Functionalists state that both formal and informal social control plays a role in preventing criminality. For example: Hirschi, discussed the concept of informal social control (control that occurs through the family, school and local community). Hirschi suggested that we form social bonds through attachment, commitment, involvement and our beliefs, and that these are the components that prevent us from committing crime. However, Farrington and West contradicted Hirschi, and stated that involvement within a family/community whereby criminality is rife could potentially cause individuals to become involved in crime themselves through a process of association, opposed to preventing crime like Hirschi’s theory suggested. Murray additionally contradicted the concept of informal social control, from a right realism perspective Murray stated that close social bonds within a community do not prevent criminal acts but instead promote an ‘underclass’ amongst society. The lumpen proletariat in Murray’s terms are dependent on the state, and participate in short-term sexual relationships and consequently have children outside of stable family structure. In addition to this, Murray states the underclass have no concern of society’s values and that crime is a result of a lack of informal social control as a result of a vicious circle of normlessness. Functionalists also view formal social control as a vital preventable measure. Formal social control refers to specific institutions that exert control such as the criminal justice system, functionalist’s state without this, society would collapse and that such institutions amend wrong-doing. Foucault argued against this, saying punishment of this type could potentially cause more upheaval as formal social control leads to making a community paranoid as they feel they are constantly being watched and under the surveillance of the