Introduction
This essay examines the concepts of crime and deviance within the field of criminology, addressing key learning outcomes related to their definitions, relativity, theoretical approaches, and the validity of crime statistics. Crime and deviance are central to understanding societal norms and responses to rule-breaking behaviour, yet they are complex and multifaceted concepts. The essay first identifies the differences between crime and deviance, then explores how both can be seen as relative rather than absolute constructs. It subsequently distinguishes between two prominent approaches to defining these terms, namely the legalistic and sociological perspectives. Finally, it discusses the extent to which crime statistics serve as valid indicators of actual criminal activity. Through critical analysis and engagement with academic sources, this essay aims to provide a sound understanding of these topics, highlighting their implications for criminological study and policy.
Differences Between Crime and Deviance
At a fundamental level, crime and deviance are distinct, though often overlapping, concepts. Crime refers to behaviour that violates formal laws enacted by a governing authority, resulting in legal consequences such as fines or imprisonment (Hillyard and Tombs, 2004). For instance, theft or assault are crimes because they contravene established legal statutes in most jurisdictions, including the UK under laws like the Theft Act 1968. Deviance, on the other hand, encompasses a broader range of behaviours that violate social norms or expectations, which may or may not be illegal (Becker, 1963). Deviance includes actions such as dressing in unconventional ways or expressing controversial opinions, which might attract social disapproval but do not necessarily break the law.
The distinction lies in the source of regulation: crime is governed by formal legal systems, while deviance is shaped by informal social controls, such as cultural values or peer group reactions. However, the boundary between the two is not always clear-cut. For example, public drunkenness may be seen as deviant in certain social contexts but only becomes a crime if it violates specific laws, such as those under the Licensing Act 2003 in the UK. This overlap illustrates the complexity of categorising behaviours and the interplay between legal and social frameworks, which I will explore further in the context of relativity.
Crime and Deviance as Relative Concepts
Crime and deviance are not absolute; rather, they are relative concepts shaped by historical, cultural, and social contexts. What is considered criminal or deviant varies across time and place, reflecting the values and priorities of a given society (Durkheim, 1982). For instance, homosexuality was criminalised in the UK until the Sexual Offences Act 1967 partially decriminalised it, demonstrating how legal definitions of crime evolve with shifting societal attitudes. Similarly, deviance is context-dependent; wearing swimwear might be perfectly acceptable at a beach but deemed deviant in a formal workplace setting.
Moreover, the labelling perspective in sociology, notably advanced by Becker (1963), argues that deviance arises not from the act itself but from the societal reaction to it. An act becomes deviant only when labelled as such by those in power or dominant social groups. This relativity is evident in how certain behaviours, like recreational drug use, are criminalised in some cultures but tolerated or even legalised in others, such as the decriminalisation of cannabis in parts of Canada since 2018. Therefore, both crime and deviance are constructed rather than inherent, shaped by the norms and power dynamics of the societies in which they are defined.
Two Approaches to Defining Crime and Deviance
There are various approaches to defining crime and deviance, with the legalistic and sociological perspectives being two prominent frameworks. The legalistic approach defines crime strictly as behaviour that violates codified laws, focusing on the act’s illegality and the state’s response through the criminal justice system (Tappan, 1947). Under this view, an act is criminal only if it is explicitly prohibited by law, regardless of moral or social considerations. For example, tax evasion is a crime because it contravenes legal statutes, even if some might argue it is not inherently immoral.
Contrastingly, the sociological approach, often associated with scholars like Durkheim (1982), views crime and deviance as social phenomena influenced by societal norms and structures. This perspective considers not just the act but also the social context, including factors such as inequality or cultural values, that may contribute to rule-breaking behaviour. For instance, Merton’s strain theory (1938) suggests that crime can result from the inability to achieve culturally valued goals through legitimate means, highlighting social pressures rather than mere legal violation. These two approaches underscore different dimensions of crime and deviance: the legalistic framework prioritises formal rules, while the sociological lens examines broader social dynamics, offering a more nuanced understanding.
Validity of Crime Statistics as Indicators of Crime
Crime statistics are often used to gauge the extent and nature of criminal activity, yet their validity as accurate indicators is widely debated. Official statistics, such as those published by the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS), primarily draw on reported crimes and convictions, which do not capture the full scope of criminal behaviour (Maguire, 2007). The ‘dark figure’ of crime—unreported or undetected offences—poses a significant limitation. For example, sensitive crimes like domestic violence or sexual assault are frequently underreported due to stigma or fear of retaliation, meaning statistics underestimate their prevalence.
Furthermore, crime statistics are influenced by policing practices and political priorities. Increased police presence in certain areas or crackdowns on specific offences, such as drug possession, can inflate recorded crime rates without reflecting an actual rise in criminality (Reiner, 2007). Victim surveys, such as the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), attempt to address these gaps by capturing unreported crimes, yet they too rely on respondents’ willingness to disclose and their memory of events, introducing potential bias.
Despite these limitations, crime statistics remain a valuable tool when interpreted with caution. They provide insights into trends over time and can inform policy decisions, such as resource allocation for crime prevention. However, their validity is compromised by methodological issues and social factors, suggesting that they should be used alongside qualitative data and alternative measures to construct a more accurate picture of crime.
Conclusion
In summary, this essay has explored the complexities of crime and deviance, demonstrating their distinctions and relativity, contrasting two definitional approaches, and evaluating the validity of crime statistics. Crime is defined by legal violations, while deviance encompasses broader breaches of social norms, yet both are contextually dependent and shaped by societal values. The legalistic and sociological approaches offer differing lenses, with the former focusing on codified laws and the latter on social dynamics. Crime statistics, while useful, are limited by underreporting and external influences, necessitating a critical approach to their interpretation. These discussions highlight the importance of understanding crime and deviance as multifaceted constructs, with implications for criminological theory and policy. Recognising their relativity and the limitations of statistical measures can inform more equitable and effective responses to rule-breaking behaviour in society.
References
- Becker, H.S. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.
- Durkheim, E. (1982) The Rules of Sociological Method. Edited by S. Lukes. London: Macmillan.
- Hillyard, P. and Tombs, S. (2004) Beyond criminology: Taking harm seriously. Crime, Law and Social Change, 41(4), pp. 365-379.
- Maguire, M. (2007) Crime data and statistics. In: Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 241-301.
- Merton, R.K. (1938) Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), pp. 672-682.
- Reiner, R. (2007) Law and order: An honest citizen’s guide to crime and control. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Tappan, P.W. (1947) Who is the criminal? American Sociological Review, 12(1), pp. 96-102.
