Theories Of Conflict Criminology

Conflict Criminology theory is when society is in competition with other groups, for instance, rich against the poor, or corporations against labor(Bohm & Vogel, 2011). For this reason, the competing groups are not equal in power and resources, therefore, there will be one group know as the dominant group and the other subordinate. This theory came to surface when two German sociologists by the name of Max Weber and Georg Simmel began to disagree with the radical think in regards to conflict criminology. The dominant group defines what is considered to be a crime. They are known to label, to label people when it is an interest to them. However, it is the dominant group that uses a civil remedy to administrate violation and hires the most

skilled attorney. Nevertheless, the dominant give an image to the general public that the state and the criminal law are value-neutral institutions. Also, the dominant group gives the impression that the two groups are in unity(Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Therefore, behind the scenes, the only concerns the law and state have in common is to ensure that resolving the disputes between the competing interest group are done justly and peacefully. In doing so, this allows the dominant group to achieve their own interests. Crime also serves as a coverup of the dominant group from displaying their own interest at the expenses of the other groups. The dominant group will use crime to turn the attention to the other group which is known as a criminal.

The conflict theory has two solutions prevent crime, point one is the give some of the dominant power to the subordinate group, in which will reduce conflict. Next, a scheme has to accomplish to get the dominant in believing that it would be in their best interest in taking some of the power(Bohm & Vogel, 2011). For this purpose, it allows the behavior of the dominant group. In contrast, the conflict theory is less specific than the radical theory perspective cause of crime. Also, the conflict theory prefers powerlessness as criminogenic factors, whereas, radical theory prefers to engage into political and economic structures society. On the other hand, conflict theory delivers the power to the elite crowd, such as those that are smarter or better educated(Bohm & Vogel, 2011). In regards to Radical Criminology, in comparison to conflict theory believes that there are few people in society who self-reliant and a power struggle for material wealth, with the rest of the population being losers. This statement simply means that the winner will do whatever it takes to avoid being a loser, that includes taken advantage of the weaker people. In addition to their belief, it is their point of view that if wealth was spread evenly then the weaker people would not

exist. The Peacemaking theory, suggests that war on crime only makes matters worse.

It is known for its idealism and focuses on transforming an individual rather than transform society with having a blueprint. However, before transformation can become effective, the individual must first change themselves before trying to change the world(Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Lastly, Postmodern theory appeared in law and criminology in the late 1980's in which it emphasizes three key issues:(1). The centrality of language (2). partial knowledge and provisional truth (3) deconstruction, difference, and possibility. Now, in using language rather it is written or spoken will shape reality. This theory has a lot of power and describing the world in areas of legalese, medical language, or professor-speak are valued over other(Bohm & Vogel, 2011). In terms of postmodernist theory, does not accept the idea of one true interpretation of the law. Therefore, the truth is not certain, however, the world is uncertain and radon. Postmodern uses deconstruction to interpret the assumption and hidden values that are in a particular narrative and to expose certainly privileged. It also seeks to involve other voices for others to understand the world in order to keep them from being dormant and concealed(Bohm & Vogel,

2011).