Most often, a crime is define d as a n action by an individual which amounts to an offence that is prosecutable and punishable by law. However, White & Habibis (2005) point outs that it is quite challenging to come up with a universal definition of crime . This is because each society and culture has its reservations for what constitutes a crime. It , therefore , implies that a crime may have multiple definitions depending on the society and culture in consideration. N evertheless, the bottom line remains that for any action to meet the threshold of being branded a crime, it must be against certain existing mutually agreed up on codes of conduc t.
White & Habibis ( 2005 ) argue that most people are conversant with crime at the individual level. For example, if a sample of one hundred people, randomly picked, is asked to describe who a criminal is, it emerges that most of them would perceive a criminal as be ing an individual who commits an illegal activity. According to such a population, typical examples of criminals include robbers, thugs, thieves, street con men , violent characters, corrupt individuals, professionals and leaders who abuse their constitutionally granted mandate ( White & Habibis , 2005 ; Infobase, n.d.) . It is evident from the descriptions given that most members of the society do not cover broad topics such as crimes committed by states against other states or individuals or even corporate crime . Instead, they are more centred on street crime. Evidently, most people ar e much aware of street crime but do not have knowledge o f white collar crimes (Infobase, n.d.). This is perhaps because common citizens are rarely involved in the lat t er.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The societ al de fini tion of crime is based on several factors. Firstly , the base of every society is comprised of many tenets and philosophies . These elements are intentionally aimed at encourag ing harmonious relationships and co - existence between the different members of society. T herefore , d ifferent rules and regulations are coined from the existing principles and philosophies with the aim of g uid ing the behavior and conduct of the members of society. However, i t should be noted that all the rules and regulations of a particular s ociety are in tandem with the rule s of the land. I t is subsequently expected that every member of the society should abide by the laid down rules and regulations , and behave in a manner that conforms to the same. In most cases, the above tenets are passed down from one generation to the other.
It is possible that some crimes committed go unrecognized by the society (White & Habibis, 2005) . Hence, there are certain conditions under which the society may consider an action by its member as being illegal and hence a crime. For instance, for any action to be categorized as a crime , there must be a complainant (Barkan & Bryjak, 2013; White & Habibis, 2005) . In this case, w henever a crime is committed, there is always an individual who feels aggrieved by the actions of the perpetrator. Hence, the society can only begin the process of evaluating the criminality of the action after the aggrieved perso n complains about the alleged illegal action against him or her.
The existence of an aggrieved p arty alone is not enough to classify an action as a crime . T he second step involves evaluating the conformity of the action to the standards of human behavior and conduct accepted in society. In some cases, people might complain of being aggrieved when in a real sense, they either misunderstood the action or are not conversant with the existing code of conduct. Hence, it is mandatory that the alleged illegal action is scrutinized t o confirm that it does not by any chance concur with what the society expects of its members. Sometimes, the process requires scrutiny of the circumstances and context in which the action was committed. For instance, due to the different types of relationships that exist in society, there is a certain threshold that ought to be attained for any action to be deemed illegal. In fact, such determination might be made by one person such as the case of a parent reprimanding his or her children . In other cases , it may require the determination of a group of people in t he society.
Crime, according to the societal understanding, is, therefore, anything that goes contrary to what is perceived to be morally right . A ccording to White & Habibis (2005), morality is used as a basis for defin ing crime as well as establish ing the extent of contravention to the accepted code of conduct . For example, the society upholds respect for individual property and therefore prohibits unpermitted or unauthorized handling or use of property without the owner’s consent. Anyone who goes against the above principle is understood to have committed a crime and hence is treated as a criminal. Bas ed on the above definition, it is evident that some members of the society are unlikely to understand white collar crimes such as those committed by corporate entities or by states. This is because they have not come into contact with such offences .
There are various types of street crimes. However, theft is the most commonly practised type of street crime. According to Barkan & Bryjak (201 3 ), in a group of ten apprehended criminals, at least seven of them are accused of crimes of theft or related actions. Theft is a street crime which involves taking another person’s property without his or her permission. It may involve the use of force or witty language to manipulate the owner of the targeted property. Hence, actions such as robbery, embezzlement and burglary are common examples of theft that are often committed by members of the society. Various factors push people who commit theft . These includ e lust, jealousy, poverty, peer pressure low self-esteem and sometimes p sychological compulsions in the case of kleptomaniacs.
The fact that theft is the most commonly practised type of street crime in society can be justified. For instance, based on individual living standards , the existence of different social classes explains the disparity in the level of possessions by various members of society. In the same regard, members of the society are often engaged in a competition to outdo one another in a bid to raise their social status. In so doing, instances of economic disparities, jealousy and lust often arise and hence the desire to amass more wealth so as to beat the competition . Thus , individuals steal to acquire that wh ich hinders them from belonging to a particular social class . In most cases, wealth is the biggest hindrance. Therefore, t heft is not only committed by people of low social status but rather, even those in the higher social status steal to sustain their status or raise it even further.
There is a myth that the suburbs are safer as compared to other parts of a cit y. Th is myth might hold water to some extent. However, according to Barkan & Bryjak (201 3 ), during the wave of crime in 1991, Prince George’s County in the United States (U.S) witnessed 138 homicides. In the same year, Washington D. C experienced 479 homicides . I n 2013, both Washington D.C. and Prince George’s County recorded 82 homicides. In terms of percentage drop, Washington D.C recorded a 75% drop in homicides against a 40% drop in Prince George’s County. The se figures indicate that cities may be safer compared to suburbs . Therefore, the notion that suburbs are safer than cities is a myth.
References
Barkan, S. E., & Bryjak, G. J. (2013). Myths and Realities of Crime and Justice . Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Infobase (n.d.). Crimes of the powerful [Video file]. Retrieved from https://fod.infobase.com/OnDemandEmbed.aspx?Token=47476&aid=18596&loid=137445&Plt=FOD&w=320&h=240
White, R. D., & Habibis, D. (2005). Crime and society. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
