A Suitable Amount Of Crime Analysis

Christie's view is that crime is a socially constructed he argues that crime is a trivial concept, one that is decided as much my society than by law. Thought his book "A Suitable Amount of Crime" he observes the vast differences between countries over what is considered a crime, and how those who carry out acts that are criminal are punished. Christe further argues that crime is a social and cultural creation and is closely bound by people's perceptions of norms and values. In my opinion I agree with Christe I believe that an action becomes crimes through a process of social construction a simple example of the social construction of crime is that a behaviour can be considered a criminal act in one society and not a criminal act in another …show more content…
(2013) book "A Suitable Amount of Crime ". Christe tells of a man from Stockholm who drugged his wife then smothered her with a pillow. The man then wrote to the police and admitted the crime that he had committed. Once the police received the letter they entered the house and found the man’s wife. She had been killed however the body was presented in a perfect condition including a sheet over the face. The women had Alzheimer's and was about to be taken into care, the man and his wife were close stated the family doctor. This story is one of controversy some would say that the man is a murderer, on the contrary, some would say that this was a crime of passion, some would say that this is not a crime at all. The difficulty in deciding if this is a criminal offence is can help to explain what Christe mean by crime is a social construction, as people perceive this act differently and will use their own thoughts and opinions to decide whether it is criminal. This shows the impact that the opinions of people in a society can have over deciding what is and is not criminal, the upbringing of the person as well as any personal views that they may hold will influence the decision …show more content…
One of the authors Henry, S. (2001) argues that "Key elements in determining crime are harm, social agreement and official societal response"(McLaughlin, 2013. Social agreement and official societal response are key factors in determining if an act is criminal, as depending on the nature of the crime it will either repulse the public and cause societal outrage or be deemed as "not too serious" and the offender will be dealt a lighter punishment. Henry goes on to state that "Harm includes the nature, severity, and extent of harm or injury caused and the kinds of victim harmed" (McLaughlin, 2013). The final words being the "kinds of victims" harmed continue to support the theory of social construction as if a pensioner is the victim of a crime especially if horrific, the public will demand the highest punishment for the offender. The elderly are seen as frail and depicted as innocent and unable to "fight back". Controversy arises when an elderly person is the offender in a crime such as the famous case of Dr Harold Shipman who murdered over 250 people who were under his care. As state in the article "Not by error but design" (Smith, 2016) "The case of Harold Shipman sent shock waves of revulsion and disbelief though UK society and through the NHS. The notion that a doctor could repeatedly, systematically and callously murder patients in his care shattered the assumptions that many held