Criminology Exam Past Paper 2023 (PDF)

NOVEMBER 4TH Final exam; historical understanding of how criminology evolved, forms, political orientations, structures. (format will be the same) (20%) Marxism emerged approximately same time as labelling theory (5-7 years after) same social context. Introduction; Marxist criminology attempt...

NOVEMBER 4TH Final exam; historical understanding of how criminology evolved, forms, political orientations, structures. (format will be the same) (20%) Marxism emerged approximately same time as labelling theory (5-7 years after) same social context. Introduction; Marxist criminology attempts to address why some groups are more vulnerable than others to the labelling process. Marxist criminology views crime as an outcome and reflection of basic class divisions in society. The focus of analysis, is on the power and inequality. Marxist criminologists examined crimes of the powerful as well as crimes of the less powerful. Not the same of Marxism (it’s the extraction of Marxism economic theory applied to Crim, therefore its rooted in understanding socioeconomic status, therefore question is about class, and about fundamentally the role of competition) Marxist criminologist believe society is about constant competition, were all fighting for our share of resource distribution. Marxism is triangle (think of it like a pyramid, latter up the side of pyramid) Marxists criminologists believe the top of pyramid are capitalists (owners of mode of production, they accumulated resources that allow them power and a bigger seat at the table, more influence). Thinking of it as a latter cause (Zukerberg example, didn’t start with money, climbed the latter, its possible to climb it or have your hands stepped on going up the latter, doesn’t matter I'm stepping on people cause ill get more access). Class conflict is what drives criminality. Similar examination in some ways as sociological positivism, but this perspective is radical, believes in burn it down and start over. The way people operate is a product of this competition. Social context; Until the 1960s criminological perspectives assumed consensus and adopted a functionalist approach (where everything was seen operating to sustain society as a whole.) The period of the 1960s saw sustained critique of many of the dominate social institutions. General rebellion against the mainstream (e.g. Resistance to Vietnam war, student protests, civil rights, women's liberation) Marxist criminology became academically popular as a critique of functionalism. Has the most impact at the academic level. Marxist versus liberal conflict models; Marxist conceptions are rooted in the analysis of social power as it increasingly becomes concentrated unto fewer and fewer hands. There is not a plurality of power; the ruling class/ capitalist class wields ultimate power. -(i.e.. Those that own the means of production; factory owners, landowners, media owners) This class dictates the nature and shape of society. First perspective that spends much/more of its time on white collar crime. A case that becomes central to Marxist criminology; (ford pinto case) Henry ford head of eugenics movement in America. Ford recognizes they need to reorient, come up with the pinto car. Pinto - subcompact car, fuel efficient, non expensive, cheaper than 2000$ American, this was rushed because their losing money.  1968 start designing want gone by 1971 Crash tests show problems, because the cars so light, limited places to put the fuel tank, they found the place they were putting the fuel tanks weren't reinforced enough, where even in low speed crashes(even 20-30km speeds), fuel tank ruptures and blew up. It failed crash tests. They figure a mechanism that they can reinforce the fuel tank, but costs about 11$ a car to make these changes. Instead of saying yes to the 11$ car improvement, they make the rational, calculated decision to do nothing. Their calculations they can have 3x the amount of people die and still come out with profit, (paying the families/people of these deaths and accidents costs less than paying to remake the car) Lots of deaths, ford starts to get sued. What they didn’t count on is that they were the first company to be criminally indited for homicide. State said it wasn’t just recklessness, it was deliberate, intentional allowance of death. Therefore court indites them of homicide charges. What will this look like? (just the founder in jail?) could led to fines, seizure of company, exposure of workers or engineers who chose to not make changes. Ford says what they did wasn’t great, but not criminal (just a business decision) they didn’t make people buy them, just provided an option. Therefore they claimed no legal liability. (they understand they'll have to pay fines, but believe they shouldn’t get more) Prosecutor says this isn't whoops its homicide, documents shown that ford knew of these problems but chose not to act, ("even our engineers bought the car!") Jury comes back with not guilty, they say not enough evidence to say ford was guilty. Prosecutor wanted to test other similar cars, but the state had a budget for this case, and ford spent more than 1 million dollars on their defense. Marxism says corporates also engage in homicide, and we excuse corporations but wed never excuse an individual, which allows these people to continuously make decisions that can result in homicide. In the end ford was right, after settling all loses, they made money on the pinto, but they were wrong about how many people would die, and the amount of serious burn injuries. Ford didn’t even have to do a stock buy back after this, still a profitable stock and company. Marxist versus liberal conflict models cont'd; Marxist criminology sees the state operating in the interests of capitalism and capitalists. The state is not a neutral arbiter, it is vested in class interest. The state apparatuses ( i.e. courts, judiciary, police, prisons, community programs) operate in the service of capitalism. A key question emerges in relation to the criminalization process; who is subject to what kind of state sanction, and why? Basic concepts; Definition of crime; The Marxist definition of crime is influenced by assumptions about the distribution of power in society; -given that laws protect capitalism and the interests of the ruling class while legitimatizing the existing social structure, many social harms may not be incorporated into the criminal law. -The state institutions focus on working class crimes as harmful rather than on destructive activities of the powerful.  As such, Marxists redefine crime as any activity that interferes with basic human rights and causes social injury. Documentary shell be posting for us to watch about the non prosecution of banks in America after the recession. Basic concepts cont'd Focus of analysis; Marxist criminology directs attention away from exclusive focus on working class street crimes and towards harms perpetuated by the powerful. It attempts to connect class to specific types of criminality. Crimes of the powerful linked to attempts to augment wealth such as economic crimes ( fraud, violation of labor laws) and state crimes ( misuse of public funds). Less punitive responses than street crimes. Crimes by the less powerful that stem from economic attempts to increase income above sustenance ( shoplifting, welfare fraud) or social alienation ( vandalism, public order disturbance). Cause of crime; the cause of crime is found in the structure of unequal class relations in society. Crime flourishes in a context of inequality and structural pressures toward capitalist accumulation and profit. Institutionalized inequality, exploitation of workers by capitalist class and alienation with consumer capitalism. Marginalization and criminalization of the working class. Nature of the offender; -location in the class structure determines the kinds of criminal activities people engage in. Choices made by an offender are dictated by the structural imperative to maximize profit or by immediate subsidence pressures. Offenders are alienated from other members of the community. Repones to crime; Marxists argue that crimes of the powerful have greater economic and social impact than working class street crimes. Exposure extent and nature of social harm by the powerful. Include an analysis of social conditions in the study of crime. Challenge repression of working class by the state apparatus (e.g. Public order policing of the poor). Crime prevention; -radical democracy addressing the concentration of wealth and power. Collective ownership and control over means of production (e.g. Nationalized industry) Redistribution of societal resources according to need. Operation of criminal justice system; radical democratization of institutions (participatory involvement) Public accountability if the state ( police, courts, prisons) Upholding of human rights. Legal reform to protect workers (right to strike). Finland proportional fine model;  Takes one day work salary for their "criminality". Model has grown in popularity. This is what Marxist would advocate for, you must feel the same amount of pain for the same crime (someone who makes no money 103,000$ fine would be done for life, someone's who makes this much a day, a 200$ fine would do nothing) therefore it makes it proportional for all, counters the thought of rich people saying "that’s just the cost of parking" NOVEMBER 6TH Historical development History can be seen as a succession of different "modes of production" encompassing; forces of production (tools, techniques), relations (lord-self, capitalist-proletariat), social institutions (monarchy, parliamentary, democracy). The central dynamic of class based societies is that each involves the expectation of surplus from producers to those who own the means of production. Economic exploitation and class struggle are central to the Marxist view (slave, serf, worker). This is why we need to government regulations, this is what Marxist economic method was based on; societies exploit the labour. Crime and class structure; Willem bonger (1905) argued that criminal thought is generated by the conditions of want and misery foisted on sections of the working class, and is also the result of the greed that underpins the capitalist competitive process. Similarly woods work on Australian convict history made the case that crime stemmed from poverty and a savage and unjust criminal code. Disparity underpins Marxist theory. Crime and class structure cont'd During the 1960s and 70s American criminologists Quinney and Chambliss drew a clear line between conservative and radical views of crime and law enforcement. Crime is socially constructed in relation to class position. The powerful shape the process of criminalization in order to protect its class interests -shoplifting constructed as a crime whereas false advertising considered a violation of trade practice. -industrial homicide considered as negligence rather than murder. Lobby Special interest groups with massive influence on legislation. Able to influence through mass support (mra) , influence through bodies or membership, also through money, their massive donners to campaigns and candidates. Weaponize the support of your opponent. One reason why Marxist view argued for election lengths. NOVEMBER 8TH: Reading week; she posted docs/ videos to watch over reading week, will also want to start chapter 7. Think of Marxist criminology as a star; sparks, popularizes to framework for every discussion, then just burns out. Contemporary examples; The allure of Marxist criminology waned in the 1980s due to a wide range of factors; The rise of postmodern as a perspective. The demise of Stalinism. The demise of Marxist oriented political parties. The development of broader and more inclusive approach of critical criminology and the development of more liberal strands of criminology (left realism, republican theory). Contemporary examples cont'd; Nevertheless Marxist criminology has had left tremendous influence on scholarship; remains academically "visible" today Has influenced criminal justice policies. Marxism has broader appeal/ popularity in; Labour, anti globalization, anti poverty movements, Social justice and collective human rights activism, Environmental activism. White collar vs blue collar crime; White and Van Der Velden (1995) Ones wealth and power determines the kind of crime in which one might engage. Crimes of the powerful tend to have significant structural effects in terms of lives lost and financial impacts. (tend to be prosecuted less) Crimes are usually directed against other capitalists or against the rules of governing the marketplace. Crimes of the less powerful tend to be highly visible and subject to wide scale state intervention involving police, welfare workers, social security officials, tax department officials, the courts, prison etc. Crimes tend to be individualized and have discrete impacts. Theory in current research; Steven bittle (2013) has used a Marxist lens to examine the lack of legislation to govern corporations. Bittle argues that while Canadas bill c-45 is aimed at holding corporations accountable, it is largely in disuse; despite being a federal law, provinces and territories are left to enforce it. Lack of funding and staffing constraints. Contemporary Marxist criminologists such as Schwendinger and Schwendinger (1997) (married couple) argue that the definition of crime needs to be broadened to encompass economic exploitation. Critique; How do Marxists define crime? If crime is based on harm, then what sorts of harm are criminal and what sorts of harm are not? Marxism may have conspiratorial overtones ( e.g. Laws do in fact exist to constrain the activities of capitalists) The nature of the state us unclear with Marxism (does it serve individual capitalists of capital in general?)  Reason why its so radical (believed you couldn’t tinker the structure, wont make any meaningful change, must burn it down and start over). Critique cont'd; One cannot reduce crime to a simple equation with poverty and alienation (ie why doesn’t everyone living in poverty commit crime?) Not all criminal laws can be defined as "class" laws, as some deal with class neutral questions, like rape. This suggests that power may not be totally encapsulated or explainable in class terms. (rich and poor people rape, murder, assault). Is power just about economics? Or maybe a more fundamental question about the nature and structure of the state. Conclusions; The strength of Marxist criminology is its attempt to locate social actions (including crime) within a structural context of class divided society. Marxists have elevated the importance of inequality, power, and control in criminological analysis. The concentration of economic power into fewer hands is apparent on a world scale. Internationally and at the national level, the number of poor is growing and the rich are getting richer. One reason Marxist thought wans; its only related to one access; looks at socioencomic and crime together but never any other axis'. Crime in the middle, class on an axis, after demise of Marxist, new theories say there are more axis that matter (gender, family status, gender identity, feminist criminology builds on Marxist (later ppl are trying to climb, believe in radical reimagination, believe society as a triangle) but Marxism is too limited, only focus on nexus of class and crime (you need to look at gender) and also start centering victims of crimes rather than just offenders. What victimization affects patterns of behaviour, decisions etc. An intersectionality emerges out of third wave feminism; Which begins 1989 Feminism that were still in now. One of the newer understandings of criminology. Back from reading week, looking at the long history of feminism. This is what marginalized the Marxist framework. Marxist criminology key aspect is that it views crime as an outcome and reflection of basic class division in society. Focus of analysis is on power and inequality, especially as they embody class related processes associated with overall distribution of wealth. Definition of crime; human rights conception, class interests. Focus of analysis; economic and state crimes of the powerful, economic and socio-cultural crimes of the less powerful. Cause of crime; institutionalized inequality, exploitation and alienation of marginalized and criminalization of the working class. Nature of the offender; choices of the offender dictated by structural imperative to maximize profit, or by subsistence pressures. Alienation.  Response to crime; challenge state repression of the working class, expose the extent and nature of social harm by the powerful. Crime prevention; radical democracy, collective ownership and control over the means of production, redistribution of societal resources according to need. Operation of the criminal justice system; democratization of institutions, public accountability, upholding of human rights, law reform to reflect working class interests. Social context Important conceptual boundaries between liberal conflict theories and Marxist analyses of crime. Work of social scientists in the 1950s, largely conservative in nature. (either overly bought into the cold war ideology- defending the American way of life, or were afraid to voice a critical response to such ideology. This fear was created by state sponsored attempts to stifle social criticism that bore any resemblance at all to communist ideas. HUAC formed in 1938 to investigate claims of disloyalty and proproganda made by individuals. 1947 committee began a series of formal inquiries into charges that the communist party of the united states had penetrated the American film industry. "unfriendly 10" , "Hollywood ten" ; members of communist party in Hollywood who were blacklisted. Criminological writings at the time , premised on the idea that there was a consensual social order and a core set of societal values. Deviance meant deviation from consensus and the presumed accepted core values and norms. This consensus perspective adopted a functionalist approach, in which everything was conceived as operating to sustain society as a whole. We have shared values and interests in society. An individual deviates we bring him back into line and restore the equilibrium. Individuals are resocialized into the core set of values and common interests. This view of society criminologists held until the 1960s. 1960s saw period of sustained critique of the dominate social institutions. There was a general rebellion against the norms, values and activities of mainstream society. (resistance to Vietnam war, student protests, women's liberation, civil rights). By this time anti communist fervor died down, permitting more open, critical analysis of society. Conflict perspective not always radical; doesn’t question status quo. 1960s labelling theory, precursor to more profound critiques; it questioned the prevailing worldviews and emphasized that not all was as it appeared to be. Society was no longer seen as a homogenous, unitary whole, but one made up of various competing interest groups. Could identify diverse ethnic, class, and religious groupings; divergent economic and political interest groups; conflicting lifestyle approach's; and subcultural values. Power in society; The recognition of social difference was translated at the level of theory into several conceptions of the relationship between social interests and power. Some suggested competing groups, more or less equal in power and power, more or less evenly distributed throughout the social structure. Others suggested conflict exists between elite groups. Based on the assumption that there will always be powerful minority groups and the less powerful majority.  The question; what is the nature and composition of those elites in society who are able to move up or down the power hierarchy? Critical perspectives acknowledged competitive nature of society, not radical, still assumed consensus in relation to appropriate means of dispute resolution. Rather than commonality of values and interests. State seen as neutral and detached from competing interests groups. Basic institutions of society not challenged. An appropriate forum for change would be the existing parliamentary procedures. There is conceived to be a plurality of opportunities to move in and out of parliament. The balance of power is in constant state of flux. Radical pluralists held a different view of competing interest groups. Becker (1963) observed that there isn't a constant movement up and down the power ladder. It is always the same competition of people on the bottom, the poor, the black, and the disadvantaged. According to this view the solution to the problem was to assist the disadvantaged who were locked out of the process of acquiring wealth in society via the assistance of piecemeal management programs. This strategy doesn’t challenge society's basic institutions it merely tries to ameliorate the more blatant negative aspects and inequalities of the system. Marxist vs liberal conflict models; Marxist conceptions of society are rooted in the analysis of social power. Crucial aspect is the notion that power is concentrated increasingly into fewer and fewer hands- there is a ruling or capitalist class. Therefore not a plurality of power. Those who wield the power own the means of production, its these individuals who dictate the nature and shape of society. Simply Marxist theory posits that there exists an unequal division of power between the two main groups in society; the ruling capitalists and the working class. Because capitalists control the means of production they control the political state including the state of the criminal justice institutions. Marxist approach to crime centers on the class struggle, while the system may seem to protect the interests of the working class it actually used against them. From this perspective the criminal justice system is a tool used to control the working class, and crimes are defined in ways that help to accomplish this goal. For Marxists the cause of crime is dictated by social forces namely capitalism that work to maintain the uneven distribution of power in society. Liberal conflict conception not the state sees it as a coordinating body within society. It recognizes that conflict exists between competing groups, but sees the state as acting in the capacity of neutral arbiter or umpire independent of and not aligned to any particular class interest. Marxist disagrees, from the more radical perspective, power is concentrated in a capitalist society, and the state and its personnel are not neutral. Argument if one conducts a class analysis of the states personnel and analyze critically the states policies, including economic and military ones, becomes apparent the state is far from neutral and impartial. The state apparatuses operate in the interest of capitalism. Therefore questions raised in relation to the criminalization process. If the state reflects the interests of capitalism, and the capitalist class, who is subject to what kinds of state sanctions and why. Basic concepts of Marxist theory; Marxist conceptions of society are based on an analysis of structural power in society. Those who wield the power in society own and control the means of production.  