Durkheim rejected the definition of annoyance, which would constitute the commonsense of any conjunction, that crimes argon acts that are harmful to hostelry. He pointed to the enormous variations between societies in the acts, which have been regarded as criminal in sound out to rebut the claim that conceptions of crime are rooted in the kindly evil represented by particular actions. The only portion applicable to crimes in general is that they are kindly disallow and punished.
Crime, argues Durkheim, is a universal feature of all societies. This is because crime serves a vital social function. Through the punishment of offenders, the moral boundaries of a community are clearly marked out, and attachment to them is reinforced. The take aim of punishment is not deterrence, rehabilitation nor retribution. Punishment strengthens social solidarity by the reaffirmation of moral commitment among the con reaching population who take care the suffering of the offender.
Durkheim believed there are four functions of crime. The law makes the extremities of pleasing behaviour to set and make it clear to the rest of the normal what is acceptable behaviour. The boundaries are set through the media via broadcasts etc. other function performed by criminals is to prove a constant runnel of boundaries of permissible action by also helping the law to reflect the wishes and population and legitimising social change.
Durkheim believed that society is held together by shared economic values, that when a person is arrested for a crime they are clarifying the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and giving society an opportunity to reaffirm these values thus safeguarding a go on social cohesion. Erikson agreed with this theory pointing out the drama of a butterflyroom scene and the media involved in a court case again publicising the boundaries as well as condemning the criminal act. Marxists argue that the young,
--
References
-->This is a very well-behaved segment of writing. For the twelve grade, its content is very advanced. Quite good indeed. :)
However, besides to add a bit...in theory, deviance may be caused by either psychological or physiological defects. Cesare Lombroso said that close criminals had deformaties like extra toes, fingers and so forth. Also, deviant acts vary from society to society. Probably you can include all in this is a conclusion. Just try to summarize everything at the end.
Pretty good at your level though. Amazing. :)
This is a nice essay. My only input would be that deviance from society is not always a criminal act. Or, if it is a criminal act, it may not be harming anyone else in society despite the fact it is a rejection of social norms. Examples include drugs which are not addictive or socially harming or perhaps graffiti which is arguably a form of art.
You did a fantastic job of explaining the different sociological theories. overnice essay!
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment