Criminology is focused on the attempt to understand the meanings involved in social interaction. Theorists have tried to explain sociological behaviour by looking at the patterns created by individuals that commit crime. The August 2011 riots are pivotal in explaining criminological behaviour since official statistics show that 865 individuals were put in prison by the 9th September 2011 for offences related to the disorder between 6th and 9th August 2011. This is not to say that others were not involved, but that they have simply not been identified to date and may never be identified, however the evidence we do have about the recent riots gives us plenty to talk about. This essay will
The official statistics are particularly useful in that they have been collected since 1857 and so provide us with an excellent historical overview of changing trends over time. They also give us a completely accurate view of the way that the criminal justice system processes offenders through arrests, trials and punishments. However, official statistics cannot be taken simply at their face value. They only show crimes which are reported to and recorded by official agencies such as the police. They account for only those crimes which are recognised as such by victims and those detected by the police. Sociologists have argued that there exists a ‘dark figure’ of unrecorded crime. This may be due to social agencies ignoring crimes committed by the ruling class such as white-collar and corporate crime and their views and stereotypes that they have against certain individuals, such as the working-class and ethnic minorities. Arguably, another reason why police recorded may be seem as inaccurate is due to the increased problem of reporting issues. There is evidence that a number of individuals choose not to report a crime on the basis that they have little faith in social agencies or that they feel that the crime may not be serious enough. Positivists favour the official statistics as they believe that they are functional for society, whereas interactionists and Marxists go against the police the statistics as they argue that they are bias. In this essay, I will discuss the
Criminology is the definition of our crime today, it defines many aspects and elements that challenge our common sense understanding of crime. The term ‘Criminology’ was first introduced into the English language in Garland 1988 by a criminologist Havelock Ellis (jones, 2013, pp. 2-3). However criminology was present in the 1860’s as Henry Maudsley a medic that worked in the prison systems to study insane and feeble - minded criminals (jones, 2013, pp. 2.) Criminology gives an understanding to those that seek justice although some victims may prevent crime or encourage it to gain the same significance. The reasoning of crime has changed considerably over the past 40 years, some say it was the change of the criminal justice system abolishing Capital punishment in 1965, or just the development in different legislations. Making punishment more psychological rather than physical punishment may have increased the velocity of the crime rate today as some may argue it is less harsh. Criminology is one to justify these changes to prevent criminal offences. Criminology is enforced to understand and analyse the extent of offences and how legislation is formed and put into practice. Development in crime in our
The Criminal Justice System, a system the British government set up to deal with the treatment of law-breakers, has three main goals to achieve social order, these are, (1) enforcing criminal law, (2) maintaining law and order in the society, and (3) helping victims. This may seem to be a well thought of system, but like any other organisation, there are flaws, and one of the major flaws is discrimination, and the bias that stems from discrimination.
Reiman and Leighton comprehensively begin the discussion of crime by outlining their main objectives, establishing the immediate problems surrounding crime control in America, and setting the groundwork for their premises. In recent years, the crime rate in the United States has declined. This decline is generally attributed to ‘tough on crime’ and mass incarceration policies, but the authors are quick to assert that other variables--economic, social-- are greater contributors to this decrease, with the ‘imprisonment binge’ only actually contributing a small amount to the decline. These strict crime enforcement policies might have a small impact on crime prevention, but criminologists are concerned with the potential effect such policies might have on criminal justice procedures--promoting profit rather than safety-- and endangering citizens’ rights (particularly those considered minorities).
This essay will argue that the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in England and Wales doesn’t provide justice for all. In particular, the institutionally racist nature of the police and courts towards Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups (BAME) will be addressed. The ‘Lammy Review’ has been instrumental in outlining the disproportionate representation of BAME groups within the CJS. In a letter addressed to the Prime minister, David Lammy reports the findings from his review. 51% of UK-born individuals from BAME backgrounds believe that the CJS discriminates against certain groups and individuals (Lammy,2016). In comparison, only 35% of the white population born in the UK believe the same statement (Lammy, 2016). Thus, choosing to focus on the
The purpose of this essay is to discuss whether a perspective of social harm is more advantageous and useful over that of crime. In order to explore these advantages, this essay will look at the aetiology of crime from a legal perspective; which is arguably very narrow and individualistic in nature. As well as from a perspective of social harm, which is possibly more progressive as it broadens an understanding of ‘crime’ over that of many other serious harms.
This essay argues that the traditional definition of crime has many shortcomings, and attempts to show, why some criminologist would prefer to use the social harms perspective over that of crime. One of the most commonly accepted definitions of crime is ‘an act that is capable of being followed by criminal proceedings’ (Williams, 1955, p.107). Therefore, criminal behaviour “is (a) intentional act in violation of the criminal law” (Tappan 1947 pg100). However, there are issues with the concept of crime. Firstly, the legal and state definition of harmful behaviours and practices focuses too much on individualistic forms of criminality. it also ignores the wrongdoings of governments and large businesses. There is also the problem of power dynamics,
This is where the abolitionist approach comes in. The term ‘crime’ when used with reference to the abolitionist position should be understood as ‘social conflict’, an ‘accident’ or a ‘problematic event’ from this point in the essay, as abolitionist believe in the reconceptualising of the notion of crime. Abolitionism emerged in the 1960s as an anti-prison movement, it was viewed as a way of reconstructing the social control of crime and deviance (Cohen, 1985). It holds that the role of the criminal justice system should be reduced drastically, and other methods of dealing with deviant behaviour should be adopted. The aim of this approach was to reduce the level of suffering offenders face, pushing for the state and society to rethink punishment and consider the human involved. They see crime as the result of social order and fail to see how punishment is an appropriate reaction. The view here is that there should be minimal involvement in personal lives of individual, but a central focus on care for all members of society. Seeing more importance in reconciliations, as a way to restore both the criminal and the victims of crime within society. Concerning themselves with the integrity and dignity of these individuals in society. The belief within the abolitionist approach is that threatening or punishing criminals is ineffective, sanctions clearly do not work and reoffending rates support this, making offenders feel oppressed and marginalising them within the community only
The legal definition of crime is “an act of violation of a criminal law for which a punishment is prescribed; the person committing it must have intended to do so and must have done so without legally acceptable defence or justification” (Walsh & Hemmens 2008:2). Alternatively, deviance is any social behaviour which departs from that regarded as ‘normal’ or socially acceptable within a society or social context (Jary & Jary 1991:160). The underlining focus of my essay is The Criminal Justice System in England and Wales which is a key public service consisting of various bodies and individuals including: the Police, Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty’s Court Service, National Offender Management Services (Probation and Prisons) and Youth Justice Board.
Criminalisation, a process through which certain actions/behaviour becomes illegal, is a main component of the PIC (Gordon, 1999). Actions and behaviour only becomes ‘crime’ after it has been legally (or sometimes culturally) labelled (Gordon, 1999). This also occurs when the enforcers of the law target certain groups within society for power and control. An example of criminalisation of a specific group in society is the target of homeless people where the state attempts to control homeless people through making legal policies that stretch from sleeping in public spaces to making informal trading for some income on the streets illegal, giving them grounds to be punished and either fined or incarcerated (Fooks & Pantazis, 1999). Women who have substance abuse are criminalized through the new-implemented policies that could send them to jail or have a ban from being qualified for state benefits if doctors were to ever find evidence of drug use during their pregnancy
As Nils Christie argued, crime is a property of the state (2004). As such, it can be defined by the same systems of ideals which influence the state. Crime statistics, which refer to a category of human acts that society view as deviant, can consequently be argued to be without objectivity (Dorling and Simpson, 1999). The statistics they provide are thus arguably not exact. To a certain extent one could infer they are reflections of society, of those who present the data and most importantly of those who accumulate it. The facts themselves become a socially constructed foundation for social knowledge, which inevitably become subjective. This essay aims to discuss how ideological biases within the Police and to a certain extent the
The concept of ‘crime’ is something that depends on time, place, and other influences. For this reason, researchers have been trying to get criminologists to rethink their definitions of ‘crime’ and consider the idea of ‘social harm’ which could help better explain the causes of human suffering and the definitions of ‘crime’ and ‘criminals’ and broaden the application of criminal justice. What this rethinking can do for criminologists broadly is give them a broader picture of human psychology as well as the range of harms that individuals, communities, or whole societies experience. In this context this can include crime in the sense of activities of individuals as well as government and institutions.
Social class and crime and punishment has always been an issue in the UK if not globally. For the elite, the criminal justice system serves a purpose to deter and prevent crime, but the reality is that the poor are punished for crimes they commit more so than those of a upper class who commit the same crime. The question is who is to blame for this image of the poor being criminals and the working class crime phenomenon, is it the moral Panic created by the media to distract from the reality of the white collar corporate crime being carried out by the most powerful of society or is it down to Poverty, Labelling, economic and social positioning which all contribute to deviant behaviour. The aim of this essay is to provide a critical criminological view of the punishment of the poor with a wide range of theories and ideas to contribute to the understanding of the poor being punished from the 18th century to today 's contemporary society. It will aim to develop an understanding how criminals and deviant behaviour were defined and perceived from historical periods to now.
Classical criminology is “usually seen as the first ‘real’ criminology” (Tierney,2009), due to its emergence in the eighteenth century, heralded by scholars Jeremey Bentham and Cesare de Beccaria. It is centred on the ‘act’ rather than the ‘offender’, as well as the use of punishment as a deterrence. Yet whilst classical criminology has evolved slightly over time, it’s narrow minded focus on the ‘offence’ rather than the ‘offender’ can result in the overlooking of crucial details that may have facilitated the offence. Such details can include low-socio economic upbringing, mental health issues or social inequality. Therefore, when dealing with youth crime in Melbourne, only a limited amount of crime is explainable as classical