Critical criminology Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Critical criminology - Essay ExamplePlato, for example was in favour of a penal transcription which was curative, seeking to reform wrongdoers, and spoke step forward against retribution because it only increases suffering and brings no good result. (Bauman 1996 , p. 3) Increasingly, laws were created to patronize a dominant view of fiat and silence any resistance to this from people who would rather persist such tight regulation. An increasing reliance on scientific methods, using all the benefits of new scientific discoveries such as magnification, fingerprinting and evidence based practice had the advantage of rooting out credulity and religion as judicial tools, but it had the disadvantage of subjecting human beings to ever tighter systems of control and regulation. Eventually particular criminology emerged to take issue with the free will argument and look instead at a untold wider range of issues which contribute to the way people behave in society. In modern western s ocieties these unlike views coexist in the academic literature and in society at large, because there is no covenant on one single view of how to define crime, its causes, its remedies and the way society should deal with it. Mainstream Criminology and its main assumptions. The primal basis of mainstream criminology is the thinking of utilitarianism developed by writers like Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). It is no coincidence that these ideas developed at a time when European society was becoming more urban and industrialized. (Morrison 1995, pp. 71-76) The close proximity of large poem of people, often in poor housing conditions and relative poverty, resulted in repeated crime waves and instability in society. This very rational approach to crime assumes that the needs of individuals must be balanced with the needs of society in general, and this results in a suppression of deviant behaviour which harms the majority. One of the good outcomes of this kind of criminology is that it c larifies what is O.K. by society and what is not, and it provides a basis for setting up a universal legal and penal system that aims to treat people fairly. A less positive outcome is a tendency to publicize the views and interests of powerful patriarchal figures, focusing on the maintenance of the status quo, and allowing people in law enforcement to evil their power, often in institutionalised ways which become an inbuilt part of the system. The persecution of black people in America and the outlawing of gay people in most countries until very recently atomic number 18 examples of rules which set out deliberately to benefit one segment of society at the expense of another. Van Swaaningen believes that there are twain major belief systems that have been at work in mainstream criminology since the Second World struggle and these are neo classicism and positivism which he explains as follows the first views crime as the object lesson lapse of the freely willed individual the second, as a pathological determinism of individuals caused by genetic, family or social defects. (Young 1997, p. vii) What these two approaches have in common is that they focus on the individual human being as the book of facts of the problem, and they assume that dealing with crime is a matter of dealing with that person. This kind of criminology uses statistical evidence to class up a picture of how when and where crime occurs, and it focuses on methods of prevention and methods of detection and control of offenders. One orotund