Introduction
Crime is seen as an illegitimate act and being banned in any given society as it is actually detrimental to others well-being. I thought that committing the crime was individual culpability and should not be tolerated and the perpetrators of it should be penalized equitably or even alienated from the society so they can aware of their bad doings. The basis of my previous understanding was that people were born inherently good or bad (criminal). I had such presumption that crime offenders are driven by biological or physical characteristics, and it has nothing to do with social aspects.
But I was wrong and quite premature in blaming the reality, I fail to notice the macro (social) aspects of people’s doing. Only it seems to me different when I come to study this paper of criminology. My perception of the criminal offense is therefore totally transforming; I now think that offense is a collective construction and serve only in a given context and time but might not be applied to another setting. I, therefore, believe that offense is not born with or constrained by our biological being but instead by our social being.
There are at least three important parts of this criminology study that have been making an impact on my perception of crime and deviant. The three themes are first sociological paths of seeing crime and deviant, second, anomie or strain approach in framing crime and deviant and further the power of social labelling theory in imposing people to
In opposition to all previous perspectives is Marxism. These theorists claim that humans are social beings and are products of their own history. As a result, it does not resolve conflicting approaches, but suggests crime is a justifiable adaptive behaviour for some groups that have been criminalised by more powerful societal members. This entails the problem of specificity, where it focuses on the whole society instead of on individuals or groups. Comparing the paradigm of human nature to Feeley and Simons’ (1992) New Penology, the notion
Criminology is a field that has been researched prolong. Most of the information explaining crime and delinquency is based on facts about crime (Vold, Bernard, & Daly 2002, p.1). The aim of this paper is to describe the theories of crime and punishment according to the positivists Emile Durkheim and Cesare Lombroso, and the classical criminologist Marcese de Beccaria. The theories were developed as a response to the industrialisation and the modernisation of the societies in the 18th and 19th centuries and were aiming to create a rational society and re-establish social solidarity (Vold et al 2002, p.101). The criminological perspectives of crime and punishment will be discussed in a form of dialogue between the three theorists exploring
This essay will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of sociological explanations of crimes with links to Durkheim’s anomie theory, Merton’s strain theory and the Labelling theory which will draw upon different academics that will highlight these specific areas of research. In sociological terms, crime is a social concept as it does not exist as an autonomous entity, but it is socially constructed by people. It can be analysed that sociological explanations of crime attribute deviance to various aspects of the social environment. For example, crime is strongly related to modern city life where this type of social environment creates cultural enclaves which results in producing criminal or deviant behaviour (Carrabine et al, 2014).
Causes of crime are arguably criminology’s most important and largest research topic. In this process of research, criminologists and academics have used numerous theories in attempts to explain how and why people resort to crime (Ellis, Beaver, Wright, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to examine a case study first with the use of strain theories (ST), followed by social learning theory (SLT). The first section will involve a summary of the case of R v Mark Andrew HUGHES (2009) NSWDC 404 involving an outline of the offender’s personal life, of his crimes, and his punishment handed down by
The environment a child is surrounded in is what develops a child’s perception into the mind of a criminal. The mind of a child is made purely of innocence until one is exposed to destructive developmental patterns. Children that have grown into the shoes of a criminal had been raised into a home with no control and where the environment creates vulnerability. Those who grow up into childhood with an unorganized lifestyle only want to possess the control and power that criminals contain. Children raised in this unstable environment develop a slow pace of skills adolescents learn earlier on (Shi and Nicol par.2). Juvenile sex offenders do not fully develop basic skills which makes it easier to be negatively pressured by society (par.
In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?
Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment
In the final scene when Louis Levy speaks of the capacity of love I feel he is saying that we as humans have this natural need for an emotional attachment in order to feel complete as a person. Everyone on this earth is looking for love and acceptance and this starts from birth. A baby requires love, attention, physical touch and maternal nurturing along with biological needs in order to survive. This is carried on throughout out a person’s life. If one can look back as far as possible into their childhood they will come to find that love from another being is essential to growth because this will be the basis of what kind of adult you will grow
Trying to understand why crime happens if a very important concept. Throughout history, criminologist have debated on which theory of crime is most accurate. Currently, social bond and social learning theory are two of the leading theories in the criminological world. Between these two theories there are a variety of differences and similarities. In addition to these theories Gottfredson and Hirschi have published a book where they use the concept of self control to describe crime. Analyzing these three theories can be important to understanding the current criminological world.
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
This paper will describe my understanding of the text and of the lectures provided in the class. Unlike most classes, where I understood only my view of the text, this class was geared so each student would understand each other’s view. 3 An organization is a collective that has some boundary and internal structure that engages in activities related to some complex set of goals. Members of organizations attempt to meet their psychological, ego and emotional needs within the organization. Criminal justice organizations are particularly unique compared to other public or private sector organizations because of the governmental granted authority. Management within these organizations can be defined as the process by
Throughout the years, the association between a criminal offense and a criminal have become more relevant. Although there are many theories that try to illustrate the concept of why crimes happen, no theory has a profound influence of understanding an individual’s nature, relationship, development, and a society itself (Coleman & Ganong, 2014). To further explain, “theories of crime are defined in relation to modernity, spanning their development from the enlightenment to the present, with the advent of postmodernism” (Miller, 2012, p. 1798). In other words, theories of crime are an approach to understanding an individuals behaviour and actions in their environment, society, and themselves that may lead to crime. Nevertheless, within this paper, it will be comparing the case of
During the middle of the 20th century two important theories developed in Criminology and Sociology, this essay aims to examine the Labelling and the Subculture theories using the Punk subculture as example. The middle of the 20th century was a period of dramatic and rapid social changes, it was just after Second World War and it was characterised by a big affluence of immigrants, consumer society and the “American Dream”, an idea based on meritocracy which says that everyone can achieve success and reach the highest goal by working hard and following the rules. The Labelling theory and the Subculture theory were strongly influenced by the work of the Chicago School and Merton’s Strain theory and they affected the development of crime policies and Criminology through their different views as they are focused on deviance as a social reaction and on how labels can affect people. Before examining the two theories it is better knowing the definition of Criminology. Criminology is the scientific “study of crime, study of those who commit crime and the study of the criminal justice and penal system” (Newburn, 2017, p.6).
If the biological theories are, correct. There are however, some approaches society could offer for the prevention of crime, firstly they could try to fix the offender through medication or therapy. Society could keep the offender isolated from society. Keep the offender from passing on any genes to future generations the offender could be sterilized. Lastly, society could take the life of the offender. If criminal behavior is purely biological determined, these options would be more useful than if the individual was punished for the crime committed by advocates of classical punishment (“Biological positivism approaches of crime,”
No one is born a criminal; it is the social and environmental factors that influence a person to indulge in crime and exhibit criminal behavior apart from psychological and biological factors. Society plays a major role in shaping one’s behavior. Sociological theories emphasized the relationship between negative social factors and its impact on human behaviors. Various criminal behaviors have displayed how crime is influenced by crime. One factor that influences crime is social disorganization.