Crime and Social Class

Deviance, Crime, and Social Control SOCI 1306 Crime and Social Class The substantial and largely unpunished crimes perpetrated by the affluent and powerful are sometimes overshadowed by the connection of crime with the impoverished. These offences, also referred to as "white-collar" crimes, can have disastrous effects on society's finances. For example, the FBI claimed in 2009 that the combined losses to victims of motor vehicle theft, larceny, and burglary were $15.3 billion (FBI, 2010). Even if this sum is significant, it is little compared to the financial destruction brought about by white-collar crimes like those Bernie Madoff perpetrated. Former adviser and financier Madoff was charged in 2008 with masterminding one of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever. According to a 2009 assessment by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the projected damages resulting from his fraudulent operations approached $50 billion. The financial cost of these crimes varies greatly, highlighting the seriousness of wealthy people's actions that is frequently disregarded. The differences in the treatment of crimes according to the criminals' socioeconomic class are also apparent in the criminal law of the United States, especially when it comes to drug punishment. Crack cocaine is a strong and less costly type of cocaine that was widely used in the poorest metropolitan areas of the United States throughout the 1980s. The more costly powder cocaine, on the other hand, was linked to consumers who were affluent. Possession of these two types of cocaine carried quite different legal ramifications. A federal statute passed in 1986 said that 50 grammes of crack cocaine would result in a ten-year jail term; five grammes of powder cocaine would carry a punishment similar to this. According to the New York Times Editorial Staff (2011), this 1 to 100 sentence discrepancy clearly demonstrated the differential treatment based on the type of substance, which in turn linked with the users' socioeconomic status. According to conflict theory, this legal disparity is a reflection of societal power structures. Conflict theorists contend that people in positions of authority make and implement laws, frequently crafting them to further their own agendas. As a result, laws are written with the interests of the affluent and powerful in mind, with the less fortunate facing harsher penalties. This trend was most noticeable in the 1980s and early 1990s when laws were passed in several states that substantially raised the penalty for drug offences, with a focus on repeat offenders. The 1994 Crime Bill, sometimes referred to as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, was the result of these efforts. This act made drug offences much more punishable, funded the building of more jails, and encouraged law enforcement to go after drug offenders more assiduously. The widespread imprisonment of Black and Hispanic people was one of the most important effects of these policies. The increased drug enforcement operations disproportionately targeted these neighbourhoods, which resulted in a cycle of poverty and decreased social mobility. Minorities are disproportionately overrepresented in the prison population, in part due to the severe sentence guidelines for crack cocaine offences. This widespread imprisonment had significant social and economic repercussions that affected not just the prisoners but also their families and communities. For many years, the gap in sentences between crack and cocaine remained a divisive topic. The first real legislative steps were taken to redress this imbalance in 2010. The sentence inequality was lowered from 1 to 100 to 1 to 18 with the signing of the Fair sentence Act by President Barack Obama. Although this was a positive step towards more equal treatment, the difference persisted (The Sentencing Project, 2010). The Fair Sentencing Act marked a shift in tackling the structural prejudices that had long afflicted drug sentencing rules as well as an acknowledgment of the need for reform in the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system and the lives of persons impacted by these policies are still impacted by the crack-cocaine sentencing gap, even with recent revisions. Many people who were already serving sentences under the previous legislation are still facing hefty jail terms for crack cocaine offences since the reduction in disparity did not apply retrospectively to them. Furthermore, there is also a need for continual agitation and reform in the more general question of how socioeconomic position affects how criminals are handled by the judicial system. One example of how power dynamics and socioeconomic position affect the formulation and application of laws is the crack vs cocaine sentence discrepancy. It emphasises the larger point that powerful people frequently reshape legal systems to maintain their advantage, leaving marginalised populations with harsher punishments and fewer avenues for obtaining justice. This disparity is a result of deeper societal injustices that continue to influence how various groups interact with the criminal justice system in addition to being an issue of legal injustice. In summary, street crimes by the impoverished are generally the focus of media attention and carry severe punishments; meanwhile, the crimes of the rich and powerful can have far more severe financial consequences and are often not prosecuted. The obvious differences between crack and powder cocaine sentencing rules draw attention to the larger problem of how power dynamics and socioeconomic position influence the criminal justice system. A more equal judicial system is a step closer thanks to initiatives like the Fair Sentencing Act that aim to rectify these inequities. To guarantee that justice is actually blind to money and power, however, further change and campaigning are required given the lingering difficulties and legacy of these practices.