NOVEMBER 27, 2012
MR. MARK ROSENFIELD
There is no generally accepted definition of organized crime yet, due mostly to the rapid development and shifting of the forms in which organized crime appears. Since high professionalism, organization and nearly boundless financial means are characteristic for organized crime, the circumstances in this field are constantly irritating. The earnings represent an ever increasing danger for the State and the Society, since organized crime invests them on one side in entirely legal business - money laundry; while on the other side they characterize an enormous fraud to be expected. This is the reason why a political question appears here, namely, how a certain society can take care of the safety of its inhabitants and it’s State as an organization. Corruption and organized crime are serious criminal phenomena, but they are also much more than that. Not only is organized crime an obstruction to national development and globalization, but with its links to terrorist groups all over the world. It’s become a threat to national security to the United States, and opening Societies. The threat that these actions of organized crime presents is compounded because worldwide criminal organizations often act with the tacit or explicit support of state authorities. Throughout the history of criminological thought, various theories on crime causation have been formulated. Unfortunately, many questions as to why individuals commit crime still remain unanswered. Wilson and Hernstein (1985) argue such a phenomenon is due to bad theories yielding incomplete views about the world. This can be explained, in this writer’s opinion, by a lack of integration among the major theorists of past and present instead choosing to limit the search for answers within the realm of their chosen perspective. By combining the ideas expressed by the concepts of differential association (Sutherland 1949) and anomie (Merton 1938) the present theory attempts to provide a more accurate and exhaustive explanation as to why some individuals commit crime where others do not. The first fragment of this paper briefly explains the workings of a good theory. Furthermore, the sources from which the theory of criminal craving draws upon are outlined specifying any changes or improvements made. The next section presents the assumptions made about human personality disagreeing only one instinctive human feature exists, craving, and even that is eventually formed by the situation. The concepts associated with the theory, the causal process involving craving to criminal behavior, and a list of propositions tying the abovementioned concepts to one another are existing. Continuing, an outline of the three main hypotheses connected with the theory of criminal desire is presented along with an rationalization of its falsifiability. The theory’s broad historical context and strong clarifying power is then discussed followed by a portrayal of the various criminal justice policy implications brought into light. THEORY
Merton (1967:39) theory “refers to reasonable organized sets of propositions from which observed uniformities can be consequential.” In regards to what constitutes a good theory Sutton and Staw (1995) argue that a general lack in concurrence exists among scholars. While this is true, a general theme can be practical in the literature. Social scientists primarily agree that the explanation principle of any theory includes justification and calculation. This is accomplished through the use of concepts planned in such a way that causal associations are anticipated explaining how and why assorted phenomenon exists.
While the theory of criminal craving constitutes a new suggestion within the criminological field, it is by no means an innovative theory. The ideas from two popular theories were collective and somewhat distorted in an attempt that on...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document