When we view crime in the city, through the theme of dangerousness, some types of crime are focused upon, while others are pushed into the background. The media and the public tend to concentrate on street crime; mugging or burglary, which is ‘visible’. In contrast, white collar or corporate crimes, such as fraud are ‘invisible’, even though they are a prominent characteristic of the city. As Box points out, ‘For too long too many people have been socialized to see crime and criminals through the eyes of the state,’ (Box, 1983, p281).
There is a vast diversity in sites and types of criminal activity; ranging from inner city ‘slum’ areas to the boardroom and from drug use to fraud. It is the above
Page 2
PI: T6562434
mentioned dominant groups within society, who are authorized to deem a particular activity criminal or a site to be prone to these activities. Alongside this, they are also of a status where they can pass laws that safeguard ‘their own’. People in power not only have the ability to criminalize, they are also in a prime position to ‘hide’ their crimes. The politically powerful can hide their offences, such as illegal arms-dealing, from the public, through ‘directing’ the media towards other areas of crime, as discussed in a previous assignment. The economic influential groups can conceal their misdemeanours, like fraud, behind regulations and multifaceted business laws. However, it is not only at this level of society that power exists; within the home there are micro relations of power; between partners and among the adults and children. These power relations can result in domestic violence crimes and child abuse never being discussed, reported to the police or punished by the law. The above examples imply that dominant conceptions of crime, especially those that repeatedly appeal to the media, are blurred by which crime is publicly detectable. It is telling, that until recently, domestic violence and corporate crime featured in few court cases.
‘Dangerousness’ is not only a feature of city life; it also features within the home. A fact which has only recently been acknowledged and discussed, as public and political disquiet has lay elsewhere. Previously, ‘the family’ has been thought of as a private and secure sanctuary, where no state intervention was required, as stated by Blagg and Smith (1989), ‘…an image of a settled, harmonious, wholesome and orderly unit…without needing interference of the state and its army of functionaries to prop it up,’ (Blagg and Smith, 1989, p23). Unfortunately, this is not the case for many families and it was not until the end of the nineteenth Century and latter part of the twentieth Century that community anxieties arose. Before these times, there was an unmistakable division between public and private; an assault on the street was criminalized, but within a family, it was not.
The feminist movement played a key role in bringing domestic violence to the forefront of public thought; prior to this, people did not wish to think of crime taking place within the home, as this challenged the image of the ‘ideal’ family. As Segal (1990) points out, ‘…it is startling to realize that rape and men’s violence towards women became a serious social and political issue only through feminist attention to them’, (Segal, 1990, p211). How are these types of crime defined, because if we take the ‘normal’ family discourse, some violence is seen as commonplace, whereas a welfare discourse would class it as abuse, rather than violence. Feminists were particularly critical of this view, as by dismissing family violence as ‘family problems’, the power relations of age and gender are neglected. There are many contested and complex theories on this matter, thus, it is impossible to give a clear cut definition regarding what constitutes as ‘crime within the home’..
In contrast, the feminist discourse view domestic violence and child abuse as exploitation and manipulation of power. Mirlees-Black stated, ‘victims of domestic violence may not define their experiences as crimes,’ (Mirlees-Black et al., 1998 p6). This is one of the reasons it is so difficult to obtain a true picture of these types of crime, as many see the violence as the ‘norm’. In 1999, statistics from the Home Office, showed that a quarter of violent crime occurred within the home, (Home Office and Cabinet Office Women’s Unit, 1999, Chapter 1, p2), but this is probably much higher due to the concealed environment of the family. Also, close relationships between household members make it difficult for victims to come forward. Sufferers
Page 3
PI: T6562434
may blame themselves or be too frightened to speak out, through fear of retaliation or not being believed; it may be that they are financially dependent on the perpetrator. All of these notions could prevent crimes within the home being reported to the police and consequently make it extremely difficult to gain accurate statistics regarding the level and number of these crimes. Even though surveys may produce more truthful figures, if the correct questions are not asked, we are again left with clouded information. According to Painter (1991), the figures of rape within marriage are much higher than sexual assaults ‘on the street’. The feminist discourse sees a connection between crimes within the home and how masculinities are formed. Men within the family are predominantly seen as the powerful members, with women being submissive. As Gordon explains, masculinity refers to, ‘The basis of wife beating is male dominance – not superior physical strength or violent temperament…but social economic, political and psychological power…’, (Gordon, 1989, p251).
