Over time there have been a lot of changes in public attitudes towards crime and criminals however, of course what has not changed is the fact that the majority believe criminals should be punished for their actions and crime is still viewed in a negative light. However ways in which criminals are treated and viewed has changed overtime. For example, at present in England the majority who commit a crime will gain a prison sentence or a punishments such as community service. However, in the past the majority who committed a crime would be sentenced to the death penalty, for example under the Bloody Code in the 19th Century two hundred crimes were punishable by capital punishment (Briggs, Harrison, McInnes & Vincent, 1996, p. 157). Along with this the way the public view why criminals are criminals has changed over time. For example in Elizabethan times they blamed the parents of the criminal whilst at the start of the 20th century it began to be believed that there was a criminal gene and therefore it was not an individual’s fault (Briggs, Harrison, McInnes & Vincent, 1996, p. 248). The view of what and what not is a crime has also changed over time. For example from 2003 it became illegal to “hold a mobile phone while driving in mainland Britain” (Rochford District Council). This has lead to the public disapproving of others driving whist using their mobile phone as they now see it as dangerous whilst, before 2003 it was expectable to hold a mobile phone while driving.[...]
Discuss the ways in which public attitudes towards crime and criminals have changed over time. What causal factors have been prominent in any changes?
Over time there have been a lot of changes in public attitudes towards crime and criminals however, of course what has not changed is the fact that the majority believe criminals should be punished for their actions and crime is still viewed in a negative light. However ways in which criminals are treated and viewed has changed overtime. For example, at present in England the majority who commit a crime will gain a prison sentence or a punishments such as community service. However, in the past the majority who committed a crime would be sentenced to the death penalty, for example under the Bloody Code in the 19th Century two hundred crimes were punishable by capital punishment (Briggs, Harrison, McInnes & Vincent, 1996, p. 157). Along with this the way the public view why criminals are criminals has changed over time. For example in Elizabethan times they blamed the parents of the criminal whilst at the start of the 20th century it began to be believed that there was a criminal gene and therefore it was not an individual’s fault (Briggs, Harrison, McInnes & Vincent, 1996, p. 248). The view of what and what not is a crime has also changed over time. For example from 2003 it became illegal to “hold a mobile phone while driving in mainland Britain” (Rochford District Council). This has lead to the public disapproving of others driving whist using their mobile phone as they now see it as dangerous whilst, before 2003 it was expectable to hold a mobile phone while driving.
When looking in to the public attitudes towards criminals it can be seen how the stereotype of a criminal has changed over time. For example, in the 18th century there was little evidence of racism in the criminal justice system, for example towards immigrants. However, in the 19th century “Irish immigration was reaching a peak” which lead to many, possibly due to the media’s influence, as seeing the Irish linked to petty crime, violence and excessive drinking of alcohol (Godfrey, Lawrence & Williams, 2008, p. 111). In the 19th century there was no evidence that African immigrants were associated with the label of a criminal. However, by the 1990’s there is evidence that “young black men were far more likely to be stopped and searched without good cause than their white counterparts” showing their label has changed overtime. Godfrey, Lawrence and Williams (2008, p.120) suggested that a casual factor which may have prompted this change in the public attitudes as to what they expect a criminal to be may be due to the fact that immigrant minorities are more likely to live in “long-term social disadvantaged” areas which are therefore more likely to be policed more than other areas.
Public attitudes have also changed towards criminals in the concept of why they believe the criminals commit crime. Overtime the public, often through the media, have heard of many different ideas of why criminals commit crimes, many have repeated appearance overtime. There have been sociological, psychological, biological and economic explanations which appear to repeat themselves throughout history leading to debates if which, if any or a variety are correct. In the late eighteen century the idea of positivism was common. Positivism believed that it was not the criminal’s fault that they were a criminal but in fact it was due to biological factors. In 1859 Lombroso suggested “criminality was not a rational choice or a moral failing but could be the result of a hereditary trait passed through generations”. Lombroso also believed that physical attributes would allow a criminal to be identified. For example, “deviation of head size and shape” (Godfrey, Lawrence & Williams, 2008, p. 15). Hearing of Lombroso’s study and views would of change public attitudes in the way they see people, for example looking out for people with a “deviation of head size and shape” and labelling them a criminal, despite having known them not to be for years. Although today many would say you cannot decide who is a criminal just by how someone looks, Bull and McAlpine (1998, cited by Williams, 2004, p.141) suggests people do stereotype the appearance of a criminal which may lead to wrongful accusations and convictions. For example, Williams (2004, p. 43) suggests that many see a criminal as “not the sort of person one knows and is friendly with”. Williams suggests that this is due to the media’s influence and that many, if they do not a convicted criminal believe the criminal is not a true one but in fact as been “led astray by others”.
Frequently asked questions
What are some ways public attitudes toward crime and criminals have changed over time?
Public attitudes towards crime and criminals have shifted significantly. While the belief that criminals should be punished remains constant, the methods of punishment and the perceived reasons for criminal behavior have evolved. In the past, capital punishment was common for many offenses. Now, prison sentences and community service are more prevalent. Explanations for crime have also changed, from blaming parents in Elizabethan times to the 20th-century belief in a "criminal gene."
How has the perception of who a criminal is changed over time?
The stereotype of a criminal has changed over time, often influenced by societal factors and media portrayals. In the 18th century, there was little evidence of racism in the criminal justice system. However, in the 19th century, Irish immigrants were often linked to petty crime and violence. By the 1990s, young black men were disproportionately subjected to stop and search procedures, indicating a shift in public perception.
What are some causal factors that have influenced changes in public attitudes towards crime and criminals?
Media influence plays a significant role in shaping public attitudes. Immigrant minorities residing in socially disadvantaged areas are often policed more heavily, contributing to altered public perceptions about who commits crimes. Furthermore, the public has been exposed to various explanations for criminal behavior, including sociological, psychological, biological, and economic theories. For example, the positivist view, which attributed criminality to biological factors, influenced public perception.
How did Lombroso's theory affect public attitudes towards criminals?
Lombroso's theory, which suggested that criminality was a hereditary trait and could be identified through physical attributes, significantly influenced public attitudes. People might have started looking for physical signs, like "deviation of head size and shape," and labeling individuals as criminals based on these characteristics.
What is strain theory and how does it relate to public attitudes about the causes of crime?
Strain theory posits that people are more likely to commit crimes if they lack a social bond to society, such as a connection to their parents. This aligns with the public's tendency to blame parents for their children's criminal behavior. Negative emotions and lack of emotional support in childhood are factors that can increase the likelihood of committing crimes.
How does the media influence public perception of criminals, according to the provided text?
The text suggests that the media influences public perception by creating a stereotypical image of a criminal as someone unfamiliar and unfriendly. Williams suggests that media portrayals can lead people to believe that criminals are often misled by others, rather than inherently bad.
- Quote paper
- Louise Grant (Author), 2009, Discuss the ways in which public attitudes towards crime and criminals have changed over time. What causal factors have been prominent in any changes?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/169106
