Examining The Concept Of Crime And Its Dimensions Criminology Essay

Examining The Concept Of Crime And Its Dimensions Criminology Essay Tappan (1947:) defined crime asan intentional act or omission in violation of criminal law, committed without defense or justification, and penalized by the state and vehemently advocated the notion that the legal definition of crime is representative of what society consensually defines crime as. However, as both Greer and Hagan (2001) and Morrison (2009) emphasised, whilst what is deemed a crime will be based on the shared societal perceptions in many instances, ultimately acts are legislated as criminal by those in authority and therefore disagreement between what is legally deemed a crime and what is perceived as a crime by members of the society to which the law applies will inevitably exist. Furthermore, Henry and Lanier (1998) also highlighted that if the concept of crime is based purely on the legal definition then actions such as racism, sexism, and other denials of human rights as well as other deviant and anti-social behaviour may fail to be recognised, since these have of ten been excluded from what constitutes crime in the definition proposed by law. As such, Hagan (1977) posited that crime should be regarded as a subcategory of all harmful acts, regardless of whether they are proscribed by law, thus emphasising that the legal definition of crime alone is too narrow. Similarly, some theorists (Burgress 1950; Durkheim 1933; Roshier 1989) have attempted to expand the legal definition further still to include a universal sense of morality and argue that actions should be defined as crime when moral outrage ensues from a breach of social norms. This perspective thus considers the reactions of society, although as Blackburn (1993) emphasised, not all criminal acts violate moral codes, such as supposed victimless crimes including the gambling, drug abuse and prostitution. Hence this definition may still not encompass the crime phenomenon fully. Whilst a good starting point in terms of defining crime, evidently, the legal definition alone is too narrow since it lacks recognition for the social nature of crime, social harm and morality and is ultimately determined by those in power rather than a general consensus. As Lindgren (2005) emphasised, social constructionists, alternatively, argue that what is defined as crime in law is historically, temporally and culturally relative and as Sumner (2003) argued, we, as a society, have an impact on what is defined as crime, firstly by the social conditions that enable or encourage the behaviour that causes harm and secondly by our reactions to that behaviour and our collective disapproval and condemnation of such behaviours, which ultimately lead them to becoming defined as criminal, but which are subject to change over time as our societal attitudes change. The notion that the definition of crime is subject to change with changing societal attitudes, was supported by Feldman (1993) who suggested that whilst the core of criminal law is consistent across societies, the borders move. So whilst, as Lemert (1972) found in a cross cultural comparison, murder, rape and theft are universally condemned crimes whatever the prevailing legal system and time context, the definition of many other acts as criminal depends heavily of which societies are examined and when. For example, in 1533 English law identified homosexuality as punishable by hanging, and until the Sexual Offences Act 1967 was passed, homosexuality remained illegal within the UK. The prohibition of alcohol between 1920 and 1933 in America is another example of crime being context and time dependent. Notably in both cases, homosexuality and the consumption of alcohol are still illegal in various other cultures. This definition of crime therefore accounts for the social nature of crime, and explains how societal attitudes influence what becomes legally defined as crime, how definitions of crime are time and context dependent, and is able to recognise that not all actions are legally classified as criminal but nevertheless constitute behaviour worthy of the definition according to societal beliefs. In an initial attempt to integrate the aforementioned components of crime into one conceptual model, Hagan (1977) postulated that deviance and crime are akin and fall under rule breaking which constitutes anything from minor deviance from accepted standards of behaviour such as public drunkenness to highly offensive acts involving serious harm such as terrorism or murder. He emphasised that crime is a deviation from a social norm proscribed by criminal law, thus recognising the social constructionists idea of relativity of crime via norm violation, the legal tradition of law violation, as well as societal consensus and social harm. Hagan (1977) demonstrated his attempt to integrate the various definitions of crime within a framework named the Pyramid of Crime which is illustrated below, and reflected the definitions within three measures of seriousness each ranging from low/weak to high/strong, namely societal consensus regarding the crime, the severity of the legal response, includi ng fines, imprisonment, the death penalty and so on, and the level of harm inflicted, arguing that some crimes such as drug use, gambling and prostitution are victimless crimes, thus producing less social than individual harm. Source: Henry and Lanier (1998) In response to Hagans (1977) pyramid of crime, Henry and Lanier (1998) decided to redesign the visual presentation of the pyramid into a prism, to expand on some elements of the crime phenomenon, namely dimensions of social agreement, probable social response, individual and social harm and the extent of victimisation into a more integrated approach. The complex visual representation of the definition of crime highlights the complexity of defining crime. Their model is illustrated below, with the upper pyramid representing the highly visible crimes, typically those of the structurally powerless, which are committed in public including assault, murder, stranger rape, and arson, and the lower, inverted pyramid representing relatively invisible crimes, including a variety of crimes of the powerful, such as offences by government officials, corporations, organisations, crime that people commit through their occupations such as fraud and embezzlement, and even some offences such as domest ic violence, sexism and hate crimes. These crimes are typically perpetrated in private settings such as the workplace, homes and involve violations of trusted relationships. The manner in which the prism is formed has several implications for the way crime is examined. Firstly, the position of crimes in the prism varies over time. As vocal dominant groups and mass-mediated culture focus on different issues so the public awareness of what counts as crime is formed and reformed. In such a formation acts are recognised as more or less visible, more or less serious and more or less harmful, for example the position of domestic violence and sexual harassment have changed, both recently have begun to move from the lower to the upper half of the prism. Second, the upper half of the prism contains predominantly conventional crimes whereas the lower half contains white collar crimes. It is arguable that those committing most of the conventional/street crimes are relatively powerless in society whereas those committing most of the white collar crimes hold structural positions of power. Due to this, white collar crimes are located at the bottom of the prism as they are very harmful, but often obscured as they harm their victims indirectly and diffusely. Often the victims are not aware of who the offender or even if they have been victimised. By developing Hagans (1977) analysis, Henry and Lanier (1998) have produced an integrated approach to defining crime, which consider the major constitutive dimensions of what counts as crime. The prism is able to capture the contingent and changing nature of crime, locating its constitutive features into a framework that allows criminologists to see their combined and interactive effects, but is by no means definitive. The prism allows one to see how specific crimes are related to one another and to wider social forces that intersect with those crimes at certain moments in time, rendering some acts rather than others serious crimes.

