Natural Law and Social Construct Views of Crime
People have been establishing systems of law in their societies since ancient times. The earliest example of the codification of law in the Western world was the Code of Hammurabi, which dates back to eighteenth century BC in Babylonia. Other examples of early law codification came from Mosaic law, or the Ten Commandments; and after the fall of the Roman empire in the 5th century AD, the Justinian Code was established. Some of these pre-modern law codes, like the Ten Commandments, were mostly interested in describing the religious duties and obligations that people had to a divine authority; while other codes, like the Code of Hammurabi, offered a mix of secular and religious justifications for law.
Out of these ancient traditions the concept of a natural law emerged, which claims that there are universal standards of right and wrong. These standards are based on moral beliefs and are passed on through religious literature. Natural law sees violations of these standards as immoral and considers these so-called immoral acts criminal. According to this view, crime is considered a sin.
However, social scientists have found that what is immoral, and therefore considered a crime by natural law, changes over time and from culture to culture. Since the standards of right and wrong are not universal, some social scientists have defined crime as a social construct (based on the views of society). As such, what is considered wrong, and therefore a crime, is not based on divine rules.
When crime is viewed as a social construct, it is dominant groups and powerful individuals who decide which behaviors are considered undesirable for society, and they create rules to prevent them. These rules are created for the well-being of society and change as the needs of society change.
In your own words,
explain the difference between crime as natural law and crime as a
social construct.
|
Instructions:
Read the passage and type your answer in the box. 
