Deviants and Crime

The person who deviates distinctly from the norm is called a unnatural. A aberrant may also be defined as the person whose attitudes and behaviors go against the set social norms or standards. difference is not age circumstantial but it starts in the early ages of human development and if it goes unmarked, it ends up stretch a prefigure of no return do an adult whose personality can be described by peerless word a abnormal. The operation of deviation is learnt either by tie with other abnormals or by movementing to give excuses to justify the acts of deviance leading to usage. Deviance and crime is one and only(a)(a) and the equal thing.This is because, when one goes against the set of norms in this fiber the formal rules called law, this is crime. Deviants defy both the formal and informal (Social) standards and norms. For example, a deviant may go against the social norms and commit an act of nose choice in public or against the law and break into private exposit with an intention of theft. Based on this, deviance is a subject of worry to both the socialists and the criminologists. These two professionals engage in a solid use up of how norms atomic number 18 formed, changes that the norms downstairsgo over m and the enforcement of norms.The sociology of deviance can be summarized in three main theories i. e. emblematic fundamental inter bring throughism theory, Structural functionalism theory, and conflict theory. These theories purify to explain the causes of deviance. Stealing is one example of deviance that is a serious crime in the US today. People do not wind up up one day and be numerate thieves. Theft is a habit that is learnt at childhood and continues into adulthood. This paper seeks to define and develop a sociological theory that explains deviance from the symbolic interactionism theory perspective (Rodney, 2007pp 48)Symbolic Interactionism Theories All the theories under this class atomic number 18 of the view that deviant behavior is learnt. As a result of the learning, the deviant behaviors eventually become part of an soulfulnesss personality or character. The theories under this class include Sutherlands differential association theory, Gresham Sykes and David Matzas neutralization theory and Tannenbaum and Howard Beckers noteing theory. Sutherlands differential association theory proposes that the turn and deviant behaviors ar not inherent in individuals but they be only learnt.It amplifies the common belief that all human are created good. any individual is inherently good but community makes them bad. The learning of poisonous or deviant behaviors is the same as the learning of other behaviors such as allegeing thank you when one gives a compliment or gives a favor. The learning process comes as a result of interaction between tribe or groups of large number through the use of symbolic communication. The symbolic communication may also include ideas and attitudes that are transferred from one individual or group to another.If the symbols used in the communication are favorable and desirable than the converse, then an individual or group embraces deviance communicated by the symbols, ideas or attitudes and will tend to be oriented to of deviant behaviors more than any other behavior (Lanier, 2004 pp. 162-163). Taking theft as an example of a deviant execrable behavior, we realize that if an individual associates with an individual or group who steal or hold the idea of larceny more favorable than unfavorable, and the association is intimate, then motives ideas, attitudes , techniques etc that are favorable to stealing are learnt.Once this learning occurs and incase there is a need, then one will tend to steal and in this way we say that this illegal and deviant act of theft has resulted from symbolic interaction. The Neutralization theory, just corresponding the name suggests, sets appear to explain the ways that the deviants eventually kill their unrighteousnessiness conscience through rationalization. Some of the rationalizations used include the defence mechanism of righteousness of the deviant action aimed at making the flagitious feel better.Denial of duty is simply an argument that the wrongdoer had no weft and that any other person ready under the same circumstances would have acted the same way the offender did. Continued denial of duty eventually kills the guilt conscience making the criminal cold and to have a relish of committing the crime again. For example, if a criminal steals and accepts responsibility, then there is some guilt that comes with the acceptance and this guilt has a advance component. Failure of accepting responsibility rules out possibility of reform and thus high probability of committing the crime again in future.Other defense mechanisms or rationalizations used include the denial of damage and denial of victim. Denial of damage or injury refers to the reason that the criminal a ct did not hurt anybody and thus the offender is not morally wrong. This reasoning is based on the elementary conviction that if an action doesnt cause any harm to others, then it is morally right. On the other hand, denial of the victim is an argument that the victim deserved the deviant act due to his /her perceived lack of morals by the offender. malediction of his denouncers is yet another rationalization used by deviants or criminals to comfort their actions.It is an argument that those who denounce their actions have the potential of committing same or like acts or they also commit similar acts and as such they are hypocrites. Denunciation of denouncers makes the offender feel better about his actions and it too blocks reform thus opening up a possibility of future criminal acts. Finally, appeal to higher loyalties involves positive reinforcement of the criminal act by what he beliefs in. The criminal argues that some values surpass the law or traditions and thus the crimin al construes the values to be more important than the law.For example, if one steals because he is starving, he has done nothing because he believes in thriftiness life. To him, life is more important than the law. Generally, under this theory, criminals rationalize criminal acts by neutralization (Lanier, 2004 pp. 168- 9). The labeling theory is a popular one which has been used not only in sociology but also in psychology. The psychological labeling theory, in a laymans language states that if you continually call a child names, say a thief, the child will end up becoming one. Frank Tannenbaum and Howard S.Becker proposed the labeling theory in the sociological context. They said that the act of cabaret creating rules whose violation amounts to defiance causes deviance in itself. If society says that the people who take other peoples property without permission are thieves and thieves are not good people, this definition amounts to labeling. The labeling represents the negative attitude the society holds against a deviant such as a thief and makes the offenders to internalise the label and try to act out the label by carrying out actions that align to the label.For example labeling of a thief, makes the deviant such labeled to internalize this label and carries out acts of theft in a shout to conform to the label. This theory lies at the boundary of symbolic-interactionism and conflict theory. The conflict theory taste of this theory proposes that the society wield power to create norms and label deviants. A good example is the prison house system which labels the convicts of theft to a point that these theft convicts also begin to view themselves as thieves (Giddens, 2006 pp. 525-7).In a raise to reinforce the reinforce Edwin Lemert proposed the idea of indigenous and alternate deviation. He construed first deviation to be the deviance in the first place the deviant is labeled as such. Secondary deviance on the other hand is the acts of deviance that come after the primary deviance as a reaction to the societal institutions that have power to set norms and to label. Lemert explains further how one moves from primary to hourary deviation and finally to assumption of the role of the label he/she has been given.The convert between these stages starts when an offender commits a deviant act for the low gear time prompting the society to administer some disciplinary penalties on him. If the disciplinary penalties administered on the primary deviant do not manage to contraceptive diaphragm the crime, the offender may act the same crime or deviance again thus prompting even pugnaciouser penalty from the society. The jolty punishment makes the offender to resent the society or the institution in the society that administers this harsh punishment. The resentment sets pace for more crimes with the institution reining harsher and harsher punishment on the offender.As the number of crimes increases the society, apart from the punishment given to the offender, lavishes stigma too on the offender. This stigma marks the labeling g stage. The stigma sandwiches the offender between a rock and a hard place where he has no option than accept the role prescribed by the label. In a bid to fulfill the role, the offender acts out the role prescribed in the label and this constitutes the secondary deviance. Secondary deviance hardens the criminals courtesy of the labeling act by the societyPrimary and secondary deviance is witnessed in the American legal system when a head start time offender receives lesser punishment as compared to a second or multiple time offender of the same crime. For both the offenders, say thieves, the punishment is meant to reform them. The multiple time offenders get a harsher punishment because the society feels that the first- time punishment was not sufficient enough making the offender commit a second crime. The second time offender is more likely to commit the crime the third time th at the first time offender is to commit a second crime.The implication of this primary and secondary deviance can be applied in the prison system where the criminals are supposed to be viewed as good people except fore the crimes they have committed. They should not be condemned but subjected to rehabilitation. This is necessary because it has been witnessed that the harsher the punishment, the deeper the deviance and the higher the probability of the crime or deviance be repeated again (Hanson, 2005, P75). In conclusion, the reformation of criminals should not be harsh and inhuman.The harsh and often inhuman punishments we witness in our American prisons were put in place to scare the larger good population past from crime. It is evident that this intention has blatantly failed and thus there is need for an alternate(a) strategy. This is necessary because if people are no longer scared of that harsh and inhuman punishment, then they will automatically engage in criminal activit ies. This is the same as threatening a person who doesnt headache death with death. This wont achieve any end at all. However, removal of such harsh and inhuman punishment may set forth the same response that its existence triggers oppositeness.What will happen if people acknowledge that the punishment given after a crime is lighter than before? The US government represented by the prison system is at a cross road and there is dire need to try a punishment devoid rehabilitation approach as hostile to the harsh punishment. Just like labeling has the impact of acting out, positive labeling may create desirable reformation in the criminals. The society too need to be sensitized so as to respect the innate truth of the criminals such as to avoid stigmatization that has led to the hardening and resistance of the criminals.ReferencesRodney, Stark Sociology Biological Theories of Deviance (10th edition) Belmont, CA Thomson Wadsworth, 2007Newman, Graeme Crime and Deviance A Comparati ve Perspective. Michigan Sage Publications, 1980 pp127-135Giddens, Anthony Sociology. Polity Publishers, 2006 pp 525-7Lanier, Mark Essential Criminology. Westview Press, 2004. pp 168-9