Explain how the current law is really about specific groups in power maintaining their power rather than benefiting all of society.

Remember: Discussions are an opportunity to engage in a sociological dialogue. Discussions are not a place to state that your ideas are “right”, or anybody else’s ideas are “wrong,” but rather a safe place to practice developing your sociological skills and better understand the material.Original post: Using Quinney’s ideas in his social reality of crime model, explain how the current law is really about specific groups in power maintaining their power rather than benefiting all of society. NOTE: Your example must be something other than the saggy pants law example used in the lecture and PowerPoint for Chapter 5. Subject title = description of law (for example, saggy pants).
example of what a classmate wrote1Child endangerment laws disproportionately affect low-income families and minorities. If a parent or guardian can not provide food, clothing, or shelter that is deemed adequate according to laws created by agents of the dominant class, they can be found guilty of a crime. Food, shelter, and clothing cost money and increasingly so, but families are struggling to make ends meet. Child endangerment laws are important to protect the most vulnerable of our society; however, is it best to separate children from their families, or is it best to facilitate access to more resources? Social services overlook wealthier families and potential cases of endangerment because they have the financial means to provide. But what about physical and emotional neglect? Higher-income families are less like to be investigated thus resulting in lower incidence rates, but it does not mean it is not happening. We all have seen tabloids, read articles, or seen interviews about children of the wealthy having drug parties or going to rehab, eating disorders, sexual exploitation, or attempts of suicide. Where are the supposed social services to protect those children? Until there is a real power shift, agents of the dominant are unlikely to investigate those that empower them.
example 2In my title, I just said tax laws instead of a specific law that has to do with taxes because I found so many that helped keep the rich richer and the middle-class/poor in the same position they are in. The 2019 census stated that over 34 million people in America were living in poverty and the numbers are predicted to be even higher than that since the pandemic hit. The article I used as a reference also stated that a recent study was performed and it found that the top 25% of earning Americans are better off now than they were before the pandemic started and the remaining 75% of the population is extremely worse off than they were before the pandemic. Another report by the Gates Foundation stated that 40 million Americans were moved into extreme poverty during the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the past two years, Donald Trump has had to pay only $750 in income taxes compared to other Americans who were earning around $50,000-$70,000 in gross income that paid $4,688 on average for income taxes. Sojo.net explains that some of the wealthiest Americans have been exploiting the unequal tax codes currently in place to pass their governmental costs onto the working class Americans instead of them having to pay for it.
I chose this information to correlate with this question option this week because I believe those in charge of passing new laws for taxes are also those that are a part of the top 25% so they do not want to change the way the wealthy are getting taxed because they do not want to be taxed more. In order to maintain their wealth and dominance over the other 75% of the population.
example 3Within the legal system of the United States, courts operate under a cash bail system. In order for an individual who is charged with a crime to be released from custody pending their trial, they must either post a cash bail (from their own pocket) or by using money posted through a bondsman. This law specifically targets the poor. Someone who comes from a wealthy background will be able to post bail with no issue, while someone who does not come from means will either have to wait in jail for their trial (leading to the inability to garner wages from their job) or they must utilize a bail bondsman, a service which carries a premium (meaning the charged individual will have to pay a certain percentage of their bail amount to their bondsman.) The consequences of this system are asymmetrical; the rich are not financially burdened, while individuals who are already financially burdened are burdened even further by the mere accusation of criminal activity. This system furthers the cycle of poverty, which benefits the legal system, the prison industrial complex, and the wealthy members of society who seek to consolidate wealth at the expense of others.
Original post: Durkheim felt that the level of integration in society was correlated to the level of crime in a society. More integrated societies had less crime. Today, do you think we care less about norms than in past societies? In other words, are we less integrated? Be sure to provide at least two examples to support your belief. Subject title should indicate “yes” if you feel today’s society is less integrated and “no” if you feel today’s society is more integrated.
no examples
Original post: What are the two most likely sociological reasons (factors) individuals steal things? Be sure to provide an explanation for each factor given. Subject titled should identify one factor noted in the original post (for example, can’t afford to buy).
example 1Some sociological reasons why people steal. Why do people steal?Sociological and Pathological.Sociological- could be their situation or their financial status. They might steal out of s survival- necessity. Someone might steal because they have no other option to obtain that important necessary item. For example; a single parent with two children at home has run out of resources and needs to pay for rent or gas to get to work. This parent may steal from a work cash register to pay for said gas or rent out of survival. This person might feel remorse or conviction but does it out of survival or a need.Pathological- could be because someone has been conditioned to pathologically steal. Someone who steals without thinking of consequences or possibly have a need for ht item they are stealing but because it is second nature or normal for that person to commit a deviant act such as stealing. It can also be amusing to someone to be able to steal, there is a “high” hat some people get out of stealing for fun.
Example 2Hello everyone,The two most likely sociological reasons I think someone would steal are based on the differential opportunity theory and the strain theory. The differential opportunity theory made by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin suggests that most disadvantaged people which include people from lower classes, immigrants, etc., have a smaller opportunity than people from the higher class. The strain theory made by Robert Merton basically is trying to tell us that in our current system where culture tells most citizen’s their success goals it’s straining on the people from the lower who are trying to fit and succeed while its easier for the middle and upper class. These two theories show a lot of why someone could and would steal. In the differential opportunity theory, someone that knows the disadvantage their in could try to and do something to change the status quo and get opportunities. In the strain theory where people are all trying to succeed but are getting strained, a lot of people would try and do something like stealing. An example where this could be seen is a college student stealing a book because he can’t afford it and wouldn’t pass without it.