Criminology past and present - Essay Example

Criminology past and present Marxism as began by Karl Marx and later by Friedrich Engels dwells on the factthat social inequalities tend to influence members of society towards deviance and crime because of the perceived social control that is usually done by the rich 1. The ideas by Engels and Marx were quite influential in helping explain why people in crime by sharing the view that crimes that are considered white collar are usually overlooked while the petty crimes are highly punishable by law hence influencing inequality2. New theories have emerged over the years that have the Marxist principles in them but have become broader as to widen the scope of criminology. In essence, Taylor, Walton and Young combined Marxism and interactionalism to form part of the Neo-Marxist approach in criminology meaning that Marxist ideas were the basis for this new school of thought. In the neo-Marxist approach to criminology, the police force only focuses on the street crimes committed by the minority groups such as the African American community, while they fail to investigate and apprehend the true culprits of these crimes where everyone can be a suspect. In a capitalist society, production tends to influence economic infrastructure as this tends to increase crime for economic gains and wealth accumulation owing from the cultivated behavior by society. Capitalism advocates for individual ownership of property rather than wealth being collective, which in turn influences crime at all society levels because the achievement is through all manner possible3. This influences crime because individual or corporate achievement is at the expense of the society members, which is propelled by greed and self interest. Additionally, capitalism also influences the culture of envy among the poor because they can never afford to live in luxury hence influencing them to commit crimes to access the things that they cannot afford and have been denied by the rich. According to some Marxist theories on criminology, the laws passed by the state only seek to protect and serve the interest of the production or ruling class of the society, which are a reflection of what the controlling class wants. Based on this, Marxists such as Thorsten, David Gordon, and Bonger argue that the punishment that a person receives for the crimes they commit depends on their social status and can also influence whether they are found guilty or not for the crime that they are accused of which is a past and present view on crime. Based on this overview, this essay will critically compare the past theories touching on Marxist perspective of criminology with present versions and theories on criminology. The core argument that Marxists advocate for is that poverty gives birth to crime because of the inequalities that are present in society where greed and corruption can flourish. Therefore, the capitalist ideology according to Marxists is built on economic exploitation of the working class who form the majority and applies oppressive methods to achieve this fete. The ruling class tends to influence the laws of a state in which if the poor or the working class go against as much as they might be oppressing to them then they are considered deviants4. From this, the rich only make laws that will be able to protect their wealth meaning that crimes such as embezzlement and tax evasion are not highly punishable as compared to property theft and fraud. The Marxists also insist that the real criminals are the rich people in society while the perceived criminals are only turning against the society that they are forced to live in by the rich and elite of society. David Gordon, a pro-Marxism individual asserted that the working class was supposed to be allowed to commit more crime because it was a justified reaction to the inequalities that they were facing in society that were making them to be poor. According to Gordon, corporate committed crimes against society because of the fear of falling out of business because if they did not engage in crimes such as tax evasion then they would be out of business.5 Therefore, the values and norms influenced by the rich only focus on making the already existing social inequalities to be more legit because the laws passed are not focused on regulating the activities conducted by businesses. Based on this, penology becomes a tool that only seeks to protect the wealth and practices of the elite as a way of satisfying public opinion. Corporate crimes are usually undetected based on countless cases studies such as the BP oil spill at the Mexican Gulf where the focus is always on the amount of loss incurred from such a disaster instead of the safety of those affected.6 In most cases, business entities that are found of guilty of corporate crimes are let off easily by only receiving warnings because in such corporations responsibilities are shared making it hard to blame such crimes on one individual. This happens irrespective of the fact that corporate crimes have far-reaching effects in terms of cost and injury as compared to the crimes committed by the working class hence bringing out inequalities7. The first theory was developed by Bonger Willem who was a criminologist from Netherlands, through him having a strong belief in the linkage between social conditions, the economy and crime. According to him, the emergence of capitalism created the opportunity for selfish expansion of individuals (egoism) because there developed a competition in terms of wealth8. For the poor, this theory asserts that they commit