Impact of Underclass on Moral Fabric of British Society - Essay Example

Critical criminology: Charles Murray claims that the Under Is impacting upon the Moral Fabric of British Society, And Is Responsible for Increasing Anti-Social Behaviour in Certain Communities. Name Professor Institution Course Date Introduction Similar to numerous opinions raised by different people, criminology and its impact on certain communities in UK scholars have emerged with differing explanations. Hence, prompting sociologists categorize them as being either right or left realists based on their justifications in regards to criminology and what causes it. This is quite evident in Right realist Murray’s argument contending “underclass” being the cause of degrading morals that continue to worsen by the day In UK (Longhurst et al., 2014). Other scholars have also raised similar arguments though their mode arguing assume diverse justifications but gravitate to the same implication. For instance, feminists’ positions led by Cain, Smart, and Carlin have based their arguments on gender in regards to criminology claiming of discrimination. This is because numerous sociologists have used male’s actions as yardstick in generalizing crime even among women without considering factors that affect them. However, their arguments instead of giving concrete backing end up gravitating indirectly to Charles Murray’s issue of “underclass” similar to Cohen’s argument (states’ crime and human rights), which this study seeks to address. By stating “underclass” in his argument Murray denotes how the rapid changing traditional family structure has yielded to illegitimacy, marital breakdown, inadequate childbearing patterns and augmenting crime among the poor (Longhurst et al., 2014). Most of the children comprising the underclass have been brought up by single parents and aging pensioners who in instilling the acceptable social values is somehow extremely hard. Hence, this state gives rise to a generation, which is not only a poor and struggling to cope with the current evolving industrial sector but also show no concern for wider societal values. Since, most of them despite being healthy and energetic, exhibit sheer unwillingness to take up paid employment thus end up embracing illegal economic activities coupled with quick-fix sexual liaisons (Jones, 2009). Consequently, this extends to their children who deem the responsibility of children squarely rests on their mothers but not fathers whereby the latter end up being irresponsible. The result of this regrettably deteriorates moral fabric of a given society as Murray contends because it continues to worsen with every incoming generation especially now in the present 21st century where feminist movements are more vocal in promoting independence of the female gender. This is especially in situations where there is marital breakdown caused by irresponsibility of either of the parents due to their poor upbringing (Jones, 2009). Thus heightening the rate of single families where the chain still continues. Conversely, left realists in regards to criminology place their blame on capitalism system that throttles institutionalized opportunities while favouring the few affluent. Based on their argument, crime is a product of the current evolving industrial sector that affects all classes though the most being the underclass (Anderson et al., 2014). For instance, street crime (whose causation factors include those mentioned and outlined by Murray) is an unending predicament affecting both low and affluent. This is relative deprivation whereby each person irrespective of his or her class experiences the impact of crime (Anderson et al., 2014). However, the impact of crime does not have similar severity to all people as per left realists’ argument for they claim the underclass is more vulnerable. This is similar to Murray’s premise where in high-crime regions seem to have certain subcultures, which are ideal in availing favourable settings for delinquency. Hence, contribute significantly towards developing of anti-social conduct in certain communities though as per left realists’ argument who also blame activities of the well off contributing to the same. For instance, through improper waste disposal and deplorable working conditions, this makes the powerless end up being economically and politically vulnerable to indulge in crime (Anderson et al., 2014). Feminist’s position in regards to criminology inclines more on gender whereby key proponents like Cain, Smart, and Carlin contend in expounding about crime in any given society cannot assume same platform for both sexes. This is because marginalization normally takes the day as sociologists use males’ action as yardstick to gauge those of the weaker sex, which ought not to be the case. Therefore, in expounding their respective position, which is transgresive criminology, normally emphasize on gender (DeKeseredy & Perry, 2006). However, similar to Murray’s arguments they narrow to societal class, which, in this case, embrace the poor represented by female who due to scarcity essential means end up involving themselves in crime. Hence, compelled by factors that they are unable to control though many end up raped though in male scholarship in regards to criminology does not report this but term such incidences as general products of crime in the society. Berating criminology description by male socialists is also evident in Smart’s arguments (Matthews & Palgrave Connect, 2014). She contends to avoid the dominant and sole exemplification of criminology that for long has backed male grand stories, and feminist scholarship ought to be vocal. Mainly, this is by deconstructing male’s grand accounts or stories in describing criminology but she ends up not giving any specific description. However, she gravitates to relativism similar to Murray’s premise, which, in this case, refers to underclass characterized by degrading morals (Matthews & Palgrave Connect, 2014). Despite Cohen in his argument adequately describing some of the state’s deeds qualifying as activities (murder, rape, kidnapping, unlawful incarceration, and assault) that infringe on human rights, he contradicts himself contending entail “objective approach” (Watts, Bessant & Hil, 2008). This is in the case of due process for the respective state’s authority or organ to establish whether the accused qualifies to have committed the mentioned crime. Hence, entailing investigation and numerous processes meant to convince one that his or her actions are unlawful and qualify for a certain punishment (Watts, Bessant & Hil, 2008). In addition, his argument leads to numerous questions regarding the exclusion of torture, which up to date states through police still practice. This is to compel the accused to provide required information they know and cannot do so willingly. Similarly, his argument is devoid of “welfarist” action of stealing the poor children, which is a trend that seems to be normal and characterizing numerous states especially in 21st century (Watts, Bessant & Hil, 2008). Consequently, I think this depicts what the society has turned out to be presently whereby the rich backed by government’s objective mode of dealing with certain crimes end up giving Murray’s “underclass” an ideal environment to worsen though indirectly (Prideaux, 2010). This is because many of them end up participating in the same in UK whereby currently there are numerous non-natives from diverse states. Consequently, this confirms the extent to which criminological development continues to evolve with numerous premises earlier esteemed as effective in describing crime proved otherwise (Chamberlain, 2013). This is by current scholarship whereby to date certain activities as seen in Cohen’s arguments despite being inhuman states continue to practice them. In conclusion, despite feminists’ opinions, Left realists and Cohen arguments in regards to criminology initially seeming to bring out differing meanings and causes of criminology, they all narrow to Murray’s underclass. Murray in his quest to explain the causes of crime, he blames the present rapid failing structure of traditional family giving raise to illegitimacy. This refers to single parents and elderly pensioners that comprise the poor underclass unable to instil necessary morals to their growing children. In the case of feminists, they base their arguments on gender but eventually end up gravitating to the deplorable conditions, which the women they are claiming normally reside. This is also evident in the case of left realists whose blame is on capitalism system that deny the less fortunate necessary opportunities to thrive but give the fluent. Cohen’s on his arguments though seeming to be different also highlights how those ruled end up exposed to injustices by the state more so the underclass. References Anderson, J. F. et al. (2014). Criminological Theories. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Chamberlain, J. M. (2013). Understanding criminological research: A guide to data analysis. London: SAGE. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Perry, B. (2006). Advancing critical criminology: Theory and application. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Jones, G. (2009). Youth. Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity. Longhurst, B. et al. (2014). Introducing Cultural Studies. London: Routledge. Matthews, R., & Palgrave Connect (Online service). (2014). Realist criminology. [Basingstoke]: Palgrave Macmillan Prideaux, S. J. (2010). The welfare politics of Charles Murray are alive and well in the UK. International Journal Of Social Welfare, 19(3), 293-302. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 2397.2009.00660.x Watts, R., Bessant, J. & Hil, R. (2008). International Criminology: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge. Read More