Development in the meticulous crimes

Describe and evaluate three approaches to defining crime. Clive R Hollin (1989) utilizes three main approaches into defining crime. These three approaches are the Consensus view, Conflict view and Interactionist view. Consensus view Consensus view shows that the law identifies the crime and that it applies to everyone equally. The consensus view acknowledges the major purpose of a legal system as a way of protecting a secure society and is more or less of equivalent benefits to all its society.

This approach is concerned with the society's legal system it is based on a consensus between most of its associates about what actions will not be approved and should consequently deserve punishment. Consequently actions are only morally wrong if they are outlawed. Definite illegal acts are regularly considered to be wrong and have always been prohibited, e. g. malevolent wounding. Other actions such as anti social behaviour slip by out of criminal law depending on the altering value of society. Conflict View The conflict rule shows that real crimes are not outlawed and that the law is used to control the under class.

This approach is very different. Conflict view is a sociological approach, this approach defends that the law benefits some people more than others. Competing groups within society such as unions, industrialists and professional bodies, are in dispute with each other because numerous are more wealthy and powerful than others. A number of neo-Marxist sociologists feel that the conflict view is too severe and approach and have offered various alteration of it, but they all agree on one point: that crime is the result of deprived social conditions.

Those who disagree to this approach indicate that crime is a severe reality for many working-class people who endure significantly from its effects and is not something to be overestimated. Criminal laws are present in order to shield the rich and powerful from the rest of the population. In this manner the ruling group shelters its interest at the cost of the deprived. Even when actions are prohibited in the common interest, they are defined in a disparate way so the powerful tend to go with impunity.

For example English law against rape, which was extended to rule out sexual force within marriage. Before this the wife partner, who is generally the weaker in both physical and economic terms, was not agreed the option to reject unwanted sexual intercourse even though its obligation involves physical force. Interactionist view The interactionist view shows that moral entrepreneurs identify crime and that criminal labels are life-changing events. The Interactionist view is the central point between consensus and conflict approaches.

This view accentuates that there are no complete values of official crime statistics give one important source of information on recorded crime but these drastically overestimate the amount of crime because many crimes go unreported. There are many reasons for this. People may believe the offence too minor; they may distrust that the police can do anything about it; they might favour to deal with the issue personally or not recognise the act to be criminal. Many crimes such as vandalism and tax fraud have no victim to report them.

However other crimes such as drug dealing and soliciting have prepared victims who are reported they do not essentially be recorded by the police, who may believe them to be to inconsequential to warrant intervention. As well as this, several crimes are more possible to be reported than other; in general it is the more severe crimes that are reported but there are other contemplations. For instance, car theft is much more frequently reported than theft of other considerations.

Such as, car theft is much more often reported than theft of other property, because of insurance insinuations. Development in the meticulous crimes reported may differ over time. Rape, for instance, is more expected to be reported now than it once was because of the change in attitudes of both the police and public to victims of sexual offence. Therefore statistics for rape have shown a moderately large increase, not all of which essentially reflects an increase in actual rape.

It is significant to note that although the fact these crime figures should be treated with concern, they act as the key picture of crime used in deliberate preparation by home office and police forces. How has crime rate changed in Great Britain since 1876 up until now? There was a steady correlation and no change in the figures from 1876 up until 1924. But then according to the British crime report presented by the police the figures showed a rise of 65%. Even these figures have risen it is not entirely accurate.

The report only shows those crimes which have been reported, some crimes do not get reported, and therefore cannot be filed. Reasons why official crime statistics underestimate the amount of crime. The official crime statistics underestimate the amount of crime because many crimes do not get reported. For example sexual assaults as the victims might find it embarrassing. Or even drug related crimes which involve gangs, there might have been threatened and eventually killed. In some cases the victims might think of the crime as trivial and feel they can deal with it them selves.

At times police themselves feel some crimes are too trivial in order to report them such as minor domestic arguments. The British Crime surveyors never cover all the crimes. Such as murders as a dead person cannot report what had happened to them. 2000 British crime survey The 2000 British crime survey shows the figures to have fallen by 10%. The figures at 1995 were at its highest ever at 4000 incidents, at 2000 the figures had fallen to approximately 3200 incidents. It showed robbery and theft to have risen.

Attempted thefts accounted for just over a quarter (27%) of all vehicle-related thefts in 1999, whereas in 1981 they were a much minor proportion (10%). This may point out that cars are becoming considerable more difficult to get into. In 52% of incidents there was some type of injury. Injuries were most common in domestic violence (70%); least common (29%) for mugging. The most common form of injury was minor bruising or a black eye (33%) pursued by severe bruising (16%). For domestic violence these percentages were 44% and 29% in that order.