NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL

CRIMINOLOGY

PROJECT ON

Aspects of Critical Criminology

Submitted To: Submitted by:

Prof. (Dr.) P K Shukla Mahesh Rawat
2018B.A.LL.B51

1
CERTIFICATE

I hereby declare that the project work entitled “Aspects of Critical Criminology” submitted
to National Law Institute University, Bhopal, is a record of an original work done by me under
the able guidance of Prof. Dr. P.K Shukla, Faculty of Criminology, National Law Institute
University, Bhopal. The information submitted herein is true and original to the best of my
knowledge.

Mahesh Rawat
2018BALLB51

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to thank everyone who helped me out in completing this project work
directly or indirectly. I show a special token of gratitude towards our Professor (Dr.) P.K.
Shukla our Criminology teacher, without whose guidance and support, it would have been
pretty difficult to complete this project. I would also like to thank NLIU’s library, which helped
me a lot in the construction of this project. At the end I would also like to thank my parents for
their endless support and true guidance.

I acknowledge that without their help this project would not have been seen this day.

Mahesh Rawat

2018 BALLB.51

3
Table of Contents

CERTIFICATE ..................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5

Origins of Critical Criminology ............................................................................ 7

Strain theory ........................................................................................................ 10

III. Principal Strains of Critical Criminology ..................................................... 12

A. Peacemaking Criminology ............................................................................. 12

B. Postmodernist Criminology............................................................................ 13

C. Feminist Criminology .................................................................................... 14

D. Left Realism ................................................................................................... 15

IV. Emerging Strains of Critical Criminology.................................................... 16

A. News making Criminology and Public Criminology .................................... 16

B. Cultural Criminology ..................................................................................... 17

C. Convict Criminology ...................................................................................... 17

D. Critical Race Criminology ............................................................................. 18

E. Summary ......................................................................................................... 19

The Substantive Concerns of Critical Criminology............................................ 19

Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 22

Bibliography........................................................................................................ 23

4
Introduction

Critical criminology is a theoretical perspective in criminology which focuses on challenging

traditional understandings and uncovering false beliefs about crime and criminal justice, often
but not exclusively by taking a conflict perspective, such as Marxism, feminism, political
economy theory or critical theory. Critical criminology frequently takes a perspective of
examining the genesis of crime and nature of ‘justice’ within a structure of class and status
inequalities. Law and punishment of crime are viewed as connected to a system of social
inequality and as the means of producing and perpetuating this inequality.

Critical criminology is an umbrella term for a variety of criminological theories and

perspectives that challenge core assumptions of mainstream (or conventional) criminology in
some substantial way and provide alternative approaches to understanding crime and its
control. Mainstream criminology is sometimes referred to by critical criminologists as
establishment, administrative, managerial, correctional, or positivistic criminology. Its focus is
regarded as excessively narrow and predominantly directed toward individual offenders, street
crime, and social engineering on behalf of the state. The critical criminological perspectives
reject the claims of scientific objectivity made on behalf of mainstream criminology as well as
the privileged status of the scientific method. Although some critical criminologists apply an
empirical approach with the use of quantitative analysis, much critical criminology adopts an
interpretive and qualitative approach to the understanding of social reality in the realm of crime
and its control. The unequal distribution of power or of material resources within contemporary
societies provides a unifying point of departure for all strains of critical criminology.

Definition of Critical Criminology1:

Criminology, critical Also termed radical criminology, this perspective emerged in the early
1970s, as an explicitly politicized body of work. Drawing on varieties of Marxism (and in some
cases anarchism), it adopted a conflict perspective and placed emphasis upon the oppressive
power of the state, its control over the definition and prosecution of crime, and the exploitation
of the powerless by capital. Crime was viewed and explained as a product of the social and

1
As seen on http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-criminologycritical.html last seen on 3rd August 2019
5
historical processes related to capitalism itself. The standard treatment is given in Ian Taylor,
Paul Walton, and Jock Young, The New Criminology (1973)

Crime and its control are major preoccupations of people everywhere. Public perceptions of
crime and its control are in many respects distorted by media representations and the agendas
of the governing elites. The immense significance of critical criminology, then, lies in its
capacity to expose the conventional myths about crime and its control and to provide an
alternative basis for understanding these tremendously consequential dimensions of our social
existence.

The historical origins of critical criminology, its principal contemporary strains, and some of
its major substantive concerns are identified in the paragraphs that follow. In addition, some
speculation is offered regarding the future prospects of critical criminology

6
Objective

The objective of this project is:-

 To understand what is Critical Criminology.

 This project aims to study and understand some of the major Aspects of critical

criminology.

 How conflict perspective of critical criminology helps in study of crime.

 To find substantive concerns of criminal behaviour system.

Research Methodology

The research methodology used in this research project is doctrinal method of study.

Hypothesis

Whether critical criminology could succeed in finding the exact cause of crime.

Statement of Problem

How critical criminology can be used to empirically verify the crime in today’s society.

Origins of Critical Criminology

Criminology attempts to build theories that explain why some crimes occur and why criminals
commit crimes. The theories are tested by observing behavior and studying statistics.
Criminological theories are then used to shape how society responds to crime, both in terms of
preventing future incidences of crime and responding to criminals who commit those crimes.

The study of criminology dates back to the beginning of the 18th century, when scholars began
distinguishing the act of committing a crime from sin by attempting to explain that why crime
occurred. This first venture into the study of crime was referred to as classical criminology.

7
In the beginning of the 19the century, modern criminology began to take shape, with the study
of criminology being recognized as a sub-discipline of psychology, sociology, and economics.
During this time, criminological societies and journals of criminology began to emerge, and
criminologists were conducting observations and experiments based on their theories.

The latter part of the 20th century brought about the third phase of criminology known as
independent criminology, which saw this field of study pulling away from the larger disciplines
of sociology and psychology and standing on its own as a separate social science. A number of
universities began to offer it as undergraduate and graduate programs and professional
associations and journals became widespread.

Classism is differential treatment based on social class or perceived social class. Classism is
the systematic oppression of subordinated class groups to advantage and strengthen the
dominant class groups. It’s the systematic assignment of characteristics of worth and ability
based on social class.

Contemporary critical criminology has its roots in a range of theoretical perspectives that have
advanced a critique of both the existing conditions in society and the conventional or
established theories that claim to explain society, social phenomena, and social behavior.
Marxist theory has been one source of inspiration for some influential strains of critical
criminology, although it has been a common error to characterize all critical criminologists as
Marxists or neo-Marxists. Karl Marx and his close collaborator Friedrich Engels did not
develop a systematic criminological theory, but it is possible to extrapolate a generalized
Marxist perspective on crime and criminal law from their work. The ownership class is guilty
of the worst crime: the brutal exploitation of the working class. Revolution is a form of
counterviolence, then, and is both necessary and morally justified. The state and the law itself
ultimately serve the interests of the ownership class. Human beings are not by nature
egocentric, greedy, and predatory, but they can become so under certain social conditions.
Conventional crime is, in essence, a product of extreme poverty and economic
disenfranchisement and of “false needs” and the dehumanizing and demoralizing effects of the
capitalist system. However, conventional crime is neither an admirable nor an effective means
of revolutionary action, and all too often it pits the poor against the poor. Marx also regarded
crime as “productive”—perhaps ironically— insofar as it provides employment and business
opportunities for many. In an authentically communist society the state and the law will wither
away, with the formal law being replaced by a form of communal justice. Human beings will

8
Although many sociologists and criminologists continue to recognize the power of some basic
dimensions of Marxist theoretical analysis to make sense of the world, it is also indisputably
true that any invocation of “Marxist” carries with it a lot of baggage in the form of association
with the immense crimes committed—primarily during the 20th century—in the name of a
claimed Marxist or communist society. Accordingly, it is difficult for some criminologists to
be receptive to the potent explanatory dimensions of Marxist theory and concepts independent
of the perverse applications of Marxist analysis in some historical circumstances.

A distinctive radical criminology—and a Union of Radical Criminologists—emerged in the

early 1970s. Journals such as Crime and Social Justice and Contemporary Crises were
important venues for radical criminology scholarship during this time. The Center for Research
on Criminal Justice’s The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove (1970) exemplified the radical
criminological ideal, insofar as it was an essentially Marxist analysis of the police, collectively
written, and oriented toward praxis, with a section on organizing for action. Quinney was surely
the best known, most frequently cited, most prolific, and most controversial radical
criminologist of this period. In several books published in the 1970s—Critique of Legal Order
(1974), Criminology (1979), and Class, State and Crime (1980)—Quinney applied a neo-
Marxist interpretation of capitalist society to an understanding of crime and criminal justice. In
Critique of Social Order, for example, Quinney argued that law in a capitalist society functions
to legitimate the system and to facilitate oppression and exploitation. He asked whether we
really need law and whether we might be better off without it. In 1982, Quinney coedited (with
Piers Beirne) a noteworthy anthology, Marxism and Law.

By the end of the 1970s, Quinney had become somewhat disenchanted with the conventional
concerns of academic scholars and of criminologists specifically. In the years that followed, he
pursued a range of projects, often wholly removed from criminological concerns, including
explorations in phenomenology; existentialism; critical philosophy; liberation theology;
Buddhism; and autobiographical, reflexive work. However, he also made seminal contributions
to the establishment (with Harold Pepinsky) of a major strain of critical criminology called
peacemaking criminology, and several generations of radical and critical criminologists have
drawn inspiration from his work.

By the end of the 1970s, much of the initial radical political and cultural energy of the earlier
part of that decade had disintegrated. A book entitled Radical Criminology: The Coming Crises
(1980), edited by James Inciardi, was a controversial collection of critical (and appreciative)

9
interpretations of radical criminology. If the radical criminology that emerged during the 1970s
was never a fully unified enterprise, it became even more fragmented during the course of the
1980s.. Although some critical criminologists continue to work within one or the other of the
earlier conflict and neo-Marxist perspectives, many others have become more closely identified
with critical perspectives that have emerged (or been applied to criminological phenomena)
more recently.

The recent era has been regarded as both politically and culturally more conservative than the
era of the 1960s, but critical criminology has been a fairly vigorous presence within
criminology, despite—or perhaps because of—this less receptive societal environment. The
Division on Critical Criminology, which publishes the journal Critical Criminology, has been
an especially large division within the American Society of Criminology since its establishment
in 1988. Every year, the Division on Critical Criminology attracts recruits among new
criminology graduate students who recognize that their ideological orientation and research
interests are at odds with those of mainstream criminology.

In the sections that follow, the principal strains of critical criminology are identified and
described, along with a number of more recent emerging strains.

Strain theory

Strain theories state that certain strains or stressors increase the likelihood of crime. These
strains lead to negative emotions, such as frustration and anger. These emotions create pressure
for corrective action, and crime is one possible response. Crime may be used to reduce or
escape from strain, seek revenge against the source of strain or related targets, or alleviate
negative emotions. For example, individuals experiencing chronic unemployment may engage
in theft or drug selling to obtain money, seek revenge against the person who fired them, or
take illicit drugs in an effort to feel better. The major versions of strain theory describe 1) the
particular strains most likely to lead to crime, 2) why strains increase crime, and 3) the factors
that lead a person to or dissuade a person from responding to strains with crime. All strain
theories acknowledge that only a minority of strained individuals turn to crime. Emile
Durkheim developed the first modern strain theory of crime and deviance, but Merton’s classic
strain theory and its offshoots came to dominate criminology during the middle part of the 20th
century. Classic strain theory focuses on that type of strain involving the inability to achieve
monetary success or the somewhat broader goal of middle-class status. Classic strain theory

10
fell into decline during the 1970s and 1980s, partly because research appeared to challenge it.
There were several attempts to revise strain theory, most arguing that crime may result from
the inability to achieve a range of goals—not just monetary success or middle-class status.
Robert Agnew developed his general strain theory (GST) in 1992, and it has since become the
leading version of strain theory and one of the major theories of crime. GST focuses on a broad
range of strains, including the inability to achieve a variety of goals, the loss of valued
possessions, and negative treatment by others. GST has been applied to a range of topics,
including the explanation of gender, race/ethnicity, age, community, and societal differences
in crime rates. It has also been applied to many types of crime and deviance, including corporate
crime, police deviance, bullying, suicide, terrorism, and eating disorders. Much evidence
suggests that the strains identified by GST increase the likelihood of crime, although the
predictions of GST about the types of people most likely to respond to these strains with crime
have received less support.

Strain theory is a sociology and criminology theory developed in 1957 by Robert K. Merton.
The theory states that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve a socially accepted goals
(such as the American dream) though they lack the means, this leads to strain which may lead
the individuals to commit crimes. Examples being selling drugs or becoming involved in
prostitution to gain financial security

When two conflicting social values or beliefs are competing in an individual’s daily life, the
person experiences value strain. The two conflicting social facts are competing personal beliefs
internalized in the person’s value system. A cult member may experience strain if the
mainstream culture and the cult religion are both considered important in the cult member’s
daily life. Other examples include the second generation of immigrants in the United States
who have to abide by the ethnic culture rules enforced in the family while simultaneously
adapting to the American culture with peers and school. In China, rural young women
appreciate gender egalitarianism advocated by the communist government, but at the same
time, they are trapped in cultural sexual discrimination as traditionally cultivated by
Confucianism. Another example that might be found in developing countries is the differential
values of traditional collectivism and modern individualism. When the two conflicting values
are taken as equally important in a person’s daily life, the person experiences great strain. When
one value is more important than the other, there is then little or no strain.

Strain may either be:

11
Structural: this refers to the processes at the societal level which filter down and affect how the
individual perceives his or her needs, i.e. if particular social structures are inherently inadequate
or there is inadequate regulation, this may change the individual's perceptions as to means and
opportunities;

Individual: this refers to the frictions and pains experienced by an individual as he or she looks
for ways to satisfy his or her needs, i.e. if the goals of a society become significant to an
individual, actually achieving them may become more important than the means adopted.

General strain theory (GST) is a sociology and criminology theory developed in the 1992 by
Robert Agnew. The core idea of general strain theory is that people who experience strain or
stress become distressed or upset which may lead them to commit crime in order to cope. One
of the key principle of this theory is emotion as the motivator for crime. The theory was
developed to conceptualize the full range of sources in society where strain possibly comes
from, which Merton's strain theory does not. The theory also focuses on the perspective of
goals for status, expectations and class rather than focusing on money( as Merton's theory
does). Examples of General Strain Theory are people who use illegal drugs to make themselves
feel better, or a student assaulting his peers to end the harassment they causes.2

GST introduces 3 main sources of strain such as3

-Loss of positive stimuli (death of family or friend)

-Presentation of negative stimuli (physical and verbal assaults)

-The inability to reach a desired goal.

III. Principal Strains of Critical Criminology

A. Peacemaking Criminology

The contemporary form of peacemaking criminology is principally the product of two well-
known, prolific, and highly original critical criminologists: Richard Quinney and Harold
Pepinsky. They have collaborated to put together the premier reader on the subject,

2
Agnew, Robert (2001). "Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain
Most Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 38 (4): 319–
361. doi:10.1177/0022427801038004001
3
Paternoster, Raymond; Mazerolle, Paul (1994). "General Strain Theory and Delinquency: A Replication and
Extension". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 31 (3): 235–263. doi:10.1177/0022427894031003001
12
Criminology as Peacemaking (1991). The basic themes of a peacemaking criminology have
been concisely identified as follows: connectedness, caring, and mindfulness. Personal
suffering and suffering in the world are taken to be inseparable. We should avoid
personalizing evil and constructing false schemes that pigeonhole human beings as honorable
citizens or reprehensible criminals. Instead, we should focus on our common humanity and
choose affirmative ways of reaching out to and interacting with others. Responses to the
problem of crime must begin with attending to ourselves as human beings; we need to suffer
with the criminal rather than making the criminal suffer for us. Altogether, peacemaking
criminology calls for a fundamental transformation in our way of thinking about crime and
criminal justice.4

Peacemaking criminology is by any measure a heretical challenge to the dominant

assumptions of mainstream criminological perspectives. It can be criticized as a form of
utopianism, but at a minimum it serves as a provocative antidote to the explicit or implicit
cynicism or pessimism of other criminological perspectives. Peacemaking criminology has
some affinity with an anarchic or abolitionist criminology, but this latter perspective is more
directly associated with the controversial proposition that we would be better off without a
formal state (and its laws) and would be better off without prisons and a formal justice
system. Peacemaking criminology can also be linked with the expanding restorative justice
movement, which calls for a shift away from a retributive justice system that focuses on
identifying and punishing perpetrators of crimes and toward a system that focuses on
repairing harm through a cooperative endeavor involving the accused, the victim, and the
community. The restorative justice approach has been embraced by some portion of the
mainstream (and even conservative) community, and at least some critical criminologists
believe it has been co-opted by the criminal justice system. Others, however, believe that it
continues to have progressive potential. The work of peacemaking criminologists has been
directed toward sensitizing people to counterproductive, inherently unjust responses to
conventional forms of crime.

B. Postmodernist Criminology

Although a postmodernist criminology has been identified as one strain of critical

criminology, postmodern thought itself is by no means necessarily linked with a progressive

4
http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/describe-peacemaking-criminology-what-its-central-175643
13
agenda; on the contrary, much postmodernist thought is viewed as either consciously
apolitical or inherently conservative and reactionary.

Any attempt to characterize a postmodernist criminology— or postmodern thought itself—

encounters difficulties. It can be best described as a loose collection of themes and
tendencies. Postmodernists reject totalizing concepts (e.g., the state), they reject positivism,
and they reject the potential of collective action to transform society. Postmodernism
contends that modernity is no longer liberating but has become rather a force of subjugation,
oppression, and repression. For postmodernism, language plays the central role in the human
experience of reality. The postmodernist “deconstruction” of texts exposes the instability and
relativity of meaning in the world. Within critical criminology specifically, Stuart Henry and
Dragan Milovanovic have produced a pioneering effort—which they call constitutive
criminology—to integrate elements of postmodernist thought with the critical criminological
project. They are especially concerned with highlighting the role of ideology, discursive
practices, symbols, and sense data in the production of meaning in the realm of crime. We
must, they contend, understand how those who engage in crime, who seek to control it, and
who study it “co-produce” its meaning.5

C. Feminist Criminology

This perspective has especially focused on exposing the overall patterns of patriarchialism
and male dominance in all realms pertaining to crime and the legal system. Whatever their
differences, feminists such as Meda Chesney- Lind, Carol Smart, and Kathleen Daly have
been quite united in identifying and opposing social arrangements that contribute to the
oppression of women. Direct forms of male violence (e.g., rape and spouse abuse) targeting
women inevitably have been a major preoccupation of feminist criminology. In addition to
those forms of crime that specifically and directly target females, feminist criminologists
have also sought to demonstrate the broader vulnerability of females to a range of crimes not
in this category, such as the multinational corporate exploitation of labor in sweatshops in
developing countries. At least some feminist criminologists have also focused on the nature
of female involvement in criminal behavior and the social and cultural forces that have led to
a higher level of female involvement in such activity in the most recent era. Some forms of
illegal (and deviant) activity have always involved females to a significant degree, with

5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernist_school_(criminology)
14
prostitution and sex work as primary examples. Feminist criminologists who have explored
female involvement in sex work have not been unified in their characterization of such
female offenders—are they exploited victims or liberated women?—and indeed, no single
feminist criminological perspective is uniformly adopted. The focus of criminological
research historically has been overwhelmingly directed toward male offenders.

The feminist movement, since the 1970s, has had a significant impact on a wide range of
cultural attitudes and social policies, and feminist criminologists have played some role in
promoting policies, such as the reform of rape laws to diminish the further victimization of
rape victims and the recognition of sexual harassment as a significant offense. They have also
played a noteworthy role in the evaluation of the actual effects of such policy initiatives.

D. Left Realism

This perspective emerged largely in Great Britain and Canada in the period after 1985 as a
response to the perceived analytical and practical deficiencies of radical criminology,
especially in its neo-Marxist form. Jock Young in England and Walter DeKeseredy in Canada
have been among the primary promoters of this perspective. Left realists realized that right-
wingers were able to largely preempt the crime issue, because the fear of street crime is
pervasive and intense and typically has more immediacy than fear of elite crime. Radicals
who either ignore street crime or, even worse, are seen as romanticizing street criminals lose
all credibility in the eyes of their largest potential constituency. Furthermore, traditional
radical criminology does not attend to the fact that the principal victims of street crime are
disadvantaged members of society and that conventional crime persists in noncapitalist
societies. Left realists also reject one-dimensional interpretations of state crackdowns on
street crime that characterize it exclusively as repression. However, left realists vehemently
deny that their work leads in the same direction as right realists, and they differ from right
realists in many ways: They prioritize social justice over order; reject biogenetic,
individualistic explanations of criminality and emphasize structural factors; are not
positivistic, insofar as they are concerned with social meaning of crime as well as criminal
behavior and the links between lawmaking and lawbreaking; and they are acutely aware of
the limitations of coercive intervention and are more likely to stress informal control. Left
realist criminology insists on attending to the community as well as the state, the victim as
well as the offender. It argues that some traditional criminological research methods can be
used to generate research that can serve progressive objectives. Some left realists have
15
focused on the crimes of powerful corporations. Here, however, the tendency has been to call
for more regulation and tougher sanctions against lawbreakers who cause immense,
demonstrable harm but who have been able to shield themselves from criminalization due to
their wealth and influence. Altogether, left realists may be said to advocate policies and
practices toward both conventional and corporate crime that are realistic as well as
progressive.

The preceding sections identified four principal strains of critical criminology that are quite
universally recognized as such. In the following sections, several other strains that are
increasingly also acknowledged to be significant strains of critical criminology are identified.

IV. Emerging Strains of Critical Criminology

A. News making Criminology and Public Criminology

Karl Marx famously argued that one should not be content to explain the world; one should
change it. It is an enduring complaint about many forms of academic disciplines that they are
insular and self-indulgent and make no measurable impact on the “real” world. Certainly they
do not contribute to the alleviation of human suffering, in its various manifestations. Critical
criminologists may be especially sensitive to this type of critique and the need for some form
of praxis whereby “real-world” differences are effected. Newsmaking criminology, as
originally promoted by Gregg Barak, calls for direct engagement by critical criminologists with
a broad public constituency through actively seeking out opportunities to put across a critical
criminological perspective on issues of crime and criminal justice in mass media outlets.
Increasingly, of course, it is recognized that efforts to reach a broader audience—especially a
younger audience—must involve the Internet. In a somewhat parallel vein, Elliott Currie,
among others, has recently promoted a public criminology with a critical dimension. Too much
of criminology— including some of critical criminology—is regarded as narrowly focused or
adopting terminology and forms of analysis that are comprehensible to only a small number of
other (like-minded) criminologists instead of addressing pressing substantive issues such as
harmful present criminal justice policies in forms—and forums—capable of reaching a broader
public. Such initiatives raise the question of whether newsmaking or public criminologists can
realistically expect to inform and engage a public massively resistant to such engagement and
largely distracted by a formidable culture of entertainment.

16
B. Cultural Criminology

The recognition of the profoundly stylistic and symbolic dimension of certain forms of
lawbreaking and deviant behavior has been a primary focus of cultural criminology. This
critical criminological approach, pioneered by Jeff Ferrell, among others, has sought to provide
rich or “thick” descriptions of people who live at the margins of the conventional social order,
including, among others, drug users, graffiti writers, motorcyclists, and skydivers, drawing on
an ethnographic approach that often involves direct participant observation as well as on
autobiographical and journalistic accounts. The “crimes of style” that cultural criminology
addresses are best understood in relation to the contested political environment within which
they occur and as representations of cultural values that challenge, on various levels, the
dominant cultural value system of contemporary society. Some critics have complained that
cultural criminologists overempathize with the social deviants and “outlaws” about whom they
write and that they fail to adequately appreciate the perspective and legitimate concerns of the
members of society charged with addressing their activities. However, cultural criminology
provides us with a colorful and multilayered appreciation of a range of marginalized members
of society.

C. Convict Criminology

Prison convicts have been a significant focus of criminological concern from the outset.
However, a recently established convict criminology puts forth the notion— quite parallel to
claims made by gender- and race-focused criminological perspectives—that the authentic
experience of prison convicts often fails to fully emerge from the studies of conventional or
managerial criminology. Furthermore, people who have served time in prison also offer a
unique perspective on correctional reforms. A number of former convicts have become
professors of criminology and criminal justice and have published books and articles on the
prison experience. At least some of them have become a key part of the development of convict
criminology. Their insider knowledge of the world of prisons makes them uniquely qualified
to conduct ethnographic studies of prison life. They might also be said to have an extra measure
of credibility in claims that existing policies of incarcerating huge numbers of nonviolent
offenders, including many low-level drug offenders, and then subjecting them to demeaning
and counterproductive conditions, do not work and should be abandoned. Convict criminology
accordingly adopts core themes of critical criminology in calling for understanding crime and

17
its control from the bottom up and in exposing the profound limitations of public policies
imposed on a profoundly disadvantaged segment of the population.

D. Critical Race Criminology

If gender has been one significant variable in relation to crime and criminal justice, race has
certainly been another. Accordingly, some critical criminologists have focused on both the
historical role of racism in producing discriminatory treatment toward people of color in all
aspects of crime and criminal justice as well as the role that enduring (if less manifestly
obvious) forms of racism continue to play in promoting images of criminals and policies and
practices in processing criminal offenders. It is well-known that racial minorities—and African
American men in particular—are greatly overrepresented in the correctional system, and some
of the work of critical race criminologists is directed toward demonstrating how this
overrepresentation not only reflects embedded racist elements of our criminal law and criminal
justice system but also contributes toward supporting a lucrative prison industry.

Beyond the strains of critical criminology discussed earlier, there are some additional emerging
strains or proposed strains, although it remains to be seen whether they will be widely embraced
and further expanded. Queer criminology explores the manifestations of homophobia in the
realm of crime and criminal justice. Green criminology exposes and analyzes social practices
and policies that are environmentally harmful. Countercultural criminology calls for addressing
the “colonial” issues largely neglected in mainstream criminology and critical criminology.
Certainly there is some critical criminological work coming out of developing countries today
addressing the crime and crime control issues afflicting these countries and, more typically
now, by drawing on indigenous intellectual traditions, as opposed to simply applying Western
(Occidental) theories and frameworks. Biocritical criminology is a call for critical
criminologists to acknowledge that genes play some role in at least certain forms of criminal
behavior, and a cooperative endeavor between criminologists with a biosocial orientation and
critical criminologists might disentangle the relative contributions of the political economy, the
societal environment, and biogenetic factors in the emergence of criminal behavior. Species-
related critical criminology calls for recognition that animals (or species other than human) are
victims of a broad range of crimes by social institutions and specific human beings.

18
E. Summary

It should be obvious from the preceding discussion that critical criminology is an exceptionally
diverse enterprise. It is also characterized by some measurable internal criticism, for example,
from those who remain committed to the original utopian project of radical criminology and a
fundamental transformation of society and from those who have adopted a more limited,
practical approach of exposing limitations of mainstream criminological approaches to crime
and criminal justice and promoting piecemeal reforms. Such pluralism is perhaps inevitable in
critical criminology, and ideally the diverse strands of this enterprise complement and reinforce
each other.

The Substantive Concerns of Critical Criminology

Critical criminologists have attended to conventional forms of criminal activity—such as street

crime and drug trafficking—but when they have done so, they have been especially concerned
with demonstrating how these conventional forms of criminality are best understood in relation
to the attributes of a capitalist political economy. Accordingly, the approach of critical
criminologists to such forms of crime differs from that of mainstream criminology, which is
more likely to focus on individual attributes, rational calculations and routine activities,
situational factors, and the more immediate environment.

The study of domestic violence and rape, with a range of studies exploring the cultural forces
that both promote such violence and that have led to its past marginalization by the criminal
justice system, has been a major preoccupation of feminist and left-realist criminologists. The
role of “masculinities” in such crimes, as well as in various forms of street crime, has been
explored as well. In recognition of the expanded involvement of females in conventional forms
of crime—as one outcome of various liberating forces within society—some critical
criminologists have addressed such matters as female gang members and their involvement in
gang violence, with special emphasis on disparities of power.

Some critical criminologists have focused on newer forms of crime, such as hate crimes, which
have a controversial status within the larger society. The challenge here is to demonstrate why
such crimes have demonstrably harmful consequences that warrant recognition of their special
character and why they should not be viewed as protected by the traditional liberal commitment
to freedom of speech. Ethnic, racial, and sexual minority groups have been among the favored
targets of such crime, and immigrant communities remain especially vulnerable.

19
Critical criminologists have been especially receptive to the claim that the most significant
forms of crime are those committed by the powerful, not the powerless. Accordingly, some
critical criminologists have taken up Sutherland’s call to attend to white-collar crime, with
special emphasis on the crimes of large, powerful corporations. Within capitalist societies,
corporations operate in an environment of unequal distribution of market power and relentless
pressure to increase profit or growth, and they violate laws when the potential benefits of doing
so are regarded as outweighing the potential costs. State regulation of corporate activity is
significantly inhibited by the disproportionate influence of corporations in making and
administering laws and by the states’ need to foster capital accumulation. Friedrich Engels—
the collaborator of Marx—put forth the claim in the 19th century that the ownership class was
guilty of murder because it is fully aware that workers in factories and mines will die violent,
premature deaths due to unsafe conditions. Some critical criminologists today focus on the
persistence of “safety crimes” in the workplace and the ongoing relative neglect of such crimes
by most criminologists. Others have addressed environmental crimes carried out in the interest
of maximizing profit, and it seems likely that concern over such crimes will intensify in the
future. The production and distribution of a wide range of harmful products, from defective
transportation vehicles to unsafe pharmaceuticals to genetically modified foods, are ongoing
matters of interest in this realm.

Critical criminologists are responsible for introducing the concept of state–corporate crime into
the literature, that is, demonstrable (often large-scale) harms that occur as a consequence of
cooperative activity between state agencies and corporations. The complicity of various major
corporations, such as I. G. Farben with the Nazi state, in relation to the Holocaust, is a classic
case of state– corporate crime, but there are many other such cases in the world today.

The term crimes of globalization has been applied to the many forms of harm that occur in
developing countries as a consequence of the policies and practices of such international
financial institutions as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade
Organization. From 1999 on, major protests in Seattle, Washington; Washington, D.C.; and
other places directed at these institutional financial institutions demonstrate that outrage at
some of their activities is quite widely diffused.

In 1988, Chambliss, whose work had a significant influence on multiple generations of critical
criminologists, was serving as president of the American Society of Criminology. Radical and
critical criminologists have not been elected typically to leadership positions in professional

20
criminological associations, although there have been a few other cases of such leadership. In
his presidential address, Chambliss focused on state-organized crime. Just as Sutherland almost
50 years earlier had urged his fellow criminologists to attend to the hitherto-neglected topic of
white-collar crime, Chambliss in a similar vein was encouraging more criminological attention
to the crimes of states, which had been almost totally ignored by criminologists. In the
intervening years a growing number of critical criminologists have addressed a wide range of
state-organized forms of crime, including crimes of the nuclear state, crimes of war, and the
crime of genocide. A resurgent form of militarism in societies such as the United States has
also been a focus of the attention of some critical criminologists.

Some critical criminologists have focused on the many different ways that the principal agents
of social control— including the police, the courts, and the prisons—reflect the values and
interests of the privileged and powerful strata of society and all too often realized repressive
and counterproductive outcomes. Critical criminologists are concerned with identifying forms
of social control that are cooperative and constructive. For some critical criminologists, the
death penalty—almost uniquely retained by the United States among developed nations—is a
worthy focus of attention, insofar as it brings into especially sharp relief the inherent injustices
perpetrated by the existing system.

Finally, at least some critical criminologists have directed some attention to matters principally
of interest to academics and researchers in relation to their professional activities. Accordingly,
they have addressed some of the ethical issues that arise in relation to criminological research,
with special attention to the corrupting influence of corporate and governmental funding of
such research. Other critical criminologists have addressed challenges that arise in a
pedagogical context: on the one hand, exposing students who are often largely either relatively
conservative or apolitical in their outlook to a progressive perspective, without alienating or
inspiring active hostility from such students, and on the other hand, providing programs such
as criminal justice, conforming with expectations that students be prepared for careers as agents
of the criminal justice system while at the same time addressing the repressive and inequitable
character of such a system.

21
Conclusion

Critical criminology has in one sense tended to reflect the dominant focus of mainstream
criminology on crime and its control within a particular nation; however, going forward in the
21st century, there is an increasing recognition that many of the most significant forms of
crimes occur in the international sphere, cross borders, and can only be properly understood—
and controlled—within the context of the forces of globalization. Accordingly, a growing
number of critical criminologists have addressed such matters as collapsed states within a
global economy, harms emanating out of the policies of such international financial institutions
as the World Bank, the crimes of multinational corporations, trafficking of human beings across
borders and sex tourism in a globalized world, the treatment of new waves of immigrants and
refugees, international terrorism, the spread of militarism, preemptive wars as a form of state
crime, transnational policing, international war crime tribunals, and transitional justice.

Although at least some of these topics have been occasionally addressed by mainstream
criminologists, critical criminologists highlight the central role of imbalances of power in all
of these realms. Altogether, critical criminologists going forward are increasingly likely to take
into account the expanded globalized context, regardless of their specialized interest or focus.

On the one hand, critical criminologists fully recognize the immense power of corporate
interests—and other privileged interests and constituencies—to shape public consciousness in
a manner that is supportive of a capitalist political economy and the broad popular culture that
is one of its key products. On the subjective side, one would have a more enlightened and
autonomous “critical mass” of the citizenry that comes to recognize both the failures and the
injustices of existing arrangements and policies within the political economy, and the inherent
persuasiveness of critical perspectives, including that of critical criminology. In a world where
inequalities of power and wealth have intensified recently in certain significant respects, it
seems more likely than not that critical criminology will continue to play a prominent role in
making sense of crime and its control and the promotion of alternative policies for addressing
the enduring problem of crime.

22
Bibliography

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_criminology#Feminist_theories

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_criminology

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernist_school

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_realism

 http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology/convict-criminology/

 http://www.simplycriminology.com/the-postmodern-turn-in-criminolog/

23