SCHOLAR: THE STUDY OF CRIMINOLOGY

Criminology is the study of the making, breaking and enforcing of law. It identifies crime as any illegal acts. Crimes can be analyzed according to the following criteria the illegal act, the cause, the role/ origin of law and society responses or the displacement of the crime. There are many approaches to crime. I believe that crime represented through the conflict model is very accurate as there is a lack of equity in the penalties. Poor people suffer more than wealthy people therefore; the criminal justice system should consider a more equitable way to be able to deal with penalties. Looking at crime through the consensus model crime is an act that the majority has labelled it as such. I believe in this concept because it is a derived from democratic and utilitarian principles. Lastly, looking at crime from the interactionist model, interest groups advocate for the community through moral entrepreneurs. This in turn falls inline with the social structural theorem in which identifies that society is a system with functions that work together to progress. It is important to understand Emil Durkeim when thinking about society and its function as he pointed out that society cohesion is necessary to be able to progressively deal with crime. The cohesion in our society is the law and this is perhaps maintained via strict liability. Strict liability identifies that certain crimes do not require the burden of proof such as regulatory laws.

This history of criminology originates from C18. This was a time when the Roman Catholic church was the dominant force. They implemented two models in which crime was punishable. These are the temptation model and the possession model. These two formed the basis of crime and people were tortured if they committed crimes. Some examples of torture were the iron maiden and the thumb screw. These techniques are now considered barbaric and it is shocking that crime has such a varied history. Today crime is dealt with in a way that it fits with equity, democracy, supremacy of law and utilitarianism. Through equity is a concept referred to as, “just deserts,” this means that only those whom are guilty are punishable under law, doing the crime is guilty and that crime must fit the punishment. Under democracy crime is labeled as a deviant act which most in society have a collective belief through culture that it should be illegal. Supremacy of law dictates the rule of law wherein crimes are labeled through the criminal code and are punishable via societal cohesion. Lastly the concept of utilitarianism states that the principles of criminal justice benefits the majority and it does the most good for all.
There are many approaches to crime. What I believe is the concept of positivism. This is what is really the scientific approaches to crime. In modern times, as society grew more advance they are more reliant on science to improve their methodologies. The positivist view to crime looks at biological, psychological and sociological variables to crime. From the biological perspective Lombroso looks at crime through atavism or stigmata. This is the determinist method, stigmata identifies born traits which increase the likely hood that a person will be a criminal. Atavism points out traits which one develops wherein they can be potentially labeled as a criminal. I am not a firm believer of Lombroso’s idea but never the less, it is a good starting point as to how modern crime analysis can take place.

Psychological approaches to crime look at factors such as IQ and behavior which increase the likelihood of criminal activity. Lastly I would like to talk about Robert Merton’s approach to crime. He believes that there is a discrepancy in a persons aspirations and objectives which cause a person to be a criminal. This discrepancy causes an individual to have blocked opportunities wherein they will attempt to justify their crime through rebellion, retreatisim, ritualism, conformity or innovation. In contrast Emil Durkheim points out that it is society cohesion which maintains the social structure in which crime can be alleviated I am a firm believer of Emil Durkheim’s theory about crime.
I would lastly like to briefly describe the correlates of crime as according to modern Criminologist. A correlate is a variable which causes an individual to be more susceptible to crime. They are as follows age, sex, social structure, race, drugs and region. These are the variables which really predisposes one to be a criminal and there are many theories which prove these. The important thing here is that people define crime. In their definition they either react positively, negatively or neutrally in their attempt to justify their own actions. Crime according to the differential association theory, specifies that it is the peer groups that link people to criminal activity. This link is analyzed in such a way that the frequency and intensity create in a person the predisposition to crime.

SCHOLAR: LAW ENFORCEMENT AND VALUES

One of the main themes of the video was that the police are representation of society and their values. Therefore, if the police are racist then it is indicative that society is also racist. In Sociology, I believe that racism is a social construct. It is a way to exploit the short comings of various races. I believe that there we as a society should continue to promote zero tolerance on this subject matter as it can be considered hate speech. Although that may be the case I also do consider that freedom of speech is necessary.

