Criminal Justice Deviant Behavior - Case Study Example

Criminal Justice--Deviant Behavior Q 1 Deviance according to Becker is a situation created by the society through the social groups that make rules, whose application lead to the labeling of a particular group of people as outsiders (Becker, 2014). Deviance, therefore, does not result from the quality of an action that one commits but rather the actions of a social group to portray others as outsiders. Becker goes ahead to caution that the process of labeling one deviant does not necessarily mean that the rules that such social groups follow is devoid of flaws (Becker, 2014). According to him, application of these rules in some way, may lead to labeling of persons who have committed no offense in the category of deviants while excusing the offenders who deserve of such labels. Becker is of the view that for the rules to work, making an accusation against an individual needs to in public (Becker, 2014). Otherwise, one can commit an offense and continue normal living until an accusation is made. At this stage, Becker treats deviance as a random occurrence that arises out of the society’s reaction to the actions of the particular individual. According to him, the absence of such a reaction will not lead to deviance (Becker, 2014). Lemert concurs with Becker as far as the labeling theory leads to deviance. He; however, does not limit his analysis to the confines of the reactions from the social groups but rather tries to explore other factors such as the psychological, cultural and social orientations of the people who have been labelled as deviants (Becker, 2014). Lemert classifies deviance into two categories, which include primary and secondary (Lemert, 2010). Unlike Becker, Lemert does not limit his analysis to the social reactions or the implementation of a class of social rules and regulations formulated by a particular social group. However, he goes ahead to explore the roles that the individual plays in the events that led to his labeling. The authors agree that the reactions from the society constitute the greatest force in creating deviant persons or driving a person deeper into the life of deviance (Becker, 2014). Primary deviance arises from a variety of factors that can be either social, psychological or cultural. An individual’s socialization is an important factor in his deviant behavior. Lemert points out that deviance have a more pronounced impact on the individual when it inspires reactions from the society (Lemert, 2010). Such a reaction can lead to stigmatized behavior. One feels segregated from the normal functioning of the society and will likely feel a sense of belonging. However, the society’s reactions do not usually take a uniform pattern. Time and the economic status of the offender may influence such reactions. Consistent with Lemert’s view of socialization, Becker introduces other variables such as times of the year, the socio-economic class of the perceived offender and extent to which the offender’s actions do not obey the rules set by the society as also contributing to continued deviation (Becker, 2014). In his discussing the issue of labeling and the way it leads to deviance, Lemert observes that it is not a one-event phenomenon. Deviance starts right from when one is an infant and receive teachings to treat some behaviors as good and others as bad (Lemert, 2010). In his article, A Dramatization of the Evil, Frank Tannenbaum has accurately pointed out that the genesis of deviance and hence criminal behavior begins when a child is separated from his peers (Jacoby, Severance, & Bruce, 2012). He observes that this kind of separation plays a very crucial role in making the child a criminal. Tannenbaum’s observation appears as a summation of the views expressed by Lemert’s primary deviance analysis. The opportunity to interact with individuals at his age and level of reasoning offers great lessons of socialization to a child than the set of moral rules and regulations. Separation is one effective way of stimulating, emphasizing and evoking the traits that the action will be seeking to caution the child against. The Tannenbaum’s case is describable as one of reverse labeling. A noble action meant to prevent the child from engaging in delinquent behaviors ends up condemning him to the very behaviors that lead to deviance (Jacoby, Severance, & Bruce, 2012). The people who will come to judge him will not pay attention to his privileged upbringing nor will they blame the parents for not doing enough. Once labeled as deviant or delinquent, the individual receives inhumane treatments and no longer seen as capable of normal socialization (Jacoby, Severance, & Bruce, 2012). Lemert explored the roles an individual has to play in a series of his actions before labeled as a deviant (Lemert, 2010). His effort to bring out the impact of external factors such as culture and social environment is quite commendable. Tannenbaum’s views regarding the role of the parents, the school system and mentors in the growth of a child mirrors are similar to those discussed by Lemert in his discussions of primary deviance (Lemert, 2010), (Jacoby, Severance, & Bruce, 2012). Separation affects an individual’s psychological development as much as it affects his socialization. When a child is denied the freedom to associate freely with friends of his liking, he will likely form an alliance with other children facing similar situation and the resulting gang becomes their only way of escaping the boredom of isolation (Jacoby, Severance, & Bruce, 2012). The lifestyles of the gangs become the subject of labeling by the society. The community begins to attack the gang because their way of life does not conform to the rules referred to by Becker in his analysis (Becker, 2014). The constant attacks on the community only emphasize contradiction that already exists. The resulting isolation of the entire gang leads directly to the criminal life. According to Lemert, once the