Domestic violence and child abuse is often seen as only affecting the ‘dangerous classes’, only occurring in a minority of ‘dysfunctional’ families; blaming it on the stress of being unemployed leading to alcohol abuse or the woman provoking the situation. This view takes the spotlight away from the more powerful members of society (middle/upper classes), who may be just as likely to be harbouring crime within the home.
We have seen how the powerful are able to manipulate what is portrayed in the media; the media are willing to comply as their focus is on subjects that will tantalize readers and it is them that play a significant role in our perception of crime and disorder. The public are more ‘comfortable’ with hearing about street crime and violence, than crimes within the home and they cannot visualize corporate crime, so perhaps think that it will not affect them. If crimes of the powerful cannot be seen, does this mean they are less ‘real’ or serious? In actual fact, it is the opposite that is true, as they gain more power and are more dangerous by not being clearly viewed. We have also seen how, through the theme of dangerousness, certain sites of crime are focused upon, while others which are as, if not more, serious, are pushed into the background. Similarly, people that are conceived to be from ‘the dangerous classes’, through misguided preconceptions, are seen to be more prone to criminal activity, than the members of the more powerful groups within society.
Due to the media’s chief representation of violent crime and delinquency, crimes of the powerful are less obvious. Box summarizes this well, ‘ Maybe what is stuffed into our consciousness as the crime problem is in fact an illusion, a trick to deflect our attention away from other, even more serious crimes and victimizing behaviours, which objectively cause the vast bulk of avoidable death, injury and deprivation,’ (Box, Criminological Perspectives, p272-273). Examples of Box’s mystification can be seen by recent events that have occurred, such as, the Clapham Rail disaster or the sinking of the Marchioness boat. By the powerful not taking responsibility, the blame falls on to the powerless employees. Even though these incidents resulted in death, neither was believed to be real crimes. Box puts the reason behind this down to ‘ideological mystification’; low visibility of private working areas, results in negligence being pushed out of the public’s vision.
Corporate crime is also conveniently well hidden from public view; through its complexity, criminal activities are hard to trace and haphazard regulations make it
Page 4
PI: T6562434
even easier for offences to go unnoticed. Combined with the ever increasing world of new technology, makes this task of uncovering offences almost impossible.
However, although previously concealed, crimes within the home have now come much further to the forefront and have become recognised as such, mainly due to feminists disputing thoughts of the family being a private site; they have made domestic violence and child abuse visible and established them as criminal acts. That is not to say that these offences are easily defined, as they are not and the law has some way to go, before all criminals within the home are brought to justice.
Word Count : 1906
References:
Blagg, H. and Smith, D. (1989) Crime, Penal Policy and Social Work, Harlow, Longman.
Box, S. (1983) ‘Crime, Power and Ideological Mystification’, in McLaughlin, E., Muncie, J., Hughes, G. (eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd edn (2003), Sage, London. In association with the Open University.
Gordon, L,. (1989) Heroes Of Their Own Lives: The Politics and History of Family Violence 1880-1960, London, Virago.
Home Office and Cabinet Office Women’s Unit (1999) Living Without Fear: An Intergrated Approach to Tackling Violence Against Women.
Mirlees-Back, C., Budd, T. Partridge, S. and Mayhew, P. (1998) The 1998 British Crime Survey (England and Wales), Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 21/98.
Murray, C. (1990) ‘Crime, Power and Ideological Mystification’, in McLaughlin, E., Muncie, J., Hughes, G. (eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd edn (2003), Sage, London. In association with the Open University.
Segal, L. (1990) Explaining Male Violence, in McLaughlin, E., Muncie, J., Hughes, G. (eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd edn (2003), Sage, London. In association with the Open University.
Tappan, P.W. (1947) ‘Who is the criminal?’, American Sociological Review, vol.12, pp.96-102.
