Class, power, and crime
Other perspectives on crime
Functionalism
Strain theory
law is a reflection of society’s shared values
crime is the product of inadequate socialisation into these values.
modern societies with complex divisions of labour --> different groups and classes develop their own separate subcultures.
Miller argues that the lower class has developed an independent subculture with its own norms and values that clash with mainstream culture --> explains lower class have a higher crime rate. Conforming to subcultural norms such as toughness and the pursuit of excitement can lead to conflict with the law.
Strain theory argues that people engage in deviant behaviour when their opportunities to achieve in legitimate ways are blocked. For example, Merton argues that American society's class structure denies working class people the opportunity to achieve the “money success” that American culture values so highly. As the working class are more likely to be denied legitimate opportunities to achieve success (eg. educational achievement and a good job), they are more likely to seek illegitimate ways to achieve it. Merton calls this “innovation”, which is the use of new, deviant means such as theft, fraud or other property crime to gain wealth. In Merton’s view, this explains why the working class has a higher rate of utilitarian crime (crime for material gain) than the middle class.
Subcultural theory
Subcultural theories stem from Merton’s idea that the working class suffer from blocked opportunities to achieve success by legitimate means. For example, Cohen sees working class youths as culturally deprived as they have not been socialised into the mainstream, middle class culture. As a result, they lack the means to achieve in education and find themselves at the bottom of the official status hierarchy. Their failure gives rise to status frustration. The delinquent subculture that they form or join is a solution to the problem of status frustration: by inverting mainstream values such as respect for property, working class youths can gain status from their peers, for example, by vandalising property. Cohen’s theory thus helps to explain why the working class are more likely to commit non-utilitarian crime. Cloward and Ohlin build on Merton and Cohen and they use the concept of illegitimate opportunity structures to explain why a range of different crimes are more prevalent within the working class. They identify a criminal subculture in stable working class neighbourhoods that offers professional criminal career opportunities, a conflict subculture of gang violence and “turf wars'' in poor areas with a high population turnover and a retreatist “dropout” drug subculture made up of those who fail in both legitimate and illegitimate opportunity structures.
Labelling theory
The functionalist, strain and subcultural theories just described have been called “problem takers” as they take for granted official statistics as broadly accurate and working class crime is the problem. They focus their efforts on discovering the cause of the problem such as inappropriate socialisation or blocked opportunities. However, labelling theorists take a very different approach: they reject the view that official statistics are a useful resource for sociologists that give a valid picture of which class commits most crime. Instead of seeking the supposed causes of working class criminality, they focus on how and why working class people come to be labelled as a criminal. They emphasise the stereotypes held by law enforcement agencies that see the working class as “typical criminals'' and the power of these agencies to successfully label powerless groups such as the working class. For this reason, labelling theorists have been described as “problem makers'' as they do not see official crime statistics as valid social facts or a useful resource and instead, crime statistics are a topic whose construction we must investigate by studying the power of control agents to label working class people as criminals.
Marxists, class and crime
Marxists agree with labelling theorists --> the law is enforced disproportionately against the working class and therefore, the official crime statistics cannot be taken at face value.
They criticise labelling theory --> failing to examine the wider structure of capitalism within law making, law enforcement and offending take place.
Marxist view of crime
Marxists see capitalist society --> divided into 2 classes: the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production and the proletariat who are exploited.
structure theory --> sees society as a structure built in the economic base (capitalist economy) determines the shape of the superstructure --> all institutions including the state, law and the criminal justice system.
Their function is to serve ruling class interests and maintain the capitalist economy.
Crimogenic capitalism
Ideological functions of crime
The state and law making
crime is inevitable --> capitalism is criminogenic (its very existence and nature causes crime).
Capitalism --> based on the exploitation of the working class --> damaging to them and may give rise to crime.
Poverty --> crime is the only way the working class can survive. Crime may be the only way to obtain the consumer goods advertised by capitalists, resulting in utilitarian crimes such as theft. Alienation and a lack of control over their lives may lead to frustration and aggression, leading to non-utilitarian crimes such as violence and vandalism.
Functionalists see the law as reflecting value consciousness and the values of society
Marxists see lawmaking and law enforcement --> serving the interests of the capitalist class.
Chambliss argues that laws to protect private property are the cornerstone of capitalist economy.
the introduction of English law into Britain’s East African colonies --> interested in colonies’ tea, coffee and plantations.
local economy was not a money economy --> the British introduced a tax payable in cash - non-payment was a criminal offence.
cash could only be earned by working on plantations and thus, the law served the economic interests of capitalist plantation owners as they forced the African population to work.
The ruling class also have the power to prevent the introduction of laws that would threaten their interests. For example, Snider notes that there are few laws that challenge the unequal distribution of wealth and the capitalist state is reluctant to pass laws that regulate the activities of businesses or threaten their profitability.
Selective enforcement: Marxists agree with labelling theorists that although all classes commit crime, there is selective enforcement when applying the law by the criminal justice system. Powerless groups such as the working class and ethnic minorities are criminalised whilst the police and courts ignore the crimes of the powerful.
The law, crime and criminals perform an ideological function for capitalism. Laws are occasionally passed that appear to benefit the working classes rather than capitalism such as workplace health and safety laws.
However, Pearce argues that these laws benefit the ruling class, for example, by keeping workers fit for work. By giving capitalism a “caring face” such laws create false consciousness. These laws are not rigorously enforced. For example, Jenabi notes that a law against corporate homicide had only one successful prosecution of a UK company despite large numbers of deaths at work caused by employer’s negligence. Furthermore, the state enforces law selective policy which makes crime appear to be a working class phenomenon and divides the working class by encouraging workers to blame the criminals for their problems instead of capitalism.
The media and criminologists also contribute by portraying criminals as disturbed individuals, thereby concealing the fact that it is capitalism that makes people criminals.
Criticisms of Marxism
It ignores the relationship between crime and non-class inequalities such as ethnicity and gender.
It is too deterministic and over-predicts the amount of crime in the working class: not all poor people commit crime, despite the pressures of poverty.
The criminal justice system does sometimes act against the interests of the capitalist class. For example, prosecutions for corporate crimes do occur. However, Marxists argue that such occasional prosecutions perform an ideological function in making the system seem impartial.
Left realists argue that Marxism ignores intra-class crimes, where criminals and victims are both working class, such as burglary and mugging, which causes great harm to victims.
Phillips and Bowling (2012) notes that since the 1970s, there have been many allegations of oppressive policing of minority ethnic communities, including mass stop and search operations (Ethnic minority group members are more likely to be stopped and searched by the police --> Black people are 7x more likely to be stopped and searched and Asians 2x as likely compared to white people), excessive surveillance, armed raids, police violence and ineffective responses to racist violence.
For example, left realists argue that the mass media help to increase the sense of relative deprivation (feeling deprived compared to others) among poor and marginalised social groups. Lea and Young argue that the mass media have spread a standardised image of lifestyle in areas of popular culture and recreation, which creates relative deprivation among the poor and unemployed.
poorest have access to media, the media present everyone with images of a materialistic “good life” of leisure, fun and consumer goods as the norm that they should conform to. As a result, this stimulates the sense of relative deprivation and social exclusion felt by marginalised groups who cannot afford these goods. As Merton argues, pressure to conform to the norm can cause deviant behaviour when the opportunity to achieve by legitimate means is blocked. In this instance, the media is instrumental in setting the norm and thus, promoting crime.
Examples include the Pandora Papers (exposing unethical or corrupt dealings of the global wealthy and elite—including prominent world leaders, politicians), Deepwater Horizon oil spill