Deviance: The Social Constructionist Conception Of Crime

1073 Words5 Pages

Deviance has been viewed in various ways by different authors. These authors generally divide deviance into two conceptions (Rubington and Weinberg, 2006, Clinard and Meier, 2010 and Thio, 2009). Firstly, they all use different terms such as “objectively given”, “normative” or positive conception of deviance. All of these terms however refer to the general norms and behaviours of society. The second reference to deviance refers to the interactions of those within society. Social constructionist conception believes that deviance is applied to an individual (Inderbitzin, Bates and Gainey, 2013). Hall et al (1975) claims that crime is defined by “primary definers” for example Politicians and law enforcement agencies. In 1998, the Crime and Disorder …show more content…

Furthermore, as society labels people who have committed a deviant act as ‘criminal’, Schur (1965) suggests that deviant acts such as drug use or any as Schur (1965) labels them as ‘victimless crimes’, should not be dealt with the full force of the law because it can be expensive and counter- productive (Muncie, 2010). On the contrary, Cohen (1973b) questioned who is responsible for labelling an act as deviant then later identified that political movement gain power over social actions and created criminal laws. Muncie (2010) sees crime as a political and ideological construction and that from social construction, laws, policies and social morals are the bases in which society is …show more content…

Franklin and Petley (1996) argued against the British press and judicial system by branding them as “punitive, harsh and unforgiving”. The Guardian (2010) also questions the difference within the media coverage between the Bulger case and Norway. James and MacDougall (2010) compared the differences between the two cases and emphasises that punishing Thompson and Venables as adults and releasing their names and photos was a ‘disadvantage’ and creates an argument that they need help rather than “justice”. However, the story of Silje demonstrated that it did not need to be done in that way. Debating these two cases the boys in Norway were enrolled in a local infant’s school (James and MacDougall, 2010) and Thompson and Venables were given life in