A moral panic happens when society reacts with exaggerated fear or anger to a group, behavior, or issue that’s seen as a threat to moral values or social order. The media and authority figures often amplify these fears, creating a sense that the problem is widespread and dangerous, even when evidence says otherwise. It’s less about what’s actually happening, and more about what people believe is happening.

---

What is a Moral Panic?

A moral panic happens when a large group of people become deeply worried that something is threatening the moral values or stability of society.

These fears often turn out to be false or greatly exaggerated, but they can still have powerful social effects, shaping laws, reinforcing prejudice, and influencing how people see “good” and “bad” behavior.

Moral panics are closely related to mass hysteria, since both involve widespread fear based on distorted or misleading information.

Moral panics don’t happen by accident. They often arise in ways that benefit powerful groups or reinforce existing inequalities.

They tell us less about the people being blamed, and more about the anxieties and power dynamics within society itself.

---

Stages of Moral Panic

Sociologist Stanley Cohen, in his classic book Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972), provided one of the most influential explanations of how societies overreact to perceived threats.

He showed how a small, often ambiguous event can grow into a national moral crisis through the combined effects of media exaggeration, public fear, and official control measures.

Cohen’s framework shows that moral panics are not random overreactions — they are structured social processes that reveal how societies maintain moral order.

Each panic follows a predictable pattern:

1. A threat is identified.

2. The media exaggerate it.

3. The public reacts with moral outrage.

4. Authorities impose control.

5. The panic fades, but its stereotypes remain.

Through this cycle, societies reaffirm their values and boundaries — but often at the expense of stigmatized or powerless groups.

---

1. Identifying a Threat to Society’s Values

Every moral panic begins when a person, group, or behaviour is identified as a threat to shared moral values.

• Emergence of the Threat: Cohen described this as the moment when “a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.”
  These “threats” often involve issues like youth behaviour, sexuality, or drug use — things that symbolise social change or challenge traditional norms.

• The ‘Folk Devil’: The individuals or groups blamed for the threat are labelled “folk devils” — visible symbols of deviance and moral decline. They act as “visible reminders of what we should not be.” 

• Protecting Social Values: Moral panics take hold when fear coincides with a belief that core social values must be defended. Outrage and anxiety create pressure for authorities to “do something” to protect society’s moral order.

---

2. Media Amplification and Distortion

The mass media play a central role in transforming isolated events into national crises. They not only report the story — they actively amplify it.

• Stereotyped Reporting: Cohen observed that the media present threats in a “stylized and stereotypical fashion.” Through selective reporting and repetition, the media shape how society perceives what counts as deviance.

• Exaggeration and Distortion: Stories are often blown out of proportion, with sensational headlines, dramatic photographs, and unverified claims. Cohen described this as journalists using a “shotgun approach,” creating a flood of coverage that often includes “obviously false stories.”

• Symbolization and Prediction: Certain images or features, such as clothing styles or hairstyles,  become symbols of deviance. Once identified, these symbols carry “wholly negative meanings” and lead to prediction, where the media warn that similar incidents are bound to happen again — and will likely get worse.

• Deviance Amplification: The end result is what Cohen called “deviation amplification.” The more society reacts, the more deviance appears to increase — as tougher policing or stigma pushes the targeted group further to the margins, confirming public fears.

---

3. Public Reaction and Moral Outrage

After the media have shaped the narrative, the public reacts with growing concern and anger.

• Manning the Moral Barricades: Cohen vividly described how “the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people.” These figures position themselves as defenders of morality, calling for immediate action.

• Making Sense of Events: People discuss the issue not just in terms of what happened, but what it means. This helps reduce uncertainty — what sociologists call cultural strain — by agreeing on who to blame and what should be done.

• Hostility and Consensus: Public feeling becomes marked by hostility toward the folk devils and consensus that the threat is real, serious, and requires a strong response.

• Social Solidarity: Paradoxically, moral panics can strengthen social unity. As Cohen put it, outrage at the deviant behaviour draws “the law-abiding closer together.” This reflects a classic Durkheimian function — defining deviance helps reaffirm shared values and strengthen social bonds.