Individuals in a class society is defined not so much by personal attributes or by reference of universalizing statements regarding "choice" and "determinism", but by their position and opportunities in society as dictated by class forces. To understand crime we need to examine the actions of the powerful in defining and enforcing a particular kind of social order, as well as the activities of the less powerful in the context of social structure within which they have fewer resources and less decision making power. Power is concentrated in a capitalist society, the activities of the state reflect the interests of capital in general in fostering the accumulation of capital, in maintaining the legitimacy of unequal power relations and in controlling the actions of those who threaten private property relations and the public order. The tendency of the state institutions is to concentrate on specific kinds of behaviour as being more "deviant" and "harmful" than other kinds of destructive or exploitive behaviour, which is deemed less worthy of state intervention. Determining what is a crime the initial difficulty is that if the laws reflect the interests of the ruling class, then many types of social harm may not be incorporated into the criminal law if they go against capitalist interest. Such circumstances there is a need to establish wider criteria relating to the nature of offences. Crime has been redefined in a broader sense to encompass any activity that interferes with basic human rights and causes social injury. Marxist criminology directs attention away from an exclusive focus on street crimes or working class crimes toward the social harms perpetuated by the powerful, it attempts to demonstrate how class situation is linked to specific types of criminality. According to Marxist view a broad distinction can be made between the crimes of the powerful and crimes of the less powerful. Crimes of the powerful; linked to both a personal desire to augment ones wealth and structural imperative to get an edge in the overall capitalist economic competition. They include economic crimes (fraud, violation of labour laws) and state crimes (misuse of public funds, corruption). Crimes of the less powerful; stem from a combination of economic and social motivations. Economic; to bolster or supplement ones income relative to sustenance levels. Social; may represent anti social behaviour linked to varying types of socio-cultural alienation. Include sustenance crimes (shoplifting, workplace theft) and socio-cultural crimes (vandalism, assault, public disturbance). Class inequality and crime; The cause of crime is found within the structure of inequal class relations in a society. Its institutionalized inequality, the intrinsic economic exploitation of workers and the alimentation associated with consumer capitalism that form the context for criminality under capitalism. Where you are located in the class structure will influence the kinds of criminal activity you engage in, the propensity for you to engage, and the intensity of that involvement. The pressure and limits of circumstances- and thus offender choice- vary according to class position. Economic forms of criminality involve different motivations, propensities, and characteristics depending on class background and circumstances. Crimes by working class ae largely the result of a need to ensure economic sustenance; a need to live. This situation can be contrasted with motivations based on accumulation rather than sustenance. Hence the choices open to an offender are dictated by wider structural imperatives to maximize profit and by immediate sustenance pressures.  For Marxist, to respond to crime is to expose the extent and nature of the social harm perpetuated by the powerful in society. Its argued that crimes of the powerful have much greater economic and social impact than street crimes and working class crimes, and that if coercion is used it should be directed at those doing the most harm. Effort is put into challenging the manner in which the state apparatus is used to repress the working class. This extends to such issues as public order policing - especially of the unemployed, poor and minority groups- and the policing of class conflict in the form of union strikes and industrial disputes. The Winnipeg general strike of 1919 clear example of how Marxist criminology incorporates an analysis of social conditions into the study of deviance, criminality and social control. In ideal terms, the operation of the criminal justice system should be based on full public accountability of each apparatus of the state, a genuine upholding of human rights, law reform that is designed to protect the interests of the working class, and a democratization of institutions. The best form of crime prevention is one that addresses the basic problem of concentration of wealth and power into a smaller number of hands in society. Crime is seen to flourish in a context of inequality and structural pressure toward capitalist accumulation and profit. It is felt that crime can be eliminated or reduced through the extension of radical democracy throughout society and its institutions, the collective ownership and control of the means of production, and a redistribution of societal resources according to human need. Historical development; Within Marxist framework its argued that history can be seen in terms of a succession of different "modes of production". Each mode encompasses particular forces of production, relations of production, and social institutions. So as societies move from feudalism to capitalism we see a shift in the mode of production across areas; from agriculture to industry,; from power concentrated in the aristocracy to power concentrated among the capitalist class; from institutions built on the notion of the divine right of monarchs to those based on rule of law. The emergence of different modes of production has been associated with the rise of different kinds of class societies, where the central dynamic of each society is that of the expropriation of surplus from the direct producers into the hands of those who own and control the overall means of production. Concept of economic exploitation and class struggle are central to the Marxist view. Emergence of working class; Last century we have witnessed the birth and growth of a new class- the working class- with this rise pf distinctively working class political organizations and theories. In particular the philosophies and analyses provided by Marxism and anarchism voiced the concerns of working class people to forge a new kind of social order in which working class, rather than capitalist class was in power. As the 20th century unfolded, rebellion and revolution were to be features of many peasant and working class revolts. Class conflict was manifest in the form of periodic economic recessions that disproportionately affected the working class, and in the form of struggles over industrial issues, and political activism. It was a time of conflict, revolution and change. Crime and class structure;  Early Marxist writings on crime in the first few decades of the 20th century discussed the ways in which crime is an outcome of the precipitating economic and social conditions of capitalism. "criminal thought" is generated by the conditions of want and misery foisted on sections of the working class, also the result of greed that underpins capitalist economic competition. In australis the work of wood on convict history provided an important stepping stone for later radical historians who likewise saw crime as stemming from the twin evils of poverty and a savage and unjust criminal code. Generally speaking these writings went against mainstream of criminology at the time, it wasn’t until the 1970s that Marxist criminology was incorporated. During the 1960-70s American criminologists Quinney and Chambliss directly challenged the prevailing approaches in criminology. Clear distinctions were drawn between conservative (functionalist) and radical (conflict) perspectives on the nature of crime and law enforcement. It was argued that where there are class divisions in society there are also different capacities to determine the content and laws of that society. The powerful ruling class will be able to shape the criminalization process in ways that protect its own collective interests, which reflect the interconnection between this class and a particular state form. How issues are constructed, how crime is defined, and how crime is responded to all relate directly to ones position in the class structure. If social power is concentrated in the hands of those who own the means of production, then they will influence and dictate what behaviour will be defined as criminal. Shoplifting is considered theft, but false advertising is viewed as only a trade practices violation. Those with power are capable of influencing the nature of societal reaction to behaviours deemed to be socially harmful; whether to prosecute industrial homicide as murder or simply an accident or a product of negligence. A landmark case - state of Indiana vs ford motor company, ford became the first American corporation to be prosecuted or indicted on criminal homicide charges. In developing a new typology of crime- one that dealt with both crime of the powerful and crimes of the less powerful, Quinney argued that analysis of the relationship between class, state, and crime is essential. On one hand there are crimes of domination, these crimes are committed by the capitalist class, the state and the agents of the capitalist class and the state. Include crimes of control, crimes of government, and crimes of economic domination. On the other hand there are crimes of accommodation and resistance, which are associated with the working class. Include predatory crimes (robbery), personal crimes (murder), and crimes of resistance (protests). Criminality is intimately tied to class position, and a system that is geared toward capital accumulation rather than meeting social needs. A crucial concept within Marxist framework is that of surplus population, in that much of the existing forms of criminalization and public concern with street crime are seen to be targeted at those layers of sections of the population that are surplus to the labour market and the requirements of capitalism generally. Arising from concerns with class and class analysis of society, attention was drawn to the specific ways in which the activities of working class juveniles have been subject to particular process of criminalization. Work of Birmingham centre for contemporary cultural studies re-examined the issue of youth subcultures from the point of view of unequal material circumstances of working class boys and girls. It was argued that class was central to any explanations of the experience of growing up, and that the relationship between young people and social institutions like school, work and the  legal system is characterized by different forms of class based