Critical Criminology Theory Essay

One of the essential and much needed concept in sociology is of the critical criminology. Seeing the human world, patterns of their lives, patterns of social life, attitudes, values and beliefs and their behaviour is the crux of sociology. Applying the criminological imagination in observing the human world and their social constructs, provides essence to sociology.  Criminal sociology has several theories such as, Classical theory, Positivism theory, Strain theory, Labelling theory, Marxism theory, Critical Criminology, Rational Choice etc. But the focus of this essay is to analyse the Critical Criminology theory with respect to the problem of social order in the 21st century. First, it is important to understand the concepts of Critical Criminology and its’ historical aspects in a concise manner. This will allow us to compare its existence in the current 21st century with its roots. The evolution of the critical criminology and its relationship with the social order is of much importance in the sociological pedagogy. It will enhance our knowledge of the past and allow us to view the dynamics of the 21st century social order through the lens of critical criminology. 

Critical Criminology is derived from the very popular Marxist Theory, which is based on capitalism. According to Kramer (1984), crime should be analyzed according to the structure of the society as a whole. This means that the Critical Criminology takes crime on the basis of “class conflict” and the “structured inequalities” of class society. The traditional crime develops when such divisions and inequalities persist in classes of the society. In a capitalist state, the law and order are fully utilized to protect the elite class. In this perspective, it is believed that when the elite class, who owns the productions, commit any crime, it is due to keep the other lower class in place and to dominate them. Whereas, if the lower-working class commits any crime, it is due to conflict and struggle against the elite class. These understandings, however, may not work in the 21st century because of the social changes, society and class structures and different political settings that exist. The intellectual strategies and the institutional assumptions of the past may not work in today’s environment as the “…longstanding division of labour in the academic world is beginning to break down and allow new forms of intellectual exchange to occur” (Garland and Sparks 2000). However, it is not easy as it may seem. There are several radical socio-economic and political changes that have occurred around the globe, therefore, there is a need to disseminate in the new ways and perspectives of the crime control in the social movements and the critical criminologists should be committed to social change through academic institutions as well as publicly identifiable progressive movements (Robinson 2003). 

Audretsch and Thurik (2000) explain in their paper that the developed countries are moving towards western capitalism and have started to focus more on regulation of policies, public ownership and commercialization of knowledge. They provided empirical evidence of countries showing that those countries which shifted from managed economies to entrepreneur economies, had low level of unemployment. Earlier, the European countries relied on two strategies of developing markets outside the domestic market and depended upon high level of skilled human capital, in order to gain comparative advantage. However, in the past ten years, they lost the comparative advantage because of globalization and communications revolution. Moreover, corporate downsizing has given rise to lack of social conscience with respect to large corporations, resulting in job losses and increasing unemployment. The United States spent 70 percent of venture capital on high-technology startups and the Netherlands spent only 30 percent of venture capital towards high-technology. Apart from these examples, their paper shows various examples which show the “shift in the comparative advantage of high wage countries towards the importance of knowledge-based economic activity”, which is basically the move towards the entrepreneurial economy. “The entrepreneurial economy is based less on the traditional inputs of natural resources, labor and capital, and more on the input of knowledge and ideas” and “…the major issues in the entrepreneurial economy have shifted away from concerns about excess profits and abuses of market dominance to international competitiveness, growth and employment” (Audretsch and Thurik 2000). 

Now as we can see that the economies and social structures work differently in the 21st century. In the United Kingdom, for example, research and statistics is crucial for policy making, its implementation and effectiveness, which changes the accountability for all in delivering the policy modifications in actual world (Wiles 2002). In earlier days, the British used to debate publicly as their research processes were limited, resulting in public interference in policy decision making. However, nowadays, criminology is taken as a separate field and has importance to sociology, research, and other pedagogies, there are academic institutions and universities which carry out researches on various cases (Audretsch and Thurik 2000) (Wiles 2002). The field is has divisions and sub-divisions, and is considered a multidisciplinary combination of competing perspectives and administrative and theoretical trepidations. “Binary divisions have been created between ‘applied’ and ‘theoretical’ criminology, and criminologists (especially those regarded as ‘critical’) are often seen as marginal to the modernist imperative of practical relevance” (Hil 2002). 

Hil (2002) states that critical criminology has subsided social movements which pursue social justice and human rights and instead focuses on gaining a position in the academy. Earlier, critical criminologists focused more on theory construction and deconstruction and less on the social justice. This means that the critical criminologists have remained unaware for the need of an active political engagement. Nowadays, the criminologists are active in social movements, such as, setting up rape crisis centers and shelters for targets of domestic violence and sexual abuse, and challenging racism within the criminal justice system. 

The Home Office in the UK is responsible for policy making and the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate helps it to fulfill its dictated purpose and aim. Moreover, the UK operates under democracy, which makes criminology a public good, and the crime and its crime control policies are not only under the government, but the civil society as well (Wiles 2002). 

Grabosky (1999) gives a comprehensive overlook of the criminology in the Australian society. He states that crime control policies are not a part of government decision making, but are shared with the citizens, businesses and organisations, which results in creative and critical thinking in the policy making. In Australia, there used to be employment stability, where one worker would work with one employer his entire life. But nowadays in policy making, not many workers/people show stability and continuity with one employer over the course of their lives. Secondly, “the police, and ultimately the courts, have both the authority and the power to deprive a citizen of his or her liberty”. There is also an increase in the female police workforce in the Australia’s police services and there is a trend in the policing and the investigations that the private and public sectors join hands and work together in crime control and policy making. Policing is shared with other non-policing institutions. 

Chancer and McLaughlin (2007) state that the contemporary Anglo-American criminology has become a separate professional field, for which there are specific universities, institutions and special research centers. Rapid development of critical criminology means it has an important role in policy decision making and public debate. According to them, “the politicization of crime fears, victim-oriented criminal justice policy shifts and the extension of private sector involvement in crime control and the delivery of criminal justice services” has sidelined the earlier critical criminology strategies and actuarial outlooks and other academic pedagogies have taken over for regulating and governing criminology. 

Where Chancer and McLaughlin (2007) have provided literature showing how criminology has developed since the post-war, they have also written about the pessimistic viewpoints of the writers, who believe that due to the open system of critical criminology where the entrepreneurs and consultants intervene in policy making, the field has lost its essence, intellectual integrity and prestige. The social movements on domestic violence and rape have recently developed alliances between feminists and the conservative neoliberal state in the UK, Australia and USA, in order to gain attention from the public by putting efforts in policy changing. 

What literature suggests is that critical criminology was traditionally governed by the criminal justice institutions, public sector/government/official bodies or organisations, which gradually shifted to open access to privileges as the discipline became more and more divided and multidisciplinary. Traditionally, the courts and the police and the criminal officials had authority for policy decision making, but the contemporary mechanism of critical criminology involves policy decision making by government, official bodies, consultants, universities, police, entrepreneurs, activists and relevant groups. Critical criminology involves direct engagement with the police (Lumsden and Goode 2018). It has become an open pedagogy which can be related to other disciplines and is highly dependent on social movements, such as human rights and social justice. White (2001) said: “A modicum of social peace (read, social control) is necessary to the maintenance of political legitimacy in times of intense change and institutional transformation, and to ensure the 'normal' operation of the market. The de-politicization of crime relates to how crimes of the powerful are ignored or downplayed, social structural and systemic reasons for inequality are rarely explicitly discussed or addressed, and 'solutions' are conceptualized in technical rather than social terms”. 

It can be said that the shift from the conventional criminology to the 21st century critical criminology, the institutions and organisations involved have been commercialized due to the extensive research that is required in the field. Crime prevention and crime control policies are no longer the responsibility of a single institution and organisation. Whether the society is democratic or capitalist, traditional critical criminology is not fully applicable and involves contemporary mechanisms. What is theoretical is different from the practice when it comes to the involvement of a number of bodies. The critical criminology now faces several challenges, such as legal and ethical problems, information management, costs and funding for research, changes in research due to interference of funding bodies (White 2001). The critical thinking of the critical criminology has been compromised due to the changes that have occurred and to overcome the problems and challenges of the critical criminology. There seems to be a significant gap between critical criminology and its’ policing. For example. By imposing imprisonment and sentencing instead of pondering over critical criminology advice. There must be a hybrid approach that would involve both the transitional changes and the socialist aspects, so that the societies can optimally benefit from the field. 

This essay shows how the critical criminology evolution started from the popular Marxist Theory on capitalism to the current privileged state. Shifting from a restricted policy making regulatory authorities to a more open, electoral system involving the governments, courts, police, activists, research centers, universities and other social groups. The essay comprises the recent situations of the social order in USA, UK and Australia. Although it shows the current state of critical criminology, there is still a need of further investigation to show the gap between the critical criminology theory and today’s practice. There is also a need of actuarial evidences and quantitative analysis to improve the quality, reliability, validity and representativeness of this study. The literature covered should be recent and should avoid overgeneralization of stances. It should also incorporate more aspects of social movements, which are critical to the relationship of critical criminology and sociology.