In criminology, there are several ways which can be used by professionals to subject a crime case to scientific social research. This involves asking questions which necessitate the professionals to critically dissociate themselves from the subject issue that holds the potential of inducing extremely charged and sensitive reaction rather than acquiring feedback from a neutral stand.To avoid such incidences, the principle of deconstructivism is employed where the case is subjected to a sequence of deconstructions which involves simplifying the case into basic components, identifying and explaining the discrepancies in the crime as well as contradictions and assumptions, critical investigation and analysis of the crime while recognizing other possible versions of the crime.Such questions include; defining what is considered as crime, how broad or narrow the case is and whether it can be evaluated and quantified, and how critical the crime is by illustrating the concepts in the case that are deemed to be serious (Muncie, 2001).
Deconstructionalists aim at reconstructing crimes in a bid to clearly bring out the factors and constraints of the crime into a simplified form of explanation. This allows efficient investigation and assessment by acknowledging the fact that some crimes can not be solved theoretically.Explaining crime is complex as it varies in relation to how the society views crime, culture and assumptions on the nature of human beings and their behavior, time among other factors. Most researchers explain crime as forbidden acts or deeds that go against the laws of a given State or country. However, most explanations do not give the details such as the causes, the procedures taken in analyzing crime, the analytical tools to be used in examining crime, criminological assumptions and suggestions when explaining crime.
Due to these variations, criminological approaches to crime also keep altering making it necessary for criminologists to apply deconstructions in clarifying and explaining crime (Werner, 2006). Why some Authors say feminist criminology is “deconstructionist” Due to the assumption that most of the criminological theories are based on the study of male criminals, the female activists came up with the idea of feminist criminology which some scholars and authors think is deconstructionist.Criminology in regards to feminism is all about considering women as a subject matter in research and investigation of crime so as to address gender distortions as well as stereotypes that are eminent in traditional criminal cases. This entails use of feminism theories in analyzing criminal cases rather than focusing on male victimization.
Feminist Criminology is geared towards claiming the acknowledgement that women are suffering silently due to the concealed or unreported cases involving women. Most of these cases are considered to be involving gender violation by the men.Female activists demand that the law should examine the political, social, economical structures surrounding women and come up with strategies for accomplishing equality in social structures. Feminists argue that focusing on men when dealing with crime is part of viewing women as inferior and denying them their civil rights which is stigmatizing women.
Therefore feminist criminology calls for consideration of the feminists’ views in the composition of dominant criminology theories basing on feminists research (Marilyn, 2006).It examines the existing social stratifications while being attentive to acknowledging the rights of women and gender ratio in relation to criminology. Some authors view feminist criminology as deconstructionist based on the following arguments. Feminist criminology is perceived to be based more on civil rights rather than criminal law. This nullifies the demand to have criminological laws altered to accommodate women.
These authors argue that the case feminist criminology should only be applied when dealing with civil rights but not altering the content of criminological theories applied in law.They also argue that the essential issues regarding crime remain vital regardless of the sex of the victims used, whether male or female, in analysis of the crime. Since the basic idea is not altered, feminist criminology is considered to be unnecessary. Scholars in the profession also think that the modification of criminal theories to accommodate women may end up creating contradictions in criminology. Therefore women should just be considered when presented to court in relation to the civil crime but not necessarily changing the theories.
In addition, the authors argue that criminology should be viewed from the society’s unitary view and not introducing feminist criminology as this only focuses on women. It is also against equality since they do not focus on men. Due to this, feminist criminology can not produce radical adjustments in the long run. Finally, a social system includes both male and female. Authors argue that Feminists need to view the society as a whole, for the common good of all the individuals rather than focusing on women alone. Men are also part of the society and law.
It is due to the above arguments that some individuals look at feminist criminology as deconstructionist.Conclusion Deconstruction in explaining crime is necessary but should be done from a neutral point. Deconstructionists should not take sides as it may change the whole scenario of the case which is against justice. Analysis of crimes should be done for the common good of all the members of the society and the laws governing the State or country.
This is critical for justice and competent criminology.
