Critical Criminology - Essay Example

?Critical Criminology. Introduction: Historical Criminologies. Theories of crime and punishment have been around since human society began to live inlarge gatherings of people, and successive civilisations have tried to set down codified laws to regulate the behaviour of people and sort out differences and conflicts which arise between them. There are plenty of historical accounts of criminology, starting with classical ideas which discuss the interplay of free will on the part of individuals and the existence of methods of punishment to deter the worst excesses which occur when people exercise their free will. Plato, for example was in favour of a penal system which was curative, seeking to reform wrongdoers, and spoke out against retribution because it only increases suffering and brings no good result. (Bauman: 1996 , p. 3) Increasingly, laws were created to sustain a dominant view of society and silence any resistance to this from people who would rather escape such tight regulation. An increasing reliance on scientific methods, using all the benefits of new scientific discoveries such as magnification, fingerprinting and evidence based practice had the advantage of rooting out superstition and religion as judicial tools, but it had the disadvantage of subjecting human beings to ever tighter systems of control and regulation. Eventually critical criminology emerged to take issue with the free will argument and look instead at a much wider range of issues which contribute to the way people behave in society. In modern western societies these different views coexist in the academic literature and in society at large, because there is no agreement on one single view of how to define crime, its causes, its remedies and the way society should deal with it. Mainstream Criminology and its main assumptions. The fundamental basis of mainstream criminology is the thinking of utilitarianism developed by writers like Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). It is no coincidence that these ideas developed at a time when European society was becoming more urban and industrialized. (Morrison: 1995, pp. 71-76) The close proximity of large numbers of people, often in poor housing conditions and relative poverty, resulted in repeated crime waves and instability in society. This very rational approach to crime assumes that the needs of individuals must be balanced with the needs of society in general, and this results in a suppression of “deviant” behaviour which harms the majority. One of the good outcomes of this kind of criminology is that it clarifies what is sanctioned by society and what is not, and it provides a basis for setting up a universal legal and penal system that aims to treat people fairly. A less positive outcome is a tendency to promote the views and interests of powerful patriarchal figures, focusing on the maintenance of the status quo, and allowing people in law enforcement to abuse their power, often in institutionalised ways which become an inbuilt part of the system. The persecution of black people in America and the outlawing of gay people in most countries until very recently are examples of rules which set out deliberately to benefit one segment of society at the expense of another. Van Swaaningen believes that there are two major belief systems that have been at work in mainstream criminology since the Second World War and these are neo classicism and positivism which he explains as follows: “the first views crime as the moral lapse of the freely willed individual; the second, as a pathological determinism of individuals caused by genetic, family or social defects.” (Young: 1997, p. vii) What these two approaches have in common is that they focus on the individual human being as the source of the problem, and they assume that dealing with crime is a matter of dealing with that person. This kind of criminology uses statistical evidence to build up a picture of how when and where crime occurs, and it focuses on methods of prevention and methods of detection and control of offenders. One big assumption is that the existence of harsh punishments like imprisonment, forced labour, or even in some states the death penalty, will act as a deterrent. This assumes that people will weigh up the benefit they would gain by breaking some rules of society, and the risk that they run if they are caught and made to suffer punishment. One of the problems with this approach is that there are many reasons for crime, and not all of them are rationally thought through by the people who commit unlawful acts. Another difficulty is that it is impossible to create systems which guarantee that crimes will be spotted and followed up by law enforcement agencies and so the theory of deterrence is not very effective. Mainstream Criminology’s Research Priorities. When looking at reform of the criminal justice system, the focus is often on how to improve the statistical results, for example, how to catch more criminals, improve prosecution rates, ensure that correctional facilities help prevent more crime by re-educating criminals. Failings in the system are examined, and attempts are made at explaining these, and making the collaboration between different agencies more efficient and effective. In response to rising crime rates, often there is research into methods of surveillance and ways of predicting and preventing crime when patterns can be detected in group or individual behaviours. This kind of research looks at how to deal with crime once it has happened, or preventing specific instances of crime, for example by designing buildings with protection for workers built in, and using systems like surveillance, smart