Thursday, May 9, 2013

CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY REVISION (2012)


1.      CLASSICAL CRIMINOLOGY
Classical Criminology developed from the great transformations of modernity. These were the industrial urban and scientific revolutions that led to Enlightenment. Enlightenment thinkers championed:
·         Anti-Clericalism
·         Rationalism
·         Legal and Constitutional Reform
They were important for criminology as before:
·         It was believed the social world had more religious explanations and causes such as being possessed by a demon. However upon the aftermath it introduced theories that the social world has secular causes.
·         Promoted the ideology of Progress where knowledge of human affairs would be used to reform and improve society.
Classical Criminology is concerned with explaining crime as a rational thing. Prior in the pre-modern world spiritualism gave rise to specific methods of trials before in the Criminal Justice System. Vold and Bernard (1979) used the following examples of Trial by Punishment, Trial by Ordeal and Compurgation. Rather than these invalid methods Classical Criminology replaced them with naturalistic explanations of crime.
   The classical perspective was focused on reason and passion. A criminal is defined as a person who places their passion before their reasoning. This philosophical aspect argued that criminals have the “free will” to choose either, so it was their own fault and that was what separated them from law abiding citizens. It provides the first modern understanding of crime and criminal justice.
    The theory has however been criticized for being an over simplistic understanding of deviant motives and not diagnosing the social roots of crime.

Beccaria (1738-1974) (Rational Choice Theory) – Was one of the most influential classical criminologist who was concerned with explaining the “rationality” of crime disregarding the spiritualistic approach. In “On Crimes & Punishment” he claimed people are motivated by fear of punishment, moral values and pleasure. Only by acting irrational to seek pleasures without rational thought of punishment and values would cause crime.

Vold and Bernard, (1979) - Used the following examples of “Trial by Punishment, Trial by Ordeal and Compurgation.” Rather than these invalid methods Classical Criminology replaced them with “naturalistic” explanations of crime rather than prior unreasonable and irrational “spiritualistic” or religious ones.


2.      DURKHEIM (1858-1917) - FUNCTIONALISM AND CRIME
For functionalists, crime and deviance is normal, inevitable and it’s also partially a good thing in society. This is because crime and deviance performs functions that benefit society to a certain extent. However they would argue that higher levels of crime are dysfunctional to society where as minor rates of lower levels of crime slightly benefit it. Durkheim’s functionalist contribution to the theory of crime and deviance is that it is an “inevitable and normal process for all healthy societies”. It performs essential functions such as:
  • Function of Punishment- for those who break the norms and values. Such is for retribution to those harmed and deterrence for those planning the act.
  • Reminder- of what is deviant, criminal and the inappropriate way to behave in society. These are performed during degradation ceremonies that reinforce the collective conscious and its social solidarity.
  • Crime brings out Social change in sick/unhealthy societies. It lets everyone become aware of a social problem that needs to be resolved so new laws, policies and behaviour is introduced within the change.

The 2 types of Society are:
  • Mechanical Society- Emphasis on rigid conformity in lifestyle where everyone shares the same culture, beliefs, works skills and likeliness. This society was pre-modern where life was much simpler. (Such traditional and natural simplicity has a lower natural rate of crime.)
  • Organic Society- Focused on the emphasis on modern industrial society where people are linked through law and interdependence. Lifestyle is more complex and there is more individual freedom of choice. People also have a diversity of different cultures and different skills especially for the workplace. (The complexity and diversity in this modern society has a higher natural crime rate.)

A Sick/Unhealthy Society, a society in anomie = state of normlessness.
  • A society that was too repressive that had no sense of direction for its members.
  • Lacked adequate roles for individuals.
  • Lacked a Collective Consciousness.
  • Pathological deviance is where crime above or below norm as result of anomie:

Durkheim went on to explain that “functional rebels” played a large part in enforcing social change. Change itself is likely to cause anomie which is often needed for the greater good. They would function as those that went against the norms and values of society seeing them as wrong or in need of change. Common examples in the past were suffragettes and gays. Blacks too fought for liberation. Activists and freedom fighter examples range from people like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela for fighting against the oppression of black civil inequality.

