Sociology crime
Functionalist view of crime:
P1. crime as inevitable and functional
- Crime is inevitable and functional because modern societies cannot achieve complete
value consensus
- Functionalists argue that social diversity and specialisation weaken the collective
conscience, producing anomie. Crime therefore emerges naturally from the structural
conditions of society rather than individual pathology. Deviance becomes a mechanism
through which societies reaffirm shared norms and regulate social change
- Different subcultures in society have their own norms and values, what is considered as
deviant differs -anomie (normlessness
- Durkheim: “Crime is normal, an integral part of all healthy societies.” He argues that
variation in socialisation means some individuals will not fully internalise dominant
norms, making deviance structurally unavoidable.
- his positions crime as a necessary component of social organisation, contributing to
cohesion and adaptation rather than simply threatening order.
- Durkheim never specifies the threshold between “functional” and “dysfunctional” crime,
making the theory difficult to operationalise.
P2 . positive functions
- Durkheim argues that some crime and deviance is essential and necessary, as it
performs positive functions for society .
- Public reactions to deviance — media coverage, court cases, collective outrage —
reinforce shared values and clarify moral boundaries.
- Boundary maintenance= crime produces a reaction from society, uniting its members
in condemnation of the criminal (social cohesion)- occurs in time of crisis. Crime
reinforces the societies norms and values and commitment to them
- Warning device=Cohen=acts as a warning device, for society that something is not
working correctly and change needs to happen e.g. High levels of truancy indicate
problems in the education system
- This shows that deviance contributes to social cohesion and institutional improvement
by highlighting areas of strain.
- A03: Looks at crime and it functions for society, but does not look individually at crime
and its effects on individuals
P3: strain theory
- crime occurs when individuals experience strain between society’s cultural goals and
the legitimate means available to achieve them.
- Western societies emphasise material success, but unequal access to education and
employment means many cannot achieve these goals legitimately. This pressure leads
individuals to innovate through deviant means.
- Strain= gap between goal society sets and the means they must achieve it
, - Merton uses the American Dream to show how meritocratic ideology creates universal
aspirations but unequal opportunities. The goal creates a desire to succeed, and lack of
opportunity creates a pressure to adopt illegitimate means, while the norms are not
strong enough to prevent some from succumbing to this temptation
- This demonstrates how crime emerges from structural inequality rather than individual
moral failure.
- Conformity=pursuing cultural goals through socially approved means e.g. The
non-criminal, non-deviant citizen
- Innovation=using socially unapproved or unconventional means to obtain culturally
approved goals e.g. Stealing to achieve financial security, Unemployment/poor
education
- A03: it assumes there is a value consensus that everyone strives for money success,
only accounts for crime for utilitarian gain, and not for non-utilitarian crimes such as
violence.
P4: status frustration
- Functionalists argue that working‑class boys experience status frustration when they
fail within the education system and cannot achieve mainstream success. They
struggle to adjust to the low status given by mainstream society.
- Lacking cultural capital, they face repeated failure and humiliation, leading them to
reject mainstream values and form delinquent subcultures that reward deviant
behaviour.
- Lower working-class boys hold the same success goals of mainstream society. Due to
educational failure and dead-end jobs, they fail to get them. The boys then suffer status
frustration as they are angry at their lack of success
- Cohen argues that these groups create an alternative status hierarchy where acts like
vandalism and truancy become sources of respect. This explains non‑utilitarian crime
as a collective response to structural disadvantage.
- A03: this assumes all w/c boys aspire to m/c goals, which is debatable. It also ignores
female delinquency and middle‑class subcultures, limiting the theory’s
representativeness.
P5: illegitimate opportunity structure
- Functionalists argue that deviance depends not only on blocked legitimate
opportunities but also on unequal access to illegitimate ones
- Different neighbourhoods provide different criminal pathways, shaping the type of
subculture that develops
- Cloward and Ohlin identify criminal, conflict and retreatist subcultures, each shaped by
the structure of local opportunities. This highlights how deviance is patterned by the
availability of criminal networks, not simply by individual strain.
- Criminal subculture= provides the opportunity for a career in crime, organised criminal
gang with a clear hierarchy
- The conflict subculture exists if the criminal subculture is absent. If no criminal career is
available to young males, they may turn their frustration at both the legitimate and
illegitimate opportunity structures into violence
, - The retreatist subculture is the one that takes the double failures, those who don't make
it in crime or violence. The failures retreat into drugs and petty theft.
- A03: There is no discussion about female deviancy or white-collar crime. Removes
accountability from criminals- justifies their actions
Theories - marxism
Paragraph 1 — Capitalism is Criminogenic (Gordon)
- One useful Marxist contribution is the argument that capitalism itself is criminogenic —
meaning the economic system generates crime.
