Inequality and the Sociological Impacts

In modern society inequality is an inescapable fact of life; certain social groups are better positioned than others to take advantage of the opportunities, wealth and power of a society. When Australian society is examined it becomes obvious that indigenous people as a social group are faced with a decided disadvantage when it comes to opportunities, wealth and power. This essay intends to focus on the over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system from a sociological viewpoint. This over-representation becomes sociologically significant when it is seen as an expression of inequality meaning that wider social issues are at play that effect indigenous people specifically. The two major reasons or drivers of this over-representation stem from this inequality; the first is an element of institutional discrimination found in both the courts and the police services in Australia which tend to target indigenous people disproportionately with the facilitation of legislation and practices which indigenous people have little to no involvement in formulating. The second is a set of cultural and social norms that exist amongst indigenous people which clash with the norms of the dominant white culture who are responsible for the laws and regulations that all groups in society are meant to abide by. Furthermore social conflict theories on crime such as those formulated by Turk and Sellin provide a rich theoretical support for the reasons behind the over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. The over-representation of aboriginal people in Australia is a perfect example of the effects of inequality in modern society, arising from clashing cultural norms and institutional discrimination found within the criminal justice system caused by said inequality social conflict theories are uniquely well suited to provide theoretical explanation for this phenomenon.

The over-representation of indigenous people within the criminal justice system is significant because it is a strong indicator of the unequal status still suffered by indigenous people in Australian society. There are many indicators of the continued inequality experienced by indigenous people such as those high-lighted by the “Closing the Gap” campaign, shorter life spans, lower levels of education and less access to employment (Closing the Gap, Targets and Building Blocks, 2012) but the over-representation in terms of criminality has a potentially more sinister cause with sociologically intriguing implications. In Bessant and Watt’s textbook Sociology Australia the idea of a “criminal class” or at least an “underclass” highly related to crime, an idea which formed during the nineteenth century, is proposed. The over-representation of indigenous people in terms of criminality maybe significant in that it indicates that indigenous people have become or are becoming Australian society’s “criminal class” (Bessant & Watts, 2007; Williams, 2012).

Another view point however is offered by Findlay in Australian Criminal Justice, “…the continuing subjugation of Aboriginal people, ever since white settlement began, by powerful groups within the white community.” (Findlay, Odgers & Yeo, pp. 337, 2009). This points to the over-representation of indigenous people in terms of criminality being sociologically significant due to the oppression of a white “ruling class”. Bessant and Watts also support this claim pointing out it is important to note who defines “crime” in society and how they measure it as both being significant factors in accessing the over-representation of indigenous people within the criminal justice system (Bessant & Watts, 2007).

There are two main reasons for the over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system, both stemming from and reinforcing their inequality. The first is summed up in a report by the Australian Institute of Criminology concerning the over-representation of indigenous people in custody, “One cannot help but conclude that the principal causal factor of Indigenous over-representation in prison is the generally low status of the Indigenous community in Australia…in terms of patterns of discrimination.” (Walker & McDonald, pp. 6, 1995). Findlay also supports this claim directly accusing the occurrence of “over-policing” as the reason for the over-representation of indigenous people within the criminal justice system stating that, “…when dealing with Aboriginal people, there is a tendency for police to initiate a confrontation…” (Findlay, Odgers & Yeo, pp. 339, 2009). It was also found that indigenous offenders were more likely to be referred to the courts rather than receive a caution, that indigenous homeless were targeted by police due to physical appearance rather than any threat to safety and many more such examples of “over-policing” (Findlay, Odgers & Yeo, 2009). This is solid evidence of institutional discrimination within the criminal justice system itself using legislation put down by the “…powerful groups within the white community…” (Findlay, Odgers & Yeo, pp. 337, 2009). With large elements of the criminal justice system geared toward discriminating against them it is no surprise that indigenous people are over-represented within that very system.

