Class Power and Crime Flashcards
Marxist :Crimonogenic Capitalism
Crime is inevitable in a capitalist society because capitalism itself causes crime, making it
criminogenic. As it’s based on exploiting the WC, it gives rise to crime:
* Poverty means crime may be the WC’s only way to survive.
* Utilitarian crime may be the only way to get consumer goods capitalist ads show.
* Non-utilitarian crime may be the only way for the WC to deal with alienation and lack of control over their lives.
Marxist :crimonogenic capaitalism however…
However, capitalism is a competitive system, so crime isn’t confined to just the WC:
- The need to win no matter what/stay in business encourages capitalists to commit white-
collar and corporate crime. - Gordon (1976)- argues crime is a rational response to the capitalist system, which is why
it’s found in all classes.
Marxist :The state and law making
Marxists see law making and law enforcement as serving the
interests of the capitalist class.
* Chambliss (1975)- argues laws to protect private property
are the cornerstone of the capitalist economy. This is because
Britain needed labour on their colonies’ plantations, but the
local economy wasn’t one of money. To get workers, a tax
payable by cash was made, and the only way to get cash was by
working- therefore making the law serve the economic needs of
plantation owners.
* Snider (1993)- argues the state is reluctant to pass laws that
would regulate the activities of businesses/threaten their
profitability.
Selective enforcement
Marxist agree with labelling theorists that although all classes commit crime when it comes the application of law by the CJS there is selctive enforcement.While powerlesss groups such as the working class and ethnic groups are criminalised the police and courts ignore the crimes of thr powerful.
Ideological functions of crime and law
Law crime and criminals also perform an ideological function for capitalism
* This means that laws may be passed to look they benefit the
WC instead of capitalists, like workplace health and safety laws.
* Pearce (1976)- argues these laws DO benefit capitalism by
keeping us fit for work and giving capitalism a ‘caring’ face and
ensuing false class consciousness.
* Health & safety laws aren’t rigorously enforced- the 2007
corporate homicide law had 1 prosecution in the first 8yrs
despite negligent employers being responsible for many deaths.
* Selective enforcement ensures false-class conscious by making
a crime a WC issue, where workers turn against criminals
instead of capitalism.
Evaluation of Marxism
Strengths:
* Completes what labelling theory missed- puts it into a wider structural context by discussing
selective enforcement and why it happens.
* Explains the relationship between crime and capitalist society as well as how laws link to the
interests of the ruling class.
Weaknesses:
* Ignores the relationship between crime and other inequalities like gender/ethnicity.
* Deterministic- over-predicts WC crime and ignores that not everyone in poverty turns it.
* Left realists-says the ignore intra-class crime where the offender and victim are WC, and the
harm this causes victims.
* The CJS has punished corporate crime instead of ignoring it.
Crimongenic capitalism chain of reasoning
Marxists argue that capitalism is inherently criminogenic—it creates conditions that encourage crime. The capitalist system is based on exploitation, creating economic inequality, poverty, and competition. The working class (proletariat) may commit crime out of necessity (e.g., theft due to poverty) or due to frustration from alienation and lack of opportunities. Meanwhile, capitalism also promotes greed and consumerism, pushing both the working and ruling classes toward criminality.
the state and law making chain of reasoning
The laws in a capitalist society are not neutral; they serve the interests of the ruling class (bourgeoisie). Chambliss (1975) argues that laws are designed to protect private property, ensuring the wealth and power of the elite. The state rarely criminalizes corporate crimes (e.g., tax evasion or unsafe working conditions) while heavily policing street crimes, disproportionately targeting the working class. Snider (1993) also highlights that capitalist states are reluctant to pass laws that regulate businesses because it would threaten profits.
ideological functions of crime and law chain of reasoning
aws and the enforcement of crime serve an ideological function by maintaining capitalist rule. According to Pearce (1976), some laws appear to benefit the working class (e.g., health and safety laws), but they ultimately serve the interests of capitalism by ensuring a healthy and productive workforce. Additionally, the selective enforcement of laws creates the illusion that crime is a working-class issue, diverting attention from the crimes of the powerful (e.g., corporate fraud or environmental destruction). The media reinforces this by over-representing working-class crime, fuelling moral panics and justifying harsher policing in deprived areas.
