This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Our nation, from the start, has been divided by class, race, national origin and has endured class conflicts throughout history. Social inequality is one of the main reasons encouraging inolvement in criminal acts. The purpose of this essay is to show that crime is constructed socially rather than individually. In order to do so, I will focus on describing how crime can be viewed as a product of social construction, explaining different factors contributing to the way people perceive particular behaviour as criminal as well as contrasting the concept of crime being socially constructed with its legal definition. After discussing theories developed by Howard Becker and Karl Marx, essay will conclude that criminal behaviour and its consequences are indeed socially constructed.
Reaching consensus over an appropriate term defining crime has undoubtedly been challenging for criminologists as "there are no purely objective definitions; all definitions are value laden and biased to some degree" (Barak, 1998, p.21). Hence, it is not an easy way to give an exact definition of something so diverse. However, the legal definition of crime suggested by Tappan (1947:100) is agreed by many to be the most precise and clear. It states that "Crime is an intentional act in violation of the criminal law (statutory and case law), committed without defence or excuse, and penalized by the state as a felony or demeanour", although, it has also met with criticism from others who believe that it is a too narrow definition (Milovanovic, n.d.). Only harms defined as such by the state are considered in Tappan's theory which is also limited to those criminals found "legally" guilty (Milovanovic, n.d.). It is also vital to mark that legal definition of crime not only excludes white collar crime but also fails to acknowledge the cultural and historical context of law, such as the legal status of gambling and prostitution may be different depending on the state or nation (Henry, 200). Essentially an act becomes a crime when it breaks the law established by the government of particular society and so what counts as crime varies depending on different cultures, laws and religions, although there are three main elements determining crime which remain consistent: harm, social agreement and societal reaction. The way society responds to the particular harmful behaviour may differ, for example, theft conducted in the UK may result in a warning or minor sentence, whereas in Muslim societies the same person might have his hand cut off for such an offence. Looking also from an historical perspective, attitudes towards certain acts previously considered as criminal have changed with many no longer viewed as crimes. Therefore it is clear that the definition of crime has undoubtedly gone through changes and probably will continue to change.
The main aspect which legal definition of crime fails to acknowledge is that some behaviours are considered as crimes whilst others not. This brings us to the social construction of crime, created and essentially developed by society in terms of held perceptions, morals, beliefs and values of individuals living within it. These shape the way we are such as personality, character and our roles within the society. As people are 'measure' beings, they often judge themselves and people around them. The concept of social construction sees criminal behaviour as a mutual interpersonal activity involving actors and audiences (Henry, 2009), therefore, the way someone is identified and located within the society has significant consequences for the way we act towards others (Becker, 1963). Societies define crime by their own norms, beliefs and rules. Whereas rules, which govern everywhere, determine as well correct and incorrect behaviours within the society, criminal law often mirrors a fairly extensive point that particular behaviour violates some social standards and values (murder, rubbery, etc.). However, actions considered as criminal may vary depending on different cultures, laws or religions. In short, crime is what particular society chooses it to be.
Furthermore, crime is a fundamental part of deviance theory suggested by Howard Becker. Deviance is not a quality of the act a person commits, but rather the consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an 'offender'(Becker, 1963). It is not only a result of humans actions but also depends on the audience judging particular behaviour as negative or positive. Becker argued that deviance can be defined as a kind of behaviour which differs from the normal, rule-breaking behaviour that is unacceptable in society and depends on what people see as unacceptable.Â In such situation where society labelled a particular person as a deviant, it often results in isolation of this person who eventually finds the only way to survive through engaging in criminal activity. Most importantly, crime often arises where the obvious segregation of the rich and poor occurs. Karl Marx, on the other hand, suggested that 'class struggles' are underlying problems in societies where the basis of power is wealth and which as a result leads to injustice and inequality. Sheptycki says that "the roots of crime lie in the social structural inequalities of wealth and power" (cited in McLaughlin, p.264). This viewpoint perceives capitalist societies as ones which choose individual interest over social welfare. Therefore, from the social constructionist point of view, crime is a behaviour defined by powerful and privileged people with the authority to make laws that recognise some acts as offensive. Once more, regarding Becker, powerless people, no matter how bad the damage they have done could be, are likely to be arrested and judged. People who hold more power create then kinds of illusions that people at the lower levels of social hierarchy (measured on the basis of their income, education degree or even race)- are dangerous to the society. It not only creates a place where people are dependent on state but also discriminates people one way or another. Government, could also be an example here. It defines what crime is by choosing to outlaw some particular act, for instance, the issue with drugs which government made illegal. Money tracking laws or tax evasion fall into different category, which relates to government who creates crime for their own interests. This suggests that crimes are created by lawmakers who limit citizens' freedom on the ground of their own moral standards.
Taking into account all of the aforementioned factors, we can conclude that crime has inevitably been a product of social construction. Notwhistanding the fact that crime is a complex and diverse concept without one, accepted definition, what counts as criminal varies depending on cultures, laws and religions which proves that crime is a product of social conctruction. Definitions of crime are constructed by both cultural norms and values as well as power relations. We socially shape the meanings of behaviours and their consequences, so different actions are considered crimes to different people in different societies. The question, therefore is what should criminologists actually study and pay attention to when looking at the crime construction. As discussed before, legal definition of crime alone is unsatisfactory because it simply fails to acknowladge the natural processess and allows to study only those acts the law defines as criminal. Alternative and more effective aproach would therefore be to adopt a broader definition of crime including different antisocial behaviours which may fall outside the scope of the legal definition. Criminologists should not be limited to only arbitrary categories as multiple aspects of crime need a serious and reflective consideration of what actually forms the action we call a crime.