Crime is a Social Construct Essay

Crime is the product of the social expression it is embedded in the very fibres of society. In this es assign, I aim to explore disparate theories as to why law-breaking exists at heart society and how we as a society therefore construct it. Crime is a social construct it is perpetually in society and is on the increase. It is inevitable. Where does it come from? It comes from order, from the making of laws.Functionalists see iniquity deviation in society as a function, in that it serves to remind us, by means of public condemnation of those who ask broken the rules, of our sh ard values and norms. Furthermore, they suggest that crime is a result of structural tensions and a lack of moral regulations within society. If the aspirations held by individuals and groups in society do not coincide with the available rewards, this disparity between desires and fulfil manpowert will be felt in the aberrant motivations of some(a) of its members. This was the basis for Mertons Anom ie theory. (Robert Merton 1957)Emile Durkheim saw crime and deviance as social circumstanceors and believed both of them to be inevitable and necessary elements in late society. The people in that society argon less constrained than in traditional times. There is more room for the individual choice in a modern world and it is therefore inevitable that there will be some non-conformity. Durkheim recognises that no society would always be in complete consensus astir(predicate) the norms and values which govern it. He also saw that it was necessary for society in that it fulfils two important functions. Firstly, deviance is an adaptable function, and by introducing new ideas and challenges in society, it brings most change. Secondly, deviance promotes boundary maintenance between good and bad behaviours. It constantly keeps us aware of what acts society deems acceptable or not. (Durkheim 1964)The Positivist entree is simply about a deviants reaction to external forces beyond their control. The followers of the Interactionist theory, on the other hand, reject this positivist approach and say that it is due to the internal factors of the individual.The Marxism theory however, is structured towards the accumulation of wealth rather than social wishing. Edwin H Sutherland was the first sociologist to study this area known as sporty Collar Crime in 1949. Let us now look at crimes of the powerful and the less powerful. There are two main points deviance is a product of unequal power relations and equality in general. Despite the fact that the law is in favour of the dominant class, some of its members do break the rules for their own gain. Power and equality affect the quality of deviant acts. Thus, people that are more powerful are more likely to move in profitable deviant acts much(prenominal) as corporate crime i.e. bribery and corruption in business and politics, misconduct by professionals such as lawyers etc.On the other hand, the powerless are more likel y to commit less profitable deviant deeds such as burglary, thieving and armed robbery. (Ermann and Lundman 1996) Power, or rather social class, is therefore the key element 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 set 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 legitimate opportunities than the poor worker to commit crime i.e. A banker will have better opportunities to defraud customers for instance, and because of his status, the crime is less likely to be detected, whereas the poor worker would probably have to revive to robbing the bank, a much more visible crime. Furthermore, the powerful are subjected to weaker social control. They have more twine in the making and enforcement of control. The laws against higher status crime, the White Collar crime, are therefore relatively lenient and rarely enforced, only if the laws against crime which is committed by those with a lower status, are harsher and more often enforced because they are so visible and detected much more easily. The activities of White Collar crime occur on a daily basis, but 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 stated, The rich get richer and the poor get prison.Interactionism was quite popular from sixties to 1970s. Max Weber and George Herbert Mead favour the Interactionist approach and suggest that crime is a social process, that crime is an interaction between the victim, the pol ice/officials and the offender. Crime is shaped by the nature 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, therefore the Labelling Theory. Howard F Becker, the collapse 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 consequence of presenting the rules by others to an offender. Deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label. Becker suggests that in one sense 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 overturn their status as workers, friends, parents etc and others see them negative ly. This labelling of people who commit crime, often results in the denial of an ordinary life to them, and because of this denial, out of necessity, they develop illegitimate routines and often resort to a life of crime. Thus, a criminal career is formed and the only way that they enkindle be a part of society, is by grouping with in any case people, and being part of a different type of society. It may be a criminal society, but at to the lowest degree 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 mainstream approaches in that they see them as male dominated and this gender bias is part of the structure ofthe Criminal Justice System, the majority of its personnel being male. Crime is specific to the gender, males being more violent and women committing softer crime such as benefit fraud, shoplift etc. This approach sees that there is a need for more support and resources for women and that anti-sexist training is necessary in the police force. These sociological theories are intended to apply to both sexes but feminists disagree. For example, Mertons anomie theory assumes that people are inclined to strive for material success, which is true for men but not inescapably for women, although this is on the increase. (Merton 1957) In the past women have been socialised differently to men. They are traditionally less interested in achieving material success as their step forward has been in the home.However, this social construct is changing, because women are being given more equal opportunities, and are more likely to strive for that material success, which would account for some increase in womens crime rates. (Chesney-Lind 1997Daly and Chesney-Lind1998) This may be an indication 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 causing the disparity that Merton talks about. Furthermore, men and women calculate 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. ( washbowl 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 states. 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 politic al decision making, and we tin 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 fiddling regard for the way that working class people and their environments actually work. Its new measures to be tough on the causes of crime fail to question why these things happen, and hence how they might be prevented. Creeping inequalities in education, the health services, housing and pensions, contribute to the lack of belonging that people feel. This disconnected feeling of our seemingly society-less age can only contribute to the crime problem. It is time to review other methods because the governments endless clamping down on those who alr eady 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)Moral Panics The Social Construction of DevianceUSA, Blackwell.Hagan John et al 1996The Law and Politics Book 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 Book Reviewhttp//Paulsjusticepage.com/reiman.htmhttp//Paulsjusticepage.com/RichgetRicher/fraud.htmAccessed on 28 11 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