Abstract
Structural theories examine the relationship of crime and the
environment around the criminal. Most of these post-modern theories
try to explain how adverse conditions within a community or
environment affect an individual or group's ability to maintain
social norms or whether they descend into delinquent behaviors. Some
of these theories include conflict theory, Marxist theory, feminist
theory, and other structural theories.
Conflict
Theory and its Derivatives
Social
Contract Theory, as promulgated by John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, states
“given
that men are naturally self-interested, yet they are rational, they
will choose to submit to the authority of a Sovereign in order to be
able to live in a civil society, which is conducive to their own
interests” (Friend, 2014). In essence, individuals are willing to
give away some of their liberties in order to live an a civil
society. This idea is the basis of most of the world's legal systems,
the U.S. included. Conflict theory, states otherwise.
Conflict
theory assumes that there is no agreement or relinquishing of rights
for protection; society is held together in balance by conflicting
interests and who has the power, or upper hand, in said interests.
Those who have the power are able to propagate their interests and
agendas, including what is considered legal, moral, and right. Those
who are not in power and still practice their own belief systems are
in violation of the law (Akers & Sellers, 2013).
Thorsten
Sellen described how conflict may arise between different cultures
sharing the same geological area:
- “When these codes clas on the border of contiguous cultural areas”
- “When, as may be the case with legal norms, the law of one cultural group is extended to cover the territory of another”
- “When members of one cultural group migrate to another” (Sellen, 2012).
A
historical example of this would be the extermination of the Jews by
the Nazis during World War II. With the Nazi party in power, they
implemented their own legal codes and moral codes. These legal codes
include statutes discriminating against Jewish people and moral codes
which directed the citizenry to scorn Jews (Friedlander, 1993).
Other examples include the dynamics between Native American tribes
and colonials, Russians and Siberians, British Colonials and Indians
(Sellen, 2012).
The
power is exerted through two types of social control – informal and
formal. Informal social control deals with familial relationships,
circles of friends, churches, local organizations, and groups within
the community. These types of relationships are developed through the
teaching of folkways and mores. Formal social control deals with law,
which relies on “external application of formal negativesanctions
in the form of punishment for wrongdoing” (Akers & Sellers,
2013). These two social controls have a negative relationship in that
a lack of informal social control increases formal social controls,
and vice versa. When one type of social control disintegrates, the
other grows to fill the gaps (Akers & Sellers, 2013).
Both
formal and informal social controls rely on socialization, “the
process of teaching and learning values, norms, and customs through
examples and the application of positive and negative social
sanction” (Akers & Sellers, 2013). The most important part of
socialization is that formal social controls are concurrent with
informal social controls.
Emile
Durkheim developed consensus theory as a sociological approach to the
relationship between formal and informal social controls. His theory
states “the content and general nature of the law evolves from the
type of 'solidarity' that characterizes the society” (Akers &
Sellers, 2013). The two types of solidarity he describes are
mechanical and organic. Societies with mechanical solidarity find the
law oppressive and “punitive”. For societies with organic
solidarity, they are more diverse and interdependent upon one
another. Because of that, punishment is less punitive and more and
more restrictive of personal liberties. For instance, societies under
Sharia law would be considered mechanical – crimes known as hadd
(unlawful sexual intercourse, false accusation of unlawful
intercourse, consumption of alcohol, theft, and highway robbery)
carry a serious bodily punishment such as “flogging,
stoning, amputation, exile, or execution”
(Johnson & Vriens, 2013). American society would be considered
organic because its deprivation of liberty as is its main form of
punishment for crimes. Consider: the U.S. leads the world in the
amount of prisoners incarcerated. Over 2.2 million individuals are
incarcerated the majority of which are for reoccurring drug offenses
(Dodge, 2014).
Conflict
theorists such as Richard Quinney, William Chambliss, and Austin Turk
later applied conflict theory to criminal law itself. Their main
argument is how most criminological theories only focus on the causes
deviant behaviors, not on who or what classified those behaviors as
deviant in the first place. The individuals or groups who state
specific behaviors are deviant or criminal are the ones in power, and
with increased diversity the power is constantly in flux – “social
structure is comprised of the working arrangements, coalitions, and
balancing forces 'in a shifting but dynamic equilibrium of opposing
group interests and efforts'” (Akers & Sellers, 2013). In sum,
when various groups with different norms and values interact, one
group's set of norms will conflict with another group's, however the
group in power has the final say in what behaviors are normal or
deviant, regardless if it clashes with another group's values or
norms. Groups can differ due to demographics such as class, race,
age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender or other characteristics
“that denote social position in society” (Akers & Sellers,
2013).
Marxist Theory
As mentioned in conflict theory, certain groups of individuals who
differ because of specific demographics such as race, age,
socioeconomic status, etc who are not in a position of power can come
into conflict with the group in power due to a differing of societal
norms and values. Marxist theory focuses on how socioeconomic status
and political power are the main drivers in this conflict.
Karl Marx
The first individual to suggest socioeconomic status and political
power caused societal conflict was Karl Marx. His theory suggests
that in late-stage capitalism, the power is concentrated within a
small, wealthy group of individuals (the bourgeoisie) and use their
power to deprive the poorer social group of their liberties (the
proletariat). The bourgeoisie is the ruling class and in control of
the means of production, while the proletariat are “the workers or
masses who have only their labor to sell” (Akers & Sellers,
2013). This system will remain stable until the proletariat chooses
to rebel and overthrow the bourgeoisie. The proletariat will then
establish a classless, socialist society in which there will be
“economic and social equality” (Akers & Sellers, 2013).
Willem Bonger
Bonger was the first to adapt Marx's theory to crime. He theorized
that crime was caused by capitalism. Because private ownership of
industry creates “egoistic tendencies”, including greed and
selfishness, which would develop into “egoistic acts” and
“capable of crime”. The elite's greediness would cause a dearth
of morality and a general normlessness throughout society as a whole,
people would be more apt to commit deviant behaviors. However,
because the bourgeoisie are the law makers and therefore exempt from
any punishment they would incur from their deviant behaviors, the
proletariat would not be as lucky because of their disadvantaged
position. This leads to crimes like “juvenile delinquency, the
criminality of women, prostitution, alcoholism”, etc (Akers &
Sellers, 2013).
Richard Quinney
Quinney is mainly known for taking Marx's theory, mainstreaming it,
and using it to establish causes of crime. He caused a resurgence of
Marxism during the 1970's, a movement known as Neo-Marxism, which
theorized capitalism was the source of crime as a means of social
control and punishment given to individuals was not for the crime,
but for society to “siphon off surplus labor from the population”
(Akers & Sellers, 2013). According to the theory, this excess,
unused labor can grow restless and as a result grow into a
revolutionary movement against the state. He had four rationales to
justify that capitalism caused crime:
- “the development of capitalist political economy, including the nature of the forces and relations of production, the formation of the capitalist state, and the struggle between those who do and those who do not own and control the means of production”
- “the systems of domination and repression established in the development of capitalism, operating for the benefit of the capitalist class and secured by the capitalist state”
- “the forms of accommodation and resistance to the conditions of capitalism by all people oppressed by capitalism, especially the working class”
- “the relation of the dialectics of domination and accommodation to patterns of crime in capitalist society, producing the crimes of domination and the crimes of accommodation” (Quinney, 2012).
Because the state wants to maintain power, it must enact social
controls in order to keep the masses in line. These social controls
are laws. The state will continually put resources into this endeavor
by constructing criminal justice institutions, or “projects and
services which are required to maintain social harmony” (prisons,
jails, probation offices, etc) (Quinney, 2012). These are known as
social expenses. Essentially, the state would be willing to expend
resources to keep the population in line by implementing a criminal
code and imprisoning violators as a means of social control and to
expand their social capital.
Quinney explored two different forms of Marxism – instrumental and
structural. Instrumental Marxism states that the state is only and
will ever be a capitalist instrument. Structural Marxism differs in
that the state has “relative autonomy” and it is not completely
under the control of the elite. The law is not some tool to keep the
masses oppressed and mirrors the interests of the ruling elite; it is
a social control to deal with deviant behaviors. If an individual in
the ruling elite breaks a law, they will be punished just the same as
if it were a regular person in the masses. Structuralism relates more
closely to conflict theory than Marxism (Akers & Sellers, 2013).
The types of crimes committed by the oppressed proletariat fall into
two different categories – crimes of resistance and crimes of
accommodation. Crimes of resistance are directly aimed specifically
at the state as a means of rebellion. Crimes of accommodation include
“predatory crimes such as burglary and robbery... murder, assault,
rape” etc. Violent crimes committed by the proletariat are
considered a result of the state's oppression (Akers & Sellers,
2013).
Other Marxist's Theories
Many other Marxists such as Michael J. Lynch and W. Byron Groves
felt the correlation described between Marxism and crime was weak.
They sought to expand the connection between Marxism and crime passed
“blame everything bad on capitalism”. They expanded the theory to
include facets of anomie, strain, and social disorganization theory
by discussing how the “economic inequality [affects] crime through
alienation, family disorganization, parental socialization practices,
and other variables...” (Akers & Sellers, 2013).
