In April 2015 criminals gained access to the underground safety deposit boxes of a bank in the Hatton Garden area of London. Considered by some to be the largest burglary in English history (Lashmar & Hobbs, 2017). This essay will evaluate the explanation of this crime from two perspectives Marxism and Functionalism consequently, a conclusion will be drawn to consider which theory supports the cause of this crime.
The heist was planned and carried out by at least 4 elderly men who had a lifetime of experience of crime (Fenton, 2016). During the Easter bank holiday weekend of 2015 the crime was considered so serious that it was investigated by the specialized organized crime division of London police (Massey, 2018). Although there were no
…show more content…
Bourgeoisie are seen as the law makers dictating the law to suit them, laws and their punishments work in the favour of the rich (Hagan & Parker, 1985). Marxists believe that the institutions of courts police and lawyers are used to control the population and avoid revolution. Additionally, those who have little resources are possibly pushed to crime through poverty of aspiration for social mobility (Miller, 2010). Criminogenic capitalist structures allow for a culture of greed to flourish that could influence an individual’s choice over whether to commit crime or not. Arguing in favour of the Marxist perspective it can be seen that crime committed by a proletariat would be punished more severely than that of the financial and corruption crimes committed by the bourgeoisies described as Marx as white collar crime (Holtfreter et al., …show more content…
However, Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide identifies that too much crime wall lead to the collapse of society. In relation to the Hatton Garden robbery functionalists would argue that the crime was required for the positive functions of social regulation, social change and social integration. Explained as the necessity for levels of crime being required to reaffirm social boundaries and serve as a warning to others either with public outrage or a suitable punishment. Strengthening social cohesion through crime is essential to maintain communities. Further to this, social change for example the civil rights movement can be effected through acts of deviance and
During the 1970’s to the early 1990’s there had emerged two new approaches to the study of crime and deviance. The discipline of criminology had expanded further introducing right and left realism, both believe in different areas and came together in order to try and get a better understanding on crime and prevention. There were many theorists that had influenced the realism approaches such as; Jock Young (Left Wing) and James Wilson (Right Wing).
Symbolic interactionist make the major point. Because different groups have different norms, what is deviant to to some is not deviant to others. Structural functionalist could not be the correct answer because the functional perspective on deviance is that deviance also has functions. In contrast to this common assumption, the classic functionalist theorist Emile Durkheim (1893/1933, 1895/1964) came to a surprising conclusion. Deviance, he said—including crime—is functional for society. Deviance contributes to the social order in these three ways:
The two theoretical approaches I have chosen to compare to the study of crime are Functionalism and Marxism. I have done so, as I believe both theories are important/ significant to the study of crime and differentiate from each other. I will do this by writing a critique the advantages and disadvantages of both of the theories and thus, resulting in my own personal opinion in the conclusion.
Rather than observing the individual criminal as being subhuman, he questioned societies influence on the individual. In his 1968 book, Merton argued that ‘it no longer appears to be so obvious that man is set against ... ... middle of paper ... ... Britain is of a much lower percentage in comparison to that of America thus Merton’s argument of the poor most likely to be criminal will not always fit the British society. It is therefore impractical to generalise Merton’s theory and force-fit it to all contemporary societies.
Reiman, Jeffrey. 2000. The Rich Gets Richer And the Poor Gets Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C: Allyn & Bacon.
4 Sims, A. Barbara. 1997. "Crime, Punishment, and the American Dream: Toward a Marxist Integration." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34:5-24.
Conscious efforts to critique existing approaches to questions of crime and justice, demystify concepts and issues that are laden with political and ideological baggage, situate debates about crime control within a socio-historical context, and facilitate the imagination and exploration of alternative ways of thinking and acting in relation to crime and justice. (p. 3).
