Free Essays on Durkheim And Crime

For this paper I chose to write about Durkheim’s â€Å"The Normality of Crime† and his overall views on crime and deviance. I agree with his view that crime is a normal part of society, and that only too little or too much is undesirable. A certain amount of crime is in fact good for society, reinforcing the bonds between the general law abiding public. His theory is that the right level of crime would create interaction between the general public leading to solutions to problems; too little crime would see the end of this interaction and the stagnation of society, too much crime would lead to anomie, the loss of shared and dominant guiding principles or normalness. He recognizes crime as being important to the well-being of society and proposes that challenges to established moral and legal laws (deviance and crime, respectively) act to bring together those that were not in opposition to the laws. Recognition and punishment of crimes is, in effect, the very reaffirmation of the laws and moral boundaries of a society. The existence of laws and the strength of the laws are upheld by members of a society when violations are recognized, discussed, and dealt with either by legal punishment (jail, fines, execution) or by social punishment (shame, exile). Durkheim proposed that crime and deviance bring people in a society together. When a law is violated, especially within small communities, everyone talks about it. Meetings are sometimes held, articles are written for local news publications, and in general, a social community rises with activity when a norm is broken. As is most often the case, a violation pushes the non-violators (society as a whole) to cling together in opposition to the violation, reaffirming that society's bond and its obedience to certain norms. There is always evidence of this on the news. On numerous occasions I have seen communities come together because of a murder or kidnapping; lighting candles, having ... Free Essays on Durkheim And Crime Free Essays on Durkheim And Crime For this paper I chose to write about Durkheim’s â€Å"The Normality of Crime† and his overall views on crime and deviance. I agree with his view that crime is a normal part of society, and that only too little or too much is undesirable. A certain amount of crime is in fact good for society, reinforcing the bonds between the general law abiding public. His theory is that the right level of crime would create interaction between the general public leading to solutions to problems; too little crime would see the end of this interaction and the stagnation of society, too much crime would lead to anomie, the loss of shared and dominant guiding principles or normalness. He recognizes crime as being important to the well-being of society and proposes that challenges to established moral and legal laws (deviance and crime, respectively) act to bring together those that were not in opposition to the laws. Recognition and punishment of crimes is, in effect, the very reaffirmation of the laws and moral boundaries of a society. The existence of laws and the strength of the laws are upheld by members of a society when violations are recognized, discussed, and dealt with either by legal punishment (jail, fines, execution) or by social punishment (shame, exile). Durkheim proposed that crime and deviance bring people in a society together. When a law is violated, especially within small communities, everyone talks about it. Meetings are sometimes held, articles are written for local news publications, and in general, a social community rises with activity when a norm is broken. As is most often the case, a violation pushes the non-violators (society as a whole) to cling together in opposition to the violation, reaffirming that society's bond and its obedience to certain norms. There is always evidence of this on the news. On numerous occasions I have seen communities come together because of a murder or kidnapping; lighting candles, having ...

The History of the First Amendment

The History of the First Amendment The first, and most well-known amendment of the constitution reads:   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This means that: The U.S. government cannot mandate a certain religion for all its citizens. U.S. citizens  have the right to choose what faith we want to follow.The U.S. government cannot subject its citizens to rules and laws that prohibit them from speaking our minds.The press can print and circulate the news without fear of reprisal, even if that news is less than favorable regarding our country or government.U.S. citizens  have the right to gather toward common goals and interests without interference from the government or the authorities.U.S. Citizens can petition the government to suggest changes and voice concerns.   James Madison and the First Amendment In 1789, James Madison - nicknamed the father of the Constitution - proposed 12 amendments that ultimately became the 10 amendments that make up the U.S. Bill of Rights. Madison was unquestionably the person who wrote the First Amendment in this respect.  But this doesnt mean he was the one who came up with the idea. Several factors complicate his status as an author: Madison initially stood by the unamended Constitution, viewing the Bill of Rights as unnecessary because he did not believe that the federal government would ever become powerful enough to need one.Madisons mentor Thomas Jefferson was ultimately the person who convinced him to change his mind and propose a Bill of Rights. The freedoms described in the First Amendment – separation of church and state, religious free exercise, and the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition – were of particular concern to Jefferson.Jefferson himself was inspired by the work of European Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke and Cesare Beccaria.The language of the First Amendment was inspired by similar free speech protections written into various state constitutions. While Madison unquestionably wrote the First Amendment, it would be a bit of a stretch to suggest that it was solely his idea or to give him the entire credit for it. His model for a constitutional amendment protecting free expression and freedom of conscience wasnt particularly original and its purpose was merely to honor his mentor. If there is anything outstanding about James Madisons role in the creation of the amendment it was that someone of his position was able to  stand up and call for these protections to be permanently written into the U.S. Constitution.