During the past several years, researchers have begun to explore the link between crime and morality. This relationship is not only important to those who are investigating the issue, but it is also crucial to those who are trying to understand and explain why we commit crimes. The authors of this article seek to shed light on this connection. Their goal is to provide readers with a better understanding of the ways in which crime and morality are linked. In addition, they hope to help students learn about the factors that can contribute to a person’s behavior.
Review of Farrall & Karstedt’s book
Those who are involved in the decision-making process in various industries can learn a lot from Stephen Farrall and Sven Karstedt’s book Emotions, Crime and Justice. This is a major step towards a more nuanced conversation on emotions. It explores the emotions associated with crimes and lawbreaking, as well as those associated with the legal system.
The book is divided into ten chapters. Each chapter is of equal length. The book offers an interdisciplinary approach to criminology, presenting the latest international research. There is a wide range of topics covered, from a discussion of the relationship between shame and delinquency to the psychological roots of collective violence. The collection also explores the emotional factors underlying collective reconciliation and the emotional roots of democratic discourse.
Part II of the book investigates the central debates in criminology and criminal law. The authors use an interdisciplinary approach, combining micro-level perspectives with macro-level perspectives. They apply insights from institutional anomie theory (IAT) to understand morally dubious acts. Ultimately, they conclude that the changes in the 21st century economy have impacted the normative fabric of society.
Among other things, the book examines the Golden Rule. This universal moral principle is based on four categories of generic rights. It is a basis for harm prevention and should attract universal consent.
Integrating insights from the SAT and legitimacy literatures
SAT (Situational Action Theory) is a relatively new criminological model that attempts to overcome some of the major flaws of the most popular theories. SAT is designed to integrate individual and environmental perspectives to explain why people behave as they do. Its core assumptions are drawn from decades of supportive findings in control theory.
Its most important individual-level variable is personal morality. This construct is important because it is the key to understanding an individual’s propensity for rule-breaking. Unlike the self-interested theories of crime that assume individuals have no scruples, SAT takes a more deliberative approach.
The SAT is also not afraid to take a look at the social contexts of crime. SAT is one of the few criminological theories that takes the person-environment interaction seriously.
The SAT also makes use of the concepts of propensity and exposure. These terms are a little less well known in the social sciences. The SAT is able to make specific predictions about how crime is likely to unfold in the future. It is also the only criminological theory that takes the concept of personal development as seriously as it does the law.
The SAT also provides an explanation for why certain behaviours are deemed to be more worthy than others. For instance, it is a fact that there are certain human behaviours that are considered to be reprehensible in different cultures. These include cheating in a retail market, or even stealing from a stranger.
Conclusions
Various studies have been conducted to explore the link between crime and morality. While the concept of “morality” is in no way limited to the legal system, some claim that it is inseparable from it.
A good example is the SAT or Situational Action Theory. This theory is an attempt to establish correspondence between a person’s values and his or her moral rules of conduct. In addition, it claims that these two elements can interact to determine the probability of an individual’s offending behavior.
Its core proposition states that a person’s moral rule of conduct is the primary explanatory variable in the causation of offending. As such, SAT is an empirically supported theory that has been tested in several European countries. The core proposal is similar to the rational choice theory, which posits that individuals are rational in decision making.
Aside from proving the existence of a law-relevant morality, SAT also claims that deterrence is a major contributor to the initiation of crime. Deterrence refers to the process of minimizing the likelihood of an individual committing a crime. These mechanisms are formal and informal. A formal deterrence mechanism involves the use of drugs or the police.