stigmatization and segregation set in, the person's natural reaction would be to identify an interactional environment (Lemert, 2010). The overall effect is that they enter adulthood having a totally changed attitude to social issues. The stigmatization does not stop by their becoming adults but rather their definition changes (Lemert, 2010). The ones, who might have been delinquent offenders as a youth, often get names as criminals or ex-convicts as adults, making it much harder for them to reintegrate into the society. The society does not stop seeing them as deviants, and their lives continue to be defined by the actions that led to their situation (Lemert, 2010). With such labels, one easily sinks deeper into deviance. At a personal level, the individual might have reconciled with his past and gotten over the actions that led to his labeling. However, the society may not be as forgiving, which makes it harder for him to find friends and acquaintances. The individual then begins to create his reactions in a bid to adapt to the society’s treatment. The new level of deviance is what Lemert referred to as secondary deviance (Lemert, 2010). Some scholars, however, offer a different explanation for Lemert’s effort to distinguish deviance at two levels. They offer that the two stages of deviance have difference causes and limited appeal to intellectualism. Although he agrees with most Lemert’s assertions concerning the psychological and socialization causes of deviance, his analysis centers on the way an individual’s socialization occurs right from childhood. Becker centers his analysis on the existence of moral rules governing the society’s conduct as the chief creator of deviance (Becker, 2014). Deviance results from the implementation of these rules. According to Becker’s position, the mere existence of a rule does not necessarily guarantee that they will create deviants (Becker, 2014). Such rules need implementation, and an offender accused publicly. Becker does not dwell on the actions of the offender but rather explores the dichotomy of response that the action will elicit from the society. The rules, he says, are acts of social capitalism, and often advocated by merchants of morality within a community. These merchants hold that any weakness in the society needs correction by creating rules that deal with them. Becker calls them the moral crusaders whose goal is the enactment of prohibition rules in the constitution of a society (Becker, 2014). The second social groups who make the moral crusade complete are the rule enforcers. The author sees the rule enforcers as individuals who may not necessarily agree with the contents of the rules but usually have different objectives. Using the example of police officers, he points out that the rule enforcers have a duty to rationalize to their superiors why they need to maintain their positions and win the respect of the members of the society (Becker, 2014). They do not necessarily have to be conversant with the contents of the rules but must devise ways to ensure their implementation is done to the satisfaction of the parties involved. He differs from the Lemert and Tannenbaum by failing to acknowledge the role of psychological disposition plays in creating deviant behaviors. To her, deviance is because of rules enacted by a society and applied selectively before a panel of social entrepreneurs to create outsiders (Becker, 2014). Tannenbaum’s analysis seems to concur with Lemert, although he uses a different approach to explaining the theory. While it was natural for one as a child to experiment by taking actions that he might have been cautioned against, as an adult, such an individual will be trying hard not to think of such actions (Jacoby, Severance, & Bruce, 2012). Constant reminders, therefore, only serve to reinforce the feelings of segregation by the society. To overcome his situation, he will be looking for positive encouragements from the members of the society. News about the positive benefits of not taking such actions will likely encourage them more. Individuals who are already addicted to a given an anti-social habit will likely feel victimized with constant negative information about their actions. Tannenbaum insists that once an individual sinks into deviance, he is constantly subjected to negative news or attributes about his actions. He calls such news the dramatization of the evil that will not necessarily ameliorate the victim’s situation (Jacoby, Severance, & Bruce, 2012). These only serve to aggravate the situation. It does not matter whether the people engaging in these negative discussions are those that want him to reform or those that are keen to continue defining him as a thing rather than a human being. Exposure to information of any sort regarding one's actions will only sink the individual deeper deviance and bring out the opposite results from those intended by the speakers. Tannenbaum recommends that in dealing with such situation, it is vital to keep in mind that the deviants are human beings, and their behaviors are reactions to the society’s expectation of them (Jacoby, Severance, & Bruce, 2012). Just like the normal beings, they too suffer from the need for approval and appreciation from the group that accepted them when the society saw them as outsider. The group has demands and expectations of him. It is, therefore, important to understand that one has to deal with the group and not just a single individual. A solution of any sort should seek to change the view of the whole group. Otherwise, an individual may become maladjusted in both worlds; that is when he severs links with the group in the hope of finding acceptance in the society (Jacoby, Severance, & Bruce, 2012). The society may continue treating him as a deviant. The paradox is that the group may also see him as a deviant and as such, fail to accept him back. Each of three authors has adopted different approaches to the labeling theory to arrive at varied conclusions. Both