NCJ Number
86251
Date Published
1982
Length
26 pages
Annotation
The historical debate on the definition of crime suggests that criminologists should explicitly face the value decisions involved in the concept of crime and become more sensitive to the moral, ideological, and political implications of their work.
Abstract
The debate over the definition of crime has usually centered on the relative advantages and disadvantages of using a 'social' as opposed to a 'legal' definition of crime. Most criminologists have traditionally relied on the legal conception, which defines crime as behavior in violation of the criminal law and liable for sanctioning by the criminal justice system; however, there have been repeated attempts by leading criminologists to move beyond the narrow confines of criminal law to develop more inclusive social definitions of crime. Arguments over social versus legal definitions of crime should be grounded in the context of more fundamental paradigms of crime. According to Ritzer, a paradigm is 'a fundamental image of the subject matter within a science. It serves to define what should be studied, what questions should be followed in interpreting the answers obtained.' By distinguishing between the 'behavioral' and the 'definitional' paradigms, criteria for the division of intellectual labor in criminology can not only be established, but the important value decisions involved in defining the concept of crime can also be clarified. The choice of paradigm is the first point at which a value judgment is required of the criminologist. Within the definitional paradigm, the only possible definition of crime is a certain type of legal definition. Within the behavioral paradigm, both legal and social definitions are possible and acceptable. Forty-four references are listed.