The Necessity of Crime in Society - Essay Example

Necessity of Crime in Society NECESSITY OF CRIME IN SOCIETY The argument that crime in society is normal, which has been championed by various sociologists including Emile Durkheim, is a startling claim by all accounts. Classification of crime as one of normal sociology’s phenomena not only contends that it is inevitable due to phenomena that results from human wickedness, but also asserts that crime is an aspect of public health and is part of all healthy societies (Webber, 2010: p16). Positivist theories argue that there needs to be crime in order for a society to function normally, holding that crime rates and advances in society increase simultaneously. For instance, developing societies have crimes suited to their surroundings like property crimes, while developed societies experience more contemporary and advanced types of crime like embezzlement and identity theft. Crime as a phenomenon is a social fact (Webber, 2010: p17), meaning that if it is present in average societies, it is normal, although this does not mean that average crime in society is not pathological or destructive. Therefore, crime is necessary for society as long as it is not too destructive or pathological as to prevent the normal functioning of society. It is not possible to infer immediately that there is normality in crime and that it is not destructive or pathological due to its inevitability and regularity in society. It is only possible to assert that it is a social fact, which means that one can only show its normality if it is constructive and serves a function in society (Webber, 2010: p42). In short, crime necessarily results from conditions in society that is desirable and is not simply contingent on avoidable but undesirable conditions in society. As one of deviance’s subcategories, crime can be defined as an activity that departs from and violates social norms. While there is an overlap between deviance and categories of societal norms, all crime can be classified as deviance. Rather than being an internal element of specific behaviors, deviance is an aspect or characteristic conferred on a specific behavior by society with regards to social norms. From the relativist view, it is possible to contend that morality and law differ according to society, while modification of conditions may result to changes within the same society (Webber, 2010: p42). Therefore, rather than acts being condemned because they are crimes, acts are considered crimes because society condemns them. While using the notions of deviance and crime interchangeably within reasonable limits, it is possible to argue that crime is normal and necessary and not necessarily pathological. Crime as deviance can be argued to have a functional and normative effect (Arrigo & Williams, 2012: p98). For example, hostility for someone who has broken the law is advantageous because it unites the community. Through condemning a crime collectively, people feel that they are part of a community and not alone and isolated as individuals. This feeling of fellowship reinforces social norms and individual values that the criminal transgressed on, giving authority to the specific norms. Crime enhances and builds group solidarity due to precautions taken for self-protection (Arrigo & Williams, 2012: p99). For example, a mugging can start of relationships among neighbors who rarely communicated or knew each other previously. In addition, it also unites streets and communities in neighborhood watch groups and meetings. Crime also aids in, characterizing and reinforcing the difference between what is acceptable behavior and what is not, characterizing immorality and morality in society (Arrigo & Williams, 2012: p101). The exposure of criminals in the news when it is allowed by the criminal justice system informs society about evil, illustrating the differences between experiences that belong in society and those that do not. The standing of crime as a functional force in driving societal change is best explained using Hegelian historical dialect, in which social norms, or the social order of interpersonal and social arrangements, demarcate boundaries between acts that are acceptable and those that are unacceptable. Deviant criminal acts confront these boundaries everyday and challenge them and, in the synthesis that results, deviant acts can be morally categorized morally as normal (Arrigo & Williams, 2012: p101), if not legally. These forms of conflict could be highly functional in social systems. Jack Kevorkian, a pathologist from the United States, recently completed a long-term jail sentence for abetting and aiding individuals in suicide and, therefore, manslaughter. While most took his actions to be morally supported, they were illegal according to the courts. In addition, news coverage on the matter was considerably split with regards to the moral rectitude of Kevorkian’s acts as a doctor in helping people die. Therefore, Kevorkian as an innovator altered his nonconformity and transformed it into a group conflict that led to its elevation to the collective level away from the idiosyncratic level (Arrigo & Williams, 2012: p103). This and other similar examples are illustrative of the interplay between social norms and deviance. Disagreements may arise within social groups as to what behavior is acceptable. For every society, most of its heroes are regarded as so because their vision was deviant enough to allow them the courage to depart from the group’s norms. The legal system in the United States could not ignore the provocative assisted suicides carried out by Kevorkian and reacted to his challenge and deviance (Arrigo & Williams, 2012: p103). Nietzsche contended that even though the just and the good had a common hatred for an individual who disregarded their values and broke the law, this person was in essence the creator (Henry et al. 2011: p102). In addition, he argued that changing social values required that the creators of these values had to change. The person who creates has to, in the process, also destroy. Therefore, it is also possible that the elected representatives in Parliament are also criminals and deviants. Whatever the case, there are suggestions in evolutionary biology that those organisms that cannot adapt and change to environmental shifts and changes wrought from the outside will become extinct. A prime example is the native birds of New Zealand, which were replaced by those organisms that could adapt to the new environment and thrive in it. In a similar vein, societies rarely exist as isolated groups and those that cannot adapt to alterations in their environment by external forces will be doomed (Henry et al. 2011: p102). Sociological theory in recent years has concerned itself more with social systems as a concept, which refers to the manner in which the component parts of society are organized to form a system that maintains boundaries, resists changes, and, sustains an internal equilibrium (Henry et al. 2011: p104). This view is emphatic on homeostasis, hegemony, and control as vital themes in social systems. Clear tension exists between functional control of society and crime as a crucial component in functional innovation, as well as in changing societal norms. In turn, this creates tension as alterations occur in boundaries demarcating between morality and immorality, as well as between illegal and legal. This brings up the question of whether societies exist in which there is no deviance or crime. Absolute and universal uniformity is not possible because the immediate environment for every individual, including their social influences and hereditary antecedent on which they are all dependent, differ from person to person (Henry et al. 2011: p105) and, therefore, lead to conscience diversity. Considering a hypothetical society made up of saints living in a perfect and exemplary monastery, normal and ordinary crime will be an unknown concept. However, it is possible that faults that would appear trivial to ordinary people will result in a similar level of scandal as normal crime in normal society. Therefore, deviance will always remain because of the disparate and characteristic nature of conscience diversity (Dudley, 2009: p59). In the case of the saints, in a monastery, crime and deviance have not disappeared but rather, the tolerance threshold for crime and deviance has changed. The audience considers scandalous faults as powerfully as society would consider an outright crime within a framework of less absolute morals and piety. Should the monastery carry out any form of punishment, it is these scandalous faults that will be targeted, which seems to indicate that some type of crime has happened. Unfortunately, from a historic viewpoint, saints are idiosyncratic and have been misapprehended by their contemporaries (Dudley, 2009: p59). It is for this reason that martyrs in traditional Christian society were sanguinely misunderstood. Most of these martyrs, in fact, became martyrs due to their refusal to conform, which, in itself, was a crime in the middle Ages. People who were considered heretics, which were a serious crime, are today celebrated as saints, for example St. Theresa of Aviles and Saint Joan of Arc. The Catholic Church has been adept at utilizing deviance and crime and rehabilitating criminals and deviants, which has been an interesting point because the Church has not changed much in over four hundred years. It is, however, the functionality the Church has shown that as allowed it to beatify prodigal criminals that were once considered deviants and anti-social (Dudley, 2009: p61). Function in this case refers to the continuing cohesion even in the face of hostile forces from external sources. How the Church responds to women ordination, abortion, contraception, and cultural imperialism still remains to be seen. What is certain is that, while this may take some time, the Church will turn to former criminals in its past for reclamation as saints (Dudley, 2009: p59). This is a perfect example of how crime is important in society if it is to alter firm social norms. Therefore, the argument that crime is necessary for society is not as far fetched or surprising as it initially seems. Deviance and crime are normal and necessary as long as they are linked to basic conditions in human social life. This means that for crime to be necessary, it must be functional, inevitable, and indispensible to law and morality and their evolution in society. Crime produces moral conflicts that cause societal discussions and innovations by producing counterclaims to social norms. The evolution of law and morality due to crime is not towards a more objective truth, which means that a functional society will not discover ethical absolutes necessarily from crime. A society is mainly measured by its functionality, of which crime and deviance are strong influences towards the society’s depravity or virtue. References Arrigo, BA. & Williams, CR. 2012, Philosophy, crime, and criminology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Dudley, W. 2009, Crime and criminals: Opposing viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. Henry, S. Lanier, MM. Adler, MJ. Farr, KA. Gertz, M. 2011, What Is Crime?: Controversies over the Nature of Crime and What to Do about It. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Webber, C. 2010, Psychology & crime. Los Angeles, SAGE. Read More