Sociologists are interested in why people from some social classes are more likely to commit crimes than others, and that the types of crime which people from different classes may commit differ significantly.
Social class is an identity based on shared socio‐economic status. Different sociologists approach class in different ways: traditional Marxists focus on the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and their separate relationship to the means of production; other sociologists consider class stratification more in relation to job roles and incomes.
The police and the Crime Survey of England and Wales do not collect data directly on the social class of offenders, although there is a range of data that can give some indication of this: comparing criminality in different postcode areas, for example, and from data about the prison population. These data suggest that working‐class individuals are more likely to commit crime than middle‐class individuals. Meanwhile, middle‐class individuals are more likely to commit crimes like fraud or tax evasion (see white‐collar crime) compared with the greater likelihood of theft or violent crime by those with lower incomes.
If the Crime Statistics Reflect Reality
Many of the functionalist and Marxist theories we have already looked at seek to explain why working‐ class individuals commit more crimes than others. Whether that be subcultural theories from functionalists, or the idea crime might be a proletarian response to capitalism, a great deal of criminology has investigated this particular social distribution.
New Right sociologist Charles Murray developed the idea of an underclass. He suggested that the welfare state created welfare dependency and that there were perverse incentives in the welfare system that created a criminal underclass of jobless, welfare‐dependent, dysfunctional people (see right realism above)
This analysis led New Right journalist Melanie Philips to blame the Labour Party (who were not in power at the time) for the 2011 London and UK riots, arguing that they had conducted a "social experiment" undermining family values and discouraging a clear moral code based on Christian teachings.
Some of the published data on the 2011 riots supports the idea of an "underclass" leading to criminality. While 12% of the working‐age population of the UK are in receipt of out‐of‐ work benefits of some kind or other, 35% of the adults prosecuted after the riots were. The vast majority of rioters prosecuted had previous convictions: however, this might be because these were the rioters the police could identify. (Interestingly, in terms of other sections in this topic, 90% of the rioters were male and nearly 50% black).
Of course, the statistics from the 2011 riots could also support both functionalist explanations and left realist explanations for the behaviour. The young rioters tended to be poor and struggling with education. From a functionalist perspective this could support both strain theory and status frustration. Left realists might point to the relative deprivation of those in low income families, particularly in London where very poor people sometimes live in very rich boroughs, and to their marginalisation and social exclusion.
If the Crime Statistics Are Misleading
Marxists in particular argue that many crimes committed by the wealthy do not make their way into crime statistics. The rich are less likely to be investigated or to become suspects and are more likely to be able to afford good lawyers who get them off or indeed even bribe officials so the investigation never gets that far in the first place. Marxists would also add that much of the harmful behaviour that the rich do engage in is legal because they are the class that make the laws.
As such, Marxists take an interest in white collar crime and corporate crime, as well as state crime.
White collar crime simply means crimes committed by the "middle class" (as opposed to "blue collar" workers). Although theoretically it could mean any crime committed by members of that class, it is generally used to describe the crimes most associated with the middle class, for example, fraud and tax evasion, rather than, for instance, violent crimes that happen to have been committed by a middle‐class individual.
There are less likely to be convictions in relation to many white collar crimes because they are harder to detect. Victims are often diffused (e.g. there might be thousands of victims of a fraud, who may never be aware that a crime has taken place) and remote ‐ the crime is often committed at a distance, perhaps by computer, rather than face to face. For both these reasons, victims are unlikely to report a crime and witnesses to the crime are less likely. Historically, these crimes have been treated more leniently, and sometimes the associates of white‐collar criminals will help to "brush it under the carpet" in order to avoid the negative publicity.
Corporate crime refers specifically to crimes committed by companies rather than individuals, although individuals might well be found to have ultimate criminal responsibility, e.g. the CEO. Most commonly, corporate crimes will involve fraud or tax evasion. Historically, these crimes have not been routinely prosecuted and, even where companies have been held accountable for these crimes, it is often through arrangements outside the criminal justice system: e.g. between large companies and governments in relation to their tax affairs, as with Starbucks in 2014.
