THE ROLE OF CONFLICT IN EXPLAINING MURDER
The American Heritage Dictionary defines conflict as "a state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash." In the field of psychology, there is general agreement that conflict is described as a psychic struggle, often unconscious, resulting from the opposition or simultaneous functioning of mutually exclusive impulses, desires, or tendencies.
For many people, a violent act such as murder can only be explained when the cause, or motive, for the violent act is readily known. One of the first questions asked among investigators, the media, and casual observers alike is usually "Why?" If the answer to this question is not immediately known, the act is usually deemed to be senseless. For such people, the rudimentary element of any crime of violence would very likely involve some type of conflict in its simplest form.
For criminologists, who are involved more deeply in the assignment of causes or reasons to behavior, the study of the cause and effect of crime takes on a much broader meaning. Although the nature of the crime problem may seem apparent, perspectives as to the etiology are varied and diverse among criminologists. They recognize two essential components in their endeavor to explain crime -- theory and methodology.
Theory revolves around the "whys" of crime, criminalization, and similar concerns. Methodology refers to the techniques or methods that criminologists use to learn facts as they attempt to answer the "whys" of crime. Theories are developed to explain observed facts, while observations are undertaken to test theories.
Since the 1920s, American criminology has been dominated by a sociological orientation which envisions crime and deviant behavior as the product of social forces rather than of individual differences. These theories can be classified within the sociological perspective as social structure, social process, and social reaction. The question as to which school of thought is correct is a matter to be debated, but the focus of this paper will be on the social reaction theories of crime, and more specifically, the "conflict" theory of criminology.
Conflict theory in criminology is due in large part to the existence of group conflict theory introduced by George Vold in 1958. Among other things, it held that some defendants will not be convicted of violent crimes, such as murder, by a jury of their peers.
In this paper, it will be shown that because of a tendency on the part of a group to defend itself when in conflict with another (which is the tradition of social interaction collective behavior), some groups will overlook obvious facts and strong evidence as they band together against a perceived foe. An individual within the group may even put aside personal beliefs as well as his or her own ethical and moral rules of conduct when that individual becomes part of the group and is influenced by group collective behavior.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In Criminology And Legal Order, Austin Turk (1969) presents a picture of crime and deviance in a modern, complex and heterogeneous society as an ongoing struggle. He develops the concept of criminology by contending that equilibrium is difficult, if not completely impossible to achieve. His thesis is that cultural meaning and significance attached to the behavior of any group is destined to provoke a negative reaction from another group. In particular, authority groups will continuously strive to maintain and expand their control over societal resources by dictating what acts are deemed to be criminal. His solution is to reduce the intensity and extent of deviance through reform.
Vold, George, Thomas, Bernard. (1986). Theoretical Criminology. Oxford,England: Oxford University Press In their book, Vold and Thomas give their explanation of the causes of crime by stating in part that a substantial majority of criminals are apparently biologically and psychologically normal individuals whose criminal behaviors arise because they are placed in particular kinds of social situations. It is their contention that the major role for biological and psychological theories in criminology, therefore, is to describe the normal processes by which normal individuals learn normal human behaviors, both criminal and noncriminal. They argue that theories focusing on abnormal biological and psychological characteristics may be useful for understanding some criminal behaviors but are less useful for explaining the broad range of criminality.
Lynch, M. J. and Groves, W.B. (1989). A Primer in Radical Criminology, Second Edition. New York: Harrow and Heston Publishers. This text defines radical criminology as a way of doing criminology that frames the problem of crime in terms of class, race, gender, culture and history .The authors take the position that over the past decade the scope of radical criminology has expanded to include race, gender, culture, history, religion, post- modernism and left-realism, among other movements. They ask the question “What is criminology?”, and give the reader a glimpse of Crime and Justice in the Twenty-First Century
Abadinsky, Howard. (1997). Probation And Parole Theory And Practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall In this book the author looks at the different theories of criminology as applied to the probation and parole segments of the criminal justice system. It explores the concept of what is crime and who are the criminals, as well as addressing the history of the judicial system in the United States. Abadinsky also looks at the classification and treatment theory of criminology with an emphasis on the past, present, and future of probation and parole in the U.S.
Williams, F. III, McShane, M. (1998). Criminology Theory: Selected Classic Readings. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing A collection of the fundamental perspectives of criminology theory, this book presents original classics that are the foundations of modern criminology. Various criminological theories are examined as well as derivatives including coverage of juvenile delinquency and urban areas, and differential association; strain and subculture theories, exploration of delinquency and class culture issues; labeling theory; conflict theory; social control theory; and contemporary perspectives.
Brown, S., Esbensen, F., Geis, G. (2001). Criminology: Explaining Crime And Its Contents. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing This book explores the crime problem, its context, and the causes and the theory or explanations of crime. The etiology of crime is the central premise for the authors as they examine a number of frameworks for the amplification of crime and the many strategies for addressing it. This book is tied to a tradition of presenting diverse views rather than advocating a particular perspective. The authors discuss the five paradigms used in the study of criminology and list some of the key criminologists involved in each study.
Payne, B., Gainey, R. (2002). Family Violence and Criminal Justice: A Life-Course Approach. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing The historical context of family violence and responses to family violence made by the criminal justice system and other agencies is explored. Partner violence, in terms of its potential effect on policy implications; and crime causation theories that can be applied are discussed. The book concludes with recommendations for future research and policy, and predictions regarding the future of family violence in the United States.
Background
"For more than six hundred years -- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 -- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that: in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of such laws.”
Lysander Spooner, 1852
All too often in today’s society, persons serving on juries are concerned not as much with the guilt or innocence of the accused….but rather if the law the accused has violated is one that appears to be just and not disproportionately applied to any particular group. Conflict theorists maintain that society is composed of groups that have opposing values and interests and that the state represents the values and interests of the groups with the most power. All conflict theorists have in common a conflict view of society, that it is held together, not by consensus, but by conflicting values and interests. The basic idea is that people with less power are more likely to be defined and processed as criminals.
Recent theoretical attention has focused on the specific inequality between blacks and whites in the United States. Inequality refers to a comparison between the material level of those who have the least in a society and the material level of other groups in that society.
Group Conflict Theory
George Vold introduced the concept of group conflict theory in 1958. His conceptionalization is rooted in the tradition of social interaction and collective behavior theories. Vold viewed humans as group oriented and society as a collection of groups, each with its own interests. These groups form because members have common interests and needs that can best be met through collective action. Groups come into conflict with one another as the interests and purposes they serve begin to overlap and encroach. When this occurs, each group tends to defend itself.
This hypothesis couples itself with the theory put forth by the German economist and social philosopher Karl Marx, who believed that the unequal distribution of property and power in society lays the foundation for an inevitable class conflict that, according to Marx, prevails throughout all of social history. This theory of social organization has provided the foundation for the conflict school of criminology in that “contemporary Marxists wish to explore ways in which law, as a form of social control, has been used to contain class struggle and maintain class divisions at different times in different societies” (Lynch & Groves, 1986:7).
Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, white inmates have made up the majority of those under sentence of death. But the total number of minorities awaiting the death sentence does appear grossly disproportionate when one takes into account the fact that Blacks account for only 12% of the total population of the United States.
Are certain groups prosecuted for violent crimes, such as murder, more vigorously in the U.S. than other groups? Consider these facts: In 1997, 9% of the black population in America was under some form of correctional supervision compared to 2% of the white population and over 1% of other races. In the United States, African-Americans are sent to prison thirteen times more often as whites for the same offenses. Blacks were two times more likely than Hispanics to be in jail, and they were five times more likely than whites (BJS: 1998).
In contrast, Bernard Goetz, a white man, in 1984 became a national hero when he shot four young black men whom he claimed tried to rob him of $5 in the New York City subway. This played on the fear of crime, and upon the race card. But it also gives weight to the group conflict theory. One interesting aspect of Vold’s theory is that he viewed crime and delinquency as minority group behavior. It was his belief that human behavior is dominated by group behavior that is often characterized by conflict.
Do these statistics give credence to those who would take the naďve and conspiratorial stance that the U.S. is a country ruled by a racist government? That is, do the economic elite use the power of the state as an instrument for the maintenance of their own power, as Marx expressed in his theories?
Consider one of the elements of Vold’s group conflict theory which pertains to the distribution of power. He stated that “those who produce legislative majorities have control over the police power and dominate the policies that decide who is likely to be involved in violation of the law” (Vold, 1958:209).
But the growth of “radical criminology” in the 1970s described the notion of power more clearly. From this movement came the notion that the status or label of criminal is conferred upon individuals in subordinate or powerless positions in society. Austin Turk, in his publication Criminality and Legal Order, wrote that “nothing and no one is intrinsically criminal; criminality is a definition applied by individuals with the power to do so, according to illegal and extralegal, as well as legal criteria” (Turk, 1969:10).
Criminalization, the process of being labeled criminal, results from the interaction between the enforcers and the alleged violators. This interaction is shaped by five social factors:
n the congruence of cultural and social norms;
n the level of organization of the subjects;
n the degree of sophistication in the interpretation of behaviors;
n the power differential between enforcers and violators; and
n the realism of moves during the conflict.
Let us consider the 1995 case of O.J. Simpson, a popular black actor and former athlete who was accused of murdering his estranged wife and an acquaintance, both of whom were white. Many in the legal field agree that the Los Angeles Police Department and the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office had constructed an iron clad prima facie case against Simpson. But a mostly minority jury failed to convict him on the double murder charges. Why was Simpson acquitted?
