The Importance Of Criminology For Society And Law
In this essay I will be showcasing the importance of the study and practice of criminology and why it has a firm placement and fixture in society and law. Criminology is an important aspect of law and social structure within society because it studies why volatile criminal behaviour is apparent in lawful countries. It helps us understand culpability and how morality is tackled within the eyes of criminals and the law.
Criminology is the academic and scientific study of crime, the causes of crime and how to approach crime within law enforcement and methods of crime prevention. The study of criminology falls under sociology, but within criminology other academic studies are used such as biology, psychology and economics. Criminology also has sub categories that help criminologists delve deeper into certain aspects of crime and crime prevention. The sub categories are Penology, the study of prisons and prison systems. Criminalistics, the study of crime detection and Biocriminology, the study of the biological basis of criminal behaviour.
Theory means an explanations, study or framework to understand a process, decisions or events. Theory within criminology is often the answer or explanation to why an offender commits a crime and why crimes happen, Theories are also based on the study and assumption of what crime entails and that crime exists.
Crime theory can be split into two types of theoretical studies, aetiological theory, which takes in legal definitions and uses government appraised laws as their understanding as is to what is deemed lawful and what defines crime. In critical theories, theorists often question and challenge what constitutes as a crime, what is morally good or what has been set up and appeased by the government and law enforcement, critical theorists question if what is placed as lawful is only for the benefit of some and doesn’t benefit society. Theories in criminology are diverse and often the theories are used to point and explain the causes of crime and crime prevention.
Bentham wrote in a similar vein, pointing to the need to understand offenders as rational actors, who engaged in behaviours, including crime, in order to maximise their own outcomes. People are fundamentally selfish according to Bentham, and they will engage in crime if the perceived rewards outweigh the perceived risks and punishment. Anyone can be a criminal, and anyone can commit a crime if the equation is right. If we understand offenders in that way, then the law should be structured in a manner which responds to that trait. Thus, a rational system of punishment should be in place, which was proportionate, which people can understand and follow, and ultimately, be deterred by.
In recent times this thinking has been developed and added to. Sometimes labelled as neo-classical or rational choice models, these models have been important. Authors such as Becker (image right), Clarke, Cornish, Felson and Cohen have added to this. Their work has emphasised that offenders engage in crime in order to advantage themselves in some way. Crime is a consequence of an active decision-making process, whether this is the decision to commit crime at all, or specific choices made in terms of place, time and target of a crime. Clarke and Cornish (2001) discuss the notion of bounded rationality: how decision-making and an individual's 'rationality' must be understood in relation to their resources, knowledge and wider ability to process information. Cohen and Felson's (1979) routine activity theory, which we might describe as being related to time and space analysis, demonstrate the decision-making and rationality principles in the context of specific crime events. In order for a crime to occur, there must be, A motivated offender: chiefly (but not always) economic motivations for offending. A suitable target: a target of value, which can be taken away, which has symbolic value, and so on. The absence of capable guardianship: the lack of people, processes or physical measures which would otherwise prevent the offending, or result in the apprehension of the offender.
We can count various aspects of crime and justice, not just crime numbers Who is a victim, and offender, plus place, time, fear of crime, patterns of offending, offending outcomes, and so on, can all be measured in some way The most prominent means of collecting data on crime are the official recorded statistics, and victimisation surveys There are other data collection methods used, including self-report surveys, and work by non-governmental organisations and journalists The various ways of counting crime have their strengths and limitations, and each can be particularly useful in some contexts.
Counting crime is a subjective process. For instance, accidents, deaths and unreasonable working conditions within a workplace will have largely been absent from conventional measures on crime for most of the period in which we have counted crime in an organised manner. Over time various activities of employers and responsibilities have eventually been added in to legislations. And thus, now counted in some way
There are two main measures, and a third which is less significant in terms of time and resources invested in it, but still important. Those two main measures are official recorded crime data from agencies who have some direct involvement in dealing with law and order issues (traditionally called official statistics, or police recorded data, even though it is not just the police who collect this information); and information taken from victimisation survey work, the main one in this country being the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). The CSEW was called the British Crime Survey (BCS) until 2012. This started in 1981, but the methodology used has evolved a great deal since then. There are other such surveys in a number of countries, such as the National Crime Victimisation Survey in the US, which began in 1973. Both official crime statistics and the CSEW are tax-payer funded, but adopt very different approaches to the issue of counting crime. As has been the case with the victimisation survey approach, the methodologies and 'counting rules' used for official crime data collection have also evolved over time.
The third method comes at the issue in a different way, centred on questions such as have you committed a crime in the past 12 months? Self-report surveys then are the third category. Counting crime that way can produce different findings e. g. including crimes otherwise not counted because they were not reported, or recognised by a victim, or perhaps even victimless crimes One notable example has been conducted as part of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development; remember how in lecture 3 we explored the ICAP model within our discussion of the Integrated Approaches block of theories. Data not only relates to numbers of crimes, but characteristics of victims and offenders, areas, and so on Plus, there are data collections for things such as prisoner numbers, probation outcomes, and so on. They usually entail standard collecting practices, with national guidelines (but remember the 'Deaths on Probation' example from the last lecture: the true number of deaths were not accurately counted) Thus, official statistics are very useful, and national in scope, even if we need to handle them carefully.
'Class', and what it fundamentally relates to, can be understood in a more dynamic way - 'critical criminologies' deal with this in the context of race, ethnicity, gender etc. We might make a link from 'class' to recent discussions of social justice and social exclusion. We live in a fundamentally unfair society – extreme poverty uncommon in UK, but relativism is important. Concepts of ‘inequality’ and ‘social justice’ are crucial. Taylor-Gooby: SJ concerned with who ought to get what. Processes vs Outcomes vs Opportunities vs Capabilities Income inequality Vs. Wealth inequality Vs. Services inequality Vs. Skills inequality. Not just about poverty and class (but related in a sense) - Multi-dimensional disadvantage. Person or area suffering from a range of deprivations, e. g. unemployment, low income, poor skills, poor housing, high crime, poor health, family breakdown. Ultimately, social exclusion relates to social class in some sense, and we can (by some accounts) understand it in terms of class divisions, power and the consequences of capitalism.
Class and power can be seen as operating on an international level Global processes create divisions and inequalities This has implications for thinking about crime, offending, and victimisation We can, perhaps apply a Marxist analysis, and indeed other theoretical models to understand the occurrence of crime internationally. New opportunities and new means by which criminal activities can be conducted, and new forms of victimization. Globalization affects the workings and nature of the nation state = consequences for the organization of policing / Criminal justice Gives rise to new insecurities and inequalities, existential and ontological insecurities and anxieties Gives Rise to a “new mentality” = focus on risk. 'Risk Society', and this impacts on some communities more than others in terms of how law enforcement practices operate.
Inequalities in wealth, development and power have emerged, and these are linked to global markets and trading, and political interests. Victimization related to global markets, and differentials in power, and status. Critical criminologies are helpful in allowing us to understand the world in a certain way. States crimes, corporate crimes / harms and other instances of global inequalities must be considered. 'Class'. 'inequality' and 'power' are important ideas within such Marxist analyses of crime, but those ideas can also be used more broadly. The above can be seen as operating not only at a domestic level, but at an international level also.
