Social Construction Of Lawful Homicide

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

In the moral dilemma of “The magistrate and the threatening mob”, rioters have decided to take matters into their own hands and threaten a certain part of their community. Unless the magistrate brings forth someone for the crime that has taken place to upset the rioters. Therefore, the magistrate decided to blame the crime on an innocent man and have him tried and executed to ease the rioters’ behaviors.

In order to understand the connection made between vigilante justice and legal methods in this crime story, we must consider crime and punishment. To link the two, justice should be used. ‘Justice’ can be defined as treatment for a behavior given the breadth of the action as a means to evaluate the severity of equal action. Inherently subjective, no correct evaluation of just action exists,

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

It is common knowledge that crime exists all over the world and that justice and punishment may vary in different countries and societies. However, how justice and punishment is enforced in a society and globally is not common knowledge. Global justice refers to the belief that the world is unjust; while social justice, in a manner of speaking, refers to the fair treatment of everyone in a society.(“Social Justice”). Both social and global justice value human rights, remove inequality, and holds people accountable for fair practices.(“Social Justice”). If someone commits the same crime as another person, for example, they should receive the same punishment. That is what most people would be inclined to believe, but in the reading “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman, crime and justice is reviewed and defined in an uncommon way. Reiman discusses justice in a society where a crime was committed against him and his wife.

The use of deadly force by police officers is a very important subject in today’s society. Many consider the use of deadly force excessive in most cases. However, there are many aspects to look at when considering this topic, such as: Why was deadly force required? When did the officer feel it necessary to apply deadly force? What will be the implications for the officer after the fact? How does the use of deadly force affect society as a whole?

Police Ethics when policing minorities and use of force is a hot button topic socially today. With the recent climb of deaths caused by Police or while in police custody the questionability of ethics in minority has risen among all and not just with the minority groups. There are many current cases where the use of force that police officers chose is queried on excessive force. Recently there are several cases that bring investigation into the ethics of the officers who are involved in using deadly force. In a heartbeat the decision must be made of when and how much force is needed for the situation. Excessive use of force by some police officers, violating one human rights include unjustified shootings, fatal choking, tough beatings and rough treatment, continue because low levels of personal accountability continue to make it possible for officers to escape punishment and allow for repeated offenses. The ethics of officers involved of a case when force is used should be thoroughly investigated and questioned by the proper authorities as well as all involved.

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.

When discussing the death penalty, rarely do we acknowledge the impact executions have on the men and women who facilitate the process. Although this process is solely voluntary, the side effects are not. According to several executioners, the first experience is far from what they had anticipated. To bring to light the stories of these men and women, Jim Willet facilitates an audio recording which covers the process of executing an inmate and the aftermath which is often felt by the executioner.

Which has encouraged the representation of a police subculture which glorifies crime fighting (Dick, 2005). There is a belief that individuals who are considered to be more authoritarian are more likely to apply for a career in policing, and these individuals are more prone to violence (Belur, 2009). Police routinely over-use coercive authority when they are encouraged to maintain a purpose of fighting the war against crime (Skolnick and Fyfe, 1993). This can further encourage other officers to believe that using force against criminals is a desirable method of controlling crime (Belur, 2009). However the United Kingdom is a country that does not condone any killing of its members, therefore the issue of police killing being deemed as legal creates friction between the public and police (McCulloch, 1989).

The traditional criminal justice system is criticized for its neglect of victim importance and needs, for example (Symonds, 1980) acknowledges, that the criminal justice system is concerned about looking back at the event rather than focusing on how to rehabilitate and as a consequence making victims be in a ‘secondary victimization’ effect. This is the attitudes, behaviors and the beliefs of the people in the criminal

The modern day legal system has caused a curious discourse regarding the separation of violence and the implementation of the law. Robert Cover proposes that the legal interpretation of the law, coercion, and violence, are not as separate as many might believe. In fact, he argues that they overlap to the point where they become indistinguishable from one another. I will briefly discuss the relationship between law and violence according to Robert Cover to show that he does not believe the two concepts are mutually exclusive. I will then address the idea of capital punishment as both a physical and systemic violence done by the law and will continue by discussing sites of legal and physical violence with the problem of mass incarceration. Legal violence is not a unique form of violence that exists above the law, instead it is merely another form of violence because it still involves the neglect or harm of an another individual.

It can be argued that ‘crime’ can not hold one simple definition which applies to all. This is because we recognise that what is regarded as deviance in one society may not be so in another society, making deviant behaviour culturally relative, Bilton, T (1981). This therefore means that how different cultures will respond to the same crimes will be different, because in some societies a certain crime is considered more extreme than in others, and therefore deserving a more extreme punishment. For example, adultery in some societies is considered a mortal sin, and if caught can result in being sent to death, whereas in other societies it is merely a part of everyday life, and almost considered normal behaviour. This therefore begs the question of what is the correct response to criminality? In the case of a convicted murderer, it is thought that five things should be done in order to bring justice to society; prevent the man from murdering again, reform the offender, use the offender

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

Criminology is the study of social sciences and criminal behavior, which is what I will be talking about in this essay. The main topic of my essay is homicide, which I will define and describe in the next paragraph. I will talk about the criminology theories that pertain to homicide, and a famous killer that can help the reader better understand what the theories actually mean and how they are seen in society. The last paragraph of this essay will talk about the social controls of criminals and if formal or informal social control is better.