Crime is a Social Construct Essay

offense is the product of the affable structure it is embedded in the very(prenominal) fibres of gild. In this essay, I aim to explore different theories as to why wickedness exists within smart set and how we as a inn in that respectfore construct it. detestation is a kind construct it is forever and a day in society and is on the increase. It is inevitable. Where does it muster from? It comes from legislation, from the making of laws.Functionalists see aversion difference in society as a function, in that it serves to remind us, through everyday condemnation of those who comport broken the rules, of our dual-lane values and norms. Further untold, they suggest that hatred is a go away of structural tensions and a wish of moral regulations within society. If the aspirations held by persons and groups in society do non accept with the available rewards, this disparity mingled with swears and conclusion will be felt in the degenerate motivations of several (prenominal) of its members. This was the basis for Mertons anomie theory. (Robert Merton 1957)Emile Durkheim saw crime and digression as kind f maskors and believed both of them to be inevitable and undeniable brokers in modern font society. The muckle in that society argon itty-bitty constrained than in traditional epochs. There is more(prenominal)(prenominal) room for the individual choice in a modern world and it is thus inevitable that thither will be some non-conformity. Durkheim recognises that no society would ever be in complete consensus around the norms and values which prescribe it. He also saw that it was necessary for society in that it fulfils two of the essence(predicate) functions. Firstly, deflection is an adaptable function, and by introducing rising ideas and challenges in society, it brings about switch. Secondly, deviance promotes leaping master(prenominal)tenance between good and large(p) demeanors. It constantly keeps us aw ar of what feigns society deems acceptable or not. (Durkheim 1964)The Positivist draw near is simply about a unnaturals reaction to external forces beyond their control. The followers of the Interactionist theory, on the other hand, abjure this positivist access and say that it is imputable to the internal detailors of the individual.The Marxism theory however, is structured towards the assembly of wealth alternatively than social conduct. Edwin H Sutherland was the first sociologist to study this argona cognize as white-hot Collar criminal offence in 1949. permit us nowadays look at crimes of the magnateful and the little powerful. There atomic number 18 two main points deviance is a product of poor power relations and equivalence in general. Despite the fact that the law is in favour of the dominant carve up, some of its members do break the rules for their admit gain. Power and equality affect the quality of abnormal acts. Thus, commonwealth that argon more powerful are more in all probability to engage in utile pervert acts such(prenominal) as corporate crime i.e. bribery and decadency in business and politics, misconduct by professionals such as lawyers etc.On the other hand, the powerless are more likely to bless less profitable deviant deeds such as burglary, theft and armed robbery. (Ermann and Lundman 1996) Power, or rather social class, is therefore the key ele ment which determines the type of deviance people are likely to carry out. The powerful are more likely to commit deviant acts because of something that is called Relative Deprivation. This is the feeling of being unable to achieve the high standards they model for themselves, compared with the powerless, whose standards are typically low. Their aspirations are so high that they become less achievable. The more that people experience this Relative Deprivation, the more likely they are to commit deviant acts. (Cookson and Persill 1985)Furthermore, the elite have more consi stent opportunities than the poor worker to commit crime i.e. A banker will have conk out opportunities to defraud customers for instance, and because of his perspective, the crime is less likely to be detected, whereas the poor worker would likely have to resort to robbing the bank, a such(prenominal) more manifest crime. Furthermore, the powerful are subjected to weaker social control. They have more captivate in the making and enforcement of control. The laws against higher term crime, the White Collar crime, are therefore relatively lenient and rarely enforced, just the laws against crime which is committed by those with a lower status, are harsher and more oft enforced because they are so visible and detected much more easily. The activities of White Collar crime occur on a daily basis, just there is no public outcry or moral panics about it and thereforeno legislation made, whereas, street crime attracts massive law enforcement. As Jeffrey Reiman (2001) so aptly sta ted, The rich bulge out richer and the poor get prison.Interactionism was quite popular from sixties to 1970s. Max Weber and George Herbert Mead favour the Interactionist tone-beginning and suggest that crime is a social process, that crime is an interaction between the victim, the practice of law/officials and the offender. Crime is shaped by the disposition of this interaction and this selective labelling, stigmatisation, negative labelling of those without power and more vulnerable. This approach focuses upon the interaction between deviance and those who define it as such, and then the Labelling Theory. Howard F Becker, the founder of this theory, argues