Crime As A Social Construct: Analysis Of The Evolution Of The Definition Of Crime And Victimisation In Criminology

The ‘Discovery of the Victim’ and a Shift in Focus from the Offender to the Offence: Altering our understandings of What Causes Crime

Discuss about the Crime as a Socially Construct for Altering out Understandings on the Causes.

Various ideological schools of thought and various societies define crime differently; these definitions are influenced by various factors such as law, moral precepts, social perceptions, political influence among others. There are various ways of analysing and interpreting crime, criminology is only one of them (Carrabine, et al., 2014). The purpose of this essay is to analyse the developments in the definition of crime and victimisations, guided by criminological ideologies. It will look into the classical and positivist schools of thought on the concept of crime and the definition of a criminal. Additionally, it will consider the emergence of the victim and how victimisation has developed in criminology. Furthermore, the essay will outline the strengths and weaknesses of the official and unofficial sources used to measure crime and victimisation; it is also important to consider the developments in the definitions of crime. This analysis will serve to conclude that crime is an ever-changing social construct. 

The theoretical foundation of criminology is built on two criminological ideologies; the classical school of thought arising in the eighteenth century and the positivist school of thought which emerged in the nineteenth century (Carrabine, et al., 2014). The classical ideology drew its principles from enlightenment thinking and posits that human beings possess free will and as such crime results from this choice. Ideally, punishment, imprisonment or surveillance and other preventative measures can be applied to deter the criminal from engaging in crime. Beccaria, in his attempt to humanise punishment, stated that the severity of punishment should coincide with the crime done and also guided by law. Essentially, crime was a choice which could be deterred by punishment; what constituted a crime and the subsequent punishment was determined by law (Beccaria, 1995). 

The positivist school of thought is usually associated with scholars like Lombroso and Ferri who approached criminology scientifically rather than on the basis of social ideologies. Lombroso, after conducting studies on various convicted criminals, identified a correlation between physical attributes and the tendency to commit a crime. As such, according to him, certain features; low foreheads, protruding ears, long arms, could be used as identifies for potential criminals. However, the challenge lies in the fact that these attributes can be found in non-criminals as well. Ferri expanded this philosophy by highlighting three components used to identify the causes of crime; anthropological, telluric and social (Mclaughlin, et al., 2003). The positivist school of thought has developed from these theories among others to present a more scientific approach to the causes of crime. 

Changes to Our understandings of What Causes Crime

Traditionally, a victim was defined as an offer for sacrifice; the animal or person presented as a life sacrifice to appease a supernatural being (Karmen, 2015). However, this definition has since evolved to encompass those who suffer harm, injury or loss either from accidents, natural tragedies, illnesses or the illegal acts of others. Victimisation, the relationship that leads to one being a victim, is a growing concept; raping and theft causes victimisation, overcharging customers is also a form of victimisation, however, unlike the former, the latter is not an illegal act. Over time, the comprehension of the concept of victimisation and who is a victim has evolved as scholars move from subjectivity to a more objective approach. 

Traditionally, victimisation was analysed from a subjective viewpoint; influenced by morality, ethics, emotions, personal views and ideologies. As such, the victim in this approach is always the party who suffers the injury in question. This socially constructed ideology perceives a victim as one who is likely weaker than their attacker, virtuous and possibly a stranger to the oppressor who is stronger and driven by ill motive (Dignan, 2005). The challenge with this theory arises with the complexities brought about by real-life scenarios, for example where a targeted victim of a crime overpowers and possibly kills their attacker. Originally victims were presented as the ‘good guys’, however research shows that even criminals can fall victim, and are more likely to be victims, than ‘innocent’ people. For example, prostitutes are likely victims of assault and battery, exploitation (Brents & Hausbeck, 2005) and even murder by serial killers. Additionally, the perpetrators of a crime in police investigations may be acting in self-defence. As such, with the adoption of an objective approach, the understanding of victimisation has evolved and will continue to evolve. 

Information on crime and victimisation can be derived from various official and unofficial sources; these include the media through, uniform statistics and reports, criminological research among others (Walklate, 2017).  According to Soothill et al. (2002), these data sources can be categorised as ‘direct experience of crime, mediated experience, official information and research knowledge’ (2002, p. 24). Statistics produced by prisons, governments or the police among other relevant authorities would serve as official data sources and are recognised as such the world over. Although these sources provide an official and reliable report, they are usually incomplete. This is because not all offences might be recognised as crimes in certain countries, additionally not all crimes are reported and finally not all reported crimes are recorded (Walklate, 2017). This inconsistency is referred as the dark figure of crime and as such, the interpretation of these data sources should be carried out with these shortcomings in mind. Criminal victimisation surveys and criminological research are another source of official data that attempt to bridge the gaps created by official statistics and reports. 

Criminological Schools of Thought

Self-report studies and other records, such as those compiled by businesses or newspapers; provide unofficial data on crime and victimisation. A self-report study entails engaging some members of the public in reporting whether or not they have committed crimes or have been victims of crimes. This method can be used, for example, to identify the percentage of youth engaged in criminal activity and the type of crimes they are likely to commit (Walklate, 2017). The weakness with these modes of data collection are that one cannot entirely qualify what would constitute a crime; circumstances might change had the issue been reported to the police. They, however, provide a good background to begin research into crime and victimisation statistics.

According to Michael and Adler (1933), crime is simply any act prohibited by criminal statutes; this is the most commonly referred to definition of crime (Muncie, 2001). Sutherland and Cressey expanded this definition to illustrate what would be referred to as criminal law, whom it applies to and who enforces it (Sutherland & Cressey, 1924/1970). This definition has been adopted by jurists and social scientists alike and from it, various criteria have been outlined in order to determine a crime; prohibition by law, criminal intent, voluntary act and a legally prescribed punishment. Over the years, crime has been defined in an array of concepts; as an infraction of moral rules, a social invention, a censure of ideals, a historical construct and as a social harm. 

As an infraction of moral principles and codes of conduct, what is considered as criminal today was at some point in time morally acceptable in society; there is no strict standard on crime (Wilkins, 1964). With this in mind, an act is not criminal by its own right, criminality is determined by what society at the time believes is wrong (Muncie, 2001). As such, it is not what is done but rather how society feels about it that determines what is a crime. Additionally, the definition of a crime can also be determined by political influence or power; those with the power to influence laws determine what will be considered as criminal in the society (Chambliss, 1975). As mentioned, the concept of crime has evolved with time; influenced by the perceptions of society and the ideologies of those with political influence and power. Historically, most of the behaviours termed as crimes today were simply undesirable acts governed by civil law and religion; crime is, therefore, an invention of historical social perceptions. It is evident that crime, therefore, cannot be conclusively defined. This is because the definition is influenced by various factors which in themselves are subject to continuous change.

Conclusion

As illustrated in the discourse above, the concept of crime and victimisation has evolved greatly over the years. The classical school of thought attempted to define crime and the concept of the criminal based on free will; a criminal could choose whether to commit a crime or not. This school of thought was however overtaken by the positivist ideology that certain external and physical factors could contribute to crime. Additionally, the understanding of the victim has also changed over the years as scholars and investigators alike adopt a more objective approach to victimology. This analysis relies on official and unofficial sources of data; however, caution should be observed in the reliance of these sources as they are subject to various weaknesses. The concept of crime has evolved and will continue to evolve as it is a socially constructed phenomenon influenced by various factors such as social perceptions, laws and the political influences.

Reference List

Beccaria, C., 1995. Beccaria: On crimes and punishment and other writings. In: R. Bellamy, ed. A short selection of Beccaria’s original writings. s.l.:Cambridge University Press.

Brents, B. G. & Hausbeck, K., 2005. Violence and legalised brothel prostitution in Nevada. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Issue March, pp. 270-295.

Carrabine, E. et al., 2014. Criminology: A sociological introduction. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routledge.

Chambliss, W. J., 1975. Toward a political economy of crime. Theory and Society, Volume 2, pp. 149-170.

Dignan, J., 2005. Understanding victims and restorative justice. 1st ed. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Karmen, A., 2015. Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. 9th ed. New York: Cengage Learning.

Mclaughlin, E., Muncie, J. & Hughes, G., 2003. Criminological perspectives: Essential readings. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Michael, J. & Adler, M., 1933. Crime, Law and Social Science. New York: Harcourt.

Muncie, J., 2001. The construction and deconstruction of crime. In: J. Muncie & E. McLaughlin, eds. The problem of crime. London: Sage, pp. 9-23.

Soothill, K., Peelo, M. & Taylor, C., 2002. Making sense of criminology. Oxford: Polity.

Sutherland, E. & Cressey, D., 1924/1970. Criminology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Walklate, S., 2017. Criminology: the basics. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Wilkins, L., 1964. Social Deviance. London: Tavistock.