Crime as socially constructed behavior and community reaction

Crime a Socially Constructed

One's conduct or deeds turn into a crime or an offence via a progression of societal or communal conditioning. The same deed can be regarded as wrong in one community and act of valor in another or in the same community at a different point in time. The lawful status of a deed-whether it is an offense-does not depend on its substance, but on the communal reaction to that deed or to the individual who does it (Rosenfeld, 2009). Shifts in the lawful status of a particular deed can be due to communal changes or may be part of serious communal differences. The latest debates and confrontations over assisted suicide and abortion policy are two fine examples in the U.S. Lastly, the communal reaction to crime, social science theories on illegal behavior included, is founded on the significance of the deed and also the communal and ethical standing of the perpetrator and the offended (Rosenfeld, 2009).

Beliefs and values, and social conditioning assert that the definition of deeds, conducts and occurrences are not held as to their actual values but are regarded as to the standards given to them via communal interactions. Implying that, they are communally defined and structured thus under the influence of societal shifts (Rosenfeld, 2009). With regards to the communal conditioning viewpoint, a given deed (racism, domestic violence, DUIs) turns into a communal concern via the course of effective assertions by communal organizations that front a certain meaning of an issue or concern and then gather all kinds of communal reactions (medical therapy, incarceration, or mental evaluation)

Criminological School of Thought

Variants and social management assertion is that the meaning of crime or an offense is a one-sided opinion. Incarceration in correctional facilities, separation from family, punishment, confinement, and disgrace are the outcomes of crime. Particular deeds become criminal when legislations are formulated and enforced against those acts (O'Connor, 2010). The societal danger perception is usually more applied to financial crime. This perception brings into focus the biasness and unjust nature of the crimes that penalize the perpetrators and the crimes that penalize firms but not the individuals behind them. For example, British Petroleum (BP) is compensating the affected parties at an enormous cost for its destructive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, although it is not probable that staffs will be held personally liable. On the other hand a petty drug peddling charge can attract couple of years in confinement (O'Connor, 2010).

Legal sociology experts may perceive this as a dangerous societal act. In terms of human rights, the infringement part has a deeper definition to an offense. In this case the crime is not restricted to singular acts of individual injury but it also views the bigger picture that fights the widely communally accepted offenses that affect an individual's right to have an honorable way of life. This extends to many areas of existence such as sexual inequality, right to labor and basic education and racial or ethnic bias. It is anchored on the ideals of the Declaration of Independence to defend life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness for every individual. The sin perception shows the parallels between religion and criminology (O'Connor, 2010). It connects the similarities between a sinful mind and delinquency. Although several social scientists have highlighted the pointlessness of acknowledging that sin causes sin, they all accept that legislations demand that the perpetrators accept blame, and by extension admit that they are offenders.

The Surfacing of the Injured Party

The branches of criminal law and criminology have concentrated, over the years, on the unlawfulness of the offender than the criminally offended or victimized. Still, a variety of changes in the way of thinking, technological feats and communal and political influences have since the late sixties issued a basis whereby the models of victimization did surface. The perception that crime was more than simply the conduct of the perpetrator was already widely accepted among academics in the late 20th century (Wilcox, 2010).

It was then perceived as a scheme or system with the perpetrator and victim as components and the location and time viewed as instruments that aided in the victimization of the victim by the criminal. Apart from this school of thought, different knowledge sources surfaced, assisting in the alleviation of lack of enough data in police reports, which were compiled every year in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCRP). The formation of the National Crime Survey in the seventies, was particularly helpful in collecting huge amounts of data on crime occurrences in the victims opinion and analysis of this data every year (Wilcox, 2010). This countrywide exercise created a platform for numerous other crime occurrence/victimization surveys in local societies and different settings such as high schools and colleges. These surveys were judged against official police reports; this allowed analysts to approximate more precisely the occurrence and frequency of crime in the community due to the fact that they summed up crime events whether they were reported to the authorities or not (Wilcox, 2010).

Lastly, in the early sixties, politically correct social organizations were willing to deliver more support to the offended and to entrench their rights in the justice system. The reaction to this movement was that more activities and functions were provided to the system to assist the victims towards recovery, and channels were opened to allow victim participation in the course of justice through witness statements. The merge between these social changes and the technological advancements provided a perfect environment for the surfacing of the different models on the views on victimization (Wilcox, 2010).

These attribution viewpoints concentrated on broad causative sways, including different lifestyles, day-to-day routines, social dynamics and inequality. The models of victimization are different. They include; those that think of victimization as part of the societal relations dynamics between the offended and the perpetrator, those that hold victimization as a part of the societal gap in terms of domination (Wilcox, 2010).

These different opinions are backed by practical studies recorded in different literature. This then presents victimization as a multifaceted occurrence, which is the outcome of many wide communal and circumstantial influences (Wilcox, 2010). Even though these models can be viewed as contending and perhaps studied separately there is no contention that they all have advantages and they help in giving a complete picture of what victimization is.

Determination of a Crime and Victimization

Determination or measurement of a crime is part of criminal justice, which is critical but often assumed by criminologist (Addington). This is not good, because precise information is required to ascertain models of crime perpetration and victimization and to check how successful public policies are in dealing with crime. Crime data originates mainly from police reports, victim surveys and self reports by perpetrators (Addington).

The bulk of activity in determining how crime is ascertained concentrates on the information gathered in the U.S. The determination and analysis of United States Crime data possibly has a wider applicability, due to the fact that U.S. programs including the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) have been used as structures for information gathering in other nations.

The Justice Department employs the use of NCVS and UCR to determine how big, how expansive and how different and the effect of crime in the U.S. A pair of researchers said that both these surveys are critical for one reason, that crime is not like weather, that it is an occurrence which cannot be visually ascertained, that the nature and spread of crime cannot be assessed by only one singular measure (James and Council, 2008).

The UCR determines crime known to the authorities. The NCVS on the other hand gathers information on the offences individuals have experienced regardless of whether they were reported to the authorities. The Department of Justice holds that each of these two models gives critical data about the nature of the country's crime concerns. Since both models are carried out for different ends, apply different techniques, and concentrate on different angles of crime, the data that is gathered from both offers better and a near complete view of the country's crime problems or concerns than any one of them could (James and Council, 2008).

Despite NCVS's shrinking sample size, the number of respondents involved is still bigger than most of the other surveys done in the U.S. Even with this fact in mind, the reduction in sample size will still reduce the effectiveness of the NCVS data, to give dependable annual measures and the shifts in rates of some not so common types of victimization such as rape. The reduction in sample size will increase standard error 287 which is linked to the approximation of victims' statistics. This will reduce the sensitivity of the survey to important statistical victimization changes and rates (James and Council, 2008). For example the reduction in sample size increase the standard error for the approximation of assault victims, therefore analysts may not be able to ascertain if a shift in documented assault victimization reflects on an actual shift in countrywide victimization or it is just a statistical variation.