Social Justice

The poor of today are often wrongly judged and are seen as lacking moral values, further explained by the term 'underclass' meaning a group of people who do not deserve to escape poverty.

“The poor have little share enough of this world already; it would be barbarous indeed to deny them the common privileges and innocent enjoyments” (280).

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.

The purpose of this essay is to discuss whether a perspective of social harm is more advantageous and useful over that of crime. In order to explore these advantages, this essay will look at the aetiology of crime from a legal perspective; which is arguably very narrow and individualistic in nature. As well as from a perspective of social harm, which is possibly more progressive as it broadens an understanding of ‘crime’ over that of many other serious harms.

So rather than being criminals, in deserve of punishment, they are rather offenders in need of help and guidance who are not a danger to society as the previous statement by the Home Affairs Committee points out. This theory is called the social marginalisation theory which this assignment will discuss in greater detail later in this essay.

Along with their successors, the Reagan and Thatcher governments influenced American and British politics for the majority of the 1970s and 1980s. They both agreed for free-market economics and were disapproved with the ‘Great Society’. The political change created new variety of social policy commentators which included crime and justice. Individuals differed politically. Individuals who were on the right were supportive towards free-market criticisms on previous measures compared to those individuals whom were on the left who were critical of free-market economics and related political concepts. They were also critical of what they believed to be unhelpful (Newburn, 2009). In criminology, ‘realism’ is involved with the view that ‘crime’ is the outcome if known real-world causes. Realists are concerned with the forces that lead to crime perpetration instead of with how crime is defined. Right realists whom are inspired by James Q. Wilson (1985) argue that a lack of self-control is what causes crime. Individuals commit crime because they are rewarded with financial, material or emotional rewards. Left realists whom were inspired by Jock Young argue that interactions between social actors such as the police, the public, victims and offenders cause crime. In Young’s view, the effectiveness of policing is shaped by the link between the police and the public. The power of crime is formed by the link between the victim and the offender (O’Brien and Yar, 2008).

These particular areas tend to be inner-city, with a high population of ethnic minorities, poverty and crime (Lynn and Elliot, 2000) . Thus not only does the sample and the data it acquires become less representative of the population as a whole, it in turn over represents particular groups of people, and the types of crimes committed; which in turn gives across bias ideologies of criminal groups, criminal areas and the level of crime. As exemplified by Tony Blair who stated gun crime was a problem within the black community (Wintour and Dodd, 2007), these crime statics can give across an ideological bias of the relationship between a particular crime and a particular group. Arguably, higher levels of police are distributed in these areas which in turn creates a cyclical effect whereby ideological biases fuels higher levels of policing, which in turn increases levels of offending in statistics, as described by Sharp and Budd (2005), which consequently fuels the ideological biases as demonstrated by Tony Blair.

In this essay Reiman forces the reader to divert their focus from the supposedly evident goal of the criminal justice system, to eradicate crime, to what he points out to be the real motivation behind its structure. He argues that the systems policies construct and maintain the fabricated public fear that crimes are committed by the poor and disadvantaged, labelling them the “criminal class.” However, in order to achieve this, it is necessary for the system to imprison large portions of the lower class, making them criminals and they must ensure failure in lessening the crimes of the poor. In this way Reiman reasons that the poor are made to be perceived as a threat to society to avert the attention away from the rich who are the ones to be feared, which is how the upper class upholds their positon of power.

The cultural explanation looks at the social dysfunction and links it to the culture the minority is a part. It argues that poverty is based upon the behavioral and social inadequacies within impoverished societies (Wilson 4). This underlines the fact that poverty is an individual occurrence,

Chapter 1: social scientist have argued that issues of inequality, poverty and social exclusion cut across both social welfare and crime control domains, and noted that while some responses to these issues may become the focus of social welfare policies, others may become the focus of crime control interventions.

The term social justice is normally used when referring to the ideas of equality and providing equal opportunities to pupils within school, regardless of their background, history or circumstances. Views of social justice can change depending on who is discussing the topic.

Firstly, as businesses attempt to counter the losses, unemployment rises, and wages and employment contracts are downgraded to zero-hours contracts and other devalued terms; this in turn means more people require more welfare support (Blyth, 2013; Chang, 2014a; Chang, 2014b; Clark & Heath, 2015; Jones, 2014). Secondly, criminological and sociological theories, such as rational choice and strain theories, can provide understandings of how the above socio-economic outcomes are possible triggers for people committing crime (Agnew & Brezina, 2013; Rock, 2012; Walsh & Jorgensen, 2017). Moreover, Reiner (2010), suggests that the decline in Keynesian welfarist economic policies, destabilises society, and the inequalities experienced as a result, foster a perpetuating cycle of crime-control strategies, whereby “[g]rowing social divisions fuel rising crime, which in turn generates control strategies that accentuate social exclusion” (p. 257). Thirdly, the changes and rises in crime within harsh economic contexts, from people with either little or ‘nothing-to-lose’ attitudes, ultimately impacts upon the police and their resources (Lammy, 2011; Williams, 2011). The cuts to PO numbers adds to the police services’ struggle to cope (Brogden & Ellison,

Social justice is widely supported by the idea of equality. Equality is defined as treating individuals fairly and equally, no matter their race, needs, beliefs, or age (The University of Edinburgh, 2015). When incorporating equality, this should remove discrimination in all aspects as mentioned above (The University of Edinburgh, 2015).

Social class and crime and punishment has always been an issue in the UK if not globally. For the elite, the criminal justice system serves a purpose to deter and prevent crime, but the reality is that the poor are punished for crimes they commit more so than those of a upper class who commit the same crime. The question is who is to blame for this image of the poor being criminals and the working class crime phenomenon, is it the moral Panic created by the media to distract from the reality of the white collar corporate crime being carried out by the most powerful of society or is it down to Poverty, Labelling, economic and social positioning which all contribute to deviant behaviour. The aim of this essay is to provide a critical criminological view of the punishment of the poor with a wide range of theories and ideas to contribute to the understanding of the poor being punished from the 18th century to today 's contemporary society. It will aim to develop an understanding how criminals and deviant behaviour were defined and perceived from historical periods to now.

The effects of poverty upon crime and disorder are by no means a new idea however the inequalities between ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ have grown considerably since the 1970’s with the rise of consumer capitalism and neo liberal politics ( Hall et al 2008). The policies of Margaret Thatcher and her Conservative government such as having a small state, the privatisation and closure of industry in Britain and de-politicizing the trade unions forever changed the cultural landscape of working class Britain (Hall 1997). There was a huge change in the employment market from the heavy industrial economy to the service industry. Those who were unwilling or unable to change and meet the demands of this new service industry were left unemployed and no longer had a political voice in the form of a trade union (Hall 1997). Thatcher and other neo liberal commentators stated that high unemployment