How to respond back to my professor that commented on my discussion post?

Follow me here.

You cited CLear and Frost. However,Clear and Frost (n.d.) provide deeper insight into how these competing definitions not only influence theoretical understanding but also shape public policy in ways that perpetuate inequality.

Clear and Frost argue thatcriminal justice policy is often reactive, politically motivated, and disconnected from empirical criminological evidence. This is especially evident in their discussion of theWar on Drugs, which the original statement also highlights. Rather than responding to actual patterns of harm, these policies were driven by public fear and political agendas. As Clear and Frost demonstrate, these initiatives disproportionately targeted communities of color despite data showing comparable drug usage rates across racial groups. This illustrates hownarrow legal definitions of crime, reinforced by media and political narratives, can justify policies that produce mass incarceration without addressing root causes such as poverty, trauma, and systemic racism.

Moreover, Clear and Frost emphasize thatthe choice of what counts as "crime" in public policy often ignores structural and corporate wrongdoing. For example, while individual possession of drugs in marginalized communities may lead to incarceration, corporate fraud, wage theft, or environmental crimes frequently escape criminal prosecution altogether. This unequal application of the law is not incidentalit reflects the way crime is framed to serve dominant interests. As such,definitions of crime are not just theoreticalthey have material consequences for how justice is distributed.

Therefore, Clear and Frost's contribution strengthens the critique by showing thatlegalistic definitions are not merely limitedthey are politically constructed tools that shape enforcement priorities. This underscores the necessity for criminologists to adopt broader definitions of crime that include structural harms and power imbalances. Only then can public policy begin to reflect a more just and inclusive vision of justice.

What about this do you disagree with?

My discussion post below he responded too!

The conventional legal definition of crime is primarily based on statutory law, characterizing crime as any act or omission that breaches criminal statutes and is punishable by the state (UMGC, n.d.). This framework is prevalent in criminal justice systems, serving as the basis for legal prosecution and institutional responses. In contrast, sociological and critical criminological perspectives critique this limited viewpoint, emphasizing the need to consider social harm, moral standards, and power relations in understanding crime. For instance, actions like corporate pollution, wage theft, and systemic racism may not always meet legal definitions of crime, yet they cause considerable harm to individuals and communities (Frost & Clear, n.d.). Consequently, these broader interpretations advocate for a more inclusive understanding of crime that encompasses structural violence and institutional wrongdoing.

The SAGE Theories of Crime highlights that definitions of crime are influenced by various theoretical perspectives, including classical, positivist, labeling, Marxist, feminist, and postmodern theories (Miller, 2014). For example, labeling theory posits that crime is not an intrinsic quality of an act but rather a designation imposed by society, frequently targeting marginalized groups. In a similar vein, Marxist criminology argues that criminal law primarily serves the interests of the ruling class, often criminalizing the actions of the impoverished while overlooking offenses committed by the affluent. These varying definitions underscore the dynamic relationship between societal values and legal frameworks, as evidenced by the changing status of issues like same-sex marriage, cannabis use, and abortion, which have transitioned from criminal acts to recognized rights or personal choices in certain regions.

The concept of crime significantly influences the pursuit of equal justice, which embodies the principle of fair and unbiased treatment for all individuals under the law. When crime definitions cater to the interests of dominant social groups, they create a landscape of justice that is both unequal and exclusionary. For instance, the War on Drugs in the United States disproportionately impacted Black and Latino communities, despite comparable drug usage rates among white populations. Policies such as mandatory minimum sentencing and "three strikes" laws intensified racial disparities in incarceration, leading to what some scholars term mass incarceration or the New Jim Crow. In this scenario, the legal framing of crime criminalizes individual actions while neglecting broader structural issues like poverty and educational inequities. Additionally, the lack of accountability for harmful actions by powerful entitiessuch as environmental degradation or political corruptionfurther exemplifies how biased definitions result in uneven enforcement, creating a dual justice system that favors the affluent while marginalizing the vulnerable. In the realm of victimology, these unequal definitions also affect the treatment of victims, as crimes like sexual assault and domestic violence have historically been downplayed or omitted from legal frameworks. Victims, particularly from marginalized backgrounds, often encounter disbelief and institutional neglect, underscoring how a limited understanding of crime perpetuates injustice by failing to acknowledge the genuine harm and experiences of those affected (UMGC, n.d.).

Criminology serves a dual purpose as both a scientific field and a framework for shaping policy. The definitions employed by criminologists to formulate their research questions significantly influence the scope of their studies, the data they gather, and the conclusions they reach. These outcomes subsequently impact criminal justice policies and public perceptions. When criminologists rely solely on legalistic definitions, they risk neglecting broader systemic issues, often focusing on street crime and individual offenders, which can legitimize punitive measures such as increased policing and incarceration. Such strategies frequently fail to address underlying factors like economic disparity, trauma, and educational access, potentially perpetuating unequal justice outcomes. In contrast, critical and feminist criminology advocates for a more expansive perspective that considers power dynamics, historical oppression, and social injustices, promoting restorative justice and community-based solutions that emphasize prevention and rehabilitation over punishment. Furthermore, criminologists play a vital role in data-driven policy-making through tools like the Uniform Crime Reports and the National Crime Victimization Survey, which highlight discrepancies between official crime statistics and actual victim experiences. For instance, victimization surveys indicate that many incidents, particularly domestic and sexual violence, remain unreported, leading to underestimations of crime rates and misallocation of resources. A criminological approach that critically examines these gaps is better positioned to advocate for equitable justice.