Perspectives of Crime in the US

¶ … Sociology of Crime

Sociologists claim that crime is a social construction

The term "crime" refers to various forms of misconduct that are forbidden by the law (Eglin & Hester, 2013). There are different justifications as to shy sociologists classify crimes as a social construction. All social problems are the product of social construction; defining, naming and labeling them into place through which people can make sense of them. It is evident that crime is formed socially. The constructionist angle draws on a varying sociological inheritance, one that looks at the society as a matrix of meaning. It gives a primary role to the procedures of constructing, generating and spreading meanings. Under this perspective, it is impossible to understand reality in a direct and unmediated manner. People will often mediate reality by meaning. Proponents of this school of thought believe that what people experience is the "social construction of reality." How someone or something is identified, named and positioned with a map of social orders profoundly affects how people act towards it or them. The society's concern about crime relates mainly to violence and theft, which are seen as being critical enough to demand sustained attention from the law enforcers (Eglin & Hester, 2013).

Such concern as portrayed in periodic moral panics ensures that most of those engaged in criminal violence and theft do so in a manner of secondary deviation. Therefore, most of them develop a criminal identity. The media has become the strongest institution that generates a great effect on the social construction of crime. The importance of media in framing how people understand social issues is widely understandable. Research affirms that crime stories are among the most headlines catching of news items. It is suggested that there is a strong link between the pictures of criminality reflected in the news media and the interpretation of these news articles. The "Black Crime" is a perfect example of how crime has been socially constructed. In the early 70s, the media constantly projected an image of Britain as a white society. Criminality and crime became the central motifs that constructed black people, signifying that they were not British.

2. Crime as a social problem vs. crime as a sociological problem

Crime is seen as a social issue because of its innate nature as a threat to the individuals and society as a whole (Eglin & Hester, 2013). Crime prevention and reduction has been and will remain to be a top concern of the executive, legislative and judicial branches in the U.S. There are various ways of measuring the issue of crime; this has led to arguments over what is the most appropriate pointer to understand the severity of crimes. No world society is without crimes. Today's crimes are associated with the serious problems. Among them is that is many scenarios, the criminals are economically, politically, and socially powerful in that they decide the course of punishment for others whereas they escape completely. Poverty is strongly attributed to crime (Eglin & Hester, 2013). In this manner, it is argued that it is the primary cause of most crimes. Regardless of the fact that poverty is a relative term, in every form, it results in the adoption of underhand, illegal means and corruption.

Poverty leads to acts of suicide, bribery, and prostitution among others. Indirectly or directly, poverty is accountable for all manner of crimes in the society. From a sociological perspective, people are responsible for their actions and will be held accountable for what they do. However, these actions do not arise from a social vacuum. They must be interpreted in the social setting. In the society, in criminal law and everyday life, the context of crime rests on the idea of attributing personal liability for the social transgressions. There is always one or more identifiable person/s to be held responsible for their actions. Therefore, the cultural, social and political context in which the problem happens will tend to disappear into the background.

3. A pluralist model of law making vs. a concentrated model of lawmaking

The pluralist model is whereby multiple teams, not the population as a whole, govern the society. The institutions such as trade unions, professional associations, civil rights activists, environmentalists, coalitions if like-minded citizens and business lobbies influence the making and administering of policy and laws. Because the participants in this model comprise mainly a tiny percentage of the population, the public acts as the bystanders. In fact, the pluralists contend that direct democracy is not only unworkable, but it is also even undesirable. In addition to the logistical issues related to having all citizens meet at one point to decide laws, legal issues need expert and continuous attention that the average citizens do not have. Pluralists suggest that in the current society, politics is a sideshow in the great life circus. Most people focus their energies and time on activities that involve family, work, friendship, recreation, health and the like. They go further, worrying that the common citizen lacks the virtues of intelligence, patience for self-governance, reason and that direct democracy results in anarchy and loss of freedom.

