Criminological Conflict Theory

It is widely believed, and reported that crime is higher in communities with higher populations of minority residents. While the authors of Criminological Thought (1990), overviewed what they considered the foundational theorists and contributors to the field of criminology, not all of those examined within the text emphasized the same things. It is the writers position that three of those contributors examined within the book, the respective theories of Earl Richard Quinney, Edwin Sutherland, and Robert Ezra Park, specifically Park’s Social Disorganization Theory, Quinney’s Conflict Theory, and Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory are often utilized to describe the plight of instability in urban communities and crime. This paper

Quinney subscribed in part to Marxist ideology (Mutchnick et al., 1990). Quinney’s views on criminality and social inequality are rooted in the belief that class conflict creates an environment favoring those with greater means of accumulation over those with lesser means of accumulation. The resultant interpretation by Quinney followers is greater means to wealth equates to lesser involvement in criminal activities. This thought is well told in Quinney’s works on white-collar crime. It is the writer’s assertion that minority communities seem largely superficially impacted by white-collar crime as a means of exploitation upon them, rather than originating within them. Ruddell and Thomas (2010) state policing agencies within in areas with larger populations of minorities employ more law enforcement officers and spend more of their annual budgets on enforcement activities. This is largely a representative of Quinney’s theoretical examination on social conflicts using Marxist theory to explain how social structural impacts on crime leads to the eventuality of developing systemic support by way of law and policy used to oppress the poor to keep class divisions structurally intact (Mutchnick et al., 1990). The law serves to benefit the interests of one group over another. Policing’s role as an instrument of the system, is

Law enforcement officers as perpetrators of such conduct are often immune from facing accountability (Opotow, 2001). Judicial and prosecutorial misconduct also receive similar impunity and this lack of accountability is systemic in nature, and creates a culture of impropriety and misconduct within the system. Often the voices of those most impacted by the impunity are forced into situations of social unrest to counterbalance the system of structural violence. Structural violence is defined by Opotow (2001), as imperceptible violence occurring gradually against those within a society whose voices are systemically ignored and unheard creating a system fostering greater results for those with personal wealth and access to resources over those who do not have equal wealth and access to resources. Structural violence is not designed to kill or injure directly, however it places persons in lower socio-economic classes at greater risk of harm at the hands of others protecting the elite social class.
Women are often more disadvantaged due to gender biases that leave women invisible in the plight against them. According to Opotow, (2001) bystanders often show little to no empathy towards women and leave them in the shadows as problem solvers. Poor