Explanation Of Crime And Its Context In Criminology - Case Study Example

Depending on a position of the researcher criminology is considered as biological, psychological (in general behavioural), legal, or sociological science. Nowadays the dominating point of view on criminology considers it as a sociological science (sociology of crime). We share this opinion as criminology studies first of all crime as a social phenomenon. Criminology is the most developed element of sociology of deviance, which also studies drug addiction, drunkenness, suicides, and other social deviations. The close connection between deviance and crime, consideration of crime as sort of social deviation is considered in the work of following researchers in modern criminology: J. Muncie and E. McLaughlin "The Problem of Crime"; F. Schmalleger "Criminology Today"; J. Tierney J. "Criminology: Theory and Context"; G. Barak "Integrating Criminologies"; D. Downes and P. Rock "Understanding Deviance. A Guide to the Sociology of Crime and Rule Breaking"; S. Jones "Criminology"; M. Lanier and S. Henry "Essential Criminology". In order to prevent misunderstanding it is necessary to emphasize: the sociology of deviance does not substitute criminology and does not replace it. Each of these sciences has own subject, both of them are social, sociological sciences. Their correlation (from the general to the special) is: sociology - sociology of deviance - criminology. While each of us knows very well what a crime is, it is one of the most complicated questions for an expert-criminologist. What is crime finally defines the legislator of the concrete state in the concrete time, reflecting the interests of ruling minority (authorities). Something that is claimed as criminal in one state in the certain time can be not considered as a crime in the other state or during the other time. A crime and criminality are relative, conventional concepts; they are social constructions (Muncie, & McLaughlin, 1996, p. 13-14; Tierney, 1996, p. 14-15; Barkan, p. 15). It does not mean that criminology as a science about crime does not have its own subject (and consequently, and the right to existence), it only means that the subject of criminology is one of social constructions, partly reflecting some social realities: some people kill the others, some people take possession of things of the others, some people deceive others, etc. Thus the same (as for the matter) actions can not considered as crimes: the murder of "enemy" on the war, or the murder of a "criminal" in accordance with the verdict of the court, taking possession of things of another person "under the law" or under the decision of court. As a matter of fact this dual "nature" of crime ( which is on the one hand is a real harm, and on the other hand is a "foresight" of the criminal law (conventionality) causes the complexity of definition of crime. How does criminology cope with this duality First of all is given "legal" definition of a crime. The formula offered by Tappan is considered to be classical one: the crime is the deliberate infringement of the criminal law accomplished not for the protection or the justification, and punishable by the state (Tappan, p. 100). In other words, the behavioural act is criminal, while and as it breaks the criminal law (Brown et al., 1991, p. 18). Alongside with it the crime is a "social construction", "ideological condemnation", "historical invention" (Muncie, & McLaughlin, 1996, p. 7-18). In criminology are considered such characteristics of a crime, as the form of normal behaviour (for the first time this idea has been stated by E. Durkheim), infringement of behavioural norms, the form of deviant behaviour, infringement of human rights, presence of social harm, social damage, form of inequality (Barak, 1998, p. 22-26). These characteristics are especially actively defended recently by postmodernist criminology which in particular considers social construction of "crime" as a "production" of authority with a view of restriction of others, not belonging to authority, individuals in their aspiration to overcome a social inequality, to behave differently, than orders authority. For the majority of criminologists, and we cannot disagree with them, borders of the criminal and not criminal, deviant and "normal" are conditional and flexible (relativism of a crime), and are the outcome of the "arrangement" fixed by the legislator in norms of criminal law (conventionality of a crime). In other words, the crime is a social construction. An attempt evidently to present the process of construction of "deviancy" and "criminality" as result of the social agreement/disagreement taking into account caused harm has been undertaken by Hagan and has received the name "Hagan's Pyramid of Crime", developed later into a "prism of crime" (Lanier & Henry, 2004, p. 21-29). Now let us consider the concept of race. According to Anna Stubblefield (2005, p. 71) "toward the end of the twentieth century, scholars began to speak of race as a "social construction": a way of classifying people that is entirely artificial, reinforced by law and social practice, that some people created to serve their social/political purposes, but that has no basis in biology. People who believe that race is a social construction point to the fact that in different societies, in different times and different places, race is defined differently. A person who