---

4. Official Reaction and Social Control

Once the panic reaches its peak, authorities and institutions intervene to restore order and reassure the public.

• Expert Solutions and Escalation: Politicians, police, and “moral entrepreneurs” propose new rules or harsher punishments. Cohen noted that “ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to.” Responses become more organized and dramatic — public arrests, stricter laws, and symbolic punishment.

• The Dramatization of Evil: Police and courts often engage in what Cohen called the “dramatization of evil” — making sure deviants are publicly labelled through trials or media exposure. These “degradation ceremonies” reassure the public that action is being taken.

• Institutional Innovation: Sometimes, these panics lead to lasting social or legal changes. Cohen described this as a “ritualistic response to deviance” — more about calming fears than solving real problems.

---

5. Decline and Displacement of the Panic

Moral panics are intense but short-lived. They eventually fade, though their effects often linger.

• Volatility: Cohen noted that panics are “self-limiting, temporary and spasmodic” — bursts of public anger that quickly burn out as attention shifts elsewhere.

• Loss of Interest: Over time, media and public attention move on to new issues or new “folk devils.” The original threat may be forgotten or reinterpreted in milder terms.

• Survival as Myth: Even after a panic subsides, the stereotypes and myths it created often survive. Cohen observed that “the societal reaction survived its origins in the form of mythologies and stereotypes about the folk devils it had partly created.”

For example, once the panic about Mods and Rockers faded, newer youth subcultures like Skinheads became the new focus of fear — continuing the same cycle of moral labeling and control.

---

Social Actors of Moral Panic

A moral panic is not just a wave of public fear, it’s a process involving specific people and institutions who play different roles in identifying, spreading, and responding to a perceived moral threat.

These groups reflect how power, prejudice, and control operate within society.

The main actors in a moral panic are:

1. Moral Entrepreneurs – those who start or lead the panic.

2. Folk Devils – the people or groups who become the targets.

3. Agents of Social Control – the authorities and media who spread and enforce the reaction.

Together, these actors show how moral panics reveal the power structures, prejudices, and values that shape society — not just what we fear, but who we choose to blame.

---

1. Moral Entrepreneurs — The Rule Creators

Moral entrepreneurs are individuals or groups who initiate or fuel a moral panic by defining certain behaviours or people as dangerous or immoral.

They believe it is their duty to defend moral values and push for change — often through laws, campaigns, or public outrage.

• Who They Are: They are often activists, politicians, religious leaders, or community reformers who act as “moral crusaders.” They define what is “right” and “wrong,” and seek to impose their moral vision on others.

• Motives: Their motivations can range from genuine moral concern to self-interest, such as gaining political influence or media attention. Many are driven by a belief that society’s values are under threat and must be defended.

• Examples: In Stanley Cohen’s study of the Mods and Rockers, a local magistrate named Geoffrey Blake acted as a moral entrepreneur, driven by fears that “authority was falling into disrespect.”

• Psychological Traits: Some moral entrepreneurs show what sociologists call authoritarian tendencies — a belief in strict punishment, fear of disorder, and prejudice against outsiders.

---

2. Folk Devils — The Targets of the Panic

Folk devils are the people or groups who become symbolic “enemies” of society’s moral order.

They are portrayed as threats to decency and stability — and their image is usually exaggerated, simplified, and negative.

• Who They Are: Folk devils are often already marginalized groups, such as the poor, immigrants, racial minorities, or young people. Because these groups lack power, they are easy to blame for wider social problems.

• The Labelling Process: Once labelled as deviant, these groups become “visible reminders of what we should not be.” They are often represented as uniformly bad or dangerous, even when only a few individuals behaved badly.

• Examples: Youth subcultures such as the Teddy Boys, Mods and Rockers, Hells Angels, and Skinheads were portrayed as violent and lawless.

• Consequences: This public labelling leads to what Cohen called the “dramatization of evil” — a cycle where moral outrage solidifies stereotypes and justifies tougher control measures.

---

3. Agents of Social Control — The Enforcers and Amplifiers

These are the institutions and authorities that spread, formalize, and enforce the moral panic.

