Critical Criminology - Case Study Example

Abstract As a theoretical perspective in criminology, critical criminology challenges the traditional believes and understanding of crime as well as criminal justice. ‘Critical criminology’ is a branch in criminology, which specializes in taking particular perspective while examining the start of crime and the defined nature of justice as observed in a structure of class as well as status inequalities. Oppression within a social economic set up is viewed to be the genesis of crime as critical criminology puts it. Critical criminology holds that crime emanates from Workers’ oppression as well as the oppression of the minorities within the society such as women and children as perpetuated by racism, class divisions as well as sexism among others (Bohman, 2005; Hamilton, 2012). It therefore revolves around commenting on other topics covered in the broader criminology and as such takes into account all contextual factors influencing crime. The study however faces critical underpinnings in theoretical as well as intellectual perspectives, which form the basis of this paper. This paper is therefore intended to analyze the theoretical and intellectual underpinnings of critical criminology. The definition of the study often borrows from the assertion that the definition as well as what constitutes crime varies from particular social situations as well as the particular historical period in context (Zhang, 2008). In essence, particular acts can be termed as crime in a particular context and time period while in others it does not constitute crime. For instance, slave trade was in some parts of the word legal but after it was burnt, practicing it would now constitute crime in such particular areas. This therefore shows the inherent quality of crime and which is the basis of criminology, which is legal frameworks and jurisprudences at a particular time within a specific social set-up (Arrigo, 2010). For acts to be defined as criminal acts therefore, some legal frameworks must be put into perspective. Nevertheless, social status and power has had the effect of justifying the course in criminality and the structure of governance as we have fail to address these social injustices such as oppression in work place as crime. This is the basis of critical criminology where its main approach in the matter is through analyzing the predefined structures in defining crime and human rights violations. Theoretical underpinnings In understanding the subject of critical criminology, theories have been designed and adopted with various persons ascribing to the theoretical structures of definition. However, despite the utility of the theories in helping define critical criminology, there are associated drawbacks where the same theories are used to inhibit the correct understanding and interpretation of critical criminology. There are different theories, which have been in use in defining and expounding on the subject. Among the theoretical structure adopted in the subject are the conflict theories, feminist theories as well as other postmodernism theories. In conflict theories, crime is the ultimate outcome of conflict within a society as is instigated by capitalism. Some people who embrace the theoretical perspective that persons within a society perpetuate crime pursue power for personal gain/interest. Conservative theorists on the other hand define crime to be resultant of difference in power and culture, which explains conflicts in matters of status, morality, ideology, ethnicity, race as well as religion. Groups of persons in power are seen to exert influence through taking control of economic resources and in the process, they criminalize such persons who are opposed to their ideological perspectives, cultural perspectives as well as moral codes. Crime is therefore seen to emanate from such structures of power and economic influence that lead to conflicts. Capitalism explains the process by which particular groups of persons or individuals take economic control of resources and this leads to increased crime because of the inequality (Simons, 2004). According to such theorists as Marx who ascribed to the school of thought, a few people hold economic power at the expense of majority who are used to amass the factors of production and this explains the crime rate increase because of the inequality. The underpinnings in the study of critical criminology from the conflict theories as developed by Marxist hold that Marxism is more an ideology than a theoretical framework as it lacks empirical testability and as such is more subjective in the subject. Feminist theories on the other hand have been in use in the discussion and studies about critical criminology (Renzetti, 2013). According to the proponents of the theory, traditional crime was more engineered to favor masculinity and as such, women stood to be on the losing edge. The ideological behind the postulation of the feminist theorists is that crime meted on women fails to attract much attention as such crime that is occupationally oriented and involving such non-minority groups as men. Besides, many of the current criminology structures fails to acknowledge the difference in sex between males and females where females increasingly face like justice system and correction measures such as hard labor just as the males. This therefore presents a critical underpinning to the field of study and critics reason that it is inevitable that modern day systems should be restructured in order to be gender sensitive. Different perspectives of feminist theories exists with liberal theorists ascribing to the believe system that gender discrimination within the society is undesirable and should be condemned in all manners as they hinder effective understanding of the subject in context. The radical, socialist and Marxist feminists theorists ascribe to the believe that social structures that institute masculinity should be abolished as they influence feminine oppression in the society. Gender is therefore to be understood as a construct of the society and thus such criminality is perpetuated by the society itself. Postmodernism theories hold that social structure incorporates those groups of persons in power as well as those without. The groups in power institute structures to control those out of power and in defiance from the persons without power, crime is committed. As against the position of Marxists that economic and power inequalities influence crime, the postmodernist theorists hold that crime is a mere language, which defines relationships. Criminal systems have distinct language, which defines the accused and the accuser, criminal, as well as the victim and such others, which are social system creations (Musick, 2001). This therefore equally presents a shortcoming in the overall understanding of the subject of critical criminology. The theoretical analysis in the matter over years has been used in the building of intellectual perspective regarding the study of critical criminology. Sociologists and such other scientists have been particularly in the forefront in discussing the topic where such professions as the law and sociology illustrate the distinction (Groves and Sampson, 1986). Lawyers often play distinct and separate in criminal justice where the justice system is a structural framework composed of different players. The eighteenth century saw the commencement of the enlightenment period, which saw the field of criminology take great steps in reformation of criminal law. Sykes (1974) shows how Rommilly, Bentham as well as Beccaria, who all hailed in the advent of enlightenment tried to institutionalize more humane, rational and just legal instruments to the state. Nevertheless, a challenge ensued where the positivist thinkers compromised the direction pursued by the legal thinkers