How do the Marxists explain crime?

Marxists believe that society is best understood by examining the process whereby the majority of the population are exploited by the owners and controllers of commerce and industry. Marxists argue that this simple, fundamental fact of exploitation provides the key to unlock the explanations for the workings of society.
The key elements of the Marxist or critical criminological approach include:

1. The basis of criminal law
2. The dominant hegemony of the ruling class
3. Law enforcement
4. Individual motivation
5. Crime and control

1      The basis of the criminal law

All laws are essentially for the benefit of the ruling class, and reflect their interests. Criminal law therefore operates to protect the rich and powerful.

2      Law creation and the dominant hegemony

In capitalist societies, the ruling class impose their values (values which are beneficial to themselves) upon the mass of the population. They do this through a number of agencies such as the education system, religion and the mass media. (This concept of ruling class values being imposed upon the population is commonly known as hegemony.)
It is the dominant set of values that are the basis from which laws arise in a democracy. However, according to Marxists, the set of values is actually ‘forced’ on the people. Thus what they believe they are agreeing to as a result of their own beliefs are, in reality in the interests of the ruling class.

 3      Law enforcement

Despite the fact that the law making process reflects the interests of the ruling class, many of these laws could provide benefits for the majority of the population if they were applied fairly. However, even the interpretation and enforcement of the law is biased in favour of the ruling class, so that the police and the criminal justice system will arrest and punish the working class, but tend not to enforce the law against the ruling class.

4      Individual motivation

Marxist theory provides an explanation for the individual motivation underlying crime. Bonger argued that capitalism is based upon competition, selfishness and greed and this formed peoples’ attitudes to life. Therefore crime was a perfectly normal outcome of values which stressed looking after oneself at the expense of others. But Bonger also said that in many cases, poor people were driven to crime by their desperate conditions.

5      Crime and control

Marxists believe that the ruling class in a capitalist system constantly seek to divert the attention of the population away from the ‘real’ problem the true causes of their situation the capitalist society. Institutions such as the media, religion and the education system reinforce and acts as justifications that the capitalist system is the ‘natural’ and ‘best’ economic system.
Crime plays a significant part in supporting the ideology of capitalism, as it diverts attention away from the exploitative nature of capitalism and focuses attention instead on the evil and frightening nature of certain criminal groups in society, from whom we are only protected by the police. This justifies heavy policing of working class areas, stops and searches by the police of young people and the arrests of any sections of the population who oppose capitalism.

An example of the traditional Marxist approach

William Chambliss’ study of British vagrancy laws provides an illustration of the ways in which laws may be directly related to the interests of the ruling class. Just after the Black Death Plague in 1349 that killed more than one third of the country’s population, a law was introduced that required every able-bodied man to accept work at a low, fixed wage.  This stopped those who had survived from moving from village to village, demanding higher pay. The new law was strictly enforced and produced a supply of low-paid labour to help the workforce shortage.
In 1530, a law was introduced that punished anyone with out a job ‘on the road’, assuming they were highway robbers preying on the traffic of goods along major highways.
In both cases, the law was introduced and imposed in such a way as to benefit the ruling class – whilst apparently being about stopping ‘vagrants’ from travelling around England.

Criticisms of the traditional Marxist approach

1. The victims of crime are simply ignored and the harm done by offenders is not taken into account. )
2. The explanation for law creation and enforcement tends to be one dimensional, in that all laws are seen as the outcome of the interests of the ruling class – no allowance is made for the complexity of influences on law making behaviour.

Crime and control: a Marxist perspective

Box (1983) agrees with the more right-wing Marxist writers in that it is release from social control, which propels people into committing crime.  He states that the capitalist society controls and exploits workers for its own ends / to benefit the ruling class and when people are released in some way from this control, then they are much more likely to commit crime as they see the unfairness of the system.
Box argues that the there are five elements, which can weaken the bonds of capitalist society and propel individuals into committing crime.

1.  Secrecy
If people are able to get away with a crime then they are more likely to attempt to commit crime.  According to Box, this is one key factor which helps explain why white-collar crime such as fraud, takes place.  The majority of white-collar crime simply goes undiscovered.
2.  Skills
Most people are simply unable to commit serious crime.  Minor offending and anti-social behaviour is generally on the spur of the moment. Serious crime however requires planning and knowledge, plus the skill to carry it out.