Becker and Tannenbaum have chosen to ignore the role played by the individual once labeled deviant. They portray the deviant as a victim of social expectations, which he or she fails to live up to. Lemert, however, examines the responsibilities of both parties and chooses to treat deviance as having an origin not only in the way socialization is carried out but also how the person responds to the treatments by the society (Lemert, 2010). Q 2 Crime often relates to a manifestation of social conditions that are both material and spiritual in nature within a society. Richard Quinney in class, state and crime, seeks to develop an understanding of crime as part of the historical development and operations of capitalism in the society (Quinney, 2010). Therefore, crime should be considered and studied in the context of how the capitalist system leads to alienation, unemployment, poverty, spiritual malaise and the economic inequality. Summer explores the collective development of the communities since the early 19th century as forming the genesis of modern day criminal behaviors. Both writers point their fingers at the effects of abrasive capitalism and the desire to accumulate wealth by the ruling class as the most important creator of an unequal society. Lack of collective compromise of interests for the common good of the society exposed the poor and the powerless to the greedy world of businesspersons and commerce. Therefore, crime developed because of the dispossession of the masses. With little to survive on, widespread urban crime and political agitation became a way of life for the powerless. Crime became an integral part of the society’s life from very early years of modernization. The manifestation of crime in different forms or the degree to which one committed the crimes became the measure with which one could be classified as deviant. Quinney seeks to develop an understanding of crime based on the material and spiritual factors that help generate the behavior (Quinney, 2010). The author employs the parameters of production in a society and the role of the members of that society as forming the basis of social relations. According to him, the formation of social alliances occurs on the basis of an individual’s position in the production chain (Quinney, 2010). Factory workers will form their relations, as will the owners of the factors of production. This leaves out a class of the unemployed and the powerless who feel excluded from the mainstream economy of their society. To survive, they have to devise their methods that may not necessarily appeal to the other two economic classes. Quinney, therefore, treats exclusion as the first major source of deviant behavior in the society (Quinney, 2010). Thus, crime is part of the social life in a capitalist society. In such society, analysis of an individual’s behavior happens in the context of the economic struggle. How one class relates to the process of production, and the relationship of other classes to the same means of productions plays a greater role in the determination of the fate of its members. The capitalist system is under constant transformation due to the agitation of each class. Since the relationship between the classes in a capitalist society is that of the oppressor and the oppressed, the system must devise different schemes of retaining the status quo (Quinney, 2010). The owners of the means of production exploit the labor of the factory workers. Their survival depends greatly on the availability of surplus labor from the lower classes. The factory workers are also feeling oppressed, are in constant agitation for better wages, working conditions, and economic freedom. One scheme that the capitalist society has invented for self-preservation is the laws (Quinney, 2010). However, before the laws, the rise of a state became necessary to implement and protect the capitalist class against the factory workers and the lower cadres of the economically oppressed. Although the state arose on the promise of protecting and advancing equality of all classes, in the real sense, it was a means through which the dominant class could continue exploiting the working class. The state became not only a protector of the dominant class but also designed the system in which the classes existed; ensuring the dominant class always remained at the top. It invented the legal system and the laws that were meant for controlling crime in the society. Quinney’s view is supported by Summer, who also asserts that the criminal laws are used to represent the society as a collection of people of diverse economic and socio-cultural classes (Sumner, 2013). Since the society consists of people with divergent interests, criminalization of antisocial behavior became a necessity. Summer, however, does not limit his analysis of crime to the class relations in the society. He uses the Manichean illustrations of the moral absolutes to show the reader how criminalization was not only limited to bad intentions (Sumner, 2013). Good intentions could be punished for producing very bad results. In a world where profits drive human action and search for power, the distinction between good and bad intentions become increasingly blurred. One could easily be condemned as deviant or an outsider for actions that he or she had intended for the benefit of the society. The fates of individuals lay in the hands of powerful rulers and wealthy merchants who had state protections. Summer uses historical events to point out that although powerful figures in the bureaucratic systems wielded power over the masses, several factors conspired to create the culture of crime in the society (Sumner, 2013). Summer blames the capitalist culture for the collapse of the economy during 1930s that led several families into crime as a means of survival. Therefore, controlling crime became part of nation’s policy for defending the state against social enemies classified as the criminals. Sadly, as Sumer puts it, crime and deviance were direct results of the society’s failure to share resources among its members equally (Sumner, 2013). According to Quinney, the main commodity of trade in the system is the human labor (Quinney, 2010). With the invention of the state and the law, human labor became subjected to authorities of the courts. Tight control on the behaviors of individuals leads to a rise in the number of people that would be found at fault violating the rules created by the state. Crime and criminality are, therefore, the direct results of the capitalist’s exploitation of labor (Sumner, 2013). Criminals, therefore, constituted a greater component of deviants in the capitalist society. While Quinney’s analysis centered on how crime developed because of the rise of capitalism, Hayward has chosen to look at crime in the modern day context of consumer culture (Hayward, 2014). Hayward sees a crime in the modern society as being a direct result of the individual’s lifestyle. He makes a complete departure from Quinney’s treatment of crime as a mere means through which an individual seeks to increase their income (Hayward, 2014). Hayward observes that a crime has evolved over the years and individuals engaging in it are no longer driven by the need to overcome poverty or oppression. The main driving force is the desire to attain a particular lifestyle. Hayward’s views, although seem to contradict the motive, which drives an individual into crime, recognizes the fact that capitalism in the modern world still plays a bigger role in the lifestyles of people in modern society (Hayward, 2014). He, however, differs with Quinney on the exploitation bit. According to him, an average American today is inundated with triads of advertisements that glorify certain lifestyles (Quinney, 2010). The Hayward propositions also recognize the role that poverty plays in the determination of one’s choice to engage in crime (Hayward, 2014). Using illustrations from other published authors such as Merton, Hayward agrees that crime and deviance occur when there is a discrepancy between the realities of life and the dominant culture extols (Hayward, 2014). The dominant culture here refers to the extrapolation of different lifestyles by the media. The competing cultural messages regarding the modern life have a higher degree of effect on an individual. At the individual level, criminology or one’s propensity to commit crime rests with both desires to be part of the glorified culture, as well as what the author calls the interpretation of the strain theories (Sumner, 2013). Crime also happens because of an individual’s frustrations with the failure of the society to meet his needs. Hayward’s views of criminality seem to depart from those of Wayne Morrison who asserted that the criminology theories in the modern day seemed to ignore the arguments around social position of the offender while choosing to advance the arguments of desire and greed of the offender (Hayward, 2014). While it is true that the modern world’s manifestation of crime is different from the times of development of capitalism, people no longer feel deprived of materialism alone (Hayward, 2014). The deprivation felt in the modern world revolves around the social benefits that the particular material will bestow on the person. It is the sense of identity that possession of such a material brings that drives one to crime and deviance (Hayward, 2014). This deprivation of identity with the material is now viewed as a basic right and something that the society expects of one. The downside of this, however, is that possession of the particular material of desire only temporarily assuages the burning longing for more. The insatiability of an individual’s wants has often been highlighted as the driving factor in modern consumerism culture. A person’s inability to afford the lifestyle of his heart’s desire will lead one into crime. Hayward calls this market driven crime as the commodification of misconduct that is solely to blame for the transgression market by advertisers and marketers (Hayward, 2014). The modern consumer culture can permeate all levels of the society, an aspect that makes glorification of crime an ordinary part of everyday social life (Hayward, 2014). Hayward uses the example of music in the popular cultures that have been composed over the years as one such aspect of consumerism that commodifies crime. These genres have repackaged and rebranded crime and set out to sell it to the younger people as romantic and exciting feature of cultural symbol and modern day fashion (Hayward, 2014). Individuals often treat criminal acts as a social vice but presented to the youth as an exciting adventure that is worth trying. The glorification of crime has become a huge industry in the United States that the authorities are no longer able to determine what influences the other. Whether it is the imagery created in the gangster rap videos shaping the street gang culture or the later shaping the former has become hard to define in the recent past. In Hayward’s analysis, the modern society seems to glorify crime rather than vilify the deviants (Hayward, 2014). Celebration of crime is an acceptance of a social phenomenon, which for many years received harsh treatment from successive societies. References Becker, H. S. (2014). Outsiders. S.l: Free Press. Hayward, K. (2014, May 11). City Limits: Consumerism and the urban experience. Retrieved from cultural criminology: http://blogs.kent.ac.uk/culturalcriminology/files/2011/03/00-city-limits-prelims.pdf Jacoby, J. E., Severance, T. A., & Bruce, A. S. (2012). Classics of criminology. Long Grove, Ill: Waveland Press. Lemert, E. M. (2010). Primary and Secondary Deviance. Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory, 551-553. Quinney, R. (2010). Social transformation and peacemaking criminology. Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory, 754-764. Sumner, C. (2013). Sociology of deviance : an obituary. S.I: Crime Talk. Read More