Posted at 10.08.2018
Contemporary ideas in crime
According to the annals and development of the criminological theory, the knowledge of criminal offenses theory tends to include the earlier criminological theory that is developed before. For example the labeling theory has a great affect from Chicago university, Durkheim theory and concepts, and symbolic interactionism (Plummer) Theory gets the particularity to be the main topic of continuous renewal, like almost all of the knowledge inside our modern culture. One way of expressing this attribute is by Thomas Kuhn in his book: structure of clinical revolutions. What he communicate in his theory is how the knowledge regarded as "normal science", is in a continuum spiral, according to how theory explains truth inside the platform of paradigms. Once these paradigms reach a point in which they cannot explain actuality, normal knowledge reach the point of a crisis. To clarify this crisis the paradigms of the normal science must change, summarizing what is functional by the anterior normal knowledge and adding the new knowledge in form of paradigms that clarifies reality (Kuhn). This is exactly what happens with criminological theory, but nonetheless, besides all the progress theory did, crime is still something hard to attach to a complete theory, and the combo of theory perspectives seems to be the most feasible way to express the phenomenon of criminal offense.
On the modern criminological theory, one the perspectives that has a good method of the actual framework of criminal offense is labeling theory. The labeling theory refers to the attachment of product labels to a particular person in contemporary society according to the role he has on it. For instance someone who commits a criminal offenses is identified by the group of men and women around him as a criminal. But isn't only the person who commits a offense, someone who is accused of committing a criminal offense, doesn't invariably have committed that crime, but still he gets the label. Labeling theory identifies the identification that other folks confer to one person. This identity is portrayed as a label. Labels are stigmas inside society that individuals must take. This brings about the other part of the theory.
Labeling theory, besides confer a stigma to the customers of a population, also will try to describe another facet of criminological behavior by opening the opportunity of change in unlawful behavior. The stigma is hard to remove, but this theory proposes a means of reintegrating the members considered abnormal: shaming is the procedure in which the person send himself to a treatment or circumstance where he resigns socially to criminal offenses, allowing him to reintegrate to population as a standard subject. The support of this theory is that bring a massive quantity of materials observation in other areas of culture, providing and using the ideas that society uses to determine the subjects inside it. For example the use of brands that are not only related to crime.
Another modern day theory with a broad perspective plus more effectively related to real criminal offense is the environmental theory. This theory has a very situational method of crime, since it is dependant on the characteristics that a special place will need to have for criminal offenses to be something performed. Crime occurs within the intersection of a space, time, a determined offender, a nice-looking target, and lack of guardianship (Francis T. Cullen). The procedure of this situational context in addition has the inclusion into theory of the daily activities of population, demarking the situation and the likelihood of decrease offense by nullifying the situations where offense can be devoted, according to the daily habit people has.
This theory has an opening to set crime as different things from the ideas used before the 60's. The opportunity of seeing offense as something that may happen in every framework, changes the relationships of any stigmatized person to a situational expression of crime. Criminal offenses becomes the primary subject of study, not the context or the person who commit offense. When in this theory it is said that the focus is on crime, still a great deal of ideas and ideas are part of the theory. For example, the influences of Chicago university of mapping and characterizing criminal offense zones. One contemporary appearance of the applications of the theory is the busted home windows theory.
The third analyzed theory in this content material is the Developmental theory. This theory proposes the way on how offense is described by the whole history of one subject matter, group, and culture. Crime is attached to every life manifestation that has occurred since delivery. Having a research of the primary areas of one person's life, the average person expression and interpersonal values get blended as the theoretical approach explains criminal offense. This combination of social and specific patterns is what allows this theory to be one of the very most wider and contemporary (Paris). This theory is most put on young people and it requires into consideration the perception of the individuals who commits crime and the people who are victims of a crime.
As other modern-day theories, you can find likelihood of change in the criminological tendencies, allowing the criminal to be always a normal specific. Some authors explain three ways where this theory is applied to specific situations. The first one is the continuity of patterns in life course. The second you are that life course action might change or continue during time and on its characteristics. And the third an example may be that the life course behavior continues and changes. This theory is a multiple perspective to analyze criminal offenses, by studying the things to take into consideration to set an idea of how crime develops inside modern culture by the life span course of individuals, making a reciprocal analysis of the individuality and collectivity.
These three theories provide a wide range of research, if the three of these are put collectively there are a great number of factor that would be covered by these theories. Still is nothing like just combining the three theories. Each theory has a valid point and point of view to take into consideration. For instance, the developmental theory considers the life span course, which is an abstraction of the material and true to life of people. It is absolutely a manifestation of the influence of all materials aspects under the mirror of time. This process is quite accurate to study specific phenomenon because the examination is deeper in framework and it show the affects of society completely with the individual tendencies. The procedure of this theory at certain age groups is what restrains this theory to be used. Due to its focuses on years, their analysis perspective loses weight when it's tried to be utilized in learning different organizations, and in the idea itself. This lack of weight is basically because one of the primary cores of the theory is the cultural development related to natural development.
One of the tendencies of these three ideas is to offer an option to explain how criminal offenses can be modified. Proposing a remedy, like the shaming theory, or proposing new safeness techniques to secure the surroundings. All these three ideas keep the opportunity of becoming a normal resident or member of a world. Still, besides of the alternatives suggested, the praxis of your theory can be quite different from the actual expectations are. Among the characteristics of the theories, is the fact that are short in context things. This means that theoretical explanations are just based as maximum to a land level, provoking that lots of of the structural and contextual representations in politics, economics, culture, education, etc. , on the globe, cannot be part of the theoretical analysis. But still these representations have their manifestations even in small neighborhoods. This is impossible never to consider macro-tendencies, but it is possible just to target in micro-tendencies, even if this does not explain a whole context.
Labeling theory, as the developmental theory, is not a completely sentence of explanation, but the analysis perspective that is valuable of this perspective is exactly the notion of a label. Along with the consent or without it, people always make judgments and make labels to identify other folks, also to be discovered among contemporary society as an individual. What criminological theory does indeed is to concentrate on labels related to criminal offenses. That is a much fastened way in which theory explains truth with constructions of fact from society. One of the characteristics of this theory is also that label is merely a value granted for the people participant in contemporary society, and because of that, in line with the communal capital and possibilities of change that folks have, they might change their label at will. Another fact of this theory, but no so mounted on social reality is one of the manifestations of this theory, due to idea of shaming, not because is extremely hard, but because is sometimes a engine to commit more crimes in certain contexts.
The environmental theory gets the possibility of treating crime as a situation with a specific context and circumstances that must be accomplish for the offense to be dedicated. The give attention to the criminal offense as a primary subject matter allows this theory to be the bond for the mixture of the other three ideas, increasing the possibility of reason and praxis that these theory have altogether. These theoretical perspectives allow taking into account the elements of developmental theory, and use them collectively in the same explanations or theory. Needless to say in this conjunction of works, the aspects that restrain developmental theory must not be taken into account. The same applies to the labeling theory. Environmental theory gets the possibility of being the connection between the individual perspective of crime in labeling and developmental theory, but at exactly the same time it takes into account the idea of generality prescribed in both.
Together with the point of view that environmental theory uses of situational framework, crime becomes a description with a lot of described perspectives. Using the thought of label and the id factor to create inside society, so that as a representation to the exterior society, the idea of crime explains one area of the average person habit, by the representation that individuals has throughout a certain act. The environmental theory explains the event expressed as criminal offenses according to the material context where people lives, but also making mention of another expression of behavioral criminal offense conduct. Using some perspectives of the developmental theory, the factor discussed before is part of a complete engineering of life, providing a deeply research of a offense event, circumstance, conduct, behavior, context, interpersonal representation, and manifestation.
The idea of the medical revolutions explained at the beginning of the written text, is to express one of the problem in which criminal offenses theory can be expressed more attached to explain reality. In case there is the criminological ideas, the perspectives are as much as a lot. In the whole package of ideas, the time has played a main role to build up each theory as the knowledge in offense situations and circumstances becomes wider. But there's a moment, and possessed occurred before, that theory needs a new view and point of view. The citations and affects of the theories in the XIX are immersed in the theories of the XX, and today the contemporary theories are making improvements to make clear by new paradigms the new circumstances that entail crime in our society. This, regarding to Kuhn's idea, is the original procedure for making the medical revolution. That's the reason is importance to pose a new scenario that provokes an emergency in the criminological theory.
Using these three theories might provide a great angle of perspective to investigate a concrete situation. But still the theories are short as it pertains to practice. For example: the Mexican context. At first eyesight is a country like any other, but their main financial and political relationships are with USA. The united states has a first sight problem; the police are one of the key actors in these circumstances and are colluding with the narco. The country is subject matter of constant violence, but the federal government struggles to solve the situation, because of the illegal trades and contracts that possessed surpassed the government ability politically and economically. That is at macro-scale, but a micro-scale is almost the same, with the addition this is the poor people who gets involved with this violent context to get something to consume every day.
So, how can these three theories make a procedure for the framework of Mexico? Evidently the crime is on one of the best rates of Mexican record nowadays. But what's the work of the criminological theory when the established law steps apart and leaves the path to the day-to-day survival legislations? Criminological theory must be applied to the framework where it mustbe an explanation that requires a reaction from people. Criminological theory as it is right now, doesn't have the likelihood of explaining the situations that are taking place on the planet like Islamic Talk about, Mexico's assault, Ukraine war, plus more. Criminological theory has been insufficient for the fast and changing environment on earth. The implications are every time wide in economy, politics, culture, etc. Using the actual theories to describe crime may explain some areas of fact, but recovering just the important areas of each theory does not lead to a whole explanation and opportunity of change of the real framework. Being transdisciplinary is one of the new paradigms that criminological theory can use. Not shutting the explanations of the criminal world to just the criminal theory. The possible revolution that criminology as a theoretical technology can have is to be at the time of the framework.
Francis T. Cullen, Robert Agnew, Pamela Wilcox. Criminological theory: previous to present. New York: Oxford university press, 2007.
Kuhn, Thomas. Estructura de las recoluciones cientificas. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 2006.
Paris, Jessica. "Environmental criminolgy and crime reduction. " n. d. http://legacy. usfsm. edu/academics/cas/capstone/2010-2011/criminology/paris-environmental criminology intel led policing. pdf?from=404. 29 09 2014.
Plummer, Ken. Labeling theory. School of Essex, UK, 29 09 2014. http://www. sjsu. edu/people/james. lee/courses/soci152/s1/ajreading10labeling. pdf. 27 09 2014.
 Based on the criminological theory, this is targeted on criminal offense.
 That is an implication that this theory has when is applied to explain crime. The results range, because of personal behavior, situations, and public strains. Even, instead of reducing criminal offenses, these implications may also increase it.
 Those who find themselves consider crooks.
 This will not mean that context is not considered.
 The maintaining and safe practices control of urban surroundings may be a major influence to stop crimes.
 There's a graphic that represents the main age groups in which criminal offense occur that arranged the age of 10 as the start and 20 when the young people stop committing criminal offense.
 Emphasize on sociable consequence to provoke pity. It targets the behavior on the offender.
 Based on the establishments of what normal is, and also if criminal offenses is recognized as something unusual.
 Contextually, this is a major spectrum, however the politics tendencies, economics, population and culture, in which crime is a topic of continuous representation, are bigger than the idea of a country.
 Explained deeply in "Two principles of interpersonal capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam" By Martti Siisiasen, Section of Philosophy, Trinity College or university, Dublin Ireland. From: http://c. ymcdn. com/sites/www. istr. org/resource/resmgr/working_papers_dublin/siisiainen. pdf
 The general public force that most stop the crime and apprehend the offenders.
 Creation and commerce of drugs, and traffic of individuals.
 The using of the word stresses a moral reaction against criminal offenses. This must be included as one factor that may change according to the context.
 Under the look of any moral conception of good and evil.