Why, according to critical criminologists, are the “crimes of the powerful” (politicians, business people, and other elites) less likely to be severely punished than those of the poor, even when those crimes have mortal consequences? Do you have examples proving your point?
Please leave at least three comments. One is your original contribution. And two comments are you replies to your classmates. Deadline: 12/11, 11:59 pm
In my opinion I feel as if wealth and complexion play a huge role in how you are penalized. I feel like it’s less likely for an individual with any sort of power to face the same consequences as someone with less power or a minority. For Example, Central Park 5 AKA the exonerated 5. Those were 5 children who were tortured , beat, and falsely accused of a crime they did not commit. Ripped away from their childhoods, some of their adulthood, and most of all their families. However, the men who murdered Emmett Til wasn’t faced with half of the consequences and the woman who caused his pain wasn’t conflicted and when she was brought on charges, she died. See the difference? In addition, celebrities are called out for rape charges all the time like Usher. Usher was accused of rape charges which he paid his victim off and those charges were never spoken upon again. However, a man of less power is accused of rape weather he did it or not he is brought upon charges.. Following Donald Trump not only has he shown us racism when he was put on blast for being a rapist , those charges was hidden and victims were paid off and it was never spoken upon again. The system is highly CORRUPT.
It’s indeed concerning how these disparities and injustices persist within the system!
Hello, Tatianna great response I like how you compared celebrities and civilians who aren’t connected with people who have power. Money talks in this economy just like the video on how the big pharma committed crimes like pushing a product that was linked to deaths and they did it for financial reasons.
Hi Tatianna, I agree with you. Your wealth and complexion play a role on how you are sentenced. A person of color who is poor would receive more time compared to someone who is high-class and white
Hi Tatianna,
I wholeheartedly concur with your viewpoint. The incidents you brought up, such as Central Park 5 and Emmett Till’s murder, eloquently highlight the differences in our legal system that arise from factors like race, power, and wealth. It is depressing to observe how powerful people may avoid the harsh penalties that others especially minorities and those with less clout frequently endure. It’s interesting to note the contrast you made between Usher’s case and the prosecution of a weaker person facing comparable allegations. It draws attention to the shortcomings in our judicial system and how the wealthy and powerful might evade justice or prevent responsibility. The instances you gave highlight how urgently changes are required to address the structural problems causing this injustice
I wanted to add on and say that it really is crazy what money can do in this world and if your rich, you have many ways to get out of situations with money alone which is kind of unfair.
Critical criminologists argue that the powerful often escape severe punishment due to their influence, resources, and connections within the legal system. Examples include corporate executives receiving fines rather than jail time for severe environmental violations and politicians avoiding consequences for unethical behavior due to their political connections …
Hello Veyla I agree with you one hundred percent I also believe connections in any system with power can lead to a lenient punishment.
Dear Veyla, your response is on point because due to someone’s environment or influence the connections involved with the system can lead to lenient punishment. I would like to add that the three biggest problems facing the criminal justice system at the moment are the public’s opinion of it, the prosecution’s and public defenders’ unequal resource allocation, and police recruitment and retention. The biggest issue the criminal justice system is currently dealing with is probably recruiting and retaining officers.
hey Veyla, your right by connections within the legal system, those more wealthy are able to get slaps on the wrists.
Hey Veyla,
Your observation regarding the connections, resources, and influence of the wealthy and powerful within the legal system is exactly in line with the points made by critical criminologists. Sadly, it is all too typical to find instances of politicians avoiding repercussions because of their political connections and business leaders receiving fines rather than jail time for serious environmental infractions. These people’s ability to influence the system and avoid taking responsibility for their acts is worrisome. These systemic problems can be understood within the framework provided by the connection to critical criminology theory. To guarantee a more just and equitable judicial system that holds everyone accountable for their acts, regardless of status, reform is required.
Hello Veyla, I completely agree with your answer. Many people in high corporations and access to a multitude of people and connections get let off easier. The punishment is usually a large fine and it’s a fine that had person of lower economic status or “power” where to do, they would have no way of paying that fine or even more likely, they’d serve jail time.
According to critical criminologists “Crimes of the powerful” are less likely to be severely punished due to political influence and political protection from higher corporates. We can analyze Police organizations when a NYPD officer is involved in a murder he is more likely to get a lenient sentence, but if a killing due to self-defense were to occur they would treat it as a killing with the minimum sentence. Police officers protect one another when they commit crimes, not all the time but corruption brews from any big corp. Not all officers commit crimes but when they do they stand on this saying” The blue wall” This happens within some law enforcement agencies where officers are reluctant to report or testify against their colleagues, this may not be illegal but sometimes officers conceal information to protect someone higher in positions which can be ilegal.
Hello Andi, I agree with your statement on how being a police officer you are able to get away with crimes.
So true because police officers have frequently used the qualified immunity doctrine—which exempts state and local officials from personal repercussions arising from their professional interactions unless they violate “clearly established law”—to avoid civil liability and accountability for taking part in violent and abusive acts against the public.
Hi Andi,
I agree. The power dynamics within large organizations, including corporations and police departments, can create environments where crimes committed by those in positions of power are less likely to be reported, investigated, or prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Powerful individuals and organizations may have the resources and connections to influence the outcome of legal proceedings. This can include lobbying for lighter sentences, pressuring prosecutors to drop charges, or even influencing the selection of judges and jurors. This is always portrayed on television and in reality as well because powerful figures have tried to silence others. The reluctance of officers to report misconduct by their peers can create a climate of impunity, where officers feel they can get away with criminal behavior. This can have a significant impact on public trust in law enforcement and undermine the rule of law.
Hey Alexis, I agree people more wealthy are able to have the better resources and connections than those who are not as wealthy.
Hi Andi, Your comment effectively highlights the issue of perceived leniency for “Crimes of the powerful” in the criminal justice system, citing connections to political influence and corporate protection. The example of NYPD officers facing leniency in cases of misconduct reflects how powerful entities often shield their own from consequences. Your analysis connects critical criminology theory to real-world instances, reflecting broader concerns about corruption in powerful institutions.
I agree, critical criminologists highlight the leniency in punishing “Crimes of the powerful,” attributing it to political influence and protection from higher corporate entities. The example of lenient sentences for police officers involved in crimes, often shielded by the so-called “blue wall,” underscores how systemic protection within certain law enforcement agencies can impede accountability, revealing a complex interplay between political influence and law enforcement practices.
Hello Andi, I agree with what you’re saying completely. A majority of the time that a cop commits any sort of crime all they get is a slap on the wrist. There have been times where it is said, even in movies/ tv shows, that “they protect their own” A great example of this would be bringing up the “Black Lives Matter” movement. Many cops have got away with murdering many black folk even though there is enough evidence to convict them simply because of the connections they have and working under the government. Many other cops and friends or family of theirs do not mind looking the other way if it means that the cop gets little to no punishment as long as they’re protected.
According to critical criminlogists he “crimes of the powerful” (politicians, business people, and other elites) less likely to be severely punished than those of the poor because of the position they hold and their resources. People known as poor or from a lower class wouldn’t be able to get in contact with the best lawyer compared to someone who works for the government and knows people who are lawyers. Also by having a high position judges can be more lenient compared to someone who has no job. An example would be the officer who killed George floyed only recieved 3.5 years in prison. I believe if he was not a police officer and a person of color he would have received more time in prison.
Hi Destiny,
I agree with your analysis. The power dynamics you describe are unfortunately prevalent in many societies. The wealthy and powerful often have access to better legal representation, political influence, and social connections that can shield them from the consequences of their actions. This creates a system where justice is not applied equally, and the poor and marginalized are disproportionately penalized. Your example of the police officer who killed George Floyd is a great illustration of this disparity. While receiving only 3.5 years in prison for his crime, many others have faced far harsher punishments for offenses that pale in comparison. This case highlights the urgent need for reform in the criminal justice system to ensure that everyone is held accountable for their actions, regardless of their social status.
