.
Adler (1975)- Liberation thesis: Carlen argues women turn to crime when the reward
• Women’s crime is on the rise because they are becoming isn’t worth the effort of the deal/deal isn’t available.
Explaining • Women in the study who failed to get the class
more free from patriarchal society.
• Less discrimination paired with more work/education female deal felt powerless and oppressed- 32 of them
were always in poverty, some found prison
opportunities mean women now have traditionally male crime: qualifications still didn’t get them a job.
roles that give them access to illegitimate opportunity • Women in study found gender deal to have
structures. disadvantages or never had the opportunities to
• This means women don’t just commit ‘female’ crimes like Females & violent crime: make the deal- some were abused by
shoplifting and prostitution, but ‘male’ crimes too like • Hand & Dodd (2009)- between 2000-08, female arrests for violence fathers/experiences domestic violence, others
violence and white collar crime. rose by 17%/year- supports the liberation thesis. spent time in care which broke family bonds.
• EG: both female offending and share of offences rates The criminalisation of females: • EVALUATION: shows how patriarchal failing to
went up in the second ½ of the 20th century- time were • The rise in arrests still doesn’t match victim surveys, as they don’t uphold its end of the deal lifts the control stopping
things like Equality Act were liberating women, women’s report a rise in attacks by females. women offending, but Carlen’s sample is small and
shift to crimes like embezzlement and rise of girl gangs in • Net widening- there hasn’t been a rise in female crime, the justice therefore unrepresentative of non-serious
offenders and other classes.
2010s. system has just started arresting women for less serious offences than
before.
Criticisms: This concern about rising female crime may just be a moral panic about girls’ Parsons (1955)- Sex Role theory:
• Female crime rates were rising in the ‘50s, women’s behaviour, as media depictions showed them as drunk and disorderly/out of • Crime differences come from the traditional gender
liberation emerged in the ‘60s. control/looking for fights. roles we’re socialised into- instrumental & expressive.
• Even though women are now involved in ‘male’ crime like • Girls- nurturing, gentle, in the home, grow up with a
drugs, it’s linked to prostitution which isn’t liberated.
Gender & victimisation: female role model so are less crime-prone.
• Most offenders are WC, the group least affected by • Homicide-victims 70% men, and female victims are more likely to know • Boys- taught to reject feminine role models,
their killer as 60% of the time it was a partner/ex-partner. toughness, etc that makes them crime-prone.
liberation.
• Violence- overall men are mostly victims, but more women are victims • Walklate (2003)- criticises Parsons for making
• Laidler & Hunt (2001)- little proof of illegitimate structure
of intimate violence (domestic, sexual assault, stalking). biological assumptions, matching women to the
being opened to women- females in gangs still expected This suggests that even though men are the victims more, females have a
to conform to conventional gender roles. expressive role just because they can bear children.
greater fear of being a victim.
• He argues masculinity is a social
construct/accomplishment that men constantly
work towards constructing and presenting to
others.
• Different masculinities exist in society, but
hegemonic masculinity is defined via- work in
paid labour market, subordinating women,
heterosexism, and driven/uncontrollable
sexuality of men.
• Some men have subordinated masculinities,
where they don’t have the resources to be
dominant or have no desire to do so.
• Globalisation has shifted us from a modern
industrial society to a postmodern de-
industrialised society.
• This had led to the loss of traditional manual
jobs that WC men used to express their
masculinity via hard physical labour and
providing for the family.
• While the traditional industry has
declined, the service sector (night-time
leisure economy of clubs/pubs/bars) has
expanded.
• Here, some young WC men have found
this provides them with legal
employment, access to a criminal
opportunity structure, and a way of
expressing their masculinity.
• White MC youths- subordinate themselves to teachers to get middle-class status. They Criticisms of Messerschmidt:
have this accommodating masculinity in school, and an oppositional one outside where • Is masculinity an explanation of crime or
they engage in drinking/pranks/vandalism. simply a description of male offenders?
• White WC youths- have less chance of education success, so have oppositional Messerschmidt is making a circular
masculinity in and out of school. argument where masculinity explain males
• Black lower WC youths- have less expectations of a reasonable job due to racism, so use crimes (violence) because they are crimes
gangs/violence to express masculinity, or use property crime for material success. committed by males (who have violent
• Messerschmidt acknowledges that MC men may use corporate/white-collar crime to characteristics).
accomplish hegemonic masculinity, while poorer groups use street crime for a • Theory doesn’t explain why not all men
subordinated masculinity. use crime to accomplish masculinity.
• Concept is overworked- using masculinity
to explain crimes from joy-riding to
embezzlement.
Messerschmidt (1993)-masculinity & crime:
Bodily capital:
Why do men • In postmodernity, organised professional
commit crime? criminal subcultures emerged as a result of
the new illegal business opportunities in
the night-time economy.
Winlow (2001)- postmodernity, masculinity & crime: • The ability to use violence is not only a
way to express masculinity, but a
commodity to earn a living.
• Men must use their bodily capital to
maintain employability and reputation-
EG: bodyguards will improve their
• Winlow studies bouncers in Sunderland, where physicality with bodybuilding.
there’s high unemployment and de- • Winlow says this is maintaining the value
industrialisation. sign of their bodies to discourage people
• He found men here had opportunities for paid from challenging them. This reflects the
work, access to illegal business ventures like postmodern idea that signs have a reality
drugs, and a way to express masculinity of their own independent pf the thing they
through violence. represent.
Ethnicity, crime & justice
 Victim surveys: Self-report studies:
• CSEW asks individuals what crimes they’ve been victims of, which tells us about ethnicity as victims will specify who • These ask individuals to disclose crimes they’ve committed.
committed the crime against them. • Graham & Bowling (1995)- found ethnic offending differences in
• EG: black people are overrepresented by victims as offender of mugging. 2,500 people: white 44%, black 43%, Indian 30%, Pakistani 28%
• Victim surveys show us that crime is intra-ethnic (happens within groups rather than between them) and Bangladeshi 13%.
Limitations: • Sharpe & Budd (2005)- 2003 Offending, Crime and Justice survey
• Only cover personal crimes (1/5 of all crime) found 40% of white and mixed ethnic origin admitted to a crime,
• Phillips & Bowling (2012)- white victims over-identify blacks as offenders. black 28% and Asian 21%.
• Excludes crimes by/against organisations (telling us nothing about the ethnicity of white collar/corporate criminals). • Self-report study findings challenge the stereotypes that black
people offend the most, and support the view that Asians offend
Stop & search: very little.
• Police can use powers of stop and search is they have ‘reasonable Arrests & cautions:
suspicion’ of wrongdoing- minority ethnic groups are stopped and • 2019 England & Wales figs show blacks arrest rates being 3x
searched more. higher than whites.
• In 2020, blacks were 9x and Asians were over 2x more likely to be • Black and Asian arrestees are less likely to get just a caution.
stopped and searched than whites. • This may be because minority groups are more likely to deny
Alternative sources of statistics:
• Stats show Asians are searched under the Terrorism Act 2000 more the offence and exercise their right to legal aid (as they don’t
than other people. trust the police)- not admitting means you can’t get away
• In 2019, blacks were 4x more likely to have force used against Ethnicity & with a caution.
them by Met Police officers, and 5x more likely to have taser-like criminalisation Prosecution & trial:
devices used on them. • The CPS decides if the police’s case can be taken to trial by judging
• Phillips & Bowling (2007)- members of these communities the chance of prosecution and if it’s in public interest.