The second reason has to do with cultural and social norms that have developed within many aboriginal communities due in part to the poor social status they suffer. For example Findlay found that in many rural towns with a high amount of indigenous residents it was normal for aboriginal people to consume alcohol in public (Findlay, Odgers & Yeo, 2009). This is of course a crime but never the less it remains a social norm amongst many aboriginals thus resulting in a high number of brushes with the criminal justice system. Another cultural and social norm identified by Findlay finds its beginning in the history of colonialism and the role the police has played in the past right from the beginning of colonisation in oppressing the indigenous population. The police have in the past been responsible for terrible and, even contemporarily recognized, crimes against aboriginal people, everything from summary justice, removing aboriginal children from their parents and even massacres. Thus it is no surprise that indigenous people see it as justified to act out or rebel against police, and therefore the criminal justice system, who they see as, “…instruments of control of the white community bent on perpetuating its policies of subjugation.” (Findlay, Odgers & Yeo, pp. 341, 2009). This lack of respect for police and more widely the entire system would no doubt result in a higher number of offenders and thus contribute to the over-representation of indigenous people within the criminal justice system.

The real strength of sociology however is the wide variety of theories established to explain issues very much the same as those mentioned above. In the case of over-representation of indigenous people within the criminal justice system social conflict theory is highly suited to the task. The main proponent of social conflict theory was Karl Marx who saw society as a number of groups or classes constantly competing against one another for wealth and power (Bessant &Watts, 2007). This overarching theory in itself goes a long way to explaining the over-representation of indigenous people considering the history of oppression by the “white ruling class” however a number of sub-theories which find their beginning in social conflict theory but which are geared towards explaining criminal behaviour. These are the conflict or radical criminologies which according to Williams look past the consensus based model of most other criminological theories and instead acknowledge the existence of conflict between different groups in society (Williams, 2012). If the history between indigenous and white people in Australia is even glanced at this must become apparent with all five of the factors regarded by conflict criminologies present; dispute over needs, values, power, status and resources (Williams, 2012). However there are two criminological conflict theories which primarily apply to the unique position indigenous people hold in Australian society, those of Sellin and Turk. Each of which will now be examined and applied to the issues surrounding the over-representation of indigenous people within the criminal justice system.

Sellin’s conflict theory rests on similar principles to those of Sutherland’s theory of differential association, which come from differential social organisation, and centres on culture conflict (Williams, 2012). Sellin proposed that separate cultures set out their own terms of “normal” behaviour and instilled those norms into its members, if we look back but two hundred years this was most definitely the case where indigenous culture had its own set of cultural norms as did white settlers. This is where the line blurs with Sellin’s theory however when it is applied to indigenous over-representation in the modern era, Sellin theorizes two kinds of conflicts primary and secondary. Primary conflicts are those which come about between two distinct cultures through territorial expansion or migration. Secondary conflicts are those which come about within a single culture, particularly where sub-cultures form their own behaviour norms (Williams, 2012). After two hundred years of “occupation” for lack of a better term however the definition of indigenous culture has semi-merged with that of the dominant white culture yet still holds facets of its original identity. This forces the over-representation of indigenous people to be the result of neither primary or secondary conflicts according to Sellin however much the ideas of culture conflict and the clash of behavioural norms are relevant.