They include the media, politicians, police, and other powerful groups who turn fear into policy and punishment.

The Media — The Amplifiers

The mass media are essential to every moral panic. They don’t just report events — they help create and shape public reaction.

• Stylized and Stereotypical Coverage: The media present events in simplified and emotional ways, focusing on dramatic incidents and eye-catching headlines. They use symbolization, where particular images (like a Mod’s scooter or a hoodie) become shorthand for deviance.

• Exaggeration and Distortion: Small incidents are turned into large-scale crises. Journalists may overreport events, recycle false claims, and rely on sensational language.

• Framing and Agenda-Setting: By deciding what counts as “news,” the media set the public agenda. They can amplify fear by framing events as part of a growing moral decline. In some cases, they even act as moral entrepreneurs themselves, promoting outrage to attract audiences.

• Conflict Perspective: From a Neo-Marxist view, the media sometimes work in alliance with the state to divert attention from deeper issues — such as inequality — by focusing public anger on specific groups (e.g., immigrants or youth).

Formal Authorities — The Enforcers

Once the public panic grows, formal institutions step in to “restore order.”

This includes lawmakers, police, and the courts — what sociologists call the agents of formal social control.

• Politicians and Lawmakers: Politicians often respond to moral outrage by promising new laws or crackdowns. They stand at the “moral barricades,” presenting themselves as defenders of public values. Religious and community leaders often support these efforts, linking them to moral duty.

• Police and Courts: The police play a central role in labelling and responding to deviance.
  Their increased surveillance and arrests can make the problem seem worse, fuelling a cycle of escalation. This process, called deviation amplification, can cause the “problem” group to act out in resistance, confirming the original stereotype.

• Example — The Crack Cocaine Panic (1980s): In the U.S., intense fear about “crack cocaine” led to harsher sentencing laws and mass incarceration — especially of Black Americans — showing how moral panic can have real and lasting consequences.

Other Influencers

• “Right-Thinking People” and Experts: Public figures such as bishops, commentators, and academics often lend credibility to the panic by offering moral or scientific justifications.

• Economic Interests: Some businesses and elite groups may quietly benefit from moral panics.
  For example, Marxist sociologists argue that laws and policies often serve the interests of capitalism, protecting wealth and property rather than addressing real social issues.

A moral panic happens when people become convinced that something is threatening the moral fabric of society — even though the threat is often false or greatly exaggerated.

Throughout history, these waves of fear have often focused on marginalized or unpopular groups, such as immigrants, ethnic minorities, or young people, and have revealed deeper anxieties about social change.

Below are some well-documented examples of moral panics, many of which involve drugs, youth culture, or media influence.

---

1. Drug and Alcohol Panics — Targeting Immigrants and Minorities

Some of the most famous moral panics in American history have centred on substance use, often fuelled by prejudice against the groups associated with it.

The Prohibition Movement (Early 1900s)

In the early 20th century, growing concern about alcohol use led to the nationwide Prohibition movement, which banned the production and sale of alcohol in the United States.

• The movement was driven by rural Protestant groups who saw drinking as sinful and morally corrupt.

• Their anger was especially directed toward urban immigrants, particularly Catholic Irish and Italian Americans, whose customs and faith were seen as a threat to “traditional” moral values.

• This panic led to sweeping legal reforms — but also increased organized crime, showing how overreactions can backfire.

The Anti-Marijuana Panic and Reefer Madness (1930s)

During the 1930s, a new panic emerged over marijuana use — previously a legal and uncontroversial substance.

• Public fear spread when Anglo Americans began linking marijuana to Mexican immigrants, who were already viewed with suspicion.

• Newspapers and politicians launched a propaganda campaign portraying marijuana as a “killer weed.”

• Media outlets repeated false claims from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, insisting the drug turned people into violent criminals or “mad” rapists.

• The film Reefer Madness (1936) was shown in schools, depicting cannabis use as a path to insanity, murder, and moral collapse.

• Marijuana became associated with Black jazz musicians, immigrants, and “criminal types”, leading to the 1937 federal ban on cannabis.

These campaigns show how moral panics can use fear and misinformation to justify discriminatory policies.

