c&d - NEO/MARXISM, CLASS AND CRIME

What does Gordon claim?

crime isn’t confined to the w/c - capitalism is a ‘dog-eat-dog’ system of competition - encourages capitalists to commit white collar crime and corporate crimes - crime is a rational response to the capitalist system - why it’s found in all societies.

Criminogenic society:

for marxists, crime is inevitable because capitalism is criminogenic - it’s very nature causes crime. capitalism is based on the exploitation of the w/c via alienation.

• poverty = crime is the only way the w/c can survive

• the media encourages consumerism → may only be obtained via utilitarian crime

• alienation → frustration → non-utilitarian crime

What does Chambliss point out?

the state and laws primarily serve the interests of the ruling class.

What was Chambliss’ study?

study of English law into Britain’s East African colonies. Britain’s economic interests lay in the colonies’ tea plantations, which needed a plentiful supply of local labour. At the time, the local economy wasn’t a money economy, so to force the reluctant African population to work for them, the British introduced a tax payable in cash, non-payment of which was a punishable criminal offence. Cash could only be earned by working on the plantations, the law served the economic interests of the capitalist plantation owners

What does Snider say?

the capitalist state is reluctant to pass laws that regulate the activities of businesses or threaten their profitability.

What does Pearce argue?

Ideological functions of crime and law: laws are occasionally passed that appear to be for the benefit of the w/c rather than capitalism, such as workplace health and safety laws. However, Pearce argues that such laws often benefit the ruling class too – for example, by keeping working fit for work. By giving capitalism a ‘caring face’, such laws also create false consciousness among the workers.

Furthermore, the media also contribute by portraying criminals as disturbed individuals, thereby concealing the fact that it’s the nature of capitalism that makes people criminals.

Criticisms of the Marxist perspective on c&d:

1. Too deterministic - Not all working-class people commit crimes.

2. Overemphasis on Class. And ignores non-class crimes that don’t fit the class-conflict model, such as violent or sexual crimes and interpersonal crimes (link to Dobash and Dobash)

3. Not all capitalist societies have high crime rates, eg, the homicide rate in Japan is a fifth of that in the US.

What perspective does Taylor et al take?

neo-marxist perspective - critical criminology

What are the views of Taylor and others?

differ significantly from marxists, describing their view as critical criminology. Argue that Marxism = deterministic, eg, it sees workers as driven to commit crime out of economic necessity. They reject this, along with theories that claim crime is caused by other external factors such as anomie, subcultures or labelling, or by biological and psychological factors. Instead, they take a more voluntaristic view, they see crime as meaningful action and a conscious choice by the actor.

What is Taylor and others’ ‘fully social theory of deviance’? What are the six aspects?

a comprehensive understanding of crime and deviance that would help change society for the better. This theory has two main sources:

1.      Marxist ideas about the unequal distribution of wealth

2.      Ideas from interactionism and the labelling theory about the meaning of a deviant act for the actor, societal reactions to it, and the effect of labelling on the wrongdoer.

In their view, a complete theory of deviance needs to unite six aspects:

1.      The wider origins of the deviant act

2.      The immediate origins of the deviant act

3.      The act itself

4.      The immediate origins of social reaction

5.      The wider origins of social reaction

6.      The effects of labelling

For Taylor and others, these aspects are interrelated.

How do left realists criticise critical criminology?

1.      Romanticises w/c criminals as ‘Robin Hoods’ who are fighting capitalism by re-distributing wealth from the rich to the poor. However, in reality, these criminals mostly prey on the poor

2.      They don’t take such crime seriously, and ignore the effects on w/c victims.

How does Burke criticise critical criminology?

both too general to explain crime, and too idealistic to tackle crime.