Introduction
Making laws, violating these rules, and responding to the breach of laws may be seen as the knowledge underlying crime as a social phenomenon. The primary goal of this method is to create a system that includes broad and verifiable standards and various sorts of knowledge about law, crime, and therapy. There is a strong connection between criminality and sociology since understanding crime requires understanding society. The concept behind crime may be traced back to societal perceptions of deviance. Deviance entails breaking a particular social norm and eliciting a negative response from others. Some standards are then made into laws based on their severity
There is a conundrum of criminal concerns and global crimes affecting international and national judicial systems and processes. Society frequently misinterprets the system’s functions; the notion is that each illegal conduct anywhere in the globe must be handled by the criminal law system in the country and resolved. It is tough to react appropriately to international drug smuggling activities when the nation that determines mandatory obligations does not back the enforcement techniques. For example, American eminence criticizes all procedures and policies as a precautionary measure against permitting any import and export of illicit drugs, firearms, or terrorist attacks to emerge in the nation. However, if surrounding countries such as Columbia are not supporting or executing the obligatory laws to combat crime, then the United States attempts will not be achieved, but instead, fail. The same holds for other illicit actions, such as human and weapons smuggling.
The global legal system routinely arms attempts to combat inter-national smuggling, which happens year after year. Furthermore, the international judicial system is moral in its surveillance and response to terrorism. This is not particularly advantageous to smaller nations that have terrorist actions occurring since they lack the necessary resources and knowledge to suppress the terrorist groups for any investigative activities when they are assaulted. The international judicial system dispatches a team of special agents to investigate the incidents and offer justice for the crime, as well as viewpoints that lead to the final apprehension of the individual or organizations.
Considering the terrorist assaults on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The gang behind the attacks was from Iraq, was trained in weaponry and a suicide bombing in Afghanistan and had numerous political funding from Pakistan to support the acts of terror. If the specified target were another nation, the investigation components would be impossible without the international legal system, which tackles major attacks that may harm a country.
In certain Western nations, penitentiary rates have risen enormously during the last 40 years. Although it is considered that there has been a rise in punitive measures, it is crucial despite its empirical validity. There is a broad concept that accounts for the disparities among various Western countries. America appears to have a significant carceral abnormality. It is more probable to see a society with fewer people imprisoned for extended periods (US) than one with a high number of people detained for a shorter time (Scandinavia). The most obvious solution is that more people are detained in nations with increased rates of crime owing to violence. Although this is true, various civilizations choose to punish offences with related behaviour with more severity, regardless of whether they are less or more consistent.
Several allegations and demands have been placed by protest movements in 2020 regarding crime and system racism. There have been widespread allegations of police involvement in extrajudicial executions of black individuals and prejudice. The long-running issue of police brutality and racial discrimination in the United States has worsened this year.
These crimes, which include murder, result from racial prejudice, racial profiling, and ongoing stereotypes perpetrated by the state against black communities. These are the critical reasons for black people’s outrage, which has been exhibited and displayed. Crimes committed by and against protesters have occurred, corresponding to the causes of crime outlined by the strain theory. Protesters looted as a form of retaliation for the frustration put on black communities by the police. There have been additional car-ramming assaults on peaceful demonstrators, such as an on-duty police officer in the Anaheim protest; this officer saw the demonstration as intimidation to the member of the forces, and therefore he responded by carrying out this crime. Another example of strain theory explaining the reasons for crime is the increasing number of violent counter-protests.
Police supporters who are white supremacists have started hitting protestors in retaliation for the police, resulting in widespread bloodshed. Between May and August, over 360 counter-protests were registered throughout the country; around 12% of them became violent, with pro-police demonstrators clashing with BLM activists. The groups have also requested that police forces be re-trained to eliminate rogue cops. The growth of non-state entities during the rally on the officers’ watch demonstrates the necessity for integrity in the military. Almost 20 different state organizations are organizing protests. During the protests, there has also been an increase in armed men, most of whom pretend to be peacekeepers or intimidate opponents.
Anthropological theory
Different crime causation theories attempt to explain why crime happens. According to the strain theory, people commit crimes because they are distressed by stress or strain, which causes them to commit crimes. They may resort to criminality as a means of coping with the stress. For example, they may engage in violence to halt harassment from others and illicit drug usage to make themselves feel better or as a method of retaliation in contradiction of people who have maltreated them. According to sociological theory, society generates conditions that encourage individuals to commit crimes; society influences people to commit crimes. However, there are several ways to anthropological perspectives and theories how examine crime. Crime theories mirror the historical circumstances in which they were established, relying on people’s physiology and heredity to justify their conduct.
