In this essay I will be discussing Christie’s (2004) viewpoint that crime is a social construction, drawing viewpoints from Henry (2001), Walklate (2007), and Cohen (1972). Firstly, it is important to address the construction of the dictionary definition of crime and then to delve further into the changing nature of crime itself, also reflecting on crime within certain contexts. This will happen by looking at the current definition of crime and cross-examining it with Christie’s theoretical perspective, and then contrasting this with differing viewpoints who look at it from a broader perspective in regards to time and different cultures.
Firstly, Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.) currently defines crime as ‘an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law’ and a social construct as ‘a concept or perception of something based on the collective views developed and maintained within a society or social group’. Christie (2004) offers an alternative perspective that crime, as an entity, does not exist and is a social construct. He mentions that ‘crime does not exist. Only acts exist, acts often given different meanings within various social frameworks. Acts, and the meaning given them, are our data.’ He discusses the theory that crime is utilised as a universal classification for a range of bad ‘acts’. Within the context of crime, these ‘acts’ consist of a range of behaviours that members of a society have reached a moral consensus on what is seen as
Akers & Sellers (2013) noted that there are various common theories that are pertinent to the study of crime as the extents of crime explanations range from the genetic/biological through to the economic and social perspective. Howitt (2012) divided these theories into four categories: macro-level or societal theories; locality or community level theories; group and socialisation influence theories; and individual level theories. This essay first describes the major theories of crime in the discussion section, which also discusses the impacts of crime at the individual and societal level, followed by conclusion based on the previous discussion.
Crime is often described as socially constructed, which influences our understanding of who commits a crime. Firstly, labelling theorists argue that crime is a social construction based on the powerful’s reaction to certain behaviour, those who are deviant are people that have been labelled as such. Marxists claim the bourgeoise construct crime in order to criminalise the proletariat, get away with their own deviance and maintain their own dominance. Neo-marxists look at how moral panics create a social construction of crime and can criminalise certain groups. Finally, feminists, argue crime is constructed in a patriarchal way and that the criminal justice system is harsher to female offenders. Whereas others criticise these theories for
Crime is a difficult concept to define as everyone is different in the way they think and because it varies so greatly. It also depends on what stage of time we are in and how we perceive things. This is because the idea of crime also draws upon how an individual, or a set of individuals are linked with the society. For some people crime is an act that breaks a law which is made to keep the society safe. However, some
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.
Crime is the product of the social structure; it is embedded in the very fibres of society. In this essay, I aim to explore different theories as to why crime exists within society and how we as a society therefore construct it. Crime is a social construct; it is always in society and is on the increase. It is inevitable. Where does it come from? It comes from legislation, from the making of laws.
The social construct of crime - the process constructing crime was subjected to the constraints of a legitimate nature which allowed by law for the fairness between both the powerful and their less powerful counterparts. This was done with specific mechanisms to control the behaviour of the powerful, this process made laws such as environmental laws possible.
Crime as a social construction is the idea that reality is created in our minds. What we perceive something to be ends up to be what it is. Crime, often described as deviance is a labelled behaviour. If one does not view an action as deviant at the time then it is not deviant, this shows us how deviance is a relative concept. In terms of how different people perceive crime, depending on what religious or ethnic backgrounds one may come from, there is heavy variation between individuals. What is illegal or legal in one culture can be very different in another culture. It can
a. Imagine asking 100 strangers to describe a criminal. Predict whether those descriptions would be likely to focus on street criminals, or the variety of topics covered in this video.
Crime is a social construct because it is an idea that is established by a society to control the behaviors of the people within the society (“Radical Concept of Crime”). What is considered to be criminal varies within different area and cultures and even time. Things that were legal two hundred years ago are illegal now. For example, in the 18th and 19th century when slavery was allowed in America, there were a lot of people who saw nothing wrong with it because they had been socialized to accept and justify it. If you ask most Americans now about slavery, they would say that it was a tragedy or that they just cannot understand how it happened. This is because we are now being socialized to think of slavery as wrong. Even though many citizens
Crime is considered to be some breech or violation of behaviors which stand in opposition of rules or norms instituted by some governing body. Some actions are considered to be crimes throughout most societies in history; murder or physical abuse can serve as an example as an example. However, the majorities of things that are considered crimes are more of a subjective nature and vary widely in different societies. In many societies it is a crime to be an atheist or to be homosexual for example, while in other societies these items are tolerated and in some cases are considered social norms. Furthermore, when an individual is considered to have committed a crime, the punishments for these crimes also can vary widely depending on the culture, the social norms, the position of the authority figure, as well as a plethora of other factors. This paper will analyze some of the different forms of crime and they develop and how they are treated in different societies.
First off, there have been ample amounts of disapproval in relation to the general theory of crime, because many scholars feel that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) failed to include the
Crime is an act against the law where the consequence of conviction by a court is punishment is a serious one such as imprisonment. The Oxford English Dictionary states that crime is: - “An act punishable by law, as being forbidden by statute or injurious to the public welfare…An evil or injurious act; an offence, a sin”. The government usually set laws that the people must follow, punishment is given for those who lighten those laws. The legal or criminal justice system applies the law and punishes those who break it. Crime is described by Blackburn (1993; p.5) ‘acts attracting legal punishment […] offences against the community’. There is a social shame associate with crime. It is important to note that all breaches of the law are not criminal such as civil offenses and breach of contract. The word ‘crime’ is reserved for the offences that cause harm or injury to the public, individuals or the state. Social, political, financial and emotional conditions influence the definition of crime and how the law is useful. These changes may ban or allow behaviour. The data on crime will have to take this reason into account.
Crime is a socially constructed phenomenon. It is not static but dynamic and is defined into existence. It changes over time and place. For example, early definitions of crime such as classicism defined individuals as rational, free and responsible for their own actions. The emergence of positivism was an attempt to bring scientific methodology to criminology. Positivists believe in objectively quantifying cause and effect. In the early twentieth century a sociological lens was applied. Functionalist sociologists such as Durkheim argued that crime had a positive function for society by reinforcing societal norms and values (Ziyanak and Williams 2014). Anomie and strain theory proposed later by Robert Merton examined how poorer classes experienced frustration through lack of opportunities leading to strain. There are many others including labelling, control and cultural deviance, however; this shows that our understanding of criminology is not static and like crime itself it changes over time and place.
Hollin, C. ( 1989, pp.4-8) explains that “crime cannot be explained solely by psychological theory” and therefore goes on to state three main approaches which attempts to explain what crime is. He also notes that there are of course more explanations than those given therefore again suggesting there is no one definition of ‘What is Crime’. One idea which Hollin states is the “consensus view”. This idea suggests that crime is defined differently in different societies due to what is the social norm. Crime is then defined within this view as an action which the majority disapprove of.
A crime is the breaking of certain rules laid out by a society i.e. the Government. Crime is said to be ‘activities that break the law and are subject to official punishment (Holborn and Haralambos, 2000, pg. 330)