Why do people perpetrate offense? This is comparatively strong subjects discussed by sociologists that believe condemnable or aberrant behaviours are non because of 1s physical characteristic. This essay will chiefly concentrate on the Functionalist and Conflict Theories of offense. Conflict theoretician argue that aberrance is intentionally chosen. and frequently political in nature. where as Functionalist theoretician argue that aberrance and offense is caused by structural tensenesss created by societal construction. Functionalists argue that people commit offenses because there is something incorrect with the society the person is in. and that this is what causes the person to perpetrate offense. Crime is caused by the construction of society. Conflict theorists argue that the condemnable makes a pick to perpetrate a offense ”in response to inequalities of the capitalist system” ( Giddens. 2001 ) .
Subcultural functionalist. Albert Cohen. bases his research on the lower categories. Through his research Cohen found that the lower category striplings were disadvantaged in regard to success in general life. Cohen believed that the lower category were disadvantaged before they even started to accomplish. Cohen argued. bulk of the lower category kids. do non get down at the same place as the in-between category. Because of this state of affairs. Cohen thought that lower categories kids suffered from position defeat ( Haralambos and Holborn. 2000 ) .
Due to this lower category children’s irritation with their place within society. Cohen developed the theory that the lower category kid would develop or organize into a sub-culture where “delinquent subculture takes its norms from the larger civilization but turns them upside down” ( Haralambos and Holborn. 2000 ) . Due to the subculture making ends. by the delinquent. as unachievable within society. Cohen argued that this is a cause of aberrance and offense.
Basically. with Cohens theory. it is largely based viz. on lower category place. Unfortunately. this lone recognises that the lower category has more of a greater possibility of going pervert in at that place behavior. and Cohen neglects offenses of higher category. Another suggestion Cohen makes is that all disadvantaged people will execute Acts of the Apostless. of pervert. condemnable nature to accomplish their ends. An of import to understand that this is non ever the instance. Some persons choose to work hard within society and its Torahs to derive legitimate success ( Haralambos and Holborn. 2000 ) .
Sociologist Merton. another functionalist. developed the Strain Theory. which he updated from Sociologist Durkheim theory of anomy. Durkheim stated in the anomy theory “that fortunes in which societal norms are no longer clear and people are morally adrift” ( O’Donnell. 1997 ) . Merton so modified Durkeim’s statement by alternatively saying that “term anomy is to depict the strain which occurs when persons experience struggle between their chase of societies ends and the agencies society provides to accomplish them” ( O’Donnell. 1997 ) . Merton chiefly focuses on assorted Acts of the Apostless which he believed may take to Acts of the Apostless of offense and aberrance. Merton believed that there are assorted ends pushed by society and that surrounded by a set of agencies to obtain these ends illustration like difficult work. instruction. and following the jurisprudence. Merton says that everybody has the ability to accomplish these ends. and so with that developed the five theoretical accounts of accommodating to the “strain” .
The four theoretical accounts Merton put frontward are conformance. invention. ritualism and rebellion. Conformity is when a individual continues to accept ends and the agencies to obtain these ends even through failure is about inevitable. Invention. is the response when the person accepts the ends set by society but rejects the agencies ( to obtain these ends ) set by society ( Jones. P. 1996 ) . besides Merton goes on to state the single finds a replacing to societies ‘means’ . this being an illegal act ( O’Donnell. M. 1997 ) .
The 3rd in Merton’s theory is ritualism. this is where the agencies and ends of society are adhered to but the person has lost sight of the ends and has no involvement in the result of his/her work ( Sociological Inquiry. 2003 ) . The 5th portion of Merton’s theory is rebellion where the single culls both the agencies and ends set by society. this is recognised as terrorists/radical political parties ( P. Taylor. 2002 ) .
Cohen and Merton’s theories are both that of a functionalists perspective. They both in bend believe offense is needed within society. to bespeak there is a job and in bend that job can be resolved ( Sociological Inquiry. 2003 ) .
On the other manus there is the interactionalists perspective on offense and aberrance. There are similarities and differences between the functionalists and the struggle theiorists reading of why aberrance and offense are committed.
Stuart Hall is a conflict theoretician. whom in 1972 studied the increasing job of mugging. Hall believed that “class place was irrelevant in regard of the victom” ( ref ) . He researched and discovered that muggers targeted people whom appeared to come from a similar background to themselves. alternatively than the hapless category stealing from the lower category. Hall believed that the beginning of moral terror was non the implicit in economic job ( Haralambos and Holborn. 2000 ) . This sentiment is in wholly different to that of both Cohen and Merton who both identify category as a major factor in offense. and both based their theories on the lower categories.
Hall is belief and research concluded that the persons within society perpetrating the offenses where persons in society forced into offense due to the nature of the economic state of affairs. Talking another theorist’s position. Marxist. Hall argues that it is
As Hall takes a Marxist position on offense some sociologists argue that economic state of affairs is the cause for offense and aberrance which is ineluctable. However Hall’s survey is based upon statistics which maintain no prejudice.
Hall’s survey. like that of Cohen and Merton’s. focal points on category. But unlike others sociologists i. e. Cohen and Merton. it acknowledges that felons can/do mark persons in similar societal state of affairss as themselves. Cohen and Merton’s surveies gave the feeling that the lower categories select the upper categories and deliberately harm them. This survey clearly states that anyone is apt to go a victim of offense and acknowledges the influence of the media on offense. Populating in a universe where the media has such a big influence upon people it is easy to see how many offenses are exaggerated on telecasting and in the newspapers. the term ‘moral panic’ used by Hall is a good description.
Ian Taylor. Paul Walton and Jock Young. new criminologists with surveies taking towards Marxist position. hold developed the theory which they believe felons and perverts choose to interrupt the Torahs set by society and worsen out of free will. And make believe are influenced by external factors. Taylor’s position. harmonizing to the free will theory. is
This theory is wholly different to the Functionalists theoreticians whom believe the antonym. ”the meaningful effort by the histrion to concept and develop his ain self-perception” ( Haralambos and Holborn. 1991 ) . The free will theory developed by new criminology
This strand of new criminology does non admit or back up the nexus of why offenses and aberrant Acts of the Apostless are commited through theories like anomy. physiological positions and those which include the forming of a subculture. Taylor. Paul and Jock are in complete contrast to the functionalist sentiments and really see offense and aberrance as ”actively fighting to change capitalism” ( Giddens. 2001 ) . They see offense. more frequently than non. as a deliberate act. with a political footing against the province. They have a broad position on the capitalist society and its limitations and would establish much devotedness on the freedom of a future society ( M. Haralambos. M. Holborn. 2000 ) . They believe that cultural minorities. homophiles and drug users should non be persecuted but accepted by society ( M. Haralambos. M. Holborn. 1991 ) .
In decision this papers discussed that functionalists and struggle theoreticians have opposing positions in relation to the nature and cause of offense and aberrance. It has discovered that functionalists see offense and aberrance as a merchandise of society. Unlike struggle theoreticians perceive offense and aberrance as pick chosen by the felon. The functionalists determine that the environment determines and influences the chances given to an person. Persons have picks in the manner they interpret and act upon the chances society provides struggle theoreticians province. The theories present in this papers aid to organize a larger image looking into cause and affects of offense and aberrance.
REFERENCE LIST
Giddens. A. ( 2001 ) . _Sociology_ . Polity Press. 4th Edition. United kingdom
Jones. P. ( 1996 ) . _Studying Society Sociological Theories and Research Practices_ . Collins Educational. London
M. Haralambos. M. Holborn. ( 1991 ) . _Sociology subjects and perspectives_ . Third edition. Harper Collins. London
M. Haralambos. M. Holborn. ( 2000 ) . _Sociology subjects and perspectives_ . Fifth edition. Harper Collins. London
O’Donnell. M. ( 1997 ) . _Introduction to Sociology_ . Fourth edition. Nelson. London
P. Taylor. ( 2002 ) . _Sociology in focus_ . Causeway Press. United kingdom
Sociological Inquiry ( 2003 ) . _Anomie and Strain: Context and Consequences of Merton’s Theories_ ( Vol. 73 Issue 4 Page 471 November 2003 ) . viewed May 5. 2008.
hypertext transfer protocol: //www. planetpapers. com/Assets/5728. php
