Marxist Criminology - Discussion

Discussion

Marxism provides a systematic theoretical basis upon which to interrogate social structural arrangements, and the hypothesis that economic power is translated into political power substantially accounts for the general dis empowerment of the majority who live in the modern state and the limitations of political discourse. Hence, whether directly or indirectly, it informs much of the research into social phenomena not only in criminology, but also in semiotics and the other disciplines which explore the structural relationships of power, knowledge, meaning, and positional interests within society.

Marx didn't approach every subtopic of social stratification and one good example is Criminology. Even though Marx never hit on the topic of Criminology (that we know of), there have been many Marxist theorist who have applied his theories to the field of Criminology. They call it Marxist criminology. Marxist criminology is a lot like conflict criminology, but the major difference between the two is that conflict criminology sees power as the key to the explanation of crime whereas Marxist criminology looks to the political and economic systems as the keys to crime.

Many criminologists agree that for a society to function efficiently, social order is necessary and that conformity is induced through a socialization process. "Law" is the label given to one of the means used to enforce the interests of the state. Hence, because each state is sovereign, the law can be used for any purpose. It is also common ground that, whether the society is meritocratic, democratic or autocratic, a small group emerges to lead. The reason for this group's emergence may be their ability to use power more effectively, or simple expediency in that, as population size grows, the delegation of decision-making powers to a group representative of the majority leads to more efficiency. Marxists are critical of the ideas, values and norms of capitalist ideology, and characterize the modern state as being under the control of the group that owns the means of production. For example, Chambliss (1973) examined the way in which the vagrancy laws were amended to reflect the interests of the ruling elite. He also looked at how British Colonial Law was applied in East Africa, so that the capitalist "ruling class" could profit from coffee plantations, and how the law in medieval England benefited feudal landowners. Similarly, Pearce (2003) looks at evidence that corporate crime is widespread but is rarely prosecuted.

These researchers assert that political power is used to reinforce economic inequality by embedding individual property rights in the law and that the resulting poverty is one of the causes of criminal activity as a means of survival. Marxists argue that a socialist society with communal ownership of the means of production would have much less crime. Indeed, Milton Mankoff asserts that there is much less crime in Western Europe than in the U.S. because Europe is more ‘Socialist’ than America. The implication of such views is that the solution to the "crime problem" is to engage in a socialist revolution.

A different issue emerges by applying Marx's theory of alienation. A proportion of crime is said to be the result of society offering only demeaning work with little sense of creativity. However, the characterization of some crime as "working class crime" and portraying it as a response to oppression is problematic. It selectively labels crime committed by people simply on the basis of their membership of a class, without engaging in victimology to identify whether any particular class or group is most likely to be the victim of such crime (because many criminals are disinclined to travel far, working class crime is often directed at working-class people who live in the same neighborhood). In fact, the social differentiation of crime may vary by age, class, ethnicity, gender, and locality.

Further, if anomie is a primary cause of crime, there should be a theory to explain why only some working-class people commit crimes. These are existential issues. But if there is evidence that some individuals and, in some cases, entire groups are alienated from mainstream society, there should be detailed research into the effect that this has on society as a whole (see normlessness). In such research, Marxism tends to focus on societal forces rather than the motives of individuals and their dualistic capacity for both right and wrong, moral and immoral. This can lead to a less comprehensive explanation of why people exercise their autonomy by choosing to act in particular ways. By comparison, in the sociology of deviance, Robert K. Merton borrows Durkheim's concept of anomie to form the Strain Theory. Merton argues that the real problem of alienation is not created by a sudden social change, as Durkheim proposed, but rather by a social structure that holds out the same goals to all its members without giving them equal means to achieve them. It is this lack of integration between what the culture calls for and what the structure permits that causes deviant behaviour. Deviance then is a symptom of the social structure. Taylor et al. intend a combination of Interactionism and Marxism as a radical alternative to previous theories to formulate a "fully social theory of deviance".

The power to label behaviour as "deviant" arises partly from the unequal distribution of power within the state, and because the judgment carries the authority of the state, it attributes greater stigma to the prohibited behaviour. This is true no matter what the political orientation of the state. All states enact laws which, to a greater or lesser extent, protect property. This may take the form of theft, or prohibit damage or trespass. Even though a theft law may not appear judgmental, a Marxist analysis of the conviction rates may detect inequalities in the way in which the law is applied. Thus, the decision whether to prosecute or to convict may be skewed by having the resources to employ a good lawyer. The same analysis may also show that the distribution of punishment for any given crime may vary according to the social class of the perpetrator. But, the law of theft exists to protect the interests of all those who own property. It does not discriminate by reference to the class of the owner. Indeed, few laws in any states are drafted to protect property interests by reference to class, and the acceptance and enforcement of laws generally depend on a consensus within the community that such laws meet local needs. In this, a comparison of the crime rates between states shows little correlation by reference to political orientation. Such correlations as do exist tend to reflect disparities between rich and poor, and features describing the development of the social and economic environment. Hence, the crimes rates are comparable in states where there are the largest disparities of wealth distribution, regardless of whether they are first, second or third world.