Globalisation, Victim, Corp Flashcards
(12 cards)
How has globalisation created a global criminal economy?
Sociologist: Castells
Theory: Marxism / Globalisation
What he says: The global criminal economy exceeds £1 trillion annually. Economic globalisation and capitalism create inequalities exploited by criminal networks. New types of crime have emerged (cybercrime, green crime, drug trafficking), especially through global supply-demand chains (e.g., Western demand for drugs from the Global South).
Concepts: Global criminal economy, supply/demand crime, capitalist exploitation
Evaluation (synoptic): Left realists argue not all crime is global — local deprivation still drives offending. Compare with Lea & Young’s marginalisation theory. Also links with green crime (e.g., toxic waste dumping driven by profit).
What is Beck’s concept of ‘global risk consciousness’ and how does it affect crime?
Sociologist: Ulrich Beck
Theory: Postmodernism
What he says: Globalisation brings new opportunities but also new insecurities. Global risks (e.g., terrorism, immigration) are sensationalised by media, leading to increased policing, surveillance, and stigmatisation. This can distort crime stats and deepen moral panics.
Concepts: Risk society, global insecurity, moral panic, intensified control
Evaluation (synoptic): Links to Hall’s moral panic over mugging. However, doesn’t explain actual crime causation — more useful for understanding public fear and media distortion
How has globalisation changed organised crime through glocalisation?
Sociologists: Hobbs & Dunningham
Theory: Postmodernism
What they say: Organised crime now involves ‘glocal’ networks — local criminal hubs linked to global markets. Unlike past rigid hierarchies (e.g., Mafia), these networks are fluid, adaptive, and exploit legitimate and illegitimate opportunities. New crimes like cybercrime and human trafficking are increasingly coordinated.
Concepts: Glocalisation, fluid networks, cybercrime, postmodern crime
Evaluation (synoptic): Builds on Merton’s innovation idea — blocked goals lead to adaptation. Realists might argue this ignores the street-level causes of violent crime. Also contrasts with Taylor’s Marxist critique of state-corporate crime.
How does capitalism explain the rise in global financial and corporate crime?
Sociologist: Taylor
Theory: Marxism
What he says: Neo-liberal global capitalism encourages deregulation and corporate expansion into formerly state-controlled areas (e.g., finance). This enables tax evasion, money laundering, and legal exploitation across borders. Legitimate businesses engage in harmful practices due to lack of international regulation.
Concepts: Neo-liberalism, transnational capitalism, corporate crime
Evaluation (synoptic): Neo-Marxists add that powerful elites use ideology to prevent criminalisation of their activities. Zemiology (study of harm) argues we must redefine crime by focusing on harm, not legality. Ties to state crime and elite impunity.
How do functionalist theories explain corporate crime?
Sociologists: Merton, Box, Nelken
Theory: Functionalism (Strain + Control)
What they say: When legitimate goals (e.g., profit) can’t be achieved legally, individuals and organisations may ‘innovate’ and turn to illegal methods. Corporate actors are socialised into competitive, greedy environments and may internalise norms that justify illegal practices. Control theory suggests weak moral bonds allow this deviance.
Concepts: Strain, innovation, relative deprivation, control theory
Evaluation (synoptic): Explains how middle-class crime emerges from the same pressures as working-class crime. Can be compared with realist and Marxist views. Doesn’t explain why some businesses stay legal despite the same pressures.
How does Geis explain corporate crime through differential association?
Sociologist: Geis
Theory: Interactionism / Left realism crossover
What he says: Corporate crime is learned through socialisation within deviant subcultures. New employees adopt the norms of peers engaging in illegal activities (e.g., price-fixing). Techniques of neutralisation are used to deny responsibility (Matza).
Concepts: Differential association, deviant subcultures, neutralisation
Evaluation (synoptic): Parallels Sutherland’s white-collar crime and Matza’s drift theory. Supports the idea that deviance is situationally learned, not due to blocked goals. Can be compared with gang culture explanations in working-class youth.
What is the Marxist view of corporate crime?
Sociologists: Box, Pearce
Theory: Marxism
What they say: Capitalism promotes profit-maximisation at all costs. Corporate crime becomes normalised through ideology — only a fraction is prosecuted, sustaining the illusion that it’s rare. Pearce calls this the “tip of the iceberg.” Box argues that when profit is threatened, illegal methods (e.g., tax evasion) become tools of competition.
Concepts: Criminogenic capitalism, mystification, ideology
Evaluation (synoptic): Zemiology supports redefining crime by harm, not legality. However, this theory assumes all businesses act criminally under pressure and ignores agency. Can be linked to state crime and elite impunity.
How do interactionists explain the underreporting of corporate crime?
Sociologists: Cicourel, Nelken
Theory: Labelling / Interactionism
What they say: Crime is socially constructed — middle-class offenders can negotiate non-criminal labels. Corporate crime is often ‘de-labelled’ due to legal resources, power, and institutional backing. As a result, it’s underrepresented in official stats.
Concepts: De-labelling, negotiation of justice, symbolic power
Evaluation (synoptic): Useful for explaining the invisibility of elite crime. Links well with media and moral panic theory — some groups are targeted, others are protected. Doesn’t explain causes of the crime, only why it’s hidden.
How is the concept of victimhood socially constructed?
Sociologist: Nils Christie
Theory: Interactionism
What he says: The media and CJS construct the “ideal victim” as weak, innocent, and deserving. Victims of domestic abuse or fraud may be overlooked. Victim status is often denied when behaviour appears risky (e.g., sexual assault victims “blamed” for their own actions).
Concepts: Ideal victim, labelling, dark figure of crime
Evaluation (synoptic): Positivist victimology ignores social construction. Left realists use victim surveys (e.g., Islington) to study real patterns in working-class communities, contrasting media narratives.
What does positivist victimology suggest about patterns of victimisation?
Sociologist: Tierney, von Hentig
Theory: Positivism
What they say: Certain people are more prone to victimisation due to vulnerability or behaviour. Victim precipitation implies some victims provoke their own victimisation (e.g., 26% of homicides in Wolfgang’s study were triggered by the victim).
Concepts: Victim proneness, victim precipitation, Duet Theory
Evaluation (synoptic): Feminists argue this theory excuses rape and blames women. It ignores structural causes like poverty or patriarchy — better addressed by critical victimology.
How does critical victimology explain who is labelled a victim?
Sociologists: Walklate, Whyte & Tombs
Theory: Marxism / Feminism
What they say: Victim status is shaped by structural factors (e.g., patriarchy, poverty) and state power. The CJS selectively applies or withholds victim status. Women and the poor are more likely to be victims, less likely to be acknowledged.
Concepts: Structural powerlessness, hierarchy of victimisation
Evaluation (synoptic): Explains under-recognition of powerful actors’ crimes (e.g., corporate or state crime). However, may underplay agency — not all victims are entirely passive.
What is radical victimology and what does it add?
Sociologists: Newburn, Walklate
Theory: Radical Criminology / Left Realism
What they say: Focuses on power structures and how poor communities suffer most from crime. Victim surveys reveal high victimisation among the working class. The state defines who counts as a victim and often ignores structural violence.
Concepts: State power, repeat victimisation, radical victimology
Evaluation (synoptic): Criticised for focusing too much on social structures. Postmodernists like Flynn argue the term “victim” is overused and increasingly meaningless — global victimology blurs definitions further.
