Essay On Explanation Of Crime

 

The consensus theory of crime states that crimes usually act that is perceived to be very unacceptable or distasteful, in certain, if not every element connected to society. As per the consensus theory, most portion of society works as most individuals are successfully partied into communal value via education and family. The term consensus arises when a group of individuals agree on something compared to disagree. (Carta et al., 2019) It can be said that socialisation generates consensus or agreement between individuals regard proper beliefs and behaviour without which no people can survive. This model assumes a common agreement presents on what behaviour to outlaw and what behaviour presents, sociologists Emilie Durkheim implemented this who perceived offences or crimes were generally repugnant activities which a citizens morality agree have to be prevented with legal force. Moreover, this theory also states that laws of criminal reflect not merely standards of local but eventually reflect a larger consensus of human. The consensus’s power is the acknowledgement that any selfish as well as cruel act have generally required to be topped from injuring others by force or warning if possible (Van Brown, 2019).  

 

 

Consensus theory makes it tough to criminalise dangerous acts by corporations and states as it is not material to stand or place on its own but have certain flaws between distinct states (Greene, 2018). It can be said that distinct states have distinct laws regard a particular act as an offence or not. For example, the parliament must approve a new crime in Canada but since the politicians ought to represent the interests of people who elect them, the crime’s definition occurs to take after consensus model British in which judges are eligible to the right of criminalising every act that the society perceive immoral (Monbiot, 2016). 

 

 

Further, this theory of crime makes it tough to adopt who is wrong as well as who is right as two argumentative could be right or wrong relying on the context. In the view of the consensus theory and Parent, child, and adult voices, the three voices distinct from one to another as per how calm or authoritative one ought to sound or appear. In this case, dichotomisation is not avoidable since a party disagrees with the other party without understanding them (Sliwinski et al., 2017). This “voice” was emerged by psychologists with a view to unpack the consensus theory. The three voices are: “the multifaceted logic of the adult, the moralising martyr like parents, and the playful but volatile child”. The voice of parental reflects to this theory of crime subsequently a parental ideal’s voice conveys simple rules of moral that is actually direct to the point.

 

The lawful definition of crime mainly connects to infringement of criminal law in the state. It can be said that legal definition varies the theory of consensus, by focusing that act is just an offence or crime if it disobeys laws and state, and not cultural and religious doctrines. The valid definition of crime is usually adopted in democratic nations in which the public have the power to share their interests and opinions related to matters of nation (Kleinfeld, 2016). Distinct the theory of consensus which does not depend on each side, the valid meaning forms it simple to aware what really is crime rather than what is not. Thus, the consensus theory could legalise dangerous acts or activities, exposing the society to huge risks due to its ambiguity. 

 

 

Moreover, the consensus theory view relating the connection between the public safety and crime have several chief discrepancies with respect to the crimes committed by corporations (Cohen, 2020). Every person advantage from laws of consensus that restrict assault, theft, arson, and murder, but the meaning of such acts is raised to eliminate such behaviour if they are committed by various robust institutions or individuals who could eliminate becoming a legal control’s object as they have the ability to struggle the laws enforce. For instance, the law of criminal states certain kind of preventable killings as murder, but it eliminates such conducts as deaths from faulty goods or unsafe conditions of working. Apart from this, it could perceive as if fines are an effective method punish institutions or companies as they impact profit of a company but one of the utmost deceptive aspects of crime related to corporate is that both the penalties and the benefits are hugely diffused (Diamantis, 2021). Although the last decade has observed a sever hardening of fines for deaths of workplace in certain sectors. 

 

 

In the context of the consensus theory of crime, it makes it tough for corporations and states to criminalise dangerous acts or behaviour, a crime is that a group have to process rules and laws via the use of reasonable thinking in recognising what acts or activity ought to be recognised aberrant or non-aberrant to safeguard the community from any danger. Thus, a person could have committed an act this is considered a dangerous towards the state, but is not described formally has an act of criminal in the state. Thus, the question arise does the individual liable for the dangerous act (Kadish, 2017). 

 

 

Life-Narrative Arguments are models related to crimes. This had been studies by Jack Katz through listening to real offenders and receive their stories regard their life that plea to initial components of hedonism, hardman, righteousness, and humiliation (Smith, 2022). It can be said that while these models are in a distinct context they could still connect to other models like cultural, economic, biological, and so on. Humiliation refers to severe loss of control over soul or identity. Hardman is considered another adaptation of humiliation particularly for makes, is to use the hardman’s moral philosophy. It reflects that once a male has stated his course of action or has integrated his will to do something, he has to now prevail and fulfil it, despite personal danger or practical calculation to others or himself. Moreover, righteousness refers to general procedure of humiliation is articulating rage, but it in itself could be embarrassing. Righteousness is considered the state or quality of being morally justifiable and correct (Ritthithit et al., 2017). In order to prevent this interpretation, righteousness is used to cloak the uncontrolled anger in regard to morality. Finally, hedonism refers to placing emotionally onto offences form the “seduction of a crime” tempting in a criminal’s mind. 

 

 

The biological arguments reflect delinquencies would become more vulnerable in men compared to females, it is happened because of the fact men would be more interested in involving in any kind of perilous act (Newsome et al., 2016). The statistic infers that delinquency peaks in early childhood and adolescence but results in a decrease with age. Others aspects that require to be recognised, for instance, a child with a huge amount of lead would be more probably to become delinquent, violent, and aggressive. This model could connect to hedonism’s life narrative model because crime would form a male more seductive towards the crime though in comparison to females. Moreover, the righteousness model can also relate to the biological argument as it mentioned that juveniles with more lead would probably be vicious, it could cause rage within a person (Chisolm, 2021). Although it is humiliating, they would discover methods to cloak the rage. This theory can also be related to hedonism as many people commit crimes like drugs, rape etc for their pleasure.

 

 

Cultural arguments could be formed as the delinquencies vary with the distinct generations. For instance, Generation Y engaged in less crime as the crime declined in 1991, it reflects that they made a range of less risky choices. Cultural is considered a set of actions, beliefs, and values that are learned via interactions with others. It is generally transmitted to people via intimate groups of peers and across generations to give encouragement or support for actions or conduct that could not be acceptable in the larger society. This theory could relate to the life narrative theory of hardman. In the olden times, there was a culture where men thought that they were above women. This culture incites men to commit violent crimes (such as domestic violence, sexual abuse etc) against women, and girls so that women cannot raise their voices and this culture of male-dominated would continue in future also (Rahman, 2019).

 

 

Moreover, this model could also connect to righteousness’s life narrative model. Traditionally, those who committed murder or assault (violent crime) were given the death penalty by law. People think that it is just and morally right to punish someone who kills others (for example, tooth for tooth, eye for eye). It had become a culture of punishment in many countries.

 

 

Economic theory refers to a direct application of Labour markets’ theory to criminal behaviour. Economic violent crimes are committed for economic gain. Many social scientists stated that crime is connected to poverty, education, or work. An economic crime is considered a crime in which a group of people or people intentionally act in an unlawful way to obtain monetary returns. The economic theory can relate to the life narrative theory of humiliation (Blakeslee et al., 2021). Many people in the world are poor, even the upper-class people look at the poor people with disrespect. Even society discriminates against poor people as they do not have enough money to earn their living. Because of this, they have to face many problems and difficulties like ill-treatment, disrespect, etc. They have to face humiliation from the middle and upper-class people. Due to this, they start violent crimes like rape, murder, and dacoity so that they can get huge money to stand with rich people.

 

 

Overall theories of Life-Narrative Arguments like Hedonism, hardman, humiliation, and righteousness all could contribute to the other argument theories discussed above in this section and what influences them as well. It can be said that all are linked to one another in a certain way and all describe what poses a bigger influence to commit fierce offences whether it is cultural, biological, or economic. All have an aspect on the violent crime rate. 

 

 

On 25th December 2005, the 2005 Boxing Day shooting arose between two gangs, the Point Blank Soldiers and Silent Soldiers on Yonge Street in Toronto. This shooting had leading to a young high school female’s death and left six other people injured. As a result, this shooting formed moral panic all over the nation as well as the city (Glasbeek, 2016). People already dubbed the city “the year of the gun” because the city recorded fifty-one deaths from gun abuse. A comment had been also made by CNN that would blaze in the 2005 Boxing Day shooting, the broadcaster has stated “the rate of murder in the city has doubled this year……. Offence splurge underway”. After the news, several reports of news were coming in regard the downfall in crime and Toronto, and nearly two hundred camera crews waiting to hear from the police.

 

It can be said that these incidents had sparked a politically influential panic of moral because the federal election in the Canada was coming up, because of this, it sparked politician to have gun safety. During campaign, the member of the conservative party “Steven Harper” he was attacked and targeted the liberals for the reason of death because of gun violence. This violent act of murder had been used by the conservative party to get an upper hand in their campaign. The question occurred “which federal leader and party has the utmost policies and ideas for addressing the gun violence and gangs. Later, Steven Harper won the election by popular vote of 34, while he won previous election from 28 percent vote (Bratt, 2022). Nic Nanos passed a statement regarding the victory of Harpers, “crime could be a problem that considerably affects voters in short periods of time”. He also added that now conservatives have won the election but they did take benefit of the shooting incident in order to win because they promised to fix gun legislation so that this would not arise again. 

 

 

The Liberal party was the runner-up in the election of 2006 because of the campaign tactic of the conservatives to adopt and affect the public to vote for them with a view to advance and improve on what the liberals were unsuccessful to do. It can be said that each party tried to take benefit of the shooting incident, and certain other politicians also attempted to channel the social energy and anger that the 2005 Boxing Day shooting had formed. In simple words, every politician tried to channel the anger organisers of the community from multi-cultural wakes to heal Toronto, and committees of community were established to resolve gang abuse in their neighbourhoods. Moreover, politicians used the incident in their campaigns, with NDP, liberals, and conservatives holding distinct opinions (Lindholm, 2017).

 

Controversies were raised by political parties, Conservatives stated that they just require to emphasize the individuals who were severely affected by the shooting, rather what brought the handgun to that point. On the other hand, Liberals stated that the shooters failed them and they failed the shooters. During the election race in 2006, the problem of offence or crime had thrice to ten per cent regardless of being much lesser in the past decades. Everyone in the city was in the same panic as any contemporary evil in the society (Zuberi & Taylor, 2017).

 

 

Politicians at every level of government lamented how this violence conduct endangered the body of the public of Toronto. For example, David Miller (Toronto Mayor) while addressing a candlelight vigil for Crebe stated, “Young street is our street – it is like a shooting occurring in front of our house”. 

 

 

From the above discussion, it can be said that the 2005 boxing day shooting arisen in Toronto turned the tables of the party-political election with the upsurge of the moral panic. The public in the city was becoming anxious with the shooting incident arising the day after Christmas. Even this pain had been created by the news reporting channels, doubting that the city would ever be similar with the upsurge of the rates of crime. The Liberal Party was leading the federal election at the time of the shooting, but as the Conservative Party's Steven Harper won the election after the shooting ended, the Conservative Party used the shooting to extend its campaign election, ultimately winning the election. However, there is no evidence to infer that the shooting was a politically influential panic of moral.

 

 

Blakeslee, D., Chaurey, R., Fishman, R., Malghan, D., & Malik, S. (2021). In the heat of the moment: Economic and non-economic drivers of the weather-crime relationship. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 192, 832-856.

 

 

Carta, S., Fenu, G., Recupero, D. R., & Saia, R. (2019). Fraud detection for E-commerce transactions by employing a prudential Multiple Consensus model. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 46, 13-22.

 

 

Chisolm, T. E. (2021). When Righteousness Fails: The New Incentive for Reparations for Slavery and Its Continuing Aftermath in the United States. U. Pa. JL & Soc. Change, 24, 195.

 

 

Cohen, D. V. (2020). Ethics and crime in business firms: Organizational culture and the impact of anomie. In The legacy of anomie theory (pp. 183-206). Routledge.

 

 

Diamantis, M. E. (2021). The Corporate Insanity Defense. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 111(1), 1-92.

 

 

Greene, A. (2018). The campaign to make ecocide an international crime: quixotic quest or moral imperative. Fordham Envtl. L. Rev., 30, 1.

 

 

Kadish, S. H. (2017). Excusing crime. In The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law (pp. 503-536). Routledge.

 

 

Kleinfeld, J. (2016). Manifesto of Democratic Criminal Justice. Nw. UL Rev., 111, 1367.

 

 

Lindholm, J. (2017). Threat or opportunity? The politicization of focusing events in the parliamentary arena. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25(2), 79-90.

 

 

Monbiot, G. (2016). Neoliberalism–the ideology at the root of all our problems. The guardian, 15(04).

 

 

Newsome, J., Vaske, J. C., Gehring, K. S., & Boisvert, D. L. (2016). Sex differences in sources of resilience and vulnerability to risk for delinquency. Journal of youth and adolescence, 45(4), 730-745.

 

 

Rahman, K. F. (2019). Focus on domestic violence in Bangladesh: a study from criminological perspectives. Journal of international women's studies, 20(3), 98-115.

 

 

Ritthithit, P. J., Leeka, J., Tongpan, S., & Srisaard, V. (2017). Two perspectives of Buddhist economics. Journal of Buddhist Education and Research, 3(1), 35-43.

 

 

Sliwinski, S. K., Gooding, H., de Ferranti, S., Mackie, T. I., Shah, S., Saunders, T., & Leslie, L. K. (2017). Transitioning from pediatric to adult health care with familial hypercholesterolemia: listening to young adult and parent voices. Journal of clinical lipidology, 11(1), 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jacl.2016.11.001

 

 

Smith, H. Z. (2022). The Plymouth Company and Massachusetts Bay Company (1622–1639): Establishing Theocratic Corporate Governance. In Religion and Governance in England’s Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698 (pp. 71-111). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

 

 

Van Brown, B. L. (2019). Conflict or consensus? Re-examining crime and disaster. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 11(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v11i1.744