The Contemporary Crises of Marxist Criminology

Abstract

0Marxist theory gains its critical capacity by presenting itselfas in the process of being realized through class conflict. By locating its criticalandempirical reality in a ideal, unrepressive. unoppressive. relatively crime free future. it renders itself irresponsible for its own history and immune from empirical criticism. In order to sustain this vision in theabsence of historicalevidence. the chiefpromoters of a Marxist perspective in American criminology have found it necessary to invent untestabk and irrefutable concepts whose principal function is to maintain a suspension of the relationship between history, social reality, and theory. Because such work is more akin to religious phophesy than criminology. it presently appears to be irreconcilable with all heretofore accepted standards of academic scholarship.History does nothing, possesses no enormous wealth, fights no battles. It is rather man, the real, living man, who does everything, possesses, fights. It is not "History," as if she were a person apart, who uses men as means to work out her purposes, but history itself is nothing but the activity of men pursuing their purposes. --Karl MarxThe task of framing a critique of radical criminology is formidable. During the past decade a number of new criminologies have appeared. Some of the best (Lofland, 1969, for example) fall well within the tradition of conventional criminology, though are profoundly critical of it. Others have taken up the helpful cultivation of sophisticated methodological, cross-cultural, and historical studies, and still others have brought to criminology needed exchange with the disciplines of economics, psychology, philosophy, and political science.

The rate of surplus value and crime. A theoretical and empirical examination of Marxian economic theory and criminology

“…Radical criminology has been roundly criticized for its abstract nature and lack of empirical support (Nettler 1984;Inciardi 1980;Klockars 1980;Shichor 1980). These two criticisms are interrelated: the abstract nature of early radical theories of crime was not amenable to empirical examination.…”

“…Our focus is on street or common crimes, the type of crime that radical criminologists have often been accused of neglecting (Nettler 1984;Inciardi 1980;Klockars 1980;Shichor 1980). While white-collar and corporate crimes are clearly more costly and often more harmful than street crimes (e.g.…”

The Most-Cited Scholars in Criminology Textbooks, 1963 to 1968, 1976 to 1980, and 1989 to 1993

“…For example, the sudden prominence of William J. Chambliss and Richard Quinney in the 1976 to 1980 textbooks undoubtedly reflects the explosion of interest in conflict perspectives in criminology in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Continued heavy citations for Chanibliss and Quinney in the 1989 to 1993 textbooks--along with the reemergence of numerous citations for George B. Vold, and the emergence of extensive citations for conflict thinkers Thomas J. Bernard, Austin T Turk, and Jock Young--suggest the continued viability of conflict theory in criminology, despite contrary arguments (see Klockars, 1980;Toby, 1980). In contrast, the rapid rise and then fall in the citation rankings of Howard S. Becker and Edwin M. Lcniert niay be symptomatic of the fad-like rise and fall of the labeling perspective in criminology (see Wright, 1994~).…”

Measuring Police Integrity Across the World

“…This research uses the original methodology developed by Klockars andKutnjak Ivković (1996, 2003). The respondents were provided with a letter asking them to assume that the officer described in the scenarios had been a police officer for 5 years, had a satisfactory working record, and had not been disciplined in the past.…”