Assess the view that the process of globalisation has led to changes in both the amount of crime and the types of crime committed

Globalisation refers to the increasing interconnectedness of societies, so that what happens in one locality is shaped by distant events and vice versa. Globalisation has many causes including spread if information communication technology, the global mass media, cheap flights, deregulation of markets and easy movements of businesses.

Held et al argues there’s been globalisation of crime; an increasing interconnectedness of crime across national borders. The same process that brought globalisation of legitimate activities has also brought the spread of transnational organised crime. Globalisation creates new opportunities for crime and new means of committing crime, for example cyber crime. Manuel Castells (1998) argues because of globalisation there is a globalised criminal economy worth £1 trillion. This takes a number of forms such as arms dealing, human trafficking, green crime and many others. The global criminal economy has both a demand and supply side. A reason for scale of transnational organised crime is demand from the rich west. However the global criminal economy couldn’t survive without a supply side that provides the source for demands of the west, such as drugs and prostitutes. This supply is linked to the globalisation process. For example third world drug producing countries such as Columbia have large populations of impoverished peasants. For them drug investment is attractive; it’s simple to produce and commands high prices. In Columbia, 20% of peasants rely on cocaine production for their livelihood; cocaine out sells all other exports. Thus to understand drug crime we cannot focus only on countries where drugs are consumed.

Globalisation creates new insecurities and produces a new mentality of risk consciousness where risk is global rather than isolated. For example rise in economic migrants has led to concerns of risk of disorder and increasing need to protect borders. Much knowledge of risks comes from the media which often exaggerates dangers we face. For example with immigration the media create moral panics of supposed threats, often fuelled by politicians. Negative coverage of immigrants has led to hate crimes against minorities in European countries. One result is the intensification of social control at the national level. The UK has toughened borders; there is now no limit as to how long a person may be held in immigration detention. Other European states with land borders have introduced fences to prevent illegal crossings. Another result of globalised risk is increased international cooperation in various wars on drugs, terrorism ect, particularly since terrorist attacks off September 11^th, 2001.

Socialist Ian Taylor (1997) argues globalisation has led to changes in the pattern and extent of crime. By giving free rein to market forces globalisation has created greater inequality and rising crime. Globalisation has created crime at both ends of the social spectrum. It has allowed transnational corporations to switch manufacturing to low wage countries, producing job insecurity, unemployment and poverty. Deregulation means government has little control over their own economies, for example to create jobs or raise taxes while state spending on welfare has declined. Marketisation encourages people to see themselves as individual consumers and undermining social cohesion. Left realists argue increasingly materialistic culture promoted by the global media portrays success in terms of lifestyle of consumption. All these factors create insecurity and widening inequality that encourage people, especially the poor to commit crime. The lack of legitimate opportunity destroys self respect and drives the unemployed to look for illegitimate ones such as the drugs trade. At the same time globalisation creates criminal opportunities for elite groups on a grand scale. For example deregulation of financial markets creates opportunity for movement of funds across the globe to avoid taxation. Similarly the creation of transnational bodies such as the European Union offers opportunities for fraudulent claims for subsidies; estimated to be $7 billion per annum. Globalisation has led to new patterns in employment which create new opportunities for crime. It has led to increased use of subcontracting to recruit flexible workers, often working illegally for less than minimum wage. Taylor’s theory is useful in linking global trends in the capitalist economy to changes in the patterns of crime. However it does not adequately explain the changes make people behave in criminal ways. For example not all the poor turn to crime.

Hobbs and Dunningham found that the way crime is organised is linked to economic changes brought by globalisation. It increasingly involves individuals with contracts acting as a hub around which a loose knit network forms, composed of other individuals seeking opportunities and linking legitimate and illegitimate activities. Hobbs and Dunningham argues this contrasts with large scale, hierarchical mafia style criminal organisation of the past, such as the Kray brothers of east London.

These new forms of organisation sometimes have international links, especially with the drugs trade, but crime is still rooted in its local context. For example individuals still need local contacts and networks to find opportunities and to sell their drugs. Hobbs and Dunningham thus conclude crime works as a “glocal” system; it’s locally based but with global connections. This means the form it takes varies from place to place, according to local conditions, even if influenced by global factors such as availability of drugs from abroad. Hobbs and Dunningham argue that changes associated with globalisation have led to changes in patterns of crime, for example the shift from a hierarchical gang structure to loose flexible networks. However it’s not clear that such patterns are new, nor that have the older structures disappeared. It may be the two have always coexisted. Conclusions may not be generalisable to other criminal activities elsewhere.

