Many theorists like Karl Marks, Hobbes, and John Locke have proposed theories that help to explain human behavior. Likewise, M.G. Smith and E. Durkheim both sought to explain human behavior by examining the effects that crime has on society. M.G. Smith’s and Durkheim’s writing share similar concepts such as the importance of crime in society. Moreover, both authors acknowledge the fact that society changes. Despite these similarities Smith and Durkheim’s writing contain major differences such as their opinions on how society changes. Both authors also have different viewpoints when it comes to the significance of crime. Despite containing some minor similarities, the differences between M.G. Smiths writing and Durkheim’s are striking.
M.G.
…show more content…
Smith argues that society does not automatically change after one part of it changes. For instance, Smith writes “I cannot accept as Levi Strauss and others do the view of society as a set of structured models which are so systematic that if any parts of any one of them are modified, that automatically generates modifications in the remainder. Such a postulate seems to me to fly blindly in the face of too many important and diverse historical facts and ecological processes that clearly controvert it” (pg. 9). Smith is implying that he disagrees with people who believe that a change in one part of society automatically leads to other changes because these people often miss other factors that caused society to change. On the other hand, Durkheim argues that crime is the only thing necessary to create change in a society. For example, Durkheim (1993) writes “Crime is, then, necessary; it is bound up with fundamental conditions of all social life, and by that very fact it is useful, because these conditions of which it is part are themselves indispensable to the normal evolution of morality and law” (pg. 82). This implies that crime is a useful tool to help create change since society and crime are linked together. Meaning that once crime changes it automatically generates changes in society and vice …show more content…
MG Smith believes that crime is only one of the factors that contribute to social order. In the reading Smith writes “All questions of that kind should surely be set aside until the empirical data have been analyzed … by assuming those conclusions in advance, especially as regards the nature or bases of social order, casualty, and motivation. In doing so they only reflect the traditions that have inherited and personal factors” (pg. 4). In this line Smith is emphasizing how focusing on one aspect led to scientist like Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim to focus on only the things they already knew and personal factors. Similarly, Smith writes “Faced with such alternatives, I prefer to conceive social structure and study it as an empirical reality, rather than as a set of imaginary constructs that distort the reality by accentuating and abstracting one of its aspects to the exclusion of others” (pg. 21). This demonstrates how Smith thinks scientist should focus on all the aspects that make up “reality” because if they focus on only one aspect they will wind up excluding other essential factors, thus, making their research not dependable. On the contrary, Durkheim believes that crime is the only thing necessary for social order and social change. For example, Durkheim (1993) states, “the collective sentiments at the basis of morality must not be hostile to change, and consequently must
The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain, (5) Choice, with all other conditions equal, will be directed towards the maximization of individual pleasure, (6) Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in violation of the social good, the social contract, (7) The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws (this system is the embodiment of the social contract), (8) The Swiftness, Severity, and Certainty of punishment are the key elements in understanding a law's ability to control human behavior. Classical theory, however, dominated thinking about deviance for only a short time. Positivist research on the external (social, psychological, and biological) "causes" of crime focused attention on the factors that... ... middle of paper ... ...
In chapter one, Erikson gives a nod of recognition to Emile Durkheim’s work. Erikson notes Durkheim’s assertion that crime is really a natural kind of social activity. I started to think that Erikson may be trying to assert that if crime is a natural part of society, there is an indication that it is necessary in society. Erikson claims that non-deviants congregate and agree in a remarkable way to express outrage over deviants and deviancy, therefore solidifying a bond between members of society. Erikson continues to argue that this sense of mutuality increases individual’s awareness to the common goals of the society.