Natural selection by Darwin indicates that crime is caused by genetic composition in his theory of natural selection. These are the physiological causes for human abnormalities handed down from parents to children. The causes of crime are a mix of biological features compelled by societal circumstances that result in criminal behavior. Hereditary traits and socialization cause criminal conduct in individuals with diverse behaviors and genetic composition. According to early views of criminality, crime was primarily motivated by psychological factors related to hereditary composition. Sigmund Freud related crime with human nature, which comprised innate tendencies that lead to ethical and moral rules. The connection and closeness of parents to their children have also raised crime rates in children because people develop a rational portion of their personality that shapes the character of their offspring.
Furthermore, the ideas attempted to investigate elements that may contribute to criminology for abnormalities in the brain, endocrine disorders, and weaker autonomic nervous system responses, which may enhance a person’s criminality rate. According to Beccalossi, biological influences induce crime, implying that specific individuals are born criminals and are biologically unique from non-criminals. He stressed that natural criminality is mainly caused by low IQ, impulsivity, hyperactivity, and inadequate nutrition, increasing crime rates.
Cortisol, testosterone, and other environmental contaminants predominantly influence the biological predisposition for criminal and antisocial conduct. Lombroso felt that crime was primarily transmitted from parents and that physical deformity could be used to identify criminals. Lombroso claims that after multiple studies, humans were born with a propensity to offend and were relics of early man. As the father of criminology, he argued that being born a criminal dictated a person’s mental abilities. The rare offenders’ actions are explained mainly by chance, but they are influenced by a person’s inner characteristics that lead them to criminality. Occasional offenders generally commit crimes when they have the opportunity or get the chance, in contrast to born criminology, which is built into a person and allows them to commit a crime at any time without fear. Indeed, being born a criminal is more complex than becoming a criminal on the side.
Jaroslaw discusses historical and modern anthropological research and how urbanization has influenced them. Globalization has altered culture through homogeneity, the two-way transmission through migration. Anthropologists begin with individuals and the local community, studying human life and patterns. The emphasis is on the passage of time and human relationships. Individuals’ interactions have also contributed to advancement in culture, which has led to an increase in criminology due to people of various behaviors and levels. Globalization has expanded the extent and speed of the relationships that link people and cultures.
The biological method follows the worldwide movement of people, genetics, and illness. This allows individuals to experience internationalization in a changing setting and influences people’s behavior. Since it can lead to these current challenges, globalization has impacted drug trafficking and weaponry. Participants and resources, learning by doing, and learning via organized teaching at the community level are all examples of globalization. Finally, globalization has aided the development of trends. In necessity, criminology is primarily hereditary, and most people do not practice occasional criminology compared to inherited criminality from parents.
Sociocultural Anthropology Theory explains that to comprehend how anthropologists have regarded crime since the discipline’s inception, some fundamental notions that have informed later anthropological investigations of law and corruption must be described. Boas (1858-1942) was a pioneer in anthropology, advancing the four field methods: sociocultural anthropology, physical anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics. Anthropologists have depended mainly on the sociocultural approach to analyze crime and deviance in this different anthropology sub. Durkheim (1858-1917), a pioneering sociologist, was a contemporary of Boas and strove to create a theory of society by examining the dynamics of social integration and the expansion of social intricacy. Durkheim’s views made significant contributions to the anthropology of crime.
Durkheim introduced the idea of conscience collective, which referred to institutionalized sanctions, and conceptions of the culture among its people that express values, worldviews, and beliefs based on the assumption that social conduct was acquired. This concept was crucial because it linked the societal building of social harmony with individual acculturative processes. Durkheim also championed participant observation methods, widely used in anthropological studies today. Durkheim called for social scientists to conduct fieldwork to learn how a community views its institutions. Durkheim also argued for the need for the comparative technique in determining how different elements of social integration vary among countries. The last postulate is known as the functional perspective. It is assumed that everything that exists must serve a purpose. As a result, while crime still exists in society, it should serve a purpose owing to its widespread awareness. Corruption maintains the organization and develops cohesiveness by issuing objectives based on a common moral outrage.
Ethnographic details
Ethnography holds a distinct role in the history of criminality and deviant sociology. While extra quantitative techniques might be more comprehensively used, the dedication to long-term existence and occasional commitment offers rich information and conceptual Comprehension. Several of the most valuable notions and viewpoints in criminality have evolved unapologetically from an ethnographic study. Many of the most prominent figures in criminology have worked as ethnologists for at least a portion of their study careers.
Ethnographic examination is ideal for examining crime, control, and victimization. Since criminality has no fundamental existence, positivist techniques appear bound to fail in isolation. Although the quantitative approach, including crime control information, is a basis of criminological study. Ethnography is particularly capable of getting under the skin of the phenomenological attractions of delinquency and control, as well as the physical realities of victimization. Ethnographic methods, which include extended presence, observation, and possibly participation and interviews, allow investigation of the relationships between crime and control. These techniques also aid in seeing the world through the eyes of those people targeted for the study and comprehend the more influential culture in which such behaviors and state reactions to them manifest.
Crime and control are undoubtedly experiencing unparalleled innovation and vigour, spurred partially by the increase of traditional criminology in the late twentieth century and ultra-realism in the early twenty-first century. Ethnography has been once more positioned centrally within crucial and revolutionary criminological customs. This time as a necessary counterpoint to the quantifiable techniques of pragmatist methodologies that have emerged to control conventional criminology pursuing to locate itself as scientific in its strategy. Though social criminology has never argued entirely for ethnography, it is ideally positioned as a comprehensive way to grasp crime’s subjective, sensory dimensions.
Nevertheless, in contemporary treatises concerning youth and criminality, youth living in these marginalized neighbourhoods have very few opportunities to have their voices heard or share their narratives. According to a study, youth living in marginalized working-class areas are more prone to be victims of crime and experience its consequences. Indeed, administrative criminology’s main focus predominantly mirrors the interests of superordinate State funding authorities. As such, the study agenda reinforces the hegemonic dogma that now dominates discourses concerning young people and crime. It might be contended that this poses an encounter for investigators to break free from New Labor’s automation of corporate criminality and move out of the unusual contexts of the Young Offenders Organization. They may then join societies where young people face the grim veracities of their subsists to speak with them about their experiences with violent act as both offenders and victims.
Presumably, ethnographic research strategies that facilitate immersive experience in the societies deliver a chance to do so, as well as the potency to cast a critical logical eye on the responsibility that criminality plays. These roles may include interconnected difficulties of global poverty, metropolitan deterioration, and community isolation. Given ethnography’s enormous input to criminological knowledge, this remarkable exclusion can only be viewed as a missed opportunity. Indeed, ethnographic research has provided valuable in-depth data that has offered a level of understanding of crime and the reality of living in marginalized groups that would be challenging, to gain through other means. However, there are hazards associated with the procedure that must be carefully considered. Indeed, immersion in the natural environment of individuals being studied and eliminating alienation between researchers and researched brings a spectrum of ethical, moral, and political problems.
Emic Accounts
The emic approach refers to the study of cultural norms that are unique to one group of individuals or culture. Culture, in all its different connotations, is vital to the operation of the criminal justice system in every community. Traditional theories of crime have frequently disregarded the impacts of cultural and environmental elements on human behavior. Culture encompasses principles and views about faith, interpersonal relationships, community, family life, sexuality, and politics, among other things. There is a continuing conflict over the meaning of culture, which is the essence of culture by definition, yet despite this continual conflict over meaning, it has definite bounds.
Culture has an impact on crime in at least two ways. Firstly, crime and culture mutually define each other. Second, culture determines the effectiveness of most courtroom narratives. On the other hand, crime has a significant impact on culture. This is due to the immense mobilizing power of crime. Behavior changes and perceptions are unavoidable once an act is a labelled criminal. These modifications are due to the ongoing intention to avoid punishing components of the legislation.
Criminalizing a specific type of behavior has two functions: first, it indicates the level of acceptability of the restriction within the cultural milieu, and second, it works as a catalyst for additional cultural changes. The contestation between various cultural elements over the concept of crime offers a mechanism via which crime impacts society and culture affects crime. Culture defines the limits of our perception of what is right and wrong. Due to how rape was defined historically, the rights of male suspects stood to acquire an edge over the ownership of female victims. Marital rapes were not prosecuted, and sexual offences compelled female victims to resist their assailants.
Due to the feminist campaign’s participation and the conjunction of new cultural norms, there was a shift in societal attitudes toward rape. Politicians were pushed to redefine the crime of rape, lessen the demands of force and opposition, and abolish the exemption of marital rape. Culture has an unseen hand in driving the criminalization process and selecting which activities should be sanctioned by criminal legislation.
Consequently, gang crime life is a comparatively unusual community structure in which group dynamics impact participant crime involvement, mainly via the formation and preservation of crime culture. Though researchers have traditionally acknowledged that crime ethos is adaptable and significantly influenced by socialization procedures, they have not continuously decided on how it is described or affects violence. Most early theoretical writings portrayed gang culture as monolithic, with members pursuing criminal or violent beliefs and conventions universally. Individuals generally bond with the street gangs throughout youth and early maturity, when they go through significant life transformations that will affect the rest of their lives.
An individual’s crime involvement can have a long-term influence, and fierce activity is especially troubling since it can result in lengthy jail terms, persecution, and expressive shock. Scrutinizing life before, during, and after gang participation can assist researchers in understanding how ring membership overlaps with violent conduct and determining if crime life induces ferocity. The pathway towards becoming a member of a gang is complicated. No characteristic determines who joins a gang, although early encounters with violence seem influential.
