Criminology Is Obsessed With the Crimes of the Powerless at the Expense of the Crimes of
the Powerful
Muhammad Tariq Rustam Chohan (PSP)
One of the recurring themes of criminology is prejudicial application of law to various sections and
groups in the society. “Law governs the poor and rich rules the law” profoundly reflects the divide in
selective operation of law to the advantage of certain sections at the cost of others. Unfortunately this
divide is also visible in the academic and intellectual endeavors undertaken by the scholars in the study of
crimes and criminals. A survey of the criminology literature generates an impression that much more
emphasis has been laid on the crimes generally committed by the poor and marginalized groups and
individuals than those perpetrated by the powerful and richer individuals, groups or organizations. In this
essay we will try to analyze how far this impression is true, and if true what are the reasons for this
lopsided approach on the part of the criminologists and finally what new trends are emerging in this
connection.
Before moving on to analyze the situation let us have a look at various categories of crime committed
by the powerless on the one hand and the powerful on the other. Burglary, theft, robbery, homicide,
wounding, extortion, assault, rape, buggery and intimidation are common crimes which are associated
with poor and powerless. On the other hand the crimes like white collar and organized crimes and the
crimes committed by the states and corporations involving large scale human rights violations are
categorized as crimes of the powerful.
There are a number of reasons that support the contention that the criminologists have been obsessed
with the crimes of the powerless. First of all this is not a matter of perception or impression only, it also
contains a measure of truth in it. There is a widespread notion that crimes are committed by the poor and
poverty and deprivation are major criminogenic factors. This general view has also clouded the vision of
the criminologists who historically have remained obsessed with the crimes of the powerless and made
them the subject of their study and research. That they have been obsessed with the crimes of the
powerless is evidenced by disproportionately huge amount of literature produced on the crimes like
burglary, theft, robbery, homicide, wounding, extortion, assault, rape, buggery and intimidation as
compared to that produced on the crimes of the powerful. A little browsing of criminology shelves in the
library or surfing of internet amply proves this contention. For every book or article on crimes of the
powerful one can find ten books or articles on the crimes and criminality of the powerless.
This situation is illustrated well by Gennaro, F Vito, Ronald, M Holmes, Jeffery, R Maahs, (2007.229)
in their book Criminology: Theory, Research and Policy. They argue that “mainstream criminology
concentrates on the behavior of the offender, accepts legal definition of crime and largely ignores the
proposition that crime is created by the political authority. Thus criminologists serve as agents of the state
who provide info that the government uses to manipulate and control those who threaten the system.
Radical criminologists point out that most mainstream theories of crime are actually theories of street
crime that largely ignore the crimes of the affluent. Consider for example, Gotfredson and Hirschi’s theory
of low self control. Most persons in a position of power have demonstrated enough self control to
accumulate the credentials (e.g., employment education) to rise to the position of power. Robert Merdin’s
modes of adaptation virtually requires offenders to be poor (only poor lack legitimate means of achieving
success). In countries like United States the criminologists also lend legitimacy to image of criminals as
urban, poor and non white by relying on the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data. The UCR does not
track corporate or government crime and despite recent attempts to remedy the situation, the UCR does
not provide reliable information on other forms of white collar crime. Similar is situation in countries like
Pakistan where despite lot of gossip about corruption and white collar crime their appearance in the
official statistics and criminological literature is dismally poor.
In order to understand this phenomenon_ association of crime with the poor and powerless_ we will
have to go back into history of crime and criminology. The roots of this association of crime with poor
and powerless are to be found in the feudalistic social setup and autocratic political dispensations. In such
type of socio-political milieu all the powers are concentrated in few hands or within a particular class.
This creates within the society a division between privileged and non-privileged classes. Before the
progress of democracy the societies were in general feudalistic where the privileged feudal class ruled the
non-privileged poor class. In such societies there was no regard for human rights and the criminal justice
system operated in a prejudicial manner, against the powerless class and groups. So whereas it cannot be
denied that the poor and powerless were more frequently involved in crime, it is also a fact that the poor
and marginalized individuals and groups were falsely incriminated and the criminal justice apparatus was
used as tool to oppress them.
In such situation to think a feudal, a noble or head of government or for that matter any powerful
functionary of the state could commit a crime was like a taboo. This way of thinking continued even after
the feudalistic socio-economic structure gave way to industrialized economy of 19th and 20th century when
big corporations and companies took control of the means of production and distribution.
General level of development and stage of civilization has also something to do with this phenomenon.
Indeed organized and corporate crimes did not exist in past especially in the forms in which it has made its
appearance in the last few decades. So there was no question of it being researched and brought to light.
However this does not mean the crimes of the powerful did not exist at all. They have always been present
in the form of denial of basic human rights to the ordinary people by the state, monopolization of the
means of production by the state or feudal nobility, and an arbitrary system of criminal justice.
Yet another reason for this lopsided approach by the criminologists in the research and study of crime
and delinquency is the fundamental difference in the nature of crimes associated with the powerless and
those committed by the powerful. There is no denying the fact that the latter may be much more serious in
their scale and magnitude, the sensation and immediate concern caused by the former directly hit the
hearts and minds of the general public as well as the criminologists.
