Introduction
This essay explores how the social constructionist and ideological views of crime serve as critiques of the legal definition of crime within the field of criminology. The legal definition typically frames crime as a breach of laws established by the state, focusing on acts that are formally prohibited and punishable. However, alternative perspectives challenge this narrow conceptualisation by highlighting the subjective, cultural, and power-driven dimensions of what constitutes criminal behaviour. This discussion will first outline the legal definition of crime, then examine the social constructionist view, which argues crime is a product of societal norms, and the ideological view, which posits crime as shaped by dominant power structures. By critically analysing these perspectives, the essay aims to demonstrate their role in exposing limitations in the legal framework.
The Legal Definition of Crime and Its Limitations
The legal definition of crime is rooted in statutory law, where acts are deemed criminal if they violate rules codified by the state, often resulting in prosecution and punishment. This approach prioritises objectively identifiable breaches, such as theft or assault, as outlined in frameworks like the UK’s Theft Act 1968. However, this perspective assumes universality and impartiality, overlooking how laws may reflect specific societal values or interests. Critics argue that the legal definition fails to account for contextual factors, including who defines criminality and why certain behaviours are targeted over others. This limitation opens the door for alternative theories, such as social constructionism and ideological perspectives, to question the rigidity and neutrality of legal categorisations.
Social Constructionist View as a Critique
The social constructionist view posits that crime is not an inherent or objective trait of certain acts but rather a label applied through social processes. According to this perspective, what is considered criminal varies across cultures, historical periods, and communities, shaped by collective norms and values (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). For instance, behaviours like homosexuality were historically criminalised in the UK under laws such as the Labouchere Amendment of 1885 but have since been decriminalised, illustrating how societal attitudes influence legal definitions. Social constructionists argue that the legal framework often ignores these fluid, subjective dimensions, presenting crime as a fixed category. Furthermore, this view critiques the legal definition for potentially stigmatising marginalised groups whose behaviours are labelled deviant due to prevailing social biases rather than any intrinsic harm. Such insights challenge the notion that legality equates to morality or justice, exposing a gap in the legal perspective’s universality.
Ideological View and Power Dynamics
The ideological view of crime, often aligned with Marxist or critical criminology, asserts that definitions of crime are shaped by power structures and serve the interests of dominant groups. Scholars like Quinney (1970) argue that laws are tools of control, designed to protect the economic and social order upheld by the ruling class. For example, in the UK, vagrancy laws historically targeted the poor, criminalising poverty rather than addressing systemic inequality. This perspective critiques the legal definition for its apparent neutrality, suggesting that it masks underlying biases by framing state-enforced norms as objective truths. Instead, ideological theorists highlight how crimes of the powerful, such as corporate fraud, are often under-policed compared to street crimes, reflecting class-based priorities in law enforcement (Pearce, 1976). Thus, the ideological view undermines the legal definition by revealing how it can perpetuate inequality rather than deliver impartial justice.
Conclusion
In summary, both the social constructionist and ideological views of crime offer substantial critiques of the legal definition by exposing its limitations and biases. Social constructionism reveals that crime is a fluid, socially determined concept rather than a static truth, while the ideological perspective uncovers how legal definitions often serve the interests of powerful groups, marginalising others in the process. Together, these views challenge the legal framework’s claim to objectivity and universality, urging criminologists to consider broader social, cultural, and political contexts. Indeed, these critiques have significant implications, encouraging reforms to address systemic inequities and prompting deeper reflection on what constitutes criminality in a just society. Ultimately, they remind us that the legal definition, while practical, is arguably incomplete without accounting for the dynamic and power-laden nature of crime.
References
- Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
- Pearce, F. (1976) Crimes of the Powerful: Marxism, Crime and Deviance. London: Pluto Press.
- Quinney, R. (1970) The Social Reality of Crime. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