1. Supply

Even knowledge and skill are not enough by themselves.  The potential offender must also be able to obtain the equipment and support to be able to carry out most serious crimes.  For example, a burglar needs a ‘fence’ to sell his stolen goods to.
4.  Symbolic support
All offenders must have some justification for their activities.
5.  Social support
Directly coupled with the idea of symbolic support is the need for others who share similar values to support and confirm the values which justify crime.  (Social support is another way of describing a subculture)
For Marxists, social control operates for the benefit of the ruling class and once this is weakened, it is possible that people will turn to crime to express their disillusionment with capitalism.
Critical criminologists still take this position and argue that criminals are engaging in a form of political act in their crimes and that if they were made more aware of the circumstances which propelled them into crime, they may well act in a more politically conventional way.

Marxist subcultural theory

A second strand of thought which developed from Marxism, was a specific explanation for the existence of subcultures amongst the working class. According to The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, (a group of writers at Birmingham University), capitalism maintains control over the majority of the population in two ways:

• ideological dominance through the media
• economic pressures – people want to keep their jobs and pay their mortgages.

Only those groups on the margins of society are not ‘locked in’ by ideology and finance, and thus are able to provide some form of resistance to capitalism. The single largest group offering this resistance is working class youth.
According to Brake (1980) this resistance is expressed through working class youth subcultures. The clothes they wear and the language they use show their dislike of capitalism and their awareness of their position in it.
Brake argues that this resistance however is best seen as ‘magical’.  By magical, he means that it is a form of illusion which appears to solve their problems, but in reality does no such thing. According to him, each generation of working-class youth face similar problems (dead-end jobs, unemployment and so on), but in different circumstances. That is, society changes constantly so that every generation experiences a very different world, with the one constant that the majority will be exploited by the ruling class.
Each generation expresses their resistance through different choice of clothes, slang and patterns of speech, music and so on. However, each will eventually be trapped like their parents before them. An example of this approach is Paul Willis’ Learning to Labour (1977), a study of working class boys in a secondary school found that, they realise early on the sorts of jobs they were going to get and rejected school and its concerns.  However, their very rejection of school ensures that they were going to fail – thus making their belief true – but of course they have been instrumental in their own failure.

Criticism of the Marxist subcultural approach

S. Cohen pointed out that these writers were simply biased in their analysis.  They wanted to find that working class youth cultures were an attack on capitalism, and therefore made sure that they fixed the evidence to prove this. He pointed out, for example, that there were many different ways to interpret the subcultural style of the groups, and that the interpretation which the Marxist writers had imposed was just one of many possibilities.
Some key Criticisms of the Marxist theories of crime

• Accused of  being over reliant on class division to explain offending behaviour
• Doesn’t explain why most people in most classes do not offend.
• Accused of over- focussing on offenders and justifying offending behaviour
• Suggests little can be done to protect people from offending short of revolution

FROM:- Sociology with Miss Robinson blog

Criminology: Marxist approach to crime

Marxist approach to crime is based on conflict theory. Unlike the functionalist approach, it does not assume there is consensus over a common core of norms and values.

Marxism see deviance in terms if a critique of capitalist society. It questions who defines what crime is and who makes the law. The basis of the argument is that the ruling class,or capitalist class, exploit the working class because power is held by those who own, and control the means of production in society. The superstructure reflects the relationship between the powerful and the relatively powerless.

The agencies of social control, the law and definitions of deviance reflect and serve ruling class interests.

The law is a tool of the capitalist ruling class, and the state uses the law to support their own class interests while exploiting and controlling the working class. The law is capitalist law and favours the capitalist system.

Manipulation of the law

Many sociologists point out that in a capitalist society much of the law concerns the protection of property.

‘The history of criminal legislation in England and many other countries, shows that excessive prominence was given by the law to the protection of property’
[Hermann Mannheim, 1960]

As a result of this excessive need to protect property, the capitalist state is often reluctant to pass laws which regulate capitalist concerns which would affect their profitability.

‘The state is reluctant to pass – or enforce – stringent laws against pollution, worker health and safety; or monopolies. Such measures frighten off the much sought-after investment and engender the equally dreaded loss of confidence.’
[Laureen Snider, 1993]

Even where laws appear to be designed to protect the consumer (anti-pollution laws, unfair contract terms, health & safety), theses laws are, in fact, shaped by the ruling class to promote their own interests while giving the impression that they protect the working class.

‘The majority of laws in Britain and America work in favour of the capitalists, yet many laws do also benefit the other social classes, not only because the system needs a healthy, safe population of producers and consumers but also because it needs their loyalty.’
[Pearce, 1976]
Corporate crime

Snider argues that ‘Many of the most serious anti-social and predatory acts committed in modern, industrial countries are corporate crimes’

Snider claims that corporate crime costs more in terms of money and lives than street crime such as burglary. In the USA she points out that annually about 20,000 people are murdered. Compare this figure to the following: 14,000 deaths (industrial accidents & breach of safety regulations), 30,000 consumer deaths due to unsafe consumer products, 100,000 deaths from occupationally induced diseases.

In Britain, workplace accidents account for 600 deaths and 12,000 injuries annually.

Despite the costs of corporate crime, the penalties and chances of prosecution are very small. Prosecution is usually a last resort.

Capitalism and crime

Marxists argue that the capitalist economic system generate crime as:

1. The economic system is the major influence upon social relationships and values. Capitalism stresses maximisation of profits and wealth.
2. Economic self-interest rather than public duty motivates behaviour.
3. Personal gain rather than collective well-being is encouraged.
4. Capitalism is a competitive system. Mutual aid and cooperation for the betterment of all are discouraged in favour of individual achievement at the expense of others. Competition breeds aggression, hostility and frustration on the part of losers.

William Chambliss (1976) argues that greed and self-interest motivate many crimes at all levels in society.

Selective law enforcement

According to Marxists, the occasional prosecution of a member of the ruling class is only done to perpetuate the myth that the law operates for the benefit of society as a whole. In other words, it is a smokescreen to hide the truth that it is designed to protect the rich and powerful and used against the working class.

Selective law enforcement also diverts attention from the exploitation of the working class. It also directs the attention of the working class on to criminals within their own class which acts as a safety valve. This is also a way to divide the working class.

Sociology of Law : introduction

‘Sociology of Law’ looks at law and legal systems as a part of society and also as social institutions related to other institutions and changing with them. It regards law as one means of social control. Hence law is often made to be related to a moral order, to a body off customs and ideas about society. From this point of view, sociology of law is itself related to jurisprudence. Still it is not like jurisprudence. Sociology of law requires an understanding of the system of law no doubt. But it is still wider in scope. It seeks “perceive the relationship of systems of law to other social sub systems like economy, the nature and distribution of authority, and the structure of family and kinship relationships”. In Britain, some social anthropologists have examined the systems of law and courts in relatively simple societies and tried to determine their relationships to other aspects of social system.

The study of “Sociology of Law” is well known in Europe but not in America and Britain. In fact, sociologists have hardly turned their attention towards sociology of law in modern societies. Previously, Durkheim (through his classification of law into retributive and restitutive) and Max Weber (through his “Law in Economy and Society” – Translated work) had made some initial studies in the field. Austrian scholar E. Ehrlich published one of the most outstanding works on sociology of law in 1913 which was translated into English under the title “Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law” in 1936. Another famous work is that of Georges Gurvitch’s ‘Sociology of Law’ 1942. Due to the work of some jurists in America considerable interest is now being shown to sociology of law. Due to this growing interest only a number of sociologists and lawyers have made a joint venture to produce an interesting work entitled “Sociology and the Law; New meanings for an old Profession” 1962.

Sociology of Law Today

The Sociology of Law has first and foremost it’s foundations in the field of sociology. This area does, however, take an interdisciplinary as opposed to duel approach in analysing and understanding the relationship between law and society.
Within this area, it is key to consider legal structures (i.e. the legal system), legal process (how law is made) and the interaction of the law in societal change and social control. It is important to critically analyse the impact, positive and negative, of law on race, class, gender and other social differential values, as well as highlighting that:

• Law needs to be understood as part of social institutions
• It is important to critically analyse how law and society interact with each other.
• Legal categories and legal reasoning interact with social hierarchies based on race, class, gender and sexuality.
• It is important to analyse relations between law and social control and social change.

A sociological interpretation and application of the law, however, does not bar the study of rules but only “differentiates between the proclaimed objectives of legal norms, on the one hand, and the actual workings and consequences of law, on the other” . The values and application of sociology as a discipline enrich the interpretation and application of law in many areas, giving rise to the Sociology of Law as a unique and evolving area of knowledge and expertise.
The study and critique of the Sociology of Law has been well underway since the mid-19th century. Whilst the development of the field has continued to the modern day, it is important to acknowledge and appreciate some of the key thinkers and contributors to the field.

Theoretical Background: Key Thinkers

Max Weber

“Rational adjudication on the basis of rigorously formal legal concepts is to be contrasted with a type of adjudication which is guided primarily by sacred traditions without finding therein a clear basis for the decision of concrete cases” .
Weber states here that there are essentially different forms of justice or legal decisions that are ultimately influenced by traditions and social norms. He highlights that many legal systems are based on an irrational development of case law, based on precedent and administers by a highly developed yet limited field of lawyers and jurists. This conveys how intrinsically linked societal norms and values are to law.

Vilhelm Aubert

“In order to understand the influence of a law it is necessary to study the variables which intervene between the promulgation of the law and the behaviour of the public”
Aubert believed firmly that behaviour is influenced by the law and that is intrinsically linked to the development of social norms. This helps us to both critique and understand the sociology of law as an interdependent and mutually influencing field of interpretation.

Émile Durkheim

“[E]very precept of law can be defined as a rule of sanctioned conduct. Moreover it is evident that sanctions change with…gravity. It is right, then, to classify juridical rules according to the different sanctions…attached to them”.
Durkheim emphasised the influence of history in changing the nature of law and its application. This is because of the expected variation in societies’ values in respect to individual rights and responsibilities. This socio-legal critique is detailed in his seminal work The Division of Labour in Society.

O. Kahn-Freund

“It is one of the tasks of a sociology of law to explore the social forces which bring about the creation of legal norms and institutions and changes in the positive law”
 Along with Georges Gurvitch and Karl Renner, Kahn-Freund emphasises the interaction between the society and legal structures as a critical consideration in the Sociology of Law. That is, the importance of social institutions (both formal and informal) and the influence and relationship they bring to bear on the legal institutions and developments within the legal field.

Practice

The Sociology of Law is a focused and critical field in understanding legal mechanisms and legal practice, as well as establishing the foundation of jurisprudence. However, a definition and general framework need constructing so that the right questions can be formulated. The field transcends specific matters and enriches learning both in the theoretical and practical sense by offering a more nuanced and enriched analysis. This sociological approach has enhanced inter-disciplinary learning in other fields, but especially on social-science perspectives. This continues in development and is a popular approach to specific issues that encompass socio-legal considerations.

Challenges In Application

The establishment of one clear and concise definition of the Sociology of Law has eluded scholars and practitioners to date. This is because consensus on what the field consists of, in terms of definitions and limitations is yet to be achieved. This in turn has an impact on the authority of the Sociology of Law as a coherent discipline and this has had negative implications with regard to what the field can achieve. Critically this also has a negative impact on learning and development in the area, particularly in gaining an increased understanding of how the legal field and sociology interact with each other.

Conclusion

Finally, it may be said that the Sociology of Law has had a long history of dedicated followers and practitioners. It is a discipline that seeks to transcend legal traditions and challenge what the limited understanding of the interaction and inter-relationship between society and the law, in all areas.
It is critical that further learning and analysis is needed to attempt a formalisation of definitions, values and limitations of the discipline in order that it may continue to challenge traditional interpretations of socio-legal issues.

Social Groups and Crime

Is one social group more involved in crime than other social groups? If so, what predisposes one social group to be more criminal than another? Many theories of crime are based on partly on official statistics provided by the police, courts and the government. In countries like Britain and the USA these show that some groups are more involved in crime than others. According to official data, the working class, the young and some minority ethnic groups are more likely to commit crimes than the middle class, the elderly, females and whites. Sociologist have taken these figures to try and explain why this is the case. Merton, Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin all presume that working class men are the main offenders but differ in their explanations to why this is the case.

