Sociology and Why young people commit crime

Sociology and Why newborn people hallow crimeSociology, along with genuine early(a) multidisciplinary focuses, provides a number of reasons for why young people commit crimes. Chief amongst these is a lack of employment, the breakdown of the family, urban decay, sociable disenchantment, social alienation, drug abuse, and a host of others. For example, it had been proposed that integration be viewed through patterns of role relationships1however on the other hand it had been argued that new legal powers essentially comprise an extension of punitiveness underpinned by stigmatising and pathologies constructions of working class families.2In both cases, separated by a number of years, a number of factors are to blame the state, parents, and so on tho little if any answers are proposed. Sociology in its broadest forms offers a prescriptive view of the world and this can go steady it lacking when tasked with answering questions that arise out of its interests simply which its inte rests cannot qualify. As a 2006 study on youth crime in nova Scotia put it, youth crime is multifaceted. On the one hand, most youth commit crime, and most typically catch out of crime as they age. Longitudinal studies further suggest there are several risk factors that place certain youth at increased risk of offend. At the same time, there are youth with many risk factors who never participate in offending behaviour while there are youth with few risk factors who have established criminal careers.3It is here that sociology comes unstuck, unable to handle the sheer multi airs of youth crime with an academic outlook that seeks to place youth into easily identifiable boxes. It is hereThat criminology, psychology, psychiatry, and social policy step in to try and watch sense of this multiplicity and advise on policies which can both decrease the number of youths committing crimes, whilst encouraging those already in such a position to leave it behind. According to most commentator s, growing out of crime is on the increase. Furthermore, a lot of youth crime is to a certain extent, to be expected, quite deflexion for reasons of social delinquency. The establishment of the new youth justices system was a reaction to this fact. As sociologists noted that certain levels of delinquency were normal, a new policy entered in the UK that sought to treat all crimes as punishable by a formal criminal justice sanction. The effects of this have been to label a young offender as an offender from an early age. On youths, this has a number of effects. The first is to further entrench criminality into the culprit, whilst the other aims to encourage the youth of the vacuity of crime, providing punishments that equal the crime, but that also aim to dissuade against further criminal acts.Questions also arise about how to differentiate between males and females. Goldson and Muncie4note that women tend to grow out of crime earlier than boys. Whilst a sociological approach to this seeks to question why this may be, the criminological approach must make do with cognize that after the age of 18, youth offending begins to fall, particularly self-reported offending. As youths mature, they tend to swap certain crimes for others. Thus shoplifting and burglary decrease whilst fraud and workplace stealing increase as they enter the labour market. These are questions best answered by the statistician than the sociologist.Theories that rely on concepts of individual pathology are redundant in the dismay of sociological developments in criminology.In recent years, there has been a wholesale turning away from concepts of individual pathology in sociology, necessitated by advancements in criminology which place a greater social burden on the reasons for crime. Haines draws a contrast between individualised explanations of criminal behaviour and approaches which seek to place crime in its situational and social context.5However, the positivist view that Darwinian notio ns of physiognomy may in some way be responsible for defining characteristics of a criminal are by now very outdated. More modern theories of criminality, derived in part from sociological studies, but also from the dismantling of the Darwinian myth of universal positivism, have light-emitting diode researchers to take the view that criminals are made, quite an than born. That means that they are socialized in a society that views criminal behaviour as entirely sensible and in keeping with the social and cultural norms of that milieu. Whilst exceptions still abound, particularly in the case of the clinically, ill, this view informs much policy thinking and policies aimed at reducing youth crime. There are of course exceptions to this, but they remain very much the exception. Individual pathology is so closely linked with the notion of pathology that it is too universal, cutting crossways all classes, as to be specific enough to the rigours of criminological profiling. Criminology in its current incarnation looks at why crime exists in society and in order to do that, it needs to look at the ills of society. Taking their cues from Marx and Engels, the modern idea of criminology seeks to give answers that look at social questions as much as pathological ones. Accordingly, the individual pathology model is a control oriented ideology which serves to locate the causes of problems in specific individuals and which supplies the relevant knowledge and understanding to develop the distinguish technologies and social policies for controlling deviant members. Criminological theorizing thereby becomes a means of providinga means of legitimating current policies which become justified as forms of treatment rather than punishment.6In this argument, the archaic individual pathology view becomes not only outdated, but also unfairly punitive, prescribing a series of judgments upon a larger, unclassifiable group. It strips the moral commanding from those enlisted to uphol d it, and takes an awkwardly narrow view of society as a whole.