 

A social construct is a construction of reality by the society. They make preconceived notions about a certain subject matter and then it is shared with the society wherein that it proliferates popular culture which then results in a social construct. Social constructs are also considered stereotypes. There are many stereotypes in society today and they are a result of social constructionism. With pertinence to the video, I see they mentioned police racism as one of the topics. Police need to be very careful as to not be racist as they are the reflection of society cohesion.

Social constructs are a way for others to destroy the image of another. These people use these social constructs to create in people a self-fulfilling prophecy which evidently alters a person’s path. If one encounters these stereotypes often and they are in an environment which supports this discrimination there is a high likelihood that they will be affected by these negative statements.

I still do believe that society should continue to promote zero tolerance on the subject matter. We as a society should be communicating in a respectful manner. Although I say this, I would like to emphasize that explicit language has been used in the past to proliferate culture, such is the case with Hitler’s regime. We need to be able to find contexts wherein that language can be used in such a way that it does not interfere with the competitiveness of information delivery. In this day and age, we have become a sensitive society, so sensitive in fact that we have been shutting down conversation that possibly promote advancements in our society. In order to have competitive information we must be able to communicate in such ways that it does not shut down our channels of communication. Therefore, I recognize the importance of the concepts of hate speech in our country but I feel we need to be able to develop a method to deal with it which does not shut down communication. The Americans have the first amendment and it is evident that they are the hegemon nation in which all societies base their decision. I feel they are the super power because they have a system which promotes competitive communication through the first amendment. And this competitive information allows their society to continue to progress and maintain their hegemony.  

I feel that one of the ways we can improve upon our sensitivity is through promoting an increase in the confidence of the people. People who shut down communication due to their being offended are really selfish and are victimizing those who actually may have important things to say. This is a two-way problem but really, who is the victim here? Is it the one that is directly offended or is it the one who is indirectly offended? The one who is directly offended is the one who shuts down the communication. The indirect offended is the person being shut down. This really is a matter of confidence. We need to be able to fix the confidence of our people so that they do not get offended and this can be down through the media. Worst case scenario is that there will be a boom in the security industry like the needing of security guards or surveillance.

SCHOLAR: FREEDOM OF SPEECH

One of the main themes of the video, “Zero Tolerance,” was that the police are representation of society and their values. Therefore, if the police are racist then it is indicative that society is also racist. In Sociology, I believe that racism is a social construct. It is a way to exploit the short comings of various races. I believe that we as a society should continue to promote zero tolerance on this subject matter as it can be considered hate speech. Although that may be the case I also do consider that freedom of speech is necessary.

A social construct is a construction of reality by the society. They make preconceived notions about a certain subject matter and then it is shared with the society wherein that it proliferates popular culture which then results in a social construct. Social constructs are also considered stereotypes. There are many stereotypes in society today and they are a result of social constructionism. With pertinence to the video, I see they mentioned police racism as one of the topics. Police need to be very careful as to not be racist as they are the reflection of society cohesion.
Social constructs are a way for others to destroy the image of another. These people use these social constructs to create in people a self-fulfilling prophecy which evidently alters a person’s path. If one encounters these stereotypes often and they are in an environment which supports this discrimination there is a high likelihood that they will be affected by these negative statements.

I still do believe that society should continue to promote zero tolerance on the subject matter. We as a society should be communicating in a respectful manner. Although I say this, I would like to emphasize that explicit language has been used in the past to proliferate culture, such is the case with Hitler’s regime. We need to be able to find contexts wherein that language can be used in such a way that it does not interfere with the competitiveness of information delivery. In this day and age, we have become a sensitive society, so sensitive in fact that we have been shutting down conversation that possibly promote advancements in our society. In order to have competitive information we must be able to communicate in such ways that it does not shut down our channels of communication. Therefore, I recognize the importance of the concepts of hate speech in our country but I feel we need to be able to develop a method to deal with it which does not shut down communication. The Americans have the first amendment and it is evident that they are the hegemon nation in which all societies base their decision. I feel they are the super power because they have a system which promotes competitive communication through the first amendment. And this competitive information allows their society to continue to progress and maintain their hegemony.
I feel that one of the ways we can improve upon our sensitivity is through promoting an increase in the confidence of the people. People who shut down communication due to their being offended are really selfish and are victimizing those who actually may have important things to say. This is a two-way problem but really, who is the victim here? Is it the one that is directly offended or is it the one who is indirectly offended? The one who is directly offended is the one who shuts down the communication. The indirect offended is the person being shut down. This really is a matter of confidence. We need to be able to fix the confidence of our people so that they do not get offended and this can be down through the media. Worst case scenario is that there will be a boom in the security industry like the needing of security guards or surveillance.

