E. Montero and McDowells Approach on Understanding the Crime as the Social Problem
Based on Montero and McDowells perception in Social Problems, there are three approaches in understanding the crime as the social problem. The approaches include the deviance
approach, functionalist approach and conflict approach.
1. The Deviance Approach
Until recent years, the deviance approach particularly as it emphasizes anomie has been the primary focus in discussion of crime problems. Sociologist and criminologist have tended to
concentrate on deviant behavior as the cause of crime. This approach is also based on sociologist Robert K. Mertons theory that the condition of anomie is chronic in our society. He has observed
that criminal behavior is not a product of an abnormal personality but represents logical adaptations to abnormal social conditions.
28
When culturally prescribed as goals are sought by all members of a society, certain means to achieve those goals become institutionalized as right and proper. But when certain groups e.g.,
blacks and young people are consistently denied access to those appropriate means, they either no longer accept the goals themselves, experiencing a state of normlessness, or they turn to
unapproved ways to achieve those goals- that is, deviant behavior Hartjen, 1978; Merton, 1956.
29
From the explanation above, the proponents of this theory point out that officially recorded crime falls heaviest among the poor, the minorities, and the politically powerless; yet violations of
the criminal law are to be found in all segments of society. Only the least powerful generally suffer the stigma of the criminal label although the most powerful may violate the law just as frequently.
28Montero, McDowell, Social Problems New York: McMillan Publishing Company, 1986, p.391 29Ibid
16
The emphasis on labeling has come about because many now recognize that much behavior that is called deviant is not necessarily defined as criminal. The chronic abuse of prescription
drugs, for example, may be considered deviant but not illegal behavior. And the reverse is also true: Many criminal acts tax fraud, for example are not defined deviant by the general public.
It is obviously a matter of labeling. In fact, deviance may be said to be in the eye of the beholder Sykes, 1978.
30
2. The Functionalist Approach
Kategori