CRIMINOLOGY

Unit 1 Critical Thinking Questions

1.Emile Durkheim argues that deviance is beneficial to society in a number of

ways, such as showing us where the boundaries of acceptable behavior are and
that it can bring a group together. Do you agree or disagree with his argument
that deviance can be beneficial? Why?

I agree with his argument because deviance could be beneficial, as it shows

everyone which behavior is acceptable and which behavior is not. In society, it is
important to respect norms, which can be formal (laws) or informal (folkways,
mores). Actually, deviant is simply any act that violates society’s norms. Everyone
can be a deviant from time to time, even though there is no serious consequence
when we violate folkways occasionally: we may just get a bad look from someone,
but we aren’t likely to be arrested for these violations. Social control is used to
make people respect norms when they start to adopt a deviant behavior. This is
why deviance, when it is not too serious (murder, robbery), can be acceptable and
even beneficial to society.

2.If you were going to study some aspect of crime, what research method would
you use? Why would you use this method? What advantages would this method
give you as you studied your topic?

If I were to study some aspect of crime, I would use statistics from the Uniform
Crime Reports (UCR), because they are collected by the FBI from the police of
almost every area of the U.S. They include violent crime, property crime, and other
crimes (fraud, prostitution, gambling, disorderly conduct). Furthermore, this source
provides valuable data which can be trusted.
3.Why do you think that we should study crime and criminals? What
information might we gain by doing so?

By studying crime and criminals we can help prevent crimes which are committed
today from happening in the future. For instance, a mayor could see where crime
has increased in his city in the last few years, to justify more police officers in the
city’s budget. We could also figure out who is committing the most crime, to put in
place effective deterrence measures. If we find out why someone decided to
murder someone else, we will be able to use that knowledge in the future and stop
potential murderers before they commit their crime.

4.Why do you think defining crime is so difficult? Give an example of a situation

in which a “crime” might not be considered a crime?

I believe that defining crime is difficult because every crime or situation is unique
and different from each other. Every single one can have a tiny detail that could
make a huge difference and change the nature of the entire crime. For instance, if a
grocer was being robbed at gunpoint in his grocery store, threatened to death, and
defended himself by killing the robber, should it be considered as a murder, or a
self-defensive act?

5.Criminology combines the theories and insights of a number of different

disciplines as well as adding its own insight about crime and criminals. Do you
think this interdisciplinary approach is positive or negative for understanding
crime? What benefits or disadvantages might it have for the field? What other
discipline do you think has the most to offer for the understanding of crime and
criminals?

I think it is a positive approach for understanding crime. Indeed, crime is not one
dimensional. There are always many factors involved when it comes to criminal
activities, such as sociological or psychological reasons. Considering all the
disciplines may allow the criminologists to understand core issues that lead
apparently normal people to commit a crime. The disadvantage of this method is
that the interdisciplinary approach may be taking away so much time to focus on
issues aside from crime itself as the core issue. Psychology and sociology can be
used by the criminologists to understand crime and criminals.

1. Why do you think defining crime is so difficult? Give an example of a situation in which a

“crime” might not be considered a crime?
2. Criminology combines the theories and insights of a number of different disciplines as
well as adding its own insight about crime and criminals. Do you think this
interdisciplinary approach is positive or negative for understanding crime? What
benefits or disadvantages might it have for the field? What other discipline do you think
has the most to offer for the understanding of crime and criminals?