Crime Essay ⋆ Essays on Controversial Topics ⋆ EssayEmpire

Recent figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) report that violent and property crime are declining. For example, from 2003 to 2004, the index for violent crime indicates a drop of 2.2 percent. Perhaps more telling is that between 1995 and 2004 the same index reports an overall decline in violent crime of 32 percent. The trend for property crime is equally noteworthy. Figures from the NCVS report a 2.1 percent decrease from 2003 to 2004. Moreover, the rate of property crime from 1995 to 2004 fell by 23.4 percent. Clearly, these data suggest that the problem of crime is increasingly under control and that the mechanisms to contain it are working effectively. However, interpreting the data reveals another story.

For instance, if the focus is on the incarceration rate, the BJS reports that the number of persons in federal and state prisons rose by 1.9 percent in 2004. While this rate of increase is lower than the average rate of growth during the past decade (3.2 percent) and slightly lower than the growth rate during 2003 (2 percent), the total convict population is currently in excess of 2.4 million (approximately 1.5 million in federal and state facilities, another 800,000 in local jails, and another 100,000 in juvenile settings).

Complicating these incarceration trends are the increasing number of overcrowded facilities and concerns related to both the types of offenses committed most frequently and those identified as responsible for them. As of the end of 2004, 24 state prisons were operating at or above their highest capacity. Additionally, 40 percent of federal facilities were operating above their capacity. According to the BJS, half of those persons serving time in state prisons were incarcerated for violent crimes, 20 percent for property crimes, and 21 percent for drug offenses. Moreover, as of December 31, 2004, 104,848 women were confined in state and federal prisons. This is an astonishing 65 percent increase when compared with the 68,468 women in prison in 1995. The BJS also indicates that women represented 7 percent of all persons incarcerated in 2004. This is a 6.1 percent increase from the figure reported in 1995.

When tracking race, the incarceration trends are also quite revealing. The BJS reports that as of December 31, 2004, approximately 8.4 percent of all black males living in the United States who were between the ages of 25 and 29 were incarcerated. Hispanics made up 2.5 percent for this same age group, and whites constituted 1.2 percent for this age cohort. When combining the figures for male and female convicts, 41 percent were black, 19 percent were Hispanic, and 34 percent were white. The remaining percentage was composed of people who were either of another race or of some grouping of two or more races.

What these incarceration data suggest is that the story behind recent declining rates of crime is related to the swelling number of people criminally confined. Overwhelmingly, these individuals are poor, young, and of color. Moreover, state and federal trends in arrest, prosecution, and conviction show that persons subjected to these criminal justice practices are typically males who also are disproportionately poor, young, and of color. How should the problem of crime be understood, given society’s emphasis on incarceration?

The Problem of Definition of Crime

Different approaches to crime result in different interpretations for when (and by whom) a violation has occurred. This creates a problem with defining criminal behavior. Broadly speaking, three approaches or paradigms are discernible. The first of these is the legalistic view. The legalistic paradigm argues that if an action violates the criminal law, then that action is a crime. For example, if a federal, state, or local code exists prohibiting the smoking of cigarettes in places of business, then engaging in this behavior violates the criminal law. Thus, if a law exists banning murder, rape, torture, or school violence, then behavior that is consistent with these actions represents a transgression against the law. Criminal sanction can follow. This legalistic paradigm on crime dominates the field.

Critics identify three shortcomings with this approach. First, given that the legalistic view is the most prevalent, this means that politicians, the media, and other agents of socialization focus the general public’s attention on certain types of criminality often to the near exclusion of other types of criminality. For example, most people believe that victimization brought about by person-on-person violence is the most rampant and damaging to the long-term well-being of society. Although this sort of criminality is certainly worth noting, the societal harm that follows in the wake of corporate, white-collar, and environmental wrongdoing is far more devastating. This is because the number of persons affected is considerably greater than the number affected by street crime. Thus, the legalistic view acts much like a “blinder,” because those with power and influence draw our attention to some crimes and criminals (e.g., street crime, inner-city gang members) while distracting us from the illicit activities of governments, industry, and corporate America.

Second, by focusing only on those behaviors officially defined by law as criminal, actions that are harmful but not defined by law this way can continue to exist and, quite possibly, flourish. This would include actions that amount to social harm or social injury, not the least of which would include violations of human and moral rights. If the definition of crime encompassed this standard (as opposed to the strictly legalistic view), then the presence of poverty, racism, sexism, and other expressions of discrimination; the absence of safe, fair, and clean working conditions; and the lack of access to food, clothing, shelter, housing, and medical care all would be criminal.

Third, the legalistic definition of crime includes some behaviors that are not fundamentally harmful or behaviors in which there is little consensus on the extent of injury, if any, that occurs. Whereas most people would agree that rape, murder, robbery, arson, and burglary are crimes, there is far less agreement on such things as prostitution, drug use, pornography, and gambling. In most sectors of society, however, these actions are recognized as criminal. Despite this, some criminologists suggest that these latter behaviors are victimless, especially as there is no clear indication of an offender or a victim. Instead, what typically exists are willing consensual participants. Critics thus contend that the legalistic paradigm does nothing more than legislate morality in these instances.

Two alternative approaches have emerged in response to the limits of the legalistic paradigm. One of these is the social construction perspective. In this view, crime does not exist independent of what people think or how people act. Instead, crime is a product of human construction. Consequently, the “reality” of crime (e.g., definitions of lawbreaking, types of criminal offenders) is regarded as an artifact of culture and history and, thus, subject to change. Further, the social construction paradigm maintains that because these definitions vary, no act, in and of itself, is categorically or universally lawful or unlawful. Changing societal views on abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, alcohol consumption, and slavery amply demonstrate this point. These views may be linked to shifting political, economic, and social influences. In each instance what changes is not the behavior itself but how people collectively define and act toward the behavior at different periods, given the pressure from various societal influences. What changes, then, is the construction of what these actions mean supported by people’s thoughts and feelings as linked to several societal forces that then reinforce these constructions as if they were objective, stable realities. Eventually, changes in language, custom, habit, socialization, and education institutionalize favored ways of perceiving these constructed realties.

The other approach that has developed in response to the shortcomings of the legalistic view is the critical paradigm. This perspective endorses the social reality of crime but adds to it the notion that definitions of law, of criminal wrongdoing, and of criminals function to support status quo interests. These interests advance the aims of powerful segments in society. Examples of these segments include government, business, the military, industry, the medical establishment, and the media. According to the critical paradigm, certain types of offenses are less likely to be identified as crime (e.g., unfair labor practices, medical malpractice), and certain types of offenders are less likely to be arrested, prosecuted, and punished for harmful actions (e.g., corporate executives, government officials), because those with economic and political influence shape such definitions in favor of their own material and symbolic needs. There are various strains of thought within the critical paradigm (e.g., feminist criminology, left realism, anarchism, critical race theory, postmodernism); however, each emphasizes the way that those who represent the status quo structure definitions of crime so that they do not lose their accumulated power, despite committing acts that are unlawful. Supporters of the critical paradigm suggest that one example of how the crimes of the powerful are concealed, distorted, or minimized is through the reporting of the media. Television, radio, print, and various other electronic outlets—owned and operated by elite business interests—disseminate the message that certain types of crimes and criminals warrant the public’s attention. The media’s selective attention to these behaviors, then, dramatically shapes public sentiment such that the public is led to believe that the “real” crime problem is that which has been defined for them. As proponents of the critical paradigm explain, the selective attention on such offenses as murder, robbery, arson, and rape diverts the focus away from those social harms (criminal acts) that are the most devastating to the health and welfare of society (e.g., toxic waste dumping, global warming, corporate fraud, governmental abuses).

The Problem of Theory of Crime

The problem of crime is not limited to the choice of definition. Closely linked to this issue is the type of theory employed to explain, predict, prevent, and control offender behavior. Contemporary theories of crime fall into one of three approaches. These include neoclassical criminology, the positivist school, and the critical/postmodern orientation. Each of these three approaches focuses on certain aspects of understanding crime to the exclusion of other considerations.