Durkheim (1893/1964b) defines sociology as scientific study of social facts:
·         Social Facts- Crime is a social fact much like social change. Durkheim explains that from a societal or structural perspective it is a collective entity not an individual phenomenon and it is a fact that it will occur in society regardless. It is a property of culture and social organisation not people itself. It can only be controlled but not truly fixed because there will always be those who disagree with the norms and want change.
·         Durkheim (1893/1964a): persistence of social facts explained by functionality to society.
Criticisms- It’s a basic metanarrative and theoretical approach to understanding crime but it is too simplistic and deterministic. It doesn’t stress out specific factors that could cause crime because its main emphasis is on social change or its prevention as to why crime occurs. There are many other theoretical approaches that could build on this base understanding. Factors that should be taken in are age, gender, sex, ethnicity, environmental location, thrill seeking and era. Such a theory could have been more applicable at its time, it’s out of date and it doesn’t explain the types of crime committed but simply crime as a whole.
For Durkheim, as a generalisation to resolve crime:
·         Moral regulation (professional associations/codes of ethics, elected representative bodies overseeing industrial relations)
·         Equality of opportunity (overcome ‘anomie of injustice’)



3.      MERTONS STRAIN THEORY (1938)
Adapted from Emile Durkheim’s functionalist perspective, this theory explains that people are more likely to react and commit crime because of certain strains due to structural factors and influences within society on their lifestyle. Strain itself means the stress gained from pressures exhibited through daily life and in a society this would be perceived from a structural point of view. This creates a gap between cultural goals so normal means of obtaining those goals are broken. Things that can cause strain on people range from employment, education, family life, consumerism, conforming to norms, isolation and marginalisation. The reasons why people are strained or rather stressed from the harshness of capitalism are because they cannot obtain their cultural goals as opposed to those who can. (Unlike Durkheim’s basic explanation of anomie, Merton’s strain theory suggests that society is always in a state of normlessness.)
There are two types of strain:
·         Structural Strain- The process by which the way society is structured and organised causes people stresses resorting to crime.
·         Individual Strain- The process by which the way the individual perceives society resorts them to criminal acts.
Theory of Anomie- Instead Merton’s strain theory suggests that society is always in a state of normlessness. It’s just how people deal with it and adapt to its state.
     However, Merton explains that crime breeds in the gap between what people want to achieve and what they are able to achieve.

5 Adaptations- The strain theory has 5 adaptations which are conformity, innovation, retreatism, ritualism and rebellion. Each adaptation represents a path that people will most likely take based on the strain induced.
§  Conformity- The most common, people accept cultural goals and the normal means of obtaining such goals. (Career based jobs like Lawyer/Doctor)
§  Innovation- People manage to accept cultural goals but don’t conform to the normal means of obtaining such goals. (May resort to crime, drug trafficking)
§  Ritualism- People accept the rules of the cultural goals but abandon goals of success.
§  Retreatism- Reject the cultural goal and the normal ways of obtaining them.
§  Rebellion- These are people who decide to create a new success and bring in new rules. A revolutionary attempt to change society.

Merton (1938) identifies 2 ideological components of American culture:
•          Materialism (‘money-success’)
•          Meritocracy (‘equality of opportunity, through ability or hard work.’)

Merton (1968:200):  States:
·         ‘The cardinal American virtue, “ambition”, ultimately promotes a cardinal American vice, “deviant behaviour”
Thus American society produces intense pressures to deviate.

Criticisms- Evaluating, Merton’s strain theory is basically more focused on the ideology of money success, social class and relative deprivation. This is why it can be criticized for not exploring concepts such as the fact people commit crime for thrill seeking purposes, genetics and psychological trauma. It also ignores white collar and corporate crime because in secrecy, wealthy businessmen or bankers have broken such laws regarded as those living the “American Dream” thought generally to conform to the normal means of such attainment.



