How does the notion of harm reveal the entangled relationships between social welfare and crime control?

Authors Avatar by matseyh (student)

Tsidi Henderson

How does the notion of harm reveal the entangled relationships between social welfare and crime control? Illustrate your answer with reference to at least TWO chapters from Book 1.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law describes harm as injury, loss of, or damage to a persons right, property or physical or mental well-being. Harm may be associated with an individual or potentially society as a whole known as social harm. For the purposes of revealing how social welfare and crime control are entangled we will focus on social harm. Social harm focuses on particular actions within society that may cause unrest such racism, discrimination, inequality or poverty because these actions produce social exclusion for certain groups. Social harm has led to cries for social justice over time which have, “shaped both social welfare and crime control policies.” (Newman & Yeates, 2008, p.26) Social welfare is mainly aimed at creating social well being by producing social supports, increasing social inclusion and social equality whereas crime control aims mainly at creating social stability, order and security by addressing those seen as a threat. (Newman & Yeates, 2008, p.12) Social welfare and crime control are said to be entangled because, although on the surface they seem to be two separate functions in practice they are actually connected and work hand in hand. This relationship causes entanglements because there is a fine line between social welfare and crime control policies. Using the notion of harm, mainly discrimination, the following essay will reveal the entanglements between social welfare and crime control.

One of the greatest social harms that has plagued the history of man has been discrimination, mainly racism. Only recently have some countries introduced laws to tackle violent displays of prejudice including indecent behavior linked to racism, known as hate crimes. (Clarke,2008, p.51) Before the term 'hate crimes' was coined, racism seemed to be acceptable in many countries but only to those who were not being discriminated against. Almost 58 years ago Jim Crow laws existed in America that included racist rules such as, 'black people could not sit on white seats in a bus'. Those that broke these laws were given criminal records which would affect their lives till death. The laws reflected how the white populations views of what was just or unjust but did not reflect the views of the black population. In this example it seems that social welfare was being maintained for one group and not the other. Racism caused the black population to be socially excluded and to live in fear of being charged by the police. For those who were had a criminal record for breaking the evidently racist laws, they had to go through life with what seemed to be diminished social welfare. They had difficulty getting work, mortgages and they were not allowed to vote till 2006. It seems the crime control policies here were more about maintaining the position the white population had been used to during times of slavery when they were masters.

Join now!

A similar history was lived by the people in South Africa during apartheid. Like the black Americans the black South Africans had a degree of social welfare but not the same extent as the white population. Black people were educated but only to a certain level, they could work but only in certain jobs or areas, and they could socialise but they had curfews to follow. According to the government, the tight restrictions were a means of maintaining low crime levels, as the poor black people were seen as a threat to the security of the nation. It would seem ...

This is a preview of the whole essay