crime as a way of repulsing the injustices that they face, which at times is out of need. The poor that go against the norms and values crafted by the rich face two consequences either direct that tends to increase their pressure to survive in the unequal society or indirect where they are further alienated by the society that they live in9. Bonger in this theory also asserted that crime did not only result from poverty but the poverty was coupled with false needs, racism, individualism and materialism, which influenced competition among the street thugs so as to have a dominance over the same. However, this theory has been highly discredited as critics of the same argue that it heavily condemns the western ideology of capitalism and that it encourages the perceived poor to engage in crime in an attempt to overthrow them. ohan Stein Thorsten is considered the founder of the cultural conflict theory and him being an American sociologist and also taught in the field of criminology. Also known as the cultural deviance theory, suggests that crime results from the failure of different social groups to agree on what acceptable social behavior should be as they could be harboring different ideas on what this should be10. This implies that different social groups tend to have cultural ideas that are different and that in itself can result to conflict that can in turn lead to crime. In essence, what one social group may deem as acceptable behavior is what the other would view as inacceptable behavior hence classifying it as crime11. According to Sellin, the clash of values and beliefs on what acceptable behavior should be is what brings forth crime, which is what society considers to be a violation of the law hence leading to conflict12. In this theory, Thorsten suggested that criminologists should change tact when it comes to studying crime to include researching on crime as a violation of conduct norms and not on the law13. The conduct norms refers to the rules that prohibit members of society from acting in a certain way under different circumstances meaning that when one goes against them, it should be considered as criminal. It should only viewed as a simple violation of the norms and should not be considered as a crime. Sellin referred to conflict as being of two types, which are the primary conflict and the secondary conflict14. Essentially, primary conflict refers to the conflict in which two cultures that are not similar clash while the secondary conflict refers to the conflict that may exist within a single culture. In the secondary conflict, where it mainly targets the minority, they create their own set of rules that can help them survive. When there is cultural interaction between the two cultures, then conflict is likely to arise because each will react protectively as the norms of the other culture may be considered infringing to the other culture15. What necessitates conflict is if there is unequal spread of power as one culture might feel oppressed by the dominant culture that can result in them being perceived as deviant16. Marxist criminologists assert that the best ideology that societies should adopt is the communist ideology as this promotes equality and is also likely to reduce the percentage of crime by a significant margin. This is because the communist ideology does not support egoism, which is the main influencer towards greed that in turn encourages the committing of white-collar crimes or corporate crimes. According to Bonger, crime that is necessitated by need and poverty would not be present in a communist / socialist society because individuals would not be selfish as to leave others to suffer at their expense17. Ideally, the poor tend to steal because they seek to protect their children from sleeping hungry and view crime as their only source of provision, as the rich do not consider their plight.18 Over the years, criminologists such as Taylor, Young and Walton have taken a different approach towards the reasons as to why people commit crime, where they argued that people commit crimes because they choose to19. The work of three is in agreement with classical Marxism by arguing that inequalities tend to influence crime and further advocate for the society to transform so as to eliminate these inequalities. Taylor, Young, and Walton do not agree with the view that criminal behavior is influenced by external factors meaning that it is subconscious decision by an individual to also gain and it is not forced on anyone20. To them, crime is not caused by poverty or by people belonging to certain subcultures as people can also seek to make their lives better by not necessarily having to engage in crime in order for them to survive21. Based on this, the three argue that there are other civil ways that exist for those that feel oppressed to air their dissatisfaction such as liberation movements, which are effective ways of fighting injustices rather than engaging in vandalism and other criminal acts as avenues of expressing discontent. In this new way of viewing crime, the three asserted the need to liberate criminology to a way that connect both deviance and crime together to create the fully social theory. In essence, sociologists in America developed the deviance theory as one that sought to explain how people in society choose to go against the norms and expectations of their culture or society. Crime can be categorized as a deviant behavior that results from a person deviating from the norms and formal laws developed by the society. However, accommodation by the different societies can be