A Relationship between Social Class and Crime - Essay Example

A relationship between social and crime Introduction In a social conflict perspective, it must be understood how and social controls within a capitalistic society lead to increased crime due to the criminal laws and criminal justice system imposed on the lower middle class. Social conflict theory is the only theory that deals with this problem. The purpose of the social conflict theory is to observe the social controls made by the ruling class and imposed on the rest of society. “Some theorists say that class order has nothing to do with crime rates in society, but Richard Quinney have made great strides in proving that social class has a direct correlation with crime due to the social controls of a capitalist government” (Jones, 2004). Social conflict theory focuses on why governments make and enforce rules of law and morality then why an individual violates the law. The primary goal of Social Conflict is to examine the relationship between the ruling class and the process by which deviance is defined and controlled in capitalist society. The government creates laws and rules to maintain the power and position for the power elite. Centering on a view of society in which the elite class uses the criminal justice system as a means of controlling threats to its status. Conflict theorists do not argue that the poor commit more crimes than the rich, but they are certainly arrested and punished more often. A natural frustration exists in society in which a high value is placed on being rich and attaining the American dream, but this dream is unattainable for the majority of the citizens. A deep hostility develops among the lower class toward a social order that they can not participate unless it’s by illegal means. Thus, the legal system is designed to guard the position of the upper class by any legal means necessary. “Conflict theorists seriously contradict the long-held presumption that the American system of law and justice is humane and fair to all citizens.” (Senna, 2003) Aim rational It really is not a surprise to any of us that it is the poor and disadvantaged criminals who end up in the coils of the criminal justice system. But it would be a mistake to make accusations about the nature of crime by blaming those individuals who end up in our police cells, courtrooms and prisons. This does not mean that crime in the US or any other part of the world is committed by the poor and disadvantaged. Nor does it mean that disadvantage is the cause of most crime. “But some of the grossest victimizations are concentrated among the poorer members of society, and it is reasonable to conclude that the poor will often be perpetrators as well as victims.” (Garside, 2003) Two broad policy trajectories flow from this. The first would seek to use criminal justice mechanisms to achieve social justice: target the offender, address their offending behaviour, and incapacitate the most persistent, send the rest on their way. This offender-focused approach very much reflects current government thinking, but it systematically ignores the broader social and economic context within which crime, criminality and victimization unfold. Pursued rigorously it would probably result in far more CEOs than burglars populating our prison cells. That the opposite is the case tells us much about the systematic biases of our current criminal processes, and the degree to which criminal justice is inimitable to social justice. The second would start by emphasizing the fundamental difference between criminal justice and social justice; that the former is not a means of delivering the latter. This victim-focused approach would actively eschew criminal justice mechanisms in favour a broad-based drive to tackle poverty and inequality at a systemic level and in a systematic way. For if the cause of vulnerability to certain crimes and a wider array of social harms is poverty and inequality, it is here that the policy focus should be. Such an approach would not mean the dissolution of the criminal justice system, but it would imply its radical scaling back, and an infusion of it by genuinely humane principles. It would also imply the scaling up of a range of intermediate institutions, such as mediation services, to help citizens to resolve problems informally and quickly. But fundamentally it would mean acknowledging that social justice can only truly be achieved if societys social and economic arrangements are themselves organized justly. (Garside,2003) Method of research We tend to associate crime with poor, minority-group neighbourhoods. Given this association, Merton’s argument has great intuitive appeal. However, it has not stood up well to the test of empirical confirmation. The argument implies an inverse relationship between social class and crime that is, the higher the social class standing of the individual (as indicated, say, by either his or her annual income), the lower the probability that the individual is a criminal. In studies of street crime (muggings, robberies, assaults, murders), the relationship can be confirmed; but when crime is defined more broadly, to include white-collar and business crimes, and when crime is measured by indicators other than official police reports (Young, 2001), the relationship is weak and inconsistent. General Social Survey data allow us to assess the relationship between social class and crime; examining the empirical associations between these two variables. (GSSDIRS General Social Survey. Pg. 43-44) These same data also allow us to examine crime from a control theory perspective. The patterns in the findings below should prod you to begin thinking about the true nature of deviance as it relates to social class and social integration. The key variables we will examine are: Ed (Years of Schooling) Read More