EVALUATE THE MARXIST THEORY OF CRIME

Marxists recognise that for a society to function properly, social order is necessary. However, they consider that in all capitalist societies one class – the ruling class – gains far more in society than other classes. Marxist agree with the functionalist idea that socialisation plays a crucial part in promoting conformity and order. However, they highly criticise the ideas, values and social norms of capitalist society – ‘capitalist ideology’. Neo – Marxists argue that crime is a redistribution of wealth. They regard theft by the poor people from the rich people as a way of sharing the wealth in society. They believe this is a natural and political act.

Marxism states that the ruling class use the law and definitions of criminality as a means of control and oppression. From the Marxist viewpoint, the state passes laws which support and reflect the wishes and ideologies of the ruling class. Moreover, people have unequal access to the law. For example, having money to hire a good lawyer can mean the difference between being found guilty or not guilty. The law maintains the ruling class’s power, coerce and control of the proletariat. They say that laws are not an expression of value consensus and people committed crimes to go against false class consciousness since laws only benefit the ruling minority.

There are a number of Marxists who have put forward different theories of how the law benefits ruling class interests.

William Chambliss argues that the growth of capitalism has resulted in vast numbers of laws protecting the property interests of ruling class. Chambliss argues, ‘the heart of the capitalist system is the protection of private property, which is, by definition, the cornerstone upon which capitalistic economies function. It is not surprising, then, to find that criminal laws reflect this basic concern. Lauren Snider notes that capitalistic state is unwilling to pass laws, which regulate big business concerns, which may threaten profitability. She notes that capitalist states often use vast sums to attract investment from big corporations. They offer new investors cheap loans, grants build infrastructures to help capitalism and so on. Snider suggests having offered this the state is unwilling to enforce laws against pollution, workers health, and safety; or monopolies. The Bhopal chemical disaster provides a good example of how big capitalist corporations can be supported by the state. The multi-national company, Union Carbide leaked deadly gases into the atmosphere killing thousands. Investigations since have revealed that the company set up this particular plant because pollution controls in India were less rigid than in the USA. In Snider’s terms (1993), the Indian State supported such capitalist development in the interests of allowing profits to be made. Marxists would point out that there have been no criminal charges despite the high death and injury toll. They would see the company owners as the true criminals in this scenario.

Another Marxist sociologist Frank Pearce claimed that in reality, all law benefits society. He states that law is an instrument of the ruling class, used to maximise its profits, control its workforce and further its interests in general. He argues that many laws which appear to benefit only the subject class actually benefit the ruling class as well. Factory legislation protecting the health and safety of workers provides an example. Pearce writes, ‘The majority of the laws in Britain and America work in favour of the capitalists, yet many laws do also benefit the other social classes, not only because ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Marxist sociologists believe that that crime is widespread in all social classes. However, Laureen Snider argues that many of the most serious crimes committed in modern industrial companies are corporate crimes. Although these types of crime cost more in money and lives, street crime seems to be one mostly punished on. This is believed to be because of status and money and if you have both you can get away with such crimes. Again a good example where this can be seen is the Bhopal chemical disaster where thousands of lives were lost and yet no-one was responsible. The courts and jails seem to be filled with the poor and the powerless and prosecutions are normally used as a last resort, and it is most likely that small businesses go to court rather than bigger ones.

Some may argue that crime is a ‘natural product’ of society. Chambliss argues that the greed, self-interest and hostility generated by the capitalist system motivate many crimes at all levels within society. In a dog-eat-dog world, where competition is the order of the day, individuals must fend for themselves in order to survive. Marxism argues that there are four main reasons why individuals commit these crimes: 1) the economic infrastructure, is the major influence upon social relationships, beliefs and values. 2) Economic self-interest rather than public duty motivates behaviour. 3) Personal gain rather than public duty is encouraged. 4) Competitive capitalist system breeds aggression and hostility.

The Marxist viewpoint suggests that selective law enforcement has a number of consequences. The occasional prosecution of ruling class crime perpetuates the fiction that the law operates for the whole of society. They say that it diverts the attention away from capitalism and maintains ruling class ideology. David Gordon argues that the practice of law enforcement in the USA supports the capitalist system in three ways. Firstly, he claims that by selecting members of the subject class and punishing them as individuals, it protects the system which is primarily responsible for their criminal deviance. The system focuses on the individuals rather than the social institutions on the cause of social problems. Secondly, he states that the imprisonment of selected members of the subject class ‘legitimately’ neutralizes opposition to the system. Lastly, Gordon argues that the law defines criminals as enemies of the state, which provides a justification of incarcerating them in prison. This helps to cover up the extreme crimes committed by the capitalist system hidden from the rest of society.

However the Marxist perspective of crime and deviance can be widely criticised in many ways. Feminists argue that the Marxist theory ignores the role of the patriarchy in influencing the way the criminal justice system operates. Marxists have also been criticised for assuming that communism eradicates crime. Before communism ended in many eastern European countries, crime had not been eradicated. Some argue that not all capitalist countries produce high crime rates. Many other theorists believe that the Marxism is based on a simple approach on the Bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Other perspectives such as functionalism and subcultural theories largely differ from that of Marxism. Functionalist sociologists regard crime as a necessary and positive part of society. They believe that crime is inevitable and we can only all share the same collective sentiments to a certain extent. They argue that there will always be crime and deviance because in a society you can never have everybody exactly sharing the same values. A subculture is a group of people who share the same norms and values but different or maybe even opposite to mainstream society. Some subcultural theories are that people divide into subcultures of different due to reasons such as status frustration, focal concerns, local opportunity, techniques of neutralisation and so on.

Ultimately, Marxist is one competing theory among many which aims to offer and explanation for crime and deviance.