4.      MARXISTS VIEWS OF CRIME AND DEVIANCE
This is a theory that sees capitalist society as being divided into two classes, the working class and the ruling class who own the means of production. The working class are exploited because their alienated labour is used for the interests of profit. For traditional Marxists, the structure of society explains crime. Marxists emphasize that crime is an inevitable part of capitalist society. Unlike Durkheim who explains crime as a “healthy part of all integral societies” Marxists disagree and believe crime is mainly caused due to class conflict and the exploitation of one class.  This is because capitalist society is criminogenic and alienates the working class. This alienation leads to frustration and aggression which resorts to crime. If this was not the case then crime rates would be minimal. They view crime as having 3 elements:
·         Criminogenic Capitalism- The nature of capitalism in society causes crime.
·         The State and Law Making- That R/C have the power to change laws for their own benefit and the W/C end up committing crimes because these benefits exploit them.
·         Ideological functions of Crime and Law- Used to appear for the benefit of the W/C through false class consciousness but it is rather for the protection of capitalism and to blind them from the truth.
Chambliss (1973) - The Marxist thinker illustrates the ideology of control over the laws from the capitalist class. For example, when British colonies settled in East Africa they forced them to do labour work through dominant ideologies by establishing new laws for taxes. Not working on plantations for the capitalist class meant no wage and not paying taxes was a criminal offence. Chambliss emphasizes how a class system was formed taking over a trade based economy adding its own regulations for its own interests in which case would benefit the ruling or capitalist class.
Reinman (1979) The Rich Get Richer and the poor Get Prison book shows that crime committed by higher or ruling class people is less likely to be treated as a major criminal offence by the Criminal Justice System. Examples are Health and Safety Violations, Corporate, White Collar and Tax Evasion. Often such crimes cost the economy far more as those who work for a living lose out severely being cheated off but petty street crimes like often theft resorts to worse penalties. It is also the type of crime that is not overlooked at more even though its dangers are a small damage to the economic fabric of society. Offenders spend much time in prison for such petty mistakes whilst often Corporate, White collar and Tax Evading criminals of the type receive little punishment if they are found out even though the Criminal Justice System doesn’t monitor them as such.
2. Marx on crime under capitalism
For Karl Marx (1818-83) capitalism made up of ‘base’ (economy) & ‘superstructure’ (politics & ideology)
         ‘Base’ (controlled by capitalists) determines ‘superstructure’ (including law & criminal justice)
         Within ‘base’ capitalist owners (of production) exploit non-owners (wage-workers) for the means of generating profits.
So, for Marx (Marx & Engels, 1965) crime:
         Product of state power expressing capitalist class interests
         Indicator of alienated labour
         Carried out by the most marginal and excluded members of the working class (lumpenproletariat)


5.      POSITIVISM AND CRIMINIOLOGY
The positivist views of criminology steered away from the theoretical approach that crime was merely a rational action. It focused on the role of social science predicting social laws that explained how human behaviour was governed. The quantitative methodology and statistical evidence provided from them was seen as vital for explaining crime.
      Positivist explanations of crime became influential because of the impact of Darwinism, the legitimisation of inequality in society and the medicalization of criminology. They assessed society through structural differentiation taking to note, race, biological and social differences that caused law breaking behaviour.
Darwinism- This is the transmutation thesis of species and evolution of society. In sociology, this refers to explaining how society has evolved over time socially, economically, rationally, technologically and through many various other factors important for it to function over time. Positivists value this concept because they attempt to uncover underlying laws that have established modern society.
Von Hentig (1948) The Criminal and his Victim - “It was Hans Von Hentig’s influential chapter that largely awoken criminologists to also assess the fact that the victim played an important role in understanding and discovering crime. For example without the victim reporting or making a complaint then the criminal justice system would never be able to trial the offender. Thus, victim’s role in the criminal process is just as important as the offender, the court proceedings and the evidence to suggest law breaking actions.”