Misha Glenny (2008) looks at the relationship between globalisation and criminal organisation in “McMafia”; the organisations emerging from Russia and Eastern Europe following the fall of communism. Glenny traces origins of transnational organised crime to the breakup of the Soviet Union after 1989 which coincided with deregulation of global markets. Under communism the soviet state regulated prices of everything. However following the fall of communism, the Russian government deregulated most sectors of the economy except for national resources such as oil. These commodities remained at their old soviet price, often a fraction of the world market price. Thus anyone with access to funds, such as former KGB men, could buy up resources like oil cheaply. By selling them abroad for huge profits they became Russia’s new capitalist class, known as the oligarchs. Meanwhile the collapse of communist states heralded a period of increasing disorder. To protect wealth capitalists turned to mafias that began to spring up. These were often alliances between ex KGB and convicts. Among the most ruthless were the Chechen mafia. However these mafias were unlike the old Italian mafias which were based on family ties with a clear hierarchy. The new Russian organisations were purely economic organisations formed to pursue self interest. For example the Chechen mafia, originated in Chechnya franchised operations to non Chechen groups. Chechen mafia became a brand sold to other protection rackets so long as they carried their word, otherwise the brand would be damaged. With the assistance of violent organisations the billionaires protected their wealth and found a means to move it out of the country. Criminal organisations were vital to the entry of the new Russian capitalist class in the world economy. At the same time the Russian mafias were able to build links with criminal organisations with other parts in the world.

Green or environmental crime can be defined as crime against the environment. Much green crime is linked by globalisation and increasing interconnectedness of societies. Regardless of the division of the world into separate nation states, the planet is a single eco system and threats to the eco system are increasingly global rather than local. For example atmospheric pollution from industry in one country can turn to acid rain that falls in another country, poisoning rivers. Similarly accidents in nuclear industry, such as in Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 can spread radioactive material over thousands of miles, showing how a problem in one locality can have worldwide effects.

Most threats to human well being and the eco system are now human made rather than natural. Unlike past natural dangers such as famine the risks we face today are our own making. Ulrich Beck (1992) argues in today’s late modern society we can provide adequate resources for all. However an increase in productivity and technology that sustains it creates new manufactured risks; dangers we have never faced before. Many of these risks involve harm to environment and its consequences for humanity such as global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Like climate change many of these risks are global rather than local in nature, leading Beck to describe late modern society as global risk society.

There’s the question of legality in green criminology. Traditional criminology has not been concerned with such behaviour, since its subject matter is defined by the criminal law, and no law has been broken. The starting point for this approach is the national and international laws and regulators concerning the environment. For example Situ and Emmons (2000) define environmental crime as an unauthorized act that violates the law. Like other traditional approaches in criminology it investigates patterns and causes of law breaking. The advantage of this approach is it clearly defines subject matter. However it is criticised for accepting official definitions of environmental problems and crimes which are often shaped by powerful groups such as big business to serve their own interests. Green criminology takes a more radical approach. It starts from the notion of harm rather than criminal law. For example Rob White (2008) argues the proper subject of criminology is any action that harms the physical environment or human and non human animals within it, even if no law has been broken. In fact many environmental crimes are not illegal thus the subject matter of green criminology is wider than that of traditional criminology. Thus green criminology is a transgressive criminology; overstepping bounds of traditional criminology to include new issues. Furthermore different countries have different laws, thus harmful action in one country may not be a crime in the other. Thus legal definitions cannot provide a consistent standard of harm since they’re the product of individual nation states and their political processes. Thus by moving away from the legal definition green criminology can develop a global perspective on environmental harm. This approach is like the Marxist view of crimes of the powerful. Marxists argue the capitalist class are able to shape the law and define crime so that their own exploitative activities are not criminalised, or where they are to ensure enforcement is weak. Similarly green criminologists argue powerful interests; especially nation states and transnational corporations are able to define in their own interests what counts as unacceptable environmental harm.

In general nation states and transnational corporations adopt what White (2008) calls an anthropocentric or human centred view of environmental harm. This view assumes humans have a right to dominate nature for their own ends and puts economic growth before the environment. White contrasts this with an ecocentric view that sees humans and their environment as interdependent, so that environmental harm hurts humans also. This view sees both humans and environment as liable to exploitation, particularly by global capitalism. In general green criminology adopts the ecocentric view as the basis for judging environmental harm.

Green criminologist Nigel South (2008) classifies green crime into primary and secondary types. Primary green crimes are crimes that result directly from the destruction and degradation of the earth’s resources. South identifies four main types of primary deviance. Crimes of air pollution; burning fossil fuels from industry and transport contributes to global warming. The potential criminals are governments, business and consumers. Crimes of deforestation; for example crops destroyed by pesticide and illegal logging. Criminals include the state and big business. Crimes of species and animal rights; many species are under threat and there is trafficking in animals and animal parts. Meanwhile old crimes such as dog fights are on the increase. Crimes of water pollution; unclean drinking water and marine pollution threaten humans and biodiversity. Criminals are business who dump toxic waste and governments who discharge untreated sewage.

