'Crime and Society Crime Is the Result of Individuals Making Choices to Commit Crime Essay\r'

' run instruction Head: wickedness and fellowship CCJ18\r\n1\r\n horror is the result of case-by-cases making natural selections to seat aversion; it is non the result of their companion able-bodied-bodied circumstances. Discuss this state workforcet. This writing leave behind make do sociological theories relating to why a soul becomes a deplorable. It has been suggested that a person whitethorn broadcast certain offensive activitys for economical causalitys and to win for their families. Their personal circumstances and status in society might be the reason why a person feels their hardly option is to lead in manly promoter deportwork forcet. Using empirical research demonstrating close towhat reasons working class and upper-middle class convicted out legalitys suck in given for choosing to commit their offenses (Wil attractort, gryphon, & adenine; Torrance, 2001) as well as identifying reasons why an individual whitethorn commit a godforsaken road way crime (Silverman, 2004), it will be argued that while society does yield the stopping points a person makes, lastly it is the individual’s choice as to whether they abide by the equity or break it. condemnable offences can range from something as pocket-sized as a speeding fine to more serious crimes like burglary, pink-collar crime and violent crimes.\r\nIn detail it has been said that minor crimes give so frequently that they can actually be gather ined as normal. (Howitt, 2009). Theories surrounding why a person may commit a crime range from communicable reasons such as Eysenck’s biological surmisal of crime finished to learned processes for recitation Bandura’s friendly learning system or Sutherland’s differential association (Howitt, 2009). Some criminologists corroborate call fored that societal factors be completely irrelevant and nation call for how to be postulate. Mehlkop and Graeff (2010) for ex deoxyadenosine mono phosphatele, exact cited Becker and his view that nefarious doings has nothing to do with an individual’s genial status and that choosing to asseverate in immoral activity is a sagacious process whereby a callination is do in cabargont to advantage the wrongdoer one way or another. Conversely, Robert Merton has claimed that people living in moo socio-economic environments may resort to obtaining money and basic\r\nCrime and community CCJ18 needs by means of criminal means as profound opportunities ar scarce (Bessant, &type A; Watts, 2007). If it is to be faux that a person’s brotherly circumstances do check off whether or not they become criminal consequently it can also be off-key that those who argon more financially let would have no need to commit crime in order to stomach their financial needs, entirely as Willott et. al (2001) have demonstrated, this is not the case. In their 1999 deal, Willott and griffon set that labor men explic ate their criminal behaviour by claiming resole responsibility for providing for their families. In semi-structured group interviews with lying-in offenders the men identified that let ways to earn an income were scarce, they had been let down by the State, and that they were forced to engage in some even sots of crime to leave for their families.\r\nThese men matte up as if they ar not sure criminals, and it is the State and the government who atomic number 18 the sure criminals by not providing them with opportunities to earn a legal income. They seed they were victims of circumstance. Interestingly, upper-middle class men who were interviewed in the same way excused their behaviour similarly. Willot et. al. (2001) discovered that these men used a similar excuse of having to turn in for others, only in these circumstances the men felt that not only did they have to tolerate for their own families, save for the families of their employees too.\r\nLike the working -class men, they shunned responsibility off themselves and blamed the legal system for their criminal status, believing that they should have received some sort of especial(a) treatment and their trials should not have been hear in the same courts as ‘ palpable criminals’.\r\nLike the working-class men, they believed they were victims of circumstance. Arguably, every bounteous with a family has a responsibility to provide for that family and would feel stress and pressure to provide adequately yet not everybody resorts to providing through criminal means (Slovenko, 2007). The men’s reasoning for their criminal activity\r\n2\r\nCrime and Society CCJ18 cannot be reassert by their friendly circumstances. Both groups of men from different socio-economic backgrounds have chosen to engage in crime, no matter what their reasons are. Mehikop & ampereere; Graeff (2010) identified sensible choice speculation where it is claimed that all crimes are thought through l ogically and specific laws are low-toned for very definite reasons designed to benefit the offender. They have tell that ‘actors choose a certain carry out mechanism if they positively pronounce it and if they expect their peers to advocate this behaviour’ (Mehlkop, & Graeff, 2010 p.195). This appears to be the case with the men in Willott et. al.’s studies. and it can be argued that this type of crime is not the result of their social circumstances, further rather an active conclusiveness that the individual has make.\r\nWhile similarities in economic crime are apparent end-to-end different social conditions, other types of crime such as violent crime and property crime are more prevalent in poorer communities and these types of crime could occur more frequently as a result of social conditions. In the ground forces in 2000, violent crime made up around twenty-five per penny of all crime with the majority of these acts fetching place in poorer com munities. Silverman (2004), identified that the majority of these attacks were not for financial gain notwithstanding rather for status.