---

2. Youth and Media Panics — Fear of Moral Decline

Across history, older generations have often worried that young people are out of control or corrupted by new trends. Sociologists call this a recurring moral panic about youth culture.

“Hooliganism” and Respectable Fears (1800s–Today)

Fear of violent or unruly young people — often labelled “hooligans” — has resurfaced for centuries.

• In 1843, a British politician complained that “the morals of the children are tenfold worse than formerly.”

• Each new generation of adults repeats the same concern — that the young have lost respect, discipline, or morality.

• Sociologists note that these “respectable fears” appear repeatedly, reflecting nostalgia for a supposedly more moral past.

The Juvenile Delinquency Panic (1950s, USA)

In the 1950s, American adults panicked over a supposed wave of juvenile crime — even though statistics showed little increase.

• The media blamed comic books, claiming their crime and horror stories were corrupting young minds.

• Psychologists and parents’ groups joined forces to demand censorship.

• Publishers responded by creating the Comics Code Authority, a self-censorship system that banned certain content — even though the “delinquency crisis” was largely imagined.

Video Games, Music, and School Shootings (1990s–Today)

Moral panics about youth behaviour continue into the modern era, especially when tragedy strikes.

• After the Columbine High School shooting (1999), politicians and media figures searched for causes — blaming violent video games, heavy metal music, and goth culture.

• Artists like Marilyn Manson were vilified as corrupting influences, despite no evidence linking music to violence.

• Games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty continue to spark debates about media violence, with some politicians calling for bans or tighter regulation.

These examples show how moral panics about youth reflect adult fears about losing control of social values in a changing world.

---

3. Broader Cultural Anxieties and Related Panics

Not all examples fit neatly into the modern definition of a moral panic, but many share similar features — mass fear, misinformation, and the search for scapegoats.

The Salem Witch Trials (1692)

In colonial Massachusetts, false accusations of witchcraft led to mass hysteria, trials, and executions.

This early example shows how moral panic can take the form of religious fear and collective delusion.

The War of the Worlds Broadcast (1938)

When a radio adaptation of The War of the Worlds aired as a fictional news report about a Martian invasion, thousands of listeners believed it was real.

The event demonstrated how mass media can trigger panic and irrational behaviour, even without malicious intent.

The Changing “Marijuana Menace”

In recent decades, the legalization of cannabis represents a reversal of an earlier moral panic.

Once portrayed as a source of madness and crime, cannabis has been redefined as a legitimate medicine or harmless pleasure.

This shift highlights how ideas of deviance and morality change over time — what one generation condemns, another may normalize.

---

Key Thinkers Behind the Concept of Moral Panic

The concept of a moral panic is one of sociology’s most influential ideas about social reaction and media representation.

It explains how societies respond to perceived threats to their moral order — often through exaggerated public concern, scapegoating, and calls for control.

The idea was first coined and developed by Stanley Cohen, and later expanded and systematised by Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda, whose work established moral panic as a central framework in the sociology of deviance and social control.

---

1. Stanley Cohen — Originator of the Concept

Stanley Cohen (1942–2013) is regarded as the founding theorist of moral panic. His research explored how media, public opinion, and authorities react to social deviance and perceived disorder.

The Foundational Work

Cohen introduced the concept in his groundbreaking book, Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers (1972), based on his PhD research at the London School of Economics between 1967 and 1969.

This study examined the way British society responded to violent clashes between two youth subcultures — the Mods and Rockers — during seaside confrontations in the 1960s.

Cohen observed that the media dramatically exaggerated the events, describing minor disturbances as evidence of widespread moral decline.

This coverage generated public fear, political outrage, and a demand for stronger policing.

Where the Term Came From

While Cohen is credited with developing the concept, he acknowledged that the term “moral panic” was first used by Jock Young (1971) in his essay on drug use and deviance.

Both sociologists were influenced by the ideas of Marshall McLuhan (1964), who discussed how media shape perceptions of social issues.

Cohen’s Definition and Framework

Cohen defined a moral panic as a situation in which:

“A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.”

He emphasised the central role of the mass media in constructing and amplifying the threat.