David Greenburg postulated how Marxism correlates with crime on a
macro level, saying “Marxists do not deny that social-psychological
processes and face-to-face interactions may have some importance for
understanding crime and criminal justice, but they try to see these
as shaped by larger social structures... they give particular
attention to the organization of economic activity, without
neglecting the political and ideological dimensions of society”
(Akers & Sellers, 2013).
Greenburg utilized juvenile delinquency as a means to explain his
theory. He argues that juvenile delinquency cannot be fully explained
by current means, “but it can be readily understood as a
consequence of historically changing position of juveniles in... the
long-term tendencies of a capitalist economic system” (Akers &
Sellers, 2013). He surmises that because juveniles of all
socioeconomic statuses are not part of the labor market, but still
have the urge to possess material goods due to peer influences, will
use delinquent behaviors to obtain material goods. However, juveniles
will only resort to delinquency if they believe the ends are worth
the means. Greenburg suggests that the younger the individual is, the
less severe the punishment will be for them, and their knowledge of
that will determine whether or not they will resort to delinquency
(Akers & Sellers, 2013).
Mark Colvin and John Pauly also used juvenile delinquency to explain
their take on Marxist Theory by discussing how parents of different
socioeconomic statuses socialize their children. They surmise that
white collar workers have stronger morals and norms and therefore
pass those onto their children, while workers on the other end of the
spectrum are subject to harsher treatment by their employers and
society in general, and pass those ideas onto their children by
utilizing the same disciplinary measures they would incur in the
workplace. In addition, working parents who have marginal or
inconsistent employment circumstances will reflect this in the
discipline of their children. This leads to an increase in juvenile
delinquency (Akers & Sellers, 2013).
Feminist Theory
Feminist theory arose out of the supposed bias of the mostly male
dominated criminal justice system and it tries to form a better
understanding of gender roles and how they affect crime. Because the
predominant societal model is patriarchal, where the “rights and
privileges of males are superior and those of females are
subordinated”, the women's rights movement caused friction
concerning societal gender roles.
Kathleen Daly and Meda Chesney-Lind
Daly and Chesney-Lind assert that because society encourages
masculinity, the power balance favors males, while females are left
with less power. Utilizing labeling theory, it can be ascertained
that females are more harshly punished for wrongdoing than males.
However, data collected on sentencing patterns demonstrate this
hypothesis to be false. This may be attributed to chivalry hypothesis
which states male judges and officers will be more lenient and
compassionate toward female offenders out of a sense of chivalry.
Paternalism may be another cause for this discrepancy – it states
that males authority figures in the criminal justice system will be
more sympathetic to women because they feel women are weaker or
passive. However, paternalism is a double edged sword. A
paternalistic authority figure could easily use a harsher punishment
as a means of control (Akers & Sellers, 2013).
Chesney-Lind further explored this idea by examining the sentencing
of female juvenile delinquents. She noted the sentencing guidelines
were much harsher for females adjudicated for status offenses such as
truancy, smoking, running away from home, or disciplinary issues –
“girls were more likely than boys to be incarcerated for status
offenses, although less likely for serious offenses.” Chesney-Lind
speculated this was due to the fact that female juvenile delinquents
who were committing status offenses could compromise their
traditional gender roles (Akers & Sellers, 2013).
Freda Adler
Adler
published a book, Sisters
in Crime,
which discussed her theory that with the women's rights movement and
more gender equality, future crime statistics will show crimes
committed by women slowly meeting up with figures for males. Adler
demonstrates this with qualitative and quantitative evidence by
showing the increase in the arrest rates of females as well as
anecdotal evidence and stories from other females. Adler states, “in
the same way that women are demanding equal opportunity in fields of
legitimate endeavour, a similar number of determined women are
forcing their way into the world of major crimes” (Akers &
Sellers, 2013).
Adler has coined this the “masculinity thesis” – she believes
“as women gain equality with men, they will increasingly assume
masculine characteristics, some of which result in negative outcomes
such as a greater tendency to commit crime (Akers & Sellers,
2013).
Rita Simon
Simon also published data showing more women being convicted of
property offenses including white collar crime and occupationally
related crime, instead of violent offenses, as Adler contended. Simon
theorized women will be more educated as a result of the women's
rights movement and as a result avoid violence.
John Hagan
Hagan expanded upon feminist theory suggesting gender was not the
main culprit in statistical disparities; family structure and
parental controls of boys versus girls play a factor in crime
committed by females. He explained this by describing two different
types of families:
- Patriarchal families – Fathers typically run the household while mothers take a submissive role by not working at all, or taking a position where tasks are delineated to her – not a leadership position. Mothers tend to “exert more control” over both sons and especially daughters than a mother would in an egalitarian family. Because of the greater control over daughters, sons are more likely to be risk-takers than daughters.
- Egalitarian families – Both mothers and fathers have the same role whether it is “obey” or “command”. Mothers are more likely to “exert more control over sons than daughters”, but not as much as a mother in a patriarchal family. Sons will still be more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors, but the margin between sons and daughters will be smaller (Akers & Sellers, 2013).
Radical and Critical Theories
Radical and Critical Theories encompass many different cultural
theories of crime such as constitutive criminology, left realism,
cultural criminology, and peacemaking. These theories, generally,
have not had much empirical evidence to prove, however they do
contribute new structural ideas to criminology.
Stuart Henry and Dragan Milovanovic
Henry and Milovanovic coined the term constitutive criminology to be
used as an umbrella for a variety of post modern criminological
concepts. Some of these include “semiotics, edgework, chaos theory,
and catastrophe theory.” These types of perspectives shy away from
empirical, objective, and empirical research and lean more toward a
transformationist subjective worldview in favor of underprivileged
minority groups (Akers & Sellers, 2013). Henry and Milovanovic
specifically disapprove of searching for the causes of crime and
merely view crime as a tautological construct – it is what it is
because it is.
Jock Young and other British Criminologists
Young developed the theory of left realism throughout the 1970's and
1980's as a way to counteract the conservative movement in Britain at
the time. Britain was implementing a great deal of “get tough on
crime” policies as a means of crime control. However, Young and his
cohorts viewed this system as oppressive and unfeeling. They felt not
enough attention was being given to the pain and suffering of crime
victims while crime itself is an “epiphenomenon” where the
criminal themselves were some sort of social outcast or “homunculus”
who is not responsible for their own actions and should not be
treated punitively. Although this idea seems novel, it is merely a
rehashing of “liberal crime control policies”, specifically
concerning restorative justice (Akers & Sellers, 2013).
Jeff Ferrell
Ferrell's theory of cultural criminology describes the entirety of
the criminal justice system as a web that intertwines between all
members – judges, officers, offenders, bystanders, victims, etc.
Ferrell combines ideas such as “symbolic interactionism, social
constructionism, verstehen, social disorganization, anomie,
subcultures, labeling, conflict, techniques of neutralization” and
any other criminological theory or idea that can fit into his web.
Cultural criminology is incredibly subjective and does not rely on
any empirical evidence, simply “the real life feelings, emotions,
symbolic meanings, and human agency that infuse the social context
and dynamic daily life of both offenders and non-offenders” (Akers
& Sellers, 2013).
Harold E. Pepinsky and Richard Quinney
Peacemaking criminology was mainly promulgated by Pepinsky and
Quinney (Marxist theory). They describe the criminal justice system
as war – between offenders, victims, and the system itself.
Pepinsky and Quinney suggest to try including less punitive measures
between the constituents of the system and make a move toward more
peaceful solutions; “peacemaking criminology advocates mediation,
conflict resolution, reconciliation, and reintegration of the
offender back into society”. In sum, instead of resorting to
violence, this approaches promotes love, understanding, and
acceptance (Akers & Sellers, 2013).
Conclusion
This set of structural theories encompasses many different
approaches to how the criminal justice system should function
relative to the environment and culture. However, many of these
theories completely lack any kind of empirical evidence proving their
usefulness.
Works
Cited
Akers,
R., & Sellers, C. (2013). Criminological
theories.
(6th ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Dodge,
J. (2014, May 06). U.s. leads world in prison population by wide
margin; failed drug policies blamed. CBS
Chicago.
Retrieved from
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/u-s-leads-world-in-prison-population-by-wide-margin-failed-drug-policies-blamed/
Friend,
C. (2014, May 8). Social
contract theory.
Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
Friedlander,
S. (1993). Memory,
history, and the extermination of the Jews of Europe.
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Johnson,
T., & Vriens, L. (2013, January 09). Islam:
Governing under sharia.
Retrieved from
http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034
Quinney,
R (2012).
Class, State, and Crime.
In J. Jacoby, T. Severance & A. Bruce (Eds.), Classics
of Criminology (4th
ed.). Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
Sellin,
T (2012).
Culture Conflict and Crime.
In J. Jacoby, T. Severance & A. Bruce (Eds.), Classics
of Criminology (4th
ed.). Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
0 comments: