Does Deviance Belong in Society?

To discuss whether certain behaviors are deviant—that is, straying from an acceptable norm—may imply that there is a clear arbiter of “normal.” But is human society that rigid? Or is society’s perception of “normal” fluid and more like a continuum? If deviant is a malleable term, then so too may be normal—so what would it mean to try to actually eliminate deviance?

In this Discussion, you consider the plausibility and implications of eliminating deviance, and perhaps thereby eliminating crime.

Post:

• Is elimination of deviance a necessary, plausible, or ethical pursuit?
• Is the prevention of crime possible?

Respond to two colleagues:

• Choose a response that is different from your own.
• Explain how your colleague’s position has changed your perception or understanding.

PLEASE ANSWER REPLY’S IN 1 OR 2 PARAGRAPHS ONLY. AND IF NEEDED YOU CAN ADD YOUR CITED REFERENCES

STUDENT REPLY’S

REPLY TO: Sherry Purkhiser Student #1

Seeking the elimination of deviance might seem a necessary pursuit, even though it’s not plausible. A lot of times deviance could be subjective in that what some people think is wrong, while others may not or do not see any problems with. Say I saw a person who abuses drugs is deviant in behavior because I saw a relative suffer from abuse of drugs. Or someone prone to addiction would not deal with that deviance because of a past familiarity. Because of the subject nature of deviance, it isn’t possible. It’s not possible to eliminate something that’s difficult to hold. It’s not ethical or right to tell someone that they can’t do something, because you believe or think its deviant because it would increase my sense of power by telling someone what is considered deviant.

Crime prevention concentrates on the dual concept of eliminating or minimizing criminal opportunities whenever possible, and in encouraging citizens to be responsible for their own security and the security of others, and in improving surveillance around homes, the businesses, or in public places in order to deter criminals. Changing our habits by setting rules and positioning signs in the right locations, increase the likelihood that an offender will be caught to prevent crime occurring.

STUDENT REPLY

REPLY TO: Tajsha Thomas STUDENT #2

When I think of the elimination of deviance and is it necessary, plausible or ethical and will doing so prevent crime? My answer is no. Deviance stems from many different places so to say “eliminate” I would say no however dependent on the type of deviance, for example breaking the laws that were set in place to reform the offender. By the length of time in isolation, it gives the offender time to consider his or her deviant behavior that caused him to break the law and reform based on his or her success. There are many factors that play a role in deviant behavior that need to be considered. This is a very in-depth decision because deviant behavior can stem from brain development, emotional trauma, physical trauma and so many other factors. There are a set of moral laws and societal laws that we must follow and obey. When we fail to do so we are given two options rehabilitation or intervention.

At one time or place, for certain kinds of people (i.e., those of a certain age or sex), drinking alcohol is perfectly proper, while at another time or place, it is forbidden. (Schwartz, 1997, p. 289) Studies have been done to prove that the human mind has not a study has been done by Marlene Oscar-Berman and Ksenija Marinković titled Alcohol: Effects on Neurobehavioral Functions and the Brain states “Alcoholism results from an interplay between genetic and environmental factors, and is linked to brain defects and associated cognitive, emotional, and behavioral impairments.” So, if that deviant behavior stems from the alcoholism, I feel that alcoholism is the more plausible issue to address if a crime at a major degree has not been committed.

Deviance is not a self-evident category. It does not just float down from the skies applying itself to people who quite obviously are deviant. Deviance is a historical term and its application and/or adoption can create a status which dwarfs all others in its consequences for the individual’s existence. Even the most deviant of all deviants does not just “happen”; someone has to pass judgement, to portray, to stigmatize, to insult, to heap abuse, to exclude or to reject. (C. Sumner, 1994, p. 223). Due to the wording “elimination of deviancy” instead of “ elimination of the term deviance” I’m going to speak from a religious stand point, God gave his son so that we would be forgiven of our sins if you repent with your heart and confess with your mouth, if you believe this then define the word “elimination” which means to remove or get rid of. If this was the case in logical terms those who have offended would not have the chance to be rehabilitated. However, to contradict this logic, 28/50 states still offer the death penalty, so contradicting to my opinion, it seems that some still believe elimination of deviance is necessary.