concerning critical criminology in the 19th century. Science took a centre stage in the study of criminology where criminal law was defined to be studied under law schools while criminology became a universal subject of study within barely all universities at the time. Main structural shortcoming of the intellectual perspective of critical criminology is that studying law is understood as necessary for action while social science perspective views it as necessary for accumulating knowledge. This is therefore the main point of conflict between the sociological perspective of the subject matter and the discipline of law as envisaged within the broader subject of critical criminology (Sykes, 1974). Intellectual underpinnings In professional training, the curricula in use have been shown to be in critical need for revision due to marginalization of certain critical perspectives for criminal justice. It is acknowledged that the modern day criminal justice studies have really advanced as compared to studies prior to mid 20th century. However, scrutiny of the curricula in use depicts certain omission of basic aspects for intellectual necessity within the field and which threaten the field in study through production of ‘less qualified’ graduates in the field. The students often are only presented with the option of perpetuating their understanding in the subject through studying social sciences. In often times, study of criminology in professionalism justice studies focus on administrative facets, and thus neglect most other facets of importance for holistic development of the field of study. In a study, Frederick shows that basic critical facets in the study of criminology programs of criminal justice and are often marginalized. Among such aspects that fail to be captured are such as cognitive and critical criminology, which are core for the overall development of the field of criminology. A major finding of the study was that there have been great resistance in efforts to transform criminal justice education to be interdisciplinary within many ‘general educational’ institutions from the main older and well established departments of academic which therefore poses such a critical pin down on development of critical criminology in academics (Frederick, 2012). Another dimension in which the understanding of critical criminology has sought to analyze is the subjective reference of its epistemological dimension in the modern day focus. It is to be noted that critical criminology increasingly faces criticism on its perceived direction in concentrating on penalty as well as particular crime as against issues that pertain to social harm as would be more beneficial. Human rights as well as the movements as are intended to champion understanding of social harm that result from over concentration on crime as well as penalties as against such preventive measures are major areas that critical criminology should endeavor to address. For instance, critical criminologist have been analyzed on the events of shifts of governance through draconian systems as have been seen to take shape in the international arena especially after the September 11 terror attack in the US. The effects of the civil liberty assaults and changes within power relations on international fronts have been pointed to have far-reaching effects on this subject matter of critical criminology. The intellectual underpinnings are further propagated by understanding of the various crime control practices as well as policies that increasingly shape the discipline. There has been noted increase in penalties for crime, private policing have reemerged as well as particular issues targeting on minority groups within the society and women. This therefore reveals that the discipline is yet to fully adopt the dynamics in global governance and the general crisis in broad criminology studies (Hil and Robertson, 2003). There is therefore need that critical criminology embraces the changing times in restructuring the system of criminal justice and academic programs. Conclusion In conclusion, therefore, it is worth to note that critical criminology has been a distinct discipline in criminology over years and has undergone through great evolution all through. This paper had the main aim of highlighting basic underpinnings in understanding critical criminology from the perspectives of theory as well as the intellectual perspective. Theories have been shown to be very dynamic and have had notable influence in development of the discipline as well as in academic portfolio. Among other theoretical frameworks that have been pointed out to have had influence on the discipline are conflict theories, feminist theories as well as the postmodern theories. The conflict theories have pointed out to crime as being resultant from social injustices resulting from social stratification based on power and management of economic resources. Feminist theories on the other hand point to the flaws in social structure in defining crime penalties for the women and minority groups within the society where the structure in position needs restructuring to differentiate masculine frameworks against feminine frameworks. The main underpinning of the theories concerning the subject matter is that they lack empirical testability as a necessity for scientific approach to the subject. Intellectually, the major underpinning in the subject matter has been shown through poor curricula development as well as subjective approach to the discipline. It is worth noting that comprehensive coverage of the subject requires that such shortcomings by theory and intellectual frameworks need to be addressed. Nevertheless, it is also necessary that we understand that criminology differs from social setup and age in history where no concrete definition of crime would be given. The definition is often dependent on prevailing legal structures within a nation and the general historical time (Edwards and Gill, 2002; Agnew, nd). References Agnew R., (nd). CRIMINOLOGY: AN OVERVIEW. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems(EOLSS) Retrieved from: < http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c04/e6-99-25.pdf> Arrigo B. A., (2010). De/reconstructing critical psychological jurisprudence: strategies of resistance and struggles for justice. International Journal of Law in Context, 6(4): 363–396 Bohman J., (2005). Critical Theory. Retrieved from: < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/> Edwards A. and Gill P., (2002). Crime as enterprise? - The case of ''transnational organised crime'' Crime, Law and Social Change, 37(3): 203-223 Frederick B. J., (2012). The Marginalization of Critical Perspectives in Public Criminal Justice Core Curricula. Western Criminology Review, 13(3): 21-33 Groves W. B. and Sampson R. J., (1986). Critical Theory and Criminology. Social Problems, 33(6): S58-S80 Hamilton L., (2012). Ethnography in evolution: adapting to the animal“other” in organizations. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 1(1): 43-51 Hil R. and Robertson R., (2003). What sort of future for critical criminology? Crime, Law and Social Change, 39(1): 91-115 Musick D., (2001). Cutting The Edge: Current Perspectives in Radical/Critical Criminology and Criminial Justi Contemporary Sociology, 30(4): 401-402 Renzetti C. M., (2013). Feminist Theories. Retrieved from: < http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0013.xml> Simons G. L.,(2004). Critical Criminology at the Edge: Postmodern Perspectives, Integration, and Applications. Contemporary Sociology, 33(5): 599-560 Sykes G. M., (1974). Rise of Critical Criminology, The, J . Crim. L. & Criminology, 65(2): 206-213 Zhang L, (2008). Juvenile delinquency and justice in contemporary China: a critical review of the literature over 15 years. Crime law Soc change, 50: 149-160 Read More