Outline and Evaluate Marxist Theories on Crime

In his first chapter, Erikson gives regard to a foremost leader in sociology; Emile Durkheim. As he notes, crime is really a natural kind of social activity. If crime is a natural part of

Crime is often described as socially constructed, which influences our understanding of who commits a crime. Firstly, labelling theorists argue that crime is a social construction based on the powerful’s reaction to certain behaviour, those who are deviant are people that have been labelled as such. Marxists claim the bourgeoise construct crime in order to criminalise the proletariat, get away with their own deviance and maintain their own dominance. Neo-marxists look at how moral panics create a social construction of crime and can criminalise certain groups. Finally, feminists, argue crime is constructed in a patriarchal way and that the criminal justice system is harsher to female offenders. Whereas others criticise these theories for

In their theories, Marxists say that certain types of crime are more likely to be punished compared to others. Street crimes (brawls, binge drinking, theft, muggings, social unrest and disorder) are more likely to be pursued than white collar crime (fraud, tax evasion, ‘insider training’ and even gambling and prostitution). This is because the capitalist governments who have run the country are sympathetic to those who are of the same belief and class, but have just got carried away with their search for wealth. In this society of greed, the working class have to turn to crime just to stay alive and to obtain the materialistic goods or lifestyle, which is typical to a capitalistic state, and that general standard of living and attitude to life, is enforced on them, when living in this type of society. Money and personal gain, and the ‘every man for himself’ attitude is what life is like in an unfair, and socially unequal way of life under a capitalist government.

In comparison Merton’s theory put forward a entirely different rationalisation of the causes of crime, and juxtaposing major ideals about who commits these crimes, Marxists points out that absence of egalitarianism of opportunity is at the centre of the capitalist system and Merton contends that not all individuals who lack genuine opportunities look to crime to do so. (Eglin and Hester, 2013).

This essay is going to discuss the causes of crime and evaluate the theories of criminalisation using one theory for each of the following themes. The themes are labelling and deviant identity of criminalisation, theory of delinquency and criminalisation, theory of political economy and criminalisation, and finally radical theory of criminalisation. This essay will also show some of the weaknesses of each of the theories used for these themes.

In opposition to all previous perspectives is Marxism. These theorists claim that humans are social beings and are products of their own history. As a result, it does not resolve conflicting approaches, but suggests crime is a justifiable adaptive behaviour for some groups that have been criminalised by more powerful societal members. This entails the problem of specificity, where it focuses on the whole society instead of on individuals or groups. Comparing the paradigm of human nature to Feeley and Simons’ (1992) New Penology, the notion

The proletariats work large amounts of hours for the bourgeoisie for minimal wages and are therefore the subject class. The conflict strain is due to the friction of the working class’s needs for more wages and the ruling class’s exploitation and deprivation of the working class’s rights. Functionalists agree that social classes exist but would argue that these are to create balance and create a social role for everyone. Both Functionalism and Marxism are structural perspectives and see crime as coming from the nature of society rather than from the individual. But where functionalists see crime as coming from a breach of the shared values of society, Marxists see it as a breaking of the rules imposed by a ruling minority. For functionalists laws are created from shared values. For Marxists these laws are not created out of a consensus but by a minority to benefit that minority.

Marxist Theory and Crime and Punishment Throughout human history countless philosophers have risen with what they thought to be the best form of government for society as a whole.  Karl Marx may be the most influential philosopher in Russian history.  According to The Free Dictionary, Marxism is the concept that “class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society”.  With this theory, Marx had a great impact on Russian literature; specifically,  Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment.  According the the Marxist theory, one would interpret Crime and Punishment as a perfect example to

‘Using material from item A and elsewhere, assess the usefulness of Marxist approach to an understanding of crime and deviance’ (21 marks)

Within this essay there will be a clear understanding of the contrast and comparison between left and right realism, supported by accurate evidence that will support and differentiate the two wings of realism.

New deviancy theory emerged in the 1960s and early 1970s. It was primarily a radical response to positivist domination of criminology (that crime is the result of individual, physical, and social conditions).

Crime as a social construction is the idea that reality is created in our minds. What we perceive something to be ends up to be what it is. Crime, often described as deviance is a labelled behaviour. If one does not view an action as deviant at the time then it is not deviant, this shows us how deviance is a relative concept. In terms of how different people perceive crime, depending on what religious or ethnic backgrounds one may come from, there is heavy variation between individuals. What is illegal or legal in one culture can be very different in another culture. It can

Throughout the years, the association between a criminal offense and a criminal have become more relevant. Although there are many theories that try to illustrate the concept of why crimes happen, no theory has a profound influence of understanding an individual’s nature, relationship, development, and a society itself (Coleman & Ganong, 2014). To further explain, “theories of crime are defined in relation to modernity, spanning their development from the enlightenment to the present, with the advent of postmodernism” (Miller, 2012, p. 1798). In other words, theories of crime are an approach to understanding an individuals behaviour and actions in their environment, society, and themselves that may lead to crime. Nevertheless, within this paper, it will be comparing the case of

The Marxist's perspective is dominantly based on economic factors and over emphasizes them; money is assumed to be everything within society and social life. In my view, something is clearly missing here such as values and other social factors. Assuming that money is everything within society leads to assumptions that those owning the productive and therefore economic resources are given the power and use it to control those without to maintain their hegemony. Further factors that can form and shape society like gender, ethnicity, age, culture etc. are not taken into consideration and neglected. Hence the Marxist perspective focuses on having versus not having, earning versus not earning and powerful versus powerless.

Crime and deviance are two terms that have a strong connection. The main relationship between them is that they are both socially constructed and they are not natural. A deviant is someone that is charecterized as a violator of the norm in the society the