Is There a Criminal Underclass in American Society?

Is There a Criminal Underclass in American Society

The notion of a criminal underclass within society is a complex matter. With the simple phrase comes a barrage of uncertainties and possibilities with much being written in recent decades on the subject. In fact the concept of an underclass has been around in a form since at least as far back as 1810 when Malthus explained it in terms of " the over-production and over-population of the lower classes" and saw the solution as encouraging the lower classes not to breed. Our understanding of underclass has changed somewhat over the years yet academics have been unable to come up with a consensus on a definitive definition. Indeed the negative connotations and uncertain meaning associated with the word have caused many to stop using it altogether. Although societal changes over time have brought in differing attitudes to the words concept and usage, and the problem of different definitions from various viewpoints should always be taken into consideration, I shall do my utmost to give a description of the sort of ideas and concepts associated with the term. I will also explain the important distinction between deviant and criminal behavior so as I can then determine if such a concept as a criminal underclass is actually a reality within our present day society.

Crime itself is a very transient term; it is something that varies through the passage of time, society, geography, and by who commits the act. For example the horrific acts of September 11th resulted in the suicide bombers became martyrs for Al-Quaida members and followers while the west viewed the acts as probably the worst crime ever committed. Soldiers of the coalition will receive medals for bravery as they take lives in Afghanistan while the bombing is seen as criminal by those supportive of the Taliban and similar regimes. It is clear then that crime can be both right or wrong depending on where we are looking from. Evidently it is not the act that distinguishes a crime but whether or not the act has been classified a crime. Ultimately it is those in positions of power that choose this classification and clearly those criminals we choose to despise are victims of our societies ideas of what is right or wrong. To explain deviance we shall look to Howard Beckers statement "Social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying these rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders". From this point of view, deviance is not the quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an offender. The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label. It must be noted here however, that not all forms of deviance constitute a crime. To deviate means, literally, to move away or to stray from set standards set in society. Deviance is then, a very broad term covering acts that are seen as abnormal within a particular society, of which crime is a smaller part. Crime is a part of deviance that breaks the formal, written laws of a given society. Thus, all crime is deviance, but not all deviance is crime. Within every society there are accepted normal ways of behaving, often referred to as norms. All laws are norms but not all norms are laws. We are all victims of conditioning from birth, the way we behave within our society, although open to a small degree of personalization, is learned, norms are, suffice it to say, a Socially Transmitted Disease. Norms, refer to specific behavioral patterns, the pursuit of which is expected from every member of a given society. The breaking of a norm would result in the offender being considered deviant, sanctions or punishments would then be applied in direct apportion to the severity of the norm broken, this could range from a disapproving stare, social exclusion, and even death in some societies. To further reinforce the effective pursuance of these norms and thus, social control, positive sanctions (rewards) are also applied. Yet, crime is still perpetrated, victims realized and negative sanctions enforced.

Defining the term underclass, as mentioned above, is a difficult task in itself. Marx's "lumpenproletariat"- a vast army of illiterate workers useful only in the sense that they held down the price of wages- were seen as a reserve army of the unemployed and of industrial labor and were a class too ignorant and unorganized to achieve "class consciousness". Marx thought of them as a less then nothing section of society and had no time for them. The Victorians would have described them as the Ð''undeserving poor' with low level education, idleness and loose morals. More recently Murray's essays on the subject have suggested a more concrete definition and point to a specific type of poverty: Ð''those distinguished by there undesirable behavior, including drug-taking, crime, illegitimacy, failure to hold down a job, truancy from school and casual violence' (Murray).

If we talk about the groups of people incorporated within the definition we see :the long term unemployed, unskilled workers in erratic employment, and young single mothers. The underclass are also identified as those who have experienced long-term exclusion from the labor market and are receiving state benefit. Take W.G. Rucimans definition Ð''those beneath the working classes whose roles place them more or less permanently at the economic level where benefits are paid by the state to those unable to participate in the labor market at all'(0)

Suggestions of a criminal underclass would have to encompass the above values as well as contain elements of behavior that could be understood as criminal. It is particularly Murrays work that suggests crime, especially violent crime, is a trait strongly linked to the behavior of the underclass. Furthermore Murrays empirical evidence, gathered from the Home Office, suggests that violent crime is a pastime largely participated in by males in the Ð''second half of their teens' and such crime has increased dramatically since around 1968. The rise is very steep since this date and should, according to Murray, have gone down as the number of men in the Ð''second half of their teens' has decreased. The point to be made here is that something must have changed to have led to such a dramatic increase in violent crime. Yet it is also petty street crime such as shoplifting and vandalism that are committed disproportionately by those young working class males, in fact this has always been the case. Let us not forget other forms of crime such as treason or blue collar crime. This crime is hardly committed readily by young working class