According to critical criminologists, the “crimes of the powerful” (politicians, business people, and other elites) are less likely to be severely punished than those of the poor, even when those crimes have mortal consequences. That is fundamental to the dynamics of any hierarchical group, not only human ones. For example, who will reprimand an Alpha male or female in a troop of chimpanzees, African or Bonobo, when they can get away with anything? They would need to do something so serious that the unit as a whole is willing to come together and remove them, which doesn’t happen very often. Being a part of that Alpha’s “inner circle” allows you to get away with doing things like bullying others who aren’t in your group. However, if a “peasant” tries to intimidate someone in the “inner circle,” then woe betide them. Also, the police possess abilities that are not granted to regular persons. A few of them take advantage of it.
Hey Everyone,
Critical criminologists argue that the legal system is biased in favor of the powerful and that crimes committed by elites, such as politicians and business people, are less likely to be severely punished compared to crimes committed by the poor. This perspective suggests that social and economic power dynamics play a significant role in shaping the criminal justice system. Several factors contribute to this perceived disparity in punishment. Critical criminologists argue that the legal system is embedded in a broader social and economic inequality structure. The wealthy and powerful have more resources, including access to high-profile lawyers, which can help them navigate the legal system more effectively.
Critical criminologists assert that law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system may be more inclined to focus on crimes committed by the poor, as opposed to those committed by elites. Political and economic interests can influence this selective enforcement, protecting the status quo. The powerful may influence the legal system through political connections, lobbying, or other means. This influence can lead to leniency in handling crimes committed by elites. Instances of corruption and bribery may also contribute to the perception that the legal system is biased in favor of the powerful. Critical criminologists argue that media portrayal of crimes can contribute to biased perceptions. Crimes committed by the poor may be sensationalized and depicted as more threatening, while crimes committed by elites may be downplayed or presented in a more sympathetic light. For example, The Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, has been accused of fueling the opioid crisis through deceptive marketing practices. Despite facing numerous lawsuits, they have not been held criminally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Now rap mogul P. Diddy has used money and power to get away with his alleged criminal activities to avoid the proper prosecution and media power to make stories go away. Also, all the time I watch Law and Order it shows how when people in power get into trouble it sets fear the investigation and make sure they are careful on how to handle the case because they fear their lives or reputation. And how interrogation differed for the poor vs. the rich on Law and Order they always threaten to put the poor with no proper representation back in jail if they do not cooperate with someone with money have their lawyers on standby and do not get questioned without their lawyers.
Hi Alexis, Your analysis highlights the critical criminologists’ perspective on the legal system’s bias towards the powerful. The disparities in legal consequences for crimes by the elite and poor, along with the influence of socio-economic factors on legal outcomes, are well-articulated. Relevant examples, including the Sackler family’s opioid crisis involvement and contrasting treatment of P. Diddy’s alleged criminal activities, support the argument. Lastly, your reference to media portrayal and comparison with TV shows like Law and Order reinforce the skewed perception of crimes based on the perpetrators’ social standing. Overall, your comment effectively outlines the multifaceted aspects contributing to the perceived bias in the criminal justice system.
According to critical criminologists “Crimes of the powerful” are less likely to be severely punished due to political influence and political protection from high class people. This shows that social and economic power dynamics play a significant role in shaping the criminal justice system and people life politicians and such powers dictate how often the law works. Some examples can be the influence in the judicial system like bribing a judge. Or as simple as having an officer on pay role.
According to critical criminologists, the commission of crimes by powerful individuals, such as politicians, business people, and other elites, is met with less severe punishment compared to those with less societal influence. This differential treatment is attributed to the elite’s access to legal resources, political connections, and economic influence that can shield them from accountability. Critical criminologists contend that the legal system is shaped by and tends to favor the interests of the powerful, resulting in a perception of systemic injustice within criminal justice.
In cases where white-collar crimes, corporate malfeasance, or environmental harm is committed by elites, comparatively lenient sentences or fines may be imposed instead of stringent legal consequences. High-profile examples, such as corporate executives facing minimal repercussions for environmental pollution or financial misconduct leading to economic crises, often support the critical criminologists’ argument that the legal system is biased in favor of the powerful.
As such, the critical criminologists’ position emphasizes the need for legal reform that addresses the systemic barriers to justice faced by marginalized groups. By focusing on the issue of the legal system’s inherent bias in favor of the powerful, critical criminologists highlight the need for a more equitable and impartial legal system.
The crimes of the powerful are less likely to be punished than those of the poor because when you are wealthy you have the means to hire the best lawyers and it may look more favorable when you are in front of a judge but when you are poor you are not able to hire the best lawyers money can buy and if you don’t have a job or make a low amount of money a judge may look at you in a different and non-favorable way. An example of this was when celebrities would bribe and give ” donations ” to colleges to except their kids, they would only go to jail for a couple months but if it was someone from a lower class than them and did any kind of bribing they would have way more than a couple months, most likely for a couple of years.
I agree, the disparities in legal outcomes between crimes committed by the powerful and the poor can be attributed to unequal access to legal resources. Wealthy individuals can afford top-tier lawyers, presenting a more favorable image in court, while those with limited financial means may face harsher judgments. A glaring example is the college admissions scandal where affluent individuals received comparatively lenient sentences for bribery, underscoring the influence of socioeconomic status on the legal system’s response to criminal behavior.
Critical criminologists argue that crimes committed by the powerful, including politicians, business leaders, and elites, are less likely to face severe punishment compared to crimes committed by the poor. This is because of the influence and power they hold over legal institutions, structural inequalities that prevent equal access to legal resources, a lack of oversight in powerful sectors, and the legal frameworks to protect the interests of the powerful. For example, Israel’s attack on Palestine. Because of the connections they have with powerful countries, they have the full support, and their actions get overlooked.
Critical criminologists argue that powerful individuals often face less severe punishment than the poor for similar crimes due to systemic issues in our justice system. One example is the Hunter Biden case, which talks about negotiations for a plea deal that could avoid jail time and grant immunity highlighting a privilege not easily accessible to the everyday person who may sit in jail awaiting trial without such opportunities.
Crimes of the powerful are less likely to get severely punished due to their status and connection. Sadly We all know that the justice system is corrupted examples of include you social class, your corporate job, high donors, it can also be based on your family name.
Critical criminologists contend that several structural elements ingrained in the social and economic structures of society are to blame for the differential treatment of “crimes of the powerful” and those perpetrated by the impoverished. The idea that the “elite” has a substantial influence on the legal and criminal justice systems is one important idea. Critics contend that strong people and organizations frequently have significant political and economic sway, giving them the ability to influence others or evade punishment. This power may be used to influence the enforcement and application of laws in their favor through financial contributions, political connections, and lobbying activities. Furthermore, a situation known as “regulatory capture” may arise from the intimate links between strong organizations and regulatory authorities. In this scenario, those entrusted with monitoring powerful entities develop a soft spot for their interests, which results in a lack of enforcement and lenient penalties.
Large firms’ environmental infractions and corporate crimes are two specific examples of this phenomena. When businesses pollute the environment, conduct fraud in the financial system, or violate workplace safety regulations, the penalties are typically less severe than when individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds commit the same offenses. For example, despite the 2008 financial crisis’s extensive effects on the world’s population, there were few high-profile prosecutions of the major players responsible for the slump. In a similar vein, corporately created environmental catastrophes have resulted in very lenient punishments and a dearth of criminal culpability for influential figures within these companies. These cases demonstrate the difference between the legal response to crimes done by the privileged and those perpetrated by the powerful, supporting the claim made by critical criminologists regarding the unequal application of the law.
Critical criminologists focus on the structural inequalities and power relations. They understand the design of the criminal justice system is not in the best interest of the minority. Traditional criminology is focused on psychological factors. Critical criminologists conclude that “crimes of the powerful” are less likely to be severely punished than those of the poor. I believe this is the case due to the society we live in. The powerful are at the helm of the rules and they can alter them to seem fit. People who are poor do not have access to resources and especially legal resources, this puts them at a disadvantage. Court gives legal fees and if you want to do good cause at not serving jail time for your crimes, you want to have an attorney. If you do not have the resources to get an attorney you are provided one. The attorneys that are provided to you aren’t the top law firms and may not have the resources to help your legal process. The more money you have in this country, the more opportunities and resources you have. It is difficult to live comfortably without money in this society. Powerful individuals have greater resources at their disposal, allowing them to afford better legal representation and potentially influence the legal process. This leads to lighter sentences or even charges being dropped altogether.
