Social Construction of Crime

Social Construction of CrimeThe endeavor focuses on the sociable verbal expression of abuse, and the possible reasons for these social constructions. In the first section, the essay explains what evil is, and the constructionist perspective theory. In the Second section my essay focuses on the iniquity as socially constructed and why it is socially constructed. In the trey section essay explains, three levels of explanation in the study of de stupefy and woeful behaviour. In the final section, it focuses on the historical theoretical periods, which plays an grand role in regenerate past discoveries.Crime is a limit that refers to m all types of misconduct that is forbidden by law. There ar a number of polar reasons as to why nuisance send packing be viewed as a social construction. There can non be social problems that argon non the product of social construction naming, labelling, defining and mapping them into manoeuver through which we can moderate sense of t hem (Clarke, 2001). In this essay I will explain what is social construction, to a fault what abuse is, and why we think, that shame is socially constructed. Further much, I will explain how media construct shame and the fault of black plague. In the last paragraph I will search the importance of Marxist and Durkheims theories on the emergence of crime.There is no disbelieve that crime is socially constructed. The constructionist perspective draws on a very different sociological inheritance, one that treats society as a matrix of meaning. It accords a central role to the processes of constructing, producing and circulating meanings. Within this perspective, we cannot grasp reality in a direct and unintercede way Reality is always mediated by meaning (John Clarke p.6). Indeed, some of its proponents argue that what we experience is the social construction of reality (Berger, 1967). How something or someone is named, identified and placed within a map of the social orders ha s profound consequences for how we act towards it or them (Becker, 1963).Public caution over crime relates mainly to stealing and violence, which are regarded as creative activity serious enough to warrant sustained attention from the police. This concern, reflected in periodical moral panics, tends to ensure that many of those who are involved in theft and twist violence do so as a create of secondary deviation. As a result, many of them develop a cruel identity (Becker, H. S, 1963).The national British crime survey (BCS) reports showed that the lay on the line of organism victims of crime is shaped by locality, lifestyle, age, gender and ethnicity. BCS confirm that the risk of be a victim of contact crime are highest for men those time-worn downstairs 30, those living in intercity areas and those living in privately rented accommodation. noon the less according to the BCS it is frequently those who are least at risk of crime who are almost anxious about it, notably honest-to-god people and women(May et al,2009).The very good example of how crime can be socially constructed is Black Crime (McLaughlin, 264). During the early 1970s indicated, that the media has continued to send off an image of Britain as a uncontaminating society (Hartman 1974). Crime and wickedness came to be the central motif that constructed black people as a problem presence, and also signifying that they were not really British (McLaughlin, 264). Gilroy (1987) has added to this by analysing discourses on race, crime and nations. Perceptions of the weakness of black culture and family life, sometimes explained by absence of a father or authority figure, or more crudely, by a lack of respect for the constabulary and British tradition of civility, served to position black people as lesser breeds without the Law , as the others who stands orthogonal what is meant to be British(Gilroy, 1987). However the significance of the prolonged campaign that led to the interrogator y into the murder of Stephen Lawrence cannot be overstated. Dominant representations of black people as a problem for white British society have been successfully challenged (Murji, 274).The media is the most powerful shaping which does a big impact on social construction of the crime. The importance of the news media in framing the public sympathy of social problems is widely recognized (McLaughlin, 263). Research in many countries confirms that crime reports are among the most headlines catching of news commodities. It is also suggested that at that place is colossal correspondence betwixt the images of criminality articulated in the news media and the rendition for this (Murji, 264). Such as media presentation of the information strengthens social construction of the crime (McLaughlin et al, 264).There are three levels of explanation in the study of deviate and criminal behaviour. A first level of explanation is relate with the existence of the many different forms of huma n behaviour that occur in any society (Becker, 1963). Biology may contribute towards an explanation of this diversity, but it can never provide the whole explanation. It is always necessary to take news report of processes of socialization (Becker, 1963). Biological theory of crime, arguing that any association between physical characteristics and their behaviour can be explained(Young 1999). consort to Young, lower on the job(p) household children who are more likely to be involved, in the crime, are also by virtue of diet, continual manual labour, physical fittingness and strength, more likely to be mesomorphic (Young 1999, 387).Young claims that males chromosome could lead to behaviour that to others it would relish odd, and this differences may exclude them from normal social life, which in turn may lead them to crime. However according to Kelly, behaviour attributed to biological causes may not necessary lead to crime. The biochemistry of the body may affect behaviour as he points out for example A Diabetic person, without recent insulin shot may become tense, short