01. Assess different Marxist views of the relationship between crime and social
class
Marxists argue that crime is not the fault of the individual but is linked to their social
position and the unequal distribution of wealth in society. Marxists argue that crime is
inevitable in capitalism because capitalism is criminogenic. This means that capitalism by
its very nature causes crime. Marxists argue that capitalism is based on the exploitation of
the working class therefore damaging the working class and this may give rise to crime.
For instance, poverty may mean that crime is the only way the working class can survive.
Moreover, crime may be the only way the working class can obtain the consumer goods
encouraged by capitalism through advertisement in the media thus resulting in utilitarian
crime such as theft. In addition, alienation and lack of control over their lives may lead to
frustration and aggression, resulting in non-utilitarian crimes such as violence. This shows
that the working class commit crimes due to the exploitation they experience from the
bourgeoisie in a capitalist society. However, Marxists state that crime is not confined to the
working class. The capitalist system of ruthless competition and the profit motive
encourages a mentality of greed and self-interest thus leading to white collar and
corporate crimes. This shows that crime is found in all social classes and is the result of
capitalism.
Moreover, Marxists see law making and law enforcement as only serving the interests of
the capitalist class. For example, Chambliss argues that laws to protect private property
are the cornerstone of the capitalist economy. He illustrates this with the case of the
introduction of English law into Britain's East African colonies' plantations, which needed a
plentiful supply of local labour. However, the locals were reluctant to work thus the British
introduced a tax payable by cash, non-payment of which was a punishable criminal
offence. As the local economy was not a money economy, the locals had to work for the
British. This shows that laws are introduced to serve the interests of the ruling class. In
addition, the ruling class have the power to prevent the introduction of laws that would
threaten their interests. Snider argues that the capitalist state is reluctant to pass laws that
regulate the activities of business and threaten profitability. An example of this is the
poisoning of thousands of Indians at Bhopal yet the company involved was not liable for
corporate manslaughter as they had to put profit before safety. This shows that the ruling
class only introduce laws that benefit them and are reluctant to introduce those that do not.
class
Marxists argue that crime is not the fault of the individual but is linked to their social
position and the unequal distribution of wealth in society. Marxists argue that crime is
inevitable in capitalism because capitalism is criminogenic. This means that capitalism by
its very nature causes crime. Marxists argue that capitalism is based on the exploitation of
the working class therefore damaging the working class and this may give rise to crime.
For instance, poverty may mean that crime is the only way the working class can survive.
Moreover, crime may be the only way the working class can obtain the consumer goods
encouraged by capitalism through advertisement in the media thus resulting in utilitarian
crime such as theft. In addition, alienation and lack of control over their lives may lead to
frustration and aggression, resulting in non-utilitarian crimes such as violence. This shows
that the working class commit crimes due to the exploitation they experience from the
bourgeoisie in a capitalist society. However, Marxists state that crime is not confined to the
working class. The capitalist system of ruthless competition and the profit motive
encourages a mentality of greed and self-interest thus leading to white collar and
corporate crimes. This shows that crime is found in all social classes and is the result of
capitalism.
Moreover, Marxists see law making and law enforcement as only serving the interests of
the capitalist class. For example, Chambliss argues that laws to protect private property
are the cornerstone of the capitalist economy. He illustrates this with the case of the
introduction of English law into Britain's East African colonies' plantations, which needed a
plentiful supply of local labour. However, the locals were reluctant to work thus the British
introduced a tax payable by cash, non-payment of which was a punishable criminal
offence. As the local economy was not a money economy, the locals had to work for the
British. This shows that laws are introduced to serve the interests of the ruling class. In
addition, the ruling class have the power to prevent the introduction of laws that would
threaten their interests. Snider argues that the capitalist state is reluctant to pass laws that
regulate the activities of business and threaten profitability. An example of this is the
poisoning of thousands of Indians at Bhopal yet the company involved was not liable for
corporate manslaughter as they had to put profit before safety. This shows that the ruling
class only introduce laws that benefit them and are reluctant to introduce those that do not.