Evaluating Sociological Explanations of The Social Distribution of Crime and Deviance by Social Class
It is quite possible that factors other than social class are much more significant and, in many cases, can account for similar statistical results:
- Ecological explanations (do not confuse with green crime!): Ecological explanations for crime examine how crime is distributed among different geographical locations. Theorists are interested in understanding the urban and rural divide in terms of crime rates and the types of crimes committed. It is clear that there are significant differences between rural and urban areas, and between different neighbourhoods within towns and cities. The type of crime common to particular areas also varies. When examining crime among different areas of the same town, sociologists consider the "tipping point". One explanation (from Baldwin and Bottoms) for certain neighbourhoods or housing estates having a particularly high level of crime is that they have passed a "tipping point". One effect of raised levels of crime in a neighbourhood: law‐abiding residents try to move away and criminals move in attracted by the subsequently lower rents/house prices and opportunity to live among like‐minded people. The suggestion is: at some point in this process an area might pass a point of no return after which it becomes a hotbed of criminality. This process might produce an apparent correlation between crime and social class.
- Nocturnal economy: As well as being interested in the location of crimes, sociologists are also interested in when they happen. Most crime occurs at night. One reason for this is the "nocturnal economy" ‐ the big growth in pubs and clubs and the selling of alcohol to young people. Many crimes occur when people leave such establishments, especially when everywhere closes at the same time and city centres suddenly fill with inebriated young men. This theory emerged from a study by Hobbs and Lister (2000). The idea was used as a justification for introducing 24 hours licenses in 2005, although studies suggest the only significant impact of the new licensing law was pushing the time of violent crimes back by a few hours. Perhaps the time that crimes are committed is more significant than the socio‐economic background of the offenders.
In recent years white‐collar and corporate crimes have begun to be treated more seriously, with significant media interest in high‐profile tax evaders, for example. Indeed, sometimes a wealthy criminal might be treated more severely to "make an example" (see evaluation of Marxist and interactionist explanations above).
How do patterns of Victimisation vary by social class, gender, ethnicity and age?
Are some people more likely to be victims of crime than others? And how do the characteristics of victims vary by different types of crime?
This post has been written for students of A-level sociology studying the crime and deviance module, it is an introduction to the topic of victimisation, which is explicitly on the AQA’s specification.
NB some of the latest up to date information in this post may well contradict the very probably dated information in your sociology text books!
The statistics below focus mainly on the victims of crime in the United Kingdom?
Characteristics of victims of any crime by ethnicity, social class and age (TCSEW)
The Telephone Crime Survey of England and Wales is based on a telephone survey of 30 000 respondents, making it the largest sample which addresses the question of who the victims of crime are.
(NB it’s currently a telephone survey because of Covid-19 restrictions, before that it was a face to face interview survey, to which it may return at some point!)
The TCSEW reports the following variations in patterns of victimisation for the year ending March 2020:
People of mixed ethnicity were more likely to have been victims of crime than other ethnic groups
20% of people from mixed ethnic backgrounds reported being victims, but the victimisation rates were very similar across all other ethnic groups (varying from 14-17%)
Gender seems to have very little affected on reported levels of victimisation
There were very similar reporting levels for both males and females in all ethnic groups.
The chart below demonstrates the remarkably similar patterns in victimisation by both ethnicity and gender (the only ‘significant’ difference being the higher reported rates for mixed ethnicity).
Younger people are more likely to victims of crime than older people
The chart below shows percentage of people reporting having been a victim of crime by age group – you’ll notice it generally declines as people get older, and there is a marked difference if you compare the 55s and overs with youngest three categories:
There is no obvious correlation between social class background and being a victim of crime.
In fact the picture is complex – there is no variation by class for white people, for black people, the unemployed report much lower levels of victimisation compared to professionals and for Asian people there is a slightly lower chance of being a victim the higher your social class background!
Repeat Victimisation
Data from the 2018 CSEW shows that 74% of victims of violent crime were victims once, whereas 26% were victims twice or more (7% three times or more) in the previous year.
Limitations with victimisation data from the TCSEW
- These data look at ALL crimes, and the most common types of crime (which have INCREASED MASSIVELY in recent years) are fraud and computer misuse – which are quite likely to be ‘gender/ class/ ethnicity neutral’.
