Compare and Contrast the Consensus and Conflict Views of Law and Crime

Consensus and Conflict Views of Crime

The consensus view of crime is that crime is equally abhorrent to all elements of society. Therefore, the criminal law, particularly what is criminalized and the proposed punishments for those crimes, is believed to reflect the thoughts of society as a whole. Consensus is used because it reflects the idea that there is general agreement among people about the laws. "According to this particular view, the written rule that defines crimes in correlation with punishments is properly known as the substantive criminal law which ultimately reflects the opinions, beliefs, and values of mainstream society" (McGrath, 2009). The consensus model depends on the idea that society is an integrated whole that seeks stability. Society rests upon the consent of the members. Moreover, individual elements in society contribute to the good of society as a show. In a consensus model, law becomes more important as society becomes more impersonal, because the law is a formalized was of enforcing previously informal social norms. There are some laws that seem to represent consensus among people, such as homicide. However, the consensus view really does rely upon the idea of a society with somewhat homogenous beliefs.

The conflict view of crime does not view criminal law as a series of society-approved laws. Instead, the conflict view of crime believes that there are diverse subgroups within society, that these subgroups do not have a consensus on mores and norms, and that the criminal law largely functions to protect the upper classes from the lower-classes. Instead of crime being defined by what society, as a whole, finds morally repugnant, the definition of crime is controlled by wealth, power, and position. "Criminal law reflects and protects established economic, racial, gendered, and political power and privilege" (Siegel, 2006). The conflict model is based on the idea that society is in constant conflict. Those in power seek to continue to exercise that power, while those who are not in power seek to obtain power. This constant struggle means that the law must be used to constrain those members of society that are not in power.

Looking at those definitions, it becomes clear that the critical difference in consensus and conflict theories is how they view society; for consensus theorists, society as a whole has the same norms, which conflict theorists suggests that different groups in society have different norms. For consensus theorists, laws represent the codification of society-wide held norms, while for conflict theorists, laws represent a way for those in power to control those who aren't in power. Furthermore, defining crime becomes a political act, whether that act is reflecting the norms of a relatively homogenous society or codifying the values of a certain segment of society.