Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    dlwnmbg is offline Newbie
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Turkish
      • Home Country:
      • Turkey
      • Current Location:
      • Turkey
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Social Construction Of Crime (urgent!)

    This is my essay about crime. I took a stand for the idea that "Crime is not pathological and it is socially constructed rather than individually."
    What do you think about my essay? I'm waiting for comments.
    Esspecially i need you to help with the sentence written in red. Please that is urgent.

    Social Construction of Crime

    The obvious definition of crime is the legal definition of an act which breaks the law. It is a social construction as it varies across culture, time and law. Crime is defined by a society's own rules, norms and beliefs at any given time in history. Hazel Croall emphasizes pathological way and social construction of crime in the book. An analysis of reasons of crime reveals the fact that crime is a functional part of a society, constructed by society in political, economical and cultural aspects and affects the society as a loop back.

    Crime is created by the government by choosing to outlaw something. Government creates what crime is or not. For instance all non-violent drug offenses are crimes that would not be considered crimes if the government hadn't made drugs illegal. That is one form of how government constructs crime. Another is that it constructs crime for its own interests. Money tracking laws and tax evasion are in this category. In fact the best way to make money is to get the government to force people to give it to you. Such as in America the drugs of the rich and middle class are either legal, or not strongly enforced. Generally celebrities who use cocaine do not do serious jail time but the drugs of the poor and minorities are illegal because they cannot afford to pay commissions. Consequently as lawmakers consider crime as a creation of the citizens, in fact crime is a creation of lawmakers who decided to limit civil freedoms by their own moral standards.

    However crime could change across cultures and times. For example, polygamy is illegal in Turkey but acceptable in many African cultures. Cannabis tincture was permissible as a painkiller in Victorian times but today possession of cannabis is illegal in UK.

    Crime is present in every society through the history. Therefore Durkheim argues that it could be assumed to be normal and its function determined (14). Crime unifies the community, as it clarifies and strengthens moral sentiments, the collective conscience and the rules. On the other hand, Downes and Rock object this idea, claiming that crime may isolate people by making them stay in at night, lock their doors and avoid talking to strangers (15). But these are valid for too much crime. Excessive crime leads people to disintegration, while too little crime is the product of too strong social control. Hence crime rates must not be excessively high or excessively low in order to crime could be functional.

    According to Durkheim, the cohesion and solidarity of pre-industrial societies broke up with the growth of industry (16). People started to have fewer moral standards or constraints to guide them. People’s expectations increased with the economic growth. Materialism and wealth became universal goals. And he called anomie as the search for attainable goals. Anomie reflects in society as many ways such as conformists, innovators, retreatists. Frustration and hopelessness as a result of boundless aspirations direct people to crime as another chance to achieve their goals. That is the inevitable social construction of crime that arises with industrialization

    Furthermore crime can be related to economic conditions. Firstly unemployment is one of the important reasons to increase crime. Crow, consider increases in unemployment as a threat to law and order (34). With globalization, many traditional crafts and skills became redundant. Therefore unskilled workers could not find long-term jobs and opportunities for career progression. As Taylor says, economic cycles of growth and recession produce changes in employment and consumption (34). Unemployment is popularly linked to crime. But the employed people also commit crime and all the unemployed people are not criminals. Such as the retired, the idle rich or the redundant executive could commit crime. Because worklessness means having more time and opportunity to commit crime. Secondly another economic reason of crime is the market policies. Currie argue that market society promotes crime by increasing inequality and concentrated economic deprivation, weakening capacity of local communities, stressing and fragmenting the family and withdrawing public provision of basic services (40). These policies affect not only lower class but all kinds of crime. “The encouragement of individualism and the aggressive pursuit of profits can be associated with law breaking among managers and executives and with an increase in financial frauds. Economic and industrial changes have also affected organized crime which can become an alternative labour market” (Croall, 41). To sum up, economic reasons take a large part in social construction of crime.

    Most importantly, crime arises in certain places in which there is the blatant segregation of the rich and poor. Mostly people tend to live in the same areas with other people who earn the same amount of money. In low income areas, people see crime as a way to make a few extra dollars. Therefore poor people commit crime more than other people and that forms the ‘underclass’ notion. But it is government responsibility for the economic and social policies which produce these conditions. Government is supposed to do necessary regulations to protect poor people to commit crime.

    Taking into account all these factors mentioned above, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that crime is inevitable reality of humanity. Although there are a few exceptions, crime do not occur due to a criminal disease or a criminal gene. It’s constructed in society rather than individually. Society creates crime, then crime affects society. In conclusion crime is what a society chooses it to be, and the crime rate is what the society chooses it to be.

  2. #2
    Leandro-Z's Avatar
    Leandro-Z is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Spanish
      • Home Country:
      • Argentina
      • Current Location:
      • Argentina
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    172
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Social Construction Of Crime (urgent!)

    Quote Originally Posted by dlwnmbg View Post
    This is my essay about crime. I took a stand for the idea that "Crime is not pathological and it is socially constructed rather than individually."
    What do you think about my essay? I'm waiting for comments.
    Esspecially i need you to help with the sentence written in red. Please that is urgent.

    Social Construction of Crime

    The obvious definition meaning of crime is the legal definition of an act which breaks the law. It is a social construction as it varies across culture, time and law. Crime is defined by a society's own rules, norms and beliefs at any given time in history. Hazel Croall emphasizes pathological way and social construction of crime in the book. An analysis of the usual reasons of crime reveals (the fact) that crime is a functional part of a societythe world, constructed by society in political, economical and cultural aspects and affects the society as a loop back.

    Crime is created by the government by choosing to outlaw something. Government creates what crime is or not. For instance all non-violent drug offenses are crimes that would not be considered crimes if the government hadn't made drugs illegal. That is one form of how government constructs crime. Another is that it constructs crime for its own interests. Money tracking laws and tax evasion are in this category. In fact the best way to make money is to get the government to force people to give it to you. Such as in America the drugs of the rich and middle class are either legal, or not strongly enforced. Generally celebrities who use cocaine do not do serious jail time but the drugs of the poor and minorities are illegal because they cannot afford to pay commissions. Consequently as lawmakers consider crime as a creation of the citizens, in fact crime is a creation of lawmakers who decided to limit civil freedoms by their own moral standards.

    However crime could change across cultures and times. For example, polygamy is illegal in Turkey but acceptable in many African cultures. Cannabis tincture was permissible as a painkiller in Victorian times but today possession of cannabis is illegal in UK.

    Crime is present in every society through the history. Therefore Durkheim argues that it could be assumed to be normal and its function determined (14). Crime unifies the community, as it clarifies and strengthens moral sentiments, the collective conscience and the rules. On the other hand, Downes and Rock object this idea, claiming that crime may isolate people by making them stay in at night, lock their doors and avoid talking to strangers (15). But these are valid for too much crime. Excessive crime leads people to disintegration, while too little crime is the product of too strong social control. Hence crime rates must not be excessively high or excessively low in order to crime could be functional.

    According to Durkheim, the cohesion and solidarity of pre-industrial societies broke up with the growth of industry (16). People started to have fewer moral standards or constraints to guide them. People’s expectations increased with the economic growth. Materialism and wealth became universal goals. And he called anomie as the search for attainable goals. Anomie reflects in society as many ways such as conformists, innovators, retreatists. Frustration and hopelessness as a result of boundless aspirations direct people to crime as another chance to achieve their goals. That is the inevitable social construction of crime that arises with industrialization

    Furthermore crime can be related to economic conditions. Firstly unemployment is one of the important reasons to increase crime. Crow, consider increases in unemployment as a threat to law and order (34). With globalization, many traditional crafts and skills became redundant. Therefore unskilled workers could not find long-term jobs and opportunities for career progression. As Taylor says, economic cycles of growth and recession produce changes in employment and consumption (34). Unemployment is popularly linked to crime. But the employed people also commit crime and all the unemployed people are not criminals. Such as the retired, the idle rich or the redundant executive could commit crime. Because worklessness means having more time and opportunity to commit crime. Secondly another economic reason of crime is the market policies. Currie argue that market society promotes crime by increasing inequality and concentrated economic deprivation, weakening capacity of local communities, stressing and fragmenting the family and withdrawing public provision of basic services (40). These policies affect not only lower class but all kinds of crime. “The encouragement of individualism and the aggressive pursuit of profits can be associated with law breaking among managers and executives and with an increase in financial frauds. Economic and industrial changes have also affected organized crime which can become an alternative labour market” (Croall, 41). To sum up, economic reasons take a large part in social construction of crime.

    Most importantly, crime arises in certain places in which there is the blatant segregation of the rich and poor. Mostly people tend to live in the same areas with other people who earn the same amount of money. In low income areas, people see crime as a way to make a few extra dollars. Therefore poor people commit crime more than other people and that forms the ‘underclass’ notion. But it is government responsibility for the economic and social policies which produce these conditions. Government is supposed to do necessary regulations to protect poor people to commit crime.

