The Student Room Group

crime is a social construct????

im going to write an essay with this topic.. but im kinda confuse now
BECAUSE I DONT REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT DOES IT MEAN:confused::confused::confused:

1) it is talking abt crime is a social construction since crime is defined by the society
or
2) crime is a result of social construction , e.g. unfair in resources distribution -> disparity between rich and poor -> poor out of money -> poor commits crime

what is the true meaning of this sentence??1 or 2??? or both???

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SAMY2
im going to write an essay with this topic.. but im kinda confuse now
BECAUSE I DONT REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT DOES IT MEAN:confused::confused::confused:

1) it is talking abt crime is a social construction since crime is defined by the society...
or
2) crime is a result of social construction (or a kind of idea), e.g. idea of black inclines to commit crime


what is the true meaning of the sentence??1 or 2??? or both???

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP


I would say both but primarily the former
Reply 2
Original post by EtherealNymph22
I would say both but primarily the former


shld i include the latter one in my essay:confused:
A social construct is something that is created or defined by society, rather than occurring naturally. To say that crime is a social construct means that nothing is inherently criminal or deviant, rather we label things as criminal or deviant because we say so. An example tf this would be the idea that in the U.K. stigmatising gay people is seen as criminal and against the law. However in Russia the consensus seems to be that gay people should be hated on, and this is not something that is criminal. Because our idea of 'crime' is different from country to country, arguably it is a social construct.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 4
I.... didn't really understand much of what you wrote. I hope you write more coherently in essays...

Crime is a social construct because it is not any specific act that you can define - it is a crime by virtue of the fact that you can be prosecuted and punished for it. IE without this legal definition, there is no such thing as crime.
This can be evidenced by the fact there is no unifying feature of crime (harm and deviance come close, but not exactly). Or the fact some acts are criminal here, but not in other countries; or even changing crime acts here (marital rape for instance is only recently illegal)

And in addition, this leads to many coming to the conclusion that such definitions come from powerful groups - the government create crime (and this can be influenced by powerful groups; see Marxist theory; or alternatively, it's simply a reflection of social opinion itself; see contrast with Durkheim).
And in this instance, particularly Marxist writers, see those groups as perpetuating certain stereotypes - protecting the rich at the expense of the 'working class criminals' etc.
What opinion you side with is up to you.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 5
Original post by Inazuma
I.... didn't really understand much of what you wrote. I hope you write more coherently in essays...

Crime is a social construct because it is not any specific act that you can define - it is a crime by virtue of the fact that you can be prosecuted and punished for it. IE without this legal definition, there is no such thing as crime.
This can be evidenced by the fact there is no unifying feature of crime (harm and deviance come close, but not exactly). Or the fact some acts are criminal here, but not in other countries; or even changing crime acts here (marital rape for instance is only recently illegal)

And in addition, this leads to many coming to the conclusion that such definitions come from powerful groups - the government create crime (and this can be influenced by powerful groups; see Marxist theory; or alternatively, it's simply a reflection of social opinion itself; see contrast with Durkheim).
And in this instance, particularly Marxist writers, see those groups as perpetuating certain stereotypes - protecting the rich at the expense of the 'working class criminals' etc.
What opinion you side with is up to you.


thanks..
unfair in resources distribution -> disparity between rich and poor -> poor out of money -> poor commits crime

does it makes sense??
Reply 6
Original post by SAMY2
thanks..
unfair in resources distribution -> disparity between rich and poor -> poor out of money -> poor commits crime

does it makes sense??


Oh I see, you mean that inequality in society causes some to cause crime.
That's not social construction per se, though some do argue that perpetuating certain crime stereotypes (eg the hard line punishment attitude) covers up the societal causes of crime you're thinking of...
Social construction is more to do with the definition than the procurement.
Reply 7
Original post by Inazuma
Oh I see, you mean that inequality in society causes some to cause crime.
That's not social construction per se, though some do argue that perpetuating certain crime stereotypes (eg the hard line punishment attitude) covers up the societal causes of crime you're thinking of...
Social construction is more to do with the definition than the procurement.


thanks a lot :biggrin:
Reply 8
Original post by Tom Jickleson
A social construct is something that is created or defined by society, rather than occurring naturally. To say that crime is a social construct means that nothing is inherently criminal or deviant, rather we label things as criminal or deviant because we say so. An example tf this would be the idea that in the U.K. stigmatising gay people is seen as criminal and against the law. However in Russia the consensus seems to be that gay people should be hated on, and this is not something that is criminal. Because our idea of 'crime' is different from country to country, arguably it is a social construct.


thanks a lot:biggrin:
Reply 9
The idea of crime being socially constructed comes from Interactionists and labelling theorists, so Becker basically came up with the idea that something is not criminal or deviant until it is labelled as such, and that not everything that is criminal is criminal all the time, everywhere.
Crime can also be caused by social constructions. This is where the ideas of Lemert come in. He said that there is primary deviance and secondary deviance. Primary deviance is an act which is considered criminal/ deviant but the perpetrator is not labelled for it e.g. a child steals a sweet from a store, it is not labelled a thief, it is excused because it didn't know any better. Those who commit acts of secondary deviance are publically labelled as criminal, e.g. a burglar. This could lead them to take on this label as a master status, which can then develop into a self fulfilling prophecy and result in more criminal activity. This further criminal activity has been caused by the labels placed upon the person - it is a result of social constructs. This perspective of thought can be criticised by arguing that they have not explained the cause of crime, because the people who committed the crime in the first place had not been labelled, so the true reason they did it cannot be known.
If you want any other help with the course then I don't mind answering any questions :smile:

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending