Marxist Criminologists and Social Inequality - Case Study Example

Introduction Left idealism is also known as the radical criminology. The left realists take us beyond the offenders and further shows us the concern for the victim patterns in both the informal and the formal sectors. They argue that crime can only be understood in terms of the existing interrelationships. Young who developed this ideology also has a generic theory explaining the recent growth in crime. He states that the lateness in modernity is making the crimes worse in various ways. (Young, 1986) 1. Greater instability and uncertainty in most aspects of life. 2. Very little consensus about the peoples moral values. 3. The desire of the people for an immediate as well as personal pleasure. 4. A major breakdown of the informal social controls in the society. The Marxists criminologists believe in a concept which stipulates that as long as people have different interests and as long as some individual groups hold more power than others then crime will always be in existence. This is because of the differentials in the power and interests of the human condition such that crime will always be a part of us. Similarly with the overthrow of the mode of production for the capitalists there will emerge the natural goodness of the humanity and this will further lead to no more criminal behaviour. The main ideologies in Marxism include the concept of crime, the cause of crime and the cure for crime. In the cause for crime the theorists refuse to pass the moral judgement since they view the criminal conduct to be morally neutral without any intrinsic properties which distinguish it from any conforming behaviour. On the other hand crime does not exist until there is a powerful interest group which is able to criminalize the activities of another group which is less powerful. Some people view crime as the revolutionary actions by those who are downtrodden in the society and others view it as the acts which are socially harmful by a class of traitors while others yet see it as the violations of the human rights. On the concept of crime the law tends to favour those who are more powerful but not any specified group. The group is more likely to be favoured if it has greater wealth more power as well as prestige in the society. This is a very powerful tool that is used by the ruling class who criminalizes the workers activities which are harmful to its interests while ignoring their own socially harmful behaviour. Marxist criminologists and social inequality From the neo-Marxism came the most poplar theory of crime and the core of the Marxist is the class struggle concept. According to the Marxists the oppressors were the wealth owners who were also known as the bourgeoisie and they had the means of production and on the other hand the oppressed were the working class who were the proletariat. Also according to the Marxists the ruling class always develops ideologies which legitimise and justify their exploitation and they further call the acceptance of the ideologies by the workers a counter to their interest’s false consciousness. (Hopkins, 2001) The Marxists perception of crime Favouring the powerful Social classes -The wealthy and the elite -The middle class -The lower classes proper distribution of political power change of the dehumanizing conditions of capitalism Socially harmful acts of Class traitors Violations of human rights. Revolutionary acts of the downtrodden in the society. With time this kind of consciousness will be replaced by the class consciousness which is the recognition of a popular class condition and the development of a common unity in the opposition of the exploitation by the capitalists. According to Marx the criminals came from a third class group of people in the society who would not play any decisive role in the expected revolution. According to Marxists the criminal acts were products of the unjust, the alienating as well as the social conditions which were demoralising as they denied the masses of the unemployed productive labour. (Young, 1979) The origin of crime according to Karl max and his revolution came to be popularly known as the primitive rebellion. This rebellion opposed the capitalistic societies which were passing laws that would criminalise any action which would jeopardise the private property. It also seemed to overlook many social activities which were injurious but were viewed as beneficial in the economic perspective but only for the ruling class. William Bonger who was the first Marxist criminologist supported the view that the crimes roots lay in the alienating and exploitive conditions of the capitalists. There were several social sentiments that concerned him and they included; 1. Altruism –This is an active concern for the wellbeing of the other people. 2. Egoism-This is a concern that is based only on the selfish individual interests. On the other hand Bonger believed that in the capitalists societies all the individuals are highly infected by egoism and this is because they are alienated from the social relationships which were authentic with the fellow human beings. This makes them prone to committing crime. The Marxist criminologists further believed that the capitalist mode of production was the root cause of crime. (Caulfield, & Wonders, 1994) Similarly they also believed that poverty was the main cause of crime and its effects could be traced back to the family structure on the inability of the parents to supervise their children properly. According to the Marxists the different classes in the society is defined by the relative wealth owned by an individual as well as their power and status in the society. Left realist criminologists and social inequality The theory of left realism was developed by Lea and Young together with Matthews and Kinsey as a way of responding to the right realism theory and the neo-Marxist theoretical ideology on radical criminology. Young was responding to the neo-Marxist radical criminology by developing a new criminology theory which he himself was part of but now wanted to distance himself from it and subsequently rename it as the left idealism. The left realism theory takes the important view that crime is a very real problem and this especially to the poor people and those who are derived. Similarly it also affects the minority ethnic groups and those who reside in the inner city. The left realism explains crime in terms of subculture, marginalisation and also relative deprivation. (Carlen, 1992) The left-realists perception of crime The left realism theory sees crime as an existing real problem for the ordinary people and It further explains it through the analysis of the economic and social relationships as well as how some groups become marginalised. The left realism further argues that the rising trend of crime rate cannot be merely explained by the unreliability of the official crime statistics. It is so unusual that the sociologists are less critical of the crime statistics than most people. They argue that they do not at all reflect typical criminals based on gender, social economic class and also along the racial lines. The left realists mainly focus on the victims as well as the offenders as they recognise the fact that crime is highly concentrated in the sink housing estates as well as the inner cities. According to Lea and Young they tackle the black criminality head on as they accept that there has been a real increase in crimes which have been committed by the young blacks. (Burke, 2005) The left realists also accept the fact that there exists institutional racism and at the same time there also exist a racist canteen culture amongst the police. The left realists also believe that the black criminality also stems from the factors such as material deprivation, unemployment and also low wages. They further perceive the black youths as having very high ambitions and aspirations but more often than not they are able to very little of these aspirations in a legitimate way. The left realists view crime to have originated from three perspectives which explains why the young working class black males are particularly mainly associated with criminal activities. (Bottomley, & Pease, 1986) Sub cultures Young and lea further argue that the young blacks’ subculture is distinctively very different from their parents’ cultures who have largely accepted their marginalised position in the society at large. The young blacks’ subculture has very high material expectations as well as aspirations such as money and status symbols like posh cars and extravagant lifestyles. It is because the black youths are more closely enmeshed in the consumption values of style and wealth that that they precisely engage in crime as their opportunities are blocked. Relative deprivation Young and Lea yet still argue that the frustration from the existing disparities between the expectations and the reality of their lifestyles leads to feelings of relative deprivation. They further argue that for many black males the reality is a choice of unemployment or training schemes. They feel that they have been unfairly denied the glittering prizes which have been offered to others. This can further develop into some strategies which involve criminal and deviant behaviour. Marginalisation The left realists also argue that marginalisation refers to the process by which certain individual groups find themselves on the society’s edge. Most of the black people often feel alienated by unemployment, the police, schools as well as low wages. They face major marginalization through harassment and prejudice especially through the military policing. They see this as the straw that breaks the camels back and thus social marginalisation is transferred into crime. (Bonger, 1969) It is important to note that the basic triangles’ of relationships that exist are the proper subject matter in criminology and they are inclusive of the offender, the victim and the state. According to the left realists the theoretical explanations must be symmetrical and this should follow suite for the social action and reaction. (Ahluwalia, 1991) According to the same theory man was created in the human nature and therefore any explanations relating to crime should be very deterministic and the people should be held responsible for their own actions. Crime is seen as a real problem and this is so especially to the lower working class people who disproportionately suffer from personal crimes which include assault, rape, burglary as well as robbery. (Adler, 1975) Reference: Adler, F. (1975): Sisters in Crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal. New York. McGraw-Hill. Ahluwalia, S. (1991): Currents in British Feminist Thought, The Study of Male Violence’, Critical Criminologist 3/1:5-6, 12-14 Bonger, W. (1969): Criminality and Economic Conditions. Bloomington IN. Indiana U.P. Bottomley, K. & Pease, K. (1986): Crime and Punishment: Interpreting the Data. Milton Keynes UK. Open UP. Burke, R. (2005): An Introduction to Criminological Theory (2nd Edition) Cullompton, Willans Publishing Carlen, P. (1992): Criminal Women and Criminal Justice, The limits to, and Potential of, Feminist and Left Realist Perspectives’, in Matthews, R. & Young, J. Issues in Realist Criminology. London. Sage. Caulfield, S., & Wonders, N. (1994): Gender and Justice: Feminist Contributions to Criminology’, in Barak, G. ed. Variations of Criminology: Readings from a Dynamic Discipline. Westport CT. Praeger. Fitzgerald et al (eds) Crime & Society London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hopkins, B. (2001): An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton: Willan pg.173 Young, J. (1979): Left idealism, reformism and beyond: from new criminology to Marxism in National Deviancy Conference/Conference of Socialist Economists (eds) Capitalism & the ruke of law, London, Hutchinson Young, J. (1986): The failure of crimology: the need for a radical realism in R. Mathews and J Young (eds) Confronting crime, London, Sage Read More