Criminology: Theories and Perspectives - Essay Example

Criminology: Theories and Perspectives Environmental Criminology By its very nature, the study of environmental harm raises issues pertaining to the proper domains of criminology as a field of inquiry. The actual interplay between civil and criminal remedies warrants close attention, as it represents attempts to deal with substantive issues through measures across a range of regulatory areas (Gunningham et al., 1995). Major issues relating to environmental harm include its definition in criminological terms and the nature of responses to such harm. The politics of definition are complicated by the politics of "denial," in which particular concrete manifestations of social injury and environmental damage are obfuscated, ignored, or redefined in ways that re-present them as being of little relevance to academic criminological study or state criminal justice intervention. Similar to the denial of human rights violations, environmental issues call forth a range of neutralization techniques on the part of nation-states and corporations that ultimately legitimate and justify certain types of environmentally unfriendly activities. The recent emergence of "environmental criminology" has been marked by efforts to re-conceptualize the nature of "harm" more inclusively, to expose instances of substantive environmental injustice and ecological injustice, and to critique the actions of nation-states and transnational capital for fostering particular types of harm and for failing to adequately address or regulate harmful activity. Drawing upon a wide range of ideas and empirical materials, recent work on environmental harm has documented the existence of lawbreaking with respect to pollution, the disposal of toxic waste, and misuse of environmental resources. It has raised questions related to the destruction of specific environments and resources, in ways that are "legal" but ecologically disastrous. It has emphasized the dynamic links between the distribution of environmental "risk" (particularly as it affects poor and minority populations) and the claims of nonhuman nature to ecological justice. Environmental criminology has focused on aspects of offending and criminalization, as well as the nature of victimization, including social and governmental responses to this victimization (Williams, 1996). The study of environmental harm is limited to a relatively small number of people within the wider criminological community. Although such issues are beginning to receive more attention, recognition of their importance within the field generally, and sustained conceptual and empirical investigation, are still in their formative phases. Though the eclecticism of much environmental criminology signifies openness to ideas and information from a wide range of sources, such work must be grounded in an explicit political and economic framework. The liberal-pluralist sentiment evident in the area belies the need to clarify the key structures of contemporary life that provide the organizing principles underpinning the exploitation of human and nonhuman nature alike. Analysis of particular instances of harm (and regulation), for example, must be understood in the context of wider structural parameters that effectively shape the nature and processes associated with such harm. Examination of the contours of contemporary Capitalism is essential to this task. Feminist Criminology Feminist perspectives, over the past thirty years have not only put some new topics under the criminological cover, they have challenged the theories, concepts, methods and assumptions of most of the people already involved in the study of crime. Theories of criminality have been developed from male subjects and validated on male subjects. Whilst there is nothing wrong with this, the problem is that these theories have been extended generally to include all criminals, defendants and prisoners. It was assumed that the theories would apply to women; most do not appear to do so (Gelsthorpe and Morris, 1990: xii-8). Many feminist writers developed theories that engaged in negative and/or reactive projects and/or criticized social, theoretical, and political relations, thereby challenging theories that currently existed. Critique and construct were important creative alternatives for the production of feminist, not simply anti-sexist theory, and without them according to Grosz, problems of the past, especially patriarchal assumptions, could have been repeated (1990: 59). The agenda for feminist criminology is to demonstrate to the more traditional members of the discipline that the conventional view of women is inaccurate. Women are to be observed behaving in ways that do not fit the theories. It tends to be the theories not the women that have been found to be deficient. Results from studies suggest that women are not thinking nor acting in ways which criminologists have normally assumed. Such discoveries do much to contradict the idea of the passive and compliant female contained in many standard accounts of crime. Some feminists such as Freda Adler, have not helped the female fight for equality and individual circumstance; instead they appear to have entrenched existing views of women and the women's movement. The women's movement has born the brunt of much criticism as causing an increase in crime amongst women, especially those of a more serious nature. Contradictory to Adler's theory of female emancipation as the cause, it appears from other studies to be a case whereby women are forced to commit offences as a result of impoverished and oppressed conditions due to unemployment, a lack of educational opportunities, domestic violence, and divorce or separation. Feminists have challenged the political, ontological, and epistemological assumptions that underlie patriarchal discourses as well as their theoretical contents. They have developed both an anti-sexist stance, and a stance which involves the construction of alternative models, methods, procedures, discourses and so on. Put simply, feminists have a normative commitment to revealing, and attempting to negate, the subordination of women by men. Such summaries do not do justice to the concepts and theories involved in feminisms, but they illustrate some of the key challenges to criminology. There are crucial theoretical, conceptual and methodological distinctions within these feminist perspectives and such ideas are not mutually exclusive; different theorists subscribe to different strands of thought within each group of theories.Equally, the various feminisms are not always rigorously discrete. But from the summaries it is possible to see how feminist challenges to criminology have been informed in a multiplicity of ways. Labeling theory Labeling theory is summarized in terms of nine assumptions as developed by Clarence Schrag, a major figure in the sociology of crime, and each assumption is related to current empirical research. Schrag identified what he considered to be the basic assumptions distinguishing labeling theory from other theoretical perspectives. These assumptions are as follows: (1) No act is intrinsically criminal; (2) Criminal definitions are enforced in the interest of the powerful; (3) A person does not become a criminal by violation of the law but only by the designation of criminality by authorities; (4) Due to the fact that everyone conforms and deviates, people should not be dichotomized into criminal and non-criminal categories; (5) The act of "getting caught" begins the labeling process; (6) Getting caught and the decision-making in the criminal justice system are a function of offender as opposed to offense characteristics; (7) Age, socioeconomic class, and race are the major offender characteristics that establish patterns of differential criminal justice decision making; (8) The criminal justice system is established on a freewill perspective that allows for the condemnation and rejection of the identified offender; and (9) Labeling is a process that produces, eventually, identification with a deviant image and subculture, and a resulting "rejection of the rejectors." In recent years criminologists have begun to emphasize the importance of society's reaction to crime, as an important ingredient in the perpetuation and intensification of criminal and delinquent careers. Basically, this perspective has provided a theoretical model by which criminologists could reassert their interest in the study of the criminal justice system, after decades of focusing on the characteristics of the offender. In this respect, the re-emergence of the sociology of law and the theoretical and empirical analysis of the police, courts, and corrections - an important emergence in the field of criminology - has been significantly advanced by labeling theorists. While there has yet to emerge the crucial experiment to evaluate the adequacy of labeling theory for criminology, it is suggested that we are able to consider the usefulness of the theory as an explanatory model for theories of criminal law-violating behavior. One of the features of the labeling school of criminology and deviance is that it implies a deep distrust of government and formal means of social control. Formal institutions like courts, prisons, and law enforcement are portrayed as contributing to the crime problem by the processes of stigmatization, role engulfment, and deviance amplification (Schur, 1971). The basic suspicion of the state can be seen in the labeling theory proposition that intervention by formal agencies of control usually will make things worse for someone caught up in them. As a theory of crime, labeling theory probably reached the height of its popularity during the late 1960s and early 1970s. This surge in its popularity could not be attributed to the fact that empirical evidence suddenly emerged to support its articulate propositions. When the intellectual climate changed over time and became more conservative, the popularity of labeling theory waned to the point that many scholars considered it "dead" (Tittle 1980). This is one of numerous instances where the career of a criminological theory was influenced by non-scientific criteria. Rational Choice Perspective In seeking to answer the question, "Why do people engage in deviant and/or criminal acts", many researchers, as well as the general public, have begun to focus on the element of personal choice. An understanding of personal choice is commonly based in a conception of rationality or rational choice. The central points of this theory are: (1) The human being is a rational actor, (2) Rationality involves an end/means calculation, (3) People (freely) choose all behavior, both conforming and deviant, based on their rational calculations, (4) The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain, (5) Choice, with all other conditions equal, will be directed towards the maximization of individual pleasure, (6) Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in violation of the social good, the social contract, (7) The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws (this system is the embodiment of the social contract), (8) The Swiftness, Severity, and Certainty of punishment are the key elements in understanding a law's ability to control human behavior. Classical theory, however, dominated thinking about deviance for only a short time. Positivist research on the external (social, psychological, and biological) "causes" of crime focused attention on the factors that impose upon and constrain the rational choice of individual actors. Owing to the perceived failure of rehabilitative technologies and the increase in the officially recorded crime rates during the 1970's and 1980's attention returned to an analysis of the criminal decision making process. Rational Choice Theory emerged. This perspective shifts attention to the act of engaging in criminal or deviant activity. The issue becomes, what can be done to make the act of crime or deviance less attractive to the individual How can crime or deviant behavior be prevented "...crime prevention or at least crime reduction, may be achieved through policies that convince criminals to desist from criminal activities, delay their actions, or avoid a particular target." (Siegel, p.133, 1992). Through Rational Choice Theory, Cornish and Clarke (1986) describe crime as an event that occurs when an offender decides to risk breaking the law after considering his or her own need for money, personal values or learning experiences and how well a target is protected, how affluent the neighborhood is or how efficient the local police are. In a published criminology research paper, David Sutton describes how Crime Prevention Theory links to Rational Choice Theory by a proposed set of opportunity reduction techniques. The intention is to increase the perceived effort necessary to commit a crime, or increase the perceived risks of apprehension, or reduce the anticipated rewards of a crime, or remove the excuses to compliance with the law. (Clarke, 1997: 15-25). The intention would be to make the disincentives to the commission of crime consistently