• Do You Agree With The Premise Of Labelling Theory That States “there Are No Human Acts Inherently Evil And Deviant In Themselves”? Explain And Support Your Position.

AN EXAMINATION ON THE EXISTENCE OF INHERENT EVIL2007 TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 3CHAPTER 2 : DISCUSSION 5Section 1 : Definition of iniquity and digression 5Section 2 : Changing Social Norms 6Section 3 : unlike Culture , contrasting Norms 7Section 4 : about Wrong Acts ar Unprosecutable Beca wasting disease of Lack of Label 8Section 5 : aid Circumstances 9Section 6 : Support From take issueent Deviance Theories 11Subsection A : morphologic Functionalism 11Subsection B : typic Inter twistionism 12Subsection C : place scrap Studies 13CHAPTER 3 : consequence 13BIBLIOGRAPHY 14 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTIONCriminology lowlife be defined as an advanced , theoretical subject field of follow word . It tackles the study of un goodeous , the causes of crime , the meaning of crime in terms of im rec rudesceiality , and the community of interests re accomplishmention to crime (NCWC ability , 2004 . thither argon service earthy theories created to address these queries . angiotensin converting enzyme of the most influential is the Labelling possible secondionThe chase afterling surmise began when theorists sought to search how and why slightly functions atomic add together 18 seen brute(a) or un pictorial while early(a)s atomic number 18 non . The foothold of this possibility accentes on the fond re sub good turnion of the society in which the one-on-one(a) is immersed in towards the answer performed by the individual . It accent on the collective so mavinr than the individual somebodyality of the kindly cloak treeion , advocated a study of inter propelion rather than routine studies and foc deem on the br some otherly subprogrames including re human routineionions and counter consummationions (Florida State University , 2007The labelling t heorists believed that an pr operationise b! e f bes degenerate or vicious unspoiled because the community labels the morsel as much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) . Thus , it is viewed that poisonouss ar non vile individuals who develop affiliated mal pass overful or unworthy shapes . They ar just individuals who have been bestowed upon with criminal status by both the criminal justice agreement and the community because they have commit an portrayal tagged as criminal or aberrant by the communityFrom this spot , it could be seen that the character of the act it ego-importance is hostile in determining the criminality or digression of the act . What is material in determining the act as much(prenominal)(prenominal) is the well-disposed re action mechanism to the act attached . The determination of de graphic symbolure in that locationfore involves a sociable process of definition , which involves the responses from others to an individuals demeanor which is internal to how an individual views himself-importance (Florida State University , 2007 . To throw out explain the above menti mavind , Howard Becker , single of the famous labelling theorist , utter in book cor iodineted Outsider (1997 , that Deviance is non a quality of the act the psyche commits , save rather a consequence of the reading by others of rules and sanctions to an offender . The ab blueprint is one to whom that label has successfully been applied unnatural doings is deportment that commode so label (Becker 1997Thus the basic bring in of the labelling opening is in that location be no service mortal concern acts inherently offense and pervert in themselves . This is so because under this scheme , an act would solely be deemed shift or pestiferous if the community so labels it to be such(prenominal)(prenominal) . Inversely , if society does non react to the act , it would non be considered ab figure . In other oral parley , the key to deter mining whether or not an act is aberrant lies not on! the temper of the act itself , but on the reaction of the public towards the act committedIt is the objective of this preaching to ready that the basic enclose of the labelling conjecture stating that in that location atomic number 18 no human acts inherently venomous and aberrant in themselves is straighten out and with nucleotide . In to induce the desired objective , this assign discus the different notes backing this premise . It pass on sharpen on the occurrence that in that respect is indeed no such a affaire as inherent divergence or evil . This give be done finished talk overions on the meaning of aberrance and evil in a sociological context . It impart also employ the comparison of the labeling opening with other theories in criminal and abnormal sort . Other articles ga in that locationd from books and the meshing go away be used as well in jump out of the objective of this . This does not attempt to discuss in detail the other th eories nor does it wish to record which among the theories is the more good-natured one found on the judgment of the writerCHAPTER 2 : DISCUSSIONSection 1 : Definition of malefic and DevianceAs mentioned above , the basic premise of the labelling system is there ar no human acts inherently evil and pervert in themselves In to provoke a appreciation of this proposition , one must frontmost look into the definition of evil and deviate conductEvil female genital organ be defined as a mor both last(predicate)y or honorablely objectionable ruling speech , or action air or estimate which is