Theories Of Criminology And Deviance

Criminological theories have evolved considerably in terms of their interpretations of crime and deviance. Shifting away from the classical and neoclassical schools of criminology, we move towards a scientific approach that explains criminal behaviour as “determined by biological, psychological and social” (William & McShane, 2018: 25) factors. The question of what causes conformity and deviance is one that is asked by all positivist theorists. It is through the various positivist theories that we are able to answer this question and analyze both conforming and deviant behaviour, while simultaneously providing explanations for such behaviour. In the film Boyz N the Hood, we can see that crime is rampant, and through the multiple positivist

Outline and assess the role of the police in the social construction of crime (50 marks)

There exists conflicting theories among sociologists in the area of determining why a person is considered to be a deviant, and the reasons behind why he or she has committed a deviant act. From a positivistic perspective, deviance is based on biological or social determinism. Alternatively, from a constructionist perspective, deviance is created and assigned by society. Both perspectives seek to give a theory for why a person may become known as deviant. Although they both view similar acts as deviant, the basic differences between positivists and constructionists theories are clear.

[1] de Castelbajac, M. (2014) ‘Brooding over the dark figure of crime’, British Journal of Criminology, 54(5), pp. 928–945. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azu047.

The Culture of Control, Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, David Garland (2001) is certainly one worth the read. Garland, one of the leading criminologists, begins the book with a fantastic insight on ‘history of the present’ of penological developments in the US, compares it with Britain in late 1970’s. He picks out indicative theories by Foucault and several examples to support his arguments. He portrays an intricate argument about the rise of crime control and punitiveness. Garland continues throughout to link new developments in both countries to identify each countries crime control stratergy and the effect of their strategies. He ends it with further theories and opinions on crime control and social order. Garlands purpose of writing the book is to give a deep analysis and an absorbing read of crime control in USA and UK to his readers. The purpose of the following review is to give the readers a brief understanding of some issues by Garland on crime and social order in contemporary society.

According to Hillyard and Tombs (2007) the current state of criminology is not ‘self-reflective regarding the dominant, state-defined notion of “crime”’ and is not making the considering the relationship crime has to social concept. They argue ‘that a social harm approach can, by contrast, form a basis for a more accurate picture of the range of harms and causes of human suffering that can affect people during their lifecycle’.

Criminological theories interpret the competing paradigms of Human Nature, Social Order, Definition of Crime, Extent and Distribution of Crime, Causes of Crime, and Policy, differently. Even though these theories have added to societies understanding of criminal behaviour, all have been unable to explain why punishment or treatment of offenders is unable to prevent deviancy, and thus are ineffective methods of control. The new penology is a contemporary response that favours the management of criminals by predicting future harm on society. However, all criminological theories are linked as they are a product of the historical time and place, and because of their contextual history, they will continue to reappear depending on the current

The next section of this assignment will be looking at how statistics for crime in the UK are socially constructed. Crime is a term that refers to many types of misconduct that is forbidden by law. There are a number of different reasons as to why crime can be viewed as a social construction. There cannot be 'social problems' that are not the product of social construction; naming, labelling, defining and mapping them into place, through which we can 'make sense' of them' (Clarke, 2001). This assignment will explain what social construction is and why we think that crime is socially constructed.

Classical criminological theory was introduced in 1764. The tenants of this theory became the backbone for the development of all criminological theories to come. After over 200 years have passed since its conception, is classical criminological theory still relevant to today’s society in explaining the causes of crime? This essay will address this question by discussing the major components of classical criminological theory while highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. The essay will also examine a more modern criminological theory, Merton’s anomie/strain theory, and decipher major differences between the two theories. This essay will also explain the aspects of classical criminological theory that are applicable or outdated in their

Before 1970’s, many criminological theories focused on the offender and motivations that leads to criminal acts. Cohen and Felson (1979) proposed a different aspect where they shifted the focus from offender and motivations to the criminal act itself and opportunities behind it (Andrews, 2004).

Criminology is a study of crime, criminals and criminal justice. Ideas about criminal justice and crime arose in the 18th century during the enlightenment, but criminology as we know it today developed in the late 19th century. Criminology has been shaped by many different academic disciplines and has many different approaches. It explores the implications of criminal laws; how they emerge and work, then how they are violated and what happens to those violators. Laws are relative and historically shaped; they vary from time to time and from place to place (Carrabine et al, 2009).

In considering the offence of GBH, I shall critically consider two criminological theories and relate these theories to this serious violent offence, noting the extent to which they explain this behaviour. Finally, I will consider how these theories fit into the broader context of criminological thinking.

For critical criminology, the thought process of criminological thinking is believed to be traced back to as early as

1). Criminology arose from the social scientific community over the year and has since come into its own discipline, it examines the entire process of lawmaking, law breaking, and law enforcing” (as cited in Akers, & Sellers, 2013). Criminology seeks to discover the depth of crime at both the micro and macro levels, from the individual’s natural biological and psychological characteristics, the nurturing of social and structural institutions, to policy, prevention and control.

1. Three eras that characterize the field of criminology over the last 100 years was launch by John H. Laub. The first era went from 1900 to 1930, known as the “Golden Age of Research”. This time was mostly focused on criminal behaviors and gathering data on crime. The second era was “The Golden Age of Theory” which went from 1930 to 1960. This time they did not link criminology research to any theory being developed because the work was not organized. The third era which went from 1960 to 2000, this era the time was extended. This time scientific used it to examine criminology theories from the era that was advanced previously.