CRITICISM OF RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY

The question arises: are statements/arguments given by the radical criminologists valid? The
answer is that the question of right or wrong arguments does not arise. Radical criminology is
not a body of precise and systematic theoretical propositions.

It is simply a perspective or an orientation. A theory explains relationship between variables

which may be proved or disproved; but a perspective can only be considered logical or illogical.

We can only point out some faults in the perspective of radical criminology.

Some of these faults are:

(1) The radical criminologists’ belief that law is used only against the poor, the illiterate, the
powerless, and the members of the minority groups is not based on any concrete evidence.

(2) The belief that the intended and the recognised object of implementing law by the ruling elite
is only to maintain its dominance is not correct. Even if some examples may be cited in support
of this view, contrary examples can also be located in the society. A striking example is the
recent decision of the Supreme Court of India against politicians illegally occupying government
bungalows, after ceasing to hold political power.

Equally noteworthy are the court’s decisions/observations criticising the CBI for not taking
interest in expediting the Hawala probe, instructing the government to save the Taj Mahal from
polluting industries in the region, instructing the Delhi government to get the streets cleaned up,
instructing the CBI to investigate the animal husbandry fodder scam in Bihar, and criticising
highly placed government officials for not respecting the decisions of the courts (this includes
the awarding of one month’s imprisonment to an IAS officer in Karnataka).

(3) The radical criminologists use model of social stratification which is ambiguous. Again, they
only talk of the powerful and the powerless. They portray the middle class sometimes as the
victim of the powerful class and sometimes as the co-opted agent of the elite class.
The fact is that the reactions against the criminal law and its administration vary from class to
class. On this basis, to hold the view that law is predominantly used by the powerful to impose
their power on the powerless is not valid.

(4) The radical criminologists’ view that all of us commit acts in our lives for which we can be
labelled as deviants may be correct but this does not mean that all of us are criminals.

Isolating individuals who are considered a threat to society and social order by identifying them
as criminals does not mean that they are being ‘labelled’/condemned as criminals. It is totally
illogical to aver that legal stigma of being a criminal is necessarily based on irrelevant factors,
such as income, education, etc.

In spite of this criticism of radical criminology, it is possible to argue that there are merits in this
perspective. These are:

(1) It affects our outlook on legislation-its enactment and its administration.

(2) It compels us to determine how the internalisation of legal norms varies in different segments
in our society.

(3) It prompts us to examine how the methods designed to control crime result in some
unintended effects.

(4) It lays stress on explaining the relationship between political order and deviant behaviour. In
a way, this revitalises the profound sociological theme of relationship between individual and the
state.

(5) It points out the importance and the necessity of legal equality in a democratic society. If
radical criminologists succeed in creating awareness about the desirability of having legal
equality in society, they may do great service to society.

Radical criminologists have yet to demonstrate analytically that rule breaking is institutionalised,
regular, and widespread amongst powerful men, be they ministers, bureaucrats, judges,
policemen or businessmen. We do not wish merely to suggest that certain powerful individuals
are engaged in deviance, or that corruption is on the increase.

Were this the problem, the political answer would be, in the first instance, that the ‘bad apples’
should be rooted out and subjected to the force of law, and that secondly, a change of
government or government policy should occur with a view to eradicating corruption, reducing
crime, and re-establishing justice. The focus of the radical criminologists, however, is on
fundamental and radical changes so that double-standard moralities and inequalities could be
eliminated.

Granting bail in a case to a big capitalist by a magistrate at his home at night in Delhi and
denying bail to a petty offender only because he cannot provide a surety and thus forcing him to
remain in judicial lock-up for months together are examples of double-standard moralities. The
radical criminologists’ interest is in eradicating such practices.

On occasions, the operation of double standards immunises the powerful rule breaker from
prosecution itself. A chief minister is only asked to resign when a corruption charge is proved
against him, but, a lowly clerk is awarded two years’ imprisonment for a similar charge.

A senior central cabinet minister who did not pay income tax for eleven years was not indicted
on the grounds that prosecution might undermine the confidence of the public in the government.
The fact that the last four decades have seen an unprecedented number of such cases and
revelations in India must be seen as significant in itself.

It should prompt us to give due attention to the viewpoint of the radical criminologists that the
authoritative dominance of the powerful and the ruling group can cause our society to collapse
unless very significant transformation in the economic and institutional structure is brought
about.

The researcher in radical criminology remains faithful to the researched population in the sense
that he is expected to feed back his results not to the powerful but to those most immediately and
directly affected by the inequalities he is researching.
If the interest of conservative/traditional criminology in correctionalism is significant, so is the
need for radical criminology which is normatively committed to the abolition of inequalities in
wealth and power.

If there is need for radical sociologists in India today who focus on “management of social
change in a planned way”, and use sociology for the uplift of the underprivileged and the weaker
sections of people in our society, there is also need for radical criminologists who may take
normative position on crime and criminals.