counts as white in one society might not count as white in another. In many times and places, people have not thought of each other in terms of race at all. According to this view, race is a made-up classification, not a natural one". Some sociologists state that the notion of race has always been filled with some socio-cultural meaning, demonstrating an attitude towards 'aliens' expressed through the emphasizing of their most observable physical differences. In other words, sociologists consider that physical marks reflect not the objective reality, but subjective attitude. According to Robert Park (1974, pp. 237-239, 315), a racial mark has become the symbol of the suspense, in the ground of which has laid the sense of self-vulnerability. He writes that a sociologist is interested not in physical distinctions, differentiating one race from another, but in less evident lineaments of inner apprehensions. And physical distinctions are just the symbols of these inner apprehensions. Park claims that historical process in the issue is predetermined by the ideological factors, not by the biological ones. The more important is to realize what people believe in and look for, than to know who they are. In other words modern sociologists, considering race as an artificial construction and one of means of creation and description the identity, emphasize that race remains to be rather important notion, which determines and legalizes social and political actions of people. At the same time they are sure that race is a product of racism, and not contrariwise. From this point of view groups, which are called racial, turn out to be racialised. It means that social, political, or economical state of these groups is described with the help of racial categories. A lot of scholars for decades have oppugned against scientific racism, which has tried to ground the idea of racial inequality. They have proved that human capabilities do not depend on the colour of the skin or type of eyes. One of the most outstanding representatives of this stream is Ashley Montague (1952), who from 1940s has insisted that race is just a scientific phantom. However a lot of scholars as before have considered race and ethnos as some biological reality, underestimating the paramount role of social factor. Nonetheless some of these scholars have understood that race is rather social construction then the biological reality, and that the concept of race implicates relationship of dominance and submission. The development of genetic studies has approved that several different genes determine so-called 'racial marks'. This fact has originated the basis for the true scientific approach and has given a possibility to claim that there are no races, only clines (Livingstone, 1962). During last decades this approach has been widely accepted by majority of scholars. During 1960 - 1980 it has been noticed some decline and loss of interest in studying the concept of race. In the mean time we have to confess that unfortunately even in the twenty first century mankind failed to get rid of racism. Just the other way round during last decades of the twentieth century it has got the new, even more 'fastidious' forms. As a result it has become very difficult for scholars to define the notion of 'racism'. And what even worst is that modern racists make use of such uncertainty and declare themselves as intransigent fighters against racism. It should be said that contemporary criminal justice turned out to be just not ready to such metamorphoses of racism. Modern antiracists very often fall short of knowledge about its essence and history, and accordingly they do not take into consideration significant peculiarities, which can be very helpful in struggling against it. In fact antiracism time and again is based on the same prejudices as racism, being just its mirror reverberation (Gilroy in Solomos & Back, 1990, p. 115, 118-119). Works cited: 1. BALL, W., & SOLOMOS, J. (1990). Race and local politics. Government beyond the centre. Basingstoke, Macmillan Education. 2. BARAK, G. (1998). Integrating criminologies. Boston, Allyn and Bacon. 3. BARKAN, Steven E. (1997). Criminology a sociological understanding. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 4. BROWN, S. E., ESBENSEN, F.-A., & GEIS, G. (1991). Criminology explaining crime and its context. Cincinnati, Ohio, Anderson Pub. 5. DOWNES, D. M., & ROCK, P. E. (1982). Understanding deviance a guide to the sociology of crime and rule-breaking. Oxford [Oxfordshire], Clarendon Press. 6. GILROY, P. (1990) 'The End of Anti-racism', Race and Local Politics, Basingstoke. 7. JONES, S. (2006). Criminology. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 8. LANIER, M., & HENRY, S. (2004). Essential criminology. Boulder, Colo, Westview Press. 9. MUNCIE, J., & MCLAUGHLIN, E. (1996). The problem of crime. Crime, order and social control. London, Sage, in association with the Open University. 10. PARK, R. E. (1974). Race and culture. New York, Arno Press. 11. SCHMALLEGER, F. (1996). Criminology today. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall. 12. STUBBLEFIELD, A. (2005). Ethics along the colour line. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. 13. TAPPAN P. (1947) Who is Criminal // American Sociological Review, N 12. 14. TIERNEY, J. (1996). Criminology theory and context. London, Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf. Read More