Effect of the Criminal Justice Response - Assignment Example

? Applying Sociological Theories to Explain the Effect of the Criminal Justice Response on the Variations in Crime Rates between Social Groups An Analysis Paper Name Course Title Name of Professor Date of Submission Introduction Crime and deviance has constantly received grand attention from sociological theorists. Basic questions on the causes of crime and deviance, the roots of social order, and the response of the criminal justice system have drawn the interests of some of the great thinkers of sociology (Ruggiero, South & Taylor 1998). The outcome is a remarkable line of sociological theories of crime, such as differential association, control, labelling, subcultural, etc (Carrabine, Iganski, Lee, Plummer & South 2004). Nevertheless, it is perhaps obvious that basic issues generate similarly basic challenges, including criminology. The facts on crime persist to bother existing theories. As stated by Birkbeck & Lafree (1993), this is particularly the scenario for theories that have founded their assumptions on the prevailing lineage of established sociological knowledge. Everyone thinks that poverty is the root of criminal behaviour it appears, and this is because the facts demonstrate it (Ruggiero et al. 1998); despite of the growth in crime rates during stages of economic development, spates of violence in affluent nations such as the United Kingdom, the unstable correlation of deviant behaviour with social class materialist theory remains obviously inadequate (Ruggiero et al. 1998). However, it is not only materialist theory that falls short. Majority of criminological theory is stagnant and hampered by an emphasis on supposedly rigid descriptive categories, thus failing to take account of the mechanisms and processes resulting in criminal behaviour (Taylor, Walton & Young 1988). The major aspect of crime that we are not aware of, basically, involves its causal social dynamics. For instance, the high crime rates among different social groups, such as African Americans, have been noted (Carrabine et al. 2004). A main issue frequently raised by criminologists, sociologists, and other scholars is the effect of the response of the criminal justice system on the differences in crime rates among different social groups (Cree 2000). A number of sociologists propose that discrimination in the criminal justice system serve only a small function in the high crime rate of social groups (Cree 2000). Others argue that racism and prejudice contributes significantly to the uneven participation of social groups, particularly the lower class, in the criminal justice system (Flowers 1990). The issue of differential law enforcement often begins with the police, normally the forefront of the system of criminal justice social group members come into contact with (Jackson 1989). Consequently, it is at this point that the nature of such participation and its effects is most important to the individual of marginal position. This paper will discuss the definitions of crime and deviance given by different sociological theorists, particularly Durkheim, Merton, Marx, and interactionist and subcultural theorists. Research evidence and sociological theories pertaining to the assumption that differences in crime rates between social groups are the result of the ways in which the criminal justice system operates will be discussed. Sociological Definitions of Crime and Deviance The concepts of crime and deviance are essentially sociological. They are socially constructed. However, even though there is a great deal of agreement, what is considered as crime and deviance differs across people, place, and time (Ruggiero et al. 1998). For Emile Durkheim, crime is a ‘social fact’, or, in other words, ‘normal’ (Carrabine et al. 2004). Basically, according to Durkheim, crime is a universal phenomenon. It took place in all kinds of society, and in all historical periods (Carrabine et al. 2004). There was no indication that it was disintegrating (Flowers 1990). It should hence be recognised as a normal feature of society which could not be eliminated. Robert Merton states that there continues to be a remarkable inclination in sociological theory to ascribe the breakdown of social structure mainly to those of humanity’s domineering biological urges which are insufficiently regulated by social control (Taylor et al. 1988). Similar to Durkheim, Merton argues that deviance is rooted in innate human nature (Carrabine et al. 2004). Merton himself realises that deviance is a normal adjustment to a self-centred environment instead of merely a biological ‘leak’ originating from the absence of social control (Taylor et al. 1988). On the other hand, Karl Marx claims that “the criminal produces not only crimes but also criminal law, and with it the professor who gives lectures on criminal law and in addition to this the inevitable compendium in which this same professor throws his lecture onto the general market as ‘commodities’” (Ellis & Hoffman 1990, 88). Marx bases his definition of crime and deviance on the development of capitalistic structures. This statement has frequently been imprecisely viewed by criminologists to imply that Marx view crime and deviance as carrying out an innovatory role, specifically, in strengthening the division of labour (Taylor et al. 1988). Subcultural theorists, on the other hand, refer to the formation of contemporary subcultures entirely outside of the norm, leading to the lack or the dearth of unlawful and lawful opportunities, for instance, the formation of the ‘gang’ which emerges from the shambolic slum rooting its values on the control of aggression and violence (Ruggiero et al. 1998). Symbolic interactionists, in the meantime, have used the situational perspective to define crime and deviance (Birkbeck & Lafree 1993). They stress the apparent fact that all criminal and deviant behaviours occur in situations. They argue that researchers should address the individuals since they cope with the series of situations truly facing them (Birkbeck & Lafree 1993). They stress that situations are provided meaning simply through the actors’ personal experiences. Individuals choose, evaluate, try, delay, and change the meanings of the situations they confront (Carrabine et al. 2004). Interpretation of crime and deviance is by no means an involuntary use of traditional meanings, but instead a formative mechanism where in new meanings are constantly created and modified to guide behaviour (Carrabine et al. 2004). Hence, according to symbolic interactionists, instead of viewing individuals as objective mediators through which earlier factors manifest themselves, it should be assumed that the way to make sense of crime and deviance is found in the mechanisms by which people keenly interpret situations (Taylor et al. 1988). The next situation will employ these different sociological assumptions to explain the link between criminal justice response and crime rates. The Criminal Justice Response and the Increasing Crime Rates between Social Groups First, take into account the issue of individual differences in crimes under common law. Criminologists usually resolve this issue by exploring why member of social groups perpetrate criminal acts and others do not, resulting in analyses between individuals and a horde of common links, such as family background, social class, race, personality, gender, etc (Tittle 1995). Even though this traditional field of inquiry is essential, a distinct way of studying the world can be located in sociology. Thus, let us consider the examination of differences in crime rates between social groups. Yet again the judgment of criminology is mainly stagnant. According to Birkbeck and Lafree (1993), throughout the twentieth century criminology has been recurrently faced with structural links with differences in crime rates. On the contrary, the social processes assumed to explain the impacts of community-level and neighbourhood structural features are still quite unidentified (Carrabine et al. 2004). For example, why poverty is important? If the impacts of neighbourhood on crime are real, most probably they are made up from mechanisms that require collective features of social life, such as subcultures and informal social control (Tittle 1995). However, aside from the effect of neighbourhood on crime rates, sociology also tries to explain the effect of the criminal justice response on variations in crime rates between social groups (Ellis & Hoffman 1990). In the course of their obligations, borrowing from the theory of Durkheim, law enforcers frequently have extensive freedom. This freedom, or authority to exercise personal discretion in establishing the nature of a matter, is, as stated by Merton, fundamentally discriminatory enforcement of the law by powerful constituents of the criminal justice system (Carrabine et al. 2004). Preferably, such judgment is founded on the best discretion of the law enforcer of a condition, such as whether a supposed event merits the detainment of a suspect or whether the procedures agreed on would be in the best interests of the public (Flowers 1990). Hence, this discretionary authority can possibly translate to discrimination, racial prejudice, violence, and, consequently, increase in crime rates between social groups (Tittle 1995). However, there has been no apparent agreement among sociological theorists on the role of criminal justice response on the differences in crime rates between social groups. Nonetheless, empirical research substantiates the argument that criminal justice response is more prone to lead to an increase in crime rates among different social groups, such as the young and lower class individuals (Tittle 1995). Class differences, as demonstrated by Marx, have been an influence in the differential enforcement of the law. One study reported that criminal justice response in domestic violence is mainly an outcome of the community where in the violence took place (Cree 2000). Law enforcers were more likely to respond formally in cases of domestic violence taking place in low class neighbourhoods than in wealthy communities (Birkbeck & Lafree 1993); this is in accordance to the subcultural theorists. Restricting the discretion of law enforcers and its occasionally biased implementation of the law has been addressed from a number of different sociological perspectives. Using the theory of Merton and Marx on social control, the courts’ restriction of law enforcers’ discretion can be quite effective in minimising the variations of crime rates between social groups (Carrabine et al. 2004). Police administrators have tried to institute social controls and guidelines for the performance of law enforcers. However, success in limiting law enforcers’ discretion has been weak due to the presence of several factors, such as what symbolic interactionists claim (e.g. variations in how one law enforcer interprets these guidelines from another enforcer, and the difference in particular interactions where in discretion may arise) (Ellis & Hoffman 1990). Currently, it seems that the most favourable way to address criminal justice response is to assume law enforcers will be in conformity with the common guidelines. Conclusions As shown in the discussion above, sociologists constantly modify extant theories and create new ones, such as integrated theories of crime, to accommodate new social realities, such as the effect of criminal justice response on the differences of crime rates between social groups. Sociologists, nevertheless, are beginning to realise that it is impossible to elucidate crime and deviance entirely in relation to the immediate social environment, such as those of Durkheim, Merton, Marx, interactionist theorists, and subcultural theorists. As a result, they are placing more emphasis on the bigger social context, which influences the immediate social environment. Moreover, they are giving more focus on the circumstances where in individuals discover themselves, which have an effect on whether inclined people will take part in criminal acts. Moreover, sociologists are beginning to understand that they have to consider variables taken into account in other crime theories. In addition, sociologists increasingly realise that their theories may need adjustment if they are to give explanations on the differences of crime rates between social groups. As shown in the discussion, theories may have to be changed to account for criminal justice response over variations in crime rates. Therefore, sociological theories of crime will increasingly become more intricate, including other factors such as situational ones and the bigger social environment. And adjusted accounts of such theories will be created to put in plain words criminal behaviours in different social groups. References Birkbeck, C. & Lafree, G. (1993) “The Situational Analysis of Crime and Deviance,” Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 113+ Carrabine, E., Iganski, P., Lee, M., Plummer, K. & South, N. (2004) Criminology: A Sociological Introduction. London: Routledge. Cree, V. (2000) Sociology for Social Workers and Probation Officers. London: Routledge. Ellis, L. & Hoffman, H. (1990) Crime in Biological, Social and Moral Contexts. New York: Praeger Publishers. Flowers, R. (1990) Minorities and Criminality. New York: Praeger Publishers. Jackson, P.I. (1989) Minority Group Threat, Crime, and Policing: Social Context and Social Control. New York: Praeger Publishers. Ruggiero, V., South, N., & Taylor, I. (1998) The New European Criminology: Crime and Social Order in Europe. London: Routledge. Shelley, L. (1981) Crime and Modernisation: The Impact of Industrialisation and Urbanisation on Crime. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Taylor, I., Walton, P. & Young, J. (1988) The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance. London: Routledge. Tittle, C. (1995) Control Balance: Toward a General Theory of Deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Read More