Secondary green crime is crime that grows out of the flouting of rules aimed at preventing or regulating environmental disasters. For example governments often break their own regulations and cause environmental harms. An example is state violence against opposition groups. States condemn terrorism but then resort to the same methods themselves, for example in 1985 the French secret service blew up a green peace ship that protested against nuclear weapons testing in the pacific. Day (1991) argues any oppositional group to nuclear power are treated as enemies of the state. Another example is hazardous waste and organised crime. Disposal of toxic waste from the chemical and nuclear industries is highly profitable. Because of the high cost of legal disposal businesses seek to dispose of waste illegally. For example in Italy eco mafias benefit from dumping waste; much dumped at sea. Reece Walters (2007) argues the ocean floor has been a radioactive waste dump for decades. Illegal waste dumping often has a globalised character. For example Fred Bridgland (2006) describes how after the 2004 tsunami barrels of radioactive waste dumped by European countries washed up on beaches of Somalia. Elsewhere big business ships waste to the third world where costs are lower to dispose waste. Similarly transnational corporations may offload pharmaceuticals that have been banned in the west on grounds of safety onto the third world. Illegal waste disposal illustrates the problem of law enforcement in a globalised world. The very existence of laws to regulate waste disposal in developed countries pushes up costs to business and creates incentive to dump illegally in the third world. In some cases it’s not even illegal since less developed countries may lack necessary legislation to outlaw it.

Both strengths and weaknesses of green criminology arise from its focus on global environmental concerns. It recognises the importance of environmental issues and the need to address the harms and risks of environmental damage both to humans and animals. However by focusing on the broader concept of harms rather than legally defined crimes it’s hard to define boundaries of its field of study clearly. Defining these boundaries involves making moral or political statements about which actions ought to be regarded as wrong. Critics argue this is a matter of values and cannot be established objectively.

Marxist William Chambliss (1989) argues sociologists should investigate state organised crimes as well as crimes of capitalism. Penny Green and Tony Ward (2005) define state crime as illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by state agencies. It includes all forms of crime committed by or on behalf of states and governments in order to further policies. State crimes include genocide, wars, assassination ect. State crimes do not include acts that benefit individuals, for example accepting bribes. Eugene McLaughlin (2001) identifies four categories of state crime; Political crimes such as corruption or censorship, crimes by police such as torture, economic crimes such as violations of health and safety laws and social and cultural crimes such as institutional racism.

State crime is one of the most serious forms of crime. The power of the state enables it to commit large scale crimes with widespread victimisation. For example in 1975 its believed Pol pot’s government killed two million people. Michalowski and Kramer (2006) argue great power and great crimes are inseparable. The states monopoly of violence gives it the potential to inflict massive harm, while its power means it’s well placed to conceal its crimes or evade punishment for them. Although media attention is often on state crimes in the third world, democratic states such as Britain are guilty of military use of torture in Iraq. However the principle of national sovereignty, that states are the supreme authority within their own borders, makes it difficult for external authorities such as the United Nations to intervene. This is despite the existence of international conventions and laws against acts such as genocide, war crimes and racial discrimination. It is also the state’s role to define what is criminal and to manage the criminal justice system and prosecute offenders. State crimes undermine the system of justice. Its power to make the law also means it can avoid defining its own actions as harmful or criminal. For example in Nazi Germany the state created laws to sterilise the disabled. State control of the criminal justice system also means it can persecute its enemies.

One approach to the study of state crime is through the notion of human rights. There is no single list of what constitutes as human rights. However most definitions include the following; Natural rights that people are regarded having simply by virtue of existing, such as rights to life, liberty and free speech. Civil rights, such as the right to vote, privacy, to a fair trial or education. A right is an entitlement to something; as such it acts as a protection against the power of the state over an individual. For example the right to a fair trial means that the state may not imprison a person without due process of law.

Critical criminologists such as Herman and Julia Schwendinger (1970) argue we should define crime in terms of violation of human rights rather than breaking of legal rules. This means that states that deny individuals human rights must be regarded as criminal. For example states that practice imperialism, racism or sexism or inflict economic exploitation on citizens are committing crimes because they deny individuals and groups their basic rights. From a human rights perspective the state can be seen a perpetrator of crime and not simply the authority that defines and punishes crime. In this view the definition of crime is inevitably political. For example in the 1930s the Nazis attacked human rights of Jews legally by passing laws that persecuted them. If we accept a legal definition we risk becoming subservient to the state that makes the law. The Schwendingers’ argue that the sociologist’s role should be to defend human rights, if necessary against the state and its laws. Thus their views are an example of transgressive criminology as it oversteps traditional boundaries of criminology that are defined by the criminal law. However Stanley Cohen (2001) criticise the Schwendingers’ view. For example while gross violations of human rights such as genocide are clearly crimes, other acts such as economic exploitation is not self evidently criminal even if we find them morally unacceptable. Other critics argue there’s only limited agreement on what counts as human rights. For example while life is a human right, some would say freedom from poverty is not.

Although Cohen criticises the Schwendingers he nevertheless sees the issue of human rights and state crimes as increasingly central to both political debate and criminology as a result of two factors. One is the growing impact of the international human rights movement, for example through the work of organisations such as amnesty international. Another is the increased focus of criminology on victims.

Cohen looks at the ways states legitimate human rights crimes. He argues while dictatorships simply deny committing human rights abuses democratic states have to legitimate actions in more complex ways. In doing so their justifications follow a three stage spiral of denial. Stage one; “it didn’t happen”, for example the state claims there was no massacre. But then human rights organisations, victims and the media show it did happen with evidence. Stage two; if it did happen, “it” was something else. The state says it’s not what it looks like, “it was self defence”. Stage three; they try and justify their crimes, for example to “protect national security”.

Cohen examines ways in which states and their officials deny or justify their crimes. He draws on the work of Sykes and Matza (1957) who identify five neutralisation techniques that delinquents use to justify their deviant behaviour. Cohen shows how states use the same techniques when they are attempting to justify human rights violations such as torture. Denial of victim, they are terrorists”, Denial of injury; “they started it”, Denial of responsibility; “I was only obeying orders”, Condemning the condemners; “it’s worse elsewhere”, appeal to a higher loyalty “defending the free world”. These techniques do not seek to deny that the event has occurred. Cohen argues they seek to impose a different construction of events of what occurred.

It is often thought those who carry out crimes such as torture must be psychopaths; however research shows there is little psychological difference between them and normal people. Instead sociologists argue such actions are part of a role into which individuals are socialised. They focus on the social conditions in which such behaviour becomes acceptable. For example Kelman and Hamilton (1989) studied crimes of obedience such as the one at My Lai in Vietnam where soldiers murdered 400 civilians. Kelman and Hailton identify three features that produce crimes of obedience. Authorisation; when the acts are ordered or approved by those in authority, normal moral principles are replaced by the duty to obey. Routinisation; once the crime has been committed there is pressure to turn the act into routine which individuals can perform in a detached manner. Dehumanisation; when the enemy is portrayed as subhuman rather than human and described as animals where the usual principles of morality do not apply. Some argue modern society creates conditions for such crime on a vast scale. For example Zygmunt Bauman (1989) argues that the holocaust was a product of modernity, not a return to some premodern barbarism. Bauman argues for the Nazis to be able to commit mass murder many features of modernity were essential. These include science, technology and division of labour. He claims the key to understanding the holocaust is the ability of modern society to dehumanise the victims and turn mass murder into a routine administrative task.

Assess the view that ethnic differences in crime rates can best be explained by racism in the criminal justice system

According to official statistics there are significant ethnic differences in the likelihood of being involved in the criminal justice system. Black and Asians are overrepresented in the system. For example black people make up 2.8% of the population, but 11% of the prison population. Contrastingly whites are underrepresented. However such statistics do not tell us whether members of one ethnic group are more likely than members of another ethnic group to commit an offence in the first place; they just tell us about involvement in the criminal justice system. For example differences in stop and search or arrest rates may be due to police racism, while differences in rates of imprisonment may be the result of courts handing down harsher sentences on minorities.

There are other sources of statistics to reveal link of ethnicity and offending. Victim surveys ask individuals to say what crimes they have been victims of. We can get information on ethnicity and offending from surveys when we ask what ethnicity of the person who committed the crime against them. For example in the case of mugging blacks are overly represented among those indentified by victims as offenders. Victim surveys show much crime is intra-ethnic; it takes place within rather than between ethnic groups. For example the British crime survey (2007) found 90% of where the victim was white; at least one of the offenders was also white.  However while victim surveys are useful in identifying ethnic patterns of offending, they have several limitations. They rely on a victim’s memory of events. Ben Bowling and Coretta Phillips (2002) found whites may over identify blacks, saying the offender was black even when not sure. They only cover personal crimes, which make up 20% of all crimes. They exclude under 16s; minority ethnic groups contain a higher proportion of young people. They exclude crimes by big business; thus tell us nothing of ethnicity of white collar criminals. Thus victim surveys only tell us about the ethnicity of a small proportion of offenders, which may not be representative of offenders in general.

Self report studies ask individuals to disclose their own dishonest and violent behaviour. Graham and Bowling (1995) found that blacks and whites had similar rates of offending, while Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had lower rates. Similarly Sharp and Budd (2005) note that the 2003 offending, crime and justice survey of 12,000 people found whites and mixed ethnic origin groups were more likely than blacks and Asians to say they had committed offences. The Home Office have conducted nine self report studies on drugs since the early 1990s, all with similar findings. Sharp and Budd (2005) found 27% of mixed ethnicity individuals said they had used drugs in the last year, compared to 16% of blacks and whites, and 5% of Asians. Use of class a drugs, such as heroin or cocaine was 3 times higher among whites than blacks and Asians. The findings of self report studies challenge stereotypes of blacks more likely than whites to offend, though they support the widely held view Asians are less likely to offend/ however self report studies have their limitations in relation to ethnicity and offending. Overall the evidence of ethnicity and offending is inconsistent. For example while official statistics and victim surveys point to the likelihood of higher rates of offending by blacks; this is generally not the results of self report studies.

There are ethnic differences at each stage of the criminal justice process. To explain them we need to look at main stages of the process that an individual may go through, possibly culminating in a custodial sentence.

