Criminology - sociology -philosophy - Essay Example

THE SHORT HISTORY OF CRIMINOLOGY HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF FAILURE By number: Sociology 9999 Dis analysis Submitted to (Tutor):DateIntroduction Crime tends to have a uniform definition and defines universal application. However, Phillipson Argues that Traditional criminology is a failure. This is because the manner of interpretation of this rationale in traditional criminology has raised questions regarding its affectations to given kinds of objectivity as well as its validity as an independent branch of knowledge (Phillipson:3).

This is because society decides the subject of criminologist; he has limited control over formulating the subject. Traditional criminology has been a failure because it does not understand criminal law, criminal and criminal mind.The short history of criminology has been a history of failureAccording to Phillipson, traditional criminology fails to understand criminal law. The subject matter of criminology is defined by non-criminologists thus placing limits on the discipline (Phillipson:4). Even though criminology is acknowledged as the study of crime and criminals, it fails to understand criminal law because sorts of behaviours that are branded as crimes and the people who are convicted as criminals emerge out of social processes which are independent of the professional criminologists’ activities (Phillipson:3).. Traditional criminology, therefore, has his subject matter given to him through the society’s formal definitions of crime (illegal behaviours).

It is also the society that identifies the individuals who commit criminal acts and not criminal law. In addition, traditional criminology has been a failure because legal definitions of what is a criminal behaviour vary within any society (Phillipson:6).. This is because what is regarded as a crime in a given  society may not be in another because different societies have different definitions of criminal behaviours. For instance, some societies accept homosexual behaviour, gambling and drug use while others consider them criminal offenses.

This, therefore, means that there is no one universal behaviour that is always and everywhere criminal because societies’ reactions to crime change with regards to time and place (Phillipson:5).Traditional criminology has ignored social processes upon which criminal law is made. It however rests upon an implicit acceptance of the legal status quo. This unquestioning acceptance of upheld values limit the questions criminologists ask as well as the answers they get from questions relating to the causes of crimes (Phillipson:7).

This restricts the focus of traditional criminology in search of causes to individuals who were officially convicted of criminal offences. The limited vision of traditional criminology implies that it is incapable of locating the causes of crime or criminals by only studying the convicted criminal population. Traditional criminology assumes that cats of the convicted criminals can only be explained by entirely focussing on the convicted criminals without referring to the encompassing social structure.

It assumes that criminals and criminal acts can be identified by examining the personal biographies of convicted criminals; however, this may not be true because biographical factors which are branded causal may also be found in individuals who are members of non-criminal groups. Further, there is no universal constellation of biographical factors which can sufficiently differentiate convicted criminals from matched non-criminals (Phillipson:8). Traditional criminology failed to understand criminal minds.

This is because the factors and claims which were identified as effective discriminators have so far been abandoned. These claims, for instance, included the ideas that criminals were mentally retarded, biologically superior, maternally deprived, economically deprived, mentally ill or a combination of all these (Phillipson:9). This has been strongly criticised because criminals are very intelligent and uses sophisticated technology. ConclusionPhillipson has shown that traditional criminology is a failure because it is faced with many problems that limit its ability to validate claims in a bid to provide explanations for the crimes committed.

The problem with the criminology is that it fails to understand criminal minds, criminal and criminal law. ReferencePhillipson, M. (1971). Sociological aspects of crime and delinqency. London [u.a.], Routledge & Kegan Paul.