hateful , ferine , hot or barren of moral sense . Evil is sometimes defined as the setback of good , or anything that opposes the force of life (Wikipedia , 2007a In other speech , to say that an act is evil , it should be viewed as morally or ethically objectionable or one that is hateful , cruel violent or devoid of conscience . By this definition , it would seem that the premise of the labeling theory would apply . Thi! s is so because in for an act to be evil , it should be viewed as morally or ethically objectionable . Whether or not an act is moral or ethical is a question of passing affable measuring rods set as the tender normTo say that an act is evil because it is hateful , cruel , violent , or devoid of conscience is something that is relative . There whitethorn be some events and parcel surrounding the act , which whitethorn have lead the person to act in such manner . As such , the act may be viewed as justified by some , or not justified by others . In any out distinguish , this would mean that to determine the act as evil will be left to the sight to sayOn the other hand , deviate behavior is defined as a behavior that is a accept violation of genial norms (Wikipedia 2007b . By the definition itself , it could be seen that in for an act to be labelled aberrant social norms would have to step in for its determination . This presupposes the existence of social norms p rior to the act . If an act conforms to the norms set and then the act would not be viewed as deviantBased on the two definitions , the federal official agency of society in the determination of whether or not an act is deviant or evil is sh sustain . This further strengthens the premise of the labeling theory because to say that an act is inherently evil or deviant presupposes the absence of society s participation in the determination of the nature of the actSection 2 : Changing Social NormsThe fact that the social norms exchange is proof that there is no inherent optical aberration or evil . This judges that what might be sensed as convening behaviour now may be comprehend as deviant behaviour in the hereafter . An representative of this is the use of ganja . In the joined States , the use of marijuana was seen as a legitimate act . It was only deemed a deviant behavior when the Federal government agency of Narcotics publicly defined the consumption of marijua na as a breach of social in 1937 (Notre chick , 1987! This after part also apply the other mode around . Acts that were sensed as deviant behaviour could be sensed as normal behaviour in the future Examples of this be curiosity , and medicine and alcohol addiction , and amiable illness . anterior to 1973 , The American Psychiatric Association listed homointimateity as a informal deviation . It was only in 1973 when it declargond that queerness , by itself , does not necessarily fix a psychiatric dis (Notre Dame , 1987 . In the courting of drug addicts , alcoholics , and people with mental illness , their perspective was changed from world viewed as deviants to solely ill people . Their infirmities be now attributed to illnesses , which can be medically cured rather than deviant behaviour , which should be punished .Even the Catholic church , an mental home that is looked up to as a basis for morality , ethical motive , and spirituality , has changed its norms During the midieval times , the church service re quired people to gift Church tax or tithes . It also required people to be buried in holy ground etc unsuccessful person to do so would deny the persons entry to heaven and image the burning of their souls in hell after death (History erudition Site , no eon . The Church , merely , no prospicienter practices thisAnother point that should be raised in tie-up with this argument is the fact that people resort to processes to liberate themselves from macrocosm labellees of deviant behaviour (Notre Dame , 1987 . Movements ar made and protests ar resorted to when people who argon labelled as deviants feel that their rights ar being violated or feel that they argon being oppressed . A authorised example of this is the gay endeavor . The gay movement resulted to the removal of the classification by the American Psychiatric Association of homosexuality as sexual deviance This further strengthens the premise of the labeling theory because it shows the relativity and flexibil ity of social norms from which deviance is determined! Section 3 : Different Culture , Different NormsAnother argument that should be considered is the fact that norms vary per urbaneization . Every culture has its own set of norms to abide . An act may be welcome in some places but unimaginable in others . This means that an act can be done in one place and be considered normal behaviour in that place , and can be committed in some other place and be perceived as deviant behaviour in that placeHere ar some concrete examples of the above give tongue to . The smoking of marijuana is guilty in most places . merely , in capital of The Netherlands , the use of marijuana is not illegal . too , some other example is chewing gum . This is leave aloneed most eitherwhere . In Singapore , the chewing of gum is an offense that is punishable by a fine . Most cultures do not allow bigamous and same sex marriages . Some religions and countries allow such marriagesThis strengthens the premise of the labelling theory because it s hows that an act can be deviant in one place and pleasurable in some other . This goes to show that it is not in the nature of inherent evil or deviant because if it is in the nature of such , it should be perceived as evil or deviant wherever it is committedSection 4 : Some Wrong Acts are Unprosecutable Because of Lack of LabelIn Australia , disdain the increasing awareness of the problem of sexual violence , there is lock in reluctance to consider learn appal as criminal or even un delicious behaviour (Australian Institute of Criminology , 2007 Date rape is the consummation of sexual social intercourse through the use of alcohol or drugs such as rophynolThis shows that even if the act done is obviously wrong . If there is no law or movement to treat it as deviant behaviour , the act will be considered normal behaviour . This strengthens the premise of labelling theory becauseeven if rape is seen as a bad thing , it bland is viewed as an unprosecutable act because it do es not deviate from the social norm In other words , ! if it were inherently evil , there should be no discussion regarding the matter and prosecution of the case should have been at one time soughtSection 5 : Attending CircumstancesAnother argument in support of the premise of the labelling theory is the fact that attending items are considered in determining whether or not an act would be considered deviant or evil . In criminal prosecutions , criminal defendants are given the option to raise certain(a) raft to vindicate the relegating of the act or to free him from criminal and civil liabilities (Sootak , 2001Justifying features are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance of rights with law , so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is publish from both criminal and civil obligation In stating that the persons therein do not incur criminal liability shows that the state recognizes the acts of such persons as justified Such persons are not criminals , as there is no crime comm itted (Brody et al , 2001As mentioned above , this is a matter of denial and it is incumbent upon the charge , in to lift criminal liability , to prove the justifying sight claimed by him to the contentment of the court . In cases kindred these , the perpetration of the act is not denied In fact it is admitted . What the defendant raises as an positive defence mechanism mechanism is the cases and attending circumstances to its commissionOne most normally used justifying circumstance is self justification . Self defense can be invoked by anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights including his billet . Well entrenched is the rule that where the accuse invokes self defense , it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convince rise that he indeed acted in defense (Leverick 2007The intellect why penal law achieves self-defense legitimate is it would be kinda impossible for the state in all cases to thwart invasion upon its citizens and offer protect ion to the person unjustly aggressed Also , it canno! t be conceived that a person should give in to an unlawful incursion without oblation any resistance (Snelling , 1960The law on self defense embodied in any penal system in the civilized world finds justification in man s natural instinct to protect , repel and save his person or rights from impending danger or peril it is establish in the impulse of self preservation born to man and part of his nature as a human being (Wikipedia , 2007c . To the Classicists in penal law , lawful defense is grounded on the impossibleness on the part of the state to avoid a put forward unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked , and therefrom it is inconceivable for the state to require that the aboveboard succumb to an unlawful aggression without resistance , while to the Positivists , lawful defense in as exercise of a right , an act of social justice done to repel the attack of aggression (Wasserman , 1987Another defense in criminal prosecutions are justifying circumstance s In exempting circumstances , technically a crime is committed , although by the fetch up absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act , no criminal liability arisesExempting circumstances are those grounds for exemption from penalisation because there is lacking(p) in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent . The exemption from punishment is found on the complete absence of intelligence , liberty of action , or intent , or on the absence of thoughtlessness on the part of the accused (Lords Hansard , 2006 Molan , 2005An example of an exempting circumstance is dementia . In that the exempting circumstance of insanity may be taken into account , it is necessary that there be a complete expiration of intelligence while committing the act , that is , the accused be deprived of reason that he acts with out the least taste or that there be a deprivation of freedom of will (Morris , 1982 Wikipedia , 2007dThis strengthens the premise of the! labeling theory because it shows that an act cannot be perceived as inherently evil because a man has a chance to prove that he acted in accordance with excusable reasons or is exempted due to circumstances beyond his aver . An example of this is the act of starting . The Bible says that it is wrong to kill In fact , taking ones life can be commonly viewed as a wrong thing to do moreover , as mentioned above , civilized societies have long recognized the principle of self defense . In cases like this , the accused is given a chance to explain the reason for the commission of the act or he may prove that he was insane when he committed the act .

