Emile Durkheim’s theory that crime is a normal aspect of society is…

Emile Durkheim’s theory that crime is a normal aspect of society is…

Emile Durkheim’s theory that crime is a normal aspect of society is

based on his belief that crime itself serves a social function. That social function is to support or reassure the social norms of a society by the fact that crime is considered going against the norm. Put simply, crime is simply deviant behavior that goes against social norms. It is with that model that law is created, from the adverse reactions of criminal behavior by society. As Pavlich (2011) states, “law is conceived of as the product of a given society” (p. 73). Durkheim’s main focus was the idea of ‘social solidarity’, or how society works together as a whole and how society is organized. He rejected the idea of individualism in the sense that society is the sum of its individual members; rather that it should be studied collectively. Another principle of Durkheim’s that keeps society stable is ‘social facts’, that is, “ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, external to the individual,” (Pavlich, 2011, p. 74). It is these social facts that hold control and authority over individuals to keep society stable.
One of the main arguments for Durkheim’s theory is that since crime is found in all societies, it must be performing necessary functions otherwise it would disappear in an advanced society. (Hamlin, 2009). One of these necessary functions is social change. Crime is one of the most effective sources of social change in any society. When crime goes against social norms, eventually a society’s collective belief will transform thus bringing about social change. A prime example is the Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States that promoted racial segregation. As society progressed many people began violating the laws at the time until society reached a point where it was considered a norm for inter-racial relationships in society. Eventually racial segregation was abolished and in today’s society would violate social norms.

Questions:
– Do you agree with Durkheim, that deviant behavior serves a function for society?
– What happens to society when the norms for behavior change?
– For instance, marijuana is now legal in Massachusetts (and other states as well). The behavior has not really changed, just the meaning of the behavior. Smoking marijuana in 2010-bad and illegal, punishable by incarceration/smoking marijuana in 2021-legal, more acceptable, not punishable by incarceration. (Obviously large quantities of possession with intent to distribute is still punishable by incarceration) For the purposes of this discussion, focusing on personal consumption, how can the same behavior be seen so differently in such a short period of time?
– What should happen to those incarcerated for possession of marijuana that would not be considered criminal today?
– Some people have spent long periods of time in prison for possession of marijuana. Are they no longer guilty of a crime? Or is guilt relative? (Emphasis on timing of crime, rather than the crime?)
– What should happen to those who are currently incarcerated for a behavior that is no longer criminal? Should these people be given reparations for their time in prison?
– Why do you think our government is allowing the legalization of marijuana?
– What would the incentive be?