Lombroso, C. (1876) Criminal Man. (Biological Positivism) – Cesare Lombroso, the Italian Doctor devised a theory of the criminal man. He was very influential for the biological studies of crime and deviance and remains widely argued the founder of criminology. The Book relates to the original edition but is revised and improved.
He explained that a criminal bares biological traits that are separate from other normal people. These traits are atavistic meaning they bare traits from a previous non-evolved primitive age making them more likely to act savagely, violently and irrationally. Criminals tend to have biological features that distinguish them from the norm with include large eye sockets, enormous jaws and razor like teeth. They would also attain characteristics from atavism such as insensitivity to pain, a lack of moral sense, acute eyesight, an absence of remorse and impulsiveness. With these features in hand, the criminal could easily be identified and separated from society. He used research methods that observed the size of the human skull to back up his theory.
It was Lombroso’s work that influenced following policies that had many people lobotomized and sterilised in order to destroy this biological reproduction and create a criminal free society. This was because with the elimination of reproducing an atavistic man then crime would eventually disintegrate. However his theory was widely disregarded for being too simplistic and lacking statistical comparisons between criminals and non-criminals for reliable evidence. His theoretical explanations were disregarded throughout Europe but were widely accepted in the United States where sociological studies of crime predominated.

Sheldon (1949) - Similarly distinguished 3 main types of human physique in the 20th century. These were the:
         Mesomorphs (hard muscular types)
         Ectomorphs (thin fragile types)
         Endomorphs (round fleshy types)
He claimed that the mesomorphic types were the body types correlating with characteristics associated with delinquency. The ectomorphs the thin fragile types were the ones likely to avoid crime and take less risk.


Most noted influenced policies from Positivist Criminology
         Studies by Beckwith elaborate on the Medical and Surgical Interventions (e.g. Sterilisation and Lobotomisations)
         1911-30: 64,000 prisoners & mental patients in US forcibly sterilised in order to get rid of the criminal trait.
         Similarly, Allen explains how policies were enforced to incapacitate and eliminate the biological selection deemed as criminals.
         On the plus side it introduced indeterminate sentencing and rehabilitation which promoted the ideology that the criminals needed to be re-socialised because of their biological tendencies.



6.      SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION (ESSAY EXEMPLAR)
The Social Disorganisation Theory is largely one of the most important theories developed by the Chicago School of Sociology. It is heavily related to ecological theories and focuses tremendously on the structure of society. It has been used countless times to explain crimes rates in different areas of society or due to specific zones that are characterised by specific traits such as the Central Business District and Residential Areas. One of the key studies assessed by the Chicago School is the Burgess Model which many social disorganisation theorists have used to build knowledge upon as seen in Burgess (1925). The model was created by the sociologist Ernest Burgess and it is also largely referred to as the Concentric Zone Model. It’s one of the earliest theoretical models to explain crime’s relation to urban structures. By urban structures it takes into account the quality of buildings, the environment, land distribution space, population density and deterioration. The Concentric Zone Model suggests that there are 5 key zones within a society like Chicago. Cities sprawl out of the 1st zone which is the Central Business District. This zone is the commercial heart of a city containing business headquarters. The 2nd zone is referred to as the zone of transition. In this zone, the model’s theory suggests it is the zone where crime is more likely to occur and that statistically crime rates should be the highest there. As people move out of this zone to further zones in a city, crime rates will decline. Many theorists have used the model to criminally evaluate crime in specific zones based on such aspects. It has had its reliability tested by many theorists such as Shaw and McKay. Also many more have used it to build on the existing knowledge of the social disorganisation theory and to compare and contrast its work with their own key studies such as Morris, Hyot, Baldwin and Bottoms. It’s safe to say that this model currently remains one of the most influential and dominant models used today.
    Supporting the reliability of the Burgess Model’s contribution to the social disorganisation theory, Shaw and McKay (1942) studies of delinquency prove its accuracy. They found higher crime rates at the inner city zones of Chicago concluding that there was a definite spatial pattern based on concentric circles in the inner city zones. Perennial high crime areas were more likely to exist within these zones. Their explanation for high crime rates in this location was that population changes there were rapid. People were constantly moving in and out of this zone. This specific zone was also characterized by specific traits such as conflicting demands, rapid population change, dilapidation and multiculturalism. New immigrants largely settled in these areas because housing cost or rent was cheapest there. They explain delinquency as a natural outcome of economic competition for desired land space. In similar context, Baldwin and Bottoms (1976) analytical study of English Sheffield Estates found that crime is most likely to occur in poorer areas located closer to the city centre. This interrelates with the Burgess Model suggesting zone 2 the zone of transition and the zone after the CBD is where crime is at its peak. The comparative study of the two assessed estates were the Gardenia and the Stonewall Estate which were separated by a dual carriageway. The Stonewall Estate would represent zone 1 and the Gardenia Estate would represent zone 2. In the study taken in 1971, the Gardenia Estate’s crime rate was 3 times higher than the Stonewall Estate which is detailed evidence to support the concentric zone model (Evans et al, 2002: 127). Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) Broken Window’s theory illustrated by Kelling et al (1982) examines the notion of deterioration certain neighbourhoods prohibit. Such deterioration when not taking notice of environmental factors such as vandalism, litter or in other words “broken windows” makes an area crime prone. It creates a sense or culture of carelessness, tolerant attitudes and ignorance towards crime. Community members need to be stricter in attitudes otherwise criminals will sprawl in the area or be attracted to it. The theory also suggests that maintenance and monitoring of urban environments should stop further vandalism, deterioration and a cultural shift into more serious crimes in such areas. By doing this it would prevent further social disorganisation, a factor which damages the fabric of society stopping it from functioning properly. A methodology or system for tackling crime in these locations could be “Zero Tolerance Policing” (Punch, 2007). It’s perceived as the police “getting tough” on crime where punishments aren’t necessarily based on the severity of the crime or the circumstance of the individual. Rather, punishment issues follow specific patterns, rules and methods that are designed to deter people from committing the act in the first place. For example, the upcoming “3 strikes and you’re out” policy is a typical example of this and will be enforced even if offenders only executed minor or petty crimes.
    However the Concentric Zone Model and its supporting studies can be criticized for being too simplistic, deterministic, and failing to acknowledge the aspects other ideological perspectives or models such as Hoyt’s Sector Model. Hoyt’s Model (1939) follows an ideology of sectors. Concentric zones are disregarded and it explains that sectored areas of a city are cut apart from each other much like a pie and each with specific attributes. For Hoyt, this is how urban cities develop and sprawl. It accepts that there is a Central Business District point but unlike the Burgess model it takes into account that transportation plays a major role in social stability due to people having to travel to work or to specific institutions. For example, a rail line or major highway to a city would likely have most of its businesses centred on it and coming directly out of it. This means a city develops in sectors and not concentric zones where one section of the city could be rural whilst another one could be more industrial. Moving on, using models that give fixed explanations ignores many social factors that are connected to crime. You could disregard the Burgess Model and Hoyt’s Model as well because not taking into account the lifestyle, leisure or activities engaged by the public would give little supporting evidence of validity. Perceiving social disorganisation in the form of leisure, Hobbs (2003) with the aid of Lister’s work explains the recent growth and trend in pubs and night clubs. Night life gathers huge numbers of young people to the Central Business District into these pubs and clubs where they are largely focused. Their studies reveal that around ¾ violent incidents occur in urban areas from 9am to 3pm on the weekend. This is a time period where those being social can be influenced to be anti-social due to alcohol substances and the fact that they are influenced by peer groups. You could also criticize the Burgess Model for being accurate in one city but not others. Each city has its own individual characteristics and the Burgess Model is too Americanized. To elaborate social disorganisation through his work in a postmodern city that has constantly socially changed, been improved and updated especially physically, socially and technologically then such a model would be ineffective. Putting this in the form of a British perspective, Morris (1957) study in Croydon “The Criminal Area: A Study in Social Ecology” does just that. It shows us that the Burgess Model isn’t very applicable among British cities which are more complex than what the model portrays. He reveals that delinquent influences within the environment which is much more common among the lower classes is the cause of higher crime rates, he explains it this way rather than the characteristics of the physical environment itself acting as a visual image that socially constructs criminals. It also assesses the social interactions in small localised sections of society largely focusing on the explanation of how a combination of housing policies and low social class play a massive role in influencing crime rates there. In a way you could speculate that his ideas support the fundamental notion of criminals socially constructing their environments rather than the environments socially constructing them.
   In summary, the Burgess Model is a traditional model that many social disorganisation theorists largely reflect ideas from. However, the model is outdated and too simple ignorant of many social factors and physical aspects in society such as transport, leisure, culture, current technological advancements, housing policies and social class. Time is something that is vital in crime and I believe although Hobbs (2003) and Lister’s contribution to the theory doesn’t show a true full metanarrative of the social disorganisation of crime, they have the most accurate explanations. They explain how crime is likely to occur in specific areas in the city either in the Central Business District or near it at particular times most likely in the weekend late at night. Also, even though the Burgess Model and Hoyt’s Model contradict one another, they try to explain a generalised overview of crime using models that are fixed when crime itself is unpredictable in nature. The social disorganisation theory itself is too complex to be examined through a specific ideological system and these theorists have made such attempts. This is why I feel that the social disorganisation theory is only relatively valuable to understanding crime. Its explanations are in broken limitations and its arguments supporting crime rates are diversified unlike Marxism or Functionalism which although has theorists that present different perspectives for the cause, they all support the same system or established principle. 

