The Construction of Crime in Victoria: A Marxist and Moral Panic Perspective

Criminal Law
INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Author
Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The school (University)
City and State
Date
“The young are often the victims of poverty and class-based inequalities, while also cast in the
role of ‘folk devils’ for society’s ills”.

Criminal Law 1
Introduction
The state of Victoria abolished the Police Schools Involvement Program in 2006. Since
then, the rate of crime in Victoria has tremendously decreased making Victoria the second with
the least young offenders. There are different theories that explain the construction of crime and
its scope in a society. This paper would be focusing on two of them. The paper will first go
through the situation in Victoria by looking at the principles of Marxism theory. Another theory
that this paper would be analyzing is moral panic theory. Both of these theories would be
explained in the context of the state of Victoria focusing on the statement that “The young are
often the victims of poverty and class-based inequalities, while also cast in the role of ‘folk
devils’ for society’s ills.”
Discussion
The statement “The young are often the victims of poverty and class-based inequalities,
while also cast in the role of ‘folk devils’ for society’s ills” introduces the notion of criminal
selectivity. This is a concept in the Marxism theory of criminology which was characterized by
massive unfairness, stigmatizing, discrimination according to class, ethnicity, religious bias,
race, and gender (Weis, 2017). Using Marxist ideologies, criminologists have borrowed three
main views of crime. Firstly, they understood the position of law as a device used by the ruling
class. Secondly, they have understood crime in the view of an outcome of the struggle. Thirdly,
scholars have used the understanding of Marxism address the problems arising in the
relationships between the construction of crime and the way it affects society. From a conflict
perspective, Chambliss stressed that society is a collection of different groups which are
naturally in conflict (Tischler, 2013, p. 156). When these groups are divided into two, people
either belonged to the ruling class or the less powerful class. The ruling class then take the law as

Criminal Law 2
tool for fulfilling their functions which include the use their coercive power to stabilize the
conflict. This was the position that Marx talked about in the theory of crime where power and
supremacy are used to construct social norms. However, the application of this Marx principle in
criminology calls for scrutiny in the construction of crimes and deviance.
From Marxist theories, the identification of deviance relies on laws that are created in
favor of the privileged class. It is the ruling class that creates the laws and enforce them to
protect their wealth. The created law is enforced upon the lower class through the police, media,
and the legal systems for the protection of the interests of the wealthy. The theories consider that
the less powerful class are eager to engage in actions that can jeopardize the running of the
economy. The statement that the young are often the victims of poverty and class-based
inequalities falls in this notion which means that due to this status of the youths, they are likely
to engage in crimes.
Marxists contend that it is the economic systems of capitalism that cause crime. In this
belief, the Marxist focus on the exploitive nature of the relationship. That is, the working class is
exploited by the ruling class which leads to increased wealth on the side of the ruling class and
increased poverty on the working class. This statement can be justified on the fact that the
working class who would not afford to earn an amount enough for supporting their basic needs
would turn to crime to get what the ruling class does not provide. Furthermore, Marxists believe
that the exploited class sometimes express frustrations and anger through criminal activities and
violence. In justification of this position, it is a fact that the employees who are struggling with
their life are likely to steal than the employer who is paying them the wages. The same case can
be thought to apply to the youths who have no money or business, yet they need to meet their
financial needs.

Criminal Law 3
However, this is not the case. The work of (Kauzlarich, 2014) rejected this notion stating
that the image that the law promotes the masses demonstrates democracy and consensus. In
(McGrath, 2009) the author criticized Marxist belief stating that the belief leads causes the public
to view youths as offenders which causes stigmatization. Therefore, it is the stigmatization
through the illegitimate interpretation of Marxism that causes the youths to offend as a defense to
the increased stigmatization. The legal system in Victorian Courts has also proved that viewpoint
as wrong. By focusing on reducing stigma on the juveniles, the youth offending has dramatically
reduced in Victoria (Parliamentary of Victoria, 2017).
The young turning to crime cannot be justified by the fact that they face inequalities.
There are no economic changes for alleviating the social class of youths in Victoria to cause the
reduction of crime. According to the report (Parliamentary of Victoria, 2017), it is the changes in
the youth justice system that have brought the reduction of youth offending which had nothing to
do with Marxism principles. If there was anything, perhaps the change of belief on Marxism and
a focus on children rights. For instance, the Victoria Courts focus on minimizing stigma both in
procedural guidelines and in sentencing principles which is an indication of a move to divert
children from punitive sanctions (Children, Youth, and Families Act, 2005, secs 362(1), 522(1)).
The Marxism belief is closely related to the notion of ‘stereotyping’. By viewing the
young status as a cause for their offending, assertion is reached through commonly perceived
norms of Marxism which is not a fact by stereotypical (Bernard et al., 2016). The study of
(McGrath, 2009) in Australia showed that this form of labeling increased young offenders’
victimization. In the study, the authors interviewed 206 young people immediately after
receiving their sentence from the Children’s Court in NSW. Most of the young offenders
reported feelings of stigmatization which is contrary to the purpose of justice systems.