I have concluded that substance abuse is a huge contributor to crimes being committed. The lack or decrease in moral intuition and character can cause a person to make bad decisions. This would cause people not to understand the benefits of to abiding to common social values. A person demographics can also play a role in determining whether or not an individual will turn to a life of crime. Government officials, politicians, and courts employees have concluded that individuals commit crimes for private alternatives and they should be punished and held responsible for their actions and conduct.
Like the item says, 'functionalist sociologists focus on how far individuals accept the norms and values of society.' Durkheim blames people not being fully integrated into society’s norms and values as to why they commit crime. So he said once people have served their time for their crime, they should be reintegrated. It’s a strength that Durkheim suggests them being reintegrated as it means they’re less likely to reoffend if they feel they belong to their society and do not look for status through crime. However, interactionists would say that agents of social control cause crime, not the society you are in.
In this paper, I will discuss the effect that capital punishment has on deterring criminal activity. Capital punishment is the execution of criminals by the state, for committing crimes, regarded so terrible, that this type of punishment is the only acceptable punishment for the crime committers. For decades now, there has been an ongoing debate over the death penalty in America. The chief argument in favor of death sentences is the fact that it can be used as a deterrent. Deterrence is the idea that executing the murderers will decrease the rates of homicide by discouraging future murderers.
Conclusion A. Compare and Contrast B. Improvements to Analyze C. Summarization of Both Theories Criminologist Attempt to Understand Criminal Behavior by Constructing Theories of Crime The study of criminology is one of the most important parts of the criminal justice field. Criminology is an” integrated approach to the study of the nature, extent, cause, and control of criminal behavior” (Siegel, 2010 ). The main objective of criminology is to find possible causes of crime and deviance; which will help in the decline of crime within society.
Anomie theory provides an explanation of the concentration of crime. The theory leans on one founder of sociology, Emile Durkheim, who used the term to describe the lack of social regulation as one manner that could evaluate higher suicide rates. Durkheim stated that he observed that social periods of disruption brought about greater anomie and higher rates of crime, suicide, and deviance. Some people may lose sight of what is socially acceptable and have difficulty in dealing with society. This theory is also sociological in its emphasis on the role of social forces in creating deviance.
And Secondary Deviance, he suggested, was the idea criminality is a response to being labelled as deviant. The deviant label then becomes the individual’s master status, and the deviance is used as a means of attack, defence or adjustment to the societal reaction to the label/stigma they carry (Lemert, 1951). Social reaction is a fundamental concept in relation to crime, and changing definitions of crime are also evident; over time and between cultures, what gets labelled as a crime has shifted, highlighting cultural variations regarding what society labels as criminal. This reaction to crime may be criminogenic – meaning tending to produce crime or criminality as a result of reaction and labelling, highlighting the extent to which labelling is present in the establishment of criminal identity. Howard Becker developed his theory of labelling - also known as social reaction theory - in the 1963 book Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.
The positivist writer Mendelsohn argued that the victim of a crime ‘had an aptitude, although unconsciously, of being victimised’. He stated that victims ‘look, think and act differently’ than non-victims which increases their chances of becoming victims again. However, the positivist approach can be argued to be reductionist as it identifies certain patterns of interpersonal victimisation but ignores wider structural factors influencing victimisation
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.
Rational Choice Crime Control Strategies Rational Choice Crime Control Strategies According to Rational Choice Theory, individuals violate laws out of a sense of need, accomplishment, or perception of survival. The Theory also concludes that rational individuals carefully weigh possible benefits and consequences of breaking the law (Siegel, 2006). After considering benefits and consequences, one may make a “rational” choice to commit the crime. He or she may base this rationalization on “greed, revenge, need, anger, lust, jealousy, thrill-seeking, or vanity” (Siegel, 2006, p. 98). Of the scenarios, the wealthy man going through a divorce is the most likely example of a rational choice criminal.
Why are prisons bursting at the seams? According to Joe Romaine of the International Business Times, it is because of America’s “insane drug laws,” which are doing more harm than good (Romaine). Many people may argue that drug offenders are getting what’s coming to them— they broke the law, and therefore it is part of their consequence to suffer through the overcrowded “cruel and unusual” incarceration. Individuals who argue this point are mistaken because although criminals should indeed receive punishment for their actions, there comes a time when a line of propriety is crossed. The ‘war on drugs’ has become a harsh and unnecessary measure that frankly costs American taxpayers far too much money.