Abstract This paper will explore and discuss the difference in opinion regarding crime and who should be held accountable for criminal activity. The views of social responsibility and social problems will be examined, along with the perspectives that each holds to justify their belief. Theories such as Determinate Sentencing that holds the value of social responsibility in response to crime, and also the Constructionist theory that places that blame on society as to why a person commits a crime. In the end I believe that Social/Individual responsibility is the most appropriate way to approach crime. Perspectives of Social Problems and Social Responsibility Within criminology there has been multiple theories suggested to explain the numerous motives behind why crime exists in our world.
Meaning, if you break the law of which has been given you will be punished. The relationship is simple, most laws are created based on crimes that are or have been committed. Because society evolves and changes there will always be new laws created based on the fact that new crimes are committed daily. The consensus and conflict model are the two most common models of how society determines which act s are criminal. The consensus model defines criminal behavior as acts that conflict with the values and beliefs of society as a whole.
Assess Functionalist Approaches to the Study of Crime and Deviance Functionalists such as Emile Durkheim, Robert Merton and Albert Cohen all attempt to explain the nature and extent of crime in today’s society. In essence, Functionalists argue that society is based on value consensus and social solidarity which is sustained via socialisation and social control mechanisms within society. Emile Durkheim states that whilst crime is obviously a social negative with the ultimate power to destabilise society, he stands by the claim that crime is inevitable, universal, and integral to a healthy society and even having positive benefits. He claims that crime occurs in society due to two fundamental reasons; firstly, not everyone is effectively socialised to the same norms and values which leads to people being prone to deviation and secondly, due to the diverse lifestyle and subcultures in contemporary society, subcultures act out different norms and values and what members of that subculture regard as normal, mainstream culture may deem it as deviancy. The Functionalist approach to the study of crime states that crime has two positive functions for society.
There is also agreement on an adversary system, procedural due process, and one’s day in court (Zalman, 2008). The most important function of the crime control model is as stated by Packer (1968), ‘the repression of criminal conduct by the criminal process’” “because public safety is essential to personal freedom” (Zalman, 2008, p. 5). The presumption surrounded by this value system is, in American society there will be a breakdown of public order if law enforcement does not keep a tight reign on criminals and their activities, and citizens of this
When we consider theories that are most applicable to the idea of a social institution and how they may apply to organized crime or criminal behavior in generally it is important to consider at least two theories. The Rational Choice Theory and the Theory of Differential Association are two theories that attempt to allow us to gain insight as to how social institution can not only be responsible for creating organized crime but also allude to criminal behaviors and allow us to see how individuals can come to a decision to choose their live their life in this fashion. Rational theory believes organized crime groups can make rational decisions when pertaining to crime and the groups know right from wrong and possess free will. The rational theory believes in harsher penalty and quicker approach when it comes with dealing with criminals. The rational theory offenders discover that committing a crime was not worth it.
It has been long debated that the issues of social justice such as inequality, poverty and social exclusion are divided between social welfare and crime control territories. Whilst some distinguished responses to this particular subject matter become the focal point of social welfare strategies, others become the emphasis of crime control interventions therefore suggesting that the boundary between the two is by no means beyond limitation and as such is implied “to be mobile and porous” (Newman & Yates (2008), p168). There are many entanglements between social welfare and crime control policies and upon further investigation it becomes more evident the similarities of the objectives between the two. Social welfare is geared towards a governmental support mechanism set up to contest social impairments such as poverty and racism whereas crime control is a stabilising mechanism that has been set up to restore and maintain this social order by penalising those who pose a risk against its safekeeping. The term ‘porous’ suggests that there is barrier between social welfare services and crime control services but that there are gaps in this barrier allowing both side to communicate.
The prosecution must without a reasonable doubt prove the defendant is responsible for committing the crime. And in doing so must remain within the regulations of the courts. Sometimes the prosecution’s personal, ethical. Organizational, or political beliefs can becomea driving force into a trail which can have negative effects on the courts when misconduct occurs or mistakes are made. When misconduct or mistakes are made it can have very damaging effects on individuals and their lives, but also to the credibility of the criminal justice system.
The first explorations of deviance and crime was done by Durkheim who identified two different sides of crime for the functioning of society: positive and negative. According to Durkheim, crime was necessary for society. He argued that the basis of society was a set of shared values that guide our actions, which he named the collective conscience. The collective conscience provides boundarie which distinguishes between actions that are acceptable and those that are not. The problem for any society is that these boundaries are unclear and change over time.
The powerful such as the police have the power to decide what gets reported to the public and use the mass media to enhance control by creating fear within society. This is emphasised by General Director of the BBC Michael Grade who reported that “the effect of crime reporting by the media is almost inevitably to increase fear…the public receives only a distorted impression” (Grade 1989). The term ‘moral panics’ is mainly associated Stanley Cohen. Cohen defines moral panics as “a condition, episode, person, or group persons emerges to become defined as a threat in societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylised and stereotypical fashion by the mass media” (Cohen, 1972.p.9). According to Cohen moral panics are part of a collective behaviour where there is panic over a particular behaviour seen as deviant
This is referred to as “social control” and its intent is to force those living in the communities to act in a way that is in line with the social norms and in accordance to society rules. “Of those various ways that societies and their members try to control behavior, criminal punishment is the most formal, for crime is perhaps the most serious type of behavior over which a society must gain control” (Clear, Cole, Reisig, and Petrosion, 2012, p. 8). This implies that corrections assist our society in determining those behaviors that are considered acceptable. However, as Emil Durkheim suggest, “crime is normal and that punishment performs the important function of spotlighting societal rules and values” (Clear, Cole, Reisig, and Petrosion, 2012, p. 8). I am in agreement of this, because it is obvious that crime will continue to happen, and as a society we must find productive ways of address the issues and dealing with those individuals in violation of established