achieved only if there is equal spread of power among them where one culture not feel the need to revolt because of being treated unfairly by the other culture. This becomes the new criminology because members of society choose to engage in criminal activities because they feel oppressed to which there are consequences to such behavior. Punishment must exist in a society for those that perpetrate crime because if there are no laws then there would not be law order in society that can facilitate economic growth. In the full social deviance theory as developed by Taylor, Walton and Young, the idea communicated was that crime was a result of the social system that a person lives, which was later published by Stuart Hall. According to Hall and Winlow, people are labeled as criminal especially people from the black community then this amplifies crime more because only they will always be suspected of crime while the other races go free. The implication of this is that culture tends to have a hand on law and order based on the neo-Marxist approach through stereotyping. When the muggings started in Britain, it was associated with the black community because these robbers used to wear masks when committing crimes. It was a wrong view because anybody could wear a ski mask and rob people but only the black community were the first suspects and were policed and harassed at all times. This view just made this minority community to be scapegoats for the social ills that were occurring in the 70s. Sociologists have also moved from viewing crime from a Marxist perspective to include stereotypes associated with race that makes people to be viewed as criminal and also the perception created by the media about some races22. Gilroy Paul and Hall Stuart have established that crime is politically motivated as they established a link between crime and race23. According to them, the media asserts that the African American community is highly likely to engage in crime as compared to other ethnicities, which has in turn influenced them to be heavily policed24. Essentially, this view is also shared in Eliot Currie’s essay as he also asserts that African Americans and Hispanics as compared to other races receive brutal or different police treatment because the stereotype associated to them with crime. This has influenced a rift between the white and black working class because this stereotype asserts that the majority of this ethnic minority is criminal and that the media is a tool used by capitalists o push their own agenda. This is a deviation from the real issue, which is that any person can be a criminal irrespective of their ethnic background meaning that there should be equal treatment for all members of society. In the 21st century, criminologists have shifted from the initial view that crime was influenced by cultural attributes and economic inequality to include factors such as race, class and gender as other reasons that influence crime25. According to realists and feminists, Marxist theories on crime are inconclusive because they fail to address crime related to gender violence because this happens mostly within the working class and not in the class of the rich26. In essence, the women in the working class are more susceptible to domestic violence because the incomes that are available are not capable of meeting their needs27. When they ask for more from their spouses then they might attract violence upon themselves because the men feel that they work hard but are not able to meet the demands of their families as the rich do not pay them enough. Cleaver argues against the fact that working to Marxists is an exploitation tool used by capitalists, which to him is not the case28. In his view, work forms part of the modern day social life because one does not expect not to work and still enjoy the luxuries that those who are working enjoy. In order for one to get money, they have to work within a capitalist society meaning that money is what influences people to work and not because they are forced by the bourgeoisie to do so29. In this school of thought, money that comes from working is a positive thing as it helps in correcting the shortages that are available in the society, which can in turn eliminate poverty30. However, the laws that exist limit the people in society in terms of the ways that they can be able to make money through domination and protection of private property that is attained through hard work31. Based on this, societies have moved from seeing the working class victims of capitalism to being individuals that are part of the capitalist movement in the post modern world. Engaging in crime is a choice as much as there exists inequality in society but the oppressed should find other ways for seeking liberation rather than becoming criminals because the laws on protect the rich32. The poor (proletariat) have no say in the justice system, which is the reason why crime should be punished on an individual basis and not based on the social class that a person belongs to33. In so doing, the society will be able to reduce crime if the state and the law treats people from different cultures and classes equally through the adoption of values and norms that are acceptable to all. Bibliography Adamson, E. (1984). "Toward a Marxian penology." Social Problems, 31, 435-58. Barak, Gregg, Jeanne Flavin, and Paul Leighton. 2001. Class, Race, Gender, and Crime: Social Realities of Justice in America. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing. Barak, Gregg. 1996/1999. (ed.). Representing O.J.: Murder, Criminal Justice, and Mass Culture. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston. Republished with a new preface and new title, Media, Criminal Justice, and Mass Culture. New York: Criminal Justice Press. Barkan, Steven E., and George J. Bryjak. Myths and Realities of Crime and Justice: What Every American Should Know. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett, 2008. Blanchard, Kendall. The Anthropology of Sport: An Introduction. Westport, Conn: Bergin & Garvey, 1995. Bohm, Robert M. A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 2010. Carrington, K. (2002), ‘Feminism and critical criminology: Confronting genealogies’, in Carrington, K and R.  Hogg (eds), Critical Criminology: Issues Debates, Challenges, Oregon: Willan, pp. 114-142 Cleaver, H. (2002), ‘Work is still the central issue! New words for new worlds’, in Dinerstein, A. and M. Neary, The Labour Debate: An Investigation into the Theory and Reality of Capitalist Work, Hampshire: Ashgate, pp. 135-148 Cohen, S. (1980). Folk devils and moral panics. New York: Oxford University Press. Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press. Covington, Jeanette. Crime and Racial Constructions: Cultural Misinformation About African Americans in Media and Academia. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2010. Friedrichs, D. (1980). "Radical criminology." Pp. 35-60 in J. Inciardi (ed.) Radical criminology. Beverly Hills: Sage. Grana, Sheryl J., and Sheryl J. Grana. Women and Justice. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010. Greenberg, D. (ed.) (1981). Crime and capitalism. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Gregory, Paul R., and Robert C. Stuart. The Global Economy and Its Economic Systems. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2014. Hagan, J. (1989). Structural criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Hall, Steven. New Directions in criminological theory. London: Routledge, 2012. Kriesberg, Louis, and Bruce W. Dayton. Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012. Lie, John, and Robert J. Brym. Sociology: Your Compass for a New World. New York, N.Y.: Wadsworth, 2006. Maguire, Mike. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press, 2007. Martin, R., Mutchnick, R. J., & Austin, W. T. (1990). Criminological thought: Pioneers past and present . New York: Macmillan. McDonald F. William, Immigration, Crime and Justice. London: Emerald Group Publ, 2009. McIllwain, Jeffrey Scott. Organizing Crime in Chinatown: Race and Racketeering in New York City, 1890-1910. 2005. Messner, Steven F., Marvin D. Krohn, and Allen E. Liska. Theoretical Integration in the Study of Deviance and Crime: Problems and Prospects. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. Neary, M. (2006), ‘Crime and the university: The story of Sort’d, a community – (higher) education project’, Probation Journal, 53 (2), 124-136 OConnor, David E. Deciphering Economics: Timely Topics Explained. 2014. OConnor, T. (1998) "The Contributions of Marx, Weber, and Simmel." Pp. 9-17 in Cutting the Edge by J. Ross. Westport: Greenwood. Panasiuk, Ryszard. Marxs Theories Today. Amsterdam [u.a.]: Rodopi, 1998. Pepinsky, H. (1976). Crime and conflict. New York: Academic. Pepinsky, H. E., ed. , & Quinney, R. (Eds.). (1991). Criminology as peacemaking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Pontell, Henry N., and Gilbert Geis. International Handbook of White-Collar and Corporate Crime. New York: Springer, 2007. Pontuso, James F. Václav Havel: Civic Responsibility in the Postmodern Age. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Quinney, R. (1991). Journey to a far place: Autobiographical reflections. Philadelphia:Temple University Press. Quinney, R. (2000). Bearing witness to crime and social justice . Albany: SUNY Press. Quinney, R. (2000). Criminology as moral philosophy, criminologist as witness . In R. Quinney (Ed.), Bearing witness to crime and social justice (pp. pp. 193–213). Albany: SUNY Press. Regoli, Robert M., John D. Hewitt, and Matt DeLisi. Delinquency in Society. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2014. Regoli, Robert M., John D. Hewitt, and Matt DeLisi. Delinquency in Society. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2014. Reiman, J. (1984). The rich get richer and the poor get prison. New York: Wiley. Siegel, L. (2004). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, & Typologies, 8e. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Slattery, Martin. Key Ideas in Sociology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes, 2003. Taylor, Ian, Walton, Paul and Young Jock. Critical Criminology. London: Routledge, 2013. Turk, A. (1977). "Class conflict in criminalization." Sociological Focus, 10, 209-20. Ugwudike, Pamela. An Introduction to Critical Criminology. Policy Pr, 2015. Unruh, D. (1980). "The nature of social worlds." Pacific Sociological Review, 23, 271-96. Vito, Gennaro F. Criminology. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2006. Vito, Gennaro F., and Jeffrey R. Maahs. Criminology: Theory, Research, and Policy. Sudbury, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012. Wiley, N. (ed.) (1987). The Marx-Weber debate. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Williams, Katherine S. Textbook on Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Wozniak, J. F. (2008). Toward a theoretical model of peacemaking criminology: An essay in honor of Richard Quinney. Wozniak, J. F., et al (2008). Transformative justice: Critical and peacemaking themes influenced by Richard Quinney . Lanham, MD: Lexington. Read More