|
Lemert and other interactionists were challenged
|
|
|
|
 | |  |
| There is no need to explain primary deviance. Cos i cant! | |
 | |  |
|
 |
| | |
| HA in that case your theory sucks. you should explain all types of deviance, and ill give you this coffee ;) | |
| | |
|
|
|
|
They were criticised for not explaining why different individuals commited different crimes as well!
|
|
|
|
| | |
| So tell me why im gonna kill you wise guy? | |
| | |
|
 |
| | |
| Well, your obviously commiting a crime for your on individual purpose, lucky for you fashions not a crime as well. | |
| | |
|
|
|
|
they were criticised further by taylor, walton, and young, they said primary deviance could still effect a persons self concept, and is therefore necessary to explain!
|
|
|
|
 |
| | |
| me (Taylor) eslton, and young here think we should research why different crime occurs for a full picture., | |
| | |
|
|
|