Phillips and Bowling (2007) argue since the 70s there have been many allegations of oppressive policing of minorities, including stop and search, deaths in custody, police violence and failure to respond effectively to racist violence.

Minorities are more likely to be stopped and searched by police. Police can use this power if they have a reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. Compared with whites, blacks are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched; Asians twice as likely. Data from the BCS indicate similar findings. Only a small proportion of stop and search result in arrests. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, police can stop and search vehicles whether or not they have reasonable suspicion. Statistics show Asians were three times more likely to be searched under this act. Its thus unsurprising minorities are less likely to think police acted politely when stopped, or think they were stopped fairly. Phillips and Bowling (2007) argue these communities feel over policed and over protected and have limited faith in the police.

There are three possible reasons for the disproportionate use of stop and search against minorities. Police racism; the Macpherson Report (1999) on the police investigation of the racist murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence concluded there was institutional racism in the Metropolitan police. Other have found deeply ingrained racist attitudes among individual officers. For example Phillips and Bowling point out that many officers hold negative stereotypes about ethnic minorities as criminals, leading to deliberate targeting for stop and search. Such stereotypes are endorsed and upheld by the canteen culture of rank and file officers. Ethnic differences in offending; an alternative explanation is that the disproportionality in stop and searches simply reflects ethnic differences in levels of offending. However it’s useful to distinguish between low discretion and high discretion stops. In low discretion stops police act on relevant information about a specific offence, for example a victim’s description of the offender. In high discretion stops police act without specific intelligence. It is in these stops police can use stereotypes that disproportionality and discrimination are more likely. Demographic factors; ethnic minorities are over represented in the population groups who are most likely to be stopped such as the young, the unemployed, manual workers and urban dwellers. These groups are all more likely to be stopped, regardless of their ethnicity, but they are also groups who have a higher proportion of ethnic minorities in them, so minorities get stopped more. Figures in England and Wales show that in 2006/07, the arrest rates for blacks was 3.6 times higher than for whites. Contrastingly once arrested blacks and Asians were less likely to receive a police caution. One reason for this may be more likely to deny the offence and likely to exercise their right to legal advice. However not admitting the offence means they cannot be let off with a caution and are more likely to be charged instead.

The crown prosecution service is the body responsible for deciding whether a case brought by the police should be prosecuted in court. In doing so CPS must decide whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and whether the prosecution is in the public’s interest. Studies suggest the CPS is more likely to drop cases against minorities. Bowling and Phillips (2002) argue this may be because the evidence presented to the CPS by the police is often weaker and based on stereotyping of ethnic minorities as criminals. When cases do go ahead minorities are more likely to elect trial before a jury in the Crown Court rather than the magistrates court, perhaps due to mistrust of magistrates impartiality. However crown courts can impose more severe sentences if convicted. Thus is interesting to note minorities are less likely to be found guilty. This suggests discrimination, in that the police and CPS may be bringing weaker or less serious cases against ethnic minorities that are thrown out by the courts. In 2006/7 custodial sentences were given to a greater proportion of black offenders (68%) than white (55%) or Asian offenders (59%), whereas whites and Asians were more likely than blacks to receive community sentences. This may be due to differences in seriousness of the offences or defendants previous convictions. However a study of 5 crown courts by roger Hood (1992) found even when such factors were taken into account, black men were 5% more likely to receive a custodial sentence, and were given sentences of an average of 3 months longer than whites. Another reason for harsher sentences id pre sentence reports (PRs) written by probation officers. A PRs is intended as a risk assessment to assist magistrates in deciding on the appropriate sentence for a given offender. However Hudson and Bramhall (2005) argue that PRs allow for unwitting discrimination. They found reports on Asian offenders were less comprehensive and suggested that they were less remorseful than white offenders. They place this bias in the context of demonising Muslims in the wake of 9/11 attacks.

In 2007, one quarter of the male prison population was minorities. Blacks were five times more likely to be in prison than whites. Black and Asians were more likely to be serving longer sentences. Within the total prison population all minorities had a higher than average proportion of prisoners on remand. This is because minorities are less likely to be granted bail whilst awaiting trial. There are similar patterns in other countries, for example in USA two fifths of prison population is black.

There was large scale migration from the Caribbean and Indian subcontinent in the 50s, at this time it was agreed minorities had lower crime rates. However by the 70s there was conflict between blacks and the police meaning “black criminality” became more of a problem. Contrastingly by the 90s Asian crime also became viewed as a problem. Events e.g. 9/11 cemented the idea that Asians were a threat to public order. There are two main explanations for ethnic differences in crime; left realism and neo-Marxism.