This goes back to our discussion of what is considered “criminal” white-collar crime is seen to be less reviewed and discussed than crimes like robbery with a dangerous weapon. Someone who is involved in insider trading will not be viewed the same way by society if they robbed someone at gunpoint. These crimes both hurt and damage individuals but society does not view them that same. The issue of how crimes of the powerful are punished is complex and multifaceted. There are many historical examples of this disparity but there are many examples of ensuring equal justice for all.
According to critical criminologists, the “crimes of the powerful” are less likely to be severely punished than those of the poor because of all the ‘power” they hold. Money = power, connections, knowledge, and etc. A lot of the time the things on that little list coincide and it grants them “freedom”. If someone where to get wrongly blamed for doing something wrong people like me or my family wouldn’t have as much access to help them get through it. Sure we can hire lawyers, beg, plea, and fight as hard as we can but, what if I don’t have enough money for a lawyer? What if my judge or lawyer is the kind who can be payed off? What if I don’t have connections to stop this information from spreading to the public and it ruins that persons life? The “crimes of the powerful” don’t get much done to them because of the people and things that they have to help them. An example of this would be Lori Loughlin, her and her family lied for their daughter to get into USC and the punishment she got was 2 months in prison, 100 hours community service and to pay a fine of $100,000. Where can one get that much money? What if someone can’t do 100 hours of community service because they’re already struggling with two jobs to keep the lights on?
The reason why wealthier people don’t receive the same punishment as poor people because they have connections and know a lot of people in the industry so it’ll be much easier for them to not get harsh punishments. They know a lot of lawyers and can afford them so it’ll be better to help their case and they might get less time in jail or not might go at all. Another reason I feel like is that their reputations, politicians, police officers do things that they are not supposed to and it’s illegal as well but the government don’t wanna make it seem bad because those people are involved with the government. So the system doesn’t really much about it and they just let them free. Many celebrities get away with many crimes too because they are in a lot of movies and work with many people and they don’t wanna mess that up so they don’t anything to these celebrities. People that are less wealthy, they can’t afford really good lawyers and the state gives them their lawyers so it doesn’t really help their case. Also those people don’t have much power and influence so they can’t pay people off or talk to certain people to get out of their harsh punishments which leads to people that don’t have a lot of money to go to jail for really long periods of time or even worse. Anyone should face consequences for committing crimes it should not matter if they are rich or powerful it’s not equal treatment and it’s wrong.
Hey Sade, you brought up another good point. Everything is about connections in life. You can be the bottom of the barrel type of person, but if you know the right people, more than likely you will continue to be in good hands.
I agree with what you said in terms of people getting punished and think that the legal system is truly to blame and I believe there needs to be changes done in order to make it fair across the board when it comes to punishing people, wether rich or poor.
Crimes of the powerful are less likely to be severely punished than those of the poor, even when those crimes have mortal consequences. To be straight forward, it’s money. That is why the ‘elites’ don’t face sever punishment. They have access to the best lawyers who know how to talk around any and every shady business they do. Another answer would be because, all the higher ups do the exact same crime. The reason why they are less likely to be severely punished is because, why punish someone harshly for the exact same crime you are committing.
When it comes to being punished for crime, it is clear that wealthy people are treated completely different compared to poor people. When rich people commit crimes, they will have the money and resources available to them that allows them to hire the best legal defense to defend them in court available. On the other hand, poor people will usually not even be able to afford a lawyer or defendant and would most likely get one for free that is provided by the state but the lawyer will probably not be as good as one who demands a high price. Another reason the rich have an advantage is due to the bail system. Unless somebody’s crime falls into the non-bail category, rich people will usually have no problem spending money out of their pocket to get them out of jail with plenty left in their accounts.
Critical criminologists say that when powerful people like politicians or business leaders do something wrong, they’re less likely to get punished severely compared to regular people, even when their actions have serious consequences. This is because these powerful individuals often have a lot of influence and money, which can affect how the legal system treats them. For example, in cases like the Enron scandal, where top executives committed financial crimes, they didn’t face punishments that matched the harm caused. Similarly, when big companies harm the environment or when politicians are involved in corruption, they might not face as strict consequences as everyday people would for similar actions. This shows how the system tends to be easier on the powerful, supporting the idea that there’s a kind of unfairness in how justice is applied.
Comments are closed.