From the criminological legend to the criminological chimera

In Greek culture of antiquity the usual story was a myth referred to portentous events, by striking, such as gods, demigods, titans, idols, giants, monsters or fantasy characters beings. Today it is considered in much of the world, a story. Myths are, in a culture or community, a system of dogmas that are considered authentic stories and together is called mythology, which bears a direct relationship with community beliefs: A greater number of myths and greater complexity of a mythology, the greater the development of the beliefs of a community that supports their worldview. As word and concept, the myth began to lose credit and devalue to acquire a derogatory meaning, coming to be used loosely as a synonym shaped canard of widespread but false belief at the time that philosophical disquisitions and scientific elucidations appeared and were knowledge of the community. It is known to position estructuralista Levi-Strauss anthropologist,1 whereby, myth consist irreconcilable antipodes, such as creation against destruction, life against death, or against bad; and it provides the reconciliation of these extremes to exorcise our consciousness. Also, Parker2 refers to the functionalist anthropologist Malinowski argued that each of the components and social institutions relate to each other within a system in which everyone has a role. As an example, he highlighted the characteristics of beliefs, customs, institutions, religions and rituals, among others. From the foregoing it is possible to deduce that there is no substantial aspect of life that is alien to the myth, because this answers the basic questions of human existence, that is, reason and reason to exist around him, among others. The downside is that is not a rational explanation. At the popular level, the myth plays an explanatory role because it explains, justifies or develop the cause of some aspect of social or individual life; a function of meaning, because it gives a comfort that relieves individuals; and a pragmatic role since it is the basis of certain structures and state actions. It is possible that these three combined functions are played simultaneously in the social policy area, as will occur to criminal law. While the myth, the story, the legend and the chimera have similar meanings, there are some differences between these concepts. The story, for example, is a flat aetiological fiction, while the myth is presented as a credible albeit complicated plot story. Moreover, the legend, unlike the myth, takes place in a real, historical time, in certain places and with real actors. In turn, the chimera of the imagination is seen as something possible to be unworkable. It is customary to read the myth literally, being an object of social belief, which meaning cannot be other than an imaginary and symbolic; however, the interpretation should be to identify in reality what is used in everyday life, as reinforcement of behaviours, argument of authority, among other things; analyze and define the reality opposites or complementary elements that appear in it and how they appear related; and reason his notorious symbolism, filled with an impact that refers to archetypical content of the human psyche. In this essay, I intend to examine the mythical character of criminal law, the beginnings of legend criminology and chimerical nature of radical criminology from the Peruvian reality, which keeps similarity with the criminological reality and Latin American criminal.