| |
 |
| |
 |
| Your
answers identify you as a conflict theorist. You feel that law and criminal
justice policy are tools being used to further the interests of those who
have political power. |
| |
 |
|
Adherents of this theory believe that conflict is fundamental to social
life. People seek to secure their own interests, and this causes friction
as they rub up against those who have different ideas and values. As a
product or expression of this conflict; crime is natural and inherently
human.
|
 | Clearing Trees
Alabama Chain Gang, 1995
Huntsville, Alabama
c. 1995 Ken Light |
|
 |
A variety of thinkers have put their own spin on the
basic premises of conflict theory and have proposed solutions to the problem
of crime. In the 1960s and 1970s, radical criminologists embraced a Marxist
approach. They saw crime as an expression of the unequal nature of capitalist
societies, a result of class-based living. They felt that the criminal justice
system targeted the poor, who actually behaved no differently than any other
group. This theory provided an explanation for the over-representation of
blacks and impoverished people in the system. In this model, offenders are
political victims or agitating heroes. Crime prevention or eradication calls
for redistributing resources and making utopian social arrangements.
 |
Police and Strikers
c. 1924 |
Peacemaking criminologists also see crime as a conflict between social
groups, but they call for a different solution. They seek to make peace,
not control crime, encouraging agencies and citizens to work together
to alleviate social problems and reduce conflict.
|
| |
 |
| These models, as appealing as they are in some ways,
have flaws. Crime is hardly a new phenomenon, and it happens even in noncapitalist
societies. How can the radical model explain that? It's helpful to have
theories about why crimes are committed, but we still need guidance on how
to deal with offenders. Shouldn't they be punished? How? There's no denying
that some criminals cause very
real damage. |
| |
| |