Radical, new or critical criminologies of the late 1960s and 1970s had their basis in Marxism, Libertarianism, anarchism or American populism.
They sought to understand crime control by referring to power, politics and inequalities and emphasised the need for political activism or praxis.
Chambliss (1976, Box 1983) saw crime control as an oppressive and mystifying force. Legislation and law enforcement and ideological stereotyping preserved unequal class relations.
The radical political economy of crime sought to expose the hegemonic ideologies that masked the real nature of crime and repression in capitalist societies.
Most mundane offending was less harmful than exploitation, alienation, racism and pollution.
Much proletarian crime could be redefined as a form of rebellion or redistributive class justice. Or the possessive individualism endemic to capitalist society.
Criminal justice itself created visible crowds of working-class black scapegoats to deflect attention away from a capitalist system in terminal crisis.
If the working classes did turn to crime they were themselves victims of false consciousness which inflated the nature of petit problems while hiding harms the bourgeoisie did.
Black prisoners were the victims of race wars, prison the ultimate form of state repression.
Most people were unaware of how power worked and it was the job of the radical criminologist to demystify.
Socialism was the answer to the problem of crime.
The New Criminology
In 1973 Taylor, Walton and Young published The New Criminology which combined Marxist and Interactionist approaches to crime. They argued criminologists should examine all the different aspects surrounding why a crime takes place – the immediate and wider political reasons as well the societal reaction.
They argued criminologists should examine how capitalism generates the circumstances of crime, the responses of the police, media, criminal justice system, offender and victim, and how all of these factors interact to influence how the situation develops.
New Criminologists argued that criminals were lashing out against capitalism, in fact they say that they were mistakenly expressing their anger at capitalism through crime, rather than politics. They also argued the media created moral panics and scapegoats about particular crimes to divert attention away from issues which may potentially be damaging to the ruling classes.
The New Criminology was similar to Marxism….
- It accepted that the key to understanding crime is the material basis of society – the economy is the most important part.
- Believed that capitalist societies are unequal and these inequalities are the root of crime.
- Supported a radical change of society – theories of crime are useless unless they offer hope to liberate people from oppression.
The New Criminology also criticised previous criminological theorising…
- Marx was too economically deterministic. Taylor et al insist that criminals choose to break the law. External forces do not determine human behaviour.
- They dismissed most causal theories of crime and saw control, labelling, and biological theories as too determinist. They believed crimes were deliberate and conscious acts with political motives.
- Deviants were not just the passive victims of capitalism, they were engaged in active political struggle.
- They wanted socialism not communism. They envisaged a society where hippies, LGBTQ people, and maybe even drug users would be accepted and not turned into criminals.
The Fully Social Theory of Deviance
Taylor, Walton and Young developed the Fully Social Theory of Deviance to emphasise seven factors we need to look at to fully understand crime.
To understand Crime fully we need to look at..
- The way in which wealth and power is distributed in society. Here we need to look at the Crimogenic Capitalist system and cyclical economic crises within Capitalism. Also the role of the state in oppressing and marginalising certain groups.
- The particular circumstances surrounding the decision of an individual to commit an act of deviance
- The deviant act itself and the meaning the individual deviant attaches to it.
- How and why other people in society react to deviance – how do family members, friends and the police react? We also need to look at the media’s power to create ‘folk devils’
- The reaction needs to be explained in terms of the social structure. How do the public and the police respond to the creation of folk devils ? (the societal reaction)? More broadly, who has the power to make the rules? Why do agents of social control punish some deviant acts more severely than others?
- The effect labelling has on the people being labelled. How do the ‘criminalised’ respond to being labelled?
- All of the above together.
Stuart Hall applied this approach to his study of mugging in the 1970s. He found that the Government wanted to divert attention away from the economic crisis of the time, so a moral panic was created about black youths in London.
Criticisms of Radical Criminology.
Critical Criminology offers us no realistic solution to the problem of crime – if it is Capitalism and the state that are the problems – then a revolution is the only answer. Radical criminology did not receive government funded ‘soft money’ for empiricist research. Some departments closed down.
It was too idealistic. It is based on some idealised vision of a free future. All capitalist societies are not the same an socialism can be repressive.
The New Criminology romanticised criminals. In reality most criminals are not struggling against their oppressors in the name of political change, they are just thugs.
Victim surveys of the 1970s and 80s showed the extent of working class victimisation. They showed us that crime was intra-class, not inter-class. In other words the working classes victimised other working class people, hardly a class struggle against the elite! They ignored the impact street crimes can have on Victims – Left Realism in particular gets back to a ‘victim centred’ approach to crime
They also ignored the victimisation of women.
The legacy of New Criminology
Reflecting back on Radical Criminology in the late 1990s, new criminologists accepted some of the criticisms, especially from Feminism.
In defence of New Criminology they pointed out that it stood up against correctionalism. It encouraged agents of social control to not eradicating deviant behaviour, and encouraged more tolerance!
New Criminology does have a critical legacy. Feminism, Left Realism and Postmodernism are all rooted in the New Criminology .
Signposting and relevance to A-level sociology
This content is relevant to the crime and deviance aspect of A-level sociology.