Ethics Essay Essay

What is Ethics? It is the binding good character, being respectful, and having trustworthiness amongst others. The topics that will be touched on is the differences between morality and ethical theories. Finally, I am going to touch on my personal experiences in relation to virtue, values, and moral concepts. Morality and ethics are almost one in the same in the greater scheme of things. They both work together to make up ethical decisions by a person. For example there are five key terms that breaks down the theories; which are Consequential, Egoism, Utilitarian, Act Utilitarian, and Rule Utilitarianism. Therefore, ethical theories and moral theories are broken down into two different categories consequential and non-consequential theories. Now what is the consequential theory exactly? The consequential theories basically mean, the result of a person’s behavior can result in either morally good consequences or morally bad consequences (Manias & Monroe, 2013). The breakdown can go even further; in the simplest terms morality relates to non-consequential theories and ethical decisions lead to consequential theories. For example, an ethical decision could be a police officer runs a red light, without having police sirens on; the consequence is a law abiding citizen might be further dissatisfied with the police force in the area. A moral decision is basically the action of right and wrong; which is really not a consequence. The decision of right and wrong is decided on oneself feelings about a certain scenario or person at any given time. For example, a student cheats on a test; why does he or she cheat? One may ask, is this situation right or wrong. The judgment or verdict is for you to decide, whether it is the person themselves; has good morals or not. One of the three theories that relate to me is Utilitarian. I have two children and I am always constantly trying to them to be well mannered and teach them good aspects of life. I myself always want to produce the  greatest possible good out of everything. Whether it is teaching my children something or making someone else laughs. In conclusion, ethical decisions can lead to misunderstandings and have great consequences. Moral decisions decide right and wrong. My personal experiences relating to Utilitarian theories are something that I now know about. It hoped that this explanation will help the further understanding of the subject. References Page Manias, N., & Monroe, D. (2013). Ethics Applied (7th ed.). http://about.nike.com/pages/sustainability

Leadership Role

Leadership RoleIntroductionâ€Å"Leadership is an interactive conversation that pulls people to ward becoming comfortable with the language of personal responsibility and commitment (â€Å"What are leaderships? http://home.att.net/~coachthee/Archives/leadership.html )†.  Ã¢â‚¬Å"Leaders are born, not made, once a leader, Is always a leader (â€Å"Leaderships: What is it? http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffile)†.Leadership is applicable to all facets of your life: competencies that you can learn to expand your perspective, set the context of a goal, understands the dynamics of human behavior and take the initiative to get to where you want to beA leader is the possession of the inborn characteristics desirable in leader plus the learned skills, knowledge and techniques which bring this potential to realization.One of the most important daily tasks of a leader is to develop leaders.  Leader development for many is a challenge.  It requires you to trust others.  It requi res you to allow others to perhaps fail in order to learn.This Paper will deal about the real experience encountered by an individual and proved to himself that he is a significant leader to his family and to all the people in his community. Here is a short story telling us how he becomes a good leader in his own way.Being a leader is a gift from God, not all of us in this world has a talent to become a leader. And this man who migrated from Peru to United States with his family proved that he is a significant leader. In United States, he is the first to learned English and is adjusted into American life quickly; he served as tutor to his parents to adjust the environment. He becomes the official translator in their household. Even helping his mother to read foods and medicines labels. He is the one find initiative in convincing the landlord to help his father to fill out their residency applications. At the early age his parents are totally dependent on him and it helps him how to become a mature minded person.In United States, he witnesses the sacrifices of his parents adjusting themselves for a new life just to provide him better future. They struggled hard working 20 hours a day to meet their dreams in America. Being a good leader, seeing the sacrifices of his parents he study hard and become an excellent student.Throughout the years, hi is a model to his little sisters, and members of his extended family who admire him for all of his accomplishments. He is also very fortunate to travel many places which make him learn and speak different languages like: Japanese, French, German, English and Spanish. During his High School days he becomes a member of the Rotary International Scholar who sent him to Japan.This leader was also the first in the family who graduated from an American University, which makes him so special for all the members in the family. And based on his qualifications he is hired and have good jobs with powerful corporations and government e ntities.Based on his accomplishments, his family admires him so much and looks him as a role model and a significant leader in the family, and they are the one who help me push himself to be successful in his chosen career, and in return push them to follow his footsteps by leading all of them to their way to success.He believed that his family was depending on him, because he knows that being an immigrant to a new place they can’t rely to no one else. And he knows that being a leader to his family and members of his extended family is the most significant role that God has putting on his shoulder. And he also knows that without his family he can’t be what he is now at this time.ConclusionGenerally, in order to become a good leader is to become a good follower and to empower others, you have to trust and be willing to take a risk.  You have to get to know your employees and find what makes them tick.Leadership is not just for people at the top.   Everyone can learn to lead by discovering the power that lies within each one of us to make a difference and  practicing the law of reciprocity. And leadership is applicable to all facets of your life and competencies that you can learn to expand your perspective, to set the context of a goal, and to understand the dynamics of human behavior, and take the initiative to get to where you want to beSuccess lies in being who we are and in the choices we are willing to make for ourselves, not in the fear of what  you should do or be.   Fear is the only thing that holds people back from achieving  personal success. And the goal of our leadership   is to help people pay attention to their intentions and get to where they want to be.References:â€Å"What are leaderships? Retrieved December 19, 2006 from http:// www.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  home.att.net/~coachthee/Archives/leadership.html)†.Leaderships Roles, Retrieved December 19, 2006 from http://www.kbc.org.au/htdocs/leaderroles.htmLeaders Empower, Retrieved December 19, 2006 from http://www.leadernotes.com/topics/Effective-Leadership.html?gclid=CL2rofionokCFRFmYQodVV97Mg

Hamlets Destructive Humor Essay - 802 Words

Hamlets Destructive Humor Humor can be funny and uplifting or cynical and destructive. Hamlets humor insults every one around him and its very cynical and leads to his downfall. When Hamlet insults people around him, his remarks are not clearly understood by the people who he is insulting. Hamlet makes Polonius look like a fool when he criticizes him with his words, and Polonius doesnt know that he is being fooled. Hamlet even makes fun of the courtiers particularly Rosencrantz and Guildernstern. Although Hamlet doesnt stop there, he even insults Claudius and his own mother, Gertrude. Hamlets love, Ophelia, is also an unfortunate victim of these remarks. All these insulting remarks show Hamlets lack of sympathy for other†¦show more content†¦When Claudius sent these two courtiers to figure out what was wrong with Hamlet, they never figured out his problem, in fact Hamlet found out what they were up to. I know the good king and queen have sent for you. (2.2.271-272) Here Hamlet surprises the courtiers making them admit that theyre spying for Claudius. Rosencrantz tries to make Hamlet talk about his ambition, and Hamlet replies by saying, Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretched heroes the beggars shadows. (2.2.263-264). When Hamlet says this, Rosencrantz doesnt even understand the point Hamlet is trying to make, which is that only the beggars are real, and heroes are figments of the beggars imaginations. These incidents show that Hamlet clearly has no problem handling these two courtiers, who are both working for Claudius and Hamlet loves toying around with them. Hamlet has more people on his list that he would love to insult especially Claudius and Gertrude, and even poor Ophelia gets caught up in this mess. At the beginning of the play Hamlet lets Claudius know how angry he feels about him. Hamlet says, A little more than kin, and less than kind! (1.2.65) Hamlet says Claudius is related to him, as an uncle and a stepfather, but hes not really his kin or his kind at all. In the beginning Hamlet makes fun of his own motherShow MoreRelatedPurgatorio Essay4430 Words   |  18 Pagesabout Purgatory that should be mentioned. Purgatory is not, as is sometimes thought, a second chance for those neither decisively good nor bad in life. It is not a period of probation after which one might be assigned to Hell. (Thanks to the Ghost of Hamlets father for that misunderstanding. Shakespeare, of course, shared with his fellow Elizabethans a characteristic misunderstanding of, and hostility toward, things uniquely Popish.) Rather, everyone who enters Purg atory eventually gets into Heaven;