Comparing Functionalist and Traditional Marxist Perspectives on Crime E

There are many theories on wherefore crime exists as well has who is committing the crimes and the underlying reasons behind it The two principal(prenominal) perspectives being Traditional Marxist and Functionalist both with different views they share very(prenominal) little in common, however they do agree that social club shapes the single and not the individual that shapes guild. What is meant by that is that we are all products of our upbringings and learn by socialisation what our beliefs are, what we agree on personally and often divided beliefs and the spirit of what is the norm through our primary interaction with others beginning at fellowship and continuing onto schooling and work. Our beliefs arent always set in stone and gouge change through time and growth and the interaction with others once external the family domain. There are many explanations beginning with Durkheim who was a functionalist, there is Merton who doesnt alone a gree with Durkheim but adopted his theory on Anomie and made it his own. In addition there is Hirschi whose theories mirrored that of Durkheims and before concluding, Marxist view on crime will be looked at. The Functionalist view on crime and society is likening it to the human body to explain it functions. The body has it organs whereas society has it institutions. Functionalists have an interest in the functions of crime, hence the name and are enkindle in how crime contributes to society as a whole. There is a belief that society is based on consensus or agreement of shared beliefs and values of what is considered to be the norm, the views hare then passed on through socialisation. dish out values and beliefs o... ... be deviant within a corporate grammatical construction although should it occur it is highly unlikely the public would be made sensitive of it. However the question of mental state of an individual hasnt even been raised by any of the sociologists to explain why a person may offend. Merton seemed to make a lot of sense but there seemed to be any(prenominal)thing missing in his explanations on why crime exists why some commit and others dont, perhaps the reality is there is no definite resoluteness on why it exists. BIBLOGRAPHY Durkheim, E (1985/1987) Suicide A Study in Sociology, London Routledge Erikson, K J. (1966) Wayward Puritans, New York Wiley Hirschi, T. (1969) Causes of delinquency, Berkeley, CA University of California conjure up Merton, R. (1938) Social Structure and Anomie, American Sociological Review, Vol 3, 672-683