The conflict theory of crime

The argument

The Conflict Theory posits that since resources are limited, there is a constant struggle occurring in society for dominance. The rich and powerful are less likely to be labelled as deviants in society because they have the power in society. Crimes are associated with the poor or average working class person, and crimes committed by those who are wealthy, or of a higher social status will normally go under punished. For instance, the crack cocaine epidemic in the 1980s struck mostly people in poor urban areas, while regular cocaine, a more expensive drug, was mostly used by the wealthy. Yet, the punishment for possessing crack and for possessing cocaine are vastly different. According to the New York Times, “it takes 100 times more powdered cocaine to draw the same mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison that awaits a person convicted of possessing five grams of crack”. This inequality in sentencing based on race and economic status displays the constant struggle that defines the status of criminals in modern society. Those who are in a lower economic or societal class will always be the perceived criminals in society because they have the least amount of power in society.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Although there have been discrepancies in punishment for crimes committed by more wealthy people and crimes committed by lower class people, there is not much direct evidence proving the Conflict Theory of crime. While many point to the fact that African American's are overrepresented in American prisons as strong evidence for the Conflict Theory, it's difficult to tie that to conflict theory, as men are also incarcerated more than women are and, according to the Conflict Theory of crime, men have more power in society than women. Many argue that simply because a particular group is overrepresented in prisons, and have different punishments, it does not directly prove or support the Conflict Theory.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This states the theory rather than evidence for it, and as stated it is close to unfalsifiable: a constant struggle in which the powerful escape labelling absorbs any outcome, since powerful people who are prosecuted can be treated as exceptions and those who are not as confirmation. [Rejecting P2] Under-punishment of the wealthy is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the premise does not distinguish offences that differ in kind. Most street offences are handled by patrol and complaint; most corporate ones by regulators operating with different standards of proof, resources and remedies. Explaining the gap by power alone requires ruling out those institutional differences, which the argument does not attempt. [Rejecting P3] The crack and powder disparity is a real and well-documented example, but it makes trouble for the theory as well as supporting it. The ratio was reduced by statute in 2010 and later applied retroactively, which a theory of permanent domination does not predict; the 1986 law drew support from legislators representing the communities most affected; and the conclusion does not follow in any case, since a claim about who gets labelled a criminal is not a claim about what causes crime. The counter presses the same point: over-representation on its own is compatible with several explanations.