water, anti-graffiti paint etc. Because of pressure on budgets, value for money is also a big consideration. Critical Criminology and its Main Assumptions. Critical criminology, is a newer way of thinking which pays more attention to the nature of society at large, rather than just the behaviour of single individuals. It sets itself up against the assumptions of traditional criminology and its first task has been to redefine the terms under which criminology is discussed. Muncie cites a main aim of the criminology of the last thirty years or so as being to “broaden the subject matter of criminology away from those injurious acts defined as such by the criminal law – theft, burglary, criminal damage and so on – in order to establish that a vast range of harms – sexism, racism, economic exploitation and so on – could and should be the focal concern of an area of study called criminology. (Muncie: 2000, p. 1) Another way of describing this is to think of criminology from the point of view of those who are at the receiving end of the criminal justice system, rather than those who are directing it and defining it. Young also pinpoints the ailments of society as an important factor in the causes of crime, showing how critical criminology challenges traditional core assumptions about the responsibility of the individual: “criminal behaviour is seen to involve the acting out of the core values of society – individualism and possessiveness” and “the criminal justice system, by labelling and reinforcing stereotypes, makes criminals of people” (Young: 1997, p. vii) From this point of view an act defined by the governing majority as “criminal” can be re-interpreted as a rational response to the widespread greed of the rich and the systematic oppression and stigmatization of the poor. This analysis makes use of Marxist theories of class struggle in which the oppressed working class majority is urged to rise up against the unjust abuse of power displayed by a bourgeois minority but it is more than just a simple application of this political dogma. An important thinker who influenced the emergence of critical criminology is the French philosopher Michael Foucault. His work in the 1970s on discipline, punishment and prisons drew attention to the power relationships that underpin modern systems of social control. Foucault’s interest is in the way that throughout history some groups have always sought to dominate others, and to institutionalize this dominance into society in such a way that it appears normal. Ideas of punishment have changed over the centuries, from the public executions that were regarded as entertainment in the eighteenth century to the work houses of the industrial revolution and now the modern prison with all its medicalization and subtle forms of dominance. (Foucault: 1977, pp. 6-12) Criminals in the modern world are still classed as “deviants” who require punishment and control, before they can be re-educated into becoming more “normal” like the rest of society. These loaded terms reveal a structural injustice in society which disadvantages certain types of people and condemns them to a low status and a life in conflict with dominant “norms.” Another aspect which critical criminology challenges is the assumption that acts which are defined by the criminal justice system as crimes are necessarily committed by human beings exercising their free will. In complex modern societies there are great differences in the amount of free decision-making power that individuals have. Wealth and status afford a person much greater freedom than poverty and stigma, for example, and so it is unjust to judge both of these individual by the same standards. Knepper points out that many people’s freedom is curtailed by circumstances, and this is a major factor in the reasons behind growing crime figures in many western societies. He uses the analogy of flying to illustrate this point: “To exercise the freedom to engage in any activity, people must have the ability to do so. The invention of aeroplanes gave people the freedom to fly. Making air travel possible for more people , by means of government subsidy to airports, means that more people have the freedom to fly.” (Knepper: , p. 161) Following this analogy, it seems that traditional criminology is wrong to assume a level playing field when making generalizations about how people should be treated. If the availability of goods and services is very heavily skewed against some people, then it is only to be expected that conflicts of interests will arise between those who have plenty, and want to keep it, and those who have very little, and want to gain more. Critical criminology regards the smug selfishness of the rich and the powerful, and that includes many in the criminal justice system, as even more damaging to individuals and to society as a whole, than the random rebellion of an underclass that is excluded and reviled for reasons that it had no part in creating. Some scholars (Pavlich: 1999; Hill: undated), however, regard the element of political activism that is implied in critical criminology as a serious weakness . Critical Criminology’s Preferred Object/Activities. We have noted that critical criminology takes issue with notions of control and dominance that are part of the standard world view of traditional criminology. A favourite emphasis for research in critical criminology is the area of aetiology, in other words, deeper investigation of the causes of crime. This goes much further than traditional criminology’s concern for forensic investigation, and establishment of factors like the motive behind a person’s acts, and the opportunity for personal gain, revenge etc which existed at the time of the crime, and looks instead at the whole social environment in which crime is committed. A person’s family background, locality where they live, their education and their experience of authorities all play a part in the development of attitudes towards law enforcement. Similarly, the values projected by powerful echelons of society on the one hand, and respective peer groups in other types of culture are also relevant. Much empirical research is needed if academics are to understand the complex forces that guide the behaviour of street gangs, addicts, repeat offenders and all those groups who find themselves ostracised by the so-called “moral majority.” Critical criminology uses the tools of sociology and anthropology to understand group dynamics and the way that cultural forces work upon individuals and groups. This is a very complex undertaking, and it encompasses not just those who are charged with criminal offences, but also those in society who profit from the efforts of others, often in exploitative ways, and yet escape any kind of censure. Critical criminology cries out for scholars to bring powerful organisations and individuals under much closer scrutiny. One big area of investigation for critical criminology is the way that organisations exploit their powerful economic positions to conduct large scale activities which should be categorised as crimes, but are in fact ignored or condoned by society. One example of is this the way that workers in factories, even in modern times, are subjected to risky or exploitative work practices. There are also implications for criminal justice in the way that the world has, through the trend of globalisation, become a much more interconnected place. Industrialists in Europe can set up sweatshops in Asia, for example, in order to create huge profits which are redistributed among boardroom members and shareholders rather than among the workers who create the wealth. Critical criminology looks at justice as a much wider and deeper concept than simply the adherence to local laws in one place in order to avoid punishment. While recognising the tendency for human nature to look for shortcuts and personal gain, and the hard fact that the powerful often commit more atrocious crimes in the name of profit than the dispossessed commit in their desperation, critical criminology also holds out the hope that these systems can be changed. This means that critical criminology conducts research into political forces as well as personal moral choices and social causes. Summary and Conclusion It is clear that traditional criminology and critical criminology are approaching the same problem at opposite ends. On the one hand individuals do use their free will to commit crimes, and on the other hand societal pressures and fundamentally unfair systems do play a part in the formation of those decisions to commit crimes. Abuse of power and manipulation of the rules is just as much problem as transgression of the rules by people who are excluded from privilege and power . It is true also that the effect of the criminal justice system to stigmatise criminals and create further injustices for those people is one of these societal pressures, and any study of criminology cannot fail to take into account these correctional measures which actually worsen the problem they are aiming to address. Critical criminology highlights the devastating effects that arise if large sections of the population see themselves as the target of endless police attention while at the same time hearing about white collar criminals who escape any kind of consequences. This breeds cynicism and opting out of mainstream society in search of wealth and status through petty theft, drug dealing, and other anti-social behaviors. Contemporary culture is based on a materialist cult of visible consumption and this unhealthy pressure is one of the elements that critical criminology seeks to understand. There is at present very little incentive for people without jobs in economically deprived areas to avoid the temptation of easy money through crime, and this is something which needs to be addressed if the root causes of crime are to be eliminated. Elements of both kinds of criminology are necessary in our societies if we are to maintain such stability and fairness as we have at the moment and also remove unfairness and exploitation where it occurs in our systems. As the devastating consequences of white collar crime, and exploitation of the poor become more and more apparent in the modern world, the importance of critical criminology in re-examining the fundamentals of our beliefs and practices is likely to become even more important. References Bauman, R. 1996. Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish. London: Allen Lane. Hill, R. Undated. Facing Change: New Directions for Critical Criminology in the Early New Millennium? Western Criminology Review 3 (2). Available online at: http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v3n2/hil.html Knepper, P. 2007. Criminology and Social Policy. London: Sage. Morrison, W. 1995. Theoretical Criminology: From Modernity to Post Modernism. London: Cavendish. Muncie, J. 2000. Decriminalising Criminology, in G Mair and R. Tarling (eds) British Criminology Conference: Selected Proceedings (3), available online at: http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume3/010.pdf Pavlich, G. 1999. Criticism and Criminology: In Search of Legitimacy. Theoretical Criminology 3 (1), pp. 29-51. Van Swaaningen, R. 1997. Critical Criminology: Visions from Europe. London: Sage. Young, J. 1997. Foreword, in Van Swaaningen, R. 1997. Critical Criminology: Visions from Europe. London: Sage, pp. vii to xv. Read More