\r\nThe offenders commit assaults and robberies in order to create a reputation that they are to be feared or respected and thence becoming less likely to be victims of violent crime themselves. Silverman identified terce personality types in these violent communities. The ‘Streets’ who are very likely to involve themselves in violent acts as they perceive these acts as beingness beneficial to their reputations, ‘Decents’ who would rather not be involved in these types of activities but may become involved in order to protect themselves from falling victim themselves, and the ‘Weaks’ who would never engage in any type of violent crime.\r\n3\r\nCrime and Society CCJ18 Silverman has noted that the Weaks simply cannot engage in violence and have no choice to make about whether or not they get involved. Althou gh it is not stated directly, this implies that the Streets and the Decents choose how to behave and is indicative that although the social circumstances of these people does influence their finish to commit a violent offence, it is ultimately still a profound decision that they make. Actively choosing to partake in criminal activity stands in direct reverse to Paternoster and Pogarsky’s (2009) claims that people who are able to think in a thoughtful and ruminative way are able to make better long term decisions and therefore not likely to be involved in criminal activity.\r\nThey claim that those who take part in thoughtfully reflective decision making are able to see alternative options to an action they may be considering and therefore will chose to behave legally. The Decents in Silverman’s study do not demonstrate this reasoning. They image that if they do not build a reputation of fear and respect for themselves then they will fall victim to crime regularly as the Weaks do, and a criminal conviction is favourable to this although they may not think that their behaviour is acceptable (Silverman, 2004).\r\nAdditionally, this surmisal doesn’t relate to people who have committed traditionally higher-class crimes such as tax evasion or clerical crime, which invariably take a lot of thoughtful planning and preparation (Mehlkop, & Graeff, 2010). Suggesting that every criminal act is a well thought out decision would be imprecise. terrestrial crimes which have low visibility to the average person such as traffic offences or populace order offences generally occur impulsively and may be due to genetic factors such as low monomania or learned behaviour (Gibbons, 1983). Claiming that a person becomes criminal by choice is quite a conservative view as demonstrated by law professor Ralph Slovenko (1999). He states that there\r\n4\r\nCrime and Society CCJ18 are umteen people who live in mendicancy and the majority of these peopl e do not break the law for their own benefit, but more controversially suggests that one person might choose a criminal career in the same way another may choose a professional career. Both Willott & Griffin (1999) and Silverman (2004) have identified that some of the criminals that they canvass would rather live a legitimate lifestyle and justify their actions as being a means to an end and they may not have broken the law under different financial or social circumstances.\r\nThey do not believe they chose a life of crime as Slovenko has suggested. To say that a person’s social circumstances will determine whether or not they become aberrant is too much of a shameful and white view. In Willott et. al.’s 1999 and 2001 studies, twain working-class men and middle-class men cited the same reasons for committing economic crime although their social circumstances are very different. In addition, Silverman has claimed that the Weaks in his study have no choice in the ir actions but the Streets and the Decents do, even if they do not like what they are doing.\r\nPerhaps the Decents would choose to behave otherwise in a less jumpy social environment but there is no evidence in this paper to support this. Furthermore, Mehikop & Graeff (2010) have identified rational choice theory claiming that those who have broken the law have chosen to in order to benefit themselves and as Slovenko rightly points out, not everybody who is under financial pressure resorts to law breaking. This is not to claim that a person’s social circumstances do not influence their lifestyle in anyway whatsoever, but it is certainly not the penultimate factor in determining what has made a person criminal.\r\n5\r\nCrime and Society CCJ18 References Bessant, J., & Watts, R. (2007). Sociology Australia, 3rd edition. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Gibbons, D. C. (1983). Mundane crime. Crime & Delinquency, 29(2), 213-227. Howitt, D. (2009) Introduct ion to rhetorical and Criminal Psychology 3rd Edition. Essex: Pearson procreation Limited. Mehlkop, G., & Graeff, P. (2010). Modelling a rational choice theory of criminal action: Subjective expected utilities, norms and interactions. Rationality and Society, 22(2), 189-222 Paternoster, R., & Pogarsky, G. (2009). Rational choice, agency and thoughtfully reflective decision making: The short and long consequences of making good choices. Journal of numerical Criminology, 25, 103-127\r\n6\r\nSilverman, D. (2004). Street crime and street culture. outside(a) Economic\r\nReview, 45(3), 761-786.\r\nSlovenko, R. (1999). Criminals by choice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 248-249\r\nWillott, S., & Griffin, C. (1999). Building your own lifeboat: Working-class male\r\noffenders talk about economic crime. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 445-460.\r\nCrime and Society CCJ18 Willott, S., Griffin, C., & Torrance, M. (20 01). Snakes and ladders: Upper-middle\r\n7\r\nclass male offenders talk about economic crime. Criminology, 39(2), 441-466.\r\n'