Ethnicity, racism & the CJS
therefore feel over-policed and under-protected, having no faith in • Studies suggest the CPS is more likely to drop cases with ethnic
the police. minorities.
3 reasons for stop & search patterns: • Phillips & Bowling (2002)- this is because CPS see police evidence
• Police racism- the 1999 Macpherson report investigated as weak due to it being based on racist stereotypes.
the murder of Stephen Lawrence, concluded the Met Police Pre-trial reports: Prison: • Minorities are more likely to elect for the trial to be at Crown Court
is institutionally racist. • Hudson & Bramhall • In 2021, blacks were over due to doubting magistrate’s impartiality.
• Ethnic differences in offending- stop and search (2005)- argue racist 4x more likely to be in
Convictions & sentencing:
differences simply reflect the different levels of ethnic attitudes in these prison than whites, with
• This means blacks and Asians are less likely to be found guilty,
offending. reports can lead to blacks and Asians serving
which suggests discrimination- where the police/CPS bring in weak
• Demographic factors- minority groups are over- higher conviction longer sentences than
cases that are thrown out by court.
represented in groups who are often stopped, like rates, like how the them too.
• Black offender have an imprisonment rate 1 percentage point
unemployed, young and manual workers. Even though reports labelled • They are also most likely
higher and Asians 3.4 higher than whites- could be due to previous
these are stopped regardless of ethnicity, they have a high Asians/Muslims as to be prisoners on remand
convictions or more serious offences.
proportion of ethnic minorities- therefore making unremorseful after due to being less likely to
minorities the ones who are stopped more. 9/11. be granted bail.
• Young (1993)- argues ethnic differences in stats reflect real • Lea & Young acknowledge that the police acts in racist ways, which unjustly • Therefore, Lea & Young conclude that
differences in the levels of offending by different ethnic criminalises minority groups. However, they don’t believes discriminatory the stats represent real differences in
groups. policing fully explains the differences in stats. the levels of offending in different
• Left realists argue that racism led to marginalising and • EG: 90% of crimes known to police are reported by the public rather than police ethnic groups, which are caused by
economically excluding ethnic minorities, who face more risk finding them themselves. Even if police act discriminatory here, this can’t different levels of relative deprivation
of poverty, unemployment and poor housing. account for the ethnic differences in the statistics. and marginalisation in groups.
• The media’s emphasis on consumerism leads to a sense of • Lea & Young also argue that we can’t explain differences in minorities in terms • However- Lea & Young are criticised
relative deprivation, and many are unable to reach the of police racism. EG: black people have higher rates of criminalisation than for their role in police racism. The
materialistic gaols legitimately. Asians- police would have to be very selective in their racism to cause such big differences in Black and Asian
• Lea & Young argue one response from unemployed black stat differences. offending are different because police
males is delinquent subcultures, which raise levels of stereotype them differently- blacks as
utilitarian crime like theft in order to resolved relative dangerous, Asians as passive.
deprivation.
• Because these groups are marginalised and have no one to Left realism:
represent their interests, they release their frustrations Hall et al- policing the crisis:
through non-utilitarian crime like violence/rioting. • They argue that the 1970s saw a moral panic over black ‘muggers’,
which served the interests of capitalism.
Explaining the • Capitalism at the time was in crisis, high inflation and rising
• Unlike left realists, Neo-Marxists argue that the differences in statistics are
the outcome of a process of social construction that stereotypes minority
differences in unemployment provoke industrial unrest and strikes.
ethnic groups as inherently more criminal than others. offending • The ruling class needed to use force to maintain control, but this
force needs to look legitimate so further opposition isn’t provoked.
• The black muggers moral panic was media driven, highlighting this
Neo-Marxism: new crime ‘mugging’.
• Hall et al note there wasn’t a significant rise at the time, though the
Gilroy- the myth of black criminality:
media, police and politicians soon associated muffing with black
• Argues that black criminality is a myth created by racists stereotypes about African Caribbean and Asian people.
youths.
• Minority ethnic groups come to be criminalised and appear more in official statistics all because of the police and CJS
• They argues that this made black people a scapegoat that
acting on these racist stereotypes.
distracted us from the true cause of problems like unemployment-
• Gilroy argues that minority ethnic crime is a form of political resistance against racist stereotypes. As most black/Asian
capitalism in crisis. The WC were therefore divided and less of a
people originated in former British colonies, their anti-imperialist struggles taught them to fight oppression through
threat to capitalism.
riots and demonstrations- which is what they do now when facing racism in Britain, though this time they’re
• Hall et al argue the crisis marginalised blacks and raised their
criminalised for it.
unemployment, which is why they turned to petty crime to survive.
Criticisms from Lea & Young: Criticisms:
• First-gen immigrants in the ‘50s-60s were very law-abiding, they’re not likely to have passed down a tradition of anti- • Downes & Rock (2011)- Hall is inconsistent in saying black street
colonial struggle. crime wasn’t rising, but was because of unemployment.
• Most crime is intra-ethnic, so it can’t be a fight against racism. Lea & Young argues Gilroy romanticises street crime • Left realists argue the inner-city resident’s fear isn’t panicky, it’s
as revolutionary when it’s not. realistic.
• Racist victimisation is where an individual is selected as a target because of their
race, ethnicity or religion.
• This idea was brought to more attention after the racist murder of Stephen
Lawrence and the 1999 Macpherson report.
Info on racist victimisation comes for victim surveys like CSEW and police-recorded
statistics, which cover:
1. Racist incidents- any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or another.
2. Racially or religiously aggravated offences- offender is motivated by hostility
towards members of a racial or religious group.
Extent of victimisation:
• In 2019/20, there were 76,000 race hate crimes and
6,800 religious hate crimes in England/Wales.
• Most incidents go unreported, the CSEW estimates
there were actually 104,000 racially motivated
incidents and 42,000 religious ones in 2019/20.
• There are ~60,000 racially aggravated offences per
year.

Responses to victimisation:
Ethnicity & • Members of ethnic communities are often active
victimisation in responding to victimisation.
• This includes situational crime prevention such
as fireproof doors/letterboxes and self-defence
Risk of victimisation: campaigns.
• The risk of being victim to any sort of crime varies by ethnic group. • These measures show the under-protection of
• 2019/20 CSEW showed those from mixed ethnic backgrounds have a higher risk the police, who often ignore the racial
(20%) of being a victim than anyone. (blacks 14%, whites 13% and Asians 13%). dimensions of victimisation and fail to record or
• Differences can be for reasons other than ethnicity, such as violent crime investigate reported incidents properly.
victimisation being linked to being unemployed, young, and male. Therefore young • Macpherson Enquiry (1999)- concludes the
male ethnic minorities are more at risk of victimisation. police investigation into the racist murder of
• Though stats record instances of victimisation, they don’t record people’s Stephen Lawrence was marred by a combination
experiences. of professional incompetence, institutional
• Sampson & Phillips (1992)- racist victimisation tends to be ongoing over time, with racism and failure of leadership by senior
repeated minor instances of abuse being interwoven with violent incidents. officers.
