Criminology
Discussion question one: What is the positivist criminologist’s “mission”? What is the social constructionist’s “mission”? How do they overlap?
The positivist theory argues that criminals are born as such and not made into criminals. The mission of positivist criminologists is to explain criminal behavior using biological and psychological factors. According to positive criminologists, crime is nature rather than nurture. Therefore, criminal behavior is caused strictly by psychological or physiological factors. On the other hand, the social constructionist argues that people develop knowledge and behavior is acquired through interaction with others. The mission of social constructionist is to explain criminal behavior as a socially acquired behavior. As such, social constructionists believe that criminals are natured by society. The two theories overlap because they all try to explain what causes social deviance.
Responding to Student 1
I conquer with Breanna in her explanation of the positivist theory. Positivist theorists indeed believe that causes of criminal behaviors are purely biological or psychological. However, I think that Breanna should have been more specific about the mission of positive criminologists. Their mission is not only to find the cause of social deviance; it is to establish biological factors as the only cause of deviance. Breanna has also not stated the mission of social constructionists. However, I agree with Breanna on how the two missions overlap.
Responding to Student 2
I agree with Samantha on the definition of the theories. But, Samantha had not indicated the missions of the positive criminologists and the social constructionists.
Discussion question 2: Describe and define two different types of white-collar offenses, giving examples of each.
White collar crimes are non-violent crimes that are mostly financially motivated. In most cases, white collar crimes are committed by business and top government officials. These crimes are known as white collar offenses because respectable people with high social status determine them. Insider trading is an example of a white-collar offense. Insider trading is purchasing or selling of a publicly traded company’s stock by someone with access to nonpublic or confidential information about the stock. Another example of a white-collar offense is a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a type of fraud that lures investors by promising high returns and little risk. In a Ponzi scheme, early investors earn profits by acquiring new investors. The investors believe that they obtain through product sale; but, their returns are sourced from new investors.
Responding to student 1
I agree with Claudia that white collar offenses are non-violent and are executed by people with high social status. I also think that embezzlement and corporate fraud are examples of white-collar crimes.
Responding to student 2
I agree with the definition Jane has used to describe a white-collar offense. However, I do not agree with the brief part of slavery. Back then, slavery was not considered as an offense. At present, slavery no longer exists, and as such, I find the example unsuitable for this context. On the other hand, Jane’s case of embezzlement and overpricing products are good examples of white-collar offenses.
Identify three critical disciplinary perspectives, and describe how they might view each of the following: Offshore drilling for oil and gas, Urban sprawl (e.g., building subdivisions and shopping centers on farmland), Income inequality, Border security.
Responding to student 1
Offshore drilling for oil and gas
Earth science, economics, and physics might indeed view offshore drilling for oil and gas in the way Ann has described them.
Urban Sprawl
I agree with Economics since one is required to pay for the land. Also, anthropology is true since people of different cultures interact. I do not agree with political science since the government does not plan for urban sprawls.
Income Inequality
It is not true that sociologists believe that income inequality is a social problem. People have different income generating activities, and as such, income inequality is inevitable. I agree with economics since the globe revolves around the economy. I do not, however, agree with political science. The government does not decide who gets paid or not. Everyone earns according to their rank.
Border security
I do not agree with any of the reasons Ann has highlighted in border security. All people benefit from border security because as the name suggests, it is meant for protection. Also, people do not sneak in because of border security; they sneak in because they do not have all requirements for crossing any borders.
Responding to student 2
Offshore drilling for oil and gas
I agree with the disciplinary perspectives Jenna has used for offshore drilling for oil and gas.
Urban Sprawl
I do not agree with the historical perspective. Historical sites are preserved, and not all lands are ancient. I, however, agree with economics and sociology. Property is indeed worth much more when develop, and also social habits can be analyzed.
Income inequality
I agree with psychology and economics in this field. However, in political science, it is the economic status of a country that determines what people earn and not the system.
Border security
I do not agree with biology that building a wall might interfere with the environment. I also do not accept religious studies; borders are more of political reasons than religious reasons. I, however, agree with political science/economics since taxpayers have to fund border security.
Question 4
Deviance
Deviance is any behavior that goes against social norms. It is a society that sets social standards norms, and, going against them is going against the values of the community. Therefore, social norms are socially constructed with different societies having different rules. For instance, some communities frown against gayism, while others accept the practice. Deviance is categorized into criminal and noncriminal, or formal and informal. Criminal deviance is when one breaks the law by engaging in activities such as theft, robbery, assault, or any other activity that violates formally-enacted laws. Noncriminal deviance, on the other hand, is a violation of informal norms that are not codified into law. For instance, in America, one can break the social model by dropping out of college. Although it is not a crime to drop out of college, society regards that type of behavior as deviant. While formal law may be similar, informal norms differ from one community to another.
Different disciplines have tried to gain insight into the causes of deviance. Sociologists believe that since behavior is acquired through interaction with others, deviance is a socially acquired behavior. According to sociologists, people develop knowledge of the world through social context. As such, much of what people perceive as reality and later assume as behavior depends on social interaction. Also, sociologists believe that deviance is a product of dysfunctions in either the social, political, or economic setting. Since the deviance, according to sociology, is socially acquired, it can be corrected through programs of social reform. Mostly, formal or criminal deviance is eradicated through correctional facilities and fines.
Another discipline that tries to explain the cause of deviance is biology. Biologists argue that deviance is as a result of biological reasons. According to biologists, the behavior is determined by constitutional, genetic, or personality factors. As such, deviance is caused by a specific abnormality. Furthermore, biologists argue that deviance is viewed as either biological, psychiatric, personality, or a learning deficiency. Therefore, according to biologists, deviance can be treated using medicinal products of therapeutic procedures.
The two disciplines differ in that sociology states that deviance is a socially acquired behavior, while biology argues that biological factors cause deviance. However, the two subjects have a mission to identify the cause of deviance.
Sociologists should conduct further studies to prove that deviance is acquired through social contact. Similarly, biologists should also conduct experiments to determine that deviance, either formal or formal, is due to biological factors. The two disciplines can be used to find a common cause of deviance and also treatment. For instance, biologists can prove that noncriminal deviance is as a result of biological functions. One can become gay due to genetic composition in a community that discourages gayism. Sociologists, on the other hand, can prove that criminal deviance is socially acquired. Most children who grow up in crime-related environments end up becoming criminals too. Therefore, both disciplines can find different causes of different levels of deviance.