The Labeling Theory: The Conflict Theory

The conflict model is named appropriately as it directly conflicts with the consensus model. “Those who reject the consensus model do so on the ground that moral attitudes are not absolute. [sic] “In large democratic societies such as the United States, different segments of society will inevitably have different value systems and shared norms” (p.6). The conflict model basis its stance on social class, income, age, and race. This model cites that those who exist separately within each aforementioned category are fighting for control against the other. The only similarity of the consensus and conflict models is that in the consensus model, those who consider themselves of moral value and the norm in society are also considered so in the conflict model; making the decisions in criminal laws because these attributes make them superior. The above comparison can result in an integrated definition of crime. The basics of crime or criminal action are:

In their theories, Marxists say that certain types of crime are more likely to be punished compared to others. Street crimes (brawls, binge drinking, theft, muggings, social unrest and disorder) are more likely to be pursued than white collar crime (fraud, tax evasion, ‘insider training’ and even gambling and prostitution). This is because the capitalist governments who have run the country are sympathetic to those who are of the same belief and class, but have just got carried away with their search for wealth. In this society of greed, the working class have to turn to crime just to stay alive and to obtain the materialistic goods or lifestyle, which is typical to a capitalistic state, and that general standard of living and attitude to life, is enforced on them, when living in this type of society. Money and personal gain, and the ‘every man for himself’ attitude is what life is like in an unfair, and socially unequal way of life under a capitalist government.

The Conflict model, sometimes called the “system conflict theory” or non-system perspective, provides another approach to the study of Criminology and Criminal Justice. The studies of this model, focuses on the social inequalities of different groups. Criminologists believe that society and social order are based on the powerful and dominant groups. This model argues that all of the social components are designed to serve their own interests and that justice is a product of conflict, rather than cooperation. Meaning that the criminal justice system is expected to compete between each other in order to make justice in society, and that this is the most accurate way to deal with crime.

This video mirrored Conflict theories in several ways. I saw a few prime examples pertaining exactly to what their theory stands for. The first being that the cause of crime deviates from the failure of our collective society’s ability to offer the same opportunity for everyone. Meaning that crime happens because our laws and policies have been created to enable the rich and powerful while keeping the regular citizens from achieving the same opportunities and financial gains. I feel that this directly correlates with the crash of the housing market in 2008. The banks were distributing loans to people who did not qualify for them. They knew that these loans would fall through and they would reap the benefits. When a waitress or low-income worker finds the opportunity to receive a loan for a lavish home, they believe that they are receiving these with knowledge and trust in that the government and the bankers are not lying to them. When these loopholes and laws are not considered to be fraudulent, all because these bankers and wall-street workers had power and money, it makes you wonder why these laws are written when they aren’t even exercised by the rich and powerful.

Two different subculture theories link racial differences in crime to racial differences in social class: the subculture of violence theory particular the one proposed by Marvin Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti and various theories on subculture of poverty. The subculture of violence is a theory that states that high rates of violence in inner-city communities existed because the people who live in the area carried pro-violence values and norms. The idea behind this is that people living in violent areas will become very use to the violence, allowing for people to normally carry the norms and values behind violence, therefore the people will be more violent. With that in mind, the subculture of poverty thesis says that the values of the poor directly cause crime because people with a certain kind of characteristics tend to engage in crime rather than patiently wait for opportunities. In addition to the subculture of poverty theory, people in poverty indirectly cause crime because their values do not hold education and hard work as high as those in more well off

1) Conflict theory.- stress that the power elite uses the legal system to control worker and to stabilize the social order, all with the goal of keeping itself in power. The poor pose a threat, for if they rebel as a group they can dislodge members of the power elite from their place of privilege. To prevent this, the power elite makes certain that heavy penalties come down on those who’s crimes could upset the social order.

There are numerous Marxist theories that help us to understand crime and deviance in different ways, however they are all based around the same ideas. They believe capitalism causes crime in three different ways including, selective law enforcement, criminogenic capitalism and ideological nature of the law.

Marxist and neo-Marxist approaches and explanations of crime are arguably some of the most controversial, for the reason that they state that it is the ruling class that is responsible for criminalising the working classes, which goes directly against what official statistics and Functionalists believe. However, Marxism and Functionalism do share a similarity in that both believe structures and institutions of society play a very important role in determining how people behave, criminally or otherwise.

One way that Marxism isn’t a useful theory is that the left realists believe that most working class crime is committed against the working class. This means that it’s not because of laws that the working class are going out to commit crimes. This means that more working class people are going to get into fights with one another over conflict of interests. This analysis shows that Marxism isn’t useful as it can be showed that crime is about conflicts of interests.

Conflict theory says that crime and deviance is a result of economic inequalities. If the families in the movie had money, they would have no desire to be deviant and commit robbery.

Conflict theory and labeling theory are two similar theories in the world of crime. It has been debated whether or not there is a clear line separating the two theories. By evaluating the two theories, the differences between them can become more obvious and it becomes easier to separate the two. In addition to conflict theory and labeling theory, there is another type of theories that are used to explain crime. These theories focus more on a criminal 's lifetime and how their criminal records have evolved over time. Two of the leading theories in this realm of criminology are Moffit’s theory of life course persistent offenders and Sampson and Laub’s age-graded theory of informal social control. These theories both explain why people commit or don 't commit crime. There are similarities between the theories and also differences. By analyzing all four of these theories, a better understanding can be gained related to crime.

Social conflict theory is the only one out of the vast number of criminology theories that deals directly with this problem. From out of it’s Marxist roots arose a theory which challenges the way in which today’s society views it’s legal system and the implications it has on it’s working class citizens. The nature and purpose of social conflict theories is to examine the social controls made by the ruling class and imposed on the rest of society.

Have you ever experienced a time when your parents called you a genius and you truly felt like one? How about when a professor pointed fingers at you because he thought you were cheating on a test? Most certainly you felt some type of shame or guilt; or probably got so tired of your colleagues negative thoughts that you decided to embrace it and just go along with it. These are just a few examples of the impact that people’s opinions or thoughts can have on your reputation. Think for a second about the Stanford Prison Experiment, which demonstrates the influential role that a situation can play in human behavior. The individuals chosen to perform as guards were placed in a position of power and thus they began

There are numerous perspectives of conflict theory on the law. Most of the conflict theorists talk about the law as a way of maintain inequality. That the law is there to advance the interests of people in power, usually people with money. There are also conflict theories that argue about morality or moral entrepreneurs, people that use the criminal law to impose their morality on other people despite the fact that it is not widely held belief and an example would be things like prostitution or other vices that are widely utilized by large segments of the population, but there are smaller segments

As the act of criminality is a global phenomenon, there must therefore be some explanation as to why this is; some schools of thought strive to explicate this by means of genetics, whilst others take a more socially influenced approach. Although at the time, the micro-criminological theories of Lombroso and Sheldon may have appeared credible, modern research has attempted to refute such notions. In an epidemiological context, the act of crime is seen by some as a positive contribution to society, as noted by Durkheim (Kirby et al, 2000), although too much will lead to social instability, or anomie. In contrariety to Durkheim's beliefs, a Marxist perspective would consider the mere notion of capitalism as criminal; thus deeming the vast