The legal system according to Chambliss has devoted most of its criminal-legal effort towards processing and sanctioning of people that have the least possibility of being deterred by these legal sanctions. This policy in his opinion aligns perfectly to bureaucracy by7 treating harshly and eliminating the helpless members in the society while avowing constraints of doing the same with the powerful criminals. Chambliss identifies hat in social power and the setting of construction of crime, it only is a reality existing as created by the powerful individuals in the society to whom interests are served by its presence. Similarly Bonger stresses the shift to a Marxists formulation in creating a focus on capitalism and socialism to come up with ways of dealing with this shift of the legal system.
Quinney Richard reveals similar thoughts in constructing the reality of crime. He focuses on the sociology of conflicting interests as the root of crime existence in a society. Turk Chambliss and Quinney base their position on the coercion models of the society opposite to its integrative mode saying law is formulated and administered according to the interests of the individuals in power and the structure of the society in subject. Quinneys Social Reality of crime describes crime as a definition of human conduct that is created by authorized agents in the society. He observes that nearly all crimes perpetrated among the working class society are actually a means of survival, an actual attempt to survive in a complex society structure where survival cannot be assured by any other collective means.
In capitalist conditions, Quinney in his book Class, the state and crime also considers a typology of crime specifically those of domination and accommodation and also resistance. Cpntrol theory has turned its focus to sources of conformity considering the assumption that delinquency and crime should be expected when there is decline of the power of influences of conformity. The labeling theory on the other hand turned to treating crime as a subject to definition where the source of the definition of crime is from the labelers and no the society as a whole. Conflict theory associated according to Quinney and Turk and Chambliss creates crime from the conflict of interests arisen in the society. It entails definitions imposed on the society as a way of controlling the lower classes of the society tom serving the intrests of the upper class of the spciety and the authority in general. Peacemeaking driminalogy comes in to accept the fact of as the root of crime while advocating for policies that that refuse to escalate this conflict in favor of conciliation and mediation. Concluding the chapter, complaceny does not have a place in criminology and even though defective, conflict theory and peacemaking theory provide an increased sensitivity to issues previously overlooked by criminal theorists.
Arguments on existence crime creation.
The chapter presents arguments on the existence of criminology in the society as:
Crime may not certainly be an objective of behavior rather it is the resulting reality of a social structure. The law in each social construction defines crime in conflicting interests of the involved groups of people.
Labelling does play a great role in criminology where a whole criminal may emanate from mere labelling presented by the society where this effect is majorly biased t the lower class of the society who are intended to serve the interests of the upper social class in varying legal systems according to the conflict theory. It therefore contributes to existence of crime.
Crime is caused by conflict and the attempts that are made in effort to revenging harm caused by similar or more treacherous from of harm. According to peacemaking theory, crime exists due to the failed attempt by authorities in using violence to end crime which inly increases crime.
According to control theory, this chapter presents an argument that crime is a reflection of the interests of capitalism and class where capitalism causes crimes of accommodation and resistance while class presents crime of domination.
There also exist an argument of the creation of crime through transformative justice where even though socialism, considering material quality, ma be part if solution to crime due to capitalism, it does not give a social individual identity yielding to a religious order that is under total control of the authorities and therefore imposing the control theory in existence of crime.
I conform to the ideas in this chapter by Quinney, Turk and Chambliss on their opinion of crime as a result of the social structure and the interests of the authorities involved to whose interested the presence of crime serves but I also disagree with this opinion basing on the fact that they only focus their definite of construction of crime in the society focusing only on factors that critically explain the attitude and approach of authorities towards crime and no that of the offenders themselves. Theses have very different reasons underlying their opinion and approach on criminal activities in the society and its reality. Their theories on crime is grounded on a Marxists approach and not of the social setting of the individuals involved in crime.
Difference between secondary and primary deviance
This chapter raises a question of the difference of primary and secondary deviance where we see Primary deviance is a behavior where the participant does not react negatively to the perceived misbehavior while secondary deviance comes about when a victims negative deed attracts the attention of the given society which later reprimands the individual by harsh judgment from his or her actions. Hence according to Lemert primary deviance is conceptualized as the violation of norms stemming from original causes for instance social, situational, physiological and psychological factors. For instance an individual may resort to violent behavior due to massive emotional stress such as loss of a loved one. This does not warrant one for deviance.
This comparison element further outlines the functioning of deviance in the sense of value confirmation, continual push for change within the society and distinguishing between right and wrong; through a conduct of the normal understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Members within a society thus become bonded through their common values and beliefs as a result of deviant acts.
Contribution of labelling to secondary deviance
I its contribution to secondary deviance, labelling identifies conditions under which labeling takes place for instance whether as crime or mental illness. Theorists have also examined the consequences of labeling in terms of individuals subsequent lives. Existing arguments have it that: a whole deviant career may arise as a misfortune or having been labeled.
Need a paper on the same topic?
We will write it for you from scratch!
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:
- How to Write a Personal Statement for College
- The Renaissance and Contemporary Society
- New Media portrays African Americans in positive light more than Old Media
- Police research
- Dominant Culture
- Communication essay
- Tackling Poverty is a Social Responsibility
- American Revolution Essay
- University admissions: Attaining tertiary education
- Effective Finalization of Traffic Law
- Infection Control in a Dental Clinic
- Alive but Dead Essay