Emile Durkheim Crime

Words: 554
Pages: 3

According to Durkheim, crime is a functional part of society, without crime there would be no progress, but without crime, there would also be no punishment. Historically, there have been whole sectors of society deigned to control and punish criminals. In fact, many would consider law and order to be a prerequisite to a functional society. In that case, what would a society be like if it had no prisons or courts? Even with the absence of prisons crime would still exist. As explained by Durkheim, crime is crime because it offends the common morals, norms, or customs of a given society. And given that “universal and absolute conformity is utterly impossible” crime will always be a part of any society. Without the presence of any formal institutions dedicated to thwarting criminal behavior, crime would have to be controlled through the same means that it …show more content…
That is, through common morals, norms, or customs. Social values can function as a form of informal social control. There are always consequences for defying social values no matter how small the infraction. Some consequences could be out casting, and or outward ridicule. Being that humans are social beings and generally seek the accompaniment of others, it could be assumed that most would probably not risk the consequences that would accompany the crime. In contemporary society, regardless of the fact that we have extensive institutions in place that have been designed to deliver punishment, people already shame and blacklist criminals as a form of punishment. one recent example of this is the media branded “Stanford rapist.” A man who has been publicly ridiculed throughout the nation for his crimes because the public felt that the courts did not adequately punish him. Suggesting that this could be an effective mode of punishment in the absence of a formal