    Taking into account all these factors mentioned above, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that crime is inevitable reality of humanity. Although there are a few exceptions, crime do not occur due to a criminal disease or a criminal gene. It’s constructed in society rather than individually. Society creates crime, then crime affects society. In conclusion crime is what a society chooses it to be, and the crime rate is what the society chooses it to be.
    It is a large essay. I couldn`t read it entirely. I just payed attention to the first three paragraphs and the only thing I can suggest you is the following: try to find synonims. I know that it is difficult to replace a world that has its own meaning in a certain field, but it`s a bit repetitive sometimes and that is not appreciated by the reader. But else can I say? The rest I suppose that is correct because I could notice, by the way you express your thoughts, you have a great command of the language and that you find it easy when writing this kind of compositions.

    All the best,
    Leandro-Z

  3. #3
    Raymott's Avatar
    Raymott is online now VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    19,792
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Social Construction Of Crime (urgent!)

    Quote Originally Posted by dlwnmbg View Post
    Social Construction of Crime

    The obvious definition of crime is the legal definition of an act which breaks the law. It is a social construction as it varies across culture, time and law. Crime is defined by a society's own rules, norms and beliefs at any given time in history. Hazel Croall emphasizes pathological way and social construction of crime in the book. (What book? Who is Hazel Croall? You need to put a citation here. You also need a bibliography.)

    An analysis of the reasons of for crime reveals the fact that crime is a functional part of a society, constructed by society in political, economical and cultural aspects, and it affects the society as a loopback.

    Crime is created by the government by choosing to outlaw something.
    Sometimes it's hard to tell which views are yours and which you are summarising from your sources.
    ...
    Taking into account all these factors mentioned above, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that crime is inevitable reality of humanity. Although there are a few exceptions, crime do not occur due to a criminal disease or a criminal gene.
    You haven't shown this. You haven't discussed the biological or individual contributions to crime at all.
    It’s constructed in society rather than individually. Society creates crime, then crime affects society. In conclusion crime is what a society chooses it to be, and the crime rate is what the society chooses it to be.
    This seems to be Hazel Croall's viewpoint. Is it yours?
    I couldn't differentiate your opinions from those of your sources. This is something you need to be more aware of.

  4. #4
    dlwnmbg is offline Newbie
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Turkish
      • Home Country:
      • Turkey
      • Current Location:
      • Turkey
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Social Construction Of Crime (urgent!)

    thanks for your comments leandro-z

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    I couldn't differentiate your opinions from those of your sources. This is something you need to be more aware of.

    Thank you Raymott. I'll consider your comments when i'm editing the essay. But i want to ask something. I've read a textbook about crime written by Hazel Croall. I agree with the author in this subject. So is not it normal that it could not be differentiated my opinions from the author's?


    Isn't there anyone alse to say something about my essay?

  5. #5
    Raymott's Avatar
    Raymott is online now VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    19,792
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Social Construction Of Crime (urgent!)

    Quote Originally Posted by dlwnmbg View Post
    thanks for your comments leandro-z


    Thank you Raymott. I'll consider your comments when i'm editing the essay. But i want to ask something. I've read a textbook about crime written by Hazel Croall. I agree with the author in this subject. So is not it normal that it could not be differentiated my opinions from the author's?

    Yes, but you must make it clear in your essay that you have thought about the author's opinion and that you agree with it - and give some evidence for that. Otherwise, your reader is likely to assume (with justification in most cases of student essays) that you are simply writing someone else's ideas. When I say evidence, I mean presenting a coherent view from beginning to end - if you agree 100% with author A, you must disagree with author B who disagrees with A.
    Anyhow, as I say, you haven't made it clear.


    Isn't there anyone alse to say something about my essay?
    Probably not. Generally people rarely get more than one response to essays.
    R

  6. #6
    dlwnmbg is offline Newbie
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Turkish
      • Home Country:
      • Turkey
      • Current Location:
      • Turkey
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Social Construction Of Crime (urgent!)

    I could not understand what i should do exactly Raymott.
    Actually, from beginning to end i support the idea that crime is socially constructed. The paragraphs except for the one related to pathological aspect of crime are the examples how crime is socially constructed. And i made citations from the text to support this idea and also gave examples from tectbook or by myself. When i take a sentence or view from the text, i indicated that by saying such as according to durkheim or as crow says.
    I forgot to say that in the textbook written by Hazel Croall, there are also citations from other people such as durkheim, crow. Therefore there are a lot of views in the text book. I supported my idea (crime is socially constructed and not pathological) by making citations from the text book. And sometimes i refuted the opposite ideas such as downes and rock's in the fourth paragraph.
    How could i make it clear? Should i say that i agree with the author in this point because of these reasons...?

  7. #7
    Raymott's Avatar
    Raymott is online now VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    19,792
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Social Construction Of Crime (urgent!)

    Quote Originally Posted by dlwnmbg View Post
    I could not understand what i should do exactly Raymott.
    Actually, from beginning to end i support the idea that crime is socially constructed. The paragraphs except for the one related to pathological aspect of crime are the examples how crime is socially constructed. And i made citations from the text to support this idea and also gave examples from tectbook or by myself. When i take a sentence or view from the text, i indicated that by saying such as according to durkheim or as crow says.
    I forgot to say that in the textbook written by Hazel Croall, there are also citations from other people such as durkheim, crow. Therefore there are a lot of views in the text book. I supported my idea (crime is socially constructed and not pathological) by making citations from the text book. And sometimes i refuted the opposite ideas such as downes and rock's in the fourth paragraph.
    How could i make it clear? Should i say that i agree with the author in this point because of these reasons...?
    Here's one example of what I mean:

    "According to Durkheim, the cohesion and solidarity of pre-industrial societies broke up with the growth of industry (16). People started to have fewer moral standards or constraints to guide them. People’s expectations increased with the economic growth. Materialism and wealth became universal goals. And he called anomie as the search for attainable goals. Anomie reflects in society as many ways such as conformists, innovators, retreatists. Frustration and hopelessness as a result of boundless aspirations direct people to crime as another chance to achieve their goals. That is the inevitable social construction of crime that arises with industrialization

    Furthermore crime can be related to economic conditions ..."


    The whole of the first paragraph tells what Durkheim's views are. Is it still his views that you are presenting in the next paragraph, with "Furthermore ... " This is only one obvious example of where you go from presenting one person's ideas to perhaps presenting your own, maybe. Is this sentence reflective of Durkheim's opinion, yours, or Crow's.

    I really can't tell you how to fix this. That comes with experience. The first thing is to be aware of it. Read some good essays and notice how other people do it. While you're reading ask yourself if you always know who's ideas you're reading.

    Yes, you could put in your introduction something like, "In this essay, I will argue that crime is socially constructed. This is the viewpoint taken by Croall (ref)".

    In any case, I think you should ask your teacher, after it's marked, whether s/he agrees with me. Also I don't know what level you're at. This would pass in school, but not at university.



  8. #8
    dlwnmbg is offline Newbie
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Turkish
      • Home Country:
      • Turkey
      • Current Location:
      • Turkey
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Social Construction Of Crime (urgent!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    Here's one example of what I mean:

    "According to Durkheim, the cohesion and solidarity of pre-industrial societies broke up with the growth of industry (16). People started to have fewer moral standards or constraints to guide them. People’s expectations increased with the economic growth. Materialism and wealth became universal goals. And he called anomie as the search for attainable goals. Anomie reflects in society as many ways such as conformists, innovators, retreatists. Frustration and hopelessness as a result of boundless aspirations direct people to crime as another chance to achieve their goals. That is the inevitable social construction of crime that arises with industrialization

    Furthermore crime can be related to economic conditions ..."

    The whole of the first paragraph tells what Durkheim's views are. Is it still his views that you are presenting in the next paragraph, with "Furthermore ... " This is only one obvious example of where you go from presenting one person's ideas to perhaps presenting your own, maybe. Is this sentence reflective of Durkheim's opinion, yours, or Crow's.

    I really can't tell you how to fix this. That comes with experience. The first thing is to be aware of it. Read some good essays and notice how other people do it. While you're reading ask yourself if you always know who's ideas you're reading.

    Yes, you could put in your introduction something like, "In this essay, I will argue that crime is socially constructed. This is the viewpoint taken by Croall (ref)".

    In any case, I think you should ask your teacher, after it's marked, whether s/he agrees with me. Also I don't know what level you're at. This would pass in school, but not at university.

    I'm at university. Actually this is my first draft. My teacher commented on it giving feedback. And she did not say anything about that its not differentiated my views from the author. But i'll try to make it clear considering your advices when i'm editing this essay for final draft. I've occupied you a lot. Thanks a million

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26-Mar-2009, 21:29
  2. [General] Participle construction=Gerund construction?
    By vil in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14-Mar-2009, 15:12
  3. Nominative + Infinitive construction, urgent
    By allience in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 30-Jun-2008, 13:25
  4. crime
    By kukinecka in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29-Apr-2008, 18:52

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •