Professional criminologists usually base their thoughts and perspectives on one of several theories that describe, in their own way, what exactly constitute and contribute to criminal behavior. Each theory has their own view as to what causes people within society to engage in criminal activities. A criminologist’s choice regarding their theory preference ultimately depends upon their personal definition of crime. The three most common criminal concepts are the Consensus View of Crime, the Conflict View of Crime, and the Interactionist View of Crime (Siegel, 2006).
The Consensus View of Crime holds that crimes are simply behaviors that are believed to be ‘repugnant’ of various, if not all, elements linked to society. According to this particular view, the written rule that defines crimes in correlation with punishments is properly known as the substantive criminal law which ultimately reflects the opinions, beliefs, and values of mainstream society. In regards to the Consensus View of Crime, the word consensus is required because it provides an implication that among a large portion of society, there is general agreement about which behaviors are unacceptable and therefore should be considered criminal. Over the years, there have been several attempts toward creating an encompassing, thorough, and concise consensus definition of crime (Siegel, 2006).
Criminologists such as Donald Cressey and Edwin Sutherland follow the stance of conjoining crime with laws of criminality. This view on crime presents that crime is a function of the rules, morality, and beliefs, which the currently existing legal powers have established. According to criminologists, Cressey and Sutherland, the application of criminal law exists, “uniformly to all members of the classes to which the rules refer” (Siegel, 2006 p.15). Such a statement implies the authors’ hope and belief in a fair legal system in which all types of people within all classes are adequately dealt with. An example of this would be that laws prohibiting theft (robbery and burglary) are ultimately directed toward controlling the lower class, poor, needy individuals while laws focused on preventing corporate price-fixing, insider trading, and embezzlement are in existence in order to control the wealthy, upper class society (Siegel, 2006).
In regards to the Consensus View of Crime, illegal or criminal behavior is connected to social harm. In other words, all behaviors that cause harm to other people or society as a whole need to be stopped, managed, and controlled. Social harm is ultimately what sets other unusually strange or deviant behaviors that go against the social norm apart from criminal behavior. The Consensus View of Crime states that even though there are many deviant acts that seem immoral and shocking, they may not be considered criminal. An example would be watching sexually explicit material. Many religious people would condemn such behavior; however, it is not considered a crime because the general consensus among society is that it is not causing harm unless of course this activity in any way involved children, in which case it would become criminal (Siegel, 2006).
There is however much controversy attached to this view. While crimes such as robbery, murder, and rape are harmful and therefore justifiably controlled, other behaviors such as drug use cause problems because they only harm those who willingly partake in such activities. These crimes are however justified as being controlled because according to this view, the general consensus of society holds that these victimless crimes are harmful to the overall well-being of our society. Furthermore, even if such activities harm people who knowingly participate, society has a responsibility to protect each member (Siegel, 2006).
The Conflict View of Crime holds that criminal law reflects as well as protects the economic, gendered, racial and political prestige and power that has been established. The Conflict View of Crime presents society as a complex collection of diverse groups, whether they be students, teachers, workers or owners, who are continually and constantly in conflict. Groups that are able to use their political power, often use the criminal justice system and the law in order to advance socially and economically. Therefore, criminal laws are viewed as mere acts that protect the “haves from the have-nots” (Siegel, 2006 p.16). Those who follow the Conflict View of Crime often compare the harsh punishments that the lower class receive for their minor crimes with the rather lenient punishments that the upper class receive for their white collar crimes which ultimately cause much more social harm. Therefore, while those who are poor and from the lower class go to prison for minor criminal acts, the wealthy get off easy for their serious offenses (Siegel, 2006).
According to this perspective, crime is defined only by those who are in a higher position who possess a great deal of power and wealth. Crime is therefore shaped by the values of those in the highest class and not by the reflection of the needs to all of society’s people. Crime then, according to the given definition, is a political concept developed in order to protect the position, wealth and power of the upper class at the unfortunate expense of the lower class. Even laws banning murder, rapes, and robbery, according to this view, have “political undertones” (Siegel, 2006 p.16). Ensuring tranquility will therefore prevent the lower classes from becoming angry at those with power. The Conflict View of Crime therefore states that “real” crimes may be subjective, but so are crimes listed throughout the Consensus View of Crime. The Conflict View of Crime believes the following to be a few examples of “real” crimes: police brutality, price-fixing, and inadequate childcare (Siegel, 2006).
The final common perspective used within the field of criminology is the Interactionist View of Crime. According to this view, people, (A) act based upon their personal interpretation of reality by which they assign various things with meaning; (B) observe the positive or negative reactions of others, and (C) reevaluate as well as interpret their personal behavior based upon the reactions, meanings, and symbols observed through others. This view of crime states that an objective reality does not exist. Therefore, people, events, behaviors, and institutions are subjectively viewed and are labeled by the individual evaluator as either good or evil. For example, some people may view some films such as American Pieinappropriate while other may view the film as simply being fun and light-hearted. The definition of crime from this view is based on the opinion of those who hold social power. These people then try and influence others to feel the same way. Therefore, criminals are labeled ‘outcasts’ because they went against the social consensus and social norms. Crimes are outlawed simply because society has defined them that way, not because the acts are inherently evil. According to this view, crime has no true meaning, unless society has a negative reaction toward it (Siegel, 2006).
Each of these three perspectives have wonderful points, however, I think that I agree the most with the Conflict View of Crime. I think that it is extremely important to acknowledge the differences between the punishments applied to the lower class compared to the upper class, and this perspective is the only one that truly addressed this problem.
Reference:
Siegel, L. (2006). Criminology. 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
