Assess_Control_Theories_of_Crime

Right realists would argue that in order to reduce crime effectively the causes of crime must be put to a side and efficient formal social control mechanisms i.e. police patrolling must be put into place in order for crime rates among young working class males to decrease successfully. Wilson and Kellings presented the ‘broken windows’ theory. They argued that if minor crimes such as broken windows were to go unnoticed and unpunished the area would be more likely to become crime ridden because of the lack of social control. The evidence suggests that if in rundown area crime rate is high then the solution is to enforce that areas are well looked after, thus crime rate would be inevitably low. For that reason this implies that individuals will become more likely not to commit crime and to conform to the social norms and values of society. Conversely, it is argued by sociologists that some social control mechanisms can have the opposite effect of controlling societies, for example, police patrolling can lead to the labelling of a certain group of people. This evident in the work of Cicorel, he argued that the police had ‘typifications’ whereby they used it to negatively label and stereotype African-Caribbean’s and purposely ‘stop and search’ them. The negativity of the scientific research was disregarded and put in the status of It has been argued by Functionalists that social control has an important purpose in society and can help keep order in society stable as consensus of social norms and values is needed to keep the smooth running of society. Durkheim argued that crime is inevitable and serves a purpose in society. He argued that its function is to create consensus with the boundaries of what is known to be criminal and what is known to be deviant. The evidence suggests that crime is socially constructed and that deviancy allows social change to occur, therefore, change is needed in society for social control to work and for society to remain healthy and stable. Traditional Marxists agree with functionalists that social control is needed to keep the social order of society. Nonetheless, they have criticised Durkheim as they believe that social control benefits the ruling class and is put into place to exploit the working class as it goes against their interests by keeping them in a dead end job which helps the capitalist society. It has been argued by many sociologists that society needs to have shared values in order for social control and order to be present. Hirschi argued that there were 4 bonds that hold society together, for example, belief that society’s rules must be obeyed by all individuals. Hirschi’s argument suggests to us that if an individual is more attached to society’s bonds then the individual will become less likely to get involved in crime and will instead conform to societies shared norms and values Likewise, Etzioni argued that an individual will conform to society’s rules and regulations if a greater sense of social integration and responsibility is put forth, for example, neighbourhood watch schemes and police patrolling. Postmodernists argue that the increasing fragmentation of society is leading to n increase in the rate of offending amongst individuals in the general public. Foucault argued that in modern society people are less worried about informal social control mechanisms i.e. family, and instead people have started to regard themselves as individuals rather than a part of society, Foucault named this drift the ‘process of individualism’. It is clear to us that Foucault evidence suggests that as more people drift into the ‘process of individualism’ people are less likely to feel attached to society and are therefore more likely to commit crime as they have disregarded the importance of social control mechanisms. Nonetheless, it has been argued by others that informal social con=troll mechanisms is the most effective form o social control and most people have stopped offending did so because of these mechanisms i.e. they have turned back to religion or a family have influenced them to give up.