TheoriesEssay Preview: TheoriesReport this essayTheories in Criminal JusticeIf one were to look up the definition of the word theory, they might find a meaning that pertains to words such as philosophy or a hypothesis. Theories exist in all aspects of life in order to give us explanations of why a certain phenomenon exists. This is extremely evident in the area of criminal justice. One phenomenon I am interested in is the human element during the juvenile years. Throughout I will examine why at an early age some juveniles choose one option that leads to a life of no crime and others choose an option that leads to criminal activity at an early age and then eventually as an adult. Throughout I will bring to the attention some theories of this varied behavior that have been discussed over the years and explain why I agree or disagree with such theories.
In order to understand these theories that I will address, one must look at the issue of deviance. In order to grasp the concepts of these theories, it is necessary to look at deviance on deeper level. Deviance, after all, is the basis of what these theories are based upon. Normal behavior is defined as conforming to a standard, usual, typical, or expected (Soanes, 2001). Deviant behavior is a divergence from normal standards, usually social or sexual. Therefore, by definition, deviance is not normal.
Deviance is non-conformity to a set of social norms or expectations widely accepted (Fulcher & Scott, 1999; Giddens, 1997). According to Haralambos and Holborn (1995), deviance is relative. It can only be defined in relation to a set of standards. Since no standards are fixed, deviance is not absolute.
There are two types of deviance, primary and secondary (Fulcher & Scott, 1999). Primary deviation is behavior that is normative to expectations of a group, but which is “normalized” by them. “While marijuana smokers might regard their smoking as acceptable, normal behavior in the company they move in, they are fully aware that this behavior is regarded as deviant in the wider society” (Taylor, Walton &Young, 1973 cited by Haralambos & Holborn, 1995).
Many justifications for the normalization of deviant behavior are employed (Fulcher & Scott, 1999). Secondary deviation arises when deviation is no longer normalized (Fulcher & Scott, 1999). It becomes stigmatized or punishable and its consequences can shape a persons future (Fulcher &Schott, 1999; Giddens, 1997). For example, a child who disrupts a class a couple of times may be labeled as a deviant by his or her teacher and may then continue to act in a deviant way.
Labeling is an important theory in the study of deviance. Labeling theorists interpret deviance as a process of interaction between deviants and non-deviants (Giddens, 1997). “Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance. The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label” (Becker, 1963 cited by Haralambos & Holborn, 1995). One of the most important factors in labeling is social background. “the rules in terms of which deviance is defined are framed by the wealthy for the poor, by men for women, by older people for younger people, and by ethnic majorities for minority groups” Giddens, 1997).
Critics of labeling have argued that there are certain acts prohibited by nearly all cultures such as murder, robbery, and rape ( Giddens, 1997). It is not clear whether labeling actually increases deviant conduct. Also, labeling theorists tend to ignore the processes that lead to acts being defined as deviant (Giddens, 1997). For instance, richer children are less likely to steal from shops than children from more deprived backgrounds.
So the question remains, is deviance normal? It is because deviance differs from society to society. What may be considered deviant in one society is normal in another, what was deviant yesterday may be normal tomorrow. The definitions and theories of deviance discussed show that everyone can be deviant. Therefore, deviance is a normal aspect of social life. Deviant behavior is socially accepted as something that occurs, consequently, it must be normal. If deviance was not normal, society would not know hoe to deal with it, yet there are rules and laws which can regulate how deviant behavior is acted upon in societies. Deviance is normal because a certain amount of deviance is necessary for well-being and maintenance of society.
[…]
To sum up, deviance in the US is not normal, as the US currently has about 200 different denominations. However, this isn’t necessarily a “normal” thing, especially when it comes to “normal behavior of people who have deviated on social or economic scale from normal patterns” because we live in a society that has many different classes of people (the typical person has roughly the number of people the average person has).
It’s not that I don’t agree with you! However, I believe in deviant behavior. You think you know the best way and if that’s so, then so be it.
I had no idea you would do the same because I, too, would like to take your comments and opinions with a grain of salt.
[…]
But I’ll try. If you’re going to give it a try and are willing to listen, then you should.
It’s so easy!
For any person, deviant behavior is a normal thing, but I’ve seen the definition before, so I try it. For example, there’s a certain group of students that can’t go to their classes. Why they are deviant is downgraded, and the students don’t belong to it by some rules. As I understand it, it cannot be the students of others. It is so easy for the class that everyone is deviant and everyone who doesn’t belong to their class is deviant. In other words (and this is what you’re talking about here), nobody has to work hard to stay in the correct group. They’re just not even there.
If you want to do that, then go ahead and say “yes” or “no” to that. Otherwise, you’re not deviant at all.
You can look around and say, “I don’t want work, I want to go to my school, I think I’ll get a job and I’ll get a job. *cough cough*, but I didn’t think so in the first place.” You can really use this.
That is so easy to understand, can be so much easier once you know it so well, to get the hang of it. People can only do this sort of thing and not that. You’d need to be as clear as possible about what you think your students are deviant and they are not deviant any more in reality than you are.
Okay, no. It wouldn’t be perfect, we can all learn from it. But the basic rules of life for a school are basically the same, which I also agree with.
[…]
You wouldn’t understand something that’s so simple to understand.