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

PSYCHOLOGICAL CRIMINOLOGY


Psychology is the study of people of how they think, act, react and interact with others. It’s a discipline that aims to understand a person’s behavioural patterns and the motivations, thoughts and feelings behind them.
    In Blackburn’s (1993) assessment, historically psychology and psychiatry have played an important role in the development of criminology. Unlike the sociological explanation of crime, psychological explanations distinctively focus on the individual but they cannot ignore sociological theories and approaches as well.
      Psychologists have to come to a consensus that there is a nature vs. nurture debate in crime. By nature, this includes biological factors which can be hereditary and also brain structures and functions. By nurture, this includes society, how criminals socially integrate, the cultures they adhere to and the environment they dwell upon. The criminal is largely seen as a person with psychological defects that is prone to crime depending on how they are nurtured within society.
The Criminal Psychologist- Their role is to identify why the individual lacks moral values and performs crimes by understanding their behavioural patterns, insecurities and what patterns, motivations and feelings are occurring within the individual as they perform and are led to crime.
Ainsworth (2000) - Notes that there is no definitive or inclusive definition of the psychological theory of crime.
Freud (Ego/Super Ego) - The classical psychologist Freud believed that personality is determined by innate drives and early experiences.  Thus the individual is prone to crime due to an abnormal development of the psyche. The Super Ego is the moral regulator of behaviour it punishes the ego with anxiety when an act is committed that is immoral. A weak super ego can thus be developed from abnormal relationships within the family. Thus a person gives into their passions or ego and commits a criminal act to satisfy their desires.

Psychological Studies/Evidence of Crime and Deviance
Bio-Psychology- Studies conducted suggest biologically the best studies of XYY males indicate that they are more prone to aggressive behavior than XY males. Apparently the extra Y makes them more masculine having more violent tendencies.

