IS CRIME BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY?1
Is Crime Beneficial to Society?
Every culture or society has behaviors that are deemed “normal” and behaviors that are deemed “abnormal”. Sociologists define abnormal behaviors as deviance, meaning that deviant behaviors are those which go against cultural norms or values. The term deviance does not necessarily describe actions that are deemed as immoral, but rather includes all types of behaviors that are not deemed appropriate in regards to one’s cultural context (Stolley, 2005). Within the spectrum of deviance lies crime, which includes behaviors that are considered as being so inappropriate or unacceptable that they are prohibited by laws (Stolley, 2005).
When unacceptable acts or behaviors become prohibited within society, one would assume that these acts are harmful and/or unbeneficial to that particular society. However, the following research will seek to ask the question; could crime be beneficial to society? The research below focuses on both sides of the issue, expanding on both the consequences of crime and the possible benefits of crime within society.
Crime Is Beneficial—An Introduction to Durkheim:
Emile Durkheim was a French sociologist who is often referred to as the father of sociology. He is one of the most prominent social theorists, having created an extraordinary theory that is still used today in interpreting societal behavior. Durkheim took a structural functionalist approach in examining society, which seeks to find patterns of behavior within society and interprets these patterns as existing because of the function they serve. Thus Durkheim argued that the reason crime exists within every single culture or people group is because crime indeed serves some sort of function for societies, thus making the statement that crime can be seen as a necessary and healthy component of society (Durkheim, 1938). However, a distinction must be made that Durkheim does not make the claim that crime is either “good” or “bad”, but rather suggests that the presence of crime brings about beneficial functions to society that are often overlooked.
BENEFITS OF CRIME EXPLAINED:
The major benefits of crime that are examined below fall into four major categories: flexibility, morality, solidarity, and social control.
Flexibility
The first major benefit of crime is that it provides flexibility within the social structure.
According to Smith (2008), the laws within a specific society reflect the social organization and way of life within that particular culture, suggesting that laws are to some degree relative, which lines up with the cultural deviance theory. This theory explains that laws depend on the agreed upon cultural values and norms of a particular time. From this perspective, the presence of crime creates a constant re-examining of the current laws and cultural norms, creating space for both to be challenged (Hickey, 2013). Crime does so because it shows that not every individual within society agrees with or follows the laws put into place. This allows for society to make sure that its laws and structures line up with the collective conscience of its members. This concept of the collective conscience, introduced by Durkheim, represents the widely held sentiments and beliefs of a particular society, which can be evaluated both in cultures as a whole as well as in specific communities within that particular culture. Crime creating the opportunity for this collective conscience to be reevaluated is extremely important, because culture is constantly changing, evolving, and adapting (Smith, 2008). In response, it is important to consistently reevaluate what sort of structures or laws should remain within a particular society and which structures or laws must adapt or change because they no longer reflect the sentiments of the community.
Benefits brought about within society due to this opportunity that crime creates for innovation and adaption can be seen in many examples throughout history. The famous philosopher Socrates was in fact a criminal according to Athenian law because of his independent thought (Hickey, 2013). However, this “criminal behavior” is one of the foundational components of American society today—freedom of thought. Another example would be those acting out against slavery during the 1700’s and 1800’s. Many people participated in the Underground Railroad in order to save slaves from cruel masters and a life without freedom, which was indeed against the law. However, these acts would not be deemed as criminal behavior within our country today, for these “criminal acts” brought about the freedom for all people within the United States.
In looking at this from a different standpoint, in order for crime not to exist, there would have to be such an intense and potent collective conscience influencing individuals that it would control human behavior, not allowing deviant behavior to even become an option (Hickey, 2013). In order for everyone within a society to have the absolute same beliefs about appropriate or “normal” behavior, there would have to be an extremely influencing source in place depicting what human behavior ought to look like, such as a government or some sort of power structure. It would be impossible for a group of people’s individually-held beliefs to become 100% collective on their own. An extremely powerful and influencing force would have to be in place to do so. This type of society would be extremely rigid in which change would be nearly impossible, thus resulting in the oppression of the people. People would be so controlled by the rigid structures and laws due to the intense collective conscience that society would be unable to change or adapt, leaving no room for innovation, creativity, or in a way, freedom.
Karl Marx, another prominent social theorist, spent most of his theoretical work looking at the affects that the economy has on society. Within his theory, he focuses on the capitalist economic system in particular and how it creates two major classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (Ritzer, 2007). The proletariat is the working class while the bourgeoisie own the means of production (Ritzer, 2007). Marx explains that within this two class society, the proletariat is exploited by the bourgeoisie because they have no other choice but to work for them in order to survive (Ritzer, 2007). An example of this two class society is the feudalistic relationship between lords and serfs that existed during the medieval ages in which serfs were completely dependent upon the lords for survival and were stuck in their poor and lowly position. They had no way of attaining the means of production (land) so that they might rise out of poverty and thus were completely dependent on the lords to provide them food and safety. Within this type of system, Marx argues that the only way for justice to be brought about is for the working class to achieve a class consciousness, meaning that they must become aware of the fact that they are all being exploited, and rise up against the owners, thus promoting deviant behavior (McDonald, 1982; Ritzer, 2007). An example of this is the Peasant’s Revolt that occurred in the late 1300’s in England in which serfs acted on their collective conscience and rose up against the king and nobles, which was most definitely criminal behavior in which many rebels were executed as a result. In examining this, Marx’s theory seems to paint a very positive image of deviant behavior, illustrating it as potentially bringing about justice within a particular society. Instead of deviance being seen as a negative aspect of human behavior, it is instead illustrated as begin almost heroic in that it seeks to end the exploitation of people. Marx therefore agrees with Durkheim in that deviant or criminal behaviors do indeed have the potential to bring about needed change within society through the flexibility that they provide within the societal structure. This flexibility within the societal structure, according to Durkheim, is a necessary component for society to function properly.
Morality & Solidarity
Another beneficial function of crime is that is brings about moral codes within a society. This occurs because crime requires that society take a stance in regards to moral and ethical values (Smith, 2008). It forces society to face its own perceptions of what is right and wrong in which a tangible moral code is defined and constructed. This code is seen to provide ethical stability when there is a lack of collective agreement and is often referred to as, “the conscience where there is none” (Part 2: Durkheim, 1997; Smith, 2008).
Closely tied to crime’s affect on morality within society is crime’s affect on social solidarity. Solidarity, representing a group’s unity or social cohesiveness, can be brought about within society based on multiple factors, the first being that the laws created to combat crime become the visual symbols or representation of solidarity within society (Jones, 1981). Thus, the laws become the external reminder of society’s need to band together and collectively fight against crime, extremely similar to the way in which laws can become an external morality for societies (Jones, 1981; Smith, 2008).
Other ways in which crime brings about morality and solidarity are pinpointed in Agnich, Hawdon, and Ryan (2010) in their description of punishment being a way for people in society to express their, “strongly and widely held sentiments”, which therefore reinforces their collective moral values and establishes solidarity amongst the group (p. 2). Crime promotes solidarity and group unity through awakening these collective sentiments and therefore producing what they call a collective response (Agnich, Hawdon, & Ryan, 2010). As Durkheim stated, “crime brings together upright consciences and concentrates them” (Agnich, Hawdon, & Ryan, 2010, p. 4). Smith (2008) adds on to this explaining that the punishment of criminal behavior is a ritual activity that which reinforces collective morality. Punishment, “repairs psychic damage tissue that holds society together and reaffirms core values” (Smith, 2008, p. 4). In other words, punishment serves as a community’s response to crime, which strengthens the collective moral boundaries and unifies the people (Liska & Warner, 1991). Another way in which solidarity is fostered through punishment is due to the symbolic signals created due to the community’s focus on one event (Collins, 2004). With so many people focusing on one issue, these symbols create an encompassing mood that ignites solidarity (Collins, 2004). This correlates with Durkheim’s theory in that, “social solidarity is generated through symbolic acts of collective response” (Hawdon & Ryan, 2011).
An example of this would be the International Justice Day that occurred on July 17, 2011 (International, 2011). The world honored and celebrated this day in commemorating the Rome Statute that was adopted by the International Criminal Court (International, 2011). This day was focused on providing awareness through various events about making perpetrators accountable to the grave crimes committed (International, 2011). This first began in Rome in 1998 and continues to be remembered throughout the entire world over a decade later (International, 2011). These symbolic acts bring about continued awareness of crime and its effects on society, thus creating increased solidarity.
Expanding on solidarity, Hawdon and Ryan (2011) explain that when tragedy strikes a community as a result of crime, two components within the community are shown to generate and sustain solidarity. These two components include sentiment and social structure. Sentiment is described as being the, “psychological attachment and emotional bond members have with their community” and therefore touches on the psychological, symbolic, and cultural facets of community (Hawdon & Ryan, 2011, p. 2). Thus, this sentiment creates a sense of solidarity within the community and forms a bond of trust and togetherness amongst its members (Hawdon & Ryan, 2011). The second component that makes up community is called social structure, which is made up of the various social networks existing within a particular community (Hawdon & Ryan, 2011). These networks organize members within the community, distribute information and resources, and determine how problems or issues are handled, including tragedy (Hawdon & Ryan, 2011).
Hawdon and Ryan (2011) explain that these structures promote solidarity in response to tragedy resulting from criminal behavior because they foster both individual healing and community healing. Individual healing is promoted through structures within society such as funerals, which create a place for close family and friends, also known as primary networks, to support the victim’s family (Hawdon & Ryan, 2011). This healing promotes solidarity within these primary networks, also known private-sphere relations (Hawdon & Ryan, 2011). Community healing is brought about by rituals such as public memorials or ceremonies which create a sort of communal forum in which expressed emotion can be deemed as acceptable and appropriate (Hawdon & Ryan, 2011). These memorials and/or ceremonies allow the tragedy to be seen as a communal rather than just individual loss, giving the community the perspective of having experienced the tragedy together (Hawdon & Ryan, 2011). The symbolic interaction that these rituals provide allow people to appropriate meanings and feelings to the act of joining together, thus furthering communal solidarity (Collins, 2004). Through these rituals the community sees the criminal as having threatened the collective safety, well-being, and identity of the community and therefore unifies under a common cause.
Connections to Social Control
Morality and solidarity may also be fostered between society and law enforcement which enhances the establishment of social control within a community. Bradford and Jackson (2009) explain that a community’s confidence in local law enforcement correlates with the fear of crime within that community. The more prevalent crime is within a community, the more that community will look to law enforcement for safety, security, and social stability (Bradford & Jackson, 2009). Law enforcement is viewed as reinstating social stability and social control, which fosters solidarity between law enforcement and the community (Bradford & Jackson, 2009).
Sunshine and Tyler (2003) explain that there are two primary motivations for people to support law enforcement, being instrumental and moral. Instrumental motivation describes support given to law enforcement because of their ability to establish social control within the community (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Moral motivation is when law enforcement is supported because of their representation of the local community’s moral values (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).
This second motivation illustrates the possibility of law enforcement being the primary representatives of the moral and ethical values of the local people, similar to how the law can become an external morality for society. Along with this, in order for law enforcement to successfully combat crime, they must work together with the local community. Law enforcement depends upon local residents to report crime, confront social disorder, support investigations, witness in court, etc. (McGuire, 1982; Powers, 2007). When the public believes law enforcement appropriately representing their moral values, they will support and empower law enforcement’s authority, thus enhancing solidarity (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). This solidarity generates pride within the local community and is shown to deplete the influences of racial and social differences (McGuire, 1982). This enhances social control within a particular community, for the positive relations between the community and law enforcement creates motivation in people to follow the law and behave in ways that make them productive members of society. Thus, social control within a community is enhanced through the solidarity between the people and law enforcement.
Additional Benefits
In reflecting back to Marx’s theory, benefits of criminal behavior may be pinpointed in looking at the function of gangs and their high concentration within urban poor communities. According to Jacob (2011), criminal behavior is fostered by unemployment, poverty, relative depravation, inequality, and class conflict. Racial minorities are highly concentrated within urban communities and are often involved in gang violence and other types of deviant behaviors. This suggests, from a Marxian perspective, that perhaps gangs function as a way in which individuals exploited by societal structures, such as racial minorities, receive financial support and protection. From this perspective, the financial stability provided by criminal behaviors such as selling drugs or the protection provided by the large network of gang members, is a way in which minorities in a sense rebel against the overarching societal structure. This may also be seen as a way in which these exploited people gain some sort of control or collateral in a system that treats them unequally.
CONSEQUENCES OF CRIME:
Crime brings about consequences both to the individual and to society as a whole. This section will focus on both aspects, expounding on negative factors involving people’s individual lives as well as the negative implications of crime within society on a grand scale.
Problems with Durkheim
In beginning to evaluate the opposite side of the issue by examining the consequences of crime we must first pinpoint some problems with Durkheim’s theory. First, Durkheim holds an extremely positive view of deviance while, in response to deviance, the majority of society does not view deviance in this way (Smith, 2008). The very definition of deviance is in fact going against what the majority considers to be appropriate. Most deviant acts, whether regarded as crime or not, are viewed as social failures by the majority of society and thus are not viewed as innovative or adaptive in the least.