Class, Power and Crime – Explaining Class Differences in Crime

MARXISM, CLASS AND CRIME:

• Marxists agree with labelling theory on two points:

  • The law is enforced disproportionately against the working class.

  • Official crime statistics can’t be taken at face value.

• They disagree with labelling theory with the face that they believe the wider structure of capitalism within which law making, law enforcement and offending take place requires study.

• Marxist explanations of crime and deviance flow from their view of the nature of capitalist society.

• Marxists see the ruling capitalist society as divided into two classes:

  • The bourgeoisie who own the means of production.

  • The proletariat, whose alienated labour the bourgeoisie exploit to produce profit.

CRIMINOGENIC CAPITALISM:

• Marxists say crime is inevitable in capitalism because capitalism is criminogenic.

  • Criminogenic = by its very nature it causes crime.

• Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the proletariat – uses them to gain profit, no matter the human cost.

• Capitalism is therefore damaging to the proletariat and may give rise to crime for several reasons.

• Poverty may lead to crime because:

  • Poverty may mean that crime is the only way the working class can survive.

• Advertising may lead to crime because:

  • Crime may be the only way to obtain the consumer goods encouraged by capitalist advertising, resulting in utilitarian crimes such as theft.

• Alienation may lead to crime because:

  • Alienation and lack of control over their lives may lead to frustration and aggression, resulting in non-utilitarian crimes such as violence and vandalism.

• Capitalist society may also lead to criminal behaviour in the capitalist classes:

  • Capitalism is a dog-eat-dog system of ruthless competition.

  • The motivation of profit encourages greed and self-interest.

  • The need to win at all costs, or go out of business if not winning, along with the desire for self-enrichment, encourages capitalists to commit white collar and corporate crimes such as tax evasion and breaches of health and safety laws.

THE STATE AND LAW MAKING:

• Marxist thinking differs from functionalism as Marxists see law making and law enforcement as only serving the interests of the capitalist class, opposing the functionalist view that the law reflects the value consensus and represents the interests of society as a whole.

CHAMBLISS (1975) – LAW MAKING EXAMPLE:

• Describes the laws to protect private property as the cornerstone of the capitalist economy.

• Britain could make money in the African colonies with their economic interest in tea, coffee and other plantations – introducing English law related to those.

• A plentiful supply of labour was needed for this though.

• Local British economy at the time wasn’t a money economy so they had to force the African population to work.

• So the British introduced a tax payable in cash.

• If it wasn’t paid it was a crime punishable by law.

• The only way the colonies could pay it was by working on the plantations for cash.

• Chambliss concluded from this that the law served the interest of the capitalist plantation owners.

• The ruling class has the power to prevent certain laws that would threaten their interests.

• Laws that seriously challenge the unequal distribution of wealth are rare.

• Snider: capitalist state is reluctant to introduce laws that regulate activities of businesses or threaten profitability.

IDEOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF CRIME AND LAW:

• Workplace health and safety laws appear to benefit the working class.

• Pearce: these laws also benefit the ruling class as they keep workers fit for work.

• Capitalism’s ‘caring face’ creates a false-class consciousness.

• Jenabi: new law against corporate homicide was introduced in 2007, in its first eight years there was only one successful prosecution of a UK company – despite the large numbers of deaths at work estimated to be caused by employer’s negligence.

  • Shows that crimes of the powerful are still ignored and aren’t thoroughly investigated.

• Because of selective law enforcement, a situation where workers blame each other for crime and become divided may happen.

• This is further emphasised by the media and some criminologists because they portray criminals as disturbed individuals, disguising the fact that the nature of capitalism creates criminals.

ADVANTAGES OF MARXIST THINKING:

• Shows the link between law making and enforcement and the interests of the capitalists.

• Puts into a wider structural context the insights of labelling theory regarding the selective enforcement of the law.

• Offers useful explanation of the relationship between crime and capitalist society.

CRITICISMS OF MARXIST THINKING:

• Too deterministic and over predicts the amount of crime in the working class: not all poor people commit crime, despite the pressures of poverty.

• Largely ignores the relationship between crime and non-class inequalities such as ethnicity and gender.

• Left realists argue that Marxism ignores intra-class crimes, such as burglary and ‘mugging’, which cause great harm to victims.