resistance to the relations of power and domination. Certain youth subcultures were seen to "solve" in an imaginary way, problems experienced by working class young people that at the material level remain unresolved. From the point of view of social control and policing, various studies pointed to the ways in which the media portrayed some groups of young people actually generated further deviant behaviour in the group that was labelled. The link was made between the actual experiences of working class young people- culturally, socially, and economically- and the manner in which the state particularly the police, intervened in their lives both coercively and ideologically. By providing a structural perspective on social institutions, social processes and social outcomes. Marxist approaches argued that revolutionary or profound social transformation is need if crime is to be addressed in a socially just manner. Contemporary examples; In Marxist criminology the concern is to highlight the inequalities of a class society and to show how these affect the criminalization process. The powerful are seen as designing the laws in their own collective interests, while having greater capacity to defend themselves if they do break the law. The less powerful are propelled to commit crime by economic need and social alienation. They are the main targets of law enforcement and wider criminal justice agencies. Shown in Canada statistics where indigenous people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Because of a range of academic institutional factors and external political changes, the Marxist perspective waned within criminological circles in the 1980s. The ongoing contribution of a Marxist framework to understanding contemporary developments in society, has been long highlighted in the work of Jeffery reinman (1999) , his book was an analysis of the economic biases, ideological processes, and social inequalities associated with the criminal justice system. Marxism as an analytical framework may have declined in popularity among academic intellectuals during the 19980s-90s, but Reinman argued that the issues with which its concerned have not lost any of their potency or relevance. Reinman states, economic bias is still with us. What has changed is that the attention and concern that was once focused on economic bias threatened the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. For reinman economic bias has continued and in some respects deepened. The lack of attention to the contours and dimensions of this bias among social scientists and political leaders is explained in terms of the power and ideology, and specifically what he refers to as the "angle of moral vision". Reinman says that awareness of economic bias may well still be there, but their acceptance indicates that differences in wealth are perceived as morally irrelevant differences. Analytically Marxism is seen to continue to provide important insights into class inequality and the ideologies and institutions that sustain this. Nevertheless there are ongoing attempts to restate and make applicable the basic propositions of Marxist criminology today, especially in light of the increasing polarization of wealth and poverty on a world scale, and the further concentration and monopolization of production. Recent years have seen a resurgence of Marxist frameworks being applied, these include anti colonialism, social justice, immigration control policies, torture, transnational crime, and the impact of globalization and automation on workers. White collar vs blue collar crime; Micheal lynch (2018) provides an example of contemporary Marxist writing on issues of class and criminology. He argues that there are typical patterns of crime associated with specific classes. This is because class position embodies diverse material circumstances and capacities of people to marshal economic and political resources, and this in turn depends on ones relationship to the means of production. The wealth and power one has determines the kind of crime in which one might engage. Crimes of the capitalist class are linked to both augmentation of personal; wealth and to attempts to secure an advantage in the process of doing business. This translates into various types of criminal fraud and illegal business transactions. The impact of the crimes of the powerful Is often diffuse yet they affect a large number of people directly or indirectly, simply because the capacity of the capitalist to do harm on a large scale. Tax avoidance or environmental destruction may have a considerable social cost but aren't visible. In defending themselves against prosecution, the powerful have greater social resources. Furthermore the sheer costs associated with investigation and prosecution of white collar and corporate crime often make it prohibitive for the state to proceed. Crimes of the powerful may have significant structural effects in terms of the lives lost and financial impacts. Because such crimes are usually directed against other capitalists or against the rules governing the marketplace, the general public rarely perceives them as being of special interest to them personally. The disengagement from the relationship between crimes of the powerful and impacts on society may be reflected in the length of sentences. Crimes of the less powerful tend to be highly visible and subject to widescale state intervention involving police, welfare workers, social security officials, tax department officials etc. A feature of relative powerlessness is that the crimes committed tend to be individualized and thus have a discrete impact, there's usually one victim and the impact of the offence is limited to the actual household or person violated. The response of the major institutions in society is largely oriented toward stopping these kinds of crimes. The lack of access to resources such as control of the media and legal experts, means that working class people are more vulnerable to apprehension, prosecution and punishment. They are exposed to societal control mechanisms in such a way that they feel the full force of the state. Issues of the regulation of an "underclass" and the policing of working class communities are bound up with the cyclical and long term deterioration of the social and economic conditions of life for the majority in capitalist society. The structural conditions producing working class crimes are seen to have implications, as well as, for the capacity of the state to respond to other than coercively to street crimes. Because the state is undergoing a fiscal crisis- a crisis around the real or perceived lack of government funds, it cannot use welfare type measures as a means to deal with the social fallout arising from capitalist restructuring. Harsher law and order strategies will only make worse the political isolation, socio-cultural alienation, and economic immiseration of the marginalized layers of the working class, thus casually feeding the very criminality that the campaign for enhanced social control designed to overcome. Marxist theory, redirects our attention away from street crimes and compels us to examine crimes of the powerful. The question then arises of how we are to do this, given the concentration of power and the ability of the powerful to define crime in their interests.  The criminality of this behaviour is perceived as ambivalent within the capitalist system- there is uncertainty whether or not an activity is really criminal- and whether or not the powerful should in some instances be labelled criminal. Marxist definition of crime; Central problem in Marxist criminology is how to define crime. Is there a qualitative difference between the harm that is labelled as criminal and other sorts of harm? Traditional perspectives insist that crime consists of both the harm and the guilty mind. One problem with this definition is that the guilty mind takes actions out of context, a context where the powerful dictate the conditions under which the powerless act. Harm in the white collar area results from many negligent minds rather than guilty ones. For this Marxist criminologists have moved away from the notion of mens rea and focused on the degree of harm. The problem then becomes what harm to define as criminal. This has led to broad definitions of what constitutes criminal activity. Some would argue such definitions are so broad that they lose any useful meaning and alienate wide sectors of society. This raises issues for criminology generally; that is the terms crime and noncrime are dichotomous whereas in reality degrees of harm can be considered along a scale. Definitions of crime that are broad don’t solve this problem. Cohen claims that there is a tendency for those who argue for greater use of criminal law against white collar crime to forget the problems associated with using criminal law to curb harmful behaviour. Earlier research mapped out a multitude of problems associated with processing people through the criminal justice system such as the problems associated with stigmatization and the costs involved in criminal prosecutions. Also the issue of the politics of criminalization. Any push to criminalize behaviour is subject to political contingencies that result in unintended consequences of reform- instead of ameliorating the harm, it may exacerbate it. Critique; Its clear that Marxist criminology like many other strands of criminology- has variations on a particular theme. The theme here is that capitalist exploitation leads to criminal behaviour and criminalization of one group to a greater extent than the powerful in society. One concern of some Marxist criminologists relates to the use of the term criminal. Steinart argued that the term crime has lost any meaning it once had. Its too imbued with the capitalist ethos so that the symbolic emotive aspect of the label cannot be separated from its capitalist connotation. For this reason the term is of no use to Marxists. Instead the aim of Marxist criminology should be to highlight those who are harmed the most and devise policies that have the sole aim of reducing the harm without recourse to criminal law or criminal process. Been argued that aspects of Marxist writing in criminology have a romantic image of the criminal as primitive class rebel. These conceptualizations understate the real harm caused by such rebels. Those who are victims of anti social behaviour, often poor themselves, suffer considerable hardship at the hands of those who commit street crimes.  