What is crime? Crime can be approached in two distinctive ideals. With a legal approach, one might say that someone doing something or failing to do something that breaks the law has committed a crime. The black and white sense of the legality of crime makes defining crime easier. Having a set of rules or guidelines written down and available for people allows us to identify specific distinctions of criminal behavior. However, it does not leave a lot, if any, room for morals. Furthermore, defined rules are subject to change frequently and as such can be misinterpreted. The second way to approach crime is the normative approach. The normative approach would say that someone doing something or failing to do something that contradicts the norms or morals of a society has committed a crime. This explanation gives us the ability to infer what is right and wrong, possibly before it is even a law. It also allows the rules to be a little more flexible to fit the given situation. However, there are problems with this approach as well. One serious problem is the issue of who gets to decide what norms and morals are acceptable for a society. Furthermore, these norms may not be written down and may not provide an absolutely clear assessment of crime. Overall there are many gray areas and it is not all black and white when it comes to defining crime. However, utilizing both of these methods may be a way for us to clear up some confusion while providing a better justice system to the citizens of the United States. Ghost003
I completely agree with what you have said here. While it is beneficial to have written laws that clearly outline boundaries, combining morals into the mix is something to think about. As Dr.White was discussing in class, if we put body cameras on police there is no room for morals. While Dr. White’s lecture and the video do not particularly relate, Dr. White made a good point and hopefully made us think while the video was discussing the normative approach. Essentially, morals are crucial, in my opinion, when discussing laws and crimes. The normative approach comes in handy when, as Dr. White said, an ICC student with no prior history of trouble gets caught with a joint on them. Is it really necessary to take the legal approach in this situation? Purple003
I can kind of agree with you here. Morals can come into play in some acts against the law. Except you need to look at it from the legal side. If a person breaks the law they should be punished. In the case where say, an ICC student had weed on them and it was their first time, they should get a lot of years in jail. The problem is, is the fact that they knew they were carrying something illegal on them and they chose to break the law. I don't feel like he should serve ten years, but he was still in the wrong. Morals can come into play, but their needs to be a fine line that separates morals and the law. Mustang003
There were two different approaches to crime laid out in the video, the legal approach and the normative approach. They are both substantially different, and both have multiple pros and cons. The legal approach is the defined laws we have set in place, which is beneficial because all the laws are clear and have clear punishments. However, the legal approach does not recognize any morally-wrong behavior that the normative approach recognizes. The normative approach addresses the misconduct within the ‘normal’ behavior in society. The problems with this approach are simple; these acts of misconduct are not directly punishable by law. While the act may not be morally acceptable, it may still be legally acceptable. I think it is important for us to find a balance between the two, and as citizens we should not only follow the laws, but also maintain morally acceptable behavior. The video also discusses measuring crime, which includes two forms. Crime can be measured by official statistics which are the government’s responsibility. Official statistics are taken in order for the government to have an understanding of the levels and nature of crimes being committed. Crimes are also measured with Victim Surveys, which are less formal. Victim Surveys are basically how many people have been victims, and which different types of crime the victims have been affected by. There are pros and cons when measuring crime, just as there is with defining crime. Official statistics can encompass larger quantities, and are more efficient; however, official statistics may be manipulated in favor of policies set by government officials. Victim Surveys are beneficial because they can address the qualitative information otherwise ignored by official statistics, as well as they are not as likely to be subject to bias. On the contrary, Victim Surveys do not include as many subjects and may not be completely accurate. It is clear that there are pros and cons to multiple aspects of the criminal justice system, specifically crime. Purple003
I agree there are always different opinions and viewpoints to consider. It is best go look at the pros and cons to see where you stand on the subject. I feel like statistics are not always correct because not everyone is inter viewed and the ones who are interviewed may be biased because they were sentenced lightly because of stature or representation. If people being released are given the opportunity to voice their opinion there would be a wider range of statistics to choose from.there are always going to be varied opinions and statistics we just have to decide which ones we side with.sly.003
I agree there are always different opinions and viewpoints to consider. It is best go look at the pros and cons to see where you stand on the subject. I feel like statistics are not always correct because not everyone is inter viewed and the ones who are interviewed may be biased because they were sentenced lightly because of stature or representation. If people being released are given the opportunity to voice their opinion there would be a wider range of statistics to choose from.there are always going to be varied opinions and statistics we just have to decide which ones we side with.sly.003
