America Creates Criminal Law Out Of Social Conflict

The conflict model is named appropriately as it directly conflicts with the consensus model. “Those who reject the consensus model do so on the ground that moral attitudes are not absolute. [sic] “In large democratic societies such as the United States, different segments of society will inevitably have different value systems and shared norms” (p.6). The conflict model basis its stance on social class, income, age, and race. This model cites that those who exist separately within each aforementioned category are fighting for control against the other. The only similarity of the consensus and conflict models is that in the consensus model, those who consider themselves of moral value and the norm in society are also considered so in the conflict model; making the decisions in criminal laws because these attributes make them superior. The above comparison can result in an integrated definition of crime. The basics of crime or criminal action are:

Furthermore, Cloward and Ohlin combine Merton and Cohen’s theories by stating that there is a legitimate opportunity such as passing exams and getting a job, and an illegitimate opportunity, such as gangs. They believe that the working class have easier access to the illegitimate structure meaning that it is easier for them to commit more crimes and so face more pressure to do so. Cloward and Ohlin claim that there are 3 types of subcultures: criminal subculture in which people climb the professional criminal hierarchy, conflict subculture in which there is little/no social cohesion and retreatest subcultures in which people fail in both the legitimate and illegitimate opportunity and retreat to things such as alcohol and drugs. This is useful when looking at explanations of crime as it highlights the

Three models portraying our criminal justice system are the Wedding Cake Model, Criminalization Model, and the President’s Commission Model. The Wedding Cake Model “emphasizes that the system handles different kinds of cases differently; it depicts four layers or tiers of cases”. While the Wedding Model offers an accurate typology of cases processed through the system, its primary focus is on the decisions of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. There is a glimpse the role of power and status in such decisions, but the factors of race, class, and gender are not explicit. But, this model does not address the lawmaking process and the social inequalities in the economic and political systems in which laws are forged. Now the second model, the Criminalization model explores the role of social class in the criminal justice system. It shows that the system is used to control certain groups of people by criminalizing their behaviors and targeting them for arrest and incarceration. The third model, the President’s Commission Model provides the most famous portrayal of the criminal justice system by summarizing the stages of the system. In comparison, the Wedding Cake Model and the Criminalization Model are similar because they both show the recognition of power and status in the criminal justice system. These two models are the opposite of the President’s Commission Model due to the fact that this model does not show the roles played by race, gender, and social class at the

The Conflict model, sometimes called the “system conflict theory” or non-system perspective, provides another approach to the study of Criminology and Criminal Justice. The studies of this model, focuses on the social inequalities of different groups. Criminologists believe that society and social order are based on the powerful and dominant groups. This model argues that all of the social components are designed to serve their own interests and that justice is a product of conflict, rather than cooperation. Meaning that the criminal justice system is expected to compete between each other in order to make justice in society, and that this is the most accurate way to deal with crime.

1) Conflict theory.- stress that the power elite uses the legal system to control worker and to stabilize the social order, all with the goal of keeping itself in power. The poor pose a threat, for if they rebel as a group they can dislodge members of the power elite from their place of privilege. To prevent this, the power elite makes certain that heavy penalties come down on those who’s crimes could upset the social order.

The well-to-do generally come from upper-class families - meaning that they face none of the disadvantages of an absent-parent upbringing - and have no need to rob convenience stores to feed their children, so they bypass petty crime and move on to what is known as white-collar crime; financially motivated nonviolent crime committed by business and government professionals. “The temptation to commit white collar crimes is far greater for the wealthy” says Sal Bommarito of the Mic Network. Petty crime offers no worthwhile reward to the 1%, as the money earned from a late-night robbery would likely end up being spent on their breakfast the next morning, but the hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be made from corporate embezzlement could be the down payment on the new Ferrari they’d been eyeing. The lack of street crime but over-saturation of white-collar crime committed by the upper-class is ultimately just as, if not more, harmful on a global scale. Canada alone lost $74,387,465.23 in 2014 due to mass marketing fraud, a crime generally committed by white-collar criminals. In contrast, there were 14, 258 reported thefts of $5000 or more perpetrated in Canada in the same year, resulting in an approximate loss of $71, 290,000, undercutting mass marketing fraud by $3,097,465.23. The difference lays in the types of crimes being committed; the poor are more likely to commit street crime whilst the rich are ultimately more likely to commit fraudulent corporate

7) In criminological theories, we saw how police activity is largely geared towards minor visible crimes committed by individuals from the lower stratums of society as oppose to “white collar crimes” committed by those of higher stratums (Dubé, CRM 3701, 2011). Abolitionists argue that by severely punishing some of the poor in order to deter society from committing crimes; we are only further contributing to the inequalities in today’s society.

