Encyclopedia of Sociology

CRIMINALIZATION OF DEVIANCE

CRIMINALIZATION OF

DEVIANCE

A 1996 household survey dealing with drug abuse
revealed that 13 percent of persons eighteen to
twenty-five, 6 percent of persons twenty-six to
thirty-four, and 2 percent of persons thirty-five
years or older had smoked marijuana within the
last thirty days (Maguire and Pastore 1998, p. 246).
The same survey showed that nearly a quarter of
persons eighteen to twenty-five had smoked mari-
juana within the past year and about half of per-
sons eighteen to thirty-four had smoked marijuana
at least once during their lifetimes. (The preva-
lence of marijuana use is considerably greater
among males than among females, so these statis-
tics understate marijuana use among young adult
males.) A different population survey, also con-
ducted in 1996, revealed that the legalization of
marijuana use enjoys considerable support among
young adults: 38 percent among respondents eight-
een to twenty, 30 percent among respondents
twenty-one to twenty-nine, and 28 percent among
respondents thirty to forty-nine (Maguire and
Pastore 1998, p. 151). Males are much more sup-
portive of legalization than females, and those who
claim no religion are most supportive of all.

A reasonable interpretation of these data is
that no clear consensus exists that smoking mari-
juana is wrong. Rather, American society contains
a large group, probably a majority, that considers
smoking marijuana wrong and a smaller group
(but a substantial proportion of young adult males)
that uses marijuana, considers it harmless, and is
probably indignant at societal interference. Since
a nonconformist is immensely strengthened by
having even one ally, as the social psychologist
Solomon Asch demonstrated in laboratory experi-
ments (Asch 1955), such sizable support for mari-
juana use means that controlling its use is no easy
task. Many other kinds of behavior in contempo-
rary societies resemble marijuana use in that some
people disapprove of the behaviors strongly and
others are tolerant or supportive. In short, mod-
ern societies, being large and heterogeneous, are
likely to provide allies even for behavior that the
majority condemns.

Yet moral ambiguity does not characterize
American society on every issue. Consensus exists

that persons who force others to participate un-

willingly in sexual relations and persons with body

odor are reprehensible. Body odor and rape seem

an incongruous combination. What they have in

common is that both are strongly disapproved of

by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Where

they differ is that only one (rape) is a statutory

crime that can result in police arrest, a court trial,

and a prison sentence. The other, smelling bad,

although deviant, is not criminalized. When devi-

ance is criminalized, the organized collectivity chan-

nels the indignant response of individuals into

public condemnation and, possibly, punishment.

Some sociologists maintain that when suffi-

cient consensus exists about the wrongfulness of

an act, the act gets criminalized. This is usually the

case but not always. Despite consensus that failing

to bathe for three months is reprehensible, body

odor has not been criminalized. And acts have

become criminalized, for example, patent infringe-

ment and other white-collar crimes that do not

arouse much public indignation. In short, the

correlation between what is deviant and what is

criminal, though positive, is not perfect.

For a clue to an explanation of how and why

deviance gets criminalized, note how difficult it is

for members of a society to know with certainty

what is deviant. Conceptually, deviance refers to

the purposive evasion or defiance of a normative

consensus. Defiant deviance is fairly obvious. If

Joe, a high school student, is asked a question in

class by his English teacher pertaining to the les-

son, and he replies, ‘‘I won’t tell you, asshole,’’

most Americans would probably agree that he is

violating the role expectations for high school

students in this society. Evasive deviance is less

confrontational, albeit more common than defi-

ant deviance, and therefore more ambiguous. If

Joe never does the assigned homework or fre-

quently comes late without a good explanation,

many Americans would agree that he is not doing

what he is supposed to do, although the point at

which he steps over the line into outright deviance

is fuzzy. Both evasive and defiant deviance require

other members of the society to make a judgment

that indignation is the appropriate response to the

behavior in question. Such a judgment is difficult

to make in a heterogeneous society because mem-

bers of the society cannot be sure how closely

other people share their values.