Conflict Criminology

What is crime? What makes people commit crimes and how can we stop it? These, and many other questions similar to these, are asked by criminologists everyday. Criminology is an ever growing field, mainly because there is more and more research occurring and new theories linking people and crime coming out everyday. Below the main field of criminology there are many subfields that have different theories and philosophies on what they believe link criminal behavior. Two of the main criminology perspectives are Classical Criminology and Positivist Criminology. Although these two are both studied in the criminology field, their views are distinctly contradictory from each other. These two theories and many

Criminology is the scientific study of the nature, extent, cause, and control of criminal behavior (Siegel 4). Criminology is not just understanding criminal actions but also studying how to correct and prevent crime, overall. There are five major Criminological theories, (1) Classical Theory, (2) Positivist Theory, (3) Marxist / Conflict Theory, (4) Sociological Theory, and (5) Multifactor / Integrated Theory.

Criminologists have long tried to fight crime and they have developed many theories along the way as tools to help them understand criminals. In the process of doing so, criminologist have realized that in order to really understand why criminals are criminals, they had to first understand the interrelationship between the law and society. A clear and thorough understanding of how they relatively connect with criminal behavior is necessary. Therefore, they then created three analytical perspectives which would help them tie the dots between social order and law, the consensus, the pluralist and the conflict perspectives. Each provides a significantly different view of society as relative to the law. However, while they all aim to the same

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kendy Menelas, Department of English, Seminole State College, Sanford, FL 32773.

A probable cause is established at the time of a preliminary hearing or preliminary examination. The hearing judge decides whether there is a combination of facts and circumstances that would encourage a reasonably intelligent person to believe that he or she should commit a crime. A probable cause must be examined from different angles in order to closely understand the mind of a person with non-criminal background. Those with a non-criminal background are exposed to committing crimes regardless of how clean their criminal record might look. Usually, the jury’s determination of a probable cause impacts the final decision of the case and how serious the law breaker’s punishment will be.

‘A Peacemaking Approach to Criminology’ was written by Louis J. Gesualdi, and published in 2013. It contains a review of different writings, which relate to criminology. The main argument of Gesualdi lies in promoting a humane way of handling crime and deviants. The book proposes a peaceable way of dealing with offenders in a manner that accords respect to human rights. Further, Gesualdi notes that the criminal justice system is concentrated on inflicting harm on the offenders by punishing them. He argues that the system is fixated on the notion of reacting to crime rather than prevention. Hence, the book proposes an approach where restorative justice and prevention of crime can be accommodated in the criminal justice system. The main

Orthodox criminology refers to the how criminologists accept the states ideas of crime without thinking of power relations. This thinking is shared by everyone and becomes a universal idea and these ideas are in the interests of everyone. However, certain groups of individuals are targeted and blamed for crimes based on their class, race, gender, sexuality and more. The theory of Critical criminology as defined in Primer in Radical Criminology is defined as “a way of doing criminology that frames the problem of crime in terms of the sociological forces of class, race, gender, culture, and history.”(1) In other words it focuses on challenging the state on their traditional, “normal” views of crime by looking at other factors. Three differences between critical and orthodox criminologists are the following. The first difference is that critical criminologists seek to find the root of what is behind the crime problem. (14) Rather than saying that the homicide was committed because he was an African American male who is poor (orthodox criminology), critical criminologists look at a deeper sociological explanation, like the community he grew up in has high rates for violence. A second difference is that radical criminologists understand that there is no fixed definition of crime and that there is more than one

There are many different aspects of criminal justice policy. One in particular is the different theories of crime and how they affect the criminal justice system. The Classical School of criminology is a theory about evolving from a capital punishment type of view to more humane ways of punishing people. Positivist criminology is maintaining the control of human behavior and criminal behavior. They did this through three different categories of Biological studies, which are five methodologies of crime that were mainly focused on biological theories, Psychological theories, which contains four separate theories, and the Sociological theories, which also includes four different methods of explaining why crime exists. The last theory is

Every crime has a correlation with a theory in criminology. These theories explain why crime happens and some even go to the extent to come up with a solution to prevent or stop crime. This paper will explore how certain theories of criminology connect with the riots that happened in Ferguson, Missouri. Facts from different articles will be used to back up the theory. The theories will explain why rioters committed the crimes did. The paper will take the actions of the protestors and explain why they did what they did.

1). Criminology arose from the social scientific community over the year and has since come into its own discipline, it examines the entire process of lawmaking, law breaking, and law enforcing” (as cited in Akers, & Sellers, 2013). Criminology seeks to discover the depth of crime at both the micro and macro levels, from the individual’s natural biological and psychological characteristics, the nurturing of social and structural institutions, to policy, prevention and control.

A theoretical perspective in the field of criminology that addresses power differentials, inequalities and hierarchies as the explanations of crime is known as critical criminology. In the making and enforcement of law, critical theoretical perspectives are helpful in the reduction of crime by reducing the social, economical and political disparities in a social agency. Critical criminology actually provides a huge framework for the discussion of many other approaches followed in criminology like conflict theory, post-modernism and peacemaking criminology etc.

Incorporating the public in debates and research is not unique to criminology but is also seen within the sociology field. We can go into more depth with this definition to understand what ‘public’ sphere we are dealing with and how that connects to criminology research and development. There are different public spheres, as discussed by Loader and Sparks (2011), including the scientific expert, policy advisor, observer-turned player, social movement theorist-activist, and the lonely prophet (28). In other words, criminology gone public can relate to anyone of any status, education, or occupation and any realm of the public society. Fichtelberg and Kupchik (2011) state that the ‘public’ includes “many stakeholders, policy makers, citizens at large, parents, children, criminals, the elderly, disadvantaged communities, non elected officials (principals) and many subgroups within each group (parents of different ethnic/religious/socioeconomic backgrounds)” (72). It doesn’t matter if you have a high level of previous knowledge on the given subject or no past knowledge; everyone

In this paper I will be addressing and discussing the two schools of criminology, which respectively are the classical school and the positivist school. I will begin by comparing and contrasting the historical background of both schools using the founders of each school. I will then continue the paper by comparing their assumptions, their findings and their key policy implications. I will do this by explaining each school’s purpose and goal. I will then argue and explain how the classical school is respectively stronger than the positivist school for being straight forward, concise and unbiased.

Social conflict theory is the only one out of the vast number of criminology theories that deals directly with this problem. From out of it’s Marxist roots arose a theory which challenges the way in which today’s society views it’s legal system and the implications it has on it’s working class citizens. The nature and purpose of social conflict theories is to examine the social controls made by the ruling class and imposed on the rest of society.

Criminology is a study of crime, criminals and criminal justice. Ideas about criminal justice and crime arose in the 18th century during the enlightenment, but criminology as we know it today developed in the late 19th century. Criminology has been shaped by many different academic disciplines and has many different approaches. It explores the implications of criminal laws; how they emerge and work, then how they are violated and what happens to those violators. Laws are relative and historically shaped; they vary from time to time and from place to place (Carrabine et al, 2009).