NCJ Number
70061
Date Published
1980
Length
10 pages
Annotation
Conventional sociological criminologists and radical criminologists may disagree with each other in certain respects, but they have more grounds for commonality than they do for differences.
Abstract
Although radicals, warning against cooptation, have provided documentation of instances in which sociologists clearly became 'agents of the establishment' or otherwise actively and directly contributed to or fostered social oppression, these instances must be rare. Conventional criminologists have, on the other hand, deplored some radical criminologists for their insistence on a 'mechanical economic determinism' as the exclusive and exhaustive explanation of all aspects of every crime situation. Moreover, social criminologists do not agree that crime will eventually wither away as the crime-free society takes over. Yet there is a core of agreement. Most sociologists have come to agree that crime can never be fully understood apart from its sociocultural context. Overall official crime rates and trends as well as crime-distribution studies have come to be viewed by sociological criminologists as reflecting the nature and the extent of the criminal justice system. An expanded focus analyzes organizations that deal with, and to an extent 'produce,' crime. A renewed interest in the sociology of law looks to the contents of the law and influences on legislation. Attention is also being given to the failure to effectively criminalize behaviors that many would consider socially harmful. Finally, sociologists are more and more alert to the conflicts that shape crime policies, to the influence of interest groups and organized campaigns, and to the range of vested interests that may affect developments relating to crime. Thirty-three references are provided. For related documents, see NCJ 70048-60 and 70062.