- and it may be the case that for more serious crimes there are still significant variations by class/ gender and ethnicity – such as violent crimes including domestic violence and hate crimes.
- These data may be invalid because the reporting rates might vary by social class, gender, age and ethnicity – a recent report on the victims of violent crime (see section below) for example found that children were twice as likely to NOT report a crime compared to adults. Also where being a victims of Domestic Violence is concerned, with women more likely to be victims than men, this isn’t the kind of thing you can easily report over the phone, during Lockdown.
- And let’s not forget the crimes the TSCEW doesn’t cover victims of State Crime.
Who are The Victims of Violent Crime?
It’s worth looking at who the victims of violent crime are as the impacts are likely to be felt more severely than other types of crime, such being a victim or fraud or burglary.
Victims of Serious Violence England and Wales 2011-2017 pooled data from several years of the Crime Survey for England and Wales and extracted data on over 10 000 incidents.
Extremely low numbers of people are victims of violent crime each year. The report estimates that 2-3% of adults are victims of violence each year, and only 1 in 250 require some kind of medical treatment for their injuries.
- Males were at greater risk of violence – both for adults and children
- Younger people were more at risk than older people
- People from deprived areas were were more likely to be victims – adults from the 10% most deprived areas were almost twice as likely to be victims of violent crime compared to adults from the 10% most affluent areas.
- ethnic minorities in general were less likely to be victims of violent crime
The report states that 36% of violence experienced by adults, and 70% by children does not come to the attention of police or a medical professional
Who are the Victims of Domestic Abuse?
One type of violent, interpersonal crime probably not covered in a representative way in the above research is Domestic Abuse, because of its very low reporting rates.
Safe Lives reports the following patterns of victimisation for this type of crime:
- 90% of victims are women, only 10% are men.
- Women from low income households (less than £10 000) were 3.5 times more likely to be victims compared to women from households earning more than £20 000.
- The majority of victims are in their 20s and 30s, so as with crime in general, young people are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse than older people.
NB the above stats are based on people seeking help and advice about domestic abuse, so many of these won’t show up on the TCSEW.
If these domestic abuse stats are valid, then women are actually at greater risk of violent crime overall than men. Safe Lives reports that 100 000 women are currently at risk of severe violence at home. (This assumes there isn’t just as many male victims of any violent crime NOT coming forward and reporting their victimisation!).
REPEAT VICTIMISATION is also a horrible feature of Domestic Abuse – SafeLives reports that the average victim is a victim of abuse 50 times over, something which you generally don’t find to anywhere near this extent with being a victim of other types of crime.
Who are Victims of Hate Crime?
Hate crimes recorded by the police have been increasing in recent years according to a recent Home Office Briefing (from 2020).
The vast majority of hate crimes are due to someone’s ethnic background (so basically racist abuse) followed by religion, and around 50% of religiously motivated hate crimes are against Muslims. Anti-semitic crimes have also been increasing steadily.
Crimes against LGBT and Trans people are also higher than you might think – the report notes (based on data from a 2017 survey) that 54% of Trans people have reported experiencing a negative incident outside their home, as have 40% of LGBT people).
The vast majority of victims said they did not report the hate crime against them.
46 million Victims of UK State Crime?
And counting….
At time of writing 46 million people have received at least one dose of one of the Covid-19 vaccinations. The live count is here.
It is possible to interpret these people as having been victims of one of the largest ongoing State Crime of modern times.
The UK governments has consistently declared the vaccines to be safe, whereas the simple and objective truth is, that by regular medical-trial standards scientists simply don’t yet have sufficient data to comment on the safety of these vaccines.
The fact that the UK government has not been clear about this means that they have misled the British public into taking part in a country-level medical trial without their full and informed consent.
This is in breach of people’s human rights as UN conventions clearly state that citizens have a right to not take part in medical trials.
Now it’s a stretch to make the case for this being a State Crime, as people have the choice to not get vaccinated, but there is pressure there – and the government is a leading voice in this, which could be interpreted as coercion, which opens up the door to defining this scenario as a state crime with 46 million victims and counting.