Crime and Deviance - Class, Power and Crime Flashcards
How does functionalism explain class differences in crime?
Miller argues that the lower class has developed and independent subcultures that have values and norms that clash with the mainstream, due to the complex division of labour in a Fordist economy, resulting in crime.
How does strain theory explain class differences in crime?
Merton argues that the American class structure denies the w/c legitimate means of monetary success, this leads more of them to ‘innovate’ (utilitarian crime).
How do subcultural theories explain class differences in crime?
Cohen argues that w/c are culturally deprived so are more likely to underachieve in education and be placed at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Cloward and Ohlin go further and argue that illegitimate opportunity structures are more beneficial for the w/c as they have higher levels of poverty.
How do labelling theorists explain class differences in crime?
They reject the official statistics that the w/c are more likely to commit crime, they argue that (due to classism) the w/c is more likely to be labelled as criminals and overpoliced compared to middle- and upper-class.
How do Marxists agree and disagree with functionalists and labelling theorists?
- Functionalists: crime serves a function to a group; does it serve society or the bourgeoise?
- Labelling theorists: law is disproportionately enforced against the W/C and crime statistics cannot be trusted; labelling theory fails to examine the wider system that leads to that labelling
What are the three main Marxist elements of crime?
- Criminogenic capitalism
- The state and law making
- Ideological functions of crime and law
What does criminogenic capitalism mean? Give a sociologist.
Capitalism, by its very nature, causes and elicits crime.
Gordon (1976): crime is a natural response to the capitalists system and so is found in all social classes.
How does capitalism cause working-class crime?
- Poverty may make crime the only feasible means of survival
- Capitalist-encouraged consumerism may cause people to commit crimes like theft to achieve those goals
- Alienation and disagency lead to frustration and aggression, leading to non-utilitarian crimes like assault
How does capitalism cause capitalist crime? Give an example.
Capitalism is a dog-eat-dog system of ruthless competition that encourages a profit-only mindset - causing capitalists to commit tax evasion and breach of safety laws, costing the UK £190 billion a year. An example being the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh due to cracks that appeared the day before but were ignored.
Chambliss (1975) and the state and law making:
Laws to protect property are the cornerstone of a capitalist society; an example of laws existing to assist the wealthy would be introduction of English law into East African colonies to force them to work on plantations or face prosecution.
Snider (1993) and the state and law making:
The ruling class have the ability to prevent laws that would negatively affect their interests, specifically laws that threaten profitability.
Anatole France quote about the state and law making:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
Pearce (1976) and the ideological function of law:
Sometimes laws are passed that appear to help the W/C but this only ‘gives a human face’ to an innately unredeemable system (capitalism), benefitting the ruling class by ensuring the people never rise up to overthrow the system entirely.
Jenabi (2014) and corporate homicide:
Laws against the ruling class are hardly enforced: despite 2007 laws against corporate homicide, there was only one successful prosecution in the first 8 years - despite the large number of deaths due to employer negligence.
How does crime divide the W/C?
Law is enforces disproportionately against the W/C so causes the W/C will blame one another for societal issues and ignore the wider cause of both: capitalism.
How is Marxist theory of crime helpful?
It shows how, even if not direct, crime can serve the interests of the ruling class and how selective enforcement can divide the W/C.
What are the five criticisms of Marxist theory of crime?
- It largely ignores the role of non-class factors like race and gender
- It is deterministic and ignores W/C people that don’t commit crime despite the pressures of capitalism.
- Not all capitalist societies have high crime rates; Japan and Switzerland have 1/5 that of the US - though Marxists argue this is due to the lack of American welfare.
- The criminal justice system can serve the W/C - though Marxists argue this only legitimises the capitalist system
- Left-realists: Marxists ignore intra-class crime
How do Neo-marxists (critical criminology) agree with Marxists?
Taylor et al (1973) agrees in three ways:
- Capitalist society is based on exploitation and class conflict
- The state makes and enforces laws in the interests of the capitalist class
- Capitalism should be replaced by a classless society
How do neo-Marxists (critical criminology) disagree with Classical Marxists on crime?
Neo-Marxists are anti-determinism, Taylor et al (1973) argues that people aren’t just socialisation puppets but have free will and crime is a meaningful action; in fact, crime is often politically motivated, such as rebellion against the capitalist systems by distributing wealth.
Taylor et al (1973) and a ‘full social theory of deviance’:
To fully understand why people engage in crime and deviance, we need to understand 6 things:
- The wider origins of the deviant act (inequality under capitalism)
- The immediate origins of the deviant act (the specific context of the act)
- The act itself and its meaning for the actor
- The immediate origins of the societal reaction
- The wider origins of social reaction in the structure of capitalist society
- The effects of labelling
How do left realists criticise critical criminology?
- Critical criminology romanticises w/c criminals as Robin hood figures that redistribute wealth, ignoring that most criminals prey on the poor in society
- They ignore the effect of crime on its victims
Give two criticisms of critical criminology.
- Feminists: the theory is ‘gender blind’ and ignores the disproportionate amount of crime committed by men.
- Burke (2005): it is both too general to help explaining crime and too idealistic to be useful in tackling crime
How do Walton and Young (1998) defend critical criminology?
Although both changed their views since the publication of the ‘New Criminology’, they argued that they combatted the ‘correctionalist bias’ of most existing theories, that sociology should try and correct deviant behaviour, by calling for greater tolerance of diversity of behaviour.
Reiman and Leighton (2012) and ‘The Rich Get Richer and the Poor get Prison’:
The more likely a crime is to be committed by a higher-class offender, the less likely it is to be treated as an offence, with ‘street crime’ gaining much higher attention despite the large-scale effect of corporate crime on society.
