a) the criminological schools of thought;

 b) the emergence of the victim in criminological thought;

 c) different definitions of crime; and

 d) measuring crime and victimisation.

All of the tutorial readings from weeks 2¬6 must be included as sources of information in answering this question. It must be evident from the content of your essay that you have read and understood the content of these texts. As such, I have created opportunities for reflection within your workbook each week ¬ this will guide you in making sure that you work consistently across the semester ¬ and suggested that you attach newspaper articles every week so that you may apply your learning to real life examples. Be sure to ask your tutor for clarification in class about the reading that is the subject of discussion where you do not understand something. Approaching your learning in this way will ensure that you are developing your learning as you go and are not leaving it to the last minute. Rationale: This essay is focused on developing your critical analysis skills and academic style of writing. This will be done by asking you to demonstrate your understanding of what you have learned so far in the unit. NOTE: Further guidance to assist you will be provided on vUWS and an announcement will be sent out when this information is available – you must follow the guidance that is provided. You will lose marks if your essay does not conform to the correct format and contain all of the required elements (see the rubric/marking criteria), so ensure that you read the guidance carefully.

Table of Contents

Crime as a socially structured phenomenon……………………………………………………………………….. 3

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3

Crime as a socially structured phenomenon……………………………………………………………………. 3

The criminological schools of thought…………………………………………………………………………….. 3

The emergence of the victim in criminological thought…………………………………………………….. 5

Different definitions of crime…………………………………………………………………………………………. 5

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7

Crime as a socially structured phenomenon

Introduction

Criminology is the area of study that usually comprises of a number of theoretical views. Hence in order to understand criminology and its development it is necessary to understand the criminal behavior, study the different schools of thought and concerns with the criminality of the states. Barak had stated that there does not exist any pure and objective definition of this phenomenon since all the available definitions are partial to some extent and the legal definition tends to be more subjective and discerning (Barak, 1998, p. 21).

Crime can be considered as a social reality that one jointly build and can also deconstruct and restore it with a more harmless society (Barak, 1998). When viewed from the social construction perspective, criminal behavior can be considered as the power of the individual to legislate laws which recognize the behavior to be offensive and punish the criminal perpetrators.

Social construction provides that the existence of society has an existence through the regular interaction of the human beings. The recognition of the elements of social life and differentiating them from others is what comprises of creating a social reality by the humans (Walklate, 2007).

Crime as a socially structured phenomenon

The criminological schools of thought

There happens to exist a number of schools of thought that is based on the various theories of criminology in the same manner as there are different types of crimes. Among the schools of thought on criminology there are eight most common schools of thoughts that have found prevalence in contemporary studies.

The primary school of thought that is considered to be the most common is the legalistic view. It provides that crime is nothing but that which breaks any law. Anyone who breaks the law would be wholly responsible for his or her actions (Jewkes and Letherby, 2002). However there are rules that permit them to justify themselves and also excuse themselves to a certain extent. This view of criminology compels them to take responsible for any actions that they take.

The second view is the conduct norm view. This view states that the crime is such an act that disobeys the normal conduct. In any group of individuals there happens to exist some degree of right and wrong code that is based on a variety of things (Wallace and Roberson, n.d.). These things are generally ethics, or morals or tradition or religion or any such significant elements. When such social rules are broken it is considered as a violation and hence a crime in that group.

The third group is the social harm view. This view of criminology usually tends to be mostly connected with white collar crimes. This kind of a view is one that focuses on the difference in the existing society of crimes which punish the individuals and the ones that punish the corporations without punishing the people behind the corporations (Jewkes and Letherby, 2002). The criminologists who follow this view tend to state that the crimes are generally only those harmful acts that harm the society as a whole.

The fourth view on criminology is the human rights violation view. This particular view happens to view crime in a longer manner as compared to that of the other views. Crime according to them is not limited to the personal acts of injury but they are viewed as acts which can be observed broadly as such challenges which accept the violations that have an impression on the rights of the person to live in a dignified manner (Canneaux et al., 1996). In this regard a number of things can be included such as sexism, racism or imperialism etc. It sometimes also includes the right to be educated or the right to have an employment. This view and criminologists who follow this view consider the declarations of independence of life and liberty and happiness very seriously and literally (Muncie and McLaughlin, 1996).

The next significant view is that of the deviance and social control view that defines crime to be a subjective action. They have defined crime to be an outcome of isolation or rejection or punishment or treatment or even sometimes rehabilitation (Wallace and Roberson, n.d.). It states that criminalization is one that takes place when laws are chosen and applied to different behaviors.