4. "Legitimation Crisis" and contemporary Canadian criminal justice system

Legitimation crisis is by definition the decline in the confidence of administrative institutions, leadership, and functions (Eglin & Hester, 2013). Over four decades, studies constantly reveal that Canadians have reduced confidence in the effectiveness or fairness of the criminal justice system and criminal law in general. This confidence crisis seems acute among racial minorities. Research indicates that at least one among three Whites has little confidence in the police (Eglin & Hester, 2013). Both the racial breach and the lack of confidence in perceptions of the Canadian law and legal actions have persisted for almost four decades. This is regardless of whether crime rate is falling or rising. However, others might ask why the criminal law matters when it is affecting very few people. In fact, most individuals have minimal contact with the criminal justice system. Further, among those with contact, at least half of them have been involved in traffic stops. Very few people are victims of crime and pursue redress or police protection from the courts. Even if Canadians believe that the criminal law and its institutions are functioning poorly, casual observers are likely to dismiss these adverse opinions by referring to Canada's orderly society whose crime rates are much lower than those in industrialized nations are. However, it is useful to listen carefully to the constant popular disquiet regarding the criminal justice system. In the era of high crimes, public concerns are directly associated with crime. It seems these concerns persist even in low crime eras.

In most cases, public dissatisfaction is becoming wider in scope and broadly shared. Canadians are persistently frustrated with the diminishing quality of criminal justice as a public service (Eglin & Hester, 2013). They are chronically dissatisfied with the capacity of legal bodies to extract retribution from criminals and condemning crimes using the strongest terms possible. To make matters worse, many are concerned about racial discrimination in the administration of criminal justice. Such frustration with the criminal justice system is becoming a constant force, undermining and churning confidence of legal bodies. This has destabilized political equanimity in a manner that maintains crime politically in play, whether in low or high crime eras. This disquiet is threatening to erode the public perception that the Canadian legal institutions and criminal law are legitimate; raising the prospect of disengaging the public from vital collaborations needed to the co-production of security.

5. Instrumentalist vs. structuralist perspectives on the penitentiary

The instrumentalists condemn what they term the new form of human exploitation; the penitentiary. It is estimated that that a population of roughly 2 million, comprising the Hispanics and Blacks work for the numerous industries for a pittance (Eglin & Hester, 2013). For the instrumentalists, tycoons have invested in the penitentiary sector, as they have discovered a pot of gold. They no more worry about vacations, paying unemployment insurance and strikes. They have full-time workers, who never arrive late or are absent due to family issues. Besides, in case they do not want the remuneration of 25 cents per hour and decline to work, they are sent to isolation in prison. The country's state, private and federal prisons have roughly 2 million inmates (Eglin & Hester, 2013). From instrumentalists' perspective, no other society in the history of humankind has imprisoned many of its citizens like the U.S. The statistics indicate that the nation had locked up more individuals than any other nation; a half a million contrasted with China which has the greatest population. Investigations suggest that the country holds roughly 25% of the global prison population but only 5% of the global populace. In the 70s, the jail population was estimated at 300,000. As per the year 2000, the population had grown to 2 million. Ten years ago, the country had only ten private prisons with a populace of only 2000 inmates. Today, there are 100 private prisons with 70,000 inmates.

Instrumentalists have projected that the number will hit 400,000 in the coming decade (Eglin & Hester, 2013). This school of thought cites that the private contracting of inmates for labor is fostering incentives to lock people up. Penitentiaries rely on this revenue. Corporate stockholders who earn off prisoners labor are lobbying for longer sentences to expand their labor force. Proponents of the instrumental body are accusing the penitentiary sector of being a replication of the Nazi Germany regarding concentration of camps and slave labor. The penitentiary complex is among the rapidly expanding industries on the Wall Street. It has grown into a multi-million dollar sector with its trade conventions, exhibitions, Internet catalogs and websites. In fact, it has direct architecture firms, advertising campaigns, plumbing supply firms, armed security, and investment houses on Wall Street and food supply firms.

Structuralism argues against the notion that penitentiary is the constant form of punishment because of the humanitarian concerns of the reformists. They trace the cultural move that resulted in the birth of prisons, concentrating on the questions and body of power. From this perspective, prison is a new technological power that could also be found in places like hospitals, schools and military barracks. In looking at the birth of prisons as the central means of criminal punishment, structuralists build a case for the concept that penitentiary has become a part of the greater "carceral system," which has grown into the all-encompassing sovereign institution in today's society. Penitentiary is a component of a vast network, including military institutions, schools, factories, and hospitals that form a panoptic society for its members. This system is creating disciplinary careers for individuals locked within its boundaries. It functions based on the scientific authority of psychology, medicine, and criminology. Besides, structuralists indicate that the system runs according to principles, which guarantee it cannot fail to generate delinquents. Indeed, delinquency is generated when social petty offenses like taking sugar from the shopkeeper, is no more tolerated. This creates a class of special delinquents that pose as police's proxy in society's surveillance.