Criminology is the systematic study of crime, criminals and criminal justice institutions and process. This term has been identified as the study of the making of laws, the breaking of laws, and of society’s reaction to the breaking of laws by criminologist Edwin Sutherland (1973). The way crimes and criminals are dealt with are topics of endless fascination. When studying criminology, multiple questions are asked including to how the topic challenges ‘common sense’ understanding of crime. Crime is described as an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by the law. Critical criminology is the argument that surfaced asking for a change of focus away from crime and towards social harm instead, says Hillyard and Tombs (2004). He challenged the common sense of crime with four major lines of criticism, one of which includes the category that crime has no reality beyond the application of the term to specific acts. They claim criminology perpetuates the myths of crime. Crime consists of petty events and excludes many serious harms. Therefore, it creates little physical harm with no victim whilst serious and sizeable harms are not dealt with via the criminal law, actions are not being treated as criminal. The criminal justice system is about society’s formal response to crime and according to Davies et.al.2005/ it is one of the major public services in the country.
The word crime is used regularly in everyday conversations. This shows there should be a basic level of common understanding the meaning of the term. Understanding crime has unraveled numbers of complexities, including being able to identify a boundary between a criminal act and how it differs from deviance and violations of social norms. Despite the definition of crime being straightforward, there is still a number of problems with it. Crime may be both a criminal and a civil wrong observes Lucia Zedner (2004: 61). This led to arguments about the different ways in which we understand crime. American sociologist Tappan (1947: 100) to argue about how crime is an intentional act in violation of the criminal law. What is the criminal law? Recent writers have identified crime as the product of culturally bounded social interaction. Edwin Schur (1969: 10) states that crime is defined by criminal law and is a variable in contents, limiting itself to the motivation and behavior of individuals. When explaining crime in a general area of talk it becomes ‘social constructionism’. Crime and the criminal mind are said to be created and defined by a society, therefore, crime can relate to different cultures or comparison between them making the term cross cultural. As criminologists being concerned about crime makes us want to challenge our definition of it. A radical version of the social constructivism of crime is outlined by Nils Christie where he exaggerates the claims that “Crime does not exist. Only acts exist, acts often given different meanings within various social frameworks.” (Christie, 2004: 3).
Crime is increasingly seen as comprising murder, rape, theft, robbery, burglary and other more minor offences argues Sharpe (2001: 113). According to the most recent annual results from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), crime is at its lowest level since the survey began in 1981. A way to explain crime involves the brain development, in fact Raine (2013) argued that the brains of violent criminal function differently from others. Gender is a key factor when exploring the definition of crime. Typical criminals are usually identified as male, this is a claim formed from the data produced by any criminal justice agency show that males commit majority of all crime. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (2012) made a report on 2011, women made up 24% of all arrests that year, while contributing over 50% of the total U.S. population. Chesney-Lind and Shelden (1992) suggests female offenders obviously cannot take care of themselves, therefore being taken into custody helps the complement of sexism to be paternalism. Labelling theory is the key element of interactionist theorizing on crime and deviance. This theory has been said to ignore the origins of criminal behavior leaving little explanations as to why certain people break laws and other others do not. criminals are born and not made, there are biological factors in evident to prove the claim. Characteristics such as having an abundance of body hair or an asymmetrical face may be disputed links to criminal behavior, Lambroso proposed in his early work (1876).
A person who has committed a crime is considered a criminal this links with deviant behavior which is when a person behaves in a way which goes against the expected behavior of a group of culture. To be a victim of crime means that an individual must have individually or collectively, suffered harm whether physically, mentally, emotionally, economical loss or substantial impairment. Criminologists tend to use the issue of victimization as an alternative means of measuring crime and a way to attempt to understand the impact of crime. The 1985 United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power offers a definition of the term victim. This states that where appropriate, a victim includes the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and person who have suffered harm. Criminologist Nils Christie (1986) was able to develop an idealized picture of the crime victim who should ideally have the following six major attributes. According to Christie an ideal victim is weak in comparison to the offender who is usually going about their legitimate, ordinary everyday business. The victim is blameless, unrelated to and does not know the stranger who has committed the offence, the offender is unambiguously big and bad. Lastly, the victim has the right combination of power, influence or sympathy to successfully elicit victim status without threatening any party’s interest. Victimology is the study of the victims of crime and the effects of their experience, psychologically and emotionally. Tierney (1996) was able to identify two major early traditions in victimology. Psychological characteristics and a body of work, both of which can then be described as forms of positivist victimology.