Crime and Deviance, Conflict Theory, Labeling Theory, and Structural-Functionalism - Essay Example

Crime and Deviance Essay Introduction Stories about crime and deviance are fillingthe pages of newspapers. Many are claiming that crimes and deviant behavior are becoming more and more visible and aggressive. Criminal activities do not choose places, and campuses and homes are now one of the places that bear the highest rate of criminal and deviant activities. Richard Perez-Pena, author of The New York Times, writes about the prevalence of alcohol and drug abuse, as well as major crimes (i.e. burglary, sexual violence, murder, etc.), on campuses today. Likewise, Caitlin Dewey, author of The Washington Post, reports about the cause of, as discovered by researchers, the rise in Internet crimes, especially online piracy. Researchers have found out a compelling reason—Internet crimes exist because those who take part in it think that ‘everybody’ is doing it, hence there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. This essay analyzes these two news stories within the context of three major sociological perspectives—conflict theory, labeling theory, and structural-functionalism. It is the contention of this paper that crimes and deviant behavior become increasingly prevalent because of societal attitude toward it and absence of control policies. Analyzing Reports about Crime and Deviance Richard Perez-Pena of The New York Times wrote an article about the current status of alcohol and drug use in campuses. His article entitled College Focus on Alcohol and Drugs as Serious Crime Dips. The main message of the author is that colleges have stepped up in their efforts against substance abuse even though the prevalence of major crimes on campuses has declined. Current figures revealed a significant total drop in major crimes on campuses, yet experts warned that although there had been considerable decline, the numbers must not be considered superficially. A great deal of the drop, according to them, arose from newly developed rules from the Education Department concerning the process of identifying the most widespread of the major crimes, that is, theft. The truth is, according to statistics, the prevalence of drug abuse and bullying has not significantly changed since the 1990s. The author reports in his article that the prevalence of major crimes on campuses has been continuously decreasing. Rigid control policies on campuses are already in place, which, according to the article, are the main reason for the decline in the rate of serious crimes on campuses. However, the problem lies with the assessment of the data; there should be a thorough analysis of the current figures in order to reveal the actual nature of the decline. All control policies are not perfect; all have strengths and limitations. Nevertheless, in this case, development and implementation are effective, but the evaluation process is somewhat weak. Putting this in sociological perspective, it may be assumed that the problem of alcohol and drug abuse on campuses, which, consequently, leads to the perpetration of serious crimes, can be explained by conflict theory and labeling theory. Conflict theory argues that deviance develop from physical, political, or social inequalities in a society. Time and again, studies show that college students from low-income households are more prone to substance abuse and, thus, serious crimes (Krohn et al., 2010). In reaction to such inequalities, these marginalized groups will behave in a deviant manner so as to alter their situations, transform the social system that produced their situations, or only to ‘protest’ against their persecutors. These dissenters were moving away from social standards of unity so as to express disgruntlements against the very rich. Substance abuse on campuses shows the relevance of conflict theory to the analysis of deviance. Labeling theory could also explain such phenomenon. This sociological perspective claims that individuals become deviant because of society imposing such identity on them and afterward taking on that identity. It is possible that because these deviant college students are being labeled as deviant due to, perhaps, their gender, racial affiliation, socioeconomic standing, etc., they fall into what is called a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ mechanism (Krohn et al., 2010). Although these are not specified in the article, these possibilities are apparent. The author has successfully prevented bias through pure descriptive reporting. However, it seems that the content is insufficient. There was no relevant analysis of the possible social, political, and economic causes and outcomes of decrease in the prevalence of serious crimes on campuses. This is the problem with pure reporting; although it effectively prevents bias, it definitely fails to provide a deeper look at the larger picture. The second article, written by Caitlin Dewey for The Washington Post, talks about recent studies claiming that there is a correlation between deviance, Internet addiction, and piracy. These studies mostly examined three aspects—“whether the students pirated online content and what they pirated; whether they showed signs of Internet addiction, as measured by things like craving and withdrawal symptoms; and whether any of their friends exhibited ‘deviant’ online behaviors” (Dewey, 2014, para 4). Unfortunately, researchers of Internet behavior have been unable to decisively identify when Internet use turns out to be problematic or harmful, largely due to the fact that the reason, the way, and the degree of Internet use varies constantly. Nevertheless, the author emphasizes one important thing—deviant use of the Internet, such as online piracy, is not considered by the younger, digital generation as ‘deviant’. According to the author, there is a generational gap in identifying what is deviant and what is not. The article reports that online piracy is on the rise, and it seems that it would stop from increasing anytime soon. Control policies are evidently needed in order to curb Internet addiction, especially deviant Internet use, such as posting nude pictures, using other people’s credit card, etc. However, regulating Internet use is very difficult because there is no such thing as ‘internet governance’. The Internet is an overwhelmingly vast network and cannot be easily policed or governed. Control policies against deviant Internet use, such as online piracy, among adolescents and young adults should be implemented on campuses and at home. Within a sociological perspective, deviant Internet use can be analyzed using structural functionalism. This perspective claims that deviance fulfills a dynamic, useful function in society by contributing to the unity or assimilation of various social groups in a society. Deviance contributes to the differentiation between improper and proper behavior. This is an integral role that confirms the cultural principles and standards of a society for its members. Besides specifying the moral limits of a society, deviance can also encourage social harmony or agreement by forming an ‘us-versus-them’ outlook with regard to deviant people (Krohn et al., 2010). Such structural functionalist principles have been eloquently stated by Catherine Marcum (Dewey, 2014, para 9): An act that is deviant is one that goes against social norms. This can be anything from wearing a bathing suit to a business meeting to committing murder. Acts can be deviant and not criminal, and vice versa. For instance, especially for the age group in the study, underage drinking or digital piracy behaviors may be criminal but not necessarily deviant as they are viewed as acceptable behaviors by this demographic… It seems that those Internet users that take part in deviant online behavior do not see themselves as violating any social norms or rules. It seems that they hold the belief that if everybody’s doing it then there’s nothing wrong with it. However, it is without a doubt, that this ‘socially acceptable behavior’ is harmful and victimizes. Conclusions Both the articles demonstrate the current status of crimes and deviant activities, although focusing on specific crimes, and the possible cause of the decrease in major crimes on campuses and increase in cases on Internet crimes (i.e. online piracy). In the first case, it seems that substance abuse and major crimes on campuses happen due to various factors within society—socioeconomic inequality, racial differences, etc.—and labeling, which leads to a ‘self-fulfilling’ phenomenon. In the second case, Internet crimes are increasing because of ‘conformity’; those who take part in it believe that online piracy and other Internet crimes are not wrong because everyone else is doing it. Moreover, control policies for Internet use are very difficult to implement. Therefore, these new stories reveal that crime and deviance today is still largely structurally or institutionally influenced. References Dewey, C. (2014, June 2). Study: Digital piracy, linked to Internet addiction, ‘deviant’ friends. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/06/02/study-digital-piracy-linked-to-internet-addiction-deviant-friends/ Krohn, M. et al. (2010). Handbook on Crime and Deviance. New York: Springer. Perez-Pena, R. (2014, June 10). College Focus on Alcohol and Drugs as Serious Crime Dips. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/us/colleges-focus-on-alcohol-and-drugs-as-serious-crime-dips.html. Read More