Neoclassical criminology maintains that crime is a rational choice best understood through the routine activities of victims upon whom offenders prey. These activities include the availability of suitable targets (e.g., homes, businesses), the absence of capable guardians (e.g., police, pedestrians), and the presence of motivated offenders (e.g., unemployed, semiskilled, and undereducated workers). The interaction of these three conditions produces “hot spots” for criminality. Neoclassical criminology suggests that informal mechanisms of deterrence (e.g., neighborhood watch groups, community policing efforts) and shaming practices (e.g., public apology, compensation, and the victim’s forgiveness) are essential to preventing and controlling crime.

Positivist criminology draws on insights from biology, sociology, psychology, religion, politics, and economics. The positive approach argues that crime is an objective, concrete reality that can be defined as such. Emphasis is placed on understanding the causes of criminality that are said to determine one’s behavior. Supporters maintain that the application of the scientific method (hypothesis generation, theory testing, and empirical observation) results in the researcher’s ability to explain these causes and to prevent and predict their likely reoccurrence. Adherents of positive criminology draw attention to such things as genetic predisposition, social disorganization, personality deficiencies, development failures, poor self-control, differential opportunity, and group affiliation to account for criminal wrongdoing. Positivist criminology dominates the contemporary study of crime.

The critical/postmodernism approach emphasizes the presence of differential power found among various segments of society. Power assumes many forms. Examples include economic wealth, social standing, patriarchy, heterosexist norms, race privileging, and dominant systems of communication (e.g., law, medicine, science). Critical criminological theories demonstrate how different segments in society (especially white, well, and straight men of privilege) use their power to shape a reality supportive of their group’s interest, invalidating, dismissing, or otherwise controlling the needs of other, less powerful societal collectives. Consistent with this orientation, postmodernists show how the exercise of power is mediated by dominant forms of speech; this is language that structures and regulates how people think, act, feel, and exist.

This disciplining of identities supports those in positions of power.

The Problem of Research Focus

Concerns for both an agreed-upon definition of crime and the dilemma associated with the utilization of a criminological theory that best expresses this definition leads to a third fundamental issue. This is the problem of research focus. The concern for research focus addresses what criminologists should study. Several responses have been put forth, but three appear most promising: These are (1) an emphasis on conceptual models of integration, (2) strategies for restoration and offender reentry, and (3) a return to the philosophical foundations of crime.

Integration considers whether there are strategic ways to unify various (and competing) criminological theories so as to increase overall explanatory and predictive capabilities. One noteworthy recommendation along these lines argues that the multidisciplinary nature of crime requires the development of models that synthesize discipline-specific theories based on shared assumptions. Efforts at restorative justice and offender reentry attempt to make peace with crime by pursuing interventions that reconnect offenders, victims, and the communities to which both belong. One solution consistent with this logic encourages ex-offenders to engage in personal, intimate storytelling as a way of owning harm to self and others, and as a way of reconstituting their identities. The return to the philosophical foundations of crime entails a reconsideration of the rationale that informs definitions of crime and theories pertaining to it. One proposal supportive of this strategy suggests revisiting the ontological, epistemological, ethical, and aesthetic dimensions of the crime construct, especially as understood in ultramodern society.

Bibliography:

Arrigo, Bruce A., ed. 1999. Social Justice/Criminal Justice: The Maturation of Critical Theory in Law, Crime, and Deviance. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Arrigo, Bruce A., Dragan Milovanovic, and Robert C. Schehr. 2005. The French Connection in Criminology: Rediscovering Crime, Law, and Social Change. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Arrigo, Bruce A. and Christopher R. Williams, eds. 2006. Philosophy, Crime, and Criminology. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
DeKeseredy, Walter and Barbara Perry, eds. 2007. Advances in Critical Criminology: Theory and Application. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Guarino-Ghezzi, Susan and A. Javier Trevino, eds. 2006. Understanding Crime: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Cincinnati, OH: LexisNexus Anderson.
Lynch, Michael J. and Raymond J. Michalowski. 2006. Primer in Radical Criminology: Critical Perspectives on Crime, Power, and Identity. 4th ed. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree.
Milovanovic, Dragan. 2003. Critical Criminology at the Edge: Postmodern Perspectives, Integration, and Applications. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Quinney, Richard. 2001. The Social Reality of Crime. 2nd ed. Somerset, NJ: Transaction.
Reiman, Jeffrey. 2005. The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

This example Crime Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.