I will pay for the following essay Three Perspectives of Viewing Crime. The essay is to be 4 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.Traditional thinking also inh

I will pay for the following essay Three Perspectives of Viewing Crime. The essay is to be 4 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.

Traditional thinking also inhibits change in the criminal justice. Command structures must also get the priority for notable change to occur. Having talks with the community members are also, ways that the criminal justice practitioners seek to enhance their participation in the policymaking. These theories of crime have their own views as to the course of people engaging in criminal activities within a society. Personal definition of crime of criminologists defines their ultimate choice of theory preference. The three perspectives of viewing crime are the consensus view of crime, the Interactionist view of crime and the conflict view crime respectively (Siegel, 2006). According to the consensus view of crime, crimes are simply repugnant behaviors of elements linked directly or indirectly to the society. With regard to this view of crime, the substantive criminal laws serving as the written rule define crime related to punishments. This means that if one goes contrary to the written rules deserves punishment. The best example of this is when curfews come from criminologists and when one does contrary to the curfew, punishment becomes the order of the day. Substantive criminal law ultimately depicts the values, opinions and beliefs of the society. The consensus word in the consensus view of crime provides an implication that there is a general agreement among a large portion of society about the unacceptable behaviors that the society should consider as crimes. There have been many attempts in the recent past of creating thorough, concise and encompassing consent crime definition. Donald Cressey, Edwin Sutherland and a few other criminologists support the standpoint of conjoining criminality laws with crime. According to this view, crime encompasses morality, rules and beliefs. Sutherland and Cressey agree that criminal law application exists uniformly to all social classes depending on the rules to refer. This means that everybody has beliefs and hopes just as the author does in fair and legal system where all types of people regardless of the social class. The best example or illustration for consensus view of crime is that law prohibiting theft, robbery and burglary directly points towards controlling poor, the lower class, needy individuals and the disabled. At the same time laws focused on corporate price fixing, embezzlement and insider trading prevention are in existence for the purposes of controlling the upper class, wealthy and rich in the society. In consensus view of crime, criminal and illegal behavior has a close relationship with social harm meaning that there is need to stop, control and manage every bad behavior causing harm or disturbance to other people. Social harm is what progresses to social crimes and sets deviant and strange behaviors that are shocking and seem immoral but may not necessarily be criminal. In many instances, the religious people condemn such behaviors though they do not consider them crimes because the general community consensus is that they cause no harm not unless they involve children in any way.