Deviant Behavior and Crime (Essay Sample)

Name of student
Name of professor
Course
Date of submission
Deviant Behavior and Crime
Becker Howard writes that deviance cannot be construed to mean the substantiality of the act committed by an individual, but rather the consequential imposition of sanctions and rules to an actual offender (9). This would cover conducts, behaviors and acts of individuals that go against the prevalent societal norms which are considered to be morally acceptable. Ordinarily, crime is defined as an act punishable by the laws of the land. Such a definition normally pre-supposes that crime is an isolated occurrence free from the society but interpreting it in a wider sense one finds that the cornerstone of crime is primarily the society in which it occurs and not the legislative spheres it tends to operate. Therefore, before legislations sanction a particular behavior there are a number of social forces that do affect how we perceive such behavior.
From the above subtle overview of deviance and crime it is quite evident that both factors cannot be explained without referring back to the society in which individuals originate. Scholars have been quick to point out that deviance and crime are materially not the usual occurrences and the way such kind of behaviors is viewed, mirrors how the fabric of the society is built rather than a pointer of any defects of those people classified as criminals. Becker, Sutherland and Hirschi have developed three different theories about how socialization contributes to such behavior they include the labeling theory, differential association theory and the control theory.
Becker’s labeling theory entails the societal responses to deviance behavior and crime; the theory postulates that social groups are capable of creating rules whose foundations are composed of deviance and imposing such rules to specific people by labeling them as outcast. This in turn would lead to an increase in crime rates (Becker 3). In reality the theory would work like this; X a particular social group, discovers Y has pocketed a new mobile phone from the local retail store. X in anger, brandishes Y a thief and even goes to call the local police men to come and apprehend him. Applying Becker’s labeling theory would mean that although X committed the minor act out of the desire to keep up with the latest technological trend and not for the purposes of conversion, labeling him a thief may drive him into criminal activities though in the first instance he had no such intentions whatsoever.
Sutherland’s differential association theory postulates that for one to understand criminal behavior, the elements of learning and the substance of the learning process is to be dissected holistically. According to him individuals acquire criminal behaviors from social groups by the conventional way of learning (Sutherland 9).These social groups may constitute family members, friends and individuals having criminal records; the learnt criminal behavior may include technical mechanism and attitudes necessary to successfully commit a crime. Another important tenet of the theory is the shift from the notion that criminals are an isolated group from the mainstream society to the idea that the society is very different, sophisticated, possessing cultures, values and norms which are at variant thereby triggering differential association. In a common parlance, people obtain deviant and criminal behaviors out of their long interactions and associations with criminals than non-criminals.
Hirsch’s social bond theory contradicts Sutherland and Becker’s arguments both in theory and in practice. He contends that human beings are innately born with the vices of acting selfishly and egocentric, this eventually leads to the occurrence of delinquent behaviors (Hirsch 22). He is of the view that deviant behaviors are part and parcel of the human nature and that individuals have the ability to control or contain such needs which are natural. Hirschi commences his theory by emphasizing the need to ask ourselves ‘why don’t we do it?’ rather than why criminals ‘do it’. He goes on to state that there are four societal bonds that keep individuals at bay from committing deviant behaviors they include attachment, commitment, involvement and belief.
When it comes to attachment, Hirschi is of the view that social institutions like the family and educational centers by large extend control behaviors. For example teenagers have tight attachments to their families, in this respect; they would not wish to disappoint their loved ones by committing deviant acts (Hirschi 24). The other social control is commitment which has close resemblance to attachment, however , the p...