Social Construct Of Crime

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

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

Encouraged by diverse foundations from across the globe, The Environmental Justice movement has become one of the most important topics in the media. Europeans have used Marxist philosophy on class laddering, while non-Western countries required its encouragement in the criticism of colonialism. In the United States, The Civil Rights Movement was its forerunner. The notion of “Environmental Justice”, nevertheless, has its genesis in the resistance of black culture and lower income-communities in opposition to uneven ecological trouble in the United States during the last few years of the 1970s and the early 1980s. In the framework of racial improvement and public activism, the phrase was

Environmental justice links a number of social movements—anti-racism, Aboriginals rights, and the mainstream environmental movement—and addresses the problem of environmental racism (Gosine & Teelucksignh, 2008, p. 11). The concept of environmental justice in the U.S was associated with the struggles over toxic waste sites and the call for equal treatment of all communities, radicalized or not (p. 9). It was about looking at human health rather than preserving areas deemed as “playgrounds for the rich.”

The purpose of this piece is to draw awareness to the many contradictions relating environmental justice movements and to create a society more conscious of decisions by considering consequences.

The Environmental Justice Movement started when a group of minorities started to notice that their environmental protection was been violated. It was violated by hazards facilities that were been place in their communities. The groups of minorities consist of African-Americans, and Latinos. The environmental justice movement came up with the fact that people who live, work and play in America’s most polluted environment are most likely to be people of color and the low income. As the Natural Resources Defense Council mentioned, “The statistics provide clear evidence of what the movement rightly calls “environmental racism.” The communities of color and Latinos of low-income have been battling this environment injustice for decades. The Environmental

Environmental justice is a topic that plagues societies around the world, and has an impact on the opportunities available to admire the breathtaking world that is around us. Environmental injustice, in this case, is the lack of the equality and participation that is presented in communities. More likely than not, there is an absence

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 affects all human beings regardless of their race, religion, age, or nationality. Some groups will encounter crime on a more regular basis than others and a primary example of this socioeconomic state. According to sociologists, crime is caused by deviation from the accepted norms of the society (Andersen & Taylor 2009). Traditionally, lower income areas within a society will have more crime and more violent crime than areas with more economic advantages. This makes sense; areas with higher incomes will be less likely to experience theft as people can afford necessities as well as luxuries. People with less money and less possessions will be more likely to feel encumbered by their lack of financial excess and will steal in order to acquire money and goods which they could not otherwise possess. Areas with lower incomes are also more likely to have heavy drug use and prostitution which sociologists argue has to do with a psychological need to escape the dire reality of their living situations. Sociology is the study of the workings of a given social group and crime is a major negative factor in groups which sociologists should study. Therefore, this issue is an important one in the field of sociology and to those who study societies. By examining the link between social and economic status and crime it is possible to identify ways and means of limiting criminal behavior and its negative impact on the societies in which the crimes occur.

The phrase “go green” is commonly thrown around. It’s popularity isn’t surprising. The smooth alliteration just rolls off your tongue and of course it causes you to at least appear environmentally conscious. However, many don’t fully grasp the meaning of the words they’re shouting out. Going green means putting the Earth first, even when it would be much simpler not too. Although many individuals have embraced this lifestyle few governments have followed suit claiming that it’s not necessary, too costly, or just plain impossible. But the truth is, governmental requirement of green practices is the best option to promote a healthy world for generations to come, support economies, and bring forth innovation.

Crime is defined as an illegal act that violates the written laws that govern a society. ‘Crimes are those actions deemed disturbing or disruptive to society as to justify state intervention’ (Pease, 2002). Deviant behaviour is going against the social ‘norms’ or constructs that society deems appropriate. This deviant behaviour would be controlled using informal sanctions in the form of family, peers and social groups. For instance if you were to belch in public you may receive a glare, someone could make a comment for which you would be shamed into conforming. When dealing with criminal behaviour the criminal justice systems would impose a punishment, such as a fine or imprisonment this would be formal social control. However they are subject to change over time as they reflect changing values and attitudes. According to Pilkington et al “Crime and deviance are relative to time, place and culture” (2006, pg.204) for example homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967 and the legal age of consent between two men has decreased from 21 to 16 years of age. ‘Not all crimes are deviant and not all deviant acts are illegal or criminal’ Siegel (2007, pg.6) this is why the relationship between the two is not straightforward. Sociologists argue ‘crime is socially constructed definitions of crime depend on how society interprets particular actions’ Chapman (2004, pg.127). Not all deviance is negative for example,

Greenpeace is an international non-governmental organization dedicated to protecting the environment globally. They are committed to using non-violent action and forcing solutions to create a greener and more peaceful world. “Greenpeace’s goal is to ensure the ability of the earth to nurture life in all its diversity” (greenpeace.org). They also work to protect animals and their habitats, as well as promote disarmament and peaceful settlement of disputes. They are a completely independent organization with absolutely no political or governmental influence. They have several ongoing campaigns that are working toward a better and brighter future for the environment. This paper is going to discuss the history, structure, goals, and future of Greenpeace on the international scene.

According to Terrachoice, greenwashing is, “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service” (Terrachoice, 2007). Green marketing is an important component of company general business operations and sustainability strategies. But on the other hand, if the organizations are not designed properly, a company’s green marketing efforts and sustainability attempts might be ruined by greenwashing allegations. Greenwashing creates negative impacts on company’s reputation and it damages relstionships with different stakeholders and organizaional behaviour. Hence, companies should select suitable standards and certifications to minimize