Before delving deeper into a discussion of the current U.S. criminal justice system, we must first explore the fundamental question of why we have a criminal justice system in the first place. While it is generally accepted that laws have been established and enforced to maintain public order and punish wrongdoers, the actual purposes and true intentions of these laws and enforcement tactics are much more intricate. Two competing viewpoints regarding human nature and social control are the consensus perspective and the conflict perspective.

Consensus Perspective

In the 17th century, John Locke, an influential philosopher and political theorist, published Two Tracts on Government, laying the foundation for social contract theory. Locke’s perspective on human nature posited that most humans are inherently good, but he acknowledged the existence of a minority of people who might seek to exploit others for personal gain (Baumgold, 2005). He argued that as societies grew in size and complexity, individuals came together and agreed to establish a social contract. They willingly relinquished certain rights and freedoms in exchange for the government’s protection against wrongdoers and safeguarding the public’s rights.

This act of consenting to government establishment is the cornerstone of social contract theory, which aligns with the consensus view of crime. According to this perspective, there is a general agreement or consensus in public opinion regarding what constitutes right and wrong. Furthermore, this view presumes that criminal behaviors are fundamentally harmful to society and must be either prohibited or controlled by criminal law.

Criminal laws, as a set of rules, reflect the social norms and values agreed upon by the vast majority of society. This perspective is built on the assumption that criminal law functions as a tool for maintaining social control by curbing behaviors that exploit the vulnerabilities of others for personal gain and undermine the social framework. Criminal law, therefore, operates to control behaviors that are intrinsically destructive and dangerous; the aim is to preserve existing social structures and ensure the peaceful functioning of society.

Another influential philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, made meaningful contributions to social contract theory by offering a somewhat contrasting view. Unlike Locke’s more optimistic outlook on human nature, which considered humans as rational and predominantly good, Hobbes adopted a more pessimistic approach (Baumgold, 2005). Hobbes characterized people as fundamentally irrational and motivated by selfishness. However, he contended that individuals were rational enough to understand that they were stronger and safer when they banded together rather than attempting to stand alone. Hobbes argued that this self-interest rationale led to the formation of a social contract in which individuals accepted the authority and legitimacy of a government. In exchange for this acceptance, the government’s role was to maintain order and protect citizens from each other (Morris, 2000).

This contrast between Locke and Hobbes provides valuable insights into different interpretations of social contract theory, offering two distinct views on human nature and the role of government in society.

Conflict

Unlike Locke and Hobbes, the 18th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that inequality and social conflict were inherent to human society due to the way people interact and how human societies grow. Rousseau argued that inequality and conflict arise when human self-interest outweighs social good in a society (Morris, 2000). This is especially prevalent in societies with a division in labor, property ownership, and social hierarchies. Therefore, rather than society as a whole benefiting from governmental oversight, the development and prosecution of laws favor the ruling group and disfavor all others, which creates social inequality and conflict.

The conflict view of crime asserts that the content and definition of criminal law are intricately linked to the ongoing class struggle within society, particularly the dichotomy between the rich (haves) and the poor (have-nots). From this perspective, criminal law serves as a tool wielded by the ruling class, primarily is comprised of the affluent, to exert control over the disenchanted have-nots (Morris, 2000). The law becomes a mechanism for those in power to safeguard their status by regulating the conduct of individuals who challenge their ideas, values, or the unequal distribution of wealth.

For example, laws pertaining to property crimes were structured to protect the assets and wealth of the affluent. Offenders who target the rich face severe repercussions, while those who manipulate the legal and economic system for personal gain often evade the law’s grasp, essentially operating above the law. Additionally, laws concerning violent crimes aim to maintain control over the discontented lower classes, while drug-related laws were established to ensure a productive workforce, particularly beneficial for wealthy entrepreneurs. Violators of these laws are met with harsh punishment. In contrast, individuals involved in upper-class crimes relating to business or white-collar crimes typically receive comparatively lenient penalties despite the substantial harm these violations cause to society.

The conflict view of crime underscores how the legal system can be used to perpetuate social inequalities and maintain the power of the privileged elite while imposing stricter control on those who challenge or oppose the existing social order. This perspective encourages a critical examination of how laws and legal processes are influenced by the dynamics of class struggle and power, ultimately shaping the definitions of crime and the responses to criminal behavior.

The key differences between the consensus and conflict perspectives lie in how a society perceives the legitimacy of the government. The consensus perspective assumes that all parties collaborate to establish a system with the aim of achieving common goals. In contrast, the conflict perspective argues that the dominant group designs a system that serves their interests without adequately considering the needs of the less fortunate. Despite these disparities, these perspectives share some common ground as they both agree that (a) social forces and criminal law shape the definition of crime, (b) the definition of crime is dynamic and subject to constant change, and (c) criminal law functions as a mechanism for social control.

Attributions

1. Figure 1.3: Liberty Brings to the Earth Justice and Peace by Christian Inger, lithographer in the public domain; This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929. According to the LOC: “No known restrictions on publication.”