SCHOLAR: SEX & GENDER

In my analysis of the documentary, “The Sterilization of Leilani Muir” I feel that the government of Alberta was discriminating on this woman. The rise of the trial provides some clear information with pertinence to the government objectives back then. Leilani Muir was a young girl from Alberta who was abused by her parents and further sent to a sterilization facility. The government was discriminatory and caused genocide of these mentally ill peoples in their attempt to segregate them in facilities. This is a scary situation and I really cannot fathom that this had actually happened in Canada’s past. Eugenics, a biological theory regarding genetic trait discrimination which aim to create a population with those traits that are considered desirable. Through generations this can occur through birth and apparently children inherit these traits. This is one of the main objectives that are depicted in the film. The Canadian government was discriminating against the mentally ill and referring to them as, “mentally defective,” which in my opinion is very harsh. Today, this would be a clear violation to the Constitution and the Canadian Charter.

In contemporary times this is really considered a human rights issue. It is also surprising that Canada, with consideration of this documentary, was one of the main advocates of this legislation in the United Nations. I believe, that in contemporary times Canada has developed into a country that represents equity and fairness. They have really changed their perspective on human rights matters, what with their recent acceptance of refugees. However, there is always the threat that our democracy can be implicated due to the influence of negative forces. Human nature after all, is really compelled by evil. I believe the society has a large role in protecting the disabled.

I personally don’t believe in sterilization. People should have the opportunity to breed with one another. My issue with this society is the fact that they are preventing conversion therapy in their attempt to protect the gays and the transsexuals. There is currently a ban on this type of therapy in British Columbia. I believe that this is the modern method of how Canada with consideration of this documentary, is still enforcing a eugenics agenda. They, in their ban to promote conversion therapy are violating the Canadian Charter. People should be able to legally choose whether to subscribe to conversion therapy. I would like to ask, who is representing and fighting for these people that are getting ignored? Canada is so concerned about these gays and or transsexuals that they are overlooking the choices of those that would like to convert. In some extreme cases Canada is allowing these people to change their gender in their identification. This is a big liability when in consideration of the medical community. Imagine, a person who changed their gender gets into an accident and is unable to communicate or is in a comma. The nurses and the doctors would look at the identification and there is a possibility that they would treat this person based on the gender indicated on their identification. This is an actual problem. There are only two sexes according to science and as for the genders there are 63.

SCHOLAR: AGE AS A CORRELATE

Crime can be defined as illegal acts. When looking at Crime it is necessary to look at the variables of crime. I will be looking at the variable of, “age,” and I will provide explanations to how it is connected to crime. Moreover, I will attempt to explain its significance in a society. I will then conclude with limitations from a Criminological lens.
It is a fact that younger people do more crime than those that are older. These younger people are developing a sense of identity and through this they begin to deviate and question societal norms. They are given restrictions from the law, their school and their parents which evidently creates a sense of curiosity amongst them. Through the social learning theory, Crime is a learned behavior and it must be observed in order to learn and do it. These younger people are influenced by a culture such as music or movies that promote crime. Through these cultures, they create in these younger people, definitions whereby they are then able to grasp these deviant behaviors. They then associate with peer groups whom appeal to their preconceived notions about the criminal activity. They can either feel positive, negative or neutral on these subject matters. Crimes such as theft, violence and drugs are most common with this age group. They feel that since it is promoted or glamorized in culture that it is okay that they imitate these behaviors. These younger people are very impressionable, and it is a fact that the brain doesn’t fully develop until the age of around 25. Therefore, a possible solution I suggest is that perhaps we as a society look at what is currently referred to as the, “legal age.” Since science says that the brain doesn’t fully develop until that age, it is only right that we perhaps consider to question the legal age. Perhaps it is necessary to keep certain parts of the legal age of 19 such as alcohol, cigarettes and driving. But I do question these young peoples ability to make sound legal judgements.

