Development Process of Criminology Since the 1970s - Essay Example

Development Process of Criminology Since 1970s Year of Study/Semester: Submitted: Among criminologists, there is the general consensus that criminology has undergone tremendous transformation since the 1970s both in time and space. To others, this field has especially been enriched by the development of a number of approaches since the same period. In particular, the said development or transformation saw the fusion of this field with a range of broad theories of social control, modernisation and modernity. This can be attributed to the fact that criminologists have tended to look at crime from a broad-based spectrum as well as other associated paradigm shifts over time. By so doing, crime has been looked at from the standpoint of demographics and patterns of any criminal activity, the socio-economic and cultural as well as the psychological perspectives of such criminal mannerisms in the context of the wider society. From the outset, perhaps it is imperative to note that the process of crime development and conceptualisation was given the much needed impetus by the conflict theory. According to Scraton (2007, p. 72), it is this ideological orientation that gave birth to the development of the other concepts during the early 1970s. A closer analysis of the conflict theory of crime reveals that it was founded on the premise that the primary or root causes of crime are both the economic and social forces that operate within any given society. In this regard, the various systems of justice and their respective laws tend to operate on behalf of powerful elites and rich persons within the society. Hence, policies that are put in place, more often than not, end up controlling the poor. Consequentially, this culminates into the imposition of standards by the criminal justice system that are construed to the establishment of benchmarks of good behaviour and morality put forward by the powerful in the society. The period from early 1970s witnessed the development of the new criminology which later came to be known as the radical criminology. Inciardi (1980, p. 58), argues that the development of radical or critical criminology stems from conflict theory of crime and is indeed its branch. On a positive rejoinder, Scraton (2007, p. 169), holds the view that it draws its ideas from the Marxist perspective of criminology. In a nutshell, radical criminology was based on the concepts such as power, class in addition to ideology that was advanced by the Marxists during their analyses of the famous capitalist society. Perhaps it is important to note that this concept of criminology was developed initially in the United States of America and Britain. At the same time, it is imperative to note that the brainchild of this concept in Britain were Jock Young, Ian Walton alongside Paul Taylor. In particular, these persons were focused on bringing to the fore a new deviance theory while at the same time building upon the fundamental principles laid by other approaches to crime. According to Taylor, Paul and Jock (1973, p. 274), this new approach to the theory of deviance was a modern attempt to shift the focus of debate in criminology from the traditional preoccupations as well as interventionist theories. In this regard, Taylor and his colleagues were of the view that while the aforementioned theories were explicit in suggesting that power in its form of being a social behavioural reaction, was a major variable, fell short of developing an exhaustive explanation with respect to the genesis of power within the capitalist society. Thus, the concepts that had been put forward by the Marxists in relation to interventionist theories were quite crucial owing to the fact that they provided for an ideal platform to the radical criminologists to pin point deviant behaviour and crime in a setting that was appropriately structured. Against this backdrop, the radical criminologists were ultimately able to appreciate the fact that conceptions towards deviance are not randomly constructed (Bonger, 1905, p. 27). Therefore, the development of this concept of criminology was cantered on two fundamental ideas. One of these ideas was captured from the firm belief by the radical criminologists that any criminal behaviour usually has an origin that is structured. To this end the radical criminologists such as Taylor hold the opinion that any form of behaviour is normally rooted in the manner by which that respective society in organised institutionally. Most notably, radical criminology was not in tandem with the various analyses of capitalist social systems. It is noteworthy that the said analysis was in terms of the interconnectivity between crime-based behaviours, economic organisations within these capitalist societies as well as the apparent inequalities of power, influence or wealth. The second primary idea upon which the development of radical criminology was based is from the interactionist theories. The main issue in this regard stemmed from the ideology that individuals are usually presented with a choice element with respect to the way they behave. In this way, persons are normally presented with the choice of choosing to be non-deviant or the contrary (Taylor, Paul and Jock, 1973, p. 323). As it is put forward by Downers and Paul (2007, p. 196 ), the emphasis of radical criminology was to provide an explanation in relation to the reasons as to why people opt to deviate from the stipulated social norms based on the aspect of social action. Furthermore, radical criminology was developed under the objective of also giving an explanation on the form of criminalisation process within the capitalist society. Just as it was the case with the Marxist theories, radical criminology sought to explain the aspect of social action within the context of values and norms that are established at structural level in any given society. Hence, the radical criminology is composed of two dimensions with the first being an objective type dimension. This dimension is founded on the tenet that for us to have a clear understanding as to why individuals are criminalised, we must first be in a position to understand both the purpose and origin of the legal norms. In essence, this dimension is a criticism of the functionalist analysis of deviance or crime since the creation of laws is centred on their ability to meet the interests of the entire society (Downers and Paul 2007, p. 324-339) The analysis of the process of creation of the law involved a detailed understanding of the issue of how the ruling class was perceived to create laws in order to protect their own interests and how the said laws allowed them to have a dominating ideological influence over all the other classes within a society. This standpoint is a clear demonstration of the methodological difference between the Marxist conflict theory and functionalism owing to the open fact that Marxism attempts to understand and identify the fundamental social processes unto which social reality is founded. The subjective dimension is the second dimension of radical criminology and is particularly concerned with seeking to have a full understanding of under what social conditions do persons deviate from the stipulated norms within the society according to Downers and Paul, (2007, p. 206). With this in mind, the debt by the radical criminology to the interactionist sociology is quite explicit. One of the reasons for this is that radical criminologists have always emphasised their view that crime is indeed committed across all the social classes in any given society. To add to that, this dimension brings to the fore the second view by radical criminologists that different classes in the society engage in different types of deviant behaviour. Crime committed among and within the working class for instance, tends to be highly visible in comparison to the other classes. Contrary to the interactionism, the radical criminologists do not perceive deviants as being labelling victims. To this end, radical criminologists see deviants within the society to be involved in somewhat level of choice in terms of not committing or ultimately committing the deviant activity in the first place as is put forward by Downers and Paul, (2007, p. 217). Power is the other aspect in relation to the above divergent view in terms of why certain activities are usually labelled as being deviant but not others. The other element of power is in terms of why certain groups within the society tend to be more predisposed to being criminalised than others (Pearce and Snider 1992, p. 27). The process of radicalisation within criminology was provided the much needed impetus by Marxism criminology just as the radical criminology with the former being the cornerstone of the latter perspective of criminology according to Scraton (2007, p. 193). Perhaps it is imperative to note that the Marxist criminology parallels ideologies of functionalism. In this respect, it focuses on the source of stability as continuity within the wider society. However, unlike the functionalism school of criminology, it adopts a specified political based philosophy. Hence, just as it is with the conflict theory of criminology, a great deal of emphasis is on the reasons for change in various things, description of how the society is stratified by wealth, power, prestige, perceptions of the wider world in addition to the identification of the specific disruptive forces within the industrialised societies. In this regard, this school of criminology appreciates the idea that the character and shape of a legal system within such complex societies can be best understood through the delineation of the conflicts that are inherent within these societies that are stratified both politically and economically as it is put forward by Scraton, (2007, p.198) . Indeed, there is the general consensus among criminologists that for any society to be able to function efficiently there is need for social order to ensure for tranquillity in the overall process of socialisation. This can be attributed to the view by the Marxist criminologists that there is the power for some people to label an act as to being deviant arises from inequalities in terms of power distribution within that society according to Pearce and Snider, (1992, p. 36). Furthermore, since judgment normally carries state authority, there is a lot of stigma on such prohibited mannerisms or behaviour. At the same time, other Marxists such as Bonger held the firm belief that there is a positive correlation between economic, crime and social conditions. Against this view, Bonger asserted that crime has a social origin in addition to being a normal response to the cultural conditions in the society. Thus with the advent of capitalism, there was heightened competition which in turn resulted into unequal resource distribution, individualism and avarice. According to Bonger (1905, p. 27), the onset of self interests as well as egoistic impulses within these capitalist societies created the ideal environment for the emergence of crime. In this respect, the poor would be involved in criminal acts due to the need for justice and equality. Hence, persons in power inherently exercise it through imposition of punishment and control (Bonger 1905, p. 27). Conclusively, the steady transformation of criminology ideologies from Marxist standpoints all the way to the radical criminology helped to create an avenue for reforms. Most notably, this led to the emergence of paradigm shift in relation to criminology in the context of the wider society. In this regard, one’s involvement in deviant activities is often looked at from a holistic approach in terms of associated factors of the society within which the affected person is based. The element of choice by an individual’s involvement in deviant activities is often analysed alongside the causative factors within the society. References Bonger, Willem, 1905, Criminality and Economic Conditions, pp. 27 Downers, D & Paul, ER 2007, Understanding deviance: A guide to the Sociology of Crime and Rule breaking. 5th ed., Oxford University Press. Inciardi, J 1980, Radical Criminology: The Coming crises, Sage Publications, Washington, D.C. Pearce, Frank & Snider, Laureen 1992, "Crimes of the Powerful," The Journal of Human Justice, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 23-39. Scraton, P 2007, Power, Conflict and Criminalisation, Routledge, London. Taylor, IR, Paul, W and Jock, Y 1973, The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance. 3rd ed., Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Read More