The Concept Of Crime Pose For Criminology

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

The idea of crime being a social construct means that ‘crime’ is not just a legal category, but also a sociological and ideological construction within a social and political context, and it is a site where certain power relations are realised. Our concepts and the practical consequences that flow from using them are the constructions and products of social interaction and they only make sense within the communities in which that interaction takes place. In essence, ‘crime’ is a label that is created in social interaction but once that label is created it has symbolic and practical realities. It is a social choice to recognise a certain act as a ‘crime’ and a certain person as a ‘criminal’.

There is, however, also a ‘legal’ approach to understanding crime. For example, Tappan has a very narrow view, ‘the behaviour is only criminal if it has been adjudicated as such by the courts’. This is a very crude legalistic approach, it is self evident and written down. There is also a ‘conduct norms’ approach to crime. Sellin, for example, argued in favour of a definition of crime which was not in any way linked to the criminal law and that there are certain moral codes across society. This is almost certainly true in relation to the social construction of crime. Our morals reflect what crime is labelled as criminal or deviant. For example, the decriminalisation of homosexuality happened when our moral codes changed and we no longer regarded homosexuality as deviant. This then led to further regulation with the implementation of civil partnerships. There was more of a drift towards equality for all.

Howard Becker and others developed the notion of ‘labelling theory’ and this holds that offenders are labelled as criminal and this can then lead to a self fulfilling prophecy whereby the offender lives up to that label because they are being treated as a criminal by society at large and then they will not be able to get jobs, housing and so on. The stigma of crime becomes attached to certain social groups. The notion of deviance is broader than crime, it is deviance from social and cultural norms, at the time that Becker was writing this would be things such as homosexuality, drug taking and political activism. Deviance is essentially a social construct because the boundaries of what is ‘deviant’ will shift over time, for example the notion of rape within marriage which was once legal but is now illegal. However, labelling theory was later seized on by feminists and is now more of a radical social constructionist theory where there is a more multi sided idea of criminality. However, a criticism of this is that it doesn’t really deal with why crime happens in the first place, it just deals with what happens after the crime has been committed.

Nils Christie, a Norwegian criminologist argued that crime does not exist. Only acts exist and these are given meaning under different social frameworks. There are acts and they simply have meanings attached to them. He argued that if we followed the process through then we might eventually come to an understanding that would lower the ‘rate’ of crime by a process of decriminalisation.

There is also a power approach to crime as a social construction. Under the power approach, Liazos attempts to link crime to power. He uses the war in Vietnam as an example and says that all the people that died in that war were a result of political power. Steven Box, in his book ‘crime, power and mystification’ argues that the definitions of serious crime are essentially ideological constructs. The powerless people in society are more likely to be arrested, convicted and sentenced, they are more likely to go through the criminal justice system than the powerful people in society. This is a link of the social construction of crime to the notion of power. There are also strategies of social control, it could be argued that crime is a result of deprivation caused by the state, corporations and so on.

Conflict theorists are also linked to this ‘power’ approach. Conflict theorists build on labelling theory by looking at the role of the state in constructing crime. They take the debate a bit further by saying that crime is only created to keep the powerful and the ruling classes in their positions in society and crime is used as a tool to keep the poorer people and the working classes in their place within society. Those in powerful positions create the criminal offences and the purpose of constructing crime is to keep the lower classes in their place and create laws to help the powerful in society. Richard Quinney is one of the main theorists on this point. He argued that crime was a social construct and it’s a deliberate conscious choice to label certain behaviour as criminal. Crime is created by authorised agents in a politically organised society, the divide between the ruling and the working classes. The problem with this theory is that if you pay so much attention to the ruling classes then you ignore the street level crime and you run the risk that the ordinary people will have their idea of crime forgotten.

Durkheim as a functionalist theory also treats crime as a social construct. He argued that there are certain norms and values within society and that crime happens when there is a breakdown of these norms and values. This links to the idea that we have morals in society and crime is a reflection of those morals. This links to Nils Christie’s idea that acts are given different meanings under different social frameworks. Different cultures and communities have different norms and values and so crime could be a reflection of those norms and values within different communities.

When you look at politics you can see that there is a running theme of ‘crime as a social construct’, what acts are criminal are created by the government of the day. For example, if you look at Thatcher’s government you can see that she looking to an approach of ‘fewer rights and more responsibilities’. Law and order has now become a political issue, and prior to 1979 it was not. This is hugely significant. For example, the murder of Jamie Bulger was a sign of the ills of our society and there was an absolute storm of political controversy over the reasons that lay behind Bulger’s death. All young people were then targeted and treated as potential suspects. Tony Blair then took on the conservative party on the issues of law and order. This prompted John Major to talk about society needing to condemn a little more and understand a little less. There was a similar incident in Norway at the same time but this was treated very differently by the Norwegian government. In Britain the debate was about the erosion of the family unit, the erosion of discipline and law and order. We moved further away from welfare as a response to crime.

However, there is criticism of crime as a social construct, what about crime in relation to religion. It relates to the world view where we humans live in a community created by god and we are subject to his commands. A very significant number of people believe that god created the universe and that he allocated a place for humans within that creation. Each holy text lays out various rules and warnings of the consequences if we don’t follow his rules. This is different to say crime as a social construct created by those who are powerful in society, and also the idea that crime is created through the norms and values in society. This is the idea that crime is created through the rules that god gave us when he created the universe. However, throughout the Western World there have been horrors of religious conflicts and this has led to a separation of the Church and the state. Criminology has been seen as a secular discipline, but there are now serious arguments that the religious belief systems that people live by have been neglected.

There is also the role that the mass media play in the construction of crime. The mass media have a huge influence over what is called a crime. Going back to the murder of Jamie Bulger, it is clear to see that the mass media played a huge part in the labelling of every youth as a potential suspect. The media exert pressure over the politicians and this leads to politicians constructing certain crimes because they feel pressured into doing so due to the fear that the media instil into the public at large.

So, is crime a social construct? In my opinion crime is quite clearly constructed by the state, and by different communities, although there is huge influence from the mass media. We decide what makes something a crime, and crime is simply a product of social interaction within different communities. There are different meanings of what is criminal within different social frameworks, and quite often acts are simply labelled as criminal by the executive powers that be and people are labelled as criminals by society at large.

But what problems does this concept of crime cause for criminologists? The concept of crime as a social construct is widely accepted by the leading criminologists and theoretical perspectives, but this can cause a problem because as what is defined as ‘criminal’ changes so much over time, it will be difficult to establish what the actual causes of crime are when there are changes in governments and influences over what is criminal. The definition of crime changes in line with what is socially accepted at the time. Defining crime is not a matter of common sense or simply following an accepted procedure. How crime is defined in practice is shaped by the state, the mass media and also in some cases and cultures through religious influence. In defining crime there will never be an easy answer, only controversy and difficulty.