Critically Discuss the Contribution of a Theoretial Tradition to the Understaning F Crime

Critically discuss the contribution of one of the following theoretical

traditions to our understanding of crime:

1. Radical Criminology,

2. Interactionism&Labelling theory,

3. Sub-Cultural Theory.

What is crime? According to Pease (1994) ‘Crime comprises those actions which

are deemed so damaging to the interests of the community, that the state

determines that it must take a direct role in identifying and acting against the

criminal. ’

This definition of crime is rather simplistic and defines crime as an infraction

of criminal law. It does not comment on how some forms of crime may be

positively or negatively sanctioned, furthermore whether certain crimes may

simply be accepted or tolerated.

‘So how does a society distinguish whether an act is regarded as criminal or

not?’ Within every society there are collective sentiments. It is these shared

values and moral beliefs of a society, which will inevitably deem whether an act

is portrayed as criminal or not. Consequently, ‘How does a society discern

between crimes that have been committed by numerous members of society, each of

a different societal status?’

For Example, murdering another member of society is believed to be a criminal

offence and the punishment resulting from this act is presumed to be negative.

However, say for instance if a soldier in a war murders multiple people, as a

result of saving his own life and taking orders from his seniors, would murder

in this sense be termed deviant and would it be positively or negatively

sanctioned? Within our society the soldier would be seen as heroic, fighting for

his country and risking his own life beyond the call of duty, the soldier would

most definitely be positively sanctioned say by a medal or such reward.

Conversely, if an ordinary member of society shoots somebody and as a result of

the act the victim dies, this would also be seen as murder; however the person

who committed the criminal act would not be positively sanctioned instead they

would be negatively sanctioned and discredited from the society in which they

stemmed from. But don’t you find this extremely contradicting? Both persons

intent was to kill so aren’t they both committing the same criminal act but just

in different circumstances?

And if murder is seen as a criminal act should it matter about the context in

which it was committed? From this example it is apparent that a murder not only

deviates from society’s norms and expectations, but also from its values and in

this case the value placed on human life.

In general, aren’t we all criminals? Many of us have watched a film when

underage, purchased cigarettes, alcohol and even had sex when under the legal

age limit. All of which are considered to be a criminal offences, but are they

considered to be as criminal as murdering another person? The question raised

here is not what crime is, but how we can distinguish between the numerous

hierarchal levels and severity of the crime committed?

Emile Durkheim was a Functionalist and therefore sees crime as functional. He

argued that crime is inevitable and a normal aspect of social life. He stated

that without crime society would stagnate. Durkheim imagines a ‘society of

saints,’