Older individuals, however, have been tied down to many commitments such as a job or their family therefore, they commit less crime. They have been through the process of maturational reform. But some of them do still partake in crime. Their crimes are usually white-collar crimes. These types of crimes are inaccessible to the younger demographic. I feel that there is a great inequity in the legal system. This inequity is evident in the fact that those whom are poor suffer more than those that are wealthy from penalty, sanctions or prison. I believe society should look at punishing based on a percentage scale so that we can be a society that is fair and equitable. Let’s say theft under 2000.00$ is punishable under the current legislation for 6 months of prison or a penalty of $2500.00. From the lens of the proposed scale we can then say that those are the minimum punishments but also we can look at the average individual’s income and then scale the punishment in such a way that it is the same percentage of penalty that the poor person has to pay as the wealthy person therefore, these people who commit crime are affected in the same way. This method is what originates from deterrence theory, if we as a society punish people based on an income percentage scale, we would definitely see less crime. Moreover, I feel the legal system condemns these people and treats them unfairly by giving them a criminal record for life. This is an aspect which should be looked at. It is not fair that they have to suffer the implications of their misjudgments for their entire life. People change throughout their life- time and this legislation is literally unreasonable. Perhaps they should consider changing it to something like 20 years but life for serious crimes.
We as students and Criminologist are limited in the action we would like to change in society. We need to be collaborating with various disciplines in order to be able to create the equitable society of the future. Our limitations prevent this from happening and we should work to change this.

SCHOLAR: CRIME & JUSTICE

Crime is an issue in all societies which needs to be addressed. This issue has plagued humanity since the inception of the civilized world. For me, I associate crime with violence, stealing and drugs. The mentioned, I have observed in many ways throughout our society and in the media, all with varying amounts of severity. Crime affects people and through my analysis, I determined that crime is really all about not having enough of something. As an example, a wealthy person who decides that he or she should neglect to declare all income on his or her income tax, so that he/ she may avoid the taxation of the government. This is tax evasion and in this situation, the person is wealthy however, it is his/ her perception of lack which evidently resulted in the crime. Perhaps this individual avoided the tax because he/ she needed to purchase something with the money. This is therefore still a problem of scarcity. Another example could be a man and a women are dating. However, the women get’s into an argument with the man, evidently resulting in an assault. These people are lacking something, they lack consensus with one another and they feel they need this consensus because they want to be able to do something. Therefore, their lack in consensus also is reflected in their lack of action which is hence preventing each one of them from accomplishing their individual intent/ goal/ purpose. As you can see from this example, a lack in one place will result in a lack in another which will result in some generally individually perceived unfavorable situation, in this case it was assault. Even when it comes to the usage of drugs or even discrimination. Some examples of lack for the former can be boredom or social support and for the latter a lack of amusement or perhaps lack of compassion. In the case of discrimination, I would like to delve into how this example acts as a scale. I will focus on compassion. As compassion is reduced the anger will increase, therefore each of these emotions are directly related. And the same can be said for the lack of amusement and boredom. This is what I know about crime and it comes from various observations throughout my life.

Now that we have taken a look at crime, lets explore briefly the concept of justice. This is a term that I feel really emerged as a result of government. Government was created so that order in a geographic location will or shall be maintained. This so called, “order,” is really consensus. Once again, the lack or scarcity thereof will result in crime. Thus, I can say, based on my analysis that justice seeks to rectify this perceived lack amongst its citizens and itself. This is done through actions such as law and legislation. The lack between people, I learned through school, are managed through discipline via fines, prison or sanction. The lack in the government itself are managed through actions such as taxation, negotiation or war. To me, justice means to protect the public and at the same time itself from anything that may impair it.

I learned in school about the question of deviance. This is a widely used concept to explain crime however, I would like to point out its flaw and it is this, it does not take into account the reason for the action, it only looks at the society. Although this established way may have merit, I feel that it really does not get to the root of the actual problem, which is lack. The only reason people do deviant behavior is the fact that he or she is really lacking something. Thus, I can say that perhaps if we as a society look at both factors of from the stated method, I feel we could increase progress in this subject matter. Therefore, in both cases, crime and justice, I can conclude the elements of their justification as follows- situation, perception, lack and action.

MENS RIGHTS ACTIVISTS VS FEMINISTS

INQUISITIVE: HOW TO IMMIGRATE