Some Marxists have been criticized for conspirational overtones in their analyses regarding the direct involvement of members of the ruling class in dictating the operational activities of the police. Critiques argue that there are many examples where laws are enacted to fetter the activities of specific capitalists. There are many laws in existence that restrain the activities of individual capitalists, which would seem to refute the Marxist argument. This criticism highlights a debate within Marxism itself concerning the precise nature of the state. Some have argued that the state can be viewed as an instrument of class rule by virtue of the close social relationship between the top members if the state apparatus and members of the capitalist class. Others have argued that the state exists to promote the interests of the capital in general, not individual capitalists. The state by defending the conditions of capital accumulation, ultimately enhances the prospects if the ruling class as a whole. One cannot reduce crime to a simple equation with power of alienation. Marxists are more interested in general trends and broad predictions based on the notion that social contexts shape the choices or options actually available to a person. The choices of the poor concerning whether to steal or not are categorically different from the choices of the rich; these conditions are structurally determined. This suggests that power may not be totally encapsulated or explainable in class terms. Power and powerlessness can exist in a sense outside the class structure, such as the power of men over women. Concerns have been expressed in relation to issues such as racism and the relative position of different ethnic groups in society. There are usually strong class factors that shape the contours of the power relationship between men and women and different ethnic and racial groups. There are many diverse interpretations and explanations for crime from within the broadly Marxist frameworks. Some of them offer simplistic formulations and some provide detailed, sophisticated accounts. Overall it can be said the strength of such approaches is that they attempt to locate social action within the wider societal context of a class divided society. In doing so they elevate the issue of power and control and they stress the ways in which social background and social processes give rise to certain propensities to engage in criminal activity. Conclusion; Marxists argue thar within contemporary capitalist societies the capitalist mode of production operates at many levels, both national and global which has economic, social and political impacts. There is a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of transnational corporations which control both the material and cultural production. Internationally and at the national level, the number of poor is growing and the rich are getting richer. Marxist criminology argues that the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a small capitalist class has ramifications for the definition and response to crime. If power is concentrated in the hands of those who own the means of production, they will influence and dictate what behaviour will be defined as crime. Likewise they are capable of influencing the nature of societal reaction to behaviours. Thus there is an ability here to influence how the state will intervene. According to Marxist perspective if we wish to examine crime and class in the global context we must determine who it is that controls the finances, we must evaluate trade agreements that  define how the benefits of trade are to be distributed and the conditions of trade that will be adhered to; we must consider the impact of mass production and technology on the lives of workers. Class divisions exist both within and between countries. For a Marxist the fundamental questions revolve around the implications of such class divisions for the nature and causes of crime and for the manner of state intervention into peoples lives. Definition of crime; Centers on the concept of harm arising from the uneven distribution of power and resources within a capitalist society. Those with power can influence, shape and dictate the definition and responses to crime in their interests. It isn't enough to look at individual acts; we need to understand the social conditions that create crime, capitalisms inherent inequalities, exploitation of workers and alienation contribute to a system where crime is inevitable for certain groups. Broader more nuanced than traditional definitions, it aims to expose the ways in which power and inequality within the capitalist system contribute to social harm, regardless of whether those actions are formally recognized as criminal Any activity that interferes with basic human rights and causes social injury. This definition stems from the belief that laws primarily protect the interests of the capitalist class. Many harmful acts committed by the powerful may not be criminalized under this system. Response to crime; Marxist theory argues that effectively addressing crime requires a radical transformation of society to eliminate the root causes of crime found in the inequalities and exploitative nature of capitalism. Marxists believe that crimes committed by those with economic and political power cause more harm than street crime. Marxists call for democratizing institutions like the police and courts, reforming laws to benefit the working class, and upholding human rights for all. A Marxist response to crime should focus on holding the powerful accountable for their actions and challenging the structures that enable them to commit harm. Focus of analysis; focuses on analysing the interplay between power, inequality, and the class struggle, particularly within the context of capitalist societies. Crimes of the powerful; highlighyts the harms caused by those with power like corporate crime, fraud, these crimes often driven by profit, tend to receive less attention and punishment.  Criminal Justice System as a Tool of Control: Marxists argue that the criminal justice system primarily serves to maintain capitalist order. laws, law enforcement practices, and sentencing disparities often protect the interests of the powerful while disproportionately targeting and controlling the working class. Marxist analysis also considers how dominant ideologies, often perpetuated by those in power, help to justify inequalities, normalise exploitation, and maintain the capitalist system that contributes to crime. posits a fundamental conflict between the capitalist class, who own and control the means of production, and the working class, who are exploited for their labour. explore how this class struggle influences the definition and response to crime, often pitting the interests of the powerful against the needs of the working class. Cause of crime; argues that the capitalist system itself is the root cause of crime. Its focus on profit and the resulting inequalities create conditions that push people into criminal behaviour. the working class is exploited for its labour under capitalism, leading to poverty and desperation. This pushes people into crimes. Capitalism also creates a sense of alienation and powerlessness amongst workers. This can lead to frustration and anger, manifesting in violent crimes or acts of rebellion (socio-cultural crimes). the powerful (capitalists) control the legal system, defining "crime" to protect their interests. This means working-class crimes are punished more harshly, while harmful corporate actions often go unpunished. For example, shoplifting is a crime, but polluting the environment may only result in a fine. views crime as a symptom of a sick society (capitalism), not just bad individual choices. Crime prevention; true crime prevention requires dismantling the capitalist system and building a more just and equitable society. Radical Democracy: Give people real control over political and economic decisions. Collective Ownership: Share resources and wealth instead of concentrating them in the hands of a few. Redistribution of Resources: Ensure everyone has a decent standard of living by providing basic necessities and social safety nets. Reform the Justice System: Hold it accountable to the public, uphold human rights, and protect workers. Address Underlying Social Issues: Alleviate poverty, reduce alienation, and challenge corporate power. Nature of offender; argues that offenders are not inherently criminal but are shaped by the capitalist system's inequalities and pressures. Economic Inequality: Capitalism's vast disparities in wealth and opportunity drive crime in different ways for different classes. Alienation: People feel powerless and disconnected from their work, each other, and society as a whole, leading to frustration and crime. Constrained Choices: The sources contend that individual choices are limited by class position – the poor have fewer options than the rich.  Capitalism's Pressures: The system itself pushes people towards crime – the drive for profit for the powerful, the need to survive for the less powerful Emphasize; emphasises the idea that crime is not simply a matter of individual choices but is deeply rooted in the structural inequalities created by capitalism. conventional definitions of crime, often focused on individual acts and mens rea(guilty mind), are inadequate because they ignore the broader context of social harm. Marxist criminologists argue for a definition that encompasses any activity that violates basic human rights or causes social injury. They contend that current legal definitions are heavily influenced by capitalist interests, leading to the criminalisation of the powerless while shielding the harmful acts of the powerful. Exposing the Crimes of the Powerful: The sources consistently highlight that crimes committed by corporations and the elite (economic crimes, state crimes, violations of labour laws, environmental damage) often have a far greater impact on society than street crime. Yet, these crimes are often under-investigated, under-prosecuted, and receive more lenient punishments. rejects the notion of a neutral state. Instead, it views the state as an instrument that serves the interests of the capitalist class. Laws are seen as tools to protect capitalist property relations and maintain the existing power structure. The police, courts, and prisons are primarily focused on controlling the working class and suppressing dissent, rather than ensuring justice for all. The sources point out that this focus on working-class crime distracts from the harms perpetrated by the powerful and reinforces the legitimacy of the unequal system. the structure of capitalism itself creates conditions that lead to crime. The inherent exploitation and alienation built into the system breed poverty, desperation, and resentment, pushing some towards criminal behaviour. For the working class, crime may be a means of survival or an act of resistance against a system that oppresses them. doesn't believe that simply tinkering with the existing system will solve the problem of crime. Instead, it calls for radical transformation to address the root causes of inequality and injustice. This might involve a move towards radical democracy, collective ownership of the means of production, and redistribution of resources according to need. The sources acknowledge that Marxist ideas have been influential in various social movements, including labour, anti- globalisation, anti-poverty, social justice, human rights, and environmental activism. Crimes of the powerful; Economic Crimes: These crimes, driven by the pursuit of profit and a desire to secure an advantage in the capitalist marketplace, include actions like: Fraud: Deceiving individuals or organizations for financial gain. Violation of labour laws: Exploiting workers by denying them fair wages, safe working conditions, or the right to organize. Tax evasion: Illegally avoiding paying taxes, depriving the state of revenue needed for public services. State Crimes: These crimes involve the abuse of state power for private gain or the misuse of public resources. Examples include: Corruption: Using public office for personal enrichment or to favour specific individuals or groups. Misuse of public funds: Diverting public funds for private use or for projects that do not benefit the public good. crimes of the powerful are often overlooked and under-punished due to the inherent biases of the capitalist system Crimes of the less powerful; Economic Crimes: These crimes are primarily motivated by economic need and survival. Individuals engage in these acts to secure basic necessities or supplement inadequate incomes. Examples include: Shoplifting: Stealing goods from retail stores. Workplace theft: Stealing money or property from one's employer. Welfare fraud: Deceiving the welfare system to obtain benefits one is not entitled to. Socio-Cultural Crimes: These crimes, rooted in social alienation and frustration, are often expressions of anger, resentment, or a sense of powerlessness resulting from marginalization and limited opportunities. Examples include: Vandalism: Damaging or defacing public or private property. Assault: Physically harming another person. Public order disturbance: Engaging in disruptive or disorderly conduct in public spaces crimes of the less powerful are typically driven by a combination of economic deprivation and social alienation stemming from their position within the capitalist system. Marxist Criminology Flashcards Card 2 Front: What is the Marxist focus of analysis when studying crime? Back: The focus shifts from street crime to the harms perpetrated by the powerful (crimes of the powerful). It examines the connection between an individual's position in the class structure and the types of crime they are likely to commit. Examples: o Crimes by the powerful are often related to increasing wealth (economic crimes like fraud and violating labour laws) or abusing their positions of authority (state crimes like misusing public funds). o These crimes often receive less severe punishments compared to street crimes. o Crimes by the less powerful are often driven by economic survival (like shoplifting or welfare fraud) or social alienation (like vandalism). Card 3 Front: What is the Marxist view of the cause of crime? Back: Crime is a product of the inherent inequality and exploitation within capitalist societies. Key factors contributing to crime: o Institutionalized inequality: The systemic disadvantages faced by the working class. o Exploitation of workers: The capitalist system's extraction of profit from the labour of the working class. o Alienation: A sense of detachment and powerlessness experienced by individuals under consumer capitalism. These conditions create a climate where crime is more likely to occur, particularly among the less powerful. Card 4 Front: What is the Marxist view of the nature of the offender? Back: An individual's position in the class structure determines the types of criminal activities they engage in. Choices made by offenders are often constrained by their economic circumstances and the pressures to survive or maximize profits. Offenders, especially those from the working class, are often alienated from the broader society. Card 5 Front: How do Marxists propose to respond to crime? Back: Expose the harms committed by the powerful, as these often have a greater social and economic impact than street crimes. Challenge the repressive use of state power against the working class, especially in areas like public order policing. Advocate for radical democracy and a more equitable distribution of resources to address the root causes of crime. Examples: o Support workers' rights and movements, like the Winnipeg General Strike, that challenge capitalist exploitation. o Advocate for police accountability and reform to address the disproportionate targeting of working-class communities. Card 6 Front: What are some of the key critiques of Marxist criminology? Back: Defining Crime: The concept of "harm" as the basis for defining crime is seen as too subjective and potentially overly broad. Role of the State: It's unclear whether Marxist theory sees the state as serving individual capitalists or capitalism as a whole, making it difficult to assess the state's neutrality. Class Reductionism: Attributing crime solely to poverty and alienation ignores other contributing factors and the individual choices of offenders. Universality of Class Laws: Not all laws can be seen as serving the interests of the ruling class; some laws address issues that affect people across social classes, like rape. Neglect of Other Forms of Power: The focus on class overlooks other forms of power and oppression, such as gender inequality, that contribute to crime and victimization. Card 7 Front: What is the significance of the Ford Pinto case in Marxist criminology? Back: The Ford Pinto case exemplifies the prioritization of profit over human life inherent in capitalist systems. Ford's decision to not implement an $11 safety improvement, knowing it would likely result in deaths, demonstrates the callous calculations often made by corporations. Despite evidence of Ford's knowledge and deliberate inaction, the company was acquitted of criminal charges, highlighting the legal protection often afforded to corporations. This case supports the Marxist view that corporations can engage in harmful, even deadly, acts with impunity, while individuals would be held accountable for similar actions. Card 8 Front: How has Marxist criminology influenced broader social movements? Back:  Although its prominence within academic criminology declined in the 1980s, Marxist thought continues to resonate within various social movements. Movements influenced by Marxist ideas: o Labour movements o Anti-globalization movements o Anti-poverty movements o Social justice movements o Environmental activism These movements often share the Marxist goals of challenging inequality, promoting social justice, and advocating for a more equitable distribution of power and resources. Introduction; Feminist perspective shares some common themes with Marxist criminology. Feminist criminology has been centrally concerned with issues of power, the distribution of economic and social resources, and the differential position of selected groups in society, which has implications for their activities as both "offenders" or "victims". In most forms feminist criminology seeks to address the absence of women from much of the early theorizing about crime, those approaches sought answers to the cause of crime, through the study of men alone. Feminist perspective the focus is on the sexist operation of the criminal justice system, girls and women's experiences of crime and criminality and the role gender plays in criminological theory. Feminist criminology looks at who holds and wields the power in society, and question how this has an impact on women. Feminist criminology developed in the late 1960s into the 1970s and was closely associated with the emergence of the second wave of feminism. Called second wave in recognition of the first wave of feminism which had surfaced in the form of the suffrage movement. Closely concerned with attaining political power through gaining the vote for women. The failure of the vote to transform the inequity faced by women everyday led to a new form of feminism. Second wave feminism saw the formation of a dynamic social movement that projected many issues into public domain, highlighting the structural oppression of women and the general abuses and crimes against them. In its radical phase the second wave was called the women's liberation movement. The social agenda was radical social transformation, key demands; equal pay, equal education and job opportunities, free contraception and abortion on demand, free 24h nurseries under community control, legal and financial independence, an end to discrimination against lesbians, freedom from intimidation by the threat of use of violence of sexual coercion regarding martial status, an end to the laws, assumptions and institutions that perpetuate male dominance and men's aggression towards women. By late 1990s another transformation of feminism. Under influence of post structuralist feminists, and speaking to different generation of women, the third wave of feminism was distinct. Technological changes, growing awareness of the dangers of white heteronormative feminism, led to a radical reorientation from structure concerns with equal pay or vote, to postmodern concerns with representation and micro power.  Third wave feminists seek to destabilize some of the taken for granted ideas about what is sex and gender and how sex/gender is experienced differently depending on a range of intersections with race/ethnicity, class, sexuality and disability. There's a fundamental distinction to be made between sex and gender. This distinction is central to explanations of male and female offending and victimization. Sex (male/female) is a biological classification indicated by genital characteristics. Gender (masculine/feminine) is the socially constructed behaviour and attitudes that are thought to naturally line up with biological sex. Daly and Chesney Lind (1988) argue that at the end of second wave feminism that the following were the key defining elements of feminism as a mode of analysis; gender is not a natural fact but a complex social, historical, and cultural product, its related to but not simply derived from biological sex differences. Gender and gender relations order social life and social institutions in fundamental ways. Gender relations and constructs are not symmetrical, but based on an organizing principle of men's superiority and social, political and economic dominance. Systems of knowledge reflect men's views of the natural and social world, the product of knowledge is gendered. Women should be at the center of intellectual enquiry, not peripheral, invisible or appendages of men. Third wave feminism extended this largely structuralist account for gender and have sought to disrupt the "common sense" thinking central to existing conceptions of gender. According to Butler (1990) , gender is a performance in which we all participate even if were unaware of the micro behaviours and attitudes that contribute to "doing" of gender. Newer feminists interested in the ways in which the "straight mind" - where biological certainty of sex aligns with the gender roles which lines up with a compulsory heterosexuality- reinforces a natural view of gender. Women's experiences of crime especially intimate partner violence and sexual assault are still framed in terms of women's innate and natural gender attributes. No matter the orientation Feminism deals with the structural position of women in society. There's a call for greater autonomy and advocacy for women's rights in social, political and economic spheres. Feminist movements initially motivated for change because of a perceived inequality of autonomy and rights. This can be generalized or applied to specific categories. Ex indigenous women, lesbian, transgender women, all over represented in criminal justice system. Third wave feminism seeks to address both of these concerns- over representation of some women in criminal justice processes and the intersectional differences of experiences of justice. Feminist criminology is often left out Of the picture of what constitutes criminological theory, women's experiences of victimization and offending are marginal to the scholarly endeavours of the discipline. Basic concepts; Feminist perspectives based on premise that women are structurally disadvantaged in present society. Entrenched in The patriarchy which expresses the fundamental inequalities between the sexes. Gender inequality and the disempowerment of women are embodied in the legal and criminal justice systems. Feminist criminology defines crime in terms of gender based and gender related types of activities.  A major concern is with the nature of male violence, as it impacts both female offenders and female victims, and the ways in which forms of gendered inequality and discrimination are institutionalized throughout society. Substantial part has been directed at exposing the "hidden" levels of violence against women and the structural oppressions they face over a long time. Main focus of analysis is the unequal position of women in society, the specific kinds of crimes committed against and women, and the status of female offenders in the context of wider social inequalities and gender based oppressions. Crimes against and involving women is seen to be the result of social oppression and economic dependency on men. The way women as victims and offenders are processed by the criminal justice system is described in terms of the sexualization thesis. Sexual thesis refers to the notion that when criminal justice system and its agents deal with women they do so on the basis of certain gender related criteria. The behaviour, martial status, and appearance of women are constantly linked to particular ideas regarding the preferred forms of femineity. What is labelled criminal or an act of victimization depends on the perceived sexual behaviour and social status of the women in question. Its argued there's a double standard of morality and power. One manifestation of the double standard is the fact that senior members of police, judiciary and correctional are men, reflecting existing prejudices regarding women's role, status and position in society. From each view of feminist criminology there need to be major changes to the existing criminal justice system and to society as a whole. The problem is seen as one of social empowerment of women as a broad category, and confronting the negative and restricting nature of male domination. To prevent crimes against women, its necessary for them to have greater economic, social and political equality. Institutional reforms could include affirmative action policies to advance the position of women; anti sexist training for lawyers and judges; law reforms that recognize the gendered nature of the social world. System needs an overhaul with respect to the provision of gender specific services and support systems in detention. Feminism is not a single theoretical approach, it consists of a variety of perspectives. These vario0us feminist strands are primarily concerned with autonomy, rights and power. The different perspectives include liberal, Marxist, socialist, cultural and postmodernist/ post structuralist approaches. Women and crime; Female offending has been absent for much of criminology's endeavors. We must further understand that how we respond to crime issues is determined by the way in which the law positions women in society. The language adopted within the law is generally gender exclusive, which clearly advances the rights of man but makes little if any mention of the rights of women. Has been sheer neglect of women in criminological thought and enquiry, because of the male domination both historically and in the present. This is important because results are necessarily a male perspective on the world, the selection of issues perceived to be important by men.  The criminal justice system is also dominated by male personnel, it can be argued that the composition of institutional workforces can have significant impact on how the workforce pursues its tasks in practice. there is a obvious hegemonic masculinity informing the structures of the criminal justice system. Individual women have been directly involved in policing and other justice agency practices, but in doing so may simply serve to reinforce the conservative views of ideal female sexual behaviour. The neglect of women within the discipline is a reflection of the composition of the system but also of women's relative absence from the criminal statistics. Women do not appear to be as statistically significant as men. Women appear to commit fewer crimes and the crimes they do commit appear to be less serious, and they are less violent. Examining victimization statistics, there are specific female categories (sexual assault, domestic violence,) which women appear overrepresented, women and girls don’t appear to be victims of serious crimes to the same extent as men. A consequence of this observation, investigators within the field have often regarded it as unimportant to look at female offending and victimization. When seeking to examine female offending there's been an additional problem of applying male correlates. Theories of offending have been conducted within a male framework and constructed in male terms making it difficult to apply to women or girls. Important to acknowledge need for a perspective that rejects theories of the cause of crime when the result is from studying male criminality alone. Historical development Two point of note. The first, while female offending was generally ignored in mainstream analysis there were instances when they were specifically examined. However was small and neglected as an area in criminology theorizing. The second, the critique offered by feminists was that such theories as did exist were either overly sexist in nature or extremely limited in what they could say about the nature of female involvement. When attempting to explain female crime as a distinct and specific social phenomenon, the mainstream theories accepted the narrow, conservative view regarding the place and position of women in society, and did so on the basis of a form of biological reductionism. Biological reductionism; refers to instances where female experiences and behaviours are reduced to the imperatives of biology- sex of the person seen to dictate or determine appropriate social roles and practices. A key contribution of feminist criminology has been to critique one sided, distorted views of women in the traditional literature of female offending. The basis of this critique had to do with conflation of sex and gender, and the misogynous character of some of the writing. Biological explanations These viewed female crime as stemming from biological causes. Most focus on sex specific biological differences. The overall message of biological determinism remains the same; Early theories argued that the true biologically determined nature of women was antithetical to crime. These views based on stereotypical notions of women as passive and non aggressive.  Criminality was linked to maleness, masculine traits. Therefore the female offender was seen as exhibiting male traits and considered doubly deviant both socially and biologically. As a women she went against her biological nature and was not fully female. Some discussed in terms of psychological differences between sexes. Women conceal their offending behaviour and use their sexuality to attain greater leniency, they do this because their nature is inherently deceitful and manipulative. This is linked to their psychological makeup in that women are capable of concealing their sexual arousal and thus in the most intimate human acts they have the opportunity and ability to manipulate those around them. Recent theories research on hormonal disturbances and social behaviour has tried to establish a link between pre and postmenstrual activity, and the propensity of women to engage in criminal activity. In similar vein its argued that postnatal depression is responsible for infanticide. Female body fluctuates in terms of hormonal activity, women may engage in a variety of anti social and criminal activity. Socialization theories Common way to explain female crime is to point differences in ways men and women are or should be socialized. These explanations closely tied to specific notions of appropriate sex roles. The problem is usually seen as inadequate socialization, leading to violation of the behaviour appropriate for members of female sex. These approaches reduce crime causation to biological or psychological differences; Some see deviancy or delinquency as a form of acting out on the part of young women. Women have traditionally been socialized to be passive and need affection, and that this explains their lower crime rates. However if they’ve been abnormally of poorly socialized they may be susceptible to manipulation by men and can result in sex related deviancy (sex work). Variation of this theory argues the key issue is the under socialization of individual female offenders. The maladjustment of the offender in mainstream social norms manifests in form of sexually inappropriate conduct (promiscuous sexual relations). The desire of girls and women to feel acceptance and approval may result in gratuitous sexual relationships because this is the only way the young women can assert themselves. Some begin by arguing crime is a result of the disconnection felt by some women. The psychological absence of love produces instability in these women, and leads to various acting out behaviours of an antisocial or deviant nature. Argument assumes that emotionality is an inherent biological feature of female sex. Women are said to have a need for dependencies because their emotional creatures. Feminist response Response of feminist writers to biological explanations and socialization arguments is that they represent a double standard in terms of morality and power. Underpinning the double standard is a blurring of the distinction between sex and gender. Women and girls are presumed to have a fixed biological nature that’s indistinguishable from the fixed social role. Any maladjustment to this stereotypical femininity is said to be consequence of biological defect or inherent biological weakness. A crucial issue from feminist perspective is that of relative power and access to social and economic capital. The criminalization process is heavily laden with sexist assumptions that reinforce and reproduce structural inequalities.  