Critical Comparison and Analysis of Theories in Criminology 2022

Running head: CRITICAL COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN
CRIMINOLOGY 1
Critical Comparison and Analysis of Theories in Criminology
Name
Institution

CRITICAL COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY 2
Critical Comparison and Analysis of Theories in Criminology
Introduction
Criminology can be conceptualized with reference to theories which have been coined,
criticized and improved over time. In this regard, critical theory which has evolved from earlier
radical theory forms the backbone of this paper. It is segmented into three parts, precisely-
introduction, earlier radical theory, critical theory, and conclusion.
Earlier Radical Theory
Earlier radical theorists centered their propositions on the materials and treatises based on
Marxist principle. Karl Marx coined the principle, the basis of earlier radical theorists thinking
after considering a number of variables namely- law, power, social and economic control. Karl
Marx propounded a principle to the effect that upper class (bourgeoisie) as opposed lower class
(proletariat) controls factors of production and therefore influences a number of important
decisions in society (Young, Taylor, & Walton, 1975). In extrapolation of the above principle,
earlier radical theorists believe that law is that which state enacts and enforces. In their
considered view; state actors are controlled by the upper class (Young et al., 1975). As a result;
as opposed to the laws that find themselves in the statute books as well as public policy being the
general consensus of the societal tenets, they are instead a reflection of the interest of the upper
class (Young et al., 1975). Undoubtedly therefore, laws are couched and applied in a manner that
preserves the status quo; status quo being social, economic and political arrangements working in
favor of the upper class.
According to radical theorists, punishment meted out in the criminal justice system has
the sole purpose of serving the interest of the powerful. This in their view stems from the

CRITICAL COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY 3
criminalized acts which cover in most cases acts committed in the streets as opposed to offices
(Lynch & Groves, 1989). It is their position that, whenever there is a threat to the political, social
and economic order; antiterrorism measures whose consequences are dire and destructive are
invoked with an aim of instilling fear and to shield status quo from being pierced (Lynch &
Groves, 1989).
Feminist theory also form part of earlier radical theory. According to feminist theorists,
criminology was so masculinized that missed out on the important and indispensable factors such
as right of women and the need of their contribution in the criminal justice system (Gundy,
2014). Feminists noted that the laws that were applied were aloof of the plight of women as
victims of crime denying them access and the benefit of the law as was enjoyed by men
(Carrington & Hogg, 2002). They therefore insisted on elimination of barriers towards access to
criminal justice system by women and in effect remove gender as a form of inequality that
impact administration of criminal laws.
Critical Theory
Critical theorists sought to explain the interplay between crime and law based on the
prepositions that were made by earlier theorists. They appreciated previous postulations and held
that what constitutes a crime is that which law decrees as such (Quinney, 1970). These theorists
posit that crime is inextricably tied to inequalities that manifest in the societal engagements
(Quinney, 1970). In their considered opinion; as opposed to traditional point of view that some
earlier radical theorists had, inequalities that exist are not limited to upper and lower class
(Quinney, 1970). Accordingly, race and gender also form part and parcel of inequalities that
must be considered based on changing times that brings to fore dynamism that must be adopted
in interpretation of concepts (Quinney, 1970).