Critical Criminology, as a specific theoretical approach to explaining, understanding and controlling crime is not as clearly defined as one might initially wish when it is called on one to assess its contribution to criminology.

Authors Avatar

Critical Criminology, as a specific theoretical approach to explaining, understanding and controlling crime is not as clearly defined as one might initially wish when it is called on one to assess its contribution to criminology. It is not, however, certainly not an ambiguous term. The only root of the problems with the precise definition of its constitution lie in the fact that it has so many overlaps (and contrasts) with differing Left, radical theories and, in essence is a term used to group together a large body of leftist criminological theory. This is expressed in Ronald L. Akers’s assertation that it encompasses various “radical standpoints”(Akers, 1999; 176). John Tierney adopted a much more deterministic approach to his presentation of leftist criminological theory and attempted to, insofar as possible, polarise Critical “ Left idealist” criminology with “left realism”, respectively reflecting the two most dominant strands of left criminological theorisation over the past 20 years. (Tierney, 1996; 283-4) At any rate, critical criminology is essentially a left-wing idealist and anti-logocentric approach to criminology, drawing its central body of thought from Marxism and attempting a severe critique of mainstream criminology, often making claims which almost entirely negate the fundamental foundations of criminology as we know it. (Akers, 1996; 176-7) In this essay, I plan on examining critical criminology as well as its fundamental ideas as well As investigating to what extent it has brought dynamic change to explaining crime and suggesting effective crime control practices.

Tierney explains that radical criminology essentially has become divided into two strands - critical criminology and left realism. Critical Criminologists are concerned with examining crime, criminology and their “construction” as features of a society’s infrastructure at a political and ideological level. (Tierney, 287) They are interested in how particular crimes are not inherently “wrong” or “bad” and at how some crimes, which are deemed atrocious and worthy of great disciplinary action, are focused on through mechanisms of popular discourse while other (just as serious) crimes are ignored both by the criminal justice system and by the popular discourse surrounding crime (Tierney, 1996).

Join now!

Indeed the “discursive formation” of crime is a focus of critical criminology. Henry and Milovanovic are critical theorists who have synthesised into their works concepts deriving from various strands of sociological theory (including post-structuralism). They propose that crime is discourse, that is through popular conceptualisation and discussion on crime as well as through “the discursive practices” of criminologists and of the legal and judicial systems. (Akers, 1999) In other words what constitutes crime is not an objective truth but rather a social construct, an artifice of social discourse, the context of which is determined primarily by the ideological/ political state ...

This is a preview of the whole essay