The media present the “folk devils” — those labelled as the cause of moral decline — in a stereotyped and exaggerated manner, creating public hostility and calls for control.

Cohen identified several key stages in the process:

1. Identification of a threat to social norms or community values.

2. Media exaggeration of the behaviour or group responsible.

3. Public concern and anxiety, often expressed as moral outrage.

4. Response from authorities, such as police or lawmakers, to “restore order.”

5. Social change or decline of concern as attention shifts elsewhere.

The Mods and Rockers as a Case Study

The “Mods and Rockers” episode demonstrated how youth subcultures could be demonised through media representation.

Despite the limited scale of the conflicts, newspapers framed the youths as symbols of moral collapse, using sensational headlines, stereotypes, and moral judgment.

Cohen argued that such reactions reveal society’s need to reaffirm moral boundaries — defining what is “normal” by condemning what is “deviant.”

Lasting Influence

Cohen’s theory became a cornerstone of sociology and criminology.

It shaped later studies on media influence, youth culture, and deviance, and introduced key ideas such as “folk devils”, “amplification of deviance”, and the role of social control agencies.

Today, Folk Devils and Moral Panics remains one of the most cited works in sociology, included in nearly every textbook on deviance, media, and moral regulation.

---

2. Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda — Expanding and Systematising the Theory

Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda built on Cohen’s foundation by making the theory more structured and applicable to a wide range of historical and contemporary examples.

Their collaboration helped transform “moral panic” from a British case study into a general sociological framework.

Their Main Work

Their influential book, Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance (1994; updated 2009), systematically defined the concept and outlined the five essential criteria that identify a moral panic:

1. Concern — a widespread belief that the behaviour or group is harmful.

2. Hostility — increased hostility toward the “folk devils.”

3. Consensus — broad agreement that the threat is real and serious.

4. Disproportionality — the reaction is exaggerated compared to the actual threat.

5. Volatility — moral panics rise and fade quickly as public attention shifts.

This framework allowed sociologists to identify and analyse moral panics across time and place.

Their Contribution to the Literature

Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s work clarified the distinction between genuine social problems and constructed moral threats.

They also emphasised that moral panics often serve a social function — uniting people against a common enemy and reaffirming dominant moral values.

They showed that moral panics are not just spontaneous public reactions but can also be deliberately manufactured by politicians, media, or interest groups to achieve social or political goals — a process later called a “moral crusade.”

Examples They Analysed

In their work, Goode and Ben-Yehuda examined several classic American examples, including:

• The Prohibition Movement (1920s): Alcohol was portrayed as a moral evil destroying families and communities. The movement was driven largely by rural Protestant values and targeted urban, Catholic, and immigrant groups.

• The Anti-Marijuana Panic (1930s): The media and government spread racist myths linking marijuana use to violent crime and Mexican Americans, leading to harsh new laws.

These examples showed that moral panics often reflect deeper social tensions such as racism, class division, and fear of cultural change.

---

The Modern Relevance of Moral Panics

In today’s world, moral panics spread faster and further than ever before.

Technology, social media, and political polarization have created an environment where collective fear and outrage can go viral instantly, often targeting highly visible or marginalized groups.

A moral panic — defined as widespread concern over a perceived threat to the moral order that turns out to be false or exaggerated — thrives especially well in our diverse, fast-moving, and fragmented society.

Modern moral panics tend to appear in two main arenas:

1. Social media and online communication, where misinformation and moral outrage spread at lightning speed.

2. Politics and culture, where moral fears are used to mobilize voters, divide groups, and reinforce existing power structures.

---

1. Social Media and the Amplification of Fear

The internet has completely changed how collective fear spreads.

What once took weeks to circulate through newspapers or gossip now happens within minutes on social media.

The Speed and Reach of Online Rumours

Moral panics often involve people who are far apart geographically but share the same beliefs or anxieties.

Social media makes this process effortless — and dangerous.

• Instant Rumours: Online rumours spread without fact-checking, especially during times of uncertainty. For example, after the 2010 Haiti earthquake, a false rumour circulated on Twitter claiming that airlines were offering free flights for doctors and nurses. Within hours, thousands believed it.