Crime & the media
• Media over-represents violent/sexual crime- Ditton & Duffy (1983) found 46% of media reports about this, but • There’s been a shift in what crime the
police recorded stats say they’re only 3% of all recorded crime. media covers, Schlesinger &
• Media portrays criminals/victims as older and MC- Felson (1998) calls this age fallacy. Tumber (1994)- ‘60s focus was
• Media exaggerates police success- in clearing up cases. This is because police uncover most crime stories and murder and petty crime, but ‘90s
want to be portrayed well, and because media over-represents crime that have higher clear-up rates, like violence. reporting widened to drugs, child
• Media exaggerates the risk of victimisation- in women, white people & high status individuals. abuse, terrorism and more.
• Media overplays extraordinary crimes- Felson calls this dramatic fallacy, as well as making us believe one has to • Soothill & Walby (1991)- found
be daring/clever to commit or solve crime (ingenuity fallacy). newspaper reports of rape cases went
from under ¼ of all cases inn 1951 to
over 1/3 in 1985.
News values & crime coverage: The media’s picture of crime vs official stats:

• Distorted media reporting of crime shows that Media

news is socially constructed, Cohen & Young (1973)
argue news is manufactured, not discovered.
• News values are the criteria by which
journalists/editors decide if a story is
newsworthy/deserves coverage:
1. Immediacy- breaking news
2. Dramatisation- action/excitement
3. Personalisation- human interest stories
4. Higher-status- people/’celebs’
5. Simplification- eliminating shades of grey
6. Novelty/unexpectedness- a new angle
7. Risk- victim-centred stories about
fear/vulnerability
8. Violence- visible and spectacular acts
• News media gives crime so much coverage because
it’s considered unusual and extraordinary.
Fictional representations of crime:
representations
of crime
• Mandel (1984)- ~10 billion crime thrillers were sold worldwide between 1945-84, while ~25% of
prime time TV are crime shows/movies.
• This tells us that fictional representations are an important source of our knowledge on crime.
Surette (1998)- fictional reps of crime, criminals and victims follow the ‘law of opposites’ because they
oppose what official stats tell us:
• Property crime is under-represented while violence/drugs/sex crimes are over-represented.
• Real-life homicides happen due to brawls/domestic disputes, while fictional ones come from
greed/calculation.
• Fictional sex crimes are committed by strangers/psychopaths, while in reality it is acquaintances.
• Fictional cops usually get their man.
Despite this, recent trends indicate a new genre of ‘reality’ infotainment shows that feature non-white,
younger, underclass offenders. Increasingly, police are being portrayed as corrupt and brutal instead of
successful.
There’s concern that the media negatively affects attitudes, values and behaviour in people, especially
vulnerable groups like the young, lower-class and undereducated. There are ways the media may cause crime
and deviance:
1. Imitation- deviant role models leads to copycat crimes.
2. Arousal- through viewing violent/sexual imagery.
3. Desensitisation- through repeatedly viewing violence.
4. Transmitting knowledge of criminal techniques.
5. As a target for crime, theft of TVs.
6. Stimulating desires for unaffordable goods through advertising.
7. Portraying the police as incompetent.
8. Glamourising offending.
Studies investigating the effects of exposure to violent media actually concluded that any negative impact
is small and limited, and Livingstone (1996) suggests our major concern about media impacting
children is because we regard childhood as a time of innocence in the private sphere.
• The media exaggerate how much violent/unusual crime there is in society, and
exaggerate the risk of certain groups being victims. Therefore, the media is
distorting the public’s impression of crime, giving them an unrealistic fear of it.
• Gerbner et al- found heavy users of TV (4+hrs) had higher levels of fear of
crime.
• Schlesinger & Tumber (1992)- correlated media consumption and fear of
crime, as heavy TV users and tabloid readers had increased fears, especially of
mugging/physical attack.
• However, this doesn’t mean the media is causing an increased fear, as those
already afraid of going out at night watch more TV simply because they’re
home more.
• Greer & Reiner (2012)- studies of the effects of media ignore the different
meanings viewers give to media violence, such as distinguishing between
cartoon, horror and new violence.

Concerns about the media: The media as

a cause of Fear of crime:
The media, relative deprivation & crime:
crime
Cultural criminology, the media & crime:

• Lab based research has looked into if media portrayals of

crime/deviant lifestyles leads viewers to commit crime
themselves.
• Left realists argue that the mass media is increasing the
sense of relative deprivation among marginalised
groups.
• In today’s society even the poorest groups have media
access, where they see images of a materialistic ‘good’
life of leisure and consumer goods as the norm.
• This stimulates marginalised group’s sense of relative
deprivation and social exclusion, which may be what
pushes them to commit crime.
Media and the commodification of crime:
• Another feature of late modernity is the emphasis on
consumption, excitement and immediacy- Hayward & Young
argue crime and its thrills are commodified.
• Corporations/advertisers use media images of crime to sell
products, EG: hip hop combines images of street criminality with
consumerist success.
• Fenwick & Hayward (2000)- crime is packaged and marketed
to young people as an exciting, cool and fashionable cultural
symbol.
• Hayward & Young argue that mainstream products do this too,
like car ads with pyromania/joy riding/street riots, ‘heroin chic’,
imagery of the forbidden (brands Opium, Poison, Obsession).
• Cultural criminology argues that the media
makes crime itself a commodity that people
desire.
• Instead of producing crime in their audience,
media encourages them to consume crime.
• Hayward & Young (2012)- late modernity is
media-saturated, with an ever-expanding tangle
of fluid digital images, including of crime.
• This causes the image and reality of crime to blur
and be indistinguishable- EG- gang assaults aren’t
caught on camera, they’re staged for it to be
released as underground fight videos.
• The media can cause crime and deviance through labelling, Mods & rockers:
as moral entrepreneurs who disapprove of certain behaviour
will use the media to pressurise authorities to ‘do something’
• Cohen (1972)- focused on the media’s response to disturbances between the mods and rockers, 2 young WC groups who had different dress
senses and modes of transport.
about it.
• The initial confrontations were on Clacton beach in 1964, they were little more than scuffles.
• If they succeed, their campaigning will result in the negative
• In response, the media over-reacted to the minor disorder. Cohen argues they had an ‘inventory’ of 3 elements:
labelling of behaviour, and even law changes, like the
Marijuana Tax Act in the USA. 1. Exaggeration & distortion- the media exaggerated numbers involved and the extent of the violence/damage using sensational headlines like ‘Day
• By helping to label smoking weed as criminal (even though it of Terror by Scooter Gangs’. Non-events such as the ‘town held their breath’ for invasions that didn’t happen.
was legal), the media helped to cause crime. 2. Prediction- the media regularly assumed and predicted further violence/conflict from the group.
• A part of this process is creating a moral panic- an 3. Symbolisation- the symbols of the mods and rockers (clothes, bikes and scooters, hairstyles, music, etc were all negatively labelled and associated
exaggerated over-reaction by society to a perceived problem, with deviance.
often driven by the media.
In a moral panic:
The wider context:
• Cohen puts the mods and rockers moral panic into the
• Media identifies a group as a folk devil/threat to societal
context of chine during post-war British society.
values.
• He argues moral panics occur at times of social change,
• Media presents the group in a negative, stereotypical way,
which reflect the anxieties people feel about accepted
exaggerating the scale of the problem.
values being undermined.
• Moral entrepreneurs, editor, politicians, police chiefs and
• Mora panics are therefore often the result of boundary
other respectable authorities condemn the group and their
crisis, and folk devils the media symbolises give a focus to
behaviour.
