CHAPTER 8
This chapter is quite divergent from any of the other chapters we have
studied thus far. Instead of studying crime from an individual viewpoint,
conflict theorists blame our political, economic and social systems for
creating a criminogenic environment. There are a
small number of criminologists who hold this perspective. It is not mainstream
criminological thinking and that is why it is sometimes referred to as radical
criminology. I like to refer to it as political criminology. Our text covers
this topic in great detail. The following lecture notes are designed to provide
you with a summary of that chapter and hopefully will help you to formulate
your own opinion on its worth.
LECTURE NOTES
SOCIAL CONFLICT
Social Conflict theory is not one theory but consists of a number of theories grouped together because they have the same underlying theme: that all criminal law and thus crime emanates from a more powerful group of people attempting to control a less powerful group. This more powerful group usually the government. All crime involves social conflict. There is not one criminal act that cannot be related to social conflict of some kind. Some conflict is between individuals and the other is between certain social and political groups. I have provided the following examples of conflict both individual and group.
Individual conflict:
Murder: conflict between individuals. One individual taking the life of another is in conflict with the individual who wants to live.
Robbery: conflict between individuals. One individual threatens another to take their property by force.
Theft: conflict between individuals or individuals and group(s). An individual takes property from another without their consent. The conflict is between those who want to keep their property and those who want it.
Group conflict necessarily implies that there are some who believe that engaging in the act is acceptable. It involves one group of individuals telling another group that it is not okay. It is simply a dispute between two or more opposing groups.
Prostitution: Group conflict between those who believe that prostitution is immoral and should be illegal as opposed to those who hold the view that prostitution is a matter of individual choice and should be legal.
Drugs: Group conflict between those who believe drugs should be legalized and those that don't.
Gambling: Group conflict between those who believe that gambling should be legal and those who don't.
Terrorism is group conflict. One group (less powerful) is trying to impose its will on a more powerful group through terroristic activities. Osama Bin Laden is not the first terrorist. Some would say that the activities of the American Revolution were terroristic in nature. Terrorists believe that they are right in their acts.
CRIMINOLOGICAL VIEWPOINTS
At this point we need to be aware that there are opposing viewpoints on the purpose and nature of criminal law as follows:
Consensus view of crime: Most people agree that the criminal laws are a reflection of our basic societal values such as virtue, honor, right and wrong. Laws prohibiting theft, murder, drug use and prostitution, for example, are created out of consensus by most of society that it is wrong to engage in these acts according to this perspective. Criminal laws are designed to protect the innocent from evil and are for the good of society.
Conflict View of crime: Criminal law is a weapon used by the powerful and wealthy to control the less powerful.
To further illustrate the two positions, consensus view would say that individuals from lower socio-economic classes who rob, steal and murder are dangerous predators that must be controlled. On the other hand Conflict theorists would say that the real criminals are those in power who have created laws to protect themselves from those who may be a threat to their lifestyle and beliefs. Conflict criminologists argue that capitalists cheat and kill others (through use of or the making of their product) but the laws favor them because they are viewed as only trying to get a competitive advantage and such conduct is generally acceptable business practice. Capitalists control the legislators so they can dictate what is right and wrong.
To summarize, the consensus view sees criminal behavior as evil whereas the conflict view sees crime as a behavior that is criminalized through the application of the criminal law.
The conflict criminologist believes that all crime is related to this social conflict between the have and have-nots or between those who have economic, social and political power and those who do not.
MARXIST CRIMINOLOGY:
Although a number of criminologists had pointed their finger at our capitalistic system and American culture as the creator of our criminal population, conflict theory had little importance in the criminological field until the 1960's. It was during this time that there was considerable social and political unrest taking place in the country such as the Vietnam War and civil rights protests. Many younger people were beginning to question mainstream values. Conventional values were rejected and some even advocated revolution. Communism actually appeared attractive and many people believed that we needed to overthrow the capitalistic system. It was in this atmosphere that some criminologists began to promote the view that the criminal justice system was nothing more than a tool of the rich and powerful to control the lower class and maintain the status quo. The general belief held by most at the time was that the system was created as a result of a moral consensus to control unacceptable, destructive behaviors.
Conflict criminologists point out that crime is purely definitional. It doesn't exist unless our government defines it as such. Those who have power (the ability of persons and groups to determine and control the behavior of others) define what crime is and therefore crime is culturally relative and not guided by any absolute as to what is right and wrong.
