Structural Functionalism, Donald Blacks The Behavior of Law, Social Control Process - Assignment Example

?Running Head: FINAL ESSAY Law Final Essay By Question No. 2 Contemporary structural functionalism can be traced back in the 1930s to Harvard University, where Talcott Parsons, a faculty member of the said institution, synthesized the ideas of Emile Durheim, Vilfredo Pareto, Max Weber and some British economists. The resulting theory is a sociological paradigm that is underpinned by the idea that societies are social systems and as such, are subject to change driven by a desire to make them more capable of providing for the welfare of those that constitute it. Thus, the structural functionalist focuses on the system and how it works rather than on the individuals in that system. The concerns of a structural functionalist include the ability of the system to meet its needs as well as any form of dysfunction in it or how the feedback mechanism reflects a system’s efficiency. Moreover, he is interested in changes that are lasting and become part of the institution as well as culture and the location of authority in the system as the key in the identification of decisions and their nature (Powers 153). In understanding the perspective of a structural functionalist with respect to the criminal justice system, it is important to note that the latter is underpinned by several principles. The first principle is that society can be viewed as a system rather than as a cacophony of individual choices and actions. Second, society is being held together by values and culture that its members share and hold together. The third principle is that the institutions within society play a role in stabilizing it. Finally, change is ever present in a social system, but this takes place slowly and is driven by the abandonment and dropping of institutions that are flawed and do not contribute to or are not in harmony with an efficient social system (Garner 324). The framework of the criminal justice system itself is derived from the principles of structural functionalism that gives emphasis on “coordination, efficiency, rational decision-making and technology” (Maguire & Okada 51). Durkheim, for example, believed that crime and institutions and programs that control it contribute to the stability of and order in society. This is because in the process of controlling and punishing crimes a line is drawn between the criminal and the law-abiding citizens, with the latter rallying behind the criminal institutions to deter crime. All these, in effect, perpetuate social cohesion and solidarity (Liska 6). Structural functionalists, thus, see the criminal justice system as an important social institution that plays a role in the maintenance of peace and order through its capacity to deter crime. Prisons, for example, serve a host of functions on behalf of society by removing the criminal from its midst so that the latter cannot anymore pursue acts that disturb peace and order. In addition, prisons can serve as a venue for the retribution or revenge that society think it deserves to inflict on those who have committed unlawful acts against it as well as represent potential punishment for those who would think of doing the same thing in the future. In this sense, prisons also serve as a deterrent to crimes. Finally, prisons can also function as a regulated venue where criminals can be rehabilitated to make them fit for assimilation back into society (Spade & Ballantine 195). Structural functionalists, however, have been criticized for being deterministic. They do not, for example, take into account individual differences and reactions. Some prisoners, for example, become even more hardened upon exposure to other criminals in prisons and the harsh realities of prison life that include rape, assault and other crimes that often brutalize inmates, which make it impossible for them to come back and re-enter society as normal people. It has also been pointed out that inmate ratio and population in jails show a pattern that allows one to conclude that the criminal justice system is harsher on the poor, the blacks and the ethnic minorities and the immigrants (Spade & Ballantine 194-195). Question No. 5 Donald Black’s The Behavior of Law was first published in 1976 and introduces some propositions, some of which are downright controversial, purportedly behind the reasons of the varying degrees with which the law is being enforced. Just a little over 130 pages, the book takes on the subject of law from a purely sociological perspective, and shifts the limelight from criminal and victim behavior to how the law itself behaves resulting in a refreshingly original perspective of the criminal justice system. Black begins by positing the startling idea that the law is a “quantitative variable” (p. 3). Moreover, it varies “in quantity and time” (p. 3). This is indeed a very controversial notion considering that it seems to imply that the law is not applied equally to all in a given space and time, and also seems to vary in time and location. This contradicts the idea of equality of all men before the law as well as refutes the fact that the law has the same source and once determined leaves the enforcers no choice, but to apply it accordingly. The ‘variability’ of the law, according to Black, can be done either by the amount or the style of the law being applied to various individuals. As examples to the latter, he gives penal, compensatory, therapeutic and conciliatory styles, all of which, according to him, has “its own language and logic” (p. 4). More importantly, such ‘variability’ occurs with stratification, morphology, culture, organization, and social control. Thus, Black proposes that “the law varies inversely with other social control,” (p. 6) implying that if other social controls, such as those exerted by families and the community, is strong in a certain locality, the law being applied is low. This is a practical observation considering that most laws, especially criminal, proceeds from experience or were enacted to solve a particular problem that the community has not itself solved. For example, Megan’s Law, which made legal the creation of a National Registry for sex offenders, was passed after a child, Megan Kanka, was lured, raped and murdered by a neighbor who was a previous sex offender (Shahidullah p. 42). Law also varies with stratification or “the vertical aspect of social life” (p. 13) and the presence of various stratification results in the existence of more laws. When a poor person, for example, commits a crime against a person with a higher economic status in life, the law behaves differently from a case where a person in the high social strata commits a crime against another within the same social strata. At this point, it seems that Black is generalizing and offers ancient tribes and societies as his proof, but does not offer verifiable proof as to this state of the law existing in contemporary times, especially in more advanced countries. Opposite to the idea of vertical hierarchy in stratification is the horizontal aspect of morphology, which according to Black also results in the variability of the law. A more differentiated society results in a higher degree of variability of the law than in societies where there is less differentiation. Other propositions of Black include organizational structure, its environment and its direction as also causing the manifestation of variability in law, where more law is delivered against a small organization than against a big one. Many of Black’s ideas are original and fresh, but some are on the brink of being outrageous and just like structural functionalism is too deterministic and sweeping. Black’s propositions read like a rigid formula for every legal condition and less of an empirical account considering that he offers no solid proof to support his propositions. Question No. 6 A well-organized and orderly society is measured by its ability to influence its members to behave in accordance with established social norms. Social control may be defined as “overt behavior of a human in the belief that (1) that the behavior increases or decreases the probability of some subsequent condition and (2) the increase or decrease is desirable” (cited Clinard & Meeir 28). A person may behave in accordance with the established social norms because there is no alternative as behaving otherwise may be met with sanctions that would deprive him of certain rights, such as the right of liberty, or he may conform to them to gain approval or prevent disapproval by other members of the group or society itself (Clinard & Meeir 29). Social control is a process, and this process may either be done by the internalization of the norms through socializing where such norms are then pass on and inculcated in others, or it may done through external pressures in the form of sanctions, which may in turn be positive or negative. Sanctions may also be classified as either formal or informal. Formal sanctions or formal social control are official sanctions and are often enshrined in the legal system while informal sanctions or informal social control are not (Clinard & Meeir 28). Informal social control is the ability of a group or a community to influence the behavior of its members through mechanisms that do not employ the use of legal force. Thus, while police crackdowns and other law enforcement actions against erring members of society are considered formal social control, gossip and ridicule are examples of mechanisms of informal social control. These two forms of social control, however, are not independent but reinforce each other and when both work together they present a powerful and more effective means of influencing behavior. For example, a study done on 800 boys shows that they are more concerned with what their families will think if they get arrested by the police, and yet on its own, police arrest and similar legal sanctions are also persuasive in regulating behavior (Morgan 169). Moreover, it has been observed that in countries with strong informal social control, such as Japan and Switzerland, the crime rates are comparatively low. It is believed that the shaming mechanism of these countries has the effect of reintegrating individuals into society rather than disintegrate them from it. These societies, which are typically communitarian rather than hierarchical, are characterized by mutual trust and interdependence. The theory of the shaming mechanism as an effective deterrent to crimes have is being tested in Australia in the field of juvenile justice system (Selby 105). Author Susanne Karstedt believes that the informal social control mechanisms are becoming more important as globalization and free trade are revolutionizing societies. The changes they are bringing are also bringing about a shift in the relationship between formal and informal mechanisms of social control. The state’s social control mechanisms are, as a result, weakening with the limits of legal control coming to the fore. The result is that the criminal justice system is forced to institute new policies that will make it rely more on the “natural” social controls such as the informal mechanisms of social control. For example, John Braithwaite suggests a more republican approach in solving crimes – one that is underpinned on the republican ideals of liberty, equality and community. Thus, a shaming model of crime control might be introduced to dissuade from committing crimes, which may be more effective as globalizations becomes widespread. People behind international business entities, for example, might be prevented from committing crimes with the idea of international shame hanging over their head like the sword of Damocles. For Erhard Blankenburg, public shaming can step in where criminal law ends as the entities themselves self-regulate to prevent being exposed to embarrassment on a global scale (Karstedt 5-6). References Black, D. (2010). The Behavior of Law. Emerald Group Publishing. Clinard, M., and Meier, R. (2008). Sociology of Deviant Behavior. 13th Ed. USA: Cengage Learning, 2008. Karstedt, S. and Bussmann, K. (eds.) (2000). Social Dynamics of Crime And Control: New Theories for a World in Transition. Hart Publishing. Liska, A. (1992). Social Threat and Social Control. SUNY Press. Maguire, M. and Okada, D. (2010). Critical Issues in Crime and Justice: Thought, Policy, and Practice. SAGE. Morgan, A., Davies, M., Ziglio, E. (eds.) (2010). International Health and Development: Investing in Assets of Individuals, Communities and Organizations. New York: Springer. Powers, C. (2010). Making Sense of Social Theory: A Practical Introduction. 2nd Edn, Rowman & Littlefield. Selby, H. (1995). Tomorrow's Law. Sydney: Federation Press. Shahidullah, S. (2008). Crime Policy in America: Laws, Institutions, and Programs. University Press of America. Spade, J. and Ballantine, J. (2011). Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education. 4th Edn. Pine Forge Press. Read More