Who are we as a society to judge or condone what is right or wrong. It seems people are always being judged on their actions. When we speed and justify it by saying we were going to be late for an important appointment we feel that is okay but when our neighbor smokes pot on the weekend they are breaking the law because society frowns on smoking pot.while both things are breaking the law the smoking pot is the worst of the two. That's why laws are put into place for everyone to follow not just more privalaged people to decide what rules they should or shouldn't follow. The people being victimized by societys rules of who should or shouldn't be punished is what is making people decide which rules they want to follow. There should be no different sentences for people of stature than poor under privileged people. Who gets to decide who gets one year for posesion of a controlled substance because they have money and someone who can't afford a good lawyer with the same amount of a controlled substance getting ten years. Sly.003
I could not agree with you more. We all at some point in our lives have gave an excuse for our behavior but when someone else does something, we try to justify why it should be different. No matter what the excuses are, its all the same. The law was broke. hotfox003
I agree with you argument. This is definitely the conflict model Dr. White was describing in class. The wealthy or political powers have a lot more say in the foundation of our laws than the people themselves do. This is really evident in our tax brackets as well. Right now one of the biggest ways we can get involved is to start researching and voting for our local governments as well as state and federal. However, I believe some major reforms to the criminal justice system need to be considered. Ghost003
What would you call a crime? The video has 2 definitions when it comes to talking about crime. One being the Normative approach, connects morality and crime. It gives you the thought of what is morally correct and what isn't. The second approach is the legal, every crime is a crime no matter how small or how big the crime is. The video also talks about how to measure crime. Data is collected based upon the types of crimes that are being committed. The statistics are collected to look at numbers and determine whether crime is falling or rising. There's also data collection when questioning victims of crimes. There is a downfall, the information of the crime may not be correct. The victim may not remember exact information as far as time or time of day it happened. So, the information given may not be correct. In my opinion, it’s okay to let minor crimes slide, as far as possession of small amounts of weed. There’s little crimes like that, that aren’t worth someone ruining their life over. So, in some cases I think it’s okay to just brush it under the rug. Now if you have a crime where the person has 20 pounds of weed, you can’t just brush that under the rug, literally. I’m completely against the data collection when asking victims. That could possibly be traumatizing to the victim as far as bringing back bad memories, maybe they forgot all about it until you brought it back up. Yes, it can be helpful as far as comparing data, but it could also be harmful. Bread003
I agree with your statement about how the surveys from past victims can be very bothersome for them and may not yield one hundred percent true information. I think we should consider the fact they they may have been traumatized by the crime against them. They may think it is all in the past and then someone is knocking on their door asking more questions, bringing up bad memories. I think we should stick to just surveying incarcerated criminals. These methods may not give the best information in my opinion, I personally would like to know exactly how much these surveys can help our society in whole. Gym003
The video showed 2 different approaches when talking about what is crime. There is the legal approach which is how the crime is dealt with. The other approach is the Normative. Normative is what is right or wrong regardless if it makes sense or not. When you ask how long someone should be in jail, they look a at few different things. First they look at the data that has been collected about the said crime and go off that to determine how long someone should get. The other one is what the victim wants. They put into consideration what will make the victim have justice for the crime that was committed. hotfox003
There are two ways to define crime. Those two ways are normative and legal. The normative crime is where you do something or fail to do something that contradicts the norms of your society. The legal crime is where you do something or fail to do something that breaks the law. The legal crime has a pretty good understanding with most people in today's worlds. Some people may not follow the laws but they understand if they do something illegal, there will be punishment. The normative crime however, is a bit different. The norms of society can change from year to year, just as trends come and go. Their can't really be a definitive answer on what okay and not kay in this society since people have their own opinions. As the video said how it was morally wrong to walk past someone who has been injured. It's not a law that says you can't do that. Some people may view that as morally wrong. In my case, i would view that as wrong too. Not everyone thinks the same, so you can put a real punishment on normative crimes. That is until you make them legal crimes so their is a definitive answer. Mustang003
It can be hard to define crime. Some may think carrying small amounts of marijuana is perfectly fine, as they are only going to use it themselves. As a society though the general public sees the use and carrying of marijuana to be illegal. Still I think we need to realize that law can change and the norms of society along with those laws. As stated in the video it said that homosexuality was illegal in the past and now it is legal so the laws had to be changed. I think that the study of society and the norms of people in them can be very important in deciding on new laws and punishments for them. I believe that legislatures need to use the information gathered from public surveys to get an understanding of for example how many people in the district use marijuana. In my opinion laws as big as gay marriage and legalization of marijuana should carry throughout all fifty states in the United States. It would just make laws easier to follow and cause much less argument from the people who want to do these activities. Gym003
I agree with Gym 003, when a law is put in place like that example of gay marriages and marijuana, if it's not universal people will flock only to the areas where it is legal and acceptance would be easier to obtain.Bell003
I agree with both of you. The two examples you gave shouldn't be considered as a law if it's legal else where. Also, for gay marriage to be a crime is like hate, which would be considered as a hate crime? Can't tell someone they can't marry their own sex, they have the freedom to do as they wish. Kodak003
As we seen in this video, there are different approaches to crime. Legal by society against laws that are set into place for all to follow normative going against what is normal behavior and what is considered morally correct. Laws are put into place to protect people but to also be that guideline for society to know right from wrong. Normative is a guideline for all to use common sense and the morals that they were raised with to exemplify good behavior. However because of the different ways children are raised, environments and role models are not all the same, we cannot just have a society without those perimeters. Some parents raise their children to believe that if someone hurts you hurt them back. Can you imagine if we all took the law into our own hands and acted out our aggressions and not had laws plaid out for us? I do believe though that some laws are put into place without strong consideration for the victims. I personally feel I was a victim of the laws as well because I was a victim of an abusive husband and when I called the law to protect me, I had to grab a couple of things and leave because they couldn't guarantee my safety once he got out of jail for the night. I do my best to abide by the law but I feel at times some people just get a slap on the hand and walk away. What is really acceptable? Statistics show the data but that is a collection of facts in one form. I personally would have opened up more to a victim survey because I felt the law judged me negatively for going back into the abusive environment because I tried to make my marriage work.Bell003
I agree it would be hard to determine what Society views as right or wrong based off are different experiences. However I think if we came together as a people every decade or so to talk about it and decide what we thought what was right or wrong or which law should change we would be able to come to an agreement on something. I think that is necessary so that we're able to allow society's laws to reflect society's views.
His legal perspective of crime sounds like the consensus model of crime while the normative sounds more like the conflict model of crime. Like he stated there are flaws in both. However I do think that both are necessary. I think that the main thing that is great about the consensus model is that it allows us to punish people for the things that everyone agrees upon. The problem with this model is that it allows our criminal justice system to push people through it and like an assembly line. I don't think it allows judges enough discretion. The consensus model is good to me because it allows laws to change with society’s view. In the video he said it but he made it seem like it was a bad thing. The only thing that’s guaranteed in life is change. I think that our laws should always reflect that change. The problem with this model is that it allows the people in power to make the laws. With that being said basically I make a tough world for the people without power and the wonderful world for those in power. EGM003
A crime is when someone does something against law. Yes, but little crimes like 1/2 ounce of marijuana shouldn't be a crime. People shouldn't be penalized for such little, especially when it's now legal in some states. A lot of crimes are petty; If I was to pee outside or jaywalk I can get a ticket if I get caught. Crimes that should put you behind jail are crimes like: Robbery, murder, guns etc.. Laws change over time, right? If laws change over time and someone broke the law that was acted as a crime would it still be a crime now that the law is changed? If not, why are they still behind bars? There are honestly a lot of unnecessary laws. There should be more laws that has to do with the earth. Laws like toxic waste into the river shall be prohibited, which is something I remember Dr. White discussing in class. A man dumps toxic waste into the river, but he is not thought of as a criminal and his insurance pays for a fee IF he's caught.. That's just unfair. In my opinion laws are made to be unfair and meant to break. Kodak003
Crime can be illegal acts or something against the social norm. For example, marijuana becoming legal was against the law and social norm at first, but the economic boom that has come along with it has juristically changed the way people view it and its use. It has changed the very norm of society. People are willing to make it legal to make a stronger economy to live in. Crime it that way is shown that something could be illegal but if enough people back it, it could be shown that the illegal act could be proven not so bad after all.
Crime can be illegal acts or something against the social norm. For example, marijuana becoming legal was against the law and social norm at first, but the economic boom that has come along with it has juristically changed the way people view it and its use. It has changed the very norm of society. People are willing to make it legal to make a stronger economy to live in. Crime it that way is shown that something could be illegal but if enough people back it, it could be shown that the illegal act could be proven not so bad after all. USA003
What is crime? Crime can be approached in two distinctive ideals. With a legal approach, one might say that someone doing something or failing to do something that breaks the law has committed a crime. The black and white sense of the legality of crime makes defining crime easier. Having a set of rules or guidelines written down and available for people allows us to identify specific distinctions of criminal behavior. However, it does not leave a lot, if any, room for morals. Furthermore, defined rules are subject to change frequently and as such can be misinterpreted. The second way to approach crime is the normative approach. The normative approach would say that someone doing something or failing to do something that contradicts the norms or morals of a society has committed a crime. This explanation gives us the ability to infer what is right and wrong, possibly before it is even a law. It also allows the rules to be a little more flexible to fit the given situation. However, there are problems with this approach as well. One serious problem is the issue of who gets to decide what norms and morals are acceptable for a society. Furthermore, these norms may not be written down and may not provide an absolutely clear assessment of crime. Overall there are many gray areas and it is not all black and white when it comes to defining crime. However, utilizing both of these methods may be a way for us to clear up some confusion while providing a better justice system to the citizens of the United States. Ghost003
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you have said here. While it is beneficial to have written laws that clearly outline boundaries, combining morals into the mix is something to think about. As Dr.White was discussing in class, if we put body cameras on police there is no room for morals. While Dr. White’s lecture and the video do not particularly relate, Dr. White made a good point and hopefully made us think while the video was discussing the normative approach. Essentially, morals are crucial, in my opinion, when discussing laws and crimes. The normative approach comes in handy when, as Dr. White said, an ICC student with no prior history of trouble gets caught with a joint on them. Is it really necessary to take the legal approach in this situation? Purple003
DeleteI can kind of agree with you here. Morals can come into play in some acts against the law. Except you need to look at it from the legal side. If a person breaks the law they should be punished. In the case where say, an ICC student had weed on them and it was their first time, they should get a lot of years in jail. The problem is, is the fact that they knew they were carrying something illegal on them and they chose to break the law. I don't feel like he should serve ten years, but he was still in the wrong. Morals can come into play, but their needs to be a fine line that separates morals and the law. Mustang003
DeleteThere were two different approaches to crime laid out in the video, the legal approach and the normative approach. They are both substantially different, and both have multiple pros and cons. The legal approach is the defined laws we have set in place, which is beneficial because all the laws are clear and have clear punishments. However, the legal approach does not recognize any morally-wrong behavior that the normative approach recognizes. The normative approach addresses the misconduct within the ‘normal’ behavior in society. The problems with this approach are simple; these acts of misconduct are not directly punishable by law. While the act may not be morally acceptable, it may still be legally acceptable. I think it is important for us to find a balance between the two, and as citizens we should not only follow the laws, but also maintain morally acceptable behavior. The video also discusses measuring crime, which includes two forms. Crime can be measured by official statistics which are the government’s responsibility. Official statistics are taken in order for the government to have an understanding of the levels and nature of crimes being committed. Crimes are also measured with Victim Surveys, which are less formal. Victim Surveys are basically how many people have been victims, and which different types of crime the victims have been affected by. There are pros and cons when measuring crime, just as there is with defining crime. Official statistics can encompass larger quantities, and are more efficient; however, official statistics may be manipulated in favor of policies set by government officials. Victim Surveys are beneficial because they can address the qualitative information otherwise ignored by official statistics, as well as they are not as likely to be subject to bias. On the contrary, Victim Surveys do not include as many subjects and may not be completely accurate. It is clear that there are pros and cons to multiple aspects of the criminal justice system, specifically crime. Purple003
ReplyDeleteI agree there are always different opinions and viewpoints to consider. It is best go look at the pros and cons to see where you stand on the subject. I feel like statistics are not always correct because not everyone is inter viewed and the ones who are interviewed may be biased because they were sentenced lightly because of stature or representation. If people being released are given the opportunity to voice their opinion there would be a wider range of statistics to choose from.there are always going to be varied opinions and statistics we just have to decide which ones we side with.sly.003
DeleteI agree there are always different opinions and viewpoints to consider. It is best go look at the pros and cons to see where you stand on the subject. I feel like statistics are not always correct because not everyone is inter viewed and the ones who are interviewed may be biased because they were sentenced lightly because of stature or representation. If people being released are given the opportunity to voice their opinion there would be a wider range of statistics to choose from.there are always going to be varied opinions and statistics we just have to decide which ones we side with.sly.003
DeleteWho are we as a society to judge or condone what is right or wrong. It seems people are always being judged on their actions. When we speed and justify it by saying we were going to be late for an important appointment we feel that is okay but when our neighbor smokes pot on the weekend they are breaking the law because society frowns on smoking pot.while both things are breaking the law the smoking pot is the worst of the two. That's why laws are put into place for everyone to follow not just more privalaged people to decide what rules they should or shouldn't follow. The people being victimized by societys rules of who should or shouldn't be punished is what is making people decide which rules they want to follow. There should be no different sentences for people of stature than poor under privileged people. Who gets to decide who gets one year for posesion of a controlled substance because they have money and someone who can't afford a good lawyer with the same amount of a controlled substance getting ten years. Sly.003
ReplyDeleteI could not agree with you more. We all at some point in our lives have gave an excuse for our behavior but when someone else does something, we try to justify why it should be different. No matter what the excuses are, its all the same. The law was broke. hotfox003
DeleteI agree with you argument. This is definitely the conflict model Dr. White was describing in class. The wealthy or political powers have a lot more say in the foundation of our laws than the people themselves do. This is really evident in our tax brackets as well. Right now one of the biggest ways we can get involved is to start researching and voting for our local governments as well as state and federal. However, I believe some major reforms to the criminal justice system need to be considered. Ghost003
DeleteWhat would you call a crime? The video has 2 definitions when it comes to talking about crime. One being the Normative approach, connects morality and crime. It gives you the thought of what is morally correct and what isn't. The second approach is the legal, every crime is a crime no matter how small or how big the crime is. The video also talks about how to measure crime. Data is collected based upon the types of crimes that are being committed. The statistics are collected to look at numbers and determine whether crime is falling or rising. There's also data collection when questioning victims of crimes. There is a downfall, the information of the crime may not be correct. The victim may not remember exact information as far as time or time of day it happened. So, the information given may not be correct. In my opinion, it’s okay to let minor crimes slide, as far as possession of small amounts of weed. There’s little crimes like that, that aren’t worth someone ruining their life over. So, in some cases I think it’s okay to just brush it under the rug. Now if you have a crime where the person has 20 pounds of weed, you can’t just brush that under the rug, literally. I’m completely against the data collection when asking victims. That could possibly be traumatizing to the victim as far as bringing back bad memories, maybe they forgot all about it until you brought it back up. Yes, it can be helpful as far as comparing data, but it could also be harmful.
ReplyDeleteBread003
I agree with your statement about how the surveys from past victims can be very bothersome for them and may not yield one hundred percent true information. I think we should consider the fact they they may have been traumatized by the crime against them. They may think it is all in the past and then someone is knocking on their door asking more questions, bringing up bad memories. I think we should stick to just surveying incarcerated criminals. These methods may not give the best information in my opinion, I personally would like to know exactly how much these surveys can help our society in whole. Gym003
DeleteThe video showed 2 different approaches when talking about what is crime. There is the legal approach which is how the crime is dealt with. The other approach is the Normative. Normative is what is right or wrong regardless if it makes sense or not. When you ask how long someone should be in jail, they look a at few different things. First they look at the data that has been collected about the said crime and go off that to determine how long someone should get. The other one is what the victim wants. They put into consideration what will make the victim have justice for the crime that was committed. hotfox003
ReplyDeleteThere are two ways to define crime. Those two ways are normative and legal. The normative crime is where you do something or fail to do something that contradicts the norms of your society. The legal crime is where you do something or fail to do something that breaks the law. The legal crime has a pretty good understanding with most people in today's worlds. Some people may not follow the laws but they understand if they do something illegal, there will be punishment. The normative crime however, is a bit different. The norms of society can change from year to year, just as trends come and go. Their can't really be a definitive answer on what okay and not kay in this society since people have their own opinions. As the video said how it was morally wrong to walk past someone who has been injured. It's not a law that says you can't do that. Some people may view that as morally wrong. In my case, i would view that as wrong too. Not everyone thinks the same, so you can put a real punishment on normative crimes. That is until you make them legal crimes so their is a definitive answer. Mustang003
ReplyDeleteIt can be hard to define crime. Some may think carrying small amounts of marijuana is perfectly fine, as they are only going to use it themselves. As a society though the general public sees the use and carrying of marijuana to be illegal. Still I think we need to realize that law can change and the norms of society along with those laws. As stated in the video it said that homosexuality was illegal in the past and now it is legal so the laws had to be changed. I think that the study of society and the norms of people in them can be very important in deciding on new laws and punishments for them. I believe that legislatures need to use the information gathered from public surveys to get an understanding of for example how many people in the district use marijuana. In my opinion laws as big as gay marriage and legalization of marijuana should carry throughout all fifty states in the United States. It would just make laws easier to follow and cause much less argument from the people who want to do these activities. Gym003
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gym 003, when a law is put in place like that example of gay marriages and marijuana, if it's not universal people will flock only to the areas where it is legal and acceptance would be easier to obtain.Bell003
DeleteI agree with both of you. The two examples you gave shouldn't be considered as a law if it's legal else where. Also, for gay marriage to be a crime is like hate, which would be considered as a hate crime? Can't tell someone they can't marry their own sex, they have the freedom to do as they wish.