Schlapp and Smith- The production of hormones can affect both physical and mental processes within the individual making them more prone to crime. For example, males with high levels of testosterone are psychologically more prone to crime.
Mc Guire (2004) - Explains that offenders largely tend to suffer from mental disorders. This means they are different from the norm and not psychologically normal making them prone to crime in certain situations. The psychologist however criticizes their own judgement due to the difficulty of defining such mental disorders. However examples of Psychopathology and offending behaviour are noted by Blackburn (1998) which includes:
    • Schizophrenia
    • Mood Disorders
    • Personality Disorders
    • PTSD   

Farrington (1992) - Explains that offending is closely linked with life course. So people are psychologically affected depending on what experiences they adhere to on their social and psychological development in life. The peak age in males is at 15 and females 18. Around this age a person’s intellectual and moral development is still being constructed and they are more likely to be psychologically unstable due to the fact that they are going through a lot of biological changes and adapting to them for example during puberty.
    • Peak age of offending; Male 15/ Female 18.
    • People that have criminal records are more likely to be more anti-social that one’s without.      
    • Troubleness at school, higher likelihood of future offending.
    • Predictors of offending;


Blackburn (1998) – Explains that delinquents display a development mental delay in understanding moral maturity than non-delinquents which can be seen as the differentiation of why people perform crime and why some don’t. This largely supports Farrington’s concept as maturity also seems to develop with time and age.

Social Learning Theory
There seems to be a distinctive link between the media and crime. Those who witness it on T.V can be fascinated by it which can then in turn become psychologically or mentally normalised within their minds. The glamorisation of crime in the media showing people with power, status and wealth can push the criminal personality into individuals that seek such glamour.
    Sutherland (1939) suggested that there were two prerequisites for a person to develop into an offender.  They need to learn a set of values and attitudes that support offending, and they need to learn specific behaviours for committing crimes.  These are all learned within the family and peer group. However, in our postmodern society, crime rates are high because of the popularity and fascination of it which the media portrays.
   Williams’s 1986 Later studies examined children’s levels of aggression before and after the introduction of television into an isolated community.  Williams found that over a two year period aggression in this community’s children rose steadily. This shows that aggression is a learnt psychological trait and television is the new way of socialisation where crime is largely focused on by the media.

Conclusion
·         It cannot predict criminality by studying personality or biological supposed criminal traits. (Williams, 2004)
·         It fails to recognise that the individual is a social construction by society’s organic and collective consciousness argued by sociologists such as Emile Durkheim.
·         There is an uneasy relationship between psychology and crime. For example the ability to plead insanity for an offence is valid and acceptable in the courtroom with enough evidence to support.
·         Making generalisations about crime as a whole in society is incredibly difficult due to the many factors that affect the individual such as “free will”, “moral values” and “social strains or stress.”

MODERNITY AND CRIME


Modern views about crime and deviance have largely been dominated by Durkheim’s ideologies. For Durkhiem, sociology is basically the scientific study of social facts. These “social facts” were external from the individual and were collective as one organic analogy which represents society working together. For example only an individual can think but a society or collective can have an ideology. Thus crime was basically a result of the underlying structures within it. Moving on, sociology being the study of social facts which was separate from the individual could also assess crime. He explained that there were 2 elements in society which were structuralism and functionalism.
·         Structuralism- Social facts as things or collective entities which organise society and set rules.
·         Functionalism- A collective consciousness that utilises the social facts.
This means that crime could be assessed as also performing a distinctive function as it is external from the individual and also a social fact that occurs within society. Durkhiem states “Crime is natural”, it’s an “integral part of all healthy societies.” The reason for this is that it performs functions that remind society the correct way to behave and what is regarded as morally and socially wrong. There are 3 types of deviance:
·         Normative Deviance- Good, reminds society how not to behave.
·         Progressive Deviance- Good reminds society that change in the function or definition of deviance is necessary.
·         Pathological Deviance- Bad, negative force that can cause anomie and lawlessness.

Thus the main function of crime:
·         Used to maintain social order
·         Challenge existing laws which are inflexible but prone to evolving or adapting.
·         Crime itself integrates society into collective consciousness about laws and value consensus.