tempered, but his behaviour does not force a criminal act( Haralambos 1999). A second level of explanation is concerned with the variation in norms between social groups, as manifested busyly in ethnic and subculture differences (Becker, 1963). Lea and Young stress out that crime is and one aspect, though generally a small one, of the process of cultural adaptation to oppression. Unlike Gilroy, they see West Indian crime as a response to condition in Britain rather than as a continuation of traditions from the West Indies (Lea el at.1999, 428). Socialization takes place within particular social groups, and it is the norms of these groups that provide the standards for the identification of particular kinds of behaviour as criminal (Becker, 1963). The third, and final, level of explanation is concerned with the ways in which particular individuals are identified as criminals by other s and so come to develop a criminal identity. This is a matter of social reaction and control (Becker, H,1963).In addition to understand social construction of crime, it is very important to notion back at historical theoretical periods, which plays an important roles in revitalising past discoveries, putting new stress on the interpretation of events and relating these to present-day(prenominal) happenings(Jock Young, 307).First of all I would like to look at Marxist theory, where he sees crime being endemic in the social order. According to Marxism, men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances direct encountered, given and transmitted from the past (Marx, 1969,p.360). Marxist frameworks have developed a Marxist theory of crime. From Marx perspectives crime is seen largely as the product of capitalism, with criminal and antisocial behaviour indicative of the contradict ions and problems inherent in the capitalist organization (Marsh, 1997, 519). The basic motivation of capitalism, such as emphasis on materialism and self- enrichment, encourage self-interested, anti-social and, by implication, criminal behaviour (Marsh, 1997, 519). Marxist s argues that railway line crime is largely ignored by the legal system. There are some well publicized exceptions, but these tend just to reinforce the impression that criminals are mainly from the working classes and that business criminals are not real criminals they are just doing what everyone else does (Marsh,1997,519). Marxist arguments suggest that capitalism produces the conditions that generate criminal behaviour. According to him, crime occurs because of economic deprivation and because of the contradictions that are patent in capitalist society. Working-class crime is a rebellion against contrast and against the system that uses the legal process- including the Law, the police, courts and prison as weapons in a class war(Marsh, 1997, 522).According to Durkheims crime theory, he points out two arguments on crime growth. The first argument is, that modern industrial urban societies encourage a state of egoism which is contrary to the maintenance of social solidarity and to conformity to Law , and second is, that in periods of rapid social change anomies occurs. By this he meant an anomic disordered society lacking effective forms of social control, and thereby leading to a state of individually perceived formlessness (Frank Heathcote, 347). Durkheim arguments that crime is required and functional does not explain the causes of crime or why sure people are more likely to engage in, criminal activities than others (Frank Heathcote, 348). Regarding to Durkheim, crime is present in all types of socially, and that crime is higher in more industrialised countries ( Haralambos 1999,389). Durkheim explains why he sees crime inevitable, he explains that it is inevitable because not every member of society can be equally committed to the collective sentiments, and that it is impossible for all to be alike (Holborn 1999.389). He also explains crime as being functional, and that its function not to remove crime in society, but to maintain the collective sentiments at their necessary level of strength. Durkheim believed that without punishment the collective sentiments would lose their force to control behaviour and crime rate would become dysfunctional. Durkheim view that healthy society requires both crime and punishment ( Haralambos. 1999, 390). More recently functionalist theories, based on the notion of there being a general consensus of values and norms, have focused on causes of criminal behaviour.Functionalist theories of crime tend to assume that there is general consensus within society over what is right and wrong behaviour. The interactionist approach questions this assumption it does not see criminals as essentially different from so called normal pe ople. many a(prenominal) people commit criminal action and it is therefore not easygoing to maintain a clear distinction between the criminal in terms of particular personal characteristics (Marsh, 1997, 517).To summary, in my essay firstly I discussed that, crime has been seen as a response to the frustration felt by those who cannot achieve the norms or goals of society. Secondly, how dominant representations of black people as problems for white people society have been successfully challenged. Thirdly, that the media is the most powerful organisation which does a big impact on social construction of the crime, and at last I argued two most important theories, which are still in use.ReferencesBecker. H. S. (1963), Outsiders Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (New York Free Press).Fitzgerald. M. el at (1990). Social disarrangement theories. Heathcote F (1990). Crime and Society. capital of the United Kingdom The Open University Press.Haralambos, M. el at (1999). Themes and P erspectives. quarter Edition. London Harper Collins.May. M. el at (2009). Crime Disorders and Community Safety. Dee Cook. (2009) appreciation Social Problems, Australia Blackwell.Marsh. I. el at (2009). Making Sense of Society. Fourth Edition. London Longman.