that society creates deviance by making rules. Rules that when broken, constitute deviance, and by labelling those particular people as deviants, they are also labelling them as outsiders.Therefore, it is not the act of the person, but rather a core of wearing the rules by others to an offender. Deviant behaviour is beha viour that people so label. Becker suggests that in one and only(a) finger there is no such thing as a deviant act. An act only becomes deviant when people define it as such, when they label it as such.Such labels largely override their status as workers, friends, parents etc and others see them negatively. This labelling of people who commit crime, often leave behinds in the denial of an ordinary action to them, and because of this denial, out of necessity, they develop mongrel routines and often resort to a life of crime. Thus, a criminal career is organise and the only way that they can be a part of society, is by grouping with likewise people, and being part of a different type of society. It may be a criminal society, but at least they fulfil that human need to belong. This process results in what is known as the self-fulfilling prophecy i.e. a person is to be known as a criminal, he/she may as they may as well act that way.The Feminist approach is critical of the mainst ream approaches in that they see them as male dominated and this gender curve is part of the structure ofthe Criminal judge System, the majority of its personnel being male. Crime is specific to the gender, males being more uncivilised and women committing softer crime such as reach fraud, shoplifting etc. This approach sees that there is a need for more livelihood and resources for women and that anti-sexist training is necessary in the police force force. These sociological theories are intended to apply to both sexes but feminists disagree. For example, Mertons anomy theory assumes that people are inclined to strive for material conquest, which is true for men but not necessarily for women, although this is on the increase. (Merton 1957) In the past women have been socialise differently to men. They are traditionally less interested in achieving material success as their place has been in the home.However, this social construct is ever-changing, because women are being attached more equal opportunities, and are more likely to strive for that material success, which would consider for some increase in womens crime rates. (Chesney-Lind 1997Daly and Chesney-Lind1998) This may be an denotation that opportunities for women are still far from equal. Anomie theory may apply if this is the case, as the opportunities available to women are lacking in relation to womens increasing desire for independence and material success, therefore create the disparity that Merton talks about. Furthermore, men and women take the risk of arrest differently. Women are more aware of that risk and that awareness becomes a disincentive. Another interesting argument would be that it is a fact that over 90% of people convicted of crime, are male. ( ass Hagan et al 1996)Let us now examine how time and space has affected the way that society has constructed crime and deviance. For example, is the death penalty an act of murder? It is in some countries, but not in some US st ates. Is abortion an act of murder? What about war? Murder exists in some contexts as a crime and not in others. Crime then is a social construct which is ever changing according to time and space. It makes no sense to say that crime is a result of biochemistry only because crime is the result of governmental decision making, and we can easily change those decisions according to different contexts, without changing our own biochemistry.In an effort to solve the crime problem then, our task is to determine how much of the crime problem is in fact the result of these definitions and political decisions, and what part is the result of broader sociological or biological forces.The government, in its efforts to tackle the crime problem, has little regard for the way that working class people and their environments actually work. Its new measures to be tough on the causes of crime go wrong to question why these things happen, and hence how they might be prevented. Creeping inequalities in education, the wellness services, housing and pensions, supply to the lack of belong that people feel. This disconnected feeling of our manifestly society-less age can only contribute to the crime problem. It is time to canvass other methods because the governments eonian clamping down on those who already have the least stake in society is not the solution.BIBLIOGRAPHYBilton T, Bonnet K, Jones P, Skinner D, Stanworth M, Webster A (1996)Introductory Sociology (Third Edition)London, Macmillan Press Ltd.Goode E, Ben-Yehuda N (1994) clean Panics The Social Construction of DevianceUSA, Blackwell.Hagan John et al 1996The Law and Politics harbour Reviewhttp//www.unt.edu.lpbr/subpages/reviews/HaganJ.htmAccessed on 28 11 2002Haralambros and Holborn (1995)Sociology Themes and Perspectives (Fourth Edition)London, Harper Collins.Reiman Jeffrey (2001)The Law and Politics ledger Reviewhttp//Paulsjusticepage.com/reiman.htmhttp//Paulsjusticepage.com/RichgetRicher/fraud.htmAccessed on 28 1 1 2002Taylor P, Richardson J, Yeo A, Marsh I, Trobe K, Pilkington A, Hughes G, Sharp K (1995)Sociology in FocusOrmskirk, Causeway Press Ltd.Williamson J (2000)Tough on Horridness guardianhttp//society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/comment/0,8146,839659,00.html accessed on 28 11 2002