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.
I think that a lot of criminals engage in criminal behavior because they are dealing with some pretty intense stuff and they use crime as a way to handle the situation they are in. The independent variable involving this theory would be what is causing the strain on the individual, and the dependent variable would be what the individual does to deal with the specific strain. I read a research article called, The Relationship between injustice and crime: A general strain theory approach. This article focused on how people handled different situations depending on specific stresses happening in their life. The article surveyed 160 males and
General Strain Theory was formulated by Robert Agnew, and first published in 1992. According to General Strain Theory individuals engage in crime because of strains or stressors which produce anger and anxiety (Agnew, 1992). Crimes become the outlet that the individual uses to cope with or remedy the strains or stressors. Agnew states that there are three different types of deviance producing strains. They are failure to achieve positively valued goals, removal of positively valued stimuli, and confrontation with negative stimuli (Agnew, 1992).
The Functionalist approach to the study of crime states that crime has two positive functions for society. Durkheim claims that crime retains boundary maintenance. He states that crime produces a reaction from society, effectively uniting its members in condemnation of the wrongdoer and reinforcing their commitment to the shared norms and values. Secondly, he claims that all acts of social change start with an act of deviance, so in the long run deviant tendencies will give rise to a new culture and morality. For example, the wishing for African-American rights in America included several acts of deviance by breaking several laws yet it paved the way for the Civil Rights Movement.
While studying the causes of crime one will come across countless theories as to why people decide to commit crimes; a common criminology theory is Labeling Theory. One must first grasp the concept of what Labeling Theory really is. Through this it will become apparent that there are different levels of deviance, and in order for one to fully comprehend Labeling Theory it is imperative they understand what roles different levels of deviant behavior plays in the development of future deviant behavior. Labeling Theory – also referred to as Social Reaction Theory – is essentially the notion that people take part in criminal activity when they are labeled in a negative way. Such labels carry a stigma with them, often resulting in these individuals to accept the “label” as their personal identity and never moving away from that criminal lifestyle.
Policy issues paper CJA/314 February 19, 2014 Ashley Gehrig In this paper, I want to break down and make sense of what reasons people to carry out law violations and the numerous hypotheses in criminology. Social methodology hypothesis is one such presumption and contends that cooperation and interfacing with different people certain criminal practices are found out. There are four sorts of social methodology hypotheses including: social learning hypothesis, social control hypothesis, social marking hypothesis, and dramaturgical viewpoint. The formative process and foundation of social procedure speculations will be examined in this paper. Additionally the imperative parts of this hypothesis to criminology and the master's and con's that are a piece of the hypothesis.
During the sentencing phase there are four objectives that are considered such as deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and retribution. What is the purpose of these objectives and are they effective? The purpose of deterrence is to convince the public that committing crimes would result in certain punishments. The use of deterrence is implementing the use of harsher punishments that will deter those citizens whom are intending to commit a crime, will think twice before they do so. If criminals have to think about the potential consequences they may just deter away from the criminal act (Valerie Wright, 2010).
Pioneered by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, the developmental theory of crime, integrates sociological, psychological, and economic elements into more multifarious developmental views of crime causality. In an effort to produce a more holistic view of a criminal career, which incorporates its inception, prolongation, and dissolution, social scientist have established developmental theories. When applied specifically to intimate partner violence these theories can provide insight into the behavioral patterns of abusers. Intimate partner violence (IPV), according to the CDC, is “a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.” This abuse can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats that influence the behavior of another person. Intimate partner violence is a serious problem particularly in the United States because on average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States, which sums up to more than 12 million women and men over the course of a year.
In addition, Media Studies has educated me on the importance of keeping up with the current affairs and being aware of the current levels of crime. Through my study of “Macbeth” in English Literature I questioned are individuals born criminals? Or are they influenced by their social setting? This has been complemented by the study of Philosophy and Ethics it has allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of whether we are free to make moral choices and where our knowledge of morality comes from. It also gives an insight into what behaviour is regarded as ethical.
In many cases the juvenile will commit more crimes because they have nobody to turn to or look out for them. The youth of today will be the community leaders of tomorrow. Sometimes they need someone to stand up and speak for them and they have nobody. My goal is to become an advocate and speak for the juveniles that have no voice or are too scared to speak for themselves. The juveniles that are left out in the cold with nowhere to go need a home to go to.