CHAPTER 9

Chapter 9: Political Realities and Crime

Law and Social Order Perspectives
The rapid growth of Russian organized crime highlights the close link between crime and politics which exists not only in Russia, but throughout the world. In the old Soviet Union, for example, communism precluded the existence of certain forms of crime. People were cared for by the state, and—at least theoretically—most types of private property simply did not exist. Hence, those crimes of theft or destruction of property that took place were generally regarded as crimes against the state—the entity to which most property formally belonged. Soviet understandings of crime which characterized the period were couched in terms of communist ideology and seen as the direct result of the immoral tendency toward capitalism.

As Russian laws changed following the downfall of the Soviet system, so too did the characteristic nature of crime and criminal activity within Russian society. Not only were new opportunities for criminal activity created by the changing social structure, but new categories of criminal activity were called into being by changed laws. An understanding of the interplay between formalized law and social order is critical to any study of criminology. Three analytical perspectives that shed some light on the subject will be discussed:

the consensus perspective

the pluralist perspective

the conflict perspective

The Consensus Approach
The consensus model of social organization is built around the notion that most members of society agree on what is right and wrong, and that the various elements of society—including institutions such as churches, schools, government agencies, and businesses—work together toward a common and shared vision of the greater good. According to Raymond J. Michalowski, whose excellent analytical work is used to describe each of the three major approaches discussed in this section, the consensus perspective is characterized by four principles:(1)

A belief in the existence of core values. The consensus perspective holds that commonly shared notions of right and wrong characterize the majority of society's members.

The notion that laws reflect the collective will of the people. Law is seen as the result of a consensus, achieved through legislative action, and represents a kind of social conscience.

The assumption that the law serves all people equally. From the consensus point of view, the law not only embodies a shared view of justice, but is itself perceived to be just in its application.

The idea that those who violate the law represent a unique subgroup with some distinguishing features. The consensus approach holds that law violators must somehow be improperly socialized, psychologically defective, or suffer from some other lapse which leaves them unable to participate in what is otherwise widespread agreement on values and behavior.

The consensus perspective was operative in American politics and characterized social scientific thought in this country throughout much of the early 1900s. It found its greatest champion in Roscoe Pound, former dean of the Harvard School of Law and one of the greatest legal scholars of modern times. Pound developed the notion that the law is a tool for engineering society. The law, Pound said, meets the needs of men and women living together in society, and can be used to fashion society's characteristics and major features. Pound distilled his ideas into a set of jural postulates. Such postulates, Pound claimed, explain the existence and form of all laws insofar as laws reflect shared needs. Pound's postulates read as follows:(2)

In civilized society men and women(3) must be able to assume that others will commit no intentional aggressions upon them.

In civilized society men and women must be able to assume that they may control for beneficial purposes what they have discovered and appropriated to their own use, what they have created by their own labor, and what they have acquired under the existing social and economic order.

In civilized society men and women must be able to assume that those with whom they deal in the general intercourse of society will act in good faith and hence

Will make good reasonable expectations that their promises or other conduct will reasonably create.

Will carry out their undertakings according to the expectations which the moral sentiment of the community attaches thereto.

Will restore specifically or by equivalent what comes to them by mistake or unanticipated or (via a) not fully intended situation whereby they receive at another's expense what they could not reasonably have expected to receive under the circumstances.

In civilized society men and women must be able to assume that those who are engaged in some course of conduct will act with due care not to cause an unreasonable risk of injury upon others.

In civilized society men and women must be able to assume that those who maintain things likely to get out of hand or to escape and do damage will restrain them or keep them within their proper bounds.

The Pluralistic Approach
Contrary to the assumptions made by consensus thinkers, however, it has become quite plain to most observers of the contemporary social scene that not everyone agrees on what the law should say. Society today is rife with examples of conflicting values and ideals. Consensus is hard to find. Modern debates center on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, the purpose of criminal justice agencies in a diverse society, social justice, the rights and responsibilities of minorities and other underrepresented groups, women's issues, the proper role of education, economic policy, social welfare, the function of the military in a changing world, environmental concerns, and appropriate uses of high technology. As many contemporary public forums would indicate, there exists within America today a great diversity of social groups, each with its own point of view regarding what is right and what is wrong, and each with their own agenda. Add to that the plethora of self-proclaimed individual experts busily touting their own points of view, and anything but a consensus of values seems characteristic of society today.

Such a situation is described by some writers as pluralistic. A pluralistic perspective mirrors the thought that a multiplicity of values and beliefs exists in any complex society, and that different social groups will each have their own set of beliefs, interests, and values. A crucial element of this perspective, however, is the assumption that although different viewpoints exist, most individuals agree on the usefulness of law as a formal means of dispute resolution. Hence, from a pluralistic perspective the law, rather than reflecting common values, exists as a peace-keeping tool that allows officials and agencies within the government to settle disputes effectively between individuals and among groups. It also assumes that whatever settlement is reached will be acceptable to all parties because of their agreement on the fundamental role of law in dispute settlement. The basic principles of the pluralist perspective include notions that(4)

Society consists of many and diverse social groups. Differences in age, gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and the like often provide the basis for much naturally occurring diversity.

Each group has its own characteristic set of values, beliefs, and interests. Variety in gender, sexual orientation, economic status, ethnicity, and other forms of diversity produce interests which may unite like-minded individuals, but which may also place them in natural opposition to other social groups.

There exists a general agreement on the usefulness of formalized laws as a mechanism for dispute resolution. People and groups accept the role of law in the settlement of disputes and accord decisions reached within the legal framework at least a modicum of respect.

The legal system is value neutral. That is, the legal system is itself thought to be free of petty disputes or above the level of general contentiousness which may characterize relationships between groups.

The legal system is concerned with the best interests of society. Legislators, judges, prosecutors, attorneys, police officers, and correctional officials are assumed to perform idealized functions that are beyond the reach of the everyday interests of self-serving groups. Hence, such official functionaries can be trusted to act in accordance with the greater good, to remain unbiased, and to maintain a value-free system for the enforcement of laws.

According to the pluralistic perspective, conflict is essentially resolved through the peace-keeping activities of unbiased government officials exercising objective legal authority.
The Conflict Perspective
A third point of view, the conflict perspective, maintains that conflict is a fundamental aspect of social life itself that can never be fully resolved. At best, according to this perspective, formal agencies of social control merely coerce the unempowered or the disenfranchised to comply with the rules established by those in power. From the conflict point of view, laws become a tool of the powerful, useful in keeping others from wresting control over important social institutions. Social order, rather than being the result of any consensus or process of dispute resolution, rests upon the exercise of power through law. Those in power must work ceaselessly to remain there, although the structure which they impose on society--including patterns of wealth building that they define as acceptable and circumstances under which they authorize the exercise of legal power and military might--gives them all the advantages they are likely to need. The conflict perspective can be described in terms of six key elements:(5)

Society is composed of diverse social groups. As in the pluralist perspective, diversity is thought to be based upon distinctions which people hold to be significant, such as gender, sexual orientation, social class, and the like.

Each group holds to differing definitions of right and wrong. Moralistic conceptions and behavioral standards vary from group to group.

Conflict between groups is unavoidable. Conflict is based upon differences held to be socially significant (such as ethnicity, gender, social class, etc.) and is unavoidable because groups defined on the basis of these characteristics compete for power, wealth, and other forms of recognition.

The fundamental nature of group conflict centers on the exercise of political power. Political power is the key to the accumulation of wealth and to other forms of power.

Law is a tool of power and furthers the interests of those powerful enough to make it. Laws allow those in control to gain what they define (through the law) as legitimate access to scarce resources and to deny (through the law) such access to the politically disenfranchised.

Those in power are inevitably interested in maintaining their power against those who would usurp it. The powerful strive to keep their power.

The conflict perspective was brought to criminology early in the twentieth century, but popularized by George Vold in 1958. Vold described social conflict as "a universal form of interaction" and said that groups are naturally in conflict as their interests and purposes "overlap, encroach on one another and (tend to) be competitive."(6) Vold also addressed the issue of social cohesion, noting that as intergroup conflict intensified, loyalty of individual members to their groups increased. "It has long been realized that conflict between groups tends to develop and intensify the loyalty of group members to their respective groups,"(7) Vold wrote. But Vold's most succinct observation of the role conflict plays in contributing to crime was expressed in these words: "The whole political process of law making, law breaking, and law enforcement becomes a direct reflection of deep-seated and fundamental conflicts between interest groupsŠ. Those who produce legislative majorities win control over the power," said Vold, "and dominate the policies that decide who is likely to be involved in violation of the law."(8)

In other words, from Vold's point of view, powerful groups make laws, and those laws express and protect their interests. Hence, the body of laws that characterize any society is a political statement, and crime is a political definition imposed largely upon those whose interests lie outside of that which the powerful, through the law, define as acceptable. In his writings about conflict Vold went so far as to compare the criminal with a soldier, fighting, through crime commission, for the very survival of the group whose values he or she represents. In Vold's words: "[t]he individual criminal is then viewed as essentially a soldier under conditions of warfare: his behavior may not be 'normal' or 'happy' or 'adjusted' -- it is the behavior of the soldier doing what is to be done in wartime."(9) Vold's analogy, probably influenced by the proximity in time of his writing to World War II, was meant to express the idea that crime was a manifestation of denied needs and values, that is, the cultural heritage of disenfranchised groups who were powerless to enact their interests in legitimate fashion. Hence, theft becomes necessary for many poor people, especially those left unemployed or unemployable by the socially acceptable forms of wealth distribution defined by law.

Another early conflict theorist, Austin Turk, said that in the search for an explanation of criminality, "one is led to investigate the tendency of laws to penalize persons whose behavior is more characteristic of the less powerful than of the more powerful and the extent to which some persons and groups can and do use legal processes and agencies to maintain and enhance their power position vis-a-vis other persons and groups."(10) In his 1969 seminal work, Criminality and Legal Order,(11) Turk wrote that in any attempt to explain criminality, "it is more useful to view the social order as mainly a pattern of conflict" rather than to offer explanations for crime based upon behavioral or psychological approaches. Turk, like most other conflict criminologists, saw the law as a powerful tool in the service of prominent social groups seeking continued control over others. Crime was the natural consequence of such intergroup struggle because it resulted from the definitions imposed by the laws of the powerful upon the disapproved strivings of the unempowered.
Summary
Politics and crime are inextricably intertwined. Sometimes the actions undertaken by government officials are themselves criminal, while on other occasions governments may act to shield law violators or even assist citizens in the violation of official dictums. More significantly, however, the very action of legislative bodies in defining crime through the making of statutory law reveals the crucial nexus between social organization and the use of law as a tool of the powerful. The form of social organization endemic to a society produces a set of intergroup relationships that ultimately define which individuals and which groups are empowered to make law. Those who find themselves excluded from such important decision-making processes will either find alternative paths to success or turn to others means to empower themselves.
Discussion Questions
Note: you may be requested by your instructor to e-mail the answers to these questions to his or her office. If so, be sure to add your name (or other identifying information) to your answers, since your e-mail address may not tell your instructor who you are.

Click here for e-mail homework form!

Explain the difference between the consensus, pluralistic, and conflict perspectives. Which comes closest to your way of understanding society? Why?

What is Marxist criminology? How, if at all, does it differ from radical criminology? From critical criminology?

Does the Marxist perspective hold any significance for contemporary American society? Why or why not?

Define terrorism. Do you think that society will experience more or less terrorism in the future? How will forms of terrorism change in the future?

What is state-organized crime? Give examples of such crime. How can it be controlled?

What lessons can be learned from the April, 1995 terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma? How likely do you believe such attacks may be in the future? How can we, as a nation, guard against them?

Notes
(1) Raymond J. Michalowski, "Perspectives and Paradigm: Structuring Criminological Thought," in Robert F. Meier, ed., Theory in Criminology (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1977), pp. 17-39.

(2) Roscoe Pound, Social Control Through the Law: The Powell Lectures (Hamden, CT: Archon, 1968), pp. 113114.

(3) Although Pound's postulates originally made reference only to "men" we have here used the now-conventional phrase "men and women" throughout the postulates to indicate that Pound was speaking of all persons within the social group. No other changes to the original postulates have been made.

(4) Adapted from Michalowski, "Perspectives and Paradigm: Structuring Criminological Thought."

(5) Ibid.

(6) George B. Vold, Theoretical Criminology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), p. 205.

(7) Ibid., p. 206.

(8) Ibid., pp. 208-209.

(9) Ibid., p. 309.

(10) Austin Turk, Criminality and Legal Order (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969), p. vii.

(11) Ibid.

Back to Criminology Today Home Page
Back to Chapter Links

Legal Statement