Neo Marxism: critical criminology
- Taylor et al agree with Marxists that:
- The state makes/enforces laws in the interests of the capitalist class while criminalising the WC.
- Capitalist society is based on exploitation and class conflict, it’s characteristic being extreme wealth and power
inequality. - We should replace capitalism with a classless society to reduce or even extinct crime.
Differs though as they critique of existing theories of crime and deviance including both marxist and non-marxist approaches
Neo-Marxist–anti-determinism
Marxist is deterministic: Taylor et al argues Marxism is deterministic because it sees workers as committing crime out of economic
necessity.Etc theories that believe crime is caused by anomie
* Instead, Taylor et al reject this and take a voluntaristic(idea we have free will )
view.
* This is where crime is a meaningful action and conscious
choice of the actor often have a political move.
* They argue criminals aren’t passive puppets shaped by
capitalism, but that they are deliberately striving to
change society.
Neo-Marxism:A fully social theory of deviance
to create “ a comprehensive understanding” of crime and deviance that would help to change society for the better.
It combines the Marxist idea about unequal wealth distribution and who makes law and with interactionalist/labelling ideas about the meaning of the
act to the deviant, society’s reaction and how deviant
labels affect people.
A complete theory of deviance needs to unite six aspects
Wider origins of the deviant act-in the unequal distribution of wealth and power in capitalist society
Immediate origins of the deviant act-the particular context in which the individuals decides to commit the act
The act itself-and its meaning for the actor—e.g was it a form of re
The immediate origins of social reaction-the reactions of those around the deviant such as police
The wider origins of social reaction-in structure of capitalist society especially the issue of who has the power to define actions as deviant and to label others
the effects of labelling- on deviants future actions
Taylor Et all -these six aspects are interrelated to be understood together as part of a single unified theorw
Evaluation of Critical criminology
- Feminists- call the approach gender-blind, it focuses excessively on male criminality at the expense of females.
- Left realists- theory paints the WC as robin hoods that fright capitalism by redistributing wealth
to the poor, which ignores that these crimes pray on the poor. - Left realists- argue Taylor et al don’t take such crime seriously and ignore how WC victims are
effected. - Burke (2005)- critical criminology is too general to explain crime, and too idealistic to tackle crime.
Taylor et al- defences of their book looking back:
- The book combated the ‘correctionalist bias’ of other theories (where sociology’s role is correcting
behaviour), by calling for a greater tolerance of diversity in behaviour. - The book set foundations for later theories seeking a more just society like feminism and re
Explanations of corporate crime:
Strain theory: * Box (1983)- argues that if a company can’t reach its goals of maximising profit legally, they’ll do it illegally instead, and that difficult business
conditions can make this more tempting.
Marxism:Argue corporate crime is a result of capitalism functioning normally.
* Box (1983)- capitalism creates mystification, the ideology that corporate crimes are less widespread/harmful than WC crime.
Differential association:
* Sutherland (1949)- argues crime is behaviour learnt from others in a social context, so associating with those with a disregard for laws can make us
more likely to behave in the same way.
* this means that if a companies culture justifies crime, employees will be socialised into this- Sykes & Matza (1957) argue these people can deviate
more easily by applying the companies culture of everyone’s doing it’.
criticisms of explanation of corporate crime
Strain and Marxist ideas over- predict the amount of business crime, Nelken argues it’s unrealistic to think all businesses would offend with the risk of punishment.
* If capitalism causes corporate crime, how are the crimes of non- profit agencies like the army and police explained?
White Collar and Corporate Crime
Sutherland (1949)- defines white collar crime as one committed by a person of respectability and high status in the course of their occupation.
Though his aim was to challenge the stereotype that only the WC commit crime, his definition doesn’t explain 2 types of crime:
1. Occupational crime- committed by employees for personal gain and often against their workplace, like stealing from the company.
2. Corporate crime- committed by employees for the company and its goals, like mis-selling products on purpose to increase profit.
* Another problem is that crimes of the powerful may not break criminal law, like some being administrative offences such as not complying with government regulators.
Pearce & Tombs (2003)- overcome this issue by defining
corporate crime as
as any illegal act/omission that is the result of
deliberate decisions/culpable negligence by a business for their own
benefit.
the scale and types of corporate crime
Tombs (2013)- corporate crimes have enormous costs: physical (death/injury),
environmental (pollution), and economic (to consumers/workers/taxpayers/governments).
1. Financial crimes- tax evasion, bribery, money laundering, illegal accounting. Victims-
other companies, shareholders, tax payers, governments.
- Crimes against consumers- false labelling and selling unfit goods. EG: French government recommended women remove implants from a certain brand because they were dangerous.
- Crimes against employees- sexual/racial discrimination, violating wage laws, union rights or health and safety laws. Tombs says 1.1k work relate deaths are caused by employers breaking laws.
- Crimes against the environment- illegal pollution of air, water and land.
- State-corporate crime- harms committed when government institutions and businesses
cooperate to pursue their goals.
The abuse of Trust:corporate crime
Carrabine et al (2020)- we entrust
professionals with our finances,
health, security & personal info, but
their high status means they can
abuse this trust.
* UK tribunal found a tax evasion
scheme by accountants Ernst &
Young for rich clients unacceptable.
* Healthwise, Harold Shipman was
found guilty of 15 murders across
15 years and is believed to have 200
more victims, which used his status
and trust to obtain lethal drugs.
why crimes of the powerful are invisible/seen as not rea compared to street crimel:
- The media- corporate crime has limited coverage, so crime is reinforced as a WC issue, and sanitise language like ‘accident’ instead of ‘negligence’ are used.
- Lack of political will- when politicians say they’re tough on crime, they focus on street crime rather than on corporate.
- Complexity- law enforcers are under-funded, under-staffed and lack the technical expertise to properly investigate them.
- De-labelling- corporate crime is filtered out of the criminalisation process, like offences being deemed civil instead of criminal, paying fines instead of being
sentenced. - Under-reporting- these crimes’ victims are the environment or society at large, or someone may
more visibility of corporate crime throughout the years
These factors remove corporate crime from the common definition of crime, as
well as the law/order agenda, thus making it invisible.
* However, they’ve been made more visible since the 2008 financial crisis, where
campaigns like Occupy are against corporate tax avoidance, and more
journalism/whistle-blowers about this issue.
differential association-explanation fo croporate crime
less we associate with poeple who hold atttiudes fabourable to law and more we associate with peoplel with criminala ttitudes the more likely we are to become deviat ourselves
if a company culture jsutifies commiting crimes to ahcieve corporate goals employers will be socialised into criminality
Gies found individuals joining companies where illegal price fixing was practiced became inovlved in it as part of sociaalsiation
link idea of diffferential association tot wo other concepts
deviant ubcultures-groups who share a set of norms and values at odds with those of wider soiety they offer deviant solutions to their members shared problems.
COmpany employees face problems of achieving goals and adopt deviat meants so socialise new members into it
the culutre of business may favour and promote competitive aggressive personality types
techniques of neutralisation-sykes and matza argue individuas can deviate easily if they can produce justifications to neutralsie mroal objections to misbehaviour for example white collar criminals may say they were carrying out orders from above blame the victim or normalise their deviance by claiming everyone does it . learning these tecbniquees is an improtant part of socialisation
