What Does A Concept Of Social Harm Have Hold For The Criminologist Over That Of Crime?

Criminological theories interpret the competing paradigms of Human Nature, Social Order, Definition of Crime, Extent and Distribution of Crime, Causes of Crime, and Policy, differently. Even though these theories have added to societies understanding of criminal behaviour, all have been unable to explain why punishment or treatment of offenders is unable to prevent deviancy, and thus are ineffective methods of control. The new penology is a contemporary response that favours the management of criminals by predicting future harm on society. However, all criminological theories are linked as they are a product of the historical time and place, and because of their contextual history, they will continue to reappear depending on the current

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).

Criminology is the definition of our crime today, it defines many aspects and elements that challenge our common sense understanding of crime. The term ‘Criminology’ was first introduced into the English language in Garland 1988 by a criminologist Havelock Ellis (jones, 2013, pp. 2-3). However criminology was present in the 1860’s as Henry Maudsley a medic that worked in the prison systems to study insane and feeble - minded criminals (jones, 2013, pp. 2.) Criminology gives an understanding to those that seek justice although some victims may prevent crime or encourage it to gain the same significance. The reasoning of crime has changed considerably over the past 40 years, some say it was the change of the criminal justice system abolishing Capital punishment in 1965, or just the development in different legislations. Making punishment more psychological rather than physical punishment may have increased the velocity of the crime rate today as some may argue it is less harsh. Criminology is one to justify these changes to prevent criminal offences. Criminology is enforced to understand and analyse the extent of offences and how legislation is formed and put into practice. Development in crime in our

‘A Peacemaking Approach to Criminology’ was written by Louis J. Gesualdi, and published in 2013. It contains a review of different writings, which relate to criminology. The main argument of Gesualdi lies in promoting a humane way of handling crime and deviants. The book proposes a peaceable way of dealing with offenders in a manner that accords respect to human rights. Further, Gesualdi notes that the criminal justice system is concentrated on inflicting harm on the offenders by punishing them. He argues that the system is fixated on the notion of reacting to crime rather than prevention. Hence, the book proposes an approach where restorative justice and prevention of crime can be accommodated in the criminal justice system. The main

Criminology is focused on the attempt to understand the meanings involved in social interaction. Theorists have tried to explain sociological behaviour by looking at the patterns created by individuals that commit crime. The August 2011 riots are pivotal in explaining criminological behaviour since official statistics show that 865 individuals were put in prison by the 9th September 2011 for offences related to the disorder between 6th and 9th August 2011. This is not to say that others were not involved, but that they have simply not been identified to date and may never be identified, however the evidence we do have about the recent riots gives us plenty to talk about. This essay will

During the 1970’s to the early 1990’s there had emerged two new approaches to the study of crime and deviance. The discipline of criminology had expanded further introducing right and left realism, both believe in different areas and came together in order to try and get a better understanding on crime and prevention. There were many theorists that had influenced the realism approaches such as; Jock Young (Left Wing) and James Wilson (Right Wing).

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.

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.

1). Criminology arose from the social scientific community over the year and has since come into its own discipline, it examines the entire process of lawmaking, law breaking, and law enforcing” (as cited in Akers, & Sellers, 2013). Criminology seeks to discover the depth of crime at both the micro and macro levels, from the individual’s natural biological and psychological characteristics, the nurturing of social and structural institutions, to policy, prevention and control.

The Culture of Control, Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, David Garland (2001) is certainly one worth the read. Garland, one of the leading criminologists, begins the book with a fantastic insight on ‘history of the present’ of penological developments in the US, compares it with Britain in late 1970’s. He picks out indicative theories by Foucault and several examples to support his arguments. He portrays an intricate argument about the rise of crime control and punitiveness. Garland continues throughout to link new developments in both countries to identify each countries crime control stratergy and the effect of their strategies. He ends it with further theories and opinions on crime control and social order. Garlands purpose of writing the book is to give a deep analysis and an absorbing read of crime control in USA and UK to his readers. The purpose of the following review is to give the readers a brief understanding of some issues by Garland on crime and social order in contemporary society.

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.

Classical criminological theory was introduced in 1764. The tenants of this theory became the backbone for the development of all criminological theories to come. After over 200 years have passed since its conception, is classical criminological theory still relevant to today’s society in explaining the causes of crime? This essay will address this question by discussing the major components of classical criminological theory while highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. The essay will also examine a more modern criminological theory, Merton’s anomie/strain theory, and decipher major differences between the two theories. This essay will also explain the aspects of classical criminological theory that are applicable or outdated in their

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

Introduction: Throughout history there have always been many different theories of crime and why people commit crimes. In the late 1930s a new theory rose to the forefront; this theory was called the anomie theory. Anomie means a lack of ethical standards. The anomie theory was proposed by Roberton Merton. It stated that society, as a whole, generally shares the same goals relating to having success in life; whether that is having a family, wealth, power, or just happiness. Society generally agrees that these are things that are to be sought after. Furthermore, Merton proposed that society, as a whole, also has a list of generally accepted ways to achieve such goals (Merton, 1938). Criminal activity, such as robbery, murder, and corruption, are among the things that are not accepted by society as appropriate means to achieve these goals. Merton’s anomie theory was built upon in 1992 by Robert Agnew who developed the general strain theory. General strain theory argues that when members of society are unable to achieve the general goals that society has set forth, they will, in order to avoid further rejection, further alienate themselves from society. Agnew also argued that if these individuals feel as if their shortcomings were a result of their environment failing them they will likely develop very negative feelings towards society, causing them to

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