DeleteKodak003
As we seen in this video, there are different approaches to crime. Legal by society against laws that are set into place for all to follow normative going against what is normal behavior and what is considered morally correct. Laws are put into place to protect people but to also be that guideline for society to know right from wrong. Normative is a guideline for all to use common sense and the morals that they were raised with to exemplify good behavior. However because of the different ways children are raised, environments and role models are not all the same, we cannot just have a society without those perimeters. Some parents raise their children to believe that if someone hurts you hurt them back. Can you imagine if we all took the law into our own hands and acted out our aggressions and not had laws plaid out for us? I do believe though that some laws are put into place without strong consideration for the victims. I personally feel I was a victim of the laws as well because I was a victim of an abusive husband and when I called the law to protect me, I had to grab a couple of things and leave because they couldn't guarantee my safety once he got out of jail for the night. I do my best to abide by the law but I feel at times some people just get a slap on the hand and walk away. What is really acceptable? Statistics show the data but that is a collection of facts in one form. I personally would have opened up more to a victim survey because I felt the law judged me negatively for going back into the abusive environment because I tried to make my marriage work.Bell003
ReplyDeleteI agree it would be hard to determine what Society views as right or wrong based off are different experiences. However I think if we came together as a people every decade or so to talk about it and decide what we thought what was right or wrong or which law should change we would be able to come to an agreement on something. I think that is necessary so that we're able to allow society's laws to reflect society's views.
DeleteHis legal perspective of crime sounds like the consensus model of crime while the normative sounds more like the conflict model of crime. Like he stated there are flaws in both. However I do think that both are necessary. I think that the main thing that is great about the consensus model is that it allows us to punish people for the things that everyone agrees upon. The problem with this model is that it allows our criminal justice system to push people through it and like an assembly line. I don't think it allows judges enough discretion. The consensus model is good to me because it allows laws to change with society’s view. In the video he said it but he made it seem like it was a bad thing. The only thing that’s guaranteed in life is change. I think that our laws should always reflect that change. The problem with this model is that it allows the people in power to make the laws. With that being said basically I make a tough world for the people without power and the wonderful world for those in power. EGM003
ReplyDeleteA crime is when someone does something against law. Yes, but little crimes like 1/2 ounce of marijuana shouldn't be a crime. People shouldn't be penalized for such little, especially when it's now legal in some states. A lot of crimes are petty; If I was to pee outside or jaywalk I can get a ticket if I get caught. Crimes that should put you behind jail are crimes like: Robbery, murder, guns etc.. Laws change over time, right? If laws change over time and someone broke the law that was acted as a crime would it still be a crime now that the law is changed? If not, why are they still behind bars? There are honestly a lot of unnecessary laws. There should be more laws that has to do with the earth. Laws like toxic waste into the river shall be prohibited, which is something I remember Dr. White discussing in class. A man dumps toxic waste into the river, but he is not thought of as a criminal and his insurance pays for a fee IF he's caught.. That's just unfair. In my opinion laws are made to be unfair and meant to break.
ReplyDeleteKodak003
Crime can be illegal acts or something against the social norm. For example, marijuana becoming legal was against the law and social norm at first, but the economic boom that has come along with it has juristically changed the way people view it and its use. It has changed the very norm of society. People are willing to make it legal to make a stronger economy to live in. Crime it that way is shown that something could be illegal but if enough people back it, it could be shown that the illegal act could be proven not so bad after all.
ReplyDeleteCrime can be illegal acts or something against the social norm. For example, marijuana becoming legal was against the law and social norm at first, but the economic boom that has come along with it has juristically changed the way people view it and its use. It has changed the very norm of society. People are willing to make it legal to make a stronger economy to live in. Crime it that way is shown that something could be illegal but if enough people back it, it could be shown that the illegal act could be proven not so bad after all. USA003
ReplyDelete