outweigh the potential benefits. This would involve concerted efforts by the manufacturers of standard equipment prone to theft, to design in better security systems so that stolen goods cannot be used without a PIN or can be tracked. It also involves the adoption of surveillance technology to tag goods in stores electronically, install camera systems to monitor behavior, improve street lighting, have more police officers on patrol, assist householders to improve their home security, etc. Radical Criminology One of the first things to note and or understand is that Marxism is a foundation for this theoretical perspective. Crime is seen as a result of the very nature of capitalism (the crisis) and the need to maintain law and order. (Moore, 1996: 76) Capitalism controls all the government and social institutions for its benefits; law and law enforcement is used to exploit the working class, they enforce their own values upon the rest of the population. According to this Marxist view, one of the major means by which the ruling class controls people is to manipulate the cultural values of society to their benefit. Bonger (1916) developed the so-called Traditional Criminology as a theory; he argues that unemployment, low wages, deprivation, and alienation within the society cause crime. Bonger argues that capitalism is based on competition, on greed and selfishness; the poor people cannot get what they want so the only way towards their aims is crime.. Crime, as the radical criminologists argue, is an important mean for supporting the ideology of capitalism: by creating moral panics about certain crimes or certain groups in the community they divert the public attention from the very exploiting nature of capitalism. They concentrate on the need for law enforcement and stronger policing to protect public from those dangers, while in reality is to protect the capitalist regime. What is going on nowadays in the tabloid media and within the public about the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, it can be argued, that is a good example of this. These traditional views and one-dimensional analysis of crime paves the way to a new Marxist criminology, known as New Criminology. The new criminology or, radical criminology is formulated on the hands of Taylor, Walton and Young (1973). Livesey says: Taylor, Walton and Young wanted to demonstrate that conceptions of crime and law were based upon the ability of powerful classes in society to impose their definitions of normality and deviance on all other social classes. (Livesey, 2004, online) White-collar crimes are crimes of the clerks, managers and administration bodies in the course of their occupation. But police are concentrating on street crime, not these kinds of crimes. Another kind of crime is corporate crime. The new or radical criminologists see the crimes of those capitalists and company owners the same as a street theft or mugging committed by a working class youth, as Livesey says: Taylor, Walton and Young argue, the "cause of crime is the law". In order to understand why people commit crimes we have to firstly understand the way Capitalist societies are structurally differentiated in terms of wealth and power. (Ibid) The radical criminologists' description of law reaches its extremes as Livesey says: "The radical criminological argument appears to be that if there were no laws, there would be no crime." Not all laws, however, are seen to be entirely for the benefit of the ruling class. Clearly, many laws do genuinely protect ordinary people- obvious ones would be the laws on rape, drunken driving and safety at work. Genuine concessions can be gained either when the interests of the powerful and of ordinary people overlap or when representative pressure groups are able to push through reforms in the interests of the wider population. (Moore, 1996: 72-73). While radical criminologists exist, this theory is not generally viewed as particularly helpful or even legitimate to many in the criminology field. Bibliography Baker, H.S. 'Labeling theory reconsidered.' In Outsiders. Revised Edition. New York: The Free Press, 1973. Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press. Bonger, W. 1969 (1916). Criminality and Economic Conditions. Bloomington, IN: Indiana U.P. Clarke, Ronald R. (ed.) 1977. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Second Edition. New York: Harrow and Heston. Cornish, Derek & Clarke, Ronald V. (1986). "Introduction" in The Reasoning Criminal. Cornish, Derek and Clarke, Ronald V. (eds.). New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 1-16. Ditton, J. (1979). Controlology: Beyond the New Criminology. London: Macmillan. Gelsthorpe, L. and Morris, A. (eds.) (1990). Feminist Perspectives in Criminology. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Gove, Walter R. (ed.). Labeling of Deviance. 2nd Edition. Beverly Hills, Ca. Sage. Gove, Walter R. (2002). The Labeling Perspective: An Overview. Pp. 3-20. Gunningham, N., Norberry, J. and McKillop, S. (eds.) (1995). Environmental Crime, Conference Proceedings. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Hornberger, Francine. (2002). Mistresses of Mayhem. New York: Hornberger Publishing Services. Jensen, Vickie. (2001). Why Women Kill. Boulder, CO.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Livesey, C. Deviance and Social Control Unit M10: Radical Criminology. www.sociology.org.uk (online) Accessed: 23 November 2006. Moore, S. (1996) Investigating Crime and Deviance. 2nd Edition. London: Collins Educational. Revision-Notes.co.uk (2003): Crime According to Marx. (online). Accessed: 25 November 2006. Schrag, C. (1977) Review of Thinking About Crime, Punishing Criminals, and We are the Living Proof. Criminology. Pp.14, 569-573. Schur, Edwin. (1971). Labeling Deviant Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Siegel, Larry. (1992) Criminology. 4th Edition. West Publishing. Sutherland, Edwin H. and Cressey, Donald R. (1970. Criminology. New York: J.B. Lippincott Co., 8th Edition. Sutton, David. Ronald V. Clarke. Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the Community. New York: Columbia University Press. Taylor, I., Walton, P. and Young, J. (1973) The New Criminology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Tittle, Charles R. (1980). Labeling and Crime: An Empirical Evaluation. Pp. 241-269. Williams, C. (1996). 'An Environmental Victimology.' Social Justice. 23 (4): 16-40. Winters, Paul. (1995). Crime and Criminals. Opposing Viewpoints series. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. Read More