This leads to Turk’s theory on conflict criminology which ties in with Sellin’s idea of cultural conflict and behavioural norms but breaks things down into much more in depth and flexibly applicable ideas. Like Sellin, Turk was interested in how cultural and social differences develop however not between separate cultures but between authorities and subjects. He also sees conflict in society as necessary and never ending but requires a balance to be healthy an almost structural functionist sentiment in line with Durkheim’s work (Williams, 2012). Two categories of norms are set down by Turk, the first are cultural norms which are the recognized rules of how people should or should not behave and the second are social norms which are how people actually behave whether or not that behaviour is in line with cultural norms. Two main principles underpin Turk’s theory the first, “Under what conditions are authority-subject cultural and behavioural differences transformed into legal conflict?” and the second, “Under what conditions do those who violate laws (norms of the authorities) become criminalized? In other words, under what circumstances are laws enforced?” (Keel, pp. 1, 2005). These principles each give rise to three propositions which explain the occurrence of conflict in the form of crime between authorities and subjects or the criminal justice system and indigenous people (Keel, 2005; Williams, 2012). Two of these propositions from the first principle and one from the second go toward explaining the over-representation of indigenous people in terms of criminality as well as the reasons for the over-representation through institutional discrimination and clashing behavioural norms.

The first proposition holds that, “Conflict between authorities and subjects occurs when behavioural differences between authorities and subjects are compounded by cultural differences.” (Keel, pp. 1, 2005). This is clearly present in the issues surrounding indigenous over-representation, social differences in the form of rebellious behaviour toward police from an aboriginal perspective and the need to target and create confrontations with aboriginal people from the perspective of the police. Compounded by cultural differences in that legislation prohibits many things indigenous people consider culturally acceptable behaviour such as the example given before of drinking in public.

The second proposition holds that, “Conflict is more probable the less sophisticated the subjects.” (Keel, pp. 1, 2005). It is an unfortunate reality that due to the low social status suffered by indigenous people education is not as readily available as it is to many other parts of Australian society (Closing the Gap, Targets and Building Blocks, 2012). This may be due to the efforts of the “white ruling class” to subjugate indigenous people as mentioned previously and therefore explains another reason for the over-representation.

The third proposition holds that, “The probability of enforcement of legal norms increases as the congruence between the cultural and behavioural norms of authorities increases.” (Keel, pp. 1, 2005). This explains the role of institutional discrimination found within the criminal justice system in promoting the over-representation of indigenous people, because although legislation (cultural norms of authorities) at times facilitate said discrimination there are many instances of social norms amongst police especially which diverge from the intended behaviour of cultural norms. For example the use of public order offences by police to target indigenous homeless rather than their white counterparts embodies this divergence and supports Turk’s proposition as the more indigenous homeless target the more it contributes to the their over-representation.

In conclusion the over-representation of indigenous people within the criminal justice system, though complex, is an issue that can be broken down, examined and explained. It is a sociologically significant issue due to the fact that it gives an insight into the effects of inequality and the causes of it in Australian society, the potential creation of a criminal class and the oppression of dominant groups in society respectively. The two main reasons for the over-representation itself can be seen primarily as caused by a worryingly strong element of institutional discrimination present within the criminal justice system and a number of cultural and social norms that have developed as a result of the oppression of the indigenous people which clash intentionally and unintentionally with the dominant white culture. And finally it is Turk’s conflict criminological theory which best explains both the over-representation itself and the causes of it in Australian society through the clash of different cultural and social norms present in both indigenous groups and the criminal justice system.

Bibliography

K. S. Williams, (2012). Textbook on Criminology. Great Clarendon St, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
M. Findlay, S. Odgers & S. Yeo, (2009). Australian Criminal Justice. Victoria, South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.
J. Bessant & R. Watts, (2007). Sociology Australia. NSW, Crows Nest, Allen&Unwin.
R. Keel, (2005). Culture Conflict Theory. Retrieved from http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/culflic.html.
Australian Government, (2012). Closing the Gap, Targets and Building Blocks. Retrieved from http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/indigenous-australians/programs-services/closing-the-gap/closing-the-gap-targets-and-building-blocks.
J. Walker & G. McDonald, (1995). The Over-Representation of Indigenous People in Custody in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/D/2/6/%7BD260592C-A92B-4A5C-BAE0-ADBBBCBD3BFD%7Dti47.pdf.
R. Broadhurst, (1997). Aborigines and Crime in Australia. Retrieved from http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/42514/1/42392.pdf?accept=1.