Crime and deviance – Defining crime and deviance
Defining Crime
Defining crime and deviance proves a difficult task for the sociologist. In everyday language crime is defined as any action that breaks the criminal law and results in some kind of official punishment. Newburn (2007) argues that crime is basically a label that is attached to certain forms of behaviour which are prohibited by the state, and have some kind of legal penalty against them. While crime therefore seems to be easy to define, as the law states what a criminal act is, there is no act that is in itself criminal. Newburn (20070 argues that an act only becomes a crime when a particular label of ‘crime’ has been applied to it, and even very similar acts can be treated very differently according to interpretations or law enforcement agencies , and the context in which an act takes place. For example, killing someone is not in itself a criminal act. If it happens during a knife fight outside a pub in Britain, it is likely to be seen as criminal but if it happens during a knife fight with an enemy solider at wartime it would not be seen as criminal. This supports the notion that what is seen as criminal varies according to the context in which it takes place and that there is no such thing as a criminal act in itself. Furthermore changing social attitudes means that acts that were once seen as criminal are no longer regarded as such and laws are changed all the time. The most recent example of this is the altered and more flexible legal position on the level of ‘reasonable force’ people can use to defend themselves when faced with an intruder in their homes. As Newburn points out, even if crime is defined as whatever the criminal law says it is, the fact that the criminal law varies from country to country, and changes over time, reinforces the idea that there is nothing that is in itself criminal. Newburn argues that even with an act that appears to be against the law, the police and other criminal justice agencies, like the courts have to interpret – or make a judgement about whether it was prohibited. You might think about the Oscar Pistorius case, the paralympian, where he shot and killed his girlfriend last year but claims it was not deliberate as he thought she was an intruder and believed his life was in genuine danger.
See clip of thttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/11022219/Oscar-Pistorius-to-learn-fate-on-September-11.htmlrail.

Defining deviance
In everyday language to deviate means to stray from an accepted path, and many sociological definitions simply elaborate on this idea. In other words many sociologists would define deviance as behaviour that goes against the norms and expectations of a particular social group. For example in the UK deviant behaviour includes swearing in a church, drinking alcohol excessively, nudity in public etc. However already there are difficulties with defining the same acts regardless of context as deviant. Take nudity in public for instance. This is generally viewed in our society as deviant; however nudity at a nudist beach is seen as the norm and fans who streak across tennis courts on National sporting occasions such as Wimbledon tend to be portrayed as simply displaying ‘high spirits’ or ‘youthful exuberance’. The label deviant is therefore not applied to everyone universally who commits the same act which supports the view that deviance is relative. Where the act occurs (the context) and also who observes it is highly significant. Furthermore there are difficulties with assuming that members of a society share the same norms and values, different social groups may have deferent definitions of deviance thus there may be little agreement as to what constitutes deviance across members of society.
Deviance as relative
As said previously deviance is relative: there is no absolute way of defining a deviant act. Deviance can only be defined in relation to a particular standard and no standards are fixed and absolute. For example what is regarded as deviant and criminal varies will vary according to context, the social group, the time and the society or culture.
The context
Where an act takes place is significant. The same act may be viewed as deviant in one context but not in another. For example sex in public would be seen as deviant but sex is not seen as such if it takes place between couples in private. Smoking a cigarette in the back garden or kitchen at home would not be seen as deviant but smoking in a restaurant would be seen as both criminal and deviant.
The social group
What may be acceptable in a particular group may be regarded as deviant in wider society. For example, smoking cannabis is perfectly acceptable behaviour among many young people, although it is regarded as deviant by many adults, and it is illegal.
The time
Definitions of deviance change over time in the same society, as standards of normal behaviour change. For example, cigarette smoking used to be a popular and socially acceptable activity but it is increasing becoming branded as deviant. Since July 2007 it has been illegal in the UK to smoke indoors in workplaces, pubs, nightclubs, restaurants and buildings open to the public. Attitudes to homosexually have also changed dramatically. Homosexuality was illegal in the UK before 1967, but is now legal and widely accepted and in 2013 gay couples and lesbians were legally entitled to marry on the same basis as heterosexual couples.
The society
Deviance is culturally relative. If we compare Western culture with the traditional culture of the Teton Sioux Indians of the USA, we can see how deviance varies from society to society. As part of their religious rituals during the annual Sun Dance ceremony, Sioux warriors mutilated their bodies: leather thongs were inserted through strips of flesh on their chests and attached to a central pole. Warriors had to break free by tearing their flesh, and in turn were granted favours by supernatural powers. Similar actions by members of Western society may well be viewed as masochism or madness.

Conversely behaviour that is accepted as normal in Western society may well be viewed as deviant in Sioux society. For example in the West we strive to accumulate wealth and, substantial property holding brings a degree of status and power. However the Sioux did not value wealth and the accumulation of property. Instead a major value was generosity and distributing wealth was a way of earning status and respect. Chiefs were expected to distribute gifts of horses, beadwork and weapons to their followers.

So far the concept of deviance is fairly simple: deviance refers to those activities that do not conform to the norms and expectations of members of a particular society. As studied by sociologists, it usually refers to those activities which bring general disapproval from members of society. Deviance is a relative concept; actions are only deviant with regard to the standards of a particular society at a particular time in history.