Durkheim Vs Marx On Crime.

I wrote this essay in my first year, but got a C+ because i wrote it the night before it was due…HAHAHAHAHAH…anyways here it is…

Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx have incredibly interesting explanations of what crime is and how it should be seen in society. They both play a part in two very opposing schools of thought which I shared in the previous essay. Durkheim, as we know, championed the explanation of criminal law being a consensus of commonly agreed upon norms and values. All of this centred around the important concept known as social solidarity. The interesting thing about Durkheim was that he was a structural functionalist. He was of the belief that Crime was a normal if not a necessary aspect of a functioning society and it was an inevitable act. This is quite similar to Marx’s approach on crime in that he also believed that crime was an inevitable occurrence but in the context of a capitalist society. This is where the similarities end in regards to these two as their explanations are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Whereas Marx places heavy emphasis on the distinctions of who falls victim to criminal law and who enables it, Durkheim just seems to focus on who enables criminal law via his consensus theory. Marx basically points to the problems that enable an environment of crime (inequality/capitalism) and offers solutions (Taking out the upper-class system). Durkheim, on the other hand, believes that there is no solution to crime unless a society where somehow perfect and according to him, even then whatever traits that seem negative no matter how insignificant will eventually be justified as deviant and then criminal. Hence, there is bound to be a criminal element of society . Durkheim believed that crime brings together society via a reaction towards the wrongdoer while reinforcing the commitment to the values of the consensus. He Further elaborates on this idea with the concept of the upright Just man. Who judges the meaningless mistake with a lot of severities even though to the common man the act is nowhere near problematic. The functions of punishment are to reaffirm shared rules and reinforce social solidarity, therefore making crime a necessary thing. Marx seems to be the good guy in that he believes criminal compression is the product of oppression and so it is not natural, it does not have to be. Taking away the Oppression by removing those in power who get to define crime. Marx argues that criminal law differs depending on what class you belong to. Looking at current day situations, Marx would argue that the lower class are over policed taking away attention from the acts of the upper class. The types of crimes committed by both classes are also different. The lower class being more susceptible to street crimes such as grand theft auto, arson, robbery. While the Upper class commit crimes such as tax evasion, embezzlement etc. Marx would also argue that it is much easier for the upper class to afford to resist deviant labels. Durkheim being a functionalist expands greatly on the necessity of crime. He has the belief that criminal behaviour can create change in a society. He realises that for a society to flourish it simply cannot stagnate; eventually, social norms and values are bound to evolve. The example of the fate of the greek philosopher Socrates is a perfect example. Socrates crime was that he had an independent thought contrary to the collective consensus and he paid the price with death. Albeit at the time the collective consensus was just, in hindsight it was not. Socrates criminal act and his punishment paved the way for independent thought to flourish as it does today.
 In Conclusion, both these two thinkers are quite interesting in the sense Marx for instance in his definition of crime understood that true crime wasn’t the petty theft a poor worker would enact. Rather it was the social circumstances that enabled the poor worker to steal that was the crime. Durkheim, on the other hand, did not seem to delve into that arena of thought. He rested on the concept that crime was inevitable and, in fact, necessary for a healthy society. The only similarity between these two thinkers was that they both could admit that crime was a part of a society.