With essay titles like this i know i will fail!

criminalisation is a complex and dynamic process of catgorisation and discrimination rather than a static practice of deductive reasoning from premisies set by legal definitions.

Discuss.

This is nthe first piece of assesed work I have been set and it's in for friday, I don't really understand the question neither do many other people. Can I get my money back if I drop out before xmas?

Reply 1

kalokagathia

Tristan

criminalisation is a complex and dynamic process of catgorisation and discrimination rather than a static practice of deductive reasoning from premisies set by legal definitions.

Discuss.

This is nthe first piece of assesed work I have been set and it's in for friday, I don't really understand the question neither do many other people. Can I get my money back if I drop out before xmas?

'Does the criminal law change to reflect real life, or must we view real life through the unchanging blinkers of criminal law?'

Reply 2

Tristan

OP

ok just read the a piece on socially constuced reality makes a bit more sense now, thank kalo.

@kalo- the fact that young black unemployed males are arrested for more 'serious crimes' doesn't mean criminal law literally changes but the way it is implemented is i.e police tend to discrimate more against them more. how could this variant be incorporated into your sentiment as to what the question means in other words?

Even so for some reason I think the question is more directed at the subject and objective nature of policing methods compared to what they are actually suppose to be doing..

does anybody else have any other interpretations? I really want to answer the question but feel I have the wrong end of one very long stick!

thanks

Reply 3

TommehR

13

Haha, methinks that the person setting the essay was having a bit of a laugh with the ickle firsties.

:wink:

Reply 4

Tristan

OP

that had crossed my mind, this doesn't make much sense does it!?

Reply 5

Le Muse

"criminalisation is a complex and dynamic process of catgorisation and discrimination rather than a static practice of deductive reasoning from premisies set by legal definitions. Discuss."

First thing I noted is that it says "Discuss" - thus, there should be no right or wrong answers and as this is your first assignment, they're probably just trying to gauge your level of thinking.

From the above, I would think the question simply asks us to consider the process of criminalization. According to the prompt, it should be a complex and dynamic process involving hands-on actions (criminalization and discrimination) as opposed to purely deductive reasoning based on strict legal definitions.

Now that we've rephrased the question, it should make more sense. We could easily discuss any criminal case or issue that particularly stands out. A good one might be trial by jury, where the jury system itself is living proof of the courts departing from purely "deductive reasoning" based on "strict legal definitions" - there are now many other factors in play as well and certainly "discrimination" would be one of them.

There are the usual ways of approaching this problem - agree/disagree/qualify + define the terms (don't forget to define criminalization!). It's up to you now to decide which angle you would like to take and to defend it (aka provide examples).

Reply 6

Tristan

OP

yes juries are a good example. I think I will struggle to include the social constuct idea as it seems quite deep and abstract. Criminalisation in many dictionaries is the process of becoming a criminal. A criminal is someone who is guilty of a crime. I have read material given to us and it refurs a lot to police interrogation and policing methods on the steet I suppose this is relevant in the sense it can lead to conviction.... I think I am taking too much of a narrow approach to the whole thing, I shall sleep on it! thanks Le muse,
why do you think they are having a laugh tom!?

Reply 7

TommehR

13

Tristan

yes juries are a good example. I think I will struggle to include the social constuct idea as it seems quite deep and abstract. Criminalisation in many dictionaries is the process of becoming a criminal. A criminal is someone who is guilty of a crime. I have read material given to us and it refurs a lot to police interrogation and policing methods on the steet I suppose this is relevant in the sense it can lead to conviction.... I think I am taking too much of a narrow approach to the whole thing, I shall sleep on it! thanks Le muse,
why do you think they are having a laugh tom!?

I'd adjust your definition of criminalisation. It's not really the process of becoming a criminal, rather, the making criminal of conduct that previously was not illegal.

And I think that they're having a laugh as it sounds like somebody took the fairly simply worded question that kalo has stated, and tried to obscure it as much as possible in technical, sociological language and seeing what on earth the first years think of it. I guess on the one hand it makes you think really hard about what the question is actually asking of you which will help you target and structure your essay better. On the other hand, I don't know why you couldn't do that with a more simply worded question. A lot of people are going to end up writing poor essays simply because they have no idea what the question is asking of them.

I'm all for having essays which are challenging and require you to engage with difficult and complex material, but in large, this essay seems to be making itself far more difficult purely because of the obscure language the question is framed in. In my opinion, it's far more useful to have a difficult question asked simply than to have a simple question asked difficultly. What are you going to gain from writing an answer to a question that you don't really understand?

Reply 8

Tristan

OP

I thought it was too hard, but basically it is asking kalo's question right? Thing is how can I explain how i got to kalo's question from this comlex mess? I could quite happily right an essay on kalo's question but am unsure how it actually relates, to me they look like they are asking different quetions. could you explain how they are the same?

Reply 9

Dreama

13

To the OP~

Have you guys studied R v Brown [1993] yet, just out of interest?

Which topics have you covered so far? This might help us interpret your question a little better :smile:

Reply 10

Tristan

OP

nope, it is just a seminar in understanding law. We have gone through hart dworkin, and had 2 lectures on criminal law, justice and process, this is relating to them.

The reading material we were given was a piece on social construction of laws; the rich laws we apply to the poor to serve in their interest ect and a piece on the cps and police on the street.

Reply 11

Tristan

OP

really need some help on this anything is welcolm guys!

Reply 12

mr_lawyer

3

Tristan

criminalisation is a complex and dynamic process of catgorisation and discrimination rather than a static practice of deductive reasoning from premisies set by legal definitions.

Discuss.

This is nthe first piece of assesed work I have been set and it's in for friday, I don't really understand the question neither do many other people. Can I get my money back if I drop out before xmas?

For an essay like this, plan as if you will adopt a very simply viewpoint: viz, do you agree with the statement? Yes, because R1, R2, R3. Counter arguments can be dismissed, either as R1' R2' R3' or R4,5,6. Then a simple conclusion.

My, fleeting inclination, would be to disagree with both. Criminalisation is a process by which certain conduct is elevated to criminal status.

Criminalisation only seems to produce problems when it affects the ability of people to adopt behaviour which significant numbers are either predisposed to (i.e. traffic offences) or only causes a remote harm (e.g. S&M, the Brown case). History provides evidence of the complexities and dynamic nature of these issues, but underlying this there is a remarkable degree of consistency with other offences - such as offences against the person. From that time, which is arguably the high water mark of criminal law as a social tool, the utility of the criminal law in safeguarding moral standards has receded: the Suicide Act, Abortion Act, decriminalisation of gay sex, form a triplet of statutes which removed a Christian foundation from our criminal laws. The discriminatory capacity of the criminal law, as a consequence has been weakened, though other laws can arise with this potential - e.g. racial hatred legislation.

The HRA, it is presumed, leaves other statutes - such as blasphemy legislation - in a weakened provision.

Even in respect of offences against the person, history indicates that changing circumstances raise new and difficult questions - e.g. the conjoined twins case (Re A: Conjoined Twins).

In respect of 'legal definitions' it could be argued that although the criminal law doesn't rely on them, it is underpinned by clear values and principles.

Reply 13

Ishtar

9

mr_lawyer

My, fleeting inclination, would be to disagree with both. Criminalisation is a process by which certain conduct is elevated to criminal status.

Hmm..but that is really the end result rather than the actual process and its motivation.

OP - I wouldn't worry too much about this question. Its worded terribly badly, and you are obviously not really expected to know too much law. It's more to get you thinking about what the law is there to do, and if I was you I would approach the issue using examples of crimes that you can think of yourself.

Kalokagathia's interpretation of the question is correct - so use that as a basis. It should be clear that the answer is a bit of both. The criminal law is dynamic and changes to reflect current practices - think about sexual offences, for example - anal sex used to be illegal, and then it used to have a higher age of consent. Why? Or the fact that a man can now rape his wife. Or, be comparative, and talk about, for example, abortion laws in Ireland and England, the differences, and how that reflects social differences in the two countries. Other examples would include law changing in response to new technology.

But on the other hand, I think that some norms are so entrenched that they will never even be challenged. You might talk about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Are the same norms entrenched in every society? The answer is clearly no, so think again about why. Could the reason why theft, for example, has always been very strictly dealt with be a hangover from more religious days?

Further, I would mention the fact that law can never quite keep up with changes in 'real life' and perhaps think about some of the problems this might cause. Can you think of any aspect of the criminal law which is getting a lot of attention now, and perhaps needs to be changed in line with public perception?

Lastly (sorry, this is proper rambling now) I would talk about what you think the law is really there to do. If you think that the criminal law safeguards moral standards, then perhaps there is an argument for it being less dynamic. But if you think that the proper purpose is to enforce social order, then I would say that it is inevitable and right that it changes in line with the way we live our lives.

Reply 14

Tristan

OP

why thankyou freckles that was a useful gem of information. I'll try not to worry too much about it as i thought it was oddly phrased for a first essay title, they can't expect too much of me!

Reply 15

Mensan1

2

Hey Tristan you go to Nottingham right?

I spent about 30 minutes on the phone with a friend who studies criminology trying to decipher what the hell that stupid ass question was asking. We failed! lol. I didn't even turn up to the seminar. How was it in the end?

Reply 16

Ryands

1

Mensan1, I thought you were off to Oxford...?

(sorry if that's re-opened wounds..)

Reply 17

Lewisy-boy

11

Man that is a harsh understanding law question, we had reasonably easy stuff back in first year! It's basically getting at why certain conduct is criminalised (if I remember first year correctly and the content of understanding law). Pretty stupid question if you ask me, however.

Reply 18

Ryands

1

Lewisy-boy

Man that is a harsh understanding law question, we had reasonably easy stuff back in first year! It's basically getting at why certain conduct is criminalised (if I remember first year correctly and the content of understanding law). Pretty stupid question if you ask me, however.

Mate who's your TC with?

Reply 19

Tory_boy

2

^See his sig and don't ask any questions.

With essay titles like this i know i will fail!

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you