Using material from item B and elsewhere assess the usefulness of Marxist approaches in explaining crime Marxism is a conflict theory established by Karl Marx. Marxists believe that the capitalist system is just a way in which the ruling classes (the bourgeoisie) control and exploit the workers (the proletariat), and it focuses on the unequal conflict between these two sectors of society. Marxists believe that the capitalist system is criminogenic – which means that by its nature it inevitably causes crime. As item B states, Marxists see crime in the capitalist system as ‘a tool of the ruling class’ where they can control the working class and crime is an unavoidable result because of the oppression the working class are subject to. They also believe that laws are enforced mostly to benefit the interests of the ruling class.
Rather than focusing on social situations, the criminal and deviant act, the interactionists focused on the reaction to the act and its effects on the deviant individual. One main possible criticisms of interactionist theory is that to some extent ignores and privatisation and its effect on crime. Can negative labelling be the only reason that crime is predominantly more in working class area than in middle class ones? The “new criminology” was a radical development of traditional Marxist theory (Young, Walton and Taylor) they attempted to combine the process of labelling with Marxist explanations of social inequality to explain crime. A criticism of both the original interactionists and the new criminology came from the “New Left Realists”
Whereas, Marxists believe that capitalism creates potential criminals. Functionalists believe that all crimes are functional and has both positive and negative effects to society. Durkheim, French sociologist, hold beliefs that “too much crime or deviance constitutes to a threat, too little is unhealthy”. The three main positives are that it reaffirms boundaries by the public degradation ceremonies such as criminal trails to remind everyone of social norms and to reinforce society’s toleration to deviance. Another positive is that crimes change values, when someone is prosecuted it results in public outcry which triggers sympathy, this changes values in society.
Social Organized Crime Perspective Social institution is a group of people organized to achieve their goals. A social institution perspective is one who views communities as a collection of these social institutions and views the residents of the community as their members (Carlie, 2002). Social institutions are applied to organized crime in several ways. Warren (1973) defines community as “that combination of social units and systems which perform the major social functions having locality relevance.” The community’s organization is recognized by the social activities, rather than geographic or legal boundaries (Lyman & Potter, 2007). Organized crime represents a continuing, profit-motivated, criminal enterprise that employs the use of fear, violence, intimidation, and public corruption to achieve organizational goals and remain immune to law enforcement (Lyman & Potter, 2007).
Whereas on the other hand the Conflict Model of the contemporary criminal justice system refers to a model of crime where the criminal justice system is seen to be used by the ruling class to control the lower class. It argues that the organizations of the criminal justice system should work competitively to produce justice instead of cooperatively. It argues things like worries over fame promotion and other things like wages cause the criminal justice system to conflict its self. One example from within the system is between Police and prison officials. Police desire to put criminals into prison whereas prison officials are concerned about overcrowding facilities may desire to release criminals from prison 2.
Perspectives of Social Problems and Social Responsibility Within criminology there has been multiple theories suggested to explain the numerous motives behind why crime exists in our world. The two most central arguments surrounding criminal activity is whether the crime is the individuals fault, or if it is the fault of the society that they grew up in. These views are termed social responsibility and social problems, and will be discussed in this paper along with their respected perspectives that withhold why their view on criminology is the paramount reason on why criminals commit crimes. The view of social responsibilities approach to crime termed by Schmalleger essentially states that crime is an individual responsibility, and in terms of the criminal, victim, and justice system we all play a role within the social aspect of criminal behavior. Although he feels that this way of looking at crime is not fair to the victim or the justice system, but that the media over the years has influenced this way of thinking, giving the conception that certain conditions surrounding when, where, or how the crime took place may be the factor in why it happened in the first place.
With poverty being the most substantial factor in this writer’s opinion, because one can remove all other facets and keep only poverty, which still puts this particular social class in the most prevalent community to commit deviant acts. Although, with this research it has been found that another median exist that is not viewed as the standard definition of crime and punishment. However, is more powerful and more imposing on social norms then we as a society are willing to acknowledge and comprehend. Moreover, the median in question is greed and power that can be looked at through the history of this or any other culture or nation. With how to contain a growing population of prisoners America has transformed from a publicly or governmentally run prison facilities, into a shift to ever growing for profit private prison institution systems.
Labelling theory first came about in the late 1960s and 70s as a new approach to crime and deviance, and is a social way of thinking about crime. It became the main sociological theory of crime, even though it did not try and understand what exactly made people criminal but more societies reactions to crime, “it looks towards society’s reaction to the deviant more than to the person of the deviant” [Williams; 2008, Pg.420]. Previously, Functionalists had discussed reasons for deviance being anomie and incorrect socialisation within an individual causing them to be unaware of social norms and fall away from mainstream society. Marxists had blamed the anti-social acts of working class criminals on the oppression and alienation they are faced with through living in a capitalist society. Both theories place the actual reason for deviance to be within an individual, whereas labelling theory moved away from that.
Masters also includes middle class characters, such as police, care workers and social workers, to demonstrate the corrupt system and how these people are abusing their position in power, which is breaking the class boundaries. Another example of breaking the class boundaries, are Ruth and John. This is in an extremely ironic way, they were trying to help homeless people and ended up in jail for it. Masters makes people question their roles in society. The characters in ‘Stuart: A Life Backwards’ are presented via the items and objects that they possess.
GOVERNMENT AND CRIME AND SECURITY TOPIC- Crime and Security Towards a More Productive Trinidad and Tobago. Criminality is a social ill that is profoundly present in Trinidad and Tobago’s society. When examining the productivity of a nation, one can be of the view that crime has a direct as well as an indirect correlation with the levels of productivity within a country. While the government cannot be blamed for crime, they can play a chief role in its resolution. There are numerous procedures the government can implement to reduce crime and by doing this, increase the levels of productivity within the nation.