Philosophy
I've been working through Emile Durkheim's classic The Rules of Sociological Method and in one section he works to draw a line between types of acts that are normal and those that are pathological. I don't want to discuss the criterion, but as an example in the section he argues that crime is normal. Not only is it present in all societies, but he argues, it needs to be -- both because it serves a positive function and because it follows from the nature of social structures that there must be crime.
Crime, he argues, is deviance from socially expected norms that are initially culturally enforced through shame and ostracism, but eventually become encoded into law and formally enforced. But while society has formal and informal mechanisms to enforce uniformity, social change requires people who challenge the norms. Durkheim follows a path analogous to Darwin in saying that individuals will have random mutations that will cause them to be different, to act differently, and some of the changes are selected for and are social progress, while others are selected against and are crimes that the society needs to punish to maintain its integrity. Trying and punishing criminals provides opportunities to reflect on what makes something a crime and either strengthens the norm because it is seen as necessary for the social order or gets weaker because it is seen as arbitrary, capricious, and unnecessarily limiting. While individual crimes may be harmful to the society, crime as a general phenomenon is a challenging of the social order and needed for advancement.
The Utopian dream of a culture without crime is not only undesirable, but impossible. If a society were to eliminate everything it considered criminal activity at a given time, then it would not only have a stultifying degree of conformity, but it would take minor differences from the norm, differences that could previously be accepted and ignored, and turn them into crimes further crushing opportunities for progress and human freedom and growth.
Is this right? Is there a difference between criminal behavior and harmless weirdness? Would we outlaw weirdness if we got rid of more serious crimes? Is crime really something socially healthy? Couldn't we have a happier, freer society without crime?
- To Kill A Mockingbiord And Cultural Relativism
This is the 50th anniversary of the publication of To Kill a Mockingbird, one of the most important American literary works of the last century. A magnificent piece on many levels, one of the most important philosophical elements is the way it undermines...
- The Purpose Of Punishment
Interesting conversation going on at Lawyers, Guns, and Money. It came from a Roman Polanski thread wherein some commenters argued that he should not be prosecuted because convicting and sentencing Polanski (i) holds no deterrence effect for the community...
- What Is Genocide?
Sat in on a colleagues class yesterday and they were working on a piece by psychologist David Moshman called "Us and Them: Identity and Genocide" where Moshman argues that the traditional definition of genocide is too broad in that it only looks at the...
- Full Moon And Crime
Othello: It is the very error of the moon; She comes more near the earth than she was wont, And makes men mad. Othello, the Moor of Venice Act V Scene II Line 133 to 135 "Full moon eclipsed as accessory to crime" by Dan Vergano July 11th, 2010...
- Punishment Scale
This is still primitive...demanding revenge [punishment] for a specific order of crimes. I suppose that this will be forever a part of humanity but it would utopian to assume that it would ever reach the human status of crime in the era of Star Trek:...
Philosophy
Is Crime Healthy?
I've been working through Emile Durkheim's classic The Rules of Sociological Method and in one section he works to draw a line between types of acts that are normal and those that are pathological. I don't want to discuss the criterion, but as an example in the section he argues that crime is normal. Not only is it present in all societies, but he argues, it needs to be -- both because it serves a positive function and because it follows from the nature of social structures that there must be crime.
Crime, he argues, is deviance from socially expected norms that are initially culturally enforced through shame and ostracism, but eventually become encoded into law and formally enforced. But while society has formal and informal mechanisms to enforce uniformity, social change requires people who challenge the norms. Durkheim follows a path analogous to Darwin in saying that individuals will have random mutations that will cause them to be different, to act differently, and some of the changes are selected for and are social progress, while others are selected against and are crimes that the society needs to punish to maintain its integrity. Trying and punishing criminals provides opportunities to reflect on what makes something a crime and either strengthens the norm because it is seen as necessary for the social order or gets weaker because it is seen as arbitrary, capricious, and unnecessarily limiting. While individual crimes may be harmful to the society, crime as a general phenomenon is a challenging of the social order and needed for advancement.
The Utopian dream of a culture without crime is not only undesirable, but impossible. If a society were to eliminate everything it considered criminal activity at a given time, then it would not only have a stultifying degree of conformity, but it would take minor differences from the norm, differences that could previously be accepted and ignored, and turn them into crimes further crushing opportunities for progress and human freedom and growth.
Is this right? Is there a difference between criminal behavior and harmless weirdness? Would we outlaw weirdness if we got rid of more serious crimes? Is crime really something socially healthy? Couldn't we have a happier, freer society without crime?
- To Kill A Mockingbiord And Cultural Relativism
This is the 50th anniversary of the publication of To Kill a Mockingbird, one of the most important American literary works of the last century. A magnificent piece on many levels, one of the most important philosophical elements is the way it undermines...
- The Purpose Of Punishment
Interesting conversation going on at Lawyers, Guns, and Money. It came from a Roman Polanski thread wherein some commenters argued that he should not be prosecuted because convicting and sentencing Polanski (i) holds no deterrence effect for the community...
- What Is Genocide?
Sat in on a colleagues class yesterday and they were working on a piece by psychologist David Moshman called "Us and Them: Identity and Genocide" where Moshman argues that the traditional definition of genocide is too broad in that it only looks at the...
- Full Moon And Crime
Othello: It is the very error of the moon; She comes more near the earth than she was wont, And makes men mad. Othello, the Moor of Venice Act V Scene II Line 133 to 135 "Full moon eclipsed as accessory to crime" by Dan Vergano July 11th, 2010...
- Punishment Scale
This is still primitive...demanding revenge [punishment] for a specific order of crimes. I suppose that this will be forever a part of humanity but it would utopian to assume that it would ever reach the human status of crime in the era of Star Trek:...