珏儿对《An Introduction to Criminological Theory》的笔记(1)

摘录

people are seen to commit criminal acts not because it is in material interests to do so, but because there is no strong moral authority influencing them to do otherwise. 


the essential difference between comte and durkheim lies in their differing views of human nature. for comte, the human being has natural and inherent desire to reach perfection.

durkheim, proposes a dualistic view of human nature: a duality between the needs of the body and the soul. human instincts are biologically given, 

durkheim put forward two central arguments to explain the growth of crime and criminal behaviour in modern industrial societies. first, such societies encourage a state of unbridled egoism that is contrary to the maintenance of social solidarity and conformity to the law. inefficient regulation is greater at a time of rapid modernisation, in such a period, society is in a state of formlessness or anomie. a condition characterised by a breakdown in norms and common understanding.


anomie theory
anomie- or strain- theory attempts to explain the occurrence of not merely crime but also wider deviance and disorder. in this sense, it is a wider ranging, essentially sociological explanation that promises a comprehensive account of crime and deviance causation.
merton observes that it is possible to overemphasise either the goals or the means to achieve them and that it is this that leads to social strains, or anomie.

deviant subculture theory
cohen’s delinquent subculture theory has attracted its share of criticism. it is observed that he failed to base his theoretical formulation on empirical data. all attempts to test it have failed and it can be argued that it is inherently untestable.

labelling theory
first, there is a consideration of why and how it is that some acts come to be defined as deviant or criminal while others do not. the second concern recognises that certain people and groups are more likely to attract deviant, criminal and stigmatising labels than others are.

they argued that what is defined as criminal is not fixed but varies across time, culture and even from one situation to the next

labelling theorists argued fundamentally that no behaviour is inherently deviant or criminal, but only comes to be considered so when others confer this label upon the act. 

becker argued that rules including criminal laws are made by people with power and enforced upon people without power.

limitations of labelling theories
some critics to claim that labelling is at best a vague perspective that does not contain consistent and interrelated concepts, and which fails to make precise distinctions between mere description and causal statements (Taylor, Walton and Young, 1973).
other argue that labelling theories do not clearly define deviance.

feminist perspectives
merton’s version of anomie theory had proposed that those individuals who do not possess the legitimate means of achieving what they have been taught to desire, turn to crime in frustration. however, as leonard (1983) observes it is a theory that applies in the main to men and their central goal of financial success. she consequently attempts to insert women into anomie theory by incorporating an alternative female aspiration of marriage and children. leonard suggests that the lower aspirations and more accessible goals of women could therefore help to explain the lower female crime rate.
labelling theories have considered why it is that society labels some people as criminal and not others. it is claimed that it is the powerless who suffer the detrimental effects of labelling but at the same time there is a failure to explain why it is that powerless women are less involved in crime than powerless men (Gregory, 1986). Heidensohn (1985) concludes that labelling theorises only found male deviants o be interesting.