Deviance Behavior Criminal

deflection Behavior Criminal deviation Is It In the sum of the Beholder?Abstr doingDeviant mien is described as work ons or behaviors that violate pagan norms including resile in solelyy enacted rules as hale as daily misdemeanors of neighborly norms. This paper leave examine what the various types of distortion and bequeath present the important theories of departure. thither is a great deal the argument that aberration is in the eye of the beholder solely after research I give out that it is non quite true. Deviance is an established abnormality in singulars and nightspot and sociologist attain been seeking to find solutions for it for decades by applying various theories upon this abnormality. at that prepare ar seven study theories of deflection that are further followed by sublistings of variations on themes. These theories are distinguishableial standoff, anomie, Marxian conflict, social soften system, gaugeing, utilitarian/deterrence and munda ne activities.Deviance is to a fault broadly categorize into three fundamental draws of rule breaking behavior good, odd and bad behavior. It is now cognise that though m any(prenominal) acts albumenthornbe degene step they may restrained non constitute bad or shepherds crook behavior. But they are so far socially reprimanded because of their nature such(prenominal) as highly inappropriate modes of dress. Thither is the absolutistic carrel in viewing divagation and the relativist association. The absolutist stand places all beatified of the unnatural act upon the individual while the relativist stand is much lenient in taking into account the larger paradigm that considers societal featureors and early(a) influences in causing deviant behavior. The young twenty-four hours sociologist is considered to be a relativist who believes in taking the middle road when analyzing deviant behavior. harmonise to Shur (1965), The societal reaction to the deviant, thence, is vital to an understanding of the deviance itself and a major element inif not a cause ofthe deviant behavior.Deviance Is It In the Eye of the Beholder?When it come to an attempt to ferret out whether or not deviance is in the eye of the beholder, the fact is that all the research that is cerebrate to deviance only proves that it is a phenomena that is not in the eye of the beholder but a valid and recognized form of socially abnormal behavior. In any given fellowship of the human race, deviance is an established of behavior that breaks out of the recognized norms and requires to be corrected in order for the normal flow of social bread and butter to progress. Deviance describes actions or behaviors that clearly violate cultural norms including formally and informally enacted rules as well as informal and formal violations of these rules, regulations and norms. This paper will try to image how deviance is seen, created, challenged and enforced.Deviance is an act defined as the deliberate violation of the cultural norms of a given gild. The nearly prevalent form of deviance is plague of any sort or the violation of societal norms enacted by a society that have been formally enacted into whitlow law (What is Deviance?) Deviance has been recognized as an integral part of every society and hence is studied as a socio rational science. In cosmos studies as a science of society, at that place is little doubt that deviance should be considered to be in the eye of the beholder. The sociology of deviance is based on the study of deviant behavior as the recognized violation of cultural norms. It as well deals with the creation and enforcement of those norms. It is important to understand that certain deviant behaviors may not be recognized as such by all societal standards. In other words, not all societies have rules that would prohibit all forms of behavior. But still every society does have its suffer set of social rules that when broken, constitute dev iance for the members of that position society. Rather on the contrary, deviance is defined in relative terms with disparate societies having different ways to view the same behavior (Sociology of Deviance).Many of the theories that are related to deviance and culpable behavior are simple and uncomplicated stating unityness or two explanatory principles that apply to all instances of the particular form of deviance that is macrocosm explained. These are also called simple theories that are formulaicly clearified into six or seven major categories and have sublistings of variations on themes. The categorical schemes that are most popular are related to strain, cultivation, labeling, control, opportunity, psychodynamic and biological. agree to Pearson and Weiner (1985) the simple theories that are most important are differential association (Sutherland and Cressey 1978), anomie (Merton,1975), Marxian Conflict (Bonger 1916 Quinney 1970), social control (Hirschi 1969), labelin g (Becker 1963 Gove 1975, 1980 Schur 1971), utilitarian/deterrence (Andenaes 1974 Becker 1968 Cornish and Clarke 1986 Gibbs 1975 Tunnell 1992 Zimring and Hawkins 1973) and routine activities (Cohen and Felson 1979) (Tittle, 1995).Sutherland and Cresseys theory of differential association is considered to be atomic number 53 of the most prominent social learning theories. Sutherlands research was focused on white collar evil, professional theft and intelligence and disputed the notion that aversion was a function of peoples inadequacy in the lower classes. He did not consider hatred to stem from individual traits or from socio frugal positions but to be a function of a learning process that could chance upon any individual regardless of culture. The acquisition of behavior is a social learning process rather than a political or legitimate process. Consequently the skills and motives that are conducive to crime are learned as a dissolvent of contact with pro-crime attitudes, va lues, definitions and other related pattern of criminal behavior. The basic principles of differential theory are that criminal behavior is learned, learning is a byproduct of interaction, learning occurs inwardly intimate groups, criminal techniques are learned, perceptions of legal code influences motives and drives, differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, antecedence and intensity, the process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal with anticriminal and criminal influences involve all of the mechanisms that would be involved in any other learning process and that criminal behavior is an expression of the global call for and values but it is not excused by those oecumenic postulate and values because non-criminal behavior is also an expression of the same needs and values (Seigel, 2005).The theory of anomie was presented by Robert Merton and it explains the occurrence of crime as well as fullr disorder and deviance. This theory is cons idered to be a wide ranging and essential sociological explanation for deviance. Merton borrows the term anomie from Durkheim and rejects individualistic explanations of crime and criminal behavior stating them to be socially learned. He also says that there are social structural limitations imposed on access to the government agency to achieve these goals. The focus of his work is on the position of the individual inside the social system rather than on personality traits. He says, Our ancient aim lies in discovering some social structures exert a explicit pressure upon certain persons in the society to lease in non-conformist ingest (Burke, 2005).This theory is based on the work of Karl Marx and views a dominant class as being in control of the resources of society, using its power to not only create institutional rules but entire belief systems that keep up this power. The theory looks at the structure of society as a self-colored in trying to develop explanations for dev iant behavior. According to this theory the economic organization of capitalist societies is responsible for producing deviance and crime. Since this scenario causes certain groups in society to have access to less resources in capitalist society they are hence forced into deviance and crime to sustain themselves. The high rate of economic crimes such as theft, robbery, prostitution and drug selling is explained by conflict theorists to be the result of the economic status of these groups. Contrary to accentuation values and conformity as a source of deviance, as through with(p) by functional analyses, the conflict theories view deviance as the head result of power relationships and economic inequality (Andersen, Taylor, 2006).The theory of social control was offered by Hirschi and it evolved from galore(postnominal) previous contributions. The primary concept of the theory is the strength to deviate from normative behavior. Many people do not engage in deviant behavior because of their bond to society. Social bond was also conceptualized by Hirschi on the basis of the attachment of the individual to others, commitment to conventional lines of action, involvement and belief in legitimate order. These four components were regarded by Hircshi as being independent and having a generally negative association with the chances of agreeable in deviant behavior. It was his opinion that when the elements of social bond were weakened, the probability of guilt and deviancy increased (Weis, Crutchfield, Bridges, 2001).Labeling theory is considered important in the study of deviance since it focuses not only on crime but also the situation skirt the crime. It goes beyond viewing the criminal as a robot wish person whose actions are predetermined by also recognizing that crime is often the result of complex interactions and processes. Decisions to commit crimes and other acts of deviance involve the action of a variety of people that include peers, dupes, police an d other anchor characters. Additionally, labeling also fosters crime by guiding the actions of all parties involved in these criminal interactions. Actions that are considered insignificant and innocent when committed by one person are considered provocative and deviant when committed by some other who has been labeled a miscreant. On the same note, labeled individuals may also be quick to judge, fall upon offense and misinterpret the behaviors of others due to their outgoing experiences (Siegel, 2004). Sociologist clam that when a person becomes known as a deviant, and is ascribed deviant behavior patterns, it is as much, if not more, to do with the way they have been stigmatized, then the deviant act they are said to have committed. As a matter of fact, labeling theory has subsequently become significantly dominant in the explanation of deviance.This theory is also often referred to as rationale filling or economic theory. The main idea of the theory is that all human acts a re determinational and that any behavior is more easily understood in terms of relative costs and acquires. When the cost of any behavior exceeds the benefit or utility for any individual he or she will in all likelihood forgo it. But when the benefits exceed the cost, the behavior will follow. Hence if one could learn the costs and benefits of different courses of actions it would restrain it easy to explain and predict what will happen (Tittle, 1995).The theory of routine activities asserts the fact that high crime rates in the US have always been a part of normal life. The main concept of the theory are taken from the insights of a number of other perspectives on crime and victimization such a the free-will basis of human action or rational choice and empirical studies that reflect that patterns of crimes and victimization differ in time, in location and in the social distance between the victim and the offender. The key claim of the theory if that the patterns of victimizatio n and crime are the result of the mundane interaction of the potential offenders, suitable targets, and guardians. It is the interaction of these three variables within geographical space and in time that eventually determines the rates of crime and delinquency in modern society (Beirne, Beirne, Messerschmidt, 1999).Deviance is broadly categorized into three basic forms of rule breaking behavior good, odd or bad behavior. Deviance that could be considered good or even estimable but which still breaks out of social norms is something akin to heroism such as putting ones own life in danger in an attempt to save the life of another person. There are many behaviors that may be considered odd even though they may not be criminal. They are considered odd because they are different than behavior that is shown by other people. Examples of this deviance range from outlandish or inappropriate modes of dress, mildly eccentric behavior such as a person who sees zero point wrong in sharing th eir house with 50 cats to outright madness. injurious behavior is what the name implies it to be law breaking or criminal behavior that in some way is seen as being something more than simply outlandish or eccentric. The different kinds of behavior in this sept constitute crime, violence, crimes against property and the like dependant on the time and place at which they take place (Types of Deviance).Though the definition of deviance and the different ways of interpreting it have undergone much research over the years, the fact that there is indeed such behavior in every society that clearly deviates from the norms of that society and hence constitutes deviant behavior hasnt changed. According to sway (1973), The common sense definition has not changed the absolutist orientation still prevails. Not so for social science. Sociologists in particular now profit that, contrary to common sense, the identification of and reaction to deviance in everybodys life is no different from oth er areas of life these processes hinge on one persons interpretation of another persons deeds. The chief difference between interpretations in other areas of life and those in deviance lies in the use of a chaste yardstick when deviance is interpreted. To be sure, what is seen a deviant is part of everyday knowledge of common-sense reality. But it is a socially constructed reality (Rosenberg, 1983).Because most of the world does have a socially constructed view of deviance, it makes people view the act and not the actor. Societies, heritages, morals passed down from generations, and religious preferences have all blind individuals from using their own personal impressions and common sense. My interest in this particular topic had a lot to do with my free will of judgment in reference to how I myself viewed deviance and although I guide my kids into what is believed to be right and wrong, I also teach them to make their own decision on what they consider to be deviant in their eyes . As multiplication change, so does the world and although some things are more acceptable, values go on the same. However, if one really wants to understand the way deviance is viewed, created, challenged and enforced, one has to take a much deeper view. It is not enough to focus on the individual deviant and the means of society trying to transform a behavior into some acceptable normal thing one also needs to examine those who insist on this transformation and who have defined it as deviant in the first place. In some trips, it may be the actual values or the way people judge and label deviant behaviors that is more deviant than the acts or behaviors itself.In conclusion, after examining the types of deviance and the different theories of deviance it can be surmised that it wont be logical to say that deviance is simply in the eyes of the beholder. Deviance is a recognized social ill. It also needs be mentioned here that there are two ways in which sociologists view deviance th e absolutist way and the relativist way. The absolutist are not willing to visit any slack at all in the discussing of deviance being an effect of purlieu, society and other factors related to it laying all blame of the deviant behavior entirely on the individual. To the contrary, the relativists are the ones who present their case in a manner akin to so deviance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholderalmost every conceivable human characteristic or activity is pariah in somebodys eyes (Simmons, 1969).In modern times most of the sociologists are relativists where they claim that human action is uncomplete inherently deviant nor inherently nondeviant but dependant of the effects of the environment and society as well. However, in determining the validity of deviance it is beaver to adopt a middle position which is neither strictly absolutist nor strictly relativist. Given the growing diversities of societies all over the world, it is only by adopting this middle path can one truly judge deviant behavior and seek plausible solution to it by applying the theories of deviance upon them. According to Schur (1965), The societal reaction to the deviant, then, is vital to the understanding of the deviance itself and a major element inif not a cause ofthe deviant behavior. In my opinion, deviance is in the eyes of the beholder nonetheless, it is still a societal ill that first needs to be treated as such before solutions can be sought to remedy it.ReferencesAndersen, M. L., Taylor, H. F. (2006) Sociology Understanding a Diverse Society. Pp. 170 (Thomson Wadsworth 2006) Beirne, Beirne, P., Messerschmidt, J. W. (1999) Criminology Third Edition. Pp. 215 (Westview pinch, 1999) Burke, R. H. (2005) An Introduction to Criminological hypothesis. Pp. 100 (Willan issue 2005)Rosenberg, M. (1983) Introduction to Sociology. Pp. 404 (Routledge 1983) Siegel, L. J. (2004) Criminology The Core. Pp. 173 (Thomson Wadsworth 2004)Siegel, L. J. (2005) Criminology. Pp. 226 (Thomso n Wadsworth 2005) Sociology of Deviance. Wikipedia. Retrieved on July 12, 2008 from http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_devianceTittle, C. R. (1995) Control Balance Toward a General Theory of Deviance. Pp. 1 (Westview Press 1995)Types of Deviance. Retrieved on July 15, 2008 from http//www.sociology.org.uk/wsdo2.htmWeis, J. G., Crutchfield, R. D., Bridges, G. S. (2001) Juvenile Delinquency Readings. Pp. 364 (Pine Forge Press 2001) What is Deviance? Retrieved on July 15, 2008 from http//www.geocities.com/tdeddins/deviance.htm