Young, J. (1981). Thinking seriously about crime: Some models of criminology. In M. Fitzgerald, G. McLennan, & J. Pawson (Eds.), Crime and society: Readings in history and society (pp. 248-309). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Wright Mills first question is what is the structure of this particular society as a whole?. In asking this question, Mills wanted to know how crime is understood in society and how is it an essential components that is inter-related in society?. In society, crime is seen as any actions that violates the laws established by a political authority. However, according to the authors of the book introduction to sociology states that “sociologists studying crime and deviance in the interactionist tradition focus on deviance and crime as a socially constructed phenomenon.”(p. 167). Meaning that crime is believed to be socially constructed. Edwin H. Sutherland used the theory of Differential Association to link crime through interaction with others, where individuals learns values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior. In other words, criminals learns to be criminal from other criminals. Another theory that show the interaction between society and crime is the labeling theory. The labeling theory is the idea that behaviors are deviant only when society labels them as deviant. This theory expresses the arrangement of power in society between those who does the labeling and those who are labeled. The people who holds the most power in society does most of the labeling in society. Furthermore, this often leads individuals that is considered deviant having a higher risk of committing a
Crime exists everywhere. It is exists in our country, in the big cities, the small towns, schools, and even in homes. Crime is defined as “any action that is a violation of law”. These violations may be pending, but in order to at least lower the crime rate, an understanding of why the crimes are committed must first be sought. There are many theories that are able to explain crimes, but three very important ones are rational choice theory, social disorganization theory and strain theory.
What are theories of crime? Why are they important? In this paper, will discuss two crime theories. Social learning theory and the labeling theory. We will compare both crime theories. It will also explain how these theories are related to specific crimes. The two theories discussed will also explain the policy implications. Finally, we will address what types of programs can be created to mitigate specific crimes related to the causation theories.
Unlike previous theories, the conservative theory took a primitive approach to crime during the 1980s and 1990s. After the turn of the century, crime was associated and viewed through the lens of society. That lens shifted during the 1980s as crime was viewed as the responsibility of the individual and not through society. For example, the individualistic views the Classical School and Positivist School theorists had. Although Wilson and Herrnstein did not take the same approach as Beccaria, Bentham, or Lombroso each set out to once again, get tough on crime and bring ‘“punishment back into society’” (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2015, p. 328). The two primary questions for conservative theory was asked by Wilson and Herrnstein in their book,
In this sense of learned behavioural processes, Sutherland (1939) came to the conclusion that there is no difference between the learning of criminal behaviour and the learning of other non-criminal behaviour. Thus people are ‘a product of his environment’, (Landesco: 1929: 221) and their criminal behaviour is a product of a person’s general needs and values, though these needs and values do not explain the crime because those who choose to engage in non-criminal behaviour are a product of the same needs and values as those who commit crime. People learn how to act and behave in a certain way due to the norms and values of the society in which they live in. They learn through communication and association with one another.
Emile Durkheims theory of collective consciousness is that everybody in society has common beliefs and sentiments, and to think or act differently would be a moral outrage against that. So crime is inevitable, there will always be people who think differently to others in an organic solidarity society.
In today’s society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing a person to the point at which they are lead to committing a criminal act. Often, someone who has committed a violent crime shows evidence of a poorly developed childhood, or the unsuitable current conditions in which the subject lives. In addition if one studies victimology which is the role that the victim plays in the crime, it is apparent that there are many different causes for criminal behavior. Through the examination of biological factors, in addition to the social and environmental factors which make up a criminal mind, one can conclude that a criminal often is born with traits common to those of criminals, it is the environment that exist around them that brings out the criminal within them to commit indecent acts of crime.
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
Crime have existed over many centuries, different eras affect the flow of crime and within those eras. Furthermore amongst individuals, there was different way of thinking into how to reduce and eliminate occurred. The act of crime cannot be eliminated, as different individuals have different perspectives of crime and for theses reasons, have different methods of advocating and eliminating crime. This essay will firstly explore the views of Classical Theory, by looking at Cesane Beccaria, the father of Classical theory and Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarian and explore how there influences are incorporated into laws and regulations, around the world. Secondly, Positivism theory explores the biological, psychological and environment understanding of what causes the crime, thus having a different understand and method into solving and eliminating crime. By looking at these overarching theories, we can come to understand how they both are beneficial and incorporated into the laws within our society, however does now have the power to rid it of crime.
MacDonald, H. (2010, January 4). A crime theory demolished. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870359090504574638024055735590.ht
Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment.
Different schools of thought propose varying theoretical models of criminality. It is agreeable that criminal behaviour is deep rooted in societies and screams for attention. Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.