Convergence

Durkheim, whose writings and theories are relevant to sociology, has an article written by him in my textbook for said class. It goes along wonderfully with what I was just talking about in my last entry so I must spend a moment discussing it, whether or not I actually require another entry. (With only one class last week do I still require more than one? And that one class was a test not a lesson...)

At any rate Durkeim believes that crime is a normal part of society, in fact a sign of the health of society. Crime has existed in all societies, absolute intended, and thus is normal. Crime is a sign that the community as a collective whole has certain values that they uphold. When these values are violated it is termed crime. 

Thus the definition of crime, of what constitutes a crime, does over time, change. The stronger the value, the greater the punishment associated with the crime. A lie barely receives any notice if it does no harm---but if that lie crosses another value--say the right to a reputation that honestly reflects your identity (or even is better than the truth) then it is libel/slander (depending on its presentation, but most things are termed libel these days) which is punished in America, frequently with fines. Those fines even differentiate in value depending upon the severity of the lie and the amount of 'damage' incurred by the lie. 

With this concept of crimes being those actions that violate communal values, or morals so to speak, the question becomes then: who determines communal values? Are they the same in all individuals of the community--at least those that become law---minus the criminals? Or is there some other, force per say, determining morality and thus the laws? (Probably neither--majority rules, I say, yet the question remains.)

~Jessica