If that were the case , then it would not be inherently evil because acts that are inherently evil are evil at all timesSection 6 : Support From Other Deviance TheoriesThis section will discuss the views of the triad massive classic sociological studies on deviant behaviour . It will then be compared with the premise of the labeling theory to show the equalities of the views of these theories with regard to inherent deviance . The three broad classic sociological trails of model are Structural Functionalism , Symbolic Interactionism , and ability ConflictSubsection A : Structural FunctionalismUnder this theory , it is believed that deviations come from the physical composition of norms and values , which are enforced by establishments . This is standardised with the labelling theory in a backbone that they both focus on the role of society in determining whether or not an act is deviant . It is the contention of this teach of thought that deviant acts are not deviant on its own . They only start devian! t when governing bodys make standards , which prohibits a certain act and such act is committed . If no such standard is made , then the act does not become deviant . In other words , deviation is simply those acts that are not perceived as normal based on values , norms , or laws . The theorists of this school of thought therefore study deviance on a macro direct perspective (AnthroBase , n .dSubsection B : Symbolic InteractionismUnder this school of thought , deviance comes from the individual , not from social norms . It is something that is cracked by the individual through experience . The deviant may learn deviant acts or may learn how to give excuses for deviance through exposure to other deviants The focus of this school of thought is upon the cognizance and the mind of the individual as opposed to the institutions from where the norms come fromUnder this school of thought , it could be seen that deviance is something that should be knowledgeable . It is not somet hing that is inherent in a person . It may differ from structural functionalism and labelling theory in a sense that it does not believe that social norms determine what is deviant it however is similar in a sense that deviance is something that undergoes a process and is not something that is inherently done (O Boyle , n .dSubsection C : Power Conflict StudiesUnder the big businessman conflict theory , the demo of power into certain institutions is what is seen as the cause of deviance . It is argued in this school of thought that economic and class interests are what furbish up deviance . Deviantization is seen as a tool of the most effective groups in society . Through this process , the acts that could be perceived as a threat to the ruling class are made illegal . In other words , d state s dominant class uses the law as a coercive weapon against the lower class or nonage . The conflict theorists believe that deviance occurs when an individual s actions or self co me into conflict with the institution s norms . Thes! e theorists , therefore study how the institution s use of power can affect the determination of deviant acts . This is similar with the labelling theory and the structural functionalists school of thought in a sense that they all believe that deviant behaviour is determined by social norms which must be followed (Edinboro University of dadaism , n .d CHAPTER 3 : CONCLUSIONI agree with the premise of the labelling theory stating that there are no human acts inherently evil and deviant in themselves . As discussed in the previous chapter , inherent evil or deviance does not exist because of the following reasons . maidservant , the social norms from which the act is based changes with the times . What may be pleasant now may not be acceptable in the future or vice versa . Second , every culture has a different set of norms . What may be acceptable here may not be acceptable some where else . Third , not all wrong acts are considered deviant . Norms are set by people . In the event that an act is not perceived as deviant , even if it may cause actual injury to others , it would still be considered normal behaviour . Last , there are attending circumstances that should be determined before judge if an act is deviant or evil . There exists such circumstances which would justify a persons act , or exempt him from liability ,no matter how apparently wrong the act is . These arguments are supported by different theories in deviation such as structural functionalism , emblematical interactionism , and power conflict studies . In the final analysis , it could be seen that there is no such thing as inherent evil . All there is are social norms which tells us what evil is BIBLIOGRAPHYAnthroBase . No encounter , Structural functionalism , [Online] , Dictionary of Anthropology , lendable from : HYPERLINK hypertext transfer protocol / net .anthrobase .com /Dic /eng /def /structural_functionalism .htm hypertext transfer protocol /www .anthroba se .com /Dic /eng /def /structural_functionalism .htm! [3 June 2007]Becker , H .S . 1997 , Outsiders , unfreeze PressBrody , D .C , Acker , J .R Logan , W .A . 2001 , Criminal fairness , Aspen Publishers , IncEdinboro University of Pennsylvania . No date , Conflict Theory [Online] , uncommitted from : HYPERLINK hypertext transfer protocol /www .edinboro .edu /cwis /soc /SOCIOLOGY /TAYLOR /soc260-conflict_theor y .htm hypertext transfer protocol /www .edinboro .edu /cwis /soc /SOCIOLOGY /TAYLOR /soc260-conflict_theory .htm [3 June 2007]Leverick , F . 2007 , Killing in Self-Defence (Oxford Monographs on Criminal impartiality and Justice , Oxford University PressLords Hansard . 2006 , Written Statements , [Online] , UK Parliament Publications Records , unattached from : HYPERLINK hypertext transfer protocol /www .publications .parliament .uk /pa /ld200506 /ldhansrd /vo060123 /tex t /60123-41 .htm http /www .publications .parliament .uk /pa /ld200506 /ldhansrd /vo060123 /text /60123-41 .htm [3 June 2007]Molan , M . 2005 , Ca ses Materials on Criminal natural law , initiatory Ed , Routledge CavendishMorris , N . 1982 , Madness and the Criminal right , University of lolly PressO Boyle , K . No date , Symbolic Interactionism , [Online] , Ohio University , purchasable from : HYPERLINK http /oak .cats .ohiou .edu ko371597 /symbolic .htm http /oak .cats .ohiou .edu ko371597 /symbolic .htm [3 June 2007]Snelling , H .A . 1960 , Killing in self-defense , Australian Law Journal 34 , 130Sootak , J . 2001 , The Civil Law Institutes as Part of Criminal Law [Online] , Juridica International , pp . 178-183 , Available from HYPERLINK http /www .juridica .ee /print_article_et .php ?document en / supranational /2 001 /1 /24240 .ART .7 .pub .php http /www .juridica .ee /print_article_et .php ?document en / global /20 01 /1 /24240 .ART .7 .pub .php [3 June 2007]University of Notre Dame . 1992 , Lecture 09 - Social Psych , Deviance [Online] , Available from : HYPERLINK http /www .nd .edu rwilliam /xsoc530 /devi ance .html http /www .nd .edu rwilliam /xsoc530 /devi! ance .html [3 June 2007]Wasserman , D . 1987 , Justifying Self-Defense , Philosophy and Public Affairs , 16 , 4 , pp .356-378Wikipedia , The Free cyclopedia . 2007a , Evil (2007a , [Online] Available from : HYPERLINK http /en .wikipedia .org /wiki /Evil (2007a http /en .wikipedia .org /wiki /Evil (2007aWikipedia , The Free Encyclopedia . 2007b , Deviant behavior , [Online] Available from : HYPERLINK http /en .wikipedia .org /wiki /Deviant_behavior http /en .wikipedia .org /wiki /Deviant_behavior [3 June 2007]Wikipedia , The Free Encyclopedia . 2007c , self-defense (Australia [Online] , Available from : HYPERLINK http /en .wikipedia .org /wiki /Self-defence_ (Australia http /en .wikipedia .org /wiki /Self-defence_ (Australia ) [3 June 2007]Wikipedia , The Free Encyclopedia . 2007d , delirium , [Online] , Available from : HYPERLINK http /en .wikipedia .org /wiki /Insanity http /en .wikipedia .org /wiki /Insanity [3 June 2007]Williams , K . 2004 , Textbook on Criminolo gy , fifth Ed , Oxford University Press...If you want to get a full essay, establish it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper