Does crime benefit us?

Summary of Arguments

Durkheim says yes:

·       Crime is present in all societies of all types.

·       We falsely believe that crime has historically decreased but really it has increased everywhere when you consider is rate compared to population growth.

·       Crime is normal because it’s impossible to have a society that is without it. 

·       The level at which the people of society feel an act is harmful to them determines what is criminal and not. For example the book uses robbery compared to bad taste.

·       If we consider crime to be a disease then the punishments we give it must be its remedy.

Patrick Monynihan says NO: Summary of Argument

·       Durkheim’s argument would seem to suggest that we should approve of crime, but he makes no such statements.

·       Durkheim doesn’t seem to believe that there is such a thing as to much crime.

·       In general we as a society view many crimes that at one time were considered to be outrageous to now be normal. Furthermore, he thinks that we have redefined many crimes and there are three categories of this redefinition.

·       One altruistic two opportunistic and three normalizing

·       Altruistic would be the mental health community making former criminal acts a medical issue that can be treated and viewing the offender as being sick rather than criminal.

·       Opportunistic addresses the political benefit some may receive from siding with those people with alternate lifestyles that may have been at one time considered wrong.

·       Normalizing is our society having experienced so much of a specific crime that we no longer consider is outrageous. Rather it has simply become normal.

·       Crime is not beneficial to society because no one benefits from the pain it brings. Furthermore, crime rates will not and have not remand steady; we have simply become more acceptable of certain criminal acts.

Reflection:

I can see certain areas in which crime may be beneficial to society. Without crime there would be far fewer jobs such as lawyers, police, corrections, judges, etc. Also, I believe that our studying of criminals and their crimes have led us to a better understanding of our people as a whole. However, I disagree with the notion that crime is normal. If crime is normal then are not the people who commit those normal criminal acts considered to be normal? I do not believe that a majority of criminals are normal when compared with the rest of society.

            I think most would agree that drinking and driving is unlawful and morally wrong and some people are strongly against it and feel those drinking and driving should receive harsh punishments. I wonder though, if a majority of our society feels that drinking and driving is wrong what can be done to stop it? Well for one I suggest that we could place police officers outside of every bar in their city and pull over everyone the feel is under the influence. I think that by doing so there would be a drastic drop in DUI’s. However, the fact is that enforcing laws and preventing crimes are subject to the availability of resources and we simply do not have or receive enough from the government. Also, I am under the impression that a majority of Americans have at one time or another driven their car after drinking and that if everyone who has ever drank and drove were to be arrested, we may not like that. Basically, most of us have done it and gotten away with it but we certainly do not want to be the one that says “hey it’s ok since I have done it” So while it’s not a fully acceptable act, the fact is many of us have done it, and we don’t seem to be so outraged as to do what is necessary to stop it. This scenario applies to many other crimes not just DUI’s.