23. January 2010 by student.

While the dictionary definition of a criminal is a person who is guilty or convicted of a crime; the actual definition may vary depending on the person.  Take murder for instance.  Murder is the least likely to be committed by a stranger.  Three out of four victims are killed by members of their family, by their lovers, friends, neighbors, or other acquaintances.  So, criminal, a definition we think of as distant and cold may be more than likely to hit close to home.

Can it be possible that our society, our free country, breeds criminals by leading examples from crime shows such as C.S.I, and news segments that follow every detail on a crime investigation, such as 60 Minutes.  Or is it possible that criminals are just born innately evil with an urge to rebel in their blood?  Upbringing and childhood incidents can also lead to a person becoming a criminal.

If this is the case, we can prevent crime by keeping conversation about it on the down low.  Take this into consideration:  a person, striving for attention, for fame, for recognition, whether it is positive or negative, sees all the time and energy we spend on crime on television.  They see the criminals face on the screen, they see red bars with their name flash on the bottom of the screen, and they see their picture under the Most Wanted section in the newspaper.  Could someone striving for recognition commit a crime for the attention?  This leads to a problem of motives versus actions.  Is it a person’s motives that make them a criminal or a person’s actions?  This is a question we must ask ourselves to determine the true definition of a criminal.

Posted in Social Problems | 1 Comment »

15. January 2010 by student.

My personal opinion is that the purpose of studies are to understand the subject and that data gathered should be used in some way.  If not, then whats the point?  I don’t agree with the Structural /Functionalist Perspective to just study society and not become involved.  Isn’t the point of studying a social problem is to find a solution or solutions to that problem.   The Stuctural/Functionalist Perspective avocates do not like it when society is “disfuctional”.  I disagree with the negative connotation of the word disfuctional to be used when describing social change.  The Industrial Revolution in England brought about social change which resulted in women’s rights.  The Civil Rights Movement in America brought about change for minorities of different race than that of caucasions.  These issues needed to be raised and people had to fight to bring about that change.  I refuse to sit back and read studies that women are still not equal in America’s patriarchal society.  I also refuse to be complacent when people discriminate against people of different sexuality by not allowing them the basic civil rights allowed to all.  I think that Sturctural/Fuctionalists that don’t use their studies for the greater good of all are risking the chance of working hard on the same study 50 years later and receiving the same results.  I definately agree with the Conflict Perspective. I don’t really agree with the statement that the Conflict Perspective ignores instances in which society runs well.  When does society run well?  There is always another social problem to attack when one is resolved.   As a woman I can vote…. Should I stop there and decide that I don’t deserve any other rights?  I think the Interactionist Perspective is needed to look at social issues in a different way and on a different level.  I am looking forward to this class and enjoyed the first lecture. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »