Myths and Reality of Crime
Sociology 305 - Crime and Society
June 4, 2013

Myths and Reality of Crime

Crime and its definitions vary across time and space. Shaped the cultural values and ideas, norms and practices of the society in question and the political sphere’s interpretation of such, one society’s definition of crime may be incongruent with another (Morrison, 2009). Not surprisingly then crimes, as perceived by society members significantly differ from that of officials. In fact, these differences are portrayed in the mainstream media and serve as main components of popular television shows like Law and Order, Criminal Intent, NCIS, and Burn Notice.

Given the popularity of these shows and their focus on violent criminal acts, these biased media forms appeal to prevailing thought that violent crimes in America are commonplace (Morrison, 2009). By extension, these shows call into question ideas about criminal propensity, the conditions that induce each criminal participation or even vigilant justice (Stark, 1993). However, these television shows fail to highlight the real increase in white collar crimes in scale and incidence and in many ways reinforce the myths of crime and violence (Holtfreter, Van Slyke, Bratton, & Gertz, 2008).

Defining Crime through Myth and Pseudoscience

Without question the notions of crime, of one’s inclination to commit such and the avenues for redress within American Society have changed dramatically since America’s beginning (Morrison, 2009; Holtfreter, et al, 2008). As evidence by many now defunct laws on books and the punishments for such as death for stealing chickens or miscegenation, society’s acceptations inform the constructs of crime. They also give rise to the classification of such and/or the appropriate punishment (Stalans, 1993). Yet, this system is far from perfect. On must only look to the Salem witch trials to realize how myth and reality can quickly become blurred. As Blunberg (2007) reveals, more than 200 people were accused of witchcraft in Salem between 1692 and 1693. This was partially induced by the economic conditions in Salem, the rivalries between families, and the arrival of pastor who disliked greed and was particularly rigid in this regard. Blumberg (2007), states this proved fertile ground for the Puritans to blame the Devil for this discord. It also coauthored the now infamous witch hunts and charges that people could control others through witchcraft or mind control.

Arguably, paranoia and the close ties within the community granted impetus to the witch hunts. It exponentially increased the need to identify those with such abnormally or extraordinary abilities. Unwilling to examine the internal and external societal conditions that engendered quarreling, rivalry, and discontent in Salem, the members turned outward. Of course, these members lacked scientific knowledge about many aspects of life including the effects of certain foods and agriculture practices (Blumberg, 2007). They used a strict dichotomy between God and the Devil and extension thereof to discern one’s intent and the quality of one’s actions. Yet, this scenario and its turn of events demonstrated how quickly myths can color reality and perceptions of criminal propensity and guilt.

This scenario manifests in society in various ways through present day. One must only considered the ways persons determine whether a person is trustworthy or whether he/she is a threat. Visible tattoos, certain attire, hairstyles, or ethnicities have all been positively correlated with some criminals. Invariably, persons associated with a gang can exert control over others, much like the witches of the Salem witch trials, but one could also assert the fear or perception of propensity for violence grants these persons power (Stalans, 1993; Stark, 1993). These elements most certainly influence actions, thoughts, and stereotype formation. Therein lays the problem.

As demonstrated through the Salem witch trials scenario, the accused persons were members of the small community, known and recognized by its members. In contrast few of the accused persons in American society today would have such social recognition or social and community ties (Blumberg, 2007). Couple with anomie, stereotypes can and do induce “false choices” based on attitudes, perceptions and even pseudoscience. Like the people of Salem, most Americans fail to examine the conditions within their communities that could be responsible for crime or other grievances. Yet, it is easier to blame the “outsider,” the “misfit,” or the “immigrant” (Lee & Martinez, 2009). After all, these concepts embody, ambiguity, and automatically invoke fear.

Not surprisingly then, most persons in American society would deem anyone of lower socioeconomic status, of racial and ethnic minority status and/or immigrant status much more likely to be guilty of a crime or likely to commit one (Lee & Martinez 2009). Even though several studies have discussed this relative to witness recall and/or as the justification of harsh immigration laws and practices in Arizona, the prevalence of these erroneous practices and beliefs share commonalities with the persons of Salem, Massachusetts in 1692-1693 (Stalans, 1993). These attitudes and practices also parallel Sir Francis Galton’s pseudoscientific study of brain size and propensity for crime and his later pseudoscientific theory---Social Darwinism (Stalans, 1993).

Although the theory has been discredited by numerous scientists and disciplines, Social Darwinism still exerts influence over statutes, crime, and punishment. Whereas criminal acts such as violence or property damage do harm people, white collar crime harms far more people ad yields far greater damage (Holtfreter, et al, 2008). It is most certainly contributes to the conditions within socioeconomically challenged communities, increases marginalization and in characteristics associated with the top five percent of America (Holtfreter, et al, 2008; Stalans, 1993). Accordingly, they are “white,” educated and affluent. Therefore, the punishment for embezzlements or tax evasion, etc., is far less stringent than those rendered for assault, battery or even possession of a small amount of marijuana. This is the paradox. Obviously then, few persons would consider the affluent, successful business men or family man as the most probable suspect. Even in criminal cases such persons would not be perceived in the same light as someone living in poverty, or of racial ethnic, or immigrant status would be (Stalans, 1993); Lee & Martinez, 2009). Even if the cases were presented side by side, the juries would be much more likely to deliver a “guilty” verdict in the case of the latter accused.

Conclusion

Given the previous exploration of societal conditions, the interaction between norms, practices, attitudes, values, and the political sphere, the parameters associated with crime and criminal acts doe’s change over time. Most certainly, exerting control over someone else’s mind or perception thereof would not incite the witch hunts of Salem in today’s society. Unless such charges were proven or otherwise demonstrated through some technology, such charges would never reach the courts or engage society in totality. However, people choose stereotypical views consciously when discerning a person’s criminal propensity, values, and trustworthiness. This has been proven through courts proceedings, witness accounts, and various population surveys.
Nonetheless, pseudoscientific beliefs, personal attitudes, life experiences, and societal norms and practices continue to shape the definitions of “crime,” of its seriousness or a person’s responsibility for such actions. Unlike previous eras, legislative statutes, those determining the gravity of such crimes and their mandatory sentences often reflect the norms, values, and perceptions of the top five percent of society. Protecting itself from a witch hunt, per se, legislators deem those most like themselves less criminally responsible.

References

Blumberg, J. (2007, October 24). A Brief History of the Salem Witch Trials/History & Archaeology/Smithsonian Magazine, History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places. Retrieved from Smithsonian Magazine : http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/brief-salem.html
Holtfreter, K. V. (2008). Public perceptions of white-collar crime and punishment. Journal of Crimial Justice , 50-60. Retrieved from Journal of Criminal Justice (36,) 50-60.
Lee, M. T. (2009). Immigration reduces crime:An emerging scholarly consensus. Sociology of Crime Law ad Deviance, 3-16. Retrieved from Sociology of Crime Law and Deviance.
Morrison, W. (2009). What is Crime? Contrastig definitions and perspectives . Retrieved from Crimiology : http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199227297
TV, S. C. (2010). Crimes of the powerful [Video]. Retrieved from In crime and deviance:A sociological Inquiry: http://digital.films.com/OnDemandEmbed.aspx?toke=47476&aid
Yale, K. a. (1986, June). The Mirada Case, 20 years later. Retrieved from New York Times: ProQuest Database