A Critical Evaluation of The Issue of Taking an Item from Work

The Neo-Marxist “new criminology” developed in the early 1970’s is also key to understanding how Marxists explain crime. Taylor, Walton and Young’s work maintained that crime was best understood in the context of capitalism and the inequalities it creates. One way that the neo-Marxists slightly differ with the traditional Marxist theories is that it says there is more freedom of choice that people have when choosing to commit crime and people are not just puppets of the economy. Here it could be said that the Neo-Marxists are taking interactionist theories on board and are moving away from the structuralist theories of traditional Marxism and Functionalism. With their book “The New Criminology” Taylor et al. attempted to come up with a fully social theory of deviance and looked into the importance of the labelling of certain groups within society as being criminal, in their case it was black working class men being labelled as criminal and dangerous by the law and order systems as well as the media. The book analyses the crisis faced by British capitalism during the recession of the 1970’s and the resulting threat to the authority of the state. It argues that the state responded to this crisis by mounting a law and order campaign which lead to a moral panic over mugging. As a result, black youth became increasingly

Orthodox criminology refers to the how criminologists accept the states ideas of crime without thinking of power relations. This thinking is shared by everyone and becomes a universal idea and these ideas are in the interests of everyone. However, certain groups of individuals are targeted and blamed for crimes based on their class, race, gender, sexuality and more. The theory of Critical criminology as defined in Primer in Radical Criminology is defined as “a way of doing criminology that frames the problem of crime in terms of the sociological forces of class, race, gender, culture, and history.”(1) In other words it focuses on challenging the state on their traditional, “normal” views of crime by looking at other factors. Three differences between critical and orthodox criminologists are the following. The first difference is that critical criminologists seek to find the root of what is behind the crime problem. (14) Rather than saying that the homicide was committed because he was an African American male who is poor (orthodox criminology), critical criminologists look at a deeper sociological explanation, like the community he grew up in has high rates for violence. A second difference is that radical criminologists understand that there is no fixed definition of crime and that there is more than one

Realists see crime as a real problem that is increasing and that it is not just something that has been created and labelled by crime control agencies. Left realism will first be looked at in terms of what it believes causes crime and then at how this has been developed into the theory of the square of crime. Left realist ideology will then be critically analysed, pointing out both positives and negatives in its theories for causes of crime, solutions to crime and the methodology it uses to research its beliefs. The cause of crime will then be looked at from a right realist point of view, examining the theories for criminality and more importantly for right realists, what could be done to solve the rise in crime. Similar to left realism, right

Marxist criminology is just one of the criminological schools. It is very much centered on the work of structural functionalism criminologists and parallels it very closely on the focus of what produces ‘stability and continuity in society.’ However, it is different in the approach in the sense that it looks at a predestined ‘political philosophy.’ Marxists focus on why things change and are quick to identify what disrupts life in industrialized nations. They describe how society is divided up into slices and how slices of the pie include power, wealth, prestige, and the perceptions of the world.

Working Class Crime is Best Understood as the Product of the Social Background of the Offender

Criminal behavior and criminality has been a test of the understanding of human behavior (Stone, 2007). The grounds by which criminal behavior manifests has astounded a heap of researchers and drove many to break the constructs guarding offensive and violent behavior. The jurisdiction dictates criminality as a demonstration against the administration as to society dictates that this is a deviancy from the norms set forth by the populace. A criminal act transpires when there is a motive, a mean, and an opportunity. This process is supported by distinguished theories and studies which deemed that an individual is guided by rational choice and external factors to be able to ensue to a criminal act or criminal behavior. Criminal behaviors that lead offenders to recidivate are described as

Crime is the product of the social structure; it is embedded in the very fibres of society. In this essay, I aim to explore different theories as to why crime exists within society and how we as a society therefore construct it. Crime is a social construct; it is always in society and is on the increase. It is inevitable. Where does it come from? It comes from legislation, from the making of laws.

In this essay, I am going to discuss critical criminology. Within this I am going to be discussing the difference in the implementation of the criminal law and whether it is due to the difference to the social position of the two types of offenders, for example white collar crimes. These types of crimes are orientated to legitimate and respectable careers. Therefore, when looking at this quote, I will use the themes that are apparent and consider how critical criminology deals with these themes. I will be looking further into this quote and finding out what critical criminology is and about white collar crimes.

The essay as follows will discuss the question ‘Critically evaluate which criminological theories link with the explanations given by the author for their criminality in the account you have read. Your answer must make reference to specific criminological theories/theorists’. There will be an explanation of all key terms to simplify the meaning of the question. The book that will be critically discussed is Slave girl by Sarah Forsyth, an offender but also looked upon as a victim who suffered sexual abuse from her father, care workers and then onto the men who trafficked her into Amsterdam to work in the sex industry as a prostitute. The essay will determine what criminological theories and theorists link to the explanations given by the

Social conflict theory is the only one out of the vast number of criminology theories that deals directly with this problem. From out of it’s Marxist roots arose a theory which challenges the way in which today’s society views it’s legal system and the implications it has on it’s working class citizens. The nature and purpose of social conflict theories is to examine the social controls made by the ruling class and imposed on the rest of society.

Akers & Sellers (2013) noted that there are various common theories that are pertinent to the study of crime as the extents of crime explanations range from the genetic/biological through to the economic and social perspective. Howitt (2012) divided these theories into four categories: macro-level or societal theories; locality or community level theories; group and socialisation influence theories; and individual level theories. This essay first describes the major theories of crime in the discussion section, which also discusses the impacts of crime at the individual and societal level, followed by conclusion based on the previous discussion.

 Many offenders  get caught in the get rich quick scheme, It is also important to understand that most of habitual offenders have about 70% rate of reoffending. As stated by many researchers, crime is a product of social dysfunction; This best fits the Social disorganization theory. In which a detracting economic culture could possibly fuel the need for one to constantly commit crime to meet the their own endeavors, in

Crime in the light of critical criminology is an obvious outcome of disparities established in a system. Capitalist economic policies result in economic misery among powerless class in society and certain conditions are created in which adapting the criminal behaviors become the only possible survival strategy. Critical criminology follows the Marxist approach in stating that criminal laws are based on the interests of

Left realism sees crime as a real problem for ordinary people and explains it through analysis, social and economic relationships, and how some groups become marginalised. In one regard, the left realists do share some degree of agreement with the radical theorists in that it is common ground that crime is a reaction to an unjust society (Lea and Young, 1984:45). emergence as a means of explaining its main principles in respect of how the left realists see the causes of crime and its prevention methods. It will also identify its criminological perspectives with which it conflicts with other theories like right realism and the theory of anomie.

What makes people want to commit crimes? Are criminals any different than us? Does committing a crime mean there is something wrong with you, such as a psychological problem? Do all criminals have the same kind of personality? Is a criminal born or made? Questions like this and many more will be elaborated on throughout this paper.