• Here, a ‘crackdown’ on the group is called for, but this can Moral worries about social disorder.
create a self-fulfilling prophecy that then amplifies the
• Functionalists- moral panics are a way of responding to
problem.
panics the sense of anomie/normlessness that change brings.
Dramatizing the threat as a folk devil, the media raises
collective consciousness and reasserts social control.
Deviance amplification spiral: Cyber-crime: • Hall et al (1976)- takes a new-Marxist view, locating the
• Cohen argues that the media’s portrayal of • The emergence of new crimes is often met with moral panics, like horror comics, TV, cinema, video role of moral panics in capitalism by using the 1970s media
events causes a deviance amplification spiral games and more being accused of corrupting the young and undermining public morality. focus on muggings to distract from the crisis of capitalism.
by making it seem like the problem was • Thomas & Loader (2000)- define cyber crime as computer-mediated activities that are • Contemporary moral panics- dangerous dogs, asylum
spreading and getting out of hand. illegal/considered illicit, and are conducted through global electronic networks. seekers, child sexual abuse, Aids, single parents and more.
• This led to more calls for harsher responses • Jewkes (2003)- the internet gives opportunities for conventional crime like fraud, as well as new
from police/courts, but this only caused
further marginalisation and stigmatisation of
crime that use new tools, like piracy. Criticisms of the idea of moral panics:
• Wall (2001) defines 5 categories of cyber-crime: • Assumes society over-reacts, but who decides what’s
the mods and rockers. 1. Cyber-trespass: crossing boundaries into others cyber property, including hacking, sabotage, and
• The media emphasised their differences into disproportionate?
spreading viruses. • What turns the amplifier on/off?- why can the media cause
2 distinct identities, transforming 2 loose-knit 2. Cyber-deception and theft: identity theft, phishing and violation of intellectual property rights.
grouping to tight-knit gangs. some moral panics about things but no others?
3. Cyber-pornography: includes porn involving minors and opportunities for children to access porn • Late modernity- today’s audiences are used to ‘shock,
• Here we can see how the call for more online.
punishment and control of the situation horror’ stories, so McRobbie & Thornton (1995) argue
4. Cyber-violence: psychological harm or inciting physical harm. Includes cyber-stalking, hate crimes and moral panics are less impactful now as they’re routine.
actually caused a spiral of more bullying.
deviance/calls for action instead of resolving There’s also less consensus about what’s deviant, so it’s
5. Global cyber crime: policing cyber crime is hard because of the sheer size and globalised nature of harder for the media to create moral panics.
the issue. the internet, which also causes issues of jurisdiction (where to charge the person).
Globalisation, green crime,
human rights & state crime
 The global criminal economy: Castells (1998):
• Held et al (1999)- there has been a globalisation of crime- increasing • Argues that there’s a global criminal economy worth £1 trillion a year that takes several forms:
interconnectedness of crime across national boarders. 1. Arms trafficking- to illegal regimes/groups/terrorists.
• This means there’s new opportunities for crime, as well as new means and 2. Trafficking in nuclear materials. Global risk consciousness:
new offences like cybercrime. 3. Smuggling illegal immigrants- Chinese Triads make $2.5B/year. • Globalisation produces a new mentality of ‘risk
• The global crime economy has a supply side (source of drugs, sex workers 4. Trafficking women/children- links to prostitution/slavery. consciousness’- where risk is seen as global instead of
and goods) and a demand side (rich West demanding these things). 5. Sex tourism- Westerners travel for sex, often with minors. tied to certain places.
• Supply is linked to globalisation, as poor drug-producing countries like Peru 6. Trafficking body parts- organ transplants. • EG: increased movement of people (economic
have large populations of people in poverty. These groups see drug 7. Cyber crimes- identity theft, child pornography. migrants/asylum seekers) has worried Western
cultivation as needing little investment in technology and higher pay than 8. Green crimes- illegally dumping toxic waste. populations about the risk of crime and the need to
traditional crops. 9. International terrorism. protect borders.
Globalisation, capitalism & crime: 10. Smuggling of legal goods- alcohol/tobacco to avoid tax. • Our knowledge of risks comes from the media, who
11. Trafficking artefacts/endangered species. have created moral panics in the case of immigrants-
• Taylor (1997)- argues globalisation has led to changes in the
12. The drugs trade- ~$300-400B/year at street prices. showing them as terrorists and scroungers.
pattern and extent of crime- creating more inequality and
13. Money laundering- ~$1.5T/year. • The consequences of this is countries increasing social
increasing crime.
• Globalisation allows transnational corporations to switch control, like the UK fining airlines for brining in
manufacturing to low-wage countries- producing job insecurity, undocumented passengers.
unemployment and poverty.
• Deregulation means governments have less control over their Rothe & Friedrichs (2015)- crimes of
Crime and globalisation:
own economies- to create jobs or raise taxes, as well as
decreasing what’s spent on state welfare. globalisation • They focus on the role of international
• Social cohesion is undermined by marketisation, which causes financial organisations like International
people to see themselves as individual consumers who Monetary Fund and World Bank in crimes of
calculate the person costs/benefits of each action. Patterns of criminal organisation: globalisation.
All these factors create insecurity/inequalities that will push • Winlow’s study of bouncers showed how de-industrialisation and globalisation • World Bank was dominated by major capitalist
people, especially poorer groups, into crime. A lack of legitimate created new criminal opportunities. state- had 188 members but only USA, Japan,
jobs drives the unemployed to look for illegal opportunities, like • Hobbs & Dunnigham- found the way crime’s organised is linked to economic Germany, Britain and France had voting rights.
the lucrative drugs trade. changes caused by globalisation. It involves individuals with contacts being a ‘hub’ • Rothe & Friedrichs argue that these bodies
• Globalisation also creates criminal opportunities for elite groups. that a loose network forms around. The network involves more individuals seeking impose capitalist ‘structural adjustment
• EG: deregulating financial markets gives opportunities for insider opportunities, which often link legitimate and illegitimate opportunities. programmes’ on poorer countries,.
trading and moving funds around the world to avoid tax. ‘Glocal’ organisation- where crime is rooted in a local context but has international • These programmes make neo-liberal
• Globalisation has also changed patterns of employment, which links. EG: the drugs trade may vary from place to place in local conditions, as well as being economic changes, where government
brings new opportunities for crime, like using subtracting to influenced by global factors such as drugs available abroad. spending on health and education are cut and
recruit ‘flexible’ workers who often work illegally or in illegal McMafia- Glenny (2008) uses this to refer to organisations that emerged in publicly owned services like water supply are
health/labour conditions. Russia/Eastern Europe after communism fell. Glenny traces the origins of transnational privatised.
Evaluation- though Taylor links global trends in the capitalist organised crime to the break-up of the Soviet Union after 1989, while aligned with the de- This allows Western corporations to expand into
economy to changing crime patterns, it doesn’t explain how these regulation of global markets. The Russian government de-regulated many sectors after these countries, creating conditions for crime.
changes make people turn to crime. (As not every poor person communism fell, so wealthy former officials bought diamonds, gas and oils for cheap and Rothe et al (2008) found the programme in
does.) sold it on the world market for astronomical prices. Rwanda caused mass unemployment.
 Primary green crimes: Secondary green crimes:
• These are crimes that result directly from destroying and degrading the Earth’s resources. South explains 4 types: • These are crimes that grow from flouting the rules that aim to
1. Crimes of air pollution- burning fossil fuels from industry/transport adds 6B tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year, and regulate/prevent environmental disasters, something the
Walters (2013) says 2x as many die from air-pollution breathing problems than 20yrs ago. Criminals- governments, business, government often does.
consumers. 1. State violence against oppositional groups:
• Though states condemn terrorism, they use other illegal methods
2. Crimes of deforestation- 1/5 of the world’s tropical rainforest was destroyed between 1960-90, some through illegal logging.
themselves. EG: in 1985 the French secret service blew up the
The war on drugs in the Andes has caused destroyed crops and contaminated water due to trying to kill drug plants with pesticide
Greenpeace ship in New Zealand that was there to prevent green
spray. Criminals- the state and those who profit from destruction, like logging companies. crimes like the French nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific.
3. Crimes of species decline/animal abuse- 50 species a day are becoming extinct, and 70-95% of Earth’s animals like in the 2. Hazardous waste & organised crime:
rainforests that are under threat. There’s also trafficking of animals/body parts. • Disposal of toxic waste from chemical/nuclear/other industries is
4. Crimes of water pollution- 1/2B people lack clean water, and 25M/year die from contaminated water. Marine pollution highly profitable.
threatens 58% of Earth’s ocean reefs, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill cause harm to marine life/coasts. Criminals- businesses • Businesses may dump waste illegally because it’s cheaper, such as
dumping toxic waste and governments that discharge untreated water into rivers/seas. eco-mafias in Italy profiting from illegal dumping. This process is
global in nature, like tsunami of 2004 washing up illegal waste from
Green criminology: South (2010)- types of green crime European companies on to the shores of Somalia. Western business
• Some ask: if the pollution that causes global warming/acid rain is legal and no may also ship waste to be processed in poor countries because it’s
crime has been committed, is it a matter for criminologists? $3/ton rather than $2,5000 in the USA.
Traditional criminology: Green • Illegal dumping shows the issues of law enforcement in a globalised
• Not concerned with this because no laws have been broken. crime world. The existence of laws regulating disposal in developed
• The beginning of this approach comes from national/international regulations countries gives companies and incentive to illegal dispose waste in
about the environment. poor countries, where they are less developed and therefore lack the
• Situ & Emmons (2000)- define environmental crime as ‘an unauthorised laws that make it illegal.
act/omission that violates the law.’ • Environmental discrimination- how South (2020) describes how
• Advantages of this approach include a clearly defined subject matter, and poorer groups are worst affected by pollution.
disadvantages include accepting definitions of crime from powerful groups who Evaluation of green criminology:
serve their own interests. • Recognises the growing importance of ‘Global risk society’ & the environment:
White (2008)- Green criminology: • Environmental crimes such as Chernobyl show us how threats to humans and
environmental issues and the need to
• Takes a more radical approach by starting from the notion of harm instead of nature are often man-made instead of natural, like droughts and famines.
address the harms and risks of • Beck (1992)- we’re in late modern society and can now provide adequate
criminal law.
environmental damage to humans and resources for all. However, the increase in productivity and the tech that
• White (2008)- argues the subject of criminology is any action that harms the
physical environment/person, no matter whether it breaks the law or not. otherwise. sustains it have created ‘manufactured risks’, such as green house gas
• This could be a global approach to environmental harm, as traditional criminology • However- focusing on this broader emissions from industry.
is limited to what different state laws perceive as a crime against the environment. concept of harms instead of legally Mozambique in 2010:
White- Two views of harm: defined crime makes it hard to • Shows how the global nature of human-made risk can cause crime/disorder,
1. Anthropocentric- White says nation-states and transnational companies assume distinguish what is a green crime and as global heating in Russia caused the hottest heatwave in a century,
humans’ right to dominate nature for their benefit and put economic growth destroying their grain belt.
what isn’t- political/moral statements
above all else. • The shortage led to Russia imposing import bans as well as pushing up the
should be made to address this. world price of grain.
2. Ecocentric- views humans and environment as interdependent, meaning
environmental harm also harms us. Ecocentrism also see both humans and the • This had a know-on effect on Mozambique, where the 30% rise in bread
environment liable to exploitation, especially by global capitalism. cause rioting and looting of food stores, which resulted in deaths.
• Green & Ward (2012)- define state crime as illegal State crime is the most serious form of crime for 2 reasons:
or deviant activities perpetuated by or with the 1) The scale of state crime:
complicity of state agencies. • A state’s enormous power means they can harm on a huge scale.
• This includes all forms of crime committed by/on behalf • Green & Ward (2012)- cite a fig of 262M people murdered by governments during the 20th century.
of states and governments in order to further their 2) The state is the source of law:
policies, but does not include acts that merely benefit • the state has the role of defining what is and isn’t criminal, uphold the law, and prosecute offenders.
individuals who work for the state, like police officers. • This power means they can conceal its crimes, evade punishment and even avoid defining their own actions as
criminal.
• All types of state, including democracies like Britain, have been guilty of crimes, but the principle of national
McLaughlin (2012): sovereignty (that states are the supreme authority in their borders) stops external authorities like the United Nations
1. Political crimes: like corruption and censorship. from intervening.
2. Crimes by security & police forces: like genocide, torture, and War crimes:
disappearances of dissidents. We can distinguish between 2 war-related crimes:
3. Economic crimes: like official violations of health & safety laws. 1. Illegal wars:
4. Social & cultural crimes: like institutional racism. • International law means that apart from self-defence, only
Genocide in Rwanda: the UN Security Council can declare war.
• • This means many see the US-led wars in Afghanistan/Iraq as
The UN defines genocide as ‘acts committed State illegal.
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnic, racial or religious group’. crimes • Kramer & Michalowski (2005)- argue that to justify the 2003
• In 1994, Rwanda went through what’s Iraq invasion as self-defence, the USA and UK falsely claimed
described as the 20th century’s fastest that Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction.
genocide.
• Rwanda became a Belgian country in 1922, and
Case studies of state crime
2. Crimes committing during war or in the aftermath:
the Belgians used the minority Tutsis to
mediate their rule over the Hutu majority. • Whyte (2014)- describes US’s neoliberal colonisation of
• Iraq, where the constitution was illegally changed so the
Despite these people were very similar, being State-corporate crime:
more like just social class differences, the economy could be privatised. Iraqi oil revenues were seized
• State crimes are often committed in conjunction with corporate crimes. Kramer &
Belgians ethicised the 2 groups with racial ID to pay for ‘reconstructions’ and in 2004 $48B went to US
Michalowski (1993)- there’s state-initiated and state-facilitated corporate crime:
cards and separate schooling. firms.
•
1. State-initiated corporate crime- where states initiate, direct or approve
Rwanda’s independence in 1962 brought the • Other crimes committed in this war include the torture of
corporate crime. EG- Challenger space shuttle disaster 1986, where negligent,
Hutus into power, which escalated in the ‘90s prisoners, and an inquiry into Abu Ghraib prison found many
cost-cutting decisions by state agency NASA and corporation Morton Thiokol
by the government trying to cling to power by instances of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses by
caused an explosion that killed 7.
fuelling race hate propaganda against Tutsis. US soldiers.
The genocide was triggered by the Hutu 2. State-facilitated corporate crime- where states fail to regulate/control
president’s plane being shot down, where in corporate behaviour, making crime easier. In the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the rig • Kramer (2014)- terror bombing has been normalised, as
100 days, 800,000 Tutsis people were leased by BP exploded and sank, killing 11 and causing the biggest accidental oil the American fire-bombings of 67 Japanese cities and atomic
slaughtered. spill in history. Official enquiry found governments failed to notice cost-cutting bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no trials for war
decisions and industry inadequacy that led to this. crimes.
 Defining state crime:
Domestic law:
• Chambliss (1989)- defines it as ‘acts defined by law as criminal and committed by state official sin pursuit of their jobs as representatives of the state’.
• Using the state’s own domestic law as definition is inadequate because it ignores that the state themselves make the laws and can avoid criminalising themselves.

Social harms & zemiology:

• Michalowski (1985)- defines it as illegal acts as well as legally permissible acts whose consequences are alike those of illegal acts in harm caused.
• Hillyard et al (2004)- we need to take a wider view of state wrong-doing by replacing the study of crime with zemiology: the study of harms whether they break the law or not, like state-
facilitate poverty.
• This definition means the state can’t rule themselves out of court by making laws that allow their actions, as well as making a single standard we can apply to states to see which are most
harmful.
• Critics say that these ‘harms’ are very vague- what level of harm must happen before an act is defined as a crime? And who decides what counts as harm?

Labelling & societal reaction:

• Labelling theory argues that whether something is a crime depends on whether the social audience defines it as such.
• This recognises that state crime is socially constructed and will change over time/culture.
• This definition is even vaguer than harms, as Kauzlarich’s (2007) study of anti-Iraq war protesters found the war harmful/illegitimate, but couldn’t label it as criminals.
• Theory is also unclear about who the audience is and that they can be manipulated by ruling-class ideology.

International law:
• Some sociologists base their definition on law created through treaties and agreements between states, like the Geneva Convention on war crime.
• Rothe & Mullins (2008)- define it as any action by/on behalf of a state that violates international and/or state law.
• This definition is strong because it doesn’t rely on the sociologist’s own definition of state crime or the relevant audience, instead using internationally agreed-upon definitions.
• However, international law is also a social construction involving those in power. Another disadvantage is that this definition looks at war crimes/crimes against humanity and not other state
crimes like corruption.

Human rights:
Sociologists may use human rights to define state crimes. Human rights include:
• Natural rights- that we have simply by virtue of existing, like right to life and freedom of speech.
• Civil rights- to vote, privacy, a fair, trial, education, etc.
• Schwendinger (1975)- define it as a violation of people’s basic human rights by the state/its agents.
• This would mean states that practise imperialism, racism, sexism, economic exploitation are committing crimes by denying people of basic human rights.
• Risse et al (1999)- advantage of this definition is that almost all states car about their human rights image because rights are a global social norm. This causes ‘shaming’ to arise and can
encourage states to treat citizens properly.
• Disadvantage- differing opinions on what human rights are, some may include life/liberty, some may exclude freedom from hunger.
 Explaining state crime:
The authoritarian personality:
• Adorno et al (1950)- identifies this personality, which includes a willingness to obey the orders of superiors without question.
• They argue many Germans in WW2 had this due to the disciplinarian socialisation patterns happening at the time.
Crimes of obedience:
• Crimes are usually defines as deviating from social norms, but state crimes a crimes of conformity because they require obedience to a higher authority.
• EG: an officer accepting a bribe from a higher up is conforming to his unit’s norms as well as breaking the law.
• Green & Ward (2012)- to overcome norms against using cruelty, people who became torturers were often re-socialised, trained and exposed to propaganda about the ‘enemy’, and such acts were often set up as a 9-5
where torturers can see the crimes as part of their job.
Kelman & Hamilton (1989)- identify 3 general features producing crimes of obedience:
1. Authorisation- acts ordered by those in power replace our normal moral principles with a duty to obey.
2. Routinisation- once the crime is committed, there’s a pressure to turn the act into a routine we can perform in a detached manner.
3. Dehumanisation- the enemy is portrayed as sub-human, so normal moral principles don’t apply.
Modernity:
• Some argue that the Holocaust represented a breakdown of modern civilisation as a regression into pre-modern barbarism.
Zygmunt (1989)- takes the opposite view, arguing that there were key features of modern society making the Holocaust possible:
1. A division of labour- everyone responsible for 1 small task, so no one felt personally responsible for the atrocity.
2. Bureaucratisation- normalising the killing by making it a routine, rule-governed ‘job’, as well as dehumanising people as ‘units’.
3. Instrumental rationality- using rational, efficient methods to achieve a goal, regardless of what the goal is. For a business it’s profit, for the Holocaust it was murder.
4. Science & technology- railways transporting victims to deathcamps, industrially produced gas used to kill them.
Evaluation:
• Not all genocides occur through an organised division of labour that allows individuals to distance themselves from the killing, for instance the Rwandan genocide was carried out directly by marauding groups.
• Ideological factors also have an influence. EG: Nazi Germany stressed a single monolithic German racial identity that excluded Jews, Roma and Slavs, who were defined as inferior/subhuman. This meant they didn’t need
to be treated according to normal moral standards.
• Even though a modern, rational division of labour supplied the means for the Holocaust, it was racist ideology behind the motivation to carry it out, as well as the preceding decade of anti-Semitic propaganda that help
create willing participants and sympathetic bystanders.
The culture of denial:
• Alvarez (2010)- recent years have seen the growing impact of the international human rights movement, such as the work of Amnesty International pressuring states.
• Cohen (2006)- this means states now make effort to conceal or justify their human rights crimes, or even re-label them as not crimes. Though dictatorships may flat out deny human rights abuses, democratic states
often follow the spiral of state denial:
1. Stage 1: ‘it didn’t happen’- like the state denying a massacre while human rights organisations/victims/media shows that it did happen via graves and photos.
2. Stage 2: ‘if it did happen, it was something else’, like self-defence.
3. Stage 3: ‘even if it is what you say it is, it’s justified’, like the ‘war on terror’.
Cohen- state techniques of neutralisation:
• Denial of victim- they’re exaggerating, they were terrorist, they’re use to violence, etc.
• Denial of injury- we’re the victims, not them.
• Denial of responsibility- I was only obeying orders/doing my duty.
• Condemning the condemners- they only condemn us because of their antisemitism (Israeli version).
• Appeal to higher loyalty- a self-righteous claim to be serving a higher cause: the state, Islam, Zionism, or defence of the ‘free-world’.
Control, punishment &
victims
• Clarke (1992)- situational crime prevention is a pre-emptive approach Displacement: • This approach is based on Zero tolerance policing:
that reducing opportunities for crime instead of improving • Chaiken et al (1974)- Wilson & Kelling’s (1982) • This is Wilson & Kelling’s 2-fold strategy, where an
society/institutions. situational prevention measures broken windows theory, environmental improvement strategy means ‘broken
• This theory is based in rational choice, assuming that offenders weigh up don’t reduce crime, they simply where leaving windows’ are addressed immediately and the police
costs/benefits before committing a crime. displace it. adopt a zero tolerance policy where any and every sign
crime/disorder unresolved
• 3 measures of crime prevention- aimed at specific crimes, involves • Displacement- spatial (commit (eg noise, graffiti,
of disorder is addressed, no matter its seriousness.
managing/altering the immediate environment, and increasing the it somewhere else), temporal vandalism) sends out the The evidence:
effort/risk of crime while reducing the reward. (committing at a different time),
signal that no one cares • Zero tolerance policing has claimed success in NY, where
• EG- target hardening measures like locking doors/windows increases the target (choose different victim),
and invites more the Clean Car Program immediately took away cars with
effort a burglar has to put in, so they’re less likely to commit the crime. tactical (using new method),
• Felson (2002)- study found NYC bus terminal toilets were a hotspot for and functional (committing a crime/disorder into the graffiti on and returned them once clean.
crime, until they designed crime out of the environment, like replacing different crime). area. • This lowered the amount of graffiti on the subway while
basins with small sinks so the homeless can’t bathe in them. • These neighbourhoods other programs tackles fare-dodging, drug dealing an d
lack formal social control begging.
• However- at the same time
(police) as well as informal
Situational crime prevention social control
the NYPD benefitted from
Evaluation: 7,000 new officers.
(community).
• This method may work to some extent, but there’s most likely to be displacement. • There was a general crime
• Tend to focus on opportunistic petty street crime, instead of the more harmful/cost white rate decline at the time,
collar and street crime. Crime Environmental crime even in cities not using zero
• Assumes criminals makes rational decisions, which is unlikely as many violent crimes are prevention & prevention tolerance.
committed under drug/alcohol influence.
control • There was a lack of crack
• Ignores root causes of crime like poverty/poor socialisation, meaning long-term
cocaine supply, which could
prevention strategies are difficult.
explain lower crime rates of
Social & community crime prevention
What’s missing? it.

• Social and community crime prevention strategies put the emphasis on the potential offender and their social context.
• These strategies aim to remove the conditions that predispose people to crime in the first place. This means they’re long
term, as they tackle root cause of offending such as poverty, unemployment and poor housing, instead of just removing • All these approaches take for granted the
nature and definition of crime, as they
opportunities for crime. generally focus on low-level crime or
The Perry pre-school project: interpersonal violent crimes. This
• This is a community programme from Michigan, aiming to reduce criminality. disregards environmental crimes and
• The project was for disadvantaged black children, where a group of 3-4 year olds were offered a 2 year intellectual crimes of the powerful.
enrichment programme alongside weekly home visits. • Using this definition of the ‘crime
problem’ shows the priorities of
• A longitudinal study followed their progress and the control group, with those at age 40 who did the programme having politicians and agencies tasked with crime
fewer arrests for violent crime, property crime and drugs, as well as more being employed and graduated high school. prevention strategies.
 Foucault (1979)- surveillance theory:
Foucault contrasts 2 forms of punishment:
1. Sovereign power- before the 19th century, where the monarch had power over people and their bodies.
Control was asserted through physical, disfiguring punishments like limb amputation, and punishments
were made an emotional spectacle (public executions.)
2. Disciplinary power- after the 19th century, where this new system of discipline seeks to control the
mind/’soul’ as well as the body. It does this using surveillance.
The Panopticon:
• Foucault uses the Panopticon to illustrate disciplinary power.
• The prison is designed so that each cell is visible to the guard in the watchtower, but so the prisoners can’t see
the guards.
• This ‘controls’ the mind as well as the body, as the prisoners never know when they’re being watched, only that
it’s possible that they are at any given time.
• Therefore, surveillance becomes self-surveillance and discipline becomes self-discipline, as prisoners will behave
themselves in case they’re being watched.
The dispersal of discipline:
• Foucault believes we have now spread discipline through all parts of society, not just prisons.
• This includes using disciplinary power/self-surveillance in mental institutions, factories, workhouses and
schools.
• Non-prison based social control practices such as community service orders form ‘prison islands’, spreading into
institutions/wider society, where teachers, social workers and psychiatrists exercise surveillance over all of us .
Criticisms of Foucault:
• The shift from sovereign power to disciplinary power isn’t as clear as he suggests, as well as other critics saying
he wrongly assumes that the emotional aspects of punishment have disappeared from modern society.
• CCTV- Norris (2012) reviewed worldwide studies that found while CCTV reduced crimes in car parks, it had little
effect on other crime and may even cause displacement.
• Gill & Loveday (2003)- found few robbers/shoplifters/fraudsters were put off by CCTV, which suggests
surveillance may just serve the ideological function of assuring the public they’re safe.
• Feminists- Koskela (2012) criticises CCTV as an extension of the male gaze, as they make women more visible
to the voyeurism of the male camera operator rather than make them more secure.
Surveillance theories since Foucault:
Synoptic surveillance:
• Mathiesen (1997)- argues Foucault’s theory only tells ½ the story when we apply it to modern society.
• While the panopticon allows the few to monitor the many, today’s media allows the many to see the few.
• He argues that in late modernity there is the increased centralised, ‘top-down’ surveillance like Foucault says,
but also synoptic, from below surveillance where everybody watches everybody.
• Thompson (2000)- today’s powerful groups (politicians) fear the media’s surveillance that can expose
damaging info about them, therefore acting as a form of social control over their activities.
• In the same way, we monitor each other with dashcams to collect evidence if there are car accidents. This
warns road users they’re being monitored and can result in self-discipline.
Surveillant assemblages:
• The panoptic approach is based on manipulating physical bodies confined in a prison.
• Haggerty & Ericson (2000)- argue surveillance technologies now involve manipulating digital data in
cyberspace instead.
• Until recently, surveillance tech was stand-alone, unable to ‘talk’ to each other. But now, there’s a trend
towards combining tech.
• EG: CCTV footage can now be analysed with facial recognition software- it’s surveillant assemblage.
Actuarial justice & risk management:
Feeley & Simon (1994)- argue there’s a new technology of power emerging throughout the justice system, and it
differs from Foucault’s disciplinary system in 3 ways:
1. Focuses on groups instead of individuals.
2. Isn’t interested in rehabilitating offenders, instead just preventing them from offending.
3. Using risk calculation/actuarial analysis too see how likely someone is to offend.
• EG: airport security checks are based on known offender ‘risk factors’ such as age, gender, religion, ethnicity,
etc. The higher someone scores, the more likely they are to be stopped/questioned/searched.
• Here, we can see how the aim of surveillance isn’t correctional, but instead a tool to predict and prevent
future offending. Young (1999) says actuarial justice is essentially a damage limitation strategy.
• One problem with this theory is that is risks the self-fulfilling prophecy, as profiles of likely offenders use
official stats, which are known to be inaccurate.
Labelling & surveillance:
• Ditton et al (1999)- found that in a major city centre, the CCTV could zoom in on vehicle tax discs and see if
they were expired. Despite this, the system’s managers didn’t see this as suitable use of the technology, which
is why the motorists offences were left unchecked.
• To contrast, CCTV operators make discriminatory judgements about who out of the thousands of potential
‘suspects’ on screen, such as disproportionate targeting of young black males.
• These judgements are typifications held by those operating surveillance systems, which can cause a self-
fulfilling prophecy where the criminalisation of some groups is increased, while other offences (like motor
ones) are lessened because they’re being ignored.
 Reduction:
This justifies punishment as it prevents future crime, which can be done
by:
• Deterrence- punishing individuals discourages them from future
offending all while ‘making an example’ of the to the public, therefore
serving as a deterrent.
• Rehabilitation- the idea that punishment can change/reform offenders
so they no longer offend. Rehabilitation policies include proving
prisoners with training/education, anger management, therapy, etc.
• Incapacitation- using punishment to remove the offender’s capacity to
offend again. These policies across states have included imprisonment,
execution, chemical castration, and cutting off hands.
Ways of justifying punishment:
Retribution:
• Retribution is pay back, a justification for punishing crimes that have already
happened rather than preventing ones in the future.
• This is based on the idea that offenders deserved to be punished, and that society is
entitled to revenge/expressing their outrage towards them.
• Marxists argue that the function of punishment is to maintain the
existing social order.
• Punishment is part of the RSA and is a means of defending ruling-class
property against the lower classes.
• EG: Thompson (1977) describes 18th century theft and poaching
punishments such as hanging and transportation to the colonies as part
of the ‘reign of terror’ by the aristocracy over the poor.
• The form punishment takes reflects the economic base of society.
• Rusche & Kirchheimer (1939) argue that each type of economy
has a corresponding penal system, like money fines not being possible
without a money economy. Under capitalism, imprisonment becomes
the dominant punishment type.
• Melossi & Pavarini (1981)- imprisonment reflects capitalist
relations of production because a price is on workers’ time (do time to
‘pay’ for the crime), and both prison and the capitalist factory have the
same strict disciplinary style of subordination and loss of liberty.
• Functionalists argue that the Two types of justice:
function of punishment is to Durkheim identifies these 2 types in different societies:
uphold social solidarity and 1. Retributive justice- there is little specialisation in traditional society, and solidarity is based
reinforce shared values. in individuals’ similarities to each other. This makes for a strong collective conscience that
• Punishment is an expression responds to offenders with vengeful passion, meaning punishment is purely expressive, as
of moral outrage at the well as severe and call.
2. Restitutive justice- there’s extensive specialisation in modern society, and solidarity is based
offence and rituals of order
on the resulting interdependence between individuals. crime damages this
like a public trial reaffirm
interdependence, which is why it has to be repaired through things like compensation.
society’s shared values. Justice in modern society is restitutive because it exists to restore things to how they
were/restore society’s equilibrium.
Durkheim (1893)- functionalist view of punishment:
The changing roles of prison:
• Pre-industrial Europe had range of punishments from warnings and banishment to
corporal punishment and execution.
• Until the 18th century, prison simply held offenders before their punishment, and it
was only after the Enlightenment that prison started to look like the actual
Punishment punishment for offences.
Imprisonment today:
• Today, liberal democracies don’t have the death penalty, so
imprisonment is seen as the most severe form of
Marxism- capitalism & punishment: punishment.
• However, it doesn’t rehabilitate offenders, as 2/3 of
prisoners will commit further offences upon release, which is
why critics say prison is an expensive way of making bad
Alternatives to prison: people worse.
• In recent years, community-based controls have • There has been a move towards ‘populist punitiveness’ since
the 1980s, where politicians have sought popularity by
been growing, such as curfews, community service
calling for tougher sentencing.
orders, treatment orders and electronic tagging. • EG: New Labour after 1997 decided that prisons shouldn’t be
• However, incarceration rates, especially among the used just for serious offenders, but for persistent petty
young, have still been rising alongside this. offenders too.
• Because of this, Cohen argues that community • This has caused the number of prisoners in England and
controls have simply cast the net of control over Wales to almost double to 80,000 between 1993-2021.
more people. • A consequence of this is overcrowding, which then leads to
• For example, it’s argues the police used ASBOs as a poor sanitation, food, clothing, shortages and not enough
way of fast-tracking young offenders into prison. education and work opportunities.
 Miers (1989)- 3 features of positivist victimology: • Positivist studies look at victim 2 elements of critical victimology: • Tombs & Whyte (2007)- crimes where employers
1. Aims to identify the factors that produce patterns of proneness- to identify the 1. Structural factors- like patriarchy violation of law kills/injures a worker are explained
victimisation, especially those that make social/psychological characteristics that or poverty, placing powerless away as ‘accident prone’ workers, which denies
individuals/groups more likely to be victims. differentiate them from non-victims. groups like women and the poor at them official victim status.
2. Focuses on interpersonal crimes of violence. • For example, Hans Von Hentig (1948)- more risk of victimisation. • They call this the ideological function of de-labelling,
3. Aims to identify victims who’ve contributed to their own identified 13 victims characteristics 2. State’s power to apply or deny where concealing the extent of victimisation and its
victimisation. such as female, elderly, mentally label of ‘victim’- victim is a social actual causes hides the crimes of the powerful.
Evaluation: subnormal. construct. The state uses the Evaluation:
• Brookman (2005)- Wolfgang shows the importance of the • Here, the implication is that victims criminal justice process to apply • This theory disregards the role victims may play in
victim-offender relationship. may ‘invite’ victimisation through the ‘victim’ to some but not to others. their victimisation, like not securing their home, or
• Approach identifies certain patterns of interpersonal kind of person they are, or through For example, the police can decide offending themselves.
victimisation, but ignores wider structural factors. lifestyle factors like showing off wealth. to not press charges for a man • Theory is valuable in drawing attention to how
• Can easily tip into victim blaming, Amir’s (1971) claim that • Wolfgang (1958)- study of 588 assaulting his wife, therefore ‘victim’ status is constructed by power, and how this
1/5 rapes are victim precipitated is similar to saying they homicides found that 26% involved the denying her victim status. benefits the powerful at the expense of the
asked for it. victim triggering the events up to the powerless.
• Ignores situations where victims are unaware of their homicide, like initiating violence.
victimisation, like crimes against the environment.
Critical victimology:
The risk of being the victim of crime Positivist victimology:
is unevenly distributed between The victims of
• In general crime has impacts like
social groups. crime disrupted sleep, feelings of
Also, being a victim makes you helplessness, difficulty functioning
more likely to be a victim of crime
again.
Patterns of victimisation: The impact of victimisation: socially and being more security
conscious.
• Crime also creates ‘indirect’ victims
Class: Gender: such as relatives/friends and
• Poorest groups are most likely to be victimised, and • Males are more at risk of being victim to violent witnesses.
crime rates are highest in deprived/unemployed attacks, and 70% of homicide victims are men. • Secondary victimisation- the idea that • Hate crimes against minorities can
areas. • Women are more at risk of domestic abuse, sexual after the crime, individuals suffer further create a wave of harm that affects
• Newburn & Rock (2006)- survey of 300 homeless assault, stalking/harassment, people trafficking
people found they’re 12x more likely to have
victimisation from the CJS. Feminists argue others, they’re ‘message’ crimes to
and mass rape as a weapon of war.
experienced violence than gen pop. that rape victims are treated so poorly by intimidate whole communities.
the CJS it amounts to a double violation.
Ethnicity:
Age: • Minority groups are more at risk of victimisation • Fear of victimisation- crime can create
• Younger people are more at risk of victimisation. than whites in general, including racially fears of becoming a victim. Sociologists
Infants under 1 are at most risk of murder, while motivated crimes. argue that surveys show this fear is
teens are most vulnerable to assault, sexual • Minority groups, the young and the homeless are irrational, like women fearing being attacked
harassment and abuse at home, and the elderly are more likely to report feeling over-controlled and at night when young men are in fact the
at risk of abuse in care homes. under-protected by police. victims.