Common Sense in Criminology - Essay Example

Common Sense in Criminology Introduction In spite of the great diversity of criminological theories and the complex task of analysing crime statistical data, it is extremely helpful to reinforce common-sense understandings of crime through the consistent use of theoretical and methodological resources in order to enhance significantly the common-sense limitations in the realm of Law and fact assessment regarding the evidence in search of the proof. In the present essay we study the role of Criminology, the definitions and limitations of common sense, the criminological theories, the importance of statistical data evaluation in relation to crime, the seven C's of common sense, and the enhancement of common-sense understandings through theoretical and methodological tools. All along this essay we endeavor to find answers to the problem arising from the shortcomings in common-sense understandings. At the end, a multidisciplinary and eclectic approach to this judicial matter will guide the way into a correct path in search for a coherent solution. Common Sense in Criminology There is a great deal of criminological theories to choose from. A wide spectrum of contradictory ideas lies behind those theories. But the knowledge of all of those theoretical assumptions can help us a lot in the task of assessing the evidence in any legal case. They can be especially necessary when we face the problem of common-sense limitations. These shortcomings can be reduced to a minimum through the appropriate use of adequate theoretical and methodological criteria. The role of criminological theories cannot be underestimated. Dr. Tom O'Connor (2004c) gives a valuable idea of what a criminological theory should be comprised of: "Every criminological theory contains a set of assumptions (about human nature, social structure, and the principles of causation, to name a few), a description of the phenomena to be explained (facts a theory must fit), and an explanation, or prediction, of that phenomenon." A theory can greatly help us in the understanding of how the universe works around us. In Criminology there is a great variety of motives, approaches, perspectives, and theories to be considered (O'Connor 2004a, 2004b; DeMelo 2003b). Most of the theories present conflicting and contradictory positions, so the overall state of the theoretical corpus in Criminology is somewhat chaotic and confusing when we study the different fundamental tenets that many theoreticians hold as valid. Despite this complex theoretical panorama, all of the opposing theories have something to teach us about crime and its interpretation. These theories can give us some insight into the phenomenon of crime as Diane M. DeMelo (2003c) states: "Theories not only provide a framework for us to interpret the meanings of observed patterns but they help us to determine when these patterns are meaningful and when they are not." It is necessary to have a general knowledge of most of the criminological theories, so we can enhance the common-sense understandings improving our interpretation of the evidence in any fact assessment case. And we have to notice that common sense can mean many different things depending on the person who defines it. Many things are taken for granted in the name of common sense, so we have to be aware of the implications the definitions might have. Common sense is widely applied by everyone, and it can help us in simplifying the way we think and arrive at a conclusion when assessing facts and data. Schutz (2005) gives us an excellent idea of what common sense implies: "Common-sense thinking consists of a system of constructs or meanings for organizing the world and acting in it. Although each of our total set of constructs is unique (originating in our biographical situation), most of our common-sense constructs are socially derived. This shared intersubjective stock of knowledge and assumptions we develop through interactions allows us to engage in joint projects with other people". Even though it is very important to use common sense in facts and data assessment, a proper theoretical and methodological approach to any kind of evaluation is really necessary in order to confirm or not the presumptions that arise from common sense. So we can see that research also plays a very important role in the enhancement of the common-sense shortcomings: "Research results, however, do influence policy. The common sense of many police officers long told them that patrolling police cars prevented crime and that rapid responses to calls solved crimes. Research carried out in the 1970s showed that neither of these commonsense beliefs was true, and by doing so this research opened minds to the fundamental reconsideration of policing that has led in the 1990s to widespread support for community-based and problem-solving innovations." (Tonry & Morris 1996). The use of criminological theories in reinforcing the common-sense limitations can never be stressed too much. The Classical School holds a solid position by stating that free will of the individuals play a significant role in the causation of crime. And this view is contradicted by the Positive School and its deterministic cosmovision. The Strain Theory, the Chicago School, the Social Disorganisation Theory, the Labeling Theory, The Sub-Cultures Theories, The Social Control Theory, the Differential Association Theory, and the Anomie Theory, among others, have specific useful elements that can enrich the theoretical corpus