Assess the functionalist view that a small amount of crime is useful to society
There is a long running argument between sociologists about the existence of crime and deviance and whether or not it can benefit societies in some ways. Many of them in the functionalist point of view argue that it can however, there are many, for example Marxists and feminists, which would argue that it doesn’t benefit anyone.
Durkheim, the ‘founding father’ of functionalism believed that a small amount of crime in a society is necessary toward creating a perfect society, due to the three functions or outcomes that crime induces upon its occurrence: boundary maintenance, adaptation and change and social solidarity.
Boundary maintenance is the effect that crime has upon the conformers within the society in which they see or hear about a crime and then know where the boundaries of their actions lie, due to the reaction of the authorities from the crime carried out and from the severity of the punishment given to the law-breaker, acting almost as a deterrent of crime toward the wider society. Adaptation and change is an outcome of a crime and is what can be done to prevent that crime from happening, as it perhaps show that parts of the society and community are flawed and need to be adjusted so that everybody can live better lives and not think they need to break the law to get the things they want or deviate from the consensus values to get what they want either.
A large scale crime, for example the 7/7 bombings in London, can create social solidarity between communities and bring the whole society together in a consensus, and thus bring harmony to the people in that community, which would be a huge benefit in a society where people are always at odds.
Other sociologists focus more on deviance rather than crimes, but still would agree that a small amount of crime is useful.