Conflict Criminology

• Social paradigms

– Consensus – general consensus on values

• Role of State to mediate conflicts

– Conflict – disagreement on values

• State represents interests of the elite

• Elite define what is appropriate behavior to further their self-interests

• Powerless are more likely to be defined as criminals

Early Conflict Theories

Cultural conflict – Sellin

• Conduct norms: how people are supposed to act under certain circumstances– Conduct norms often become laws

• In simple, homogenous societies these laws may actually reflect a

social consensus

• In complex, heterogeneous societies there may be disagreement and no consensus

– Border regions– Colonization

Group conflict – Vold

• People form groups with others of like interest

• Groups continuously try to improve their standing– Achieve a kind of stasis known as “social order”

• Groups may come into conflict when their interests and purposes intersect– Try to use the C.J. system to promote their standing

• When groups are in conflict, member loyalty to their group increases

• Lawmaking, lawbreaking and law enforcement reflects competition between groups for control of the State’s police power– Crime becomes by definition the behavior of “minority power

groups” that do not have enough clout to defend their interests

Conflict Theories in a Time of Conflict

Civil Rights Movement

- - -

The Vietnam War

Criminalization - Turk

• Authorities try to maintain a “consensus-coercion” balance– Try to keep power relationships from shifting too much either way

• Cultural and social norms– Cultural norm: laws as written– Social norms: laws as enforced

• Variables affecting likelihood of conflict:– Cultural or social norms of authorities and subjects differ– Subjects have a language/philosophy to defend their behavior– Level of organization and sophistication of authorities/subjects:

• Conflict more likely when subjects are organized (individuals less likely to back down)

• Conflict more likely when either group is less sophisticated (less able to subtly work around the conflict)

• Factors affecting criminalization of behavior

– Degree of agreement within the authorities (police, prosecutors, courts)

– Relative power of enforcers and resisters

“Social reality of crime” - Quinney

• Crime is conduct that conflicts with the interests of influential “segments” of society

• These segments may or may not be organized or able to protect their interests

• “Segments” have different behaviors and normative systems• People more likely to be labeled “criminal” if their “segment” does

not influence the criminal law• Segments communicate their “conceptions of crime” throughout

society (e.g., by the media)

– These communications shape our attitudes about what crime is or ought to be

– Example - consumers argue that corporate executives are “the real criminals”

Analysis of the CJ System –Chambliss and Seidman

• Power of the state - two formulations– Consensus: A value-neutral framework where conflicts can be

peacefully resolved– Conflict: Power of the state IS the prize in perpetual conflict

within society

• Lawmaking characterized by warring interest groups

• The higher a group’s economic and political position, the more likely its views will be reflected in the law– Appellate courts - primarily oriented to wealthy rather than the

poor – Law enforcement focuses its efforts on the weak and powerless

Unified Conflict Theory of Crime

• In complex societies people’s values and interests will conflict

• People act in patterns that they think benefit them and which they think are right or excusable

• Group values and power affect:– What acts become defined as crimes– Extent to which group members will become

violators• CJ agencies more likely to listen to the powerful• CJ agencies more likely to process easier cases,

thus more likely to sanction the powerless• Official crime rates for groups and individuals will

reflect the above

Testing conflict theory

• Most studies compare race and equity of CJ decisions

• Sentencing - usually find a disparity

– Is it bias? Controlling for factors such as seriousness of offense or prior record often eliminates the difference

– Less affluent are less able to mount an effective defense (retain better counsel, post bail)

• More policing in minority areas; more arrests

– Minority areas may have more street crime

– Greater need or demand for police services

– Greater likelihood of arresting members of minority groups