NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Is crime an abnormal act committed by an abnormal person? An average person confronted with the question, Is crime an abnormal act committed by an abnormal person? , would undoubtedly say, ? ? Yes? ? ? . They would consider themselves, perhaps not angelic, but certainly law-abiding members of society; however, if these so-called, ? ? ?
law-abiding? ? ? citizens were to take a little time to analyse the question, their answer might be very different; moreover, they might discover the? ? ? gene? ? ? of criminality is in us all! Crime and deviance is not only a normal part of society, it is undoubtedly a product of its very existence! We shall see how such is the case through the work of some great individuals (Durkheim &# 038; Merton) who took the time to? ? ?
think? ? ? about the question, and used a variety of theories to explain their subsequent answers. We shall explore their theories that will direct us towards a realistic answer. In pursuit of an answer to the aforementioned question, one must first understand the question itself and its very meaning.
Crime itself is a very transient term; it is something that varies through the passage of time, society, geography, and by who commits the act. A sad, yet perfect instance would be the taking of life. In times of war we are taught the finer skills of killing, awarded medals and held in high esteem for our bravery in the taking of life. The same act committed in peacetime is held with the uppermost reproach, inevitably gaining you a life-sentence or two.
From hero to murderer! Take for instance the IRA, a group that has fought for the independence of Ireland and in doing so been involved in the? ? ? killing? ? ? or? ? ? murder? ? ?
of many innocent people; to the Irish Nationalists they are heroes, to the English government they are murderers. The point being that what constitutes a crime is not necessarily its? ? ? rightness? ? ? or? ? ? wrongness? ? ? but whether it has been classified as a crime.
The same act committed in one place, at one time, by a certain person, is open to question whether it is illegal by its very classification and by whom it has been classified by. In all such contested situations, it is the views of the powerful that prevail, as they have the ability to make their views count. It would then appear that what constitutes a crime is open to debate; moreover, the criminals who we choose to despise, are they no more than mere victims of our own perceptions? ? ? |our own social conditioning? To see why this is, we must look to the very basis of society and how it decides what is? ? ?
right? ? ? or? ? ? wrong? ? ? . Howard Becker? ? ? s defining statement on deviance is as follows: ? ? Social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying these rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders.
From this point of view, deviance is not the quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an? ? offender? ? ? . The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label. ? ? ? It must be noted here however, that not all forms of deviance constitute a crime.
To? ? ? deviate? ? ? means, literally, to move away or to stray from set standards set in society. Deviance is then, a very broad term covering acts that are seen as? ? ? abnormal? ? ?
within a particular society, of which crime is a smaller part. Crime is a part of deviance that breaks the formal, written laws of a given society. Thus, all crime is deviance, but not all deviance is crime. Within every society there are accepted normal ways of behaving, often referred to as? ? ? norms? ? ? . All laws are norms but not all norms are laws.
We are all? ? ? victims? ? ? of conditioning from birth, the way we behave within our society, although open to a small degree of personalisation, is learned, norms are, suffice it to say, a Socially Transmitted Disease. Norms, refer to specific behavioural patterns, the pursuit of which is expected from every member of a given society. The breaking of a norm would result in the offender being considered deviant, sanctions or punishments would then be applied in direct apportion to the severity of the norm broken, this could range from a disapproving stare, social exclusion, and even death in some societies.
To further reinforce the effective pursuance of these norms and thus, social control, positive sanctions (rewards) are also applied. Yet, crime is still perpetrated, victims realised and negative sanctions enforced. Every possible reasoning has been applied at some time or another to try and explain the reasons for this. Cesare Lombroso, an Italian army doctor, is considered by many as the founder of the scientific biological school of criminology drew physiological conclusions. Lombroso? ? ?
s infamous work, L? ? ? Uomo Delinquente (1876), first developed the idea of the? ? ? atavistic? ? ? criminal. Atavism, a term originally used by Charles Darwin, suggests that in the process of human evolution some individuals can represent a genetic? ? ? throwback? ? ? .
Taking up this idea, Lombroso contended that the criminal individual was born so. Physical indication of criminal potential could be identified through specific bodily characteristics, all of which suggested the bearer was a throwback from a more primitive age. These physical characteristics included abnormal teeth, extra nipples, extra or missing toes and fingers, large ears and overly prominent jawbones. Later research however, found no support for Lombroso? ? ? s ideas. This did not mark the end of physiological theories, though.
Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck found a casual relationship between biological factors and delinquency. These factors were based on physical build; they argue that stocky round individuals (mesomorph) tend to be more active and aggressive than those with other builds. This may be true, but a criminal is more likely to possess these characteristics because a small weak man would undoubtedly make a very poor criminal. Strength is something that is of benefit when you are to undertake the role of criminal, and thus opens the criminal arena to the? ? ? mesomorph? ? ? . Similarly, any bizarre appearance may well exclude the majority from leading a? ? ?
normal? ? ? life. Taylor, Walton and Young also provided an alternative explanation for the link between the mesomorph and delinquency, they suggest: ? ? ? It may well be that the lower working-class children, who are more likely to be found in the criminal statistics, are also, by virtue of diet, continual manual labour, physical fitness and strength, more likely to be mesomorphic. ? ? ? It may well be that physiological factors predispose a person to criminal activities but to be of sole cause is an absurd notion. Theories have been discussed, dismissed, and occasionally accepted.
Durkheim believed that crime was a normal part of society, and that only too little or too much was undesirable. A certain amount of crime is in fact good for society reinforcing the bonds between the general? ? ? law abiding? ? ? public. His theory is that the? ? ? right? ? ?
level of crime would create interaction between the general public leading to solutions to problems; too little crime would see the end of this interaction and the stagnation of society, too much crime would lead to anomie, the loss of shared and dominant guiding principles or? ? ? normal ness? ? ? . Merton believed that we could divide society into five responses to success: Conformity, accepting the goal and means of achieving it. Innovation: those who would find alternative ways of achieving success e.
g. theft. Ritualism, those who would accept that the rewards would never be achieved and yet behaved within socially acceptable ways. Retreat ism, accepting defeat and giving up even trying to achieve i. e.
Drug addicts. Rebellion, rejecting rewards and ways of achieving them. e. g. terrorists. In capitalist societies working hard to enjoy the good things in life benefits all society; however, for those who are bombarded by advertising day in, day out, and who do not have the skill or the means to achieve? ? ?
success? ? ? , these people will still have the desire to achieve it and will thus, take any action to gain this perceived? ? ? success? ? ? (drug dealing, crime). Cohen developed Merton? ? ? s ideas to include crimes that would not materially gain the offender. Where normal success is perceived as impossible to achieve, it leads to something Cohen refers to as? ? ? status frustration? ? ? , acceptable goals rejected and success reinterpreted to include the daring acts of theft, vandalism.
Thus, a deviant sub-culture is formed. Coward and Online add to this by contending that, in some cases, even access to the sub-culture is denied and these individuals fall into the trap of drugs and violence. Becker focuses on society? ? ? s creation of deviance through rules and laws, the subsequent enforcement creates a label for the perceived deviant and a suitable? ? ? label? ? ? attached, ? ? ?
criminal? ? ? , ? ? ? stupid? ? ? etc. The labelling of an individual leads to the judgement of his actions through the assigned label, leading to a reinforcement of the label. The criminal would seek out others who would not judge him to be anything other than normal; these would undoubtedly be persons of the same affliction. Income opportunities within the group would likely be illegal, arrest would eventually follow and the label reinforced.
There are many theories as to the cause of crime, and I am sure more will develop with time and understanding. In answer to the question? ? ? Is crime an abnormal act committed by an abnormal person? ? ? ? that answer must be, no.
Crime has always existed and always will. In capitalist societies, we force feed the idea of monetary value and expect the poorer, less able public to accept their lot; this is clearly wrong. We must accept that crime is a normal part of every society and a consequence of its existence; we have all committed some small crime whether we like to think so or not, we are generally in a position where we do not have to commit crime due to our circumstances but others are not. The proportion of crime seems to be directly attributable to each individual society? ? ?
s moral view upon crime, poverty and justice. Even in a world of saints there would be deviance but what would be deemed as deviance would be of a relative nature and thus, petit to our own morally bankrupt society. Bibliography Sociology in Perspective Mark Kirby Sociology, Themes and PerspectivesHaralambos &# 038; Holborn Sociology of Crime Ross Matthews
Free research essays on topics related to: ideas, part of society, society , law abiding, capitalist societies
Research essay sample on Part Of Society Capitalist Societies