- This is useful for understanding crime today because it shifts the explanation away
from individual pathology and towards the structural pressures of capitalist society.
Crime becomes a predictable outcome of inequality, competition and material
deprivation.
- Gordon argues capitalism encourages a “dog‑eat‑dog” mentality, promoting greed,
individualism and self‑interest. These values make crime a rational response for both
the working class (e.g., theft, violence) and the ruling class (e.g., fraud, tax evasion). He
notes crime exists in all classes, but official statistics hide ruling‑class offending.
- This is useful because it explains why crime persists across society today — not due to
“bad people,” but due to the structural pressures and values of capitalism.
- A03: However, this view is criticised for being overly deterministic. Not all working‑class
people commit crime, and some capitalist societies (e.g., Japan, Switzerland) have low
crime rates, suggesting capitalism alone cannot explain crime.
Paragraph 2 — Law‑Making Serves the Ruling Class (Chambliss)
- A second useful Marxist contribution is the argument that laws are created by and for
the ruling class, meaning crime definitions reflect capitalist interests.
- This is useful for understanding why certain behaviours are criminalised while others
are ignored. It highlights how the law protects property, profit and ruling‑class power.
- Chambliss argues most laws in capitalist societies protect private property — the
foundation of capitalism. Box adds that “serious crime” is ideologically constructed to
focus on working‑class offences like burglary, while corporate harms (pollution, tax
evasion, unsafe working conditions) are downplayed. Snider notes capitalist states
reluctantly pass laws regulating business and weaken them whenever possible.
- This is useful because it explains why crime statistics appear to show working‑class
criminality — the law itself is shaped by ruling‑class interests.
- A03: However, critics argue Marxism overemphasises class and ignores how gender
and ethnicity shape law‑making and criminalisation. Feminists and critical race
theorists argue the law also reflects patriarchy and racism.
Paragraph 3 — Selective Law Enforcement (Chambliss)
- Another useful Marxist contribution is the argument that the criminal justice system
selectively enforces laws, disproportionately targeting the working class.
, - This is useful for understanding why crime appears to be a working‑class phenomenon
today — not because the working class offend more, but because they are policed more
aggressively.
- Reiman argues the criminal justice system acts as part of the repressive state
apparatus, criminalising the working class while ignoring ruling‑class offences.
Selective enforcement divides the working class by encouraging them to blame each
other rather than capitalism. Althusser similarly argues the state uses policing and
courts to maintain ruling‑class dominance.
- This is useful because it explains contemporary patterns of stop‑and‑search,
over‑policing of deprived areas, and the under‑prosecution of corporate crime.
- However, critics argue Marxists ignore the fact that corporate crime is increasingly
prosecuted today, and that policing strategies are also shaped by public demand, not
just ruling‑class interests.
Paragraph 4 — Laws Perform Ideological Functions (Pearce)
- A further useful Marxist contribution is the argument that some laws appear to protect
the working class but actually serve ruling‑class interests.
- This is useful for understanding how law maintains capitalist legitimacy by creating
false consciousness — making workers believe the system protects them.
- Pearce argues laws such as health and safety regulations give capitalism a “caring
face,” making workers believe the system is fair. In reality, these laws keep workers
healthy enough to continue being exploited. Imprisoning working‑class offenders also
diverts attention from structural inequalities and legitimises the system by portraying
criminals as “enemies of the state.”
- This is useful because it explains why the working class may accept an unequal system
and why crime is framed as an individual failing rather than a structural issue.
- A03: However, critics argue Marxists ignore the genuine protective function of many
modern laws, such as safeguarding, anti‑racism legislation, and workers’ rights.
Paragraph 5 — Neo‑Marxism: Crime as Meaningful and Political (Taylor et al., Hall et al.)
- A final Marxist contribution that is particularly useful today is Neo‑Marxism’s argument
that crime is not simply a passive response to capitalism, but a conscious, meaningful
and sometimes political act shaped by both structural inequality and individual agency.
- This is useful because it avoids the determinism of traditional Marxism and helps
explain contemporary forms of deviance — such as anti‑capitalist protest, subcultural
resistance, and crimes motivated by identity or marginalisation. It recognises that
offenders make choices, but those choices are shaped by class inequality, racism,
unemployment and social exclusion.
- Taylor et al. argue traditional Marxism is too deterministic and fails to explain why some
working‑class individuals commit crime while others do not. Their fully social theory of
deviance combines Marxist structural analysis (inequality, power, capitalism) with
interactionist insights (labelling, meaning, societal reaction).
- This is useful today because it provides a multi‑layered explanation of crime: the wider
origins in capitalist inequality, the immediate context of the offender, the meaning of the
Functionalist view of crime:
P1. crime as inevitable and functional
- Crime is inevitable and functional because modern societies cannot achieve complete
value consensus
- Functionalists argue that social diversity and specialisation weaken the collective
conscience, producing anomie. Crime therefore emerges naturally from the structural
conditions of society rather than individual pathology. Deviance becomes a mechanism
through which societies reaffirm shared norms and regulate social change
- Different subcultures in society have their own norms and values, what is considered as
deviant differs -anomie (normlessness
- Durkheim: “Crime is normal, an integral part of all healthy societies.” He argues that
variation in socialisation means some individuals will not fully internalise dominant
norms, making deviance structurally unavoidable.
- his positions crime as a necessary component of social organisation, contributing to
cohesion and adaptation rather than simply threatening order.
- Durkheim never specifies the threshold between “functional” and “dysfunctional” crime,
making the theory difficult to operationalise.
P2 . positive functions
- Durkheim argues that some crime and deviance is essential and necessary, as it
performs positive functions for society .
- Public reactions to deviance — media coverage, court cases, collective outrage —
reinforce shared values and clarify moral boundaries.
- Boundary maintenance= crime produces a reaction from society, uniting its members
in condemnation of the criminal (social cohesion)- occurs in time of crisis. Crime
reinforces the societies norms and values and commitment to them
- Warning device=Cohen=acts as a warning device, for society that something is not
working correctly and change needs to happen e.g. High levels of truancy indicate
problems in the education system
- This shows that deviance contributes to social cohesion and institutional improvement
by highlighting areas of strain.
- A03: Looks at crime and it functions for society, but does not look individually at crime
and its effects on individuals
P3: strain theory
- crime occurs when individuals experience strain between society’s cultural goals and
the legitimate means available to achieve them.
- Western societies emphasise material success, but unequal access to education and
employment means many cannot achieve these goals legitimately. This pressure leads
individuals to innovate through deviant means.
- Strain= gap between goal society sets and the means they must achieve it
, - Merton uses the American Dream to show how meritocratic ideology creates universal
aspirations but unequal opportunities. The goal creates a desire to succeed, and lack of
opportunity creates a pressure to adopt illegitimate means, while the norms are not
strong enough to prevent some from succumbing to this temptation
- This demonstrates how crime emerges from structural inequality rather than individual
moral failure.
- Conformity=pursuing cultural goals through socially approved means e.g. The
non-criminal, non-deviant citizen
- Innovation=using socially unapproved or unconventional means to obtain culturally
approved goals e.g. Stealing to achieve financial security, Unemployment/poor
education
- A03: it assumes there is a value consensus that everyone strives for money success,
only accounts for crime for utilitarian gain, and not for non-utilitarian crimes such as
violence.
P4: status frustration
- Functionalists argue that working‑class boys experience status frustration when they
fail within the education system and cannot achieve mainstream success. They
struggle to adjust to the low status given by mainstream society.
- Lacking cultural capital, they face repeated failure and humiliation, leading them to
reject mainstream values and form delinquent subcultures that reward deviant
behaviour.
- Lower working-class boys hold the same success goals of mainstream society. Due to
educational failure and dead-end jobs, they fail to get them. The boys then suffer status
frustration as they are angry at their lack of success
- Cohen argues that these groups create an alternative status hierarchy where acts like
vandalism and truancy become sources of respect. This explains non‑utilitarian crime
as a collective response to structural disadvantage.
- A03: this assumes all w/c boys aspire to m/c goals, which is debatable. It also ignores
female delinquency and middle‑class subcultures, limiting the theory’s
representativeness.
P5: illegitimate opportunity structure
- Functionalists argue that deviance depends not only on blocked legitimate
opportunities but also on unequal access to illegitimate ones
- Different neighbourhoods provide different criminal pathways, shaping the type of
subculture that develops
- Cloward and Ohlin identify criminal, conflict and retreatist subcultures, each shaped by
the structure of local opportunities. This highlights how deviance is patterned by the
availability of criminal networks, not simply by individual strain.
- Criminal subculture= provides the opportunity for a career in crime, organised criminal
gang with a clear hierarchy
- The conflict subculture exists if the criminal subculture is absent. If no criminal career is
available to young males, they may turn their frustration at both the legitimate and
illegitimate opportunity structures into violence
, - The retreatist subculture is the one that takes the double failures, those who don't make
it in crime or violence. The failures retreat into drugs and petty theft.
- A03: There is no discussion about female deviancy or white-collar crime. Removes
accountability from criminals- justifies their actions
Theories - marxism
Paragraph 1 — Capitalism is Criminogenic (Gordon)
- One useful Marxist contribution is the argument that capitalism itself is criminogenic —
meaning the economic system generates crime.
- This is useful for understanding crime today because it shifts the explanation away
from individual pathology and towards the structural pressures of capitalist society.
Crime becomes a predictable outcome of inequality, competition and material
deprivation.
- Gordon argues capitalism encourages a “dog‑eat‑dog” mentality, promoting greed,
individualism and self‑interest. These values make crime a rational response for both
the working class (e.g., theft, violence) and the ruling class (e.g., fraud, tax evasion). He
notes crime exists in all classes, but official statistics hide ruling‑class offending.
- This is useful because it explains why crime persists across society today — not due to
“bad people,” but due to the structural pressures and values of capitalism.
- A03: However, this view is criticised for being overly deterministic. Not all working‑class
people commit crime, and some capitalist societies (e.g., Japan, Switzerland) have low
crime rates, suggesting capitalism alone cannot explain crime.
Paragraph 2 — Law‑Making Serves the Ruling Class (Chambliss)
- A second useful Marxist contribution is the argument that laws are created by and for
the ruling class, meaning crime definitions reflect capitalist interests.
- This is useful for understanding why certain behaviours are criminalised while others
are ignored. It highlights how the law protects property, profit and ruling‑class power.
- Chambliss argues most laws in capitalist societies protect private property — the
foundation of capitalism. Box adds that “serious crime” is ideologically constructed to
focus on working‑class offences like burglary, while corporate harms (pollution, tax
evasion, unsafe working conditions) are downplayed. Snider notes capitalist states
reluctantly pass laws regulating business and weaken them whenever possible.
- This is useful because it explains why crime statistics appear to show working‑class
criminality — the law itself is shaped by ruling‑class interests.
- A03: However, critics argue Marxism overemphasises class and ignores how gender
and ethnicity shape law‑making and criminalisation. Feminists and critical race
theorists argue the law also reflects patriarchy and racism.
Paragraph 3 — Selective Law Enforcement (Chambliss)
- Another useful Marxist contribution is the argument that the criminal justice system
selectively enforces laws, disproportionately targeting the working class.
, - This is useful for understanding why crime appears to be a working‑class phenomenon
today — not because the working class offend more, but because they are policed more
aggressively.
- Reiman argues the criminal justice system acts as part of the repressive state
apparatus, criminalising the working class while ignoring ruling‑class offences.
Selective enforcement divides the working class by encouraging them to blame each
other rather than capitalism. Althusser similarly argues the state uses policing and
courts to maintain ruling‑class dominance.
- This is useful because it explains contemporary patterns of stop‑and‑search,
over‑policing of deprived areas, and the under‑prosecution of corporate crime.
- However, critics argue Marxists ignore the fact that corporate crime is increasingly
prosecuted today, and that policing strategies are also shaped by public demand, not
just ruling‑class interests.
Paragraph 4 — Laws Perform Ideological Functions (Pearce)
- A further useful Marxist contribution is the argument that some laws appear to protect
the working class but actually serve ruling‑class interests.
- This is useful for understanding how law maintains capitalist legitimacy by creating
false consciousness — making workers believe the system protects them.
- Pearce argues laws such as health and safety regulations give capitalism a “caring
face,” making workers believe the system is fair. In reality, these laws keep workers
healthy enough to continue being exploited. Imprisoning working‑class offenders also
diverts attention from structural inequalities and legitimises the system by portraying
criminals as “enemies of the state.”
- This is useful because it explains why the working class may accept an unequal system
and why crime is framed as an individual failing rather than a structural issue.
- A03: However, critics argue Marxists ignore the genuine protective function of many
modern laws, such as safeguarding, anti‑racism legislation, and workers’ rights.
Paragraph 5 — Neo‑Marxism: Crime as Meaningful and Political (Taylor et al., Hall et al.)
- A final Marxist contribution that is particularly useful today is Neo‑Marxism’s argument
that crime is not simply a passive response to capitalism, but a conscious, meaningful
and sometimes political act shaped by both structural inequality and individual agency.
- This is useful because it avoids the determinism of traditional Marxism and helps
explain contemporary forms of deviance — such as anti‑capitalist protest, subcultural
resistance, and crimes motivated by identity or marginalisation. It recognises that
offenders make choices, but those choices are shaped by class inequality, racism,
unemployment and social exclusion.
- Taylor et al. argue traditional Marxism is too deterministic and fails to explain why some
working‑class individuals commit crime while others do not. Their fully social theory of
deviance combines Marxist structural analysis (inequality, power, capitalism) with
interactionist insights (labelling, meaning, societal reaction).
- This is useful today because it provides a multi‑layered explanation of crime: the wider
origins in capitalist inequality, the immediate context of the offender, the meaning of the