Sutherland (1949) and white collar crime:
Defines ‘white-collar crime’ as ‘a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation’.
- This definition fails to distinguish between occupational crime (committed by employees for their own gain) and corporate crime (committed by employees for their organisation)
- Also ignores that many of the harms enacted are not illegal, such as administrative failures
Pearce and Tombs (2003) and corporate crime:
“Any illegal act or omission that is the result of deliberate decisions or culpable negligence by a legitimate business organisation and that is intended to benefit the business.”
Tombs (2013) and corporate crime:
Corporate crime has enormous costs: physical, environmental, and economic - it is not just the product of ‘a few bad apples’, it is ‘widespread, routine and pervasive’.
What 5 crimes does corporate crime include?
- Financial crime: like tax evasion and bribery
- Crimes against consumers: like false labelling or selling unfit goods
- Crimes against employees: such as discrimination or violation of wage laws
- Crimes against the environment: such as illegal pollution
- State-corporate crime
Give an example of crimes against consumers.
The Thalidomide Scandal in the 50’s involved the titular morning sickness drug that caused up to 20,000 children to be born with deformities like phocomelia, as well as thousands of miscarriages - the testing was wildly inadequate, with it theorised that animal subjects gave birth during the night and then consumed the deformed offspring.
Palmer (2008) and work-related deaths:
Occupational diseases cause 50,000 deaths a year in the UK.
Give an example of corporate crime against the environment:
In 2015, Volkswagen admitted to US authorities that they installed software that disguised emission levels that were 40x higher than the legal limit.
Kramer and Michalowski (2006) and state-corporate crime:
State-corporate crime refers to the harms committed when government institutions and businesses cooperate to pursue their goals, increasingly important in an era of privatisation where groups like Lockheed Martin almost solely work with governments.
Carrabine et al (2014) and status:
High-status professionals hold a position of respectability and trust that they provides the opportunity to abuse for their own gain.
Sikka (2008) and Ernst and Young:
The accountants Ernst and Young devised a tax avoidance scheme for their wealthiest clients that would have cost taxpayers £300mn a year.
Sutherland (1949) and the dangers of white-collar crime.
Sutherland argues that white-collar crime is much more dangerous than street crime as it damages our basic trust in professionals like doctors and accountants, thus undermining the basic dynamics of society and, therefore, its stability.
What are the 5 reasons for the invisibility of corporate crime?
- The media
- Lack of political will
- Complexity of the crime
- De-labelling
- Under-reporting
How does the media obfuscate corporate crime?
Very little coverage is devoted to corporate crime, largely because it isn’t as personal as other types of crime (Cohen and Young - News Values). They also sanitise the language used with phrases like ‘accounting irregularities’ instead of embezzlement, likely because many are owned by the types of people who commit, the wealthy.
Why is there lack of political will to tackle corporate crime?
For the same reason as the lack of coverage, politicians often don’t gain as much credit for going after high-damage corporate crime, rather than large-scale street crime that many see as a more common problem. Also, donations affect policy (Lord Sainsburys’ £11mn donation to LibDems).
Why does the complexity of corporate crime affect arrest rates
Police often lack the resources or expertise to adequately go after it - even the Serious Fraud Office can take years to close a case.
How is corporate crime de-labelled?
Nelken (2012): Corporate crime is constantly ‘de-labelled’ as serious crime, it is prosecuted in ‘civil’ courts (rather than ‘criminal’) and punishment is often fines rather than prison time. British authorities only prosecuted one of the 3,600 citizens the French showed were using HSBC to evade tax, with no penalty for HSBC.
Why is corporate crime under-reported?
- Often the victim isn’t an identifiable individual who can go to the police, like society (£5.5bn lost in tax revenue in 2023) or the environment (such as the flawed design of Chernobyl)
- Individuals may be unaware of their victimisation (victims are often the elderly and intellectually disabled)
- Victims may feel powerless against large corporations (also known as ‘powerlessness syndrome’)
How has corporate crime become more visible?
The 2008 financial crisis has led to greater suspicion of the activities of the super wealthy - movements like Occupy and through exposes like the Paradise Papers have led to policies like Labour going after tax avoidance.
Outline Merton’s Strain Theory.
Merton argues that people commit crimes as a result of inability to legitimately achieve goals they are socialised into, leading them to ‘innovate’.
Box (1983) and strain theory:
Strain theory can be applies to companies - if companies fail to maximise profits legitimately, they can and will resort to corporate crime, this is especially true during recessions.
Clinard and Yeager (1980) and strain theory:
large companies are more likely to violate the law when their financial performance is deteriorating.
Sutherland (1949) and differential association:
Crime is a behaviour that we learn from others in a social context - if a company culture justifies corporate crime to achieve corporate goals, employees are socialised into criminality.
What two concepts link to differential association?
- Deviant subcultures: criminal businesses act as deviant subcultures that provide their members with the opportunity to rise through illegal acts
- Techniques of neutralisation: Sykes and Matza (1957) argue that if people can provide justification to neutralise moral objections (like conformity), they are more likely to commit
Pearce (1976) and prosecution:
The rare prosecution of corporate crime leads the w/c to believe it is an exception rather than a rule of corporate business, avoiding a crisis of legitimacy for capitalism.
Give a criticism of strain theories of corporate crime.
Both over-predict the level of corporate crime - Nelken (2012) argues that risk of punishment is not the only thing that keeps businesses from breaking the law,
Give a criticism of the Marxist theories of corporate crime.
Braithwaite (1984): sometimes its more profitable to abide by the law, US pharma companies are able to gain licenses to sell in poorer countries, gaining monopolies.