Violence, coupled with other adversities in life, drives some adolescents out of their homes, exposing them to life on the streets and increasing their risk of violent assault. Linking to a gang is one approach to adapting to street life, a super competitive social structure centered on illegal behavior and the illegal trade. The necessity or desire for security drives teenagers to join a gang. The practice of enrolling may encourage a person to engage in aggressive conduct.
Conclusion
The pioneering principles of sociocultural anthropology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries established the foundation for an anthropological perspective of criminality and delinquency. The theoretical foundations for further study are formed by the core principles of cultural particularism, functionalism, and social customs. These conceptions expanded to incorporate social stratification and globalism in the contemporary and post-modern eras, thus broadening the comprehension of criminality. However, criminal jurisdictions differ greatly depending on where the offense occurred. The most effective strategy to reduce crime is to prevent it from occurring in the first place.
Bibliography
Adams, Shane W., Maureen A. Allwood, and Rosemarie M. Bowler. “Posttraumatic Stress Trajectories in World Trade Center Tower Survivors: Hyperarousal and Emotional Numbing Predict Symptom Change.” Journal of Traumatic Stress 32, no. 1 (2019): 67–77. Web.
Bergman, Åsa, and Monica Lindgren. “Navigating between an Emic and an Etic Approach in Ethnographic Research. Crucial Aspects and Strategies When Communicating Critical Results to Participants.” Ethnography and Education 13, no. 4 (2017): 477–89. Web.
Brubaker, Rogers. “Ethnicity, Race, and Nationalism.” Annual Review of Sociology 35, no. 1 (2009): 21–42. Web.
Burcher, Morgan. “Social Network Analysis and Crime Intelligence.” Social Network Analysis and Law Enforcement, 2020, 65–93. Web.
Connor, Walker. “The Politics of Ethnonationalism.” The Politics of Ethnonationalism 27, no. 1 (1973): 1–22.
Copes, Heith, Whitney Tchoula, and Jared Ragland. “Ethically Representing Drug Use: Photographs and Ethnographic Research with People Who Use Methamphetamine.” 2019 | Volume 8, Issue 1, 2019, 1–19. Web.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. “Anthropological Perspectives.” Essay. In Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives, 118–49. London: Pluto Press, 2002.
Fleetwood, Jennifer, and Gary R Potter. “Ethnographic Research on Crime and Control: Editors’ Introduction.” Methodological Innovations 10, no. 1 (2017): 205979911772885. Web.
Groark, Kevin P. “Freud among the Boasians: Psychoanalytic Influence and Ambivalence in American Anthropology.” Current Anthropology 60, no. 4 (2019): 559–88. Web.
Kovera, Margaret Bull. “Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System: Prevalence, Causes, and a Search for Solutions.” Journal of Social Issues 75, no. 4 (2019): 1139–64. Web.
Lauger, Timothy R., and Sou Lee. “Gang Violence: Examining Ecological, Cultural, Social Psychological, and Psychological Factors across the Life Course.” Handbook of Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Across the Lifespan, 2019, 1–20. Web.
Lee, Hyunjung, and Jaehun Choi. “An Empirical Study on the Determinants of Property Crime and Violent Crime: Focusing on Social Disorganization Theory and Life Course Theory.” Journal of the Korean Urban Management Association 32, no. 2 (2019): 67–86. Web.
Murawski, Michał. “Actually-Existing Success: Economics, Aesthetics, and the Specificity of (Still-)Socialist Urbanism.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 60, no. 4 (2018): 907–37. Web.
Nycyk, Michael. “Field Relationships and Data Collecting: Dilemmas Encountered in a Construction Organization.” Journal of Organizational Ethnography 7, no. 3 (2018): 320–29. Web.
Rosman, Abraham, and Paula Rubel. “Chapter 5 Ethnonationalism, Nationalism, Empire: Their Origins and Their Relationship to Power, Conflict and Culture Building.” Global Bioethics 19, no. 1 (2006): 55–71. Web.
Siwach, Garima, and Megan Kurlychek. “Legal Mandates in Criminal Background Checks: An Evaluation of Disparate Impact in New York State.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017. Web.
Thomas, M. Blair, and James E. Wright. “We Can’t Just Shut up and Play: How the NBA and WNBA Are Helping Dismantle Systemic Racism.” Administrative Theory & Praxis 44, no. 2 (2021): 143–57. Web.
ToppiReddy, Hitesh Kumar, Bhavna Saini, and Ginika Mahajan. “Crime Prediction & Monitoring Framework Based on Spatial Analysis.” Procedia Computer Science 132 (2018): 696–705. Web.