Definition of Marxist Criminology

Marxist criminology shares with anarchist criminology the idea that crimes have their origin in an unjust social order and that a radical transformation of society is desirable. [7] Unlike Marxists who propose to replace capitalism with socialism, anarchists reject all hierarchical or authoritarian power structures. [7] Sims, B.A. (1997). Crime, Punishment and the American Dream: On the Road to Becoming a Marxist Overall, there is really little in the Marxist theory of criminology that can be empirically verified. It is a tradition for Marxists to examine history as a means of determining the relevance of Marxist principles and the socialist societies that precede them. Among the empirical evidence that has been conducted, the results are mixed. For example, Harring, who studied police force development in Buffalo, found Colvin M, Pauly J (1983) A critique of criminology: towards an integrated structural-marxist theory of delinquency production. Am J Soc 89(3):513-551 Ronald L.

Akers criticized Marxist criminology on the grounds that societies based on Marxist principles were «unjust and repressive and do not represent a future that criminologists should strive to achieve.» [6] Dutch criminologist Willem Bonger believed in a causal relationship between crime and economic and social conditions. He stated that the crime was of social origin and that it reacted normally to the prevailing cultural conditions. In more primitive societies, he argued that survival required more selfless altruism within the community. But as soon as agricultural technology improved and a surplus of food was produced, barter and exchange systems began to offer the possibility of selfishness. When capitalism emerged, there were social forces of competition and wealth, leading to an unequal distribution of resources, greed and individualism. As soon as self-interest and selfish impulses prevail, crime occurs. The poor would commit crimes out of necessity or out of a sense of injustice. As a result, those in power exercise control and impose sanctions by equating the definition of crime with harm or threat of harm to the property and commercial interests of the powerful. Although the inherent activities, which include, for example, theft, may be identical, more weight is given to theft by the poor than to theft by the rich. This will have two consequences: direct, which will increase the pressure to survive in an unequal society, and indirectly, by increasing the sense of alienation among the poor.

The crime in the streets was the result of the miserable conditions in which the workers lived in competition with each other. He believed that poverty alone could not be a cause of crime, but poverty associated with individualism, materialism, false needs, racism, and the false masculinity of violence and domination among street thugs. This unrealistic dependence on violent revolution to usher in capitalism and all the crimes and inequalities associated with it has led Marxist theory to be «rejected as a utopian domain of thought with no relevant political implications other than revolution» (Lynch & Groves, 1986; 105). Instead, more moderate proponents of Marxist theory have called for non-revolutionary reforms and policies strikingly similar to those of mainstream criminological theories, such as increased employment opportunities and communal alternatives to imprisonment. However, in order to remain faithful to true Marxist criminology, the only valid solution to the problem of crime caused by inequalities in the distribution of wealth in capitalist societies would be to completely eradicate the old system and establish a new socialist system. Sellin was a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the pioneers of scientific criminology. His method included a comprehensive examination of the subject, taking into account historical, sociological, psychological and legal factors in the analysis. He applied both Marxism and conflict theory to examine the cultural diversity of modern industrial society.

In a homogeneous society, norms or codes of conduct will emerge and become laws whose application is necessary to preserve the unified culture. But where distinct cultures deviate from the mainstream, these minority groups will set their own norms. Socialization will therefore be for the subgroup and for the dominant norms. When laws are enacted, they will represent the norms, values and interests of the dominant cultural or ethnic groups in a State that may cause a border cultural conflict. If the two cultures interact and one tries to extend its influence to the other, each party is likely to react in a protective way. If the balance of power is relatively equal, an adjustment is usually made. But if the distribution of power is unequal, the daily behavior of the minority group can be defined as deviant. The more diverse and heterogeneous a society becomes, the greater the likelihood of more frequent conflicts, because subgroups that live by their own rules break the rules of other groups. Despite the fact that Marx did not systematically address crime, criminologists used Marxist theory to analyze laws, crimes, and the criminal justice system.

Over the past 40 years, Marxist criminology has become an essential component of what is commonly referred to as critical criminology. Many critical criminologists have contributed to the development of Marxist criminology, and their position in the field of critical criminology is well established. At the same time, the discoveries of Marxist criminological theory have aroused little interest among traditional criminologists, although some share with Marxist criminologists a macro-or structural approach to the study of crime. While recent developments in Marxist criminological theory have slowed, Marxist criminologists are still able to provide a viable framework for understanding law, crime, and state responses to crime.