Crime Is Not Inevitable?

In his first chapter, Erikson gives regard to a foremost leader in sociology; Emile Durkheim. As he notes, crime is really a natural kind of social activity. If crime is a natural part of

Norms are what majority of society accepts. Murderers for instance not only have they violated a social norm but a legal norm too. The normative usually depends on the legal norms to identify deviance which means if an act is part of a law then it would automatically be categorised as a normative and creates expectations on how society should behave. Durkheim also researched whether crime is normal or it is something uncontrolled and if criminal behaviour has a positive or negative on society. He then came to a conclusion that the existence of crime is normal rather than it being a labelling perspective because it occurs in all cultures. Durkheim also concluded that people who commit a criminal act is from biological and psychological causes and that criminal behaviour has a more positive occurrence to society because when a criminal act happens people in society are united and can share their values on the crime and discuss with people on what has happened. Deviant is beyond the law it involves policy. Crime has its purpose because without crime the norms can’t exist. For society to be able to punish someone on their deviant act it involves the society to reunite and brings people together, crime also serves a social function and should not only be understood as pathology but should be considered as normal. For example when people hear on the news about a gunman who has shot five children, people don't stop to think if that behaviour violates social norms. Instead people ask ‘who would do such a thing?’ this question then reassures people that committing crime is deviant and creates a boundary on what is ‘wrong’ and ‘right in

"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."

In those works, Durkheim argued that crime and deviance is “an integral part of all healthy societies”. He reasoned that crime and deviance are not only inevitable, but also functional for society and that they will only be considered dysfunctional when they

Furthermore Durkheim doesn’t specify how much crime is good for society before we fall into anomie. New Right sociologists such as Murray would be critical of this as they believe that subcultures which carry out criminal and deviant acts form an underclass which threatens society on the whole rather than strengthening ‘boundary maintenence.However Durkheim doesn’t state why people commit crimes, another functionalist who did was Merton.

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

Imagine a world without those brave people who dared to not abide by the law and fight for a right. A world without Gandhi would be a world without independent India; without Mandela there would be white superiority in Africa; without freedom fighters, there would be no democracy in Nepal. I believe that all the actions of such law breakers are good, even though they were against various laws, and such actions can be justified to some extent. Even though laws are meant to maintain order and protect rights, it is not always justified; some might be unfair to minorities whereas others might stir up a revolution. Some just violate human rights. In such cases, civil disobedience

Breaking the law, according to Socrates, is equivalent to retaliating against the country that has nurtured and educated one. It is by abiding the law that one show respect and tribute to one’s respective country. Nonetheless, significant advancements were observed in history on account of disagreeing with some of the laws. Breaking the laws are essentially never morally justified, but I suggest it can be as long as it benefits the country/society as a whole.

Some socio cultural rules that are totally irrelevant must be breached, if not it shall create stymies for people who want to live freely. As our societies are concerned we are barely allowed to do intercaste marriages, polygamy else our fate of living or not is depicted by the society even if our family accepts it. Unjust laws do exist in the society, but that has to be removed slowly rather than protesting and making a mess out of everything. Most of the times breaking the laws becomes a must: when u go impecunious and your wife is dying because u cannot afford the drug to cure her and for that if you steal the drug, such cases can be justified morally. Yes, the person surely has to get punished but the punishment can be reduced to minimum as that ‘stealing’ was for a purpose and such reasons seem clearly justifiable.

Crime can not be removed completely from society because it will always be the necessary unacceptable norm that can be located in all forms of societies around the world. Crime is regarded, by many people such as politicians and other people of everyday society, as horrid and unnecessary. Emile Durkheim believes that crime is normal and it isn't possible for it to not exist. If crime is everywhere and in no area has crime ever been successfully eradicated then we should assume it is there for a reason. According to many books written by Emile Durkheim, such as Suicide, and The Division of Labor, society plays a large role in our actions and Durkheim explains that reasons to which why crime is executable. Experts in the Department of

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.

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 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.

Biological theory states that the individual will have certain traits will be transmitted from parent to children through genetics and not from social learning. Along with the juvenile having similar facial characteristics, which some believe also predisposes them to criminal behavior (Palmerin, 2012).