I chose to discuss: CJ 102: CRIMINOLOGY I- This course presents a framework for studying the nature and causes of crime and antisocial behavior. It focuses on explanations provided through criminal typologies and criminological theories, using a variety of multidisciplinary perspectives. Topics range from crime causation to the extent of crime, victimization, social and psychological theories, and various types of criminality including violent, property, and public order offenses. Quarter Credit Hours: 5 | Prerequisite: CJ 101 Course Outcomes: 1.
The social process theory of crime is an essential tool for criminologists and other justice related professionals. The social process theory contains three other sub theories, social learning, social reaction, and social control. The social process theory and sub theories interpret criminal behavior as a purpose of people’s interactions with establishments, organizations, and processes within the society (Siegel, 222). Domestic violence in this sense will focus around the social control sub theory, but any of the sub theories within the social process theory could apply. To use the social leaning theory a criminologist or specialist in the field must take account of the felon’s relationships and environment (Siegel, 228).
We encounter evidence of both consensus and conflict models at all stages of the system. Causes and social impact in Criminology Alongside, there is also criminology in which has a different stance than criminal justice. Criminologists are dedicated to studying not only the causes of crime but the social impact as well. It is the study that attempts to better understand what motivates the criminal to act in such a criminal manner.
The classical criminological theory was born during the Enlightenment Age. It highlights individuals having free will and choosing to make rational choices regarding criminal behavior. The theory assumes that individuals commit crimes based on possible benefits outweighing risks from their behavior (Tibbetts, pg. 5). 1600s English Philosopher, Thomas Hobbs, made the following assumptions about human nature. He said humans tend to act in logical way, but have a fundamental nature of self-interest.
Deviance is the violation of norms. This could be as small as a speeding ticket or as serious as a murder. Sociologist Howard S. Becker described deviance like this: “It is not the act itself, but the reactions to the act, the make something deviant (pg. 162).” Deviance lead se to the three theoretical approaches (symbolic interactionism, functionalism, and conflict theory). Symbolic Interactionism is the first theoretical approach.
The theory assumes that societies reaction to labelling leads to-stigmatisation, and ultimately altering identity (Davis, 1972). Furthermore, the core argument evolving from this is that once a deviant act is committed (primary deviant), they are-labelled-negatively as a criminal, and therefore this label becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the individual would become the person they are seen, rather than who they are (Scimecca,
Procedural law on the other hand, is how those laws defined in substantive criminal law get enforced. It is the criminal justice processes that an offender goes through, and includes safeguards to protect the accused as they make their way through these processes (rules of evidence, law of search and seizure, and right to counsel are the examples given). Procedural criminal law is often referred to as due process, but in the Charter of Rights and
11 UTILITARISM TO DEONTOLOGY Sketch the main points in Smart 's version of utilitarianism. Compare with a deontological view of ethics and discuss deontological objections to utilitarianism. Number of words with footnotes: 3169 Utilitarism and deontology are two opposing ethical theories. On the one hand, J. J. C. Smart represents the utilitarian view of ethics, while on the other hand Charles Fried represents the deontological. Both point to fundamental features of their interpretations as well as some criticism of the other party.
The opportunity theory suggests that offenders choose to commit crimes based on the opportunity that is presented to them to achieve their crime. For instance, if an individual is willing or ready to engage in crime and the situation proves to be favorable (environment) to the offender this opportunity in turn creates motive for the offender to execute a crime. This theory also argues that all crimes require opportunity but not every opportunity is followed by crime. The perspectives of this theory can also be used to build off of Merton’s strain theory.
Stone employs this device for defining policy problems as a method of creating an argument in the polis based on the root causes of an issue (Stone 2012, 225). With this method, debates can be formed on the premise of why the other side is wrong, and from there be built on the principles of the other side is correct. This model is used in Armentano’s essay when he presents several reasons for why the federal government’s involvement in this issue is harmful to Americans. He argues, “Enforcement of cannabis prohibition financially burdens taxpayers, encroaches on civil liberties, engenders disrespect for the law… and disproportionately affects young people and communities of color” (Wanlund 2015, 881). By highlighting the various negative aspects of government involvement in these policies, Armentano challenges those that oppose state sponsored policies, while simultaneously placing blame on the government for these policy problems.
Crime according to critical criminologists is political as it is responded to by those in power. Critical Criminologists want to gain an understanding of society and the state and how these two impact upon each other (Scraton & Chadwick 1998). Critical Criminologists want to turn away from other theories of crime and concentrate on inequalities within structures and power relations of different societies. There has been significant work on the relationship between deviants and the relationship they have with the state and the control and power the state has over them (Newburn, 2007). Punishment to critical criminologists is viewed as being associated with a system of social inequality and it can worsen and even produce the inequality itself