In general the crimes like street crime, violent crime and sexual offences generate more social and
political interest than corporate, organized or state crimes as Tim Newburn ( 2007, 373) has rightly
mentioned , “there is less social and political interest in these areas of activity and much criminology tends
to reflect powerful interest”
The importance of the role of media in developing public perception cannot be over emphasized.
Unfortunately media have also focused largely on the street crime and sexual offences which have
relatively more newsworthiness than the crimes of the powerless. This definitely influences the
criminologists and leads to shifting of their focus away from the crimes of the powerful.
If we look at this phenomenon from another angle we will find that this is not mere obsession and there
is something more to this situation than meets the eye. There have been and still are some practical
problems involved resulting in more research and study on the crimes of the powerless than on those
committed by the powerful. Not that the criminologists have never tried to expose the deviant acts of the
powerful, but their efforts have been obstructed by the powerful individuals and institutions whom they
intend to scrutinize through their research and study.
Various ways and means are adopted to stifle the approach of the researchers to right kind of
information and required data. Access to information is restricted in the name of public interest or
maintenance of order or business secrecy etc Writing more than thirty five years ago, Martin Nicolaus
(1972)argued that western states' increasing tendency to resort to repression and social order maintenance
was having a profound impact upon sociological research. As the use-value of sociology declined and
funding for liberal sociological research faced a prolonged period of austerity in the US, one direction in
which the sociologists would be forced in order to retain any marketable value would be in evaluating the
impact and effectiveness of a rapidly expanding criminal justice system. Thus, the principle of utility was
tying social research closely to the repressive apparatuses of the state.
Not only the collection of the information is rendered difficult, its dissemination is also obstructed in
through censorships and selective sponsorships. Indeed the whole process of research is manipulated at
various steps. It starts with encouraging study and research in particular areas at the cost of the other, by
funding research in the subjects which reflect the powerful interest. It has been argued that the
marketisation and commodification of knowledge (through increased market and competitive pressures on
universities and academics) has reduced the willingness of criminology-to challenge authority (Tomb and
Whyte,2007a).
Even if we ignore the element of obstructionism, research into areas like white collar crime or corporate
crime is difficult for two particular reasons. Firstly, much activity of this kind is private and hidden. And
secondly exploring and exposing such activities involve forms of knowledge like economics and finance,
in which majority of the criminologists are not well versed.
From all the discussion that has preceded it is not difficult to infer that the crimes of the powerful have
remained at the margin criminological attention. But the situation has undergone a considerable change in
the last few decades. Now a sizeable body of literature has been produced through the efforts of some
courageous criminologists. Edwin Sutherland (1883-1950) was the first to launch an attack on the actions
of the respectable in society –which had they been performed by the less powerful in a different contextwould have been labeled as criminal. He coined the term” white collar crime” to explain the deviant acts
committed by the respectable individuals and corporations in the course of their occupation. After that a
number of writers have come forward and made valuable contributions to the discipline of criminology
with reference to the crimes of the powerful. “State Crime” by Penny Green and Tony Ward, 2004, is an
excellent example of the bold exposure of the crimes of the powerful. “Crime and Market” 2000 is yet
another example of highly original and innovative work that analyses conventional crime and the crimes
committed by powerful individuals and groups.
In short the perception that criminology is obsessed with the crimes of the powerless at the expense of
the crimes of the powerful is neither a whole truth nor a totally false assumption. If we see the whole issue
in the historic perspective the perception carries a measure of truth but the developments of the last few
decades have remedied the situation a large extent. And despite all the structural and functional constraints
the crimes and criminality of the powerful has attracted considerable attention of the criminologists and
literature on such previously ignored subjects now forms a considerably large proportion of overall
criminological literature. Radical scholars urge mainstream criminologists to question this preoccupation
with street crime and to scrutinize the political and social institutions that support the crime of the
powerful”. As the sensitization levels are increasing one can hope the things will improve in future and the
crimes of the powerful will come under as much scrutiny as those of the powerless.
Bibliography
Kevin Jones.(2004) Crimes of the Powerful and Beyond. An Essay Review. Journal of CriminaI Law and Social Change.
Netherlands Springer
Vincenzo Ruggiero. (2000), Crime and Markets-Essays in Anti-Criminology. Oxford University Press.
Penny Green and Tony Ward 2004, State Crime ,London :Sterling
Gennaro, F Vito, Ronald, M Holmes, Jeffery, R Maahs,(2007). Criminology: Theory, Research and Policy
Dave White, (2002), Behind the Line of Truncheons: The Crimes of the Powerful and the Policing of Valid Knowledge. A
paper read at the British Society of Criminology Conference at Keele, July, 2002.
Tim Newburn,(2007), Criminology, William Publishing UK.
Richa. (2000), Crimes of the Powerful,
Jeffery Reiman 2004, The Rich Get Richer and Poor Gets Prison. Ideology, Class and Criminal Justice. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Mr. Tariq Rustam Chohan is a senior officer of Police Service of Pakistan and committed tot the
cause of promoting criminology in Pakistan.