In Britain official statistics on crime are produced annually. These provide criminologists, the police and the media with two types of data. The first is the total amount of crime committed. These allow comparisons to be made about crime from previous years. These figures are often publicised through the media and if there is shown to be a particular high increase this can lead to the concern that the country “is being engulfed in a crime wave”. This can lead to moral panics. The second type of data official statistics provide is the social characteristics of those that have been convicted of crimes by age, gender, class and ethnicity. However it is important to remember that not all crimes that take place are recorded. There is evidence of a dark figure of crime.

According to the national prison surveys a large number of inmates are from the lower levels of the class system. A large minority of males (41%) come from unskilled or skilled manual employment. Most self-report studies suggest a link between social class and crime. Street crimes are typical of the poor and are a police priority. They are also the types of crimes that are likely to appear in self-report studies and structured interviews. Crimes such as fraud and domestic violence are not as visible and so are less likely to appear in self-report studies and so it is no wonder that the working class and the poor seem as though they commit more crimes.

Urban areas have more crime than others. According to a Home Office report, 60% of robberies take place in 3 urban areas: Manchester, London and the West Midlands. However, as these are three densely populated areas, this would be expected. More crime takes place in cities as there are more opportunities for crime. The bulk of the 2011 riots in English cities took place in highly populated areas where there is deprivation and where those likely to engage in criminal activity know that the police are likely to be overstretched if they have too many cases to deal with and therefore the chance of ‘getting away’ with a criminal offence increases.

Inner cities: 15.3% of vehicle theft, 5.3% of burglaries and 5.8% of violent crimes.

Urban: 10.3% of vehicle theft, 3.3%of burglaries and 4.4% of violent crime

All non-rural cities and towns: 10.8% of vehicle theft, 3.6% of burglaries and 4.6% of violent crimes.

Rural: 6.5% of vehicle theft, 1.9% of burglaries and 2.7% of violent crimes.

It is argued that young people (17 to 19 years old) commit more crime because their lifestyle takes them to the environment where crime takes place. Young people’s crime is also more visible than white collar crime committed by older people. Young people are also more closely watched by society and are more likely to be convicted in court as they cannot afford the fees of lawyers and so will end up in official statistics indicating the high proportions of crime among the young.

Research by Hall states that high levels of unemployment among young black men may lead them to opt out of society and turn to crime. However others have argued that historic police racism has resulted in higher suspicion against black people and argue that this is clearly indicated by the fact that black youths in inner city areas are far more likely to be ‘stopped and searched’ by the police than while youths. The McPherson Report concluded that the police were institutionally racist.

Representation of ethnic groups at different stages of the criminal justice process: black people made up 2.8 per cent of the UK population but accounted for 14.1% of stops and searches and 8.8% of arrests in 2004/2005. However, in self-reported crime there is little difference between black and white youths in terms of crimes being anonymously admitted to.

It is only in recent years that researchers have started to examine the number of women who commit crimes and their reasons for doing so. Smart puts forward a number of reasons for this neglect. Women tend to commit fewer crimes than men so are seen as less of a problem for society.  Many crimes committed by women are seen as being of a trivial nature and so are seen to be considered unworthy for research. Sociology and criminology are dominated by men.

Men outnumber women in all major crime categories. Between 85% and 95% of offenders found guilty of burglary, robbery, drug offences, criminal damage or violence against the person are male. Although the number of offenders is relatively small, 98% of people found guilty of, or cautioned for, sexual offences are male.

Theft was the most commonly committed offence by both men and women in 2002. For indictable offences, 57 per cent of female offenders were found guilty of or cautioned for theft and handling stolen goods compared with 34 per cent of male offenders.

Men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women. Over 5% of men and 3% of women aged 16 and over in England and Wales were the victims of some sort of violence in the twelve months prior to interview in 2002/03. Men and women aged 16 to 24 are the most at risk age group. Around 15% of men and 7% of women of this age have reported that some sort of violence had been used against them. Domestic violence is the only category of violence where the risks for women are higher than for men. Risks of stranger violence remain substantially greater for men than for women, with men four times more likely than women to suffer this form of attack. Despite being more likely to be the victim of crime, men are less worried than women about most types of crime. Women are between two and three times more likely than men to be very worried about being mugged or physically attacked and five times more likely than men to be very worried about being raped. Roughly equal proportions of men and women are worried about theft of, or from, a car.

Courtesy of Lee Bryant, Director of Sixth Form, Anglo-European School, Ingatestone, Essex