The next view is dependent on the social problems. This theory provides that crimes are more distinct and definite when described by polls and public opinion which is influenced greatly by the media. They further consider media to be severe issue when dealing with crimes (Jewkes and Letherby, 2002).

The final view on criminology is the sin or evil view. This particular view focuses on the similarities of criminology and theology. These view further attempts to compare between then intentions of the criminal mind and that of the evil mind (Reviews, 2013). Even though there are many scientists and criminologists who support this view consider that it is futile to thin that evil is the cause of evil, most of them usually also agree that the laws that need the guilty to accept the blame would actually agree that they are the ones who committed evil.

The emergence of the victim in criminological thought

The idea of victims happens to be a thought of ancient philosophy. Karmen considered victimization to be such an interpersonal relationship that in all cases are abusive, unfair and painful (ANDREW KARMEN., 2012). The study of victimology can be considered as the study of the emotional or physical harm that is suffered by the victims as a result of the criminal activities conducted on such person. The research is based on the reactions of the various reactions of the people with regard to the plight of the victims. Victimologists have further classified victims into direct and indirect victims. Direct victims are those victims who have experienced the trauma or the crime firsthand. The indirect victims are generally the ones related to the victims (ANDREW KARMEN., 2012). They are the survivors of the crime. They are considered as victims since even though they are not physically harmed by the entire criminal incident it so happens that in most cases; they lose their loved ones and are mentally traumatized.

Different definitions of crime

Different groups have generally conflicted with each other on various interests that tend to contend with each other resulting in constructions of crimes that are based on the behavior of other people who tend to intimidate the interests of the ones who have power. It has been observed in most cases that the groups that do not possess any power are the ones that become the victims of unfair laws (Cox et al., 2008). Crime has also been defined as the type of conduct which is generated by authorized agents in a social organization. It has also been described as the behavior that conflicts with the various interests of the society and which also possesses the power to figure out the public policy.

Under such conditions when the roots of power depend on wealth generally the conflict that arises is on the basis of class. Actions which have been defined to be crimes are based on the wide differences of power and are associated with class divisions. Powerful groups tend to exercise power on the by politics or through economical exploitation on those who are less powerful (Wallace and Roberson, n.d.). Sometimes the definition of crime is based on the economic benefits of the society. Such a definition stresses on the fact that crime happens to be a very predictable result of the basic challenges inside the economic framework of the society (Carrabine, 2004).

Crime has been further described by researchers as the type of activities that is done to pressure the ones in power. This view explains the reason behind considering street crimes as more serious than the white collar crimes of sophisticated offenders. Some of the theorists consider any harmful behavior to be a crime. They also state that the social construction of crime through the creation of laws is not based on the powerful interests as has been generally stated.

Conclusion

The study on considering crime as a socially constructed phenomenon tends to reveal that whatever that is considered to be the reality can also be deconstructed and it also enables the chances of reconstructing it in a different manner by replacement discourse (Jewkes and Letherby, 2002). Based on the various social problems crime can be made subject to a social deconstruction analysis. If the entire process is reframed then the reproduction of crimes can b gradually regulated and also reversed so that it slowly becomes less harmful and can be constituted in a different manner (Carrabine, 2009).

The significance of social construction would be one that aims to understand the manner in which humans make up their world and also the manner in which they use that knowledge to assist them to change the world into a safer and comfortable place.

References

ANDREW KARMEN., (2012). Crime victims. [s.l.]: Wadsworth publishing co i.

Barak, G. (1998). Integrating criminologies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Canneaux, H., Muncie, J., McLaughlin, E. and Open University of England., (1996). Crime, order and social control. London: Sage Publications.

Carrabine, E. (2004). Power, discourse, and resistance. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate.

Carrabine, E. (2009). Criminology. London: Routledge.

Cox, P., Lee, M., South, N., Plummer, K. and Eamonn Carrabine., (2008). Criminology. Taylor & Francis.

Jewkes, Y. and Letherby, G. (2002). Criminology. London: SAGE.

Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E. (1996). The problem of crime. London: Sage, in association with the Open University.

Reviews, C. (2013). Studyguide for crime victims. [S.l.]: Academic Internet Publish.

Walklate, S. (2007). Understanding criminology. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.

Walklate, S. (2007). Understanding Criminology. New York: McGraw-Hill International (UK) Ltd.