Sexist assumptions determine how offending behaviour is constructed and how victims are portrayed. The central proposition of feminist analysis is that women are treated differently in and by the criminal justice system because of traditional gender role expectations regarding appropriate and feminine behaviour. Underpinning this gendered division of sexes in power; that is , society is male dominated and this is reflected in social institutions, the law and the criminal justice system. Feminist jurisprudence has been concerned to demonstrate the gender biases built into the process of the law as well as specific overt instances of gender inequality. The status of women as property and as rights holders has been examined historically and as part of ongoing struggle to assert women's place and position in a patriarchal system and society. The nature of female offending is placed into wider social, economic, political context. Women who commit homicide are often victims of violence themselves. Women who commit social security or other forms of fraud and theft usually do so to support children not for themselves. Hence the generalized violence against women as a social category and relative disadvantages they suffer economically are explored as vital preconditions to offending behaviour. In case of victimization much attention is paid to the ways crimes against women have historically not been considered as crimes or are subject to trivialization and sexual bias. Its been argued that a woman who has been victimized is herself judged in relation to a man, rather than specific offensive action. A married women subjected to inquiry seen in terms of a serious crime as it affects her status as her spouses sexual property or homemaker. An unmarried women who has a sexual history may be treated as having provoked a criminal assault. Questions of what is an offence and who is a victim are intertwined with gender stereotypes and biases. A fundamental question is how the sex variable has been dealt with by the various perspectives ; There are theories that ignored the sex variable altogether, the vast majority of traditional criminology does this. There are theories that conflate or blur distinctions between sex and gender. Girls and women are presumed to have a fixed biological nature and or role. A woman's criminal nature is see as extension of her sexuality and genitals. There are theories that ignore the impact of gender relationships. The male/female experience is presented as androgynous, these neglect the impact of gender on people. Feminist criminology wanted to explore issues relating to women and looked initially at sex role differences. Smart (1976) stated there's a double standard in relation to morality and power. Particularly indicated in the nature of offences with which women are charged; primarily sex work and infanticide. The legal framework has similarly treated the category of sex work as relating only to women in spite of existence of male sex workers. The shift in feminist politics, approaches to issues of women and crime have also shifted from sex roles to gender and gender roles. From these critical perspectives criminologist began identifying the nature of gendered criminality, including gender role offences (shoplifting). Of official statistics there's higher incident of shoplifting offences are committed by women and girls. Nature of stolen goods are gender related; perfume, tampons , makeup.  Gender is also tied to other offences; fraudulent checks and social security fraud often female offences. Contemporary examples Four common thread between the early feminist theory and that of contemporary criminological theory; usual suspects, sexualized double standard, deserving and undeserving offenders and offences and whose harm counts. Throughout the development theorists highlighted that as with male offending there are usual suspects of female offending (the same class, race, ethnicity etc plays role in who will come in contact with the system). Between historical and contemporary accounts of women offending and victimization, there runs a constant argument about the double standards applied to men and women- especially in relation to sex crimes- and the gendered discourse used to assess culpability and seriousness of harm. In this way the sexual assault of married women is constructed by the criminal justice system as more harmful than the same act against a sex worker. Final running thread between historical and contemporary feminist criminology is the way in which the criminal justice system continues to value harms against women lower than other similar interpersonal crimes. Feminist work since the 1990s tended to focus on four key substantive areas of investigation; 1)explaining and responding to men's violence towards women. 2)investigating intersectionality and the way race/ethnicity, class, sexuality and disability intersect with gendered victimization and offending. 3)problems associated with equality and differences as they manifest in the legal and criminal justice systems. 4)explaining and responding to women's violence. The first, much has been done to change the way the criminal justice defines and responds to intimate partner and family violence. The activism at the core of feminist criminology has transformed the legislation, policies, practices and programs to address the issue of interpersonal violence. Owen and Carrington (2015) consider the "architecture of rural life" and how services are constrained in responding to domestic violence by this architecture. Other less domesticated formed of gender violence continue to warrant further investigation. Nichols and heil (2014) highlight the barriers to the identification and prosecution of sex traffickers. The policing of female behaviour occurs in the legal and medical arena, but also the wider social community. the double standard and sexualization thesis continue to shape women's experiences of public space, and women's use of that space shapes others attribution of blame for sexual aggression. The increase in production and availability of child porn and increase in child sex rings demonstrates that men exert their sexual power over children and they find children erotically desirable. Provides powerful evidence against the notion that child sexual exploitation is rooted in dysfunctional families or poor parenting. Instead it represents a consequence of patriarchal societies masculine socialization process. From a feminist perspective sexual exploitation is seen as a social rather than a natural fact. Its produced by a certain type of society and not perpetuated by pathological individuals driven by psychological or biological urges.  The impact of race and ethnicity on women in the criminal justice system raised initially by Carrington and Pereira (2009) as part of a critique of sexualization thesis. Particular concern is expressed regarding why working class, sexuality and gender diverse, indigenous and young people are over represented in the crime statistics. These are the questions asked by a number of contemporary feminist criminologists. Carrington (2015) highlights how racialized gender differences are global in scale. She suggests there are localized techniques of controlling women, gendered violence is ubiquitous. The absence of more complex theorization abut women's offending and victimization, Carrington warns that feminist criminologists are unable to respond to either the ubiquity of gendered violence or its nuanced practices. Understanding the globalization of gendered violence enables us to better understand how gender, race, power and economic privilege men's over women's experiences, and in a further move to marginalization, white women's experiences over all other women. This call for a more nuanced understanding of intersectionality also identified by button and worthen (2014) in terms of experiences of sexuality and gender diverse women, and by Chesney Lind and morash (2013) in their call for transformative critical feminist criminology that’s capable of accounting for women's intersectionality. Critical race feminism explores the issues of intersectionality by examining the relationship between race, gender, class and other forms of hierarchy found within societies. There's a focus on the use of counter story telling to legitimize the voices and experiences of women of colour and social oppression. The third substantive area of investigation- equality and difference- developments much slower, while seemingly gender neutral operation of the system have been exposed as a myth the cultural and institutional reproduction of gender differences continues. Within the gendered institution of law, Spivak, Wagner, Whitmer and charish (2014) found that girls and boys in the united states were disproportionately charged and unequally punished for the same status offences. Girls more likely to be charged , their less likely to be found guilty, but just as likely to be incarcerated as boys if found guilty. Girls also more likely to have their cases marked for review and follow up. Welsh and rajahs (2014) work on invisible punishments meted out to women after imprisonment, highlight how punishment is embodied and women experience it unequally to men. The fourth and final area of investigation for feminist criminologists is that of women's violence and criminality. For most of criminology history women have been absent. When present her criminality is attributed to a dysfunction of her sex/gender roles, or the complaint, passive nature that makes her complicit in men's violence and criminality. Often the criminal women only comes to light when she breaches then most holy of gender codes; infanticide. Since 1990 feminist criminologists have begun to address and research vacuum on women's criminality, however much of this work focused on the cultural representations of violent women rather than causes of women's violence, and how gender shapes these behaviours. Carrington suggests that the recorded increase in female offenders may be the result of complex interplay between changes to institutional mechanisms for controlling women as well as changes in the gender expectations of women. De vogel, stam, bouman, ter horst and lancel (2016) found in their comparative study of female and male psychiatrist patient that violent women more likely to have complex victimization histories, were more likely to commit arson and homicide, and displayed higher levels of inpatient aggression than male peers.  Panfil and Peterson (2015) work on gay gang members highlights the gendered embodiment of violence and the consequences arising from disrupting established gender codes of violent behaviour. Gay male gang members must be hyper masculine to prove their not a fag. For women the double bind of sexualization thesis is amplified. Women are not perceived as "real" gang members because of their inability to live up to hyper masculine ideals, when given chance to show "muscle" they risk being labelled lesbian. Minowa, maclaran, and stevens (2014) found in advertising and film, women's violence is trivialized and an object of comedy. Feminist criminologists have employed a wide array of analytical methods and concepts, as shown in the theorization of feminists who attempt to account for intersectionality, who utilize postmodern analyses of power to explain violence, and who focus on "deconstruction" to explore the workings of language in conveying meaning about gender. Feminist criminology is diverse. Feminists continue to focus on the nature of female offending, but also seek to explore the area of victimology particularly in relation to sexual assault and intimate partner violence. Feminists have been long associated with activism and theoretical debate. Feminist criminologists are concerned with changing the law to promote recognition of the issues of violence directed against women. This led many to argue for the harsher enforcement of laws against perpetrators at the operational level and to call for greater sensitivity of police. However others see limitations to this, arguing that calling for greater use of the criminal law in a patriarchal system, to defend and protect women is fraught with problems. Critique Some feminist approaches don’t deal adequately with questions relating to class, ethnicity and race in discussions of the female offender and the female victim. Yet research indicates the race of a person is a crucial factor in terms of overall representation of some groups within the criminal justice system. The class background of the offender or victim has significant consequences with regard to the actual nature of the criminalization and victimization process. The notion that feminist criminology needs to do more than provide a women centered analysis ; it needs to foster a non-sexi