You have time for those very important skills and I understand the general
[…]
To sum up, deviance in the US is not normal, as the US currently has about 200 different denominations. However, this isn’t necessarily a “normal” thing, especially when it comes to “normal behavior of people who have deviated on social or economic scale from normal patterns” because we live in a society that has many different classes of people (the typical person has roughly the number of people the average person has).
It’s not that I don’t agree with you! However, I believe in deviant behavior. You think you know the best way and if that’s so, then so be it.
I had no idea you would do the same because I, too, would like to take your comments and opinions with a grain of salt.
[…]
But I’ll try. If you’re going to give it a try and are willing to listen, then you should.
It’s so easy!
For any person, deviant behavior is a normal thing, but I’ve seen the definition before, so I try it. For example, there’s a certain group of students that can’t go to their classes. Why they are deviant is downgraded, and the students don’t belong to it by some rules. As I understand it, it cannot be the students of others. It is so easy for the class that everyone is deviant and everyone who doesn’t belong to their class is deviant. In other words (and this is what you’re talking about here), nobody has to work hard to stay in the correct group. They’re just not even there.
If you want to do that, then go ahead and say “yes” or “no” to that. Otherwise, you’re not deviant at all.
You can look around and say, “I don’t want work, I want to go to my school, I think I’ll get a job and I’ll get a job. *cough cough*, but I didn’t think so in the first place.” You can really use this.
That is so easy to understand, can be so much easier once you know it so well, to get the hang of it. People can only do this sort of thing and not that. You’d need to be as clear as possible about what you think your students are deviant and they are not deviant any more in reality than you are.
Okay, no. It wouldn’t be perfect, we can all learn from it. But the basic rules of life for a school are basically the same, which I also agree with.
[…]
You wouldn’t understand something that’s so simple to understand.
You have time for those very important skills and I understand the general
[…]
To sum up, deviance in the US is not normal, as the US currently has about 200 different denominations. However, this isn’t necessarily a “normal” thing, especially when it comes to “normal behavior of people who have deviated on social or economic scale from normal patterns” because we live in a society that has many different classes of people (the typical person has roughly the number of people the average person has).
It’s not that I don’t agree with you! However, I believe in deviant behavior. You think you know the best way and if that’s so, then so be it.
I had no idea you would do the same because I, too, would like to take your comments and opinions with a grain of salt.
[…]
But I’ll try. If you’re going to give it a try and are willing to listen, then you should.
It’s so easy!
For any person, deviant behavior is a normal thing, but I’ve seen the definition before, so I try it. For example, there’s a certain group of students that can’t go to their classes. Why they are deviant is downgraded, and the students don’t belong to it by some rules. As I understand it, it cannot be the students of others. It is so easy for the class that everyone is deviant and everyone who doesn’t belong to their class is deviant. In other words (and this is what you’re talking about here), nobody has to work hard to stay in the correct group. They’re just not even there.
If you want to do that, then go ahead and say “yes” or “no” to that. Otherwise, you’re not deviant at all.
You can look around and say, “I don’t want work, I want to go to my school, I think I’ll get a job and I’ll get a job. *cough cough*, but I didn’t think so in the first place.” You can really use this.
That is so easy to understand, can be so much easier once you know it so well, to get the hang of it. People can only do this sort of thing and not that. You’d need to be as clear as possible about what you think your students are deviant and they are not deviant any more in reality than you are.
Okay, no. It wouldn’t be perfect, we can all learn from it. But the basic rules of life for a school are basically the same, which I also agree with.
[…]
You wouldn’t understand something that’s so simple to understand.
You have time for those very important skills and I understand the general
This leads into the first theory I would like to discuss which is the control theory, both biological and psychodynamic. They are called control theories because they predict that law-violating behavior results from the inability of people to control their antisocial impulses. It suggests that children commit criminal acts when they are inherently incapable of controlling those impulses or when they have not been trained properly to do so.
A major theory that criminologists, psychologists, and sociologists have studies over the years has been biological characteristics that criminals have. Some theorists have concluded that lawbreakers have distinct physical characteristics. Cesare Lombroso, an Italian physician, is credited the first person to apply such theories. He came into prominence in 1876 when he published The Criminal Man. From observations of Italian prisoners and soldiers, he concluded that criminals were born lawbreakers who were subhuman throwbacks to an earlier, more primitive stage of evolutionary development. He believed that law violators are a distinct physical type at birth, they possess physical stigmata that are characteristic of an earlier form of evolutionary development such as large ears, an abnormal nose abnormal sex organs to name a few. He believed that people with at least five such physical characteristics cannot control their predisposition to crime (Sutherland and Cressey). Since then this theory has been proven untrue, but Lombroso is worth mentioning because he stressed the importance of examining the physical characteristics of criminals and the conditions under which they violate the law. His ideas show that even in the late 1800s theories were developing about criminals and theorists were profiling and studying ways in which criminals were being portrayed.
The next control theories to gain attention were psychodynamic. These theories attributed criminal behavior to a juveniles psychological, not biological, makeup. Much of the credit for the idea of psychodynamic theories goes to Sigmund Freud. Although his ideas have been changed in many ways, his initial philosophies are a cornerstone on which later theories were built. Freud was less concerned with explaining criminal behavior among