Marxist & Neo-Marxist Crime Explanations PDF

**Topic 4 -- Marxist & neo-Marxist Explanations** ***Key questions: How do the laws benefit the ruling class? Is crime a rational response to capitalism? Is law enforcement selective? How do working class subcultures resist capitalism?*** **[Introduction -- Traditional Marxism]** Marx himself wro...

**Topic 4 -- Marxist & neo-Marxist Explanations** ***Key questions: How do the laws benefit the ruling class? Is crime a rational response to capitalism? Is law enforcement selective? How do working class subcultures resist capitalism?*** **[Introduction -- Traditional Marxism]** Marx himself wrote very little about crime, but writers such as **Lauren Snider (1993),** and **David Gordon (1976)** have contributed greatly to a Marxist analysis of crime. As **structuralists,** Marxists take a macro (large scale) view that the structures of society (institutions such as the family, media, education etc.) influence our behaviour. Unlike functionalists, who suggest this structure is good for us, Marxists suggest the structure of capitalism is a problem because the bourgeoisie impose their values on the working class. Marxists argue all crime has its origins in the capitalist system and the unequal relation between these two social classes, where the bourgeoisie control the law and the police. **1 Lauren Snider (1993) -- the dominant ideology favours the powerful** **Snider** believes that criminology focuses on the wrong crimes. The dominant ideology (the way the bourgeoisie control the dominant ideas in society, so that what we accept as 'normal' is in their favour), focuses on street crime. Snider suggests this is a distortion purposefully set up by the bourgeoisie to distract away from the types of crimes which the bourgeoisie commit, such as **white collar and corporate crime**. She suggests that the ruling class use the agents of social control to **construct laws** to control and punish the working classes while they apply an exceedingly light touch when it comes to the misdemeanours of the powerful. **White-collar crime**, so referred to because of the white shirts often worn by office workers, consists of crime committed by professionals in the course of their employment for their own individual benefit. For example, this could include an employee stealing paperclips or paper, or it might include an employee defrauding their employer by making false expenses claims. In 2008 it was disclosed that many British MPs had claimed for expenses that they were not entitled to. A public outcry over the abuse of **tax payers' money** led to revelations that these powerful, wealthy people had claimed money back for items which were not essential to their jobs as MP's. For example, one MP claimed £1,600 for duck house for his pond, other MPs had claimed for wallpaper costing over £100 a roll, and porn films they watched on pay-per-view. MPs were found to have faked receipts, used false accounting and paid relatives for jobs they didn't actually carry out. These are examples of crimes which **Snider** suggests are common amongst the rich and powerful, yet it took an investigative journalist four years to get the story taken seriously by the police. Most MPs simply paid back the sum they had falsely claimed for rather than being charged with a criminal offence. **Snider** points out that this is different to the way 'benefit cheats' or shop lifters are treated, with criminal prosecutions much more common for these crimes. **Snider** argues that the middle and upper classes are involved in equal amounts of crime as any other class; however, they occupy powerful positions which enable them to avoid detection or prosecution. Marxists argue that the amount of money generated from white-collar crime comes into billions, yet the government seems to focus on criminalizing unemployed 'benefit cheats', which is much less significant financially. In 2008, the National Fraud Authority estimated that benefit fraud cost the UK public over £1bn yet tax evasion cost over £15bn. **Marxist**s therefore want us to redirect our focus onto white collar crime. They also argue that things such as tax avoidance should be criminal acts but currently they are not, so **what** is considered to be criminal is itself a determining factor in **who** is seen as criminal. **Snider** is also interested in **corporate crime,** which is defined as crime carried out by businesses motivated by a desire to increase profits. For example, VW admitted manufacturing cars that cheated emissions tests so that 11 million cars were sold worldwide that produce pollution thatW is above the legal level. Though the company have been fined, no one has gone to prison, despite estimates that the extra pollution worldwide will have led to thousands of deaths. Globally, in the city of Bhopal, India, an American company allowed a gas leak that killed 10,000 locals in one night, yet no one has been imprisoned for the crime. In addition, **Snider** suggests that what is considered to be legal or illegal **reflects the interests of the bourgeoisie**. For example, **the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers, the Snowden report and many others all demonstrate the lengths to which the powerful and wealthy will go to protect their assets and make more money. The Paradise and Panama papers revealed massive tax avoidance by some of the richest people in the country, including the Queen, who were hiding their money in offshore accounts and as a result paying little or no tax. Though most of the country were outraged this practice is not illegal. Snider suggests this is because those who control the law (the bourgeoisie) control it in their interests and so would never make such a practice illegal.** **2 David Gordon (1976) -- selective enforcement of the law** The selective enforcement of the law means that despite the law applying to everyone, in reality prosecutions of the ruling class are rare, while those against the working class are frequent. The occasional prosecution of ruling-class crime perpetuates the fiction that the law operates for the benefit of society as a whole, that the state represents the public interest, and that the extent of ruling-class crime is small. **Gordon** argues that selecting members of the working class and punishing them as individuals protects the system which is primarily responsible for their criminal deviance. Individuals are defined as **\'social failures\'** and as such they are responsible for their criminal activities. In this way, blame and condemnation are directed at the individual rather than the institutions of capitalism. Defining criminals as \'animals and misfits, as enemies of the state, provides a justification for incarcerating them in prisons'. This keeps them hidden from view, and means that the most vociferous opponents to capitalism are incarcerated. In this way the most embarrassing extremes produced by the capitalist system are neatly swept under the carpet, and capitalism continues unquestioned. If something was done to help those who broke the law, if their problems were made public, the whole system might be questioned. **Neo-Marxism and Radical Criminology** 'Neo' means new, therefore Neo-Marxists put greater emphasis on culture than traditional Marxists, who focus primarily on capitalism and economic factors. Neo-Marxists argue that while capitalism is still of central importance, it is highly influenced by culture (media and education). **3 Radical Criminology -- the power of the media in creating scapegoats** Radical criminology is a form of Neo-Marxism which combines **Marxists views with interactionism**. **Hall et al.** and their study called '**Policing the Crisis'** argue that there was a 'moral panic' about crime and mugging in particular -- a crime associated with black youth. Newspapers ran headlines which suggested that young black men were dangerous as they were spearheading a crime wave in mugging -- street theft. This media reporting alerted the public to a new 'problem' and concern grew for public safety; the public demanded more police on the streets to defend them. However, Hall suggests that there is no evidence to indicate that the crime of mugging was new or increasing, rather it served a purpose to **draw attention away from economic problems** - industrial and social unrest (strikes). See the Youth Subcultures pack for more details and evaluation. A focus on the media and moral panics makes this perspective interactionist and when combined with Marxists views we can see why it's called Radical Criminology. **4 Chambliss -- capitalist societies are criminogenic** Chambliss argues that capitalism promotes values that are likely to lead to crime. For example, values such as individualism and competition may lead people to steal from each other; consumerist desires may lead people to shop lift; basing status on money may lead people to commit fraud; being oppressed and exploited may lead people to public disorder or violence; the way capitalism generates division between the workers may lead to hate crimes. Chambliss calls this set of values 'criminogenic' which means that regardless of our social class we are all socialized into wanting more and therefore everyone -- rich or poor -- is more likely to commit crime. He says the very nature of capitalism leads to crime.