Criminology Theory

Selected Classic Readings

Frank Williams III, Marilyn McShane

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317523024
• Edición: 2
• Categoría: Law
• Categoría: Criminal Law

This highly acclaimed criminology text presents an up-to-date review of rational choice theories, including deterrence, shaming, and routine activities. It also incorporates current examples of deterrence research regarding domestic violence, drunk driving, and capital punishment, and features thought-provoking discussion of the relativity of crime. The authors explore the crime problem, its context, and causes of crime. The organization of the text reflects the fact that the etiology of crime must be at the heart of criminology. It examines contemporary efforts to redefine crime by focusing on family violence, hate crimes, white-collar misconduct with violent consequences, and other forms of human behavior often neglected by criminologists. Extensive discussion of evolving laws is included, and while the prevalence of the scientific method in the field of criminology is highlighted, the impact of ideology on explanations of crime is the cornerstone of the book.

Section V
CONFLICT THEORIES

Introduction

Conflict theories are, in one sense, an extension of labeling theories. After examining the characteristics of those most likely to be labeled, some theorists concluded that the laws themselves focused on the powerless. Beginning in the mid-to-late 1960s and continuing through today, several writers contributed to analyses of the creation and application of law. Issues included the definition of crime, discrimination in the criminal justice system, and the ideological content of law. Those same issues remain current.

There are so many different approaches that the only point one can be sure conflict theories share is an assumption that conflict is the natural state of human society. According to this assumption, the values of any society are established through conflict rather than through consensus. This means that groups in society are always competing against each other in an attempt to get their interests represented in major social values and institutions. These contests serve to define power in society, and those whose interests are most closely allied with law are among the most powerful.

There are two major thrusts to conflict theories: one following a more radical direction and the other a more conservative track. These two thrusts are not too easily distinguished but, in general, one focuses on society itself as the basis for conflict and the other on power conflicts as part of society. The former—radical versions—are quite divergent. They are represented by Marxist, anarchist, economic determinist, value-diversity, and postmodern/constitutive theories (to name just a few general perspectives). Most commonly associated with Marxist and economic determinist positions, radical theories usually assume a sort of class war or at least a powerful elite intent on getting its own way.

Crime, Ideology, and Reality

Richard Quinney’s name is synonymous with conflict theory. For a generation of graduate students in criminology, Quinney symbolized the radical critique of capitalist society. His preliminary work in the conflict approach began in 1964 with an article questioning the definitions used to create the category of crime. By 1970, he had written a quintessential work on crime (The Social Reality of Crime) incorporating conflict themes with those from existing theories. The essence of that work is that reality is ideologically-constructed. That is, power groups are able to define reality to their advantage. Thus, rather than being something inherently “evil,” crime is a social construction benefitting those in power.

Quinney’s six propositions in the social reality of crime convey a picture of a “real world” based on images. His perspective begins with the point that crime is defined politically by those authorized to make and enforce law. Second, he notes that definitions of crime are largely based on the interests of those who have the power to shape public policy. Third, crime definitions are applied to individuals and groups whose interests conflict with those in power. When conflict is greater, behaviors are more likely to be defined as crime and more likely to be responded to. Fourth, behavior is a product of the segment of society to which one belongs. Thus, those from segments of society with less power are more likely to act in ways defined as criminal and more likely to be reacted to than those from more powerful segments of society. Fifth, our various forms of communication create images of crime and criminals that support political definitions and interests. Just as important, those same communication forms portray images of non-criminality. Finally, all these points come together to construct an integrated version of a society that creates a social reality of crime through defining, reacting to, and portraying images of various patterns of behavior as criminal and non-criminal.

After this work, Quinney proceeded to incorporate Marxist concepts into his approach and wrote two major critiques of the capitalist order, Critique of the Legal Order (1974) and Class, State and Crime (1977). By the 1980s, he had begun to incorporate elements of eastern religion into his work and turned to metaphysical interests. At the end of the 1980s, Quinney had incorporated all of these interests into a new approach he called “peacemaking criminology.” His work today is predicated on peacemaking concepts that view existing crime prevention practices as producing conflict in society, and he is working to bring about a non-coercive, re-integrative response to crime.

Radical Conflict Theory

The reading by Steven Spitzer (“Toward a Marxian Theory of Deviance”) was chosen as a representative of the radical approach because he did an excellent job of capturing the essence of class-based theories. Spitzer argued that when the mode of production and the superstructure of society are threatened, individuals are defined as problem populations. He saw two general conditions as a cause of problems for capitalist states: (1) surplus labor and (2) the contradictions inherent in state institutions (e.g., the creation of educated people). These conditions produce individuals who require management.

From this problem population, two discrete groupings are identified according to the type of threat they represent and the social control mechanisms necessary to manage them. The two groups are social junk and social dynamite. Social junk are those who do not actively support the capitalist social order, but who also are relatively quiet. Examples are the elderly, mentally retarded, and the homeless. They are a burden on a capitalist economy, but are generally harmless. As long as they remain quiet, or there is no public concern, the management of this population is largely done by containment and regulation. Members of the social junk population are often the main clientele of welfare and therapeutic agencies. When social junk gets out of hand, larger expenditures of resources are required.

The second group, social dynamite, is a different issue altogether. These are active individuals in society who can directly threaten the capitalist social order, particularly the economic relations in the mode of production. Clear examples of social dynamite are rebels, activists, protestors, and the idle young. These populations are usually managed with the legal system; thus, they are defined as criminals and juvenile delinquents and targeted by specific control measures. These two groups are not always mutually exclusive. The capitalist state gets concerned when social situations change and some categories of social junk become social dynamite.

Conservative/Pluralist Conflict Theory

Conservative, or pluralist, conflict theories assume that there are groups contesting with each other for control over particular issues, situations, or events. The size and number of the groups vary. Resources, though, are the most critical component of this perspective. The ability to control and use resources reflects a group’s ability to gain and maintain control over its interests and affect decision-making processes.

Resources include such ingredients as political power, law, money, and bargaining power. When a group vies for control of an issue, these resources are employed. Often, several groups will unite on an issue and pool their resources; this unity is usually temporary and will dissolve as soon as the issue is decided. Thus, power can be short- or long-lived. The degree of power may also vary according to the particular issue. Some groups have more power than others by virtue of the class position of their members. In these cases, the resources are long-term, the degree of power is considerable, and the interests are wide-ranging. The interests of the most powerful members of society are often tied directly to the structure of the society itself. In any event, law is a resource that, when available, adds immensely to the power of a group. If law can be invoked, then the machinery of government (the legal system) can be brought into the conflict on the side of the group. One possibility is that those on the other side of the issue can be defined as criminals.

The reading by Austin Turk is a version of this brand of conflict theory and is from a book titled Political Criminality. In the book, Turk explored the nature of the South African political system and its implications for law-making and relationships of authorities and subjects. The theoretical framework he employed dates to earlier works in 1969 and in the 1970s. The central concern of this excerpt is the creation and maintenance of social order by a group attempting to control a society.

Turk discussed the various problems of gaining and maintaining power over other groups in society and determined there are always authority-subject relationships in a society. Those who can control authority put themselves in a position of dominance over the other groups in a society, who become subjects. Authority-subject relationships are, then, a fact of life in any society. The problem is the form in which those relationships exist. Turk answered this by exploring several forms of control, two of which we will focus on here.

The first form of control of subjects is physical coercion. Such control is very costly in both labor and resources. In addition, when subjects are made to conform with physical coercion, the fact of control itself is quite evident, making control that much more difficult. In general, the more visible authorities are, the greater are the problems of control. More effective and less costly forms of control are necessary.

The second form of control resolves the problems of visibility, cost, and effectiveness and is much more subtle in its presence. Turk posited that this form of control is represented by legal images and living time. Once a society is dominated by a group, the use of law becomes critical. If the group can write its interests into law, even physical coercion changes from an occupying force to “policing.” In time, subjects will police themselves in the interest of maintaining law—in short, the law becomes theirs. One form of law, procedural, is crucial because it dictates how people will be processed and how the law will be applied. Both of these components can be set up to benefit the powerful.

Living time represents the most subtle form of control. After an extended period of control, most of the generation of subjects who knew “how it was before” become extinct. This leaves behind a group of subjects who have known only the present society. The newer subjects have no basis for comparison and are less likely to question the social order. Thus, the society, and its rules, become theirs also. The authority-subject relationship becomes permanent and requires a low expenditure of resources.

Epilogue

Conflict theories are now an accepted part of criminological theory. In fact, many of today’s newer theories have accepted and incorporated conflict propositions, although rarely from the radical versions. Some of the older theories have even been adjusted to incorporate conflict ideas as well. Since the late 1970s, however, the increasingly conservative mood of the country has led to most criminologists ignoring the more radical conflict formulations. In the face of this, there has been a re-examination of radical conflict theory and some writers have called for a more practical approach often referred to as “left realism.” Some former radical conflict theorists have even moved to a non-Marxist position ref...