The word deviance means to stray from the accepted path, although it is very difficult to define what this accepted path is. It differs between countries, different stages of time; and is very much culturally defined by either people or religion. This therefore means that there are many varied theories as to why people may deviate in the first place. One argument, from theories such as Lombroso or Sheldon. Is that deviance stems from specific physiological characteristics that seem to be common among groups of prisoners, although this can now be seem to be outdated and not accurate.
Another argument, from the likes of Freud or Bowlby is that psychological influences cause people to deviate, though this too has lost its popularity. The common theories of why people deviate are sociological, which have been examined by people from
Durkheim, to Marx, to Becker. Again however, there are still arguments which question these ideas.
In the late 1880s, Cesare Lombroso famously promoted theories of criminal behaviour centred mainly on hereditary physiological traits, such as big head, protruding jaw and big ears. There were common features found in examinations of groups of prisoners, which lead him to believe that they were influential in whether someone deviates or not. However these ideas of being born criminal and defective people went out of fashion in the late 1900s as they were proven to be inconsistent.
Also, Sheldon’s theories of body types in relation to criminal activity were disproved as he neglected women from his studies and they didn’t take into account the social factors surrounding the deviant. This shows that the physiological theories cannot be relied on for determining the cause of deviance.
Psychological theories were also very popular. Hans Eysenck was an avid believer in the physiological aspects of criminals. From his studies, he discovered extroversion and neuroticism to be important aspects. This can be argued to be true as an extrovert may crave stimulation, change and excitement which leads to impulsive and thrill seeking behaviour, for example, committing a crime. Nevertheless, these theories have been largely discredited due to the failure to recognise that in group crimes, not all participants will; have the same psychological characteristics. Furthermore, psychological theories have been modified and changed throughout time to show that no one reason is exactly why a person might deviate.
Regarding sociological theories, the theorists can be split p into three fairly distinct groups of thought; Functionalism, Marxism and Interactionism.
Functionalism can be seen to have been created by Emile Durkheim, who is still considered to be the main pioneer of sociological theorems.
Functionalism deals with the idea that crime is needed in order for society to operate but also that society plays an important role in determining whether people deviate or not. Regarding sociological reasons, the theorists can be split into three fairly distinct groups of thought: Functionalism, Marxism and Interactionism.
Functionalism can be seen to have been created by Emile Durkheim, who is still considered to be the main pioneer of sociological theorems. Functionalism deal with the idea that the crime is need in order for society to operate but also that society plays an important role in determining whether people deviate or not. Durkheim created the idea of anomie, meaning that there is a breakdown in societal norms created by a change, i.e. depressions, then people are much more likely to deviate a

commit crime if there are no strict societal norms in place. In the 1940s, Merton advanced this idea further with his strain theory, relating to the American Dream, and groups in society who are unable to ever achieve this dream. A result of his work lead to theorist such as Miller to develop the idea of the delinquent sub-culture where people commit crime due to an imbalance in the formal opportunity structures, to reach society’s goals, for example school and university. This causes people to search for opportunities elsewhere, mainly through crime.
However, these theories work on the assumption that there are shared values and aspirations in societies, like the USA for example. They have also been accused of being over-simplistic. In particular, the delinquent sub-culture theory can only explain why people from lower class backgrounds may commit crime, and not those in the middle classes. This shows that although the theories are highly plausible, they do not reflect the whole cross section of society.
Another group of sociological theorists are interactionists. Their theories say that criminals are not different from the rest of society, but the process of interaction with the rest of society, particularly the police and the courts, makes them criminal through labelling them criminals. They ask how a person can be called a deviant and who decides what deviance is.
Becker put forward his famous labelling theory. He stated that social labels, especially deviant are imposed and adapted, which in turn traps an individual into a certain identity. Becker said that this caused deviance amplification whereby a person commits a crime, is left outside of conventional society which restricts their chances of a normal life and undermines their self-esteem, which in turn leads to more crime.
This can also be tied to a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby social ‘actors’ become what is expected of them.
The strategies that interactionists thought would solve the problem would be to decriminalise certain crimes, for example, drug taking where nowadays the persecution just leads to more crime to pay off fines. For more serious crimes, they suggest alternative punishments or different sentences from continuous imprisonment, which would help to reduce crime rates through more interaction with society, and less feelings of isolation.
On the contrary, these theories were highly opposed by the Right Realists, such as
Wilson and van der Haag. They did not believe that crime is committed because of social circumstance, but because of a lack of self-control of a person’s desires. They also blame liberal parenting and educators who fail to instil a level of self-constraint in young children. They believe this leads to more street crime, such as vandalism which in turn causes a collapse of sense of community and therefore more crime.
Their strategies on how to solve crime also highly opposed Becker as well. They thought that policies that fitted in with human nature, i.e. stricter punishments to deter deviance in the first place would help to reduce deviant behaviour. They would make the costs of offending outweigh the benefits. They encourage tougher prison sentences and traditional methods of the upbringing of children at home or school, along with neighbourhood watch schemes.
Another group of theorists are the Marxists, such as Pearce and Chambliss. Their theories of crime stem from the economic base of society and the political economy of crime. They believe that the capitalist system is the primary cause of crime. It promotes self-interest and the accumulation of wealth or material possessions.

Working class people have less access to opportunity structures which are needed to help to achieve these ideals and therefore resort to crime. They also believe there is a distorted image of crime and the typical criminal, meaning laws are not equal. They feel that laws protect capitalist prosperity, i.e. burglary, car theft or shop lifting, but the laws neglect to persecute city swindles, tax evasion or pollution caused by big multinationals. Similar to Becker’s theory, they feel there is no balance on epitomised as the ‘crime problem’.
However, all the aforementioned theories can be accused of being inaccurate.
Feminist theorists, such as Smart or Campbell, underline the absence of women in all these theories. They highlight the fact that women will never be treated fairly in crime as all agencies associated with crime are disproportionately male dominated. They also feel that if a woman is proven to have committed a crime, they are much more likely than men to have mental illness or need medical treatment. So although these theories do not explain why someone may commit a crime, they do highlight the fact that none of the other theories can be entirely correct due to the lack of women in their research and evidence.
Nevertheless, recently in modernist criminology, theorists such as Smart reject all encompassing sociological theories. She says that there is no social totality and therefore no way to have an overall theory of why people commit crime for a society as fragmented as ours. She points out that when examined, criminology cannot deconstruct crime. It does not look at the economic climate of the time in relation to theft, or a person’s health in relation to drug use. She shows that the core of criminology is very problematic. Again, this theory does not tell us why people commit crime, this highlighted hat fact that no one sociological theory can be absolutely correct as there are so many other actors to consider, which have been neglected in the past.
So it has become clear to us that t is in fact incredibly difficult to a find a theory which correctly explains why people may deviate therefore meaning the hypothesis is correct. Both physiological and psychological theories have been disproved as they have been seen to have insufficient to fully support their claims, and they miss out a large proportion of the prison population. In addition, many of the sociological theories of 19th and the 20 th
centuries have now been seen to be inaccurate. Although parts of the theories may indicate why someone may deviate, through further examination they actually seem to miss out certain factors which leads to them becoming less reliable. However, one of the first sociological to be used was that of anomie by Emile Durkheim, which has been used as the foundations for modern day theories. This shows that his theory could be considered the most accurate, although this would be highly opposed by those in the Right Realist school of thought.