If you are not redirected to its new location in a few seconds, please click here DON'T FORGET TO UPDATE YOUR BOOKMARKS! |
|
.
. |
|
|
CRIME AND DEVIANCE moderated by Phil Bartle Contributions will be added to the top of this collection as I receive them.
Date: Wed, 16 Aug
This is in regards to the class disscussion
on physical child abuse. I am also taking a a course called
the Sociology
of crime. This is just another thought to throw out there, but the main
theme of that class is about how the criminal justice system is actually
the cause of crimes such as child abuse. Once a crime is defined as being
"wrong" members of society may commit this crime because it now has meaning
behind it and is an act of rebellion. So basically by defining crime we
are creating crime. It took me a while to grasp that concept but is it
possible that if child abuse was not marked and had no consequence and
meaning, people may engage less in child abuse?
I hope we didn't butcher your favorite
subject
In a study conducted by sociologists
Gresham Sykes and David Matza, they found that the group of boys they were
studying used various techniques of neutralization to justify their socially
deviant actions. This in tern helped establish the five techniques of neutralization
deviants’ use in order for them to help deflect societies norms. By using
these techniques, deviants still consider themselves as a responsible part
of society and that they still conform to societies norms.
1) Denial of Responsibility
2) Denial of Injury
3) Denial of a victim
Denial of a victim is where a person or group of people try to deny that
their action was wrong because the person or people they did it to deserved it.
For example, if a student stole food from the cafeteria he or she could claim
that they did it to fight rising tuition costs. Everybody in society has been
guilty of Denial of a victim, not just those that
law deems deviant.
4) Condemnation of the Condemners
Deviants, to deny that other people
had the right to judge their actions in the first place, use this technique
of neutralization. They often accuse others as being hypocrites when their
actions are being punished. This is one of the ways deviants can challenge
the right of others to point fingers. They often say “who are they to
accuse me of….”
5) Appealing to higher Loyalties
The final technique is known as
appealing to higher loyalties. This was where they said their loyalties
to their friends, gang - almost anyone they could think of - was more important
than following societies norms. For example, they might say something like
"I'm not giving you the name of who I was with when we beat up that guy
- he is my friend and I won't betray him." Further still, they might try
to make it seem like what they did was natural - "I had to help my friend
beat up that guy, or else he would have gotten hurt! Wouldn't you do the
same thing?"
Henslin says, "Norms make social
life possible by making behavior predictable." (382) By saying this he
makes the primary link between social control and the socialization process.
Socialization is an important element/part of social control because social
control is a group's way of informally and formally enforcing its norms
on society. The way someone, like a child, is socialized is key to the
success of these social norms. Attitudes, values, and appropriate behavior
are all included in these cultural norms, and developed though the process
of socialization. It is easier to maintain control of a society where the
people have all been raised to conform to an expected way of conduct, and
share the same idea of norms. Without these shared meanings and expectations
we develop through enculturation and acculturation, we as humans would
not be able to relate to each other, process information, and sort ourselves
into specific social arrangements. Such is the case with the feral or isolated
child whom society has few mechanisms to control. Also without socialization
a society has no basis for knowing when social order breaks down.
Why is it
Important Who Defines a Deviance?
Generally it is the person/s doing
the defining that is in control. They have power and influence over
everyone else. They make or break the rules to serve their interests.
Laws reflect and support the interests of the rich and powerful.
Was Robin Hood a deviant or a early socialist supporter? He stole
from the rich and gave to the poor. He was branded a common criminal
by the wealthy who he was a threat to. He was an impediment to their
visions of grandeur capitalism.
Is GE held accountable for polluting
the environment and spreading cancer to the people who reside close to
the power plant? If anything, I see more GE products on store shelves
than any other brand, from telephones, televisions to light switch covers.
Yet, when a protester is outside their plant they are promptly taken away
by the police. Rioters, protesters, environmentalists are labeled
deviant because they challenge the status quo of the capitalists, when
there is a threat to the elite's power or their resources. Laws are
promoted as normal or routine yet they hide political agendas. Laws
support exploitation. Laws do not represent fairness.
The exception to this that I have
witnessed in the media lately is Martha Stewart's white collar crime of
sharing insider stock information. I believe she is being made an
example of because she is a celebrity, but mostly because she is a successful
woman. She isn't apart of the old boys club. She is expendable
because of her femaleness. I am so completely sure that if this was
a high profile man, we would not be hearing about this.
Social deviance is the term used
to describe a violation of the social norms. Norms, which consists
of the rules of behavior that make, ordered societies possible. Durkheim's’
theory believes that social deviance is inevitable and often inexplicable,
the medicalization of social deviance is therefore applied. This
states that deviant behavior is an outward manifestation of internal problems
of the mind. Sociologists, disagree with this stating that deviant
behavior us based in social experiences not a product of mental illness.
There are many times in society
where it seems that there is no logical social reason why an individual
acts the way that they do, and it is very easy to label those actions as
systems of a sickness. Medicalization of deviance takes the actions
that are considered socially deviant and classifies them as a sickness.
This theory became popular with the works of Sigmund Freud who stated that
external symptoms come from internal conflicts as part of this psychoanalysis
theory. Henslin states this also by saying that the medicalization
of deviance is a result of the medical profession trying to enforce its
definition of “normal” behavior.
There are a number of example that
can pinpoint such behaviors in society that is often medicalize, namely:
Motives for rape, troubled childhood, serial killers where it is often
said that “normal” people do not have the desire to harm or kill another
human being. Other more local for examples specific to Canada or
North America. .. Homelessness and depression are the two major ones.
We medicalize these conditions when we see them as products of an unstable
mind, but sometimes these are social conditions, and sometimes these conditions
themselves can create unstable minds. Kind of like putting the cart
before the horse.
A.D.D. and senility could be two
other examples. A good web site to read up more on this for reference
is www.pineforge.com/newman4study/resources/socialcontrol.htm.
|
| Web Discussions |
| Crime and Deviance |