Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    BC0160031 Criminology Partb

    Uploaded by

    Ramanah V
    Conflict criminology views crime as resulting from conflicts between groups in society with differing levels of power. Powerful groups define criminal laws in a way that serves and protects their own interests, often criminalizing the behaviors of less powerful groups. Individuals and groups may engage in criminal acts as a way to gain access to resources they are denied or as a form of political action to increase their group's power. Crime can also result from conflicts between the norms of the dominant culture and subcultures. Law enforcement agencies themselves seek to maximize benefits and minimize costs, so they process crimes of the politically weak while often ignoring violations by the powerful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    BC0160031 Criminology Partb

    Uploaded by

    Ramanah V
    21 views3 pages
    Conflict criminology views crime as resulting from conflicts between groups in society with differing levels of power. Powerful groups define criminal laws in a way that serves and protects their own interests, often criminalizing the behaviors of less powerful groups. Individuals and groups may engage in criminal acts as a way to gain access to resources they are denied or as a form of political action to increase their group's power. Crime can also result from conflicts between the norms of the dominant culture and subcultures. Law enforcement agencies themselves seek to maximize benefits and minimize costs, so they process crimes of the politically weak while often ignoring violations by the powerful.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    BC0160031 CRIMINOLOGY PARTB

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Conflict criminology views crime as resulting from conflicts between groups in society with differing levels of power. Powerful groups define criminal laws in a way that serves and protects their own interests, often criminalizing the behaviors of less powerful groups. Individuals and groups may engage in criminal acts as a way to gain access to resources they are denied or as a form of political action to increase their group's power. Crime can also result from conflicts between the norms of the dominant culture and subcultures. Law enforcement agencies themselves seek to maximize benefits and minimize costs, so they process crimes of the politically weak while often ignoring violations by the powerful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    21 views3 pages

    BC0160031 Criminology Partb

    Uploaded by

    Ramanah V
    Conflict criminology views crime as resulting from conflicts between groups in society with differing levels of power. Powerful groups define criminal laws in a way that serves and protects their own interests, often criminalizing the behaviors of less powerful groups. Individuals and groups may engage in criminal acts as a way to gain access to resources they are denied or as a form of political action to increase their group's power. Crime can also result from conflicts between the norms of the dominant culture and subcultures. Law enforcement agencies themselves seek to maximize benefits and minimize costs, so they process crimes of the politically weak while often ignoring violations by the powerful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Conflict Theory Of Criminal Behaviour

    V.Ramanah,BC0160031
    Theories of crime causation and criminality have gone in and out of fashion, some being
    abandoned entirely and some being modified to explain more accurately more contemporary
    phenomena. Historically, however, criminological paradigms have evolved throughout human
    history, some having been discarded and many still having supporters and detractors. The
    earliest explanations were spiritual explanations, attributing crime and deviance to
    otherworldly explanations. God or the gods were believed to protect the innocent and reveal
    the guilty. While spiritual explanations have been dismissed as unscientific, natural
    explanations have a basis in scientific observation, and natural explanations for deviance have
    been applied throughout human history and continue to be to this day. Paradigms that view
    crime as an expression of free will, that view crimes as a result beyond the control of the
    individual, and that view crime as a function of the way laws are written and enforced are
    classified as natural explanations. Classical criminology views crime as behaviour the
    individual chooses to engage in. From this perspective humans are intelligent and rational and
    elect to engage in crime after weighting the costs and benefits of criminality. For the past
    century criminologists have most often viewed criminal behaviour not as something that is
    chosen, but as something that is caused by factors beyond the individual’s control.
    Contemporary theories, including some conflict criminological theories, view most crime as
    something that is caused by external factors. Conflict theory, and conflict criminology, trace
    back to Karl Marx. The early years of Marx’s career saw the industrialization and urbanization
    of many nations, as well as the general unrest in Europe culminating in the March revolution
    of 1848 in the German states. The revolution of 1848 was not successful, and many liberals
    (including Marx) were forced to flee or felt permanently exiled.
    While not specifically addressing criminal or deviant behaviour, Marx did study
    changes wrought in the laws of several countries during the Industrial Revolution. He noted
    that some nations enacted laws criminalizing certain traditional behaviours and ways of life
    that may have impeded the progress of industrialization, and anticipated the use of the law as
    a means to protect and further the interests of the capitalist class. In order to understand conflict
    criminology it is necessary to differentiate between the conflict and consensus perspectives on
    the social contract. The consensus perspective argues that society is organized to represent the
    interests of the majority of its members, and that it makes decisions and creates policies that
    are based on the will of the people and are designed to further the common good. Even though
    the consensus perspective acknowledges the presence of competing groups in any society,
    proponents of this perspective believe that the state mediates between competing interest
    groups, and that society reflects the norms and interests of most members.
    The conflict perspectives argues that the function of the state is not to mediate between
    the inevitable conflicting interest groups, but to represent the interests of and reflect the values
    of the group or groups that have sufficient power to control the state. While the consensus
    perspective considers agreement and harmony the glue that holds society together, the conflict
    perspective states that society is actually held together by a balance of “opposing group
    interests and efforts”.
    Conflict criminology encompasses two aspects of criminology: it seeks to explain the
    behaviour of the law, and it examines crime as a by-product of group and culture conflict. Law
    is a formal form of social control, differing from other types of social control in that its form
    and sanctions are determined and exercised by the state. The conflict perspective of the law
    acknowledges the existence of consensus; however, from the conflict perspective the behaviour
    of the law and the criminal justice system can best be explained as resulting from conflict
    between groups and an exercise of power. The most powerful group in society creates
    definitions of normalcy and deviance that are favorable to and serve to protect their interests..
    Individuals or groups may commit deviant or criminal acts as a means of acquiring goods and
    resources they have unequal access to. Groups and the individuals in them may also engage in
    crime as political action, designed to get their group more power, and to help the group
    reposition itself in a more powerful position within society. One of the earliest conflict theories
    was Thorsten Sellin’s culture conflict theory. Crime, for Sellin, was the result of conflicting
    conduct norms. Homogeneous societies are characterized by a high percentage of shared norms
    and values, and therefore a consensus model of the law is an accurate model. Culture conflict
    is a complex process, with both primary and secondary culture conflict contributing to crime
    and criminalization. Primary cultural conflicts are those that occur between two distinct
    cultures, and can occur in three ways:
    (i) as a result of colonization when the colonizer replaces the colonized groups’ norms
    with their own.
    (ii) at border areas, where divergent groups cross into each other’s territories (and
    normative structures).
    (iii) or as a result of migration, when members of an outside group enter into the
    dominant group’s territory.
    Secondary cultural conflict processes are virtually the same; however, it occurs through
    conflict between different subcultures, or between the dominant culture and one or more
    subcultures. The social interaction arising out of this process leads to social stability
    through the system of checks and balances arising out of continual group mobilization.
    Crime, from this perspective, is carried out not by individuals, but by groups for the good
    of the group; it may also be carried out by individuals acting under the auspices of the
    group. Richard Quinney first posited that crime was not necessarily ‘‘real,’’ but that it was
    socially created. The social reality of crime makes the following assumptions about crime:
    (i) crime is a definition of human conduct created by authorized agents in a
    politically organized society.
    (ii) criminal definitions describe behaviors in conflict with the interests of those
    with enough power to shape public policy.
    (iii) criminal definitions are applied by those in society that have the power to shape
    the enforcement and administration of criminal law.
    (iv) Behavior patterns are structured in relation to criminal definitions, and in this
    context persons engage in actions that have a probability of being defined as
    criminal.
    (v) conceptions of crime are constructed and spread throughout society by various
    means of communication.
    (vi) the social reality of crime is constructed by the formulation and application of
    criminal definitions, development of behavior patterns related to criminal
    definitions, and the constructions of criminal conceptions.
    Simply stated, power groups in society define what crime is, they usually define crime
    as behavior that conflicts with their interests, the same power groups have the ability to
    enforce their definition of crime, and the same power groups disseminate their
    definition of crime throughout society. Turk argues that social order will be maintained
    only when the authority group is able to find the right balance between consensus and
    coercion.
    The main points of this theory are:
    (i) law enforcement agencies are bureaucratic organizations;
    (ii) organizations and their members replace the official goals and norms of the
    organization with policies that will maximize rewards to and minimize the
    strains experienced by the organization;
    (iii) goal substitution can occur because there is little to no motivation for members
    of organizations to resist goal-substitution, and the nature of criminal law allows
    for considerable discretion by its agents;
    (iv) the agencies of law enforcement are dependent on political organizations of
    resources;
    (v) as a rational organization (which maximizes benefits and minimizes costs) law
    enforcement agencies will process the politically weak, and avoid processing
    the politically powerful;
    (vi) it is to be expected that a disproportionately high number of the weak will be
    processed by the police and courts, and it is to be expected that the violations of
    the powerful will be mostly ignored.
    Vold and Bernard developed a theory of crime and law incorporating elements of
    conflict theory and social learning theory, as well as drawing from Vold’s earlier work,
    Quinney, and Chambliss and Seidman.
    This theory includes the following propositions:
    (i) complex societies are composed of groups, each with different norms, values
    and interests.
    (ii) individuals behavior in accordance with their own interests, and this is reflected
    in their groups, which tend to develop distinct behavior patterns.
    (iii) the more power a group has, the less likely it is that its norms and values will
    come into conflict with the norms and values of society.
    (iv) bureaucracies (including law enforcement) strive to maximum benefits and
    minimize costs and hence will prosecute those with less power.
    (v) the official crime rates of groups are inversely proportional to their political and
    economic power, independent of other factors. Empirical tests of hypotheses
    based on a conflict theory of criminal behavior are rare.

    You might also like