The Marxist view that the laws made by the state represent the interests of the ruling class is perhaps a little narrow as the vast majority of laws actually protect the lives of all members of society, not just the ruling classes. For example; laws against ‘breaking and entering’ protect all stratas in society. Marxist views also appear to be arguing that as laws are made to control and oppress working classes, all proletariat members without these laws would be criminals.
To further criticize the Marxist argument, it could be said that it places too much emphasis on class inequality and ignores ethnic and gender inequalities in relation to crime. From a Feminist point of view, Marxist theories ignore the role of patriarchy in influencing the way the criminal justice system operates. Marxist arguments also ignore the issues relating to racism in the enforcement of laws.
Marxists are effectively arguing that as capitalism causes crime, a communist state could eradicate it. However, previous communist regimes, for example the Soviet Union, have not successfully managed to eliminate crime as a vast amount of corruption and the like continued to take place. Furthermore; evidence shows that capitalism does not always produce high crime rates, as for example in Switzerland the crime rates are very low. It was also argued by Durkheim that crime is needed in order to maintain a normal and functioning society. He said crime should not be attempted to be eliminated completely, as society needs it in order to maintain acceptable limits.
Marxist arguments also place an endue amount of emphasis on corporate crime, as Left realists argue. Crimes such as burglary and other violent crimes cause much greater harm than Marxists imply. Victims of crime are completely ignored in the Marxist analysis of crime; the harm done by offenders is not taken into account, and as victims are often drawn from less well-off sections of society, the consequences of these crimes can perhaps be more devastating than if a person from higher social strata was targeted. Marxists offer a very one sided view of crime, as the focus on corporate crime is based largely on economics, and ignores the social side of crime. Marxist criminology offers no view on the types of crimes which are of most concern to the majority of the population.
The ‘full social theory of deviance’, put forward by Taylor, Walton and Young argues that rather than just focussing on structural reasons; individual motivation should also be considered. Taylor, Walton and Young noted that some theorists give an incomplete or one-sided explanation of crime; a complete theory needs to examine individual motivation as well as the way society is organised. After identifying seven aspects of crime which they believed should be looked at when considering causes of crime; they argued that a whole range of factors must be considered, rather than purely putting crime down to capitalism. However, they also argued that individuals choose to engage in deviant behaviour in response to the inequalities of the capitalist system. This part of their theory is arguably least valid, as this view cannot account for crime where there is no apparent financial motivation. For example in the case of attacks, a more valid argument would relate to biological or psychological reasons. In terms of non-utilitarian crime, interactionist theories such as labelling and subcultures are much more useful in understanding crime and deviance.
However, although as neo-Marxists these theorists still argued a cause of crime could be the economic system, they also took a more interactionist stance, by arguing the root of crime lies in material inequalities. By considering various factors that could lead to crime, this theory is much more valid than traditional Marxism when understanding deviance.
The sub-cultural theory is perhaps the most valid approach to understanding crime and deviance. Cohen argued that boys in the lower working classes often join together in delinquent subcultures, because they are frustrated with their status. This is perhaps more useful that the neo-Marxist argument that criminal activities are a response to capitalist inequalities. Cohen argued that these gangs reject middle-class norms and values and replace them with their own, of which celebrate and encourage defiance and delinquency.
Labelling theorists interpret deviance as a process of interaction between deviants and non-deviants. For example minor acts of childhood deviance may be regarded as harmless in an affluent area, but in less affluent areas they might be seen as evidence of tendencies towards teenage anti-social behaviour. Once a child is labelled a delinquent, they may consequently be considered untrustworthy by teachers and prospective employers. Howard Becker argued ‘deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label.’ He also said that a person’s dress, manner of speech or ethnicity could be the key factors that determine whether or not the deviant label is applied.
The Marxist perspective on crime is useful to the extent of determining crime in economic terms. However, it places undue emphasis on corporate crime. It also argues that the state passes laws only to benefit the ruling classes, however, this theory neglects the fact that the majority of laws are made to protect the lives of the whole population. Crime covers a huge variety of forms of activity-from minor crimes such as petty theft, to mass murder. Due to this, it is difficult to produce a single theory that would account for all forms of crime.
