Marxist Perspective on Crime & Deviance, Feminist Perspective on Crime & Deviance | Sociology for GCSE/IGCSE - Year 11 PDF Download

The Marxist Approach to Crime and Deviance

Marxism, akin to functionalism, is a structural theory that attributes crime and deviance to societal structures rather than individual traits. It posits that the hierarchical class system in capitalist societies, where the bourgeoisie exploit the working class for profit, is the root cause of criminal behavior.

Capitalist society promotes values such as:

• Materialism: Prioritizing material possessions.
• Consumerism: A drive to acquire the latest products.
• Competition: Rivalry among individuals to obtain these goods.

In an unequal society, not everyone can access the goods promoted by capitalism, such as specific phones, computers, or cars. Material deprivation can hinder educational success, limiting job prospects and leading individuals to accept low-paying, unstable employment. Influenced by capitalist advertising, some may turn to crime to obtain desired goods rather than saving through legitimate means. Additionally, capitalists themselves may engage in criminal activities, driven by a profit motive that fosters greed and self-interest. Thus, crime stems from the inherent inequalities and structure of capitalist society.

Law Enforcement

• Marxists critique the legal system in capitalist societies, arguing that laws and their enforcement primarily serve the bourgeoisie’s interests. The ruling class can block laws that threaten their profitability, such as maintaining legal tax avoidance loopholes that benefit celebrities, businesspeople, and politicians. 
• Crimes committed by the wealthy often go unpunished or unnoticed, while working-class individuals face harsher scrutiny. For example, benefit fraud is treated as a more severe offense than tax evasion, despite the latter’s greater financial impact on the state.
• Agencies of social control, like the police and courts, operate to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie while targeting the proletariat. Specific crimes, such as street crime, are more heavily policed than white-collar crimes. 
• Certain groups, including working-class individuals and ethnic minorities, face disproportionate targeting. 
• Ethnic minorities are often “over-policed and under-protected” and are more likely to receive prison sentences compared to others.

Criticisms

• Not all laws exclusively serve the bourgeoisie; some, like anti-discrimination laws, address broader societal interests, such as workplace equality.
• Initiatives like pupil premium funding aim to support materially deprived students in accessing education.
• Educational success is achievable from disadvantaged backgrounds, though access to quality education and cultural capital remains unequal.
• Critics argue that Marxism portrays criminals as victims of circumstance, overlooking individual responsibility.
• Functionalists contend that society is built on shared values rather than class conflict.
• Some feminists criticize Marxism for focusing on class issues while neglecting non-class factors, such as gender.
• Not all capitalist societies exhibit high crime rates. For instance, Japan and Switzerland have homicide rates roughly one-fifth of the United States’, possibly due to stronger welfare provisions in those countries.

The Feminist Approach to Crime and Deviance

Sociological studies on women’s roles in crime and deviance emerged in the 1970s. Feminist sociologists have developed two key perspectives on how female offenders are treated within the criminal justice system (CJS):

• The Chivalry Thesis: This perspective posits that female offenders receive more lenient treatment than male offenders, particularly during court sentencing.
• The Double Deviance Thesis: This view argues that the CJS imposes harsher treatment on women who deviate from traditional gender stereotypes compared to other women.

Feminist perspectives also focus on women’s victimization in society, exploring why crimes such as domestic violence and sexual offenses are underreported to law enforcement.

Key Thinker: Heidensohn (1985) – The Control of Women

Heidensohn (1985), writing from a feminist perspective, employed both qualitative and quantitative methods to examine women’s experiences with crime and the CJS. Her research utilized secondary sources, including official crime statistics and prior sociological studies, alongside primary data gathered through interviews to gain direct insights into women’s experiences.

Heidensohn’s control theory explains the lower rates of officially recorded crime among women compared to men. She argues that women face greater social control by men across various domains of life, limiting their opportunities to engage in criminal behavior. In a patriarchal society, public life is considered a male domain, while women are expected to remain in the domestic sphere, making it more difficult for them to commit crimes.

Control of Women at Home

• Domestic responsibilities and marriage enforce conformity among women, restricting their opportunities for crime due to time spent on housework and caregiving.
• Men, often the primary breadwinners, wield financial control over their wives.
• Daughters experience less freedom than sons and are expected to stay closer to home.
• Working-class girls are particularly burdened with domestic tasks like housework and childcare.
• Women and girls who defy these expectations face the risk of male violence.

Control of Women in Public

• The fear of male violence restricts women’s behavior in public spaces, particularly after dark.
• Social norms dictate that women risk losing their reputation and bringing shame to their families through perceived inappropriate behavior.

Control of Women in Work

• Men, as managers, hold authority over women, reinforcing male-dominated workplace hierarchies.
• Sexual harassment serves as a form of intimidation, limiting women’s freedom in professional settings.

Criticisms

Critics argue that Heidensohn’s findings overgeneralize and do not account for the diversity of women’s experiences. Key criticisms include:

• Her research overlooks factors such as ethnicity, class, and age.
• Her findings may not apply to non-Western cultures, where gender roles and the CJS differ significantly.
• Some of her claims lack robust empirical evidence.
• She does not adequately compare women’s criminality to men’s.
• Her control theory downplays women’s agency and free will in choosing to offend.