Notes for exam question Essay

Chapter 1 hearty scientist have argued that issues of inequality, privation and tender exclusion cut across twain neighborly eudaimonia and nuisance control domains, and noted that while few responses to these issues may catch the focus of affable well-being policies, others may become the focus of offense control interventions.Social referee then is incomplete the exclusive terrain of social offbeat nor of evil control. The boundaries between these two domains angle to be mobile and porous.This idea was introduced by arguing that the neat characteristic between the goals of social eudaimonia (well being) and the goals of crime control (maintaining social order) rupture down on closer inspection.Chapter 1 subdivision 4 crime control measures impact adversely on social welfargon and advance justice struggles. State withdrawal from the direct provision of welfargon operate is accompanied by greater attention to antisocial deportment of newfangled and poorer g roups in society.Social welfare is oriented towards the creation and concern of social well-being by dint of the provision of various social supports combating social inequalities by promoting redistribution and social comprehension and countering various social misuses such as p all overty and discrimination.The domain of crime control is more oriented towards the creation and maintenance of social stability, social order and security by addressing behaviours and activities of those who are comprehend to threaten these in some way.Crime control and social welfare policies, there are many examples of entanglement between them. For example, countering antisocial behaviour may be defined as a social welfare matter in that it protects the welfare and well being of some against the disruptions caused by others. This example overly raises wider social welfare questions, I.e how can societies support young race and others so that they do not conduct themselves in slipway that ar e viewed as antisocial?The relationship between social welfare and crime control is dynamic meaning it is desirely to change over time, and it is contested.Another example of how social welfare and crime control is complex protecting children from abuse- a role taken on by twain police and social workers, acting in partnership but with preferably blurred boundaries between the welfare and crime control functions. The entanglements between welfare and crime control take many different forms.Welfare states in its traditional form is considered by many commentators across the political spectrum to be in need of reform.Social scientists focus on creating social inclusion rather than on providing welfareIdeas about an underclass of marginalised individuals oft melanize Afro caribbean or Hispanic have informed policies on crime preventions and crime control in countries such as the USA. Many studies are handing over more responsibility for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour t o local communities, who in turn address crime prevention by a desegregate of welfare and control strategies.As environmental issues become more valuable in ensuring security and well-being, so attention is turning to new kinds of injure harms perpetrated not by those traditionally defined as problem populations, often on the margins of society but by the rich and powerful who up ask environmental and other kinds of crime.Many struggles for social justice, produced laws that have to be implemented through the institutions of criminal justice. On the other hand, some criminal justice measures including many of those now associated with anti terrorist measures are viewed as producing harms such as internment or the loss of rights for definite population groups.Chapter 1 arm 3&6 dissent and protest against social injustice may be the subject or criminalising responses.The darling study for the Joseph row direct foundation shows an increasing inequality of wealth in the uk in t he juvenile 20th century when income inequalities grew rapidly. It also shows a greater degree of spatial segregation of wealth and poverty, with local areas increasingly dominated by wet or poor residents and a decline in social mixing. leanness concentrates attention on one segment of society those living infra a certain level of income, or below a certain level of resources.Many studies of poverty tend to focus attention on poor people rather than the wider social structures which generate and reproduce poverty. In the process, then, such studies divert attention from the relationship between wealth and poverty, and the shipway in which richer and more powerful groups manage to increase their wealth and hold on to it at the expense of poorer and less powerful groups.Much social investigation into poverty has in practice involved looking at the poorest people to see what was wrong with them, and is based on the assumption that there must be something about them that makes them different from us.In the nineteenth century, investigators went like intrepid explorers into the neighbourhoods where the poor lived in order to examine their habits, their ways of keep, their destination and most frequently their character. The poor were associated with a range of social dangers from illness, through crime and vice, to the threat of socialism.This emphasis on statistical investigation has had a profound influence on the subsequent development of social look in the uk and how we come to know about and understand the social world. besides the investigation and observation of the character and habits of the poor has also had enduring consequences, reflecting a persistent belief that the cause of poverty could be discovered there. 19th century investigations into moral failings of the poor merged into20th century concerns with their dysfunctional family life or their culture of poverty.The idea of a culture of poverty had mutated into a culture of dependency. All of these terms expressed the idea that poor people had habits, attitudes and ways of life that has passed poverty on across generations.Chapter 2 parting 2 welfare states are involved in the maintenance of social order and stability by naturalising and normalising social inequalitiesChapter 2 sections 2,3&4 welfare states prescribe certain ideas of behaviour. These may stigmatise certain categories of people in booths study, the poor and in the 21st century, those who are not gainfully industrious or who do not comply with norms of active citizenship.Welfare states also police adherence to norms of good conduct and may punish those who deviant from them. Punishments may range from measures such as the withdrawal of benefits and services to real(a) criminalisation.Chapter 3 section 3 care whether provided informally or through welfare states can involve the abuse, neglect and exploitation of vulnerable people. somewhat abuses are subject to criminal prosecution.Chapter 3 sectio n 4 treaties, conventions, laws and workers rights are often ineffective in regulating safety and ensuring freedom from harm in the workplace. Trade unions have onrushed to limit workplace harms by pursuing rights and legal safeguards, but there power has been weakened. In attempt to avoid legislative action, some companies are now developing automatic codes of conduct based on the idea of social responsibility.Chapter 4 section 2 problem populations, in problem places such as the drear population of new Orleans tend to be stigmatised, viewed as a source of harm, crime and social disorderChapter 4 section 3 some of the case studies show how welfare policies that sought to solve hold problems in the past have had damaging consequences, leading to punitive and criminalising policies in the present.Chapter 5 section 2 global slums are sites of concerns about crime and disorder. They are also sites of emerging understanding about how slums can be a source of progress and developme nt through self benefactorChapter 5 section 4 transnational institutions concerns with regulating environmental crimes are contrasted with restorative self regulatory and participatory models of development.