Deviance, Crime, and Society

Deviance, Crime, and Social Control SOCI 1306 Deviance, Crime, and Society Deviance is a broader phrase than crime since it encompasses a variety of actions, some of which fall within the criminal category and others of which do not. Sociologists may be equally interested in both, but society as a whole considers crime to be considerably more important. Numerous governmental levels are preoccupied with crime, which also causes problems for families and communities. Deviance might be viewed as relative: The perception of deviance may be influenced more by the circumstances around a behaviour than by the behaviour itself. Behaviours might be classified as deviant depending largely on the circumstances surrounding them. Even even little transgressions can have a lasting effect on the offender and others around them. For instance, an adult who should "know better" may receive criticism and a permanent reputation for being rude or odd if they laughed or talked loudly during a funeral. However, social gatherings—some of which take on a party-like atmosphere—follow funerals in many cultures, so those same lighthearted actions would be entirely appropriate, if not encouraged, just an hour later. We usually pick up these social conventions as children and as we gain experience, as was previously said. However, the relativity of deviance can have a big influence on how society views and prosecutes crime. They frequently stem from biases relating to race, ethnicity, or other factors. Elizabeth Eckford, 15, of the Little Rock Nine, was following the law when she tried to enrol in her lawfully desegregated high school, but the group of White people who harassed and humiliated her thought she was abnormal. (The Education chapter goes into much depth about these occurrences.) Take the previously mentioned legalisation of marijuana as an example. Why was cannabis prohibited in the first place? It wasn't, in actuality. For thousands of years, cannabis has been widely utilised by humans in various communities. Although it was not a commonly used drug in the US, it was seen as a therapeutic and recreational choice and wasn't heavily restricted or outlawed until the early 1900s. What altered? A wave of immigrants from Mexico started to enter the nation in the early 1900s. These immigrants settled in White neighbourhoods, picked up a new language, and started vying for resources and employment. Compared to most Americans, they were heavier users of marijuana. Rumours about the substance's connection to immorality and violence started to spread among the police and other authorities. Lawmakers and newspapers discussed the "Marijuana Menace" and the "evil weed," and pictures and stories started to show marijuana as a bad influence on the next generation of Americans. States started outlawing the use of marijuana in 1916, and in 1937 Congress enacted a federal statute outlawing its use (White 2012). Penalties for its use grew throughout time, reaching a peak during the War on Drugs and applying to different racial and ethnic groups. However, as was said in the opening, marijuana is now once more regarded as a legitimate recreational drug as well as a significant medicinal therapy. What was different this time? People have long been oppressed by perceptions and declarations of deviance, which mark their private actions as illegal. State legislation outlawed same-sex conduct until the 1970s and 1980s. Being homosexual or lesbian was prohibited, and this included even seemingly innocuous behaviours like holding hands. Some laws forbade wearing apparel that was thought to be "inappropriate" for one's biological sex. Because of this, if it was found that a military service member or even a combat veteran was gay, they would be dishonourably dismissed, meaning they would lose all benefits. Police often raided homosexual establishments and mistreated and humiliated LGBTQ individuals. Additionally, because hate crimes and anti-LGBTQ street violence were seldom prosecuted and frequently received minor punishment, they were implicitly accepted. By the time the Supreme Court overturned anti-LGBTQ statutes in 2003, the majority of states had done away with them, but 14 states still had some form of the legislation in place. Take gambling as an example to learn more about the relativity of deviance and how it relates to views of criminality. While modest gambling is generally allowed, excessive or high-risk gambling is typically viewed as abnormal. However, the majority of the United States has long prohibited gambling, making it illegal to engage in particular forms of gambling or to do so outside of approved establishments. For instance, a state may permit horse race wagering but prohibit sports wagering. These rules are changing, but for many years, a typically morally neutral activity was criminalised: when law-abiding individuals chose to partake in modest-risk, non-compulsive gambling, they were breaking the law. The key question that emerges from this scenario is one that sociologists may research: Are these gamblers acting abnormally by breaching the law, even though their real behaviour isn't often seen as abnormal?