JUS 815 DB 3_Sutherland versus Sheldon
Middle Twentieth Century criminology influencers Edwin H. Sutherland and William H. Sheldon both continued or advanced ideas of earlier pioneers in the field. Sheldon advanced Lombroso’s theories reasoning using methods he that learned from his father as a studier of birds, which he applied as a studier of human behavior. Edwin Sutherland was on the other hand, thought of as a contemporary criminologist in comparison to Sheldon who did not overtly focus on criminology. Sutherland left little ambiguity in his critique of Sheldon, referring to Sheldon’s work as “crap” (Mutchnick et al., 1990, p. 140). Much like Mutchnick et al., (1990) the writer finds difficulty in ascertaining the overall significance …show more content…
122). Sheldon sought to study the connection between biological evolutionary consciousness and its relationship to religion to foster and enhance human survival through the premise that mind, body, and spirit are one and they are inseparable (Mutchinick et al., 1990). In a sense, Sheldon’s premise closely mirrors the theme in Trinity Doctrine of Christianity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). In Sheldon’s mind according to the authors, any change to one element results in the domino effect of change to the other elements. From an environmental sense, Sheldon seems sensible peripherally as changes in elements of the environment impact other areas, however it is the writer’s contention such a theory where religion and spirit are linked leaves considerable room for criticism as spirituality is ill-defined in terms of interconnectedness to criminality in any sort of concrete, definitive way. His writing seemingly relates to Durkheim and Robert Park, yet he did not acknowledge either as early influences of his work.
Sheldon, not unlike his father, often utilized meticulous direct observation study as the basis for his theoretical beliefs. Critiques of him often recognized him as rather inflexible and one-dimensional. Despite this critique, he still garnered an ample following for his coding and typing classification of 343 …show more content…
While the writer believes this to be the case for Sutherland, the writer also sees his writings using this understanding as a bit utilitarian, and thus criticism of his inability to adequately conceptualize his theories on criminal behavior are well deserved. He clearly felt structure inhibited criminological thinking and this allowed him freedom to push boundaries within the field when considering human behaviors and how society defines them as criminal or noncriminal. This begs the question of when criminality and behavior have zero defining structural integrity, how may we define any behaviors as criminal when such definition does not exist. Furthermore, Sutherland was anti-positivist and preferred to not succumb to flawed statistical data and
Middle Twentieth Century criminology influencers Edwin H. Sutherland and William H. Sheldon both continued or advanced ideas of earlier pioneers in the field. Sheldon advanced Lombroso’s theories reasoning using methods he that learned from his father as a studier of birds, which he applied as a studier of human behavior. Edwin Sutherland was on the other hand, thought of as a contemporary criminologist in comparison to Sheldon who did not overtly focus on criminology. Sutherland left little ambiguity in his critique of Sheldon, referring to Sheldon’s work as “crap” (Mutchnick et al., 1990, p. 140). Much like Mutchnick et al., (1990) the writer finds difficulty in ascertaining the overall significance …show more content…
122). Sheldon sought to study the connection between biological evolutionary consciousness and its relationship to religion to foster and enhance human survival through the premise that mind, body, and spirit are one and they are inseparable (Mutchinick et al., 1990). In a sense, Sheldon’s premise closely mirrors the theme in Trinity Doctrine of Christianity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). In Sheldon’s mind according to the authors, any change to one element results in the domino effect of change to the other elements. From an environmental sense, Sheldon seems sensible peripherally as changes in elements of the environment impact other areas, however it is the writer’s contention such a theory where religion and spirit are linked leaves considerable room for criticism as spirituality is ill-defined in terms of interconnectedness to criminality in any sort of concrete, definitive way. His writing seemingly relates to Durkheim and Robert Park, yet he did not acknowledge either as early influences of his work.
Sheldon, not unlike his father, often utilized meticulous direct observation study as the basis for his theoretical beliefs. Critiques of him often recognized him as rather inflexible and one-dimensional. Despite this critique, he still garnered an ample following for his coding and typing classification of 343 …show more content…
While the writer believes this to be the case for Sutherland, the writer also sees his writings using this understanding as a bit utilitarian, and thus criticism of his inability to adequately conceptualize his theories on criminal behavior are well deserved. He clearly felt structure inhibited criminological thinking and this allowed him freedom to push boundaries within the field when considering human behaviors and how society defines them as criminal or noncriminal. This begs the question of when criminality and behavior have zero defining structural integrity, how may we define any behaviors as criminal when such definition does not exist. Furthermore, Sutherland was anti-positivist and preferred to not succumb to flawed statistical data and