There are two prominent Marxist criminological perspectives: Instrumental Marxism and Institutional Marxism.
Instrumental Marxism
The capitalistic system is the real culprit because it has created the various classes based on wealth where power is unevenly divided. The criminal laws, according to the conflict theorists, were created by the upper class members to keep the lower class members in their place. For example, anti drug laws impact mostly the lower class and minority populations and conflict theorists would say that this population is being controlled through these drug laws.
Our economy has become global. American foreign policy is designed to protect our capitalistic system and thus large numbers of people in other countries are going to suffer. People in the lower classes are an oppressed people struggling to survive. Many crimes are committed out of a need to survive socially and economically and politically. Assault, homicides and drug use and even terrorism are a means of expressing frustration, rage and anger. Crime then, according to the conflict criminologist is a normal response to the social, economic and political conditions caused by the capitalistic system.
According to these criminologists, in a totally classes society where power is evenly divided, there would be no crime as we know it. This is because there is no such thing as a inherently bad act in which a society would need to controlled and since there would be no class conflict there would be no need for laws.
Conflict theorists believe that they have proof that the criminal justice system is an instrument of the powerful through various studies that show that courts and police are bias against minorities and members of the lower classes. They point out the disproportionate number of minority arrests and convictions. They also point out that victims who are members of the more powerful classes will get preferential treatment in the system.
The solution would be to create a totally classless society where power is evenly divided and there will be no more crime because there will be no class conflict.
Structural
Marxism:
This viewpoint states that the law is designed to keep the capitalist system running efficiently and effectively. The system has evolved from a group of individuals to one that takes on a life of its own. We no longer allow domination by a few individuals. If they get too powerful, we try to control them because we see it as endangering the system overall. Since about 1890, this country has been systematically reducing the power of the individual entrepreneur to prevent possible exploitation by one person or groups of persons. One of the most powerful tools is the anti-trust laws which have been utilized recently against Microsoft and in particular Bill Gates who the government had seen as obtaining too much power.
EVALUATION
As mentioned previously, few criminologists accepted this view of crime and many have found significant weaknesses as follows:
Weaknesses:
It
is a great leap of faith to assume either that criminal law always arises from
conflict between competing groups or that crime always expresses conflict
between competing groups or that the process of criminalization always serves
the interests of the powerful.
The consensus view takes the opposite position, that criminal laws are designed to protect the individual and society particularly those designed to protect the individual. This is especially true of the mala in se type offenses like murder, rape, robbery, burglary, theft, etc.
Some
would argue that there is only a weak relationship between social class and
crime, that crime is a result of the socialization process or biological
pre-dispositions toward violent behavior. Crime will continue to exist because
of poor parenting practices, poor social adjustment, poor
school adjustment or because of chemical differences in our brains.
Crime
rates are not necessarily reduced and certainly not eliminated when the
economic system of a country is transformed to a more socialistic system.
Witness the
On the other hand, we cannot ignore conflict theory altogether.
Strengths:
Some
laws are created out of conflict between competing interest groups. In fact,
many of our more recent laws that may have a criminal element to them were
created out of conflict between groups vying for power to get their way. For example. Civil rights laws, morality laws (drugs,
prostitution, abortion, gambling)
Conflict
criminology introduced the political dimension to the study of crime and we
can't ignore the fact that criminal law is created in the political arena and
is going to have a significant impact on what is deemed criminal and what is
not. What is American politics? It involves the struggle between two groups:
Democrats and Republicans each with its different perspective on what is crime.
MY OWN SUMMARY
Conflict criminologists are in the minority. They
are radical in the sense that they are absolutely opposed to mainstream
criminological thought. They seem to enjoy this position and I think get great
pleasure out of attacking the system without really offering any proof or any
acceptable alternative. They seem to think that the answer to the crime problem
would be to abolish the capitalistic system yet they ignore the fact that this
is totally impossible and that some countries, such as
Some conflict criminologists have shifted their focus lately offering solutions rather than just criticisms. They advocate humanist solutions to solve social problems. Instead of using punishment and prison, we should use mediation and conflict resolution. This is referred to as Restorative Justice which focuses on healing the wounds caused by a crime by bringing the offender, victim and community together to restore the victim. It is based in part on principles found in some Native American tribes in dealing with criminal type behavior.