Criminological Perspective and Differences in Theory




From the criminological perspective, and as Vold’s Theoretical Criminology mentions, Marx had created an excellent theory regarding the social, political, economic, and historical boundaries of life at the time, but had almost absolutely no system relative to crime. This is where the so-called pyramid of Marx’s depictions of class is created (similar to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs): the bourgeoisie on the absolute top, the petty or petit bourgeoisie (store owners, small business) are underneath, controlling a small amount, and for the majority of the pyramid is the proletariat. Although, there is another group beneath the workers. According to Marx’s beliefs, people in society should be hardworking and productive, and naturally they are, outside of an industrialized society. In these industrialized societies, however, the poor and unemployed become lazy and destitute, and are not productive, who then become the lumpenproletariat (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010).

Politically speaking, Marx, obviously, was extremely liberal for his time. He actively went against the popular political philosophy of the time, which was based off of people willingly taking apart of the “social contract,” or a township. This philosophy believed that people joined the social contract for the greater good, and were all protected by laws that were subsequently created after the formation of the social contract. Marx had noted that this philosophy did not mention socioeconomic status amongst the people, and explained that those who have the wealth have an easier time molding the social contract (creating laws) that benefits their own agendas and interests, as opposed to those who do not have this power. Marx was more concerned with this socioeconomic corruption, so to speak, rather than crime. Although, Marx has mentioned that crime is a “primitive form of rebellion.” An example from the text reports that in Marx’s youth in Germany about ten years before the publication of the Communist Manifesto, a variety new laws had been placed on the collection of materials in local forests, as the demand for lumber or other wooden resources had been escalated due to industry. Before this had happened, the nobility at the time had special rights to hunt in the woods, and the local peasants were allowed to collect wood for their fireplaces. Once the industrial need for material had spread to Germany, the collection of wood from the local woods was now a crime, and in some areas almost seventy-five percent of all crimes were from theft in the woods (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010).

Conflict theory was started in the mid-nineteenth century, which has already been reported in this text, but the theory did not take off for another sixty years. In 1916, Willem Bonger was one of the first Marxist criminologists to present his views to the modern world. In his book, Criminality and Economic Conditions, Bonger presented the view that in capitalist societies, which run off of competition and winners and losers, encourages people to be more hedonistic, which results in larger crime rates among the poor and smaller rates among the rich, as the poor are selfish, and the rich have the laws in their favor to pursue their interests.

Twenty-two years later, in 1938, Thorsten Sellin purposed a criminological theory that was conceived from Marx’s ideals, and is very similar to Emile Durkheim and Ferdinand Tonnies, regarding two different forms of societies and their similarities and differences. Sellin looked into homogenous societies and complex societies, where conduct norms in homogenous societies (kin policing, respecting elders, “unwritten laws,”) are represented well among the people, and how these norms are disregarded in complex societies, due to the vast amount of different cultures and ethnic groups in a given area. If these groups were to clash, the literal act of the quarrels would be defined as primary cultural conflicts, and can be applied in several situations, mainly colonization and migration, where certain groups can hold power over others (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010). Examples that support this can be found in Rwanda and Sudan, between the Hutus and the Tutsis, and the Arabs and the Africans.

Almost two decades later, George B. Vold, one of the authors of the text, presented his version of conflict theory regarding a “social process,” where groups do experience conflict and an “uneasy adjustment,” that is necessary for societies to function, based off of a “dynamic equilibrium.” (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010). Conflict theory became very evident in the United States of America, especially during the sixties and seventies, when the country saw mass change mainly socially and politically. During this era, the country was focused on the Vietnam War and the yearning for civil rights, and Vold’s theory became popular, and the overall energy of conflict theory arose to the top of criminology. From this explosion of events and popularity of the theory itself, these factors led to the introduction of works from Austin Turk, Richard Quinney, and William Chambliss and Robert Seidman.

Turk introduced his theory of criminalization in 1969, which looked into the possibilities of subjects and authorities clashing and possibly resulting in conflict, and where criminalization will show itself in these scenarios. Turk emphasized his definition of sophistication, according to the text: “[as] knowledge of patterns in the behavior of others which is used in attempts to manipulate them” (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010). Turk also brought forth three factors within his theory: (1), the role of the police and the courts (and corrections) giving out high conviction rates based off of prohibited acts in society, (2), criminalization will be at its peak when the authority has the greatest power, and the resistors have nearly none, and (3), the possible success for either party involved, based on certain actions executed by either group.

In 1970, Quinney entered the arena. Also coming from Vold’s depiction of conflict theory, Quinney argued from a more political context. His theory, “the social reality of crime,” looked into the legislation regarding what is defined or what is not defined as a crime, and compared to Vold, Quinney decided to look into “segments” of society, rather than different groups. Segments vary severely, but are defined as people who have similar interests and backgrounds, but may or may not be organized on a mutual level. Segments like business owners and laborers are very organized, as they have been around for a long time, but segments like women and those from the LGBT community (an example in a modern context) are only now organizing themselves. Quinney also notes there are groups that have no organization. From all of these disparities, he chose to tackle all crime under the context of conflict theory, instead of a specific window of crime. Quinney’s theory becomes more deeper when Sutherland’s learning theory is introduced, as different segments have different actions and definitions of what is “normal” to them, mainly deriving from how they were raised, and what their view or idea of crime actually is. One segment’s version of “normal,” the powerful segment, these people view themselves as normal. On the contrary, if a lesser segment were to do something the powerful segment would do, this segment would be classified as criminal and wicked. Finally, Quinney, going back to his main point, mentioned that crime is created out of political interests and agendas, stemming from which segment is in power, and which is not. However, the general consensus of crime can vary heavily, especially regarding the conception of crime (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010).

Finally, in 1971, Chambliss and Seidman introduced their analysis of conflict theory within the American criminal justice system, calling it Law, Order, and Power. As the text states, the two authors looked into the creation of laws from the legislative point of view, and had found that “the higher a group's political and economic position, the greater is the probability that its views will be reflected in the laws” (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010). The two authors collected the majority of their information from actually going into the criminal justice system, executing pure ecology. They first turned their attention to the actual legislative process regarding criminal law, and then turned their attention to appellate courts, where the justification of these newly created laws are either valid or not. Of course, a judge is the moderator in court, and (for the most part) it is their final decision that concludes a case. Chambliss and Seidman had found that judges resort back to their personal values and morals when reaching legal conclusions in appellate cases, as appellate court cases are referred to as “trouble cases,” where a law cannot support a case or a law cannot apply itself to the case (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010).



Поделиться:




Поиск по сайту

©2015-2024 poisk-ru.ru
Все права принадлежать их авторам. Данный сайт не претендует на авторства, а предоставляет бесплатное использование.
Дата создания страницы: 2019-06-26 Нарушение авторских прав и Нарушение персональных данных


Поиск по сайту: