Ethnicity and Crime

The whole debate about ethnicity and crime stems from ethnic differences in crime statistics. The stats show that ethnic minorities (Black and Asian) are more likely to commit a crime than a white person. Sociologists began to look deeper into  the matter and found that the stats were basically an exaggeration. But there were other sociologists who were in support of the statistics. Then the question that always stirs up emotions was born:

Are ethnic minorities actually commiting more crimes or do the stats simply reflect discrimination?

Let’s start with the argument that supports the belief that ethnic minorities are commiting more crimes. Left Realists Lea and Young argue that crime is the result of three factors: marginalisation, relative deprivation and status frustration. They argue that ethnic minorities are more likely to experience these than whites. This is caused by racism which makes them feel marginalised and these racist attitudes can sometimes prevent blacks and Asians getting jobs leading to relative deprivation and poverty. Then you got the media spitting out images of goods they can’t afford but they are told they need making them frustrated with their current status.

They then go on to say how this causes ethnic minorities, males in particular, to join gangs in order to raise their status. If you can’t gain respect by working in a bank, you can sure get some by stealing from one! It’s also a two-birds-one-stone situation because you can use that stolen money to buy a Ferrari Enzo and mansion so you feel less deprived. Happy days! But if money can’t shift all that anger built up inside, Lea and Young say ethnic minorities will vandalise or riot to express the frustration of being marginalised.

This is why ethnic minorities are heavily represented in crime stats. But what about the police that will arrest a brother for walking wrong, do I hear someone ask? To that, Lea+Young respond that 90% of recorded crimes are reported by a member of the public rather than a police arrest. This negates the whole racist arrest argument… or does it? Victim surveys conducted in England and Wales found that victims would identify their offender as a black man even if they were not sure. In my sociological opinion, this is because the media and police force have successfully joined forces to label blacks as inherently criminal. The public believe it and therefore report more crimes committed by ethnic minorities despite an uncertainty. The police see it as approval of their belief so they target ethnic minorities and the vicious cycle continues.

Hence why other sociologists are critical of Lea and Young’s theory. The first argument that supports discrimination in the criminal justice system focuses on how cases with ethnic minority offenders are treated at different stages within the system. Bowling and Phillips found that the police had ingrained negative stereotypes about ethnic minorities – probably heightened by their canteen culture. Figures showed that blacks were 3.6x more likely to be arrested than whites. However, when these cases reached the Crown Prosecution Service are vast majority were dropped and for the few that actually got to court, the jury were less likely to find the offender guilty – 60% of white offenders were found guilty as opposed to 52% of blacks and 44% of  Asians. The figures suggest two options: a) ethnic minorities are somehow bribing juries or b) the police are targeting and arresting ethnic minorities on weak, racist grounds that are of little or no value in a court of law. (I’ll let you decide which option’s more likely…)

Neo-marxists agree and argue that the stats do not reflect actual levels of crime. Instead they see crime stats as a social construct that shapes ethnic minorities as inherently more criminal. Gilroy sees ethnic criminality as a load of rubbish and argues that ethnic minorities aren’t committing crimes but are simply protesting against a racist society. Remember how the West charged into Africa, burned down homes, tore families apart and forced everyone to work on farms? Well, the previous generations of ethnic minorities were a part of the anti- imperialist actions against this injustice. Gilroy argues they would pass these beliefs onto their children. So when these second-generation ethnic minorities began to experience oppression and racism, they rioted or vandalised against it. A good example would be the riots caused by the Mark Duggan shooting. The big hole in this theory is intra-racial crime. What point is an Asian making by shooting another Asian? Surely the previous generation would have taught them about loyalty to your own kind?

Therefore, Hall offers an alternative argument. They argue that the whole “black criminality” scandal serves the interest of capitalism. In the 1970s there was a capitalist crisis that led to high unemployment, high inflation, widespread strikes and intense student protests. Sound familiar, Cameron? Well, before all this happened the state was able to  keep control and power through consent – pump out some malarky that some people are leaders and others followers or some other nonsense. But the public wasn’t buying it anymore. They were beginning to realise that the real source of their problem was…dare I say it?…CAPITALISM! And that scared leaders more than anything. So they had to find a way to restore control but it had to be done with force rather than consent. That’s when, quite suspiciously, the state pronounced there was currently a sharp rise in this “new” crime called muggings. I put “new” in quotes because in reality this crime had been around for ages but simply had no official name and, while we’re on the topic, showed no signs of an increase whatsoever. But the media, politicians and police pooled their resources together to successfully associate muggings with blacks.  Black muggings soon became the symbol of the social disorder caused by capitalism. Blacks became the state’s scapegoat. The public began blaming the blacks in their midst for their problems which led to a public divide which in turn weakened opposition to the state. Miraculously, the state had been able to restore power over the masses and even find support for policies that gave them greater control, all by labelling blacks as criminals.

Now for the rounding argument: actual crime or discrimination? In my opinion, it’s a mixture of both. I think ethnic minorities are more likely to commit crime mainly because all that frustration from discrimination has to go somewhere. But discrimination in the criminal justice system has led to the actual difference becoming distorted. However, that is just my opinion, what do you think?

Gramsci and hegemony (new/neo-Marxists)

Gramsci is a humanist Marxist. Humourless Marxists relate more to action theories as they believe the study of society should focus on the effect capitalism has on individuals. For example, how alienation is caused on the proletariat due to mindless production.

Gramsci focuses on how society is centred around ideas and the ability to control these ideas. He argues that the ruling class maintain dominance in society in two ways. The first is through coercion. This is stuff like the army, police or cruel justice system. A good example would be how China has made it illegal for the media to promote ante socialist ideas and how they are forcefully prohibiting religion. Fortunately, the number of laws to protect the rights of the media and people’s right to express religion makes this difficult to implement in the West. Therefore, Gramsci argues that the ruling class have to use consent or hegemony to control the product area. Now, hegemony is a set of ideas and values that are used to persuade the subordinate classes that the ruling class dominance is legitimate. The ruling class are able to spread this hegemony because they control institutions such as the media, education and religion. For example, some Marxists argue that the structure of the education system creates a submissive workforce. Teachers are dominant and have the right to control their students’ fashion, language and time. This conditions children for the world of work where bosses control their behaviour.

However, Gramsci’s optimistic that there is still hope for a revolution because the ruling class hegemony is incomplete for two reasons.

1. The ruling class are minority. In order for the hegemony to be successful the ruling class need to gain support from the other classes – the middle-class. However in order to get their support, the ruling class are going to have to compromise on the hegemony.
2. The proletariat have what Gramsci calls a dual consciousness. The proletariat are not only influenced by ruling class ideas, they have their own. The proletariat see things that the ruling class don’t, like poverty and unemployment and exploitation. This means they are not blinded by the ruling class who attempt to present their ideas as the best way to run society for everyone.

This means that there is always the possibility of the ruling class hegemony being undermined, particularly in an economic crisis whether negative effects of capitalism are more prevalent. However, Gramsci does argue that the only way for revolution to take place is for the proletariat to produce organic intellectuals – people that have seen beyond the hegemony – to bring the masses out of their false class consciousness by creating a counter hegemonic bloc (an opposing set of ideas that benefit everyone).

Evaluation

• Structural Marxists it is Gramsci of placing too much emphasis on ideas rather than state coercion and economic factors
• Other Marxists such have adopted Gramsci’s approach and stress the role of ideas and consciousness as the basis for resisting domination and changing society. Willis found that working class boys were beginning to see through the ruling class hegemony in education by recognising meritocracy is a myth

Evaluation of labelling

• Emphasis on negative effects of labelling gives criminals a victim status. Realists see this is ignoring the real victims of crime
• Ignores that individuals may actively choose deviance
• Why do people commit crimes prior to labels?
• It implies no labels = no deviance. The people who commit crimes but are not labelled on deviant? People are unaware they are deviant until labelled?
• It fails to examine links between labelling and capitalism, so focuses on middle range officials such as police who apply labels rather than the capitalist class that make the rules.

Weber: religion is a force for change

For those who prefer videos – WATCH THIS VIDEO!!!!!

In the 17th-century, there were Calvinists in Europe and Weber argues that Calvinists are as a religion help it to develop capitalism in society. The Calvinists believed in predestination. This is the belief that God has already decided who is going to heaven or hell  and there’s nothing that can be done to change His mind. They also believed in divine transcendence, which is the belief that God is so above and beyond this world that there is no way for human to understand what God is thinking or what God has decided. The combination of these two led to a salvation panic. Therefore the Calvinists began to work very hard in a bid to get in God’s good books – even if this goes against the belief that nothing can be done to change God’s mind.

Now you’re probably thinking: how is having a job going to get you into heaven? Well, the Calvinists were very this worldly. They believed that the reason they were put on earth was not only to spread the word of God but to become hard workers. This led to the Calvinists accumulating a lot of wealth, however the Calvinists never spent it, on luxury things at least, because they were ascetic. Yes, they saw this bountiful wealth as a sign from God that He was pleased of them but they did not believe in indulging in luxury worldly things, so instead of spending it – they invested! This investment led to more money being made and therefore more investment which led to more money and more investment and as the spirit of capitalism – basically money is being made for money sake. Therefore Weber shows that religion can be a force for change – religion kickstarted capitalism!

Evaluation

• However, Weber does not solely pin this on religion as he does recognise that certain economic circumstances must be right, such as factors of production need to be in sufficient amounts for capitalism to take place.
• Kacitsky argues that Weber overestimates the role of ideas and underestimates economic factors. She believes that capitalism preceded Calvinists.
• Tawney on the other hand believes that technological changes will cause capitalism and that the bourgeoisie used Calvinism in order to legitimise their economic gain.

Hinduism and Confucianism
Now there are questions as to why Europe develops capitalism first even though there were more economically developed countries elsewhere such as China and India. To put it simply, according to Weber the characteristics of their religion prevented capitalism developing. You see, in China the adopted religion was Confucianism which was good in some ways for capitalism but bad in other ways. Confucianists did have a this worldly orientation which meant they worked hard and gained a lot of wealth but they were not ascetic and this led to them spending a lot of their wealth on luxury goods rather than investing it, the investment part is key for capitalism. On the other hand in India, the adopted religion was Hinduism and they were very ascetic but they had an otherworldly orientation which meant they did not believe in working at all so they did not gain much wealth. Hence why the Calvinists are very special because they not only had the right characteristics in their religion for capitalism but they also had the right cultural factors. Some even argue that the Calvinists were the first capitalists because they were outlawed and are used businesses and jobs as a way of rebuilding themselves as community.

Marxism

Marxists believe that society is based on capitalism and the class conflict between the bourgeoisie (ruling class) and the proletariat (working class). The working class own the means of production – land, factories, machinary etc – but they need a labour force. This labour force comes from the proletariat. Now, the bourgeoisie are all about profit and Marxists believe the actions of the bourgeoisie are done to maintain or increase their profit levels. So when they hire workers  they will not give them a wage that is equal to what the proletariat’s labour is worth. In other words, if a worker’s labour is worth £500 a week, then their wage may only be £300 a week – the bourgeoisie exploit the labour of the proletariat. You are probably thinking: why do the workers let this happen? To put it simply, they may feel they have no other choice or even be aware that they are being exploited.

You see, capitalism has been able to sustain itself for so long despite the disadvantage  it has on the proletariat because it makes you believe you need it. It creates a consumer fetish. It tricks workers into believing that they need that fancy car or that new iPhone or those purple Converses. I mean, look at this advert for Iceland… It also has the ability to make people numb or unaware to thee negative effect of capitalism. Thousands – if not millions – of people will religiously watch Eastenders or Glee (me!) but all this does is keep our minds on trivial things so that we are less likely to really look at society and question capitalism – we are coerced.

And that is Marxism in a nutshell but here are a couple of key facts to sum up:

1. It’s a structural theory –  it believes we are shaped and controlled by society, no such thing as free will…
2. Society is split into 2 independent parts. The whole bit about the bourgeoisie exploiting the proletariat is known as the INFRASTRUCTURE.
3. The bit about not knowing about capitalism and being hooked on the trivial things is known as the SUPERSTRUCTURE. It also deals with things like the family, religion…
4. Working class behaviour is constrained and shaped by class inequality
5. Karl Marx has predicted that one day the working class will unite to overthrow the ruling class and capitalism will be abolished

Evaluation

• Still waiting for that revolution…
• It only sees the conflict in capitalist society – it has done some good, like improved living standards
• There is an element of economic reductionism – it reduces behaviour simply to class relationships, ignoring other factors.
• Society has not polarised simply into the rich and poor, we have a significant middle class that lies happily in the middle…