Marxist and neo-Marxist approaches and explanations of crime are arguably some of the most controversial, for the reason that they state that it is the ruling class that is responsible for criminalising the working classes, which goes directly against what official statistics and Functionalists believe. However, Marxism and Functionalism do share a similarity in that both believe structures and institutions of society play a very important role in determining how people behave, criminally or otherwise.

The laws against higher status crime, the White Collar crime, are therefore relatively lenient and rarely enforced, but the laws against crime which is committed by those with a lower status, are harsher and more often enforced because they are so visible and detected much more easily. The activities of White Collar crime occur on a daily basis, but there is no public outcry or moral panics about it and therefore no legislation made, whereas, 'street' crime attracts massive law enforcement. As Jeffrey Reiman (2001) so aptly stated, "The rich get richer and the poor get prison".

When it comes to talking about crime and the different treatment of white-collar and blue-collar crime, there are three different perspectives. The first perspective is the functionalist perspective. The view of functionalism is defined as “Functionalism interprets each part of society in terms of how it contributes to the stability of the whole society. Society is more than the sum of its parts; rather, each part of society is functional for the stability of the whole society.” (Crossman, 2014). Essentially, functionalists believe that society is like the Star Wars’ Force, and everything that happens in society works to bring balance to the Force. The second perspective is symbolic interaction. This theory is described as “Symbolic interaction theory analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings that people impose on objects, events, and behaviors.” (Crossman, 2015). Basically, these types of people believe that society is constructed on human interpretation. Finally, the third type of perspective is conflict theory. Crossman writes in her article, “Conflict theory states that tensions and conflicts arise when resources, status, and power are unevenly distributed between groups in society, and that these conflicts become the engine for social change.” (Crossman, 2016). They believe that when power is unbalanced, it will become controlled by those in higher classes, and dominate those in lower classes through different parts of society.

Class is defined as “the system of ordering a society in which people are divided into sets based on perceived social or economic status” (Oxford Dictionary). Most people commit crimes based on what their status in life is. If a person is poor, they are more likely to steal food, and other material possessions. If a person is rich, they are more likely to commit white-collar crimes, such as fraud. Variances in socioeconomic status, such as the disparities in the distribution of wealth, income, and access to resources, mitigate social problems. Lower socioeconomic status, and the things that are influenced by it such as low education levels, and poverty, affect many parts of our society (APA). All of these factors, have been shown to be more prevalent in prisons, and thus affect the prosecution phase of the judicial system. In this paper, I will analyze how class, both social and economic, has an effect on sentencing, and the trying of a person accused of a crime.

Crime and criminalization are dependent on social inequality Social inequality there are four major forms of inequality, class gender race and age, all of which influence crime. In looking at social classes and relationship to crime, studies have shown that citizens of the lower class are more likely to commit crimes of property and violence than upper-class citizens: who generally commit political and economic crimes. In 2007 the National Crime Victimization Survey showed that families with an income of $15000 or less had a greater chance of being victimized; recalling that lower classes commit a majority of those crimes. We can conclude that crime generally happens within classes.

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.

White collar crime is a serious issue in the United States. White-collar crime is “a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” (cornell.edu). Examples of such offenses include bribery, credit card fraud, insurance fraud, bank fraud, blackmail, extortion, forgery, securities fraud, tax evasion, embezzlement, repair scams, Ponzi and pyramid schemes. These non-violent crimes are responsible for an estimated $250 billion to $1 trillion in economic damages each year (Martinez). Individuals who commit white collar crimes have an increased likelihood to experience injustice compared to those who commit a street crime as noted in multiple studies detailed in various scholarly articles. Also, street criminals have a greater chance of getting caught in their wrongdoings versus white-collar criminals. Those who commit white collar crime make their decisions based on the philosophy or idea that their actions have low risk and a high reward. We face a dilemma in the United States because white-collar criminals are treated with minimal, inequitable punishment due to their social status, whereas the street criminals are treated with the correct, impartial punishment.

White Collar Crime by Edwin Sutherland, published in 1949, is a study in the theory of criminal behaviour. Sutherland states that this book is an attempt to reform the theory of criminal behaviour only, not to reform anything else. And although it may include implications for social reforms, this is not the objective of the book. Sutherland define white collar crime as ‘a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation’ (pp. 9). He adds that it excludes many crimes of the upper class, such as murder, intoxication, and adultery, because these are not usually part of their occupational procedures. He goes on to describe white collar crime as being similar to juvenile delinquency in the sense of the stigma generated from each crime. In both of these crimes the procedures of criminal law are altered so as not to attach stigma to the offenders. Finally, Sutherland writes that crimes are committed across all social classes, not just people in lower classes or living in poverty, contrary to popular belief at the time of publication.