Left realists Lea and Young (1993) argue ethnic differences in statistics reflect real differences in the levels of offending by different ethnic groups. Left realists see crime the product of relative deprivation, subculture and marginalisation. They argue racism had led to economic exclusion of ethnic minorities who face higher unemployment, poverty and poor housing. At the same time the Medias emphasis on consumerism promotes a sense of relative deprivation by setting materialistic goals that many minorities are unable to reach by legitimate means. One response is formation of delinquent subcultures, especially by young unemployed blacks. It produces higher utilitarian crime to cope with relative deprivation. Furthermore as these groups are marginalised and have no groups to represent their interests their frustration is liable to produce non utilitarian crime such as rioting. Lea and Young acknowledge police often act in racist ways and results in unjustified criminalisation of some members of minorities. However they don’t believe discriminatory policing fully explains the statistics. For example over 90% of crimes known to the police are reported by the public rather than discovered themselves. Under these circumstances even if police act discriminatory it’s unlikely it can account for ethnic differences in statistics. Similarly Lea and Young argue we cannot explain differences in minorities in terms of police racism. For example blacks are more criminalised than Asians. The police would have to be selective in their racism for racism to cause these differences. Lea and Young thus conclude that the statistics represent real differences in levels of offending between ethnic groups and these are caused by real differences in levels of relative deprivation and marginalisation. However Lea and Young can be criticised for their views on the role of police racism. For example arrest rates may be lower for Asians because police stereotype them differently. Stereotypes may have changed since 9/11, explaining rising criminalisation of this group.

While left realists see official statistics reflecting real differences in offending between ethnic groups, other sociologists have argued differences in statistics do not reflect reality. These differences are the outcome of a process of social construction that stereotypes ethnic minorities as inherently more criminal than the majority of the population. The work of neo Marxists Paul Gilroy (1982) and Stuart Hall (1979) illustrates this view.

Gilroy argues the idea of black criminality is a myth created by racist stereotypes of African Caribbean’s and Asians. In reality these groups are no more criminal than any other. However as a result of the police and criminal justice system acting on these racist stereotypes, ethnic minorities came to be criminalised and thus to appear in greater numbers in official statistics. Gilroy argues ethnic minority crime can be seen as a form of political resistance against a racist society, and this struggle has roots in earlier struggle against British imperialism. Gilroy holds a similar view to that of critical criminology which argues working class crime is a political act against capitalism. Most blacks and Asians in the UK originated from former colonies where their anti imperialist struggles taught them how to resist oppression, for example through riots and demonstrations. When they found themselves facing racism in Britain they adopted the same form of struggles to defend themselves, but their political struggle was criminalised by the British state.

However Lea, Young and Gilroy are criticised on several grounds. First generation immigrants were very law abiding, so it’s unlikely they passed their anti colonialist struggle onto their children. Most crime is interethnic, criminals and victims usually have similar ethnic backgrounds, so it can’t be seen as anti colonial struggle against racism. Lea and Young argue Gilroy romanticises street crime as revolutionary. Asian crime rates are similar to or lower than whites. If Gilroy were right then the police are only racist towards black and not Asians, which seems unlikely.

Stuart Hall et al adopt a neo Marxist perspective. They argue the 70s saw a moral panic over black muggers that served the interests of capitalism. Hall et all argues the ruling class can normally rule the subordinate classes through consent. However in times of crisis this becomes more difficult. In the early 70s British capitalism faced a crisis. High inflation and rising unemployment provoked widespread industrial unrest and strikes. When opposition to capitalism was growing the ruling class may need to use force to keep control. However the use of force needs to be legitimated or provoke more resistance. The 70s also saw a media driven panic of the growth of mugging. In reality mugging was a new name for street robbery and Hall et al suggest there was no significant increase of this crime at the time. Mugging was soon to be associated by the media, police and politicians with black youth. Hall et al argues that the emergence of the moral panic about mugging as a specifically black crime at the same time as crisis of capitalism was no coincidence; the moral panic and crisis were linked. The myth of the black mugger served as a scapegoat to distract attention from the true cause of problems of unemployment, namely the crisis of capitalism. The black mugger symbolised disintegration of social order. By presenting black youth as a threat to the fabric of society the moral panic served to divide the working class on racial grounds and weaken opposition to capitalism as well as winning popular consent to authoritarian forms of rule to suppress opposition. However Hall et al do not argue that black crime was solely a product of media and police labelling. The crisis of capitalism was increasingly marginalising black youth through unemployment and drove them to a lifestyle of hustling and petty crime to survive. However Hall et al have been criticised on several grounds. Downes and Rock (2003) argue that Hall et al are inconsistent in claiming that black street crime was not rising, but also that it was rising because of unemployment. They do not show how a capitalist crisis led to a moral panic, nor do they provide evidence that the public were in fact panicking or blaming crime on blacks. Left realists argue inner city residents fears about mugging are not panicky but realistic.

Until recently the focus of the ethnicity and crime debate was largely about the over representation of blacks in the criminal justice system. However recently sociologists have studied racist victimisation of ethnic minorities. Racist victimisation occurs when an individual is selected as a target because of their race, gender or religion. Racist victimisation is nothing new, but brought into public view with the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and the subsequent Macpherson inquiry into the police investigation. Information of victimisation comes from two main sources; the British crime survey and police recorded statistics. These generally cover racist incidents, any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or another person. They also cover racially or religiously aggravated offences where the offender is motivated by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group.

The police recorded 60,000 racist incidents in England and Wales in 2006/7, mostly damage to property and verbal harassment. However most incidents go unreported; the British crime survey estimates there were 184,000 racially motivated incidents in 2006/7.  The police recorded 42,600 racially or religiously aggravated offences on 06/7, mostly harassment. 10,600 people were prosecuted or cautioned for racially aggravated offences in 2006. The risk of being a victim of any sort of crime varies by ethnic group. The 2006/7 British crime survey shows people of mixed ethnic background had a higher risk of becoming a victim of crime than blacks, Asians or whites. The differences may be partly the result of factors other than ethnicity. For example for violent crime factors such as being young, male and unemployed are strongly linked to victimisation. Ethnic groups with a high proportion of young males are thus likely to have higher rates of victimisation. However some of these factors such as unemployment are themselves partly due to discrimination while the statistics record the instances of victimisation they don’t capture the victim’s experience of it. As Sampson and Phillips (1992) note racist victimisation tends to be over time with repeated minor instances of abuse with periodic physical violence. The resulting long term psychological impact needs to be added to the physical injury and damage to property caused by offenders.

Members of minority ethnic communities have often been active in responding to victimisation. Responses range from situational crime prevention measures such as fireproof doors to organised self defence campaigns. Such responses need to be understood in the context of accusations of under protection by the police who often ignore the racist dimension in victimisation and fail to investigate incidents properly. For example the Macpherson enquiry (1999) concluded the police investigation into the death of black teenager Stephen Lawrence was marred by incompetence, institutional racism and failure of leadership by senior officers. Others have found deeply ingrained racist attitudes among individual officers.

The Civil Rights Movement – The Role of Trade Unions

Whenever we think of the civil rights movement we instantly remind ourselves of individuals such as Martin Luther king, Malcolm X and Rosa Parks, and events such as the infamous “I have a dream speech” and the Montgomery bus boycott, along with other protests such as sit-ins and freedom rides.

However, these protests movements didn’t just come out of the blue, and black people didn’t suddenly just decide they had had enough and decided to protest. The civil rights movement had been developing decades before the famous events in the 1960s, and the role of the trade unions did fantastic jobs in organising and educating workers, allowing the platform that individuals such as king had to propel the movement forward.

Black workers in the old confederacy or “the south” were terribly oppressed back in the 1920s and 30s. It had been 60 years since black slaves were freed as a result of the civil war, yet they were at the bottom of society. They were always given the lowest paid jobs, their labour was exploited, and working conditions were horrendous. Many black workers in the south worked as sharecroppers on the farmland, where white employers provided land, seed and tool and black workers the labour. White landlords would then take most of the crop to sell, and black people would be left with barely enough to live on. Because of the rural nature of the south, it was difficult for black workers to organise, and it was easy for white supremacists to intimidate them, keeping them oppressed. Lynching also took place during this time, so it was almost impossible for black workers to revolt. As well as this, the south was operating under Jim Crow laws, which brought de jure segregation; this is where by law black and white people were segregated. This ensured that black people had the worst education, limiting economic opportunities. It made sure black workers were paid less than white workers, facilities such as water fountains were segregated and black people received the worst services. Police and law courts also discriminated against black people; there were no black police and jurors in courts were always white.

Circumstances in the north for black workers were better, however far from ideal. Although segregation wasn’t enshrined in the law like in the south, black northerners suffered from de facto segregation, where job discrimination took place, for example blacks were the last to be hired and first to be fired. Black workers were given the lowest paid jobs and had limited opportunities to better themselves; there were hardly any black higher education institutions.

Trade unions played a vital role in raising black awareness of potential black political and economic power. Under pressure from the economic depression, trade union memberships rocketed. New unions were set up such as the Food, Tobacco, agricultural and allied workers union. These unions were grassroots unions, and played a role in promoting mass meetings that discussed voter registration and citizenship. These discussions were fundamental; blacks in the north did have the vote, however because of apathy many blacks didn’t use their vote to try and better themselves. In the south, federal pressure forced the states to allow blacks to vote, however they didn’t stop states having literacy tests that determined whether people could vote. Black peoples poor education meant they inevitably failed these tests so couldn’t register to vote. For whites who failed the tests, there were grandfather clauses where if they could prove someone in their ancestry had voted before, then they could register. At this time, only 3% of black people could vote in the south.

Asa Phillip Randolph was an important figure in the black trade union movement. In his youth he had set up grassroots trade unions, such as the union of elevator operators and the National Brotherhood of Workers of America, a union which organised amongst African-American shipyard and dock workers in the Tidewater region of Virginia. The union dissolved in 1921, under pressure from the American Federation of Labour, to which white employers had complained to.

He then went on to set up the first all black labour unions, the brotherhood of sleeping car porters in 1925. At the unions peak in the 1940s the union had 15,000 members. Its head quarters in New York were described as “the political headquarters of black America, where young black leaders met.” The unionisation of black workers contributed to assertiveness, it boosted their morale and gave them a class consciousness. The brotherhood of sleeping car porters broke down barriers to worker exploitation where because of high union memberships and change to federal law the Pullman Company finally began to negotiate with the Brotherhood in 1935, and agreed to a contract with them in 1937. This gained employees $2,000,000 in pay increases, a shorter workweek, and overtime pay.

As a trade unionist A Phillip Randolph applied pressure to federal government to force through change for more equal opportunities for black workers. He threatened that if the then president Roosevelt that he would organise a march on Washington in protest. Because of the might of the union threat Randolph represented and Roosevelt’s failure to dissuade Randolph, Roosevelt set up The Fair Employment Practices Committee. This was an organisation that ensured fair job opportunities for federal employment. This shows how trade union membership can help achieve a better deal for workers.

Randolph also organised bus boycotts, and although they failed, they went on to inspire the famous Montgomery bus boycott in Alabama, which many people see as the start of the civil rights movement. The confronting but non violent actions of trade unions went on to inspire black leaders such as Martin Luther King.

Unfortunately, in the 1930s most black workers were not unionised. Reasons for this include the rural nature of the south meant isolated black communities didn’t have a broad large scale union to join. The violent actions of the white supremacists and hostility of the white population intimidated blacks into accomodationism, where black people just conformed and didn’t do anything to try and better themselves such as join of union because they feared a hostile reaction. The low economic and educational status of black people was low, so unions were poorly funded and leaders struggled to make their voices heard. I believe that if the majority of black workers were unionised, then because of high organisation solidarity a lot of the barriers that were broken down during the 60s would have been broken down quicker and more effectively.

In summary, the trade union movement helped to increase solidarity, which was vital during the struggles in the 60s where workers faced many hardships. Trade unions increased activism and encouraged protest actions, which contributed to the mass movements in the 60s. Trade unions also raised black awareness of potential black political and economic power. For example unions organised economic boycotts, where black people would boycott buying from shops that refused to employ black workers. They promoted meetings to discuss equality where workers were educated on how to successfully and effectively initiate protests.

Overall, trade union movements gave the platform for the civil rights movement, and we can learn lessons from it today in our fight against the inequalities of capitalism.

Young people and the 2011 council elections

The local elections have certainly given young people alot to think about. A year ago in the general election, thousands of young people turned to the liberal democrats, because they saw them as a alternative to the two party system of labour and conservatives. The lib dems made promises of voting against tuition fees, creating a premium for poorer students and creation of jobs for young people. However a year later and tuition fees have tripled, with cuts to EMA poorer students are excluded from education and nearly a million young people are unemployed.

Now under the leadership of Ed Milliband Labour are trying to make themselves look like a alternative to the con-dem coalition, with their rhetoric of “too far too fast”, and trying to woo disillusioned lib dem supporters by Ed supporting the yes campaign, Labour are remodelling themselves to win support. Though what alternative do they offer? They offer a program of cuts, maybe a little different from the cuts of the con-dems, but nevertheless a package of devastating cuts.

People have turned to other parties as a alternative because they are alienated by the similarities of the main 3 parties. They may turn to UKIP, whose right wing agenda would lead to huge marketisation of schools and colleges leading to a two tier system, where the rich go to the best schools and the poor are excluded to the underfunded schools.

They could turn to the green party, while they may have fair policies on the environment, they still lack the understanding that it’s the system we live in, with the vast economic inequalities that cannot provide for the majority of people. The greens have not committed to fighting all cuts to jobs and services in which employment should be available for young.

However, there is an alternative out there, a alternative that will defend every job and every service. The socialist alternative can not only stop the cuts, but provide for new jobs and socially useful services. The privatisation of council services mean that profit is put before people. But with nationalisation people are the priority. A socialist alternative can provide jobs for graduates where capitalism can’t, such as using people with science degrees to research the environment or those with sociology degrees to research crime. A socialist alternative can provide jobs for the manual workers with building council housing and repairing out roads.

I’ve met candidates from all three of the main parties during my campaign. All three parties claim they will protect frontline services. But what about the workers in the background? How many of their jobs will you take? How can frontline services continue without the support of the background staff? Candidates have also said there isn’t a need for cuts to services because of waste and beurocracy in the council. But with the council having to make cuts of £27 million, will they find all that money? Were not for beurocracy and waste, but we also argue that if someone’s job in the council is unnecessary, then give them a more useful job. But the 3 main parties are hell bent on laying off workers.

While it’s important that we stood in the council elections, we don’t expect a landslide win. While the lib dems will suffer from their betrayal of young people and the Tories from their cuts program, people won’t be voting labour with all enthusiasm. Our biggest achievement will be alerting to people that there is an alternative out there, where people are priority. The next step is to continue fighting for working people, while our voices won’t be heard in the council chambers they will be heard on the streets and we can build the socialist alternative that provides for all.