of any of the actors in the judicial process. These theories provide valuable insight focusing on different aspects of crime and its origin, prevention, punishment, and control. All of them have something to say about crime, and it is very important to study all of them in order to have an eclectic view of Criminology. Other sciences like Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, Anthropology, Theology, Economics, Linguistics, among many others, can also provide us with the multidisciplinary knowledge that can aid our crime studies. And they can also enhance and reinforce our limitations when it comes to using our common sense. In the specific case of the School of Chicago, this theory has made fundamental innovations as Diane M. DeMelo (2003a) states: "The school contributed two methods of study. The first was the usage of official data, such as census reports, housing/welfare records and crime figures. High areas of crime, truancy and poverty were applied to different geographical areas of the city. The second method was the life history, as first studied by early Chicago school theorist, W.I. Thomas. This contributed a shift away from theoretical abstracts to more concrete approaches of the real world and real world related phenomena." The use of statistics by the School of Chicago is really a very valuable contribution to the field of Criminology. It is especially helpful to use descriptive statistics as well as inferential statistics in the study of crime. The post-facto statistical studies are also very useful in the assessment of data. Looking for causal correlations is an everyday statistical task in the criminological field of study. Regarding common sense, Ed Hatch (n. d.) eloquently speaks about what he calls the seven C's of common sense, which are Consensus, Consistency, Coherence, Convergence, Clarity, Charm, and Concrete. Studying each and every one of these qualities in relation to common sense we clearly see that common sense has several special characteristics. Out of all this, we can firmly affirm that common sense is not supposed to be taken for granted. It is a subtle and special thinking tool we have as our ally in assessing and evaluating facts and data. Ed Hatch (n. d.) expands even more his ideas about common sense in the following terms: "We should note that, just as facts cannot prove theory, common sense can never assure us that we have a final answer. While we are always justified in holding to common-sense preferences, we must recognize that ignorance can sometimes allow an apparent, yet unreal, satisfaction of common-sense preferences. And, since our knowledge is always limited, we must always be alert to the fact that new knowledge may require that assumptions based on prior knowledge be reevaluated with respect to common-sense preferences and the new knowledge - theories should never be thought untouchable." Really theories should never be considered to be untouchable, but they do help us in enhancing the limitations of our common-sense understandings. Theories, statistics, and research provide a solid framework to assess, evaluate and analyse facts and data using at the same time our common sense all along the way in our search for the truth. At the end of the road, this task will be quite rewarding as we can evaluate facts under a much more scientific point of view. Conclusion In order to enhance the common-sense shortcomings, it is useful and necessary to approach the facts with a solid and ample theoretical and methodological framework. All the different criminological theories have something to say about crime, its origin, its prevention, its penalization, its punishment, its reduction, its control, etc. So we have to study all the possibilities arising from all these conflicting theories armed with the assistance of appropriate statistical tools that can help us in our evaluation and assessment of facts and data related to crime. Common sense tells us that we cannot take anything for granted, so we need to be eclectic and multidisciplinary when dealing with the mysteries surrounding crime. To be eclectic and multidisciplinary means to take into account as many criminological theories as possible and to use statistics extensively. This way our theoretical and methodological corpus will enhance in a great degree our common-sense shortcomings. References DeMelo, D M 2003a, 'Chicago School', viewed 22 October, 2005, . DeMelo, D M 2003b, 'Introduction. Dynamics of crime theory', viewed 22 October, 2005, . DeMelo, D M 2003c, 'Introduction to criminological theory"', viewed 22 October, 2005, . Hatch, E n.d., 'What should we ask of good theory', Ether Gauge Theory, viewed 23 October, 2005, . O'Connor, Dr. T 2004a, 'Crime motives', Justice Studies Department, North Carolina Wesleyan College, viewed 24 October, 2005, . O'Connor, Dr. T 2004b, 'Perspectives, approaches, and theories in criminology', Justice Studies Department, North Carolina Wesleyan College, viewed 24 October, 2005, . O'Connor, Dr. T 2004c, 'Crime theories', Justice Studies Department, North Carolina Wesleyan College, viewed 24 October, 2005, . Schutz, A 2005, 'Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action', Iowa State University, viewed 23 October, 2005, Tonry, M & Morris, N 1996, 'Preface", Crime and Justice, University of Chicago Press, Journals Division, Volume 20, viewed 24 October, 2005, http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CJ/prefaces/CJv20preface.html. Wikipedia 2005, 'Statistics', viewed 24 October, 2005, . Read More