How Does the Notion of Harm Reveal Entangled Relationships Between Social Welfare and Crime Control?

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 and deviance are acts that will elicit dissent from society. They take various forms and involve various concepts and theories. It will be the aim of this paper to explore those that are considered to be functional for society. It was Emile Durkheim who first clearly established the logic behind the functional approach to the study of crime and deviance[1] when he wrote The Rules of Sociological Method and The Division of Labour[2].

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.

The challenge they face is that stakeholders may not agree with borderline ethical/legal conduct and not invest in the company. This can lead to image loss and financial downfalls and undermine the entire company.

The causes of harm to children and young people are numerous. These can have a detrimental effect on a child or young person's physical or emotional health, development and wellbeing.

Within this essay there will be a clear understanding of the contrast and comparison between left and right realism, supported by accurate evidence that will support and differentiate the two wings of realism.

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.

Company stood to lose reputation and its manufacturing license. There could be damaging legal notices and lawsuits which can harm the company for some time.

Crime is a social construction, and behaviour defined as criminal varies across time and place. Crime is an act that violate moral behaviour, but why is that not all behaviours that violate moral behaviour are labelled as crime? This is because crime is defined differently across different societies and different times. Neutralisation and drift theory helps us to explain why people abuse children by showing us how perpetrators rationalise their guilt for these actions before they physically, sexually, emotionally abuse or neglect children. They do this by blaming their actions on other people, higher forces or believing their acts are harmless. In this essay I will begin by talking about crime as a social construction then touch on child abuse in New Zealand followed by a discussion of how my social contract theory helps us to explain this crime.

Crime is one of those things like you said is an ever changing definition. As our culture and opinions change we see what is considered to be a criminal act and what is not. An example is marijuana, we can see how the opinion is starting to change while it is still restricted there has been a topic for debate. The media is quick to manipulate statistics and brainwash people into believing what is aired to be true. Especially crimes that are rare and not likely to happen to you.

Crime and criminalization are dependent on social inequality Social inequality there are four major forms of inequality, class gender race and age, all of which influence crime. In looking at social classes and relationship to crime, studies have shown that citizens of the lower class are more likely to commit crimes of property and violence than upper-class citizens: who generally commit political and economic crimes. In 2007 the National Crime Victimization Survey showed that families with an income of $15000 or less had a greater chance of being victimized; recalling that lower classes commit a majority of those crimes. We can conclude that crime generally happens within classes.

Almost half of the 83,000 people in prison ran away from home as a child and cannot read as well as an 11 year old. Almost 30 per cent have been through the care system and similar proportions were homeless before entering prison.

The effects of crime on victim can have a mixed feeling about making a victim impact statement. They may want to tell the judge or parole hearing officer how the crime affected their life and yet they may be anxious because you don't know how to prepare an impact statement or you don't want to bring back bad memories by describing how the crime has hurt you. The victim impact statements may include descriptions of:

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

Critically consider the way in which a focus on social harm can help us to explore the complexities of ‘crime’.