He also historically assesses the fact that there are 2 types of social solidarity which leads to the inevitability of crime. These are:
·         Mechanical Solidarity- There is a lower natural crime rate that existed in the pre-modern feudal eras. People were bound to socialisation and saw each other as groups rather than individuals due to the less complexity of society.
·         Organic Solidarity- Acted as a form of social togetherness in modern industrial societies. It has a higher natural crime rate due to the constant social changes and technological improvements in society. Things were more complicated and people could be individuals dependent on themselves. (E.g Parson’s explanation of the disconnection of extended families into nuclear.)

Monday, October 22, 2012

INTRODUCTION TO CRIME THEORY


Crime- A term that means someone is being deviant and breaking the law. Crime is less broad than deviance as it only applies to what laws have been broken than what is acceptable as social behaviour. A typical example of a crime in British and most societies is homicide. The study of criminology’s main focus is on illegal deviance which is crime. Other examples of crimes are:

·         Theft

·         Fraud

·         Paedophilia

·         Violence

·         Racism

·         Murder

 

Deviance- This is the act of breaking social norms. Deviancy is thus broader than crime and doesn’t always mean resorting to it but can be acts of incivilities or morally disapproved conduct. What is deviant in one culture can vary to another. A typical example of deviant behaviour in England is cutting through the cue whilst waiting for a bus. This type of behaviour is much more acceptable in other societies but the social norm seems to be stricter in Britain. However, cutting the cue is not breaking a law and won’t resort to being arrested or fined. Other examples of deviant acts for many types of people and cultures range from:

·         Incest

·         Mixed Race Relationships

·         Homosexuality

·         Sex before marriage

·         Picking your nose

Hagan- In his “common sense view”, he defines deviance as a collective set of agreed wrongs by a group or culture. Punishment or rejection from members of society reflects the seriousness of the offence and criminal deviance harms human beings and society itself. The Criminal Justice System (CJS) is there to give punishment and control the reports and procedures that take place due to crime.

   For theorists like Hagan, crime and deviance is a social construct that varies from location to location, to different people, different periods of time and in different situations. For example murder is acceptable by members of society when they are soldiers going to war.

   Hagan’s view of criminology explains that no one ever truly conforms to the laws all the time and the rationality or morality of the rules over crime and deviance varies at times and in different situations.

 

Criminal- The criminal is an individual who performs actions that violates public interests and morality by breaking the law. Crime itself is the violations of public interests, morals and breaking the law.

 

Role of the Law- The law is the legally written rules and policies that govern how we are allowed to behave in society. It is there to define people’s moral rights and wrongs. It does this by establishing a rational hierarchy of norms and offences which serves to protect the community’s interests and values.

 

Criminal Justice System- The CJS is there to give punishment and control the reports and procedures that take place from the event of a crime and its aftermath. The process of the CJS is crime, arrest, charge, court and then conviction. The main institutions in the CJS are the Police Service, Crown Prosecution Service, Courts, Prisons and Probation Service. Its main functions are:

·         Punishment

·         Incapacitation

·         Deterrence

·         Community Self Defence (Hobbes, Leviathan)

Much of the social construction of crime reflects the interests of the powerful in order to retain their control and assets. For example when people commit corporate crime they are more likely to be leniently treated by the CJS than a thief or drug addict even though they are technically costing society more money.

     When groups of members of society’s collective conscience are obtained and they understand their position of marginalisation it’s likely they may resort to means of trying to claim fairness and equality. Civil protest was much more legal 40 years prior but new state policies have been introduced in recent years to prevent it from occurring in Britain. Such policies include:

·         Trade Union Laws (1980’s-1993)

·         Public Order Act (1986)

·         Criminal Justice and Public Order (1995)

·         Terrorism Act (2000) - An action which involves serious damage to property, endangers someone’s life, effects electronic systems or is one used to affect or harm the government with some form of ideology. Examples are bombings, hostage cases, hacking into organisations and Political Crime Action.