Social Construction Of Crime Criminology Essay

Social Construction Of Crime Criminology quizCrime is a term that refers to umteen types of misconduct that is forbidden by law. thither ar a number of unlike reasons as to wherefore villainy can be viewed as a companionable formula. there cannot be affectionate problems that be not the intersection point of social construction naming, labelling, defining and mapping them into turn up through which we can actualize reason of them (Clarke, 2001). In this essay I will come apart what is social construction, too what offence is, and why we think, that aversion is socially constructed. Furthermore, I will explain how media construct crime and the stigma of b need crime. In the last split up I will explore the wideness of Marxist and Durkheims theories on the number of crime.There is no doubt that crime is socially constructed. The constructionist perspective draws on a precise different sociological inheritance, one that treats company as a matrix of meaning. It accords a of import role to the processes of constructing, producing and circulating meanings. inside this perspective, we cannot grasp reality in a direct and unmediated manner Reality is always mediated by meaning (John Clarke p.6). Indeed, some of its proponents struggle that what we experience is the social construction of reality (Berger, 1967). How something or someone is named, set and placed within a map of the social orders has profound consequences for how we round towards it or them (Becker, 1963).Public concern over crime relates mainly to thieving and violence, which atomic number 18 regarded as world serious enough to warrant sustain attention from the police. This concern, reflected in periodic moral panics, tends to ensure that many of those who are involved in theft and pitiful violence do so as a form of secondary deviation. As a result, many of them develop a vile identity (Becker, H. S, 1963).The national British crime survey reports have demonstra ted that the risk of being dupes of crime is make by locality, lifestyle, age, gender and ethnicity. BCS confirm that the risk of being a victim of contact crime are highest for men those aged under 30, those animation in intercity areas and those living in privately rented accommodation. Noon the less accord to the BCS it is frequently those who are least at risk of crime who are nigh anxious about it, notably older bulk and women(May et al,2009).The very good example of how crime can be socially constructed is bootleg Crime (McLaughlin, 264). During the early 1970s indicated, that the media has continued to project an image of Britain as a neat society (Hartman 1974). Crime and criminality came to be the central motif that constructed black large number as a problem presence, and also signifying that they were not really British (McLaughlin, 264). Gilroy (1987) has added to this by analysing discourses on race, crime and nations. Perceptions of the failing of black cultur e and family life, sometimes explained by absence of a obtain or authority figure, or more crudely, by a lack of respect for the Law and English tradition of civility, served to define black masses as lesser breeds without the Law , as the others who stands outside what is meant to be British(Gilroy, 1987). withal the significance of the prolonged campaign that led to the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence cannot be overstated. Dominant representations of black people as a problem for white British society have been successfully challenged (Murji, 274).The media is the most powerful scheme which does a big impact on social construction of the crime. The importance of the news media in framing the public understanding of social problems is astray recognized (McLaughlin,263). Research in many countries confirms that crime reports are among the most headlines catching of news commodities. It is also suggested that there is broad correspondence mingled with the images of criminality articulated in the news media and the edition for this (Murji, 264). Such as media presentation of the information reinforces social construction of the crime (McLaughlin et al, 264).There are three levels of explanation in the study of deviant and criminal deportment. A first level of explanation is concerned with the existence of the many different forms of human behaviour that occur in any society ( Becker,1963). biota may contribute towards an explanation of this diversity, but it can never allow the whole explanation. It is always necessary to take account of processes of socialization (Becker, 1963). A second level of explanation is concerned with the variation in norms surrounded by social groups, as manifested factly in cultural and subculture differences ( Becker, 1963). Socialization takes place within particular social groups, and it is the norms of these groups that provide the standards for the identification of particular kinds of behaviour as criminal ( Becker, 1963). The third, and final, level of explanation is concerned with the ways in which particular individuals are identified as criminals by others and so come to develop a criminal identity. This is a matter of social reaction and break ( Becker, H,1963).In addition to understand social construction of crime, it is very consequential to look back at historical theoretical periods, which plays an important roles in revitalising past discoveries, putting new stress on the interpretation of events and relating these to current happenings(Jock Young, 307).First of all I would like to look at Marxist theory, where he go fors crime being endemic in the social order. According to Marxism, men make their own history, but they do not make it further as they please they do not make it under draw chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directed encountered, given and transmitted from the past (Marx, 1969,p.360). Marxist frameworks have real a Marxist theory of crime. From Marx perspectives crime is seen largely as the product of capitalist economy, with criminal and antisocial behaviour indicative of the contradictions and problems inherent in the capitalistic system (Marsh, 1997, 519). The basic motivation of capitalism, such as emphasis on materialism and self- enrichment, encourage self-interested, anti-social and, by implication, criminal behaviour (Marsh, 1997, 519). Marxist s argues that business crime is largely ignored by the legal system. There are some well publicized exceptions, but these tend just to reinforce the impression that criminals are mainly from the working classes and that business criminals are not real criminals they are just doing what everyone else does (Marsh,1997,519). Marxist arguments suggest that capitalism produces the conditions that generate criminal behaviour. According to him, crime occurs because of economic deprivation and because of the contradictions that are apparent in capitalist society. Working-class cr ime is a confusion against inequality and against the system that uses the legal process- including the Law, the police, courts and prison as weapons in a class war(Marsh, 1997, 522).According to Durkheims crime theory, he points out two arguments on crime growth. The first argument is, that modern industrial urban societies encourage a state of egoism which is contrary to the maintenance of social solidarity and to compliancy to Law , and second is, that in periods of rapid social change anomies occurs. By this he meant an anomic disordered society lacking effective forms of social control, and thereby leading to a state of individually perceived normlessness (Frank Heathcote, 347). Durkheim arguments that crime is inevitable and functional does not explain the causes of crime or why certain people are more likely to engage in, criminal activities than others (Frank Heathcote, 348). More recently functionalist theories, based on the notion of there being a general consensus of va lues and norms, have focused on causes of criminal behaviour.Functionalist theories of crime tend to assume that there is general consensus within society over what is right and wrong behaviour. The interactionist approach questions this assumption it does not see criminals as essentially different from so called normal people. Many people commit criminal action and it is therefore not easy to fight down a clear distinction between the criminal in cost of particular personal characteristics (Marsh, 1997, 517).To summary, in my essay firstly I discussed that, crime has been seen as a response to the frustration felt by those who cannot strain the norms or goals of society. Secondly, how dominant representations of black people as problems for white people society have been successfully challenged. Thirdly, that the media is the most powerful organisation which does a big impact on social construction of the crime, and finally I argued two most important theories, which are still i n use.