Deviance and crime are two concepts that have fascinated sociologists, criminologists, and legal scholars for centuries. These terms are often used interchangeably, yet they cover distinct aspects of human behaviour in the context of social norms and legal rules.
DEFINING DEVIANCE
According to sociologists, thinking is a multifaceted concept. It refers to behaviour that deviates from institutional expectations or shared standards within a particular social system. These standards are considered valid in society, providing a framework for accepted behaviour. In simple terms, deviance involves actions or choices that violate the established rules of the community.
Albert K. Cohen, in his seminal work from 1966, succinctly captures the essence of deviant behaviour by defining it as "behaviour which violates institutionalized expectations, that is, expectations which are shared and recognized as legitimate within a social system."
Also, Edwin Sutherland, a prominent figure in criminology, defined deviance as behaviour in a disapproved direction from the norms, sufficiently exceeding the community's tolerance limit.
DEFINING CRIME
Crime, on the other hand, is a specific subset of crime. Its identification consists of two main components:
- Engaging in acts or omissions prohibited by law: Crimes are not just actions that deviate from social norms; These actions are incorporated into statutory law, allowing them to be punished by the legal system.
- Violation of standards set by punitive sanctions or punishments: The commission of a crime often carries consequences in the form of sanctions or punishments, which are imposed by state or legal authorities.
Legal scholar Kenny, in his "Outlines of Criminal Law," outlines three essential characteristics of a crime:
- That it involves harm brought about by human conduct, which the state aims to prevent.
- Among the measures of prevention selected is the threat of punishment.
- Legal proceedings of a special kind are employed to determine the guilt of the accused before being punished.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Deviance and crime have similarities, primarily because their foundation is based on institutional expectations or community norms. Both concepts operate under the assumption that these norms and laws serve the broader interest of society.
However, a critical distinction arises when considering how these norms and laws are perceived.
Some individuals and scholars view norms and laws neutrally as "power resources" that can be used for a variety of purposes, including repression. This perspective holds that norms and laws can be used for both positive and negative purposes, depending on who exercises this power and for what purposes.
CONSENSUS VS. CONFLICT MODELS
Deviance and Crime also involves considering two contrasting models:
- The consensus model, and
- The conflict model.
- Consensus Model: This model assumes that harmful behaviour is defined by consensus within society. In other words, social norms and laws are agreed upon by the majority and serve as the basis for legitimizing criminal justice systems in modern society. The consensus model is rooted in the idea that social norms reflect a shared understanding of harmful behaviour.
- Conflict Model: In contrast, the conflict model views deviance and crime as the product of conflict between dominant and subordinate groups in society. This suggests that social norms and laws can be tools of power used by those in power to control and suppress marginalized groups. This perspective is often associated with leftist sociologists and criminologists who emphasize the role of social inequalities and power dynamics in shaping norms and laws.
To reconcile consensus and conflict models, sociologist David Matza proposed a dynamic framework for understanding deviance. He argued that in complex societies, there is often no single, universally shared culture or set of norms. Instead, societies consist of multiple cultures that co-exist with tension and conflict. These cultural institutions continually attempt to legitimize and transform their values and norms into the dominant culture.
This ongoing process of legalization becomes a source of constant tension, with some cultural groups advocating for their practices to be recognized by law and reduced to crimes, while others insist on eliminating certain behaviours from the legal code, thereby leading to decriminalization.
Examples
The dynamics of legitimization
and decriminalization can be observed in various contemporary social
controversies. In the Indian context, for instance, we see two contrasting
demands:
Legitimization Demands by Fundamentalist Religious Groups: Some religious fundamentalist groups demand legal recognition and protection for their religious sensibilities. They advocate for strict laws against blasphemy.
Some social groups push for decriminalization: On the other hand, few social groups may advocate decriminalizing certain behaviours that no longer align with evolving social norms. Notable examples include efforts to change the laws relating to Attempt to commit suicide (Section 309 of I.P.C). The emphasis on decriminalization reflects changing social values and recognition of individual rights and freedoms.
CONCLUSION
Deviance and crime are complex and interrelated concepts that provide a window into the dynamics of society, culture, and the legal system. While deviance represents behaviour that deviates from accepted norms, crime is a subset of deviance defined by violations of established laws. Both concepts are rooted in the institutional expectations of society.
In conclusion, the study of deviance and crime is a multidimensional endeavour that requires an appreciation of sociological, legal, and cultural factors. It challenges us to examine the balance between individual rights and collective norms, highlighting the constantly evolving dynamics of human behaviour within the framework of society and law.