• Mass Fear in Real Time: Earlier examples of mass hysteria, like the 1938 War of the Worlds radio broadcast, terrified listeners across the U.S. Today, misinformation can reach millions instantly, creating widespread moral and emotional panic.

• Anxiety About Children and Technology: Just as comic books caused panic in the 1950s, today’s parents and educators worry about the impact of the internet and smartphones on children. Concerns about exposure to inappropriate content or “corrupting influences” fuel ongoing debates about how to protect childhood in the digital age.

---

New “Digital Deviance” and Cultural Lag

Technology has also created new kinds of perceived moral threats that society is still learning how to handle.

• Cyberbullying: The tragic suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier (2006) brought public attention to online harassment. Because digital communication is constant and widespread, cyberbullying can reach victims anywhere, anytime, making it feel more invasive than offline bullying.

• Cultural Lag: Sociologists use this term to describe how technology evolves faster than social norms or understanding. Society quickly adopts new tools — but it takes much longer to work out their moral and emotional consequences. Moral panics often fill this gap, as people overreact to new technologies they don’t yet understand.

• Digital Tribalism: Social media encourages people to gather into online “tribes” that share and reinforce the same beliefs. Algorithms amplify outrage and fear, creating echo chambers where misinformation spreads easily. These digital tribes can intensify moral panics by turning disagreements into moral battles between “us” and “them.”

---

2. Moral Panics in Politics and Culture

Moral panics aren’t just spontaneous.

They can also be deliberately created or exploited by political leaders, media outlets, or interest groups to promote certain ideologies or distract from other issues.

How Politics and Media Shape Fear

• Manipulation and Control: From a Neo-Marxist perspective, moral panics often serve political purposes. Governments and media may exaggerate the threat of certain groups — such as immigrants or young people — to divert attention from economic inequality or social unrest.

• Media Framing: The way news is presented shapes what people think is morally important.
  By framing certain behaviours or groups as dangerous, the media help construct a shared “reality” of what society should fear.

• Fear as a Political Tool: As writer Noam Chomsky has argued, fear can be used to control populations. When leaders amplify fears of “outsiders” — such as immigrants or religious minorities — they often gain support from those seeking safety and order, even if the threat is exaggerated.

---

Groups Commonly Targeted by Modern Moral Panics

• Immigrants and National Identity: In an age of globalization, migration has fueled panic about national identity. Political campaigns that question “what it means to be British” or “American” often rely on anti-immigrant narratives to stir moral anxiety and division.

• Religious and Political Conservatism: Since the 1980s, the religious right in the U.S. has used media and lobbying to campaign against what it sees as moral decline — from abortion and gay rights to violence and sex in entertainment. These movements use moral language to justify political power and shape social norms.

• Post-9/11 Islamophobia: After the 9/11 attacks, fear of terrorism quickly turned into suspicion of Muslims and people from the Middle East. The result was a lasting moral panic around Islam, reflected in racial profiling, hate crimes, and political rhetoric about “national security.”

• Family Values and LGBTQ+ Rights: Moral panics around same-sex marriage, gender identity, and “traditional family values” continue to shape public debate. These panics often reflect conflict theory in action: dominant groups seek to protect their moral worldview by portraying social change as a threat to society itself.

---

References

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.

Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers. MacGibbon and Kee.

Cohen, S. (2002). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Critcher, C. (2003). Moral panics and the media. Open University Press.

Durkheim, É. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1897)

Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994). Moral panics: The social construction of deviance. Blackwell.

Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (2009). Moral panics: The social construction of deviance (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state, and law and order. Macmillan.

McRobbie, A., & Thornton, S. L. (1995). Rethinking “moral panic” for multi-mediated social worlds. The British Journal of Sociology, 46(4), 559–574. 

Ungar, S. (2001). Moral panic versus the risk society: The implications of the changing nature of social anxiety. The British Journal of Sociology, 52(2), 271–291.

Young, J. (1971). The role of the police as amplifiers of deviancy, negotiators of reality and translators of fantasy. In S. Cohen (Ed.), Images of deviance (pp. 27–61). Penguin Books.