Marxists argue the laws are formulated by the ruling class and, therefore, tend to represent the interest of said class. This is exemplified by criminals from humble backgrounds tend to receive harsher treatment in terms of sentencing. Marxists focus on white collar or corporate crime in preference to blue collar crime, arguing that crimes committed by the ruling class have greater impact in the economy than crimes by ‘normal’ people. This background will lean towards white collar crime and corporate
The Marxist perspective theory falls under Sociological Positivism. Bartollas and Miller (2014) posit that the Marxist perspective sees the government and the legal process as instruments that the elites, or bourgeoisie, use to control the masses. Turk (1982) states that capitalism is the root cause which forces juveniles to commit crime. In addition, Turk (1982) posits that the main reason for conflict relates to wealth. This is because the elites, who make up a small portion of the population, control most of the wealth in the country. The working class, on the other hand, comprises the largest portion of the population and is continually exploited to the point of breaking down where they are forced to turn to crime to survive. Quinney (1977) states the Positivist view calls for treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents since youth’s behav...
Unlike previous theories, the conservative theory took a primitive approach to crime during the 1980s and 1990s. After the turn of the century, crime was associated and viewed through the lens of society. That lens shifted during the 1980s as crime was viewed as the responsibility of the individual and not through society. For example, the individualistic views the Classical School and Positivist School theorists had. Although Wilson and Herrnstein did not take the same approach as Beccaria, Bentham, or Lombroso each set out to once again, get tough on crime and bring ‘“punishment back into society’” (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2015, p. 328). The two primary questions for conservative theory was asked by Wilson and Herrnstein in their book,
Drawing from tenets of Marxist theory, critical criminology believe that crime results from the mode of production by capitalist and the economic structures they have created. Social classes have been divided into two: those whose income is secured by property ownership; and those whose income is secured by their labor. The resultant class structure influences the opportunities of an individual to succeed in life and his propensity to engage in crime. Although it encompasses the macro-economic factors that are rarely included in micro-economic analysis of crime, it does not substitute those macro factors, like unemployment, to micro factors, like being jobless. However, it combines the macro and micro factors in analyzing how micro factors of crime are integrated into the macro structures.
Crime and criminalization are dependent on social inequality Social inequality there are four major forms of inequality, class gender race and age, all of which influence crime. In looking at social classes and relationship to crime, studies have shown that citizens of the lower class are more likely to commit crimes of property and violence than upper-class citizens: who generally commit political and economic crimes. In 2007 the National Crime Victimization Survey showed that families with an income of $15000 or less had a greater chance of being victimized; recalling that lower classes commit a majority of those crimes. We can conclude that crime generally happens within classes.
As the act of criminality is a global phenomenon, there must therefore be some explanation as to why this is; some schools of thought strive to explicate this by means of genetics, whilst others take a more socially influenced approach. Although at the time, the micro-criminological theories of Lombroso and Sheldon may have appeared credible, modern research has attempted to refute such notions. In an epidemiological context, the act of crime is seen by some as a positive contribution to society, as noted by Durkheim (Kirby et al, 2000), although too much will lead to social instability, or anomie. In contrariety to Durkheim's beliefs, a Marxist perspective would consider the mere notion of capitalism as criminal; thus deeming the vast majority of global society to be in a constant state of anomie. However, there is still much dispute as to whether people are born, or made into criminals. This essay will discuss the arguments within this debate. To be ‘born’ criminal indicates a genetic heredity whereas if one is ‘made’; the environmental influences are the significant factor in creation of criminal behaviour.
In contrast, Emile Durkheim argued that crime is a functional part of society; each society has its own rates and types of crimes. Durkheim stated, “What is normal, simply, is the existence of criminality, provided that it attains and does not exceed, for each social type, a certain level, which it is perhaps not impossible to fix in conformity with the preceding rules.” (Durkheim, p. 61) Durkheim did not see crime as something habitual or as a symptom of a diseased society. I agree with Durkheim’s opinion of crime and society, I think that crime will not entirely disappear; instead the form itself will change. (Durkheim)
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.