Many blacks, and some whites, believe that the justice system is biased against blacks, at worst purposefully racist or even “genocidal.” Take a recent New Yorker article, in which Henry Louis Gates Jr., leader of Harvard University’s black studies program, chronicled “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Black Man,” namely, the acquitted O.J. Simpson. Gates writes: “If you wonder why blacks seem particularly susceptible to rumors and conspiracy theories, you might take a look at a history in which the official story was a poor guide to anything that mattered much, and in which rumor sometimes verged on the truth. Heard the one about the L.A. cop who hated interracial couples, fantasized about making a bonfire of black bodies, and boasted of planting evidence?”
Gates, like the renowned sociologist William Julius Wilson, one of the prominent black Americans about whose views of the O.J. verdict he cites, was convinced that O.J. was guilty. Gates noted, as “older blacks like to repeat, when white folks say ‘justice,’ they mean ‘just us.’” In other words, blacks really do experience enough casual, reflexive racism from law enforcement officers to make them understandably fearful that racism permeates the criminal justice system.
This fear has recently made its way into the national spotlight, due in large part to increased complaints from minorities, especially young black males, citing instances of police stops for the crime of “DWB” (Driving While Black). Many states are investigating allegations of racial profiling by law enforcement officers, who point at historical crime data as both a defense, and as justification for their actions.
A recent story in the Wall Street Journal tackled the question of “jury nullification” in cases involving black defendants. It is increasingly common for black jurors to “side with African-American defendants against a mostly white-dominated justice system,” even to the point of acquitting black defendants whom the jurors know to be guilty on the legal merits—and even when the victims are black. More black jurors “are choosing to disregard the evidence, however powerful, because they seek to protest racial injustice and to refrain from adding to the already large number of blacks behind bars.” The story noted that in the Bronx, where juries are more than 80 percent black and Hispanic, black defendants are acquitted in felony cases 47.6 percent of the time—three times the national acquittal rate of 17 percent for all races. In Washington, D.C., where virtually all defendants and 70 percent of jurors are black, 28.7 percent of all felony trials end in acquittals. Similar patterns hold in Detroit and several other cities where black jurors predominate. Paul Butler, a black criminal-law professor at George Washington University, was quoted as arguing that in cases involving black defendants charged with nonviolent crimes, black jurors should “presume in favor of nullification.”
Was this a response to racism? Something more is at issue, for this isn’t happening just in cases where black jurors are hearing white cops testify against black criminals. Black jurors’ resistance to police witnesses has grown even as virtually every big city has increased the percentage of blacks on its police force, moved the force ever nearer to mirroring the racial composition of its citizenry, and seen blacks become precinct captains, deputy chiefs, commissioners, and mayors.
Conclusion
The social conflict theory focuses on the roles played by political, economic, and other social institutions in the shaping of societal definitions of legal and illegal behaviors. When applying this association of ideals to the causation of crime and punishment in the United States and to the way in which juries with minority members bond together, consciously or unconsciously, in an “us against them” mind set, one could easily argue the point that deliberate verdicts which invalidate the governments position of the guilt of a defendant do in fact take place.
Criminality is for the most part contextual. The people with the power to make the laws and to label behavior as “criminal” do so at the expense of those who have little or no power. When conflicts arise the resolution of said conflicts strengthens and intensifies the loyalty of the group.
The group conflict theory can be argued as a major cause of the failure of minority controlled juries to convict obviously guilty defendants of vicious crimes. But is this a simple racial issue, as some in the majority would presume, and if it is, do the same principles apply in reverse? Or is it a more classic example of the Marxist theory of economic factors that play a superior role? Do laws exist to promote the interests of special groups and not the whole of society?
One must first scrutinize the different variables before making an informed decision on this question. The debate among criminologist should continue, and further research on this thesis should be conducted.
Policy Implications
For those who study criminology, the policy implications of the findings of a particular theory is of the utmost importance. This is especially true for modern theories, with emphasis on social change and empowering of employees in a capitalist system. This is accomplished through redistribution of wealth through employee ownership of corporations. An eventual move toward strict equality and socialist society with social change to include decriminalization of consensual crimes and drug offenses which have historically been licked to certain cultures should be instituted.
REFERENCES
Abadinsky, Howard. (1997). Probation And Parole Theory And Practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Brown, S., Esbensen, F., Geis, G. (2001). Criminology: Explaining Crime And Its Contents. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). “Capital Punishment 2000”. December 2001, NCJ 190598
Lynch, M. J. and Groves, W.B. (1989). A Primer in Radical Criminology, Second Edition. New York: Harrow and Heston Publishers
Payne, B., Gainey, R. (2002). Family Violence and
Criminal Justice:
A Life-Course Approach. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson
Publishing
Turk, Austin. (1969). Criminology And Legal Order.
Vold, George, Thomas, Bernard. (1986). Theoretical Criminology. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press
Williams, F. III, McShane, M. (1998). Criminology Theory: Selected Classic Readings. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing