Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:20:22.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criminal Environment and Support for the Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

John E. Conklin
John E. Conklin*
Affiliation:
Tufts University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The question of who supports the law is commonly approached within a framework of social stratification analysis. Pressure to pass certain laws and willingness to assist the agents of law enforcement are often related to social status and political power. Marx and Engels (1947) were among the first to see the law and support for the law in terms of the interests of various groups in the stratification system, arguing that the law is a tool employed by the bourgeoisie to oppress and exploit the proletariat. In another historical study, Ranulf (1964) concluded that the “distinterested tendency to inflict punishment” is concentrated in the petty bourgeoisie or lower-middle class, suggesting that it is in that level of the social hierarchy where one will find the greatest support for the law, or at least the punitive aspects of the law. Not too different from this is the conclusion reached by Marshall (1968) which is that middle-class values have long been critical in determining what types of social behavior will be labeled criminal.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 6 , Issue 2: Special Issue on the Police , November 1971 , pp. 247 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 by the Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This article is adapted from sections of John E. Conklin, Public Reactions to Crime: A Survey of Two Communities, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1969. I would like to thank Ann Richardson, David J. Armor, and Lloyd E. Ohlin for their assistance in preparing this paper.

References

ADORNO, T. W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWIK, Else, LEVINSON, Daniel J., and R. Nevitt, SANFORD (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
CONKLIN, John E. (1971) “Dimensions of Community Response to the Crime Problem,” 18 Social Problems 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DURKHEIM, Emile (1933) The Division of Labor in Society. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
GILBERT, G. M. (1958) “Crime and Punishment: An Exploratory Comparison of Public, Criminal and Penological Attitudes,” 42 Mental Hygiene 550.Google Scholar
MARSHALL, James (1968) Intention in Law and Society. New York: Funk and Wagnalls.Google Scholar
MARX, Karl, and Friedrich, ENGELS (1947) The German Ideology. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
MILLER, Walter B. (1958) “Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency,” 14 Journal of Social Issues 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RANULF, Svend (1964) Moral Indignation and Middle Class Psychology. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968) New York: Bantam Books, Inc.Google Scholar
ROSE, Arnold M., and Arthur E., PRELL (1955) “Does the Punishment Fit the Crime? A Study in Social Valuation,” 61 The American Journal of Sociology 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROSENBERG, Morris (1968) The Logic of Survey Analysis. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
ROSENTHAL, Jack (1969) “The Cage of Fear in Cities Beset by Crime,” 67 Life Magazine 16.Google Scholar
SELLIN, Thorsten, and Marvin E., WOLFGANG (1964) The Measurement of Delinquency. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
SMIGEL, Erwin O. (1956) “Public Attitudes Toward Stealing as Related to the Size of the Victim Organization,” 21 American Sociological Review 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SUTHERLAND, Edwin H., and Donald R., CRESSEY (1970) Criminology. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company.Google Scholar