620295-B-6
Criminology
AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
EXAM *considering we had only multiple choice
Helping you get the highest grade in the year group too!
Note: Modules may change each year, so review the current syllabus thoroughly
Calculate your time: Total Exam Time−10 minutes (for review) / Total Number of Questions
Leave at least 10 minutes at the end to check your answers for mistakes
Practice past years exam questions + given mock exam
This is a summary (KCs+Readings+Lecture notes) of what we have been told to focus on and
what I used for the exam *make sure to also do your own studying for best results
Criminological perspectives - pp 1 to 3
Mainstream Most definitions accept that criminology concentrates on actions deemed illegal and codified in
penal law → highlights individual street crimes such as drug usage, vandalism, homicide, rape,
assault, robbery, and theft (mainstream criminologists examine crimes outlined in the penal code,
perpetrated by humans)
Mainstream criminological research is frequently based on crime statistics and
collaboration/cooperation with governmental institutions → critical criminologists reject this
Classical theories: humans as rational actors and are free of will (weighing up the costs and benefits)
Positivist theories: identifying differences between ‘criminals’ and ‘non-criminals’ (biological and
psychological characteristics/factors; social structures/processes; economic structure and power
relations)
Focus on causality; tangible and quantifiable ‘objective knowledge’
Two approaches: individual and sociological positivism
Crime versus harm Social harm comprises physical, emotional, psychological, and financial harm and harm to autonomy
and ability to access resources → Critics of criminology have contended that rather than focussing on
criminalized behavior, the object of study of criminology should be social harm → The notion of social
harm is too vague, encompassing any kind of harm that an individual might claim to suffer
Robert Agnew’s solution: concentrate on harms, which are blameworthy and intentionally caused by
other individuals or legal entities
White-collar Geis (1968) suggested creating four categories in order to address Sutherland's definition question:
(Sutherland; Geis) 1. Individual Actor Crimes: crimes carried out by individual actors against random victims that aren't
always connected to their occupation, e.g online/internet fraud
2. Employee-Employer Crimes: crimes committed by employees against their employers e.g
embezzlement
3. Corporate Crimes Against Employees: crimes committed by corporations against their employees e.g
exposing them to hazardous working conditions
4. Corporate Crimes Against Customers and Victims: crimes committed by corporations against
customers and random victims e.g. selling inherently unsafe products → involving offenses committed by
legal entities within the course/scope of their regular business activities
There were debates because white-collar offenders were treated differently than ordinary offenders;
the "pluralist" school advocated for a benign state settling conflicts
Critics questioned why, despite producing immense harm, white-collar crimes were given less
emphasis/priority in the criminal justice system
Critical Challenges positivist criminologies → seeks to use broader economic dynamics and power relations
within societies to explain crime
Focus away from searching for causal relationships
Rather, concentrate on ideas related to social order, crime, and deviance construction → topics like
capitalism, stratification and inequality, modernity, war-making, patriarchy, and monolithic
approaches to criminal activity
Challenges state-defined concepts of crime
A. Crime as the result of economic and social structure (Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, Banger, Chambliss)
(Neo-)Marxist theories of crime: Marxism as one response to unregulated capitalism and regards
crime as resistance against the capitalist order/system
, In the early phases of industrialization, Friedrich Engels gave a thorough analysis of criminal activity
among the working class and maintained that the conditions for criminal activity were created by
capitalism itself
The ruling class creates laws to further their own (capitalist) interests
Economic disenfranchisement and extreme poverty are the root causes of conventional crime
Another reaction to unregulated capitalism is Anarchism, where academics like Peter Kropotkin
contend that the structure of society explains criminal behavior and that the criminal justice system
serves the interests/needs of the powerful.
B. Structural Contradictions theory
Every society makes an effort to reconcile the tensions and dilemmas brought forth by fundamental
contradictions, particularly those between labor and capital.
Conflicts arising from worker-capitalist relations pose challenges to the state
Although elite interests undoubtedly influence/shape the law, the state enjoys a certain degree of
autonomy from the capitalist class
Cultural Seeks to explain crime in the context of culture
Aims to interpret, analyze, and explain criminal behavior/activity and societal responses from a
cultural perspective
Ethnographical research methods (e.g participant observation and qualitative interviewing) are
crucial in cultural criminology
visual methods for research are used here e.g showing pictures to interviewees and asking them
to reflect on emotions
in cultural criminology, emotions and images are important, including the overlap between
emotions that are associated with crime and emotions that are connected to everyday life
Is rooted in postmodernism and views crime and deviance as social constructions made by
individuals and groups in reaction/response to their surroundings and context
Cultural criminologists have studied a wide range of crimes, ranging from petty street crimes to
terrorism and corporate crimes
A. Moral panics (Stanley Cohen)
Exaggerated fear or alarm/terror among members of a society → topics with a moral component in
them ⇒ emphasizes the importance of the media in producing or creating a ‘moral panic'
Reaction/response to a group/condition perceived to be threatening to that society’s moral well-
being
Attention on the (real or imagined) behavior of certain groups/individuals: a persuasive image of “folk
devils” to fuel moral fear + on issues/topics like illicit drug usage, gang activities, pornography,
prostitution, satanic kidnapping of children, terrorism, etc
A 'symbiotic relationship' between the state officials and the news media
B. Seductions of crime (Jack Katz)
→ examines the relationship between criminal activity/behavior and the emotional states of offenders +
focuses on the moral emotions that offenders experience
Analyzing the seductions and compulsions that are felt by individuals while they engage in criminal
activity, as well as entice people to commit crimes and guide them into and through criminal
"projects"
Reconstructing criminal events as they are experienced by the offender is essential to understanding
crime (meaning the emotions and sensory impressions that lead to or arise during the criminal act)
The "rush," or the pleasure from carrying out the crime, is the reward for committing it
Katz argues that, in contrast to other criminals who might proudly carry their criminal label, corporate
criminals may experience shame when their rule-breaking is exposed
The theory was criticized because it placed too much emphasis on emotions and ignored the
calculated and reasoned actions of criminals
State-corporate State-corporate crime = 'illegal or socially injurious actions' that take place when one or more political
crime governance institutions pursue a goal / achieve a specific objective in direct cooperation with one or
more economic production and distribution institutions ⇒ leading to serious social crimes
Breaching the conceptual wall between Economic crime & Political crime
Crime that emerges from intersections between economic and political powers
Mutually reinforcing relationship between state institutions and corporations (Kramer and
Michalowski (1990, 2006))
State-facilitated state-corporate crime: When government regulatory bodies fail to stop deviant
business activities/practices, either due to direct business-government collusion or because they
support common objectives/goals that aggressive regulation would make it more difficult to
achieve
State-initiated state-corporate crime: When government-employed corporations participate in
organizational deviance under the direction of the government or with its tacit approval
Three characteristics of state-corporate crime:
It draws attention to how relationships between various social institutions result in deviant
organizational outcomes
It emphasizes the relational character of the state and the significant potential for the creation of
socially injurious actions in the horizontal relationships between political and economic institutions
The relational character of state-corporate crime also directs us to consider the vertical relationships
between different levels of organizational action: the individual, the institutional, and the political-
economic
Modern state crime: Security force crimes (e.g genocide, torture, imprisonment without trial, the
disappearance of dissident, etc); political crimes (e.g state-sponsored social and cultural crimes,
censorship or corruption, etc); institutional racism
