Download Conflict Theory of Crime: Understanding Crime through Social Reality and Power Dynamics and more Study notes Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!
65
Conflict Theory of Crime
RICHARD QUINNEY
A
theory that helps us begin to examine the legal order critically is the one I call the social reality of crime. Applying this theory, we think of crime as it is affected by the dynamics that mold the society’s social, economic, and political structure. First, we recognize how criminal law fits into capitalist society. The legal order gives reality to the crime problem in the United States. Everything that makes up crime’s social reality, including the application of criminal law, the behavior patterns of those who are defined as criminal, and the construction of an ideology of crime, is related to the established legal order. The social reality of crime is constructed on conflict in our society. The theory of the social reality of crime is formulated as follows. I. The Official Definition of Crime: Crime as a legal definition of human conduct is created by agents of the dominant class in a politically organized society.
The essential starting point is a definition of crime that itself is based on the legal definition. Crime, as officially determined, is a definition of behavior that is conferred on some people by those in power. Agents of the law (such as legis- lators, police, prosecutors, and judges) are responsible for formulating and ad- ministering criminal law. Upon formulation and application of these definitions of crime, persons and behaviors become criminal. Crime, according to this first proposition, is not inherent in behavior, but is a judgment made by some about the actions and characteristics of others. This proposition allows us to focus on the formulation and administration of the criminal law as it applies to the behaviors that become defined as criminal. Crime is seen as a result of the class-dynamic process that culminate in defin- ing persons and behaviors as criminal. It follows, then, that the greater the number of definitions of crime that are formulated and applied, the greater the amount of crime.
II. Formulating Definitions of Crime: Definitions of crime are composed of behaviors that conflict with the interests of the dominant class. Definitions of crime are formulated according to the interests of those who have the power to translate their interests into public policy. Those definitions
From Richard Quinney, Criminology (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975), pp. 37–41. Reprinted by permission of the author.
are ultimately incorporated into the criminal law. Furthermore, definitions of crime in a society change as the interests of the dominant class change. In other words, those who are able to have their interests represented in public policy regulate the formulation of definitions of crime. The powerful interests are reflected not only in the definitions of crime and the kinds of penal sanctions attached to them, but also in the legal policies on handling those defined as criminals. Procedural rules are created for en- forcing and administering the criminal law. Policies are also established on programs for treating and punishing the criminally defined and programs for controlling and preventing crime. From the initial definitions of crime to the subsequent procedures, correctional and penal programs, and policies for con- trolling and preventing crime, those who have the power regulate the behav- ior of those without power.
III. Applying Definitions of Crime: Definitions of crime are applied by the class that has the power to shape the enforcement and administration of criminal law.
The dominant interests intervene in all the stages at which definitions of crime are created. Because class interests cannot be effectively protected merely by formulating criminal law, the law must be enforced and administered. The in- terests of the powerful, therefore, also operate where the definitions of crime reach the application stage. As Vold has argued, crime is “political behavior and the criminal becomes in fact a member of a ‘minority group’ without suffi- cient public support to dominate the control of the police power of the state.” Those whose interests conflict with the ones represented in the law must ei- ther change their behavior or possibly find it defined as criminal. The probability that definitions of crime will be applied varies according to how much the behaviors of the powerless conflict with the interests of those in power. Law enforcement efforts and judicial activity are likely to increase when the interests of the dominant class are threatened. Fluctuations and vari- ations in applying definitions of crime reflect shifts in class relations. Obviously, the criminal law is not applied directly by those in power; its enforcement and administration are delegated to authorized legal agents. Be- cause the groups responsible for creating the definitions of crime are physi- cally separated from the groups that have the authority to enforce and administer law, local conditions determine how the definitions will be ap- plied. In particular, communities vary in their expectations of law enforce- ment and the administration of justice. The application of definitions is also influenced by the visibility of offenses in a community and by the public’s norms about reporting possible violations. And especially important in en- forcing and administering the criminal law are the legal agents’ occupational organization and ideology. The probability that these definitions will be applied depends on the actions of the legal agents who have the authority to enforce and administer the law. A definition of crime is applied depending on their evaluation. Turk has argued
66 PART II^ THEORIES OF DEVIANCE
68 PART II^ THEORIES OF DEVIANCE
with definitions of crime increases the probability of their developing actions that may be subsequently defined as criminal. Thus, both the definers of crime and the criminally defined are involved in reciprocal action patterns. The personal-action patterns of both the definers and the defined are shaped by their common, continued, and related experi- ences. The fate of each is bound to that of the other.
V. Constructing an Ideology of Crime: An ideology of crime is con- structed and diffused by the dominant class to secure its hegemony.
This ideology is created in the kinds of ideas people are exposed to, the man- ner in which they select information to fit the world they are shaping, and their way of interpreting this information. People behave in reference to the social meanings they attach to their experiences. Among the conceptions that develop in a society are those relating to what people regard as crime. The concept of crime must of course be accompanied by ideas about the nature of crime. Images develop about the relevance of crime, the offender’s characteristics, the appropriate reaction to crime, and the relation of crime to the social order. These conceptions are constructed by communication, and, in fact, an ideology of crime depends on the portrayal of crime in all personal and mass communication. This ideology is thus dif- fused throughout the society. One of the most concrete ways by which an ideology of crime is formed and transmitted is the official investigation of crime. The President’s Commis- sion on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice is the best contempo- rary example of the state’s role in shaping an ideology of crime. Not only are we as citizens more aware of crime today because of the President’s Commis- sion, but official policy on crime has been established in a crime bill, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The crime bill, itself a reaction to the growing fears of class conflict in American society, creates an image of a severe crime problem and, in so doing, threatens to negate some of our basic constitutional guarantees in the name of controlling crime. Consequently, the conceptions that are most critical in actually formulat- ing and applying the definitions of crime are those held by the dominant class. These conceptions are certain to be incorporated into the social reality of crime. The more the government acts in reference to crime, the more prob- able it is that definitions of crime will be created and that behavior patterns will develop in opposition to those definitions. The formulation of definitions of crime, their application, and the development of behavior patterns in rela- tion to the definitions, are thus joined in full circle by the construction of an ideological hegemony toward crime.
VI. Constructing the Social Reality of Crime: The social reality of crime is constructed by the formulation and application of definitions of crime, the development of behavior patterns in relation to these defini- tions, and the construction of an ideology of crime. The first five propositions are collected here into a final composition proposi- tion. The theory of the social reality of crime, accordingly, postulates creating
CONFLICT THEORY OF CRIME (^69)
a series of phenomena that increase the probability of crime. The result, holis- tically, is the social reality of crime. Because the first proposition of the theory is a definition and the sixth is a composite, the body of the theory consists of the four middle propositions. These form a model of crime’s social reality. The model, as diagrammed, re- lates the proposition units into a theoretical system (see figure above). Each unit is related to the others. The theory is thus a system of interacting devel- opmental propositions. The phenomena denoted in the propositions and their relationships culminate in what is regarded as the amount and character of crime at any time—that is, in the social reality of crime. The theory of the social reality of crime as I have formulated it is inspired by a change that is occurring in our view of the world. This change, pervad- ing all levels of society, pertains to the world that we all construct and from which, at the same time, we pretend to separate ourselves in our human expe- riences. For the study of crime, a revision in thought has directed attention to the criminal process: All relevant phenomena contribute to creating defini- tions of crime, development of behaviors by those involved in criminal-defin- ing situations, and constructing an ideology of crime. The result is the social reality of crime that is constantly being constructed in society.
Formulation of definitions of crime
Application of definitions of crime
Construction of the ideology of crime
Development of behavior patterns in relation to definitions of crime
Class Struggle and Class Conflict
The Social Reality of Crime
