Studies of sentencing disparities among different races lead one to believe that the criminal justice system is colorblind. While that would be comforting, it is simply not the case. What these studies are not taking into account; other stages in the system, different crimes, the victim’s race, and extralegal variables make all the difference. When these variables are accounted for, it becomes abundantly clear that there is something very wrong within the justice system and may lead one to conclude that the studies concluding a lack of racism are blatantly attempting to hide that fact. When it comes to bail and pretrial release decisions, white defendants are more likely to receive a low bail amount and white females more so than males but
…show more content…
These activities are just as harmful as normative criminally defined activities, if not more so in some instances, but are protected from the stigma because they are associated with the behaviors of powerful individuals. Criticizers protest the inclusion of these activities because they are not legally defined as crime. They believe that including “every evil perceived in human affairs” lessens the distinct role of the criminal justice system, and cheapens the idea of criminals and crime. By including non-criminal activities in the definition of crime, radical criminology is challenging how crimes come to be viewed as criminal while attempting to understand the process of …show more content…
In general, radical criminology is very liberal meaning it supports a lack of governmental interaction. The less government oversight, the less chances there are for disparate treatment to enter the equation. However, This redefinition of crime supports more state control. The necessary reason for this contradiction can be easily answered. Although more control and power would be given to the state, who works to support capitalism and the protects the wealthy, the pay off is that the powerful would now have to answer for their crimes against the poor.
The need to criminalize white collar crime can be easily answered with a numbers game. Currently, street crime costs the public about $20 billion annually. White collar crime, however, costs the U.S. $400 to $500 billion a year, that is 20 to 25 time the cost of street crime. This is not including private sector corporate crimes which increases the rate to 50 times that of street crime (72). It is not worth it to protect corporate criminals, yet that is exactly what is happening. The orthodox obsession with viewing crime as behaviors of the poor is costing our nation big
These activities are just as harmful as normative criminally defined activities, if not more so in some instances, but are protected from the stigma because they are associated with the behaviors of powerful individuals. Criticizers protest the inclusion of these activities because they are not legally defined as crime. They believe that including “every evil perceived in human affairs” lessens the distinct role of the criminal justice system, and cheapens the idea of criminals and crime. By including non-criminal activities in the definition of crime, radical criminology is challenging how crimes come to be viewed as criminal while attempting to understand the process of …show more content…
In general, radical criminology is very liberal meaning it supports a lack of governmental interaction. The less government oversight, the less chances there are for disparate treatment to enter the equation. However, This redefinition of crime supports more state control. The necessary reason for this contradiction can be easily answered. Although more control and power would be given to the state, who works to support capitalism and the protects the wealthy, the pay off is that the powerful would now have to answer for their crimes against the poor.
The need to criminalize white collar crime can be easily answered with a numbers game. Currently, street crime costs the public about $20 billion annually. White collar crime, however, costs the U.S. $400 to $500 billion a year, that is 20 to 25 time the cost of street crime. This is not including private sector corporate crimes which increases the rate to 50 times that of street crime (72). It is not worth it to protect corporate criminals, yet that is exactly what is happening. The orthodox obsession with viewing crime as behaviors of the poor is costing our nation big